niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
Sent1: You still have to prove that gun control equals crime control and your admission that it does not is proof that it is about control and dependency on government to protect you when they have no obligation to do so.
 Sent2: Gun Control does not work, well unless you mean by working that crime sky rockets in which case I would have to agree with you and then question your motives as to why you would want it here.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: That pretty much boiled down to laws against felons having weapons, laws against the mentally defective having weapons, and laws against carrying weapons in sensitive places.
 Sent2: Concealed carry laws put more legal guns on the street, in stores, etc. the is More Guns on the street for defensive use.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The gun control mentality that a felon is too dangerous to be allowed to legally buy a gun, yet they're not dangerous enough to take out of the public no matter how heinous a crime they've committed.
 Sent2: Felons are not allowed to buy guns.....terrorists would not be allowed to take guns on planes.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Criminals don't care about gun bans, so a gun ban only takes guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.
 Sent2: Banning guns will not ban the threat of criminal violence it will just make the law abiding subject to the will and whim of the stronger thugs
Output: Similar
Sent1: ,   and I was being kind when I say there was no change in the murder rate, The Anti-gun argument was that at least England�۪s gun control will stop mass shootings.
 Sent2: Again, I don't think anybody will argue that owning a gun prevents crime.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Federal law doesn't give them authority to require sale reports of multiple shotgun and rifle sales, only handguns.
 Sent2: They do not have the expressed, enumerated power to pass any law regarding guns in the constitution.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Also once you become an agent of the government you stop having right, you have authorities and you're controlled by the people the Constitution is supposed to protect you against.
 Sent2: Do you think that private companies should be able to restrict freedom of speech as well as any other parts of the constitution?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: We could hypothesize that if guns are banned then law abiding citizens who usually didn't carry or own guns before the ban will be less likely to face armed opponents.
 Sent2: The logic of less guns in law abiding citizens hands means less gun crime is clearly insane.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I want to see, in the Constitution, where government has an affirmative duty to protect anyone much less "ensure that felons and other prohibited persons do not possess firearms.
 Sent2: Using a shotgun or an AK-47 will get the job done, so I don't see the need to ban assault weapons.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If most gun crimes are committed by illegal firearm holders then it means that legal ownership of firearms combined with government monitoring can have a positive effect.
 Sent2: The argument isn't that guns promote or cause crime, it is that when crimes happen having a gun involved causes more damage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
 Sent2: ********* logic is for companies and governments to deny a person the right to bears arms to defend ones self then not be held responsible when these companies and governments fail to protect the unarmed citizens!
Output: Not similar
Sent1: So you have to read the 2nd amendment as a whole.
 Sent2: What it seems like you are claiming is that if the owner would otherwise let you in if you didn't have a gun, you have a right to go in by the 2nd amendment.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Anybody that wants gun control laws that infringe on the right to bear arms is a gun haters!
 Sent2: A gun haters is a person that wants gun control laws that infringe on the right to bear arms or wants to ban the right to bear arms.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Making guns illegal wouldn't solve anything except to take them away from people that want to defend themselves.
 Sent2: So if its cause people in high crime areas want to buy guns for protection then why do they only want protection against gun murders but not other crimes.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: So you have to read the 2nd amendment as a whole.
 Sent2: If you repealed the 2nd amendment or any "incorporated" amendment than that amendment would no longer be law thus not "incorporated" (obviously since there is nothing to incorporate).
Output: Not similar
Sent1: For every one crime gun that California exports, we get more than two crime guns imported back into our state."
 Sent2: We must be doing something right because our violent crime rates are dropping while your native country keeps rising in spite of gun and knife bans.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: In fact, gun control laws have been around for over 200 years so apparently the founding fathers didn't see the second amendment as a barrier to such laws.
 Sent2: The second amendment was included in the constitution as insurance against a time when it is not so unlikely.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You keep claiming that you're not of the anti-gun camp, that you actually support the Second Amendment.
 Sent2: You're right that gun control isn't about guns, however, but 'control' is a secondary matter, a means to an end.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Criminals that do not obey gun control laws will be able to obtain guns and use them on the unarmed law-abiding citizens.
 Sent2: Law abiding citizens are not criminals, therefore, they have no reason to use these weapons unless for self defense of oneself or others.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The crime comes from using the gun (or any other weapon) to violate the rights of others.
 Sent2: Gun rights are a tool of those who wish not to suffer at the hands of others.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The only case you could possibly make is more accidents with more guns at gun shows.
 Sent2: The only way the person would get the gun back is if the person was found not guilty.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You're the one who has to explain why the US crime rates are so high when other countries manage to have guns and not go nuts.
 Sent2: You didn't address that since we have started adding more and more gun control that violent crimes have gone up and how even though America is #1 in gun ownership it tanks only 107th in homicide rates.
Output: Similar
Sent1: now imagine if no criminals could get hold of a gun, you wouldn't need a protection, as no criminals have guns.
 Sent2: We border two countries one of which is quite corrupt, what makes you think that criminals can't get guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I haven't seen anyone explain how another gun control law will fight crime, how it'll make anyone safer, how it'll put criminals away longer, etc.
 Sent2: Name me one gun control law that has been effective as crime control!!!!!!
Output: Similar
Sent1: What it seems like you are claiming is that if the owner would otherwise let you in if you didn't have a gun, you have a right to go in by the 2nd amendment.
 Sent2: If you repealed the 2nd amendment or any "incorporated" amendment than that amendment would no longer be law thus not "incorporated" (obviously since there is nothing to incorporate).
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Criminals will always find ways to get around gun laws which is why there are a lot less criminals who own and use guns in places like the UK and Australia.
 Sent2: Before the Brady Law any criminal could walk into a gun store and easily purchase a gun.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If today we were to ban guns all the law abiding citizens would give up their firearms and protection.
 Sent2: Law abiding citizens are not going to misuse their firearms and those with criminal records are already banned from owning guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Because the term "gun nut" has come to mean a disparaging remark about anybody that supports the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, and favors gun ownership over gun bans.
 Sent2: Anybody else in American history able to lend credibility to your belief that the Second Amendment was all about gun control and how gun ownership was never intended to be an individual right?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Guns are dangerous even though when they are banned people will still make them people think that they will still use them less people will use them less deaths will be by guns.
 Sent2: Whilst true that guns do not kill people, they provide those with the ability to kill.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Who's going to file a lawsuit and allege that a person doesn't have a right to own a gun for any reason?
 Sent2: Gun traces are requested for any gun that's in police custody for any reason.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: And it is legal to ban marijuana and cigarets but guns are protected by the constitution.
 Sent2: THe ban on these weapons is roughly equivelant to incumbent protection laws.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Please respond to your opponents comments that you have taken "the right to keep and bear arms" statement and used it without the context specifically "the well regulated militia".
 Sent2: Please note that the argument is that the reason people shall have the right to keep and bear arms is in order to maintain a well regulated militia.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Bad Gun control are things that hinder a lawfull person from being able to purchase and use firearms.
 Sent2: also, a gun is only dangerous if its used by the wrong person.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: All gun control laws do is stop law abiding citizens from having guns!
 Sent2: All of the gun control laws the gun haters want will only be obeyed by the law abiding citizens!
Output: Similar
Sent1: If more guns present means that more criminals will be able to commit more killings and violent criminals, wouldn't they have allowed the ban to remain in place?
 Sent2: If guns are banned, the only people who will surrender them are those who commit nearly no gun crime at all.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: They will not only confiscate the guns, but then charge the owners of those guns for being terrorists.
 Sent2: Even "If criminals keep their guns",(if we were to confiscate all guns) " they wont be able to use them.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Amendment protects the right of the states to arm their militias.
 Sent2: It was felt by many (not all) at the time that such weapons were not military weapons and thus did not fall under the protection of the Second Amendment or the right to bear arms in their own state constitutions.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Now tell me, how is gun control going to stop people from making their own?
 Sent2: Now that said, one has to wonder why people for gun control or anti gun types keep telling people that defend the right to bear arms that they could not win a fight.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I also say that when people commit a crime with a gun these people need to be punished not the law-abiding citizens!
 Sent2: The only gun control law that is needed is the law that prohibits a person from committing a crime with a gun.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Gun control does nothing to make anyone safer or save lives.
 Sent2: Less gun control probably means more criminals will have guns, however it also means more civilian lives will be saved.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The anti gun/gun control advocate way at dealing with deaths caused by guns is to limit the right to bear arms.
 Sent2: Talking about the right to bear arms with anti-gun/gun control advocates is like talking about civil rights with racist.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Various groups have been unable to show that the criminal use of firearms leads to more deaths than the number of lives that are saved by private and legal gun ownership.
 Sent2: Canada, Switzerland, Finland and scores of other countries allow for legal gun ownership but don't have a higher number of gun deaths than countries where guns are illegal.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Gun prohibitionists argue that the Second Amendment confers a right to bear arms only on duly enrolled members of a state militia.
 Sent2: Yeah, thing is that the second ammendment makes the point that guns should be allowed because a _well organised militia_ is an important tool for a nation.
Output: Similar
Sent1: The second amendment says MILITIAS have the right to carry guns, not private citizens, and that is why the militias are there to protects us and are composed of....private citizens.
 Sent2: Some passionately assert that the Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns.
Output: Similar
Sent1: I do see the sense in some measures such as restricting access to guns for people who have committed violent crimes.
 Sent2: In short, the panel could find no link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms violence or even accidents with guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Those who claim that Australia suffered a "crime wave" as a result of new gun laws often cite as evidence unrelated figures for common assault or sexual assault (no weapon) and armed robbery (any weapon).
 Sent2: Muggings, burglaries, rapes, assault and battery are all examples of violent crimes that don't require a gun.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I don't believe guns are good for anything, and I see no use in having them, but I believe it is everybody's right to produce or keep one, as it is just a weapon like anything else.
 Sent2: Another point that isn't taken in consideration in the stats that I've seen is that guns are used in self-defense but it still goes down as "gun violence."
Output: Not similar
Sent1: In recent years it has been suggested that the Second Amendment protects the "collective" right of states to maintain militias, while it does not protect the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms.
 Sent2: The 2nd amendment only protects a states right to own a Militia.
Output: Similar
Sent1: It is not the legal gun doing the crime it is the illegaly owned guns, so if you take my guns the criminals have no one to stop them since they have guns we don't.
 Sent2: Right now we have the worst of both strategies, gun laws are restrictive enough that not many criminals are being stopped by citizens; they are permissive enough that low level criminals may still own a gun legally.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Whilst true that guns do not kill people, they provide those with the ability to kill.
 Sent2: Guns don't kill people, if they did, they would go to jail for murder- not the murderers.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Some studies used against gun have been ones showing that over 50% of homicides in the US are committed with guns, while in countries with gun bans or very strict gun control have a lower amount of gun homicides.
 Sent2: All that I point out is that Canada, which has very strict gun control laws, also has a much lower murder rate than does the USA.
Output: Similar
Sent1: All gun free zones can do, is keep law-abiding citizens from having guns.
 Sent2: Gun free zones are areas where law-abiding citizens are forbidden to carry guns.
Output: Similar
Sent1: It involved a ban of guns within a certain proximity to schools.
 Sent2: The only law I even somewhat support is banning guns in certain areas like schools and colleges.
Output: Similar
Sent1: The Second Amendment was never about individual gun ownership, it's only purpose was proper case of a government organized and controlled militia."
 Sent2: The organized militia is equivalent to the well regulated militia of the second amendment.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Now if you want gun control laws that limit or ban the right to bear arms you are a gun haters.
 Sent2: Gun haters are the extremist hate group demanding to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Sent1: Then we should ban so stupid people can't kill people with guns.
 Sent2: I think it is interesting that gun nuts always claim that when guns are banned people will just use knives instead, yet we find that with guns prohibited there are still only 200 deaths a year from knife like weapons.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Some advocate banning Assault Weapons, and you yourself have put forth several arguments that the 2nd amendment is not an Individual Right, and it applies only to a states right to form a militia.
 Sent2: The 2nd amendment only protects a states right to own a Militia.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Some people who want to ban guns try to use simplistic arguments to suggest that murder rates are tied to the number of guns available for criminal misuse; and they suggest more guns = more crime and less guns = less crime.
 Sent2: I also say that when people commit a crime with a gun these people need to be punished not the law-abiding citizens!
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun Control does not work, well unless you mean by working that crime sky rockets in which case I would have to agree with you and then question your motives as to why you would want it here.
 Sent2: You're right that gun control isn't about guns, however, but 'control' is a secondary matter, a means to an end.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Countries that ban guns or implement stricter laws concerning firearms have lower crime rates.
 Sent2: No, but they might like to challenge the conclusion that states with less strict firearm laws are more often the source of guns used in crimes, in other states, than guns from states with stricter gun laws.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: What you've been doing isn't a debate about gun control, it's criticism of the Supreme Court for saying the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own a gun for legal purposes.
 Sent2: Some passionately assert that the Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: It's quite obvious by this and as well as the SCOTUS decision that the right to keep and bear arms is not dependent on the militia part, but the other way around.
 Sent2: 2) ensure that the right to keep and bear arms for a militia is not infringed.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: None are so fearful as those who need to have guns and more guns and more guns and more and more ammo, and assault weapons.
 Sent2: The opposite of "more guns = less crime is not true" is not "more guns = more crime".
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I think a better debate would be when should gun control start?
 Sent2: I can understand your belief that gun control won't work and that owning guns is a good thing, I don't agree with it, but is hardly beyond comprehension.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: In order to have a 'well regulated' militia you can not bar the civilian populace of its right to keep and bear arms!
 Sent2: 2) ensure that the right to keep and bear arms for a militia is not infringed.
Output: Similar
Sent1: I could easily point out how many people are killed by criminals because they aren't armed and able to fight back, and that could be seen as grounds for removing the restrictive gun laws we have in this country.
 Sent2: The reason we ban felons from being armed (which I don't agree with, either they're still in jail or they are considered law-abiding citizens in my book.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I am totally against any registration as the only reason for it is to know where they are when its time to go get them.
 Sent2: The only time in my life I have seen someone who owned a gun use it against some one they got into an argument with was when that person was under the influence of drugs and alcohol.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The Second Amendment was never about individual gun ownership, it's only purpose was proper case of a government organized and controlled militia."
 Sent2: The Second Amendment isn't a gun control law, it's an individual right, independent from militia service.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Burglars do not use guns, muggers do not use guns.
 Sent2: all guns are used for is killing, they are weapons.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Why do people that want what they call reasonable limits on the right to bear arms believe criminals will obey a law stating criminals cannot have guns?
 Sent2: If so, they need to explain why they would leave some firearms, handguns say, in the hands of the people which are involved in more officer deaths than the ones they recommend banning.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Is your point that citizens should be allowed to have guns to defend themselves from the government or that citizens should be allowed to have guns to protect themselves from other citizens?
 Sent2: Every traffic stop or other law enforcement/citizen encounter in which law enforcement learns that the citizen possesses a firearm would now allow for suspicion that the firearm may have been obtained without going through the background check process.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Therefore you feel more guns is the solution to stopping gun crime.
 Sent2: You somehow seem to think that getting rid of guns will stop people from killing each other.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: NATO, Galileo has claimed that these laws are designed to reduce criminal use of guns (which would have to mean that they target the people, not the guns).
 Sent2: This is just as unrealistic a view that saying gun laws will prevent all crime- of course some criminals will not obey the law- that is what makes them criminals!
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The only way the person would get the gun back is if the person was found not guilty.
 Sent2: The fact that you've committed murder is irrelevant and the only thing that matters is if a person has a gun?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: FACT: Because it is already illegal for convicted felons to own guns, the Fifth Amendment protects felons from being forced to incriminate themselves by registering their guns.
 Sent2: If guns are banned, the only people that will be affected will be the people that buy guns for protection from criminals, who get their guns illegally anyway.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The states with the higher numbers of minorities have the higher rates of gun control because they claim they have more crime.
 Sent2: states with higher rates of household firearm ownership had significantly higher homicide victimization rates for children, and for women and men.States With Higher Levels Of Gun Ownership Have Higher Homicide Rates
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If gun bans worked there would be no gun deaths in the countries that have banned guns.
 Sent2: If the Second Amendment doesn't apply to the states then there is no Second Amendment legal protection against state gun laws (which would include any state laws that ban guns in school areas).
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If today we were to ban guns all the law abiding citizens would give up their firearms and protection.
 Sent2: If we look at D.C. we can see that people who had registered their guns before the gun ban were allowed to keep their guns after the ban took effect.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If you need guns to ensure that your government doesn't become corrupt or tyranical you wouldn't want them to know where the guns are, would you?
 Sent2: If anything, cops will come to where you live to take your guns, seeing as they work for the government.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Unarmed law-abiding citizens are victims of gun crimes because criminals do not obey the gun ban in that gun free zone.
 Sent2: Gun free zones are zones where law-abiding citizens are forbidden to have guns because law-abiding citizens obey the law about gun free zones.
Output: Similar
Sent1: I pointed out that the US has higher levels of gun crime than most developed nations while you tried to focus on a few tragedies in response to someone questioning the claim that criminals will always get guns.
 Sent2: A much higher gun ownership rate than other developed nations could explain this- that although crime occurs less frequently in the US crime is more likely to involve guns in the US so someone is more likely to die.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: And that assumes that gun control will have no effect on illegal firearm ownership.
 Sent2: Extremist is rejecting any notion of firearm ownership or of reasonable gun control.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The Second Amendment confers the right to bear arms, and earlier this year a U.S. Supreme Court ruling curtailed government's ability to regulate guns.
 Sent2: Two weeks ago, concerning a case out of Chicago, the justices agreed to rule on whether the Second Amendment gives Americans a constitutional right to keep and bear arms that is enforceable against local and state gun laws.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Also if both points are true, would you sacrifice you right to protect your rights with guns (rather than politically) for a crime rate low enough where you don't feel you need a gun for protection?
 Sent2: If you need guns to ensure that your government doesn't become corrupt or tyranical you wouldn't want them to know where the guns are, would you?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: When a person walks into a gun shop with the expressed idea of buying a gun to kill someone - in a premeditatd act - that - is a problem isn't it.
 Sent2: Before the Brady Law any criminal could walk into a gun store and easily purchase a gun.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: While many guns are taken off the street when people are arrested and any firearms in their possession are confiscated, a new study shows how easily arrestees believe they could illegally acquire another firearm.
 Sent2: That will take the criminals off the street and with them off the street there are no gun control concerns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The homicide rate has climbed drasticaly with every gun control measure.
 Sent2: Having an age limit on the ability to buy guns is a gun control measure.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: And that assumes that gun control will have no effect on illegal firearm ownership.
 Sent2: And on and on, with every order having the secondary effect of becoming a lifetime ban on gun possession.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gee, maybe if the law abiding had guns they could defend themselves?
 Sent2: There is no reason law-abiding citizens need to defend themselves as they are untrained, do not have full knowledge of the law and eventually cause more harm than good by owning such weapons.
Output: Similar
Sent1: In some states, some guns are just not allowed and it sticks as a law.
 Sent2: No, but they might like to challenge the conclusion that states with less strict firearm laws are more often the source of guns used in crimes, in other states, than guns from states with stricter gun laws.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: buying guns, there is no requirement that federally licensed gun manufacturers and dealers
 Sent2: When neither party to a transaction is a licensed firearms dealer, firearms transfers must be completed through a licensed dealer.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Innocent people were butchered where no guns were permitted, while nobody is being shot full of holes in the schools where carrying a gun is permitted.
 Sent2: School district employees should not be carrying weapons on campus, just as students should not be carrying weapons."
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Even in Japan, the nation with the most absolute strictest gun laws in the world, criminals are still getting their hands on banned guns and killing people with them.
 Sent2: Look at Washington D.C. By far the absolute strictest laws in the entire nation, they STILL need gun shot sensors because people are STILL being shot and killed on a regular basis!
Output: Similar
Sent1: and who commits crimes, Criminals, so if you take guns away from law abiding citizens insuring that criminals will still be able to get weapons will have more targets to attack because people don't have any defense against criminals.
 Sent2: I also say that when people commit a crime with a gun these people need to be punished not the law-abiding citizens!
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Within the United States, rural areas have higher rates of gun ownership and lower rates of murder, whites have higher rates of gun ownership than blacks and much lower murder rates.
 Sent2: states with higher rates of household firearm ownership had significantly higher homicide victimization rates for children, and for women and men.States With Higher Levels Of Gun Ownership Have Higher Homicide Rates
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Are you saying that the only reason there are criminals armed with guns is because we're not willing to accept gun prohibitions as the answer?
 Sent2: It doesnt say you have the right to shoot arms so it would be okay to ban bullets.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: And before Heller, numerous judges declared that the Second Amendment was nothing more than a collective right that belonged to the states, giving them permission to have private militia armies for their own defense.
 Sent2: Amendment protects the right of the states to arm their militias.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Second of all, I wholeheartedly believe in the thinking that guns don't kill people, people kill people.
 Sent2: Sure you say guns don't kill people but people kill people, but the gun is only a tool or a means to that end.
Output: Similar
Sent1: On average, the states that have done the most to regulate private gun sales appear to have lower firearm death rates and lower firearm homicide rates.
 Sent2: The homicide rate has climbed drasticaly with every gun control measure.
Output: Similar
Sent1: The only case you could possibly make is more accidents with more guns at gun shows.
 Sent2: The fact that you've committed murder is irrelevant and the only thing that matters is if a person has a gun?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: IF you want them armed, why not let law abiding citizens who have passed a background check, a firearms safety check, and a marksmanship test carry their guns?
 Sent2: If you need guns to ensure that your government doesn't become corrupt or tyranical you wouldn't want them to know where the guns are, would you?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: To inact a law that makes a crime of illegal gun ownership has no effect on criminal ownership of guns.
 Sent2: Gun control laws do not deprive gun ownership for those who do not follow laws.
Output: Similar
Sent1: and who commits crimes, Criminals, so if you take guns away from law abiding citizens insuring that criminals will still be able to get weapons will have more targets to attack because people don't have any defense against criminals.
 Sent2: I haven't seen anyone explain how another gun control law will fight crime, how it'll make anyone safer, how it'll put criminals away longer, etc.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: And that assumes that gun control will have no effect on illegal firearm ownership.
 Sent2: The criminals already have plenty of guns, that means that ending gun ownership will play no real part in ending gun possession by criminals.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Therefore you feel more guns is the solution to stopping gun crime.
 Sent2: So anti-gunners please stop trying to find creative ways to control gun crime, crime, and avoid the Constitution.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: To suit the people that believe guns should be completely illegal....I do feel that stricter laws need to be enforced to acquire such equipment.
 Sent2: Therefore, while most people are hindranced by the laws, criminals will still obtain weapons illegally.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Those are all the government, if it has gotten as far as the people, and the government (the president, the congress, the supreme court) has decided on gun control, who's going to arrest them for it?
 Sent2: How can a people defend themselves from the government, unless they are able to maintain the same weapons as the government has?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: It is the right of the people (not of persons) that shall not be infringed, the right stated in the Virginia Constitution to train the body of the people in arms in order to defend the free state.
 Sent2: The right to bear arms is protected by the Constitutions of Virginia and of the United States.
Output: Similar
Sent1: This is needed to prevent gun owners from covering up sales to prohibited purchasers by later claiming ��� when those guns are traced to crime ��� that their guns were stolen.
 Sent2: Do you have any proof that would support your claim that gun owners aren't taking proper care to ensure that their guns don't get stolen?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Now when you rightfully talk about how the 2nd amendment grants me the right to own a gun people won't take you seriously because you think the 2nd amendment cannot be repealed.
 Sent2: What the Court is saying, at least to me, is that if you can prove the firearm you have has some usefulness for militia service then the 2nd.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I do not believe OTHERS should not have guns, I think criminals and psychos who are yet to convict a gun crime should not have guns.
 Sent2: I don't believe guns are good for anything, and I see no use in having them, but I believe it is everybody's right to produce or keep one, as it is just a weapon like anything else.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I think laws stating that you should not be allowed to carry guns onto airplanes or into schools are examples of common sense gun control laws meant to protect people.
 Sent2: If that means gun control then so be it, but it does not.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I think laws stating that you should not be allowed to carry guns onto airplanes or into schools are examples of common sense gun control laws meant to protect people.
 Sent2: In some states, some guns are just not allowed and it sticks as a law.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Simply put, you should have to prove that the gun control you seek will do what you say it will do before burdening the Constitution with a load up of Liberal wishes and hopes!
 Sent2: Also once you become an agent of the government you stop having right, you have authorities and you're controlled by the people the Constitution is supposed to protect you against.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: This broader definition is used to cover general crimes committed with firearms (like possession by felons, armed career criminal violations, etc.)
 Sent2: Ok, so are the gun haters claiming the police department are giving the guns criminals use for crime back to the criminals?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: They will not only confiscate the guns, but then charge the owners of those guns for being terrorists.
 Sent2: Gun owners don't drive into crowds of people simply because they had a gun in their car.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I worry that the reduction of gun ownership will increase crime rates even in households with a gun.
 Sent2: That said, the idea that non gun homicides dont increase does not show causation between high gun ownership and increased murder rates.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: So if you support every amendment made to the constitution pertaining to guns, than I submit your not to interested in owning a gun.
 Sent2: I really can't do that if I don't have a gun do I. Your responsible for your own protection, not me.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Criminals that do not obey gun control laws will be able to obtain guns and use them on the unarmed law-abiding citizens.
 Sent2: Gun control laws will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws!
Output: Similar
Sent1: People that defend the right to bear arms that demand laws that punish criminals by keeping them in prison thus keeping guns away from them.
 Sent2: Making guns illegal wouldn't solve anything except to take them away from people that want to defend themselves.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: CRIMINALS WHO HAVE BROKEN BOTH GUN LAWS AND MURDER LAWS, not just 'criminals', we have plenty of people in jail for things other than murder by gun.
 Sent2: We have guns and we still have crime and lots of gun deaths.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: But I do not believe that a gun ban will make us any safer.
 Sent2: I think it is interesting that gun nuts always claim that when guns are banned people will just use knives instead, yet we find that with guns prohibited there are still only 200 deaths a year from knife like weapons.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Do doctors really need to ask patients and their children if they own guns before applying a one size fits all approach to warning new parents about potential dangers for their children?
 Sent2: I already said children could tote around their parents guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
 Sent2: There's no problem in buying a gun, the problem comes in what you buy the gun for.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Civilians are held to much higer standards as far as liability goes than police officers are
 Sent2: Since civilian marksmanship programs commonly hold civilians to a higher standard than law enforcement officers, would't that mean that in all propreity we should be working to ban cops carrying guns on planes as opposed to law abiding citizens?
Output: Similar
Sent1: Gun Control does not work, well unless you mean by working that crime sky rockets in which case I would have to agree with you and then question your motives as to why you would want it here.
 Sent2: You are pulling the same XXXX Doc did in thinking that because I don't think more guns equals less crime that I automatically must think it means MORE crime and that gun control laws are effective and needed.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: This appeared to me to be an argument that self defense cannot exist if a gun is used.
 Sent2: Reports show that a small percentage of gun owners actually use a gun to defend themselves, there are more killed with a gun, than those using a gun to protect themselves, they cain't say it's used for selfdefense.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Do you think that it is a huge coincidence that nations in which fewer law abiding citizens own guns such as Australia and the UK also have much lower rates of gun crime?
 Sent2: Countries that ban guns or implement stricter laws concerning firearms have lower crime rates.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Perhaps if other types of firearms were as strictly regulated as machine guns are then we could make some real progress in reducing gun violence and murder.
 Sent2: We currently have more guns per capita than we have at any time since the 1920's, and crime continues to decline.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I see you always use gun crime rates as an argument, are you totally uninterested in other types of violent crimes, what happens when all guns are banned and we only have knife crimes?
 Sent2: Using a shotgun or an AK-47 will get the job done, so I don't see the need to ban assault weapons.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: because I've made a legitimate point that not all gun owners abide by the law?
 Sent2: However, I do feel that there should be very strict laws on who can purchase assault weapons.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: This appeared to me to be an argument that self defense cannot exist if a gun is used.
 Sent2: The only time in my life I have seen someone who owned a gun use it against some one they got into an argument with was when that person was under the influence of drugs and alcohol.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Similarly, a company will still face civil liability in addition to criminal penalties if it has violated state or federal law or sold a gun knowing that it would be used to commit a crime.
 Sent2: A law-abiding gun nut who uses their gun in committing a crime, is a criminal, and not law-abiding.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
 Sent2: Do you have anything to offer from King on guns, or for that matter, the 2nd.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Or that the Second Amendment only keeps the federal government from passing new gun control laws?
 Sent2: Government does not possess the authority to enact a total ban on firearm owners actually transporting their firearms, it violates the "bear" of the "keep and bear" provision of the second amendment.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Exactly how many shootings took place in these settings when students were allowed to not only bring their legally owned guns with them to school, but could also store them in their lockers inside the school?
 Sent2: Their argument is hardly valid, they want to stop the selling of firearms to people because they think it will decrease the crimes and school shootings along with other dangers that are caused by guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: In order to have a 'well regulated' militia you can not bar the civilian populace of its right to keep and bear arms!
 Sent2: Please note that the argument is that the reason people shall have the right to keep and bear arms is in order to maintain a well regulated militia.
Output: Similar
Sent1: I can understand your belief that gun control won't work and that owning guns is a good thing, I don't agree with it, but is hardly beyond comprehension.
 Sent2: There are situations where I'll be more in control of my destiny without a gun and you corner yourself and lost complete control of your destiny because of your gun.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Countries that ban guns or implement stricter laws concerning firearms have lower crime rates.
 Sent2: Then why do nations which ban guns have a much lower gun crime rate than the US?
Output: Similar
Sent1: I think the 2nd Amendment does apply to modern guns.
 Sent2: I don't believe guns are good for anything, and I see no use in having them, but I believe it is everybody's right to produce or keep one, as it is just a weapon like anything else.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Even in Japan, the nation with the most absolute strictest gun laws in the world, criminals are still getting their hands on banned guns and killing people with them.
 Sent2: If guns are banned, the only people that will be affected will be the people that buy guns for protection from criminals, who get their guns illegally anyway.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Even if today's well-regulated militia were the National Guard, the Second Amendment still protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.
 Sent2: The first part indicates the importance of the militia, the second part illustrates that the people may be part of that well regulated body or not without infringement of their right to keep and bear arms.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Confession from the criminal or videotaping the transaction, or someone providing testimony that you, in fact, knew that he was a criminal, prohibited from owning a firearm, and you intended to break the law.
 Sent2: The first thing you need to do when someone is charged with a crime is understand what the charge is and what must be proved.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If gun bans worked there would be no gun deaths in the countries that have banned guns.
 Sent2: 1) Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need guns.
Output: Similar
Sent1: We could hypothesize that if guns are banned then law abiding citizens who usually didn't carry or own guns before the ban will be less likely to face armed opponents.
 Sent2: where gun control laws prohibit good law abiding citizens from carrying a gun to protect themselves and others.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun free zones are zones where criminals will have guns because criminals will not obey the laws about gun free zones.
 Sent2: Criminals will not be stopped from taking guns into gun free zones because criminals do not obey laws!
Output: Similar
Sent1: Criminals kill people so gun haters like gun hater pilot want to pass gun control laws that only law abiding citizens obey!
 Sent2: The only people that obey gun control laws that prevent people from taking guns any where are law abiding people.
Output: Similar
Sent1: If gun control will not affect criminal ownership of guns and people will always be able to get a firearm if they want, why should a government make the effort to ban firearms as a precursor to atrocities?
 Sent2: I really do not care particularly what gun control laws states or cities pass.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: But I do not believe that a gun ban will make us any safer.
 Sent2: I think we recognize that gun control laws can reduce the number of criminals owning guns although not disarm every criminal.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: All gun control laws do is stop law abiding citizens from having guns!
 Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Also once you become an agent of the government you stop having right, you have authorities and you're controlled by the people the Constitution is supposed to protect you against.
 Sent2: Right now it is against the law for the government to keep a database of gun owners, that that law would have to be changed, and I think you also know this.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If today we were to ban guns all the law abiding citizens would give up their firearms and protection.
 Sent2: Something else you must keep in mind is that if we outlaw guns, the only people with guns will be outlaws, this leaves no defense for law abiding citizens.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Another large source of guns used in crimes are unlicensed street dealers who either get their guns through illegal transactions with licensed dealers, straw purchases, or from gun thefts.
 Sent2: Well if criminals are getting their guns through licensed dealers, how come these records of sale aren't being used for the purpose of tracking down gang members who obviously bought their guns legally?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Countries that ban guns or implement stricter laws concerning firearms have lower crime rates.
 Sent2: On average, the states that have done the most to regulate private gun sales appear to have lower firearm death rates and lower firearm homicide rates.
Output: Similar
Sent1: In the dicta from a maritime law case the Supreme Court commented that state laws restricting concealed weapons do not infringe upon the right to bear arms protected by the Federal Second Amendment."
 Sent2: The Second Amendment confers the right to bear arms, and earlier this year a U.S. Supreme Court ruling curtailed government's ability to regulate guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You will go to your grave trying for more and more and even more gun control.
 Sent2: There are situations where I'll be more in control of my destiny without a gun and you corner yourself and lost complete control of your destiny because of your gun.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I do not believe OTHERS should not have guns, I think criminals and psychos who are yet to convict a gun crime should not have guns.
 Sent2: Illegal firearms can be identified and linked to other firearms and to crimes and criminals.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Now when you rightfully talk about how the 2nd amendment grants me the right to own a gun people won't take you seriously because you think the 2nd amendment cannot be repealed.
 Sent2: Since I have taken care to point out that there are Constitutional objections, and you have concurred, I'll assume you will also permit me to pretend that there is no 2nd Amendment.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If most gun crimes are committed by illegal firearm holders then it means that legal ownership of firearms combined with government monitoring can have a positive effect.
 Sent2: Many thousands of Guns are stolen and used in GUN CREATED CRIME because most legal gun owners
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The courts up to the supreme court have held that criminals can't be made to register guns.
 Sent2: And if you have complaints about modern day gun laws such as those that ban the mentally ill and felons from possessing arms then remember that recent Supreme Court rulings already have shown their approval for such laws.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I think we have enough people against kids owning guns to pass an amendment to the second amendment or else the 13th saying that kids don't have quite as many rights.
 Sent2: children are people and nukes are arms so people supporting the second amendment support children having nukes
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Which is why the ban is a bit of a poor compromise, they've banned guns for law abiding people but they've not done enough to make sure criminals don't have them.
 Sent2: Even in Japan, the nation with the most absolute strictest gun laws in the world, criminals are still getting their hands on banned guns and killing people with them.
Output: Similar