Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: A realistic comment on gun control-- read it please

Posted 1 year ago on July 24, 2012, 8:19 p.m. EST by bestevidence (170)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/01/03/75694/guns-tea-party/

I think there is not going to be the gun control many of you want except in places like NYC. I think the rightists are never going to yield their guns. I think their guns are for killing people- who? Occupiers, racial minorities, leftists, sexual and gender minorities, trade union activists, low wage workers, people on welfare. I think that people who fall into those categories should be considering obtaining and training on firearms legally of course. The other side is not joking or wishing.

78 Comments

78 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Simple solution - not easy - but very simple
defang the serpent - if gun companies cannot buy legislators
▬►WE will own the legislators◄▬
http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com
50 videos from Chomsky, Lessig, Cobb, Hedges, Hartmann, Sanders, Romney


[-] 1 points by bestevidence (170) 1 year ago

The day "WE" own the legislators will be a day after a revolution.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

a constitutional amendment to end corporate personhood & citizens united would work just as well

[-] 1 points by bestevidence (170) 1 year ago

It'll take a virtual revolution just to get something like that passed into law.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

polls already show 80% of Americans want an amendment.
So do Hedges, Mcvcainm, Sanders
see 50+ videos
and the 12 EXISTING amendments in congrss
http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com

[-] 2 points by kaiserw (211) 1 year ago

A guy I knew has been doing self defense training and concealed carry training free for LGBT individuals. Guns, though they may be distasteful to some, are an important key to prevent all-out tyranny. Non-violence is the best and only way to manifest good change...

However, if things ever got tyrannical, and we ended up in a Hitler type dictatorship, there's a whole bunch of former soldiers that have Occupy's back. At the moment, this serves as a deterrent, to any individual or group of individuals that could sieze control of government to use the full military force of empire on civilians. Guns are on your side, you just aren't aware of it.

(This comment got deleted for some unknown reason. There's nothing wrong with it, and I'm putting it back up)

[-] 1 points by bestevidence (170) 1 year ago

http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?f=125&t=49190 Soviet citizens had arms for hunting.

http://www.examiner.com/article/china-condemns-u-s-gun-ownership-as-human-rights-violation

China considers the rampant gun ownership in the USA as a human rights violation of the citizens of the US who by their thinking are denied safety and security.

Around half the privately owned guns on earth are owned by Americans. that's why we have such a great democracy, right?

[-] 2 points by kaiserw (211) 1 year ago

It was originally put in place to prevent the persecution of civilians by the military. It is as the old Swiss model was to foreign policy, a measure of deterrence, and a doomsday provision. China murdered thousands during the Maoist revolution, academics, philosophers, etc... I don't think they have any business talking about human rights. Neither does the United States, as we torture prisoners, and send them to Uzbekistan by the CIA to be LITERALLY boiled alive (Seriously, they were boiled alive, on instruction by CIA - you can't make this stuff up).

We don't have a democracy, we have a democratic republic. Which has largely been skewed because the representatives have largely kept the same number, while population has increased dramatically. This puts unbelievable concentrations of power in few hands. Power is ultimately the enemy of the common people.

I'm fine with gun control with one condition, the military, and police, of every country, turn in and destroy their guns too. So long as other people have power over others, I'd like to skew the "balance" of power at least slightly by keeping the citizenry armed, thank you very much.

Another area that has seriously eroded is the pretention to the rule of law- Glen Greenwald and Noam Chomsky http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ikDHnZIQ2Q&feature=player_embedded

Read some more literature, history and make yourself a more educated debater, please.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

What an ignorant comment.

You think all gun owners are bigots that want to kill minorities? That's so damn insulting. And then you say minorities and the poor should buy guns for their self defense against these people? You are crazy.

I am not a gun owner, and I think assault rifle sales need to be banned.... but I have family and friends that own guns and for you to generalize every gun owner as a bigot is just insulting.

My cousin for instance hated the Bush administration and speaks in favor of gay rights. And he voted for Obama in 2008. But he also owns a hunting shotgun. For hunting.

I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

He is generalizing but he ain't all wrong.

The people who hate progressives are certainly arming themselves at an alarming rate. Not every gun owner hates us. But most people who hate us have guns.

Scary shit.

[-] 0 points by bestevidence (170) 1 year ago

I didn't say "all gun owners" and that is dishonest to put those particular words in my mouth. I was speaking of the fascist Tea Party. It has armed demonstrations. What do you dream that's about? Hunting rabbit? https://www.google.com/#hl=en&rlz=1C2RNAN_enUS460US460&sclient=psy-ab&q=automatic+weapons+for+sale+legal&oq=automatic+weapons+for+sale&gs_l=hp.1.1.0j0i30l3.0.0.1.824.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0...0.0...1c.nSoE3dYVgyM&pbx=1

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

"I think there is not going to be the gun control many of you want except in places like NYC. I think the rightists are never going to yield their guns. I think their guns are for killing people" and then you went on to say they want to kill minorities.

When you say rightists... it also looks like people who stand up for their second amendment right. Otherwise I don't know what a rightist is. Unless you're trying to say conservatives or something. But if you meant the tea party you should say the tea party. Also that's not really true about the tea party. To call them a bunch of murderers speaks against the point that they have never killed anyone at one of their protests. Who has the tea party collectively murdered? No one.

Also I do not support the tea party. I think their bigger problem is they collectively oppose equal rights for gays.

[-] 0 points by bestevidence (170) 1 year ago

Not murderers but potential killers are the far rightists. They are haters. Why are you so opposed to knowledge of the obvious truth? The right is armed and the left is not armed. That's dangerous situation.

[-] 1 points by jbgramps (159) 1 year ago

Depending on who’s numbers you believe, there are between 220 and 340 million privately owned guns in America today. There are an estimated 85 million gun owners in the US. Earlier this year two major gun manufactures (S&W and Ruger) had a million order backlog and suspended new orders to catch up. The best selling gun right now is small, almost pocket size 9MM pistol; followed by the AR-15 and similar assault rifles.

Last year, 2011, was a banner year for gun sales and 2012 is looking to outpace it. Guns are selling like hot cakes. Also, gun laws are trending toward more gun rights rather than more gun restrictions. Almost every State has some type of conceal carry license and some have legal open carry. Good or bad, Americans love their guns.

I’m a gun enthusiast (read gun nut), and this worries even me. I’m afraid there are millions of people walking around armed who have virtually no training on when or how to properly use a weapon. I mean people who maybe shot fifty or sixty rounds and never give any serious thought what they would do in a self defense situation. Then there’s the random cowboy walking around hoping someone will mess with them so he can pull a weapon.

The lack of required training to own a gun is way too lax. Rather than a one day class it should be month long class involving defensive shooting strategies, what happens after you shoot, how to properly carry a weapon and so on. I know I’d feel better knowing people were trained.

Gun owners are paranoid about the “gun grabbers” coming to confiscate their weapons. That’s partly why every time a mass shooting occurs they rush out and buy more guns. Just in case the feds outlaw some guns they will be grandfathered in with their current guns.

Personally I’m not worried about the feds confiscating guns. Too many guns and too many gun owners. Just couldn’t be done. However, I am worried the gun grabbers will nickel and dime us. They’ll try to outlaw semi-auto rifles (AR’s. AK’s and the like), then reduce magazine capacity, outlaw some types and caliber of ammo (.45, .50 and 10MM caliber and hollow-point ammo). Then require unnecessary features such as manual safeties, staging triggers, magazine removal disconnects, etc…It's just a guess, but I'd say half the guns made today can't be sold in California, they don't meet the over-the-top safety standards.

So, as I said before, for good or bad Americans love their guns. It doesn’t much matter if you or I like it or not. Probably not going to change anytime soon. Think about it, if everyone else has a gun, would you want to be the only one without the ability to defend yourself?

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Ok- Mr. Self Defined Gun Nut-
YOUR OPINION please
Why should every gun owner be licensed & every gun be registered?

[-] 1 points by jbgramps (159) 1 year ago

They shouldn't be registered or licensed. but I'm an honest guy, and don't break the law, so I got my license. However, In my State guns you don't have to register guns, but if they did I'd register my guns. Like I said I want to be legal.

[-] 1 points by bestevidence (170) 1 year ago

"So, as I said before, for good or bad Americans love their guns. It doesn’t much matter if you or I like it or not. Probably not going to change anytime soon. Think about it, if everyone else has a gun, would you want to be the only one without the ability to defend yourself?"

That just about says it all. Thanks.

[-] 1 points by bestevidence (170) 1 year ago

"So, as I said before, for good or bad Americans love their guns. It doesn’t much matter if you or I like it or not. Probably not going to change anytime soon."

My point, exactly.

[-] 1 points by jbgramps (159) 1 year ago

Which brings up the point, as a law abiding citizen, never arrested, not a felon. Why shouldn’t I be able to own any gun I want?

What I mean is, I’m a gun enthusiast. I don’t play golf, bowl, play tennis, etc.. My hobby is firearms. I am knowledgeable and proficient with guns. I collect older guns, enjoy shooting modern combat weapons and modify guns. I’m not a gun smith, but still very good at customizing weapons. So, since I’m not a criminal or mental case why shouldn’t I be able to enjoy guns? Why would anyone think taking my guns help anyone?

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

That's like saying the 99% wants to kill the 1%.

I think you're going way too far with this.

What you're doing is an ignorant Fox News style commentary tactic. Sorry to be so blunt.

[-] -1 points by bestevidence (170) 1 year ago

Dream on. The fascists mean no harm... the fascists mean no harm, go to sleep, the fascists mean no harm...

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

I said the facts show that they collectively oppose equal rights for gays. That is the bigger problem and a real problem.

Saying the tea party wants to kill occupy protesters is ignorant of truth. I have yet to see one elected tea party official talk about killing OWS people. I have several times seen them speak bigotry toward gays. That is a more important issue. Discrimination is wrong.

[-] 1 points by bestevidence (170) 1 year ago

They're showing up armed at demonstrations for a reason. And they know who they hate and who they consider as threats.

[-] 1 points by throaway (57) 1 year ago

They show up armed to remind .gov that this country has a CONSTITUTION

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You are correct. Not all gun owners hate us. But those that hate us are armed to the teeth.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by bestevidence (170) 1 year ago

You have said it!

[-] 1 points by kaiserw (211) 1 year ago

A guy I knew has been doing self defense training and concealed carry training free for LGBT individuals. Guns, though they may be distasteful to some, are an important key to prevent all-out tyranny. Non-violence is the way to manifest change, but if things ever got tyrannical. There's a whole bunch of former soldiers that have Occupy's back. At the moment, this serves as a deterrent, to any individual or group of individuals that get/have control of government (Banks) to use the full military force of empire on civilians. Guns are on your side, you just aren't aware of it.

[-] 1 points by bestevidence (170) 1 year ago

I think it's not a bad idea for people to legally obtain firearms and learn to use them.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

Whenever I get robbed I offer the perp a cigarette. Then I tell him to keep the pack.

He's a dead man. Just a matter of time. I can wait. Coughing his cancerous lungs out. I do feel bad for killing his children's father, but... He made his choice.Nobody can stop me. Second amendment. Right to keep and bear arms, like cigarettes. So what if the founders only knew about pipes and cigars?

BwaaaaHaaa Haaa, Got him!!!

[-] 1 points by bestevidence (170) 1 year ago

Yes, that's a point. With strict gun controls in NYC mainly thugs (NYPD. CRIPS, BLOODS, LATIN KINGS, vigilantes, etc.) have guns. Ordinary people who want to go towork, raise their families, go out to party, see a ballgame in a neighborhood parrk, we ae the ones disarmed and afraid. Wacky, isn't that?

[-] 0 points by bestevidence (170) 1 year ago

It's not gonna happen. Even Obama is not touching gun control with a ten foot pole. Wake up. The guns are in the hands of those who hate us. The government is not going to take those guns away.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

honestly didn't buy my gun to kill anyone

Going to a gun range to shoot to get off stress is a very satisfying action i recommend you do it and understand guns before calling for a purpose like this

[-] 0 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

You reckon that is the only way to get rid of stress? What do targets look like? How about a driving range and swinging a golf club? I have done both. There is a whole list of things that qualify for that purpose. Would it matter so much if there was one more? Or one less? When people break into a house, as they did one of my neighbors, the result is guns in the hands of people who, didn't buy them, get trained on them perhaps, were untraceable to them (possible shooter).

I don't think my neighbor will be held responsible if/when someone is gunned down with his "exercise devices" or Stress relievers". I wonder why not?

If you want to do violence with a gun the odds are you can get one within three houses. How difficult is that? Viewed from outside one could conclude that we really don't care if these mass killings take place. If it gets in the way of anything we want to do, that's just not acceptable. We would rather have what we want and if a few (or many people) die that's OK?

[-] 0 points by bestevidence (170) 1 year ago

I was a GI who thank God never was in combat but i trained on the M14 and M16. I liked knocking down those silhouettes. Why do you think the Tea Party members need automatic weapons?

[-] 2 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

I have no idea why they need them could be like most of my friends who own them and that is to shoot at targets and go to competitions.

[-] 0 points by bestevidence (170) 1 year ago

And have armed demonstrations and spew hate? Not you or your friends I'm sure but right wing fascistic tea party scum. Why the resistance to someone who points to the obvious: The right is armed, the left is not. that's a dangerous situation.

[-] 2 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

it is stupid to bring all those guns and emotions to one place now if they had a rally at a gun range different story

believe me the left is just as equally armed

[-] 1 points by throaway (57) 1 year ago

Spewing hate is not a monopoly for the 'right', geez.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13432) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

In the past, when NRA advocates showed up to protest the President and brought their firearms, in Arizona I believe it was, I invited them all to come to Burlington, Vermont. I did so on a public forum much like this, where their friends and allies, if not the protesters themselves, were known to gather.

Let me be clear at the outset - I have guns, I support the right to own them, and I support sensible legislation regarding gun ownership.

Taking firearms to a protest rally is not reasonable, and not demonstrative of responsible gun ownership. It is little more than an attempt to intimidate anyone with an opposing view.

This kind of behavior has a highly probable outcome in today's Machiavellian world of political machination.

And so I did, I invited such fools to bring their guns and their protest signs to Burlington, Vermont; with the assurance that I too, would bring my Glock. They could stand on one side of the street, while I stand on the other - foaming at the mouth in typical, hysterical, tin-foil hat hyper rabidity . . .

while around the corner, and out of sight, friends armed with M-80s would set alight the fuse on cue . . .

I assured everyone we would see who is left standing when the smoke clears . . .

[-] 0 points by jbgramps (159) 1 year ago

Aw man, what a stupid post. I agree taking a gun to a political rally is crazy. Anyone doing that is just looking to be hassled by the cops and maybe arrested. And it puts the more rational gun owners is a bad light. So we do agree on one major point.

However, your statement about trying to suck gun owners into a gun fight so you can blow’em up with m80’s is too stupid. So, let me be just as absurd. You can have your m80’s. I’ll bring my tripod mounted, belt fed M2 machine gun mounted in the back of my pick-up just in case you start shooting. Maybe I should bring a M777 Howitzer in case things get really bad.

I suspect you have no military training; and no idea of combat strategy or tactics. Your Glock is a good weapon, bit no match for me being two blocks away with a .308 AR10. So take your drug store cowboy talk someplace else. Your tough guy talk doesn’t work.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13432) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

you misunderstand my comment in its entirety.

And in fact in the South West, the gun displays during protests seems to have been met with a nod from the establishment.

My point was that it is inevitable, if that kind of behavior continues, someone clever will engineer a blood bath, and it won't be all that hard to do.

I was volunteering a demonstration.

Why not.

I don't like you people anyway.

[-] 1 points by jbgramps (159) 1 year ago

My apologies for misunderstanding your post. I tend to over react sometime. As I said earlier, I think it’s dumb to take a open carry weapon to a volatile political rally. It’s just asking for trouble.

I’m also in a southwest State; and don’t like open carrying of guns. Probably for different reason than you. I think open carry makes you a target. If a bad guy sees your sidearm he’ll probably shoot you first. Again, sorry for the misunderstanding

[-] 1 points by shooz (17816) 1 year ago

Belt fed?

You prove the efficacy of placing liability insurance on the bullets too!

the purpose of it's design is to cause considerable damage.

[-] 1 points by jbgramps (159) 1 year ago

Aw come on. You know I was just trying to be more absurd than ZenDog’s post. I don’t have a class 3 license and can’t own a full-auto machine gun.. It was a joke. But I think you already know that.

I still don’t understand why the anti-gun folks think gun restrictions on legal guns will have any effect on gun crime. I don’t see the correlation. But, It seems we’re beating a dead horse here. We’re obviously not going to agree so I’ll quit on this thread.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17816) 1 year ago

There's nothing at all funny about gun violence. Absurd? I'll give you that.

At least as absurd as the MAD doctrine you espouse.

You quit?

Gun nutters always do. That's why the violence continues and continues to grow.

It's odd though, as there are more guns around, there is more and more violence perpetrated with them.

Just the opposite of what you've implied.

Now that's absurd.

[-] 1 points by jbgramps (159) 1 year ago

OK, I said I’d quit. But maybe I’ll make one last post. The irony of the situation is if we met each other, perhaps at the supermarket. We probably like each other. I’d be the old stereotype grandfather in plaid bermuda shorts following his wife around the store. One of my favorite activities is playing hide-n-seek with my youngest four year old granddaughter. I think most people feel I’m a nice guy.

You seem to view all gun enthusiasts as running around in the woods, wearing full camo, and playing soldier. The truth is very few gun owners are, to use your term, gun nuts. They are your neighbors and co-workers who just want to protect themselves in case someone threatens their life. Carrying a concealed weapon doesn’t constitute some wild eyed, foaming at the mouth, nut who’s just waiting for someone to mess with them so they can pull a weapon. That’s just not a valid picture; but it’s what the anti-gun folks want to you to believe.

Best to you. I hope you do find a solution to gun crime. Just don’t make taking away my rights part of your solution.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17816) 1 year ago

Once again proving my point that gun "owners" don't care to trouble their minds about gun violence.

Guns by design are created to do damage.

They should all be insured against such damage, and let the markets deal with it.

You should have read the thread I provided.

[-] 0 points by bestevidence (170) 1 year ago

Why do you imagine Tea Party activists have armed demonstrations and own automatic weapons? What are they trying to say?

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13432) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

you have three separate issues -

  • the tea party
  • armed demonstrations
  • ownership of automatic weapons

To put it in mathematical terms:

While the armed demonstrations may [or may not, I haven't done the homework on that point] be a subset of the tea party, it cannot be said that all members of the tea party have participated in or even support armed demonstrations.

While I haven't done the research on the second portion of my above statement any more than the first, the second at least, does seem to defy reason. The Tea Party is a large group of individuals, and I have seen documentary interviews with organizers and participants from the deep south who, as the interviews demonstrated, were deeply divided on the purpose and methods of the Tea Party itself when it comes to matters of race. Some were pure racists, advocating white supremacy above all, while others rejected outright such blatant hatred for their fellow man. Given such a distinct division on the matter of race, it follows that there will be other divisions within the tea party as well.

Ownership of automatic weapons is likewise a set of people that extends far beyond the membership of the Tea Party. I own a glock, that is referred to as an automatic, because the spent bullet casing is automatically ejected by the forces of expanding gas, and as the spring pulls the slide back into place over the firing chamber it draws a new shell into place before the firing pin.

There is a distinction that is lost in calling this an automatic weapon, because it will not fire automatically. Depression of the trigger on a fully automatic M-16 will result in gun fire until the trigger is released, the gun jams, or the clip is empty.

Having acknowledged such distinctions as may present themselves and give rise to objections to answers that might be given, I will proceed, and do what I may, having first woven some of these distinctions into my response, as follows -


Those who own weapons, automatic or otherwise, and then show up, and encourage others to show up, at a demonstration, bearing their arms with them, are deliberately attempting provocation and intimidation of all those who hold an opposing ideological view.

The unspoken suggestion is: We might be mad - This suggestion is inescapable, precisely because we have seen instances of murder and mass murder at the hands of right wing whack jobs intent on fomenting race war. This may not be the only motivation behind such past incidents, but it does figure as a prominent motivational factor among some.

I insist that the purpose and intent behind any counter demonstration as I have proposed on this thread is exactly as it has been laid out.

It is:

  • to embrace the enevitable
  • to demonstrate, once again, that conservatives are not the only Americans prepared to bleed and to die in name of God, Country, and their fellow citizens.
  • to illustrate, with bodies and with blood if need be, the fallacy they hold before the American public, that arms have any place on the picket line, for they do not. Firearms may be an implement of sport, or a source of sustenance, occasionally they are a tool of defense, but it must always be remembered that in the main, they are a weapon of war.

Weapons of war do not belong on the picket line of peaceful protest.

This is an act of aggression against the American Public.

[-] 0 points by bestevidence (170) 1 year ago

fact is there have been armed demonstrations by tea partiers. They are making a point. I get it.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13432) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

and I have provided what I think should prove to be a definitive solution, at least in the matter of armed protest.

[-] 1 points by throaway (57) 1 year ago

Semi automatic weapons

[-] 0 points by ZenDog (13432) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

It should be noted that it is not necessary that those who care to participate in such a counter protest in opposition to the NRA - fear mongering crowd, complete with their own signs and their own firearms, need be apprised of the presence of sympathizers, armed with M-80s, hidden from view and ready to act nearby.

The willingness to participate is all . . . .

Those with M-80s should be stationed closer to the pro-NRA crowd yet out of the line of fire, that their presence, purpose and involvement at the rally not be revealed by their dead corpse(s) when the smoke clears . . . .

The idea being to instill within the NRA crowd the sense that they are the ones who have been fired upon, rather than the opposite, so that once the smoke clears it is evident it is they who fired first.

While not mandatory, in the end it really matters not who actually fired first, I think as a practical matter it will go further to their own general discredit if it can appear the NRA crowd initiated the bloodshed.

Those with the M-80s should be advised to take their spent ordinance with them as they retreat under the cover of gun smoke.

The NRA Protest leadership should be fully apprised of the general nature and shape of this most devious plot, though not its details in the particular, that they may see with utter clarity, just how out of control their own behavior does lead to their own destruction.

[-] 0 points by ZenDog (13432) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Folks should really be voting my comments down, that they may preserve the good name of OWS . . .

[-] 0 points by Abby100 (-54) 1 year ago

NYC gun control is not working, read the papers.

[-] 1 points by bestevidence (170) 1 year ago

Maybe it is actually very much a success if you look at what it is doing: Allowing a monopoly of armed force in the hands of groups of criminals including the NYPD gang and leaving the majority of people who don't want to be violent and don't want to violate laws defenseless and dependent on the government for safety.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

A serious attempt at a natioinal gun control law - what do you think?

All gun sales require a background check &
minmum two week waiting period &
no "gun show" loop holes
All guns must be registered like cars
All gun owners must be trained & licensed like drivers.
Buying bullets requires proof of license & registration
Owning an unregistered gun, or by an unlicenced owner carries a
$1000 fine.
Using an unregistered gun or by an unlicenced owner carries a
$10,000 fine
Selling or buying a an unregistered gun or to an unlicenced buyer caries a
$100,000 fine
Police are authorized to anonomously buy back unregistered guns
...from unlicenced owners at 50% over "street" price
ban gun clips that hold more that 12 bullets
ban semi-automatic weapons
Gun owners must carry liability insurance:
Since so many people are careless about where they keep it,
if a child gets their hands your gun and shoots someone,
...the insurance will protect the victim, and gun owner's insurance
...COST will go up after it is used
Legalize drugs

All contributions to the NRA over $100 must be accompanied by a trigger finger

FYI : Would you guarantee America to be the most gun-violent country in the world for $1,000,000 a year? Wayne Lapierre does.

[-] 1 points by jbgramps (159) 1 year ago

What I think would work better is if the US had no gun restrictions other than known criminals, felons and mental cases would not be able to own guns. Gun crimes would have extreme penalties. Other than that anyone could own any gun they wanted.

Just imagine a tripod mounted, belt fed, M2 machine gun mounted in the bed of your Pick-up. Would you cut them off in traffic? Wait, maybe we should limit some guns. I mean we probably should draw the line at people having M777 Howitzer’ in their front yard. I mean we don’t want to get absurd about it.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17816) 1 year ago

It already is absurd.

I still prefer gun liability insurance.

Prisons have yet to prove they curb most crime.

In fact, white collar crime is at record highs and no prison at all.

We should test it for efficacy there first.

[-] 1 points by jbgramps (159) 1 year ago

I see a logistics problem with your solution. The government doesn’t know about any of my guns. I buy from individuals who don’t do background checks; and guns don’t have to be registered in my State. All perfectly legal. I’m sure there are millions of gun owners like me. I mean if the government doesn’t know I own weapons they can’t confiscate them. Is that paranoid?

[-] 1 points by shooz (17816) 1 year ago

I don't want to confiscate them, just have you insure them.

So now you have something against "market forces"?

The idea is to use insurance to lessen gun violence.

[-] 1 points by jbgramps (159) 1 year ago

I appreciate your sincerity, but I don’t get how taxes will lessen gun violence. It sounds more like a way to lessen gun ownership. Gun owners really are paranoid about anything they perceive as anti-gun. They feel the anti-gun folks just want to slowly implement more and more regulations with the ultimate goal of banning or confiscating guns. Unfortunately they are probably right.

[-] 2 points by shooz (17816) 1 year ago

They are merely led around by their noses by all the bullshit the NRA pushes at them.

Nothing but bullshit.

I want the insurance to help pay the victims of all the violence.

Pony up and help pay for ALL the shit guns cause.

[-] 0 points by jbgramps (159) 1 year ago

Well, we agree on the NRA, I don’t like’em and not a member. However, we probably dislike them for different reasons. They buckle too easy. Not trying to be sarcastic, but they don’t do much for gun owners. Just another deep pockets lobbyist group.

I disagree gun owners should be the only ones paying into a gun crime victim fund. That’s like saying we had something to do with gun crimes. I would agree with a fund that everyone pays in to. But not one that is fully paid for by gun owners. Why should I have to pay? I haven’t hurt anyone.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17816) 1 year ago

The bottom line with the insurance, is to eventually reduce gun violence.

I did a thread on it a while ago, and most agreed it was a good idea.

I have yet to find a gun nutter that could come with anything nearly as effective.

Mostly they don't want to do thing to reduce it.

[-] 1 points by jbgramps (159) 1 year ago

I don’t see any connection between a slush fund for gun crime victims and reducing gun crime. How would this fund reduce gun crime? A fund may provide financial help for gun crime victims after the fact, but will have no bearing on before-the-fact gun crimes.

The flaw in most anti-gun arguments is they try to associate gun crime with legal gun ownership. There is no correlation. They are two separate things, not related in any way. You could impose all kinds of anti-gun regulations on legal gun owners and it wouldn’t make a bit of difference in gun crime.

Stopping gun crime is much bigger than just restricting legal gun ownership and gun use. In essence you are simply talking about preventing or controlling crime. While an admiral goal, not very realistic. I think one of the best ways to reduce gun crime is to arm citizens. A armed society is a polite society.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17816) 1 year ago

As I said, gun nutters like yourself can find no solution.

Thanks for proving me correct once again.

I'm not going to reiterate my argument for insurance all over again.

You will find it in this thread.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-monitary-gun-solution/

What you are calling for is used for nuclear weapons. It's called MAD.

Mutually

Assured

Destruction

It's insane.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13432) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

M.A.D.

Oh yeah, I know that ggame . . . ittt makes ya nnnervous . . .

Right up till it kills ya . . .

hee haww mutherfuckers

we be ridin' this nuke right into oblivion

[-] 1 points by shooz (17816) 1 year ago

It's nothing personal about guns, I just feel for the victims, and the simple fact that NOTHING is done for them...........

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13432) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Sorry - I was just reacting to the M.A.D. thing. I get where you are at with the gun issue.

I had this image in my head, from the movie Red Dawn? Is that the one? With what'sisname riding the nuke right out the bomb bay door?

hee haww muther fuckers

It's the imagery - and has nothing to do with you. Honestly you might not be that cute.

But the imagery?

it makes my dick hard.

[-] 2 points by shooz (17816) 1 year ago

The movie is Dr. Strangelove..........:)

The rider was Slim Pickens...........:)

One of the most memorable final movie scenes of all time.

PS: I'm an ugly old fart that's just here to frighten the children.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34899) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Riding the nuke = Dr. Strange-love

Red Dawn = Patrick Swazi defends America from a Russian Paratrooper invasion ( Colorado? ).

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

hand grenades for all!

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34899) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Perhaps - flash bangs?

[-] -1 points by bestevidence (170) 1 year ago

A serious attempt you say? Who by? Not even Obama is going near gun control. Too toxic. Realize guns are here for keeps, that many of those who have them have purposes for them that may involve us. Stop smoking Opium.

[-] -1 points by Porkie (-255) 1 year ago

Truth is it's your guys doing all of the homicides, including the mass murders - do gyour history and stop using the media to spin the lies of deflated ego.

[-] 0 points by bestevidence (170) 1 year ago

Try that in English or any other known language.