What's your opinion of gun control?

[Wilikon]

New anti-gun strategy: “swatting” open carry permit holders


Here’s a new trend which can only end badly. Having lost one battle after another in the courts, anti-Second Amendment groups have begun pushing some “extra-legal” means to intimidate legal gun owners in the public square. Unfortunately, the method of choice is probably going to wind up getting somebody killed. You may be familiar with the term “SWATting” which rose to prominence when hackers began making phony calls to 9-1-1 claiming some sort of life threatening emergency at the homes of their targets (political or otherwise) in the hopes of sending armed officers to invade the home. That dangerous ploy obviously seems like a great idea to some prominent anti-gun groups and they are encouraging their supporters to do the same to people who are observed carrying in public. (Fox News)

As more states relax rules about open-carrying of guns, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence has taken to social media to urge the public to assume gun-toters are trouble, and to call the cops on anyone they feel may be a threat.

“If you see someone carrying a firearm in public—openly or concealed—and have ANY doubts about their intent, call 911 immediately and ask police to come to the scene,” the group wrote on its widely followed Facebook page. “Never put your safety, or the safety of your loved ones, at the mercy of weak gun laws that arm individuals in public with little or no criminal and/or mental health screening.”

That approach, according to a blog post by Ohio-based Buckeye Firearms Association, could give rise to needless, tense confrontations between police and gun owners. The association and other similar groups liken the tactic to “swatting,” or the act of tricking an emergency service into dispatching responders based on a false report.


While this is a bad idea (and a criminal one) under any circumstances, it’s a particularly cynical and hypocritical move on the part of the gun grabbers. They tend to be almost exclusively liberal and have a large crossover with the same groups who are constantly complaining about violent encounters between the police and suspects. The atmosphere around the nation is particularly tense for law enforcement officers as more and more of them are murdered and criminals become more brazen. Sending the cops out on a call where they have been falsely informed that someone is “acting suspicious” and is clearly armed just puts everyone on a hair trigger… literally.

Granted, in the vast majority of cases, a well trained gun owner is going to calmly respond to any police who approach him, not make any motions which look like they are going to draw their weapon and simply ask the officer what’s going on. At that point the police can ask about a permit (if in a state where one is required) and ascertain the situation. But there are always exceptions to the rule and if this goes wrong you could easily see a tragedy where there was no problem at all. And even if things work out in a completely peaceful fashion, you’ve just wasted the time of the cops who could have been out chasing down actual criminals. This is a disgusting tactic, and people found to be phoning in such bogus reports should be held accountable for abusing the emergency response system and put in jail. As the FBI notes, this has already happened.

Since we first warned about this phone hacking phenomenon in 2008, the FBI has arrested numerous individuals on federal charges stemming from swatting incidents, and some are currently in prison (see sidebar). Today, although most swatting cases are handled by local and state law enforcement agencies, the Bureau often provides resources and guidance in these investigations.

“The FBI looks at these crimes as a public safety issue,” said Kevin Kolbye, an assistant special agent in charge in our Dallas Division. “It’s only a matter of time before somebody gets seriously injured as a result of one of these incidents.”

Perhaps the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and their related ilk should stick to more traditional methods of trying to undermine the Second Amendment. One of the most popular is trying to twist poll results to make people think that gun rights aren’t as popular and cherished by Americans as they actually are. (For a great example of this, see this Mark Berman explainer in the WaPo.) It’s dishonest as the day is long, but at least it’s not directly getting anyone killed.


http://hotair.com/archives/2015/09/02/new-anti-gun-strategy-swatting-open-carry-permit-holders/

[BADecker]

With regard to https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1169066.msg12308818#msg12308818, gun control is about getting guns out of the hands of law enforcement. Click the picture.

[MakingMoneyHoney]

New anti-gun strategy: “swatting” open carry permit holders

....

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/09/02/new-anti-gun-strategy-swatting-open-carry-permit-holders/

Which of course may lead to more stories like these: Man and officer wounded, dog killed in police address mix-up

Cops Who Flash Banged Infant’s Crib Are Blaming the Baby

[RodeoX]

I would love it if someone "swatted" me. It is illegal and they are going to face the music in court. But the reason I would hope to be swatted is profit. I would have a great civil suit and I doubt their lawyer would ever let it get to court. I would just drive by their house and pick out a car I want. Or better yet a cool boat, oh I hope they have a boat.
 

[OBAViJEST]

I would love it if someone "swatted" me. It is illegal and they are going to face the music in court. But the reason I would hope to be swatted is profit. I would have a great civil suit and I doubt their lawyer would ever let it get to court. I would just drive by their house and pick out a car I want. Or better yet a cool boat, oh I hope they have a boat.
 

How many victims of swatting have received similar luxurious compensation? 

[RodeoX]

I would love it if someone "swatted" me. It is illegal and they are going to face the music in court. But the reason I would hope to be swatted is profit. I would have a great civil suit and I doubt their lawyer would ever let it get to court. I would just drive by their house and pick out a car I want. Or better yet a cool boat, oh I hope they have a boat.
 

How many victims of swatting have received similar luxurious compensation? 

Don't know? but if you have a lawyer I think anyone would win. It is illegal to file a false police report and slander to make a false accusation. I would not care, when the swat team got there they would be like "Oh hi Rich, how you been? You gona shoot with us this week at the club?".

[freeyourmind]

The world will be better place if there's no guns/wars. My point of view about guns/wars is this. We use natural resources wrong way.

I would agree with you on both points.  Our allocation of resources is terrible; I don't think there's any questioning that.

So the issue with guns/war is that they already exist and are in the hands of millions of people.  Most of those people are responsible folks not looking to use guns offensively towards another person.  Some use it for defense, sport, hunting, protection from wild animals, etc.  The issue is the small % of mentally ill or violent people.  I would assume that most of them would acquire guns illegally from the black market, to the point that they bypass any safety training or testing that the rest have to go through.

If there is any possibility of acquiring a gun illegally, then the entire gun control conversation doesn't address the issue.  Right now I'd say it can be acquired without too much difficulty, and all you need is cash.

Our allocation of resources is not terrible. It is the law of Evolution. Those wanting to put more chances to have their genes move along generations went near places with resources. Salt. Most big european cities started near a salt mine. We all know this is how the roman empire was paying his soldiers. We still use that word today, with the same latin root: salary.

That is why humans move around: more resources, a better place away from wars or be killed. Never the opposite (unless isis)

 

Well let's say that humanity operated collectively, and it was about innovating technology to the point where we consume resources in a sustainable manner.  I'd say we have the technology live in a sustainable way (energy production and consumption, agriculture, transportation), however we are unable to execute on it.  We are putting a lot of effort and resource towards unsustainable resource consumption, which is negatively impacting the air we need to breathe and the water we need to drink.  When collective sustainability is sacrificed for personal ambition/desire/profit, it is similar to cancer in your body.  Not to say that personal ambition and desire is meaningless, but it can also be done in a way that positively or neutrally impacts the environment around us.

We have all you can eat buffet's here, but there are others dying from starvation.  The chemical soup of Coke and Pepsi are accessible world wide, but clean drinking water isn't.  We send raw materials to China to produce a product that you can use for 10 minutes before it ends up in a landfill, where it will not decompose.  I consider that a terrible allocation of resources.

[Pentax]

I would love it if someone "swatted" me. It is illegal and they are going to face the music in court. But the reason I would hope to be swatted is profit. I would have a great civil suit and I doubt their lawyer would ever let it get to court. I would just drive by their house and pick out a car I want. Or better yet a cool boat, oh I hope they have a boat.
 

Yep, cause the police have nothing better to do than respond to frivolous attempts to harass lawful gun owners.

These people are nutters.  I've read their facebook page.  Full on kookery, with none of them bothering to acknowledge that their actions are tantamount to pranking the police department and diverting officers from things they may be doing, with no benefit whatsoever to the safety of society, and may likely result in harm coming to someone that needs help because these tards have diverted cops so they can get a little giggle.

They should be prosecuted.  And like Rodeo, if one of these calls is made on me I will do whatever possible to do exactly that.

There will be pushback to this activity.  Seeing as these people cannot apparently see that the result of their activity is detrimental in the first place I have to wonder if they've bothered to consider that possibility.

[Xenoph0bia]

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.

[tvbcof]

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.

[MakingMoneyHoney]

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.

[ausbit]

^^^ 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.

[BADecker]

^^^ 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!!!

[iv4n]

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.

[RodeoX]

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.

[iv4n]

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.

[MakingMoneyHoney]

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.

[BADecker]

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.

[RodeoX]

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.

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.

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.

[tvbcof]

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.

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.

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.