Gun Control and the Second Amendment

Also i would like to add that where i live, we have a lot of security compromises and we deal with threat on a daily basis, and by no means guns are free for all here. In fact, because there are so much less guns here than the US, small time criminals have a really hard time getting their hands on fire arms. It makes it very difficult to rob a store or do a public shooting when you need to plan a few months ahead how to get your gun. In order to have a gun here, you must pass psychological tests, shooting lessons, and your whole profile is checked before you get or do not get your gun license. What this effectively does, is it creates a much safer reality, since each person who carries a gun here(except organized crime - which also is hard for them to get guns), you know he has a license and he passed psychological tests etc, so it's much less alarming - you really don't feel a need for a gun for yourself. Sure, you sometimes feel like you would like to have a gun (who doesn't have random surges of instinctive power craving here and there), but that's when these laws come in handy. You can't just go buy a gun because you feel like it. Which why in my opinion all these insane shootings in schools and such start in the first place.
 
Also i would like to add that where i live, we have a lot of security compromises and we deal with threat on a daily basis, and by no means guns are free for all here. In fact, because there are so much less guns here than the US, small time criminals have a really hard time getting their hands on fire arms. It makes it very difficult to rob a store or do a public shooting when you need to plan a few months ahead how to get your gun. In order to have a gun here, you must pass psychological tests, shooting lessons, and your whole profile is checked before you get or do not get your gun license. What this effectively does, is it creates a much safer reality, since each person who carries a gun here(except organized crime - which also is hard for them to get guns), you know he has a license and he passed psychological tests etc, so it's much less alarming - you really don't feel a need for a gun for yourself. Sure, you sometimes feel like you would like to have a gun (who doesn't have random surges of instinctive power craving here and there), but that's when these laws come in handy. You can't just go buy a gun because you feel like it. Which why in my opinion all these insane shootings in schools and such start in the first place.

Yes, such laws create a much more secure immediate reality.

But muir's thinking seems to be that the very government enforcing those laws is liable to turn on its citizenry sometime in the near future, if the obstacles standing in the way are removed-- i.e., if I've understood correctly, it's short-term, smaller-scale security vs. long-term, larger-scale security. The tragic payoff is all the shootings happening (in the US).
 
"Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Tell me where anyone sees "the right to bear arms" in regards to your everyday, Tom, Dick and Harry? A
WELL REGULATED MILITIA is the part gun fanatics always ignore, yet religiously quote the last portion of the text.
 
.

So like, does anyone have any workable suggestions to reduce gun violence?

At the moment it is about maintaining an un-ideal situation

Here's a thought.....the 'gun crime' that is creating this furore has been orchestrated by the bankers....that's one possibility to consider

Even if you don't accept that there is the issue that even though guns are used or rather missused they are still carrying out a function in as subwayrider correctly put it the 'bigger picture'

Yes guns are often destructive, but that has to be balanced against the destruction that is going to occur if the guns are removed

I wish there were no guns i really do....but i also wish there weren't any bankers seeking to centralise their power eevn more. but there are power hungry bankers and there are guns and if the only people who have the guns are power hungry bankers then the rest of us have a big problem

To answer your question about a solution to gun crime i want to make a few suggestions:

There are two elements to murder: there is the mental element then there is the physical element. So if you kill someone by accident it is not murder, rather culpible homicide because although there was the physical element there wasn't the mental element (the intent)

So there is an issue about protecting people from accidents or from distress, but the main issue is over the violent use of guns as that is the most common cause of death.

So for someone to use a gun with intent there needs to be a mental element.

This is what needs to be worked on. The cultural perspective on violence needs to be addressed for example the proliferation of violence and event the fetishisation of violence for example 'gorno' films (gore-porno) such as those made by Eli Roth. We need to look at who these people are in Hollywood making these films, whose funding them and why

We need to look at the massed drugging of the population with serotonin uptake inhibitors that are allowing what the person sees through their eyes to flow straight to their subconscious without being filtered properly by the conscious mind. These drugs are being implicated in ALL the massed shootings including now the Aurora shooting:

http://www.naturalnews.com/038629_James_Holmes_prescription_meds_vaccines.html

Leaders are supposed to lead by example yet our leaders keep us in a constant state of war; what kind of example is that to set? So another step would be to pull back from all the war abroad

The lies of the corporate media are leaving people living in a perceptual bubble of distorted reality whislt the economic policies of the central bankers are leaving more and more people feeling they have little or no stake in society. So another step is tackling the bankers and ending the fed

The constant theme throughout is the cabal of bankers at the centre of it all. You want to tackle gun crime then tackle the bankers

When i read history about nazi germany i used to wonder to myself what would i have done as the nazis took power? If i was a gentile would i help hide jews? If i was a communist or a gypsy would i have fled the country in time? If i was a jew would i have managed to get out of the country?

Now that i see it happening here i realise the truth: many people simply would not have known what was going on until it was too late. Many who did get an idea would have lived in denial, others would have simply kowtowed to save their own neck

The difference was that the germans were already angry and had their national pride damaged by losing world war 1 only 20 years before. The US people did have 911 though which helped to create that kind of nationalistic anger which helped the bankers achieve their aims (like passing the 'patriot' act soon after)

When i went to visit Buchenvald concentration camp what struck me was how far out in the country it was. How many germans in the cities would have known what was going on there? They would probably just have seen the odd person dragged away or noticed that faces were missing in their day to day routine

How can all this happen though...surely there are checks and balances to stop people like that right?

If you look at Hitler he had a coup...the 'Munich putsch' where he captured some officials at gun point and marched to take over the city with his band of followers. the army opposed them and shot at them killing Hitlers bodyguard and several others. hitler was jailed and wrote Meinkampf...but in a matter of years that guy writing that book in prison was the supreme leader of germany having passed the enabling act (after burning the riechstag parliament and blaming his political opponents in a falseflag operation) which gave him total dictatorial powers

In a few years he turned it all around and caused a clamp down in his country

So how can it happen? It can and does happen

The banking cabal behind the fed have been slowly extending their power for decades and they built the UN with the aim of making that their central government

Its happening and current levels of gun crime are going to seem pretty insignificant compared to what they have planned for us, so yes as subwayrider says its a case of taking the short term pain over gun crime now to protect ourselves from far greater pain down the line

Its an unfortunate trade off
 
Last edited:
"Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Tell me where anyone sees "the right to bear arms" in regards to your everyday, Tom, Dick and Harry? A
WELL REGULATED MILITIA is the part gun fanatics always ignore, yet religiously quote the last portion of the text.

Why would they say "A well regulated Militia" and then follow it with "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms?"

They should have foreseen the problems the lack of consistency would cause hundreds of years down the line.

Or maybe they did it on purpose just to fuck with us...
 
Last edited:
Yes, such laws create a much more secure immediate reality.

But muir's thinking seems to be that the very government enforcing those laws is liable to turn on its citizenry sometime in the near future, if the obstacles standing in the way are removed-- i.e., if I've understood correctly, it's short-term, smaller-scale security vs. long-term, larger-scale security. The tragic payoff is all the shootings happening (in the US).

Absolutely
 
Yes, such laws create a much more secure immediate reality.

But muir's thinking seems to be that the very government enforcing those laws is liable to turn on its citizenry sometime in the near future, if the obstacles standing in the way are removed-- i.e., if I've understood correctly, it's short-term, smaller-scale security vs. long-term, larger-scale security. The tragic payoff is all the shootings happening (in the US).

Completely barring legal access to firearms wouldn't result in a decrease in violent incidents/mass murder. Anyone who is determined to break the law is going to do it and have no qualms about it. Remember the story of the man in China who stabbed like 20 elementary-age kids? No gun to speak of; granted, he also didn't kill anyone, but there are plenty of shooting sprees where the shooter injures like 30 people and only kills one or two.
There are better proactive solutions than restrictive measures. A functioning, thorough mental health system that gets involved in the process of acquiring licenses would be just as proactive as total restriction of firearms access and potentially more effective, and wouldn't take an effective tool out of the hands of people who are plenty healthy and reasonable enough to be trusted with them.

e: After reading [MENTION=6801]ThisIsWhoIAm[/MENTION]'s post, I realize this should be more directed at him than you.
 
Yes, such laws create a much more secure immediate reality.

But muir's thinking seems to be that the very government enforcing those laws is liable to turn on its citizenry sometime in the near future, if the obstacles standing in the way are removed-- i.e., if I've understood correctly, it's short-term, smaller-scale security vs. long-term, larger-scale security. The tragic payoff is all the shootings happening (in the US).

I don't understand what you mean here... Are you speaking of a military regime? Like if the government decides to turn into a dictatorship and to use the military to capture the streets etc? If so, it's ludicrous to assume that semi automatic assault rifles can stop a whole army of tanks, fighter planes, helicopters and missiles.
 
Completely barring legal access to firearms wouldn't result in a decrease in violent incidents/mass murder. Anyone who is determined to break the law is going to do it and have no qualms about it. Remember the story of the man in China who stabbed like 20 elementary-age kids? No gun to speak of; granted, he also didn't kill anyone, but there are plenty of shooting sprees where the shooter injures like 30 people and only kills one or two.
There are better proactive solutions than restrictive measures. A functioning, thorough mental health system that gets involved in the process of acquiring licenses would be just as proactive as total restriction of firearms access and potentially more effective, and wouldn't take an effective tool out of the hands of people who are plenty healthy and reasonable enough to be trusted with them.

See what i did there?
 
I would also like to add, that in order to stop a man with a knife, you just need a broom stick. I shit you not.
 
I don't understand what you mean here... Are you speaking of a military regime? Like if the government decides to turn into a dictatorship and to use the military to capture the streets etc? If so, it's ludicrous to assume that semi automatic assault rifles can stop a whole army of tanks, fighter planes, helicopters and missiles.

I'm starting to feel like a tool or something, but I'm really only trying to understand muir's theory because, while other people might shoot it down and call it crazy, it is actually plausible and even quite possible, IMO.

The thinking is that most of the military would refuse to turn its arms on its own people.
 
I don't understand what you mean here... Are you speaking of a military regime? Like if the government decides to turn into a dictatorship and to use the military to capture the streets etc? If so, it's ludicrous to assume that semi automatic assault rifles can stop a whole army of tanks, fighter planes, helicopters and missiles.

You can't fight your own populace with tanks, fighter planes, helicopters and missiles. That's not how domestic occupation works.

e:
See what i did there?

Congratulations, you managed to take my statement and put it in a vacuum; that's not something to be proud of. In 2010, several other attacks similar to that one were carried out, by men entering schools using knives: nearly 20 people were killed, children included. The reason nobody died in this most recent mass stabbing is not that the man had a knife, or didn't have a gun. It was because he was incompetent. Robert Heinlein wrote in Starship Troopers that there are no dangerous weapons, only dangerous men; Ming Yingjun (the perpetrator) was not nearly as dangerous as he thought. There is no doubt in my mind that if I were to take a bolo and walk down the road and into my old elementary school, and I proceeded to systematically move between rooms, hacking open the skulls of seven-year-old children, that nothing short of a bullet could stop me. Have you ever been in a fucking knife fight? It's not like it is in the movies, you can't just deflect the guy's knife and take it away from him with a magic grappling technique. Knives are fucking brutal weapons which, if you want to avoid getting injured, leave you with two options: 1) Create distance as you pull out your gun, or 2) Run the fuck away.
I'm gonna pull a muir here and post a video.
[video=youtube;37XiSn81oFw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37XiSn81oFw[/video]
 
Last edited:
I'm starting to feel like a tool or something, but I'm really only trying to understand muir's theory because, while other people might shoot it down and call it crazy, it is actually plausible and even quite possible, IMO.

The thinking is that most of the military would refuse to turn its arms on its own people.

I posted earlier that i just can't bring myself to read pages upon pages of [MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION]'s posts just to find what his message is... Therefore i didn't read what he said and i asked you to clarify it for me please. I still don't understand what his point was...
1) that
The thinking is that most of the military would refuse to turn its arms on its own people
, or
2)
But muir's thinking seems to be that the very government enforcing those laws is liable to turn on its citizenry sometime in the near future

Please note that i'm not trying to be a smartass here, i'm really trying to understand..
 
There are better proactive solutions than restrictive measures. A functioning, thorough mental health system that gets involved in the process of acquiring licenses would be just as proactive as total restriction of firearms access and potentially more effective, and wouldn't take an effective tool out of the hands of people who are plenty healthy and reasonable enough to be trusted with them.

The mental health system is a joke, isn't it? I mean the psychiatrists get together every year to make up a bunch of new vague and arbitrary diagnoses so they can keep prescribing drugs like candy and keep making money... right? Just look at the side effects of all the drugs. I've been through the mental health system, not thoroughly, but I've been there, and was prescribed antidepressants. It was terrible. St. John's Wort, an herbal remedy, worked better for me than the drugs.

There was a post earlier that went into the control the bankers have over the American medical system. I haven't read it yet, but it might be worth checking out.
 
The US has the worlds largest military budget, likely the most extensive network of spies and data analysts, access to technology that's generally a decade ahead of anything on the shelf, and extensive national guard and border protection forces to assist the already numerous police forces.

Even if somehow all the gun nuts got organized into a revolutionary group what's their answer going to be to gun toting APCs, UAVs and helicopter gunships?

If police come knocking on your door and request to search your property for guns, y'know what you do, you let them, because if you don't they make a note of it and you can be sure they'll follow up on it later or you shoot them, you're now a cop killer and unlike GTA you're now totally and utterly fucked.


Unless they're Rambo people are deluding themselves in thinking that they stand a real fighting chance or have leverage if the government decides to fuck their shit up.
 
You can't fight your own populace with tanks, fighter planes, helicopters and missiles. That's not how domestic occupation works.

Are you speaking from experience? Because i am. I'm israeli, and most of my friends were fighters, most of them were in gaza, and when we had to use force to take down terrorists we would use tanks, airplanes, guided missiles and all that jazz. Besides, what about Afghanistan, Iraq - the US interventions? You think there weren't planes and tanks and missiles there?
 
I posted earlier that i just can't bring myself to read pages upon pages of [MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION]'s posts just to find what his message is... Therefore i didn't read what he said and i asked you to clarify it for me please. I still don't understand what his point was...
1) that , or
2)

Please note that i'm not trying to be a smartass here, i'm really trying to understand..

Lol I get it.

Well, I did read that the cops that engaged in the protester-beatings in the Occupied cities were handpicked because of their loyalty to whoever it was that picked them. You could have a good proportion of the same kind of people in the military, CIA, FBI, etc. etc.
 
Lol I get it.

Well, I did read that the cops that engaged in the protester-beatings in the Occupied cities were handpicked because of their loyalty to whoever it was that picked them. You could have a good proportion of the same kind of people in the military, CIA, FBI, etc. etc.

Sorry man i still don't understand muir's position, i wasn't being cynical. Lol.
 
Unless they're Rambo people are deluding themselves in thinking that they stand a real fighting chance or have leverage if the government decides to fuck their shit up.

Clearly, I've developed apocalyptic, movie-like scenarios in my mind about all this, but with the right former military personnel that abandoned and joined the other side-- which would be very many-- when they found out what was going down, you could very plausibly raid the hangars and weapons storage-houses, etc. by mass and procure a good deal of the weaponry.
 
Back
Top