niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
Sent1: Gun free zones are areas where law-abiding citizens are forbidden to carry guns by law.
 Sent2: Gun free zones are areas where law-abiding citizens are forbidden to carry guns.
Output: Similar
Sent1: I already said children could tote around their parents guns.
 Sent2: They note the double standard that allows ''elites'' to carry guns, or have their children protected by armed bodyguards.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: How can a people defend themselves from the government, unless they are able to maintain the same weapons as the government has?
 Sent2: Police do not know how many guns are in the state or where they are.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
 Sent2: Gun control laws will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws!
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: So how is controlling the law-abiding going to help when murder is already illegal, it is already illegal for a convicted criminal to be even in the same room as a gun.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: #NAME?
 Sent2: Unless the second amendment is recognised as an individual right, and given the full protection of law as other rights are, there is nothing to say that a law could not be passed tomorrow banning all weapons in this country.
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: Illegal firearms can be identified and linked to other firearms and to crimes and criminals.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You have been shown the facts that most criminals get their guns from family members or they steal them, even from cops.
 Sent2: You are arguing in favor of charging someone with a crime after they were shown to be a victim of crime by having their private property stolen.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: In my state, home burglary is a felony punished by a maximum sentence of 1-20 years, unless the burglar is armed with a deadly weapon when he breaks in, which increases the punishment to 20 years to life.
 Sent2: If the burglar is armed with any deadly weapon (knife, crowbar, gun, etc) then the sentence range is not less than 20 years up to life imprisonment.
Output: Similar
Sent1: The problem is that widespread guns means greater criminal access to guns which means greater criminal gun use which means bad things.
 Sent2: NATO, Galileo has claimed that these laws are designed to reduce criminal use of guns (which would have to mean that they target the people, not the guns).
Output: Not similar
Sent1: ********* 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: 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: A law-abiding gun nut who uses their gun in committing a crime, is a criminal, and not law-abiding.
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: 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: Similar
Sent1: Gun control 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: All gun free zones can do, is keep law-abiding citizens from having guns.
 Sent2: Criminals will not be stopped from taking guns into gun free zones because criminals do not obey laws!
Output: Similar
Sent1: The bill would also protect gun manufacturers and dealers that have allowed their weapons to fall into the hands of criminals through their own negligence.
 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: 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: We have guns and we still have crime and lots of gun deaths.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Since they've never done this it's only safe to assume that they hate absolutely any kind of gun and want them all banned outright without exception.
 Sent2: It is interesting how people that want to ban the right to bear arms never apply their logic to the rights they like.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Let's see what they get, when REAL trouble happens, and they have to stop everything, and try to load the gun!
 Sent2: If people are going to carry guns for protection, they should be encouraged to put lots and lots of rounds through the gun.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: This appeared to me to be an argument that self defense cannot exist if a gun is used.
 Sent2: Law abiding citizens are not criminals, therefore, they have no reason to use these weapons unless for self defense of oneself or others.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: How many crimes are prevented each day because of the mere presence of a gun or even the suspicion that the victim or someone near by has a gun?
 Sent2: The only way the person would get the gun back is if the person was found not guilty.
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: If we're going to ban guns,we might as well bans knives,fireworks,and even computers.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Guns don't kill people, people kill people: absolutely true, but guns allow people to kill people with greater efficiency, which is not necessarily a good thing outside of the battlefield.
 Sent2: Many people who would never dream of shooting a person can own a gun simply for the artistry of a well made machine, people hunt with guns as well.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: We tell them what was meant when the law passed, but even these gun owners do not care what was meant, they only care what the law says!
 Sent2: So somebody try and tell us, that with stuff like this going on, that America still needs to overhaul its gun laws to bring them more in line with those of Mexico.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You have been shown the facts that most criminals get their guns from family members or they steal them, even from cops.
 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: Right now we have the worst of both strategies, gun laws are restrictive enough that not many criminals are being stopped by citizens; they are permissive enough that low level criminals may still own a gun legally.
 Sent2: Which is why the ban is a bit of a poor compromise, they've banned guns for law abiding people but they've not done enough to make sure criminals don't have them.
Output: 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: They do not have the expressed, enumerated power to pass any law regarding guns in the constitution.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If guns would be made illegal, then only criminals would have them.
 Sent2: If you take away the civilian's only right to self defense, how are they suppose to defend themselves from the criminals who buy weapons and drugs from the black market illegally.
Output: Similar
Sent1: If guns are banned, the only people who will surrender them are those who commit nearly no gun crime at all.
 Sent2: This they cannot do without abandoning the more guns = more crime myth.
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: 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: 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: Gun control laws do not affect criminals because criminals do not obey these laws.
Output: Similar
Sent1: A gun ban would make guns on the same level as drugs....
 Sent2: Do not ban guns when guns are the tools of man.
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: If you want to end gun deaths you can eliminate the guns and in the US that saves a lot of lives on paper.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Please explain further how "to keep and bear arms" is a qualifier on "the people".
 Sent2: The prefatory phrase is a rationale for the non-infringement of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, however the prefatory phrase does NOT qualify "the right" or "the people".
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: Only why would you need gun registration if guns were illegal?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: There's no evidence to prove the believe that when guns are less available, less criminals will be armed than if guns were more readily available.
 Sent2: I have a better theory as to why there's a supposed smaller availability of guns to criminals in the UK; because there are less people and obviously fewer guns were ever made or imported to begin with.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The 2nd Amendment is not there to entitle you to all of the gun control you want!
 Sent2: The 2nd Amendment doesn't say you have to be in a militia or participate one, it just aknowledges your right to own firearms for the purpose of forming one; i.e. no membership is implied or required to exercise it.
Output: Similar
Sent1: "to keep and bear Arms" - this would include any gun
 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: Notice not one of the common sense gun control laws gun hater pilot is demanding is to punish dangerous criminals by keeping them in prison to keep guns away from them!
 Sent2: The only problem with gun hater pilot�۪s common sense bs is that the dangerous criminals these laws are meant to keep guns away from do not obey gun control laws!
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You keep claiming that you're not of the anti-gun camp, that you actually support the Second Amendment.
 Sent2: You guys have willed yourselves just as retarded as the people who claimed (And still claim) that the second amendment only conveys a right for the national guard to have weapons.
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: I really do not care particularly what gun control laws states or cities pass.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: While their by no means should be an outlaw of guns, I do believe restrictions should be put in place.
 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: Would you want your children to go to a school where everyone was allowed to have a gun?
 Sent2: You're not allowed to assemble your gun, not even in event of a break in, you're not allowed to load it, or take it from one room of your house to another.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun Control does not work, well unless you mean by working that crime sky rockets in which case I would have to agree with you and then question your motives as to why you would want it here.
 Sent2: There are situations where I'll be more in control of my destiny without a gun and you corner yourself and lost complete control of your destiny because of your gun.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I think the 2nd Amendment does apply to modern guns.
 Sent2: As a gun-owner and/or strong 2nd Amendment advocate, its importance cannot be overstated, and I do believe it has the potential to render a slew of local, state and federal laws null and void.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Second, the only reason that you would bother notifying the police is if you think there is some possibility that the person will be charged with trying to illegally obtain a gun.
 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: For every one crime gun that California exports, we get more than two crime guns imported back into our state."
 Sent2: We have more crime than fully armed countries not because we don't have guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun free zones are areas where law-abiding citizens are forbidden to carry guns by law.
 Sent2: Criminals enter gun free zones with guns to commit crimes against unarmed law-abiding citizens.
Output: Similar
Sent1: The logic of less guns in law abiding citizens hands means less gun crime is clearly insane.
 Sent2: The opposite of "more guns = less crime is not true" is not "more guns = more crime".
Output: Not similar
Sent1: ...Virtually never are murderers the ordinary, law-abiding people against whom gun bans are aimed.
 Sent2: Cars kill people everyday just the same as guns, but nobody is trying to ban cars.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: How can a people defend themselves from the government, unless they are able to maintain the same weapons as the government has?
 Sent2: People constantly trumpet about how having a gun means that they can protect themselves, but first they must be able to fire the gun on another human being, something that most people find hard to do.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Doesn't hold together, though - you have no evidence that criminal arms supply is unaffected by gun control.
 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: Similar
Sent1: Explain exactly how the judges ruling that the Second Amendment is truly an individual right, how DC's ban on handgun ownership and their trigger lock requirements being unconstitutional, would in any way suggest that one-gun-a-month laws pass constitutional muster.
 Sent2: The Supreme Court has determined that the Second Amendment is directly linked to personal defense, not anything like hunting, and therefore a "sporting only" prerequisite for owning a firearm would never pass constitutional muster.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Read the article, it is about why guns are vilified and the evil deadly cars that kill far more kids then guns are not!
 Sent2: The fact that you like cars is why you will tolerate the fact that more kids are killed by cars then guns.
Output: Similar
Sent1: People constantly trumpet about how having a gun means that they can protect themselves, but first they must be able to fire the gun on another human being, something that most people find hard to do.
 Sent2: If people are going to carry guns for protection, they should be encouraged to put lots and lots of rounds through the gun.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: This high-risk group can legally acquire guns in the secondary market, even though they are prohibited from doing so in the primary gun market.
 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: 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: Unless the second amendment is recognised as an individual right, and given the full protection of law as other rights are, there is nothing to say that a law could not be passed tomorrow banning all weapons in this country.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Keeping violent criminals in prison would do far more to reduce gun crime than banning guns.
 Sent2: Banning guns will not ban the threat of criminal violence it will just make the law abiding subject to the will and whim of the stronger thugs
Output: 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: 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: with regard to the fact that most gun crime is from illegl guns, in that case why not make all guns illegal.
 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: Only why would you need gun registration if guns were illegal?
 Sent2: First you need to be old enough to be able to legally own a weapon and vote to change laws.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: It is legal to own weapons in this country, they are just tightly controlled, and as a result we have far less gun crime (particularly where it's not related to organised crime).
 Sent2: Prohibition led to an increase in organized crime, but that hasn't seemed to happen in nations that have banned guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: So by you saying tourists are afraid to come to America because they might get shot in one of our cities, implies that gun owners are participating in criminal activities as well.
 Sent2: First you say no law will ever stop criminals from getting guns but now youre saying that criminals are never gun owners.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You've made the argument that registration of firearms is perfectly legal and constitutional, despite the fact that the Firearm Owners Protection Act forbids any and all type of database of guns or gun owners.
 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: Gun hater pilot will then say why do you need to target shoot if you no longer need guns to hunt or defend yourself?
 Sent2: Simple if gun haters want people defending the right to bear arms to be in militias, why would you want the militias to have lesser weapons then the enemies they are defending against?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Finally it mentions that Swiss "gun control" is not the reason for the low crime rates and, granted, it also mentions that this system is not proof that more guns means less crime.
 Sent2: The opposite of "more guns = less crime is not true" is not "more guns = more crime".
Output: Not similar
Sent1: And it is legal to ban marijuana and cigarets but guns are protected by the constitution.
 Sent2: You've made the argument that registration of firearms is perfectly legal and constitutional, despite the fact that the Firearm Owners Protection Act forbids any and all type of database of guns or gun owners.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Screw "putting more guns on the street", how about we give gun owners more rights and more legal opportunities to use them and stop pandering to the criminals.
 Sent2: So we should take things/ rights away from people because there is a potential they could do criminal things with them?
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: The states with the higher numbers of minorities have the higher rates of gun control because they claim they have more crime.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: No, they just don't 'fear' in general, their fears are directed at something (madmen with guns ;)), and those that do find other ways to feel protected (usually in society rather than being a lone individual).
 Sent2: The only way the person would get the gun back is if the person was found not guilty.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Another large source of guns used in crimes are unlicensed street dealers who either get their guns through illegal transactions with licensed dealers, straw purchases, or from gun thefts.
 Sent2: buying guns, there is no requirement that federally licensed gun manufacturers and dealers
Output: Not similar
Sent1: All gun control laws do is stop law abiding citizens from having guns!
 Sent2: Criminals kill people so gun haters like gun hater pilot want to pass gun control laws that only law abiding citizens obey!
Output: Similar
Sent1: Or that the Second Amendment only keeps the federal government from passing new gun control laws?
 Sent2: Unless the second amendment is recognised as an individual right, and given the full protection of law as other rights are, there is nothing to say that a law could not be passed tomorrow banning all weapons in this country.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If that means gun control then so be it, but it does not.
 Sent2: Gun control means that responsible taxpaying workers are unable to defend themselves.
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: 2) ensure that the right to keep and bear arms for a militia is not infringed.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
 Sent2: Anybody that wants gun control laws that infringe on the right to bear arms is a gun haters!
Output: 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 stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: 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: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Output: Similar
Sent1: If you need guns to ensure that your government doesn't become corrupt or tyranical you wouldn't want them to know where the guns are, would you?
 Sent2: The fact that you need a permit to do it does give the cops a pretext to ask to see your papers just as they can ask to see your DL if you're sitting behind the wheel.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Most parents today don't buy their kids toy guns and certainly not realistic replicas.
 Sent2: I already said children could tote around their parents guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The bill would also protect gun manufacturers and dealers that have allowed their weapons to fall into the hands of criminals through their own negligence.
 Sent2: Felons are not allowed to buy guns.....terrorists would not be allowed to take guns on planes.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: People who follow laws, aren't causing problems with the guns they own.
 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: I think law abiding citizens should be allowed to carry conceled weapons.
 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: First, the ruling was that the Second Amendment only applied to firearms that had a militia purposes and that the sawed-off shotgun in question didn't have any evidence of being suitable for a militia.
 Sent2: In the Miller case, the court essentially ruled that the second ammendment does indeed convey an individual right, but that the right in question is dependant on the type of weapon (i.e must be suitable for military use).
Output: Similar
Sent1: Also: More people are killed in car accidents than are killed by guns.
 Sent2: Many people who would never dream of shooting a person can own a gun simply for the artistry of a well made machine, people hunt with guns as well.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The gun industry should be protected against lawsuits because criminal gun dealers who sell firearms to child killers are law abiding, model citizens according to the NRA.
 Sent2: Would the simple fact that criminals and terrorist knowing that law abiding citizens can defend themselves with guns force the criminals and terrorist to not attack people?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun free zones are zones where criminals will have guns because criminals will not obey the laws about gun free zones.
 Sent2: Criminals do not obey the laws about gun free zones.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Thus, people do not turn to knives and other potententially lethal weapons less often when more guns are available, but more guns usually means more victims of homicide and suicide."
 Sent2: Please tell the murder victims in these other countries that gun control works.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Some passionately assert that the Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns.
 Sent2: It wouldn't protect the guns owned at the home of someone in the National Guard.]
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The 2nd Amendment is not there to entitle you to all of the gun control you want!
 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: Yet this gun grabber group of drooling nit wits wants more laws that attack the law abiding.
 Sent2: These laws are all part of the gun grabbers` wholesale attack on private gun ownership.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Gun free zones are zones where criminals will have guns because criminals will not obey the laws about gun free zones.
 Sent2: Criminals enter gun free zones with guns to commit crimes against unarmed law-abiding citizens.
Output: Similar
Sent1: All one can reasonably conclude is that more firearms does not increase the homicide rate, nor does less guns reduce it.
 Sent2: The homicide rate has climbed drasticaly with every gun control measure.
Output: Similar
Sent1: For every one crime gun that California exports, we get more than two crime guns imported back into our state."
 Sent2: One of the reason we are the country we are is because of our right to own guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Second of all, I wholeheartedly believe in the thinking that guns don't kill people, people kill people.
 Sent2: Guns don't kill people, people kill people: absolutely true, but guns allow people to kill people with greater efficiency, which is not necessarily a good thing outside of the battlefield.
Output: Similar
Sent1: We border two countries one of which is quite corrupt, what makes you think that criminals can't get guns.
 Sent2: One of the reason we are the country we are is because of our right to own guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: One such person who is prohibited by federal law from having a firearm at all is the convicted felon:
 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: Police cannot do this, and indeed do not themselves even claim to be able to do so.
 Sent2: There's not a single piece of evidence to support your claim that gun owners want the police to leave the criminals alone, or that we want gun traffickers to remain free on the streets.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If guns would be made illegal, then only criminals would have them.
 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: This appeared to me to be an argument that self defense cannot exist if a gun is used.
 Sent2: I am, however, suprised that gun rights advocates use this case to defend the right to own guns, because the case seems to imply the opposite, as stated by Tim.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Name me one gun control law that has been effective as crime control!!!!!!
 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: because I've made a legitimate point that not all gun owners abide by the law?
 Sent2: Right now it is against the law for the government to keep a database of gun owners, that that law would have to be changed, and I think you also know this.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun control should be left to the person holding the gun.
 Sent2: Gun control laws only control the guns in the hands of people who follow laws.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The language itself is not dubious or ambiguous: ���A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.�۝
 Sent2: Amendment militia preamble is no different: ���A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state�۝���a state in which the citizen need not fear the ambitions of a would-be military tyrant at the head of a standing army.
Output: Similar
Sent1: There is no reason why gun owners should have to pay taxes to support police protection for people not wanting to own guns.
 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: Before the Brady Law any criminal could walk into a gun store and easily purchase a gun.
 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: That pretty much boiled down to laws against felons having weapons, laws against the mentally defective having weapons, and laws against carrying weapons in sensitive places.
 Sent2: And where laws were passed, the gun lobby has had success in watering those laws down.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Do you believe,after all you have said demeaning the 2A, Constitution and self-defense, that you should be allowed to purchase and use a gun in times of civil unrest or an attack on your home and family?
 Sent2: You're not allowed to assemble your gun, not even in event of a break in, you're not allowed to load it, or take it from one room of your house to another.
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: Now if you want gun control laws that limit or ban the right to bear arms you are a gun haters.
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: 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: IF you want them armed, why not let law abiding citizens who have passed a background check, a firearms safety check, and a marksmanship test carry their guns?
 Sent2: Criminals and terrorist are going to have all the guns they want no matter how many security measures enacted to disarm the law-abiding citizen by people such as you.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Government does not possess the authority to enact a total ban on firearm owners actually transporting their firearms, it violates the "bear" of the "keep and bear" provision of the second amendment.
 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: Yes, that must be the reason why in other developed nations where there are more restrictions on guns less defenseless people are being murdered by criminals.
 Sent2: My point was that the theory that more gun control leaves people defenseless does not explain the lower murder rates in other developed nations.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Supporting gun control to stop violent criminals, is like supporting a ban on cameras to stop child pornography.
 Sent2: Gun haters think banning guns will make criminals stop being criminals.
Output: 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: In some states, some guns are just not allowed and it sticks as a law.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If that means gun control then so be it, but it does not.
 Sent2: It's just that on these forums, the words 'gun control' usually refer to extremely tight gun laws, or outright banning of guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The 2nd Amendment is not there to entitle you to all of the gun control you want!
 Sent2: Only why would you need gun registration if guns were illegal?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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?
 Sent2: The only people that obey gun control laws that prevent people from taking guns any where are law abiding people.
Output: Similar
Sent1: If the CDC states that the ban was ineffective, then it should be a given that bans do NOT work.
 Sent2: If the D.C. gun ban was ineffective because illegal guns were leaking into D.C. from other states that would be an argument for having more gun control in other states.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun free zones are areas where law-abiding citizens are forbidden to carry guns by law.
 Sent2: Criminals will not be stopped from taking guns into gun free zones because criminals do not obey laws!
Output: Similar
Sent1: If people are smoking themselves to death then that is their business, but if people are murdering each other with guns then there is more reason for government intervention.
 Sent2: Yes, that must be the reason why in other developed nations where there are more restrictions on guns less defenseless people are being murdered by criminals.
Output: Not 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: Her: I don't think people should be allowed to carry guns.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Notice not one of the common sense gun control laws gun hater pilot is demanding is to punish dangerous criminals by keeping them in prison to keep guns away from them!
 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: Gun ban = No civilians can protect themselves using a firearm = Criminals can illegally purchase guns, like tons already do.
 Sent2: If you take away the civilian's only right to self defense, how are they suppose to defend themselves from the criminals who buy weapons and drugs from the black market illegally.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Gun control in the U.S. does not equal crime control.
 Sent2: Most of the "gun control" laws we have in the US have no potential to impact crime at all, except perhaps making the streets safer for criminals who have an unarmed public to prey upon.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Civilians with other types of gun should be shot on sight by them.
 Sent2: The gun rights advocates I know are generally not like this, they support rights regardless if whther they agree with how they are being practiced or not.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Because the term "gun nut" has come to mean a disparaging remark about anybody that supports the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, and favors gun ownership over gun bans.
 Sent2: Unless the second amendment is recognised as an individual right, and given the full protection of law as other rights are, there is nothing to say that a law could not be passed tomorrow banning all weapons in this country.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 Sent2: Criminals that do not obey gun control laws will be able to obtain guns and use them on the unarmed law-abiding citizens.
Output: Similar
Sent1: For instance I don't think that eliminating gun control is the only answer crime control is also needed.
 Sent2: The only gun control law that is needed is the law that prohibits a person from committing a crime with a gun.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Second, the only reason that you would bother notifying the police is if you think there is some possibility that the person will be charged with trying to illegally obtain a gun.
 Sent2: The first thing you need to do when someone is charged with a crime is understand what the charge is and what must be proved.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
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: The gun show review found that firearms were diverted at and through gun shows by straw purchasers, unregulated private sellers, and licensed dealers.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Government does not possess the authority to enact a total ban on firearm owners actually transporting their firearms, it violates the "bear" of the "keep and bear" provision of the second amendment.
 Sent2: The legislation retained an existing ban on consuming alcohol while carrying a handgun.
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: Unarmed law-abiding citizens are victims of gun crimes because criminals do not obey the gun ban in that gun free zone.
Output: 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: All one can reasonably conclude is that more firearms does not increase the homicide rate, nor does less guns reduce it.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: there are too many gun deaths and while there will never be a ban in America i find it appalling that so many fight to prevent gun restrictions and background checks.
 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: Burglars do not use guns, muggers do not use guns.
 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: 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: Which is why the ban is a bit of a poor compromise, they've banned guns for law abiding people but they've not done enough to make sure criminals don't have them.
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: Many thousands of Guns are stolen and used in GUN CREATED CRIME because most legal gun owners
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Attacking a person who happens to have no weapon while you have a knife would make you a clear candidate for the penitentiary.
 Sent2: Also, you must note that politicians own guns themselves, and have armed bodyguards.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: A much higher gun ownership rate than other developed nations could explain this- that although crime occurs less frequently in the US crime is more likely to involve guns in the US so someone is more likely to die.
 Sent2: Then why do nations which ban guns have a much lower gun crime rate than the US?
Output: Similar
Sent1: That includes populations, gun homicides, non gun homicides and households with weapons in them.
 Sent2: Guns don't kill people, if they did, they would go to jail for murder- not the murderers.
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: When neither party to a transaction is a licensed firearms dealer, firearms transfers must be completed through a licensed dealer.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Even in the Emerson case although the court recognized the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right they didn't apply strict scrutiny (something that would be required if they were dealing with a fundamental right).
 Sent2: 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?
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: people who want to kill, will kill if you ban guns, they will kill with knives, or something else.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: All gun free zones can do, is keep 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: It is asserted, therefore, that the D.C. gun control laws irrationally prevent only law abiding citizens from owning handguns.
 Sent2: Gun control laws do not deprive gun ownership for those who do not follow laws.
Output: Similar
Sent1: This is needed to prevent gun owners from covering up sales to prohibited purchasers by later claiming ��� when those guns are traced to crime ��� that their guns were stolen.
 Sent2: Would-be gun owners must justify their need for a weapon and undergo competency training and background checks, which prohibit anyone with a history of substance abuse or violent crime from owning a gun.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: In short, Norway has more guns, yet less people killing each other.
 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: If gun bans worked there would be no gun deaths in the countries that have banned guns.
 Sent2: However, even though there were less deaths, there was a surge in gun crime, death and non-death related, after the ban on guns.
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: The right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable right, it is not a policy decision nor a political decision, it is an enumerated RIGHT against all positive forms of government and retained by the people.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: All gun free zones can do, is keep law-abiding citizens from having guns.
 Sent2: Criminals do not obey the laws about gun free zones.
Output: Similar
Sent1: One private individual asking another if they have guns in the home and then offering them a pamphlet on firearms safety if they say yes has nothing at all to do with gun control or the second amendment.
 Sent2: Speaking of the 14th amendment, there is one scholar that says an individual right to own a gun came with the 14th amendment, not the second amendment.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: So how is controlling the law-abiding going to help when murder is already illegal, it is already illegal for a convicted criminal to be even in the same room as a gun.
 Sent2: Illegal firearms can be identified and linked to other firearms and to crimes and 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: 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: If individual citizens should not, in your view, be permitted to own firearms, them make your case and let the amendment process work to make your view the law of the land.
 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: 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: They do not have the expressed, enumerated power to pass any law regarding guns in the constitution.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If guns would be made illegal, then only criminals would have them.
 Sent2: If guns are banned, the only people that will be affected will be the people that buy guns for protection from criminals, who get their guns illegally anyway.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The people that want gun control laws are the ones using the militia lie.
 Sent2: The only people that obey gun control laws that prevent people from taking guns any where are law abiding people.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 Sent2: Another bill that we would like to see go in the trash is the ban on manufacture of machine guns.
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: 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: The only people that obey gun control laws that prevent people from taking guns any where are law abiding people.
 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: now imagine if no criminals could get hold of a gun, you wouldn't need a protection, as no criminals have guns.
 Sent2: Doesn't hold together, though - you have no evidence that criminal arms supply is unaffected by gun control.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: All gun free zones can do, is keep law-abiding citizens from having guns.
 Sent2: Criminals enter gun free zones with guns to commit crimes against unarmed law-abiding citizens.
Output: Similar
Sent1: The Founders had in mind guns that were much less powerful when they wrote the Second Amendment.
 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: 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.
 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: Police do not know how many guns are in the state or where they are.
 Sent2: If it was just a gun thing then they could go from internation flights from countries with no guns, but it isn't.
Output: Not similar