Topic: What's your opinion of gun control? - page 164. (Read 450551 times)
i think every family should have gun at least 1.
Gun control is not only your ability to control your gun, but it is also knowing when to use it, and it is using it then.
Black Friday breaks record with 185K gun background checks
"...More Americans had their backgrounds checked purchasing guns on Black Friday than any day in the on record, according to data released by the FBI this week.
The National Instant Criminal Background Check System processed 185,345 requests on Nov. 27, one of the largest retail sales days in the country.
"This was an approximate 5% increase over the 175,754 received on Black Friday 2014," wrote Stephen Fischer, the FBI's chief of multimedia productions. 'The previous high for receipts were the 177,170 received on 12/21/2012....'"
All the while....
White House Demands Congress Pass Gun Control For Christmas
"...The Obama administration is pressing for gun control, repeating a demand that Congress pass a ban on gun ownership for Americans on the no-fly list.
“If the U.S. Government has determined that it is too dangerous for you to board a plane then you shouldn’t be able to buy a gun,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said during a press conference in Paris today.
Earnest made the request just days after he called on Americans to talk about gun control during Thanksgiving dinner.
“Congress should pass this law before leaving for the Holidays,” Earnest said...."
"...More Americans had their backgrounds checked purchasing guns on Black Friday than any day in the on record, according to data released by the FBI this week.
The National Instant Criminal Background Check System processed 185,345 requests on Nov. 27, one of the largest retail sales days in the country.
"This was an approximate 5% increase over the 175,754 received on Black Friday 2014," wrote Stephen Fischer, the FBI's chief of multimedia productions. 'The previous high for receipts were the 177,170 received on 12/21/2012....'"
All the while....
White House Demands Congress Pass Gun Control For Christmas
"...The Obama administration is pressing for gun control, repeating a demand that Congress pass a ban on gun ownership for Americans on the no-fly list.
“If the U.S. Government has determined that it is too dangerous for you to board a plane then you shouldn’t be able to buy a gun,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said during a press conference in Paris today.
Earnest made the request just days after he called on Americans to talk about gun control during Thanksgiving dinner.
“Congress should pass this law before leaving for the Holidays,” Earnest said...."
After Paris, anyone who is still for gun control, needs to have his/her head investigated immediately. 
3 clowns with AK47 can kill 100+ sheeple easily, no resistance, no problem.
In Israel, that would not work, the assholes would not have had time to empty even the first magazine. Many people own and carry guns legally there. Hollande is a huge clown, he started war against ISIS without asking the french people first, if they want that (no referendum!).
France started it:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/27/us-mideast-crisis-france-syria-idUSKCN0RR07Y20150927
And France has super strict gun control. So basically he victimized his own people and now, he plays the strong man.
What a clown! Not as bad as Merkel, but still...!!
3 clowns with AK47 can kill 100+ sheeple easily, no resistance, no problem.
In Israel, that would not work, the assholes would not have had time to empty even the first magazine. Many people own and carry guns legally there. Hollande is a huge clown, he started war against ISIS without asking the french people first, if they want that (no referendum!).
France started it:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/27/us-mideast-crisis-france-syria-idUSKCN0RR07Y20150927
And France has super strict gun control. So basically he victimized his own people and now, he plays the strong man.
What a clown! Not as bad as Merkel, but still...!!
Would you agree that the attack of ISIS on France is different than Al Queda and 9/11 because 9/11 was unprovoked, while France was directly provoking ISIS?
After Paris, anyone who is still for gun control, needs to have his/her head investigated immediately.
3 clowns with AK47 can kill 100+ sheeple easily, no resistance, no problem.
In Israel, that would not work, the assholes would not have had time to empty even the first magazine. Many people own and carry guns legally there. Hollande is a huge clown, he started war against ISIS without asking the french people first, if they want that (no referendum!).
France started it:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/27/us-mideast-crisis-france-syria-idUSKCN0RR07Y20150927
And France has super strict gun control. So basically he victimized his own people and now, he plays the strong man.
What a clown! Not as bad as Merkel, but still...!!
3 clowns with AK47 can kill 100+ sheeple easily, no resistance, no problem.
In Israel, that would not work, the assholes would not have had time to empty even the first magazine. Many people own and carry guns legally there. Hollande is a huge clown, he started war against ISIS without asking the french people first, if they want that (no referendum!).
France started it:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/27/us-mideast-crisis-france-syria-idUSKCN0RR07Y20150927
And France has super strict gun control. So basically he victimized his own people and now, he plays the strong man.
What a clown! Not as bad as Merkel, but still...!!
as you said,you believe that guns are not weapons, they are tools. How they are used is up to the person holding it.
Guns are especially dangerous in the hands of people who don't know how to use them (i.e., kids and teenagers) as well as those who are mentally ill and/or have a temper problem.
and i agree with that,i think its just like a knife on kitchen,you can use it for good or bad act,its depending who hold it,and who in that area when someone hold that..i think,gun not must be controled
Guns are especially dangerous in the hands of people who don't know how to use them (i.e., kids and teenagers) as well as those who are mentally ill and/or have a temper problem.
and i agree with that,i think its just like a knife on kitchen,you can use it for good or bad act,its depending who hold it,and who in that area when someone hold that..i think,gun not must be controled
IMO, people should be given the choice whether whey want to own a fire-arm or not. In places like Texas, where home invasions are very common, the possession of a fire-arm can save many lives. However, the government should make it impossible for people with a criminal record, and those with mental issues from obtaining fire-arms.
What happens to the guns people owned before they got the criminal record. Police cannot seize them because the people with the record could hide them and tell the police that the lost the gun.
Very good point! The problem with it is that then only the terrorist government would have the guns. And if they were the only ones with the guns, police brutality of today would seem like a picnic on the beach when compared with what would happen.
If Government was honest, and they wanted to protect the people, they'd supply all the people with all the guns and ammo they wanted, and proper training for proper usage. Then we wouldn't even need police anymore, and terrorists and criminals would simply be gone... out of fear, or else killed off by the general populace.
I mean, think about it. Cops are simply people, with training. And often the worst kinds of people and crooks are selected to be cops. Government and gun control is a farce to rape the people, and entirely make slaves of them if possible.
IMO, people should be given the choice whether whey want to own a fire-arm or not. In places like Texas, where home invasions are very common, the possession of a fire-arm can save many lives. However, the government should make it impossible for people with a criminal record, and those with mental issues from obtaining fire-arms.
What happens to the guns people owned before they got the criminal record. Police cannot seize them because the people with the record could hide them and tell the police that the lost the gun.
IMO, people should be given the choice whether whey want to own a fire-arm or not. In places like Texas, where home invasions are very common, the possession of a fire-arm can save many lives. However, the government should make it impossible for people with a criminal record, and those with mental issues from obtaining fire-arms.
What happens to the guns people owned before they got the criminal record. Police cannot seize them because the people with the record could hide them and tell the police that the lost the gun.
IMO, people should be given the choice whether whey want to own a fire-arm or not. In places like Texas, where home invasions are very common, the possession of a fire-arm can save many lives. However, the government should make it impossible for people with a criminal record, and those with mental issues from obtaining fire-arms.
I agree with You that we need to distribute the control to different groups
Not sure how those who print the money can ever "have no money".
Not sure how they can afford to print it if everyone else uses Bitcoin.
"if"
Not sure how those who print the money can ever "have no money".
Not sure how they can afford to print it if everyone else uses Bitcoin.
Not sure how those who print the money can ever "have no money".
Governments are known to go against their people.
Nowadays there's usually a way to prevent that:don't vote for extremists or braindead people
"Usually"? Where are the E2E verified elections that prevent scum from counting their own votes?
Here's how to beat them with income taxes. Once they have no money, who cares how they scream and holler.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPGSxSStc6M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv_9vBLas5s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcs2p3veRKU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gUej6aASZg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGnqCjCwA5s
And https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12895759.
Governments are known to go against their people.
Nowadays there's usually a way to prevent that:don't vote for extremists or braindead people
"Usually"? Where are the E2E verified elections that prevent scum from counting their own votes?
Governments are known to go against their people.
Nowadays there's usually a way to prevent that:don't vote for extremists or braindead people
Governments are known to go against their people. This has happened throughout history. We need guns just in case that happens again.
Violence is what should concern people not the tool used in the violence. Yes ban guns and shootings decrease but violence not
It will be extremely hard to stop Gun Violence If some one wants a gun they will find one..there should be strict rule for violent people,It won't stop gun violence but I think it will go down.Violence is what should concern people not the tool used in the violence. Yes ban guns and shootings decrease but violence not
Banning guns is a lie. When governments ban guns, they only ban them among their citizens. The governments still have guns.
Most of the governments are filled with criminals. You can tell by the fact that it is the governments that make the wars. What does this mean?
It means that when governments ban guns, they are pushing a war against their own citizens, to execute them or make slaves of them.
If you as a non-governmental citizen allow banning of guns, you either become a slave from it, or you die.
Using civilian firearms in a manner which would counter government chartered prerogatives would be a big deal and the risks of being killed would be very high. Only in extreme circumstances is there any realistic possibility that it would be done by a non-trivial percentage of citizens.
Thus leads to a question: What, exactly, is the government envisioning that there is such a focus on dis-arming the population? It's hard to ignore that as the focus on civilian dis-armament intensifies, programs to arm police and other agencies such as the EPA are being ratcheted up, and the tactical capabilities they are being supplied with are impressive.
Call these questions crazy paranoia if you like. To me it seems appropriate to apply the 'precautionary principle' and keep my eyes wide open.
Government doesn't have the control that it advertises that it has.
The other side of your question might help find the answer. If any government wanted to protect against terrorism, all they would have to do is arm their populace. So, why doesn't government take the time to arm the the people, and teach them good gun safety? Instead, many of the various kinds of criminal charges that have been brought against the people in the past, are now being brought as terrorism charges.
The people might lose if government decided to fight them directly, but then government might lose their ability to fight. No more people to work the manufacturing of government war machines. It's a risk that government isn't willing to take right now.
Arms in the possession of the people is keeping government at bay, one way or another, although not perfectly.
Violence is what should concern people not the tool used in the violence. Yes ban guns and shootings decrease but violence not
Banning guns is a lie. When governments ban guns, they only ban them among their citizens. The governments still have guns.
Most of the governments are filled with criminals. You can tell by the fact that it is the governments that make the wars. What does this mean?
It means that when governments ban guns, they are pushing a war against their own citizens, to execute them or make slaves of them.
If you as a non-governmental citizen allow banning of guns, you either become a slave from it, or you die.
Using civilian firearms in a manner which would counter government chartered prerogatives would be a big deal and the risks of being killed would be very high. Only in extreme circumstances is there any realistic possibility that it would be done by a non-trivial percentage of citizens.
Thus leads to a question: What, exactly, is the government envisioning that there is such a focus on dis-arming the population? It's hard to ignore that as the focus on civilian dis-armament intensifies, programs to arm police and other agencies such as the EPA are being ratcheted up, and the tactical capabilities they are being supplied with are impressive.
Call these questions crazy paranoia if you like. To me it seems appropriate to apply the 'precautionary principle' and keep my eyes wide open.
Jump to: