niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
Sent1: I think we recognize that gun control laws can reduce the number of criminals owning guns although not disarm every criminal.
 Sent2: I think some of the courts that have quoted that sentence from Heller to justify laws that ban felons from owning firearms would disagree.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun haters are the extremist hate group demanding to ban the right to bear arms!
 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: If guns would be made illegal, then only criminals would have them.
 Sent2: The legal market for firearms gets killed off in hopes of hindering criminals, and instead the criminals continue buying from the black market, importing them illegally, or making their weapons themselves.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Gun bans simple ban law abiding citizens from having guns.
 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: Gun free zones are areas where law-abiding citizens are forbidden to carry guns by law.
 Sent2: Criminals do not obey the laws about gun free zones.
Output: 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: In order to have a 'well regulated' militia you can not bar the civilian populace of its right to keep and bear arms!
Output: Similar
Sent1: They argue that the second amendment allows the people the power of weapons so that if the government intrudes on their rights they can defend themselves.
 Sent2: It took the 14th amendment for them to get the right to keep and bear arms and still today the gun grabber agenda is based on denial of rights, all rights and not just Second Amendment rights.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 1) Protection - The argument suggests that guns protect us from dangerous individuals.
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You claimed that the Supreme Court gave the green light to all kinds of bans and restrictions on guns and ammunition, something that never took place.
 Sent2: Which gun right laws do you support?The right to ban them?you are as anti-gun as they come.Galileo no offense, because you make no pretense about it.
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: Gun control does nothing to make anyone safer or save lives.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Her: I don't think people should be allowed to carry guns.
 Sent2: I seriously cannot believe that someone out there really thinks that we should allow EVERYBODY to carry weapons onto an airplane!
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The homicide rate has climbed drasticaly with every gun control measure.
 Sent2: You can't just claim "Country A has more gun control and a lower homicide rate than Country B does" and leave it at that.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: All gun control laws do is stop law abiding citizens from having guns!
 Sent2: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Of course, nothing in the text of the Second Amendment places location-based limits on the right to keep and bear arms.
 Sent2: The Second Amendment reads ���the right of the people to keep and bear arms��_.�۝
Output: Not similar
Sent1: They argue that the second amendment allows the people the power of weapons so that if the government intrudes on their rights they can defend themselves.
 Sent2: The whole reason why the Second Amendment exists is so that the people could defend themselves against the tyranny of their own government.
Output: Similar
Sent1: It's absurd to think that the Second Amendment was intended to protect a right to commit a crime.
 Sent2: It's also silly to argue that the Second Amendment only protects arms in common use.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Or that the Second Amendment only keeps the federal government from passing new gun control laws?
 Sent2: Since that ruling most lower federal courts have continued to reject the argument that the second amendment protects an indivual right to own a gun.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: there are thousands of stories where armed citizens stop criminals, in many cases without firing a shot and just showing the gun.
 Sent2: Criminals do not need guns to continue with their crime and murders, guns are most useful in the hands of an armed citizenry as the incorporation case patiently explained.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: In Silveira v. Lockyer the 9th Circuit Court ruled that California's Assault Weapons Control Act is not unconstitutional and that the second amendment does not protect an individual right.
 Sent2: Somebody challenged California's assault weapons ban and the court ruled the ban is not unconstitutional because there is no individual right to keep and bear arms.
Output: Similar
Sent1: 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.
 Sent2: people who want to kill, will kill if you ban guns, they will kill with knives, or something else.
Output: Not 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: We have more crime than fully armed countries not because we don't have guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I do see the sense in some measures such as restricting access to guns for people who have committed violent crimes.
 Sent2: I only support common sense gun control measures, thing such as no guns in schools, no guns on airplanes, background checks for the sale of all firearms, tougher sentences for crimes in which guns are used, etc.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
 Sent2: THE SECOND AMENDMENT- A well regulated militia,being necessary to the security of a free state,the right of the people to keep and bear arms,shall not be infringed.PERIOD.
Output: Similar
Sent1: We measured firearm protection as an attempted or completed crime in which the victim reported using a gun to attack or threaten an offender.
 Sent2: Gun ownership is a protected right, and the fact that criminals use guns in the commission of crime will never change this fact.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Before the Brady Law any criminal could walk into a gun store and easily purchase a gun.
 Sent2: It's pointless people with criminal backgrounds aren't buying guns from gun stores (all of which already run background checks) there are no background checks on the black market and laws won't change that.
Output: Not 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: 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: Not similar
Sent1: The 2nd Amendment was put in to stop your guys from infringing on our Right to Keep and Bear Arms!
 Sent2: 2nd amendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall NOT be INFRINGED.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Are you saying that since all guns have been banned for civilian use in Countries like England, that murders by guns and gun crimes have gone to absolute zero there?
 Sent2: Are you saying that trying to avoid being murdered isn't a good enough reason for owning or using a gun?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Or that the Second Amendment only keeps the federal government from passing new gun control laws?
 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: The criminal homicides almost always include illegally gotten guns- so that's not relevant either as gun control laws won't change that.
 Sent2: Gun control laws do not affect criminals because criminals do not obey these laws.
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: BTW, It's weird how you always whine that the rights of criminals are violated, you're against Megan's Law, you think pedophilia should be legalized, and you want guns taken out of as many hands as possible.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Roughly one person would die every minute if guns were banned.
 Sent2: Do not ban guns when guns are the tools of man.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun haters think banning guns will make criminals stop being criminals.
 Sent2: One such person who is prohibited by federal law from having a firearm at all is the convicted felon:
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Guns don't kill people, if they did, they would go to jail for murder- not the murderers.
 Sent2: all guns are used for is killing, they are weapons.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I think law abiding citizens should be allowed to carry conceled weapons.
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Should a drug user, a felon, be banned from possessing WEAPONS, especially guns??
 Sent2: A gun ban would make guns on the same level as drugs....
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The only thing we've been over, is that government and gun control is racist, not the Second Amendment.
 Sent2: As for the second amendment and whether gun ownership is a right or a priviledge we can discuss later.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 Sent2: Those who would remove our freedom to defend ourselves always seem to link the number of guns to the high rate of gun crime.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun control should be left to the person holding the gun.
 Sent2: Gun control laws do not deprive gun ownership for those who do not follow laws.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: But gun hater pilot will demand that the right to bear arms be limited or banned to keep criminals from getting guns.
 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: When you look at this case, SCOTUS is telling us that it believes individual citizens have a right to keep and bear military grade firearms, and that such an armed populace historically formed the backbone for an effective militia.
 Sent2: In order to have a 'well regulated' militia you can not bar the civilian populace of its right to keep and bear arms!
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Do you understand that any proposed gun control law must pass the strict scrutiny test due to the Second Amendment being recognized as a fundamental right protected by the Constitution?
 Sent2: Or that the Second Amendment only keeps the federal government from passing new gun control laws?
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: Basically, The US Curcuit Court upheld that the Second Amendment didn't apply to weapons that couldn't be carried by an individual.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun haters must attack people defending the right to bear arms by calling them fanatics.
 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: putting your family in all that danger because youre nuts about guns is immoral
 Sent2: also, a gun is only dangerous if its used by the wrong person.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: where gun control laws prohibit good law abiding citizens from carrying a gun to protect themselves and others.
 Sent2: It is asserted, therefore, that the D.C. gun control laws irrationally prevent only law abiding citizens from owning handguns.
Output: Similar
Sent1: I like how anti gun people say we need to protect everyone from the rare gun events by banning guns, but when someone suggests banning the more frequent hammer and club attacks, they can justify those deaths.
 Sent2: So if someone wants to protect themself from a wild animal do they need a gun?
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: So unless you're talking about reforming the system, like the NICS Improvement Act was supposed to do, you're obviously talking about denying people their right to own guns in the first place.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: because I've made a legitimate point that not all gun owners abide by the law?
 Sent2: Gun control laws do not deprive gun ownership for those who do not follow laws.
Output: Similar
Sent1: For instance I don't think that eliminating gun control is the only answer crime control is also needed.
 Sent2: Again, I don't think anybody will argue that owning a gun prevents crime.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Only why would you need gun registration if guns were illegal?
 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: Gun control makes criminals lives much easier, because they can keep their guns, while they don't have to deal with armed citizens.
 Sent2: gun control doesent solve anything in fact it makes crime go up because the criminals will always get their guns and your only disarming the law abiding citizens thus making them easy victims from the criminals.
Output: Similar
Sent1: If today we were to ban guns all the law abiding citizens would give up their firearms and protection.
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: They argue that the second amendment allows the people the power of weapons so that if the government intrudes on their rights they can defend themselves.
 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: 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 SECOND AMENDMENT- A well regulated militia,being necessary to the security of a free state,the right of the people to keep and bear arms,shall not be infringed.PERIOD.
Output: Similar
Sent1: "to keep and bear Arms" - this would include any gun
 Sent2: 2) ensure that the right to keep and bear arms for a militia is not infringed.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun haters are like the dangerous criminals the gun haters want to keep guns away from.
 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: If guns are banned, the only people who will surrender them are those who commit nearly no gun crime at all.
 Sent2: ...Virtually never are murderers the ordinary, law-abiding people against whom gun bans are aimed.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: In England, where currently the private ownership of hand guns by the law abiding is absolutely prohibited, crimes involving the use of guns are rapidly increasing: only the criminals have access to them.
 Sent2: This should be a clear indicator that legal ownership of guns in no way has increased potential criminality for law abiding citizens.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: all guns are used for is killing, they are weapons.
 Sent2: people who want to kill, will kill if you ban guns, they will kill with knives, or something else.
Output: Not similar
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: If you want any protection for your rights, you have to be able to present an argument outlining how they are being violated.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, or any of the other rights guaranteed by the Constitution are to be abridged, they must ne done so by legal means, i.e. constitutional amendment.
 Sent2: an attempt to undermine the Constitutional rights of gun owners legally to own and operate, KEEP AND BEAR, guns and other weapons of war (arms) that are enshrined in the 2A and now the XIVth Amendment.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: All gun control laws do is stop law abiding citizens from having guns!
 Sent2: It is asserted, therefore, that the D.C. gun control laws irrationally prevent only law abiding citizens from owning handguns.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Countries that ban guns or implement stricter laws concerning firearms have lower crime rates.
 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: I think we recognize that gun control laws can reduce the number of criminals owning guns although not disarm every criminal.
 Sent2: Name me one gun control law that has been effective as crime control!!!!!!
Output: Not similar
Sent1: all guns are used for is killing, they are weapons.
 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: After all, since these lethal weapons are only used to kill or maim, the police must only carry them to kill or maim, huh?
 Sent2: all guns are used for is killing, they are weapons.
Output: Similar
Sent1: ...Virtually never are murderers the ordinary, law-abiding people against whom gun bans are aimed.
 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: 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: 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: Since 1980, forty-four states have passed some form of law that allows gun owners to carry concealed weapons outside their homes for personal protection.
 Sent2: Well, owning handguns for personal home protection is different that carrying guns in a concealed fashion for protection.
Output: Not 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: 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: I think the government has taken responsibility for the law abiding citizens by ensuring that nobody can carry a gun or other dangerous weapon on board a plane.
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
 Sent2: In order to have a 'well regulated' militia you can not bar the civilian populace of its right to keep and bear arms!
Output: 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: Again, I don't think anybody will argue that owning a gun prevents crime.
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: That most people can't be trusted, so we should have more laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: A criminal with a gun will feel a lot more confident in committing a crime than a criminal without a gun will just as a criminal will avoid those who have guns and target those who don't.
 Sent2: Therefore you feel more guns is the solution to stopping gun crime.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The logic of less guns in law abiding citizens hands means less gun crime is clearly insane.
 Sent2: Gun hater pilot's lack of logic is to not allow law abding citizens the right to bear arms, and do nothing to protect the unarmed law abiding citizens.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
 Sent2: Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.
Output: Similar
Sent1: I for one would rather be able to defend my children without the risk of trying to overpower another person to keep the bat from hitting my children.
 Sent2: The only people that're going to get shot are the ones that're trying to either hurt or kill me or my loved ones.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: A criminal with a gun will feel a lot more confident in committing a crime than a criminal without a gun will just as a criminal will avoid those who have guns and target those who don't.
 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: (5) The Federal Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended by the Firearms Owners�۪ Protection Act of 1986, and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, provide comprehensive Federal regulations applicable in the District of Columbia as elsewhere.
 Sent2: The ban was put in place by the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act, designed to correct the erronius Gun Control Act of 1968.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Burglars do not use guns, muggers do not use guns.
 Sent2: Many thousands of Guns are stolen and used in GUN CREATED CRIME because most legal gun owners
Output: Not 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: The bill would allow people on terrorist watch lists to possess and carry assault rifles in the Capital city as long as they did not yet have a criminal or other record that otherwise prohibited them.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I think the 2nd Amendment does apply to modern guns.
 Sent2: People that read the 2nd amend as a militia thing also must think dangerous criminals will obey gun control laws.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Please tell the murder victims in these other countries that gun control works.
 Sent2: it isn't guns that kill people, is the mentality these people carry around in their heads that kill other people.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Not only will the criminals still have access to guns, but they will also have the added knowledge that either the person they intend to rob does not have a gun or they are breaking the law.
 Sent2: The laws being proposed are serving no purpose, because they're not being enforced.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Then we should ban so stupid people can't kill people with guns.
 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: A law-abiding gun nut who uses their gun in committing a crime, is a criminal, and not law-abiding.
 Sent2: gun control doesent solve anything in fact it makes crime go up because the criminals will always get their guns and your only disarming the law abiding citizens thus making them easy victims from the criminals.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: But is the answer to take down the gun free zones...and just allow kids to carry guns to school?
 Sent2: School district employees should not be carrying weapons on campus, just as students should not be carrying weapons."
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Established case law makes clear that the federal Constitution grants appellant no right to carry a concealed handgun.
 Sent2: Lott's More Guns, Less Crime is the bible of the national movement to persuade state legislatures to pass so-called "concealed carry" laws, which permit citizens to carry concealed firearms.
Output: Not 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: 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: Gun laws and bans are put in place that only affect good law abiding free citizens.
 Sent2: Criminals don't care about gun bans, so a gun ban only takes guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.
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: It is just a case of prevention, remove guns being so easily accessible and you then decrease the gun crime and remove the need for guns to defend yourself.
Output: 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: This makes sense when you consider that the second amendment protects the right of the people to bear arms in connection with an organized militia.
Output: Similar
Sent1: In my view I think that complete gun control helps solve a major problem in crime and it would allow people to feel safer because they wouldn't need to have a gun to protect themselves.
 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: I see, so banning guns just stops law abiding citizens from having them, yet your family of criminals buys them from people who legally obtained them, or has them legally obtained for them.
 Sent2: Law abiding citizens obey the law, there can surely be no reason to prohibit them form having guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: So if someone wants to protect themself from a wild animal do they need a gun?
 Sent2: If a person does not want to own or carry a gun then so be it, and if an individual does own guns then like wise.
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: 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: The embraced anti-gun rights interpretation of the 2nd was that it was a provision that had but one function and intent, to protect the "state right" to organize and control their militia from federal interference.
 Sent2: Amendment protects the right of the states to arm their militias.
Output: 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: That includes populations, gun homicides, non gun homicides and households with weapons in them.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Therefore, we should not allow anyone to carry a gun on a plane, because these people may either be law abiding or not.
 Sent2: That most people can't be trusted, so we should have more laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.
Output: Not 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: (i.e. restrictions on concealed carry, laws against brandishing) but we can not ban the carrying of arms altogether since that would violate the second amendment.
Output: 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: 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: You will go to your grave trying for more and more and even more gun control.
 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: Whilst true that guns do not kill people, they provide those with the ability to kill.
 Sent2: all guns are used for is killing, they are weapons.
Output: Similar
Sent1: if one wants to own a gun i have no qualms with them but if they wish to own guns such as a AK47 and AK74u they should be dealt with in a more civilized manner to protect the people.
 Sent2: Making guns illegal wouldn't solve anything except to take them away from people that want to defend themselves.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: So if you want to ban guns, 1,531,764 people will get killed or injured, and you'll only take guns out of the hands of those who don't even commit gun crimes.
 Sent2: So... you feel that the sale of a type of gun could not have been banned if people didn't need permits in the first place?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You can't just claim "Country A has more gun control and a lower homicide rate than Country B does" and leave it at that.
 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: The 2nd amendment only protects a states right to own a Militia.
 Sent2: Amendment protects the right of the states to arm their militias.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Offenses committed with all types of firearms, including air guns, have also increased.
 Sent2: I worry that the reduction of gun ownership will increase crime rates even in households with a gun.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Now tell me, how is gun control going to stop people from making their own?
 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: Criminals don't care about gun bans, so a gun ban only takes guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.
 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: And because as he so convincingly puts it : MORE GUNS= LESS CRIME
 Sent2: The opposite of "more guns = less crime is not true" is not "more guns = more crime".
Output: Similar
Sent1: 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.
 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: Not similar
Sent1: If a registered gun owner uses his gun to commit a crime, (besides running the risk of threatening armed citizens) he would be easily tracked down and apprehended.
 Sent2: If a gun used to commit crimes isn't found in the registry, then the registry isn't much of a valuable crime fighting tool is it?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Police do not know how many guns are in the state or where they are.
 Sent2: I bet all those stranded survivors felt safe in New Orleans without guns knowing the Police was there to protect them.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: So, no, I wouldn't say there was any "gun control" as you (Galileo) tried to pass off as early gun control laws.
 Sent2: So I think gun control on the magnitude you want would effect it, how could it not?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The laws the gun haters want will keep the right to bear arms from the law abiding citizens!
 Sent2: Simple if the gun haters did not want your guns why do gun haters only want gun control laws that law abiding citizens obey and criminals do not?
Output: Similar
Sent1: In my view I think that complete gun control helps solve a major problem in crime and it would allow people to feel safer because they wouldn't need to have a gun to protect 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: It is asserted, therefore, that the D.C. gun control laws irrationally prevent only law abiding citizens from owning handguns.
 Sent2: But it appears that support for gun control is higher when people are asked about specific gun laws rather than just a general question about stricter gun control.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
 Sent2: Gun hater Sarah Brady like al gun hater blame the right to bear arms for the crimes committed with guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The Founders had in mind guns that were much less powerful when they wrote the Second Amendment.
 Sent2: Of course, when the founders wrote the Second Amendment they had in mind people owning much less powerful weapons than gun owners have now.
Output: Similar
Sent1: The reality is that in developed nations with stricter gun laws than the US there are less outlaws owning and using guns.
 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
Sent1: Gun ownership is a protected right, and the fact that criminals use guns in the commission of crime will never change this fact.
 Sent2: Gun ban = No civilians can protect themselves using a firearm = Criminals can illegally purchase guns, like tons already do.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I would not say that everyone should have a gun, yet I do think that everyone should consider the possibility that a firearm coupled with appropriate training can and has been the difference between life and death.
 Sent2: I fail to see how asking about gun ownership is any different.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If this is the case then gun control laws will have no effect on who carries melee weapons, so you argument falls apart because 'the law abiding' can remain armed.
 Sent2: If this is the case, then gun laws have a provable effect on how 'armed' criminals are - more gun control = less gun-carrying criminals, fact.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: No mortal man has the right to deny me the ability to maintain life within my body.
 Sent2: I for one would rather be able to defend my children without the risk of trying to overpower another person to keep the bat from hitting my children.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Right now all the police can do is try and match bullets against other bullets in an attempt to determine which gun was used.
 Sent2: We have a right to use a gun to defend ourselves and others.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You keep claiming that you're not of the anti-gun camp, that you actually support the Second Amendment.
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 Sent2: Do not ban guns when guns are the tools of man.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, or any of the other rights guaranteed by the Constitution are to be abridged, they must ne done so by legal means, i.e. constitutional amendment.
 Sent2: Just because if you hang upside down and squint sideways, you can read the wording of the Second Amendment as protecting no one from anything, this does not void other places the Right to keep and bear Arms were guaranteed.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Furthermore there is nothing that would conclusively suggest denying this individual a concealed carry permit would have prevented the shooting from occurring.
 Sent2: Where is the evidence to prove that a person with a concealed carry permit is going to actually commit violent acts against another?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Or, to put it another way, more guns = more crime, and if we could stop the illegal gun running then we would have less guns = less crime.
 Sent2: Less than 1% of guns wind up in crime situations and crime has dropped with more gun and continues to drop despite agressive prosecution.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I support a persons right to own a gun but if people start getting too many freedoms dealing with their weapons then things could get worse.
 Sent2: I already said children could tote around their parents guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Straw Purchase, or stolen, receiving stolen property, illegally transporting a firearms across state lines, gun trafficking, and finally transporting illegal guns across the boarder.
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Similar
Sent1: If you cannot demonstrate that more citizens owning guns leads to more violent crime, if the stats in fact support the opposite, what reason is there to ban guns?
 Sent2: Which gun right laws do you support?The right to ban them?you are as anti-gun as they come.Galileo no offense, because you make no pretense about it.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If people are going to carry guns for protection, they should be encouraged to put lots and lots of rounds through the gun.
 Sent2: Usually it is 'oh look out look out, them gun nuts are going to do something.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: In March, officers began soliciting registered firearm owners across the city as part of what they call the Safe City Project.
 Sent2: Where ALL guns are registered and they even sent police into each gun owner's home to make sure that they were secured properly.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Georgia's concealed carry law has recently been modified to allow permitted gun owners to carry concealed weapons into restuarants, on mass transit, in state parks and other venues previously off limits to any non-law-enforcement weapons.
 Sent2: And several states have recently passed laws allowing gun owners to carry firearms in more places ��� bars, restaurants, cars and parks.
Output: Similar
Sent1: ...and you are right, there is no credibility to a "needs based exercise of the right to keep and bear arms".
 Sent2: In order to have a 'well regulated' militia you can not bar the civilian populace of its right to keep and bear arms!
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The criminal homicides almost always include illegally gotten guns- so that's not relevant either as gun control laws won't change that.
 Sent2: It's pointless people with criminal backgrounds aren't buying guns from gun stores (all of which already run background checks) there are no background checks on the black market and laws won't change that.
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: 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: 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 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: I understand that banning guns will not stop criminals from accessing them, but it will surely drop the crime rate and make it much harder to get a gun.
 Sent2: I'd love to see how gun rationing, ammunition documentation, ending private sales, gun registration, and restriction of right to carry, has helped reduce violence crimes and make things difficult for criminals.
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: These laws are all part of the gun grabbers` wholesale attack on private gun ownership.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: However, even though there were less deaths, there was a surge in gun crime, death and non-death related, after the ban on guns.
 Sent2: Since there are gun deaths in countries that have banned guns, the gun bans did not work.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Because many people have interpreted the 2nd amendment as an individual right, the states have lost their militas.
 Sent2: The 2nd amendment only protects a states right to own a Militia.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You can not use this as evidence that the reduction in crime is due to the gun ban.
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Similar
Sent1: So you have to read the 2nd amendment as a whole.
 Sent2: Which would be worthless because you could just repeal that amendment and then repeal the 2nd.
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: 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?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The fact that you like cars is why you will tolerate the fact that more kids are killed by cars then guns.
 Sent2: You would rather be confronted by a guy with a baseball bat because you are FAR more likely to get killed by the guy with the gun.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun registration schemes have been disabled for criminals because requiring them to register a gun they are forbidden to own would violate their 5th Amendment rights.
 Sent2: If England wants to ban weapons, that is quite alright, but we should not trade with htem as long as they are violating the human rights of their citizens.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You could argue that many in poverty cannot afford a gun as things currently stand.
 Sent2: If you can afford a gun you should be able to afford a proper storage device.
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: Criminals will not be stopped from taking guns into gun free zones because criminals do not obey laws!
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: Whether or not he is a felon, if you give someone a gun knowing they intend to commit a particular crime with it then you are responsible as an accessory before the fact.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: They argue that the second amendment allows the people the power of weapons so that if the government intrudes on their rights they can defend themselves.
 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: This is just further proof that gun control does not equal crime control and there are no "reasonable" nor "responsible" gun control laws.
 Sent2: Name me one gun control law that has been effective as crime control!!!!!!
Output: Similar
Sent1: The opposite of "more guns = less crime is not true" is not "more guns = more crime".
 Sent2: All that does is imply that crime rate depends on more than just the presence/absence of guns - it disproves 'more guns = more crime' about as much as it disproves 'more guns = less crime'.
Output: Similar
Sent1: I think what is also important is that nobody to my knowledge is saying that a law abiding citizen shouldn't have the right to own a gun.
 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: The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States America states that, ���A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.�۝
 Sent2: 2nd amendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall NOT be INFRINGED.
Output: Similar
Sent1: The opposite of "more guns = less crime is not true" is not "more guns = more crime".
 Sent2: Muggings, burglaries, rapes, assault and battery are all examples of violent crimes that don't require a gun.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You can debate that without guns there would be more deaths to other weapons although you can't debate it would be to the same extent as gun murders and crimes would be.
 Sent2: The crime comes from using the gun (or any other weapon) to violate the rights of others.
Output: Not 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: 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: The 2nd amendment only protects a states right to own a Militia.
 Sent2: The 2nd Amendment gives citizens the rights to own a gun, not the Militia Act.
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: 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: Not similar
Sent1: "to keep and bear Arms" - this would include any gun
 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