Roy, can you write a song for every amendment? Then I'll be able to memorize them all :P Love the odd moment when I walk into the grocery store and realize I can recite the entire second Amendment.
so just to sum up, i should get my understanding of the second amendment from comedy folk singers, and not from the framers of the constitution. ok good, thats clear now.
@sakar181 why do you get to "extrapolate from my comment" ,but i have to "point to where he said that"? that's a logical fallacy and so is name calling. but im sure you're a big hit in your middle school, so keep it up i guess
@TheSpeedy0504 lol yeah, ben franklin called my juija board and said i deserve a full auto uzi for x-mas. try a book maybe. im not even saying i dont like this song, i just wish more people had a curiosity about the truth instead of JUST satire
Here's what I was taught in my PoliSci class: 1st half of the Amendment essentially establishes the national guard. The 2nd half sets up the rights of citizens to own weapons in case we find ourselves in the situation were we have to fight another war on our own soil or go hunting whatever you need to do. Just don't be stupid and try to start a war because Sarah Palin or Rick Perry said it was a good idea.
@Theroha The national guard (what used to be the militia) is already established in the Constitution itself; the first clause of the second amendment of the Bill of Rights references the militia, to distinguish the right of the people to keep and bear arms independent of the context of "militia". What it really comes down to is the inalienable natural right to defend one's own life, liberty, and property; if you take away the means by which to exercise said right, you take it away alltogether
Here's the bottom line for me on the meaning of the Second Amendment: If you accept the argument that it protects individual rights, the first half of the amendment makes no sense. If the intent was to preserve rights to maintain well-regulated militia, the entire amendment can be seen as consistent. For more on the militia issue, see The Federalist Papers.
@thenoobcannon If by that you mean that it explains the purpose of the amendment, I agree. If you read the Federalist, you will see that it was essentially a states' rights issue. People didn't want peacetime federal standing armies because they thought it would be "dangerous to liberty" -- meaning they would centralize power -- that there must be regulated militia that the states could call upon to provide for our defense once the federal armies disbanded. That's what the 2nd is about.
@sisgaia Only if you lack basic understanding of constitutional law and 18th century English. The establishment of the rights of the militia is already established by article 1, section 8 of the Constitution. The first clause of the second amendment of the Bill of Rights references the militia, to distinguish the right of the people to keep and bear arms independent of the context of "militia". The intent of the 2nd amendment was never to preserve a militia.
@sisgaia I hate how the liberals twist it to just " a well regulated militia," when it says "militia" and "the people." B/c a militia INCLUDES BEING ARMED! Wow, a regulated militia excludes their right to bare arms? Come on, twisting the second amendment like that. The liberals have to be stupid to think we are that we are stupid. And anyone who knows history knows it was to protect ppl from the govt during the rev war. And guess what my liberal friends, the constitution is TIMELESS!
@devmanification Didn't you ever read "Animal Farm"? The party that wants to change the Constitution, the progressives, always claim that they can "reinterpret" whatever they don't like about the the country's Constitution.
@Lexter441 No it's not about "reinterpreting" what we don't like. It is our right and responsibility ,however, to interpret the exact wording to try and understand it. Let me just say this: there is a very good reason why the wording in the 1st amendment was "abridged" and the word in the 2nd amendment is infringed. there is a very big and important difference.
@TheSpeedy0504 So read the Federalist Paper #46. Or read the Constitution of Massachusetts, the oldest State Constitution, written by the founders. It says the people of the state have the right to bear arms for the common defense.
@Lexter441 Yes you're right but they never said that everyone can bear arms all the time, in all places, without any regulation. like I said there is a difference between shall not be abridged and shall not be infringed.
@TheSpeedy0504 That makes no sense. If you're suggesting that the government can decide when and where you can bear arms, then how can you consider the right to bear arms unable to be 'infringed" or "unalienable".
You understand that the purpose to the Bill of Rights, as stated in the preamble is to protect rights from the legislation of the government.
And the 10th amendment says congress can't make laws unless the constitution delegates the powers to it.
@Lexter441 What i'm saying is that the government has every right to make regulations about where you can take your guns. There is a very good reason for that. This is what the writers had in mind when they used the word infringed. You can abridge something without infringing it. Guns need regulation they are dangerous.
@TheSpeedy0504 Just read Federalist Paper #46. The actual intention of the 2nd Amendment, was for the States to go to war against Congress in order to uphold their sovereignty and rights. The idea was to alienate the people's militias from the Federal government. At the end of the paper, James Madison even compares the predicted size of the armies of Congress to the bodies of ordinary citizens and argues that the people would prevail and uphold their rights and their states.
@TheSpeedy0504 This is precisely why, he argues, that militia officers be appointed by the States, in order to separate the leaders of the militias from the ambitions and agenda that could be shared by an illegitimate Federal government, who seeks to use their armies to encroach on the natural rights of the people and their states.
And he also specifically refers to the ordinary citizen as having the right to be armed.
@TheSpeedy0504 BUT, the main point is that ALL Federal firearms legislation are unconstitutional, not only because of the 2nd Amendment, but also because of the 9th and 10th Amendments, which say any powers not granted to the Federal government by the Constitution are reserved for the states. This made it clear that congress was a separate entity from the states, and had limited roles in the legislation of the people's lives.
@Lexter441 Well then you get into issues of constitution vs. peoples lives. If say a crazy guy were to walk into a store with a gun because his state decided he could because they have no gun regulations and he shoots 20 people. What is more important states rights to make their own laws or those people. Also I've noticed that noone ever says that the fed govt shouldn't be able to make antidrug laws. It is against federal law to posses sell or smoke pot. Where is that in the constitution.
@TheSpeedy0504 You're right, Federal drug laws are entirely unconstitutional.
Hence why in 1920, the United States HAD to pass the 18th Amendment in order to ban alcohol. But now, our big government thinks it can do whatever it wants.
Most drugs enter the US from foreign countries, so the commerce clause may support the WOD, but I still think it's unconstitutional.
Just like the "Brady Bill" was unconstitutional because of the 10th Amendment.
@Lexter441 Good I'm glad you're consistent and I respect you for that. A lot of people don't see it that way. Either way I think you're right if and only if the states did have regulations for gun control but if you look at places like Texas (I love Texas but those people do love their guns) people would die. I actually think that environmental regulation is okay too because it protects the environment. I think that when the states don't protect people and the planet Fed. Govt. must step in.
@sisgaia or did liberals forget the constitution was timeless while you guys are doing your occupy protests? My friend thank you for using logic and facts to penetrate the emotional deception of the lefty extremists. Now can someone say that to Elena Kagan and Sonya SotoLIAR?
A goofy-looking, so-cal native, textbook liberal, singing a song like somebody who's clearly never had his life threatened or lived in anything other than a gated community full of people just like him, but clearly has the moral authority to tell anyone different what a moron they are for living in a way he does not approve of.
@slightlyoutofreach01 It's moronic to judge people that you know nothing about. I have actually met him. He is not a rich man, or at least was not when I met him. Definitely not a gated-community type. I have never lived in a gated community, and I have had my life threatened, but I agree with him 100%.
@sisgaia My mistake. The smug and arrogant way he presents himself while singing his horrific 'music' gives the impression that he is, indeed, someone who has never had to worry about protecting himself or his loved ones.
"I have had my life threatened, but I agree with him 100%."
Good for you. That doesn't give you the right to interfere with my life or the way I choose to defend myself or my loved ones. It'd be great if we could all just learn kung-fu, but this is the real world.
@slightlyoutofreach01 The more firearms there are in this society, the more danger there is to me. That gives me a right. Firearms purchased with an honest intent to use in self-defense or for peaceable purposes often get used otherwise. That is the real world.
@sisgaia "The more firearms there are in this society, the more danger there is to me."
You're going to be in danger no matter what. The tools used do not matter. Murders committed with firearms make up a small % of overall homicide in this country. And in terms of accidental deaths, firearm-related deaths fall far behind pool drownings and car accidents.
"...often get used otherwise."
So do knives, so do bats, so do any number of items. Humans murdered one another just fine before guns.
@slightlyoutofreach01 That is one of the more desperate attempts to diminish the connection between guns and death. Obviously killing with guns is a lot simpler and involves far less risk, therefore is more likely to be attempted.
As for your statement that "Murders committed with firearms make up a small % of overall homicide in this country," it is simply not true. According to the latest FBI crime statistics, firearms are the instruments of death in 67.5% of all murders. Not a small %.
@sisgaia And yet comprehensive gun laws have done little to nothing to curb murders with firearms. Even with the ban in D.C., again, it maintained a catastrophic murder rate. Once again, I can point out that states with higher rates of gun ownership and more relaxed laws see lower crime rates. Fact.
"Not a small%."
Even if that's true, it doesn't have to do with me or people like me. People inclined to murder others are going to do it no matter what tools are available. People like us aren't.
@slightlyoutofreach01 Comprehensive gun laws? Are you joking? Even if DC could have prevented guns from being bought outside and brought in, their laws did not ever ban all guns.
"Even if that's true.." It is. You should have looked it up before making your claim.
"...it doesn't have to do with me or people like me." People who live in homes with guns are three times more likely to die from guns. And how are the laws to distinguish between those who will kill and those who will not?
You're dodging the point. US cities with the strictest gun laws always have the highest crime rates at the same time. Fact.
"People who live in homes with guns are three times more likely to die from guns."
If you're attempting to quote the Kellerman study, it was debunked ages ago. Besides the flaws in such studies, they completely ignore cases in which firearms were successfully used in self-defense(often without a single shot fired).
@slightlyoutofreach01 I didn't "dodge the point." I addressed it: Cities cannot have enforceable gun laws for the simple reason that they do not have checkpoints of people coming in & out of the city. The cities with strict gun laws had high crime rates before their gun laws -- that's why they passed them.
@sisgaia Then if they're not enforceable, what's the point? Why not simply allow people to defend themselves with the mans available to them? Because that's what it boils down to; I have the right to protect my loved ones, myself, and my property with the means available to me. The government does not have the right to disarm me.
"that's why they passed them."
But it didn't fix things, did it? You could say the guns just come from elsewhere, but they just created their own problem, then.
And yet when we've had national laws, such as the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, they've had no noticeable impact on either gun crime specifically or overall crime rates. The guns are all already here, and I'll say it again, banning them only takes them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. There will always be criminals and murderers, and they will always find ways to break the law.
@slightlyoutofreach01 Actually, firearm related murders dropped 11% the year the federal assault weapons ban went into effect. A 2004 study found that assault weapons account for 2/3 lower proportion of homicides after the ban compared with the years before the ban. You keep presenting your impressions, and I keep showing you the facts that prove your impressions are wrong. Research first!
@slightlyoutofreach01 Kellerman did multiple studies, not just one, and it would be more accurate to say that they were "disputed" rather than "debunked." There are many other studies as well. A metastudy (survey of studies) in Science Daily this past April concluded "studies show that having a gun in the home poses a household a greater health risk than a potential benefit."
@sisgaia "greater health risk than a potential benefit."
The problem, though, is that the benefit often cannot be quantified. Murders, suicides and whatever else are recorded into official records and included in statistics. Where do they record how many times a lawful gun owner deterred an assailant without having to fire a shot? What about all the other instances of lawful self-defense?
@slightlyoutofreach01 Your logic makes sense, but it doesn't fit the facts. The studies compare homes with guns to those without, and the evidence shows greater risk with the guns. If the guns added safety, that methodology would disclose it. Instead, the studies show the opposite: guns decrease safety.
@sisgaia In any event, we're not going to change each other's minds here, and I'm not in the best condition to be debating a subject such as this.
I'll just say that you should consider the fact that murder is already illegal, regardless of gun laws. Making firearms illegal only takes them out of the hands of people inclined to follow the law. If somebody isn't worried about breaking the law banning murder, they aren't going to care much about breaking the one that says they can't own a gun.
@slightlyoutofreach01 I had my home burglarized three times when I was not home. Had I owned guns, they would now be in the hands of criminals. That's how criminals get guns.
As to your argument that "If someone isn't worried about breaking the law banning murder....": Most homicides are not premeditated. If the killers had to go through the trouble of finding a source for an illegal gun, most of these deaths would likely not occur.
@sisgaia "Had I owned guns, they would now be in the hands of criminals."
That's what a safe is for. If you left them easily accessible, yes, they'd get stolen.
"That's how criminals get guns."
And if regular citizens are banned from having them, they'll simply find other ways. Prohibition didn't make alcohol go away, banning guns won't make guns go away.
@slightlyoutofreach01 And what percentage of gun owners would you say keep all their guns in a safe? One study found "[o]f the homes with children and firearms, 55% were reported to have one or more firearms in an unlocked place."
@sisgaia "55% were reported to have one or more firearms in an unlocked place."
And what difference has that made in terms of deaths? Think about how many gun owners there really are in the US, how many homes actually have firearms in them. If gun ownership rates directly correlated to rates of death, there'd be an even larger number of people dying every year. There's a lot of bigger causes of death to worry about, ahead of gun violence or accidents.
@sisgaia But it's like I already said, we're going to have to agree to disagree. We're not going to change each other's minds, and I'm not keen on returning to this video for the next 2-3 days. Take care.
@sisgaia My mistake. The smug and arrogant way he presents himself while singing his horrific 'music' gives the impression that he is, indeed, someone who has never had to worry about protecting himself or his loved ones.
"I have had my life threatened, but I agree with him 100%."
Good for you. That doesn't give you the right to interfere with my life or the way I choose to defend myself or my loved ones. It'd be great if we could all just learn kung-fu, but this is the real world.
Dumb fucks don't realise that in most CIVILIZED societies you do not need to defend yourself from attackers because you see, we don't get attacked alot.
But hey, you guys have exactly what you deserve with your level of intelligence, so keep shooting them guns and keep protecting freedom boys, cause otherwise the terrorists and criminals and the goverment will win right?
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. A government with no fear has absolute power. I quite frankly do not trust a government without fear to be kind, and fair, and honest out of the goodness of its' collective heart. An armed populace, while having quite obvious drawbacks, I still consider... and the founding fathers obviously considered, and George Washington specifically, as a necessary evil.
Regardless of the benefits, I understand an unarmed populace to be too vulnerable.
@stalker700 And realists realize that 'civilized' is merely a label people like to apply to themselves or their countries to feel better, and that no matter how 'civilized' your country is, there will always be the off-chance that somebody will take a swipe at you or your loved ones. It's hardly insane to be prepared for such an occurrence.
@stalker700 And realists realize that 'civilized' is merely a label people like to apply to themselves or their countries to feel better, and that no matter how 'civilized' your country is, there will always be the off-chance that somebody will take a swipe at you or your loved ones. It's hardly insane to be prepared for such an occurrence.
How many militias believe the "NWO" is out to get them? How many different definitions are there for who is behind the NWO or the anti-Christ or the "gumment". It used to be called paranoid SCZ, now it's called the republicanism. How many Christian ministries shout & scream about the NWO & how Obama is a Muslim taking ah guns & liberties & be interchangeable with the ones who said Lincoln was really a Catholic back in 1861 & Roosevelt a secret Jew in 1936?
I find myself singing this in my head sometimes. Wish someone would write some more for the rest of our rights! We could use some work on The Fourth right now!
People seemed concerned about safety in flying so they are willing to Give Up Their Rights? Folks, some of you worked so hard to get them in the first place! Why? It only takes a judge to write 100 "John/Jane Doe" Warrants for each airport and if someone is suspicious, then you have authority to search them.
You sir are the idiot. Milita does not mean Military. The militia is the people. The Government should fear the independent militia. Wikipedia: Constitutional Militia Movement
@forgiste The militia referred to in the 2nd Amendment is a "well regulated militia." This is not, as you suggest, "the people." Read Federalist 29 if you want to get an idea of why the 2nd Amendment was created and what sort of militia they had in mind. The closest thing we have today is the National Guard. The Supreme Court never held that it was an individual right until conservative judicial activists did so just a decade ago.
@forgiste The militia referred to in the 2nd Amendment is a "well regulated militia." This is not, as you suggest, "the people." Read Federalist 29 if you want to get an idea of why the 2nd Amendment was created and what sort of militia they had in mind. The closest thing we have today is the National Guard. The Supreme Court never held that it was an individual right until conservative judicial activists did so just a decade ago.
@forgiste The 2nd refers to "well regulated militia", which is not "the people" as you suggest. Read Federalist 29 to understand why the amendment and what such militia looks like. The National Guard is the best example today. And the amendment was never interpreted by the Supreme Court as an individual right until conservative judicial activists did so just 10 years ago, ignoring the entire history of judicial decisions.
@sisgaia So... the 2nd Amendment is meant to apply to entities like the National Guard, which didn't exist until 1903? Alrighty then.
The quotes of the founding fathers make it very clear who they meant by 'militia.' And it is stated plainly, 'the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' Why is this so hard to understand? What, 'the people' in every other amendment means THE PEOPLE, but 'the people' in the Second Amendment means the National Guard? Okay.
@forgiste The 2nd refers to "well regulated militia", which is not "the people" as you suggest. Read Federalist 29 to understand why the amendment and what such militia looks like. The National Guard is the best example today. And the amendment was never interpreted by the Supreme Court as an individual right until conservative judicial activists did so just 10 years ago, ignoring the entire history of judicial decisions.
Our Founding Fathers of the United States said it best about Guns and The 2nd Amendment. Whenever someone says they did not make it clear enough needs to sit down and read what has really been said and put to paper through the years.
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson
"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense."
- John Adams
"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason
"The ultimate authority resides in the people alone."
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
If gun control stops crime then why do killing sprees happen in gun free zones like columbine Virginia tech or a shopping mall instead of NRA meetings police stations or army bases?
in one the people have a right to keep and bare arms the other has gun ownership required by government order.
One lets people get on with it while slowly attempting to regulate them with increasing and creeping legislation – the other requires the people to be trained to use them properly.
The question is which one has the highest crime rate?
@creptoin1 That article has the typical Daily Mail trick of giving you a headline which is contradicted by the people who know what they are talking about near the end. Violent crime is measured differently in different countries. It's very tough to compare crime in different countries because of differences in classification and recording, but murder/homicide rates are pretty clear: the UK has fairly high rates for western Europe, but much lower than the US.
@creptoin1 There is a problem with the article in that it gets statistics from a variety of sources that may define their data differently. More importantly, however, is that most violent crime is not gun-related. If you look at homicide rates, which FAR more commonly relate to firearms, The rate for the UK is about 1.2 per 100,000 population, compared with 5.2 for the US (UN crime statistcs at (dot) unodc (dot) org).
A study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology showed an overall per capita firearm-related death rate in England & Wales to be 0.46 per 100,000, compared with 15.22 for the US. Perhaps the Brits are more likely to get into fist fights, but they're not the real danger.
@sisgaia And yet other forms of crime in the UK have been going up every year since guns were banned. Home invasions, muggings, how about stabbings?
The UK's crime rate has -always- been lower than the US, regardless of which gun laws are in place in each country. The problem isn't what items are being used, it's to do with population size and cultural issues. No country in Europe has anything approaching the gang culture the US does.
@slightlyoutofreach01 Population size does not matter, as statistics are scaled to population. Culture matters, but if anything is to be taken from these statistics, it's that Britains have a higher propensity for violence but with relatively little gun ownership it results in a lower homicide rate. I didn't pick out England, BTW, I was responding to another post that declared UK the most violent country. Also, violent crime in Uk was down 11% last year, so you're wrong about it always going up.
"but with relatively little gun ownership it results in a lower homicide rate."
Yet gun ownership in the US is the highest it's been in years, and at the same time, crime rates are the lowest they've been in -decades-. I'm not claiming more guns means less crime, but it's my belief that what laws are on record make little difference in terms of overall crime.
@slightlyoutofreach01 Not sure what demographics you refer to. I'll give you a break and not make any assumptions about that.
Not sure what the statistics are about current gun ownership versus years past, but as you've already pointed out, there are a variety of factors that effect homicide rates. One factor that correlates pretty well, however, is that the more guns in society, the more homicides.
@sisgaia What I mean by demographics is that when you have a lot of different people together in one area, they're bound to not get along. Japan, for instance, is a country put forth as an example of how gun control 'works,' but it's not as simple as that. One of the contributing factors to this is that Japan is composed almost entirely of just one group of people. This isn't about blaming any particular demographic, it's just how things work.
@slightlyoutofreach01 So, I suppose we should deal with crime through a program of ethnic cleansing? I can't speak for your, but I get along fine with people from very diverse ethnic backgrounds. I see nothing at all inevitable about your disharmony.
@sisgaia Aaaand there's the accusation of racism. I knew it was coming, I shouldn't have even brought it up.
For the record, I'm Hispanic and a Democrat. I get along with people of all types just fine, too. What I'm saying is that racism exists, and it is a contributing factor in how crime is perpetuated. Whether it's people of color being locked up in prisons and having their futures taken away from them, or any number of other issues. That's all.
@slightlyoutofreach01 For the record, I made no assumptions about your ethnicity or political affiliation. And if mixed ethnicity is a certain condition for violence, as you imply, than is arming them really a good idea? Anyway, going again to the FBI crime statistics, in most murders, the race of the victim and the race of the offender are the same. Whites kill whites, blacks kill blacks. Check the facts before jumping to conclusions.
@sisgaia "One factor that correlates pretty well, however, is that more guns in society, the more homicides."
You can believe what you want, but it's telling that Washington D.C. had some of the strictest gun laws in the country for years, and was one of the murder capitals of the country anyway. Meanwhile, states with more relaxed gun laws see lower crime rates. You can point out D.C.'s contributing issues with drugs and gangs, but that only reinforces the point that guns aren't to blame.
@sisgaia "One factor that correlates pretty well, however, is that more guns in society, the more homicides."
You can believe what you want, but it's telling that Washington D.C. had some of the strictest gun laws in the country for years, and was one of the murder capitals of the country anyway. Meanwhile, states with more relaxed gun laws see lower crime rates. You can point out D.C.'s contributing issues with drugs and gangs, but that only reinforces the point that guns aren't to blame.
"but with relatively little gun ownership it results in a lower homicide rate."
Yet gun ownership in the US is the highest it's been in years, and at the same time, crime rates are the lowest they've been in -decades-. I'm not claiming more guns means less crime, but it's my belief that what laws are on record make little difference in terms of overall crime.
Who needs guns anyway? It's not like the federal government would ever violate the 4th amendment with some sort of security act or the 10th through rampant abuse of the commerce clause.
Wait...that did happen...our civil liberties do depend on each other. So I'll keep my gun. Enjoy the coming police state.
Remember when every second counts...the police are only minutes away
@AtibbsSPARTAN hahah good luck with that gun against the army when the next Republicans get in there and decide to pass the Patriot Act II. They have flame throwers your gun's not gonna do squat. "Abusing the 10th amendment" to stop collusion and abuses by the insurance industry and cover more people and lower my health insurance is a whole lot better than "ignoring" the 4th amendment and holding me without charges and torturing me. I'm just a crazy liberal that way...
Obama and congressional dems are also just head over heels for the patriot act, don't kid yourself. The commerce clause should be renamed "The Federal Government has Limitless Power" clause. I wasn't specifically talking about obamacare, although unless you have a preexisting condition, your insurance is not going down.
The problem in healthcare is too much demand...because of insurance and unhealthy lifestyles insurance does nothing to mitigate. If a large % of the U.S population had food insurance we would have the same problem there. People consume healthcare in a foolish way and Obama care makes the system worse..not better
@sinistar99 Your name sounds like "cynical" just an observation. But I agree with Spartan. I was in the military as was my father. I have always lived in/near a military community. The United States Military will not go against the People of the United States. They will not follow a leader who would either. {Why some don't want their votes to count and hold their paychecks hostage.} Their oath is to "Defend the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic" and to obey only "Lawful" Orders.
Gun control is a God send to people who want to victimise you. That’s why these massacres take place in gun free zones like columbine Virginia tech or a shopping mall, instead of a police station army base or NRA meeting.
Gun Control works if and only if your goal is the reduction of civilian violence. In this country (US) we are accustomed to our leaders being insubordinate to the will of the people, and at most times abusing their power. This is why the Forefathers saw fit to stress this point in the 2nd Amendment. A well-regulated militia is necessary to preserve freedom, militia does not mean Military, and well-regulated means the members are trained to use guns and not be idiots.
@forgiste Hey Idiot, the 2nd Amendment says The “RIGHT” of the People, it does NOT say the Right of the Militia. The Constitution “We the People of these Unite States, It does NOT say We the Militia of these United States. It means the People, You and I. And where in the Hell does Well-regulated mean Well Trained. Next time you need a cop, call 911 and wait 30 minutes or just protect yourselves. Cops will get they and they will find your Dead Body. Read the Constitution & the Bill of Rights.
@sakar181 Everyone likes to mock the idea that regular citizens with outmatched weaponry could stand a chance against the US Military with all its tech and training, but... isn't that exactly what's happening in Afghanistan and Iraq?
There are more of us here than there are insurgents in Iraq or Afghanistan. It's unlikely the US Military would go along with shooting civilians, and nuclear weapons are not going to be used on US soil except by the most insane rulers imaginable.. So do the math.
the people who should be rising up against the current state of the government are the ones who support gun control. the people with guns are the last people who should have access to them, namely criminals and those who reject any form of logic.
@theawesomehuntsman Actually, no. If they outlawed guns, the criminals would have guns. If they outlawed all weapons, criminals would still have guns. You know why? Because criminals have this funny way of not obeying laws. They're weird like that.
If they outlawed guns, the criminals would turn to knives and clubs, if they outlawed all weapons, hand to hand combat would be the knew form of killing each other.
So, hey, let's get rid of that ridiculous NBC ban as well, right? What does it matter if a few superpowers throw nukes at not-so-super powers and nations, they'd be bombing them all the same anyway. And let's get rid of the silly restrictions on drugs, people are getting drunk and high and smoking whatever anyway, so we might as well just let them.
it's a paradox of the law itself - most people would not kill other people even if it were legal to do so. But gun ownership is heavily restricted in most of Europe and there isn't much of a problem with criminals having guns and the populace not.
@SnarkLicker you are right because we had amendments when we fought the british. and i also hear that we common folk always fight wars on the home front, gosh i am glad we all have guns.
@XDthehXcbrokenXD you sir, are a buffoon once again only reading from the side you so foolishly side with. Perhaps when you do your OWN research, rather than reading what other people have opinionated, you will come to a realization. Until that day I leave you as the brick you are.
The fledgling US didn't have a standing army or police force so there was a real need for there to be a citizen militia. Not so much now. They also had a fear of tyranny and wanted the people to have the ability to fight back. Of course this was when a cannon was the highest level of military technology and the musket used by armies was similar to those used by citizens. Now we'd have to have nukes. It doesn't mention being able to gun down criminals anywhere either.
I would be willing to bet that when some drugged out gang banger is breaking into RZ's house, that he wishes he had that Magnum in his bedside table.He COULD just call the cops, but of course he (and his family) would probaly be dead before they showed up.
@DimitriGoryenko: "Gun control" has nothing whatsoever to do with guns. It has to do with ultimate control, and that is NOT a power that any thinking person should trust the government with...
@stereodreamer23 gun control has nothing to do with the taking of weapons as it pertains to anything the united states would want to do. Much more so they would like to make it slightly harder for people who may be unstable to purchase or receive a firearm. CUTTING BACK HOMICIDE SUICIDE AND MY FAVORITE GENOCIDE, you dumb fuck.
@XDthehXcbrokenXD It's obvious you haven't read in-depth about many genocides. Name a genocide, and it will have started with taking away the soon-to-be-slaughtered group's guns. Nazy Germany, the Armenian genoicde....you can't wage genocide against a group that can defend itself.
@ShellsOnTheFloor Are you a complete buffoon? Nazi Germany not Nazy for one and secondly no genocide does not come from a lack of guns, it comes strictly from an unruly uneducated society. Name one genocide in any place in any time frame that didn't come from a poor, uneducated, shit hole country, then you may talk to me about my ability to dive into a topic. Which, by the way, you seem inept. Arrogant silly fuck.
@ShellsOnTheFloor that is just not true. you prove your lack of understanding again and again. Take Africa, as an example, how many people in africa are armed? everyone and their fucking mother. Yet there is hundreds of years of genocide. Genocide happened here in America, you know, the indians they had these things called weapons, but we still managed to just shy of wipe them off the face of the earth. Stop trying so hard to lose, and just lose.
@XDthehXcbrokenXD Stop throwing insults and do some research. In both Sudan and Darfur, there is extreme gun control preventing the victim groups from arming themselves. You're not interested in looking at the facts, only in throwing insults at anyone who disagrees with your worldview.
I can't post a link in this comment, so do a google search for darfur gun control, and read the first page that shows up.
@MrRraaccee I like the argument that in other countries it works because it shows us what we CAN be like I think @ some point yes we could do like other countries where citizens & cops dont get guns but @ this very moment we have many problems with criminals where if we didn't allow citizens to have guns the criminals would still get them from over seas & such, and therefore be more dangerous then now.
On another note, some people still hunt their food, we cannot force the way they live.
@carneycam17 So what you're saying is Americans are somehow more violent than Japanese? Do you not realize that is even more reason to get rid of what weapons we can?
We can force the way people live. We do it all the time. Ex's: a man cannot marry 2 women at once, we can't hunt with landmines or fish with dynamite, there are certain chemicals you can't pour on your own land...
@MrRraaccee American's are not more violent, they are more diverse, and not all of us choose to legally live our lives, and those who chose that path tend to have no problem killing, nor getting guns illegally. So why do you want those who choose to legally live their lives to be in harms way by the criminals out there? With the ability to defend themselves with a gun they can be safer. Cops cannot be everywhere at once.
@carneycam17 There are many reasons why average law-abiding Americans shouldn't own guns. 1. thieves prize stealing weapons 2. you are statistically no safer (in fact, your family is in more danger from accidental misfires, etc) 3. if no one has guns then no one can murder with one (like my Japan example)
DOn't you think criminals in Japan have channels to illegally obtain guns? Why don't they? Why is their murder by gun rate almost 0?
@MrRraaccee Also, give me the source on your claim that "you are statistically no safer (in fact, your family is in more danger from accidental misfires, etc)" if you defend yourself with a gun. I hope for your sake you're not using the 1986 Kellerman study as it's been thoroughly debunked with the author himself admitting it. He went on to publish a much peer-reviewed study which found that owning a gun posed less statistical risk than renting where you live.
@carneycam17 In a home the best weapons to defend yourself are knives and bats. There is a much smaller chance of killing an innocent person and knives are far more deadly than guns (it is much harder to survive a knife wound than a wound from a .22).
I have been held at gunpoint and unarmed sent the man to the hospital. Had I had a gun and decided to try and use it I doubt I'd be here today.
Gun nuts are such cowards. Why not grow a pair and defend yourself and family like a man?
@MrRraaccee Actually according to a DOJ study guns are the most effective form of self-defense with knives and blunt instruments resulting in much higher injury rates to the user of them item. Attempting to defend yourself unarmed resulted in an injury rate almost three times higher than with a firearm. On top of that why do you think you "wouldn't be here" if you had used a gun in defense?
Not using the most effective tool to defend yourself isn't brave, it's stupid.
@splattermark Show me the proof because I don't believe you. For one, the only study I've seen from the DOJ regarding this is you are more likely to have a gun stolen then to use in self defense.
In Marine and Army training they teach a knife is more effective than a gun in any self-defense scenario I can dream up (less than 21ft). Why would they teach those sent to protect America the wrong way to defend themselves?
You are a liar and a coward. As is anyone who carries a gun.
@MrRraaccee The last US military bayonet charge was in Korea in 1951. The next-generation service rifles being proposed don't have bayonet lugs and in July 2010 the Army dropped the bayonet training course. Many units being deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan are no longer being issued bayonets. The only knife training currently in US Army Combatives doctrine teaches you to use it as a last resort, when your primary (rifle) and secondary weapon (pistol) have been lost. Who's the liar exactly?
@MrRraaccee You're very good at making angry assertions but you haven't backed up any of your sweeping statements or name-calling with any facts, just anecdotal assumptions on your part. I mean, police are supposed to be the ones who show up to protect you if you can't protect yourself but what
This guy NEEDS to join the Capitol Steps...
spinynorman230 4 days ago
Has anyone ever noticed that when Conservatives post on stuff like this they have twice as many spelling errors than when Liberals post?
TheSpeedy0504 1 month ago
Roy, can you write a song for every amendment? Then I'll be able to memorize them all :P Love the odd moment when I walk into the grocery store and realize I can recite the entire second Amendment.
JAB63096 2 months ago 8
so just to sum up, i should get my understanding of the second amendment from comedy folk singers, and not from the framers of the constitution. ok good, thats clear now.
DrunkenNuts 2 months ago
@DrunkenNuts
Where did he say that? Point to it or STFU.
And extrapolating from your comment, nobody, ever, can think about the meaning of the amendments. Farewell courts.
Fucking cretin....
sakar181 2 months ago
@sakar181 why do you get to "extrapolate from my comment" ,but i have to "point to where he said that"? that's a logical fallacy and so is name calling. but im sure you're a big hit in your middle school, so keep it up i guess
DrunkenNuts 1 month ago
@DrunkenNuts Oh then you have a way to talk to the actual writers of the Constitution then?
TheSpeedy0504 1 month ago
@TheSpeedy0504 lol yeah, ben franklin called my juija board and said i deserve a full auto uzi for x-mas. try a book maybe. im not even saying i dont like this song, i just wish more people had a curiosity about the truth instead of JUST satire
DrunkenNuts 1 month ago
Everytime I read this in my textbook I always think of this song and have to contain my laughter.
ryanmshepard92 2 months ago
All 2nd Amendment arguments aside, this song is brilliant.
lorakeethappenstance 3 months ago
What do I win if I got it perfectly right when the music ended?
ianmathwiz7 3 months ago
@ianmathwiz7 A magnum. Not a gun, a condom.
JAB63096 3 months ago 2
Here's what I was taught in my PoliSci class: 1st half of the Amendment essentially establishes the national guard. The 2nd half sets up the rights of citizens to own weapons in case we find ourselves in the situation were we have to fight another war on our own soil or go hunting whatever you need to do. Just don't be stupid and try to start a war because Sarah Palin or Rick Perry said it was a good idea.
Theroha 3 months ago 8
@Theroha The national guard (what used to be the militia) is already established in the Constitution itself; the first clause of the second amendment of the Bill of Rights references the militia, to distinguish the right of the people to keep and bear arms independent of the context of "militia". What it really comes down to is the inalienable natural right to defend one's own life, liberty, and property; if you take away the means by which to exercise said right, you take it away alltogether
RebelWrestler45 2 months ago
Here's the bottom line for me on the meaning of the Second Amendment: If you accept the argument that it protects individual rights, the first half of the amendment makes no sense. If the intent was to preserve rights to maintain well-regulated militia, the entire amendment can be seen as consistent. For more on the militia issue, see The Federalist Papers.
sisgaia 4 months ago
@sisgaia i allways thought the first half was a summery of why the second amendment was created.
thenoobcannon 4 months ago
@thenoobcannon If by that you mean that it explains the purpose of the amendment, I agree. If you read the Federalist, you will see that it was essentially a states' rights issue. People didn't want peacetime federal standing armies because they thought it would be "dangerous to liberty" -- meaning they would centralize power -- that there must be regulated militia that the states could call upon to provide for our defense once the federal armies disbanded. That's what the 2nd is about.
sisgaia 4 months ago
@sisgaia Only if you lack basic understanding of constitutional law and 18th century English. The establishment of the rights of the militia is already established by article 1, section 8 of the Constitution. The first clause of the second amendment of the Bill of Rights references the militia, to distinguish the right of the people to keep and bear arms independent of the context of "militia". The intent of the 2nd amendment was never to preserve a militia.
RebelWrestler45 2 months ago
@sisgaia I hate how the liberals twist it to just " a well regulated militia," when it says "militia" and "the people." B/c a militia INCLUDES BEING ARMED! Wow, a regulated militia excludes their right to bare arms? Come on, twisting the second amendment like that. The liberals have to be stupid to think we are that we are stupid. And anyone who knows history knows it was to protect ppl from the govt during the rev war. And guess what my liberal friends, the constitution is TIMELESS!
devmanification 1 month ago
@devmanification Didn't you ever read "Animal Farm"? The party that wants to change the Constitution, the progressives, always claim that they can "reinterpret" whatever they don't like about the the country's Constitution.
Lexter441 1 month ago
@Lexter441 It sounds like they have had a huge influence of the ppl on both sides
devmanification 1 month ago
@Lexter441 All very well, but that has nothing to do with Animal Farm.
plevyman 1 month ago
@Lexter441 No it's not about "reinterpreting" what we don't like. It is our right and responsibility ,however, to interpret the exact wording to try and understand it. Let me just say this: there is a very good reason why the wording in the 1st amendment was "abridged" and the word in the 2nd amendment is infringed. there is a very big and important difference.
TheSpeedy0504 1 month ago
@TheSpeedy0504 So read the Federalist Paper #46. Or read the Constitution of Massachusetts, the oldest State Constitution, written by the founders. It says the people of the state have the right to bear arms for the common defense.
Lexter441 1 month ago
@Lexter441 Yes you're right but they never said that everyone can bear arms all the time, in all places, without any regulation. like I said there is a difference between shall not be abridged and shall not be infringed.
TheSpeedy0504 1 month ago
@TheSpeedy0504 That makes no sense. If you're suggesting that the government can decide when and where you can bear arms, then how can you consider the right to bear arms unable to be 'infringed" or "unalienable".
You understand that the purpose to the Bill of Rights, as stated in the preamble is to protect rights from the legislation of the government.
And the 10th amendment says congress can't make laws unless the constitution delegates the powers to it.
So . . . what?
Lexter441 1 month ago
@Lexter441 What i'm saying is that the government has every right to make regulations about where you can take your guns. There is a very good reason for that. This is what the writers had in mind when they used the word infringed. You can abridge something without infringing it. Guns need regulation they are dangerous.
TheSpeedy0504 3 weeks ago
@TheSpeedy0504 Just read Federalist Paper #46. The actual intention of the 2nd Amendment, was for the States to go to war against Congress in order to uphold their sovereignty and rights. The idea was to alienate the people's militias from the Federal government. At the end of the paper, James Madison even compares the predicted size of the armies of Congress to the bodies of ordinary citizens and argues that the people would prevail and uphold their rights and their states.
Lexter441 3 weeks ago
@TheSpeedy0504 This is precisely why, he argues, that militia officers be appointed by the States, in order to separate the leaders of the militias from the ambitions and agenda that could be shared by an illegitimate Federal government, who seeks to use their armies to encroach on the natural rights of the people and their states.
And he also specifically refers to the ordinary citizen as having the right to be armed.
Lexter441 3 weeks ago
@TheSpeedy0504 BUT, the main point is that ALL Federal firearms legislation are unconstitutional, not only because of the 2nd Amendment, but also because of the 9th and 10th Amendments, which say any powers not granted to the Federal government by the Constitution are reserved for the states. This made it clear that congress was a separate entity from the states, and had limited roles in the legislation of the people's lives.
Lexter441 3 weeks ago
@Lexter441 Well then you get into issues of constitution vs. peoples lives. If say a crazy guy were to walk into a store with a gun because his state decided he could because they have no gun regulations and he shoots 20 people. What is more important states rights to make their own laws or those people. Also I've noticed that noone ever says that the fed govt shouldn't be able to make antidrug laws. It is against federal law to posses sell or smoke pot. Where is that in the constitution.
TheSpeedy0504 3 weeks ago
@TheSpeedy0504 You're right, Federal drug laws are entirely unconstitutional.
Hence why in 1920, the United States HAD to pass the 18th Amendment in order to ban alcohol. But now, our big government thinks it can do whatever it wants.
Most drugs enter the US from foreign countries, so the commerce clause may support the WOD, but I still think it's unconstitutional.
Just like the "Brady Bill" was unconstitutional because of the 10th Amendment.
Lexter441 3 weeks ago
@Lexter441 Good I'm glad you're consistent and I respect you for that. A lot of people don't see it that way. Either way I think you're right if and only if the states did have regulations for gun control but if you look at places like Texas (I love Texas but those people do love their guns) people would die. I actually think that environmental regulation is okay too because it protects the environment. I think that when the states don't protect people and the planet Fed. Govt. must step in.
TheSpeedy0504 3 weeks ago
@sisgaia or did liberals forget the constitution was timeless while you guys are doing your occupy protests? My friend thank you for using logic and facts to penetrate the emotional deception of the lefty extremists. Now can someone say that to Elena Kagan and Sonya SotoLIAR?
devmanification 1 month ago
A goofy-looking, so-cal native, textbook liberal, singing a song like somebody who's clearly never had his life threatened or lived in anything other than a gated community full of people just like him, but clearly has the moral authority to tell anyone different what a moron they are for living in a way he does not approve of.
Now that's comedy.
slightlyoutofreach01 4 months ago
@slightlyoutofreach01 It's moronic to judge people that you know nothing about. I have actually met him. He is not a rich man, or at least was not when I met him. Definitely not a gated-community type. I have never lived in a gated community, and I have had my life threatened, but I agree with him 100%.
sisgaia 4 months ago
@sisgaia My mistake. The smug and arrogant way he presents himself while singing his horrific 'music' gives the impression that he is, indeed, someone who has never had to worry about protecting himself or his loved ones.
"I have had my life threatened, but I agree with him 100%."
Good for you. That doesn't give you the right to interfere with my life or the way I choose to defend myself or my loved ones. It'd be great if we could all just learn kung-fu, but this is the real world.
slightlyoutofreach01 4 months ago
@slightlyoutofreach01 The more firearms there are in this society, the more danger there is to me. That gives me a right. Firearms purchased with an honest intent to use in self-defense or for peaceable purposes often get used otherwise. That is the real world.
sisgaia 4 months ago
@sisgaia "The more firearms there are in this society, the more danger there is to me."
You're going to be in danger no matter what. The tools used do not matter. Murders committed with firearms make up a small % of overall homicide in this country. And in terms of accidental deaths, firearm-related deaths fall far behind pool drownings and car accidents.
"...often get used otherwise."
So do knives, so do bats, so do any number of items. Humans murdered one another just fine before guns.
slightlyoutofreach01 4 months ago
@slightlyoutofreach01 That is one of the more desperate attempts to diminish the connection between guns and death. Obviously killing with guns is a lot simpler and involves far less risk, therefore is more likely to be attempted.
As for your statement that "Murders committed with firearms make up a small % of overall homicide in this country," it is simply not true. According to the latest FBI crime statistics, firearms are the instruments of death in 67.5% of all murders. Not a small %.
sisgaia 4 months ago
@sisgaia And yet comprehensive gun laws have done little to nothing to curb murders with firearms. Even with the ban in D.C., again, it maintained a catastrophic murder rate. Once again, I can point out that states with higher rates of gun ownership and more relaxed laws see lower crime rates. Fact.
"Not a small%."
Even if that's true, it doesn't have to do with me or people like me. People inclined to murder others are going to do it no matter what tools are available. People like us aren't.
slightlyoutofreach01 4 months ago
@slightlyoutofreach01 Comprehensive gun laws? Are you joking? Even if DC could have prevented guns from being bought outside and brought in, their laws did not ever ban all guns.
"Even if that's true.." It is. You should have looked it up before making your claim.
"...it doesn't have to do with me or people like me." People who live in homes with guns are three times more likely to die from guns. And how are the laws to distinguish between those who will kill and those who will not?
sisgaia 4 months ago
@sisgaia "their laws did not ever ban all guns."
You're dodging the point. US cities with the strictest gun laws always have the highest crime rates at the same time. Fact.
"People who live in homes with guns are three times more likely to die from guns."
If you're attempting to quote the Kellerman study, it was debunked ages ago. Besides the flaws in such studies, they completely ignore cases in which firearms were successfully used in self-defense(often without a single shot fired).
slightlyoutofreach01 4 months ago
@slightlyoutofreach01 I didn't "dodge the point." I addressed it: Cities cannot have enforceable gun laws for the simple reason that they do not have checkpoints of people coming in & out of the city. The cities with strict gun laws had high crime rates before their gun laws -- that's why they passed them.
sisgaia 4 months ago
@sisgaia Then if they're not enforceable, what's the point? Why not simply allow people to defend themselves with the mans available to them? Because that's what it boils down to; I have the right to protect my loved ones, myself, and my property with the means available to me. The government does not have the right to disarm me.
"that's why they passed them."
But it didn't fix things, did it? You could say the guns just come from elsewhere, but they just created their own problem, then.
slightlyoutofreach01 4 months ago
@slightlyoutofreach01 Local laws have more limited enforcement potential. What we need are national laws.
sisgaia 4 months ago
@sisgaia "What we need are national laws."
And yet when we've had national laws, such as the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, they've had no noticeable impact on either gun crime specifically or overall crime rates. The guns are all already here, and I'll say it again, banning them only takes them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. There will always be criminals and murderers, and they will always find ways to break the law.
slightlyoutofreach01 4 months ago
@slightlyoutofreach01 Actually, firearm related murders dropped 11% the year the federal assault weapons ban went into effect. A 2004 study found that assault weapons account for 2/3 lower proportion of homicides after the ban compared with the years before the ban. You keep presenting your impressions, and I keep showing you the facts that prove your impressions are wrong. Research first!
sisgaia 4 months ago
@slightlyoutofreach01 Kellerman did multiple studies, not just one, and it would be more accurate to say that they were "disputed" rather than "debunked." There are many other studies as well. A metastudy (survey of studies) in Science Daily this past April concluded "studies show that having a gun in the home poses a household a greater health risk than a potential benefit."
sisgaia 4 months ago
@sisgaia "greater health risk than a potential benefit."
The problem, though, is that the benefit often cannot be quantified. Murders, suicides and whatever else are recorded into official records and included in statistics. Where do they record how many times a lawful gun owner deterred an assailant without having to fire a shot? What about all the other instances of lawful self-defense?
slightlyoutofreach01 4 months ago
@slightlyoutofreach01 Your logic makes sense, but it doesn't fit the facts. The studies compare homes with guns to those without, and the evidence shows greater risk with the guns. If the guns added safety, that methodology would disclose it. Instead, the studies show the opposite: guns decrease safety.
sisgaia 4 months ago
@sisgaia In any event, we're not going to change each other's minds here, and I'm not in the best condition to be debating a subject such as this.
I'll just say that you should consider the fact that murder is already illegal, regardless of gun laws. Making firearms illegal only takes them out of the hands of people inclined to follow the law. If somebody isn't worried about breaking the law banning murder, they aren't going to care much about breaking the one that says they can't own a gun.
slightlyoutofreach01 4 months ago
@slightlyoutofreach01 I had my home burglarized three times when I was not home. Had I owned guns, they would now be in the hands of criminals. That's how criminals get guns.
As to your argument that "If someone isn't worried about breaking the law banning murder....": Most homicides are not premeditated. If the killers had to go through the trouble of finding a source for an illegal gun, most of these deaths would likely not occur.
sisgaia 4 months ago
@sisgaia "Had I owned guns, they would now be in the hands of criminals."
That's what a safe is for. If you left them easily accessible, yes, they'd get stolen.
"That's how criminals get guns."
And if regular citizens are banned from having them, they'll simply find other ways. Prohibition didn't make alcohol go away, banning guns won't make guns go away.
slightlyoutofreach01 4 months ago
@slightlyoutofreach01 And what percentage of gun owners would you say keep all their guns in a safe? One study found "[o]f the homes with children and firearms, 55% were reported to have one or more firearms in an unlocked place."
sisgaia 4 months ago
@sisgaia "55% were reported to have one or more firearms in an unlocked place."
And what difference has that made in terms of deaths? Think about how many gun owners there really are in the US, how many homes actually have firearms in them. If gun ownership rates directly correlated to rates of death, there'd be an even larger number of people dying every year. There's a lot of bigger causes of death to worry about, ahead of gun violence or accidents.
slightlyoutofreach01 4 months ago
@slightlyoutofreach01 As I've already pointed out, numerous studies show that it has driven up the death rate.
sisgaia 4 months ago
@sisgaia But it's like I already said, we're going to have to agree to disagree. We're not going to change each other's minds, and I'm not keen on returning to this video for the next 2-3 days. Take care.
slightlyoutofreach01 4 months ago
@sisgaia "most of these deaths would likely not occur."
If someone can fire a gun in the spur of the moment, they can stab with a knife, beat with a bat, bludgeon with a rock, too.
slightlyoutofreach01 4 months ago
@slightlyoutofreach01 With much more difficulty and greater risk -- a significant deterrent.
sisgaia 4 months ago
@sisgaia My mistake. The smug and arrogant way he presents himself while singing his horrific 'music' gives the impression that he is, indeed, someone who has never had to worry about protecting himself or his loved ones.
"I have had my life threatened, but I agree with him 100%."
Good for you. That doesn't give you the right to interfere with my life or the way I choose to defend myself or my loved ones. It'd be great if we could all just learn kung-fu, but this is the real world.
slightlyoutofreach01 4 months ago
Comment removed
sisgaia 4 months ago
Dumb fucks don't realise that in most CIVILIZED societies you do not need to defend yourself from attackers because you see, we don't get attacked alot.
But hey, you guys have exactly what you deserve with your level of intelligence, so keep shooting them guns and keep protecting freedom boys, cause otherwise the terrorists and criminals and the goverment will win right?
stalker700 4 months ago
@stalker700
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. A government with no fear has absolute power. I quite frankly do not trust a government without fear to be kind, and fair, and honest out of the goodness of its' collective heart. An armed populace, while having quite obvious drawbacks, I still consider... and the founding fathers obviously considered, and George Washington specifically, as a necessary evil.
Regardless of the benefits, I understand an unarmed populace to be too vulnerable.
Ryakki 4 months ago
@stalker700 And realists realize that 'civilized' is merely a label people like to apply to themselves or their countries to feel better, and that no matter how 'civilized' your country is, there will always be the off-chance that somebody will take a swipe at you or your loved ones. It's hardly insane to be prepared for such an occurrence.
slightlyoutofreach01 4 months ago
@stalker700 And realists realize that 'civilized' is merely a label people like to apply to themselves or their countries to feel better, and that no matter how 'civilized' your country is, there will always be the off-chance that somebody will take a swipe at you or your loved ones. It's hardly insane to be prepared for such an occurrence.
slightlyoutofreach01 4 months ago
danger0usknowledge 5 months ago
"What good are the first amendment rights...if you can't keep a magnum in the night stand?"
I -always- make sure I have a magnum in the nightstand. Never want to be caught without it - no one likes that drive to get another box.
MyOldName 5 months ago
Comment removed
CrashMarket 6 months ago
A Pro-gun liberal? Sweet, that makes one more of us!
Lleldorynix 6 months ago
@Lleldorynix i think you missed, like, everything from 0:50 on
realityismyreligion 6 months ago
@Lleldorynix Tank you for being Pro-gun! :)
creptoin1 6 months ago
I find myself singing this in my head sometimes. Wish someone would write some more for the rest of our rights! We could use some work on The Fourth right now!
People seemed concerned about safety in flying so they are willing to Give Up Their Rights? Folks, some of you worked so hard to get them in the first place! Why? It only takes a judge to write 100 "John/Jane Doe" Warrants for each airport and if someone is suspicious, then you have authority to search them.
DON'T GIVE UP RIGHTS!!
Heatherbloom75 6 months ago
You sir are the idiot. Milita does not mean Military. The militia is the people. The Government should fear the independent militia. Wikipedia: Constitutional Militia Movement
forgiste 6 months ago
@forgiste The militia referred to in the 2nd Amendment is a "well regulated militia." This is not, as you suggest, "the people." Read Federalist 29 if you want to get an idea of why the 2nd Amendment was created and what sort of militia they had in mind. The closest thing we have today is the National Guard. The Supreme Court never held that it was an individual right until conservative judicial activists did so just a decade ago.
sisgaia 4 months ago
@forgiste The militia referred to in the 2nd Amendment is a "well regulated militia." This is not, as you suggest, "the people." Read Federalist 29 if you want to get an idea of why the 2nd Amendment was created and what sort of militia they had in mind. The closest thing we have today is the National Guard. The Supreme Court never held that it was an individual right until conservative judicial activists did so just a decade ago.
sisgaia 4 months ago
@forgiste The 2nd refers to "well regulated militia", which is not "the people" as you suggest. Read Federalist 29 to understand why the amendment and what such militia looks like. The National Guard is the best example today. And the amendment was never interpreted by the Supreme Court as an individual right until conservative judicial activists did so just 10 years ago, ignoring the entire history of judicial decisions.
sisgaia 4 months ago
@sisgaia So... the 2nd Amendment is meant to apply to entities like the National Guard, which didn't exist until 1903? Alrighty then.
The quotes of the founding fathers make it very clear who they meant by 'militia.' And it is stated plainly, 'the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' Why is this so hard to understand? What, 'the people' in every other amendment means THE PEOPLE, but 'the people' in the Second Amendment means the National Guard? Okay.
slightlyoutofreach01 4 months ago
@slightlyoutofreach01 Yes, you can always tell what is meant by reading half a quote. Read the full amendment, then read Federalist 29
sisgaia 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@forgiste The 2nd refers to "well regulated militia", which is not "the people" as you suggest. Read Federalist 29 to understand why the amendment and what such militia looks like. The National Guard is the best example today. And the amendment was never interpreted by the Supreme Court as an individual right until conservative judicial activists did so just 10 years ago, ignoring the entire history of judicial decisions.
sisgaia 4 months ago
Our Founding Fathers of the United States said it best about Guns and The 2nd Amendment. Whenever someone says they did not make it clear enough needs to sit down and read what has really been said and put to paper through the years.
profsat5 6 months ago
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson
"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense."
- John Adams
"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason
"The ultimate authority resides in the people alone."
- James Madison
profsat5 6 months ago
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson
profsat5 6 months ago
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson
profsat5 6 months ago
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
profsat5 6 months ago
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
- George Washington
profsat5 6 months ago
If gun control stops crime then why do killing sprees happen in gun free zones like columbine Virginia tech or a shopping mall instead of NRA meetings police stations or army bases?
darkblood626 6 months ago
America - Sweden
in one the people have a right to keep and bare arms the other has gun ownership required by government order.
One lets people get on with it while slowly attempting to regulate them with increasing and creeping legislation – the other requires the people to be trained to use them properly.
The question is which one has the highest crime rate?
darkblood626 6 months ago
@darkblood626 Higest crime rate? Let me guess. America?
Heatherbloom75 6 months ago 4
@Heatherbloom75 Highest violent crime rate? Britain.
dailymail (dot) co (dot) uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S (dot) html
creptoin1 6 months ago
@creptoin1 That article has the typical Daily Mail trick of giving you a headline which is contradicted by the people who know what they are talking about near the end. Violent crime is measured differently in different countries. It's very tough to compare crime in different countries because of differences in classification and recording, but murder/homicide rates are pretty clear: the UK has fairly high rates for western Europe, but much lower than the US.
plevyman 5 months ago 2
@creptoin1 There is a problem with the article in that it gets statistics from a variety of sources that may define their data differently. More importantly, however, is that most violent crime is not gun-related. If you look at homicide rates, which FAR more commonly relate to firearms, The rate for the UK is about 1.2 per 100,000 population, compared with 5.2 for the US (UN crime statistcs at (dot) unodc (dot) org).
sisgaia 4 months ago
A study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology showed an overall per capita firearm-related death rate in England & Wales to be 0.46 per 100,000, compared with 15.22 for the US. Perhaps the Brits are more likely to get into fist fights, but they're not the real danger.
sisgaia 4 months ago
@sisgaia And yet other forms of crime in the UK have been going up every year since guns were banned. Home invasions, muggings, how about stabbings?
The UK's crime rate has -always- been lower than the US, regardless of which gun laws are in place in each country. The problem isn't what items are being used, it's to do with population size and cultural issues. No country in Europe has anything approaching the gang culture the US does.
slightlyoutofreach01 4 months ago
@slightlyoutofreach01 Population size does not matter, as statistics are scaled to population. Culture matters, but if anything is to be taken from these statistics, it's that Britains have a higher propensity for violence but with relatively little gun ownership it results in a lower homicide rate. I didn't pick out England, BTW, I was responding to another post that declared UK the most violent country. Also, violent crime in Uk was down 11% last year, so you're wrong about it always going up.
sisgaia 4 months ago
@sisgaia "Population size does not matter,"
I probably should've said demographics, instead.
"but with relatively little gun ownership it results in a lower homicide rate."
Yet gun ownership in the US is the highest it's been in years, and at the same time, crime rates are the lowest they've been in -decades-. I'm not claiming more guns means less crime, but it's my belief that what laws are on record make little difference in terms of overall crime.
slightlyoutofreach01 4 months ago
@slightlyoutofreach01 Not sure what demographics you refer to. I'll give you a break and not make any assumptions about that.
Not sure what the statistics are about current gun ownership versus years past, but as you've already pointed out, there are a variety of factors that effect homicide rates. One factor that correlates pretty well, however, is that the more guns in society, the more homicides.
sisgaia 4 months ago
@sisgaia What I mean by demographics is that when you have a lot of different people together in one area, they're bound to not get along. Japan, for instance, is a country put forth as an example of how gun control 'works,' but it's not as simple as that. One of the contributing factors to this is that Japan is composed almost entirely of just one group of people. This isn't about blaming any particular demographic, it's just how things work.
slightlyoutofreach01 4 months ago
@slightlyoutofreach01 So, I suppose we should deal with crime through a program of ethnic cleansing? I can't speak for your, but I get along fine with people from very diverse ethnic backgrounds. I see nothing at all inevitable about your disharmony.
sisgaia 4 months ago
@sisgaia Aaaand there's the accusation of racism. I knew it was coming, I shouldn't have even brought it up.
For the record, I'm Hispanic and a Democrat. I get along with people of all types just fine, too. What I'm saying is that racism exists, and it is a contributing factor in how crime is perpetuated. Whether it's people of color being locked up in prisons and having their futures taken away from them, or any number of other issues. That's all.
slightlyoutofreach01 4 months ago
@slightlyoutofreach01 For the record, I made no assumptions about your ethnicity or political affiliation. And if mixed ethnicity is a certain condition for violence, as you imply, than is arming them really a good idea? Anyway, going again to the FBI crime statistics, in most murders, the race of the victim and the race of the offender are the same. Whites kill whites, blacks kill blacks. Check the facts before jumping to conclusions.
sisgaia 4 months ago
@sisgaia "One factor that correlates pretty well, however, is that more guns in society, the more homicides."
You can believe what you want, but it's telling that Washington D.C. had some of the strictest gun laws in the country for years, and was one of the murder capitals of the country anyway. Meanwhile, states with more relaxed gun laws see lower crime rates. You can point out D.C.'s contributing issues with drugs and gangs, but that only reinforces the point that guns aren't to blame.
slightlyoutofreach01 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sisgaia "One factor that correlates pretty well, however, is that more guns in society, the more homicides."
You can believe what you want, but it's telling that Washington D.C. had some of the strictest gun laws in the country for years, and was one of the murder capitals of the country anyway. Meanwhile, states with more relaxed gun laws see lower crime rates. You can point out D.C.'s contributing issues with drugs and gangs, but that only reinforces the point that guns aren't to blame.
slightlyoutofreach01 4 months ago
@sisgaia "Population size does not matter,"
I probably should've said demographics, instead.
"but with relatively little gun ownership it results in a lower homicide rate."
Yet gun ownership in the US is the highest it's been in years, and at the same time, crime rates are the lowest they've been in -decades-. I'm not claiming more guns means less crime, but it's my belief that what laws are on record make little difference in terms of overall crime.
slightlyoutofreach01 4 months ago
@creptoin1 actually its the Vatican due to the low quantity of people who actually live there and the massive amounts of tourists.
TheArsenique 4 months ago
@Heatherbloom75 It was rhetorical...
miana90 5 months ago
@Heatherbloom75 Actually yes.
wensel911 3 months ago
is he making fun of pro-gun people or not? I can't tell
Freedom21stCenturi 7 months ago
Who needs guns anyway? It's not like the federal government would ever violate the 4th amendment with some sort of security act or the 10th through rampant abuse of the commerce clause.
Wait...that did happen...our civil liberties do depend on each other. So I'll keep my gun. Enjoy the coming police state.
Remember when every second counts...the police are only minutes away
AtibbsSPARTAN 7 months ago
@AtibbsSPARTAN hahah good luck with that gun against the army when the next Republicans get in there and decide to pass the Patriot Act II. They have flame throwers your gun's not gonna do squat. "Abusing the 10th amendment" to stop collusion and abuses by the insurance industry and cover more people and lower my health insurance is a whole lot better than "ignoring" the 4th amendment and holding me without charges and torturing me. I'm just a crazy liberal that way...
sinistar99 7 months ago
@sinistar99
Obama and congressional dems are also just head over heels for the patriot act, don't kid yourself. The commerce clause should be renamed "The Federal Government has Limitless Power" clause. I wasn't specifically talking about obamacare, although unless you have a preexisting condition, your insurance is not going down.
AtibbsSPARTAN 7 months ago
Comment removed
AtibbsSPARTAN 7 months ago
@sinistar99
The problem in healthcare is too much demand...because of insurance and unhealthy lifestyles insurance does nothing to mitigate. If a large % of the U.S population had food insurance we would have the same problem there. People consume healthcare in a foolish way and Obama care makes the system worse..not better
AtibbsSPARTAN 7 months ago
@sinistar99 Your name sounds like "cynical" just an observation. But I agree with Spartan. I was in the military as was my father. I have always lived in/near a military community. The United States Military will not go against the People of the United States. They will not follow a leader who would either. {Why some don't want their votes to count and hold their paychecks hostage.} Their oath is to "Defend the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic" and to obey only "Lawful" Orders.
Heatherbloom75 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Gun control is a God send to people who want to victimise you. That’s why these massacres take place in gun free zones like columbine Virginia tech or a shopping mall, instead of a police station army base or NRA meeting.
darkblood626 7 months ago
Gun Control works if and only if your goal is the reduction of civilian violence. In this country (US) we are accustomed to our leaders being insubordinate to the will of the people, and at most times abusing their power. This is why the Forefathers saw fit to stress this point in the 2nd Amendment. A well-regulated militia is necessary to preserve freedom, militia does not mean Military, and well-regulated means the members are trained to use guns and not be idiots.
forgiste 8 months ago
@forgiste Hey Idiot, the 2nd Amendment says The “RIGHT” of the People, it does NOT say the Right of the Militia. The Constitution “We the People of these Unite States, It does NOT say We the Militia of these United States. It means the People, You and I. And where in the Hell does Well-regulated mean Well Trained. Next time you need a cop, call 911 and wait 30 minutes or just protect yourselves. Cops will get they and they will find your Dead Body. Read the Constitution & the Bill of Rights.
tfrank888 7 months ago
A violent revolution could become necessary again, thats why I like the second amendment
WyrmSaint 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WyrmSaint
'A violent revolution could become necessary again, thats why I like the second amendment'
Yea...so you have one group with handguns and rifles, and another with laser guided missiles dropped from 20000 feet and nuclear subs.
Do you have any idea how moronic you sound? Heres a clue: VERY
sakar181 8 months ago
@sakar181 Everyone likes to mock the idea that regular citizens with outmatched weaponry could stand a chance against the US Military with all its tech and training, but... isn't that exactly what's happening in Afghanistan and Iraq?
There are more of us here than there are insurgents in Iraq or Afghanistan. It's unlikely the US Military would go along with shooting civilians, and nuclear weapons are not going to be used on US soil except by the most insane rulers imaginable.. So do the math.
slightlyoutofreach01 4 months ago
the columbine comment was a low blow hippie
ItzNotEpic 8 months ago
@ItzNotEpic Why?
imorio 8 months ago
the people who should be rising up against the current state of the government are the ones who support gun control. the people with guns are the last people who should have access to them, namely criminals and those who reject any form of logic.
Theroha 8 months ago
@theawesomehuntsman Actually, no. If they outlawed guns, the criminals would have guns. If they outlawed all weapons, criminals would still have guns. You know why? Because criminals have this funny way of not obeying laws. They're weird like that.
EkwyFields 8 months ago
If they outlawed guns, the criminals would turn to knives and clubs, if they outlawed all weapons, hand to hand combat would be the knew form of killing each other.
theawesomehuntsman 8 months ago
@theawesomehuntsman Right you are.
So, hey, let's get rid of that ridiculous NBC ban as well, right? What does it matter if a few superpowers throw nukes at not-so-super powers and nations, they'd be bombing them all the same anyway. And let's get rid of the silly restrictions on drugs, people are getting drunk and high and smoking whatever anyway, so we might as well just let them.
Right? Right.
LordSia13 8 months ago
@LordSia13
"Many a true word said in jest."
ValentineSmith61 8 months ago
@ValentineSmith61 "From the mouths of babes, fools and drunkards."
Or maybe those were God's favourites? Can't seem to remember...
Something about the first thing to go.
LordSia13 8 months ago
@theawesomehuntsman
Think of how much harder it is to kill someone with a knife than with a gun, and how much harder it is without any weapons than with a gun.
Gidwan 8 months ago
@Gidwan
Think of how hard it would be to enforce a "no gun" policy with people who don't follow laws
AtibbsSPARTAN 7 months ago
@AtibbsSPARTAN
it's a paradox of the law itself - most people would not kill other people even if it were legal to do so. But gun ownership is heavily restricted in most of Europe and there isn't much of a problem with criminals having guns and the populace not.
Gidwan 7 months ago
This is way to funny....nice job Roy.
NJburbsSeeker 8 months ago
He looks like Lieutenant Dan
EyeHawk777 9 months ago
The whole song is a brilliant metaphor.
batmanofni 10 months ago
wow, the new tom lehrer! he's great....
is it true this guy's real name is roy dylan and he changed it to zimmerman?
dhakim43 10 months ago
i saw this live a couple days ago and I am glad that we weren't the only people who sucked at singing along. but it works out for him.
Mangafreak681 10 months ago
You have the second amendment to thank for the fact that you still have the first.
And this is coming from someone who abhors guns.
SnarkLicker 10 months ago
@SnarkLicker you are right because we had amendments when we fought the british. and i also hear that we common folk always fight wars on the home front, gosh i am glad we all have guns.
XDthehXcbrokenXD 9 months ago
@XDthehXcbrokenXD you sir, are a buffoon once again only reading from the side you so foolishly side with. Perhaps when you do your OWN research, rather than reading what other people have opinionated, you will come to a realization. Until that day I leave you as the brick you are.
XDthehXcbrokenXD 9 months ago
The fledgling US didn't have a standing army or police force so there was a real need for there to be a citizen militia. Not so much now. They also had a fear of tyranny and wanted the people to have the ability to fight back. Of course this was when a cannon was the highest level of military technology and the musket used by armies was similar to those used by citizens. Now we'd have to have nukes. It doesn't mention being able to gun down criminals anywhere either.
drmondo667 10 months ago
I would be willing to bet that when some drugged out gang banger is breaking into RZ's house, that he wishes he had that Magnum in his bedside table.He COULD just call the cops, but of course he (and his family) would probaly be dead before they showed up.
themitch1966 10 months ago
I wish I could go back in time and change it to "Citizens can own and carry weapons". Cut all the fat. Nobody would misinterpret that.
AssholePatrol 11 months ago
@AssholePatrol You could go ahead and change it...
If that's what the Framers were trying to say.
...which it wasn't.
ShadowEl 10 months ago
Love the song, especially the ending. This song is all about gun control. Not making guns illegal.
DimitriGoryenko 11 months ago
@DimitriGoryenko but what kind of gun control ?
thenoobcannon 11 months ago
@DimitriGoryenko: "Gun control" has nothing whatsoever to do with guns. It has to do with ultimate control, and that is NOT a power that any thinking person should trust the government with...
stereodreamer23 11 months ago
@stereodreamer23 gun control has nothing to do with the taking of weapons as it pertains to anything the united states would want to do. Much more so they would like to make it slightly harder for people who may be unstable to purchase or receive a firearm. CUTTING BACK HOMICIDE SUICIDE AND MY FAVORITE GENOCIDE, you dumb fuck.
XDthehXcbrokenXD 11 months ago
@XDthehXcbrokenXD It's obvious you haven't read in-depth about many genocides. Name a genocide, and it will have started with taking away the soon-to-be-slaughtered group's guns. Nazy Germany, the Armenian genoicde....you can't wage genocide against a group that can defend itself.
ShellsOnTheFloor 11 months ago
@ShellsOnTheFloor Actually, most countries don't arm their citizens so the Nazis didn't take away their guns, they never had them to begin with.
drmondo667 10 months ago
@ShellsOnTheFloor Are you a complete buffoon? Nazi Germany not Nazy for one and secondly no genocide does not come from a lack of guns, it comes strictly from an unruly uneducated society. Name one genocide in any place in any time frame that didn't come from a poor, uneducated, shit hole country, then you may talk to me about my ability to dive into a topic. Which, by the way, you seem inept. Arrogant silly fuck.
XDthehXcbrokenXD 9 months ago
@XDthehXcbrokenXD Gaining popular support for genocide requires either an uneducated, gullible population, or a cult of personality.
However, the ability to successfully carry out the genocide requires the victims to be unarmed.
ShellsOnTheFloor 9 months ago
@ShellsOnTheFloor that is just not true. you prove your lack of understanding again and again. Take Africa, as an example, how many people in africa are armed? everyone and their fucking mother. Yet there is hundreds of years of genocide. Genocide happened here in America, you know, the indians they had these things called weapons, but we still managed to just shy of wipe them off the face of the earth. Stop trying so hard to lose, and just lose.
XDthehXcbrokenXD 9 months ago
@XDthehXcbrokenXD Stop throwing insults and do some research. In both Sudan and Darfur, there is extreme gun control preventing the victim groups from arming themselves. You're not interested in looking at the facts, only in throwing insults at anyone who disagrees with your worldview.
I can't post a link in this comment, so do a google search for darfur gun control, and read the first page that shows up.
ShellsOnTheFloor 9 months ago
@stereodreamer23 so what you are proposing is that every tom dick and unstable harry should be the one in charge of the distribution of weaponry?
XDthehXcbrokenXD 9 months ago
Roy, I usually like your stuff, but I had to give this a thumbs down.
norcofreerider604 11 months ago
If guns are outlawed then only outlaws will have guns.
carneycam17 11 months ago 3
@carneycam17 Like in Japan where they have an outrageous number of homicides by gun, right?
MrRraaccee 5 months ago
@MrRraaccee I like the argument that in other countries it works because it shows us what we CAN be like I think @ some point yes we could do like other countries where citizens & cops dont get guns but @ this very moment we have many problems with criminals where if we didn't allow citizens to have guns the criminals would still get them from over seas & such, and therefore be more dangerous then now.
On another note, some people still hunt their food, we cannot force the way they live.
carneycam17 5 months ago
@carneycam17 So what you're saying is Americans are somehow more violent than Japanese? Do you not realize that is even more reason to get rid of what weapons we can?
We can force the way people live. We do it all the time. Ex's: a man cannot marry 2 women at once, we can't hunt with landmines or fish with dynamite, there are certain chemicals you can't pour on your own land...
MrRraaccee 5 months ago
@MrRraaccee American's are not more violent, they are more diverse, and not all of us choose to legally live our lives, and those who chose that path tend to have no problem killing, nor getting guns illegally. So why do you want those who choose to legally live their lives to be in harms way by the criminals out there? With the ability to defend themselves with a gun they can be safer. Cops cannot be everywhere at once.
carneycam17 5 months ago
@carneycam17 There are many reasons why average law-abiding Americans shouldn't own guns. 1. thieves prize stealing weapons 2. you are statistically no safer (in fact, your family is in more danger from accidental misfires, etc) 3. if no one has guns then no one can murder with one (like my Japan example)
DOn't you think criminals in Japan have channels to illegally obtain guns? Why don't they? Why is their murder by gun rate almost 0?
MrRraaccee 5 months ago
@MrRraaccee Also, give me the source on your claim that "you are statistically no safer (in fact, your family is in more danger from accidental misfires, etc)" if you defend yourself with a gun. I hope for your sake you're not using the 1986 Kellerman study as it's been thoroughly debunked with the author himself admitting it. He went on to publish a much peer-reviewed study which found that owning a gun posed less statistical risk than renting where you live.
splattermark 5 months ago
@carneycam17 In a home the best weapons to defend yourself are knives and bats. There is a much smaller chance of killing an innocent person and knives are far more deadly than guns (it is much harder to survive a knife wound than a wound from a .22).
I have been held at gunpoint and unarmed sent the man to the hospital. Had I had a gun and decided to try and use it I doubt I'd be here today.
Gun nuts are such cowards. Why not grow a pair and defend yourself and family like a man?
MrRraaccee 5 months ago
@MrRraaccee Actually according to a DOJ study guns are the most effective form of self-defense with knives and blunt instruments resulting in much higher injury rates to the user of them item. Attempting to defend yourself unarmed resulted in an injury rate almost three times higher than with a firearm. On top of that why do you think you "wouldn't be here" if you had used a gun in defense?
Not using the most effective tool to defend yourself isn't brave, it's stupid.
splattermark 5 months ago
@splattermark Show me the proof because I don't believe you. For one, the only study I've seen from the DOJ regarding this is you are more likely to have a gun stolen then to use in self defense.
In Marine and Army training they teach a knife is more effective than a gun in any self-defense scenario I can dream up (less than 21ft). Why would they teach those sent to protect America the wrong way to defend themselves?
You are a liar and a coward. As is anyone who carries a gun.
MrRraaccee 5 months ago
Comment removed
splattermark 5 months ago
@MrRraaccee The last US military bayonet charge was in Korea in 1951. The next-generation service rifles being proposed don't have bayonet lugs and in July 2010 the Army dropped the bayonet training course. Many units being deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan are no longer being issued bayonets. The only knife training currently in US Army Combatives doctrine teaches you to use it as a last resort, when your primary (rifle) and secondary weapon (pistol) have been lost. Who's the liar exactly?
splattermark 5 months ago
@MrRraaccee You're very good at making angry assertions but you haven't backed up any of your sweeping statements or name-calling with any facts, just anecdotal assumptions on your part. I mean, police are supposed to be the ones who show up to protect you if you can't protect yourself but what