niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
Sent1: To generalize gun owners in this way must mean you're either a complete dick or that your government likes to keep you ignorant.
 Sent2: VoR you keep saying that your for reasonable gun control but yet all your false idols keep chiming in here on a TOTAL gun ban, government confiscation, and allowing elitists to continue to carry.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Then we should ban so stupid people can't kill people with guns.
 Sent2: people who want to kill, will kill if you ban guns, they will kill with knives, or something else.
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: Many thousands of Guns are stolen and used in GUN CREATED CRIME because most legal gun owners
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: Deny, if you can, that your previous position defined the phrase ���right to keep and bear arms�۝ as a right of the states to equip the militias with both arms and ammunition.
Output: Similar
Sent1: A law-abiding gun nut who uses their gun in committing a crime, is a criminal, and not law-abiding.
 Sent2: Law abiding citizens are not going to misuse their firearms and those with criminal records are already banned from owning guns.
Output: Similar
Sent1: The argument isn't that guns promote or cause crime, it is that when crimes happen having a gun involved causes more damage.
 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: You will go to your grave trying for more and more and even more gun control.
 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: We support letting people who already have guns actually being allowed to carry them, but I haven't seen anyone saying that we have to get hundreds of thousands of more guns bought up and distributed.
 Sent2: I am not attacking anyone, I am just pointing out that if there were armed citizens on board, and again, we do not know if there were, they did not use their guns.
Output: Not 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: 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.
Output: 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: 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: For instance I don't think that eliminating gun control is the only answer crime control is also needed.
 Sent2: So an article that is entitled "Gun control doesn't reduce crime, violence, say studies" is not claiming that gun control is ineffective?
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: 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: 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: I believe in gun control (and wrote this piece to satirize pro-gunners) because I hate guns and want to see them all banned, which is why I own guns and also enjoy reading firearms-related literature.
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: Therefore you feel more guns is the solution to stopping gun crime.
Output: Not 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: You can not use this as evidence that the reduction in crime is due to the gun ban.
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: Burglars do not use guns, muggers do not use guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: As said,I think the people of the USA are quite capable of deciding about their own gun laws without a Brit getting involved but to make guns freely available to British citizens would be a bad, bad idea.
 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: Why can a state attach limits "in their own individual RKBA" (such as prohibited concealed carry) that supercede the second amendment- unless the second amendment does not protect concealed carry.
 Sent2: The federal government has NO business dabbling in concealed carry regulation, unless they are going to declare it a protected activity under the second amendment.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Saw a great article today by Michael Bloomberg (yes, that Michael Bloomberg), about where the illegal guns used in crimes come from - mainly from the states with weak gun control laws.
 Sent2: with regard to the fact that most gun crime is from illegl guns, in that case why not make all guns illegal.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: "to keep and bear Arms" - this would include any gun
 Sent2: But gun hater pilot will demand that the right to bear arms be limited or banned to keep criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Would they be willing to accept relaxed restrictions on ownership and purchasing of firearms that they do not consider to be assault weapons?
 Sent2: As a comparison on how much effect that an Assault Weapons ban would have on crime, even if they confiscated them all.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Countries that ban guns or implement stricter laws concerning firearms have lower crime rates.
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Similar
Sent1: The crime comes from using the gun (or any other weapon) to violate the rights of others.
 Sent2: We have a right to use a gun to defend ourselves and others.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The 2nd Amendment is not there to entitle you to all of the gun control you want!
 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: You're saying that guns should be allowed into school in order to allow some students (or teachers) to defend themselves if they were attacked.
 Sent2: The gun right people demand that they be allowed to hand out pamphlets defending the right to have guns if the school allowed anti gun/gun control advocates to pass out pamphlets vilifying guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Countries that ban guns or implement stricter laws concerning firearms have lower crime rates.
 Sent2: By that brand of logic, any gun law is specifically aimed at reducing criminal use of guns, including a complete ban.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun haters are the extremist hate group demanding to ban the right to bear arms!
 Sent2: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
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: 2) ensure that the right to keep and bear arms for a militia is not infringed.
Output: Similar
Sent1: If a criminal steals a legally purchased gun from a law abiding gun owner, we are still faced with a situation where the criminal's actions and intent are to blame, not the gun itself.
 Sent2: The only way to prevent guns from falling in the hands of criminals is by law abiding people buying every gun that is manufactured and thus leaving no guns available for criminals to buy.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: It is interesting how people that want to ban the right to bear arms never apply their logic to the rights they like.
 Sent2: Why do people that want what they call reasonable limits on the right to bear arms demand laws that only law abiding citizens will obey?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I don't even carry a gun concealed nor openly, but I have to defend what is right, just because it is right!
 Sent2: Well, owning handguns for personal home protection is different that carrying guns in a concealed fashion for protection.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: where gun control laws prohibit good law abiding citizens from carrying a gun to protect themselves and others.
 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: Do you think that a gun-ban in the long run would mean that more criminals get their hands on guns or that less criminals get their hands on guns?
 Sent2: Gun haters think banning guns will make criminals stop being criminals.
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: Anybody that wants gun control laws that infringe on the right to bear arms is a gun haters!
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Civilians with other types of gun should be shot on sight by them.
 Sent2: This is why they are not collective rights like the gun haters
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You say that gun control must not be effective because the study's conclusions about gun control were inconclusive.
 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: Law abiding citizens obey the law, there can surely be no reason to prohibit them form having guns.
 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: 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: Although I think a gun-ban should be effective since you can�t eliminate criminality entirely, and it�s the criminals, lunatics and otherwise unbalanced people that you don�t want to have guns or have an easy time getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The 2nd Amendment gives citizens the rights to own a gun, not the Militia Act.
 Sent2: The 2nd Amendment does NOT provide an individual the Right to own gun(s) for the PURPOSE OF providing for: food, self-defense, target practice, a hobby as a collector, or fun.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 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: 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.
 Sent2: Another defense mechanism commonly utilized by supporters of gun control is denial.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: where gun control laws prohibit good law abiding citizens from carrying a gun to protect themselves and others.
 Sent2: Gun control laws do not deprive gun ownership for those who do not follow laws.
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: 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: When criminals are forced to use toy guns, your gun control policies are working.
 Sent2: Burglars do not use guns, muggers do not use 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: 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: 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.
 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: To inact a law that makes a crime of illegal gun ownership has no effect on criminal ownership of guns.
 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 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: 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 support letting people who already have guns actually being allowed to carry them, but I haven't seen anyone saying that we have to get hundreds of thousands of more guns bought up and distributed.
 Sent2: And as far as carrying in public, as long as I have commited no crime, then why should anyone need know I have my gun.
Output: Not 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: 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: Not similar
Sent1: IF you previously had laws that made openly carrying weapons illegal, and you then pass a concealed carry law, if somebody is carrying a gun and it is not concealed, they are breaking the law.
 Sent2: The issue here is your wish to carry a gun as according to a law, which you don't really respect anyway, because you're quite happy to circumvent it all the time.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: And because as he so convincingly puts it : MORE GUNS= LESS CRIME
 Sent2: 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.
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 organized militia is equivalent to the well regulated militia of the second amendment.
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: 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.
Output: Not 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: Common sense gun control laws the gun haters want will only affect the law abiding citizens, not the criminals.
Output: Similar
Sent1: 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.
 Sent2: The only way the person would get the gun back is if the person was found not guilty.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun hater pilot 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!
 Sent2: A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use.
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: Gun haters are the extremist hate group demanding to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Sent1: First you say no law will ever stop criminals from getting guns but now youre saying that criminals are never gun owners.
 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: 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: 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: For instance I don't think that eliminating gun control is the only answer crime control is also needed.
 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: But if such magazines would benefit law abiding citizens in an armed conflict then why couldn't they also benefit criminals?
 Sent2: Why do people that want what they call reasonable limits on the right to bear arms demand laws that only law abiding citizens will obey?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Federal law doesn't give them authority to require sale reports of multiple shotgun and rifle sales, only handguns.
 Sent2: Exactly how would multiple sales reports filed in rifle purchases qualify as "the right thing?"
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Police do not know how many guns are in the state or where they are.
 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: 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 have a right to use a gun to defend ourselves and others.
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: 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?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Felons are not allowed to buy guns.....terrorists would not be allowed to take guns on planes.
 Sent2: In fact, it seems as if allowing people to carry guns on board aircraft made it easier for the terrorists to hijack them, as the terrorists in many cases just walked right on board with the guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: So now you're saying that just because somebody owns a gun, they're somehow more likely to start killing people than somebody who doesn't own a gun?
 Sent2: The gun wont kill you without someone behind it, not all people have the right reasons for haveing a gun, but does that mean people who do have the right reasons will be punished and left unarmed, and defensless?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Countries that ban guns or implement stricter laws concerning firearms have lower crime rates.
 Sent2: The reality is that in developed nations with stricter gun laws than the US there are less outlaws owning and using guns.
Output: Similar
Sent1: You will go to your grave trying for more and more and even more gun control.
 Sent2: Would you want your children to go to a school where everyone was allowed to have a gun?
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: Name me one gun control law that has been effective as crime control!!!!!!
Output: Not similar
Sent1: All one can reasonably conclude is that more firearms does not increase the homicide rate, nor does less guns reduce it.
 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: The people that want gun control laws are the ones using the militia lie.
 Sent2: The only gun control law that is needed is the law that prohibits a person from committing a crime with a gun.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: IF you previously had laws that made openly carrying weapons illegal, and you then pass a concealed carry law, if somebody is carrying a gun and it is not concealed, they are breaking the law.
 Sent2: If the court in Aymette thought the RKBA to have no individual component, why would they even make a distinction between concealed weapons and weapons carried openly.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Bad Gun control are things that hinder a lawfull person from being able to purchase and use firearms.
 Sent2: Gun control should be left to the person holding the 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: Once we disarm law abiding citizens, the only armed civilians around will be criminals who would never willingly give up their weapons.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The right to carry concealed weapons across state lines exists only in the fertile constitutional imagination of the gun lobby.
 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: Only why would you need gun registration if guns were illegal?
 Sent2: Are you sure that it is ENTIRELY illegal to own a firearm, or is it possible to obtain a permit for one?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: IF you previously had laws that made openly carrying weapons illegal, and you then pass a concealed carry law, if somebody is carrying a gun and it is not concealed, they are breaking the law.
 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: That is why current federal law specifically forbids registration of gun owners and guns and gun transactions: "any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions.
 Sent2: No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition.
Output: 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: Furthermore, the Founders envisioned people being armed with much less powerful weapons when they wrote the Second Amendment.
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: I think a better debate would be when should gun control start?
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: 2) ensure that the right to keep and bear arms for a militia is not infringed.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: It dealt with an individual right and further indentified the limits of that right to be certain that the RKBA provision would not be construed to protect the carrying of concealed weapons.
 Sent2: Well, owning handguns for personal home protection is different that carrying guns in a concealed fashion for protection.
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: 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: Not similar
Sent1: Once we disarm law abiding citizens, the only armed civilians around will be criminals who would never willingly give up their weapons.
 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: Similar
Sent1: Illinois is a gun control haven, the laws are very strict, various models of firearms are banned from civilian ownership, licenses of various kinds are needed for possession and purchasing, and there are no private sales, etc.
 Sent2: No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You argue that the ban worked, yet at the same time you claim that gun makers found a way around the law, releasing the same weapons as before but in a way that made them technically legal.
 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: Law abiding citizens are not criminals, therefore, they have no reason to use these weapons unless for self defense of oneself or others.
 Sent2: So anybody who has a gun for self protection is now dead because they dont have guns, just the criminals.
Output: Not 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: If guns really provided this kind of protection, we could easily imagine that one of the previous nine murder attempts would have been successful, had the victim not possessed a gun.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The laws the gun haters want will keep the right to bear arms from the law abiding citizens!
 Sent2: Now if you want gun control laws that limit or ban the right to bear arms you are a gun haters.
Output: 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: Therefore, we should not allow anyone to carry a gun on a plane, because these people may either be law abiding or not.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Should a drug user, a felon, be banned from possessing WEAPONS, especially guns??
 Sent2: But that does not change the fact that the law has made the individual into a prohibited person, so that her gun possession is, in itself, a federal felony.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I've been told by gun activists that the second amendment protects a limited right and therefore people can be banned from owning WMD's.
 Sent2: And I don't think that the second amendment is a good argument against gun control since the federal courts have not recognized gun-control as being offensive to the second amendment.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I like guns as much as the normal person does but if guns are abused by people, we need restictions.
 Sent2: 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.
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: 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: You somehow seem to think that getting rid of guns will stop people from killing each other.
 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: 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: 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: 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: Federal law doesn't give them authority to require sale reports of multiple shotgun and rifle sales, only handguns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 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: To support this open carry ban, you have argued that no right exists to carry a loaded handgun outside the home���making them useless and therefore the ban is just sweeping up the crumbs.
 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: Gun ownership is a protected right, and the fact that criminals use guns in the commission of crime will never change this fact.
 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: 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: Gun prohibitionists argue that the Second Amendment confers a right to bear arms only on duly enrolled members of a state militia.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 1) Protection - The argument suggests that guns protect us from dangerous individuals.
 Sent2: We have a right to use a gun to defend ourselves and others.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The theory is that reducing the overall number of handguns will somehow reduce gun crime, which is a little like saying that reducing the overall number of cars will reduce drunk driving.
 Sent2: The Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, a division of Handgun Control, Inc., disagreed with Lott's findings, as well as the overall assumption that a reduction in the availability of guns in society reduces violent crime.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Gun bans simple ban law abiding citizens from having guns.
 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: People that read the 2nd amend as a militia thing also must think dangerous criminals will obey gun control laws.
 Sent2: The 2nd Amendment gives citizens the rights to own a gun, not the Militia Act.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun control laws do not affect criminals because criminals do not obey these laws.
 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: 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: I don't think it's so much the media as the fact that no one is used to seeing people with guns, so when they do they assume they are in the middle of a combat zone.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun free zones are areas where law-abiding citizens are forbidden to carry guns.
 Sent2: Gun free zones are zones where criminals will have guns because criminals will not obey the laws about gun free zones.
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: If guns are banned, there will obviously be less guns in circulation.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: We're talking about deadly lethal weapons that are way more powerful than what the authors of the Second Amendment had in mind.
 Sent2: As for the second amendment and whether gun ownership is a right or a priviledge we can discuss later.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I think law abiding citizens should be allowed to carry conceled weapons.
 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: Gun control laws will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws!
 Sent2: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
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: You can not use this as evidence that the reduction in crime is due to the gun ban.
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: But is the answer to take down the gun free zones...and just allow kids to carry guns to school?
Output: Similar
Sent1: Even without this preamble the second amendment would still only protect a right in connection with militia service.
 Sent2: Your argument is that the Second Amendment was designed for purposes relating to the militia exclusively, and individuals being armed for matters not related to the government was never something the Founding Fathers felt necessary to protect.
Output: Similar
Sent1: I don't even carry a gun concealed nor openly, but I have to defend what is right, just because it is right!
 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: Gun control laws will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws!
 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: 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: 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.
Output: Similar
Sent1: 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.
 Sent2: We have more crime than fully armed countries not because we don't have guns.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Of course, when the founders wrote the Second Amendment they had in mind people owning much less powerful weapons than gun owners have now.
 Sent2: We're talking about deadly lethal weapons that are way more powerful than what the authors of the Second Amendment had in mind.
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: Strange isn't where the law abiding are disarmed by the gun control idea of wet dream laws yet there are still firearms floating about the criminal classes.
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: all guns are used for is killing, they are weapons.
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: 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: If a criminal steals a legally purchased gun from a law abiding gun owner, we are still faced with a situation where the criminal's actions and intent are to blame, not the gun itself.
 Sent2: because I've made a legitimate point that not all gun owners abide by the law?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I like guns as much as the normal person does but if guns are abused by people, we need restictions.
 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 guess the criminals are comfortable with the fact they will not be confronted with a armed citizen.
 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: 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.
 Sent2: Even if attacks still occur, having civilians with permitted concealed handguns limits the damage.
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: Private ownership of guns may indeed add to the number of weapons held by criminals, but it is not their major source of weapons.
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: 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: Obviously, using the second amendment to oppose laws regulating such weapons is highly questionably."
 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: 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.
 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: 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: 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.
Output: Similar
Sent1: You will go to your grave trying for more and more and even more gun control.
 Sent2: All of the Gun control you call for has been tried in other countries and the Criminals Still import guns in with their drugs.
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: Amendment protects the right of the states to arm their militias.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Certainly illegal transfers but I would also look at those that can't seem to secure their weapons against theft.
 Sent2: Making guns illegal, requiring background checks, banning scary looking guns, banning certain bullets and reestricting concealed carry to those who are willing to put their name, fingerprints, and such on file does nothing to control crime.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: It's also silly to argue that the Second Amendment only protects arms in common use.
 Sent2: Here's the thing...the Second Amendment and the right to be armed for your own defense isn't just a right, it's a fundamental, human, and individual right.
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: 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: 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?
 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: Not similar
Sent1: School district employees should not be carrying weapons on campus, just as students should not be carrying weapons."
 Sent2: You propose to abolish gun free zones, and allow people to carry guns into schools.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: It involved a ban of guns within a certain proximity to schools.
 Sent2: Well, not all colleges are government institutions and our government has traditionally banned guns from certain locations not in violation of the 2nd amendment.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Since there are gun deaths in countries that have banned guns, the gun bans did not work.
 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: 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: The 2nd amendment only protects a states right to own a Militia.
Output: Similar
Sent1: In some states, some guns are just not allowed and it sticks as a law.
 Sent2: In other words changing out the barrel on an unrestricted firearm could stick you with a prohibited weapon, and viceversa where a simple barrel change that allow anyone to avoid the law.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If you believe what you say in:as it is presently, gun crimes still occur, people have their rights to own guns revoked on a case by case basis, and dying of gun shots is actually very rare.
 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: Not similar
Sent1: Feel free to present the evidence that shows that we're allowing criminals to freely buy guns and that we have no laws in place to stop this from occurring.
 Sent2: The only way to prevent guns from falling in the hands of criminals is by law abiding people buying every gun that is manufactured and thus leaving no guns available for criminals to buy.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Second, regulating private party sales will not render gun shows unimpor-tant as sources of trafficked crime guns; the best evidence is that most of those guns are sold by licensed retailers.
 Sent2: Define 'gun show' to include specialized gun events, as well as flea markets and other markets outside of licensed firearms shops at which 50 or more firearms, in total, are offered for sale by 2 or more persons.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
 Sent2: All of the gun control laws the gun haters want will only be obeyed by the law abiding citizens!
Output: Similar
Sent1: Do you think that a gun-ban in the long run would mean that more criminals get their hands on guns or that less criminals get their hands on guns?
 Sent2: Don't you think most citizens are as able to take care of themselves without a bunch of nanny gun grabbers trying to take their rights and guns away in the face of criminal misuse?
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: Gun hater pilot 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: This broader definition is used to cover general crimes committed with firearms (like possession by felons, armed career criminal violations, etc.)
 Sent2: Illegal firearms can be identified and linked to other firearms and to crimes and criminals.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Just knowing that there are many Senators and Congressmen who would like to abolish gun rights gives credence to the fact that government could actually try to limit or ban the 2nd Amendment in the future.
 Sent2: The 2nd Amendment gives citizens the rights to own a gun, not the Militia Act.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If gun bans worked there would be no gun deaths in the countries that have banned guns.
 Sent2: 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.
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: Indeed, the right to keep and bear arms���which we have explained pre-existed, and therefore was preserved by, the Second Amendment���was subject to restrictions at common law.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Prohibition led to an increase in organized crime, but that hasn't seemed to happen in nations that have banned guns.
 Sent2: Then why do nations which ban guns have a much lower gun crime rate than the US?
Output: Similar
Sent1: It involved a ban of guns within a certain proximity to schools.
 Sent2: A gun ban would make guns on the same level as drugs....
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I think the 2nd Amendment does apply to modern guns.
 Sent2: Comparing the 2nd amendment to other 'rights' doesn't really apply if I am seeking to remove the second amendment.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Most gun owners are just ordinary people who happen to own a firearm.
 Sent2: ...Virtually never are murderers the ordinary, law-abiding people against whom gun bans are aimed.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Second of all, I wholeheartedly believe in the thinking that guns don't kill people, people kill people.
 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