MondayMondayMonday! McDonald v Chicago!

Uh, terrorist attacks? Duh.

When was the last zombie invasion? I don't remember hearing about that in the news or seeing it in the paper. Where is your proof?

Not exactly. But, it is a pattern in history that when the government disarms the populace, oppression and tyranny follow. Hitler took the guns away from the Jews...and burned 6-million of them into ash. You know what Stalin did to Russia. Totalitarianism is alot easier when you don't have the threat of armed resistance hanging around. Mao Tse Tung is quoted as saying; "All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. Only the communist party shall have guns so no-one can control the party." And look at what a model for freedom and human rights China is today.

@Consanants, I think 'fucking retarded' is a bit...strong.

I also don't see why it matters if we need them. If you want one, why can't I have one? Because someone else might do something bad?

And yes Assualt rifles (one "f") can have practical uses for defending yourself. I'm sure if civilians in Mexico were allowed to bare arms they would not be held captive to the drug cartels and gangs. When you know that someone has the potential to fire back just as hard, you are less likely to fire at them in the first place. We don't buy assault rifles because we think we are going to use them, we carry them so we don't lose the right to have them. Rights are like muscles after all.

glad you're sure, it's a good thing your opinion isn't fact. I'm not saying the right to bear arms is wrong, but I don't see the reason that right requires you be allowed to carry military grade weapons. "we carry them so we don't lose the right to have them" ridiculously flawed logic, I buy guns so I won't lose my right to have them?

Bear arms...? rawr...

And yes, in every country's history rights that were not used have been challenged or lost. If you don't actively defend or use your rights they become easy for the majority or even the minority to take them away. That isn't some American philosophy, that is basic political science 101.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms

trust me, i was surprised as well.

I don't know what I am looking at/for Waar, except maybe that I said "bare arms" instead of "bear arms" as if I was talking about nude arms.

did I misinterpret this?

Either way you're arguing from opinion but trying to state that it's fact... it isn't.

I didn't state anything other than my opinion, I agree. Your point is? Because it is only my opinion it is by default wrong? Your opinion is we do not need assault rifles, I stated why I believe otherwise.

right but your example was the mexico would be different if they had the right to carry assault rifles... that's an opinion and a flawed one at that. Ill give you another example, the other person I was speaking with brought up the example of communist China, he made the assumption that the country would be far better off with weapons in the hands of it's citizens; that's a wild assumption to make. Some countries don't have the infrastructure(police force, judicial system, etc) to allow it's citizens to carry firearms while remaining safe for the rest of it's population. Even America has a large gun control issue that few countries share, the figures don't lie about it, the number of gun related deaths in America are far greater compared to countries that have more strict firearm laws. My point is that assault rifles are not required in the United States of America, you may want them for whatever reason but they are unnecessary and don't serve much of a purpose.

edit: oh I just wanted to know if i hit the mark with that bear arms comment, were you mocking my spelling of "bear arms"?

But fun and way cool.

To state my opinion is flawed is your own opinion and a flawed one at that.

Of course america is going to have far more gun related deaths especially compared to countries that don't have civilian gun ownership. That goes hand in hand - but the freedom to defend yourself as you see fit is a choice that you should have within reasonable terms. What is reasonable is where you and I and millions of others do not see eye to eye. The allowing of assault rifles (congrats on spelling btw) is only part of that issue and as far as it goes necessity should not be a factor. Should we disallow cigarets because of their lack of necessity or alcohol? After all they cause more harm then good. Assault rifles sure don't kill as much people as those two do and yet the fear that a gangsters may gun you down in Philly on your way to visit friends distorts the true demographics of who owns the guns.

Also no I was not mocking your spelling, I was mocking my own. Like this: (things in brackets are my inner dialogue)

"Bear arms... [oh right that is how you spell it]? rawr...[growling embarrassment/pun on the word "bear"]."

I dont think we will ever agree on this. I believe your right to own some types of guns is less important than the lives of all those innocent people killed by those guns. It's like Americans forget that these laws were created 300 years ago when the most advanced weapons were muskets and early rifles, the laws should change with time. It's like taking the bible as a literal translation from God himself rather than a set of ideals to live by. I also believe your argument based on tobacco or alcohol is slightly flawed as I am not arguing against the right to bear arms, just that that right needs to be redefined.

Bible and law are a bad analogy. We are not ignorant to the time the law was written - we've changed the constitution before for stupid or dated laws. But the ideal behind it is that the people have the right to arm and protect themselves, not carry a gun for show and only used for hunting. So if it is for protection - including against government tyranny - it defeats the purpose with the government saying "but you can only do it as much as your potential enemy allows."

There is a fine line to walk between practical and impractical, to be sure. Of course, I respect your opinion to fall to one side or the other of it as long as you respect mine.

Don't worry, I won't shoot you, and if I was in the car with you on your trip we'd have those suspicious people you were worried about out gunned... ;)

[size=6]Then you'd only have to worry about LQ wondering why there is a girl traveling with you. Potentially much scarier...[/h]

are you kidding? I'm waar, if they tried anything I would have shot fireballs from my eyes and bolts of lightning from my arse(kudos to anyone who gets it).

The canadians right to fireballs and lightning arse(s?) is unnecessary and dangerous to innocent people. It shouldn't be allowed no matter what braveheart may say about it.

What about all the hockey stick related deaths in canada? when will they atleast put a 3day wait on purcheses to give people a chance to calm down?