Geezer you have either not read what I wrote or you are purposefully taking what I said out of context. My example of nukes and attack helicopters was in the context of the constitution that states people should be armed to keep their government in check - these are the weapons the government has now as opposed to the ones they had when the constitution was written. You haven't alluded to that at all in your "rebuttals" instead you appear to take my statements as literal opinions and make them as out of context as possible to ensure I sound crazy. Further "discussion" with you when you respond in such a way is useless.

I aren't saying weapons for sport (hunting/sport shooting etc) should be banned. But handguns (for example) and assault weapons are not used for these. I aren't interested in outlawing all weapons, only those that are designed to kill a lot of people really quickly.

Laotou your rant was particularly awesome and I see that you also understand there are bigger fish to fry. But my comment about cars vs guns was completely relevant as cars provide a useful function in society and the economy, guns do not. Restricted use of something useful but dangerous is fine. Applying the same level of restrictions to something that is useless and dangerous is not.

Your comment about the US heading the way of the Romans is both relevant and insightful. If only everyone realised it and had the balls to change things.

I notice no one wants to debate that other countries with stricter gun laws have less gun violence. No one wants to debate the validity of the 2nd Amendment 200 years after it was written. No one is interested in exploring why Americans appear to treat the constitution like a new bible making changes to it virtually impossible to change it. All of these are actually relevant in the debate but no one cares to touch on them.

My thoughts are that Thomas Jefferson is turning in his grave seeing the state of the great country he helped make.

While I see your point laotou, I aren't convinced. We make laws to protect citizens from harm. Thats what road rules are for, laws about killing, public safety etc. When a new technology comes about, or society begins acting in a way in which is bad for us, we change our laws to stop said actions. For instance, 99.99999% of people who travel on planes don't want to hijack them and run them into buildings. Yet the security process to get into a plane now is dramatically more stringent because of 9/11 to stop the 0.00001%. Why not do the same for gun control? Each year in the US there are under 10,000 gun homicides - 2-3 times the amount killed in 9/11 EVERY YEAR.

I understand that a focused nutball could still kill people. But advanced weapons make it a hell of a lot easier to do a hell of a lot more damage in a short time. If the nutball in Aurora had a knife instead of a gun, do you think 70 people would have been injured?

The problem in America is you have enshrined laws in your constitution that no one can touch. They don't move with the times and are very difficult to change because they are taught to be doctrines with which your citizens defend with what amounts to religious fervour. If anyone questions them they are labelled as anti establishment, branded traitors voted out and ousted. Don't you think that's weird? Do you really think a law about weapons invented over 200 years ago has the same relevance today as it did then? Does ANYTHING have the same relevance today as it did 200 years ago?

@Geezer
Nope, not British, so your personal/nationality attacks are wasted. And if I was, I would be on your side if the same thing happened tomorrow because I believe oppression is something everyone should be free from.

According to your definition, it should be impossible for Aurora and Columbine to have happened as the Aurora man is clearly mentally incompetent and therefore could never have owned a gun and the Columbine kids were minors so also could never have obtained weapons (actually one was 18 by 11 days, but near enough to have not owned a gun). Here is a clue: the more available guns are, the more some will slip into the hands of those without the common sense to wield them intelligently. The way to make weapons less available: stricter gun controls.

I never confused a handgun with a nuke. I simply made a statement based on your constitutional quote which states that the reason people should own guns is so they can challenge the government. The reason this was written in the constitution is because, at the time, private militias armed with guns would be enough to challenge the government. Now the government has nukes and attack helicopters. It therefore stands to reason that private citizens should have the same so they can challenge the government - if you really believed in your constitution you would accept this. This is not rationalization, this is simply stating your right to bear arms ("arms" not being limited to only handheld weapons) and the reason why this is in your constitution. In the same breath I could accuse people of cognitive dissonance who claim the reason for the right to bear arms is to keep their government in line.

I didn't attack you, I aren't pulling you up on spelling mistakes and calling you names. I am attacking the position that Americans need to own guns for their own safety. I am clearly stating that many other countries with similar ideals of freedom and liberty have stronger gun controls than the US - and as a result have less mass shootings, less gun related homicides and less gun violence. As of yet, no one has challenged this assertion, I think because they realise its true.

I aren't sure why you want to bring up century old history as if its some point of pride for you - you had nothing to do with the events 200 years ago and neither did I. It appears your patriotism is overriding your wisdom. I suggest you play the ball, not the man if you want to have an intelligent debate. I am an open person, who can be swayed by a good argument. Unfortunately I don't see one.

Nice Jefferson quote. If the world was exactly the same now as it was when he wrote it, I might agree. Here's another one from an even older document: If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. Please explain how the Jefferson quote has any bearing on today's realities. As far as I can see, it has as much bearing as does my quote from the bible.

I never said MSM is correct and the absolute truth. The video's you posted up appear to be either FROM the MSM (re-recorded and reposted) or made by NRA supporters. Which is why I questioned their "alternative media" status - they appear to be regular or right wing media given a different slant. The 1st video you posted could easily have been on Fox News.

So you are saying if the guy in Aurora was a puppet of the US government, but he wasn't able to get his hands on an assault rifle, he still would have been able to shoot 70 people? What with - a water pistol?

Wow Liumingke1234, its starting to sound KM is full of conspiracy nuts who have escaped America to avoid being mind controlled...