Stop and think - and you will realise that banning guns is a waste of time

[xxMATTGxx]

Crazy? didn't you back Obama for re-election? you know, the man who sends his children to a school with armed guards and who he himself is surrounded by men carrying very large automatic weapons - but then decries guns on television and you all sit there puppy eyed before the great Obama and his words of wisdom.

You mean like any previous President of the United States and also any future President? Oh yeah...I love how you just mention Obama in regards of that when the armed guards has been set in stone to protect the President and it's family for a very long time.

[Kardan]

You mean like any previous President of the United States and also any future President? Oh yeah...

And also any president that Undertaker ever decides to back

[xxMATTGxx]

And also any president that Undertaker ever decides to back

Exactly. Would he also say the same if any member of the Royal Family said the same message while also being protected by people with guns?

[dbgtz]

No, drugs have been shown to badly mess peoples minds up - and indeed, the majority of the shootings (including Raoul Moat here in the UK) have been undertaken by people who were on drugs such as anti-depressants. (see article)

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...hers-find.html
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/har...-tumor-growth/

etc. Yeah I would never say drugs are perfect and they may have side effects, but usually the cure is not worse than the disease.

I haven't been defeated on anything my dear, saying i've been defeated doesn't make it true. The majority of you against guns are simply going on emotion as opposed to logic and reason. There are something like 300m guns in the United States and you're all calling for a ban on guns - are you insane? how on earth does that make any sense?

If you want a country thats banned guns and has a gun culture, look at the United States of Mexico.

Personally, I would initially ban the sale of anything related to it and later ban it outright.

You may use Mexico as an example, but I would imagine being right next to southern states doesn't help.

[Chippiewill]

Florida’s Stand Your Ground law and others like it have gained notoriety since the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin and a number of other similar cases. The laws, which exist in two dozen states, give gun-holders more authority to shoot and kill in self-defense and police wide latitude for interpretation.

Over a 10-year period there was an 8 percent increase in homicides in the states that passed Stand Your Ground laws, according to new research from Texas A&M University. The law did not deter burglary, robbery or assault either.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...des/?mobile=nc

PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE GUNS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AND PUT GUNS IN SCHOOLS HURDURP

[peteyt]

Crazy? didn't you back Obama for re-election? you know, the man who sends his children to a school with armed guards and who he himself is surrounded by men carrying very large automatic weapons - but then decries guns on television and you all sit there puppy eyed before the great Obama and his words of wisdom.

You're all taken for fools, willing fools at that. Thankfully the US Constitution was designed to prevent this sort of idol-led majority idioacy.

You keep mentioning arming teachers then talking about armed guards. While I disagree with both there is a difference and one to me is at least better and more realistic. Yes the school Obama's children go to may have an armed guard, but I presume the teachers themselves are not armed. There is a massive difference with having someone trained with fire weapons protecting people with having random teachers. Teachers are not expected to have to use or even carry a weapon and many may find this difficult.

Ask yourself this. What if all the teachers refuse to have weapons. You can offer to give people support but if the majority of the teachers don't want to even be anywhere near a gun then you can't really force them - that would risk a majority quitting at a time where education is extremely important.

You also mention the people protecting Obama. What you seem to be thinking is that most of us wan't no one armed which is far from the truth for a lot. I have nothing wrong with people whose job it is to potentially have to use firearms to have access to firearms and to in some circumstances have the ability to use them guards, the army, police etc prime examples. What I disagree with and feel most on here do to, is the ability for the general public to also have access to these weapons.

I had a debate on this online with someone from America who sadly believed the same as you and he even went as far as to mention in the debate bombs and biological weapons as if general people could get hold of these.

Also I feel it is you who is being taken for a fool. Wasn't the constitution wrote at a very different time to today and I'm sure I read the framework in it allows it to be edited and updated meaning the whole gun law can be changed theoretically.

[Ardemax]

@[B]-:Undertaker:-[/B]; to the point you raised about Obama having armed guards with him: they would not be needed if every other US citizen didn't own a gun.

It still makes me chuckle how pro-conservative pro-gun pro-Obama-is-a-muslim Americans believe that owning a gun is a fundamental human right. There's an easier way to describe them: 'nut-jobs'.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Again, you're showing your ignorance of how these substances work. The massive majority of anti-depressants simply attempt to re-balance the chemicals which most people have naturally in their systems, nothing to do with delusions. They are intended to help the sufferer cope with daily life as best they can while they make other personal changes by themselves to combat whatever may be causing their afflictions - they're a support system and nothing more. As I said, of course these mentally disturbed people are being medicated (records of such are how we know that they have these problems) but the issue is their long suffering, not their medication

I'm sorry, but drugs alter the brain - there have been many medical examples in the past where drugs have been considered perfectly safe and normal, and years later we discover the real effects they have on people. A nation addicted to mind bending drugs is not a healthy one, and the fact that most (if not all) of the mass murderer shootings are on these drugs certainly need investigating.

But let's say it is their mental state which causes them to do this, the issue then is having the correct mental system to deal with people such as this. In the United Kingdom for example, we closed down the asylums in the 1990s which has resulted in unbalanced people killing others, or often wrongly ending up in a normal prison when they deserve to be in an asylum where they can have the help and protection they need on offer.

I see no push for any of this, simply a manic drive via emotional argument by dummies to ban guns.

A gun can't take drugs and drugs can't take a gun, you're saying that it's ludicrous to blame one animate substance for the acts of a person and then in the very same breath doing that with another

Oh no, if you take drugs and then carry out these actions I believe you are 100% responsible for your actions as any sane person takes drugs (well, you have to be a bit cracked to in the first place) in the knowledge that they change your state of mind. Whilst the drugs may lead to these shootings, the fault rests entirely with the person - not the guns or the drugs.

But I thought it was only those crazy gay European drug-using criminals from broken homes who had the mentality to actually use a gun against another person? If that's the case then having one won't help Joe Average, and if it's not the case then everyone becomes a threat that could snap at any second

Law abiding people don't become a threat, millions of Americans have guns in their homes and die naturally without a shot ever being fired.

Absolutely loving how you talk about tyranny while promoting a culture of fear where a strong few could quite readily control and corrupt large areas. Look up gang culture and its roots

Oh that's funny, are you aware of how the hangs in the 1920s and 1930s America arose? are you aware of why drug cartels have so much power? because the stuff they sell is illegal via the government. The same applies to guns, criminals will still be able to get hold of guns just as they could widely distribute beer and do with drugs.

You mean like any previous President of the United States and also any future President? Oh yeah...I love how you just mention Obama in regards of that when the armed guards has been set in stone to protect the President and it's family for a very long time.

If the President believes guns don't protect innocent people like he and his family then he should surrender those guns immediately and lead by example. The same applies for any other President in history who thinks alike.

And also any president that Undertaker ever decides to back

I'm pointing out the hypocrisy, Ron Paul believes in gun rights - so I haven't a problem with him hiring armed guards (which he did out of his own pocket) to protect him and his family. I do however have a problem with the Great Obama and others chanting against run rights whilst walking around with heavily armed guards holding automatic weapons.

Exactly. Would he also say the same if any member of the Royal Family said the same message while also being protected by people with guns?

Yes, any member of the Royal Family who spoke out against gun rights I would suggest they surrender their armed guard.

Absolutely.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...hers-find.html
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/har...-tumor-growth/

etc. Yeah I would never say drugs are perfect and they may have side effects, but usually the cure is not worse than the disease.

The pro-drugs lobby is very powerful and spreads many lies about how drugs are harmless, linking me one article or study on them isn't going to suddenly convert me. Drugs have an affect on the brain and thats the fact of it, you only have to look at many former drug addicts to see how addled their brains have become from drug usage.

They're not the harmless sweeties their painted out to be by people like Tom.

Personally, I would initially ban the sale of anything related to it and later ban it outright.

You may use Mexico as an example, but I would imagine being right next to southern states doesn't help.

The guns come from Mexico into the United States along with the illegal immigrants, not the other way around.

You keep mentioning arming teachers then talking about armed guards. While I disagree with both there is a difference and one to me is at least better and more realistic. Yes the school Obama's children go to may have an armed guard, but I presume the teachers themselves are not armed. There is a massive difference with having someone trained with fire weapons protecting people with having random teachers. Teachers are not expected to have to use or even carry a weapon and many may find this difficult.

I don't advocate forcing anybody to do anything, I would simply like to send my children (like President Obama) to a school which has protections in place - whether thats armed guards, an armed headmaster or armed teachers.

My choice, you'd agree yes?

Ask yourself this. What if all the teachers refuse to have weapons. You can offer to give people support but if the majority of the teachers don't want to even be anywhere near a gun then you can't really force them - that would risk a majority quitting at a time where education is extremely important.

I don't advocate forcing the teachers or schools to do anything, I simply ask that you allow schools the choice to decide their own policy.

You also mention the people protecting Obama. What you seem to be thinking is that most of us wan't no one armed which is far from the truth for a lot. I have nothing wrong with people whose job it is to potentially have to use firearms to have access to firearms and to in some circumstances have the ability to use them guards, the army, police etc prime examples. What I disagree with and feel most on here do to, is the ability for the general public to also have access to these weapons.

So Obama is allowed to be armed but we, the plebs, are not?

No deal.

I had a debate on this online with someone from America who sadly believed the same as you and he even went as far as to mention in the debate bombs and biological weapons as if general people could get hold of these.

Also I feel it is you who is being taken for a fool. Wasn't the constitution wrote at a very different time to today and I'm sure I read the framework in it allows it to be edited and updated meaning the whole gun law can be changed theoretically.

Oh for crying out loud, the constitution was written not for hunting rights or not even self defence - the reason why the second amendment was put into the constitution was that the Founding Fathers (many having come from tyrannies in Europe) wanted to make sure that a government would not be able to oppress its own people in the land of the free.

You haven't done your homework and it shows.

@[B]-:Undertaker:-[/B]; to the point you raised about Obama having armed guards with him: they would not be needed if every other US citizen didn't own a gun.

It still makes me chuckle how pro-conservative pro-gun pro-Obama-is-a-muslim Americans believe that owning a gun is a fundamental human right. There's an easier way to describe them: 'nut-jobs'.

So you believe that a stage can be reached where every single US citizen does not have a gun?

[Ardemax]

So you believe that a stage can be reached where every single US citizen does not have a gun?

Of course not. This is 'MURICA we're talking about here. It's like starting a forest fire and then asking when the last tree will stop burning. Had the US thought a little bit more about the "right to bear arms" then I'm sure it would have benefited them a whole lot more in the present.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Of course not. This is 'MURICA we're talking about here. It's like starting a forest fire and then asking when the last tree will stop burning. Had the US thought a little bit more about the "right to bear arms" then I'm sure it would have benefited them a whole lot more in the present.

And fallen under an oppressive government like Italy, Russia, France, Germany, Prussia and countless other sovereign states in that period did?

Can I also ask, since you seem to rule out America because of it's gun rights history and Second Amendment, can you name me one other country today which has not one of it's citizens in ownership of a gun? you may rule out America, but you can't rule out every single nation.