Topic: What's your opinion of gun control? - page 136. (Read 450482 times)
My opinion about gun control is the policemen and military men should only the one to carry guns with permission of law. Since they are using it to protect people and if someone will use for judicial killings the government can easily track the people with guns.
Gun control in a nutshell.
Ahah! xD
Well shot. But not IMHO.
You gotta have both. Where is your limit is what defines my position. For me gun control isn't that far, but the emergency state we currently are in to "prevent terrorism" and other useless shit of defending against something not important are indeed in this case.
Gun control in a nutshell.
Im for gun control but only for other people then me.
Reason is that i believe 90-99% of people dont have the brains to handle a gun carefully enough.
Reason is that i believe 90-99% of people dont have the brains to handle a gun carefully enough.
I believe that I am the one who has the brains to handle a gun carefully. I believe that you are the one who doesn't know how. Should we have a gun duel to see who is right?
Or none of you get a gun, seems both fair and secure to me.
In my country, the possession of firearms is controlled . But enforcement is very poor and the traffic is intense.
There is a strong campaign for gun possession to release any citizen . But I think it would only bring more problems for the population.
True security will come only when education is globally accessible to all citizens .
No good arm people , just what we have is a greater civil war.
There is a strong campaign for gun possession to release any citizen . But I think it would only bring more problems for the population.
True security will come only when education is globally accessible to all citizens .
No good arm people , just what we have is a greater civil war.
Im for gun control but only for other people then me.
Reason is that i believe 90-99% of people dont have the brains to handle a gun carefully enough.
Reason is that i believe 90-99% of people dont have the brains to handle a gun carefully enough.
I believe that I am the one who has the brains to handle a gun carefully. I believe that you are the one who doesn't know how. Should we have a gun duel to see who is right?
See that is exactly what i meant.
I never would use my gun for something like what you just asked for.
90% of people have the emotional level of teenagers in puberty. Giving them a gun - very smart.
Ps: it is not directly about intelligence this time more about common sense which sadly a lot of people are missing now a days
Im for gun control but only for other people then me.
Reason is that i believe 90-99% of people dont have the brains to handle a gun carefully enough.
Reason is that i believe 90-99% of people dont have the brains to handle a gun carefully enough.
I believe that I am the one who has the brains to handle a gun carefully. I believe that you are the one who doesn't know how. Should we have a gun duel to see who is right?
Now now, what does God say about killing people?
Im for gun control but only for other people then me.
Reason is that i believe 90-99% of people dont have the brains to handle a gun carefully enough.
Reason is that i believe 90-99% of people dont have the brains to handle a gun carefully enough.
I believe that I am the one who has the brains to handle a gun carefully. I believe that you are the one who doesn't know how. Should we have a gun duel to see who is right?
Im for gun control but only for other people then me.
Reason is that i believe 90-99% of people dont have the brains to handle a gun carefully enough.
Reason is that i believe 90-99% of people dont have the brains to handle a gun carefully enough.
My opinion on gun control rests differently with different countries.
The rules and requirements of every country is different, so are the needs.
The rules and requirements of every country is different, so are the needs.
i completely agree with you.. countires like turkey, iraq and syria , everybody must have a gun..
Of course, how else are they gonna have those interesting wars.
Gun control is very important in any society and poses a risk if appropriate measures are not taken against who is not eligible to actually own a gun.
A license should be issued to the holder and full details should be noted and under no circumstances should any gun fall into the wrong hands. In my opinion guns are not needed for any civilians. 
If anyone can "buy" a gun, even after two weeks after applying, then that's not gun control. So what if they know who killed someone and that person goes to prison? The victim is still dead. Not good.
Yeah but for Americans, having to sign a piece of paper saying "I'm not mad" is enough control, nearly too much already ^^
"Gun control" advocates (100% violent criminals) are never punished for perjury. Said piece of paper would only scare law-abiding, mentally-sound, drug-free people out of attesting to that, because there is plenty to be "mad" about - victimless acts being turned into "crimes" purely for revenue collection, non-aggressive dogs being shot, babies being flashbanged in their cribs...
If anyone can "buy" a gun, even after two weeks after applying, then that's not gun control. So what if they know who killed someone and that person goes to prison? The victim is still dead. Not good.
Yeah but for Americans, having to sign a piece of paper saying "I'm not mad" is enough control, nearly too much already ^^
My opinion on gun control rests differently with different countries.
The rules and requirements of every country is different, so are the needs.
The rules and requirements of every country is different, so are the needs.
i completely agree with you.. countires like turkey, iraq and syria , everybody must have a gun..
If anyone can "buy" a gun, even after two weeks after applying, then that's not gun control. So what if they know who killed someone and that person goes to prison? The victim is still dead. Not good.
Gun control is very important in any society and poses a risk if appropriate measures are not taken against who is not eligible to actually own a gun.
If people don't like the 2nd amendment, they should just come together into a place like California and declare it an independant country with its own constitution without the 2nd amendment.
What is the point of a united country when the document that unites the country is not entirely wanted or followed.
I think the country should be divided into two country at least. A left-winger country and a right-winger country with their own respective constitution. The left-wingers can legalize pedophilia and ban guns and the right wingers can arm a machine gun to their cars and ban weed.
All the problem mostly solved if they divide the country.
After all, there is only two major political parties, sort of like a duopolistic system.
What is the point of a united country when the document that unites the country is not entirely wanted or followed.
I think the country should be divided into two country at least. A left-winger country and a right-winger country with their own respective constitution. The left-wingers can legalize pedophilia and ban guns and the right wingers can arm a machine gun to their cars and ban weed.
All the problem mostly solved if they divide the country.
After all, there is only two major political parties, sort of like a duopolistic system.
That solution would not break my heart. I imagine that people who find themselves physically situated and owning property in a region which was not politically and culturally to their liking could swap with counterparts in other areas. If the breakup were peaceful and clean at least. If not, all bets are off.
I am at least pretty close to an area which some would like to form into a state called 'Jefferson' which includes parts of Northern California and Southern Oregon which find themselves at odds culturally with the more metropolitan areas of the respective states (not to mention the Feds who I consider to do almost nothing worthwhile for us and cause a lot of problems.) I'd go a step farther and wish it to become the nation-state of Jefferson. It seems to me that if there were a peaceful break-up of the United States, the resulting regions could maintain enough cohesion to retain the operation of a nuclear arsenal for common defensive purposes. In that way we could pretty much ignore threats from 'emerging superpowers' abroad and focus on our own problems more locally.
Ecotopia.
If people don't like the 2nd amendment, they should just come together into a place like California and declare it an independant country with its own constitution without the 2nd amendment.
What is the point of a united country when the document that unites the country is not entirely wanted or followed.
I think the country should be divided into two country at least. A left-winger country and a right-winger country with their own respective constitution. The left-wingers can legalize pedophilia and ban guns and the right wingers can arm a machine gun to their cars and ban weed.
All the problem mostly solved if they divide the country.
After all, there is only two major political parties, sort of like a duopolistic system.
What is the point of a united country when the document that unites the country is not entirely wanted or followed.
I think the country should be divided into two country at least. A left-winger country and a right-winger country with their own respective constitution. The left-wingers can legalize pedophilia and ban guns and the right wingers can arm a machine gun to their cars and ban weed.
All the problem mostly solved if they divide the country.
After all, there is only two major political parties, sort of like a duopolistic system.
That solution would not break my heart. I imagine that people who find themselves physically situated and owning property in a region which was not politically and culturally to their liking could swap with counterparts in other areas. If the breakup were peaceful and clean at least. If not, all bets are off.
I am at least pretty close to an area which some would like to form into a state called 'Jefferson' which includes parts of Northern California and Southern Oregon which find themselves at odds culturally with the more metropolitan areas of the respective states (not to mention the Feds who I consider to do almost nothing worthwhile for us and cause a lot of problems.) I'd go a step farther and wish it to become the nation-state of Jefferson. It seems to me that if there were a peaceful break-up of the United States, the resulting regions could maintain enough cohesion to retain the operation of a nuclear arsenal for common defensive purposes. In that way we could pretty much ignore threats from 'emerging superpowers' abroad and focus on our own problems more locally.
If people don't like the 2nd amendment, they should just come together into a place like California and declare it an independant country with its own constitution without the 2nd amendment.
What is the point of a united country when the document that unites the country is not entirely wanted or followed.
I think the country should be divided into two country at least. A left-winger country and a right-winger country with their own respective constitution. The left-wingers can legalize pedophilia and ban guns and the right wingers can arm a machine gun to their cars and ban pedophilia.
All the problem mostly solved if they divide the country.
After all, there is only two major political parties, sort of like a duopolistic system.
What is the point of a united country when the document that unites the country is not entirely wanted or followed.
I think the country should be divided into two country at least. A left-winger country and a right-winger country with their own respective constitution. The left-wingers can legalize pedophilia and ban guns and the right wingers can arm a machine gun to their cars and ban pedophilia.
All the problem mostly solved if they divide the country.
After all, there is only two major political parties, sort of like a duopolistic system.
Lol, simple way of seeing things ^^
Problem is how you divide the country? Who takes what? And what if dividing into 2 is not enough?
If people don't like the 2nd amendment, they should just come together into a place like California and declare it an independant country with its own constitution without the 2nd amendment.
What is the point of a united country when the document that unites the country is not entirely wanted or followed.
I think the country should be divided into two country at least. A left-winger country and a right-winger country with their own respective constitution. The left-wingers can legalize pedophilia and ban guns and the right wingers can arm a machine gun to their cars and ban pedophilia.
All the problem mostly solved if they divide the country.
After all, there is only two major political parties, sort of like a duopolistic system.
What is the point of a united country when the document that unites the country is not entirely wanted or followed.
I think the country should be divided into two country at least. A left-winger country and a right-winger country with their own respective constitution. The left-wingers can legalize pedophilia and ban guns and the right wingers can arm a machine gun to their cars and ban pedophilia.
All the problem mostly solved if they divide the country.
After all, there is only two major political parties, sort of like a duopolistic system.
Jump to: