Topic: What's your opinion of gun control? - page 165. (Read 450551 times)

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.

Violence is what should concern people not the tool used in the violence. Yes ban guns and shootings decrease but violence not

Ah, I had forgotten his writing.

It's illustrative of the fact that the totalitarians are bullies and cowards.

Give it ten years, though, and ask what the effects of 3d printing may be on the calculus of individual vs state.

It is possible (I don't and can't KNOW) that some things of the past cannot occur again.  The fear of any government that if they were too oppressive, a million guns might appear overnight.  The fear of a centralized money supply bankster that if he inflated the currency too far and too fast, Bitcoin would ride in and he'd lose it all.

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

+1

When I was first doing software engineering for money, crypto was, under U.S. law, classified as a 'munition.'  That was a giant pain-in-the-ass for the work I was doing.

As for 'bear arms' (and I apologize for the typo), my read of history related to the second amendment is that it is pretty clear that what was being considered by 'bear arms' was to bring them to use in conflict and in support of and under the direction of an individual state.

I also read the 'a well regulated militia' as being something which was a theoretical (and necessary and proper) thing but it was impossible without an armed population.  That is to say, it did not exist perpetually but it must be possible in times of need...and again, an armed citizenry was necessary for that to occur.

All kinds of arguments about how the 2nd is obsolete or wacko or whatever exist.  Or that it doesn't mean what it seems to mean.  I personally have not found these arguments to be compelling.  On the contrary, a government's founding documents containing the the explicit concept and mechanism of it's own demise should things go wrong seems to be a pretty unique thing in history.  These ideas and others like them have proven (to me) to have been powerful and proven given the success we've had over the last few centuries.

It is as clear as day that the U.S. 2nd amendment is a massive thorn in the side of the 'globalists' and 'new world order' crowd.  That is all the advertising I need to make me believe that it is something worth holding on to.

If you want real control of your gun and want more accuracy then you might be interested in the videos made by Ryan Cleckner. He does a great job of explaining the many complex factors in shooting long range. Below is an example as he explains shooting at angles. Many shooters forget to calculate this.

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

I guess as a thought experiment, then, look at the meaning today of "bear arms."  First of all, "arms" was not specifically firearms, but things that poke, stab and slice.  Bows and arrows, pikes, spears, swords, mace, knives at the minimum.  But today in most areas none of these, with the exception of firearms, are considered "arms."

Secondly, you'd broaden "arms" to include crypto?

Interesting idea.  It is a day of robbers and thieves operating over the internet.  Yes, we can protect our goods and gold from them using crypto, just like yesterday we would do it with a firearm, and before that, with a sword.

Money is never useful to the wealthy if the poor do not use it as well. If the poor use it, then the money is more useful to the wealthy than to the poor. Why do we keep on using fiat? Why not? It will fail someday. Good reason to hodl Bitcoin.

Distributed crypto-currency.  One of the big draws of Bitcoin for me years ago was my sense of hopelessness about the utility of guns as being useful under a situation where it was appropriate to 'bare arms' as envisioned by the authors of the 2nd amendment.  'We the people' are increasingly dis-advantaged in such a contest as technology moves exponentially forward.

It occurs to me that the main thing the proverbial 'powers that be' have is more money.  All of the rest of their power and influence derives from that, and this asymmetry is the basis for what amounts to a form slavery under which more and more citizens live even here in the 'land of the free.'  Wresting monopoly control of nation's (or world's) monetary system from TPTB is a far more powerful weapon than civilian firearms.  The latter certainly has it's place both tactically and strategically however.  And they are an indispensable tool for other more mundane things as well.

The biggest problem with "gun violence studies" is that 95% of them are laughable as far as being "scientific studies". A "study" should be conducted by people who have some considerable knowledge regarding the general area being studied and should be conducted with a completely opened and neutral mind.

Yes, vaporized. Because this time they will use plasma fired furnaces, rather than the old style, coal and wood fired, that Hitler and his cohorts used.

If you don't want to be vaporized, you'd have to take your own life.

lets say Americans give up their gun rights. Then the government decides it wants to use unconstitutional force on us. How would we defend ourselves without guns?

You should not say these things because they are troubling.  We want to be happy.  You have this weird obsession with logic.  Why?  Why can't you just stick with simple, warm and happy baskets of feelings?

What happens once guns are banned and the criminals still have them? What happens when guns are banned and people are still killing people without guns? I guess we ban people next?

OKay, I just read a full ballistics report on the 300.  Yep, that is pretty darn impressive.

I sure would not try with a .223 unless I were very desperate and starving.  I don't pretend to be an expert, but given the size of these animals I think you would be dependent on having enough luck to hit an artery or some similar vulnerable spot.  I suspect that a lung shot would kill it, but it would die 10 miles away and you would only find it by following the vultures a few days later.

You make a very good point about getting one shot at an elk though again, I'm hardly a professional.  I do have some experience with a .223 from my days in the military (though I've never been shot of course) and also experience with the densely foliage in my area as well as the behavior and capabilities of the creatures.

It is interesting that the the Federal box of 300 win-mag shells claims that they are suitable for small game like deer and not larger game like elk, and certainly not for dangerous game.  I suspect that they are err'ing on the side of caution.  The ballistics indicate that I should be able to take most shots available in my area.  Lots and lots of elk around here have fallen to 30-06 which is inferior to 300 wm in most respects.

Great, survival of the fittest, where some animals are more equal than others, with violent criminals with knives (blades) and blunt objects, plus all the guns they can afford at all times, while only victims are rendered defenseless, "sanely", by "gun control".

Putting indiscriminate nukes, fireworks/bombs, and discriminate bearable arms within googolplex light years of one another, fail.

Gunpowder was a Pandora's Box. I saw my nephews eyes light up when he saw his first fireworks, and I also saw him get very scared and nearly cry when they got louder and scarier.

Gunpowder hasn't helped us, it's holding us hostage -along with nuclear weapons. We are prisoners of our own aggression. In 2015, everyone probably wants a gun but nobody needs one. Gladly my country has a more sane view on gun ownership, but that hasn't stopped maniacs doing maniacal things.

Knives and blunt objects are dangerous too!