Topic: What's your opinion of gun control? - page 161. (Read 450551 times)

The Watchlist Gun Bans Begin: Obama Enlists Governors to Bypass Congress...







Read more at http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/by-executive-order-obama-enlists-governors-to-bypass-congress-on-no-fly-no-buy_12112015.

That's what happens when you crawl up onto Stan's lap, vehemently speak with a voice like Satan's, then get rebuked enough so that you start thinking about why you are on Satan's lap, and start wishing a little that you had not crawled up there.

no u

The dude has completely run out of things to say and is just spamming roughly the same thing to many threads.  Hard to know what his goal is, or even if he has one at this point, but it's also hard to give a shit.  A non-interesting troll has lost any residue of usefulness.  They often go out in a brief puff of random energy release and I'd guess that that is where Beliathon is at at this point.

But they are heavy.  I don't even like to carry a pistol.  I mean, think, dude.  For the same weight you could carry a six pack of beer.

I think everyone should be allowed to open-carry shoulder-fired nukes.

FYI, the current NICS background check seems to work okay.  Here is a list of the categories of people who are denied on this standard procedure.  One truly glaring thing that's obvious in reading this is that MOST of the categories of things liberals say "we ought to do" are already being done...



The federally prohibiting criteria are as follows:

    A person who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year or any state offense classified by the state as a misdemeanor and is punishable by a term of imprisonment of more than two years.
    Persons who are fugitives of justice—for example, the subject of an active felony or misdemeanor warrant.
    An unlawful user and/or an addict of any controlled substance; for example, a person convicted for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year; or a person with multiple arrests for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past five years with the most recent arrest occurring within the past year; or a person found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided the test was administered within the past year.
    A person adjudicated mental defective or involuntarily committed to a mental institution or incompetent to handle own affairs, including dispositions to criminal charges of found not guilty by reason of insanity or found incompetent to stand trial.
    A person who, being an alien, is illegally or unlawfully in the United States.
    A person who, being an alien except as provided in subsection (y) (2), has been admitted to the United States under a non-immigrant visa.
    A person dishonorably discharged from the United States Armed Forces.
    A person who has renounced his/her United States citizenship.
    The subject of a protective order issued after a hearing in which the respondent had notice that restrains them from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such partner. This does not include ex parte orders.
    A person convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime which includes the use or attempted use of physical force or threatened use of a deadly weapon and the defendant was the spouse, former spouse, parent, guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited in the past with the victim as a spouse, parent, guardian or similar situation to a spouse, parent or guardian of the victim.
    A person who is under indictment or information for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.

We can expect a lot of pushback on this.
The terrorists of this world will find easier (illegal) ways to buy guns.
These measures are not going to stop them.

FYI, the "terrorism watch list" is a list of names, not identities.  So this moronic measure would ban, as an example, all "John Smith" persons, if just one of thousands were on the list.  If the banned name lacked a middle name, you can see what would occur.

As the "terrorism watch list" does not name individuals, a ban based on it would clearly be unconstitutional.

Then again, I am certain there is a Mohammed on that list...

Taking guns from people on the no fly list is like taking guns from everyone, because you can put anyone on the no fly list.

Video: https://twitter.com/allinwithchris/status/675138619829583875

Chris hayes explains how a vet was wrongly placed on the no-fly list & smeared with headlines about an ISIS cell

Veteran trashed with ISIS Taint - MSNBC

Edit: Sorry, the previous story was about the Terrorism watchlist. Hopefully they'll get those guns away from the people in Homeland Security who are on it.

Some measures for gun control are being put in place....

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/nyregion/connecticut-to-ban-gun-sales-to-those-on-federal-terrorism-lists.html?_r=0

With the mass shooting in California last week focusing attention on terrorism and guns, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy of Connecticut announced on Thursday that he intended to sign an executive order barring people on federal terrorism watch lists from buying firearms in the state.

“Like all Americans, I have been horrified by the recent terrorist attacks in San Bernardino and Paris,” Mr. Malloy, a Democrat, told reporters. “This should be a wake-up call to all of us. This is a moment to seize in America, and today I’m here to say that we in Connecticut are seizing it.

This is so sad to hear this.  The thief was only doing his job.  And it's a hard job, he has to work through the cold, dark night.  He has to deal with mean and hostile victims.  Just think of how much more dangerous his job is if people have guns.  They shouldn't be allowed.

<>

I know many people need to have gun as they are business man, have business or are easy to be attacked by others.
So yes and no

Governments never give power back to the people once they have taken it. Once all rights are removed, one by one, democracy and free world are ended. 

University of Texas panel recommends allowing guns in classrooms

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-texas-university-guns-idUSKBN0TT2B720151210

A University of Texas advisory committee has reluctantly recommended allowing handguns in classrooms when a state law goes into effect next year, saying on Thursday it cannot bar the firearms under the state measure.

On Aug. 1, 2016, a so-called state "campus carry" law goes into effect allowing people 21 and older with a concealed handgun license to carry handguns in classrooms and buildings throughout the University of Texas system, one of the nation's largest with an enrollment of more than 214,000 students.

I'm not from america (if you are), the situation in my country is far different from yours. In the province that I mentioned, police are unreliable - you're mostly on your own, that's why most people confront things by themselves. I'm not from a sue-happy country as well, court is useless as it is corrupt as &^#@*, so If you do something bad... good luck.

Some months ago, when there was a thievery marathon in my area which makes neighbors can't sleep well at night (because local police is useless as fck). I heard a gunshot in the middle of the night. Next morning, they said a known thief in my area has been shot dead. That's good, 1 less thief in the world, and neighbors felt relief.

In my area you cannot shoot anyone just because they've trespassed onto your property.  The trespasser must be posing a threat.  This seems logical and fair to me and I have no objections.  If you do shoot someone, you go to court to prove your case so they better not have an entrance wound in their back.  I personally think that the 'stand your ground' idea is stupid and counter-productive and leads to more problems than it solves.

It is actually very rare that a trespasser gets shot, and I've not heard of it happening in my area for many years.  Part of this is because there are not very many trespassers who are up to no good thanks to high rates of gun ownership.  Another part is that most homeowners are responsible, familiar with guns, and fairly level headed and don't shoot everything which moves.  I will say that were it to be the case that law abiding homeowners were reliably deprived of firearms in my area, trespass with the intent to do harm would skyrocket.  We have one of the poorest economies in the country and lots of drug use (especially meth.)

I have had people trespass on my property and have never felt threatened in an encounter.  In fact, I only 'pack heat' while investigating a trespass if it is at unusual times (e.g., 2:00 am) and/or there have been people who seem to have been casing the area.  Neighbors keep an eye out for such things.  So far everyone who has stopped in front of my driveway or driven partially down it in the middle of the night has moved on (and fairly quickly) when I shine a flashlight on them if not before.  They may sense (correctly) that a shotgun is among the options readily available to the property owner.  They don't know that except in the most extreme circumstances I would do nothing more than fire a warning shot into the air...and I'm perfectly happy if they have to guess about it.  99 times out of 100 a trespasser would be some dumb-shit kid or lost hunter or something and I would feel very bad shooting someone in such a situation.

The law abiding citizens will be at disadvantage because criminals will just laugh at your gun law.

If people have guns, then they can fight back the moment someone starts firing rather than running away from fear, you should at least be able to protect yourself.

In my rural province, people freely carry a gun; heck they even make their own. If you intrude at someone's property, it's a fair game, because you don't have a business to be there. That's a common knowledge among the inhabitants. If not gun, they will use their knife, because most are farmers.

1.  With "order" not defined or quantified, the sentence has no meaning.
2.  Cannot be done.  Existing law mandates this, but end runs around the law are possible.  Criminals don't get guns legally, duh....
3.  I don't know why we would want a unique tag n bullets.  No, people do not believe that currently exists.  And no, guns made after 2005 do not have a traceable bullet tags embedded.

What does this mean?  Every one of your beliefs is wrong?

My beliefs on gun control
1. Gun control is needed to maintain order in society.
2. We need to make it impossible for people with a criminal record or a mental illness to be able to get a gun.
3. We need to attach a unique tag to the bullets. This does not happen contrary to peoples beliefs. In the US only guns made after 2005 have a traceable bullet tag embedded within.