GUN CONTROL NOW! "A time comes when silence is betrayal." - MLK Jr..
See all
Members (517)
Carla Npsgirl's profile photo
John A. Iaria's profile photo
Bikudo's profile photo
Alicé Anil's profile photo
Dave Derrick's profile photo
Pistolero Jesse's profile photo
Guy Montreal's profile photo
 Jose Custodio's profile photo
Michael Fullerton's profile photo
Matt inLancaster's profile photo
Nick DuBois's profile photo
Phalinex's profile photo
Tread Armament and Weaponry's profile photo
Tom Hartung's profile photo
Progress America's profile photo
Danny Copper's profile photo
William “Chip” Nagel's profile photo
kenneth Cordero's profile photo
Liam Sauer-Wooden's profile photo
Macon Speed's profile photo
Don Doornbos's profile photo
Santosh Sharma's profile photo
Jaymes Alexander's profile photo
Spencer Dobson's profile photo

Stream

Join this community to post or comment

Paul Frank

Discussion  - 
 
FTA:  "A judge upheld Seattle's new tax on firearms and ammunition sales on Tuesday, rejecting a challenge from the National Rifle Association claiming the measure violated a state law barring municipalities from enacting firearm legislation.

"The Seattle City Council unanimously approved a "gun violence tax" on sellers of firearms and ammunition in August, directing proceeds toward violence prevention programs and research beginning in January 2016.

"A companion measure requires gun owners to report cases of lost and stolen firearms to police.

"On Tuesday, King County Superior Court Judge Palmer Robinson denied a request by gun rights groups for an injunction, saying the tax did not violate state law and was a "lawful exercise of Seattle's taxing authority."

With apologies to +Michael Brown
A judge upheld Seattle's new tax on firearms and ammunition sales on Tuesday, rejecting a challenge from the National Rifle Association claiming the measure violated a state law barring municipalities from enacting firearm legislation.
1
Sifu Mode's profile photo
 
I expect this will be rightly shot down by SCOTUS, eventually.
Add a comment...

Paul Frank

Discussion  - 
 
 
"Facebook and Instagram have announced changes to their policy preventing users from buying, selling, or trading guns on their platforms

"But the gun extremists are already criticizing Facebook for their new policy. We've got to give Facebook a whole lot of "likes" so they know they've got the overwhelming majority of Americans on their side -- and so other corporations will follow their example." (from associated email)
1
Paul Frank's profile photo
11 comments
 
+Nic Finn Thanks for checking.  If you do stumble across it I would love to see it.

Cheers, Paul
Add a comment...

Doug Rand

Discussion  - 
 
The Terror Cash Game - The good guy, the bad guy and the guy that benefits

Al Qaeda and ISIS are only "frontend" terrorist groups. Their job is to play the bad guy ... and the politician's job is to play the good guy and start the cash flow to catch ISIS. The bad guy and the good guy ... both of them are controlled by a third entity that benefits from this entire game.

http://active-democracy.com/news/war-on-terror/1024-the-terror-cash-game-the-good-guy-the-bad-guy-and-the-guy-that-benefits.html
Al Qaeda and ISIS are only "frontend" terrorist groups. Their job is to play the bad guy ... and the politician's job is to play the good guy and start the cash flow to catch ISIS. The bad guy and the good guy ... both of them are controlled by a third entity that benefits from this entire game.
1
Add a comment...
 
I feel that this argument is almost indestructible!
 
Most of the following will be my paraphrasing based on two videos, called "The REAL Purpose of the 2nd Amendment - The Ultimate Critique of Gun Control" & “The Divine Right of Self Defense - Mike Adams documentary”. Part one will be mostly from "The REAL Purpose of the 2nd Amendment - The Ultimate Critique of Gun Control", while part 2 is more based on “The Divine Right of Self Defense - Mike Adams documentary”. Part three will be of my own creation. Everything is of my opinion. By no means is this article meant to represent the views of any other individual or group. BEFORE YOU READ, let me just tell you that I do NOT associate myself with the left-right paradigm like many other people do, I consider myself an agnostic-atheist, & I do NOT believe that entertainment media causes violence. I am NOT calling for an immediate overthrow of the government, for reasons explained in a video called “So You Want to Topple the U.S. Government?”. Also, PLEASE make comments. If you agree with this article, PLEASE share it to every single gun control advocate you know.


Part 1: A lot of people agree that we all have inalienable rights, which are rights which should not be taken away. Just to name a few, many agree that we all should have the right to access clean water, good food, peacefully assemble, speak without fear, practice religion (as long as others are not affected negatively) (&, at least to some of you, maybe even be helped or taken care of when necessary) & so on & so forth. But there's a right we often forget; the right to the defense of self & others, & thus, the right to keep & bear arms & armor. The strange thing about rights, is that, they are actually boundaries. Freedom of speech, for example, can't exist unless boundaries are established to prevent those in power from harming or imprisoning those who speak against them. But who's ultimately responsible for upholding those boundaries? You may believe you have to right the speak. But what happens to those rights when a group of armed men start moving from building to building, home to home injuring, killing &/or kidnapping those who disagree with them.

This exact scenario unfolded over & over again throughout history. It keeps repeating not really because history has been forgotten, but rather it hasn't been properly understood. What if the people who are the victims of the exact same scenario had a fighting chance? 
You believe that the government should have the monopoly on force. But in reality, the gang of armed men that I described often IS the government. 
It was the governments of the world which were responsible for the genocides, ethnic cleansings, & mass murder of civilians. It was the governments who exterminated political & religious dissidents. It was the governments which built the concentration camps & secret prisons. It was the governments who committed the worst crimes against humanity. Governments have been shown to be the most corrupt, most ruthless organizations on the planet. Even all of the worst mass shooters combined can not even come close to the scale of damage overpowered governments have caused. 
According to Rudolph Joseph Rummel, in the 20th century alone, bad governments have killed an estimated 262 MILLION civilians. That is, shockingly, 6 times more than soldiers, in ALL pre 21st century wars, COMBINED. So they killed more mostly unarmed or lightly armed civilians in 100 years than military personnel in tens of thousands. Government may be a good thing for a large, technologically advanced society. But everything they give can be taken back. Thus, this is why I believe we need at least some form of hard "tyranny insurance" that could be used if all else fails.

 When the people have no means of defense, the government has no real boundaries. We can not simply hope that their minions (often military & law enforcement who obey) to disobey. That only allows the process to start all over again. You may believe that government may be free of corruption, but in reality, positions of power attracts tyrants, bullies & psychopaths like manure attracts flies. It always has, & always will. Government attracts these types of individuals because of power over others. And for the icing on the cake, they get a paycheck! What more can such an individual possibly ask for? 
Some people try to sidestep this issue by wanting things such as a stronger United Nations: essentially, a global government to keep the rest of the world in line. But this underscores a deep misconception. That will also attract tyrants, bullies & psychopaths like manure attracts flies. Again, for icing on the cake, they also get a paycheck! Do I really have to repeat that?

There's quite a few examples today that the U.N. & modern communications is not enough. Look at the Rwandan genocide. Look at the genocide going in Darfur & the violence in Gaza right now. The drone attacks Pakistan & other parts of the middle east being part of the fuel for terrorism.
Look at the very government the United States is living under right now, which is already brought out by corporations, foreign lobbies & international banks: the "Patriot" act, giving law enforcement the ability to search a home or business without the owner's consent or knowledge & access to business, library & financial records. National Defense Authorization act gives the military the ability to arrest, kill &/or hold literally ANYONE with NO trial & COMPLETE IMPUNITY. The CIA has conducted mind control experiments, where the CIA has conducted what it exactly sounds like. The Guatemala syphilis experiment & Tuskegee syphilis experiments, which you can do research on yourself, Where in the former, people often took part involuntarily, & in the latter, people were lied to. Oakville, Washington clear blobs, a probable government experiment. Department of Homeland Security buying about 1.6 billion buckshot shells & hollow point bullets, which are too expensive for training, but good for fighting, & the latter is banned for use in war, but perfectly legal for use on civilians, & besides, the DHS only works domestically. In the past, the U.S. government has, at best, negligently, & at worst, intentionally killed its own civilians, like in the Ruby Ridge & Waco sieges, & has knowingly killed civilians, like in the drone strikes going on for years. Nothing is a conspiracy.
Tell me what the United Nations is doing about all of this. Show me where in school's history books is this highlighted in. TELL MEE!!! Now how much trust do you have in them now to do anything real? NO! Lookup an article called "The United Nations Exposed: Who Is In Control?" to see who's really in control of the UN. Again, hardly an unbacked conspiracy.

 There are historically & factually accurate examples of letting the wolf guard the henhouse (or having politicians being told to not mistreat their people & have no one other than themselves or people who are controlled by them enforce the rules). We should NOT solely rely on laws & the legal system: you can read up on how, on paper, people living in places such as the Soviet Union & communist China might've had rights on paper, but not in practice. This is what I mean by letting the wolf guard the henhouse: how are we sure that they're not going to break the rules? And how are we sure that if they do break the rules,  how do we make sure that they get a sufficient consequence?

 Once the types of individuals described get in, who would you turn to? You can not get safety by giving more of your power and rights away to someone else. The root of the problem is a total monopoly on force. The solution is to give NO MONOPOLIES PERIOD. We as humans simply are not mature enough to deal with that type of temptation. True power balance MUST be maintained. The right to self defense is that counterbalance. It is the boundary which truly makes other rights possible. We are ultimately the ones responsible for protecting ourselves & each other. However, the right to defense is meaningless without the MEANS of defense; this is when the right to keep & bear arms & armor comes in. This is why I believe the right to defense of self & others, & to access arms & armor is a core right of all animals (even non-hostile extraterrestrials), including humans no matter their race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender identity, national origin, color &/or other characteristics.

Part 2: people who are rational, sober minded & follow a code of ethics & morals neither seek out nor create violence & de-escalate it at every chance. This should be how all people operate, especially those who are armed. Perhaps the best people we can find are those who despise violence, but are willing to unleash it on violent predators if they have no other way to stop the predator(s). The right to the defense of self & others should not be selectively right for some people, such as law enforcement officers & military personnel while selectively wrong for others, such as average people who do not commit violence. Besides, in my view, law enforcement officers and military personnel are just citizens granted permission and extra (but not unlimited) power by we, the average people. Law enforcement should directly protect our communities while the military provides an external defense, only to be deployed directly in communities if absolutely necessary (in situations such as disasters, invasions, major civil unrest or a crisis in that manner). Private security should protect private property & cover when law enforcement is unavailable. Fugitive recovery/bail enforcement agents (bounty hunters) should hunt down criminals at least in certain circumstances.
A lot of people would agree that it is right to cause pain, injury or even death to a violent psychopath who had already killed multiple people & intends on killing more. But a question that confuses some is rather or not it is right to do it to people, rather they be regular people, or a law enforcement officer or military personnel. While this may sound scary & be controversial, yes, it is the right thing to do rather or not someone is wearing a uniform. Law enforcement officers & military personnel are still human beings. They, like pretty much all human beings, are not perfect, & can still go bad, just as any other person can.

 To round part two up, & science people may like this part, as explained in “The Divine Right of Self Defense - Mike Adams documentary”, a lot of plants and animals practice their right to self defense. Cacti, for example, have sharp spines which teach animals to stay away. Similarly, porcupines have spines which do the same. A bird that uses a ranged defense mechanism is the Southern Grey Petrel, which had a stomach which produces wax esters and triglycerides, which can be projectile vomited onto predators. Some Tarantulas what’s called “urticating hairs/bristles”, which can be flicked off into the air at a target using their rear legs. These hairs can irritate, & could even be lethal to small animals. Many species of insects have chemical weapons at their disposal. The Bombardier Beetle, for example, uses thermal chemical reactions to launch a boiling, noxious chemical spray in rapid pulses from special glands in their abdomen. Some ants (specifically, Wood ants) can spray acid. Some Geckos can fire a black or pale sticky fluid from glands in their tail for distances up to about a meter with good aim. The Spitting Cobra can spray venom from forward facing holes in their fangs, spitting up to 1.5 meters. The California ground squirrel has been known to fight predators such as snakes by kicking dirt into their eyes. Elephants have been known to throw various objects. 
Some primates, including humans, have been known to throw various objects. And, as a bonus, I’ll mention that Turtles & Tortoises, along with shellfish, have protective shells, which is animal body armor, if you will. Nature's equivalent to today's bullet resistant vests.
Why is this important? A lot of politicians say that they want the human species to be disarmed. Though not only is this within itself is a violation of an inalienable right, but also, it is not possible to fully disarm every last human on the planet. To disarm people, the people doing the disarming must be armed, & thus it becomes more like power re-distribution than disarmament.
For example, let's say that the controllers of Place X wish to implement rules to restrict people from possessing functional weapons. To do this, they must must hire an enforcement arm (military, law enforcement, etc), WITH WEAPONS, to control others from having weapons. Someone must be armed: is is extremely unlikely to virtually impossible that everyone will be unarmed.

Part 3: so you think that a democracy (or republic) will always be sterile of corruption? Democracy is as sterile of corruption as religious holy books are of violence. Though this may sound cliche, I have changed this argument around, let's look at Nazi Germany. The Weimar republic was in a bad situation from the end of World War one to the start of Nazi Germany. Then Adolf Hitler came up, promising the people a lot of good stuff would come when he was in power. Guess what? He goose stepped his own people into a history of bloodshed. He disarmed everyone EXCEPT for the so-called "master race", which made it easier to kill Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, political enemies, & so on & so forth. Adolf Hitler came from the right. Josef Stalin came from the left. Yet both were capable of doing the exact same thing. Not to mention how easily votes can be rigged & how easy it is for politicians to lie their way through anyway.

Part 4: Some make the argument that the weapons possessed by civilians is little to no match to those possessed by the government. However, not only do many of the individuals who use this argument have little to no law enforcement or military experience, & often don’t have much knowledge, or at least don’t think deeply think about history. Just ask people from Vietnam, Nicaragua, Iraq, & Afghanistan just to name a few. Guerrilla forces from these nations, along with various criminal & resistance fighter alike (often from third world countries) resisted often better equipped militaries, & succeeded. Sure, in some cases they did get help from external sources (communist bloc governments supplied communist Vietnam during the Vietnam war while the United States government supplied anti communist Afghanistan), but neither the less they won. Besides, anti armor & anti aircraft weapons can be captured from government armories & military units. Things such as aircraft, armored vehicles & artillery are often meant for SUPPORT & will NOT guarantee victory. I will not deny that technology will be a factor, but it definitely is not the only factor. It is not easy for military or law enforcement units to keep fighting when they gain little to no progress for their hard work. Besides, the target isn't really the armed forces or law enforcement, but the politicians who caused the wreck in the first place.

I’ll wrap this part up with some quotes. Most from good people, others (Mao Zedong, Vladimir Lenin, Adolf Hitler) being some of the most evil people short of their bosses (like some big international bankers, not that I intend to end all international banking). And I know that Malcolm X. WAS racist against whites, though eventually he changed his mind.

 "Concerning 'nonviolence' - it is criminal to teach people not to defend themselves, when they are the victims of constant brutal attacks." "I don't even call it violence when it's in self defense; I call it intelligence." "Non Violence is okay as long as it works." "If you have a dog, I must have a dog. If you have a rifle, I must have a rifle. If you have a club, I must have a club. This is equality." - Malcolm X.

“If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” — The Dalai Lama.

“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside…Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them…” - Thomas Paine.

 “Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.” - Martin Luther King.

 "Legitimate use of violence can only be that which is required in self-defense." - Ron Paul.

"The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke.

“No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion.” –James Burgh.

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty.” — Adolf Hitler.

 “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” - Mao Zedong.

 “A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie.” — Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.

 You can verify all of these with Brainyquote & Goodreads.

Part 5: Concerning the types of weapons used in violent crime & overall numbers: despite what the entertainment industry would have you believe, in 2013, rifles accounted for LESS than 290 deaths, according to the FBI's "Expanded Homicide Data Table 8". According to the same article, that year, shotguns were used to kill LESS than 310. Added up, long guns killed only 593 people that year. This is EVERYTHING that counts as a rifle (from low powered plinking rifles & single shots to high powered hunting rifles & semi-automatic "military style" rifles) or shotgun (from single shot .410 to semi-automatic 12-gauge) in statistics, so the deaths involving "assault weapons" are almost guaranteed to be even lower. Also, many want to restrict those while not mentioning cutting instruments & blunt objects, which account for 1,940 & 428 deaths respectively (then again, they're work tools). Altogether, firearm-related homicides accounted for a GRAND TOTAL of 8,454 people that year. Divide that by 290,000,000 and about 0.00002915172% of the population was, in homicide, killed with a firearm that year.

Also, many people tout the meme "more guns, more deaths". But how true is this? As seen in Wikipedia's "Gun politics in the Czech Republic" & in Gunpolicy.org's information piece of the Czech republic, the latter of which has some of the lightest weapon laws in Europe (even compared to Switzerland), while the amount of guns went up over the last couple of decades & number of licenced gun owners peaking in 2001 & not changing much since then, crime went down. A similar case is also seen in Canada, in which, according to Gunpolicy.org, in Canada, while the amount of licenced gun owners went up, homicide rates went the other way. Interestingly enough, while most rifles & shotguns are regulated less heavily than handguns in Canada, handguns are still more commonly used. I'm sure that most criminals prefer to use something that they can easily conceal & wield.

If more guns equals more deaths, then why is the U.S. #1 in guns per capita yet is actually does NOT even make it into the top 115 countries for homicide rate. Violence also varies. For example, Detroit has strict weapon laws, & has a homicide rate so high that it would surpass El Salvador in homicides. However, there are places such as Chandler, Arizona that have light weapon laws & a low homicide rate.

Sources from Wikipedia: List of countries by intentional homicide rate, United States cities by crime rate.

 Now, do you wish to keep our communities safe from crime & violence? Then we must address other issues, such as culture, availability of services, education, substance (ie drug & alcohol) use, presence of chemicals, & even what counts as a certain crime & data manipulation just to name a few. There are places with a lot of guns that are not that violent, such as Kennesaw, Georgia (which requires every household to have a firearm) & Svalbard, Norway, which requires everyone to know how to use a rifle against polar bears. Restricting inanimate objects such as weapons (there are plenty of examples of homemade weapons & ammunition) is not enough to address the actual disease rather than the symptoms. If I had my way on weapon control, I may improve the background check system (specifically updating information about people), & make it illegal for a violent felon to own weapons or knowingly transfer weapons to violent felons. I'd only allow registration if an extremely high percentage (like 98+%) own suitable weapons. Though in the U.S., it's already illegal for felons to own functional firearms (except for antiques, airguns & crossbows, which are less regulated), I feel it is slightly overzealous (so people sometimes end up losing their right to keep & bear arms for a "white collar" crime such as, say, a fake insurance card vs a "blue collar" crime such as unjustified homicide). Along with this, I would take action against other causes of violence, such as the unnecessary use of physic drugs, which you can do research on how they can cause people to become violent. Finally, I would arm every law abiding able bodied person possible, which should prevent or at least cut down on the chances of power slipping into the wrong hands by distributing it.
While I would like to improve the mental health system, I would not block someone from the right, let alone the duty, the keep & bear arms (& definitely not armor) for being "mentally ill", for reasons explained in a video called "The Truth About Mental Illness and Guns", unless, they are obviously violent (though criminal background checks should already cover it & if someone wants an exception from the duty for reasons such as not trusting themself, being too mentally/psychologically damaged to use a weapon, etc). Part of this is that most people with mental illnesses do not do anything violent, nor are most violent people mentally ill, along with how tests can diagnose many people as "violent" or "mentally ill" on paper, but not in practice. Not to mention how people could get into the fear of being "blacklisted", then possibly stigmatized from merely being diagnosed with a symptom that would not provide a legitimate reason for putting them on such a list.

Do you want to support self defense and the right to keep and bear arms? Other than contacting politicians, visiting right to keep & bear arms rallies, liking or following social media pages dedicated to this and so on, there are many groups you can support. 

International based; International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights, National Association for Gun Rights India, Indians For Guns, PROGUN Philippines, Movimento Viva Brasil, Pro Defensea Cost Ricca, Gun Owners of South Africa, European Rifle Association, German Rifle Association, Forum Waffenrecht, National Arms Association of Spain, National Rifle Association United Kingdom, Firearms UK, British Association for shooting and conservation, Sportsman's association United Kingdom, Outdoor Recreation Party Australia, Sporting Shooter's Association of Australia, Firearms Owners Association of Australia, National Rifle Association New Zealand, National shooting Federation New Zealand, Outdoor Recreation New Zealand, National Firearms Association Canada, PROTELL Switzerland.
United States of America based; Gun Owners of America, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Pink Pistols, Liberal Gun Club, Self Defense is a Human Right, National Association For Gun Rights, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owner's Action League, Second Amendment Foundation, 1MMAGC, Stop Illegal Mayors, National Shooting Sports Foundation, Concealed Carry Campus, The Common Sense Gun Lobby For the Right To keep And Bear Arms, Handgun club of America, National Rifle Association, 2nd Amendment Sisters, U.S. Concealed Carry Association.
Regional U.S.A. based; New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, Gun Owners of New Hampshire, Virginia Citizens Defense League, Grass Roots North Carolina, Georgia carry, Florida Carry, inc., Stonewall Shooting Sports of Utah, Arizona Citizens Defense League.
1
SayNoTo Democide (The Empire Unmasked)'s profile photo
 
+joshua Deshautelles Here is an example of me trying to help.
Add a comment...

Johnny Chandler

Discussion  - 
 
Aren't we supposed to be embracing stricter gun laws, because things like this don't happen in other countries? 
The La Loche Community School in La Loche, Sask., is in lockdown due to an emergency.
3
Add a comment...
 
Largest single straw purchase operation in recent history, not at the hands of criminals, but our own administration. I'd say we need government control instead of gun control.
 
The judge left open the possibility that some of the records could be held back from Congress.
5
Add a comment...

Johnny Chandler

Discussion  - 
 
Sensible gun law.
Those with valid gun permit could sue property owner over injury or death if incident occurred in a gun-free zone.
2
joshua Deshautelles's profile photo
 
I agree with the sentiment that if you're a private entity who demands to disarm a visitor on your property means the private entity is responsible for their security, but creating an avenue for litigation opens all sorts of frivolity. 
Add a comment...

Alpha Zed

Discussion  - 
1
Johnny Chandler's profile photoSolerimus Zenovka's profile photo
2 comments
 
Die Leute die wir aufnehmen und den Terrorismus haben wir euch zu verdanken wegen eurer verdammten scheiss Kriege eurem ewigen feigen Bombardierungen - also haltet einfach mal die Schnauze!!
Hört endlich auf andere Länder zu Bombardieren und Auszubeuten verflucht noch mal.
Add a comment...

Paul Frank

Discussion  - 
 
Good look at the variety of mass shooting statistics.
(With apologies for the last paragraph's failure to similarly consider all the firearms research.)


h/t to +Sifu Mode 
From Mother Jones to the Mass Shooting Tracker: where activists and reporters get their stats
2
Sifu Mode's profile photoMichael Brown's profile photo
2 comments
 
That the great thing about statistics that most don't understand, you can easily manipulate the end result to show whatever you want.  Its very hard to show people this; I'm glad that at least some others understand this. 
Add a comment...

Alpha Zed

Discussion  - 
 
The last, best hope, of preserving America and its Constitution! 
3
1
John Bartolotta II's profile photo

About this community

GUN CONTROL NOW! "A time comes when silence...is betrayal." -MLK Jr.

Sifu Mode

Discussion  - 
 
THIS pithy truth is part of the rational reason to oppose gun control.
 
Paradoxically, liberty is only possible if one gives up controlling one's neighbors.
2
Add a comment...

Paul Frank

Discussion  - 
 
 
"A locationized gun is one that uses electronic technologies such as geofencing to restrict its firing to authorized locations, thereby allowing its use for protecting life and property in those locations while preventing its use in other locations for crimes such as robberies, drive-by shooting, assassinations, and massacres."
1
Alpha Zed's profile photoPaul Frank's profile photo
23 comments
 
+Alpha Zed Thanks for your passionate expression "Alpha."
Add a comment...
 
What is really unfortunate is their gun ban policy failed, and their gun control advocates respond by saying not enough was done.

This should shed some light on the same types of morons we have here. There is no common sense gun control. There is never going to be a point where they have enough control. It won't make anyone safer. It won't stop gun crime. It won't change people's moral compasses.

Gun control has never been about making the individual safer. It can't even make an entire populace safer (by statistics which should, if you're a student of trickle down economics, filter down to the individual, who would then be less likely to suffer at the hands of gun crime). Whether through deceit or misguided good intentions, the only people that gun control has ever helped are people who want to abuse power.
 
Australia has seen a rise in gun crime over the past decade despite imposing an outright ban on many firearms in the late 1990s. Charges for crimes involving firearms have increased dramatically a
4
joshua Deshautelles's profile photoSayNoTo Democide (The Empire Unmasked)'s profile photo
7 comments
 
+joshua Deshautelles Fine. I won't post links on your arguments again.
Good luck trying to convince others to support self-defense and the right to keep and bear arms and armor.
Add a comment...

Paul Frank

Discussion  - 
 
via +Mark Frank 
The Hayden Planetarium director puts our gun violence problem in stark perspective.
1
Alpha Zed's profile photo
 
Numbers? Once Neil reaches ten he removes his shoes!
Add a comment...
 
Maybe a red circle with a line around a gun would help too, eh?
 
When the time comes, shoot to kill, not to film. 
4
Xenophrenia's profile photojoshua Deshautelles's profile photo
17 comments
 
McLean, dammit. If you're going to use irrational arguments and insults to try to excuse your own cowardice, at least have the courtesy of using a more flattering action hero. 
Add a comment...

Paul Frank

Discussion  - 
 
"Get the FIRST look at this powerful film - and sign-up to screen Making a Killing: Guns, Greed, and the NRA!

"You can attend a screening, host a house party, organize an event at your local school or place of worship, and sign-up to get the film sent to you when it's available to stream online." (from associated email)
Creating Media that Makes an Impact
1
Paul Frank's profile photoAlpha Zed's profile photo
5 comments
 
No film yet? But I can join and hope a film will someday be ready?
I'm going to tell everyone I know, don't let me down!
Damn, I can donate too, I missed that.
Add a comment...

Alpha Zed

Discussion  - 
 
Kevin you should watch this one:)
1
Add a comment...

Alpha Zed

Discussion  - 
6
1
John Bartolotta II's profile photo