What's your opinion of gun control?

[mindrust]

If you educate people well and distribute the wealth equal, there won't be any need of a gun. Capitalism made rich, richer and poor poorer. So while the poor fucks killing each other for their security they make those rich people even richer by buying their guns.

[BADecker]

If you educate people well and distribute the wealth equal, there won't be any need of a gun. Capitalism made rich, richer and poor poorer. So while the poor fucks killing each other for their security they make those rich people even richer by buying their guns.

Oh, drat. I liked football games. But distributing the wealth equally took away the chance everybody had to excel. Now nobody wants to fight for anything 'cause there's no money in it. They don't even want to play football anymore.

[BADecker]

I am for free carrying of weapons. It's a paradox, but in countries where it is permitted freely carry weapons much lower crime rate. It is no secret that illegal weapons are many. And me with a weapon would have been calmer conductive yourself and loved ones

If the people stood up and used their guns to remove taxes, there would be even less crime.

[virtualx]

I am for free carrying of weapons. It's a paradox, but in countries where it is permitted freely carry weapons much lower crime rate. It is no secret that illegal weapons are many. And me with a weapon would have been calmer conductive yourself and loved ones

If the people stood up and used their guns to remove taxes, there would be even less crime.

The people don't need guns for that, that is an unfeasible goal. Be realistic, guns are only for self protection, hunting and fun. The US is one of the biggest military powers in the world. You cannot take down the biggest military power with a few toy guns. The American civil war pretty much showed that.

[tvbcof]

I am for free carrying of weapons. It's a paradox, but in countries where it is permitted freely carry weapons much lower crime rate. It is no secret that illegal weapons are many. And me with a weapon would have been calmer conductive yourself and loved ones

If the people stood up and used their guns to remove taxes, there would be even less crime.

The people don't need guns for that, that is an unfeasible goal. Be realistic, guns are only for self protection, hunting and fun. The US is one of the biggest military powers in the world. You cannot take down the biggest military power with a few toy guns. The American civil war pretty much showed that.

True.  If a guy has a thing about taxes, the monetary system is what you want to focus on and guns are not very useful here.  Barter, black markets, alternate money systems, etc, are where one should focus their efforts.  This is not even especially 'anti-government' in an environment where a cartel of private banks own the currency system.  Said cartel hires governments to perform the physical protection of their racketeering of course, and these people are sometime armed, but for they 'outgun' Joe Public by enough to render Joe's pea-shooter a liability when they kick in your front door.  So, 'using your gun' for tax reasons, however 'ethical' one might think it, is a fools errand.  Be smart.

Guns are especially valuable in an environment where corp/gov empowers criminal elements within society to do their bidding, and this is hardly a novel technique.  One should certainly be an active 'bitter clinger' to deal with this eventuality, and the lessons from Europe could not make that more clear.

[BADecker]

I am for free carrying of weapons. It's a paradox, but in countries where it is permitted freely carry weapons much lower crime rate. It is no secret that illegal weapons are many. And me with a weapon would have been calmer conductive yourself and loved ones

If the people stood up and used their guns to remove taxes, there would be even less crime.

The people don't need guns for that, that is an unfeasible goal. Be realistic, guns are only for self protection, hunting and fun. The US is one of the biggest military powers in the world. You cannot take down the biggest military power with a few toy guns. The American civil war pretty much showed that.

That is me in those taxes. I put my labor, even myself, into earning that money. Then they stole it. They stole me. And they won't stop. I need more and bigger guns.

[TheButterZone]

Criminal safety advocate(s) stole pro-self defense petitions:
https://www.facebook.com/VetoGunmageddon/photos/a.1801669686748675.1073741828.1798747200374257/1823607227888254/?type=3&permPage=1

[psomas2]

its not rocket science, controlling guns has worked in every country that has applied it with zero negative effects... whats the reason Americans don't want to do this exactly?

[tvbcof]

its not rocket science, controlling guns has worked in every country that has applied it with zero negative effects... whats the reason Americans don't want to do this exactly?

Zero negative effects for the criminals.

I prefer non-criminals to have the protection they need.  Exactly.

Beyond that, I prefer there being the same kinds of barriers to tyranny which got us our 2nd amendment in the first place.  The basic concept is timeless and probably as relevant to the U.S. now as it has ever been in this time of weaponized migration, starving local law enforcement for funds and organizationally shackling them, and funding and radicalization of homegrown terrorist organizations such as Black Lives Matter.

[reikotaka]

The government should be stern in acting this law.  People whom they have arrested possessing gun without a license should be jailed and rip off with the right to possess for his entire life.  Most users whose guns were not licensed were usually criminals and have evil plans.

[TheButterZone]

its not rocket science, controlling guns has worked in every country that has applied it with zero negative effects... whats the reason Americans don't want to do this exactly?

Hundreds of millions of democide victims who wouldn't have been if they weren't first disarmed by gun control = "zero negative effects"?

Fucking monster!

The government should be stern in acting this law.  People whom they have arrested possessing gun without a license should be jailed and rip off with the right to possess for his entire life.  Most users whose guns were not licensed were usually criminals and have evil plans.

The human right to self-defense is not an "evil plan", and not paying the bribes required to get a prior restraint privilege license for that human right is not "evil" either.

[BADecker]

its not rocket science, controlling guns has worked in every country that has applied it with zero negative effects... whats the reason Americans don't want to do this exactly?

Actually, gun control hasn't done much of anything in any country since its implementation.

The only reason why there is apparent peace in gun control countries is, there is still gun freedom in America and Switzerland.

If the goal of gun control countries were implemented, all the citizens of those countries would be slaves of their governments. And it is somewhat this way in many of the gun control countries as it is.

Gun control governments can't enslave their people more than they do, because if they did, the people would become rebellious at the oppression, and would get guns from America or Switzerland, and destroy their governments. The only way governments of gun control counties can have relative peace and control is, let the people be free.

World freedom is based on gun freedom in America and Switzerland (and to a lesser extent, on gun availability to their citizens), and world governments know this.

[StanlavMilosevicaverus]

Gun must control and license

[BADecker]

Gun must control and license

Exactly what I have been saying. Let everyone get massive numbers of guns, and then let the guns license and control such beings as politicians, cops, and the military.

[TheButterZone]

https://i.4cdn.org/k/1474101967499.webm

[BADecker]

3D-PRINTED GUN FILES AREN'T FREE SPEECH, COURT RULES

The first two protections in the U.S. Bill of Rights guarantee freedom of speech and a right to bear arms, respectively. But what about when those collide?

The founders who wrote it likely never imagined a world where that freedom of speech would apply to electronically encoded files on computers, nor could they have pictured a day when those same files could be used to tell a machine to print, on demand, a pistol. (The Founders also, likely, didn't foresee militia systems falling out of use).

Yet we now live in a world where the files to print a gun exist, and people have indeed printed guns. Is this an activity the constitution protects?

Decidedly no, according to a ruling handed down earlier this week from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. The case, Defense Distributed v. United States Department of State, goes back to the creation of the first 3D printing of a gun, by the activist group Defense Distributed, in May, 2013.

The Liberator pistol is not, by any metric, a good gun.

The original design is single-shot, and while almost all of the gun is printed, it still uses a cheap nail as a firing pin.

As part of the broader aim of a gun that exists outside government control, Defense Distributed made the plans for the gun available online. That's when they ran into trouble with the State Department, which told Defense Distributed to take down the gun plans.

The State Department was the federal agency that acted in this case, and not the more obvious Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), because by the nature of the internet, the 3D-printed gun files can cross international borders. The State Department seized on this fact to say that transferring technical data like this counted as an export.

Shortly afterwards, Defense Distributed took down the files and then reached out to the Electronic Frontier Foundation to see if they could help with this as a free speech fight.

Last December, the EFF filed a brief in support of Defense Distributed, arguing that the State Department's enforcement of arms regulations this broadly was in fact a threat to free speech.

So is hosting files for printing a gun protected under the 1st Amendment? Not if there's national security at stake, ruled the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Ordinarily, of course, the protection of constitutional rights would be the highest public interest at issue in a case. That is not necessarily true here, however, because the State Department has asserted a very strong public interest in national defense and national security. Indeed, the State Department's stated interest in preventing foreign nationals—including all manner of enemies of this country—from obtaining technical data on how to produce weapons and weapon parts is not merely tangentially related to national defense and national security; it lies squarely within that interest.

That's weird as heck! The ruling goes on to note that "The fact that national security might be permanently harmed while Plaintiffs-Appellants' constitutional rights might be temporarily harmed strongly supports our conclusion that the district court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the balance in favor of national defense and national security."

As Ars Technica notes, the opinion of the dissenting judge finds instead a complete lack of concern for free speech from the State Department, is using such a broad interpretation of the law to stop the sharing of these specific files online.

Unless Defense Distributed appeals the ruling, it looks like files for printing guns aren't protected by both the 1st and 2nd Amendments, but are instead protected by neither.

Read more at http://www.popsci.com/3d-printed-guns-not-free-speech-court-rules.

[startselect]

I love when criminals get shot by people protecting themselves. Like that restaurant manager this week, killed one of three robbers. So I'm all for guns, the problem is that for every story like that, there are more people who kill someone accidentally, or because of a fit or rage that would have just simply passed by. Other than that, we still need it for those who did end up protecting themselves.

[Sundark]

I love when criminals get shot by people protecting themselves. Like that restaurant manager this week, killed one of three robbers. So I'm all for guns, the problem is that for every story like that, there are more people who kill someone accidentally, or because of a fit or rage that would have just simply passed by. Other than that, we still need it for those who did end up protecting themselves.

But if we forbid guns it will only affect good law abiding citizens. Criminals don't care and buy illegal guns like they always do.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

[BADecker]

I love when criminals get shot by people protecting themselves. Like that restaurant manager this week, killed one of three robbers. So I'm all for guns, the problem is that for every story like that, there are more people who kill someone accidentally, or because of a fit or rage that would have just simply passed by. Other than that, we still need it for those who did end up protecting themselves.

The problem with unsafe, accidental shootings is that people don't practice safety. The reason they don't practice safety is that guns are not the accepted standard as they once were. If guns in the hands of all people were the standard, there would be much more gun safety after a hundred years of it. So, lets all get more guns, and wear them open carry all over the place, so that we make gun safety the priority in life.

[Leprikon]

I believe that weapons should not be available for sale. It is bad when it may even buy children. The government should prohibit the free carrying of weapons