What's your opinion of gun control?

[zenitzz]

Gun's don't cause violence. If violent people want to go crazy and kill people, they'll find ways to do it with or without guns.

It's when crazy people who are not stable get ahold of guns. There needs to be tighter controls on who is able to carry. Better screening, interview process, psychological profile?

Which would not control all who are able to carry or get a hold of guns.

What happens once guns are banned and the criminals still have them? What happens when guns are banned and people are still killing people without guns? I guess we ban people next?

[1715202417]

1715202417

[1715202417]

1715202417

[Spendulus]

Gun's don't cause violence. If violent people want to go crazy and kill people, they'll find ways to do it with or without guns.

It's when crazy people who are not stable get ahold of guns. There needs to be tighter controls on who is able to carry. Better screening, interview process, psychological profile?

Which would not control all who are able to carry or get a hold of guns.

What happens once guns are banned and the criminals still have them? What happens when guns are banned and people are still killing people without guns? I guess we ban people next?

You should not say these things because they are troubling.  We want to be happy.  You have this weird obsession with logic.  Why?  Why can't you just stick with simple, warm and happy baskets of feelings?

[hangar18]

lets say Americans give up their gun rights. Then the government decides it wants to use unconstitutional force on us. How would we defend ourselves without guns?

[TheButterZone]

lets say Americans give up their gun rights. Then the government decides it wants to use unconstitutional force on us. How would we defend ourselves without guns?

If you don't want to be vaporized, you'd have to take your own life.

[BADecker]

lets say Americans give up their gun rights. Then the government decides it wants to use unconstitutional force on us. How would we defend ourselves without guns?

If you don't want to be vaporized, you'd have to take your own life.

Yes, vaporized. Because this time they will use plasma fired furnaces, rather than the old style, coal and wood fired, that Hitler and his cohorts used.

[vero]

Gun's don't cause violence. If violent people want to go crazy and kill people, they'll find ways to do it with or without guns.

It's when crazy people who are not stable get ahold of guns. There needs to be tighter controls on who is able to carry. Better screening, interview process, psychological profile?

Which would not control all who are able to carry or get a hold of guns.

What happens once guns are banned and the criminals still have them? What happens when guns are banned and people are still killing people without guns? I guess we ban people next?

You should not say these things because they are troubling.  We want to be happy.  You have this weird obsession with logic.  Why?  Why can't you just stick with simple, warm and happy baskets of feelings?

The biggest problem with "gun violence studies" is that 95% of them are laughable as far as being "scientific studies". A "study" should be conducted by people who have some considerable knowledge regarding the general area being studied and should be conducted with a completely opened and neutral mind.

[tvbcof]

lets say Americans give up their gun rights. Then the government decides it wants to use unconstitutional force on us. How would we defend ourselves without guns?

Distributed crypto-currency.  One of the big draws of Bitcoin for me years ago was my sense of hopelessness about the utility of guns as being useful under a situation where it was appropriate to 'bare arms' as envisioned by the authors of the 2nd amendment.  'We the people' are increasingly dis-advantaged in such a contest as technology moves exponentially forward.

It occurs to me that the main thing the proverbial 'powers that be' have is more money.  All of the rest of their power and influence derives from that, and this asymmetry is the basis for what amounts to a form slavery under which more and more citizens live even here in the 'land of the free.'  Wresting monopoly control of nation's (or world's) monetary system from TPTB is a far more powerful weapon than civilian firearms.  The latter certainly has it's place both tactically and strategically however.  And they are an indispensable tool for other more mundane things as well.

[BADecker]

lets say Americans give up their gun rights. Then the government decides it wants to use unconstitutional force on us. How would we defend ourselves without guns?

Distributed crypto-currency.  One of the big draws of Bitcoin for me years ago was my sense of hopelessness about the utility of guns as being useful under a situation where it was appropriate to 'bare arms' as envisioned by the authors of the 2nd amendment.  'We the people' are increasingly dis-advantaged in such a contest as technology moves exponentially forward.

It occurs to me that the main thing the proverbial 'powers that be' have is more money.  All of the rest of their power and influence derives from that, and this asymmetry is the basis for what amounts to a form slavery under which more and more citizens live even here in the 'land of the free.'  Wresting monopoly control of nation's (or world's) monetary system from TPTB is a far more powerful weapon than civilian firearms.  The latter certainly has it's place both tactically and strategically however.  And they are an indispensable tool for other more mundane things as well.

Money is never useful to the wealthy if the poor do not use it as well. If the poor use it, then the money is more useful to the wealthy than to the poor. Why do we keep on using fiat? Why not? It will fail someday. Good reason to hodl Bitcoin.

[Spendulus]

lets say Americans give up their gun rights. Then the government decides it wants to use unconstitutional force on us. How would we defend ourselves without guns?

Distributed crypto-currency.  One of the big draws of Bitcoin for me years ago was my sense of hopelessness about the utility of guns as being useful under a situation where it was appropriate to 'bare arms' as envisioned by the authors of the 2nd amendment.  'We the people' are increasingly dis-advantaged in such a contest as technology moves exponentially forward.

It occurs to me that the main thing the proverbial 'powers that be' have is more money.  All of the rest of their power and influence derives from that, and this asymmetry is the basis for what amounts to a form slavery under which more and more citizens live even here in the 'land of the free.'  Wresting monopoly control of nation's (or world's) monetary system from TPTB is a far more powerful weapon than civilian firearms.  The latter certainly has it's place both tactically and strategically however.  And they are an indispensable tool for other more mundane things as well.

I guess as a thought experiment, then, look at the meaning today of "bear arms."  First of all, "arms" was not specifically firearms, but things that poke, stab and slice.  Bows and arrows, pikes, spears, swords, mace, knives at the minimum.  But today in most areas none of these, with the exception of firearms, are considered "arms."

Secondly, you'd broaden "arms" to include crypto?

Interesting idea.  It is a day of robbers and thieves operating over the internet.  Yes, we can protect our goods and gold from them using crypto, just like yesterday we would do it with a firearm, and before that, with a sword.

[RodeoX]

If you want real control of your gun and want more accuracy then you might be interested in the videos made by Ryan Cleckner. He does a great job of explaining the many complex factors in shooting long range. Below is an example as he explains shooting at angles. Many shooters forget to calculate this.

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

[tvbcof]

lets say Americans give up their gun rights. Then the government decides it wants to use unconstitutional force on us. How would we defend ourselves without guns?

Distributed crypto-currency.  One of the big draws of Bitcoin for me years ago was my sense of hopelessness about the utility of guns as being useful under a situation where it was appropriate to 'bare arms' as envisioned by the authors of the 2nd amendment.  'We the people' are increasingly dis-advantaged in such a contest as technology moves exponentially forward.

It occurs to me that the main thing the proverbial 'powers that be' have is more money.  All of the rest of their power and influence derives from that, and this asymmetry is the basis for what amounts to a form slavery under which more and more citizens live even here in the 'land of the free.'  Wresting monopoly control of nation's (or world's) monetary system from TPTB is a far more powerful weapon than civilian firearms.  The latter certainly has it's place both tactically and strategically however.  And they are an indispensable tool for other more mundane things as well.

I guess as a thought experiment, then, look at the meaning today of "bear arms."  First of all, "arms" was not specifically firearms, but things that poke, stab and slice.  Bows and arrows, pikes, spears, swords, mace, knives at the minimum.  But today in most areas none of these, with the exception of firearms, are considered "arms."

Secondly, you'd broaden "arms" to include crypto?

Interesting idea.  It is a day of robbers and thieves operating over the internet.  Yes, we can protect our goods and gold from them using crypto, just like yesterday we would do it with a firearm, and before that, with a sword.

When I was first doing software engineering for money, crypto was, under U.S. law, classified as a 'munition.'  That was a giant pain-in-the-ass for the work I was doing.

As for 'bear arms' (and I apologize for the typo), my read of history related to the second amendment is that it is pretty clear that what was being considered by 'bear arms' was to bring them to use in conflict and in support of and under the direction of an individual state.

I also read the 'a well regulated militia' as being something which was a theoretical (and necessary and proper) thing but it was impossible without an armed population.  That is to say, it did not exist perpetually but it must be possible in times of need...and again, an armed citizenry was necessary for that to occur.

All kinds of arguments about how the 2nd is obsolete or wacko or whatever exist.  Or that it doesn't mean what it seems to mean.  I personally have not found these arguments to be compelling.  On the contrary, a government's founding documents containing the the explicit concept and mechanism of it's own demise should things go wrong seems to be a pretty unique thing in history.  These ideas and others like them have proven (to me) to have been powerful and proven given the success we've had over the last few centuries.

It is as clear as day that the U.S. 2nd amendment is a massive thorn in the side of the 'globalists' and 'new world order' crowd.  That is all the advertising I need to make me believe that it is something worth holding on to.

[Spendulus]

lets say Americans give up their gun rights. Then the government decides it wants to use unconstitutional force on us. How would we defend ourselves without guns?

Distributed crypto-currency.  One of the big draws of Bitcoin for me years ago was my sense of hopelessness about the utility of guns as being useful under a situation where it was appropriate to 'bare arms' as envisioned by the authors of the 2nd amendment.  'We the people' are increasingly dis-advantaged in such a contest as technology moves exponentially forward.

It occurs to me that the main thing the proverbial 'powers that be' have is more money.  All of the rest of their power and influence derives from that, and this asymmetry is the basis for what amounts to a form slavery under which more and more citizens live even here in the 'land of the free.'  Wresting monopoly control of nation's (or world's) monetary system from TPTB is a far more powerful weapon than civilian firearms.  The latter certainly has it's place both tactically and strategically however.  And they are an indispensable tool for other more mundane things as well.

I guess as a thought experiment, then, look at the meaning today of "bear arms."  First of all, "arms" was not specifically firearms, but things that poke, stab and slice.  Bows and arrows, pikes, spears, swords, mace, knives at the minimum.  But today in most areas none of these, with the exception of firearms, are considered "arms."

Secondly, you'd broaden "arms" to include crypto?

Interesting idea.  It is a day of robbers and thieves operating over the internet.  Yes, we can protect our goods and gold from them using crypto, just like yesterday we would do it with a firearm, and before that, with a sword.

When I was first doing software engineering for money, crypto was, under U.S. law, classified as a 'munition.'  That was a giant pain-in-the-ass for the work I was doing.

As for 'bear arms' (and I apologize for the typo), my read of history related to the second amendment is that it is pretty clear that what was being considered by 'bear arms' was to bring them to use in conflict and in support of and under the direction of an individual state.

I also read the 'a well regulated militia' as being something which was a theoretical (and necessary and proper) thing but it was impossible without an armed population.  That is to say, it did not exist perpetually but it must be possible in times of need...and again, an armed citizenry was necessary for that to occur.

All kinds of arguments about how the 2nd is obsolete or wacko or whatever exist.  Or that it doesn't mean what it seems to mean.  I personally have not found these arguments to be compelling.  On the contrary, a government's founding documents containing the the explicit concept and mechanism of it's own demise should things go wrong seems to be a pretty unique thing in history.  These ideas and others like them have proven (to me) to have been powerful and proven given the success we've had over the last few centuries.

It is as clear as day that the U.S. 2nd amendment is a massive thorn in the side of the 'globalists' and 'new world order' crowd.  That is all the advertising I need to make me believe that it is something worth holding on to.

+1

[iCEBREAKER]

lets say Americans give up their gun rights. Then the government decides it wants to use unconstitutional force on us. How would we defend ourselves without guns?

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

[Spendulus]

lets say Americans give up their gun rights. Then the government decides it wants to use unconstitutional force on us. How would we defend ourselves without guns?

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Ah, I had forgotten his writing.

It's illustrative of the fact that the totalitarians are bullies and cowards.

Give it ten years, though, and ask what the effects of 3d printing may be on the calculus of individual vs state.

It is possible (I don't and can't KNOW) that some things of the past cannot occur again.  The fear of any government that if they were too oppressive, a million guns might appear overnight.  The fear of a centralized money supply bankster that if he inflated the currency too far and too fast, Bitcoin would ride in and he'd lose it all.

[btcjoin14]

Violence is what should concern people not the tool used in the violence. Yes ban guns and shootings decrease but violence not

[BADecker]

Violence is what should concern people not the tool used in the violence. Yes ban guns and shootings decrease but violence not

Banning guns is a lie. When governments ban guns, they only ban them among their citizens. The governments still have guns.

Most of the governments are filled with criminals. You can tell by the fact that it is the governments that make the wars. What does this mean?

It means that when governments ban guns, they are pushing a war against their own citizens, to execute them or make slaves of them.

If you as a non-governmental citizen allow banning of guns, you either become a slave from it, or you die.

[tvbcof]

Violence is what should concern people not the tool used in the violence. Yes ban guns and shootings decrease but violence not

Banning guns is a lie. When governments ban guns, they only ban them among their citizens. The governments still have guns.

Most of the governments are filled with criminals. You can tell by the fact that it is the governments that make the wars. What does this mean?

It means that when governments ban guns, they are pushing a war against their own citizens, to execute them or make slaves of them.

If you as a non-governmental citizen allow banning of guns, you either become a slave from it, or you die.

Using civilian firearms in a manner which would counter government chartered prerogatives would be a big deal and the risks of being killed would be very high.  Only in extreme circumstances is there any realistic possibility that it would be done by a non-trivial percentage of citizens.

Thus leads to a question:  What, exactly, is the government envisioning that there is such a focus on dis-arming the population?  It's hard to ignore that as the focus on civilian dis-armament intensifies, programs to arm police and other agencies such as the EPA are being ratcheted up, and the tactical capabilities they are being supplied with are impressive.

Call these questions crazy paranoia if you like.  To me it seems appropriate to apply the 'precautionary principle' and keep my eyes wide open.

[BADecker]

Violence is what should concern people not the tool used in the violence. Yes ban guns and shootings decrease but violence not

Banning guns is a lie. When governments ban guns, they only ban them among their citizens. The governments still have guns.

Most of the governments are filled with criminals. You can tell by the fact that it is the governments that make the wars. What does this mean?

It means that when governments ban guns, they are pushing a war against their own citizens, to execute them or make slaves of them.

If you as a non-governmental citizen allow banning of guns, you either become a slave from it, or you die.

Using civilian firearms in a manner which would counter government chartered prerogatives would be a big deal and the risks of being killed would be very high.  Only in extreme circumstances is there any realistic possibility that it would be done by a non-trivial percentage of citizens.

Thus leads to a question:  What, exactly, is the government envisioning that there is such a focus on dis-arming the population?  It's hard to ignore that as the focus on civilian dis-armament intensifies, programs to arm police and other agencies such as the EPA are being ratcheted up, and the tactical capabilities they are being supplied with are impressive.

Call these questions crazy paranoia if you like.  To me it seems appropriate to apply the 'precautionary principle' and keep my eyes wide open.

Government doesn't have the control that it advertises that it has.

The other side of your question might help find the answer. If any government wanted to protect against terrorism, all they would have to do is arm their populace. So, why doesn't government take the time to arm the the people, and teach them good gun safety? Instead, many of the various kinds of criminal charges that have been brought against the people in the past, are now being brought as terrorism charges.

The people might lose if government decided to fight them directly, but then government might lose their ability to fight. No more people to work the manufacturing of government war machines. It's a risk that government isn't willing to take right now.

Arms in the possession of the people is keeping government at bay, one way or another, although not perfectly.

[zenitzz]

Violence is what should concern people not the tool used in the violence. Yes ban guns and shootings decrease but violence not

It will be extremely hard to stop Gun Violence If some one wants a gun they will find one..there should be strict rule for violent people,It won't stop gun violence but I think it will go down.

[Uncleft.]

Governments are known to go against their people. This has happened throughout history. We need guns just in case that happens again.