Topic: What's your opinion of gun control? - page 178. (Read 450482 times)
I tried gun control once. I set the gun down and told it that it had control. It did nothing. After a while I started to get hungry. I asked the gun if I could fix myself something to eat. The gun neither said or did anything. I went to bed hungry. But it was only in the middle of the night when I woke up and asked the gun if I could use the bathroom, that I finally decided that gun control wasn't for me.
It is ridiculously easy in a lot of places for people to get guns. Why not make it a more difficult process so if someone is going to do something malicious with a gun at least they had to work for it?
Should all killer clown masks be banned?
It is ridiculously easy in a lot of places for people to get guns. Why not make it a more difficult process so if someone is going to do something malicious with a gun at least they had to work for it?
My rights regarding guns aren't limited to the Second Amendment. The 2nd Amendment merely describes the government limits regarding the way they can control gun rights... if they can get away with it.
Government better lay off my rights as a man... and they will. Why? Because government never does anything. It is always people using supposed governmental authority to mess with people.
If government people mess with me regarding my rights, I will use government to mess with them regarding their messing with me.
It is ridiculously easy in a lot of places for people to get guns. Why not make it a more difficult process so if someone is going to do something malicious with a gun at least they had to work for it?
You hear that, but where? I'm not saying there is no black market, however it is not something that most non-criminals have access to. For me to get a gun takes days and requires all sorts of paperwork and money. The bar is higher still for handguns, silencers, short barreled rifles, etc. The criminals who buy on the black market are not going to institute any rules we come up with, and so you only make it hard for the law abiding. It's like the pretending game that people play when they put up a "No guns" sign. They think that means no guns will come in. Actually it only serves to assure criminals that everyone in this place is helpless.
It is ridiculously easy in a lot of places for people to get guns. Why not make it a more difficult process so if someone is going to do something malicious with a gun at least they had to work for it?
When nobody can tell whether prohibition does or doesn't work then I don't think it's worth continuing. You waste public resources, create black markets and criminalize otherwise law abiding citizens.
Liberal Virginia Governor Brings Armed Security Guard to DC For Anti-Gun Rally
[...]
A few things. First off, McAuliffe's claim that people "can be armed" while we were standing on the Capitol grounds in Washington D.C. is false. It is nearly impossible for law abiding civilians to be legally armed in Washington D.C. and it is illegal for them to be armed at the Capitol (even if they go "through a background check" as McAuliffe advises). Second, during his speech at the event McAuliffe claimed that booths at gun shows openly advertise with signs that say "no background check." When I asked which gun show he was referring to, he couldn't give a specific answer. And finally, McAuliffe implied during his speech that background checks are non-existent in Virginia, when in fact firearms purchases not only require two forms of identification, but lengthy ATF paperwork and a background check with the FBI. Further, he cites the gun show "loophole" myth, which has been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked.
I should also note that McAuliffe isn't the only Everytown supporter who shows up to anti-gun events with armed security. Shannon Watts, founder of Bloomberg's Moms Demand Action, showed up the the NRA annual meeting in 2014 with armed security (they also pushed conservative Dana Loesch out of the way when she dared to ask a question). She regularly brings armed security to her anti-gun events.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2015/09/11/virginia-governor-brings-armed-body-guard-to-dc-for-antigun-rally-n2050557?utm_source=BreakingOnTownhallWidget_4&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=BreakingOnTownhall
--------------------------------------
hypocrite much?
All guns are always loaded, don't point it at anything you aren't willing to shoot, and exercise proper trigger discipline.
As far as laws go, "assault weapons" bans, magazine size restrictions, and silencer restrictions are all ridiculous. All states should be shall-issue concealed carry or Vermont Carry, although I am fine in theory with a simple (and no-cost) testing system to determine if you know basic weapon safety as well as what is and is not a legal use of the weapon in order to get your CCW.
As far as laws go, "assault weapons" bans, magazine size restrictions, and silencer restrictions are all ridiculous. All states should be shall-issue concealed carry or Vermont Carry, although I am fine in theory with a simple (and no-cost) testing system to determine if you know basic weapon safety as well as what is and is not a legal use of the weapon in order to get your CCW.
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.
It sound`s nice in teory, but in real life who will judge about who have mental issues or criminal record or problem with wife and her lover. Much better would be with no gun`s at all, it would be much less suffering in the world.
I agree with you about the difficulty of determining who is stable enough. That is why we have rigorous background checks for things like carry licenses. However, violence and cruelty did not start with the invention of the gun and would not go away if all the guns magically disappeared. Violence is not caused by machines it is a behavior that has been present since before we were humans.
Of course violence and cruelty did not start with invetion of the gun, but without so much weapons there would be less crimes, and I wish to believe that we are on much bigger mind level then we were before what we are now. In anyway I think that its not good what guns represent and what kind of message send`s to younger generation`s.
But I do not agree that the number of guns is the factor that counts. Where I grew up everyone had a gun, and I mean every single household. Shooting was something we all did for fun with our friends and family. But there was not a single incidence of gun violence there. ( Although I do recall a guy who shot himself accidentally while climbing a tree stand.)
Later when I moved to a city that had banned the carrying of guns I saw gun violence all the time. My neighbor across the street was shot to death in a robbery, my GF had two home invasions in a year, another friend who taught poor kids how to fix bikes was shot by a 12 year old boy, I heard shots all the time and always by someone who should never have a had a gun in the first place.
Now I live in a time when gun violence is actually at historic lows and I carry every day. But to exercise that right I have had to get background checks by the FBI, with fingerprints and all. I trust this system and when I see someone carrying at a restaurant, I know that we are all safer there. It is not the people who legally carry who are involved in these shootings. It is the usual suspects who are well known to police and mental health officials. The people we failed to help or include in society and that, unsurprisingly, act out violently. If you want to make a dent in the violence tell me what you propose to do with theses people. Because another gun law makes no difference to them and will only be obeyed by those of us who were never a threat in the first place, indeed the ones who might be able to help when the shooting starts.
Do away with violence. Violently beat the crap out of them until they stop being violent. Then you won't have any reason for being violent any longer, and there will be peace.
I wish I knew a way to take the violence out of someone. If they understood the pain and grief they cause maybe they would reconsider? But history has no precedent for a violence free society. Some have less,some have more, all have some.
...
Fortunately there are people who know how to do this and even more fortunately they are willing to step up to the plate and agree to head a 'new world order' so that they can implement the utopia we (mostly) all desire. One has to only look at the Agenda 2030 statement which is to be unveiled over the remainder of the year. The Pope of Rome is even on-board and presumably ready to take on a significant leadership role.
Quote
Peace
We are determined to foster peaceful, just and inclusive societies which are free from fear and violence. There can be no sustainable development without peace and no peace without sustainable development.
We are determined to foster peaceful, just and inclusive societies which are free from fear and violence. There can be no sustainable development without peace and no peace without sustainable development.
Since the actual implementation of this plan is not really spelled out, one needs to dig into some of the background information related to those instrumental in the evolution of organization and likely to assume various leadership roles as the plan matures. Here we find that the ideal 'head-of-human' which the earth can sustain comfortably is around 500 million which means about 13 of every 14 of us are redundant and should go so we don't continue to hurt the Earth. I do find it plausible that a planet composed of a very non-violent herd who have no need for guns and yucky things like that through a process of elimination (a sure-fire way to 'take the violence out of someone' so to speak.) An appropriate number of soldier ants would probably need to be retained though to police future individuals who slipped through the net and were born.
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.
It sound`s nice in teory, but in real life who will judge about who have mental issues or criminal record or problem with wife and her lover. Much better would be with no gun`s at all, it would be much less suffering in the world.
I agree with you about the difficulty of determining who is stable enough. That is why we have rigorous background checks for things like carry licenses. However, violence and cruelty did not start with the invention of the gun and would not go away if all the guns magically disappeared. Violence is not caused by machines it is a behavior that has been present since before we were humans.
Of course violence and cruelty did not start with invetion of the gun, but without so much weapons there would be less crimes, and I wish to believe that we are on much bigger mind level then we were before what we are now. In anyway I think that its not good what guns represent and what kind of message send`s to younger generation`s.
But I do not agree that the number of guns is the factor that counts. Where I grew up everyone had a gun, and I mean every single household. Shooting was something we all did for fun with our friends and family. But there was not a single incidence of gun violence there. ( Although I do recall a guy who shot himself accidentally while climbing a tree stand.)
Later when I moved to a city that had banned the carrying of guns I saw gun violence all the time. My neighbor across the street was shot to death in a robbery, my GF had two home invasions in a year, another friend who taught poor kids how to fix bikes was shot by a 12 year old boy, I heard shots all the time and always by someone who should never have a had a gun in the first place.
Now I live in a time when gun violence is actually at historic lows and I carry every day. But to exercise that right I have had to get background checks by the FBI, with fingerprints and all. I trust this system and when I see someone carrying at a restaurant, I know that we are all safer there. It is not the people who legally carry who are involved in these shootings. It is the usual suspects who are well known to police and mental health officials. The people we failed to help or include in society and that, unsurprisingly, act out violently. If you want to make a dent in the violence tell me what you propose to do with theses people. Because another gun law makes no difference to them and will only be obeyed by those of us who were never a threat in the first place, indeed the ones who might be able to help when the shooting starts.
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.
It sound`s nice in teory, but in real life who will judge about who have mental issues or criminal record or problem with wife and her lover. Much better would be with no gun`s at all, it would be much less suffering in the world.
I agree with you about the difficulty of determining who is stable enough. That is why we have rigorous background checks for things like carry licenses. However, violence and cruelty did not start with the invention of the gun and would not go away if all the guns magically disappeared. Violence is not caused by machines it is a behavior that has been present since before we were humans.
Of course violence and cruelty did not start with invetion of the gun, but without so much weapons there would be less crimes, and I wish to believe that we are on much bigger mind level then we were before what we are now. In anyway I think that its not good what guns represent and what kind of message send`s to younger generation`s.
Taking guns from those who pass background checks is not going to stop criminals from having guns.
Part of the answer is to become a secured party creditor. A secured party creditor is the one who is the first creditor that a debt is owed to in a debt situation. In other words, let's say you have a judgment where Pete owes you some money. And lets say that Pete owes money to 5 other guys. If you get a judgment against Pete first, Pete is required to pay you off before the other 5 guys get one penny.
Now, in almost 100% of the transactions you make with government, the transactions are really made between the government and an artificial entity that has a name like yours name. Why? Because government almost never makes an agreement with a human being. The reason the agreements you made with government seem to be between you and government is, government presumes that you are the artificial entity. When you don't rebut it, it stands as true, and government does to you, as though they were doing it to an artificial entity.
The thing that you need to do is to become the secured party creditor over the artificial entity that bears the name that looks almost exactly like yours. Some people call this entity a "strawman." Then, when government makes the agreement with the artificial entity, you have shown that it is not you.
The artificial entity you are secured party creditor for may have been disallowed by government from owning a gun. This doesn't mean that YOU can't own a gun. It simply means that a government controlled gun seller can't sell one to you. You will have to get your guns elsewhere. And, of course, if government comes after you for owning or holding guns, you will need to be ready to make the distinction between yourself and the secured party debtor you are creditor for, and show government that the secured party debtor doesn't own or hold a gun.
For more info, start here http://www.abodia.com/ucc/. Once you get some of this info down, you will know how to search for more. The site has good info about the declarations to make and how to make them to show that you are and have been a secured party creditor all along.
As a note, Karl Lentz and others don't like messing with secured party creditor stuff. But Karl and others have the methods to make the distinction between you as a man/woman and the secured party debtor that you are creditor over, if you are ever attacked by government. Government agents may attack you physically, but legally they are after the secured party debtor strawman that you are secured party creditor for. You simply need to show them the distinction... rebut their presumption that you are it.
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.
It sound`s nice in teory, but in real life who will judge about who have mental issues or criminal record or problem with wife and her lover. Much better would be with no gun`s at all, it would be much less suffering in the world.
I agree with you about the difficulty of determining who is stable enough. That is why we have rigorous background checks for things like carry licenses. However, violence and cruelty did not start with the invention of the gun and would not go away if all the guns magically disappeared. Violence is not caused by machines it is a behavior that has been present since before we were humans.
Of course violence and cruelty did not start with invetion of the gun, but without so much weapons there would be less crimes, and I wish to believe that we are on much bigger mind level then we were before what we are now. In anyway I think that its not good what guns represent and what kind of message send`s to younger generation`s.
Taking guns from those who pass background checks is not going to stop criminals from having guns.
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.
It sound`s nice in teory, but in real life who will judge about who have mental issues or criminal record or problem with wife and her lover. Much better would be with no gun`s at all, it would be much less suffering in the world.
I agree with you about the difficulty of determining who is stable enough. That is why we have rigorous background checks for things like carry licenses. However, violence and cruelty did not start with the invention of the gun and would not go away if all the guns magically disappeared. Violence is not caused by machines it is a behavior that has been present since before we were humans.
Of course violence and cruelty did not start with invetion of the gun, but without so much weapons there would be less crimes, and I wish to believe that we are on much bigger mind level then we were before what we are now. In anyway I think that its not good what guns represent and what kind of message send`s to younger generation`s.
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.
It sound`s nice in teory, but in real life who will judge about who have mental issues or criminal record or problem with wife and her lover. Much better would be with no gun`s at all, it would be much less suffering in the world.
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.
It sound`s nice in teory, but in real life who will judge about who have mental issues or criminal record or problem with wife and her lover. Much better would be with no gun`s at all, it would be much less suffering in the world.
^^^ Do you live in Australia? I have heard from some of the Australian users in this forum that the gun laws there are pretty retarded. That said, the gun crime is quite low, because there are few ethnic gangs (like the Crips and Bloods in the United States). However, a lot of Australians are using the dark market sites to purchase firearms and ammunition.
True the gun laws here are VERY strict but so is our border security, I don't know for sure but i would assume that not a lot of guns are getting in after being purchased on the darknet, there was a resent bust though so you never know.Your people are looking at gun freedom in America, and how gun freedom is thwarting government activities here. The people like it, because they all want to be free.
The governments are down the tubes. Gin freedom is taking power away from governments. Sure, the governments have armies. But if they use their armies to quell the gun movement, the resulting civil wars will destroy the governments as well.
Say YES to GUN FREEDOM!!!
^^^ Do you live in Australia? I have heard from some of the Australian users in this forum that the gun laws there are pretty retarded. That said, the gun crime is quite low, because there are few ethnic gangs (like the Crips and Bloods in the United States). However, a lot of Australians are using the dark market sites to purchase firearms and ammunition.
True the gun laws here are VERY strict but so is our border security, I don't know for sure but i would assume that not a lot of guns are getting in after being purchased on the darknet, there was a resent bust though so you never know. Somewhere i read regarding number of people having guns in America and I found the amount of guns in america shocking, i think it needs to be reigned it because i have read about several high school massacres involving guns in america and we are yet to have one. its just my opinion but the rest of the world manage to 'protect their property' without such dangerous weapons.
A cursory look at these events (and certain others such as the Boston event (and in my opinion the Bundy Ranch situation)) reveals that they are almost all staged and choreographed psychological operations undertaken for propaganda reasons.
There is basically no more problems with guns than there have been for the last several hundred years for most people here in the U.S. and they continue to provide the same pros and cons that they always have with the pros outweighing the cons for most people. The only particular threat they pose is exactly what our 2nd amendment authors envisioned when they wrote the thing. And that is good.
Totally agreed.
Somewhere i read regarding number of people having guns in America and I found the amount of guns in america shocking, i think it needs to be reigned it because i have read about several high school massacres involving guns in america and we are yet to have one. its just my opinion but the rest of the world manage to 'protect their property' without such dangerous weapons.
A cursory look at these events (and certain others such as the Boston event (and in my opinion the Bundy Ranch situation)) reveals that they are almost all staged and choreographed psychological operations undertaken for propaganda reasons.
There is basically no more problems with guns than there have been for the last several hundred years for most people here in the U.S. and they continue to provide the same pros and cons that they always have with the pros outweighing the cons for most people. The only particular threat they pose is exactly what our 2nd amendment authors envisioned when they wrote the thing. And that is good.
Jump to: