What's your opinion of gun control?

[BADecker]

Background checks are already in place, but the problem is that due to the bureaucratic hassle, sometimes mistakes are being made. Even then, I would like to point out one important thing. The vast majority of the shootings within the United States has occurred in Democrat states such as California and Oregon, where strict gun laws are in place.

There are more firearm death because the population of California is higher than most red states, but in terms of Firearm deaths per 100,000 people it is 43rd. The top 10 are.... yes... all RED STATES with loose gun laws.

Many of the illegal guns used in strict gun law areas were imported by criminals who got them legally in states without strict rules such as Indiana and Tennessee. What does that prove? That proves gun control actually WORKS. Criminals have to go else where for guns, had neighboring states had gun control there what would happen...?!

24/7 Wall St. reviewed data on gun violence by state based on the latest information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which tracks the number of gun-related deaths in each state.

43. California

    Firearm deaths per 100,000 people: 7.9 per 100,000
    Total firearm deaths 2016: 3184 (suicides: 1595, homicides: 1467)
    Violent crime rate: 445.3 per 100,000 (15th highest)
    Permit required to carry handgun: Yes (in incorporated areas and concealed anywhere)
    Poverty rate: 14.3% (20th highest)


33. Oregon

    Firearm deaths per 100,000 people: 11.8 per 100,000
    Total firearm deaths 2016: 513 (suicides: 414, homicides: 78)
    Violent crime rate: 264.6 per 100,000 (14th lowest)
    Permit required to carry handgun: Yes
    Poverty rate: 13.3% (24th highest)


10. South Carolina

    Firearm deaths per 100,000 people: 17.7 per 100,000
    Total firearm deaths 2016: 891 (suicides: 525, homicides: 335)
    Violent crime rate: 501.8 per 100,000 (10th highest)
    Permit required to carry handgun: Yes
    Poverty rate: 15.3% (14th highest)

More: Economic inequality: The worst states for Hispanics and Latinos
9. Arkansas

    Firearm deaths per 100,000 people: 17.7 per 100,000
    Total firearm deaths 2016: 541 (suicides: 331, homicides: 182)
    Violent crime rate: 550.9 per 100,000 (6th highest)
    Permit required to carry handgun: Yes
    Poverty rate: 17.2% (6th highest)

8. New Mexico

    Firearm deaths per 100,000 people: 18.2 per 100,000
    Total firearm deaths 2016: 383 (suicides: 243, homicides: 113)
    Violent crime rate: 702.5 per 100,000 (2nd highest)
    Permit required to carry handgun: Yes
    Poverty rate: 19.8% (3rd highest)

7. Missouri

    Firearm deaths per 100,000 people: 18.8 per 100,000
    Total firearm deaths 2016: 1144 (suicides: 650, homicides: 464)
    Violent crime rate: 519.4 per 100,000 (8th highest)
    Permit required to carry handgun: No
    Poverty rate: 14.0% (22nd highest)

6. Montana

    Firearm deaths per 100,000 people: 19.0 per 100,000
    Total firearm deaths 2016: 194 (suicides: 162, homicides: N/A)
    Violent crime rate: 368.3 per 100,000 (25th lowest)
    Permit required to carry handgun: Yes (A permit to carry concealed is not needed outside limits of cities or towns.)
    Poverty rate: 13.3% (24th highest)

5. Oklahoma

    Firearm deaths per 100,000 people: 19.6 per 100,000
    Total firearm deaths 2016: 766 (suicides: 517, homicides: 238)
    Violent crime rate: 449.8 per 100,000 (14th highest)
    Permit required to carry handgun: Yes
    Poverty rate: 16.3% (9th highest)

4. Mississippi

    Firearm deaths per 100,000 people: 19.8 per 100,000
    Total firearm deaths 2016: 587 (suicides: 268, homicides: 282)
    Violent crime rate: 280.5 per 100,000 (15th lowest)
    Permit required to carry handgun: No (A permit to carry can be obtained, but it is not required to carry a handgun either openly or concealed.)
    Poverty rate: 20.8% (the highest)

3. Louisiana

    Firearm deaths per 100,000 people: 21.2 per 100,000
    Total firearm deaths 2016: 987 (suicides: 440, homicides: 526)
    Violent crime rate: 566.1 per 100,000 (5th highest)
    Permit required to carry handgun: Yes
    Poverty rate: 20.2% (2nd highest)

2. Alabama

    Firearm deaths per 100,000 people: 21.4 per 100,000
    Total firearm deaths 2016: 1046 (suicides: 550, homicides: 454)
    Violent crime rate: 532.3 per 100,000 (7th highest)
    Permit required to carry handgun: Yes
    Poverty rate: 17.1% (7th highest)

1. Alaska

    Firearm deaths per 100,000 people: 23.0 per 100,000
    Total firearm deaths 2016: 177 (suicides: 113, homicides: 45)
    Violent crime rate: 804.2 per 100,000 (the highest)
    Permit required to carry handgun: No
    Poverty rate: 9.9% (6th lowest)

Your general statistics are really nice. But they don't include the reality of why guns are used. They also don't include the fact that if people ALL were armed, the crooks would be far less inclined to use guns. Why? Because if crooks are so stupid, and such cowards that they can't get an honest job to make a living, they will be afraid of a bunch of armed citizens, and will be less inclined to use their guns.

Rules and laws don't take guns away. Free will obedience does. Crooks don't have free will obedience, or they wouldn't be crooks in the first place.

[1715227042]

1715227042

[1715227042]

1715227042

[1715227042]

1715227042

[nova999]

So, what is Granny supposed to do? Sneeze at her antagonist and hope that will stop him? Holler "help! help!" and wait for the police to arrive? Use a squirt gun?

Years ago there were a whole lot of cowboy shows on TV. Often there were gunfights where gunfighters faced each other on the street. Whoever was the fastest draw and the best shot was the winner. There are still scenes and shows of gunfights being portrayed in different cities in America for show.

Now imagine in one of those shows that the good, law-abiding guy didn't have a gun because of gun control. He is out there on the street in a gun-drawing stance, but doesn't have a gun. The bad guy has a gun, because he is a bad guy.

You are kinda ignorant, aren't you. Granny may not have a chance under any circumstances. But she has far less of a chance if she has no gun. If she only wounds her assailant before she dies, it's much easier for any witness to pick the guy out from the line-up. Granny has a far better chance with a gun, and with a gun she is helping all the innocent people who are attacked, by example, even if she dies.

The most ignorant people are gun nuts who equate having a gun as having a chance at survival, this is nonsense based on lies gun companies feed you this a GOOD PERSON WITH A GUN SAVES INNOCENT PEOPLE. You live in some make believe world where everyone is carrying a gun on their hip to protect their lives. The real danger with many guns end up as a cost on small children, family members, and other members of their community thru rage and carelessness rather than danger caused by a thug.

Again it all goes back to fear, you think you live in a world where this granny is constantly looking around for someone to attack her so shes ready to point her gun at anyone who looks threatening to her and she will help all the innocent people who are attacked. How the hell is a granny going to differentiate in a gun fight who is right and who is wrong? OMG someone is coming near me, let me shoot and wound him first.

And how often does this Granny shoot an attacker scenario happen?

In 2012 Violence Policy Center released a fresh analysis of federal crime and health data that explores how often potential victims actually turned the tables. Parsing 2012 numbers, the center counted 259 justifiable gun-related homicides, or incidents in which authorities ruled that killings occurred in self-defense.

That's in a nation in which there are some 300 million firearms. In 2012, there were 1.2 million violent crimes, defined as murder, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault. Or, put another way, 1.2
million scenarios in which there was potential for someone to kill in self-defense.

BUT who cares about some #FAKENEWS stats from liberal research center. Just keep buying guns, look over your shoulders at every turn, pack more guns the older you get, they are out to GET YOU!!!

[BADecker]

So, what is Granny supposed to do? Sneeze at her antagonist and hope that will stop him? Holler "help! help!" and wait for the police to arrive? Use a squirt gun?

Years ago there were a whole lot of cowboy shows on TV. Often there were gunfights where gunfighters faced each other on the street. Whoever was the fastest draw and the best shot was the winner. There are still scenes and shows of gunfights being portrayed in different cities in America for show.

Now imagine in one of those shows that the good, law-abiding guy didn't have a gun because of gun control. He is out there on the street in a gun-drawing stance, but doesn't have a gun. The bad guy has a gun, because he is a bad guy.

You are kinda ignorant, aren't you. Granny may not have a chance under any circumstances. But she has far less of a chance if she has no gun. If she only wounds her assailant before she dies, it's much easier for any witness to pick the guy out from the line-up. Granny has a far better chance with a gun, and with a gun she is helping all the innocent people who are attacked, by example, even if she dies.

The most ignorant people are gun nuts who equate having a gun as having a chance at survival, this is nonsense based on lies gun companies feed you this a GOOD PERSON WITH A GUN SAVES INNOCENT PEOPLE. You live in some make believe world where everyone is carrying a gun on their hip to protect their lives. The real danger with many guns end up as a cost on small children, family members, and other members of their community thru rage and carelessness rather than danger caused by a thug.

The thing you are talking about is a world of slaves waking up to the fact that they can own guns. Once the slaves become free, everyone will be respectful of everyone else, because nobody wants a gun battle. Those few who are crazy with gun fever and use their guns, will be dead. But Government slavery will be gone.

Again it all goes back to fear, you think you live in a world where this granny is constantly looking around for someone to attack her so shes ready to point her gun at anyone who looks threatening to her and she will help all the innocent people who are attacked. How the hell is a granny going to differentiate in a gun fight who is right and who is wrong? OMG someone is coming near me, let me shoot and wound him first.

When you put a dog down, does it have fear? What about cows in the slaughtering house? Do they have fear? No! Because they don't know what is going on. Wake up, get some fear, stop being slaughtered, and live free. The only way to do it is with guns, because your master is living with guns in government.

And how often does this Granny shoot an attacker scenario happen? The Granny thing was an example. it happens a whole lot in real life with people other than Granny. If everyone wore a gun on his/her hip in public, once people became used to it, crime would virtually disappear.

In 2012 Violence Policy Center released a fresh analysis of federal crime and health data that explores how often potential victims actually turned the tables. Parsing 2012 numbers, the center counted 259 justifiable gun-related homicides, or incidents in which authorities ruled that killings occurred in self-defense.

That's in a nation in which there are some 300 million firearms. In 2012, there were 1.2 million violent crimes, defined as murder, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault. Or, put another way, 1.2
million scenarios in which there was potential for someone to kill in self-defense.

BUT who cares about some #FAKENEWS stats from liberal research center. Just keep buying guns, look over your shoulders at every turn, pack more guns the older you get, they are out to GET YOU!!!

First you quote some statistics. Then you call it fake news? No wonder you are having trouble seeing the benefit of Guns.

All the statistics are skewed with regard to what they would be if we had a nation of hip gun carriers. Why? Because we haven't seen this for over 100 years, and the statistics back then weren't clear, and wouldn't fit today if they were.

Statistics mean nothing until the whole nation wears guns on their hips in public for at least 5 years.

[iluvbitcoins]

So, what is Granny supposed to do? Sneeze at her antagonist and hope that will stop him? Holler "help! help!" and wait for the police to arrive? Use a squirt gun?

Years ago there were a whole lot of cowboy shows on TV. Often there were gunfights where gunfighters faced each other on the street. Whoever was the fastest draw and the best shot was the winner. There are still scenes and shows of gunfights being portrayed in different cities in America for show.

Now imagine in one of those shows that the good, law-abiding guy didn't have a gun because of gun control. He is out there on the street in a gun-drawing stance, but doesn't have a gun. The bad guy has a gun, because he is a bad guy.

You are kinda ignorant, aren't you. Granny may not have a chance under any circumstances. But she has far less of a chance if she has no gun. If she only wounds her assailant before she dies, it's much easier for any witness to pick the guy out from the line-up. Granny has a far better chance with a gun, and with a gun she is helping all the innocent people who are attacked, by example, even if she dies.

The most ignorant people are gun nuts who equate having a gun as having a chance at survival, this is nonsense based on lies gun companies feed you this a GOOD PERSON WITH A GUN SAVES INNOCENT PEOPLE. You live in some make believe world where everyone is carrying a gun on their hip to protect their lives. The real danger with many guns end up as a cost on small children, family members, and other members of their community thru rage and carelessness rather than danger caused by a thug.

Again it all goes back to fear, you think you live in a world where this granny is constantly looking around for someone to attack her so shes ready to point her gun at anyone who looks threatening to her and she will help all the innocent people who are attacked. How the hell is a granny going to differentiate in a gun fight who is right and who is wrong? OMG someone is coming near me, let me shoot and wound him first.

And how often does this Granny shoot an attacker scenario happen?

In 2012 Violence Policy Center released a fresh analysis of federal crime and health data that explores how often potential victims actually turned the tables. Parsing 2012 numbers, the center counted 259 justifiable gun-related homicides, or incidents in which authorities ruled that killings occurred in self-defense.

That's in a nation in which there are some 300 million firearms. In 2012, there were 1.2 million violent crimes, defined as murder, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault. Or, put another way, 1.2
million scenarios in which there was potential for someone to kill in self-defense.

BUT who cares about some #FAKENEWS stats from liberal research center. Just keep buying guns, look over your shoulders at every turn, pack more guns the older you get, they are out to GET YOU!!!

Gun companies lie to you? :O
Are you sure that's not the goverment?

    “One reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime.”

    74% of felons polled agreed.

    “Criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police.”

    57% of felons polled agree

Consider that..

Why ignore this

Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008

Why ignore Hitler disarmed his nation, so did Stalin, so did Pol Pot etc. etc.

[giantcrypto]

Sometimes, the best way to make peace is to be ready for war "Abraham Lincoln". Life is sweet and interesting and everyone wants to live. Even the murderer fears death more. weather one is violent or not, the knowledge of counter weapon puts the violent to control to a great extend. I think that analysis should be made on Countries under gun control and conclusion drawn as to take appropriate decision on the subject matter. Laws should be made to insure that where there is such opportunity, appropriate control measures are put in place.

[Sithara007]

We need gun control to reduce the violence because eeven civilian person can carried guns now a days.for me police or military person can carry gun and they can protect civilians

Police and military may not be able to protect you every time, as in most of the nations there is less than 1 policeman for every 1,000 people. Also, you need to remember that strict background checks are in place for civilians who want to own guns and most of the gun violence result from illegal, rather than legal guns.

[BADecker]

We are government, not government gun controllers.


BEST SCENE FROM "THE OUTLAW JOSEY WALES"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNfdii-r38g

[tvbcof]

We need gun control to reduce the violence because eeven civilian person can carried guns now a days.for me police or military person can carry gun and they can protect civilians

Police and military may not be able to protect you every time, as in most of the nations there is less than 1 policeman for every 1,000 people. Also, you need to remember that strict background checks are in place for civilians who want to own guns and most of the gun violence result from illegal, rather than legal guns.

On top of that, the police may be interested in other things besides 'protecting' a person.  It is the common case in many parts of the world, and can be expected to increase here in the U.S. as more and more police force funding comes from civil asset forfeiture.

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rp0p7b0Wf7o

Just about every gun-grabber I've heard is very much in favor of more guns for the paramilitaries rather than fewer.  This meshes with the hypothesis that the money behind the push for civilian gun grabbing is put up by people who are looking to a future where they use the police muscle to shake down non-aligned civilians who have something worth taking.  I would expect exactly such a scenario to occur when the U.S. defaults on our debt and the (bought and payed for) courts decide how settlement is to occur.

[Sithara007]

My opinion on gun control rests differently with different countries. The rules and requirements of every country is different, so are the needs.

It is the basic right of an individual to be able to defend against the criminals. So I wouldn't say that the situation varies from country to country. Crime rate may be lower or higher in some regions. But that shouldn't be considered while talking about gun rights.

[Ariervintend40]

Tight gun control has been shown to work in the UK and in Australia.

Unfortunately, America's love of guns and personal freedom - and the apparent fear of a tyrannical government popping into existence one day - has created a situation where it is probably impossible to reduce the number of guns in circulation in any meaningful way.

America will continue to be a world leader in gun crime and gun violence for the foreseeable future.

Do you guys agree?

[BADecker]

Tight gun control has been shown to work in the UK and in Australia.

Unfortunately, America's love of guns and personal freedom - and the apparent fear of a tyrannical government popping into existence one day - has created a situation where it is probably impossible to reduce the number of guns in circulation in any meaningful way.

America will continue to be a world leader in gun crime and gun violence for the foreseeable future.

Do you guys agree?

No gun control would work just as well in the UK and in Australia. Agitation in America is being covertly done to the American people by gun control groups, so that they have an excuse to take guns away. The figures about America are skewed because of this.

If I were a 90 pound granny, I would want a gun. At least that way I might have a chance against the 250 pound bully who was trying to mug me.

[BADecker]

honestly gun control laws in the US are way too lenient in my opinion. these are tools of death, they should have more regulation.

There is a difference between laws and what works. Gun control laws would keep guns out of the hands of the people about as well as drug laws keep drugs out of the hands of the people.

[C10H15N]

Tight gun control has been shown to work in the UK and in Australia.

Unfortunately, America's love of guns and personal freedom - and the apparent fear of a tyrannical government popping into existence one day - has created a situation where it is probably impossible to reduce the number of guns in circulation in any meaningful way.

America will continue to be a world leader in gun crime and gun violence for the foreseeable future.

Do you guys agree?

No.  London has become one of the most violent cities in the world.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/london-murder-rate-new-york-compare-worse-stabbings-knife-crime-teenagers-statistics-figures-a8286866.html

The American cities with bad gun crime are cities with STRICT GUN CONTROL.

[BADecker]

Dad in America Told His Son Had To Die Like Alfie--But He Resisted With Guns and His Son LIVED

As the tragic story of baby Alfie begins fading from headlines, it is important to point out what allowed this situation to unfold like it did. Guns. Before throwing your arms in the air and screaming out, "how the hell does this child's death have anything to do with guns?" consider the following truth: The majority of the United Kingdom is unarmed, leaving most guns in the hands of criminals and government. When only government has guns, they can make decisions—like kidnapping a baby and starving him to death—without fear of recourse from the citizens, or even the family.

Read more at https://thefreethoughtproject.com/father-in-the-us-told-his-son-would-die-like-alfie-but-he-resisted-with-guns-and-his-son-lived/.

[karinaloren]

It's interesting question.
Who was the first company that started guns' producing, or who was the person to whom this idea came???

First wars  were held with help of improvising weapons: spears, arrows, wooden constructions with cores (I've just remember films). When war was going to the end people didn't solve how to finish conflict peacefully. They was thinking how to win in the next war, how to create stronger weapon... how to fully destroy an enemy.. and REVENGE

In any conflict ( war is extream mesure) anywhere it's difficult for people to negotiate and make the best decision for both sides.
 When i read the name of discussion, first picture in my mind  was world where people even don't know that gun exist at all. There wasn't a first person with idea of gun, no producers, no wars when it was used... NO ANY HINTS about gun at all....

Could you imagine? I could do it.. For a minute.  Than my picture collapsed..Indeed, people will continue to fight.. It's unavoidable.. People will use spears, swords and horses and will make wars .
Gun control will let us only minimize human victims, at best it will reduce numbers of wars ( countries will be more fearfull without weapon basic). Sure, It's good. We should start with smth.  I only think that the gun control will not decide the real reason of wars. We will continue to fight, quarell, bite and hate each other.

The more effective way is to eliminate the reason than minimize consequences. Instead of gun control  we need control of anger, offence, judgement, desire for revenge, jealousy to other's wealth and desire for own it and so on...
 -How will it happen?

- I have one idea. Every person should learn how to handle with his dark side, with anger and so on.... Is it possible? I think No.

The other idea. It can be any pills killing these negative feelings inside people, one by one or together. Or it will kill only one feeling if it's the most critical.  Or just reduce the effect a little bit ( the best way it think).
They will fill people with love, peace, respect to others, kindness

-I know it sounds too naive and unreal..
And there are some risks in my approach.

The world of kindness will be boring a little bit...  It will make people see bad things where they were good before. Kindness can't exist without evil.... Pure perfection without pitch of evil will not be perfection at all.
We will not have possibility to compare this perfection with smth bad. We won't even notice it . Perfection is in balance between these  two sides. ...  So, I couldn't solve eternal problems of war and peace here
So let's love our world with all unperfections, with wars and injustice. We will love and it will be better.

Let's start with ourselves.
Thanks for reading to the end and your patience to my "thought's flight".

[BADecker]

Police get big pay. They have hot heads. They are way more dangerous than the average citizen with a gun. The fact that they have gun training, makes them even more dangerous. Why give up our guns when they don't give up theirs?

[tvbcof]

Police get big pay. They have hot heads. They are way more dangerous than the average citizen with a gun. The fact that they have gun training, makes them even more dangerous. Why give up our guns when they don't give up theirs?

Individual cops seem to be all over the map when it comes to honesty, decency, etc.  The nature of the department they work for seems to be the biggest factor, and this nature is influenced by a handful of people in leadership.  Since higher-ups almost never seem to get in any real trouble they have the latitude to set department policy in any way they, or the people above them, see fit.

Some police departments discriminate on the basis of intelligence, and courts have ruled that they have the right to do so.  In this case they refuse to hire anyone with to high an IQ.  I fairly bright person with ethics could cause a lot of problems for operations in some of the corrupt police departments.

Making police department funding reliant on shaking citizens down via civil asset forfeiture pretty much guarantees a degradation of police forces and their relationship with Joe Public.  I suspect that that is exactly the goal of those who promote such a framework (including, unfortunately, Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump.)

A competent systems analyst will be able to predict that an armed population is incompatible with a corrupt police force which exists in part to steal shit from the public and thereby further certain social engineering goals.  The people who are out in front on the 'gun control' issue seem to be the same ones who's own existence is built around parasitizing others in society (e.g., bankers, teachers, social workers, etc.)
 

[tvbcof]

Guns are illegal in Brazil for example, and check their homicide rates.

Brazil is responsible for some of the best on-the-street gun related gore captured on video.

One I remember is where a where a pistol wielding thug thought he would hijack a motorcycle, but unbeknownst to him, the rider was an off-duty cop who also had a gun.  Brain material splattered, and happily in this case it was the crooks.

Another was pistol armed crook holding a gun to a hostages head.  This head-shot also resulted in a dis-assembled skull of the right guy (complements of rifleman), and happily the crook didn't happen to pull the trigger on his victim in his final microsecond of his life.

Another was a cop on a motorcycle chasing down a motorcycle mounted (presumed) criminal and shooting at him with a pistol at the same time.  My hat is off to this guy who had multiple skills...and balls of steel.  Brazil seems to have a lower threshold when it comes to putting bystanders at risk compared to the U.S..

[tvbcof]

The push for negation or dismissal of the U.S. 2nd amendment is so pronounced that it begs hypotheses about what might be going on.  Here's another, and it is fairly relevant to monetary issues and thus related to crypto.

1)  The USD is currently a debt-backed currency.  That is to say, all dollars in existence represent a debt.  If there were no debt, there would be no money.

2)  The debt is issued by the Federal Reserve.  This is a private entity and who actually has stake in it is unclear.  There is no 'audit the Fed' program which could shed light on the issue.  The executive branch won't allow an audit, and the legislative branch won't push for it.

3)  When the Fed wishes to increase the money supply, they can do so as a 'last resort' when the U.S. government takes out more debt and issues treasuries, bonds, etc.

4)  The numbers people go by for federal dept these days is 20T with China holding 2T of that.  This leaves another 18T which 'rich people' hold and expect interest payments on.  Probably the 20T is wildly low-ball for a variety of reasons, and I don't believe that it even includes the municipal bonds and what-not.

5)  A dollar is thus a representation of future earnings of tax-payers OR a claim to the proceeds of a settlement agreement should the government default.

6)  The value of, and thus the demand for, dollars is thus based on the ability of the government to levy necessary taxes to pay off the interest (at least) of the bonds.

7)  The value of the USD is is ALSO based on the ability to enforce a settlement claim on whatever property might be adjudicated to be part of a default settlement.  One can be fairly certain that the courts will come up with a settlement that is to the liking of the bondholders, and it will probably involve forfeiture of certain in-demand assets held unencumbered in private hands.  These folks will not agree with the jewdicial system's findings.

8 )  Thus, the 2nd amendment (transcribed circa 1776) truly does work to substantively de-value the USD (born in the early 1900's.)  The value of the USD can, and almost certainly is, labeled a 'national security issue', and the deleterious effect of the 2nd amendment on it's value is thus subject to attack.  'Fair game' so to speak.

9)  The state department can thus employ the tools at their disposal to deal with what they consider to be threats to national security (usually by retaining others to perform tasks under their legally authorized mandate.)  With the recent 'modernization' of the Smith-Mundt act, these options where significantly expanded.

[BADecker]

Kent State Graduate Poses With AR-10 Rifle To Make A Point About School's Gun Policy

A Kent State graduate decided to stir up controversy with leftists by posing for a photo with an AR-10 rifle.  She completed the imagery with her graduation cap adorned with "come and take it."

The photo of Kaitlin Bennett has now gone viral.

Read more at http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/kent-state-graduate-poses-with-ar-10-rifle-to-make-a-point-about-schools-gun-policy_05162018.