Politicians/Media Refuse "proudly Gun Free" Sign

He's talking about Operation Fast and Furious, the DoJ/DEA attempt to track guns upstream to high ranking members of the Central American cartels.

It was a horrible idea.

The incident where American law enforcement were allegedly selling guns to Mexican cartels.

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

On a side topic I'd turn pro-gun for Vin Diesel! lol

Thanks. Makes a lot more sense in context.

I wouldn't say it was so much of bad idea as a horrible execution of the idea.

How many people were killed from the guns that Eric Holder sold to the drug cartels? It's OK they were only Mexicans right? Well mostly. What did President Obama knwo about it? He says nothing yet invokes Executive Privilege on the documents in regards to the Operation. That's kinda strange isn't it? As a concerned American who advocates stronger gun control this concerns you right?

"Big government, big lies, forget it man. POWER TO THE PEOPLE!"

Was anonymous legally free to post the WBC's personal information online, with the freedom of info act ? Getting the information however they did Im sure wasnt legal, but posting it on the internet was.. ? Serious q, I dont know much about about the freedom of information tbh.

I think legality wasn't the point here, and imo not the point there either.

is it legal to post registration information? probably, not sure. Was it a good idea? nope, was it a good thing for society? nope.

is it legal to obtain information about wbc and post it online? first part: most likely the way they obtained it: nope, posting it online? not sure. good idea? probably not. Good thing for society? depends on who you ask.

No, that's how effective science is.

Retards that play with blanks are exactly that. Its their fault, and Darwin at its finest, when they die because they don't have a basic understanding of the functioning of the weapon.

Guns aren't toys. Don't treat them as such.

Wasnt a loaded q, just simply wondering how all encompassing the freedom of information act is. I dont care about this particular news cast, nor wbc.

Like, if I didnt like my neighbor, could I post his private information all over the internet in whatever way I saw fit with out consequences, or vice versa ? or are there limitations to what information people can publicize about other people? Was hoping for a simple answer before I went fishing.

edit: neighbor example is just an example too.

USA= 5% of the worlds population, USA= like so many gun violence deaths, oh wait the NRA and the republican party has blocked any attempt at data collections on said issues... OH wait its all the gangsters... but we dont support any data collection. 1999 the NRA says NO GUNS IN SCHOOLS OR EVEN LIKE CLOSE TO SCHOOLS... NOW lets arm the janitors... those secret agent men!

I personally dont give a rats *** if you think your safer with a gun or not. You think the second amendment supports your right to have a gun (it doesn't mitlita man!), but you ignore my rights in the constitution to live in a friggin country where I am safe from you wanna be Dirty Harry's!

You people are deranged and need help!

the 2nd amendment does protect a private citizen's right to own a gun.

you don't have the right to feel safe, sorry.

You need to seek some help about trying to limit other people's rights because you are so scared of the "big bad gun."

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" - Benjamin Franklin

don't get me wrong, I'm also against the TSA.

and I don't know what the *** you're talking about blocked data collection, there is well documented data on violent and gun crimes.

Not so sure about gun/violent crimes separated outside of the organized/gang crime spheres, sad too as I'd really like to see that data.

Singularly, no, it would not "solve" any problem. Hence the suggestion to address both issues simultaneously. (Will this happen in any meaningful way anytime soon? Of course not!)

even combined what you're suggesting would do more harm than good.

So the ideal solution (whatever that would be, if one even exists) does not address firearm accessibility at all?

to do that you'd have to agree that the accessibility of firearms is a problem, and to whom?

I don't agree that the accessibility of firearms to law abiding citizens is a problem.

All your opinion, being stated repeatedly as fact, when the only backup has been an attitude of "because I wanna be right!!"

There was a lot of talk earlier about how if someone broke into your house, people would rather have a gun than wait for police, because the armed robber would kill you before the cops showed up.

The problem with that line of thinking is you're only thinking about people who are specifically coming into your house with the goal of killing you. A normal robber doesn't care one way or another about you, and certainly isn't going to go out of their way to kill you when all they want is an xbox they can sell. Someone who is just there to rob you will be frightened off by am alarm, by the sound of people home, etc. If there is an armed burglar in your house, you are also NOT under the obligation to face them in mortal combat.

Your job is to keep you and your family alive, not live out some John McClane fantasy where you snipe them before they get the draw on you. You hide, get in a safe place, and hide for the few minutes you need for police to arrive (assuming you don't have an alarm like you should and you had to call 911).

Thinking that a strange noise in the kitchen means it's your chance to finally gun-up and open fire at the shadowy figure in the dark is how those stories happen where the father shoots their kid who's sneaking in late after curfew.

But of course, the entire thought process of "a possible confrontation??? You better believe it's GUN TIME!" and an inability to consider more logical and reasonable outcomes is one of the major problems America is facing in the first place with this whole issue.

No, history has proven that, if you want proof open a damn history book, stripping citizen's rights away in an attempt to promote "security" only leads to 1 thing.

The thing is: you never know what their intention is, you don't know if they're armed, not armed, that's the point you don't know.

as to your scenario:

tell that to the woman in Georgia who had to shot the intruder when the police were still on the way. I don't trust police with my safety, I've had too many run ins with bad/incompetent cops.

I love how you cite logic, and claim law abiding citizen's owning weapons is a "major problem in America."

It takes several minutes (if you're lucky) for police to arrive, it takes a fraction of that for somebody to break in and harm you.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/05/my-wife-is-a-hero-georgia-mother-shoots-home-intruder-five-times-after-being-cornered/

So again: you can attempt to defend yourself by calling the police, don't expect us logical people who understand the world doesn't work that way to be unprepared.

Hmm, accessibility is probably too broad of a term. I would be referring to the availability of high-risk individuals to firearms and your own admitted ease of purchasing them illegally. Law-abiding citizens are not the problem unless they cease to remain law-abiding or were not law-abiding in the first place. Therefore addressing both the former and the latter seem to be a prudent course of action.

I'd like to point out that the 2nd amendment wasn't aimed at making sure we could hunt, go plinking at the range, or even defend ourselves in our own homes. If you read the writings of the Founding Fathers, you'll find that they wanted to ensure that the people could throw off a government that had become tyrannical. That is the true purpose. It is also why I believe every citizen with out a criminal record or debilitating mental condition should have armament equal to that of the military, as they did in the late 18th century. Kind of hard to boot out a tyrant when you have a bolt action with 7 rounds while their minions have fully automatic weapons with 30-100 round magazines.
Thomas Jefferson:
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

I'm pretty sure even with our guns, the government in no way fears the people.

Then crack down on gun trafficking, use some of those resources on "the war on drugs" to actually combat crimes with victims.

Stop creating an entire criminal class of people by outlawing and deregulating an entire industry.

Crack down on gangs, do something about poverty levels.

All would have a much more profound effect at benefiting society and cutting down violent crime rates abroad, and not just "gun crimes."

I disagree on limiting a private citizen's right to obtain/own firearms, as it has no basis on actually having a beneficial effect, and there's plenty of reasons to not do it.

As to "high risk" individuals: that's a very large slippery-slope there, but like I said earlier: if you want to deny people with mental health history, then create some due-process in it, I think that's fair to ask.

depends on how you define "the government"

and "the people"

oh god, please tell me how you would spin this, lol.

A government should always fear its people. No matter how large, no matter how big or pervasive, a government is always smaller than the people it represents, because it is made of people.

The Founding Fathers' intent is nice to discuss in casual conversation but has no legal bearing. It's all about the court's interpretation. Not sure why you would feel the need to trot out that particular card. SCOTUS has consistently upheld individual gun rights without having to rely on constitutional intent (if such a term exists).

it's not really that hard to comprehend...

imo, that needs to change.

not sure of a good way to do it though, as the only way I can think of would be to it it to a popular vote, but that would defeat the purpose of a republic.

I need more time to ponder on that one.