What is more dangerous? The 1st or the 2nd Amendment

Primary purpose of guns is shooting a projectile to where it was aimed. The intent to kill is with the users.

None of it changes the fact that millions upon millions of bullets is fired each day in America without taking a life. While at the same time, things that aren't designed to kill are in fact killing people more often than guns are. As subzero stated, if the intent is saving lives then the conversation would focus elsewhere. But that's not what gun control is about.

Just because there are beanbag guns, airsoft etc, does not negate the fact that guns primary purpose is to kill. And the fact you either cannot, or do not care to admit there is a difference between killing animals that give humans disease with herbicides fly swatters and mousetraps, and firearms, is astounding.

Your post is unintelligible.

Religion has done far more damage to the world than firearms. Combine that with the freedom to inspire revolution and discord, and the First Amendment vastly exceeds the Second Amendment. Hell, look at the damage done by Martin Luther and his 95 Theses. He created more controversy with that one act than all the mass shootings in the last ten years.

High powered guns may actually cause less tissue damage. The killing power of the orginal M16 was because its bullets entered the body at a lower velocity and tumbled - creating more tissue damage. The ak47 fired projectiles that were higher velocity, but would pass through the body more cleanly.

You implied that me recognizing the need to kill pests conflated a tacit admission on my part that certain killing is justified, and used it to insinuate that I agreed with your justification for guns. There is a justification, and argument to be had for not killing animals, or killing certain animals for specific reasons, but to act as if I was agreeing with the point you were trying to make shows the lack of comprehension on your part.

I cant believe what I just read. Handguns kill, shotguns kill, snipers kill. The argument that AK-47s or AR-15s are anymore lethal is a stupid argument. If you want to get into full automatic weapons, I'm all for that, they are outlawed and only very few people can possess them. You can obtain a license for them, however it is very expensive and you aren't just filling out a form and obtaining a license. lets not even get into the cost of owning such a weapon. Thirdly, I can take a handgun with 10 rounds hot and have 2-4 additional clips in my pocket ready to go. A simple press of the button the empty clip falls to the ground and I reach into my pocket slap another clip in and ready to go. Damage can be done there. People need to understand that. Finally, guns are only as lethal as who has them in possession, until society realizes this better off everyone will be.

@Shmiity: First of all you can't own an Assault Weapons (Rifles) in Massachusetts. They are banned. You are allowed to have semi-automatic rifles and handguns with a max of a 10 round clip, unless they are pre-ban. The argument of, "I just don't understand why you would need it" That is a very subjective statement. You could say that about almost everything that humans possess. Its a sport and its a hobby. People enjoy collecting them, people enjoy shooting them at ranges, people hunt with them and individuals like to have that assurance that if they have the need to defend themselves in their home or on the street that they can by possessing a firearm. Simply stating I don't understand why YOU would need it is a horrible way to approach gun control. If the country would stop playing politics and pushing their agenda we wouldn't even be discussing this one iota.

Or I have a better idea, why don't we focus on who is pulling the trigger? Just a thought, but you know, that is too difficult for this country to do. We don't want to offend anyone now.

@xscrapzx: You're getting me all wrong. We should focus on who is pulling the trigger plenty. More than the liberals actually focus on the guns. But all I'm saying, is that I don't see a need to own a fully automatic weapon or gun.

You were saying look at the gun that kills more, which would be the handgun. I believe we need to stop looking at it at all, which I'm agreeing with you on. However, your statement of a fully automatic weapon is not allowed anywhere. For all intents and purposes it is banned. Yes, you can get a license to own one, however it is extremely difficult to get and most likely is banned in your state, such as mine. Mass. I think one thing people are getting confused here is what an assault weapon/rifle is. Its a weapon that sprays bullets when the trigger is held down. These weapon are illegal and are banned. Like I said above you can obtain a machine gun license for them and to be honest I'm ignorant of said license. However, from what I have been told it is extremely difficult to obtain one and fully automatic weapons are so costly that its not even worth owning one.

Folks are using Assault Weapons and semi-automatic guns interchangeably, which is wrong. Its like calling a cat a dog. Its simply not the same thing and the damage that an Assault weapon/rifle causes is much more than that of what a semi does.

For pests that carry disease, and ruin food stores? yes. That is a very different thing than a gun, and if you dont know that, goddamn, show some measure.

I don't see a need for alcohol, we should ban them. I don't see a need for swimming pools, ban. I don't see a need for cars to go faster than speed limits, ban. I could go on, but you get the point. All of those things kill more people each year in America than legally owned fully automatic weapons. Not to mention none are in the category of constitutionally protected right (while select fire weapons are not explicitly in the 2nd amendment you can make the argument a lot easier than those other things).

Except I draw the distinction between pests and humans, and do not oversimplify and pretend they are the same.

Didn't say they'd go away, either, but they wouldn't thrive. Look at Trump. He's at where he's at because of the first amendment. You take his power away to say those racist and bigotted things he's been saying, then he's unable to influence those groups of Americans who are racist and bigotted themselves.

What exactly are those things?

Even if you didn't already know, a quick Google search wouldn't kill you.

Aside from the Curiel comments, which seemed racist, I dont think he has a history in this race of being racist. Even when he implied that Mexico was sending the US it's worse, I dont think it was racist. Absurd? Yes. He did not imply that these people are murderers or rapists because of their race. He seemed to be implying that the government of Mexico was enacting the same policy Castro used with the Mariel Boatlift situation in 1980.

And yeah, do you not see a problem with taking someone's free speech away? If it can be taken away, it is not free speech. And if you think it is ok for someone else to have that right taken away, how can you expect it to not happen to you? Taking away another man's first amendment rights is not an exercise of mine.

I'm not sure if that was a backhand compliment, but yes, me saying "no more guns. period. " is my view, and im sticking by it. I don't care about the constitution, it's a 250 year old document that was meant to be amended.

All I found was a bunch of out-of-context, hoaky journalism. Have anything substantial?

Why are you advising me, when you are the one who did it?

@InEMplease: Your entire post is utter bs, I can't tell if this is what you actually believe or if you're just trolling?!? Bear arms has no limits...what? I don't even see the point you're trying to make with arming kids? But I do see a very common trend, those against the 2nd amendment (and first) are so grossly unknowledgeable on either its scary.

How is that relevant? Are you saying that people died of DUIs, drownings or car accidents are less tragic or less worth of our attention?

Controversy and damage are two COMPLETELY different things. Inspiring revolution is not always a bad thing. Are you saying the Protestant Reformation was damaging? If not, what are you saying?

That's what you're apparently suggesting. If the deaths are equal then alcohol, swimming pools and cars should be banned since they cause hundreds of thousands times more lives each year than legally owned fully automatic weapons. In fact in the last 50 years there's only been 2 homicide related to NFA (legally owned select fire guns) items. And one was committed by an off duty cop.

I think that worth reflecting on is the reason for the 2nd Amendment.

When the United States was first formed, the founders of America recognized the importance of protecting against tyranny of the masses and dictatorship. Therefore, their concept was that every law-abiding citizen should have the liberty to protect himself, but cannot form a militia unless it is authorized by the state government. Conversely, they thought that the federal government should not micromanage every aspect of the citizenry's defenses, but has the authority of the military. The Second Amendment is an explication of the basic idea regarding the individual citizen. We see rights being taken away from people already. For example, lawmakers have denied the mentally ill the ability to defend themselves with guns. I think this is interesting because this is similar to people being against abortion, but not offering any assistance after birth, effectively leaving a person defenseless. If there were security guards, then that may be an acceptable alternative for the mentally ill, but as it is gun rights seem like a broken window situation.

You tried to argue that something should be banned based on original intent and design and that's a flawed argument especially when you are basing on the point that the primary purpose of the ban is to save lives since statistically speaking things that aren't designed with the same purpose as weapons are considerably more dangerous. That's like trying to say that we should adopt communism because it is the ideal form of government in concept when we know in reality that it's implementation is inherently faulty.

Yeah, you only implied that I agreed with you because I think killing pests is warranted. Goddamn, you are displaying so much presumption, and you play coy for some reason.

"Not all of them. Anyway, your post implies that there are certain scenarios where killing is justified, and this justifies the use of tools that are made to kill. It seems that, really, you agree with me that even if something is made to kill it's not inherently bad."

That is what you wrote. You implied that because I personally sanction pest control devices, then conflate these devices being the same thing as guns.