Can you imagine?

The argument isn't to just give up. With gun control, the argument is to avoid adding difficulty to those who will never do something wrong with a gun.

you make sound like illegal acquisition of a gun is easy, that shit ain't the black market isn't cheap ya know but you're right it's pointless to even try controlling the situation at this point with all the guns already in circulation and in the position of crackheads that like killing people and idiots that shouldn't be allowed to hold a gun

Why not put heavier restrictions? It not solve the problem wholly, but if it saves a few lives I say it's worth it. Surely you would be qualified to own a gun so why do you care?
People will always do bad things. Let's make it harder for them to do those things.

Because you don't have to qualify for a right. You just have it. And it can only be taken from you with due process.
You're declared mentally ill? That's enough due process that you can't buy a gun.
You've been convicted of a felony? That's enough due process that you can't buy a gun.
Convicted of domestic violence. Dishonorable discharge. Renouncing citizenship. Others that I won't list for brevity. All require some sort of legal process.
If you got something else that you think should be added that removes a dangerous person from owning a gun, I'm all for it. Provided it isn't on a whim, but rather based on due process.
Also, for future reference "if it saves a few lives," isn't an argument I'd use. I'm sure a border wall would save a few lives. I'm sure locking everyone up and turning America into a literal prison would save a few lives. I'm sure lots of things would save a few lives. Doesn't mean we should do them.

Say everyone has a right to try and qualify,

Then we'd need an amendment, because it doesn't say "the right of the people to qualify to keep and bear arms," it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." I can tell you no one who supports the Second Amendment would be in favor of that, and no one who supports other rights and amendments would be in support of a similar change:
Everyone has a right to take the literacy test to qualify for voting.
Everyone has a right to pay a tax that allows you to follow whatever religion you choose.
Everyone has a right to prove you're educated enough to criticize the government.
Everyone has a right to prove you're worth being allowed to live.

Everyone has rights that they can be disqualified from by due process.

So everyone has a right to prove they can appropriately make use of a weapon?
I almost feel like you’re making 2 separate arguments here...

This is the 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." That's all. And the (well regulated!) militia is the reason people should have the right to bear arms. Until some 40 years ago hardly anyone had the idea this meant anybody could just hoard weapons. That is, until the NRA got hijacked by psychopaths and teamed up with the same caliber of republicans. As to the "criminals will get guns no matter what the laws are". Most innocent citizens are NOT killed by professional criminals who have a tendency to kill each other. Most civilians are killed by the weirdo next door who can buy as many semi autos as he pleases and can easily turn them into fully autos. It's super easy and proven world-wide: less guns, less killings.

And the militia is the populous.
And yet despite that we have more guns than ever before, homicides have declined for 20+ some odd years? Lowest since what, the 60s? Btw, something like a quarter of actual gun murders come from a handful of cities. Liberal run cities with gang violence. Not sure if they fall under "professional criminals," but they're also not weirdos next door.
Thanks for calling me a psychopath btw.

If that shoe fits you... and how is the populous "well regulated"?

Thanks jackass.
Well, well-regulated as in regulations: background checks, limitations on arms (fully-auto, SBRs, sawed-off shotguns, other arms), limitations on types of ammo (no armor piercing rounds, nothing above 50 cal).
Well-regulated also meant trained. Not government limitations. Training that was left up to the individuals.
Nice of you to skip over gang violence. More info for you to mull over: of the 12,000 or so gun murders each year around ~2,000 is gang related.
I guarantee I know much more about the Second Amendment, what the Founders meant, and about current gun laws than you do. I can do this all day. I hope you've got some better arguments somewhere in your head. Bring it jackass.

Look, keep your hunting rifle, keep your handgun, but why tf would you need a military grade weapon other than to kill People?

You mean "military grade," like the AR-15? One of the most popular hunting rifles in America? Guess everyone's a perfect hunter and never needs a follow up shot? Guess a bolt action is fine for hunting wild hogs. Gotta give them a fighting chance to gore ya right?
I guess it being designed "to kill people," makes it useless for self-defense?
Or do you mean military grade weapons like the Remington 700, a variant of which is used by the US Army and USMC as a sniper rifle? Which is also an incredibly popular hunting rifle. Or military weapons like the 1911, one of the longest serving sidearms in American history? Or military weapons like the M1 Garand? Or the Ruger Mini 14, based on the M1 Carbine and was submitted to compete against the M16?
Those military grade weapons?

Some people need killing. Like criminals with automatic weapons, or if the shit hits the fan and the government can't be counted on.
And ARs aren't military grade weapons, the only distinguishing feature is that they are made out of dark synthetic materials.
Or do you mean military grade as in weapons used by the military? They use weapons you'd consider hunting weapons too. Like M700s, SR-25s, MK14s, etc. And those are just off the top of my head.

Q: To anyone who's in favor of the government taking guns away from the people—Do we do it right now? While Trump is President? The 2nd Amendment was designed to keep the government from having too much power over the people, and now you think Trump should take our guns away?

Trump is the one president of my lifetime I'd trust. Unfortunately, as presidents only last 8 years at most, I'm not willing to give up any liberties no matter who is in power.

This debate is quite funny, because you've got plenty of countries where there are restrictions in guns and the gun violence is minimal
Like it's right out there
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/upshot/compare-these-gun-death-rates-the-us-is-in-a-different-world.html

But yet no one does anything about it and makes ridiculous arguments about it being their "right". I'm sick of innocent people dying because of the US not having stricter gun laws. Instead we have people like famousone who say "liberty before security" because that's so much more important to them. Bottom line is that they don't give a shit.

What exactly do you expect from a guy who says "Trump is the one president of my lifetime I'd trust."? Assuming he is born in the Clinton era (the last few years maybe, tops), I get he wouldn't trust blood dripping commufashist dictators like Mao Tse Clinton and Barrack "Stalin" O'Bummer, but he'd trust Trump more than Double-U? Says everything about the guy anybody would ever want to know. His "arguments" are just some random slogans embroidered on random baseball caps, so maybe he thinks he's giving a shit, but he really doesn't.

AGAIN. __% are gang related (looking for statistic. I give up. 50 tabs with no clearer results than what is already down below). Show me a gang that respects the law that regularly murders people.
Before we start passing more gun legislation, don't you think we should start enforcing our current gun laws? It is a federal felony to lie on your background check, or apply knowing that you legally can't buy a gun. NICS stops about 70,000 a year. After all is said and done, roughly 5,000 involve a crime. 77 prosecutions. 1.54%. Why? "Not enough resources." "Not a priority." And that's just one law.
I'm sure another law will increase prosecutions. I'm sure another law will magically be a priority. I'm sure another law will give them enough resources.
How about we actually enforce the laws on the books and see what happens then before we start calling for more gun control?
If we can't agree to enforce current gun laws, I honestly don't know if there's anything to agree on. (1/2)

Please continue to tell us how we don't give a shit, and stand on those graves as tall as you can.
Because now I can say that you don't give a shit about the hundreds killed in Chicago because if you did you'd call for solutions years round. Except it's us people that "don't give a shit," that are calling constantly to help law enforcement. To give them more resources, officers, tools to enforce laws and lower the murder rates. But it's racist to want a homicide closure rate higher than 12.2%. It's racist to want to protect people by locking up criminals so they aren't back out on the streets days after caught carrying an illegal gun, upon which they get another illegal gun and kill.
Because I can say that you don't give a shit about the people killed by illegal immigrants, human trafficking and sex slaves because you think a wall is racist. You think that actually enforcing the law is racist. You don't care about solving those problems. YOU DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT THEM DO YOU? (2/2)

I never said anything about racism. And actually while I'm not on board with the wall, I do think that we need to do something about illegal immigrants. But it's probably not in the same way that you want it.

Naw, you just stood on graves and said we don't give a shit about people murdered by guns

@tj do you think that those countries do not have criminals or what?
The point is that even with criminals we do not have problems with gun violence

What about cultural diversity, weak borders, and inconsistent punishments to criminals? Gun crime is not the problem, it's a symptom of a nation that is simultaneously forgetting it's history of self-reliance and refusing to enforce the laws meant to keep people safe.

"80% of those gun deaths are gang related" - Any source for this other than Dana Loesch? Cause that seems to be the only "source" for this. And it CAN only be bullshit, as the largest number within gun deaths is - widely undisputed - suicides.

@celia. Yes, if the goal is to reduce gun violence, target the gun. That's not my goal. My goal is to reduce violence, so I target the criminal.
That's why, even when accounting for the differences in definition, the UK has twice the violent crime rate as the US (NOPE).
The UK also either considered or passed "knife control," after knife attacks started increasing. They target the tool, not the criminal. How many tools do we target before we realize the tools will keep changing and the crimes will remain the same?

"the UK has twice the violent crime rate as the US. " - that would include all those guys who give each other a black eye or a broken nose in a fight instead of killing each other with a firearm. Also doesn't change the fact that there are 5 times as many intended homicides in the usa compared to the united kingdom (source somewhere below on this thread). 5 times higher rate of intentional homicides and 20 times the gun victims. What was your point again? And where did you get that "twice the violent crime rate" anyway? Maybe if the sight of really bad teeth is considered violence against esthetic standards...

Nice. Looks like I was wrong on the 80% (appears like that may, may be for Chicago). Trying to find the actual statistic. This says that 2,000 gang related murders, so maybe a lot off.
https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/survey-analysis/measuring-the-extent-of-gang-problems
Looks like I was also wrong on the violent crime: http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime

I appreciate you appreciating the facts. Thanks, and have a thumb up from me. Look like someone with an soaring, itching fact allergy is after me though.

Thank you, I try. Clearly I don't always succeed, but I try.
I would still like to let you know I haven't forgiven you for calling me a psychopath. Twice.
Or anyone who has tried to demonize me or 'my side,' by saying we just don't care.
And that my view largely hasn't changed.
I still think we should:
Enforce current laws (especially targeting felons illegally in possession of guns)
Go after straw purchasers (falls under previous, but hardly ever mentioned so I'm mentioning it)
Hold bump-stocks and other such devices to the same standard as fully auto guns (from another thread)
Go after gangs
Teach responsible gun ownership
Not ban guns because 'scary,' and half-truths/falsehoods like 'military-grade,' (or outright ban guns)
Not make it harder for law-abiding citizens to own guns
That is all.

Setting me up as a straw man will not do anything to change my beliefs. You're only pushing me to dig in even deeper.
Why would I join the other side when they are the ones to call me an uncaring psychopath who should stop caring so much about individual liberties?
Allow me to reiterate a promise I made only last month:
"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same".

Who wants you on their side anyway but other people of your kind? And trust me: by "your kind" I don't mean your pretended political views. There's a lot of conservatives I accept as well-meaning, intelligent people I'm sharing more common beliefs with, than I have differences. You're not a conservative but an annoying kid in a Pepe costume, and you're quite the dimwit. So please stay off my side.

You've run out of arguments. Why else would you lower yourself to attacking a straw man version of me? I can't even feel offended or annoyed by your baseless accusations. I just feel sad for you.

Can you say "I feel sad for you", wouldn't that be "sorry" rather? Well, you certainly didn't vow to protect your language.

Never claimed to. Some of the best soldiers I know can only speak broken English. So are you going to resume the argument? Or are you going to keep trying to insult me?

*Unfollows comments*

My goodness, the gun debate sure is a fun one.

Yeah, I'm good with that. Show me a "Well regulated Militia."

I can't think of one off the top of my head

Militia meaning every able-bodied man and woman in the country. Well regulated meaning no murderers, rapists, or thieves among them.

Here in America we have the National Guard. And yes it has a number of persons who are arseholes. But it also has a remarkable number of individuals who want to do the right thing. They train one weekend per month and they are on call in the event of a National Emergency.

My state's constitution has a clarification on the 2nd Amendment. A "militia" is defined as every able-bodied man, ages 18 to 65 (I think those numbers are right). So, not the National Guard for us.

Oh by the way sorry if my comment came of wrong I was trying to point out to the guest that the constitution doesn't say that anyone can have a gun.

I will always put liberty over security.
No American should be stripped of their rights just because of what might happen.
"Give me liberty or give me death!"
By your logic, the nation should be ran like a supermax prison. Less people would be killed.

Am I wrong? Would that kind of security not prevent deaths?

Of course you are right, there cannot be anything between two extremes. Not sure about your liberty, but you got more deaths than any other civilized country. By your logic, Somalia and Iraq are very liberal countries.

Oh here's something that would prevent deaths that most other countries have already done. Banning guns. But you whiny little bitches can't seem to understand that. There needs to be major changes and and you seem to not even give a shit.

Life is not worth liberty. All Americans are protected by the constitution and Bill of Rights until due process decides otherwise.
The founders and the courts have decided that it is better for all law-abiding citizens to be armed than for none of them to have guns.
Now who's the "little bitch"? The people willing to live free ready to face the risks? Or those who would roll over and surrender essential rights for a little bit of false security?

Yeah. I'm going with "Countries that Ban Guns" next time the UN asks for help.

And people wonder why we can't have a rational debate when one side has people arguing and accusing the other side of not caring about the dead bodies cause if we did we'd agree with them politically.

"Life is not worth liberty" so even though thousands of people die each year that doesn't matter cause the constitution says we need guns? I cannot believe that you actually took the time to type that out. I was in England over the summer and one of my taxi drivers asked me why we don't try and change anything with gun laws and I couldn't tell him because it amazes me as well. In England and throughout Europe actually the only people who have guns are the military and higher up police officers. Not even all police officers have guns. And how many deaths by guns happen in Europe? I mean I know why you guys are for guns but it's not a good reason.

You're right. The fact that guns are used between 2-80 times more to stop crime than they are in commission of a crime is not a good reason.

They just use knives.
Oh and here's your index.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Well, you have found that page, thanks for linking it. The USA have a 10 time higher rate of people killed by guns than Germany, 20 times higher than the UK. How about an index of intentional homicides per country? Et voilá: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
In the USA the rate is 5 times higher than the UK and 6 times higher than Germany.

And here we have a person that doesn't understand that we could fit Germany and the UK into one state. And that's if we don't use Alaska. And my point was that when shiat gets real we do in fact defend ourselves with guns. Am I proud of it? Eh, maybe. If some guy comes at me with a kitchen knife will I pistol whip his ass? Eh,maybe. Just go on being Europe. It's working so well for you.

What has the area size to do with the ratio(<-- you might want to re-read this) of guns, homicides and gun killings per 100,000 citizens? And thanks, you're right, it's pretty amazing in Europe. You have all the freedoms that really matter (at least 4 out of 5 Europeans see it that way), and the chances of actually enjoying them are a lot better.

Ratio isn't the only factor. You're grouping places like small-town Idaho where everyone is armed and almost nobody dies of anything besides old age right with Chicago, which has both the strictest gun laws and one of highest numbers of gun related deaths. That is why size matters, because there is way more diversity in people, cultures, and laws, and grouping them all together only overstates and understates problems that different regions have.

Ratio is not a factor, but a fact. And the UK has small villages, rural areas and it's capital London has 10 Million inhabitants. Still the UK has 20 times less gun killings and 5 times less homicides. By ratio. Go play in the traffic, Timmy.