Is Now the Time for Gun Control?

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

No worries, his time is almost up. That's the beauty of the US Presidency; it's a democracy, not a dictatorship.

I'm pretty sure all of us law abiding citizens still and will have our "arms"...for hunting and sport, etc or just because we like 'em after he's outta here.

a reply to: OFFTHEGRID

As if TPTB don't have enough control. Whoever is in charge of operation "dumb-down" has made a miscalculation somewhere, because only a total ZOMBIE would entertain STRICTER gun control laws. Like THEY can be trusted to protect US. LMAO. From what I've been witnessing on the internet lately, regarding the eagerness of most law enforcement to employ deadly force to practically any situation, it's clear that they are serving and protecting someone OTHER than citizens.

With groups like ISIS saying they will fly there flag over the White House.

And the drug cartels from mexico operating in the US.

Plus all the gang bangers operating in the major cities of the US.

I think i will keep my guns.

More guns. More control. More guns. More control. NRA. NRA. NRA. NRA.

a reply to: TrueBrit
I think this might be one of the finest examples of poe's law or reverse trolling I have ever seen. Well done sir.

Ladies and gentlemen THE ROCK is a HIGHLY underrated weapon if one is fast enough..or MEAN enough.In cities the refined sister the brick,has been used by the MOB for years with telling effect.

a reply to: OFFTHEGRID

I thought Ora.tv and JV only joined like last year/year before?

Jesse should be writing these threads and posting the videos here.

Have you wondered why your threads tank in here......

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
Ladies and gentlemen THE ROCK is a HIGHLY underrated weapon if one is fast enough..or MEAN enough.In cities the refined sister the brick,has been used by the MOB for years with telling effect.

Lol the friendly brick in a bag greeting.....

a reply to: OFFTHEGRID

I love a good conspiracy or some good outsider info but JV is only but a wanna-be Alex Jones and does a FAR worse job at it. There were a few thread back where he was actively refuted as a fear/war mongerer and no one gave a crap about what he said.

As in such I will not be watching this and if you are a part of his "team" I would advise you to rethink who you want to work for. He may be right about SOME things, but all he does is fear monger.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Well, thank you for that. However, I can assure you that no parody was intended, and furthermore, that it was not my intention to troll, whether in the forward, or indeed the reverse gear.

a reply to: TrueBrit
I have read some of you posts on other thread's and they seem intelligent and well thought out, so you must forgive me if I am slightly sceptical that you think a typical Saturday night in any UK town would be improved by the presence of broadswords.
Chucking out time at weatherspoons would truly be something to see....

Obama and Eric Holder sent guns to the worst criminal gangs in Mexico for the only purpose of using the aftermath of that to seize firearms from law abiding citizens in the USA by claiming guns get into the hands of criminals far too easy because of *lax laws* here. Yeah they sure did with the president making it happen didn't they?

And he never apologized that his direct act that caused the death of some kids, and many non Americans and even a couple of border patrol agents, but no one expected him to because then it would be an admission of guilt, and we all know it is never his fault for anything, even murder committed by criminal negligence on his part.

Now he thinks everyone has forgotten about his real reasons for gun control, so here we are with another one of his pathetic and treasonous lies.

There isn't anything he won't try, to get rid of the guns in America, and he likes it better when his methods are against the law, since he's never tried to get rid of them in a constitutionally legitimate manner.

Why not? Because there isn't a legal way to do it in existence!!!!

The 2nd amendment doesn't have a clause that makes it okay for any official to get rid of guns, or strip away at the foundations of the bill of rights. End runs around the constitution to get rid of guns are still an assault on the rights of citizens and is not what the people expect from a president, (except for the brainwashed sheep in the crowd.)

When he shed that false tear for the children killed by guns, he had on the same day earlier bragged about how good he was getting at killing them with drones over seas. I guess only American kids count in his world, and he probably just forgot that multitudes of parents happen to have families over seas with children.

Obama is a pathetic pile of chicken crap and you can see it dripping from his mouth with every lying word he speaks. He can't be trusted with anything, and he should be sitting in Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary wrapped in leg irons and a muzzle on his face.

In other words, anything he proposes has at least ten unstated and illegal purposes behind it, and this new gun control proposal of his is less charitable to Americans than the crap coming out of his mouth.

The GOP and the Democrat party in our Senate and in Congress are both guilty since he is still free to do as he pleases and has not been charged with multiple felonies, many of which call for the death penalty.

a reply to: OFFTHEGRID

The Federal government needs to de-militarize the police force in the US first. They only add fuel to the fire when they have mine resistant personnel carriers, illegal tear gas launchers, and tactical response teams for peaceful protests. I hope we keep buying more Guns and start to form actual militias again country wide. Looks like they have never been more justified. I know cops that think its absurd how they are being armed to the teeth. FOR WHAT!?!?

Crime has never been lower in the US, yet they keep acting like they were policing a militant insurrection within a hostile population. Thats what they will make if they keep this up. Maybe thats what they want.

Gun control, no. Never. Kill us or leave us alone.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Well ScepticScot, if the right to wander about hither and thither whilst prepared to defend oneself and ones community had never been tampered with and effectively removed, then we would think absolutely nothing of folk being armed and ready at all times. We would also behave in a more genteel manner toward one another, a simple respect which comes of being aware that everyone you might decide to insult to their face, is capable of delivering a severe lacerating or penetrating injury to ones critical arteries, or vital organs.

I am not saying that such a society would be violence free, because it would not. But those who commit violence casually now, would be less likely to do so, if they were at a significantly higher percentage risk of themselves receiving a thorough shanking for their troubles, and to be absolutely frank, a little fear on the part of some of the utter filth walking the streets these days would not go amiss. The granny muggers need to feel like there is a target on their back, as if farting in the wrong direction could get them vivisected, the rapists need to be in terror of having some passer by cut off their bits and pieces after preventing or interrupting a sexual assault, the people who LIKE violence enough that they indulge in it constantly or often, need to fear its use upon them. At the moment, those who are prepared to carry a weapon of any kind, in contravention of the law of the land, fear nothing.

It would be much better, if these bastards were not the only people walking the streets armed to the eyeballs, because then they would have to live with the same fear that we all do. And all that I have said leaves alone the critical element of an armed population, even one armed only with blades.

The population of a nation always outnumbers the government which runs the nation, and unless the society is not just armed, but militaristic as well, it usually outnumbers the armed forces of that nation, and the police force and other law enforcement officialdom, by some considerable margin. That means that even if the worst day in its history were to come, there would be no effective way to prevent the people from taking control of an out of control parliament or government, and redressing and correcting the balance of affairs of state toward a more universally acceptable paradigm.

Unfortunately, we have allowed our rights to be removed from us in that all but the most perfunctory right to bear arms is denied to us, to the point where there actually had to be a change in the law to allow a person to kill in self defence, IN THEIR OWN DAMNED HOMES! So... do I think that society would be necessarily more peaceful with the right to at least carry a decent blade being afforded to each and every one? Not entirely. Do I think that it would be better, fairer? Yes I damned well do.

I think that 'the right to bear arms' is a great deterrent to tyranny.
However I really don't think people should go about their days while carrying weapons.
It's very uncool, and It projects possibilities into every volatile situation, which, if not there ,
would change the outcomes of many situations for the better.
Depending where you live,
the likely hood of needing to defend yourself with firearms, is really up to how you behave.
In the US and the UK, this likelihood is small, unless perhaps if your are a drug dealer or something like that.

a reply to: TrueBrit
Sadly the flaw with your vision is that people with violent intentions don't walk around wearing a badge declaring their intentions, no black hats or evil intent in their eyes. By legalising weapon carrying of any kind you just make it easier for criminals and nut cases.
Also most acts of violence aren't pre planned. They spontaneous overreaction and frankly that most road rage incidents or drunken brawls don't involve weapons.
As for defence against tyrannical government. I think the days of oppression under jackboot have been superseded by technology. The future of tyranny is more brave new world than 1984.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Your assertion that a person intent on physical violence, is on the whole physically indistinguishable from someone who is not, is utter bunkum.

Body language is highly readable, and most people have severe difficulty in stifling that particular element of communication. People who are out for wanton violence often make it perfectly obvious what they are after, by the set of their jaw, the set of their shoulders, the way their hips happen to be aligned with their spines, whether their knees are slightly bent or not, how they approach a person, the way they walk...

There are THOUSANDS of tiny bits of body language that are indicators of the onset of physical violence, and most people, even if they only have the ability to discern these things in a subconscious manner, are none the less capable of reading those signals.

a reply to: TrueBrit
Sorry but the idea that because some one trained in reading body language may be able to identify someone with violent intentions if they are focusing on them does not mean it is easy to identify those individuals in everyday situations.
There is a lot of bunk talked about body language, your description could just as easily be someone constipated.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Trained?

Who the hell said anything about training? Its LIVING which teaches these things, there is no special formula, or seminar attendance involved!

a reply to: TrueBrit
So lets accept your assertion that your life experience has given you need Holmes like powers of observation. Does that mean everyone else can do the same?
Also on a busy street at night with everyone armed can you really be sure you would spot the headcase? If so you must be awesome at where's wally?