What's your opinion of gun control?

[enhu]

I definitely support gun control. There are countries in Asia where gun control is very strict and so their crime rate is much better. The catch though is that crimes are more bloody
If you have seen the movie "Yellow Sea" I believe it won several awards, its plot was in Korea where civilians can never own a gun so gangsters use knives and axes. so if gun control were implemented in certain areas, crimes will be lower in rate but more brutal and bloody.

[tvbcof]

Another interesting aspect of "gun control" is hiding the heros, and only talking about (a) the terrorist (b) the victims.

Who knows anything about the brave woman who ran at the nutcase Islamic terrorist shooter at Ft. Hood, Texas?

How about the CCL guy that did the same with the Giffords shooting incident?

No, I did not know of these people.  Neither of the incidents are ones which I've studied in detail, but if any reasonable amount of attention would have been paid to the people who were involved in resolving the situation I would have remembered it.  So, your point is taken and seems valid.

I do recall the fairly recent shooting in the mall in Oregon (it being the state I live in.)  That case was reported to have been brought to a speedy resolution when the shooter was confronted by a CCL guy and turned his weapon on himself.  This shooting did not get anywhere near the traction of the other more 'useful' events which did see (supposed) mass casualties.  I suspected that the CCL guy and his actions made the event non-useful.  For related reasons I also supposed that this was probably one of the non-hoax events that are prone to happen on rare occasion.

Some people say that the Giffords thing was fake and she is faking her injury.  The event happened before I became suspicious about stuff, but I don't remember anything especially questionable about the various reports, footage, etc.  I also think that it would be difficult and risky to try to fake an injury of this nature for the rest of one's life.  So, I'm not buying the 'conspiracy theory' on that one.  But I've not gone back and looked at the event in detail.  I'm not certain it is not a hoax either.  Just seems unlikely to me.  I'm almost never more than about 99% sure of anything since the world chronically surprises me with it's complexity.

[Chef Ramsay]

Gun control hurts the law abiding citizen as those that are criminals do not follow such laws. Peaceful (those that haven't exhibited violent behavior) folks should have the right to life, and the corollary is the right to defend oneself. Defending oneself is a common right as you have the right to defend yourself against the common highwayman by all means necessary, which a firearm is the means.

[TheButterZone]

How are they going to take the gun away from you? Ask you to hand it over nice-like? Throw a tantrum when you don't hand it over? No. They will use gun violence to stop you from what? Carrying a gun?

Folks who know what to do have the chance to make a lot of money off taxpayers if their property is stolen from them by government and cops.

If I were commissioned to formulate a strategy here, I would do something like have the paramilitary (and/or military and/or contractors a-la Blackwater) show up at the doors of anyone who was registered and demand to see the gun.  If the victim was on a Kafka-esque secret list, the gun would be confiscated.  If the party could not produce the weapon, they would have to produce something like, oh, say, $10,000 in cash or be frog-marched off.  Enforcement then could search the rest of the property for anything else which caught their eye (e.g., your daughter)...and take it home as a fringe benefit of the job.  Civil asset forfeiture, bitch.

It's fairly easy for me to think like a left-winger since I was one an embarrassingly long part of my life.

Actually, I was at one point interested in a situation where gun owners needed to hold a bond to be forfeited if a gun were used irresponsibly.  I think that such a bond could be obtained for very reasonable costs on the open market since irresponsible use is nearly a non-problem.  These days I have no interest in anything but having these gun control slime have a high capacity clip shoved up their asses.  All the way.  It is increasingly clear to me that there is a deeper and darker agenda which they have.

I would be kind of interested in a trade:  Some ostensibly realistic thing (say, gun-show loophole if that even actually exists) for a situation where if more than, say, one percent of guns are confiscated in a 12 month time period, all gun control legislation is null and void.  If these gun-grabbers resisted such a structure (and they would) it would show their true colors.

Another interesting aspect of "gun control" is hiding the heros, and only talking about (a) the terrorist (b) the victims.

Who knows anything about the brave woman who ran at the nutcase Islamic terrorist shooter at Ft. Hood, Texas?

How about the CCL guy that did the same with the Giffords shooting incident?

The inconvenient truth is that he needed a CCL at all, as Giffords held her event in the federal gun-free school zone of Edge High School Northwest, where "Constitutional Carry" is a federal felony.

[Spendulus]

Another interesting aspect of "gun control" is hiding the heros, and only talking about (a) the terrorist (b) the victims.

Who knows anything about the brave woman who ran at the nutcase Islamic terrorist shooter at Ft. Hood, Texas?

How about the CCL guy that did the same with the Giffords shooting incident?

No, I did not know of these people.  Neither of the incidents are ones which I've studied in detail, but if any reasonable amount of attention would have been paid to the people who were involved in resolving the situation I would have remembered it.  So, your point is taken and seems valid.

I do recall the fairly recent shooting in the mall in Oregon (it being the state I live in.)  That case was reported to have been brought to a speedy resolution when the shooter was confronted by a CCL guy and turned his weapon on himself.  This shooting did not get anywhere near the traction of the other more 'useful' events which did see (supposed) mass casualties.  I suspected that the CCL guy and his actions made the event non-useful.  For related reasons I also supposed that this was probably one of the non-hoax events that are prone to happen on rare occasion.

Some people say that the Giffords thing was fake and she is faking her injury.  The event happened before I became suspicious about stuff, but I don't remember anything especially questionable about the various reports, footage, etc.  I also think that it would be difficult and risky to try to fake an injury of this nature for the rest of one's life.  So, I'm not buying the 'conspiracy theory' on that one.  But I've not gone back and looked at the event in detail.  I'm not certain it is not a hoax either.  Just seems unlikely to me.  I'm almost never more than about 99% sure of anything since the world chronically surprises me with it's complexity.

I'm sure there are many, many other stories where there was true heroism involved.  And here I'm not talking about the fake "hero" as the media portrays him - where they try to project an image that any and all "first responders" are "heroes."  They are not.

I'm talking about people who literally risk their own life to take out the bad guy.  Some, or many, will be law enforcement, sure.  But even then it should be examined.  For example, suppose some Islamic whackjobs are inside an area killing innocent people one by one.  Cops start to arrive.  If the cops wait until they have overwhelming force, then make their move, this is not heroism, not in the sense I would like to see the phrase used.

Anyway, you get my point. 

We are seeing the praise and the raising up of victimdom.  Not of heroes.

[zenitzz]

Obama to meet with Loretta Lynch to discuss 'epidemic of gun violence'

The president will meet with the attorney general to talk about executive actions including expanding background checks, according to a source


President Barack Obama will meet on Monday with attorney general Loretta Lynch to discuss executive actions he could take to make it harder for “a dangerous few” to get their hands on guns.

Obama said on his weekly radio address that he gets so many letters from parents, teachers and children about the “epidemic of gun violence” that he can’t “sit around and do nothing”.

“The gun lobby is loud and well organized in its defense of effortlessly available guns for anyone,” Obama said. “The rest of us are going to have to be just as passionate and well organized in our defense of our kids.”

Obama recently directed staff at the White House to look into potential executive actions, such as expanding background checks.

Currently, federally licensed firearms dealers are required to seek background checks on potential firearm purchasers. But advocacy groups say some of the people who sell firearms at gun shows are not federally licensed, increasing the chance of sales to customers prohibited by law from purchasing guns.

A source familiar with the administration’s efforts said Obama is expected to take executive action next week that would set a “reasonable threshold” for when sellers have to seek a background check. That person didn’t know whether it would be based on the number of guns sold or revenue generated through gun sales.

The source, a member of a gun control advocacy group, was not authorized to discuss details before the announcement and spoke on condition of anonymity. White House officials won’t confirm the timing.

Obama is in Hawaii for his annual holiday vacation with his family.

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/01/obama-to-meet-with-loretta-lynch-to-discuss-epidemic-of-gun-violence

[Wilikon]

Obama’s Gun-Control Plan Includes Gun-Ban For Some Social Security Beneficiaries


The White House released a fact-sheet Jan. 4 which previews the executive gun control Obama will unveil Tuesday and one aspect of the new controls is the inclusion of “information from the Social Security Administration in the background check system about beneficiaries who are prohibited from possessing a firearm.”

On July 18 Breitbart News reported on Obama’s push to ban gun-possession for Social Security beneficiaries who are believed incapable of handling their own finances.

At that same time, the Los Angeles Times reported that a ban was being put together “outside of public view,” so all the details were not known. But the Times did  know that the ban would cover those who are unable to manage their own affairs for a multitude of reasons–from “subnormal intelligence or mental illness” to “incompetency,” an unspecified “condition,” or “disease.”

The ban pertaining to Social Security beneficiaries is now tucked into the “mental health” aspects of Obama’s executive gun control.


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/04/obamas-gun-control-plan-includes-gun-ban-social-security-beneficiaries/

[zenitzz]

Tearful Obama tightens gun control and tells inactive Congress: 'We can't wait'

A tear-stained Barack Obama marked his final year in office with a last-ditch call for US gun control on Tuesday as he outlined new rules that will close important background check loopholes but leave much of the political heavy lifting to his successor.

In a much-anticipated speech that focused more on what still needed to be done than the limited set of executive actions announced in advance by the White House, the president painted gun reform as the last great civil rights challenge of his generation.

“In Dr King’s words, we need to feel the fierce urgency of now, because people are dying,” a visibly emotional Obama told an audience of mass shooting victims and relatives in the East Room.

“Our inalienable right to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness, those rights were stripped from college kids in Blacksburg and Santa Barbara and from high schoolers at Columbine, and from first graders in Newtown,” he added, his voice shaking. “First graders. And from every family who never imagined that their loved one would be taken from our lives by a bullet from a gun.”

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/05/obama-gun-control-executive-action-background-checks-licenses-gun-shows-mental-health-funding

[Wilikon]

Tearful Obama tightens gun control and tells inactive Congress: 'We can't wait'

A tear-stained Barack Obama marked his final year in office with a last-ditch call for US gun control on Tuesday as he outlined new rules that will close important background check loopholes but leave much of the political heavy lifting to his successor.

In a much-anticipated speech that focused more on what still needed to be done than the limited set of executive actions announced in advance by the White House, the president painted gun reform as the last great civil rights challenge of his generation.

“In Dr King’s words, we need to feel the fierce urgency of now, because people are dying,” a visibly emotional Obama told an audience of mass shooting victims and relatives in the East Room.

“Our inalienable right to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness, those rights were stripped from college kids in Blacksburg and Santa Barbara and from high schoolers at Columbine, and from first graders in Newtown,” he added, his voice shaking. “First graders. And from every family who never imagined that their loved one would be taken from our lives by a bullet from a gun.”

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/05/obama-gun-control-executive-action-background-checks-licenses-gun-shows-mental-health-funding

On Civil Rights Leader and Gun-owner Martin Luther King, Jr

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is best known as a man of profound peace, who applied Gandhi’s teachings of non-violent direct action to the plight of oppressed blacks in America and set the stage for the Civil Rights movement. It then may come as a surprise to some that the Reverend King, in keeping in line with Gandhi, believed strongly in the human right to self-defense and had even applied for a handgun carry permit after his house had been bombed to defend his family from the bigoted minds of that era. He was denied.

UCLA law professor Adam Winkler explains King’s relationship with firearms in his book Gunfight. He writes:

    Most people think King would be the last person to own a gun. Yet in the 1956, as the civil rights movement heated up, King turned to firearms for self-protection and he even applied for a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

This was not out of the norm for Civil Rights organizers in the 1950s and 60s, nor was it the only weapon King kept around him. On the receiving end of countless death threats from both civilians and law enforcement, armed supporters took turns guarding King’s home and family after his permit was denied knowing too well that the Klan was targeting him for assassination and they would likely receive little assistance from the local authorities.

Indeed William Worthy, a black journalist who covered King in the 1950s, reported that he once went to sit down on an armchair in the King’s living room and almost sat on a loaded gun. King’s advisor Glenn Smiley described the great pacifist’s home as containing “an arsenal.”


T.R.M. Howard, the Mississippi doctor and founder of the Regional Council of Negro Leadership, kept a Thompson submachine gun at the foot of his bed and escorted those affected by hate to and from their homes in a heavily-armed caravans. Likewise, white sit in organizer John R. Salter, always “traveled armed” while working in the South in the 50s, once said, “I’m alive today because of the Second Amendment and the natural right to keep and bear arms.”

Stories like these remind us today that even though these great minds preached peace and tolerance, they recognized the intimate connection between gun rights and human rights and the danger the oppression of one meant to the other. Though provisions mandating gun protocol for all Americans had existed since the colonial era, the first actual piece of gun control written in this country was targeted at blacks and keeping them unarmed. Though it would be hard to argue that all gun control is racist, it’s difficult to deny that its roots here in North America are in subjugation, a reality not lost on the thought-shapers of the Civil Rights era.

So on this day reserved for the memory of Martin Luther King Jr., Guns.com would like to encourage all of our readers to take a minute remember Dr. King as a man who did more than just pray for peace (he lived it), but was still prepared for war.


http://www.guns.com/2014/01/20/civil-rights-leader-gun-owner-martin-luther-king-jr/

[HarizDB]

Personally, I do agree in increasing gun control. We have seen in the past how people who shouldn't be able to get guns, has them anyway, because of an lose gun control system. As long as the gun control, particular in the US, won't violate the second amendment, there shouldn't be any problem implementing further control on guns.

[TheButterZone]

Personally, I do agree in increasing gun control. We have seen in the past how people who shouldn't be able to get guns, has them anyway, because of an lose gun control system. As long as the gun control, particular in the US, won't violate the second amendment, there shouldn't be any problem implementing further control on guns.

Enough of this "the earth is flat" magical bullshit.

Gun control cannot stop anyone from getting guns who shouldn't have them. If there is a will, there is always a way.
Gun control only stops those who should have guns from legally getting them, categorically violating the second, and other, amendments, that codified, NOT created, human rights.

[Wilikon]

Personally, I do agree in increasing gun control. We have seen in the past how people who shouldn't be able to get guns, has them anyway, because of an lose gun control system. As long as the gun control, particular in the US, won't violate the second amendment, there shouldn't be any problem implementing further control on guns.

Personally, I do agree in increasing speech control. We have seen in the past how people who shouldn't be able to speak freely, do it anyway, because of an lose speech control system. As long as the speech control, particular in the US, won't violate the first amendment, there shouldn't be any problem implementing further control on speech.

[Spendulus]

Personally, I do agree in increasing gun control. We have seen in the past how people who shouldn't be able to get guns, has them anyway, because of an lose gun control system. As long as the gun control, particular in the US, won't violate the second amendment, there shouldn't be any problem implementing further control on guns.

Personally, I do agree in increasing speech control. We have seen in the past how people who shouldn't be able to speak freely, do it anyway, because of an lose speech control system. As long as the speech control, particular in the US, won't violate the first amendment, there shouldn't be any problem implementing further control on speech.

Personally, I do agree in increasing foot control. We have seen in the past how people who shouldn't be able to get boots, has them anyway, because of an lose boot control system. As long as the boot control, particular in the US, won't violate the second amendment, there shouldn't be any problem implementing further control on boots.

Boots, after all, are used to kick people.  And hurt them.

Next on the agenda:  Hand control.

Personally, I do agree in increasing hand control. We have seen in the past how people who shouldn't be able to use guns, has used them anyway, because of an lose hand control system. As long as the hand control, particular in the US, won't violate the second amendment, there shouldn't be any problem implementing further control on hands.

After all, if the hand is - reasonably within the power of constitutionality and maintaining the second amendment - restrained - so that the fingers cannot pull triggers - there shouldn't be any problem.

Right?

[Wilikon]

Personally, I do agree in increasing frog kissing control. We have seen in the past how people who shouldn't be able to kiss frogs, do it anyway, because of an lose frog kissing control system. As long as the kissing frog control, particular in the US cartoons, won't violate Disney princesses, there shouldn't be any problem implementing further control on kissing frogs.

[Spendulus]

Personally, I do agree in increasing frog kissing control. We have seen in the past how people who shouldn't be able to kiss frogs, do it anyway, because of an lose frog kissing control system. As long as the kissing frog control, particular in the US cartoons, won't violate Disney princesses, there shouldn't be any problem implementing further control on kissing frogs.

This is a brilliant idea!  On the basis of frog kissing control, we can implement controls over when people are able to use their mouths.  That will have ancillary benefits for other social justice goals being implemented in parallel with these objectives.

[Wilikon]

Personally, I do agree in increasing frog kissing control. We have seen in the past how people who shouldn't be able to kiss frogs, do it anyway, because of an lose frog kissing control system. As long as the kissing frog control, particular in the US cartoons, won't violate Disney princesses, there shouldn't be any problem implementing further control on kissing frogs.

It Is Illegal To Lick A Toad - California Bail Bonds

Specifically, it is illegal for a person to lick the Colorado River Toad, aka the Sonoran Desert toad, aka Bufo alvarius.

This species of toad secretes a venom that contains bufotenine which, when ingested, can cause hallucinogenic effects.

Bufotenine is a controlled substance in the United States. There were many arrests that were bufotenine-related throughout the Southwestern states, during the 1980s and 1990s. There was actually a toad-licking heyday during the 1960s and arrests were numerous..

A Kansas City, Missouri man was arrested in 2007 for being in possession of a Colorado River Toad, allegedly with the intention of using the frog to get high from the hallucinogenic venom. The young man, 21-year-old David Theiss, was released on bail following his arrest.


http://www.888bailbond.com/news/the-illegal-unlawful/it-is-illegal-to-lick-a-toad/

[Spendulus]

Personally, I do agree in increasing frog kissing control. We have seen in the past how people who shouldn't be able to kiss frogs, do it anyway, because of an lose frog kissing control system. As long as the kissing frog control, particular in the US cartoons, won't violate Disney princesses, there shouldn't be any problem implementing further control on kissing frogs.

It Is Illegal To Lick A Toad - California Bail Bonds

Specifically, it is illegal for a person to lick the Colorado River Toad, aka the Sonoran Desert toad, aka Bufo alvarius.

This species of toad secretes a venom that contains bufotenine which, when ingested, can cause hallucinogenic effects.

Bufotenine is a controlled substance in the United States. There were many arrests that were bufotenine-related throughout the Southwestern states, during the 1980s and 1990s. There was actually a toad-licking heyday during the 1960s and arrests were numerous..

A Kansas City, Missouri man was arrested in 2007 for being in possession of a Colorado River Toad, allegedly with the intention of using the frog to get high from the hallucinogenic venom. The young man, 21-year-old David Theiss, was released on bail following his arrest.


http://www.888bailbond.com/news/the-illegal-unlawful/it-is-illegal-to-lick-a-toad/

You know this is totally gross stuff, right?  I mean that's one sick gross looking creature there.

Now we need to stick to being civilized, and just keep them toads swimming in our beer.

And don't none of those perverted liberal authoritarian control freaks try to f*** with our beer.

[Wilikon]

Personally, I do agree in increasing frog kissing control. We have seen in the past how people who shouldn't be able to kiss frogs, do it anyway, because of an lose frog kissing control system. As long as the kissing frog control, particular in the US cartoons, won't violate Disney princesses, there shouldn't be any problem implementing further control on kissing frogs.

It Is Illegal To Lick A Toad - California Bail Bonds

Specifically, it is illegal for a person to lick the Colorado River Toad, aka the Sonoran Desert toad, aka Bufo alvarius.

This species of toad secretes a venom that contains bufotenine which, when ingested, can cause hallucinogenic effects.

Bufotenine is a controlled substance in the United States. There were many arrests that were bufotenine-related throughout the Southwestern states, during the 1980s and 1990s. There was actually a toad-licking heyday during the 1960s and arrests were numerous..

A Kansas City, Missouri man was arrested in 2007 for being in possession of a Colorado River Toad, allegedly with the intention of using the frog to get high from the hallucinogenic venom. The young man, 21-year-old David Theiss, was released on bail following his arrest.


http://www.888bailbond.com/news/the-illegal-unlawful/it-is-illegal-to-lick-a-toad/

You know this is totally gross stuff, right?  I mean that's one sick gross looking creature there.

Now we need to stick to being civilized, and just keep them toads swimming in our beer.

And don't none of those perverted liberal authoritarian control freaks try to f*** with our beer.

Did you say beer?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDv5s7Tzw3M

[Spendulus]

Personally, I do agree in increasing frog kissing control. We have seen in the past how people who shouldn't be able to kiss frogs, do it anyway, because of an lose frog kissing control system. As long as the kissing frog control, particular in the US cartoons, won't violate Disney princesses, there shouldn't be any problem implementing further control on kissing frogs.

It Is Illegal To Lick A Toad - California Bail Bonds

Specifically, it is illegal for a person to lick the Colorado River Toad, aka the Sonoran Desert toad, aka Bufo alvarius.

This species of toad secretes a venom that contains bufotenine which, when ingested, can cause hallucinogenic effects.

Bufotenine is a controlled substance in the United States. There were many arrests that were bufotenine-related throughout the Southwestern states, during the 1980s and 1990s. There was actually a toad-licking heyday during the 1960s and arrests were numerous..

A Kansas City, Missouri man was arrested in 2007 for being in possession of a Colorado River Toad, allegedly with the intention of using the frog to get high from the hallucinogenic venom. The young man, 21-year-old David Theiss, was released on bail following his arrest.


http://www.888bailbond.com/news/the-illegal-unlawful/it-is-illegal-to-lick-a-toad/

You know this is totally gross stuff, right?  I mean that's one sick gross looking creature there.

Now we need to stick to being civilized, and just keep them toads swimming in our beer.

And don't none of those perverted liberal authoritarian control freaks try to f*** with our beer.

Did you say beer?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDv5s7Tzw3M

Yessir, I said beer. 

And a 40 ounce mug would do it.

Now does this here beer come with da frog, or do I git one of my girls to go out to the soggy bottom land and bring us some in? Because they love that Bad Frog.  Say it make them feel like a princess, they do.

[Wilikon]

Personally, I do agree in increasing frog kissing control. We have seen in the past how people who shouldn't be able to kiss frogs, do it anyway, because of an lose frog kissing control system. As long as the kissing frog control, particular in the US cartoons, won't violate Disney princesses, there shouldn't be any problem implementing further control on kissing frogs.

It Is Illegal To Lick A Toad - California Bail Bonds

Specifically, it is illegal for a person to lick the Colorado River Toad, aka the Sonoran Desert toad, aka Bufo alvarius.

This species of toad secretes a venom that contains bufotenine which, when ingested, can cause hallucinogenic effects.

Bufotenine is a controlled substance in the United States. There were many arrests that were bufotenine-related throughout the Southwestern states, during the 1980s and 1990s. There was actually a toad-licking heyday during the 1960s and arrests were numerous..

A Kansas City, Missouri man was arrested in 2007 for being in possession of a Colorado River Toad, allegedly with the intention of using the frog to get high from the hallucinogenic venom. The young man, 21-year-old David Theiss, was released on bail following his arrest.


http://www.888bailbond.com/news/the-illegal-unlawful/it-is-illegal-to-lick-a-toad/

You know this is totally gross stuff, right?  I mean that's one sick gross looking creature there.

Now we need to stick to being civilized, and just keep them toads swimming in our beer.

And don't none of those perverted liberal authoritarian control freaks try to f*** with our beer.

Did you say beer?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDv5s7Tzw3M

Yessir, I said beer. 

And a 40 ounce mug would do it.

Now does this here beer come with da frog, or do I git one of my girls to go out to the soggy bottom land and bring us some in? Because they love that Bad Frog.  Say it make them feel like a princess, they do.

Bad frog beer + princess = shotgun wedding