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. 
Topic: What's your opinion of gun control? - page 136. (Read 450551 times)
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.
There will always be crazy people in the world who want to do bad things, but guns are what allow them to do these horrible things, without guns so available, these mass shootings wouldn't happen. and if you don't believe that, look at any other civilized country and they don't have easy access to firearms, and the don't have these shootings like we do
No, they just have worse mass murders and violent crime than the US. Sick.
Holocaust & democide denial in 3...2...
You call the Holocaust a "violent crime"? Oo
And during WWII people had the right to bear weapons in Europe you know? We became civilized after...
After what? After we died? It took a lot of people with bigger guns and bombs to stop the genocide in Europe. Even the people of America had to step in and give their support to stop the genocide.
The result is reasonable peace in Europe. For a long time after WWII, there was great peace. Now greedy people in governments all across Europe and the Middle East are trying to start the holocaust-like genocide again.
On top of that, the government people in America are causing unrest over here. They are permitting genocide against millions of innocent, unborn babies.
This time, when the genocide stops, it will stop because God will step in and stop it. But it won't be stopped until after there is a lot more trouble and pain.
More guns for the common people so that they can put justice in place, and bring about peace, so that God won't have to destroy it all.
They're trying to start another genocide? ^^
And what I mean is that Holocaust took place when Europe was full of guns! Gun control laws were put in place only in the late 80's
So your argument is invalid. It's not because people had gun that the holocaust was stopped.
There will always be crazy people in the world who want to do bad things, but guns are what allow them to do these horrible things, without guns so available, these mass shootings wouldn't happen. and if you don't believe that, look at any other civilized country and they don't have easy access to firearms, and the don't have these shootings like we do
No, they just have worse mass murders and violent crime than the US. Sick.
Holocaust & democide denial in 3...2...
You call the Holocaust a "violent crime"? Oo
And during WWII people had the right to bear weapons in Europe you know? We became civilized after...
After what? After we died? It took a lot of people with bigger guns and bombs to stop the genocide in Europe. Even the people of America had to step in and give their support to stop the genocide.
The result is reasonable peace in Europe. For a long time after WWII, there was great peace. Now greedy people in governments all across Europe and the Middle East are trying to start the holocaust-like genocide again.
On top of that, the government people in America are causing unrest over here. They are permitting genocide against millions of innocent, unborn babies.
This time, when the genocide stops, it will stop because God will step in and stop it. But it won't be stopped until after there is a lot more trouble and pain.
More guns for the common people so that they can put justice in place, and bring about peace, so that God won't have to destroy it all.
There will always be crazy people in the world who want to do bad things, but guns are what allow them to do these horrible things, without guns so available, these mass shootings wouldn't happen. and if you don't believe that, look at any other civilized country and they don't have easy access to firearms, and the don't have these shootings like we do
No, they just have worse mass murders and violent crime than the US. Sick.
Holocaust & democide denial in 3...2...
You call the Holocaust a "violent crime"? Oo
And during WWII people had the right to bear weapons in Europe you know? We became civilized after...
There will always be crazy people in the world who want to do bad things, but guns are what allow them to do these horrible things, without guns so available, these mass shootings wouldn't happen. and if you don't believe that, look at any other civilized country and they don't have easy access to firearms, and the don't have these shootings like we do
No, they just have worse mass murders and violent crime than the US. Sick.
Hmm... No. Europe has a much lower violent crimes rates than US.
There will always be crazy people in the world who want to do bad things, but guns are what allow them to do these horrible things, without guns so available, these mass shootings wouldn't happen. and if you don't believe that, look at any other civilized country and they don't have easy access to firearms, and the don't have these shootings like we do
No, they just have worse mass murders and violent crime than the US. Sick.
Holocaust & democide denial in 3...2...
There will always be crazy people in the world who want to do bad things, but guns are what allow them to do these horrible things, without guns so available, these mass shootings wouldn't happen. and if you don't believe that, look at any other civilized country and they don't have easy access to firearms, and the don't have these shootings like we do
I'm not for gun freedom mainly because I consider the whole population and the average citizen as far too stupid to have the right to own a gun.
In my opinion our world is currently deeply in shit and only a Marxist and Socialist revolution can do something in the hope to save it. But people became too dumb, they're blinded by capitalism and flawed history so they don't see how capitalism is responsible for pretty much everything currently happening.
But fact is here: In France after the Revolution freedom of having a weapon was a fundamental right. And it has been so until WWII and the authoritative Vichy government. In fact only fascist made gun ownership illegal. The people should have the right to arm themselves that's for sure, but the people currently don't deserve it. We lost our ideals, our guts, our will to build a better future.
We don't deserve anything but the shitty world we're building.
In my opinion our world is currently deeply in shit and only a Marxist and Socialist revolution can do something in the hope to save it. But people became too dumb, they're blinded by capitalism and flawed history so they don't see how capitalism is responsible for pretty much everything currently happening.
But fact is here: In France after the Revolution freedom of having a weapon was a fundamental right. And it has been so until WWII and the authoritative Vichy government. In fact only fascist made gun ownership illegal. The people should have the right to arm themselves that's for sure, but the people currently don't deserve it. We lost our ideals, our guts, our will to build a better future.
We don't deserve anything but the shitty world we're building.
AH! Where did I look at anything else but the Big Picture? I give you national, international and annual stats only!
Well if you said only what you said, better stop talking as it's pretty damn useless.
Well if you said only what you said, better stop talking as it's pretty damn useless.
I will determine the value of my own efforts, thanks for trying to think for me again though. I know in your native French Caliphate this is considered hospitality. Here some people still value independent thought.
Not trying to think for you, just giving what I think about you and what you said. I think all what you said is useless and that you're protecting yourself by an extreme sensitivity (thanks for the word as I had the wrong one) to any kind of logical fallacy because you have no argument behind. You know most people have some kind of tolerance on those things for the simple reason that language is rarely precise enough to express one's mind without any possibility to misinterpret it. Seems you're taking any debate like a mathematical one, without any kind of approximation. Well I'd recommend you to go back to science, and if you want we can talk about Quantum Theory applied to nanoscale, here I'll agree on the fact that there is no place for any kind of approximation or interpretation.
On a subject where so much of reality is lost in manipulated statistics and rhetoric, the "mathematics" of language are crucial. Without his rule there can be no exchange of logic, because we would be forever lost in fallacious argument which means nothing in reality. You declaring my statements useless does not make it so no matter how much you repeat it to try to convince others of this.
The only thing I am protecting is the right for humanity to defend itself. If you actually even knew how to define a logical fallacy, you would know that using logical fallacies means you have no argument, pointing them out does not mean you have no argument. I have once again emboldened your logical fallacies. I know you won't bother to learn from this, but maybe someone else will learn from your mistakes.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon
There was no logical fallacy in my last post as I solely express my own opinion and point of view. There is no logic in this post, only my feeling about you and the emptiness of your mind
AH! Where did I look at anything else but the Big Picture? I give you national, international and annual stats only!
Well if you said only what you said, better stop talking as it's pretty damn useless.
Well if you said only what you said, better stop talking as it's pretty damn useless.
I will determine the value of my own efforts, thanks for trying to think for me again though. I know in your native French Caliphate this is considered hospitality. Here some people still value independent thought.
Not trying to think for you, just giving what I think about you and what you said. I think all what you said is useless and that you're protecting yourself by an extreme sensitivity (thanks for the word as I had the wrong one) to any kind of logical fallacy because you have no argument behind. You know most people have some kind of tolerance on those things for the simple reason that language is rarely precise enough to express one's mind without any possibility to misinterpret it. Seems you're taking any debate like a mathematical one, without any kind of approximation. Well I'd recommend you to go back to science, and if you want we can talk about Quantum Theory applied to nanoscale, here I'll agree on the fact that there is no place for any kind of approximation or interpretation.
On a subject where so much of reality is lost in manipulated statistics and rhetoric, the "mathematics" of language are crucial. Without his rule there can be no exchange of logic, because we would be forever lost in fallacious argument which means nothing in reality. You declaring my statements useless does not make it so no matter how much you repeat it to try to convince others of this.
The only thing I am protecting is the right for humanity to defend itself. If you actually even knew how to define a logical fallacy, you would know that using logical fallacies means you have no argument, pointing them out does not mean you have no argument. I have once again emboldened your logical fallacies. I know you won't bother to learn from this, but maybe someone else will learn from your mistakes.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon
I feel that gun control is needed in order to stop people that have a mental condition / issue that may make them kill innocent people / harm them. Gun control has to be done to an extent is all.
That law is already there... If you have ever been committed to a mental institution, you are not allowed to own a gun
The only issue is person to person sales... a gun dealer runs a background check, but your buddy could still buy a gun for you (known as a straw-man purchase, also illegal)... or gun shows, which is considered person to person, not dealer (at least it used to be, I think Obama wrote an Executive Order about this recently)
Jump to: