Here we are on ThaiVisa forum

Why do you publish that here ?

USA are probabily the heart of the world for you, not for everybody

i don’t care about what happens in your country

Publish about Thailand

If I lived in America, I'd definitely own a gun, probably a few.  For that reason I would never go and live there.  All the recent chat about banning guns for foreigners in Thailand cracks me up, never even seen a gun in Thailand other than on a cop.  Whenever I've been in the US I see guns all the time, most friends there own them and see it as normal, which it is to them. 

 

Not restricting them is moronic, assault rifles, full auto, big mags and any nutter allowed to buy with minimal checks is probably not what the boys who wrote the constitution had in mind when they wrote it seeing as a six-shooter and a Winchester was about as lethal as it got.  Do like the Chris Rock video though, great solution, whack a massive tax on bullets.

46 minutes ago, wwest5829 said:

That's the ticket = arm everyone. The more guns, the safer ... wait ... what?!

Don't know if I can post a link here but here is the article... search for    " 25 years murder-free in 'Gun Town USA'

56 minutes ago, pizzachang said:

According to the latest information, Honduras has the highest murder rate of any country in the world. The USA doesn't even make the top 25 - AND by removing Chicago, New York, Detroit and possibly Washington D.C. (gang -related shooting deaths/ Democrat controlled cities) the USA doesn't even get on any list. So the lawful use of more than 250 Million guns, apparently isn't a actual problem.

This is TV

 

We don't do bullshit

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-u-s-gun-deaths-compare-to-other-countries/

 

These are the statistics that should sober you up. Look at the countries that should be your peers! Need I say more? It's embarrassing frankly...

Scott may take this short vid down, and that's ok, but I was struck by Clinton's point with the "moon rock" when playing referee between deadlocked Repub and Dems squabbling about something in the Oval Office.    This issue could use one of these moon rock pause moments to break the dysfunction.

 

 

Click bait for the anti-gun and pro-gun lobby. It's too late - taking guns away from Americans would be like asking them to submit to root canal therapy on every tooth in their mouths.

They've had Australia's  cause-effect example in front of them for 21 years now. If it wasn't going to happen after Sandy Hook, it won't happen now. A few centuries from now, there will be people submitting PhD theses on how an entire nation was brainwashed.

In a free society, guns should be available to all law abiding persons if they wish. Crimes commited by other persons should not be used as an excuse to infringe on my rights. 

 

Also the fact that very little has changed in firearms over the last 100 years - automatic firearms were basically the same technology in the 1920s as they are now. However, "mass shootings" really only started happening within the last 25 or 30 years. Kind of strange, over the last century, gun laws basically the same or stricter, the guns themselves the same, but since the 1990s increases in these "mass shootings" , even though overall gun crime has declined.  Perhaps the issue is not guns, but something in society that changed?

 

Concerning, the LV 1 October incident, there has been no publicized motive whatsoever and very little in the way of evidence linking the alleged shooter to this crime, that the possibility of a false flag attack to initiate widespread stricter laws can not be ruled out?

To state the bleeding obvious, the NRA's most potent weapon is their financial control of politicians. Drastic reform of political donations might be part of the answer; and making the NRA financially responsible for victims might help to reshape their thinking - but pigs will fly before that happens.

I was particularly impressed with a psychologist's argument recently that mass shooters seek personal notoriety. And that an embargo on publishing their names would defeat that purpose - seems worth a try to me.

We're told that most Americans support significant gun control. If that is true then, ultimately, it is a failure of their political system. Just how to fix it remains an unknown.

The bottom line is that, without drastic legislation, these massacres will continue until the NRA concedes that the gun laws need drastic reform and that the constitutional right to bear arms is an outdated concept.

 

 

 

9 minutes ago, bazza73 said:

Click bait for the anti-gun and pro-gun lobby. It's too late - taking guns away from Americans would be like asking them to submit to root canal therapy on every tooth in their mouths.

They've had Australia's  cause-effect example in front of them for 21 years now. If it wasn't going to happen after Sandy Hook, it won't happen now. A few centuries from now, there will be people submitting PhD theses on how an entire nation was brainwashed.

Please explain Australia's cause-effect ?

9 minutes ago, bazza73 said:

Click bait for the anti-gun and pro-gun lobby. It's too late - taking guns away from Americans would be like asking them to submit to root canal therapy on every tooth in their mouths.

They've had Australia's  cause-effect example in front of them for 21 years now. If it wasn't going to happen after Sandy Hook, it won't happen now. A few centuries from now, there will be people submitting PhD theses on how an entire nation was brainwashed.

I wouldn't tar "All Americans" with the same brush.  If you exclude the two extremes, my sense is Joe Six Pack takes a reasonable view on this.  Problem is the sensible middle ground is drowned out by the extremes shouting through their respective, ideological megaphones. 

maybe it's time to curb deep states military industrial complex false flags.

2 minutes ago, Time Traveller said:

Please explain Australia's cause-effect ?

Australia had gun massacres up until 1996. People doing them had access to semi-automatic weapons. Since then, semi-automatic weapons have been banned in Australia, and no gun massacres have occurred in Australia.

Incidentally, the "please explain" has gone down in Australian political history as the time a redneck politician named Pauline Hanson ( yes, we have rednecks too ) demonstrated on national television the depth of her ignorance.

15 minutes ago, 55Jay said:

I wouldn't tar "All Americans" with the same brush.  If you exclude the two extremes, my sense is Joe Six Pack takes a reasonable view on this.  Problem is the sensible middle ground is drowned out by the extremes shouting through their respective, ideological megaphones. 

Sadly, you're right.

1 hour ago, hawker9000 said:

"I have never been to the states. Not because of any objections, just that work took me to other places, so I am not so well informed as other members here about the life there."

 

And yet you don't hesitate to grace us with your expert opinion that our Constitution is "moot".   Yeah, what a pearl.

 

I'm always entertained by foreigners lamely attempting to rationalize away the U.S. Constitution, knowing next to nothing about it.  Common Sense 101:  The Constitution is not subject to being rendered "moot" by "progress".  The founders foresaw the need and there IS a constitutional process for amendments, and it's been successfully and frequently used; in fact, 27 times. And actually - there's another way.   A Constitutional convention could be called to redraft the whole thing.  But spoiled petulant loser brat wingnuts determined to have their own way, lawful or not, tremble at the mention of that because they know they simply don't have the public support that would be necessary.   To them, even the most critical founding principles of the republic have value only insomuch as they serve strictly liberal purposes.   So they've pumped the federal courts full of their most intensely wingnut brethren until all the Clinton and Obama appointees have implicitly declared their right, and indeed the "necessity" to "interpret" the Constitution (which is to say, rewrite it according to their own agenda and blatantly to subvert it).  Fortunately, that can now begin to change, beginning with the Supreme Court.

 

Yes, a wealthy elitist whackjob bought himself a bunch of guns and gunned down 58 innocent people and wounded hundreds more.  FYI, Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people and injured over 600.  Without a gun.  The 9-11 pigs killed 2996 people.  Without a gun.   Three people were killed and 264 (at least) were wounded in the Boston Bombing.  Without a gun.  The U.S. has a gun count estimated at between 270 and 310 million.  Canada, another 10 million.   Heaven knows how many south of the border in the land of the rising cartels - 15 million AT LEAST.   And some lunatics - who furiously argue against the wall that would restrict not only the flow of guns across the border but the flow of illegals that man the gun-using streetgangs (ever heard of MS13?  Eh?  Most members from El Salvador.  Sureños?  Mexican Mafia?) and cartel killers as well - figure that by simply passing a law, that can all go to zero, and nobody will die at the hands of gun-wielding gangs, cartels, and other assorted felons while unable to defend themselves.  Oh yeah baby, where can I sign up for THAT lunatic plan?  We can't win the war on drugs.  We can't win the war on crime. We're not allowed to have a wall.  But oh sure - we could win a war on guns.

 

And these same wingnuts still can't grasp why Hillary lost...

 

Hmm,.....just this...http://nypost.com/2013/12/01/book-excerpt-how-america-gave-guns-to-mexican-drug-cartels/

and this.....https://www.cbsnews.com/news/legal-us-gun-sales-to-mexico-arming-cartels/

No guns. Period. The current situation in the USA is a firm of mental sickness and mass hysteria.

Difficult to shoot someone without gun ?

11 minutes ago, bazza73 said:

Australia had gun massacres up until 1996. People doing them had access to semi-automatic weapons. Since then, semi-automatic weapons have been banned in Australia, and no gun massacres have occurred in Australia.

Incidentally, the "please explain" has gone down in Australian political history as the time a redneck politician named Pauline Hanson ( yes, we have rednecks too ) demonstrated on national television the depth of her ignorance.

Hmm,...I guess the majority of Americans are not smart enough to understand this...!!..they have also a fine example as president !!!

It will never happen in America,  If it did there would be war. Maybe its time for the rest of the world to <deleted> and mind their own countries being over run and stop with the USA bashing. :)

NRA.        ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

 

the vast majority of killings by gun in the USA are suicides, look it up!

When the constitution added the 2nd amendment, all weapons were military grade, so it's not about hunting. Take a look around what happens when the governments disarm the people, mass slaughter.

If everyone carried a gun, there would be no crime. Statistics prove the more gun ownership, the lower the crime. You want gun control go to Chicago, the murder capital.

 

2 hours ago, portroyal said:

Here we are on ThaiVisa forum

Why do you publish that here ?

USA are probabily the heart of the world for you, not for everybody

i don’t care about what happens in your country

Publish about Thailand

The Thailand forum has plenty on Thailand.

 

This is the world news forum. 

The main gun control I would want is the loophole that allowed  "bumb stocks" and other devices that make semi-automatics  full to be closed. If you think the millions of Americans who own guns are ever going to give them up (I was a license carrying gun owner with several weapons) it's not going to happen.  As Charlton Heston, former actor and head of NRA said "They will get my weapons when they take them from my cold , dead hands"

Am in favor of closing loop holes that allow guns being bought at gun shows without background checks.

 

 

21 minutes ago, gr8fldanielle said:

the vast majority of killings by gun in the USA are suicides, look it up!

When the constitution added the 2nd amendment, all weapons were military grade, so it's not about hunting. Take a look around what happens when the governments disarm the people, mass slaughter.

If everyone carried a gun, there would be no crime. Statistics prove the more gun ownership, the lower the crime. You want gun control go to Chicago, the murder capital.

 

Both England and Australia curtailed gun ownership. Where was the mass slaughter?

Americans own more guns than anybody else and have the most mass shootings. It's not rocket science.

"If everyone carried a gun there would be no crime," ...what an imbecile.

This is only my personal experience.

I am 60 years old, I have never owned a gun, never had the need for one,

I have always outsourced my protection to the legal system and so far it has worked fine for me. 

I was always able to obtain all the food I ever wanted without having to hunt for it.

Make sure you disarm US citizens and make them easy prey for the criminals and terrorists who thrive on the liberal utopian society. All the while the Hillary Clinton's and Michael Bloombergs will be parading around with their armed guards preaching for the disarmament of law-abiding citizens. Obama has flooded the US with 100's of thousands of muslims to try and duplicate Europe's hopeless situation whereby the muslims have become so emboldened in some countries they are publicly stating for the record that it is only a matter of time before they have a majority and will create Sharia law. The answer by the left is to disarm law-abiding citizens as they continue their assault on individual rights and freedoms.

Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Kim Jung Un......... People say its the 21st century, those things or our Gov would never do such things. Why give the Gov the chance to try

41 minutes ago, gr8fldanielle said:

the vast majority of killings by gun in the USA are suicides, look it up!

When the constitution added the 2nd amendment, all weapons were military grade, so it's not about hunting. Take a look around what happens when the governments disarm the people, mass slaughter.

If everyone carried a gun, there would be no crime. Statistics prove the more gun ownership, the lower the crime. You want gun control go to Chicago, the murder capital.

 

"Take a look around what happens when the governments disarm the people, mass slaughter.  "

Ever since the disarming of the Australian people the slaughter in the streets   is appalling !!!!

" If everyone carried a gun, there would be no crime. "

Trump said something similar, and I agree!

Being concerned about his safety , I suggest that they allow everyone in his rallies or where he visits, to be armed, that way if someone tried to kill him, all of his supporters would quickly neutralize him. In fact to give even those far away  the opportunity to neutralise such criminal,  they should all be armed with sniper rifles, and to reduce the noise so we can all hear gems such as the above, all such rifles should be equipped with silencers.  

5 hours ago, Destiny1990 said:

Its the same as should Spain stop with the bull fighting.

Does bullfighting kill hundreds of people?

3 hours ago, hawker9000 said:

"I have never been to the states. Not because of any objections, just that work took me to other places, so I am not so well informed as other members here about the life there."

 

And yet you don't hesitate to grace us with your expert opinion that our Constitution is "moot".   Yeah, what a pearl.

 

I'm always entertained by foreigners lamely attempting to rationalize away the U.S. Constitution, knowing next to nothing about it.  Common Sense 101:  The Constitution is not subject to being rendered "moot" by "progress".  The founders foresaw the need and there IS a constitutional process for amendments, and it's been successfully and frequently used; in fact, 27 times. And actually - there's another way.   A Constitutional convention could be called to redraft the whole thing.  But spoiled petulant loser brat wingnuts determined to have their own way, lawful or not, tremble at the mention of that because they know they simply don't have the public support that would be necessary.   To them, even the most critical founding principles of the republic have value only insomuch as they serve strictly liberal purposes.   So they've pumped the federal courts full of their most intensely wingnut brethren until all the Clinton and Obama appointees have implicitly declared their right, and indeed the "necessity" to "interpret" the Constitution (which is to say, rewrite it according to their own agenda and blatantly to subvert it).  Fortunately, that can now begin to change, beginning with the Supreme Court.

 

Yes, a wealthy elitist whackjob bought himself a bunch of guns and gunned down 58 innocent people and wounded hundreds more.  FYI, Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people and injured over 600.  Without a gun.  The 9-11 pigs killed 2996 people.  Without a gun.   Three people were killed and 264 (at least) were wounded in the Boston Bombing.  Without a gun.  The U.S. has a gun count estimated at between 270 and 310 million.  Canada, another 10 million.   Heaven knows how many south of the border in the land of the rising cartels - 15 million AT LEAST.   And some lunatics - who furiously argue against the wall that would restrict not only the flow of guns across the border but the flow of illegals that man the gun-using streetgangs (ever heard of MS13?  Eh?  Most members from El Salvador.  Sureños?  Mexican Mafia?) and cartel killers as well - figure that by simply passing a law, that can all go to zero, and nobody will die at the hands of gun-wielding gangs, cartels, and other assorted felons while unable to defend themselves.  Oh yeah baby, where can I sign up for THAT lunatic plan?  We can't win the war on drugs.  We can't win the war on crime. We're not allowed to have a wall.  But oh sure - we could win a war on guns.

 

And these same wingnuts still can't grasp why Hillary lost...

 

Excellent.  Can't wait to hear the arguments against this.