What's your opinion of gun control?

[BADecker]

In America, We Shoot Back

Ft Collins, CO – "The first five seconds are more important than the next five hours"

Last weeks' shooting incident in VA:

I won't comment on a motive of the single shooting suspect (now deceased), as these facts have been reported elsewhere.

I will comment on tactics:

Representative Mike Bishop (R-MI), who was there, said this in a radio interview:

"The only reason any of us walked out of this thing, by the grace of God, one of the folks here had a weapon to fire back and gave  us a moment to find cover. We were inside the backstop, and if we didn't have that cover by a brave person who stood up and took a shot themselves, we would not have gotten out of there, and every one of us would have been hit, every single one of us."

Representative Rodney Davis (R-IL) added:

"… would have been a lot worse without Steve Scalise's (security) detail. They immediately began returning fire. They were the true heroes. They fired back"

Scalise's bodyguards [Uniformed Capitol Police] where apparently the ones to which Mike Bishop (above) was referring.

Uniformed Capitol Police were on the scene, and apparently fired at the suspect. Uniformed APD officers arrived within minutes and could have fired at the suspect too.

In any event, the suspect was fatally wounded at some point, but perhaps dissuaded (maybe wounded too) by return fire at a much earlier point, as Mike Bishop indicated.

Points everyone needs to take away from this:

1) Decisive and IMMEDIATE return fire doubtless prevented a much larger massacre. 

2) Those who go armed routinely, and have IMMEDIATE access to guns, are the only ones who can possibly influence these kinds of terrorist incidents in any meaningful way.

Read more at https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/06/no_author/we-shoot-back/.

[1715381260]

1715381260

[1715381260]

1715381260

[1715381260]

1715381260

[1715381260]

1715381260

[matuson]

Guns are made for one purpose, and that purpose is to kill.
I believe that guns are not weapons, they are tools. How they are used is up to the person holding it.
Guns are especially dangerous in the hands of people who don't know how to use them (i.e., kids and teenagers) as well as those who are mentally ill and/or have a temper problem.
Gun control will not stop violence because a violent person doesn’t need a gun to be violent.
After the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, support for gun control increased dramatically.

Generally in America, the support for gun control has outweighed the support for gun rights.
Are gun control laws constitutional?
What would be your ideal set of laws regarding firearms?

I think gun control is a must law of one's country. But we can't stop many illegal sellers of guns because there are many people making them. I think it is better of there are only one main source of gun, with that it will be safe and easy to track.

100% gun control can't exist. It is a utopia. At all times there is a demand for weapons, which means there will be supply. The more restrictions on legal weapons the more you will be in the hands of illegal guns.

[blocksafe]

Blockchain centric enhanced firearm network called Blocksafe enables use cases to include but not limited to reinforce owner's control of their firearm. Blocksafe Foundation will be exhibiting at the NRA show in August with some of their partners.

https://i.imgur.com/fk4rnFch.png


https://coinmarketcap.com/assets/triggers/#charts

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1642159.msg19727700#msg19727700

Demos will be in Vegas at Coin Agenda later this year to include Tracking Point AR. http://www.tracking-point.com/mi4s/

[Turbanshee]

it's useless, people can still find other ways to kill

[BADecker]

Gun Makers Work Around California's New "Assault Weapons" Ban

California’s draconian new gun laws will require residents of the Golden state to register their “assault weapons” with the state (which they will have to pay to do of course) by the end of the year.  But thanks to capitalism and the free market, gun makers have already figured out workarounds.

One of the new laws labels an “assault weapon” as any gun that doesn’t have a fixed magazine.  So Franklin Armory owner Jay Jacobson invented “Drop in Fixed Magazine” or DFM. Jacobson had demonstrated his patented new device which is designed to get around the state’s new “assault weapons” law. The new law clamps down on a previous device known as a bullet button to Californians. The bullet button was a workaround for an earlier ban on rifles with detachable and quickly reloadable ammunition magazines. The DFM invention is actually ingenious for those stuck in the Golden state. The magazine is fixed from the bottom as the law requires; but it can come out the top, technically legal because it involves partially disassembling the gun. It’s a workaround that still allows shooters to quickly reload with very little delay.

If curious as to how the magazine works, watch the below video.

Franklin Armory DFM Magazine Review

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3Z0-XcULLY


Read more at http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/gun-makers-work-around-californias-new-assault-weapons-ban_06222017.

[BADecker]

One more reason why we all need bigger and more powerful guns!

To Ted Cruz: Further Militarizing Mexico's Drug War Is a Horrible Idea

If you're not familiar, Plan Colombia is officially the U.S. foreign military aid program for Colombia aimed at preventing drug trafficking. The U.S. has provided the Colombian government with $10 billion of military aid over the last 15 years.

Senator Cruz said of Plan Colombia, "It was treated less as a law enforcement matter than as a military matter. Where our military went into Colombia and helped destroy the cartels." His assessment was partially accurate because Plan Colombia isn't purely an anti-drug strategy. Instead, it is essentially part of a broader U.S. geopolitical strategy in which our country uses the pretense of the drug war to resurrect Cold-War-style intervention.

However, Cruz's belief that Plan Colombia helped defeat the cartels is completely wrong. First of all, that gives the impression that the program effectively reduced drug production. That couldn't be further from the truth. The White House released a report in March stating that cocaine production in Colombia had reached record levels last year, roughly 710 metric tons.

Read more at http://original.antiwar.com/Brian_Saady/2017/06/21/ted-cruz-militarizing-mexicos-drug-war-horrible-idea/.

[Wintorez]

One more reason why we all need bigger and more powerful guns!

To Ted Cruz: Further Militarizing Mexico's Drug War Is a Horrible Idea

If you're not familiar, Plan Colombia is officially the U.S. foreign military aid program for Colombia aimed at preventing drug trafficking. The U.S. has provided the Colombian government with $10 billion of military aid over the last 15 years.

Senator Cruz said of Plan Colombia, "It was treated less as a law enforcement matter than as a military matter. Where our military went into Colombia and helped destroy the cartels." His assessment was partially accurate because Plan Colombia isn't purely an anti-drug strategy. Instead, it is essentially part of a broader U.S. geopolitical strategy in which our country uses the pretense of the drug war to resurrect Cold-War-style intervention.

However, Cruz's belief that Plan Colombia helped defeat the cartels is completely wrong. First of all, that gives the impression that the program effectively reduced drug production. That couldn't be further from the truth. The White House released a report in March stating that cocaine production in Colombia had reached record levels last year, roughly 710 metric tons.

Read more at http://original.antiwar.com/Brian_Saady/2017/06/21/ted-cruz-militarizing-mexicos-drug-war-horrible-idea/.

But I would not mind if I allowed the state to store and use its own unstable weapons. The fact is that anyone who would like to encroach on my rights and freedom, I would show Where the crayfish winter, would drink a couple of bullets between the eyes.

[BADecker]

One more reason why we all need bigger and more powerful guns!

To Ted Cruz: Further Militarizing Mexico's Drug War Is a Horrible Idea

If you're not familiar, Plan Colombia is officially the U.S. foreign military aid program for Colombia aimed at preventing drug trafficking. The U.S. has provided the Colombian government with $10 billion of military aid over the last 15 years.

Senator Cruz said of Plan Colombia, "It was treated less as a law enforcement matter than as a military matter. Where our military went into Colombia and helped destroy the cartels." His assessment was partially accurate because Plan Colombia isn't purely an anti-drug strategy. Instead, it is essentially part of a broader U.S. geopolitical strategy in which our country uses the pretense of the drug war to resurrect Cold-War-style intervention.

However, Cruz's belief that Plan Colombia helped defeat the cartels is completely wrong. First of all, that gives the impression that the program effectively reduced drug production. That couldn't be further from the truth. The White House released a report in March stating that cocaine production in Colombia had reached record levels last year, roughly 710 metric tons.

Read more at http://original.antiwar.com/Brian_Saady/2017/06/21/ted-cruz-militarizing-mexicos-drug-war-horrible-idea/.

But I would not mind if I allowed the state to store and use its own unstable weapons. The fact is that anyone who would like to encroach on my rights and freedom, I would show Where the crayfish winter, would drink a couple of bullets between the eyes.

GET THEM REVENUERS WHO STEAL YOUR MONETARIZED PROPERTY.    

[Palmerson]

One more reason why we all need bigger and more powerful guns!

To Ted Cruz: Further Militarizing Mexico's Drug War Is a Horrible Idea

If you're not familiar, Plan Colombia is officially the U.S. foreign military aid program for Colombia aimed at preventing drug trafficking. The U.S. has provided the Colombian government with $10 billion of military aid over the last 15 years.

Senator Cruz said of Plan Colombia, "It was treated less as a law enforcement matter than as a military matter. Where our military went into Colombia and helped destroy the cartels." His assessment was partially accurate because Plan Colombia isn't purely an anti-drug strategy. Instead, it is essentially part of a broader U.S. geopolitical strategy in which our country uses the pretense of the drug war to resurrect Cold-War-style intervention.

However, Cruz's belief that Plan Colombia helped defeat the cartels is completely wrong. First of all, that gives the impression that the program effectively reduced drug production. That couldn't be further from the truth. The White House released a report in March stating that cocaine production in Colombia had reached record levels last year, roughly 710 metric tons.

Read more at http://original.antiwar.com/Brian_Saady/2017/06/21/ted-cruz-militarizing-mexicos-drug-war-horrible-idea/.

But I would not mind if I allowed the state to store and use its own unstable weapons. The fact is that anyone who would like to encroach on my rights and freedom, I would show Where the crayfish winter, would drink a couple of bullets between the eyes.

This is the standard error of a man who has no experience of handling weapons. You probably think that having a gun you will immediately be Rambo, but it's not. Prestupnie too can have guns and they can be more. The weapon is not the way to destroy the bandits, and the opportunity to win time to escape and save his life.

[BADecker]

One more reason why we all need bigger and more powerful guns!

To Ted Cruz: Further Militarizing Mexico's Drug War Is a Horrible Idea

If you're not familiar, Plan Colombia is officially the U.S. foreign military aid program for Colombia aimed at preventing drug trafficking. The U.S. has provided the Colombian government with $10 billion of military aid over the last 15 years.

Senator Cruz said of Plan Colombia, "It was treated less as a law enforcement matter than as a military matter. Where our military went into Colombia and helped destroy the cartels." His assessment was partially accurate because Plan Colombia isn't purely an anti-drug strategy. Instead, it is essentially part of a broader U.S. geopolitical strategy in which our country uses the pretense of the drug war to resurrect Cold-War-style intervention.

However, Cruz's belief that Plan Colombia helped defeat the cartels is completely wrong. First of all, that gives the impression that the program effectively reduced drug production. That couldn't be further from the truth. The White House released a report in March stating that cocaine production in Colombia had reached record levels last year, roughly 710 metric tons.

Read more at http://original.antiwar.com/Brian_Saady/2017/06/21/ted-cruz-militarizing-mexicos-drug-war-horrible-idea/.

But I would not mind if I allowed the state to store and use its own unstable weapons. The fact is that anyone who would like to encroach on my rights and freedom, I would show Where the crayfish winter, would drink a couple of bullets between the eyes.

This is the standard error of a man who has no experience of handling weapons. You probably think that having a gun you will immediately be Rambo, but it's not. Prestupnie too can have guns and they can be more. The weapon is not the way to destroy the bandits, and the opportunity to win time to escape and save his life.

This is the standard error of a person who doesn't recognize a Rambo when he sees one.

[valvevow]

A very good question on the legalization of weapons. I have already met many times over the information that many countries are raising this topic. But I can not understand why the region so much hinders this. The government in all ways decides to get rid of weapons in the hands of a common citizen.

[tvbcof]

But I would not mind if I allowed the state to store and use its own unstable weapons. The fact is that anyone who would like to encroach on my rights and freedom, I would show Where the crayfish winter, would drink a couple of bullets between the eyes.

This is the standard error of a man who has no experience of handling weapons. You probably think that having a gun you will immediately be Rambo, but it's not. Prestupnie too can have guns and they can be more. The weapon is not the way to destroy the bandits, and the opportunity to win time to escape and save his life.

LOL on the crayfish thing.  I'd not heard that one, and have had a life-long fascination with the creatures.

I generally agree with Palmerson.  Very few normal humans would leverage their 2nd amendments rights in bona-fide action against the so-called 'powers that be'  unless backed into a corner.  It is thus fairly safe for said powers to engage in abusive practices to a limited degree.  Going much beyond that introduces a bunch of unknowns in terms of costs and risks.  In shear fire-power I don't doubt that TPTB could effectively harness the powers of state in a paramilitary arsenal with the ability to win, but the costs and end result of this could be great and a win not really worth having.

I am pretty well convinced at this point that the main driving force behind efforts to roll-back the U.S.'s 2nd are people who are thinking as I am and have described above.  Of course 9/10ths (or more) of the proponents of attacks on the 2nd really do want to 'save the children from gun violence' and such.  For over one hundred years the technical term for such people is 'useful idiot'.

If someone thinks they are going to be a Rambo Jr., note that this is exactly what TPTB would like to have happen (on an individual case-by-case basis.)  The operation will be quick and easy, and the paramilitaries will have fun with their new weapons systems.

Beyond that, if anyone has flapped their gums on-line about becoming Rambo Jr., that information is logged.  In planning operations this database entry could provide justification to show up on day one fully SWAT equipped.  Just sayin'.

[Netnox]

If the government can provide security to its citizens, then there is no need for guns. But as of now, most of the governments can't do that. Either they are unable to provide security for the civilians, or they are not interested in doing the same. So the civilians have no option other than defending themselves using legally available firearms.

[tvbcof]

If the government can provide security to its citizens, then there is no need for guns. But as of now, most of the governments can't do that. Either they are unable to provide security for the civilians, or they are not interested in doing the same. So the civilians have no option other than defending themselves using legally available firearms.

Interestingly, the principle is the same for civilian criminals and non-criminals alike.  The government has no realistic way to provide security for run-of-the-mill civilian criminals of the violent type, and thus this group has 'no choice' but to provide this service for themselves.  The result is that criminalizing firearms for the purposes of controlling criminal access to them is mostly pissing into the wind.

What the U.S. government did do back in the 1980s was the common sense thing.  They made the penalties for use of firearms in the commission of a crime very high.  The effect was that criminals use guns more among themselves for their own purposes, but tend to try not to use them in the commission of a crime against non-criminal citizens.  This is why gun problems here in the U.S. have been on the decline for most of my life.

The moral of the story is that it is possible for the government to make good decisions and implement policy on them effectively when they wish to.  When they are pissing up our leg and fabricating a non-problem in order to achieve a different objective (which is fairly common) then the results tend to be disastrous for the common citizen.

[mariahh]

Here in my country (Greece) there are not  uncontrolled use of weapons (except some villages) but there are always people that can find and use such a thing.It would be good for humanity people to not use one signle weapon, but there were invented and since then every country and people generally want them for safety and attack of course.At least the weapon market should be more strict and limited because there are many innocent victims in coutries like America for example.

[solohotdog]

Guns don't kill people, people do

[usdsmirk]

We should have background checks, there's no reason not to have this at least

[Sithara007]

Here in my country (Greece) there are not  uncontrolled use of weapons (except some villages) but there are always people that can find and use such a thing.It would be good for humanity people to not use one signle weapon, but there were invented and since then every country and people generally want them for safety and attack of course.At least the weapon market should be more strict and limited because there are many innocent victims in coutries like America for example.

People should be allowed to defend themselves. Else it will be like the case in my country, where all the criminals own guns and the common people doesn't have means to defend themselves. Guns are not banned, but the bureaucratic hassles make them almost impossible to obtain. One of my relatives tried for a gun license for almost 3 years, before giving up.

[BADecker]

Here in my country (Greece) there are not  uncontrolled use of weapons (except some villages) but there are always people that can find and use such a thing.It would be good for humanity people to not use one signle weapon, but there were invented and since then every country and people generally want them for safety and attack of course.At least the weapon market should be more strict and limited because there are many innocent victims in coutries like America for example.

People should be allowed to defend themselves. Else it will be like the case in my country, where all the criminals own guns and the common people doesn't have means to defend themselves. Guns are not banned, but the bureaucratic hassles make them almost impossible to obtain. One of my relatives tried for a gun license for almost 3 years, before giving up.

This is wrong thinking. Rather than people being allowed to defend themselves, they SHOULD defend themselves.

Nobody is allowing or disallowing people. If people don't defend themselves, it is each person disallowing himself.

You don't ask somebody if you have permission to defend yourself. You simply get up and do it. Get your gun and defend yourself.

[BADecker]

GUNs and poses
Meet the one man army who owns more than 3,000 weapons...

IN a country where it is believed there are two guns for every resident – one pistol-packing American is doing his bit to bump up the averages.

Mel Bernstein – known as the Dragon Man – has earned the title the 'most armed man in the US' and has a frightening 3,000 weapons in his collection – and that doesn't include the tanks.


Dragon Man astride his flamethrower-rigged motorbike


He even sleeps surrounded by machine guns mounted on his bedroom wall

Read more and see loads more pics at https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3883930/most-armed-man-america-dragon-mel-bernstein-colorado-guns/.