The sale of weapons must undergo certain procedures and restrict from selling it to the mentally ill people and those who are involved in violence against other people
That's the best option since taking their guns is not going to happen and that's not something that i even believe they should even consider since they all got it legally because most crimes are committed with illegally acquired weapons. 
Topic: What's your opinion of gun control? - page 19. (Read 450491 times)
It's just an entire business bro.
Those benefitting from this business are too strong and influential, they'll do everything to keep the guns in circulation.
Otherwise, there should be a special governmental program for fighting that socially, but it seems there is none.
Kids watch cartoons and movies and they get inspired from the early ages.
Go and convince them to give up on guns when they are teenagers (especially if their friends own one).
It's just a mess!
Those benefitting from this business are too strong and influential, they'll do everything to keep the guns in circulation.
Otherwise, there should be a special governmental program for fighting that socially, but it seems there is none.
Kids watch cartoons and movies and they get inspired from the early ages.
Go and convince them to give up on guns when they are teenagers (especially if their friends own one).
It's just a mess!
My opinion about gun control is that the mere idea of it implies that the average US citizen cannot be trusted to abide by the principle that you do not murder another human being. It implies that if there isn't a law forbidding them, everyone can kill other people. It implies that citizens are not on the same level as those in government. That somehow our status as “private citizen" makes us inferior and unable to grasp the fundamentals of safety and rule of law.
Acording to the Second Amendment, everyone is entitled to have a gun but not anyone should be allowed to possess a gun due to the fact that they may be mentally unstable and i think one way we can make sure that mentally unstable people don't get a gun is that everyone who wants to get a gun should be able to pass a psychological test to show their state of mind before they do and after that, they should be regularly pass the mental checkups as times goes on.A person who is to psychologically unstable to own a gun should also not be able to drive a car or have access to knives, hammers, etc.
On _very_ rare occasion, someone decides attempt to kill a lot of random people. (Most of what we see in the news these days are phony events engineered to try to achieve a policy change.) These people tend to choose to try to use a gun because that is what is most easily available to them. If somehow it was exceptionally difficult to obtain a satisfactory firearm and ammo, then other methods are available and would be chosen. In some areas bombs are more commonly used for this purpose. Occasionally poison is used. Should these techniques come back into favor Americans would be longing for the good old days when guns were the weapon of choice.
Beyond that, military weapons are used in armed conflict, and there are a lot of pockets of armed conflict around the world. There is no way to arm one's crazy proxy forces (e.g., the so-called ISIS) and not have the goodies make it on to the black market. Where do you think that all of the grenades showing up on the streets of Sweden are coming from?
My opinion about gun control is that the mere idea of it implies that the average US citizen cannot be trusted to abide by the principle that you do not murder another human being. It implies that if there isn't a law forbidding them, everyone can kill other people. It implies that citizens are not on the same level as those in government. That somehow our status as “private citizen" makes us inferior and unable to grasp the fundamentals of safety and rule of law.
According to the Second Amendment, everyone is entitled to have a gun but not anyone should be allowed to possess a gun due to the fact that they may be mentally unstable and i think one way we can make sure that mentally unstable people don't get a gun is that everyone who wants to get a gun should be able to pass a psychological test to show their state of mind before they do and after that, they should be regularly pass the mental checkups as times goes on.Who determines the criteria of mental stability? Will the psychologists and psychiatrists always be neutral in their in their personal gun desires when they are judging a person someone thinks is mentally disturbed?
The point is, what if all the psychiatrists and psychologists are gun control advocates. If that happened to be the case, might they not gradually say that all people are mentally unfit to own or use a gun?
The mental competency test, if we have such, should be subject to a trial by jury, with a number of people, including but not limited to psychiatrists and psychologists. Family members of an alleged mentally unstable person, might be better equipped to judge their family member than psychiatrists and psychologists in some cases, just because they lived with him, and observed his actions on a regular basis.
For example, and this is only a crude example; think of better ways to do it. Pete wants to get a gun. He takes a competency test at the gun store. If he passes in a certain range, he gets a gun on the spot. If he doesn't pass, he is required to be tested by psychiatrists and psychologists. Then the results of the tests are brought before a jury, along with family members and friends and neighbors who witness to their experience with his nature, and the kind of person he is. This kind of testing might allow a hunting gun, but might deny him a pistol... or vice versa.
Why place the judgment entirely in the hands of people who might be prejudiced? Let a jury decide in questionable cases, with as many "witnesses" and professional opinions as possible, just like in a court murder trial.
My opinion about gun control is that the mere idea of it implies that the average US citizen cannot be trusted to abide by the principle that you do not murder another human being. It implies that if there isn't a law forbidding them, everyone can kill other people. It implies that citizens are not on the same level as those in government. That somehow our status as “private citizen" makes us inferior and unable to grasp the fundamentals of safety and rule of law.
Acording to the Second Amendment, everyone is entitled to have a gun but not anyone should be allowed to possess a gun due to the fact that they may be mentally unstable and i think one way we can make sure that mentally unstable people don't get a gun is that everyone who wants to get a gun should be able to pass a psychological test to show their state of mind before they do and after that, they should be regularly pass the mental checkups as times goes on.
Why you need the Second Amendment: Six men storm into California home during early morning invasion
Read more at http://www.dcclothesline.com/2018/05/17/why-you-need-the-second-amendment-six-men-storm-into-california-home-during-early-morning-invasion/.
Hey #GunControlNow crowd, please tell me why you believe one doesn't need large capacity magazines to defend themselves against SIX intruders?
From SFGate: Six men armed with a handgun and prybar invaded a Bayview (CA) home early Sunday morning to rob three people, authorities said.
The incident occurred just before 1:30 a.m. on the 1900 block of Carroll Avenue, according to a San Francisco Police Department report.
The victims, two men in their 50s and one woman in her 60s, were reportedly sleeping when the suspects broke down the front door. Police said the suspects robbed the victims at gunpoint and made off with a purse, cash, cell phones, laptops and a tablet.
From SFGate: Six men armed with a handgun and prybar invaded a Bayview (CA) home early Sunday morning to rob three people, authorities said.
The incident occurred just before 1:30 a.m. on the 1900 block of Carroll Avenue, according to a San Francisco Police Department report.
The victims, two men in their 50s and one woman in her 60s, were reportedly sleeping when the suspects broke down the front door. Police said the suspects robbed the victims at gunpoint and made off with a purse, cash, cell phones, laptops and a tablet.
Read more at http://www.dcclothesline.com/2018/05/17/why-you-need-the-second-amendment-six-men-storm-into-california-home-during-early-morning-invasion/.
Kent State Graduate Poses With AR-10 Rifle To Make A Point About School's Gun Policy
Read more at http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/kent-state-graduate-poses-with-ar-10-rifle-to-make-a-point-about-schools-gun-policy_05162018.
A Kent State graduate decided to stir up controversy with leftists by posing for a photo with an AR-10 rifle. She completed the imagery with her graduation cap adorned with "come and take it."
The photo of Kaitlin Bennett has now gone viral.
The photo of Kaitlin Bennett has now gone viral.
Read more at http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/kent-state-graduate-poses-with-ar-10-rifle-to-make-a-point-about-schools-gun-policy_05162018.
The push for negation or dismissal of the U.S. 2nd amendment is so pronounced that it begs hypotheses about what might be going on. Here's another, and it is fairly relevant to monetary issues and thus related to crypto.
1) The USD is currently a debt-backed currency. That is to say, all dollars in existence represent a debt. If there were no debt, there would be no money.
2) The debt is issued by the Federal Reserve. This is a private entity and who actually has stake in it is unclear. There is no 'audit the Fed' program which could shed light on the issue. The executive branch won't allow an audit, and the legislative branch won't push for it.
3) When the Fed wishes to increase the money supply, they can do so as a 'last resort' when the U.S. government takes out more debt and issues treasuries, bonds, etc.
4) The numbers people go by for federal dept these days is 20T with China holding 2T of that. This leaves another 18T which 'rich people' hold and expect interest payments on. Probably the 20T is wildly low-ball for a variety of reasons, and I don't believe that it even includes the municipal bonds and what-not.
5) A dollar is thus a representation of future earnings of tax-payers OR a claim to the proceeds of a settlement agreement should the government default.
6) The value of, and thus the demand for, dollars is thus based on the ability of the government to levy necessary taxes to pay off the interest (at least) of the bonds.
7) The value of the USD is is ALSO based on the ability to enforce a settlement claim on whatever property might be adjudicated to be part of a default settlement. One can be fairly certain that the courts will come up with a settlement that is to the liking of the bondholders, and it will probably involve forfeiture of certain in-demand assets held unencumbered in private hands. These folks will not agree with the jewdicial system's findings.
8 ) Thus, the 2nd amendment (transcribed circa 1776) truly does work to substantively de-value the USD (born in the early 1900's.) The value of the USD can, and almost certainly is, labeled a 'national security issue', and the deleterious effect of the 2nd amendment on it's value is thus subject to attack. 'Fair game' so to speak.
9) The state department can thus employ the tools at their disposal to deal with what they consider to be threats to national security (usually by retaining others to perform tasks under their legally authorized mandate.) With the recent 'modernization' of the Smith-Mundt act, these options where significantly expanded.
1) The USD is currently a debt-backed currency. That is to say, all dollars in existence represent a debt. If there were no debt, there would be no money.
2) The debt is issued by the Federal Reserve. This is a private entity and who actually has stake in it is unclear. There is no 'audit the Fed' program which could shed light on the issue. The executive branch won't allow an audit, and the legislative branch won't push for it.
3) When the Fed wishes to increase the money supply, they can do so as a 'last resort' when the U.S. government takes out more debt and issues treasuries, bonds, etc.
4) The numbers people go by for federal dept these days is 20T with China holding 2T of that. This leaves another 18T which 'rich people' hold and expect interest payments on. Probably the 20T is wildly low-ball for a variety of reasons, and I don't believe that it even includes the municipal bonds and what-not.
5) A dollar is thus a representation of future earnings of tax-payers OR a claim to the proceeds of a settlement agreement should the government default.
6) The value of, and thus the demand for, dollars is thus based on the ability of the government to levy necessary taxes to pay off the interest (at least) of the bonds.
7) The value of the USD is is ALSO based on the ability to enforce a settlement claim on whatever property might be adjudicated to be part of a default settlement. One can be fairly certain that the courts will come up with a settlement that is to the liking of the bondholders, and it will probably involve forfeiture of certain in-demand assets held unencumbered in private hands. These folks will not agree with the jewdicial system's findings.
8 ) Thus, the 2nd amendment (transcribed circa 1776) truly does work to substantively de-value the USD (born in the early 1900's.) The value of the USD can, and almost certainly is, labeled a 'national security issue', and the deleterious effect of the 2nd amendment on it's value is thus subject to attack. 'Fair game' so to speak.
9) The state department can thus employ the tools at their disposal to deal with what they consider to be threats to national security (usually by retaining others to perform tasks under their legally authorized mandate.) With the recent 'modernization' of the Smith-Mundt act, these options where significantly expanded.
Guns are illegal in Brazil for example, and check their homicide rates.
Brazil is responsible for some of the best on-the-street gun related gore captured on video.
One I remember is where a where a pistol wielding thug thought he would hijack a motorcycle, but unbeknownst to him, the rider was an off-duty cop who also had a gun. Brain material splattered, and happily in this case it was the crooks.
Another was pistol armed crook holding a gun to a hostages head. This head-shot also resulted in a dis-assembled skull of the right guy (complements of rifleman), and happily the crook didn't happen to pull the trigger on his victim in his final microsecond of his life.
Another was a cop on a motorcycle chasing down a motorcycle mounted (presumed) criminal and shooting at him with a pistol at the same time. My hat is off to this guy who had multiple skills...and balls of steel. Brazil seems to have a lower threshold when it comes to putting bystanders at risk compared to the U.S..
Police get big pay. They have hot heads. They are way more dangerous than the average citizen with a gun. The fact that they have gun training, makes them even more dangerous. Why give up our guns when they don't give up theirs?
Individual cops seem to be all over the map when it comes to honesty, decency, etc. The nature of the department they work for seems to be the biggest factor, and this nature is influenced by a handful of people in leadership. Since higher-ups almost never seem to get in any real trouble they have the latitude to set department policy in any way they, or the people above them, see fit.
Some police departments discriminate on the basis of intelligence, and courts have ruled that they have the right to do so. In this case they refuse to hire anyone with to high an IQ. I fairly bright person with ethics could cause a lot of problems for operations in some of the corrupt police departments.
Making police department funding reliant on shaking citizens down via civil asset forfeiture pretty much guarantees a degradation of police forces and their relationship with Joe Public. I suspect that that is exactly the goal of those who promote such a framework (including, unfortunately, Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump.)
A competent systems analyst will be able to predict that an armed population is incompatible with a corrupt police force which exists in part to steal shit from the public and thereby further certain social engineering goals. The people who are out in front on the 'gun control' issue seem to be the same ones who's own existence is built around parasitizing others in society (e.g., bankers, teachers, social workers, etc.)
Police get big pay. They have hot heads. They are way more dangerous than the average citizen with a gun. The fact that they have gun training, makes them even more dangerous. Why give up our guns when they don't give up theirs?
It's interesting question.
Who was the first company that started guns' producing, or who was the person to whom this idea came???
First wars were held with help of improvising weapons: spears, arrows, wooden constructions with cores (I've just remember films). When war was going to the end people didn't solve how to finish conflict peacefully. They was thinking how to win in the next war, how to create stronger weapon... how to fully destroy an enemy.. and REVENGE
In any conflict ( war is extream mesure) anywhere it's difficult for people to negotiate and make the best decision for both sides.
When i read the name of discussion, first picture in my mind was world where people even don't know that gun exist at all. There wasn't a first person with idea of gun, no producers, no wars when it was used... NO ANY HINTS about gun at all....
Could you imagine? I could do it.. For a minute. Than my picture collapsed..Indeed, people will continue to fight.. It's unavoidable.. People will use spears, swords and horses and will make wars
.
Gun control will let us only minimize human victims, at best it will reduce numbers of wars ( countries will be more fearfull without weapon basic). Sure, It's good. We should start with smth. I only think that the gun control will not decide the real reason of wars. We will continue to fight, quarell, bite and hate each other.
The more effective way is to eliminate the reason than minimize consequences. Instead of gun control we need control of anger, offence, judgement, desire for revenge, jealousy to other's wealth and desire for own it and so on...
-How will it happen?
- I have one idea. Every person should learn how to handle with his dark side, with anger and so on.... Is it possible? I think No.
The other idea. It can be any pills killing these negative feelings inside people, one by one or together. Or it will kill only one feeling if it's the most critical. Or just reduce the effect a little bit ( the best way it think).
They will fill people with love, peace, respect to others, kindness 
-I know it sounds too naive and unreal..
And there are some risks in my approach.
The world of kindness will be boring a little bit... It will make people see bad things where they were good before. Kindness can't exist without evil.... Pure perfection without pitch of evil will not be perfection at all.
We will not have possibility to compare this perfection with smth bad. We won't even notice it
. Perfection is in balance between these two sides. ... So, I couldn't solve eternal problems of war and peace here
So let's love our world with all unperfections, with wars and injustice. We will love and it will be better.
Let's start with ourselves.
Thanks for reading to the end and your patience to my "thought's flight".
Who was the first company that started guns' producing, or who was the person to whom this idea came???
First wars were held with help of improvising weapons: spears, arrows, wooden constructions with cores (I've just remember films). When war was going to the end people didn't solve how to finish conflict peacefully. They was thinking how to win in the next war, how to create stronger weapon... how to fully destroy an enemy.. and REVENGE
In any conflict ( war is extream mesure) anywhere it's difficult for people to negotiate and make the best decision for both sides.
When i read the name of discussion, first picture in my mind was world where people even don't know that gun exist at all. There wasn't a first person with idea of gun, no producers, no wars when it was used... NO ANY HINTS about gun at all....
Could you imagine? I could do it.. For a minute. Than my picture collapsed..Indeed, people will continue to fight.. It's unavoidable.. People will use spears, swords and horses and will make wars
. Gun control will let us only minimize human victims, at best it will reduce numbers of wars ( countries will be more fearfull without weapon basic). Sure, It's good. We should start with smth. I only think that the gun control will not decide the real reason of wars. We will continue to fight, quarell, bite and hate each other.
The more effective way is to eliminate the reason than minimize consequences. Instead of gun control we need control of anger, offence, judgement, desire for revenge, jealousy to other's wealth and desire for own it and so on...
-How will it happen?
- I have one idea. Every person should learn how to handle with his dark side, with anger and so on.... Is it possible? I think No.
The other idea. It can be any pills killing these negative feelings inside people, one by one or together. Or it will kill only one feeling if it's the most critical. Or just reduce the effect a little bit ( the best way it think).
They will fill people with love, peace, respect to others, kindness
-I know it sounds too naive and unreal..
And there are some risks in my approach.
The world of kindness will be boring a little bit... It will make people see bad things where they were good before. Kindness can't exist without evil.... Pure perfection without pitch of evil will not be perfection at all.
We will not have possibility to compare this perfection with smth bad. We won't even notice it
. Perfection is in balance between these two sides. ... So, I couldn't solve eternal problems of war and peace here So let's love our world with all unperfections, with wars and injustice. We will love and it will be better.
Let's start with ourselves.
Thanks for reading to the end and your patience to my "thought's flight".
Dad in America Told His Son Had To Die Like Alfie--But He Resisted With Guns and His Son LIVED
Read more at https://thefreethoughtproject.com/father-in-the-us-told-his-son-would-die-like-alfie-but-he-resisted-with-guns-and-his-son-lived/.
As the tragic story of baby Alfie begins fading from headlines, it is important to point out what allowed this situation to unfold like it did. Guns. Before throwing your arms in the air and screaming out, "how the hell does this child's death have anything to do with guns?" consider the following truth: The majority of the United Kingdom is unarmed, leaving most guns in the hands of criminals and government. When only government has guns, they can make decisions—like kidnapping a baby and starving him to death—without fear of recourse from the citizens, or even the family.
Read more at https://thefreethoughtproject.com/father-in-the-us-told-his-son-would-die-like-alfie-but-he-resisted-with-guns-and-his-son-lived/.
Tight gun control has been shown to work in the UK and in Australia.
Unfortunately, America's love of guns and personal freedom - and the apparent fear of a tyrannical government popping into existence one day - has created a situation where it is probably impossible to reduce the number of guns in circulation in any meaningful way.
America will continue to be a world leader in gun crime and gun violence for the foreseeable future.
Do you guys agree?
Unfortunately, America's love of guns and personal freedom - and the apparent fear of a tyrannical government popping into existence one day - has created a situation where it is probably impossible to reduce the number of guns in circulation in any meaningful way.
America will continue to be a world leader in gun crime and gun violence for the foreseeable future.
Do you guys agree?
No. London has become one of the most violent cities in the world.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/london-murder-rate-new-york-compare-worse-stabbings-knife-crime-teenagers-statistics-figures-a8286866.html
The American cities with bad gun crime are cities with STRICT GUN CONTROL.
honestly gun control laws in the US are way too lenient in my opinion. these are tools of death, they should have more regulation.
There is a difference between laws and what works. Gun control laws would keep guns out of the hands of the people about as well as drug laws keep drugs out of the hands of the people.
Tight gun control has been shown to work in the UK and in Australia.
Unfortunately, America's love of guns and personal freedom - and the apparent fear of a tyrannical government popping into existence one day - has created a situation where it is probably impossible to reduce the number of guns in circulation in any meaningful way.
America will continue to be a world leader in gun crime and gun violence for the foreseeable future.
Do you guys agree?
Unfortunately, America's love of guns and personal freedom - and the apparent fear of a tyrannical government popping into existence one day - has created a situation where it is probably impossible to reduce the number of guns in circulation in any meaningful way.
America will continue to be a world leader in gun crime and gun violence for the foreseeable future.
Do you guys agree?
No gun control would work just as well in the UK and in Australia. Agitation in America is being covertly done to the American people by gun control groups, so that they have an excuse to take guns away. The figures about America are skewed because of this.
If I were a 90 pound granny, I would want a gun. At least that way I might have a chance against the 250 pound bully who was trying to mug me.
Tight gun control has been shown to work in the UK and in Australia.
Unfortunately, America's love of guns and personal freedom - and the apparent fear of a tyrannical government popping into existence one day - has created a situation where it is probably impossible to reduce the number of guns in circulation in any meaningful way.
America will continue to be a world leader in gun crime and gun violence for the foreseeable future.
Do you guys agree?
Unfortunately, America's love of guns and personal freedom - and the apparent fear of a tyrannical government popping into existence one day - has created a situation where it is probably impossible to reduce the number of guns in circulation in any meaningful way.
America will continue to be a world leader in gun crime and gun violence for the foreseeable future.
Do you guys agree?
My opinion on gun control rests differently with different countries. The rules and requirements of every country is different, so are the needs.
It is the basic right of an individual to be able to defend against the criminals. So I wouldn't say that the situation varies from country to country. Crime rate may be lower or higher in some regions. But that shouldn't be considered while talking about gun rights.
We need gun control to reduce the violence because eeven civilian person can carried guns now a days.for me police or military person can carry gun and they can protect civilians
Police and military may not be able to protect you every time, as in most of the nations there is less than 1 policeman for every 1,000 people. Also, you need to remember that strict background checks are in place for civilians who want to own guns and most of the gun violence result from illegal, rather than legal guns.
On top of that, the police may be interested in other things besides 'protecting' a person. It is the common case in many parts of the world, and can be expected to increase here in the U.S. as more and more police force funding comes from civil asset forfeiture.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rp0p7b0Wf7o
Just about every gun-grabber I've heard is very much in favor of more guns for the paramilitaries rather than fewer. This meshes with the hypothesis that the money behind the push for civilian gun grabbing is put up by people who are looking to a future where they use the police muscle to shake down non-aligned civilians who have something worth taking. I would expect exactly such a scenario to occur when the U.S. defaults on our debt and the (bought and payed for) courts decide how settlement is to occur.
We are government, not government gun controllers.
BEST SCENE FROM "THE OUTLAW JOSEY WALES"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNfdii-r38g
BEST SCENE FROM "THE OUTLAW JOSEY WALES"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNfdii-r38g
Jump to: