Author

Topic: What's your opinion of gun control? - page 167. (Read 450558 times)

hero member
Activity: 1470
Merit: 504
October 25, 2015, 01:57:46 AM
just ban all guns every were save the deaths.

The absolute ONLY way to do this is mind control. If you don't have mind control over all the people, somebody will build more guns.

Do you really want mind control over yourself? Aren't we being propagandized by the media, etc., enough as it is? Wake up. Gun control and mind control lead to slavery.

Get back on the plantation and get to work you slave wannabe.

Smiley

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/08/30/217178528/dont-call-it-a-mind-meld-human-brains-connect-via-internet

look into Project Blue Beam too...
legendary
Activity: 3808
Merit: 1219
October 25, 2015, 12:01:57 AM
I think that to own a gun you should be qualified and therefore you should take a test and be evaluated by a psychologist.

Qualified? What type of qualification? Educational qualification? And if someone doesn't have a history of mental illness, then why he should get himself evaluated by a psychiatrist? Do you undergo psychiatric evaluation before you purchase a new car or a house? These are just excuses put up by the radical left to prevent ordinary citizens from owning guns. Nothing more.
legendary
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1032
RIP Mommy
October 24, 2015, 02:09:15 PM

http://americanhumanist.org/HNN/details/2013-01-your-opinions-on-gun-control-from-a-humanist-perspec

I find the arguments over gun control and registration ridiculous. I usually shut my opponents up when I point out that automobiles in the hands of the inexperienced and untrained are dangerous, and therefore we have compulsory tests and licensing to drive a car. The same logic applies to gun control, they are dangerous and there should be compulsory tests to determine your aptitude to handle a gun with subsequent registration and licensing. I do not see why anyone would consider this unreason.
                                                    
                                                          (Howard McFann, Florence, South Carolina)

God, I love Newspeak like "humanist" in place of "violent sociopath* safety advocate". *who perpetually have all the deadly weapons they want, whether they be automobiles, guns, blades, or blunt objects, while all those infringements only "reasonably" deny the victims of violent sociopaths, our human right to self-defense.
member
Activity: 98
Merit: 10
October 24, 2015, 04:36:33 AM

http://americanhumanist.org/HNN/details/2013-01-your-opinions-on-gun-control-from-a-humanist-perspec

I find the arguments over gun control and registration ridiculous. I usually shut my opponents up when I point out that automobiles in the hands of the inexperienced and untrained are dangerous, and therefore we have compulsory tests and licensing to drive a car. The same logic applies to gun control, they are dangerous and there should be compulsory tests to determine your aptitude to handle a gun with subsequent registration and licensing. I do not see why anyone would consider this unreason.
                                                     
                                                          (Howard McFann, Florence, South Carolina)
legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
October 23, 2015, 10:47:10 PM
I think that to own a gun you should be qualified and therefore you should take a test and be evaluated by a psychologist.
 

NEVER AGAIN.

Bump.  +100,000,000 dead victims of communist/fascist red/brown authoritarianism.

When people try to invalidate your opinion based on armchair psychology pseudo-science, the correct response is to reach for your gun.

Know your enemy: https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-freudian-left-by-paul-robinson/
legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
October 23, 2015, 09:56:42 PM
I think that to own a gun you should be qualified and therefore you should take a test and be evaluated by a psychologist.
 
No problem.

I assume that first I can have the psychologist take my test, then I can evaluate himher?
legendary
Activity: 4046
Merit: 1389
October 23, 2015, 09:20:58 PM
I think that to own a gun you should be qualified and therefore you should take a test and be evaluated by a psychologist.
 

The problem with this thinking is that it is government who directs whomever evaluates who can be a psychologist, and the kinds of evaluations the psychologist can do. It might take a number of years for the psychologists to gradually cause all gun owners to be evaluated mentally insane, or at least not qualified, but they would start right away. Government would see to it that psychologists did this if they wanted to retain their job.

People who own and practice with guns become very down to earth, once they realize what their guns can do. They don't go out on shooting sprees. They don't simply pick up and have "gun club" wars. Rather, they become respectful of other gun owners and even of themselves.

We don't need psychological reviews because the few gun crazy people out there will be killed by the sane ones when necessary for self defense.

Smiley
legendary
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1032
RIP Mommy
October 23, 2015, 04:57:09 PM
I think that to own a gun you should be qualified and therefore you should take a test and be evaluated by a psychologist.
 

NEVER AGAIN.

member
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
October 23, 2015, 04:47:59 PM
I think that to own a gun you should be qualified and therefore you should take a test and be evaluated by a psychologist.
 
legendary
Activity: 4046
Merit: 1389
October 22, 2015, 09:30:52 PM
This is absolutely brilliant!  But you should retain the exclusion for the rich and famous, and the politically connected, to have guns.  After all, it's only fair.  

Laws and regulations, which are applicable for the ordinary people, are normally not enforced on the ultra-rich and the politicians. It doesn't matter whether the politician is pro-gun rights or anti-gun rights. The Senate and the House will make it sure that they are allowed to own fire-arms, although the possession of the same is banned for the ordinary people.

Hey, come on.  They got their special retirement plans.  They got their special medical plans.  You wouldn't expect them to have to get in the gutter with Obamacare, would you?  

And what's this about guns?  Come on, don't be silly.  Let's get back to something seriously important, like how much we're going to give to you in free stuff next year if you vote us back in.    I know you want free stuff.

Free guns, ammo, and training, yes, for all law-abiding, mentally-sound, drug-free adults in the unorganized well-regulated militia described in the US 2A but seemingly only applicable to the Swiss.

If all of the people picked up their guns and ammo, all we would have left would be "law-abiding, mentally-sound, drug-free" people in America. The rest of them would be dead, because the people wouldn't put up with their infractions.

Smiley
legendary
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1032
RIP Mommy
October 22, 2015, 09:06:24 PM
This is absolutely brilliant!  But you should retain the exclusion for the rich and famous, and the politically connected, to have guns.  After all, it's only fair.  

Laws and regulations, which are applicable for the ordinary people, are normally not enforced on the ultra-rich and the politicians. It doesn't matter whether the politician is pro-gun rights or anti-gun rights. The Senate and the House will make it sure that they are allowed to own fire-arms, although the possession of the same is banned for the ordinary people.

Hey, come on.  They got their special retirement plans.  They got their special medical plans.  You wouldn't expect them to have to get in the gutter with Obamacare, would you?  

And what's this about guns?  Come on, don't be silly.  Let's get back to something seriously important, like how much we're going to give to you in free stuff next year if you vote us back in.    I know you want free stuff.

Free guns, ammo, and training, yes, for all law-abiding, mentally-sound, drug-free adults in the unorganized well-regulated militia described in the US 2A but seemingly only applicable to the Swiss.
legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
October 22, 2015, 07:26:24 PM
This is absolutely brilliant!  But you should retain the exclusion for the rich and famous, and the politically connected, to have guns.  After all, it's only fair. 

Laws and regulations, which are applicable for the ordinary people, are normally not enforced on the ultra-rich and the politicians. It doesn't matter whether the politician is pro-gun rights or anti-gun rights. The Senate and the House will make it sure that they are allowed to own fire-arms, although the possession of the same is banned for the ordinary people.

Hey, come on.  They got their special retirement plans.  They got their special medical plans.  You wouldn't expect them to have to get in the gutter with Obamacare, would you? 

And what's this about guns?  Come on, don't be silly.  Let's get back to something seriously important, like how much we're going to give to you in free stuff next year if you vote us back in.    I know you want free stuff.
legendary
Activity: 3808
Merit: 1219
October 22, 2015, 01:24:57 PM
This is absolutely brilliant!  But you should retain the exclusion for the rich and famous, and the politically connected, to have guns.  After all, it's only fair. 

Laws and regulations, which are applicable for the ordinary people, are normally not enforced on the ultra-rich and the politicians. It doesn't matter whether the politician is pro-gun rights or anti-gun rights. The Senate and the House will make it sure that they are allowed to own fire-arms, although the possession of the same is banned for the ordinary people.
legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
October 22, 2015, 12:36:39 PM
just ban all guns every were save the deaths.


Just ban all criminal activity.. problem solved.  Grin Cheesy

This is absolutely brilliant!  But you should retain the exclusion for the rich and famous, and the politically connected, to have guns.  After all, it's only fair. 
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1005
My mule don't like people laughing
October 22, 2015, 12:31:25 PM
just ban all guns every were save the deaths.


Just ban all criminal activity.. problem solved.  Grin Cheesy
legendary
Activity: 3808
Merit: 1219
October 22, 2015, 12:26:27 PM
Owning a gun should be a luxury. Not a right.

Then define the term "luxury". So in your opinion, who should be having the luxury to own a firearm? Only the billionaires, bureaucrats and the politicians? The right to live without falling victim to the criminals should not be a luxury, which is given only to the rich and affluent people or those who can afford expensive security agencies to protect them.
legendary
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1032
RIP Mommy
October 22, 2015, 12:18:38 PM
Owning a gun should be a luxury. Not a right.

The human right to self-defense already has been usurped into a luxury, a privilege.
newbie
Activity: 84
Merit: 0
October 22, 2015, 08:33:55 AM
Owning a gun should be a luxury. Not a right.
legendary
Activity: 3808
Merit: 1219
October 22, 2015, 08:25:29 AM
just ban all guns every were save the deaths.

It is very easy for a government or a dictatorship to "ban" the possession of guns. But it is impossible to implement this measure. Even in the countries with the toughest gun control laws (Australia, and Singapore for example), it is quite easy for the criminals to purchase firearms. And with the invention of 3D printing, the gun control has lost its meaning.
legendary
Activity: 4046
Merit: 1389
October 22, 2015, 05:42:50 AM

Gun control with crime involved is pointing to a breakdown of society. People who are desperate will gradually move to the countryside. There are lots of lands around America that are only owned by government. People will form their own small governments as they join together with their guns to battle off forest rangers, kinda like the Bundy incident, but with folks living on the land that they take over because it is the only logical desperate measure.

With communications as they are, the face of America will change as these groups strive to help each other.

Smiley

The desperate moving to the countryside is not what I'm seeing.  If anything it is just the opposite as regulations and financial snares (health care in particular) make it non-viable for people without moderate means to make a living.  As for the crime in my rural area, it seems to be almost exclusively home-grown jackasses.  That is to say, I'm not aware of criminals from the more metro areas setting up shop out here (which, again, I attribute to the high rate of gun possession and the relative simplicity and effectiveness of local monitoring by citizen groups.)

My read of the future is pretty much the opposite of yours.  Those more on the margin will be lured into 'human settlements' by various social services (e.g., free food, child care, etc.)  The more rural areas which are allowed to remain inhabited by humans will be part time homes for the well off with enough 'responsible' citizens allowed to remain permanently in order to keep an eye on things.

I can pretty much promise that those who remain in the 'upper middle class' or above are not going to be living in stack-n-pack shoe boxes in the 'human habitat' zones and riding bicycles or taking buses everywhere.  They will fund the propaganda to convince the plebs that 'this is what everyone wants', but they have no plans to herded into that nightmare.



You need only look at the reasons that people came to America from Europe in the first place.

Certainly there are many people who don't understand the dangers that they are placing themselves in by moving to the big cities. But there are tons of others who have moved and are moving out to the country, and to rural life. This is part of the reason why cities are expanding into all kinds of suburbs rather than upwards in high-rise apartments.

Why are there ghettos? Because the smart people moved out.

Smiley
Jump to: