The year is now 2017. The second amendment has been repealed because our government feels that it is in our best interest to keep guns out of the public's hands in order to prevent gun related crimes. Hi, I'm a foreign soldier who has just invaded your country and broke down your front door. I'm running through your house searching for you and your family and I didn't just bring my assault rifle to scare you; I'm directed to kill you and move on to the next house. Now would be a great time for you or any other American in your same situation to pull out a gun and fight back but unfortunately the only people that you can depend on to protect you are licensed officers of the military or police all of which are currently busy dealing with much more important situations than you right now. Whether it's a soldier, an armed robber, or your ex coming in your house to kill you wouldn't you be much more protected if you had easy access to a way to defend yourself? TL;DR You can't disarm yourself and expect to be safe depending on someone else to be there for you.

People kill people with guns, and knives, and bats, and cars, and stairs, and broken bottles. And fire, and rocks. Let's ban all that too.

How am I going to stop a tyrannical government?

You can kill someone with lots of things. A gun is just the "quickest and easiest" way to do it I suppose.

I guess you could say that... [spoiler][i]Shots are being fired[/i][/spoiler]

Come and take it you little bitch

1. His first argument is "mass shootings happen, therefor gun ownership should be illegal". He of course doesn't mention that the majority of these take place in Gun-Free zones, how many mass shootings and other crimes are prevented by gun owners daily, and how many of these shootings were facilitated by illegal acquisition of guns. Because adding complexity and depth to his statement ould tank it. 2. He says there are very few reasons to own a gun in the first place, which is irrelevant to Americans, who can own guns by right. As an American you can go and buy a bath-tub full of guns for no reason and let them just collect dust forever if you so choose. However even ignoring that, there's many reasons people own guns from self-defense, hunting, target shooting, down to using them as an expensive can opener, and as long as they're being used safely it's all completely valid. 3. He says only hunters, soldiers, and [i]some[/i] policemen should own guns. I'd love to hear him elaborate on that "some". 4. He makes another argument, that guns are complete overkill to defend yourself. He lists tasers and pepper spray as viable alternatives. However there's a reason why we equip soldiers with guns, not pepper spray and tasers. Because if someone is trying to kill you you use the maximally effective means of stopping that assault that you have on hand. The only thing you bring to a gunfight is a gunfight, and the only thing that can prevent a knife fight is a gun. 5. His final argument is that you should have to prove why you need a gun instead of others having to prove why you shouldn't. Once again this is irrelevant for the reasons stated in 2. In fact it's completely backwards from any sane legal system, where everything is legal until people come up with compelling reasons why it should be prohibited. Right now people are allowed to have guns until there's a reason they shouldn't, like a criminal record. Also, as an aside, there's typos in his typed up segments. Did he just put this together in an hour one night? As for you, OP: [quote]The only propose of a gun is to kill. [/quote]Even the inane video acknowledged other purposes. [quote]Why should you have the right to kill someone? [/quote]When someone intends to kill you and thus breach your right to life, they relinquish their own. This and your next question are utterly vapid. [quote]After the Australian gun ban gun related felonies dropped and so did overall crime rate after and small spike.[/quote]And statistics prove that more guns equals less crime. Australia's gun buyback is completely irrelevant, because Australia is not America. Not in terms of existing firearms, not in terms of population, not in terms of geography, not in terms of crimes, not in terms of demographics. Australia is not neighbours with Mexico, nor does it have a resident population of gangs and other criminals on the level of America's. So why compare two completely different things as if a remedy for one would work for another? You don't give you dog medicine meant for a cat because they're different organisms. Also surprise, home invasion are now more common than ever in Australia. [quote]we can get rid of guns[/quote]Really? I would love to hear your ideas on how to take even the hundreds of millions of [i]legal[/i] guns out of American citizens hands, let alone the hundreds of millions more [i]illegal[/i] guns as well. Ironically, you'd have to do it at gunpoint. Good luck.

Even if you ban guns, criminals will still find a way to get them. Also, if we go by your logic, cars should be banned too. They can be used as tools for murder, also.

You need to be repealed

The Aussie's banned guns and the armed robbery rate spiked up 68%. Banning guns won't just get rid of guns from the US. Gun smuggling will just be a huge industry. [i]~TheGreatReebok[/i]

You do realize why the Second Amendment was made in the first place?

Let me ask you.. Why does it bother you if you don't live in the US? Guns are merely tools which like any tool, merely means it's the most effective way to complete a task, same as cars, pencils, knives, etc.. The ability to kill has nothing to do with guns as they are merely a tool in that equation. Guns aren't going anywhere anytime soon (regardless of law) so why would law abiding citizens be put at a disadvantage towards criminals? They shouldn't. It's better to own a gun and never need it, than to need one and a never have it. Praise the founding fathers.