Topic: What's your opinion of gun control? - page 162. (Read 450471 times)

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.

This is ridiculous.  You could try this, or you could try something that would actually work and not feed the problem.

You know what would go a long way towards solving gun violence?

1) Increase personal liberties and freedoms, and...
2) Promote our similarities rather than differences in education, media, and political and social rhetoric.

Why does this work?  Because people shoot enemies when they feel oppressed or supressed in some form or another.  In contrast, you know how to increase gun violence?  Make people feel as though they're excluded (socially, financially, racially, whatever) , and then reinforce their awareness of said exclusion by forcing regulations upon them that restrict their ability to obtain inclusion.  This model is applicable to virtually all shootings with any motive.

"Flowing Like Water." Obama's Speech Causes Gun Sales Spike


Barack Obama keeps padding his resume as the greatest gun salesman in history, and is causing gun, magazine,and ammunition sales to spike yet again:

    Gun and ammunition sales have been spiking in Wake County following President Obama’s Sunday prime-time address and the mass shooting in San Bernardino, Calif., last week that left 14 people dead.

    Clay Ausley, the owner of Fuquay Gun & Gold, said shoppers are not just checking items off their Christmas lists, they are stocking up in anticipation that gun control laws will tighten.

    “We even saw an influx of customers coming in purchasing in fear of what (Obama) was going to say,” he said.

    Ausley said he started work at 4 a.m. Monday morning to replenish the stock.

    “With Obama making the statement that he wants to change legislation, get it to where its harder for the public to purchase high-capacity firearms, folks are going to start running to get what they can get ,” he said. “The heaviest hitters have been ammunition and high-capacity magazines. The AR mags, the AK mags – they have been flowing out of here like water.”

The anti-gun rhetoric of leading Democrats, and calls by some radical members of the New York media to gut the Second Amendment and even label National Rifle Association members as terrorists, led to the single greatest one day gun sales spike in American history just days ago.

Americans voted with their wallets, and purchased enough firearms to equip a militia the size of the U.S. Marine Corps with enough guns left over to equip two Army divisions.

But that was before the San Bernardino terrorist attacks on a Christmas party by a radicalized government employee and his jihadi bride, who came into the United States from Pakistan by exploiting weaknesses in the Obama Administration’s immigration schemes, and before the President’s prime-time Sunday night address that all but refused to blame the obvious role of Islamic terrorism in the attack, and instead attacked the right of Americans to own the very guns that brought these terrorists down.

Americans have since returned to their gun stores and are stocking up on more guns, magazines, optics, accouterments, and ammunition, anticipating a fight against enemies both foreign and domestic.


http://bearingarms.com/flowing-like-water-obamas-speech-causes-gun-sales-spike/

No kidding.

And this is such total BS.  Every election in the USA, liberal politicians who have fell for the AntiGun crap are voted straight out of office.  Every single time.  The only exceptions are places like California and New York.  

And every time some despicable atrocity occurs, it's used as an excuse to wind up the propaganda machine yet one more time.

How to really fix this problem?  It's real simple.  It's for the Bad Guy to look at a crowd of people, wondering if they might be his victims.  And they look straight back at him, their eyes saying "Yeah, I'm carrying."

This is not complicated.  This is what sheriffs in the USA are telling people to do.

This is where we're headed.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2173050/Do-NOT-steal-woman-s-towel-Heavily-armed-bikini-clad-female-Israeli-soldiers-mingle-Tel-Aviv-beachgoers.html

They would, and do, make it infinitely worse.

I second the "Fuck you."

Make no doubt about it, using a plethora of bureaucratic processes, fees, waits and such to cumulatively make it difficult to possess firearms is an active attempt to make an end run around the 2nd amendment.

And when it comes voting time, Democrats have never, ever been block anti-gun votes.  Never have, never will be.

"Interviews and psychological testing" Sure, buddy.  I'll go for that when you let me do interview and approvals for which liberals should be allowed to open their stupid mouths and chatter nonsense.

NOT A SINGLE THING OF YOUR IDEAS WOULD IMPACT CRIME OR TERRORISM ONE TINY BIT.

Making owning guns illegal does not solve the problem of crime. In countries where gun ownership is illegal, there are still many gun crimes. This is because if guns are illegal, criminals still get guns. Either they order online or they get them from other criminals physically.

The problem is not guns but people. This cannot be solved with either making guns legal or illegal.

Infringe all the civil rights then? Fuck you.