What's your opinion of gun control?

[oHnK]

Control of the use of weapons is a good thing. A person who is permitted to use weapons pshicology should be tested to see if he is worth using weapons.

What kind of a test would that be? 

Psychiatric assessments. Do you want someone who is suffering from a mental disorder holding a gun?

Do you want someone who has a worse mental disorder - a psycho-logist or greed-crazed politician - deciding who has mental disorders enough that they can't have a gun? Maybe they will decide on you.

I want people who know about a person's psychological entitled to say someone worth using a gun or not.

[BADecker]

Control of the use of weapons is a good thing. A person who is permitted to use weapons pshicology should be tested to see if he is worth using weapons.

What kind of a test would that be?  

Psychiatric assessments. Do you want someone who is suffering from a mental disorder holding a gun?

Do you want someone who has a worse mental disorder - a psycho-logist or greed-crazed politician - deciding who has mental disorders enough that they can't have a gun? Maybe they will decide on you.

I want people who know about a person's psychological entitled to say someone worth using a gun or not.

How are you going to ascertain that the professional psychologist knows what a person's psychology is all about? Are you going to look at his test scores from college that were devised, administered, and graded by other psychologists? Are you going to believe what others tell you about him, that he is qualified? If you are, how are you going to determine that THEY are qualified to make such determinations about the psychologist that controls who gets to own guns?

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, let's say that you found a psychologist that was qualified to test people properly, to see if they were mentally balanced enough to own a gun. How do you know that this psychologist wouldn't be working for the gun grabbers on the sly, just to take your guns away from you, a sane gun owner and user? How do you know he isn't simply a gun control freak himself? 'Cause you asked him, and he said he wasn't?

[TheButterZone]

Control of the use of weapons is a good thing. A person who is permitted to use weapons pshicology should be tested to see if he is worth using weapons.

What kind of a test would that be? 

Psychiatric assessments. Do you want someone who is suffering from a mental disorder holding a gun?

Do you want someone who has a worse mental disorder - a psycho-logist or greed-crazed politician - deciding who has mental disorders enough that they can't have a gun? Maybe they will decide on you.

I want people who know about a person's psychological entitled to say someone worth using a gun or not.

The ends justify ANY means.

[designerusa]

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?

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?

all the government must have gun control policy and only armed forces should have the right of carriyng a gun.. indivudual armament must be banned.

[tvbcof]

...
all the government must have gun control policy and only armed forces should have the right of carriyng a gun.. indivudual armament must be banned.

You mean like U.N. personnel who trade food for sexual services of kids in the countries where they are fully operational?  Blackwater mercenaries who shoot up the Iraqi streets they drive down for fun?  U.S. police who shot people with their hands up or lashed behind their backs while they lay on the ground?  IDF forces who board ships in international waters (not to mention what goes on in the terrestrially in the grounds they occupy or invade?)

I suppose these problems could be solved by making sure that as little footage of such events as possible is obtained and that no 'real' media reports on such events.  Personally, I'm more comfortable with the potential solution envisioned by those who wrote our 2nd amendment.  At least it can provide the incentive to moderate the worst kinds of abuses in communities which are well armed.

Soros and his ilk would have a much more difficult time flooding my community with temporarily unemployed ISIS mercenaries than he had in Sweden and Germany, and we can thank out 2nd amendment for this as I read the geo-political landscape.  I'm sure this reality drives the One Worlders nuts and I'm also quite convinced that it is this which is mostly responsible for the desperate push to dis-arm American citizens before they wake up and it is to late.  Criminals cannot be dis-armed because they have their own security needs which makes it impossible to do.  In their case, it is security against other criminals in their environment.  The very same principle can apply to non-criminal civilians.

[Spendulus]

...
all the government must have gun control policy and only armed forces should have the right of carriyng a gun.. indivudual armament must be banned.

You mean like U.N. personnel who trade food for sexual services of kids in the countries where they are fully operational?  Blackwater mercenaries who shoot up the Iraqi streets they drive down for fun?  U.S. police who shot people with their hands up or lashed behind their backs while they lay on the ground?  IDF forces who board ships in international waters (not to mention what goes on in the terrestrially in the grounds they occupy or invade?)

I suppose these problems could be solved by making sure that as little footage of such events as possible is obtained and that no 'real' media reports on such events.  Personally, I'm more comfortable with the potential solution envisioned by those who wrote our 2nd amendment.  At least it can provide the incentive to moderate the worst kinds of abuses in communities which are well armed.

Soros and his ilk would have a much more difficult time flooding my community with temporarily unemployed ISIS mercenaries than he had in Sweden and Germany, and we can thank out 2nd amendment for this as I read the geo-political landscape.  I'm sure this reality drives the One Worlders nuts and I'm also quite convinced that it is this which is mostly responsible for the desperate push to dis-arm American citizens before they wake up and it is to late.  Criminals cannot be dis-armed because they have their own security needs which makes it impossible to do.  In their case, it is security against other criminals in their environment.  The very same principle can apply to non-criminal civilians.

People that think they should have the right to arrange society so that my guns are taken away do not have the right to ask me to defend them....

[mrflibblehat]

Only in USA: people walking down the street with assault rifles to the grocery store. What do you want to defend yourself against with a weapon that soldiers go to war with? You'd think they live in Uganda or something. Jeez! I'd be afraid to even open my windows there. Talk about protection...

[iCeSaiah]

People control is better. A guy with temper and other connected emotions might use it for personal gains.

It's odd to see people wearing guns aside from cops.

[tvbcof]

...

People that think they should have the right to arrange society so that my guns are taken away do not have the right to ask me to defend them....

I again suggest that one (of many) of the rationals behind dis-arming law abiding citizens would be to have them feel more of a reliance on the state and the law enforcement powers of it.  Most of the sheeple will see the state sponsored law enforcement as the lesser of two evils when a compared to a gang of homicidal miscreants even if the police are pretty awful.

If I were charged with figuring out a strategy to get 'country folk' moved into mega-city 'habitats', I would certainly utilize criminal elements to terrorize the people who were resistant to the wishes of the planners.   In these cases, law enforcement could not do their jobs even if they wished to, and certainly not if their command structure has instructions to 'lay off' certain contrived problems.

[TheButterZone]

Only in USA: people walking down the street with assault rifles to the grocery store. What do you want to defend yourself against with a weapon that soldiers go to war with? You'd think they live in Uganda or something. Jeez! I'd be afraid to even open my windows there. Talk about protection...

Almost all weapons that soldiers go to war with, including your bogus example, are infringed out of civilians' hands in the US.

People control is better. A guy with temper and other connected emotions might use it for personal gains.

It's odd to see people wearing guns aside from cops.

Not possible to control people without exterminating the human race. Good thing cops are robots, and all government statistics that show cops commit more crimes than civilian gun owners, are fake.

[mrflibblehat]

Only in USA: people walking down the street with assault rifles to the grocery store. What do you want to defend yourself against with a weapon that soldiers go to war with? You'd think they live in Uganda or something. Jeez! I'd be afraid to even open my windows there. Talk about protection...

Almost all weapons that soldiers go to war with, including your bogus example, are infringed out of civilians' hands in the US.

People control is better. A guy with temper and other connected emotions might use it for personal gains.

It's odd to see people wearing guns aside from cops.

Not possible to control people without exterminating the human race. Good thing cops are robots, and all government statistics that show cops commit more crimes than civilian gun owners, are fake.

I'm not sure what you're saying but I don't think should have the right to roam the streets with guns of any kind - look how many accidents are because people can't handle cars - it's the same thing, just switch the trigger for the steering wheel.

[subSTRATA]

I'm not sure what you're saying but I don't think should have the right to roam the streets with guns of any kind

then what exactly is going to be the deterrent against criminals with guns that want to cause a massacre? are these people supposed to just say 'hey man, dont shoot me pls k tnx' and be on their way? fact is, if people want guns, the law wont stop them from getting a gun if they really want it, and only others carrying a gun will be enough to stop anyone looking to take as many lives as they can in any given setting.

[freemind1]

I think the intention of controlling and regulating guns is good initiative. The problem is the market that can not be controlled, always existed and will always exist, there will always be people selling arms and buying them even if there is control.

[BADecker]

I'm not sure what you're saying but I don't think should have the right to roam the streets with guns of any kind

then what exactly is going to be the deterrent against criminals with guns that want to cause a massacre? are these people supposed to just say 'hey man, dont shoot me pls k tnx' and be on their way? fact is, if people want guns, the law wont stop them from getting a gun if they really want it, and only others carrying a gun will be enough to stop anyone looking to take as many lives as they can in any given setting.

I think the intention of controlling and regulating guns is good initiative. The problem is the market that can not be controlled, always existed and will always exist, there will always be people selling arms and buying them even if there is control.

We need more guns and bigger guns personally, to control the criminals. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1334634.msg13617273#msg13617273.

[Wilikon]

El Chapo found with Fast and Furious .50 caliber as exec-privilege claim quashed

Remember Operation Fast and Furious? The scandal over the ATF’s botched straw-man sting has long hung over the Department of Justice and the Obama administration, thanks in large part to a bogus claim of executive privilege over the communications relating to the operation. Thousands of weapons went across the border into Mexico without sufficient tracking capabilities to retrieve them, and they wound up in the hands of the cartels. Hundreds have been found at murder scenes in Mexico, and at least one Border Patrol agent (Brian Terry) has been killed with Fast and Furious weapons.

Just how far did those weapons go? Fox News reports that they went all the way to the top of the cartels:

    A .50-caliber rifle found at Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman’s hideout in Mexico was funneled through the gun-smuggling investigation known as Fast and Furious, sources confirmed Tuesday to Fox News.

    A .50-caliber is a massive rifle that can stop a car, or as it was intended, take down a helicopter. …

    When agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives checked serial numbers of the eight weapons found in his possession, they found one of the two .50-caliber weapons traced back to the ATF program, sources said.

    Federal officials told Fox News they are not sure how many of the weapons seized from Guzman’s house actually originated in the U.S. and where they were purchased, but are investigating.

    Out of the roughly 2,000 weapons sold through Fast and Furious, 34 were .50 caliber rifles that can take down a helicopter, according to officials.

Jeff Dunetz reminds us of the context for OF&F:

    Emails released in 2011 revealed that ATF big shots wanted to use the illegal gun sales in operation Fast and Furious to justify a new gun regulation called “Demand Letter 3”. The new rule would require  U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or “long guns.” The fancy name, Demand Letter 3 comes from the fact that it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information. If that’s how then name projects, why didn’t they name Fast and Furious, “Asinine Project 1?”

    Fast and Furious was a sick attempt to deprive Americans of their Second Amendment rights by selling guns to Mexican Gun cartels. The program was a train wreck whose effects are still being discovered.

So why hasn’t Congress done more in the past five years to hold officials accountable for the lethal attempt to create anti-gun hysteria and pave the way for more gun regulation? In part, it’s because Congress can’t access all of the evidence from the government operation. In 2012, then-Attorney General Eric Holder requested a claim of executive privilege from Barack Obama, who granted it after e-mails showed “extensive” communication with the White House on the operation. The case has been in the courts ever since.

Yesterday, a judge denied executive privilege after more than three years of stonewalling by the Obama administration, calling their claim a little too selective, although it’s not a complete victory for Congress:

    The very information that the administration sought to deny investigators with the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reformhad been made public in 2012 by the Justice Department’s inspector general’s review of a Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives operation known as “Fast and Furious,” U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson wrote in a 32-page opinion.

    The trafficking operation allowed hundreds of firearms to fall into the hands of Mexican drug cartel enforcers and prompted numerous investigations and a protracted political fight in which the House voted in 2012 to hold then-Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over documents related to the ATF operation to the committee. The dispute prompted the committee’s court challenge

    “There is no need to balance the need against the impact that the revelation of any record could have on candor in future executive decision making, since any harm that might flow from the public revelation of the deliberations at issue here has already been self-inflicted,” Jackson wrote. “The emails and memoranda that are responsive to the subpoena were described in detail in a report by the Department of JusticeInspector General that has already been released to the public.”

House Oversight chair Jason Chaffetz noted that the order didn’t give access to all of the documents sought in House subpoenas, but that “it is an important step forward.” The discovery of a .50 caliber in El Chapo’s lair provided courtesy of the Department of Justice might be another step forward in galvanizing public opinion to finally bring the sordid history of Fast and Furious completely into the light.


http://hotair.com/archives/2016/01/20/el-chapo-found-with-fast-and-furious-50-caliber-as-exec-privilege-claim-quashed/

[xdrpx]

I honestly feel guns should only be possessed by the army and police. I don't like the idea of civilians owning a gun, it's very risky going out keeping in mind that someone walking besides you would have an armed pistol in their pocket and would be ready to trigger it at any time at their willingness and you wont be able to do anything about it. It only builds Chaos, if you honestly need protection inform the cops, no guns for civilians.

[catch.me.if.you.can]

Mental disorders are genetics, so, a DNA test is necessary if someone wants to buy a gun.

[Spendulus]

I honestly feel guns should only be possessed by the army and police. I don't like the idea of civilians owning a gun, it's very risky going out keeping in mind that someone walking besides you would have an armed pistol in their pocket and would be ready to trigger it at any time at their willingness and you wont be able to do anything about it. It only builds Chaos, if you honestly need protection inform the cops, no guns for civilians.

A lot of people feel exactly like you do, then something bad happens to them.  Then they change their mind.

Such as the report from Pakistan as of today.

A chemistry teacher who tried to shield his students by opening fire on Taliban militants during a deadly attack at a Pakistani university was known as "The Protector" even before his death in a hail of bullets Wednesday.
Lecturer Syed Hamid Husain, a 32-year-old assistant professor of chemistry at the Bacha Khan university in Charsadda, ordered his students to stay inside as Taliban gunmen stormed the school near the city of Peshawar on Wednesday, leaving at least 21 people dead.
Students told of how the father-of-two opened fire on assailants as they rampaged across campus, giving the young people time to flee before he was cut down by gunfire.
"We saw three terrorists shouting, 'Allah is great!' and rushing towards the stairs of our department," one man told reporters.
"One student jumped out of the classroom through the window. We never saw him get up."
He described seeing Husain holding a pistol and firing at the attackers.

I am just curious.  Why would you not have allowed Husain to have his gun?

[TheButterZone]

I honestly feel guns should only be possessed by the army and police. I don't like the idea of civilians owning a gun, it's very risky going out keeping in mind that someone walking besides you would have an armed pistol in their pocket and would be ready to trigger it at any time at their willingness and you wont be able to do anything about it. It only builds Chaos, if you honestly need protection inform the cops, no guns for civilians.

A lot of people feel exactly like you do, then something bad happens to them.  Then they change their mind.

Such as the report from Pakistan as of today.

A chemistry teacher who tried to shield his students by opening fire on Taliban militants during a deadly attack at a Pakistani university was known as "The Protector" even before his death in a hail of bullets Wednesday.
Lecturer Syed Hamid Husain, a 32-year-old assistant professor of chemistry at the Bacha Khan university in Charsadda, ordered his students to stay inside as Taliban gunmen stormed the school near the city of Peshawar on Wednesday, leaving at least 21 people dead.
Students told of how the father-of-two opened fire on assailants as they rampaged across campus, giving the young people time to flee before he was cut down by gunfire.
"We saw three terrorists shouting, 'Allah is great!' and rushing towards the stairs of our department," one man told reporters.
"One student jumped out of the classroom through the window. We never saw him get up."
He described seeing Husain holding a pistol and firing at the attackers.

I am just curious.  Why would you not have allowed Husain to have his gun?

Because it FEELS bad to see violent criminals get shot or stopped at unfired gunpoint by civilians, and FEELINGS always trump the human right to self-defense.

[mrflibblehat]

It's just wrong for civilians to carry weapons.
People that are trained constantly and know and see the repercussions from carrying weapons and the damage they do day in and day out should be the only ones to carry them. Because it takes just one mistake and someone loses their lives.
There are a lot of non-lethal alternatives that can be used for self defense.