2nd Amendment

[Dylan]

You do realise , Nazi Germany issued that "No Guns" order , Guess what , Few months later they started the slaughter.
Soviet Russia , Issued that order , Massive slaughter , We do realize what Stalin did right ?

Basically ,, Give up your guns , Give up your freedom ,

Just my opinion , do not eat me please ,,,

Just try to think about what you said, think about it hard, too.

Have you?

Good.

Let me introduce you to the logical fallacy entitled "Slippery Slope". A logical fallacy is basically a flaw in logic and/or reasoning, there are several of them and several are made by each person everyday. Slippery Slope basically consists of saying "If we do a then eventually x, y and z will happen!" It's based on believing that allowing or disallowing one thing will escalate, for example: "If we allow homosexuals to get married the next step will be monkeys or cats!" Or it could also be "If we ban guns mass-slaughter will happen!"

You've got two examples from throughout history with two of the worst dictators of all time. You're actually suggesting that the only reason these dictators were successful was because they banned guns. That is, no offense, a mental statement. For things to get as bad as they did in WWII you need a lot more factors than just "no guns", the very notion that all a dictator needs to do is outlaw guns and he's done is just wrong.

Have you even considered all the countries wherein a very small percent or 0 percent of the population own guns? Did their leaders start mass-slaughtering them?
No?
Well I guess your argument is flawed, then.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_countries...d_firearms

---

Even if they take it away, it's not going too stop the mass shootings, because people who do those kind of things won't follow the laws anyways, and just get them illegally.

Difference is how easy they can get them, there's possibly a rather large one and can mean the difference between a school shooting that happens, and one that doesn't.

For example: I don't do drugs because I don't know where the hell I can get them. If they were legal for purchase I'd surely have gotten some. (not saying that doing drugs is wrong or imoral, i personally believe anyone should decide whether he/she should be able to do drugs.)

And anyone claiming there isn't a difference is just plain wrong, as basis for this statement I would refer to the amount of gun-related shootings there is in countries with guns legalized as opposed to those that don't (usually those with guns legalized have more crimes with guns).

---

Even if I thought gun control were a good thing, it'd still be a bad idea to implement it into the states. There's SO many guns here already. It'd be a different story if you could press a button, and have all guns on the earth destroyed, but the actual scenario is, there's more guns than there are people here

That is one point where I can agree. The US is far beyond the line now for anyone to even hope that there can be regulation of current guns, but that does not bar possibilities of future regulation & control. For example any gun sold from 2014 could be tracked by the gov. Sure NO WAY near as many as there're already around, but it's a start anyway. That and different municipals could also start a "give your unregistered gun get something" in return, which would limit the amount of unregistered guns that're goin' 'round.

It wouldn't stop gun-related crimes but it would help, and as long as a life is saved, it's worth it.