except for how time and time again its shown that those measures would literally do nothing to stop shootings. this is even admitted by the people pushing for this kind of legislation, but they say we should do it anyway, because its the "right" thing to do.

and yes it very much does infringe upon the 2nd amendment. which is exactly the point of these measures, becuase the people pushing for the admit they wont work. they want these laws not to save lives but for control.

It's for the greater good. But why do you actually need a gun? You are probably not serving the army,

funny you should say that because actually im a Marine.

so i just don't understand. I can sort of understand if you lived on a farm or somewhere remote, but surely a rifle would do. What use would people need for an Assault rifle or anything like that? And why would you even need a gun if you lived in a city, to shoot your way through traffic!! But with less guns, there are less shootings it's common sense.

havent we been over this a couple dozen times. What's the difference between a rifle and an "assault rifle". answer: there isnt any. "assualt weapon" is just a made up term to make people that are ignorant of guns scared, and fear guns and want to ban them. and actually a owning a gun in a city would be much more beneficial than most other places, since cities tend to have higher crime and all. but its really hard to take you seriously when you display such ignorance of the topic by saying things like "shoot your way through traffic".

And how does what i said infringe the constitution? That's the right to bear arms, i never said to ban guns. I said for universal background checks and ammo limits. Gun reform is essential in America, even if it won't go as far as it did in the UK or Australia in the late 90's.  And why would it matter if your government ignored the constitution, they do that anyway. Potential laws like CISPA and the fact that Guantanamo Bay is even open are unconstitutional acts. 

lets see, how does it infringe upon the constitution? well first of all we already have background checks, what more do you suggest? that we infringe on an individuals rights to volunterlly partake in a private transaction. and limiting the amount of ammo somebody can buy is difinitely an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.

And also, i don't trust personal responsibility when it comes to guns (i do with drugs, as it only really affects the person smoking it), just because you can easily kill people with a couple of bullets. As I said, it's for the greater good. That Australian made it clear on the Daily show if you watched it.

"its for the greater good" perhaps the most diabolical line ever said, and has led to more deaths throughout history than i can count. its not for the greater good, its about control. the very people proposing these laws admit they will do nothing to curb gun violence. 

And finally, don't you think the NRA spread their own bullshit and get noticed because they make great noise at anyone with common sense?!

instead of just regergating talking points, can you in any capacity articulate what "bullshit" the NRA spreads. because in no way are they this big evil boogeyman that the left portrays them at. in fact they are a great organization, that invests millions into firearm saftey classes, and teaching children about gun saftey. they are 100% for safe and responsible gun ownership, which is why they invest so much into it. but of course guns are evil, so must be the NRA.

its like you intentially ignore and forget every debate you have about guns, because every time one of your claims is debunked you come back with the same one, and manage to sound more ignorant about the subject than last time 

1. That "shoot your way through traffic" comment was just a bit of harmless sarcasm. And yes I know cities have more crimes, but what's to say guns are the solution?. Isn't that a job for the police, they seem to like to beat up peaceful protesters so they should fight someone with a gun instead? And also if an assault rifle doesn't exist, does that mean all categories of gun are wrong?

2. Of course there are background checks already, but they should be compulsory on the buyer no matter where they are bought from. I believe you can buy a gun at a trade show without any proof of who you are or whether you are suitable to have the gun in the first place (due to your mental state) and i also find it a bit dodgy how easy it is to obtain a gun in the first place, some places give it to you for free for just opening a bank account! WTF! and also why would someone need more than a couple magazines at a time, it's not like the hunters or those who go to a gun range spray their bullets. They aim very carefully

3. I say it's for the "greater good" because i just fail to see how a modern, safe and healthy society can have such easy access to guns and function and prosper. Also, you Americans seem to just berzerk over big government (they can do worse than take your guns away and they already have, with peoples privacy), when there is no problem there. Come to Europe, see how an almost gun free society works

4. Well, after the Sandy Hook massacre they though it was somehow a good idea to arm schools and teachers. What a stupid idea! I remember hearing “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”, what a dumb thing to say!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/nra-responds-sandy-hook_n_2325059.html

Oh please, this is just stupid now. Yes, they may educate people on guns and their safety but to be honest they couldn't given a fuck about the people who die in these massacres. All they care about is protecting the profits of big gun companies like Smith & Wesson and Remington, something gun restrictions would damage. When people constantly get massacred for no reason, then reform is needed. You say guns make everything better but name a massacre that has happened in the UK or Australia since the gun bans took place. There's has been nothing since in either country, at least not anywhere near as bad.

5. You will never change my mind, i'll admit that right now. Not like it's a major issue when compared to the environment, economy or social issues or even foreign policy. At least on my side of the ocean

But, I bet the probability of death it's higher with attacks from guns than with a knife. Besides, I guess it's easier to kill more than one person in the same moment with a gun.