Topic: What's your opinion of gun control? - page 118. (Read 450471 times)

This you can do.

I am reasonably sure that neither you nor I want an infinity of paperwork regarding owning a gun, but if you want more, then make more for yourself.

Let the people who want less or none have less or none.

Shall be infringed with prior restraint.

I think more papers and documents should go to owning a gun,, like u passed a therapy about anger management, u got stable job, etc.

Yes. They know.

How many individuals who have a license for their firearm have intentionally shot innocent people? The shootings are by individuals usually who obtain firearms illegally. Restrictive laws will only disarm the law abiding citizens, making us more likely to become victims of a crime.

Let's see what others have to say

Liberalism

The right to bear arms should not be infringed because it is the only means to resist a tyrannical government.

Feminism

The right to bear arms should not be infringed because, as there already exist physical differences between males and females, gun ownership would compensate for that and bring true equality.

Marxism

The right to bear arms should not be infringed because it is the only way a labor union can organize against their bureaucrats

Capitalism

The right to bear arms should not be infringed for the purpose of protection of private property

American Patriotism

The right to bear arms should not be infringed as it is the second amendment right of Americans, and their principles of liberty were declared to be universal by the founding fathers

Libertarianism

The right to bear arms should not be infringed as it is the only way to resolve disputes that are emergent and life threatening in a voluntaryist society.

"And despite all case law to the contrary, open carry isn't the right either, so everyone only has the right to be defenseless victims of genocide in public. Signed, Totalitarians of the 9th Circuit"

9th Circuit: Americans Have No Right To Concealed Carry A Gun Outside Home



The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is ruling in favor of California’s “good cause” requirement, saying the Second Amendment does not protect a right to carry a concealed gun in public.

On February 13 2014 Breibart News reported that a panel of judges from the Ninth Circuit struck down California’s “good cause” requirement. Thereafter–under pressure from State Attorney Kamala Harris–the court announced that it would rehear the case en banc. Today that en banc ruling resulted in the “good cause” requirement being upheld and Americans being told they have not right to carry a concealed gun in public.

The case–PERUTA V. CTY. OF SAN DIEGO–was filed by concealed permit applicants who think the “good cause” requirement infringed their Second Amendment rights in San Diego and Yolo Counties. On February 13, 2014, the Ninth Circuit panel sided with the Plaintiffs, ruling that the right to keep and bear arms is, in and of itself, a sufficient cause for bearing arms for self-defense. Moreover, that it is a sufficient cause both inside and outside of one’s domicile.

The San Francisco Chronicle quoted from Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain’s majority opinion, in which he emphasized that “the right to bear arms includes the right to carry an operable arm outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense.”

But the en banc ruling went in the opposite direction, upholding the “good cause” requirement and unequivocally stating that Americans have no right to carry a concealed gun outside the home for self-defense. Writing in the majority opinion, Judge Williams Fletcher said, “We hold that the Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.”


http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/06/09/9th-circuit/

For decades your people have been in an invisible cage. Government walks around with their guns hidden most of the time. The people don't have any guns.

Government has never really used their guns. They can't. If they did, the people would wake up to the cage they are in.

Why isn't the government using their guns to enslave you? Because there is gun freedom in America. And if your government sported its guns and the usage of them, your people would change to American freedom.

Because your government barely shows their guns, your people have been lulled into thinking that they are free. Wake up. No government simply gives freedom as a gift to its people. People have to fight for freedom. And you can't easily fight government guns without using your own guns.

In my part of the world, access to a gun is difficult and we see one of the least number of murder and violence. Even the police have limited access to guns. And it's really difficult for us to think about a gun pro society. The thought of people freely carrying gun is weird for us.

Well in my opinion we don't need gun controls because many don't follow the rules even if we put a law about gun control they will break it. They don't fear the law. 

After studying it with some diligence I saw more than enough for my tastes.  Your credibility on such things is bouncing around zero thanks to the performance on the 9/11 thread.

Some evidence exists to support your hypothesis RE the "Fast and Furious" program.  And for F&F, it's not fair to say "The State" when you can point directly to Obama's AG and Hillary pushing the lies.

But it appears the Sandy Hook conspiracy theories have no rational basis

Mass murderers never truly limited in any way, only their victims.

I think the way we can reduce on gun control would be on the limitation of bullets for 1 ownership.

So less bullets - limiting peoples when they do fire a gun. It may not sound like much, but if a school shooter was limited to bullets start with it would be less deaths.

So, wait a second, America’s great journalist, Katie Couric screwed the pooch with her documentary? so , what a surprise.

We do have 'gun control' here in the United States, and it is quite effective.  Back in the day (a few decades ago) thinking people were genuinely interested in solving the problem of citizens harming one another with guns (as opposed to now when the gun grabbers simply want to monopolize control of security and make the citizens dependant on the state for this service.)  What we did was to make the penelties for use of a firearm in the commision of a crime quite harsh.  Since then what problems do exist have been on the decline and are at a quite reasonable level all things considered.  In fact they declined so much that, like terrorism, the state is having to try real hard to created enough problems to make people concerened.  They even have to go so far as to fabricate events (a-la Sandy Hook.)

Well for me guns should be controlled because it was sometimes used to harm others Although I believe that gun control will not work.
Gun control will not work because we already had something like it a few times and each time it has failed. Remember the Prohibition? From 1919 till 1933 owning, producing, and selling alcohol was illegal. Some people believed that alcohol was a bad thing and that it caused people to do terrible things. To these people it seemed like a good idea at the time to make alcohol illegal.

I'm going to take the opposite side of this one.  In my opinion, people engauged in investigative journalism should be able to push the envelope in order to validate or invalidate a narative.  This is very similar to the people who were investigating whether Planned Parenthood was running a chop-shop for baby parts.  They got busted for engauging in the behavior that they were investigating which is absurd and wrong.  And, or course, PP was let off the hook.

I, for one, am fine with people investigating the purported issues in our firearms system simply because I want to have the best information I can get available to me.  I am also deeply grateful that Couric et-al made such asses out of the whole mainstream-media-gun-grabber nexus.  I already believed that these people have a hidden agenda and cannot be trusted and this simply adds weight to my contention.

As for background checks, I have to get one every time I buy a gun and have for the last 20 years.  I see and always have seen the danger in such record keeping, but I also see the danger in not doing so so on balance I am currently in favor of background checks.  I want to know if their are holes in the system so I can make inteligent decisions and arguents and not be a bozo when doing so.  I believe that the appropriate way to work around the dangers of a background check system is to legislatively insert 'poisen pills' such that if/when there are any hints of abuse, the problems the gun grabbers face will become exponentially more difficult for them.

I think she's central in the "aiding and abetting" of those criminal activities.

In fact the only ethical thing for such as Couric and her producer is to require themselves to be found guilty of not controlling guns per state and federal statutes.  As gun control advocates, I am sure they understand the need that they be imprisoned.

Or they are just prostitutes for the latest cause of the left, which the rules of said cause would not apply to them?