Topic: What's your opinion of gun control? - page 188. (Read 450482 times)

no such thing as gun control because you control only those who are registered. in some countries, th number of unregistered firearm is more than those that are registered. i think its its much better government loosen up a little on the requirements and fees to entice everyone to register.

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

I have often thought that it is entirely possible for a person to move from one area where the entire issue of gun control was moot, due to low crime and no roving gangs, to another area with different characteristics, where suddenly he decides he wants a couple guns.

thus it seems "gun control" is really more of a "one shoe fits all" control freak top down policy.  And one shoe does not fit all.  You might want firearms, if you lived in south Dallas, or in certain areas of Chicago.  You would want a number of firearms if you lived in certain areas bordering Mexico.

I am pro of the gun control, we see what is happening in many different states, every month we hear that is killed someone

This is true. And I am not so knowledgeable about the way to handle Monsanto so as to do it, yet. But here is the way:

Do a letter-writing campaign to the head of Monsanto in his human capacity (to the man, not the CEO) - after all, the corporation is only paperwork that doesn't do anything at all except that a human does it.

Tell him to cease and desist his Monsanto wrongdoing against you, because he is harming you by putting all that dangerous chemical into your food. Even if it isn't dangerous, it is worrying the heck out of you, and the worry is causing you stress which is harming you. So he is doing wrong to you by harming you. (Use the word "wrongdoing," and "property" when referring to your and your children's bodies.)

Include in your original letter damages to be paid to you in the event that he doesn't cease and desist by the 22nd day after he receives the original letter (certified/registered). Make the payment to be something like a dollar a second for each second that he doesn't cease and desist starting the 22nd day. In any subsequent communication, never change your requirements stated in your first letter.

Serve him personally, in his human capacity. In any event, if he doesn't cease and desist, take him to 7th Amendment common law jury court and get a default judgment against him. It will be up to the jury to decide. And they can decide any which way they want. Make sure it is a 7th Amendment jury, so that it is final.

If you don't like the outcome, get all your friends to do the same as you did. No 7th Amendment ruling precludes other court cases for the exact same thing. It only stops you from doing it again. Sooner or later several of the juries will act in your favor (the favor of your friends who do as you do). The resulting payments will strain the Monsanto coffers until they quit.

Well,  yeah. I meant the powers that be in charge, not government as a whole. I'm still annoyed at the house voting on the Mensato thing today. You Don’t Matter. House Votes for Monsanto’s Right to Deceive Consumers

Actually, government doesn't care about anything. Does government have a brain that it can think? Does government have emotions that it can love or hate or care about anything? No two people in government ever think 100% alike. And even if they are close, there are many others in government who think both the opposite, and in a whole lot of other directions.

Isn't it about time that people quit talking about government, and start talking about the human being(s) who is(are) harming them through supposed governmental action?

Why is it that government human beings seem to have rights above the rest of the people? After all, the government people will still have guns when the rest of the people do not! If they didn't, they couldn't enforce government peoples' agendas onto others.

The 6th, 7th, and 9th Amendments to the Constitution (Articles of the Bill of Rights) limit everything that government humans want to do to any other humans. But people can't begin to use these Amendments to protect themselves properly if they don't even know what these amendments are.

Yeah, and teens driving while texting too. But the government doesn't care about that. They would be happy if we kill each other doing stupid stuff like that. However, they do not want people who want freedom to have guns too.

Cars and airplanes kill way more people than guns do... at least in America.

When people talk about mass shooting and gun control,it shows they are not able to see the clear picture.
Look up the amount of mass shooters in the States and see if they where on a prescribed drug in the past year! That is the real problem,we can not feed people variants of speed and expect no issues.

History shows the disruption is inevitable in the system and I rather know how to use a gun and own one if that day ever comes. Other part of me wants to learn how to hunt and survive off the land if needed. Just think of the city and how few people would know where to go or how to survive. Guns protect and help you hunt.

Cars kill people but we do not treat them the same.

You know your leadership would like to see the population of humans be a 'sustainable' half-billion right?  So, what's your problem?  Wouldn't you rather see the 9/10ths of the reduction come at the expense of the gun toting red-necks?

I'll help you understand your position better because I am a good guy: Your leadership would like to be making the decisions about who lives and who dies and you believe what your leaders wish you to believe.  Unfortunately for you it is highly likely that you and yours will be among the first ones culled.  It will be as easy as it was for Jim Jones.

the statistics say otherwise

IMO, Gun control will not reduce or stop crime. is all back to Your personality,mentality you must know what you must do in not good situation

I don't think a viable solution to gun control can ever be reached simply by looking at gun statistics, e.g. by controlling or various SES or demographic factors that seem like they should be controlled for because they 'look nice,' and then seeing how certain other variables such as gun ownership, mental illness, etc. relates to gun deaths and violence.

This seems to be missing the bigger picture.  As far as I'm aware, there are no studies that examine and control for govenment controlin general.  Government control is not only a mediating factor of gun control and gun ownership as it relates to gun deaths and violence, and not only does it mediate all of the variables which are controlled for in various studies, but its overarching implications are vast in terms of its effects on human behavior.

Think about it -- government control in general contributes to a cultureof government-controlled societies.  Things such as government-controlled education (telling people what is appropriate to learn), economics (setting a standard for societal contribution), food, drugs, and medicine (setting a standard for 'appropriate' self-care), etc. all have a profound effect on human behavior.  It's my belief that government control encourages gun violence and violence in general because it places constraints upon, and therefore is at odds with, human nature.  Consequently, even if more stringent gun control measures were put in place, this does not reduce the overall detriment to people in terms of government control in general, but rather adds to it.  But really, how would we know?  

Basically, it's my hypothesis that most violence (and probably mental illness) is a result of an ongoing conflict between government (tending towards control) and human nature (tending toward freedom).  Adding additional constraints will only compound the problem in a much more general sense.  I think it's a myth that people would be at each other's throats in the absence of government.  In the total absence of structure, maybe -- but structure and order does not necessarily equate to governments or government control.

I don't think a viable solution to gun control can ever be reached simply by looking at gun statistics, e.g. by controlling or various SES or demographic factors that seem like they should be controlled for because they 'look nice,' and then seeing how certain other variables such as gun ownership, mental illness, etc. relates to gun deaths and violence.

This seems to be missing the bigger picture.  As far as I'm aware, there are no studies that examine and control for govenment control[i/] in general.  Government control is not only a mediating factor of gun control and gun ownership as it relates to gun deaths and violence, and not only does it mediate all of the variables which are controlled for in various studies, but it's overarching implications are vast in terms of its effects on human behavior.

Think about it -- government control in general contributes to a culture[i/] of government-controlled societies.  Things such as government-controlled education (telling people what is appropriate to learn), economics (setting a standard for societal contribution), food, drugs, and medicine (setting a standard for 'appropriate' self-care), etc. all have a profound effect on human behavior.  It's my belief that government control encourages gun violence and violence in general because it places constraints upon, and therefore is at odds with, human nature.  Consequently, even if more stringent gun control measures were put in

I agree something was off with Sandy Hook. This video shows this poor child wanting to get away, not talk, etc, but you can see the father puts his arms around her to keep her still, and her mother grabs her husband's arm to force it down upon the child on live tv. It's creepy.

However, to say we need to use biometrics (that still won't stop the people who have illegal guns already and in the future) and "mental health surveillance", is totalitarian and is going to be abused, no doubt about it. Mental health surveillance?

This video shows that they want to go after the people "most likely to be radicalized", young people who are alienated, don't get a job, lost their girlfriend, family doesn't feel happy here. Who's deciding what the right mental health is? Some people believe Christians to not be in the right mental state because they believe homosexuality is a sin. What if they are now gone after because they don't have the "right mental health"?

Yes, in a way.  For whatever reason, independent researchers took a strong interest in the Sandy Hook incident and did a lot of good work on it.  Of course a lot of people (some probably shills and some probably not) did a lot of lower quality work.  By the two year mark some very convincing material has been produced which leaves very little doubt that what Sandy Hook was was a FEMA 'capstone' drill passed off as a live event.

I suggest as the most important of these, http://mediasolidarity.com/ 'We Need to Talk About Sandy Hook' as the most important of these.  Sofia Smallstorm's presentation or Klein's 'redux' of it is also very good.  

Being fairly convinced that Sandy Hook was a psychological operation (legal to execute against domestic populations via the 2012 national defense authorization act which effectively repealed the 1948 Smith-Mundt act) I look with interest at each of these events.  The main thrust of each is to mute the effect of the 2nd amendment, but each also seems to have a few secondary components thrown in.  In the case of Sandy Hook it seemed to involve mental health and pharmaceutics.  In this case, after a skim of how the story was portrayed, I identified the aformentioned items.

People must have the right to protect themselves. So the right to have weapons at home with permission is the right thing. In my country this is not allowed but I would like that it would be possible. Maybe one day my government will read this my post and will think about this. 

Are you being serious?