This is great, except they have the meaning of militia is wrong. Militia is not army, it is citizen -soldiers, it is normal people who may be called to service in times of war. Just like in Mel Gibsons "The Patriot" Militia were sneered at by regular army. It is a carry over from the yeoman archer days, when a lord needed to field troops for the king, and had his arms men(army) and his militia(peasants soldiers) the militia were commanded by a Sgt at arms, who trained them weekly how to fight
My college history teacher tried to say that now a days the national guard is the protector of the homeland so they can be translated as the militia. I laughed in her face.
i am very very depressed and upset that i have no almost no chance of owning a firearm in britiain i think its about 1 in 10 who apply for a licence will get one and i will not be able to shoot hand guns or -fully or semi auto rifles and it makes me feel very sad and i can not move to amercia becuase its almost impossible to get a green card you have to be some rich person or a doctor to get one people do not know what its like being a person who loves guns and living in britian
Nowhere in my last post did I categorize all gun owners as such. I only meant that almost all of the people I see that are "quoting" the second amendment are taking it out of context in my opinion. This is how I have interpreted it after researching the subject. And about the drunken redneck part... Have you seen Ted Nugent? Most of the people I've seen who take it out of context are reminiscent of this man. I apologize if my opinion of these types of people seems a little skewed.
@spoticai works for me, I kinda jumped to the conclusion that you were a gun control nut so I guess we just miss interpreted each other, or maybe it was just me I don't know I'm tired I'm going to bed have a good night.
@spoticai works for me, I kinda jumped to the conclusion that you were a gun control nut so I guess we just miss interpreted each other, or maybe it was just me I don't know I'm tired I'm going to bed have a good night.
This is a misinterpretation of the second ammendment. What it means is; Because a militia is needed to ensure the security of a free state, the people will be allowed to bear arms. This does not mean that the people were in a war against a militia, it means the people WERE the militia. Get your shit straight. Also, it says "arms" not "guns." Two completely different concepts. I can arm myself with a knife or a machete. This doesn't mean that I have to have a gun to be considered "armed."
@benkerr69 If you know what you are doing it will do a whole lot of good. Do a little research on Filipino Escrima. From what I've read, they fought off the spanish when they came to conquire the Philippines, and they did it with sticks.
@spoticai Thats great and all but becoming good in hand to hand combat or using a knife effectivly takes several months to become a real threat. Give a person a 10 min coarse on how to operate there fire arm and they will be a much bigger threat to an enemy in a fraction of the time. What I am trying to say is if anything ever happened you could train a whole group of people to become an effective fighting force in a reasonably short time if need be.
@benkerr69 That's actually what I was saying. The second ammendment says that "A well regulated militia" is "necessary to the security of a free state". At the moment, I don't see a well regulated militia, I see a bunch of drunken rednecks in their back yard, shooting at beer cans misquoting the second ammendment saying that they deserve high powered anti-tank artillery because the Bill of Rights gives them that "right."
@benkerr69 Also I didn't say that I was against people having guns. I have a couple shotguns myself that I use for small game hunting, but I believe if people are going to be running around saying that he second amendment gives them the right to have any gun, they should at least be a member of a well regulated militia because that's what they second amendment was written for. So, we can have a means of defending ourselves if we are invaded by a foreign military.
@spoticai works for me, I kinda jumped to the conclusion that you were a gun control nut so I guess we just miss interpreted each other, or maybe it was just me I don't know I'm tired I'm going to bed have a good night.
@spoticai works for me, I kinda jumped to the conclusion that you were a gun control nut so I guess we just miss interpreted each other, or maybe it was just me I don't know I'm tired I'm going to bed have a good night.
@spoticai works for me, I kinda jumped to the conclusion that you were a gun control nut so I guess we just miss interpreted each other, or maybe it was just me I don't know I'm tired I'm going to bed have a good night.
They didn't just fight a war for 2 years...the Constitution didn't come until long after the country was founded. It came after the Articles of Confederation...and that document/agreement came AFTER our initial founding. At our initial founding we operated essentially with little or no government and flourished as such. We managed to win the war in largely such a state of things. No central government with any real power, no tax, no draft, nothing.
"Plus, today the people could never overthrow the government with guns."
Then he gives an argument from authority :
"Noam Chomsky said : 'this is not a weak Third World country. If people have pistols, the government has tanks. If people get tanks, the government has atomic weapons . . .' "
FIRST -- To extend the good professor's line of reasoning : "If people get atomic weapons, the government has . . .????"
If you're using a Penn and Teller video to bolster your case on either side of this issue, then perhaps your time might be better spent studying primary sources or memorizing logical fallacies. Further, you might be a redneck.
He's interpreting it wrong. In the 18th century, a country's standing armies were called "regular" armies. Regulated meant "made regular", which meant "thoroughly equipped for battle". Also, militias were not part of the state, they were made up of civilian people.
What the second amendment means by "a well-regulated militia" is "a civilian force that's as well-equipped as a standing army", which is necessary in a free state to combat the state's army if it infringes on the people's freedom.
@Tezcatlepocatl the documents were written in the "old english" making the wording seem akward to us today...anyone with a little bit of curiosity would then go thru the multitude of correspondence and writings of the times and be able easily and lgically come to the conclusion that what Penn is saying is 100% true
Not true. He's interpreting "regulated" as "restricted or overseen by law or by another force", which is what is what it means today, but not what it meant back then.
Plus, today the people could never overthrow the government with guns.
Noam Chomsky said : "this is not a weak Third World country. If people have pistols, the government has tanks. If people get tanks, the government has atomic weapons.
There's no way to deal with these issues by violent force, even if you think that that's morally legitimate. Guns in the hands of American citizens are not going to make the country more benign. They're going to make it more brutal, ruthless and destructive."
@CptSpauIding I disagree. The government may have access to higher grade equipment but an armed society would still pose a siginficant threat. A crowd with pistols and rifles is a hell alot more intimidating and difficult to control then a crowd without firearms.
@CptSpauIding WRONG. 1) Our constitution guarantees us unfettered access to guns, so case closed...BUT 2) There could EASILy be a successful armed rebellion. You have to remember our soldiers are people too, and many of them (when faced with fighting their own family and friends) would switch sides and bring weapons...like, i don't know, THE CIVIL WAR. BOOM, you fail, bye now.
@svvmichael1 lol, it's just that that "idiot" might know a bit more about geopolitics than you do, and "the army will join the rebellion" might seem a bit simplistic to him. Just saying.
@CptSpauIding Actually from reading Chomsky I believe he is pretty wrong on nearly ever point. My educational background is superior to his, and I was an officer in the military. I can tell you that the military, in the face of a very popular rebellion, would NOT turn their guns, en masse, on U.S. citizens. 1) It would be illegal and 2) Those people would be friends and relatives. You need to learn history.
@svvmichael1 I don't get why it would be different than in third world countries, except that the US army is much more powerful, but whatever. Chomsky is one of the finest intellectuals around and you need some nerve to say you're more educated than he is...
@CptSpauIding I looked up his education and put it next to mine. I am more educated and have a higher IQ. I served as an officer in the military (he didn't), worked has an executive in a large company. I left to start my own business and now have several corporate entities and make a great living as an entrepreneur (he never did) and employ over 100 people. My credentials far surpass his. Bye now.
Third – Again, we have a tunnel vision of warfare only in “conventional” form. Chomsky fails to comprehend asymmetrical warfare. His flawed theorizing has been refuted many times by the most powerful argument --- the success of guerrilla groups against powerful military forces in the 'real world'.
If you must appeal to authority to support your statements, you will have to find a competent authority.
Second – His view seems more than “a bit simplistic” to me. Perhaps he is unaware that the Soviet tanks were chased out of Budapest by Hungarians with Molotov cocktails. You don't need a tank to kill a tank.
That same Soviet military had nuclear weapons in its arsenal when they invaded Afghanistan. That overwhelming “advantage” did not prevent their defeat.
SECOND – His view seems more than “a bit simplistic” to me. Perhaps he is unaware that the Soviet tanks were chased out of Budapest by Hungarians with Molotov cocktails. You don't need a tank to kill a tank.
That same Soviet military had nuclear weapons in its arsenal when they invaded Afghanistan. That "overwhelming advantage” did not prevent their defeat.
I wonder how long it will be permitted to remain this time. Strange, how it can be posted and visible when I am logged in, but when I come to this page and am not logged in, it has ceased to exist. Quite a system, YT.
It might be a good idea for everyone posting a comment to see if what they have posted when logged in remains posted after they log out. It seems YT needs some monitoring.
I got a line on what YT seems to be doing. They don't like more than two comments in a row that were pasted in instead of typed directly into the comment box. Maybe it's an attempt to stop spam.
You need to think outside the box; in terms of guerrilla warfare, resistance movements, insurgency, etc. to understand how a powerful military force can be defeated by a relatively poorly armed people's army.
Michael Collins and his “12 Apostles” accomplished something by urban guerrilla warfare that several centuries of rebellion in “conventional warfare” mode could not do. They brought the British Empire, if not to its knees, at least to the bargaining table, and established the Irish Free State. They had no artillery, planes, tanks, or navy to match the British ----- just small arms.
@jaykgrey@COMALiteJ (I'm not sure if this is what you mean, but here is my interpretations of the commas.) The amendment states that "A well regulated militia shall not be infringed." The commas are inserted to incorporate non-essential clauses (descriptive detail which also defines the noun in question--in this case "militia"). Thus, the framers state that public militias were "necessary for security..." and militias were "the right of the people...". That's what the grammar says. Thank you.
@prufrock1977 nope you are wrong, and Penn, Teller, COMALiteJ, Justice Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, etc are right. hope I cleared that up for you.
Police consider 10 minutes a "good" response time. A homeowner can be robbed and shot in 5 min. An innocent mother can be raped and stabbed in 10 min. I consider "retarded" gun banning liberals accessories to home invasions that result in violent crimes were gun bans are in effect. Technically their telling already armed criminals there's a gun ban in effect here so go for it. There are no bans where I live so my weapon of choice for home security is a 357 Semi-Auto Mag.
Even a lot of gun owners do not understand that the militia referred to in the 2nd were soldiers controlled by a Governor loyal to the king. (these soldiers being used to suppress the freedom of the people) And the purpose of the second is to "regulate" those govt soldiers/cops and hold them and tyranny in check. (evidence of this is all of the pro gun people who started "militias" as justification for their gun ownership)
@SmokeRingsPipeDreams, Actually, that's not quite true, and Penn got it wrong too. The word “Militia” is NOT a synonym for “Army.” The Revolution was against the British ARMY (Redcoats). It was NOT a militia.
The word “Militia” meant ALL ABLE-BODIED ADULT MALES! The gun-banners are wrong, too. Early drafts of the 2nd: “A well regulated Militia COMPOSED OF THE •BODY• OF THE •PEOPLE• being necessary…” — that UPPERCASE text was removed because they considered it REDUNDANT!
@COMALiteJ I disagree and all constitutional scholars also disagree with you. Govenors apointed by the king had their own "militias". These govenors used these militias to suppress the people and do the kings will. That is the miltia talked about in the second. It doesn't really matter what the other drafts said as it was changed to mean what it means today.
@SmokeRingsPipeDreams The enemy militia is not the one talked about in the 2nd Amendment. The Amendment states that a militia composed of armed able-bodied citizens is necessary to ensure a free state. I disagree with you, and so do all constitutional scholars.
@SmokeRingsPipeDreams: “I disagree and all constitutional scholars also disagree with you.”
Really? ALL of them!? Every last one, without exception? Because I only have to find one to disprove that blanket assertion.
Better yet, though, how about you go to Google Books and read the actual transcripts of the actual debates of the Founding Fathers as they actually debated the wording of the Second Amendment and the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights?
Section 311 of US Code Title 10, entitled, "Militia: composition and classes" in its entirety:
"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.”
“(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
“(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."
Now, granted, that was not the ORIGINAL definition, but it IS based on it. For one thing, there was no National Guard at the time, nor for a century after.
@SmokeRingsPipeDreams, (cont.) Also, your assertion that the earlier drafts removed “composed of the BODY of the PEOPLE” to CHANGE the meaning is flatly wrong. Had they done that, they would’ve put some OTHER definition there. They did not. They simply REMOVED the definition BECAUSE IT WAS REDUNDANT. The Militia had ALREADY been defined in other legal documents of the various States and the USA as a whole as meaning ALL able-bodied adult males from 17 to 45, at MINIMUM.
@COMALiteJ It's not an assertion, it's the truth. And legal scholors have overwhelmingly said the same thing. Are you saying that the second give the right to keep and bear arms to only the military and national guard etc? And that it is about regulating gun ownership? If so the liberals are right, that gun control is legal and mandated under the constitution. then what's that part about "the peoples right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"??? You have bought into the liberal think.
@SmokeRingsPipeDreams, #1, it IS an assertion. Look up what that word means. An assertion may be true or false, but is still an assertion.
In your case, it is a BARE assertion, which is a logical fallacy (even if true). You offered nothing whatsoever beyond the assertion itself to back it up.
You also made a claim that “ALL constitutional scholars” disagree with me. That is also a BARE and BLANKET assertion, and it is easily disproven. It only takes ONE counter-example.
@SmokeRingsPipeDreams, (cont.) The Fallacy of the Bare Assertion is aka the “Because I Said So, That.s Why” fallacy.
Meanwhile, I have already shown you actual U.S. law, and told you where you can go to read the actual words of the actual writings of the actual men who actually debated the actual wording of the Second Amendment.
Your assertion is ludicrous for another reason: the Founding Fathers did NOT change the definition to mean “what it means TODAY” (YOUR words).
@SmokeRingsPipeDreams, (cont.) Why not? Because the Founding Fathers had NO WAY of KNOWING what the word would mean today, that’s why. They were not prophets, nor did they have a crystal ball nor technological future time viewer.
Even in RECENT times, we can see how words change meaning drastically. If a journal that was allegedly written in the 1970s or earlier described someone as “going postal,” you’d need no more evidence than that to conclude that it’s fake.
@SmokeRingsPipeDreams, (cont.) How would we know that the 1970s “going postal” journal was fake, without having to examine its ink, paper, etc.? Because nobody used that phrase in the 1970s, not unless they were talking about how to mail something. The violent postal worker rampage that shocked the nation and added that two-word idiom to our language didn’t happen until the 1980s. That was only ~¼ century ago. People still remember that who were ADULTS then (me included).
@SmokeRingsPipeDreams, (cont.) So, the Founding Fathers COULD NOT have used modern (to us) word meanings. They used the meanings that THEY knew.
On to your second statement: “Are you saying that the second give the right to keep and bear arms to only the military and national guard etc? And that it is about regulating gun ownership?”
No. Not at all. I think you’ve misjudged my intent by about 180°. I OPPOSE gun control and SUPPORT the Right of the PEOPLE to bear Arms.
@SmokeRingsPipeDreams, (cont.) I was disagreeing on what “Militia” meant. The Militia was NOT the National Guard (that’s MODERN law that says that). It was THE PEOPLE. In particular, anyone who was an able-bodied adult male aged 17–45, though some states had far looser requirements. Some simply said, “All able-bodied adults,” PERIOD. Bona-fide religious objectors such as Quakers were exempt from being required to serve in the Militia.
@SmokeRingsPipeDreams, (cont.) But, REGARDLESS of what “Militia” means, the simple fact is that, according to the rules of English grammar BOTH THEN AND NOW, the OPERATIVE part of the Amendment is the INDEPENDENT Clause, NOT the DEPENDENT clause! The part about the Militia is a DEPNDENT clause (not even really a CLAUSE — more like a compound phrase)! It CANNOT stand alone as a complete and grammatically correct sentence in its own right.
@SmokeRingsPipeDreams, (cont.) “The Right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed” CAN stand alone as a complete and grammatically correct sentence. That makes it an INDEPENDENT clause, and thus the LEGALLY OPERATIVE PORTION of the Amendment.
The preceding part, which doesn’t even qualify as a DEPENDENT CLAUSE unless you insert an implied “being” before “necessary” (clauses MUST have a VERB!), is merely •A• REASON FOR the Right, NOT a LIMITATION ON it!
@COMALiteJ Yup. According to our article 6 of the articles of confederation there shall be no peace time military but every state shall have a militia that may be ready to protect state at all times, and all states are obligated to protect each other. The only bond that the states are meant to have is free trade, free travel, the constitution, and the duty to protect each other.
Jep... no 2nd Amendment for me. Danish politicians are afraid of their own shadow. their latest stunt was to introduce a prohibition against 13 dog breeds.
Then, they introduced a law that allows politicians to keep their work secret from the Danish population. so much for our freedom of information. Democracy is only right to vote on who will fuck you in the ass. people have no influence or say in political decisions
The problem in Denmark is that it is extremely difficult to get a license to simply carry a knife.
since the law was introduced in 2010, we saw that factory workers and construction tradesmen, who was arrested on the street and jailed for wearing a utility knife / box cutter
even a man who worked in a kindergarten, was imprisoned for having a multitool with a integrated knife and since he now has a criminal record, it's also illegal to work with children he also lost his job
The law was introduced because a small group of approx. 40-50 criminals in our capital, led a small gangwar. and due to media exaggeration of "our first real gangwar" the government chose to impose a total ban on knives, on the whole population (5.5 mil citizens)
@anders1621 I love how Europeans try to act like their nations are so much more progressive and free than the U.S. when in several countries you can't even own a baseball bat without proper licenses.
The pope is the anti christ whom the lord JESUS warned us about. PROOF BIBLE PROPHECY says the anti christ would come out of Rome,rule the kings of the earth with the harlot church from Rome, would kill the saints change Gods laws and call himself JESUS'S equal. Only the pope has done this and still does this. The pope and the jesuits control the illuminati they control the ten main illuminati families which run the world. The pope is satans anti christ which PAUL warned us about the blasphemere
@sgthobbes2 NO I DID NOW YOU KNOW THE POPE is the anti christ and God will expect you to make the right choice when testing will begin. I did do something i wittnessed to you JESUS CHRISTS GOSPEL, and when this gospel is preached into all the world as a wittness than the end will come JESUS SAID
Is the fact that everyone has guns stops! so many good ideas coming into power! Like good laws or free Heath care, a right to clean water or the right to shelter?
At this point, the only half-way reasonable argument against the second amendment is that the military and government have fucking nuclear weapons. I don't care how many bullets the gun you have the right to own shoots. If you have to go up against the government, you're fucked. Gun control is just being a realist and saying we're fucked if we do and fucked if we don't.
@Theroha Aren't there protocols against the use of detonating nuclear weapons, or is that only for international warfare? Though if it's for international warfare, you have to take embassies and consulates into account.
@lwst1988 I don't know the exact protocols for nuclear arms, but there is no denying that the military has civilians outgunned. Forget nuclear weapons. As George Carlin said, "We don't have flame throwers; the government does. I think we're fucked if we have to go against the government." Any civilian resistance is useless militarily compared to the power of the government in modern warfare. It is only morality & international & economic repercussions that hold the army at bay.
@Theroha The Revolutionary Army was outgunned, too. Nobody in a million years thought a military made up of disgruntled farmers could win a war against the British. Who knows. If a civilian militia ever decides to take up arms against the government, they might get lucky.
@Theroha If it came down to government vs citizens what percent of active military would side with government over their friends and family? Not a large percent I'd assume. It would be gorilla warfare and last time I checked the North Vietnamese did a pretty good job at holding us off for a long time with only 2 million men. 100 million citizens own firearms.
@Theroha So what you're saying is that gun control is admitting you're a pussy rolling over and saying "Fuck me in the ass big guy! There isn't shit I can do!"
@hooplablahblahblah Having the 2nd Amendment is gun control. Having no law that has to do with the ownership of guns would be having no gun control. Its like you people don't get what "gun control" means.
@Theroha I'd think that if I lived in a Nation where I had to worry about the Government using large scale weapons of war against its populace, than that would be a Government worth fighting against.
Yes the real world, not middle school and reading the writings of a fantasy fiction cult that is the Libertarians, but actual living and experiencing the world. Who said other than you that it is an accomplishment, it is simple fact, so you baffle only yourself. Yes, your insults were refuted whether you choose to see that or not. Considering your response, your grip on reality appears to be a precarious one. I feel sorry for you, truly. I wish you luck with that.
@Navywxman No, living in the so-called "real world," was not the accomplishment I was speaking of. Being older then 15 is actually what you've been bragging about. As for your "real world" theory, if Middle School isn't the real world, then it wouldn't be required to get a high school diploma. Why would you even attempt to trash talk education by calling it fantasy? And if you do not agree with the Libertarian party, then don't register as Libertarian.
@lwst1988 Wow, you have some serious issues buddy! It is amusing since your "arguments" have been nothing but ad hominem attacks. It is sad that that you feel your pitiful insults and absence of any sort of substance has been been missed by me, it is hard to since that is all you have contributed. I wish you luck on that whole learning to read thing since you said it is hard for you. The more you write, the more I feel sorry for you. I hope you get the help you need lwst1988!
@Navywxman I took that class too. Introduction to critical reading and thinking. Only an idiot from that class would even think of bringing up ad hominem, or any of the other logical fallacies. At least now I know how old you are. 18 to 21, I would estimate. In the real world, when adults like myself are having discussions, no matter how many insults are thrown out there, nobody uses meaningless college terminology. Take care, kid.
@lwst1988 You took a class!? Good for you, aren't you getting to be a big boy. Thanks for proving me wrong on the fact that your "adult discussion" is nothing more than attributing things to me and attacking them (which you don't need me if you want to argue with yourself), and pitiful insults. Sorry who is the kid? The more you write the more I feel sorry for you buddy. It's about to turn 4pm, isn't there a clock you have to pop out of? Coo coo, Coo coo
@Navywxman I took about 25 classes actually, or however many were a part of my program. Well, give or take a few, since one was a training course, and another was an internship, and a couple more were just prerequisites to get into the program, but I think you get my point. The fact that you're delusional and are under the assumption that I have made an argument other then my statement that you're an idiot is quite humorous. Carry on, dear child.
@Navywxman What fantasy world do you live in? You say that the more I write, the sadder you feel for me, but you were replying to a comment where I stated that I have a college education. Why is college education sad? Is it because you had trouble passing Introduction to Critical Reading and Thinking? Just because you can't do something doesn't make it sad.
@lwst1988 And I feel even sadder for you still. Back to making up false positions to me and attacking them. I mean if you want to argue with yourself you don't need to write to me, seriously. You can just mutter to yourself without even getting on your computer. I feel sad for you because every comment made has been nothing but attributing things to me and raising some false argument over it and pitiful insults. So yes, I feel very sorry for you. Seek the help you need ok.
@Navywxman I feel sorry for you for not recognizing blatant heel remarks when you see them. That means you miss the funny side of this entire discussion. This entire discussion started because you claimed that I was making some sort of an argument, which I wasn't. So, to be blatantly patronizing, and quite ironic, I invented argument points based off of your comments. What makes this situation quite ironic is that I told you I was being blatantly patronizing. Take care, kid.
@lwst1988 lol, sadder and sadder! So now because I have said I feel sorry for you (which I do) now you say that to me, lol. Then you make up more nonsense, dude, you are digging your hole deeper and making a bigger embarrassment of yourself. Stop yourself! I've already said from the beginning that you just made up BS and attributed it to me, so I already said you were full of shit which is what you admit to now. Thanks for the non revelation! Get a life dude, just not mine!
@Navywxman Do you know what's funny about this entire situation? I don't feel sorry for you. I said that I was merely to be blatantly patronizing, which is humorous, since you still don't get it, yet this is the third time I've told you that. Essentially I'm mocking you, as I have been this entire time. You're just too stupid to realize it.
@lwst1988 OMG weirdo, I get you have been retarded from the beginning, I called you on it from the beginning, no mystery Einstein! Disturbed old guy, seek help...please!! End of conversation psycho
Curious, why would you care about being correct in the responses? Be correct in a video and gauge your success by your views/likes/subs or even better yet profit and growth. Otherwise you just seem sad. =/ No offense.
I'm not a Newt fan at all. However, I was just watching a speech he was giving on CNN in Concorde, New Hampshire about 2nd Amendment & why we have Militias. Also, how our 1st president G. Washington led that charge that kept the British from taking our guns. NO ONE better not Tread on my Constitutional Rights.
Is a militia necessary to the security of a free state these days? In Britain the closest we get is the territorial army. They don't take their guns home though.
@137Newton more than ever. Western Governments are now largely owned by multinational corporations, no one in government supports the people, and the West is sliding further and further towards a dystopian tyranny. Look in your own country were the Rights of Englishmen has been long swept away, and men are put in jail for defending their own homes. Students are beaten by police, while Muslims get Shari laws and courts to rule over you. Hence, the people need to defend themselves
The military was not meant to stay as an indefinite force within and outside the US. The military is meant to be disbanded when not needed. That's why the founders knew the president would abuse his powers to take us to perpetual wars with other nations as the policemen of the world (financial debt), hence the right to bear arms.
If the US was attacked, the militia mobilze easily by citizens themselves, just like Switzerland. Their citizens have hand grenades in their homes. P&T suck a dick
@TTAGGGAATCCC Actually the Swiss military isn't disbanded, they are just a drumline in times of peace. Amazing things you can do with your military when your not douchbags to everyone and don't try and expand past your uninvadable borders. Greatest fucking drumline I've ever seen in my life. That's what 600 years of practice does for you.
@bobbeedigi I don't think you made a single point in that argument. You simply insulted the other guy and stated that his points were stupid, which they were not. I would like to know what law school you went to, because it probably shouldn't be taken seriously by any law firm. That really wan't even an argument that was you misunderstanding a law, than getting defensive and avoiding questions, you sir are delusional.
@d3ltadrive Then I guess it's a good thing that I don't care one bit what some douchebag sitting in his parents' basement in his underwear thinks or doesn't think. Face it, your boy got worked.
@bobbeedigi At least I didn't have my federal judge father buy me a law degree, and then attempt to pass a slip of paper off as actual knowledge on the subject. By the way, your uneducated insults further proves that I lawyered your ass. Thanks for making this so easy.
@d3ltadrive Oh, your 15! Well that explains a great deal. Kid, because you read some crazy Libertarian stuff doesn't mean you know anything or how the world works lol. things aren't so black and white nor are Libertarians particularly honest or accurate. I'll give you credit for trying to understand the world but you have a ways to go little fella.
@Navywxman You are a dumbass, you haven't even made an argument. If you think your Federal Reserve system and system of endless debt is working you must be senile.
@d3ltadrive "You simply insulted the other guy and stated that his points were stupid" Sounds familiar! Actually I had made an argument, simply stating otherwise doesn't make it so. Also, my federal reserve system? It is mine now? Did I say the system is working? Actually from what I have written I obviously don't nor think Libertarian ideology is either. Please don't stop arguing with yourself kid since you only make up positions for me. lol, I see who is the dumbass lol.
@Navywxman The Federal Reserve system is not yours. It's actually a privately run company that operates illegally outside of government control, which is quite bizarre, since it's the major source of finances in the United States, and was the key factor in the cause of the Great Depression of the 1930's, the recession in the 1970's, and the current depression. It is a blight on the US that has existed for far too long, and must be allowed to die, like the United Nations.
@Navywxman I like how you attempt to use a person's age as a means to cast yourself in a superior and more knowledgeable light. A 15 year old, although young, is not a child. Any points made by anyone, of any age, should be taken seriously, since the Constitution of the United States does not discriminate against age. Also, whatever political party you believe in is just as stupid as the Libertarians. Politicians are idiots, kind of like you. Are you a politician?
@lwst1988 I'm glad you like what I did not do. What I do have is alot more experience in the real world which is undeniable, but like i said I give the kid credit for trying. It isn't age that is his problem but immaturity and mere regurgitation of Libertarian foolishness. I don't believe in any political party FYI. I know all about the Federal Reserve, your not telling me anything I don't know. So since your insults have been refuted I guess you are the idiot to use your own term.
@Navywxman You have more experience in the "real world," which is a term where in the real world simply means "the world," only because you had the privileged of being born first, which in all honesty, is not an accomplishment at all but a simple fact of nature, so it baffles me that you would use that as an argument point. I don't see where I was refuted, because I don't see where there was an argument. You are delusional, my friend.
@Navywxman As for my comment about the Federal Reserve, that was not part of an argument, so for argument's sake, lets just say that I was in the mood to rant about the Federal Reserve. It didn't need to be commented on, especially since I wasn't saying anything that you supposedly already didn't know.
@lwst1988 I really don't care about your rant. I know all that and more so for arguments sake or not it doesn't matter. Good luck with your precarious grasp, I do hope you have good luck with that.
@Navywxman My argument has not been refuted as I haven't made an argument. In whatever fantasy world you live in, I made an argument, and you refuted it with your superior older-than-15 "real world" fantasy logic. What is humorous about this discussion is that you're too stupid to realize that I'm blatantly being patronizing towards you.
@Navywxman You should probably go back to middle school and take basic writing courses, because I'm having a difficult time reading your sentences. Just because you dropped out in 8th grade doesn't make it fantasy.
@lwst1988 All you have to do is post ONE link to and quote me the exact language of ONE state statute that criminalizes the acts of suicide or attempted suicide and you could win the argument. You haven't done it. Why? Because in spite of your assertion to the contrary, they don't exist and you're a moron. CHECKMATE, idiot!
I'm the one with a law degree and a parent that is a federal judge so I don't think I'll accept your ridiculous criticism.The law IS black and white.Your restaurant example would be an illegal act because county and municipal ordinances usually prohibit discharging a firearm within city or county limits.With exceptions for licensed businesses in a properly zoned location.I'm still waiting for you to quote me any state legislation(section,subsection and clauses) that make suicide a crime, idiot.
@bobbeedigi You just stated that suicide is a crime. Like I said, and what you indeliberately explained, the law is in fact not black and white. Lawyered.
@bobbeedigi Your father may be a federal judge, but the fact that he bought you your law degree doesn't give you a mastery for the law. It means you have a slip of paper and no knowledge of what it represents.
Attempted suicide is not a crime, moron! Quote me the language of ONE state statute that makes ATTEMPTED SUICIDE or SUICIDE a crime. JUST ONE! I'll be waiting, Idiot.
@bobbeedigi Not everything is black and white. There are subtleties which makes something an illegal act or not, many of which in regards to attempted suicide, I have explained to you. You cannot go out to a restaurant, pull out a gun, put it to your head, fire it, survive, and expect no consequences. Suicide is a public danger, which makes it illegal. Like I said, the purpose of law is to protect, not to ensure death.
@bobbeedigi And if you cannot see this, then you would make a terrible lawyer. You should stick to your day job. Never attempt to get into law. You would suck at it. You'd just end up calling your opponent a moron, which would ultimately either get you dismissed, have the case thrown out. or have you placed under arrest for contempt of court.
@lwst1988 If one of my opponents continued to waste the court's time by making your utterly moronic and incoherent arguments, the judge would hold THEM in contempt! Idiot.
@bobbeedigi So since you continue to make utterly moronic and incoherent arguments, you would be in concept for two accounts. One for making utterly moronic and incoherent arguments, and another for continuously and blatantly insulting your opponent. Lawyered.
@lwst1988lol You are such a fool.Notice how everyone on this vid thinks you're a moron and gives examples of why that is?You haven't made one good point.I've been destroying your arguments for days.If you were a practicing attorney making these arguments,the court would punish your client with a dismissal,suggest that they sue you for malpractice and submit a complaint to the state bar recommending censure or disbarment.You are literally the most willfully ignorant poster on YouTube.
@bobbeedigi I notice how you call me a moron and attempt to give me examples as to why that is. I don't know why you would refer to yourself as 'everyone,' however. That seems a little narcissistic to me. I can't understand why you would be so defensive. You have no point. You submitted to me the moment you began disregarding the discussion and carried on your troglodytish "attempt at insult" behavior. If you want to return to discussion, I'm happy to do so.
This is great, except they have the meaning of militia is wrong. Militia is not army, it is citizen -soldiers, it is normal people who may be called to service in times of war. Just like in Mel Gibsons "The Patriot" Militia were sneered at by regular army. It is a carry over from the yeoman archer days, when a lord needed to field troops for the king, and had his arms men(army) and his militia(peasants soldiers) the militia were commanded by a Sgt at arms, who trained them weekly how to fight
KeAahr 1 day ago
Awesome !
mrtips 2 days ago
My college history teacher tried to say that now a days the national guard is the protector of the homeland so they can be translated as the militia. I laughed in her face.
jneil2007 2 days ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
i am very very depressed and upset that i have no almost no chance of owning a firearm in britiain i think its about 1 in 10 who apply for a licence will get one and i will not be able to shoot hand guns or -fully or semi auto rifles and it makes me feel very sad and i can not move to amercia becuase its almost impossible to get a green card you have to be some rich person or a doctor to get one people do not know what its like being a person who loves guns and living in britian
GUNnut247 4 days ago
Bravo ,Bravo :)
kb4303 6 days ago
Nowhere in my last post did I categorize all gun owners as such. I only meant that almost all of the people I see that are "quoting" the second amendment are taking it out of context in my opinion. This is how I have interpreted it after researching the subject. And about the drunken redneck part... Have you seen Ted Nugent? Most of the people I've seen who take it out of context are reminiscent of this man. I apologize if my opinion of these types of people seems a little skewed.
spoticai 1 week ago
@spoticai works for me, I kinda jumped to the conclusion that you were a gun control nut so I guess we just miss interpreted each other, or maybe it was just me I don't know I'm tired I'm going to bed have a good night.
benkerr69 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@spoticai works for me, I kinda jumped to the conclusion that you were a gun control nut so I guess we just miss interpreted each other, or maybe it was just me I don't know I'm tired I'm going to bed have a good night.
benkerr69 1 week ago
This is a misinterpretation of the second ammendment. What it means is; Because a militia is needed to ensure the security of a free state, the people will be allowed to bear arms. This does not mean that the people were in a war against a militia, it means the people WERE the militia. Get your shit straight. Also, it says "arms" not "guns." Two completely different concepts. I can arm myself with a knife or a machete. This doesn't mean that I have to have a gun to be considered "armed."
spoticai 1 week ago
@spoticai some good a knife is going to do me if there is a foreign military invading us.
benkerr69 1 week ago
@benkerr69 If you know what you are doing it will do a whole lot of good. Do a little research on Filipino Escrima. From what I've read, they fought off the spanish when they came to conquire the Philippines, and they did it with sticks.
spoticai 1 week ago
@spoticai Thats great and all but becoming good in hand to hand combat or using a knife effectivly takes several months to become a real threat. Give a person a 10 min coarse on how to operate there fire arm and they will be a much bigger threat to an enemy in a fraction of the time. What I am trying to say is if anything ever happened you could train a whole group of people to become an effective fighting force in a reasonably short time if need be.
benkerr69 1 week ago
@benkerr69 That's actually what I was saying. The second ammendment says that "A well regulated militia" is "necessary to the security of a free state". At the moment, I don't see a well regulated militia, I see a bunch of drunken rednecks in their back yard, shooting at beer cans misquoting the second ammendment saying that they deserve high powered anti-tank artillery because the Bill of Rights gives them that "right."
spoticai 1 week ago
@spoticai Last I checked I was not a drunken red neck and gun owners should not be categorized as such.
benkerr69 1 week ago
@benkerr69 Also I didn't say that I was against people having guns. I have a couple shotguns myself that I use for small game hunting, but I believe if people are going to be running around saying that he second amendment gives them the right to have any gun, they should at least be a member of a well regulated militia because that's what they second amendment was written for. So, we can have a means of defending ourselves if we are invaded by a foreign military.
spoticai 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@spoticai works for me, I kinda jumped to the conclusion that you were a gun control nut so I guess we just miss interpreted each other, or maybe it was just me I don't know I'm tired I'm going to bed have a good night.
benkerr69 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@spoticai works for me, I kinda jumped to the conclusion that you were a gun control nut so I guess we just miss interpreted each other, or maybe it was just me I don't know I'm tired I'm going to bed have a good night.
benkerr69 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@spoticai works for me, I kinda jumped to the conclusion that you were a gun control nut so I guess we just miss interpreted each other, or maybe it was just me I don't know I'm tired I'm going to bed have a good night.
benkerr69 1 week ago
They didn't just fight a war for 2 years...the Constitution didn't come until long after the country was founded. It came after the Articles of Confederation...and that document/agreement came AFTER our initial founding. At our initial founding we operated essentially with little or no government and flourished as such. We managed to win the war in largely such a state of things. No central government with any real power, no tax, no draft, nothing.
ProIndividual 1 week ago
why did i keep expecting the big board to dissapear?
Shineypillz 1 week ago
Everytime he swears my heart gets a little bit bigger..
My ribs are breaking..
YouAreABunghole 1 week ago
hmm, I didn't see any tits in this clip.
AloisNordman 1 week ago
Exactly
88RBack 1 week ago
9th attempt --- (1)
CptSpaulding said:
"Plus, today the people could never overthrow the government with guns."
Then he gives an argument from authority :
"Noam Chomsky said : 'this is not a weak Third World country. If people have pistols, the government has tanks. If people get tanks, the government has atomic weapons . . .' "
FIRST -- To extend the good professor's line of reasoning : "If people get atomic weapons, the government has . . .????"
(continued below)
LongPurple 1 week ago
Comment removed
LongPurple 1 week ago
Comment removed
LongPurple 1 week ago
Comment removed
LongPurple 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
LongPurple 2 weeks ago
If you're using a Penn and Teller video to bolster your case on either side of this issue, then perhaps your time might be better spent studying primary sources or memorizing logical fallacies. Further, you might be a redneck.
Wastelander30 2 weeks ago
He's interpreting it wrong. In the 18th century, a country's standing armies were called "regular" armies. Regulated meant "made regular", which meant "thoroughly equipped for battle". Also, militias were not part of the state, they were made up of civilian people.
What the second amendment means by "a well-regulated militia" is "a civilian force that's as well-equipped as a standing army", which is necessary in a free state to combat the state's army if it infringes on the people's freedom.
Tezcatlepocatl 2 weeks ago 2
@Tezcatlepocatl the documents were written in the "old english" making the wording seem akward to us today...anyone with a little bit of curiosity would then go thru the multitude of correspondence and writings of the times and be able easily and lgically come to the conclusion that what Penn is saying is 100% true
brotherscoobs 1 week ago
@brotherscoobs
Not true. He's interpreting "regulated" as "restricted or overseen by law or by another force", which is what is what it means today, but not what it meant back then.
Tezcatlepocatl 1 week ago
Plus, today the people could never overthrow the government with guns.
Noam Chomsky said : "this is not a weak Third World country. If people have pistols, the government has tanks. If people get tanks, the government has atomic weapons.
There's no way to deal with these issues by violent force, even if you think that that's morally legitimate. Guns in the hands of American citizens are not going to make the country more benign. They're going to make it more brutal, ruthless and destructive."
CptSpauIding 2 weeks ago
@CptSpauIding I disagree. The government may have access to higher grade equipment but an armed society would still pose a siginficant threat. A crowd with pistols and rifles is a hell alot more intimidating and difficult to control then a crowd without firearms.
ZM7241994 2 weeks ago
@CptSpauIding WRONG. 1) Our constitution guarantees us unfettered access to guns, so case closed...BUT 2) There could EASILy be a successful armed rebellion. You have to remember our soldiers are people too, and many of them (when faced with fighting their own family and friends) would switch sides and bring weapons...like, i don't know, THE CIVIL WAR. BOOM, you fail, bye now.
svvmichael1 2 weeks ago
@svvmichael1 BOOM yeah you proved noam chosmky wrong... or not
CptSpauIding 2 weeks ago
@CptSpauIding I know I proved that idiot wrong. And you too.
svvmichael1 2 weeks ago
@svvmichael1 lol, it's just that that "idiot" might know a bit more about geopolitics than you do, and "the army will join the rebellion" might seem a bit simplistic to him. Just saying.
CptSpauIding 2 weeks ago
@CptSpauIding Actually from reading Chomsky I believe he is pretty wrong on nearly ever point. My educational background is superior to his, and I was an officer in the military. I can tell you that the military, in the face of a very popular rebellion, would NOT turn their guns, en masse, on U.S. citizens. 1) It would be illegal and 2) Those people would be friends and relatives. You need to learn history.
svvmichael1 2 weeks ago
@svvmichael1 I don't get why it would be different than in third world countries, except that the US army is much more powerful, but whatever. Chomsky is one of the finest intellectuals around and you need some nerve to say you're more educated than he is...
CptSpauIding 2 weeks ago
@CptSpauIding I looked up his education and put it next to mine. I am more educated and have a higher IQ. I served as an officer in the military (he didn't), worked has an executive in a large company. I left to start my own business and now have several corporate entities and make a great living as an entrepreneur (he never did) and employ over 100 people. My credentials far surpass his. Bye now.
svvmichael1 2 weeks ago
@svvmichael1 lol, you should begin writing books then, you're bound to be one of the most respected American minds.
CptSpauIding 2 weeks ago
@CptSpauIding (3)
Third – Again, we have a tunnel vision of warfare only in “conventional” form. Chomsky fails to comprehend asymmetrical warfare. His flawed theorizing has been refuted many times by the most powerful argument --- the success of guerrilla groups against powerful military forces in the 'real world'.
If you must appeal to authority to support your statements, you will have to find a competent authority.
LongPurple 2 weeks ago
@CptSpauIding (2)
Second – His view seems more than “a bit simplistic” to me. Perhaps he is unaware that the Soviet tanks were chased out of Budapest by Hungarians with Molotov cocktails. You don't need a tank to kill a tank.
That same Soviet military had nuclear weapons in its arsenal when they invaded Afghanistan. That overwhelming “advantage” did not prevent their defeat.
LongPurple 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
LongPurple 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
LongPurple 2 weeks ago
@LongPurple
REPOST -- Reply to Cpt Spaulding
SECOND – His view seems more than “a bit simplistic” to me. Perhaps he is unaware that the Soviet tanks were chased out of Budapest by Hungarians with Molotov cocktails. You don't need a tank to kill a tank.
That same Soviet military had nuclear weapons in its arsenal when they invaded Afghanistan. That "overwhelming advantage” did not prevent their defeat.
**See (3) below.
LongPurple 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
LongPurple 1 week ago
@LongPurple
I wonder how long it will be permitted to remain this time. Strange, how it can be posted and visible when I am logged in, but when I come to this page and am not logged in, it has ceased to exist. Quite a system, YT.
LongPurple 1 week ago
@LongPurple
It might be a good idea for everyone posting a comment to see if what they have posted when logged in remains posted after they log out. It seems YT needs some monitoring.
LongPurple 1 week ago
@LongPurple
Are you still having an issue with comments?
InevitableDecline 1 week ago
@InevitableDecline
I got a line on what YT seems to be doing. They don't like more than two comments in a row that were pasted in instead of typed directly into the comment box. Maybe it's an attempt to stop spam.
LongPurple 6 days ago
@LongPurple
Ah. At least you got it figured out, but that is still pretty fucked up.
I oftentimes type out my comments in notepad & copy-paste because:
1. I'm really frickin long-winded/detailed & one comment box usually can't hold what I'm trying to say
2. If my browser crashes I don't lose 10 or more minutes of typing and research(if research was necessary for that reply)
At this point does someone need to write a technical manual about Youtube bullshit policies or something? WTF
InevitableDecline 6 days ago
@InevitableDecline
Will send you a PM re problem. No sense taking up space here. (And it's easier too.)
LongPurple 6 days ago
Comment removed
LongPurple 1 week ago
Comment removed
LongPurple 2 weeks ago
@CptSpauIding
Stop thinking in terms of conventional warfare.
You need to think outside the box; in terms of guerrilla warfare, resistance movements, insurgency, etc. to understand how a powerful military force can be defeated by a relatively poorly armed people's army.
LongPurple 2 weeks ago
@LongPurple (2)
Michael Collins and his “12 Apostles” accomplished something by urban guerrilla warfare that several centuries of rebellion in “conventional warfare” mode could not do. They brought the British Empire, if not to its knees, at least to the bargaining table, and established the Irish Free State. They had no artillery, planes, tanks, or navy to match the British ----- just small arms.
LongPurple 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
CptSpauIding 2 weeks ago
yeah cause nothing has changed between the 18th century and today
CptSpauIding 2 weeks ago
@CptSpauIding Right, this is why we need to fight for more liberties instead of less. That means no government at all.
slaughtz 2 weeks ago
hacked framers f-ed up the wording...oh lols
fostersfibs 2 weeks ago
@jaykgrey @COMALiteJ (I'm not sure if this is what you mean, but here is my interpretations of the commas.) The amendment states that "A well regulated militia shall not be infringed." The commas are inserted to incorporate non-essential clauses (descriptive detail which also defines the noun in question--in this case "militia"). Thus, the framers state that public militias were "necessary for security..." and militias were "the right of the people...". That's what the grammar says. Thank you.
prufrock1977 2 weeks ago
@prufrock1977 nope you are wrong, and Penn, Teller, COMALiteJ, Justice Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, etc are right. hope I cleared that up for you.
svvmichael1 2 weeks ago
jesus christ you two, chill the fuck out. it's youtube, if youre arguing, youve already lost. please take it to pm if you care enough
mogochoholow 2 weeks ago
Police consider 10 minutes a "good" response time. A homeowner can be robbed and shot in 5 min. An innocent mother can be raped and stabbed in 10 min. I consider "retarded" gun banning liberals accessories to home invasions that result in violent crimes were gun bans are in effect. Technically their telling already armed criminals there's a gun ban in effect here so go for it. There are no bans where I live so my weapon of choice for home security is a 357 Semi-Auto Mag.
myNifty350 2 weeks ago
Holy shit, I love Penn.
werebee 3 weeks ago
Even a lot of gun owners do not understand that the militia referred to in the 2nd were soldiers controlled by a Governor loyal to the king. (these soldiers being used to suppress the freedom of the people) And the purpose of the second is to "regulate" those govt soldiers/cops and hold them and tyranny in check. (evidence of this is all of the pro gun people who started "militias" as justification for their gun ownership)
SmokeRingsPipeDreams 3 weeks ago
@SmokeRingsPipeDreams, Actually, that's not quite true, and Penn got it wrong too. The word “Militia” is NOT a synonym for “Army.” The Revolution was against the British ARMY (Redcoats). It was NOT a militia.
The word “Militia” meant ALL ABLE-BODIED ADULT MALES! The gun-banners are wrong, too. Early drafts of the 2nd: “A well regulated Militia COMPOSED OF THE •BODY• OF THE •PEOPLE• being necessary…” — that UPPERCASE text was removed because they considered it REDUNDANT!
COMALiteJ 2 weeks ago
@COMALiteJ I disagree and all constitutional scholars also disagree with you. Govenors apointed by the king had their own "militias". These govenors used these militias to suppress the people and do the kings will. That is the miltia talked about in the second. It doesn't really matter what the other drafts said as it was changed to mean what it means today.
SmokeRingsPipeDreams 2 weeks ago
@SmokeRingsPipeDreams The enemy militia is not the one talked about in the 2nd Amendment. The Amendment states that a militia composed of armed able-bodied citizens is necessary to ensure a free state. I disagree with you, and so do all constitutional scholars.
lwst1988 2 weeks ago
@SmokeRingsPipeDreams: “I disagree and all constitutional scholars also disagree with you.”
Really? ALL of them!? Every last one, without exception? Because I only have to find one to disprove that blanket assertion.
Better yet, though, how about you go to Google Books and read the actual transcripts of the actual debates of the Founding Fathers as they actually debated the wording of the Second Amendment and the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights?
COMALiteJ 2 weeks ago
@SmokeRingsPipeDreams, (cont.)
Section 311 of US Code Title 10, entitled, "Militia: composition and classes" in its entirety:
"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.”
COMALiteJ 2 weeks ago
@SmokeRingsPipeDreams, (USC 10 § 311 cont.):
“(b) The classes of the militia are —
“(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
“(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."
Now, granted, that was not the ORIGINAL definition, but it IS based on it. For one thing, there was no National Guard at the time, nor for a century after.
COMALiteJ 2 weeks ago
@SmokeRingsPipeDreams, (cont.) Also, your assertion that the earlier drafts removed “composed of the BODY of the PEOPLE” to CHANGE the meaning is flatly wrong. Had they done that, they would’ve put some OTHER definition there. They did not. They simply REMOVED the definition BECAUSE IT WAS REDUNDANT. The Militia had ALREADY been defined in other legal documents of the various States and the USA as a whole as meaning ALL able-bodied adult males from 17 to 45, at MINIMUM.
COMALiteJ 2 weeks ago
@COMALiteJ It's not an assertion, it's the truth. And legal scholors have overwhelmingly said the same thing. Are you saying that the second give the right to keep and bear arms to only the military and national guard etc? And that it is about regulating gun ownership? If so the liberals are right, that gun control is legal and mandated under the constitution. then what's that part about "the peoples right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"??? You have bought into the liberal think.
SmokeRingsPipeDreams 2 weeks ago
@SmokeRingsPipeDreams, #1, it IS an assertion. Look up what that word means. An assertion may be true or false, but is still an assertion.
In your case, it is a BARE assertion, which is a logical fallacy (even if true). You offered nothing whatsoever beyond the assertion itself to back it up.
You also made a claim that “ALL constitutional scholars” disagree with me. That is also a BARE and BLANKET assertion, and it is easily disproven. It only takes ONE counter-example.
COMALiteJ 2 weeks ago
@SmokeRingsPipeDreams, (cont.) The Fallacy of the Bare Assertion is aka the “Because I Said So, That.s Why” fallacy.
Meanwhile, I have already shown you actual U.S. law, and told you where you can go to read the actual words of the actual writings of the actual men who actually debated the actual wording of the Second Amendment.
Your assertion is ludicrous for another reason: the Founding Fathers did NOT change the definition to mean “what it means TODAY” (YOUR words).
COMALiteJ 2 weeks ago
@SmokeRingsPipeDreams, (cont.) Why not? Because the Founding Fathers had NO WAY of KNOWING what the word would mean today, that’s why. They were not prophets, nor did they have a crystal ball nor technological future time viewer.
Even in RECENT times, we can see how words change meaning drastically. If a journal that was allegedly written in the 1970s or earlier described someone as “going postal,” you’d need no more evidence than that to conclude that it’s fake.
COMALiteJ 2 weeks ago
@SmokeRingsPipeDreams, (cont.) How would we know that the 1970s “going postal” journal was fake, without having to examine its ink, paper, etc.? Because nobody used that phrase in the 1970s, not unless they were talking about how to mail something. The violent postal worker rampage that shocked the nation and added that two-word idiom to our language didn’t happen until the 1980s. That was only ~¼ century ago. People still remember that who were ADULTS then (me included).
COMALiteJ 2 weeks ago
@SmokeRingsPipeDreams, (cont.) So, the Founding Fathers COULD NOT have used modern (to us) word meanings. They used the meanings that THEY knew.
On to your second statement: “Are you saying that the second give the right to keep and bear arms to only the military and national guard etc? And that it is about regulating gun ownership?”
No. Not at all. I think you’ve misjudged my intent by about 180°. I OPPOSE gun control and SUPPORT the Right of the PEOPLE to bear Arms.
COMALiteJ 2 weeks ago
@SmokeRingsPipeDreams, (cont.) I was disagreeing on what “Militia” meant. The Militia was NOT the National Guard (that’s MODERN law that says that). It was THE PEOPLE. In particular, anyone who was an able-bodied adult male aged 17–45, though some states had far looser requirements. Some simply said, “All able-bodied adults,” PERIOD. Bona-fide religious objectors such as Quakers were exempt from being required to serve in the Militia.
COMALiteJ 2 weeks ago
@SmokeRingsPipeDreams, (cont.) But, REGARDLESS of what “Militia” means, the simple fact is that, according to the rules of English grammar BOTH THEN AND NOW, the OPERATIVE part of the Amendment is the INDEPENDENT Clause, NOT the DEPENDENT clause! The part about the Militia is a DEPNDENT clause (not even really a CLAUSE — more like a compound phrase)! It CANNOT stand alone as a complete and grammatically correct sentence in its own right.
COMALiteJ 2 weeks ago
@SmokeRingsPipeDreams, (cont.) “The Right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed” CAN stand alone as a complete and grammatically correct sentence. That makes it an INDEPENDENT clause, and thus the LEGALLY OPERATIVE PORTION of the Amendment.
The preceding part, which doesn’t even qualify as a DEPENDENT CLAUSE unless you insert an implied “being” before “necessary” (clauses MUST have a VERB!), is merely •A• REASON FOR the Right, NOT a LIMITATION ON it!
COMALiteJ 2 weeks ago
@COMALiteJ Are you saying the constitution grants men the right to own guns because we all belong to the "militia"?
SmokeRingsPipeDreams 2 weeks ago
@COMALiteJ Yup. According to our article 6 of the articles of confederation there shall be no peace time military but every state shall have a militia that may be ready to protect state at all times, and all states are obligated to protect each other. The only bond that the states are meant to have is free trade, free travel, the constitution, and the duty to protect each other.
d3ltadrive 2 weeks ago
he swore awesome and i agree
anderberger 3 weeks ago
here In Denmark it is ilegal to own a hunting knife without a licence.:(
anders1621 3 weeks ago
@anders1621 Really? Damn, I guess we in America ARE the only hope for liberty. We really need to get our heads out of our asses...
OzzyFan87 3 weeks ago
@OzzyFan87
Jep... no 2nd Amendment for me. Danish politicians are afraid of their own shadow. their latest stunt was to introduce a prohibition against 13 dog breeds.
Then, they introduced a law that allows politicians to keep their work secret from the Danish population. so much for our freedom of information. Democracy is only right to vote on who will fuck you in the ass. people have no influence or say in political decisions
anders1621 3 weeks ago
@anders1621 I don't have a problem with licensing. I have a problem with prohibiting though.
nexus1g 3 weeks ago
@nexus1g
The problem in Denmark is that it is extremely difficult to get a license to simply carry a knife.
since the law was introduced in 2010, we saw that factory workers and construction tradesmen, who was arrested on the street and jailed for wearing a utility knife / box cutter
even a man who worked in a kindergarten, was imprisoned for having a multitool with a integrated knife and since he now has a criminal record, it's also illegal to work with children he also lost his job
anders1621 3 weeks ago
@anders1621 That's just sad. It gives me a new view on licensing though.
nexus1g 3 weeks ago
@nexus1g
The law was introduced because a small group of approx. 40-50 criminals in our capital, led a small gangwar. and due to media exaggeration of "our first real gangwar" the government chose to impose a total ban on knives, on the whole population (5.5 mil citizens)
Total insane ..
anders1621 3 weeks ago
@anders1621 I love how Europeans try to act like their nations are so much more progressive and free than the U.S. when in several countries you can't even own a baseball bat without proper licenses.
werebee 3 weeks ago
@anders1621 Apparently Denmark hates contractors. They'll change their policy on knife licenses when their buildings begin falling apart.
lwst1988 2 weeks ago
@lwst1988
no they will blame evryone else but them selfs
anders1621 2 weeks ago
The pope is the anti christ whom the lord JESUS warned us about. PROOF BIBLE PROPHECY says the anti christ would come out of Rome,rule the kings of the earth with the harlot church from Rome, would kill the saints change Gods laws and call himself JESUS'S equal. Only the pope has done this and still does this. The pope and the jesuits control the illuminati they control the ten main illuminati families which run the world. The pope is satans anti christ which PAUL warned us about the blasphemere
vladimirkovalski 3 weeks ago
@vladimirkovalski congratulations, you have achieved nothing.
sgthobbes2 3 weeks ago
@sgthobbes2 NO I DID NOW YOU KNOW THE POPE is the anti christ and God will expect you to make the right choice when testing will begin. I did do something i wittnessed to you JESUS CHRISTS GOSPEL, and when this gospel is preached into all the world as a wittness than the end will come JESUS SAID
vladimirkovalski 2 weeks ago
Is the fact that everyone has guns stops! so many good ideas coming into power! Like good laws or free Heath care, a right to clean water or the right to shelter?
gomikeygomikey 3 weeks ago
At this point, the only half-way reasonable argument against the second amendment is that the military and government have fucking nuclear weapons. I don't care how many bullets the gun you have the right to own shoots. If you have to go up against the government, you're fucked. Gun control is just being a realist and saying we're fucked if we do and fucked if we don't.
Theroha 3 weeks ago
@Theroha Aren't there protocols against the use of detonating nuclear weapons, or is that only for international warfare? Though if it's for international warfare, you have to take embassies and consulates into account.
lwst1988 3 weeks ago
@lwst1988 I don't know the exact protocols for nuclear arms, but there is no denying that the military has civilians outgunned. Forget nuclear weapons. As George Carlin said, "We don't have flame throwers; the government does. I think we're fucked if we have to go against the government." Any civilian resistance is useless militarily compared to the power of the government in modern warfare. It is only morality & international & economic repercussions that hold the army at bay.
Theroha 3 weeks ago
@Theroha The Revolutionary Army was outgunned, too. Nobody in a million years thought a military made up of disgruntled farmers could win a war against the British. Who knows. If a civilian militia ever decides to take up arms against the government, they might get lucky.
lwst1988 3 weeks ago
@Theroha If it came down to government vs citizens what percent of active military would side with government over their friends and family? Not a large percent I'd assume. It would be gorilla warfare and last time I checked the North Vietnamese did a pretty good job at holding us off for a long time with only 2 million men. 100 million citizens own firearms.
whothaplaya 3 weeks ago 2
@Theroha So what you're saying is that gun control is admitting you're a pussy rolling over and saying "Fuck me in the ass big guy! There isn't shit I can do!"
hooplablahblahblah 3 weeks ago
@hooplablahblahblah Having the 2nd Amendment is gun control. Having no law that has to do with the ownership of guns would be having no gun control. Its like you people don't get what "gun control" means.
lwst1988 3 weeks ago
@Theroha I'd think that if I lived in a Nation where I had to worry about the Government using large scale weapons of war against its populace, than that would be a Government worth fighting against.
UnitedStatesBG 3 weeks ago
lmfao
djqx 3 weeks ago
Yes the real world, not middle school and reading the writings of a fantasy fiction cult that is the Libertarians, but actual living and experiencing the world. Who said other than you that it is an accomplishment, it is simple fact, so you baffle only yourself. Yes, your insults were refuted whether you choose to see that or not. Considering your response, your grip on reality appears to be a precarious one. I feel sorry for you, truly. I wish you luck with that.
Navywxman 3 weeks ago
@Navywxman No, living in the so-called "real world," was not the accomplishment I was speaking of. Being older then 15 is actually what you've been bragging about. As for your "real world" theory, if Middle School isn't the real world, then it wouldn't be required to get a high school diploma. Why would you even attempt to trash talk education by calling it fantasy? And if you do not agree with the Libertarian party, then don't register as Libertarian.
lwst1988 3 weeks ago
@lwst1988 Wow, you have some serious issues buddy! It is amusing since your "arguments" have been nothing but ad hominem attacks. It is sad that that you feel your pitiful insults and absence of any sort of substance has been been missed by me, it is hard to since that is all you have contributed. I wish you luck on that whole learning to read thing since you said it is hard for you. The more you write, the more I feel sorry for you. I hope you get the help you need lwst1988!
Navywxman 3 weeks ago
@Navywxman I took that class too. Introduction to critical reading and thinking. Only an idiot from that class would even think of bringing up ad hominem, or any of the other logical fallacies. At least now I know how old you are. 18 to 21, I would estimate. In the real world, when adults like myself are having discussions, no matter how many insults are thrown out there, nobody uses meaningless college terminology. Take care, kid.
lwst1988 3 weeks ago
@lwst1988 You took a class!? Good for you, aren't you getting to be a big boy. Thanks for proving me wrong on the fact that your "adult discussion" is nothing more than attributing things to me and attacking them (which you don't need me if you want to argue with yourself), and pitiful insults. Sorry who is the kid? The more you write the more I feel sorry for you buddy. It's about to turn 4pm, isn't there a clock you have to pop out of? Coo coo, Coo coo
Navywxman 3 weeks ago
@Navywxman I took about 25 classes actually, or however many were a part of my program. Well, give or take a few, since one was a training course, and another was an internship, and a couple more were just prerequisites to get into the program, but I think you get my point. The fact that you're delusional and are under the assumption that I have made an argument other then my statement that you're an idiot is quite humorous. Carry on, dear child.
lwst1988 3 weeks ago
@lwst1988 The more you write the sadder I feel for you. Thanks for letting me know indirectly who the kid is.
Navywxman 3 weeks ago
@Navywxman What fantasy world do you live in? You say that the more I write, the sadder you feel for me, but you were replying to a comment where I stated that I have a college education. Why is college education sad? Is it because you had trouble passing Introduction to Critical Reading and Thinking? Just because you can't do something doesn't make it sad.
lwst1988 3 weeks ago
@lwst1988 And I feel even sadder for you still. Back to making up false positions to me and attacking them. I mean if you want to argue with yourself you don't need to write to me, seriously. You can just mutter to yourself without even getting on your computer. I feel sad for you because every comment made has been nothing but attributing things to me and raising some false argument over it and pitiful insults. So yes, I feel very sorry for you. Seek the help you need ok.
Navywxman 3 weeks ago
@Navywxman I feel sorry for you for not recognizing blatant heel remarks when you see them. That means you miss the funny side of this entire discussion. This entire discussion started because you claimed that I was making some sort of an argument, which I wasn't. So, to be blatantly patronizing, and quite ironic, I invented argument points based off of your comments. What makes this situation quite ironic is that I told you I was being blatantly patronizing. Take care, kid.
lwst1988 3 weeks ago
@lwst1988 lol, sadder and sadder! So now because I have said I feel sorry for you (which I do) now you say that to me, lol. Then you make up more nonsense, dude, you are digging your hole deeper and making a bigger embarrassment of yourself. Stop yourself! I've already said from the beginning that you just made up BS and attributed it to me, so I already said you were full of shit which is what you admit to now. Thanks for the non revelation! Get a life dude, just not mine!
Navywxman 3 weeks ago
@Navywxman Do you know what's funny about this entire situation? I don't feel sorry for you. I said that I was merely to be blatantly patronizing, which is humorous, since you still don't get it, yet this is the third time I've told you that. Essentially I'm mocking you, as I have been this entire time. You're just too stupid to realize it.
lwst1988 3 weeks ago
@lwst1988 OMG weirdo, I get you have been retarded from the beginning, I called you on it from the beginning, no mystery Einstein! Disturbed old guy, seek help...please!! End of conversation psycho
Navywxman 3 weeks ago
@Navywxman Now you're just resorting to uneducated ad hominem. So immature.
lwst1988 3 weeks ago
@lwst1988
Curious, why would you care about being correct in the responses? Be correct in a video and gauge your success by your views/likes/subs or even better yet profit and growth. Otherwise you just seem sad. =/ No offense.
dibaterman 3 weeks ago
I'm not a Newt fan at all. However, I was just watching a speech he was giving on CNN in Concorde, New Hampshire about 2nd Amendment & why we have Militias. Also, how our 1st president G. Washington led that charge that kept the British from taking our guns. NO ONE better not Tread on my Constitutional Rights.
WilliamHCarney 4 weeks ago
Hahaha that made me laugh so much
ichrammsteinfan 4 weeks ago
Is a militia necessary to the security of a free state these days? In Britain the closest we get is the territorial army. They don't take their guns home though.
137Newton 4 weeks ago
@137Newton more than ever. Western Governments are now largely owned by multinational corporations, no one in government supports the people, and the West is sliding further and further towards a dystopian tyranny. Look in your own country were the Rights of Englishmen has been long swept away, and men are put in jail for defending their own homes. Students are beaten by police, while Muslims get Shari laws and courts to rule over you. Hence, the people need to defend themselves
DaytonaRoadster 3 weeks ago
The military was not meant to stay as an indefinite force within and outside the US. The military is meant to be disbanded when not needed. That's why the founders knew the president would abuse his powers to take us to perpetual wars with other nations as the policemen of the world (financial debt), hence the right to bear arms.
If the US was attacked, the militia mobilze easily by citizens themselves, just like Switzerland. Their citizens have hand grenades in their homes. P&T suck a dick
TTAGGGAATCCC 4 weeks ago
@TTAGGGAATCCC Actually the Swiss military isn't disbanded, they are just a drumline in times of peace. Amazing things you can do with your military when your not douchbags to everyone and don't try and expand past your uninvadable borders. Greatest fucking drumline I've ever seen in my life. That's what 600 years of practice does for you.
d3ltadrive 4 weeks ago
@lwst1988 Argue with yourself. I've already destroyed you. Period. Game over.
bobbeedigi 4 weeks ago
@bobbeedigi And that, my friend, is called delusion. I guess that truly is checkmate.
lwst1988 4 weeks ago
@bobbeedigi I don't think you made a single point in that argument. You simply insulted the other guy and stated that his points were stupid, which they were not. I would like to know what law school you went to, because it probably shouldn't be taken seriously by any law firm. That really wan't even an argument that was you misunderstanding a law, than getting defensive and avoiding questions, you sir are delusional.
d3ltadrive 4 weeks ago
@d3ltadrive Then I guess it's a good thing that I don't care one bit what some douchebag sitting in his parents' basement in his underwear thinks or doesn't think. Face it, your boy got worked.
bobbeedigi 4 weeks ago
@bobbeedigi At least I didn't have my federal judge father buy me a law degree, and then attempt to pass a slip of paper off as actual knowledge on the subject. By the way, your uneducated insults further proves that I lawyered your ass. Thanks for making this so easy.
lwst1988 4 weeks ago
@bobbeedigi Your right, I am dependent on my parents, because i'm 15 years old. Hows about you actually make a point and ill face it.
d3ltadrive 4 weeks ago
@d3ltadrive Oh, your 15! Well that explains a great deal. Kid, because you read some crazy Libertarian stuff doesn't mean you know anything or how the world works lol. things aren't so black and white nor are Libertarians particularly honest or accurate. I'll give you credit for trying to understand the world but you have a ways to go little fella.
Navywxman 4 weeks ago
@Navywxman You are a dumbass, you haven't even made an argument. If you think your Federal Reserve system and system of endless debt is working you must be senile.
d3ltadrive 4 weeks ago
@d3ltadrive "You simply insulted the other guy and stated that his points were stupid" Sounds familiar! Actually I had made an argument, simply stating otherwise doesn't make it so. Also, my federal reserve system? It is mine now? Did I say the system is working? Actually from what I have written I obviously don't nor think Libertarian ideology is either. Please don't stop arguing with yourself kid since you only make up positions for me. lol, I see who is the dumbass lol.
Navywxman 4 weeks ago
@Navywxman The Federal Reserve system is not yours. It's actually a privately run company that operates illegally outside of government control, which is quite bizarre, since it's the major source of finances in the United States, and was the key factor in the cause of the Great Depression of the 1930's, the recession in the 1970's, and the current depression. It is a blight on the US that has existed for far too long, and must be allowed to die, like the United Nations.
lwst1988 4 weeks ago
@Navywxman I like how you attempt to use a person's age as a means to cast yourself in a superior and more knowledgeable light. A 15 year old, although young, is not a child. Any points made by anyone, of any age, should be taken seriously, since the Constitution of the United States does not discriminate against age. Also, whatever political party you believe in is just as stupid as the Libertarians. Politicians are idiots, kind of like you. Are you a politician?
lwst1988 4 weeks ago
@lwst1988 I'm glad you like what I did not do. What I do have is alot more experience in the real world which is undeniable, but like i said I give the kid credit for trying. It isn't age that is his problem but immaturity and mere regurgitation of Libertarian foolishness. I don't believe in any political party FYI. I know all about the Federal Reserve, your not telling me anything I don't know. So since your insults have been refuted I guess you are the idiot to use your own term.
Navywxman 4 weeks ago
@Navywxman You have more experience in the "real world," which is a term where in the real world simply means "the world," only because you had the privileged of being born first, which in all honesty, is not an accomplishment at all but a simple fact of nature, so it baffles me that you would use that as an argument point. I don't see where I was refuted, because I don't see where there was an argument. You are delusional, my friend.
lwst1988 3 weeks ago
@Navywxman As for my comment about the Federal Reserve, that was not part of an argument, so for argument's sake, lets just say that I was in the mood to rant about the Federal Reserve. It didn't need to be commented on, especially since I wasn't saying anything that you supposedly already didn't know.
lwst1988 3 weeks ago
@lwst1988 I really don't care about your rant. I know all that and more so for arguments sake or not it doesn't matter. Good luck with your precarious grasp, I do hope you have good luck with that.
Navywxman 3 weeks ago
@Navywxman My argument has not been refuted as I haven't made an argument. In whatever fantasy world you live in, I made an argument, and you refuted it with your superior older-than-15 "real world" fantasy logic. What is humorous about this discussion is that you're too stupid to realize that I'm blatantly being patronizing towards you.
lwst1988 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
Navywxman 3 weeks ago
@Navywxman You should probably go back to middle school and take basic writing courses, because I'm having a difficult time reading your sentences. Just because you dropped out in 8th grade doesn't make it fantasy.
lwst1988 3 weeks ago
The people ARE the Militia.
toolfreak4157 4 weeks ago
I think i'm getting a tattoo idea, :-)
MetalSkull420 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lwst1988 All you have to do is post ONE link to and quote me the exact language of ONE state statute that criminalizes the acts of suicide or attempted suicide and you could win the argument. You haven't done it. Why? Because in spite of your assertion to the contrary, they don't exist and you're a moron. CHECKMATE, idiot!
bobbeedigi 1 month ago
Comment removed
bobbeedigi 1 month ago
I'm the one with a law degree and a parent that is a federal judge so I don't think I'll accept your ridiculous criticism.The law IS black and white.Your restaurant example would be an illegal act because county and municipal ordinances usually prohibit discharging a firearm within city or county limits.With exceptions for licensed businesses in a properly zoned location.I'm still waiting for you to quote me any state legislation(section,subsection and clauses) that make suicide a crime, idiot.
bobbeedigi 1 month ago
@bobbeedigi You just stated that suicide is a crime. Like I said, and what you indeliberately explained, the law is in fact not black and white. Lawyered.
lwst1988 1 month ago
@bobbeedigi Your father may be a federal judge, but the fact that he bought you your law degree doesn't give you a mastery for the law. It means you have a slip of paper and no knowledge of what it represents.
lwst1988 1 month ago
Attempted suicide is not a crime, moron! Quote me the language of ONE state statute that makes ATTEMPTED SUICIDE or SUICIDE a crime. JUST ONE! I'll be waiting, Idiot.
bobbeedigi 1 month ago
@bobbeedigi Not everything is black and white. There are subtleties which makes something an illegal act or not, many of which in regards to attempted suicide, I have explained to you. You cannot go out to a restaurant, pull out a gun, put it to your head, fire it, survive, and expect no consequences. Suicide is a public danger, which makes it illegal. Like I said, the purpose of law is to protect, not to ensure death.
lwst1988 1 month ago
@bobbeedigi And if you cannot see this, then you would make a terrible lawyer. You should stick to your day job. Never attempt to get into law. You would suck at it. You'd just end up calling your opponent a moron, which would ultimately either get you dismissed, have the case thrown out. or have you placed under arrest for contempt of court.
lwst1988 1 month ago
Comment removed
bobbeedigi 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lwst1988 If one of my opponents continued to waste the court's time by making your utterly moronic and incoherent arguments, the judge would hold THEM in contempt! Idiot.
bobbeedigi 1 month ago
@bobbeedigi So since you continue to make utterly moronic and incoherent arguments, you would be in concept for two accounts. One for making utterly moronic and incoherent arguments, and another for continuously and blatantly insulting your opponent. Lawyered.
lwst1988 1 month ago
@lwst1988lol You are such a fool.Notice how everyone on this vid thinks you're a moron and gives examples of why that is?You haven't made one good point.I've been destroying your arguments for days.If you were a practicing attorney making these arguments,the court would punish your client with a dismissal,suggest that they sue you for malpractice and submit a complaint to the state bar recommending censure or disbarment.You are literally the most willfully ignorant poster on YouTube.
bobbeedigi 1 month ago
@bobbeedigi I notice how you call me a moron and attempt to give me examples as to why that is. I don't know why you would refer to yourself as 'everyone,' however. That seems a little narcissistic to me. I can't understand why you would be so defensive. You have no point. You submitted to me the moment you began disregarding the discussion and carried on your troglodytish "attempt at insult" behavior. If you want to return to discussion, I'm happy to do so.
lwst1988 1 month ago
sounds about right
cwross1976 1 month ago
I agree that felons shouldnt own guns but really try to ban them for us who just shoot them for sport / hunting?? fuck you anti gun assholes
7zobzombie 1 month ago
@7zobzombie I agree but I don't like to shoot animals for a sport, I am all for the 2nd Amendment tho.
MobHeataEnt 1 month ago
It's still weird how the US kills about, ow I don't know. a 100 times more people with guns then any other country.
In other first world countries a person getting killed by a gun is news.
In the US on the other hand...
Which ofcourse show that the guns ain't the issue.(not sarcasm btw, many countries have guns but don't kill one another with it).
Picasso43967 1 month ago
@Picasso43967 Please explain how someone getting shot = everyone losing their rights to own a piece of metal
zdrux 1 month ago
@zdrux
I didn't say anything of that sort...
Actually I said that it had nothing to do with it. The problem lies elsewhere.
Picasso43967 1 month ago