niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
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: 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.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Law abiding citizens obey the law, there can surely be no reason to prohibit them form having guns.
 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: Not similar
Sent1: And several states have recently passed laws allowing gun owners to carry firearms in more places ��� bars, restaurants, cars and parks.
 Sent2: In some states, some guns are just not allowed and it sticks as a law.
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 law-abiding citizens are forbidden to have guns because law-abiding citizens obey the law about gun free zones.
Output: Similar
Sent1: sure you can kill with other things, but most homicide weapons are guns.
 Sent2: The fact that you like cars is why you will tolerate the fact that more kids are killed by cars then guns.
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 look at D.C. we can see that people who had registered their guns before the gun ban were allowed to keep their guns after the ban took effect.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Most gun owners are just ordinary people who happen to own a firearm.
 Sent2: Of course, when the founders wrote the Second Amendment they had in mind people owning much less powerful weapons than gun owners have now.
Output: 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: Gun owners don't drive into crowds of people simply because they had a gun in their car.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Even if true, During the "civil rights" era, Gun control laws were enacted to keep blacks from owning guns, such terms as Saturday night specials refer to afro-centric themes.
 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 organized militia is equivalent to the well regulated militia of the second amendment.
 Sent2: The Second Amendment isn't about a right to serve in the militia as a government owned slave.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: WE AGREE THAT CRIMINALS SHOULDN'T BE ARMED, and the laws already exist on the books to punish them when convicted criminals are caught with guns.
 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: After all, since these lethal weapons are only used to kill or maim, the police must only carry them to kill or maim, huh?
 Sent2: Reports show that a small percentage of gun owners actually use a gun to defend themselves, there are more killed with a gun, than those using a gun to protect themselves, they cain't say it's used for selfdefense.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Felons are not allowed to buy guns.....terrorists would not be allowed to take guns on planes.
 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: CRIMINALS WHO HAVE BROKEN BOTH GUN LAWS AND MURDER LAWS, not just 'criminals', we have plenty of people in jail for things other than murder by gun.
 Sent2: Even in Japan, the nation with the most absolute strictest gun laws in the world, criminals are still getting their hands on banned guns and killing people with them.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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: Should guns be controlled, that would give people the right to demand that you surrender your weapons, just as the state currently demends that you hand over all terrorists, drugs and illegal material.
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: Because the purpose of the US Bill of Rights is to grant or guarantee rights, not to prohibit or curtail personal freedoms.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Criminals enter gun free zones with guns to commit crimes against unarmed law-abiding citizens.
 Sent2: Criminals will not be stopped from taking guns into gun free zones because criminals do not obey laws!
Output: Similar
Sent1: Most gun owners are just ordinary people who happen to own a firearm.
 Sent2: Guns are becoming more easier to purchase and people are becoming more insane.humans are killing more innocent people everyday!
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I think penfolds basic mentality is that nobody should have guns but criminals and police, and if you face a criminal with a gun, sorry about the bad luck.
 Sent2: I do not believe OTHERS should not have guns, I think criminals and psychos who are yet to convict a gun crime should not have guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Guns are becoming more easier to purchase and people are becoming more insane.humans are killing more innocent people everyday!
 Sent2: Cars kill people everyday just the same as guns, but nobody is trying to ban cars.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: A disproportionate number of survey respondents were criminals, hence the correlation between gun ownership and murder.
 Sent2: If a gun owner knowingly sells to a prohibited felon who commits a murder with the gun, then the felon alone is responsible for the murder.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Plus, if all firearms are illegal, and if one were to illegally obtain a gun, why not own and use automatic weapons, just like the gangs in England are using?
 Sent2: Burglars do not use guns, muggers do not use guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: People that defend the right to bear arms that demand laws that punish criminals by keeping them in prison thus keeping guns away from them.
 Sent2: 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!
Output: 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: Now that said, one has to wonder why people for gun control or anti gun types keep telling people that defend the right to bear arms that they could not win a fight.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun haters are the extremist hate group demanding to ban the right to bear arms!
 Sent2: Of course if a hate groups such as the gun haters want to ban a right they will claim this!
Output: Similar
Sent1: The language itself is not dubious or ambiguous: ���A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.�۝
 Sent2: The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States America states that, ���A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.�۝
Output: Similar
Sent1: I think laws stating that you should not be allowed to carry guns onto airplanes or into schools are examples of common sense gun control laws meant to protect people.
 Sent2: You propose to abolish gun free zones, and allow people to carry guns into schools.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Most gun owners are just ordinary people who happen to own a firearm.
 Sent2: I implied that there are people with guns that are nuts, not that all gun owners are nuts...
Output: Similar
Sent1: I do see the sense in some measures such as restricting access to guns for people who have committed violent crimes.
 Sent2: 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: Let me clear this up right now, I'm not saying that your average citizen can not responsibly own and operate guns.
 Sent2: I can understand your belief that gun control won't work and that owning guns is a good thing, I don't agree with it, but is hardly beyond comprehension.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Doesn't hold together, though - you have no evidence that criminal arms supply is unaffected by gun control.
 Sent2: Gun control in the U.S. does not equal crime control.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: These laws are all part of the gun grabbers` wholesale attack on private gun ownership.
 Sent2: Congress has no specific grant of authority in the Constitution to regulate private ownership of firearms.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Although I still think that certain regulations need to be set in place in order to control the distribution of guns, complete gun control is not the answer; however, something still needs to be done.
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: These laws are all part of the gun grabbers` wholesale attack on private gun ownership.
 Sent2: It is a crime to be caught with a loaded gun in public (not at a private residence however, privacy laws and all that)
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: The 2nd Amendment gives citizens the rights to own a gun, not the Militia Act.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I have some experience in dealing with violent crime, and in my opinion we do not have a gun violence problem in America, we have a violence problem in general.
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Making a gun free zone does nothing to prevent guns from entering it.
 Sent2: Criminals do not obey the laws about gun free zones.
Output: Similar
Sent1: They explain why assault weapons are favored by terrorists, mass killers, and violent criminals, and they distinguish such weapons from true hunting and target guns.
 Sent2: If more guns present means that more criminals will be able to commit more killings and violent criminals, wouldn't they have allowed the ban to remain in place?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Whilst true that guns do not kill people, they provide those with the ability to kill.
 Sent2: Guns don't kill people, 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: In America, every state that has enacted restrictive gun control has seen an increase in crime, police brutality, questionable law enforcement practices such as violations of 4th amendment rights and so on.
 Sent2: Look at any country that has significantly tighter gun control laws than America, go far enough back and you'll eventually see that gun control was very simple at first.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The right to bear arms is explicit and clear in the second amendment.
 Sent2: Gun prohibitionists argue that the Second Amendment confers a right to bear arms only on duly enrolled members of a state militia.
Output: 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: 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: 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: HE was saying that every man needed a gun, but that they shouldn;t go overboard because providing every man with 2 guns would be too expensive.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I see, so banning guns just stops law abiding citizens from having them, yet your family of criminals buys them from people who legally obtained them, or has them legally obtained for them.
 Sent2: 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: Criminals that do not obey gun control laws will be able to obtain guns and use them on the unarmed law-abiding citizens.
 Sent2: Gun control laws do not affect criminals because criminals do not obey these laws.
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: Illegal firearms can be identified and linked to other firearms and to crimes and criminals.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Criminals will not be stopped from taking guns into gun free zones because criminals do not obey laws!
 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: 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).
 Sent2: Basically, The US Curcuit Court upheld that the Second Amendment didn't apply to weapons that couldn't be carried by an individual.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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: 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: Similar
Sent1: If anything, it has ruled in favor of gun control, saying in the Miller case that "The Second Amendment must be interpreted and applied with a view to its purpose of rendering effective the Militia."
 Sent2: The Miller Court said that the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment should be read with the militia end in view.
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: If we're going to ban guns,we might as well bans knives,fireworks,and even computers.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The higher rate of gun ownership by criminals is far outweighed by the threat of citizens owning guns.
 Sent2: While Americans have a relatively high per-capita rate of firearms ownership the vast majority of those guns stay in citizen's homes.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: my solution is your solution, I learnt it here in this and other threads that you fight fire with fire and if God hadn't wanted us to pack guns he wouldn't have let us invent guns right?
 Sent2: We have a right to use a gun to defend ourselves and others.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If gun bans worked there would be no gun deaths in the countries that have banned guns.
 Sent2: Do not ban guns when guns are the tools of man.
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: Guns are used in friendly and legal competitions, guns put food on peoples table through means of hunting, guns save lives through defensive uses.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: This appeared to me to be an argument that self defense cannot exist if a gun is used.
 Sent2: The claim by the anti gun lobby that guns are used more often in crime than in self defence is and old one.
Output: Not 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: 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: I think law abiding citizens should be allowed to carry conceled weapons.
 Sent2: Wow I think we must just be confused by the fact you openly abuse those who support guns in the hands of law abiding citizens.
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: The opposite of "more guns = less crime is not true" is not "more guns = more crime".
Output: Not similar
Sent1: At best Heller was simply saying that the individual rights nature of the Second Amendment doesn't automatically rule all gun control null and void.
 Sent2: Gun-control regulations impose varying degrees of burden on Second Amendment rights, and individual assertions of the right will come in many forms.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: it isn't guns that kill people, is the mentality these people carry around in their heads that kill other 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: Not similar
Sent1: Law abiding citizens obey the law, there can surely be no reason to prohibit them form having 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: Similar
Sent1: Second of all, I wholeheartedly believe in the thinking that guns don't kill people, people kill people.
 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: 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: Why do people that want what they call reasonable limits on the right to bear arms believe criminals will obey a law stating criminals cannot have guns?
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: Gun haters are like the dangerous criminals the gun haters want to keep guns away from.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Funny they weren't interested when 'they' were buying guns to give cartels by the truckload and were notified by the dealers.
 Sent2: The manufacturer tells them who the gun was shipped to, the dealer is contacted, and the dealer informs the ATF or the police of who the gun was sold to and when.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Whether or not he is a felon, if you give someone a gun knowing they intend to commit a particular crime with it then you are responsible as an accessory before the fact.
 Sent2: The fact that you've committed murder is irrelevant and the only thing that matters is if a person has a gun?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Which is why the ban is a bit of a poor compromise, they've banned guns for law abiding people but they've not done enough to make sure criminals don't have them.
 Sent2: That most people can't be trusted, so we should have more laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Basically this would make it illegal to own a firearm - any rifle with a clip or ANY pistol unless:
 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: What I mentioned about the liberals refers only to government powers not granted by the constitution.
 Sent2: Again, the decisions I'm referring to as "activist" are those that are granting powers to the government that are not enumerated.
Output: Similar
Sent1: I think a better debate would be when should gun control start?
 Sent2: For instance I don't think that eliminating gun control is the only answer crime control is also needed.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Please tell the murder victims in these other countries that gun control works.
 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 haters if the 2nd amend did not protect the right to bear arms then all guns in America would be banned.
 Sent2: Gun haters are the extremist hate group demanding to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Background checks at gun shows, waiting periods, and restrictions on buying guns in bulk-
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Why do people that want what they call reasonable limits on the right to bear arms believe criminals will obey a law stating criminals cannot have guns?
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: There is no reason law-abiding citizens need to defend themselves as they are untrained, do not have full knowledge of the law and eventually cause more harm than good by owning such weapons.
 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: 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: Common sense gun control laws the gun haters want will only affect the law abiding citizens, not the criminals.
Output: 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: The criminal homicides almost always include illegally gotten guns- so that's not relevant either as gun control laws won't change that.
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: 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?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: All gun free zones can do, is keep law-abiding citizens from having guns.
 Sent2: Making a gun free zone does nothing to prevent guns from entering it.
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: Which passed the law requireing "smart guns", if they ever become available (right now they do not exist).
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Bad Gun control are things that hinder a lawfull person from being able to purchase and use firearms.
 Sent2: People like Brady blame the gun and say because one man uses a gun to harm someone then no one can be trusted with guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Obviously, using the second amendment to oppose laws regulating such weapons is highly questionably."
 Sent2: Why are there gun control laws in place that haven't been ruled unconstitutional, since obviously the antigun position doesn't matter, and the second amendment is clear enough all by itself?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: People if no one had a gun in an area and one single shot was heard, the whole area would be on alert for that one shot and the gun would get confiscated.
 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: 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: When we factor in the usefulness of guns for self-defense against violent criminals, it's clear that normal gun owners are at less risk of criminal victimization.
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: Gun hater pilot's lack of logic is to not allow law abding citizens the right to bear arms, and do nothing to protect the unarmed law abiding citizens.
Output: 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: Before the Brady Law any criminal could walk into a gun store and easily purchase a gun.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun haters think banning guns will make criminals stop being criminals.
 Sent2: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Output: Not similar
Sent1: This appeared to me to be an argument that self defense cannot exist if a gun is used.
 Sent2: Another point that isn't taken in consideration in the stats that I've seen is that guns are used in self-defense but it still goes down as "gun violence."
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 Sent2: Machine guns are not in common use so I see no reason to believe restrictions on them would be lifted based on the ruling.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun control makes criminals lives much easier, because they can keep their guns, while they don't have to deal with armed citizens.
 Sent2: So guns kept in a home appear to attract criminals rather than deter them.
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: If so, they need to explain why they would leave some firearms, handguns say, in the hands of the people which are involved in more officer deaths than the ones they recommend banning.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun control makes criminals lives much easier, because they can keep their guns, while they don't have to deal with armed citizens.
 Sent2: Gun free zones are areas that criminals enter with guns because they know they are no armed law-abiding citizens there to stop them.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Gun ban = No civilians can protect themselves using a firearm = Criminals can illegally purchase guns, like tons already do.
 Sent2: Plus, if all firearms are illegal, and if one were to illegally obtain a gun, why not own and use automatic weapons, just like the gangs in England are using?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun Control does not work, well unless you mean by working that crime sky rockets in which case I would have to agree with you and then question your motives as to why you would want it here.
 Sent2: You guys seem to be obsessed with using this incident, although rare, to get any gun control that you can.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I do see the sense in some measures such as restricting access to guns for people who have committed violent crimes.
 Sent2: I have never seen anyone attempt to stop a prosecution of a gun use/possession crime on 2nd.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: One of the reason we are the country we are is because of our right to own guns.
 Sent2: We have more crime than fully armed countries not because we don't have guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States America states that, ���A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.�۝
 Sent2: 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: Basically, when you have a gun free society, then who has them?
 Sent2: You cannot defeat the facts about gun free zones�۪ failure to keep guns out of them so now you attack the messenger!
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: A law-abiding gun nut who uses their gun in committing a crime, is a criminal, and not law-abiding.
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: 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?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The laws the gun haters want will keep the right to bear arms from the law abiding citizens!
 Sent2: All of the gun control laws the gun haters want will only be obeyed by the law abiding citizens!
Output: Similar
Sent1: I do not believe OTHERS should not have guns, I think criminals and psychos who are yet to convict a gun crime should not have guns.
 Sent2: 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: 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: 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: The people that want gun control laws are the ones using the militia lie.
 Sent2: But it appears that support for gun control is higher when people are asked about specific gun laws rather than just a general question about stricter gun control.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: This is why I advocate explaining the costs of guns as much as possible, and fighting the gun lobby at every turn.
 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: I think a better debate would be when should gun control start?
 Sent2: Again, I don't think anybody will argue that owning a gun prevents crime.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Something that the 2nd amendment told the Federal Government that was not to be infringed.
 Sent2: There is nothing unclear about the restrictive clause of the 2nd Amendment nor is there any ambiguity that no power was ever granted to the federal government to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Strange how the gun control freaks wet dream idea of countries still have shooting deaths.
 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: Gun registration schemes have been disabled for criminals because requiring them to register a gun they are forbidden to own would violate their 5th Amendment rights.
 Sent2: if guns were banned things such like amo&things;used to build guns would be banned to so how could they build their own?????
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Again, I don't think anybody will argue that owning a gun prevents crime.
 Sent2: Therefore you feel more guns is the solution to stopping gun crime.
Output: Similar
Sent1: You can not use this as evidence that the reduction in crime is due to the gun ban.
 Sent2: Doesn't hold together, though - you have no evidence that criminal arms supply is unaffected by gun control.
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: That will take the criminals off the street and with them off the street there are no gun control concerns.
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: Even "If criminals keep their guns",(if we were to confiscate all guns) " they wont be able to use them.
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: 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: Similar
Sent1: So dont you DARE tell me that I have tried to take away anybodies second amendment rights simply because I refuse to pretend that there are rights in the constitution that simply do not exist there.
 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: First you say no law will ever stop criminals from getting guns but now youre saying that criminals are never gun owners.
 Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: DC's highest gun deaths per capita coincidences with the fact that guns are legal there, doesn't mean anywhere guns are legal crime rates will be high.
 Sent2: In most studies legal purchases of firearms have no influence on the crime rate.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: They looked at gun ownership, drug use and a history of physical fights and found that each of these factors is associated with a higher homicide rate in the home.
 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: You keep claiming that you're not of the anti-gun camp, that you actually support the Second Amendment.
 Sent2: So if you support every amendment made to the constitution pertaining to guns, than I submit your not to interested in owning a gun.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Police cannot do this, and indeed do not themselves even claim to be able to do so.
 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: 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!
 Sent2: On the news program 20/20 a group of criminals were asked do they obey gun control laws, this group of criminals replied NO!
Output: Similar
Sent1: I worry that the reduction of gun ownership will increase crime rates even in households with a gun.
 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: 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: 2nd amendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall NOT be INFRINGED.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Gun ban = No civilians can protect themselves using a firearm = Criminals can illegally purchase guns, like tons already do.
 Sent2: Felons are not allowed to buy guns.....terrorists would not be allowed to take guns on planes.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: As far as guns, it is difficult to say because currently as in the past, you are not allowed to carry a gun on board an aircraft.
 Sent2: You propose to abolish gun free zones, and allow people to carry guns into schools.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: None are so fearful as those who need to have guns and more guns and more guns and more and more ammo, and assault weapons.
 Sent2: A so-called assault weapon has no more kill potential than a firearm that doesn't fit the definition of an assault weapon.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 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: So if you want to ban guns, 1,531,764 people will get killed or injured, and you'll only take guns out of the hands of those who don't even commit gun crimes.
 Sent2: people who want to kill, will kill if you ban guns, they will kill with knives, or something else.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: So you have to read the 2nd amendment as a whole.
 Sent2: The 2nd Amendment is not there to entitle you to all of the gun control you want!
Output: Not similar
Sent1: buying guns, there is no requirement that federally licensed gun manufacturers and dealers
 Sent2: The manufacturer tells them who the gun was shipped to, the dealer is contacted, and the dealer informs the ATF or the police of who the gun was sold to and when.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: So... you feel that the sale of a type of gun could not have been banned if people didn't need permits in the first place?
 Sent2: Only why would you need gun registration if guns were illegal?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: It is the right of the people (not of persons) that shall not be infringed, the right stated in the Virginia Constitution to train the body of the people in arms in order to defend the free state.
 Sent2: 2nd amendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall NOT be INFRINGED.
Output: Similar
Sent1: The higher rate of gun ownership by criminals is far outweighed by the threat of citizens owning guns.
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: People who follow laws, aren't causing problems with the guns they own.
 Sent2: The only people that obey gun control laws that prevent people from taking guns any where are law abiding people.
Output: Similar
Sent1: The courts decided that it was legal for Ms. Love to purchase a handgun although they denied her claim that the second amendment protected handgun ownership.
 Sent2: I think the precedent set by Heller was that the Second Amendment protects an individual right but judges can still do the mental gymnastics to justify the gun control laws they like.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Knives are used almost as often if not more so in crimes than are guns, the reason nobody is pushing to ban knives is because knives don't have the same negative cultural association guns have.
 Sent2: Most violent crime with guns occurs at knife fighting range.
Output: Not 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 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: People who follow laws, aren't causing problems with the guns they own.
 Sent2: If so, they need to explain why they would leave some firearms, handguns say, in the hands of the people which are involved in more officer deaths than the ones they recommend banning.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: it isn't guns that kill people, is the mentality these people carry around in their heads that kill other people.
 Sent2: Even in Japan, the nation with the most absolute strictest gun laws in the world, criminals are still getting their hands on banned guns and killing people with them.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States America states that, ���A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.�۝
 Sent2: Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.
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: 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: This is just further proof that gun control does not equal crime control and there are no "reasonable" nor "responsible" gun control laws.
 Sent2: Extremist is rejecting any notion of firearm ownership or of reasonable gun control.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun haters if the 2nd amend did not protect the right to bear arms then all guns in America would be banned.
 Sent2: The right to bear arms is explicit and clear in the second amendment.
Output: Similar
Sent1: The 2nd Amendment is not there to entitle you to all of the gun control you want!
 Sent2: So I think gun control on the magnitude you want would effect it, how could it not?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: They didn't shoot someone because they were criminals, they because criminals because they shot someone, Your point boils down to 'Laws do not work because people disobey them-we should have no laws'.
 Sent2: gun control doesent solve anything in fact it makes crime go up because the criminals will always get their guns and your only disarming the law abiding citizens thus making them easy victims from the criminals.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Also: More people are killed in car accidents than are killed by 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: 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: This makes sense when you consider that the second amendment protects the right of the people to bear arms in connection with an organized militia.
Output: Similar
Sent1: On average, the states that have done the most to regulate private gun sales appear to have lower firearm death rates and lower firearm homicide rates.
 Sent2: 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: Even without this preamble the second amendment would still only protect a right in connection with militia service.
 Sent2: This makes sense when you consider that the second amendment protects the right of the people to bear arms in connection with an organized militia.
Output: Similar
Sent1: 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: 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: Gun haters if the 2nd amend did not protect the right to bear arms then all guns in America would be banned.
 Sent2: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
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: This is just further proof that gun control does not equal crime control and there are no "reasonable" nor "responsible" gun control laws.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The right to bear arms is protected by the Constitutions of Virginia and of the United States.
 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: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
 Sent2: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Output: Similar
Sent1: School district employees should not be carrying weapons on campus, just as students should not be carrying weapons."
 Sent2: Exactly how many shootings took place in these settings when students were allowed to not only bring their legally owned guns with them to school, but could also store them in their lockers inside the school?
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: 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: Similar
Sent1: They argue that the second amendment allows the people the power of weapons so that if the government intrudes on their rights they can defend themselves.
 Sent2: Handguns and assault weapons are explicitly protected by the 2nd Amendment because they are needed to fight against a tyrannical government, but tanks, fighter aircraft, helicopter gunships, and nuclear weapons are not protected for some reason.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If today we were to ban guns all the law abiding citizens would give up their firearms and protection.
 Sent2: Gun bans simple ban law abiding citizens from having guns.
Output: 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: 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 only way the person would get the gun back is if the person was found not guilty.
 Sent2: The only time in my life I have seen someone who owned a gun use it against some one they got into an argument with was when that person was under the influence of drugs and alcohol.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Would you want your children to go to a school where everyone was allowed to have a gun?
 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: Georgia's concealed carry law has recently been modified to allow permitted gun owners to carry concealed weapons into restuarants, on mass transit, in state parks and other venues previously off limits to any non-law-enforcement weapons.
 Sent2: The new law allows legal gun owners with a concealed-carry permit to transport their unloaded weapons in an unlocked glove box or center console, with ammunition close by.
Output: Not similar