Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Anti guns is pro 99%, here and around the world!

Posted 1 year ago on March 26, 2013, 5:58 p.m. EST by inclusionman (7064)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

236 Comments

236 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Cyprus has strict gun control. Private citizens are completely forbidden from owning handguns and rifles in any calber, even .22 rimfire. Only shotguns are allowed, and these require a license. Shotguns are limited to two rounds. The only shotguns typically sold in stores are double-barreled side-by-sides or over-unders. Pump actions and semiautomatics are prohibited. A private citizen can own a total of ten different shotguns. A citizen is not required to specify a reason for ownership to obtain a license, but most own their guns for hunting. Licenses are issued by provincial police. A gun license is required to buy ammunition, and ammunition sales are recorded. A shotgun owner may purchase up to 250 shells at one time. Cyprus also controls airguns, and airgun owners require a license.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-30/cyprus-firearms-laws

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

How's that workin out for them?

[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Looks like they are subjects of Fascist Government. We are in charge and we are taking what we want to ... support Our Powerful Government and Our Powerful Friends.

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Not sure your position on their gun rights. But clearly we agree facsism bad.!

Is anyone using their shotguns against the givt? Do you think the"fascists" would be behaving differently ifthe peoplewere better armed?

Why? for fear of being shot? You think an armed insurrection would be happening now?

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

No, I don't think there would be an armed insurrection if there were guns.

I think governments are more careful of their people if their people have a reputation of angry protests, of confronting politicians, of easy access to politicians and central bankers (that is why they have private limos and private planes), ... if politicians think they will be held accountable and that people have access to them, they won't steal from the people.

People with guns are not ready for insurrection. There is a big mental hurdle that prevents people from revolution or planning a vengeance. In fact we have been taught to listen to authority and behave in an orderly way through our institutions: school, church, community meetings, family, and government.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I agree we are conditioned to obey. And also to put up with more problems and less prosperity.

It takes a great deal to get people to rise up.

And we don't have a real mechanism of redress since election processes have been circumvented by the oligarchs.

The people of Greece, Spain, Cyprus probably have it worse than most people and come as close to rising up as any. ut even they have not truly done so.

So what are we left with?

[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Well if State Reps Wont' push for Redress of Federal Systems and allow populist State initiatives.... they should lose their jobs.

We don't really have National Referendums, National debates, Populist Selection of Debate Agendas, ... and we don't really have support from State representatives in demanding National Banking & Lobbying Reform... States are not Demanding Campaign reform...

States now need Money from National Banks, Wall Street, and the Federal Government. States have become corrupted through debt and the dependence on Funding from outside the state.

Wow, ... States are coopted and corrupted. State Leaders are caught in the dependence on outside Funding.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

No doubt states are corrupted. In NY it is mainly Wall st/bankster contributions/bribes. In Louisiana it is oil/gas mainly.

But it is always oligarchs.

Best thing we can do is get money out of politics, maybe then we can force change in election law, even implement referendum/direct democracy somehow.

[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

I just made my comment a new post... Getting into the mind of politicians shows need for reforms ... and new ideas on solutions.

But you R correct. Big Petroleum has ruled since Standard Oil. Big industry and Oligopolies Rule. They R ruled by Oligarchs. Politicians R Owned by Oligarchs through minions or proxies. Money is the tool of manipulation ... which must be acknowledged to draft proper law.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Agreed, politicians are cowardice lot. And they care more for their jobs than integrity and representing their constituents honestly.

These days they are just puppets of corp oligarchs.

Just look at the gun issue, most dems may defy corp gun interests, but the 6 or so who caved along with every republican is outrageous.

Monsantos protection act is even worse but just as obscene.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Yeah, there is an audio file called seeds of destruction... it seems to trace Cargil and Monsanto to the Rockefellers. In fact Henry Kissinger is from a Rockefeller Organization. In the beginning agriculture was a horizontal industry. It wasn't a monopoly. The producers were separate from the suppliers, and the food manufacturers. Today I guess they say it is vertically integrated in to Cartels. The radio Interview described how today we have food cartels. A few people own all the grains and crops when it is put on the market.

I guess you heard that Monsanto bought Blackwater security firm.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Didn't hear about the blackwater purchase but I've known about the dangerous foodopoly for a while.

Outrageous. There is much work to do.

[-] -2 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

Stop manufacturing consent. dickhead.

You use fake ID's to vote yourself up, and others down, to give a phoney impression that someone thinks you know what you are talking about.

If you don't like seeing this information, then the answer is simple; STOP DOING IT, DICKHEAD.

[Deleted]

[-] -3 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

It's the truth and you know it is, DM.

You should spend your time pretending you have some friends in the world.

OWS needs activists. Not pretenders. You are doing what the 1% do, by manufacturing consent. You've already been busted for doing it, and you're still doing it, you dickhead. You think we don't all see you doing it? What a cockhead you are, if you don't think we all see you voting for yourself.

COCKHEAD SUPREMO

[Deleted]

[-] -3 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

It's the truth and you know it is, DM.

You should spend your time pretending you have some friends in the world.

OWS needs activists. Not pretenders. You are doing what the 1% do, by manufacturing consent. You've already been busted for doing it, and you're still doing it, you dickhead. You think we don't all see you doing it? What a cockhead you are, if you don't think we all see you voting for yourself.

COCKHEAD SUPREMO

[-] -2 points by greysone (-264) 1 year ago

they also do not have a bill of rights . and of course no 2nd amendment

[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Oh, I don't know much about Cyprus. I got a few emails this year about property for sale in Cyprus and was clicking around looking at housing.

Jim Rogers new book is out and sounds like he believes the people in Washington DC don't know as much as naturalized immigrants about our history, economics, exchange markets, financial principals, ... like most of today's generation. He also says we will see Ivy league universities go bankrupt when the next financial shock hits us as the next bubble pops.

Rogers is saying in effect most people or at least all the younger people don't know our Declaration of Independence and don't know our Bill of Rights (first 10 ammendments to the Constitution)

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Rogers is usually on point, I always enjoy his interviews.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Clearly, the same Elite attitude exists in Europe & Cyprus as in Washington DC (City-State), and New York City (City-State).

In fact the Vatican Financial Scandals and historical Corruption as a City-State is much the same .... We are in charge and we will continue to do what we want.

I realize Governments must have power to pass laws, regulate business and individual actions ... if not Rule in Effect. But there is broad line or fine line somewhere where government should not cross.

Governments have the power to tax. We can argue if all kinds of taxes are fair and principled. The first Taxes might have been tarrifs or duties on goods sold not on services, not on property, not on inheritance, not on Income, not on capital gains... These days most in OWS agree that there should be taxes on Rent Seeking middlemen that don't benefit society by repackaging financial products.

But taking money, Property, not even through eminent domain,... taking money from banks or financial instruments is over the top.

This is suppression in Europe.

[-] 0 points by greysone (-264) 1 year ago

teachers dont teach it.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Here is a paradigm: If our government brought in Asian Technocrats to run our Federal Budget, provide new economic policy ideas, and reform Wall Street banking... the first thing would be to note and discuss the Long-term Future Obligations of our Federal Government.

But the corporate leaders will chide America publically for our poor education and etoll the virtues of Asian Tech Workers, Engineers, and Computer Tech employees. Corporate leaders won't demand fixes to the US Education and University Systems. And Government won't talk about the True state of Financial Risk in the USA or the Education System. Everyone is happy with dumb consumers and citizens ... and Casino gambling and re-hypothication on Wall Street ... and the Lawless Private Banking System that puts the risk on Social Safety Net Programs that the want to coopt and cut.

No one in the Federal Government that is at the Executive Level can be counted on to Talk Straight or Tell the Truth ... or to Lead the Nation.

Everyone is gaming the system. Especially the Politicians.

[-] 2 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

Consider that people kill people not guns.

Now, realize that behaviors are mostly controlled by the unconscious mind AND that psychology has NO specific treatment for that 86% of the mind. I was blown away last year by reading the lawsuit filed by Chris Brown trying to get federal courts to compel his county to follow state health and safety laws.

Uh what did the pro se civil rights plaintiff encounter at the US district court? A secret removal of a 130 year old court rule.

Why? After reading here, some of ChristopherABrowns posts, it was clear that governmental secrecy depends on the public ignorance of human unconscious potential.

People kill people not guns. To have court authority violating constructional rights when citizens seek the best medical care is soooooooo wrong. Therefore ALL govermental efforts to regulate guns are those who keep secrets, working to weaken us.

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Sounds you came up with that when you were unconscious.

People who kill people should not have access to guns. Conscious or not.

Register, license, background check every gun and imprison any who sell to criminals, or insane, & all who lose guns.

[-] 2 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

And without proper mental health care, people who suddenly decide to kill, will HAVE NO OPTIONS.

No gun control before proper mental health care is instituted. Malfeasing, neglectful government using knowledge of the unconscious for secrecy and treason CANNOT be empowered by action such as you describe and that is exactly what such actions do.

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

It's the truth and you know it is, DM.

You should spend your time pretending you have some friends in the world.

OWS needs activists. Not pretenders. You are doing what the 1% do, by manufacturing consent. You've already been busted for doing it, and you're still doing it, you dickhead. You think we don't all see you doing it? What a cockhead you are, if you don't think we all see you voting for yourself.

COCKHEAD SUPREMO

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

Some integrity? Hahahahahah.

Says the fuckwit that uses ten aliases to vote for himself?

You're a laugh a minute, dickwad. I'm sure you'll be a great help to your mother when you finally grow up.

[Deleted]

[-] -1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

You're engineering a disaster, fuckwit.

You don't have any right to manipulate this forum with multiple users, now fuck all your puppets off, and get back to one user like the rest of us here.

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

It is easy to see that you use more than five ID's, dickwad.

Stop your shit, and I'll stop mine.

Start your shit again, and I'll start mine.

Quite a simple formula, when you think about it.

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

It's the truth and you know it is, DM.

You should spend your time pretending you have some friends in the world.

OWS needs activists. Not pretenders. You are doing what the 1% do, by manufacturing consent. You've already been busted for doing it, and you're still doing it, you dickhead. You think we don't all see you doing it? What a cockhead you are, if you don't think we all see you voting for yourself.

COCKHEAD SUPREMO

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

This is on topic

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/04/02/1808661/un-nra-att-passes/

engineer your self off the ledge and contribute responsibly

[Deleted]

[-] -1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

It's the truth and you know it is, DM.

You should spend your time pretending you have some friends in the world.

OWS needs activists. Not pretenders. You are doing what the 1% do, by manufacturing consent. You've already been busted for doing it, and you're still doing it, you dickhead. You think we don't all see you doing it? What a cockhead you are, if you don't think we all see you voting for yourself.

COCKHEAD SUPREMO

[-] -3 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

amen

[-] -1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

Gun control is old, ongoing. Mental health care . . ., well, it hasn't even started.

I'm serious.

How can there be mental health care that does not address 86% of our mental capacity? Our unconscious existence. Currently, they refuse and courts violate the constitution to avoid being lawfully used to compel government mental health to follow state laws.

Forget the guns, think about our collective, material conscious world being hijacked by something society refuses to acknowledge it is comprised of?

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Art5!!!

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

Yes, ART5 is what we need it to be because we use proper logic to align and insist upon preparation whic logically increases the public capacity to know constitutional intent.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I knew it!

Who's behind this Art5 proposal ? Is it gettin anywhere? Is there a schedule for completion?

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

Any who believe in "alter or abolish" are behind it. Although the elite with $ have bought enough misinfo and misleading to make some people think you can alter or abolish without the law of ART5.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Is it gettin anywhere? Is there a schedule for completion?

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

Just before we become complete slaves or after the armed revolution, with the ows lack of strategy and the confusion the elite created with mass and alternate media.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

You are prepared to control the conversation by way of calling people unAmerican and by the use of the "our" but you do not wish to discuss your intentions if you do not achieve what you desire?

Don't you think that everyone should understand what it is that you are proposing as an alternative or is this merely an advertisement:

[-] 0 points by redandbluestripedpill (275) 59 minutes ago

If the right to "alter or abolish" is not used, then violent revolt is the only possible way to remain free.

I know the elite want people to think otherwise. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

When people post showing ignorance about the constitution, I try to find out if they are American or not.

"You are prepared to control the conversation by way of calling people unAmerican and by the use of the "our" but you do not wish to discuss your intentions if you do not achieve what you desire?"

Your statement is an error and a misrepresentation because my intention is always clear. ART5

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Again. You suck at deflection. Frankly, you have demonstrated ignorance of the constitution. You can't handle the questions.

[-] 0 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

An agent of infiltration would say that If they we're failing.

I saw how you shrunk from the principles of the constitution that parents embrace providing for the future of their child.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

You are prepared to control the conversation by way of calling people unAmerican and by the use of the "our" but you do not wish to discuss your intentions if you do not achieve what you desire?

Don't you think that everyone should understand what it is that you are proposing as an alternative or is this merely an advertisement:

[-] 0 points by redandbluestripedpill (275) 59 minutes ago

If the right to "alter or abolish" is not used, then violent revolt is the only possible way to remain free.

I know the elite want people to think otherwise. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

[-] 0 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

You get the cognitive distortion prize! Wow, not often do we see such a broad effort to cognitively distort in pretense of an assumed misrepresentation.

I haven't seen your comment on 1) of the logical preparatory amendments to ART5.

1) Ending the abridging of free speech. 2) Campaign finance reform 3) Secure the vote

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

"complete slaves"? "armed revolution"? Wow a it apocalyptic huh?

And criticism for this great OWS movement?

http://occupywallst.org/forum/occupy-wall-street-is-a-resounding-success/

So there is NO date certain?

And we should do nothing until Art5 happens? Sounds a great excuse for inaction.

[-] 2 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

To do nothing is what the elite recommend. I recomend Americans discuss constitutional intent in order to defend our rights and freedoms, then organize, unify and "alter or abolish".

Some people stood together and spoke, they were heard on alt media. That was the only success besides a few legislators realizing that the now plan was not quite working.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Well you suggest discussing ONLY your Art5 effort.

So that is why I ask when will you complete the process.

Just wanna know how long we gotta wait to discuss other things, and take other actions.

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

No. Discuss ART5 as a solution to problems.

The elite love it if we do not discuss effective solution. They would send people with ineffective solution or constant comaint and detail of problems to obscure solution.

That is treason.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

[-] 2 points by redandbluestripedpill (275) 5 minutes ago

To do nothing is what the elite recommend. I recomend Americans discuss constitutional intent in order to defend our rights and freedoms, then organize, unify and "alter or abolish".

Some people stood together and spoke, they were heard on alt media. That was the only success besides a few legislators realizing that the now plan was not quite working. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink


Your answer is to abolish through armed revolution?

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

[-] 0 points by redandbluestripedpill (275) 16 minutes ago

Just before we become complete slaves or after the armed revolution, with the ows lack of strategy and the confusion the elite created with mass and alternate media. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink


The armed revolution?

lolwut?

[-] 2 points by flip (6812) 1 year ago

so you are still banging the drum - anything interesting going on at this site lately? keep at it

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

[-] 1 points by flip (3725) 0 minutes ago

same old - no surprise. how are you doing - last I heard you seemed to be ok - still ok ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink


Absolutely groovy. You?

[-] 3 points by flip (6812) 1 year ago

just got back from skiing so things are good. the usual craziness with grandkids and work but almost all good. hang in there - doubtful I will be checking in too often but who knows I may find myself with too much time on my hands!

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

[-] 1 points by flip (3725) 6 minutes ago

maybe you misunderstood my original question - I was just saying that you are still on the site and fighting the good fight - or some sort of fight at least. I did not read any of the thread or your responses. I came on the site for the first time in months and saw your name up there near the top and thought - wow - she is still at it - no disrespect intended. I would like to know if there has been anything interesting going on here lately - seems to me more of the same with some new faces pushing the same old reactionary arguments ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink


OIC.
Those new faces are the old faces. Wash, rinse, repeat. Faux rage. Distraction and lots of BS. Oh, and lots of reinvent the wheel crap.

[-] 2 points by flip (6812) 1 year ago

same old - no surprise. how are you doing - last I heard you seemed to be ok - still ok

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

It's a simple question.

[-] 3 points by flip (6812) 1 year ago

but is the answer simple

[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

[-] 1 points by flip (3725) 0 minutes ago

but is the answer simple ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink


Is it? This is the part where you tell me.

[-] 3 points by flip (6812) 1 year ago

maybe you misunderstood my original question - I was just saying that you are still on the site and fighting the good fight - or some sort of fight at least. I did not read any of the thread or your responses. I came on the site for the first time in months and saw your name up there near the top and thought - wow - she is still at it - no disrespect intended. I would like to know if there has been anything interesting going on here lately - seems to me more of the same with some new faces pushing the same old reactionary arguments

[-] -1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

If the right to "alter or abolish" is not used, then violent revolt is the only possible way to remain free.

I know the elite want people to think otherwise.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (275) 1 minute ago

If the right to "alter or abolish" is not used, then violent revolt is the only possible way to remain free.

I know the elite want people to think otherwise. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink


Do tell. That is a fascinating concept.

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

If you want your children to inherit your assault weapons, they require a background check - just like anyone else


From Diane Feinstein:

Requiring background checks on assault weapon transfers

The Assault Weapons Ban only prohibits assault weapons not yet manufactured. However, an estimated 18 million to 35 million assault weapons have already been legally manufactured. The Justice Department estimates that loopholes allow approximately 40% of these items to be transferred to new owners without background checks. That means 7 million to 14 million assault weapons are owned by individuals who have not undergone background checks.

The Assault Weapon Ban closes these dangerous loopholes by requiring background checks on all transfers of assault weapons covered by the legislation including sale, trade, gift, etc.

The Assault Weapons Ban requires that grandfathered assault weapons be stored safely using a secure gun storage or safety device to keep them away from criminals and the mentally ill.


So, if, today, I have a LEGAL LICENSED fully automatic machine gun, and I die, can my son inherit that gun without passing the same FBI background checks that I passed?
Of course not.

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I support the background check even in that case, & any private transfer.

I don't see the problem. It is not a 2nd amendment infringement.

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

The problem is that the gun nuts parrot the spews from wayne that say that Feinstein's bill makes it impossible for your children to inherit your guns.
I support background checks for gun OWNERS

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I know. NRA/gun MFG are still very powerful. We've only seen a crack in their armor.

There are a handful of Dems in red states that are afraid of them.

And of course Repubs all walk in lock step.

I don't know what has to happen but in a year or so there will be another opportunity to retire some gun profits over people pols.

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

what can happen = HR29 disconnect democracy from crapitalism

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I support HR29

[-] -3 points by freakzilla (-161) from Detroit, MI 1 year ago

If we only had a sensible intelligent and brave political party in charge of the WH and the Senate.... Sigh. Maybe one day.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Should we charge gun Mfg this healthcare cost?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/28/gun-violence-costs-health-care_n_2965248.html

Seems fair. no?

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

At this moment I am watching Obama demanding more gun control.
I know I am guilty of ranting against the Rs, but I have also posted complaints about Ds - especially Reid's not chucking the filibuster.
But the real problem is the obstructionists in th republiclan party
and I hope WE wake up and ELECT more D in the house



Those who can't - rant
Those who can - DO
.
If you really want something done -
let your senators and congress.people
know what you want done..
.
Even if you do not know their names
you can call them at 202-224-3121
.
write to US House , Washington DC 20515 write to US Senate , Washington DC 20510 .
each member has their own website for email


[-] -3 points by freakzilla (-161) from Detroit, MI 1 year ago

You seem to care more about Reid and the filibuster than about Reid and the NRA.

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

the filibuster will contaminate the senate for at least a year
with the Reid/nra - separating the pieces seems like the best way to get something done
I'm waiting to see if he puts the assault weapons ban up for a vote
I'm guessing he will

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Excellent advice.

Pressure ALL pols for the gun policy the best serves the 99%.

[-] -2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

destruction cannot be profitable

it only destroys goods, properties and people

war is used to take from others

it produces nothing on it's own



building bombs 'til bunkers boil

getting paid for shell filled toil

if I am to work tomorrow

lobe the load on foreign soil


yep US only pays 41% of the total world military budget

World Military budget in Billions (percent total) by Nation

  • 1,630 World Total
  • 711 United States 41%
  • 143 China 8.2%
  • 71.9 Russia 4.1%
  • 62.7 United Kingdom 3.6 %
  • 62.5 France 3.6%
  • 54.5 Japan 3.3&
  • 48.2 Saudi Arabia 2.8%
  • 46.8 India 2.5%
  • 46.7 Germany 2.8%
  • 37.0 Italy 2.3%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures


Global Arms Sales By Supplier Nations

39% United States

18% Russia

8% France

7% United Kingdom

5% Germany

3% China

3% Italy

11% Other European

5% Others

http://www.globalissues.org/article/74/the-arms-trade-is-big-business#GlobalArmsSalesBySupplierNations


TOP 10 Arms Produces

Notes: An S denotes a subsidiary company. A dash (–) indicates that the company did not rank among the SIPRI Top 100 for 2009

  • Lockheed Martin USA 35,730 33,430 78
  • BAE Systems UK 32,880 32,540 95
  • Boeing USA 31,360 32,300 49
  • Northrop Grumman USA 28,150 27,000 81
  • General Dynamics USA 23,940 23,380 74
  • Raytheon USA 22,980 23,080 91
  • BAE Systems Inc. (BAE Systems, UK) USA 17,900 19,280 100
  • EADS Trans-European 16,360 15,930 27
  • Finmeccanica Italy 14,410 13,280 58
  • L-3 Communications USA 13,070 13,010 83
  • United Technologies USA

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/mar/02/arms-sales-top-100-producers


Widow Winchester's riffle wealth warped her house.

Stairs to ceilings. Windows to walls.

Always slept in a new room,

hiding from shot souls

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by highlander10 (-16) 1 year ago

No thank you

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

C'mon we need your help to end this obscene destructive worldwide industry.

[-] -1 points by highlander10 (-16) 1 year ago

arms trade, semi-automatic bans. It does not address the problem itself - humanity and the socioeconomic factors that affect humanity. You ban weapons, or arms trading, and humans will find other ways to whack each other over the head.
Also, one of the huge pros of the AK-47 when it came out in the 1940s was its ease of production. I am leary of the UN, but if they have to be in existance at all, then lets focus on economic growth and individual empowerment, the whole age-old notion of teaching people to farm, etc

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Sure I support farm education, but we MUST end the destructive war mongering we engage in when we sell arms around the world.

[-] 0 points by highlander10 (-16) 1 year ago

What I am saying, unfortunately, is that it will not do much good. Warfare is as much an integral part of humanity as breathing. I have read about some ingenious homemade rockets being used by the Free Syrian Army. I sincerely wish war were not part of this world. But to hope for that would be to ignore reality.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Yeah sounds like a good excuse for inaction, but I KNOW we MUST start somewhere.

Unlike you I haven't given up and resigned myself to the inevitability of human nature.

[-] -1 points by highlander10 (-16) 1 year ago

Giving up is not the word. It is working with the hand being dealt at the time and making the absolute best of it.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Sure but we gotta keep fighting to change that situation. We can't throw our hands up and say "oh well that's human nature"

[-] -1 points by highlander10 (-16) 1 year ago

Humanity will be prone to war; prone to fighting. Many causes have been removed - dynastic battles like the War of the Roses, hopefully militaristic regimes in Germany and Japan. I want to see war gone as well and any reason to wage war. I imagine that I oppose international arms trading restrictions for the same reason I oppose assault weapon bans - it will have a minimum effect on violence and death and have more of an impact on legal activities or freedoms. And I do not see any existing treaties having an impact on Iran and North Korea.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

How do you feel about chemical weapons bans, landmine bans? Did that help?

And how about eliminating all nuclear weapons. any thoughts?

[+] -4 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Anyone who supports the 2nd amendment is Pro-american, anyone who wants it repealed is Pro-freedom.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 1 year ago

Hey, I thought it was a good comparison. You are saying, I believe, America does not have a monopoly on what entails freedom, just like freedom is not only described in the Constitution. I wish I could be free from fear of being shot in a heated dispute, but the Constitution says I don't get that freedom.

[-] 2 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

One of the problems in the gun debate is neither side is credible. Both sides are so full of venom that you can’t believe either side. You saying you can’t exercise free speech because you might get shot is the biggest bullshit statement I’ve heard in a while. In the future just tell the truth. More people will take you seriously.

[-] 4 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

From what I've heard, the purpose of the gun issue, as far as the powers that be are concerned, is to divide and conquer the people. That is, to get them all excited and hating each other over this issue, rather than to focus on more critical problems, such as the economy, and the people who are causing those problems.

[-] 2 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

I completely agree on the division. But I’m not sure I agree there’s a conspiracy to divide the people. Seems to me we already are divided on any number of issues; from gun rights, abortion, gay marriage, national economics and the list goes on. To say we are a divided people is an understatement. We wonder why our politicians can’t agree on anything while the people hate each other with such venom no reasonable discussion is possible. I don’t have a clue how to fix it.

On the gun debate, I don’t know I let myself get involved in these discussions. I own a total of four guns (shotgun, bolt-action hunting rifle, a revolver and a semi-auto pistol). I don’t have any plans to buy or sell any guns. I got what I need. I’m not a gun nut, just a guy who owns a few guns. Banning AR15’s wouldn’t affect me. Restricting magazine capacity would only effect my 20 round capacity pistol. I don’t care about background checks since I’ve not a criminal.

However, I do get irritated when someone starts talking about passing laws that accomplish nothing.

[-] 3 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Webster Tarpley wrote an interesting article on the conspiracy to divide the electorate using the gun issue. You may want to check it out:

http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/02/05/287372/obama-gun-gambit-and-medicare-attack/

Here's a taste:

Guns, we must never forget, are a wedge issue. Wedge issues were developed over several decades by Republican demagogues for the purpose of splitting and defeating the Franklin D. Roosevelt national coalition of urban areas, southern states, labor, ethnic minorities, and farmers which dominated US politics between 1932 and 1968.

Wedge issues were developed by Bush 41’s guru Lee Atwater, who started his career as an adviser to South Carolina Republican Senator Strom Thurmond, and were later perfected by Karl Rove of Salt Lake City, commonly known as the brain of George W. Bush. By raising wedge issues during political campaigns, Republican operatives found that they could deceive and paralyze the majority of the American people who might otherwise oppose reactionary policies.

[-] -1 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

Wow, that’s one of the best articles I’ve read in a while. A number of very good points. I made a copy of the article to read again later. However, while it provides some compelling arguments, it offers no hard evidence of a conspiracy.

Thanks for the link.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Glad you liked it. I think Webster Tarpley's blog is worth reading on a regular basis:

http://tarpley.net/

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6587) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

It's a classic diversion tactic. The government does it all the time. Get the people focused on a non-issue so we don't pay enough attention to the real issues.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Here's an interesting article on this, by Webster Tarpley:

http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/02/05/287372/obama-gun-gambit-and-medicare-attack/

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6587) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

That is a good article. I bookmarked it so I can read it a second time. And it is definitely a wedge issue being used to distract us from the severe problems of unemployment and the economy.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Glad you liked it. I think Webster Tarpley's blog is worth reading on a regular basis:

http://tarpley.net/

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6587) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Bookmarked as well. Thanks.

[-] 0 points by justiceforzim (-17) 1 year ago

Yepper. I cannot figure out exactly who Bensdad works for, as he has started at least 2 dozen anti guns threads here! Not one thread about ending gang related violence. The fact somebody feels entitled to spray a public area, killing innocent bystanders isn't pertinent I guess. Those damn guns have a mind of their own.

I personally think we need to bring back duels. Set up an area in cities with major gang problems and have Friday nite duels. The winner gets to clean up the blood and guts. Wasting someone from 10 paces might be a little harder than from a car, spraying a crowd. Would cut down on mistaken identity killings, too.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Something like the coliseum during the Roman empire?

[-] 1 points by justiceforzim (-17) 1 year ago

In a perverted sort of way. We have a violence problem in this country, not a gun problem per se. We are raising a generation of soulless children with no respect for life and sadly, so many think that removing guns will fix our souls.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Good points. So, how do you think we can rebuild into people?

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Good points. Have any ideas about possible solutions?

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6587) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Well put.

[-] 0 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

There's an atmosphere of mistrust and fear being pounded into American's heads via many sources of media. Do you take that into account with the violence issue?

[-] -1 points by gnomunny (6587) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

The media is absolutely responsible for part of it. I know this was directed at justiceforzim but I wanted to put my two cents into it.

In the mid '90's I couldn't figure out why the media was glorifying gang violence. It was one of those "does not compute" feelings. They were making minor celebrities out of thugs. Then when I started hearing stories about gangs fighting for turf in places like Omaha, NE I knew there had to be something fishy going on (ever been to Omaha?). Personally, and this may sound like conspiracy theory, I think it was akin to the CIA introducing crack into the ghettos.

[-] -1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

I read about the crack issue and Noriega quite some time ago.

One only has to look to the recent tragedy in New Orleans post hurricane Katrina to see the depth of hatred thinly veiled. "Heck'uva good job, Brownie." Indeed.

[-] -1 points by gnomunny (6587) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Indeed.

And for the record, Omaha, Nebraska is just about the last place where kids need to be battling over turf. So, yeah, definitely some deliberate social manipulation going on in regards to gang violence. All for a nefarious purpose, I'm sure.

[-] -1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

Nebraska is quite rural, compared to say, Brooklyn NJ, and it's hard to picture gang warfare in such a place. You'll always get some issues over "turf", but not like you will in city areas. My mind just went back to the old movie "The Wanderers", which covered so many bases, ethnic, classist, statist, and ageist, it blew me away at the time.

Might even watch it again, with an eye for propaganda memes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ll_-Q0Jxqaw

[-] -1 points by gnomunny (6587) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

That movie rings a bell, I'll have to check it out.

St. Louis is a lot bigger than Omaha and when I was growing up here in the '60's and '70's, there was no such thing as gang violence. Not youth gangs, that is. There's always been 'Mob' violence between opposing factions, though. Gang violence with youngsters really didn't start to occur until the '80's although I know places like New York, Chicago, and LA have had problems since the 19th century.

[-] -2 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

From below, yeah, Ken Wahl stars.

JFK assassination in the middle, which was weird because nothing was said about it, and a cameo from the people's poet, Bob Dylan, or a good lookalike, right near the end.

[-] -2 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

I'm watching the movie now.

So far, we've got the baldies, the wongs, the guineas, the coloureds, the ducktails, but no sign of an anglo yet. Maybe they're the baldies? The elder statesmen Italians are showing the younger crew how to be mobsters.

[-] -2 points by gnomunny (6587) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

I think I've seen that fairly recently. A young Ken Wahl seems to ring a bell. I'll bookmark it and check the beginning out tomorrow if possible.

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

"One of the problems in the gun debate is neither side is credible. "


GUNS – Facts & numbers & opinion & solution


FACTS: There is little difference between a gun owner and a gun buyer
There is no difference between a gun owned and a gun bought
The constitution does give some people the right to “bear some arms”
More Americans ( in absolute numbers & per capita ) are killed by guns than in almost any other country ( USA 11,000+; England 35 )
Almost no hunters hunt with semi-automatic weapons

“Assault weapon” is a term well defined in law but not well understood
Legislatures & courts ( including SCOTUS ) have set numerous limits on the 2nd amendment’s right to “bear arms”
Just like legislatures & courts ( including SCOTUS ) have set numerous limits on the 1st amendment’s right to “free speech” [ no “fire in a crowded theatre” ]

You can buy a revolver arm but not a grenade launcher arm
Australia & England both passed strict new gun control laws –
………and drastically cut their gun deaths
The nra uses its members to sell guns for the gun manufacturers
It is illegal to drive an un-registered car
It is illegal to drive if you are un-licensed
It is illegal to drive an un-insured car

The 1994 “assault weapons ban” did not work because it did NOT ban assault weapons – it only banned their sale or manufacture.


OPINIONS
The real problem never discussed:
It is not the gun sellers or the gun buyers – or even the guns - it is the gun OWNERS

I would divide most gun deaths into five categories:
the Sandy Hook mass murderers,
drug related street crime,
non-drug related street crime,
“personal” crimes of anger,
suicide.
Consider each one - all would be reduced if we reduced the number of guns ( and legalized drugs ). The complex, conflicting state laws and the huge number of guns owned by Americans makes confiscation ( that no one is advocating ) totally unfeasible

We need a uniform federal gun law
The “mental health” issue is an nra stall – unless they agree that everyone who OWNS a gun must be psychoanalyzed and certified “safe to own guns”.
The nra’s “American culture is different” is another stall – most countries have hunters, violent movies, citizen owned guns, violent video games, drugs.

Background checks & closing the gun show loophole will help –
but ONLY with new sales –
it does nothing about OWNERS – and there are 100,000,000 of them. If just 1/10 of 1% of them are crazy, that’s 10,000 crazy gun OWNERS!


SOLUTION: Based on reducing guns, not confiscation

1►
learn as much as you can about the numbers that prove what the solutions are

2►
demand a plan:

http://www.youtube.com/user/maigcoalition
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Za8SOVuGHs&list=UUu4Q7iE0z1Jw7yUjs56dvXA&index=1

alex jones – without his straight jacket!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XZvMwcluEg&feature=endscreen&NR=1

multi-millionaire gun manufacturer wayne lapierre who works for koch brothers & gets paid over $1,000,000 / year
to get his army of lemmings to keep buying guns.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dar6K2STVVQ

3►
DO: WRITE CONGRESS:

find your congresspeople

house:
http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
senate:
http://www.senate.gov/reference/common/faq/How_to_contact_senators.htm
VP Joe Biden, Gun Panel, 1600 Pennsylvania Av, Washington DC 20006


╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬


Dear ............................:

[ _ Y.O.U.R...I.N.T.R.O...H.E.R.E_ ]

While some people may want to confiscate guns, I don’t.
Here is a much more feasible approach.
It will not solve all gun problems, but it will
reduce the number of guns
and that will reduce the number of dangerous people who have access to guns -
and isn't THAT our real goal?

My proposal - for a NATIONAL gun law for all guns & owners:
My four points are SIMPLY based on seeing a logical parallel between cars & guns.

Please consider advocating these four steps below to help America with our 11,000+ gun disasters:


1►
all gun owners must be licensed & tested with all guns they own and pass a written test.

If you own a motor cycle, a dump truck, and a car - you are tested in each.
Require a written gun test - to guarantee the owner's understanding of gun laws
thus being forced to know the law - via the test – also means the police know who you are -
and you may be less likely to commit a crime or be careless when storing your guns

2►
every year, you must prove that you have gun liability insurance &
be background checked and prove that your gun is properly locked when not used.

Insurance should be at least as high as car insurance [ I would like at least $1,000,000 ]
You must prove your car insurance.
Require an annual back ground check ( with fee ) to verify your suitability to own guns.
Every gun must be locked in a gun case or have a trigger lock.

3►
as the owner of a gun, you are legally responsible for what is done with it.

You are required to report if your gun is missing within 48 hours,
The owner will be much less likely to leave a gun accessible to a family member or thief.

4►
every gun must be registered and tested & a sample fired bullet stored by the police

Knowing that your gun & its bullets are so easily traced will make you think before using it.

additionally -

Over ten bullet magazines are illegal to own { 2nd amendment has no relevance }

Gun fees [ licenses fees & registration fees & fines ] should be
high enough to create a very substantial gun buy-back program ($100-$500 / year)

Penalties must be very high in money ( equal to ten years fees ) & jail time -
especially after the first offense

No citizens ( except dealers & collectors ) need more than a small number of guns

Gun fees should be higher for more guns & for bigger guns.

But the nra may be in favor of this when the gun companies understand that gun owners
can get paid to turn in their old gun and will be able to buy a new gun -
with an INTEGRATED lock .

If we legalize drugs, we will clear out jail cells to fill with gun law breakers and
free up police "time" for real crime investigation

We WILL get higher compliance and lower opposition if we use high fees & buyback.

Take a position of reducing guns, like assault weapons such as semi-automatic rifles -
rather than punishing a gun nut who spent $10,000 on an armory.

LBJ proposed a gun plan similar to the above 4 point plan


Some real 2011 / 2012 gun statistics:

Americans own almost half of all civilian owned guns in the world.
Per 100,000: America: 88,880 guns owned ; 2.97 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: England.…: 6,200 guns owned ; 0.07 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: Austrailia: 15,000 guns owned ; 0.14 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: Canada…: 30,800 guns owned ; 0.51 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: France….: 31,000 guns owned ; 0.06 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: Japan……..: 1,000 guns owned ; 0.08 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: Israel……..: 7,300 guns owned ; 0.90 homicides Per 100,000


http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/period-ending-march-2012/rft-annual-trend-and-demographic-tables-2011-12.xls
The above link is to England police statistics - see table D19

The nra & its trolls are claiming that we will fail, where England & Australia succeeded in reducing gun deaths substantially by legislation.


Statistics clearly prove that the number of guns in a state or in a country adds to the risk of homicides.

More complex is the effect of gun laws and restrictions.

When Australia had a massacre in 1996 when 35 people were killed, gun laws were substantially strengthened and a major buy-back was instituted.
There has not been an incident in Australia since then.
Of course, they did not have the benefit of the nra.

In 2011, there were 11,000+ gun homicides in America
In 2011, there were 35 gun deaths in England

For 2011, the average Murder Rate in Death Penalty States was 4.7,
while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.1

For 2011, the murder rates were highest in red state regions:
Per 100,000: South 5.5 Midwest 4.5 West 4.2 Northeast 3.9

VERY IMPORTANT:
▬► The 1994 gun "ban" did NOT ban assault weapons.
▬►It banned the MANUFACTURE of assault weapons.
▬►For $300 you can buy a legal accessory to make an AR15 fully automatic (800rpm)

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said that there are "undoubtedly" limits to a person's right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, but that future court cases will have to decide where to draw the line. That line could be between you and an AR15.


And of course if we stopped money going from advocacy groups & corporations to buy politicians, this would be a very big step in the right direction
Watch our videos: Hedges, Kucinich, Warren, Chomsky , Sanders ,
Romney, Reich, Hartmann, Maddow, Nader, Feingold, Jefferson
And read our analysis of Corporate Personhood & Citizens United & evaluate the national polls that prove the truth. See the new HJR29


http://corporaionsarenotpeople.webuda.com

[-] 1 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

No, you misunderstand. I said the truth, not some scheme.

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

I clearly stated OPINIONS & FACTS
Are any of the FACTS not true?

Sort of like the gun nuts who say
"we" want to "punish" law abiding gun owwers
"we" will take away your guns
"we" want to repeal the 2nd amendment

Are any of the FACTS not true?

[-] 2 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

I believe all three of your examples are true. There IS a movement to punish gun owners. Some people really do want to take our guns away; and there are people wanting to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Your method seems to want to regulate them out of existence.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

punish gun owners how?

[-] 2 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

Wanting to ban guns, wanting to implement needless and ineffective gun restrictions, Implementing laws specifically intended to regulate guns out of existence. Wanting to remove the 2nd Amendment, wanting to demonize lawful and honest gun owners just because they own guns and the list goes on.

Make no misstate about it. A lot of people on this forum are quite vocal about their hate of gun owners. To those haters it doesn’t matter that gun owners are law abiding members of the 99%.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

already covered under taking their guns away

many countries buy the guns when the are banned

[-] 0 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

?? What's your point? Are you advocating taking guns away from law abiding americans?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

categorizations

If the gun owners are compensated , that would not fall under punishment

[-] 1 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

Taking someone's property under duress is punishment. Besides, this isn’t the UK or Australia, I suspect any effort to disarm American citizens would quickly become bloody.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

we're already bloody

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

I am advocating for gun owners to voluntary destroy thier weapons.

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

Do we PUNISH car owners when we require them to have insurance?
Can you name ANY elected politician who WANTS TO TAKE AWAY OUR GUNS?
Can you name ANY elected politician who WANTS TO REPEAL THE SECOND AMENDMENT?


these are all wacky wayne's talking points
can you back t hem up more honestly than he does?

[-] 2 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

Diane Feinstein is on record and on camera as saying she wants to remove all guns. She hasn’t said in recently, but I think she would if she could. I think the same for a number of politicians. No, I’m not going to search the internet for them. You can if you wish.

Insurance costs money. Why should gun owners need gun insurance? Most already have auto insurance, home insurance and health insurance. The intent of gun insurance is specifically to punish gun owners because some people don’t like guns.

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

Actually - it wasn't Diane Feinstein - it was Buggs Bunny

thank you wayne!

[-] 2 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

Actually it was Diane Feinstein. The video is on youtube. Look it up.

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

do you even know that a "ban" does NOT mean "take away" ?


Here is Diane:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6jQL84Ae18&feature=player_detailpage

She wants the same assault weapons ban that was passed years ago -
the gun BAN took away no guns -
it banned the manufacture or sale of assault weapons

[-] 0 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

You got the wrong video. The correct video is below. Also, she did not want the “same” assault weapons ban. The current ban is much more prohibitive in what it bans. It includse more weapons and gun features. This time she wanted to close all the loopholes.

Also, a ban is a slow way of getting rid of guns. It means you can’t manufacture, sell or buy a banned weapon. Under her present proposal you wouldn’t be able to will or leave the gun to someone else when you die. In effect when banned gun owners die the gun dies with them. So, over a generation the banned guns would be lost.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRblw29I14U

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

OK - maybe you found one - I would be curious to know why the segment you are using is edited down to a few seconds.
"Under her present proposal you wouldn’t be able to will or leave the gun to someone else when you die." Even if the person you leave the gun to is background checked?
That seems unlikely.
Do you have a link to her actual bill.?

[-] 1 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

No, I don’t have a link to the bill. But it has been reported many time in the press. If interested you could probably find it. Just look for the details of Feinstein’s recent bill.

I’m not sure, but I thought I published several links for you at one point where politicians and the MSM were calling for banning or confiscating ALL guns. Even a couple of bills have been submitted in a couple of states. I published the list for someone. I thought it was you.

So, rather than continue to beat a dead horse I’ll stop here. Be well my friend. Even though I disagree with you on guns, I admire your tenacity on the issue.

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

So as long as the "facts" you provide are true, then we should turn yet another right into a governmental mess that will eventually be destroyed.

I bet you were for the free speech zones at the RNC too eh? Or the gov telling you what day you are allowed to control your own body up to. Or recording all your activities because of the "fact" that there was a terrorist attack.

Please, go get involved with your local Dem party. Posting this constant pro state, pro centralized power nonsense here just doesnt make sense. ITs destroying the credibility of the site, and its damn near spam category now that you have posted it for the 400th time.

Anyone who was around last year and now wants to involve the police should have their head explored.

[-] 0 points by Stormcrow1 (-25) 1 year ago

Did you know that 9 people die every day texting - I guess they don't give a damm about the laws do they.

Think more control over people will change things?

Hitler did just that and look what happened -

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

██████░████.░░.█████.░░█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ █░░░█░ █░░░░█ ░.█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ █░░░█░ █░░░░█ ░.█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ ████░░ █░░░░█ ░.█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ █░░.█░░█░░░░█ ░.█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ █░░░█░ █░░░░█ ░.█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ █░░░█░ █░░░░█ ░.█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ █░░░█.░.█████ ░░█████░ █████


Do you have a TROLL problem?

here are some of its “tells” ►
attacking the poster - not the post
"re-interpreting" the post rather than quoting it ( ala faux noose )
using a gross generalization to “prove” a specific
lying [ often obviously ]
changing the subject
using mccarthyite accusations
afraid to answer questions


you could buy a mongoose or a roach motel, but here is a better way: ……………………………………….TROLL solution ►
……………………………………….IGNORE ANY POSTS FROM THE TROLL


[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

You;re out of your mind. Bullets stored by police? The same police that just attacked and arrested all of us?

[-] 1 points by justiceforzim (-17) 1 year ago

Maybe he only protests in gun free zones.

[-] 0 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 1 year ago

You blew that statement way out of proportion. It was more of a philosophical statement on who or what documents get to determine what freedom entails. It is not my fault that you are on some self righteous crusade to save your phallic symbol, so any talk to the contrary is seen as sacrilegious.

To be perfectly honest, I could care less what happens with guns. They are antiquated in my opinion. Not once has a gun enhanced nor hindered my rights and those who fight out right for their unregulated status or their regulated status, really need to get back to what's important. It's a distraction and a rallying call for the bases of the two parties.

Now, if you want to talk about freedom verses constitutionality, we can get back to the true point I was making. If eighty percent of a population vote to regulate a tool, does not freedom entail they should get that right. Ah, but at last, we are only as free as the Constitution dictates.

[-] 2 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

The Constitution and bill of rights has served us well for a long time. I’ll continue to support them. And as for telling the truth, I’ve never seen a poll saying 80% of Americans support gun bans. How did you come up with such a number?

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Divest from NRA/gun MFG

https://www.facebook.com/events/295181060611208/

Support Occupy action

[-] 2 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

Thank you, but no thank you. I'll keep my guns and stock investments.

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

We MUST put end to the gun mfg/dealers crimes of selling guns to criminals.

They put profits over people. We can force change by talking their language. The wallet!!

Divest NOW!

People before profits!!

[-] 2 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

It’s illegal to sell guns to felons. To do so is a federal offense. Also, in some states it’s illegal to do straw purchase guns. So, If you know of someone doing this you should turn them in. I would.

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

If only we could keep track of the 40% of sales that occur without background checking.

I think also we must prosecute MFG/dealers who lose track, or lose gins.

It's too important to be losing thousands every year.

[-] 3 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

I’ve never heard of gun shops or manufactures losing track of guns. Once they’re legally sold the gun shops have no responsibility to trace them. There’s an estimated 80 million gun owners and between 250 – 300 million privately owned guns in the US. It would be a insurmountable task to track all of them.

Since we don’t require gun registration we don’t really know how many guns there are; or who owns them. And if you think gun owners would comply with registration I have a bridge I to sell you.

I agree it’s important to keep guns away from criminals, gangs and mentally unstable folks. But we already have laws for that.

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

The laws are obviously inadequate. but you are correct that it would difficult (not insurmountable) to track every gun.

Of course difficulty is no excuse for inaction.

[-] 2 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

So what action would you propose that could pass Congress and be accepted by the majority of citizens? Not being a smart ass. But if know a way to reduce gun crime while not infringing on law abiding gun owners you should become a politician.

From my prospective the problem is neither side of the gun debate trusts the other. Gun owners know the anti-gun end game is to confiscate guns. The anti-gun folks think gun owners are being unreasonable not to accept some gun restrictions.

As with most political and social issues these days, there is no compromise on either side of the gun debate. It’s just another issue where Americans are so divided nothing but hate is accomplished.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Thanks

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

EVERY gun registered, licensed, & tracked. 1st gun crime after that and the people who sold it to the criminal go to jail for 10 years. That'l end the guns being sold to known criminals.

[-] 1 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

I agree that selling guns to known criminals should have stiff penalties. It’s already illegal, so maybe just stiffer sentences. I would broaden that to include straw buyers.

But how in the world would tracking and registering guns stop gun crime. Do you think criminals care about laws? Again, I ask what gun registration accomplishes?

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

We MUST get control of every gun in the country. Not confiscate. But register, license, & track every single gun for the sake of our children.

We'll just have to disregard the hate, and paranoia and do the right thing.

[-] 1 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

Registration isn't on the table. Even Feinstein knows registration can't happen. Besides, most gun owners would't comply.

But, for the sake of argument, what would gun registration accomplish? Do you seriously believe it will lower gun crime?

Registration is a precurser to confascation. The people wouldn't tolerqte it. Hate and paranoia abounds on both sides of the gun debate.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

40% of guns are sold without any background checks so how wouldanyone know a buyer is a known criminal.

Keeping track will prevent this loosy goosy situation that allows for easy sale without gettin caught.

Tougher laws will not work if we can't keep track ofevery gun.

And also stiff penalties for lost guns, or poor record keeping, negligence, etc.

[-] 2 points by justiceforzim (-17) 1 year ago

Bogus stat that Obama keeps spouting. Study was flawed. And of course you realize only USED guns that are already connected to the original purchaser (assuming they are less than 20+ yrs old). You cannot get a nib gun without a background check nowhere nohow.

Since private sales are by their nature, private it takes a very well constructed study to come close to estimating this number. See:

http://factcheck.org/2013/03/guns-acquired-without-background-checks/

[-] 2 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

Sigh, Never going to happen. Not even Obama, Feinstein or Biden are calling for gun registration. They understand it wouldn’t work. The non-compliance would be so big you’d have to double the capacity of the prison system to hold all the people who wouldn’t register their guns. I think you fail to understand how resolute gun owners not to register their guns.

As for background checks, I grudgingly would go along with universal background checks. Even though it wouldn’t have any impact on gun crime. At least it stop all the anti-gun whining. I suggest you start think about what would actually have an impact on gun crime. Setting up a bureaucracy specifically to hassle law abiding gun owners accomplishes nothing.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Whatever you say boss.

[-] 2 points by justiceforzim (-17) 1 year ago

Wouldn't you agree we should also prosecute DOJ employees when they deliberately hand thousands of guns to the cartels? The only reason they stopped was because of a brave and now beleaguered whistleblower with the ATF. Fast and Furious is a disgrace and has gone unpunished.

Save your breath over Bush's widereceiver. That program used tracking devices on the guns and it only took a couple HUNDRED lost, not THOUSANDS and NO WHISTLEBLOWER for them to pull the plug.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I think you repubs investigated that and came up with nothing.

But I certainly agree we should prosecute anyone selling guns to criminals.

[-] 1 points by justiceforzim (-17) 1 year ago

Actually, between Peace Prize Manchurian President wrongly invoking executive privilege (wrongly since he claimed no involvement and ep only applies to his actions) and the contempt of Congress charges that are being slow walked against Holder, yes, it has yet to come up with anything.

But SOMEONE in the doj ok'd and ran the project and no one has been disciplined....unless a few patsies changing offices counts.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

"manchurian President"? Are you suggesting he is a hypnotized, sleeper agent waiting to do the country harm?

[-] 2 points by justiceforzim (-17) 1 year ago

Waiting????? ha ha ha You live under a rock? No, probably couldn't spend your days here....you need to check some other websites out between swtiching socks and read what's been happening the last 4+ yrs

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

So you are a conspiracy theory guy? You think Obama is a secret muslim born in Kenya?

[-] -2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 1 year ago

All right dog, I'm starting to believe you have a reading comprehension problem. When did I say eighty percent of the population wanted to ban guns? I hate to break it to you, but regulation does not mean confiscation. That's just a slippery slope argument your gun enthusiast peers love to make.

Anyways, this topic has bored me, so I'm going to bounce out and give the floor to you. You go get 'em. I just hope there will still be money enough for you to buy those guns you covet after Wall Street finishes its shock doctrine. Good day!

[-] 4 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

Be well my friend. The topic tend to bore me also. We’re not going to agree so what’s the point. By the way, I don’t like Wall Street any more than you do. But I still invest and make money in the market. And I have lots of guns and don’t any more right now.

[-] 0 points by justiceforzim (-17) 1 year ago

This isn;t a democracy (tyranny by the majority)...it's a republic. OWS recently gave up consensus direct d, no sure what sort of majority they now require.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 1 year ago

Yes, I know all about the Constitutional Republic that I call home and how it is more like Rome and less like Athens. The only reason I posted was because I thought the comparison HCabret made was interesting. I wasn't trying to argue that one system was superior to the other, just how they are different.

[-] -3 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Guns have nothing to with speech and everything to do with violence. The 2nd amendment makes violence legal.

Murder is legal in Florida and any other state with castle doctrine and stand your ground laws.

[-] 2 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

OH bullshit. You can't really believe you shouldn't protect yourself if threathened? If some gang banger is climbing through your window at 3:AM are going to invite him in for coffee? Or maybe the woman accousted on the street by a couple of thugs should just tell them she sorry society has been unfair to them.

Jeez, you need to get a grip on the real world. Once you start living in reality you'll probably buy a gun or two.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

we all live in reality

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Violence is ALWAYS wrong, no matter the situation.

I honestly believe that.

Violence doesnt all of sudden become justified just because its use benifits me. It is always wrong.

I would rather die than lower myself to the level of a violent criminal.

[-] 1 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

Self defense is not a crime. However, I agree, it could be violent. We’re very far apart here. I will readily use violence to defend myself or others if the need arises. Yes, in some situations violence is justified; and the law agrees with me.

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Killing another human being in self-defense is legal and socially acceptable as of yet.

I think that killing is always wrong no matter who is getting killed. You think that it is okay to kill another person when you feel like they may potentially wish to do the same to you.

Castle doctrine, stand your ground and other self-defense laws only make violence and murder legal.

[-] 0 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

No, The castle doctrine and stand-your-ground allow to defend yourself within the law.

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

That is what I said. Those laws make murdering in self defense legal.

Lots of immoral things are 'legal'.

[-] -2 points by greysone (-264) 1 year ago

if you had a child and that child ws threatened by someone with a gun and you had a gun, you would let your child die instead of you shooting the person threatening to kill your child?

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

First of all, I wouldnt have a gun in the first place.

Second of all I would(am) try(ing) my hardest to prevent such a situation from happening in the first place by advocating for gun owners to voluntarily destroy thier weapons and for gun manufacturers to cease making guns(many of which end up in the hands of criminals).

I beleive that killing is always wrong no matter the situation.

[-] -1 points by greysone (-264) 1 year ago

criminals will always have guns,.................criminals break laws,.....that why they are criminals. So, you would not shoot a man that is threatening to kill your child , you would let your child die.

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

as long as it is legal to manufacture guns in mass in this country, criminals will be able to get their hands on at least some of those guns.

No I would not murder someone else to prevent myself from being murdered. I dont have a child as I am only 20 and dont really want a child right now, so I cant speak to any hypotheticals concerning my non-existant child that I dont have. I also cannot speak for you. If you feel that murder is the correct way to stop murder, then by all means feel free to shoot. I, however, will not fight fire with fire.

[-] -3 points by greysone (-264) 1 year ago

you are a " useful idiot".

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 1 year ago

You need to read more, or if you're rich, travel. I spelt it right. At least they are not just plain idiots.

http://grammarist.com/spelling/learned-learnt/ http://grammarist.com/spelling/spelled-spelt/

You call it a script I call it research.

[-] -3 points by greysone (-264) 1 year ago

Are you in England? If not, it's "spelled" , not " spelt"."Useful idiots" are useful up until they fulfill their purpose, then are they are the first to be done away with by those that have knowingly used them.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 1 year ago

You throw that word around like you just learnt it yesterday. I prefer to be called the "greater fool". It invokes courage of conviction. I may go down in a blaze, but at least I did what I thought was right. You realize calling people names only satisfies your ego and has no power of persuasion.

[-] -3 points by greysone (-264) 1 year ago

It's a phrase, not a word. Learned, not " learnt". The useful idiots of ows will never be persuaded, they have a script and an agenda and nothing will change that.

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Please respond to my comments constructively..

Calling me idiot will only make me angry, it won't help further your pro-2nd amendment agenda.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28124) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

[-] 0 points by greysone (-113) 4 minutes ago

Are you in England? If not, it's "spelled" , not " spelt"."Useful idiots" are useful up until they fulfill their purpose, then are they are the first to be done away with by those that have knowingly used them. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink


Useful idiots" are useful up until they fulfill their purpose

Being a useful idiot "YOU" were smart enough to pick that cherry - but apparently to stupid to see that it pertains to "you".

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

You ain't makin sense. And you sound like a paranoid right wing shill.

No one is talkin about repealing any amendments.!

[-] -2 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

I'm talking about repeal. Am I not someone?

If being anti-murder makes me a "paranoid right wing shill", then so be it.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

No one making proposals is talkin about repeal. Only the NRA is spewing that fear mongering in order to increase gun manufacturers profits.

[-] -2 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

By that extension. Since you believe that no one is anti-2nd amendment, then no os pro-freedom either.

Anyone who supports the 2nd amendment is pro-murder, anyone who supports the repeal is pro-life.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

You're not makin sense again.

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

I said "Anyone who supports the 2nd amendment is Pro-american, anyone who wants it repealed is Pro-freedom."

You said "No one is talkin about repealing any amendments.!"

Therefore by your logic because no one wants the 2nd amendment repealed, then no one is pro-freedom.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

That much is clear.

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

So what is your objection to repealing the 2nd amendment and why did you not recognize the fact that I am someone who wants it repealed?

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

You don't make sense.

[-] 2 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

You say you are 'anti-guns', yet you defend the 2nd amendment. You are the one who doesnt make any sense.

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

If you say so.

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

How can you be 'pro-gun' and 'anti-gun' at the same time?

That is the part that makes no sense.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Good luck in all your good efforts.

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

I'll keep trying until you do.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I think we have 11k gun deaths per year.

I support laws to track, register, background check, & license all gun sales as well as stiff penalties for violations of these laws.

This WILL reduce the number of guns that criminals get, and the number of killings.

[-] -2 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

It will Reduce but will not Eliminate gun deaths. I think 1 is too many.

I want gun owners to voluntarily destroy their weapons.

[-] -2 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

Stop manufacturing consent. dickhead.

You use fake ID's to vote yourself up, and others down, to give a phoney impression that someone thinks you know what you are talking about.

If you don't like seeing this information, then the answer is simple; STOP DOING IT, DICKHEAD.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

You will not convince me that the right approach is repealing the 2nd amendment. Feel free to move on to your next 'one person at a time'.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

I'm still working on you. I still haven't convinced you that you are wrong yet.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I disagree. You will have to repeal the 2ndamendment. That ain't gonna happen.

What's you plan to do that?

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Ill try to convince one person at a time until I achieve my goal. Im working on you right now.

There only needs to be one person to change the world.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I disagree. It is absolutely NOT easier to ban the manufacture or sales of guns.

Sorry. We can barely get background checks

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Compared to getting Americans to stop glorifying guns the military and violence. Yah it is much easier than that.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

So we must address the cultural desensitivity to violence?

Ok. I can't disagree with that.

Of course for me the bigger concern is the fact that we do nothing to charge and jail the gun trafficker/straw sales to criminals, and make little effort to prevent gun loss which numbers in the thousands per year.

So I agree with your cultural point and prioritize stopping sales to criminals.

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

It is much easier however to outlaw the manufacture of guns that it would be for Americans to stop glorifying murder.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

We can't prevent every gun death.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

That is because we have decrinalized violence in this country. Gun murder is preventable, just like type 2 diabetes is preventable.

The problem is that Americans are addicted to guns and violence. We glorify and reward violence in the military and in video games. Pro-life people are chastised when they denounce gun owners and the violence they perpetrate every single day.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

We must do a better job of controlling gun sales/trafficking in order to keep them away from criminals.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Wayne LaPierre is right when he says that these 'gun control' measures will not prevent criminals from getting guns.

Criminals will get the guns that are made legally by gun manufactuerers right here in the good ole US of A, no matter what 'gun control' measures there are.

People need to wake up and smell the coffee. According to Slate, 3292 of our fellow human beings have been killed via a gun. 1 death was too many. When will it end?

The people making the guns are the problem. The NRA, the US government and the hunting lobby enable criminals and make it easier to kill someone with a gun.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

"How can you be in favor of guns rights, but want to limit gun rights at the same time?"

Easy, I support the right to own guns but not without restrictions.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Restricted gun rights still retain the basic right to manufacture guns. The criminals arent making thier own guns. The 2nd amendment enables criminals and murderers.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

You are clearly confused. I am not anti gun because I support an arms treaty. I am not pro gun because I support the 2ndamendment.

Sorry I can't subscribe to your flawed logic.

But enough about me. What do you think of the arms treaty?

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

the second amendment explicitly gives americans the right to own guns. by claiming to support it, you also support gun rights.

How can you be in favor of guns rights, but want to limit gun rights at the same time?

Its either or. The only reasonable gun control is no guns at all.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

When did I say I am "pro gun"?

Stop makin things up. Stick to the truth.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

You said: "No one is talkin about repealing any amendments.!"

Therefore you dont want to see the 2nd amendment repealed.

Therefore you are "pro-gun".

You also stated you advocacy for "a strong world wide arms treaty"

therefore you are "anti-gun"

How can you both want a world wide ban on guns, but still want to retain the right for people to own and use guns?

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

How do you get from requesting support for a worldwide arms treaty to stating that I said I am anti gun.?

Is your position so weak you must make up things?

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Either way.

You can't be "pro gun" and "pro gun control"

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I did answer.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/anti-guns-is-pro-99-here-and-around-the-world/#comment-953702

When did say I was 'anti gun'? Please let me see the link.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Your thread says "Support Amnesty in their efforts to pass a strong world wide arms treaty."

You support gun control, but you want the 2nd amendment to remain part of the us constitution. How is that not a hypocritical statement?

I can have guns and use them as I please, but you can't.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

You did. You don't behave like you like me.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

You never answered my question: how can you claim to be "anti-gun", yet be "pro-2nd amendment"?

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Namecalling only shows your inability to argue the issues in a civil way.

Sorry, You lose.

NEXT!!!!!

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Who called anyone names? I like you!?!?!

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

It's like a conundrum, wrapped in a riddle.

or is that enigma?

Who knows?

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Hippokrate. U r a HIPpo Kryte if I saw one.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I think you said that already.

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

You said it: you said you support the 2nd amendment, yet you are "anti-gun. How is that possible?