Author

Topic: What's your opinion of gun control? - page 156. (Read 450482 times)

legendary
Activity: 1288
Merit: 1043
:^)
January 16, 2016, 09:04:16 AM
i hate to use a fucked up event as a sort of argument for this, but the events in germany with the taharrush (?) stuff is just a great case of why concealed firearms should be available for citizens should they feel the need for personal protection. whats going to stop a bunch of arabs from raping a lone woman? not the woman's own arm strength, thats for sure. unless that woman happens to be some gorilla - strength weightlifting UFC fighter or something. in most cases, a gun will probably do the job of deterring any attackers.

"Probably?"

Six or eight dead morons after one attack and there would simply be no more of these attacks.

These attacks were and are entirely premeditated, and plausible ONLY in the absence of firearms in the population.
tone doesnt carry over in text, dont take it 100% literally.

I'm not sure what you mean, but I meant what I said.

One single attempt at mob rape, countered by a single case of a woman using a firearm to protect herself, followed by media pictures of dead morons lying around on the street, would stop all of this.

In areas where the morons knew the woman might be carrying.
there was a slightly joking tone in my head as i typed it out, kind of like someone saying: 'yeah, 20 pounds of c4 is probably enough to damage a car.' i thought thatd carry over a bit with the humorous description of a 'gorilla' woman, but whatever.
of course, i dont know enough about the laws in germany pertaining to firearm permits and purchase for civilians, so its no guarantee that a fair number of women will carry firearms in the streets anytime soon.
on a side note though, it seems german gangs are going around beating up immigrants, if the government doesnt step in soon, germany might turn into something straight out of a purge movie.
legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
January 16, 2016, 08:45:56 AM
i hate to use a fucked up event as a sort of argument for this, but the events in germany with the taharrush (?) stuff is just a great case of why concealed firearms should be available for citizens should they feel the need for personal protection. whats going to stop a bunch of arabs from raping a lone woman? not the woman's own arm strength, thats for sure. unless that woman happens to be some gorilla - strength weightlifting UFC fighter or something. in most cases, a gun will probably do the job of deterring any attackers.

"Probably?"

Six or eight dead morons after one attack and there would simply be no more of these attacks.

These attacks were and are entirely premeditated, and plausible ONLY in the absence of firearms in the population.
tone doesnt carry over in text, dont take it 100% literally.

I'm not sure what you mean, but I meant what I said.

One single attempt at mob rape, countered by a single case of a woman using a firearm to protect herself, followed by media pictures of dead morons lying around on the street, would stop all of this.

In areas where the morons knew the woman might be carrying.
sr. member
Activity: 518
Merit: 250
January 16, 2016, 07:38:34 AM
Control of the use of weapons is a good thing. A person who is permitted to use weapons pshicology should be tested to see if he is worth using weapons.
What kind of a test would that be?  Huh
hero member
Activity: 1414
Merit: 574
January 16, 2016, 07:26:45 AM
Control of the use of weapons is a good thing. A person who is permitted to use weapons pshicology should be tested to see if he is worth using weapons.
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
January 14, 2016, 10:48:00 AM
Background checks are not a bad idea, but the second amendement can't and will never be touched

While this in its simple form might be true, in government documents and governmental officials' speeches, especially U.N. related stuff, the idea is to identify where all the guns are located so that they can come and get them.

You can find this info if you check out various areas of http://www.prisonplanet.com/ and http://www.infowars.com/.

Smiley
full member
Activity: 199
Merit: 100
January 14, 2016, 10:38:07 AM
Background checks are not a bad idea, but the second amendement can't and will never be touched
legendary
Activity: 1288
Merit: 1043
:^)
January 14, 2016, 10:36:23 AM
i hate to use a fucked up event as a sort of argument for this, but the events in germany with the taharrush (?) stuff is just a great case of why concealed firearms should be available for citizens should they feel the need for personal protection. whats going to stop a bunch of arabs from raping a lone woman? not the woman's own arm strength, thats for sure. unless that woman happens to be some gorilla - strength weightlifting UFC fighter or something. in most cases, a gun will probably do the job of deterring any attackers.

"Probably?"

Six or eight dead morons after one attack and there would simply be no more of these attacks.

These attacks were and are entirely premeditated, and plausible ONLY in the absence of firearms in the population.
tone doesnt carry over in text, dont take it 100% literally.
legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
January 14, 2016, 09:30:20 AM
i hate to use a fucked up event as a sort of argument for this, but the events in germany with the taharrush (?) stuff is just a great case of why concealed firearms should be available for citizens should they feel the need for personal protection. whats going to stop a bunch of arabs from raping a lone woman? not the woman's own arm strength, thats for sure. unless that woman happens to be some gorilla - strength weightlifting UFC fighter or something. in most cases, a gun will probably do the job of deterring any attackers.

"Probably?"

Six or eight dead morons after one attack and there would simply be no more of these attacks.

These attacks were and are entirely premeditated, and plausible ONLY in the absence of firearms in the population.
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
January 14, 2016, 06:22:19 AM
i hate to use a fucked up event as a sort of argument for this, but the events in germany with the taharrush (?) stuff is just a great case of why concealed firearms should be available for citizens should they feel the need for personal protection. whats going to stop a bunch of arabs from raping a lone woman? not the woman's own arm strength, thats for sure. unless that woman happens to be some gorilla - strength weightlifting UFC fighter or something. in most cases, a gun will probably do the job of deterring any attackers.

The problem is that the people are not used to this kind of gun usage. If we had 5 years to implement this kind of thing, a little bit at a time, so that people got used to it, it would be good. As it is, if this were implemented right now, all at once, there would be a lot of people that would get killed or hurt from friendly fire.

Watch The George Washington Of Gun Rights Speaks Out at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqx93bmACfQ.

Smiley
legendary
Activity: 1288
Merit: 1043
:^)
January 12, 2016, 11:24:13 AM
i hate to use a fucked up event as a sort of argument for this, but the events in germany with the taharrush (?) stuff is just a great case of why concealed firearms should be available for citizens should they feel the need for personal protection. whats going to stop a bunch of arabs from raping a lone woman? not the woman's own arm strength, thats for sure. unless that woman happens to be some gorilla - strength weightlifting UFC fighter or something. in most cases, a gun will probably do the job of deterring any attackers.
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001
minds.com/Wilikon
January 12, 2016, 11:16:34 AM







legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001
minds.com/Wilikon
January 11, 2016, 03:53:22 PM
"When you are for gun control you are not against guns. Because the guns will be needed to disarm the people.
So it's not that you're anti-gun, because you need the guns of the police to take away other people's guns.
There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small political elite and their minions."
- Stefan Molyneux (freedomainradio.com)



Armed guards protect anti-gun celebrities at Golden Globe Awards







The Golden Globes were held on Sunday and the award show was filled with celebrities spending countless hours praising each other.

While the stars had to worry about hair and makeup, they didn’t have to worry about personal protection — because many of these gun control advocates were protected by armed security guards, snipers on the roof, armored cars, and bomb sniffing dogs walking up and down the red carpet.

Several celebrities who were nominees and presenters at the award show signed a letter thanking President Obama for his Executive Action on gun control.

Amy Schumer, Quentin Tarantino, and Matt Damon believe the average American shouldn’t be armed, but when it comes to their own personal security — no expense should be spared.

    Increased security presence at the 73rd Annual Golden Globe Awards at the Beverly Hilton #GoldenGlobes pic.twitter.com/YxPEnZQfrM
    — Allen Schaben (@alschaben) January 10, 2016

    First time I've ever seen security with machine guns walking #GoldenGlobes (@ScottFeinberg) https://t.co/E3Q76hkOkv pic.twitter.com/fVnBi933Q8
    — Janice Min (@janicemin) January 11, 2016

    Security with machine guns patrol red carpet before 73rd Golden Globe Awards at the Beverly Hilton #GoldenGlobes pic.twitter.com/FSRlmmcBnN
    — Allen Schaben (@alschaben) January 10, 2016

    Beverly Hills PD armored vehicle in position. At 4, a look at prep and security going into tonight's #goldenglobes pic.twitter.com/jLMANNRWgy
    — Ashley Kewish (@ashleykewish) January 10, 2016

    @SantaMonicaPD K-9 Rambo pawz'd for a moment on red carpet while aiding in security check at the #GoldenGlobes pic.twitter.com/cTYiEdWLbt
    — Jacqueline Seabrooks (@SantaMonicaCoP) January 10, 2016


http://redalertpolitics.com/2016/01/11/armed-guards-protect-anti-gun-celebrities-golden-globe-awards/#exVkVa01eVEbPgCA.99


hero member
Activity: 574
Merit: 500
freedomainradio.com
January 10, 2016, 04:13:42 PM
"When you are for gun control you are not against guns. Because the guns will be needed to disarm the people.
So it's not that you're anti-gun, because you need the guns of the police to take away other people's guns.
There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small political elite and their minions."
- Stefan Molyneux (freedomainradio.com)
legendary
Activity: 4760
Merit: 1283
January 10, 2016, 04:06:24 PM
...
What, a SWAT team can do e.g. in a village, if they have to deal with e.g. 1000 armed villagers? Good luck to SWAT team... ha ha ha !!

I've got a better (though not novel) idea:

Cultivate a pool of operatives who can attack 'the villagers' effectively.  This can be done through austerity to mold the behaviors of domestic resources, through immigration of select groups, etc.  These are not high-investment operations, and the 'villagers' will be paying the costs anyway through taxes.

To make the jobs of said operatives easier, deter the 'villagers' abilities to counter these operatives.  Ideas for this include restricting means of defense by the villagers (esp, disarming them), protection the operatives from being deterred by law enforcement, sharing intel about where pools of wealth might be found, etc.

The goal is to get things pretty even so that when the dust settles, both the operatives and the 'villagers' are mostly destroyed.  At that point the mop-up operations will be doable with persistent personnel who are more carefully selected and generally of higher investment.

hero member
Activity: 616
Merit: 500
January 10, 2016, 03:40:33 PM
People need to understand. Talking about gun rights isn't gun rights. It is freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech is great. Go ahead and speak freely. But what will you do when government agents get after you for the things you say?

Smiley

And what they can do? They will come with the ass and fart my balls? ha ha ha !!

There's thousands of people in prison for smoking a single joint. If they wanted to, they'd send a SWAT team over and send you to prison for what you say.

Your alternative is to have guns, and many friends who have guns, and are on call on a moment's notice, like you have to be on call for them.

Smiley

What, a SWAT team can do e.g. in a village, if they have to deal with e.g. 1000 armed villagers? Good luck to SWAT team... ha ha ha !!
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001
minds.com/Wilikon
January 10, 2016, 11:55:59 AM



Gun Retailers Report Sales Soar After Obama Address…








President Barack Obama had hardly closed his emotional Tuesday address outlining executive actions on gun control before Santa Cruz Armory was bustling.

“Literally five minutes after he finished talking, my store was packed,” said Nolan Sands, general manager of the Scotts Valley firearms retailer. “The direct relation as to when he talks and us getting busy is impeccable.”

Tuesday’s surge comes after what Santa Cruz County gun dealers unanimously agree have been weeks of exceptional sales, mirroring a national uptick after the Dec. 2 San Bernardino attack.

In December, the FBI processed more than 3.3 million firearm sales background checks compared to about 2.3 million from December 2014. That differential, more a million with the exact numbers, is unprecedented in data going back to 1998. Exact numbers for Santa Cruz County gun sales were not immediately available, but Sands characterized his sales as having doubled since the San Bernardino attack.

Markley’s Indoor Range & Gun similarly has seen a “big uptick” in the past month, said Paul Cunningham, a salesperson at the storefront and shooting range outside Watsonville. But Cunningham said it has been policy, not safety, that has driven the customers he has seen.

“Obama is our No. 1 gun salesman,” Cunningham said. “He’s been the salesman of the year for the last eight years.”

Lee Ewing, owner of Pacific Military Arms and Service, an appointment-based gun retailer in Scotts Valley, said he has seen his sales go up “big time” in the same period.

“The first-time folks coming in and saying ‘I think I need to get a gun now.’ The next line out of their mouth is ‘because the government is not going to allow me to buy this later,’” Ewing said. “A huge percentage of it is driven by politicians.”


http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/article/NE/20160108/NEWS/160109728


legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
January 10, 2016, 10:39:37 AM
People need to understand. Talking about gun rights isn't gun rights. It is freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech is great. Go ahead and speak freely. But what will you do when government agents get after you for the things you say?

Smiley

And what they can do? They will come with the ass and fart my balls? ha ha ha !!

There's thousands of people in prison for smoking a single joint. If they wanted to, they'd send a SWAT team over and send you to prison for what you say.

Your alternative is to have guns, and many friends who have guns, and are on call on a moment's notice, like you have to be on call for them.

Smiley
hero member
Activity: 616
Merit: 500
January 10, 2016, 03:12:51 AM
People need to understand. Talking about gun rights isn't gun rights. It is freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech is great. Go ahead and speak freely. But what will you do when government agents get after you for the things you say?

Smiley

And what they can do? They will come with the ass and fart my balls? ha ha ha !!
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001
minds.com/Wilikon
January 09, 2016, 03:43:00 PM



American Sniper Chris Kyle's Wife Taya Challenges President Obama at CNN Gun Control Town Hall



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOQZj8QqGMw



legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
January 09, 2016, 02:17:58 PM
every person has right to defend himself. for that reason, it cant be restricted but we can limit rights to have a gun .

You can only illegally limit rights and turn them into privileges, because the right is to EFFECTIVE self-defense, guns, the current pinnacle of human self-defense invention, not ineffective, "bring knives, bats, fists, whistles, harsh language to a genocide" effective suicide.
There is a history to the right to have firearms in America, namely it is the large number of massacres of families during the expansion westward of from the East Coast, 1700-1880.  It's laughable to even think this could have occurred without individuals having accurate rifles and sidearms.  Most other modern countries do not have this history of struggle.

Schoolhouses, which say in 1850 were one room things with all ages of children up through high school, were not uncommonly attacked by roving bands of Indians.  And again, not uncommonly, the children would have rifles that they brought to the schoolhouse, and that they defended themselves with.

Jump to: