The degree of INSISTENCE in this pre-sent-ation is designed and culculated to further inculcate stupidity into the culture of the USA. Such fanatical OPINIONS, protected (bullshit) by the (bullshit) constitution, blah blah blah blah blah demands the commentator blow off his own head if his ARGUMENT is faulty or simply wrong. It is because denying atomic bombs to criminals is a REGULATION. Unless it absolutely is not, in my strongly held opinion. SO I'm never wrong, IMO. Forget the Humble bit.
I believe in the right to bear arms to a certain degree. But I feel that it was written when the United States was fighting Britian, and afterwards felt they would be in another war with Britain. it is outdated a bit, and I hate it when people associate arms with fire arms when there are other arms as well such as a knife, or a club.
I think if the government decided to be totalitarian tomorrow, all the citizens in the country carrying handguns wouldn't be able to stop them. And they'd be a lot smarter than just saying, "Yeah, you have no rights anymore." Stripping America of it's constitutional rights would require a lot of brainwashing and corruption like Hitler's Germany.
@MrLiberal4life Yeah cause the government always has their citizens rights as their highest priority. Tell that to the German and Polish Jews, if you can find one.
You are obviously not a student of history. Every major civilization that barred it's citizens from bearing arms has eventually had their government strip their personal freedoms and liberty.
Oh there were Jews killed.., as well as Catholics. Also targeted/murdered were alcoholics, people with any type of mental illness, the mentally retarded, and anyone who wasn't considered a perfect specimen. Many of these people were used as slave labor and either worked or starved to death.
@MrLiberal4life Let's say it really was BS...so what? Does that change the fact that people without arms usually find themselves under the hand of tyranny? If the Native Americans had guns...we wouldnt be having this conversation. If the African slaves had firearms...they never would have been slaves. AS soon as Hitler took over he took away the right to firearms. HONEST leaders dont mind if people have guns, bcuz they know as long as they dont piss people off noobody will shoot them.
@merddyn2002 In theory it is not true that an armed or weaponised population can resist the government. European Jewry would still have been murdered. Of course had the jews and gypsies and homosexuals and mentally handicapped each had a neuclear bomb under their beds, ready for deplymet, ten yes, They would have still been exterminated with the satisfaction the all LIFE dies too. WHat the USA needs is the fruits of the renaisance, rationalism and humanism. Or, common sense it lately lacks.
@MrLiberal4life "Going to try to get on SS I think. Working hurts my feet anyway." wow boo hoo hoo. Its no wonder you would think only the government officers should have firearms. Not a good American citizen anyway the right to bear arms was to protect us from our government. This man is right. and you seem to need to go back to school with the posts your making.
@MrLiberal4life yea people shouldnt have the right to own guns so i guess obamoas secret service should give up their guns right ? to be anti gun is to be un american the constitution state plain as day that i have the right to keep and bear arms and you cammoi liberals will not take my guns
@MrLiberal4life either you are a troll or pretty much ignorant notice how i said ignorant but dont worry youll understand when someone puts a knife to your neck because im sure theyll happily let you get out your phone and call the police
Dude, you like the liberal news and talk shows has done it again. You left out in you comment this. THE PEOPLE have the right to bear arems. THE PEOPLE are the two words that liberals, communist, democrates, rich, want us to forget. I asked my State Atterney to defind these two words in the 2nd Amendment, and they called me and said they could NOT defind them.
Awsome video man, I subscribed because you seriously speak the truth on this one man. So glad to hear someone who is very educated and knows how to make points speak on our right to bear arms! I would love to see you speaking publicly about the issue!! Rock on brotha! I'll stay tunned in to see what else you have to say!
Your entire argument is based on your lack in faith of our government. Secondly, this amendment was written during a time when we, a brand new country had just opposed Great Britain, the largest and most powerful nation of the time. War was inevitable. The U.S, at the time, lacked organized military and therefore had to turn to Militia. And the statement you made at the end causes me to not be proud of being American. It's people like you who cause foreign nations to think we are pigs!
@PoliticalExile3 Thats good coming from a dickhead like you also do you do tricks like beg and rollover.Your just another brain dead moron who talks shit
you're right plus guns don't kill people so thats not an excuse, just bacause some people do wrong things with the guns it doesn't mean that we should loose our rights, thats what people don't understand that its about our rights not about the gun, if thats the case that means that they should band knifes, rocks off the land, thats insane but thats how some people think,
you're right plus guns don't kill people so thats not an excuse, just bacause some people do wrong things with the guns it doesn't mean that we should loose our rights, thats what people don't understand that its about our rights not about the gun, if thats the case that means that they should band knifes, rocks off the land, thats insane but thats how some people think,
Arizona has just become the 3rd state to allow the concealed carry of handguns to anyone who can legally own one. Alaska and Vermont are the other two. Coincidentally, AK and VT have some of the lowest crime rates in the country. New Mexico is mulling over this also.
"I reject any measure, by any government body, that requires registration of.. inventory of arms."
Google search "Return of Militia." Soon after ratification, everyone able-bodied male aged 18-45 had to register himself, his arm and his ammunition. This information was collected BY the State governments FOR the Federal Government. Not a single objection was raised by a single, individual citizen. Gun-nuts are a new thing.
X. "...to make returns to the adjutant general of the state at least once in every year, of the militia of the brigade to which he belongs, reporting therein the actual situation of the arms, accoutrement, and ammunition... an adjutant general shall make a return of all militia of the state, to the Commander in Chief of the said state, and a duplicate of the same to the president of the United States."
It just fascinating how yahoos all over the world from the most primitive to the most advanced nations all think the same; they all want to carry weapons to protect their valuables that most of us consider garbage, the only person you have to watch out for is the garbage collector.
@GODandPEACE you won't mind shipping me all your garbage then will you? please only send garbage worth $100 or more. And yes, protecting your property is part of that, but protecting your liberty is the primary reason for the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment allows you to protect the first amendment freedoms. I believe that each of us as individual citizens are responsible for that.
Let's cut the BS, most of you guys can't even read much less know what is in the constitution, besides the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791 when people were much less civilized and the land was more savage. The simple truth is that you have a rural mentality that you share with a person who lives in a remote village in the heart of the jungles of South America, you just can't help it you were raised in that primitive mentality built on ignorance and fear of the unknown.
@GODandPEACE wow, u truly are ignorant. I have a 127 point IQ which is borderline genius. I work for a university as an IT manager and am relatively well read both in eastern and western philosophy. I did all of this without a college education. I also live in one of the largest cities in the US, Houston. Sure I'm illiterate. As to your other point.
@GODandPEACE U think today's times aren't savage? Open up any newspaper in any major city and you'll see if anything we're MORE savage than we were in the 1700's. I'm relatively sure most historians would agree. In the last 5 years living in Houston I have had to draw my weapon no less than 3 times do de-escilate a situation where I was being robbed/car-jacked. In all 3 situations I walked away without a scratch and with my property and nobody got shot. How would you fair in the same situation?
@GODandPEACE bottom line, i respect your right not to be armed. That's your choice. The right to bear arms is my right. Express your opinion all day long. You're guaranteed that. In fact, I'll lay down my life in the use of my arms to help protect your right to express that opinion, even if you disagree with me. That's what citizens do.
For someone who claims to have 127 point IQ you don't sound very bright to me, I was talking in general and I said most of you guys, meaning most of those who want to carry weapons.
I was never in a situation where I needed to draw a weapon except in the military, but then I never lived in bad neighborhoods and trailer-parks.
When it comes to protecting my rights I trust that role to democracy, if it were up to yahoos I would probably wouldn't be here today.
As much as I enjoyed this very "stimulating" conversation, I have more important things to do and besides I don't want to keep you away for too long from your delusions.
@GODandPEACE your argument that you don't go to or live in bad neighborhood and trailer parks is both a thinly veiled insult and a very common misconception. If you believe that your lack of exposure to crime ridden areas provides you anything more than superficial insulation from being the subject of an attack you are simply being naive. There is nothing I can really do to contest that perspective other than to point to the world around you as evidence. Bad things CAN happen to YOU.
@GODandPEACE Unfortunately that's not a lesson you're apt to learn until you're already a victim. I hope you never have to experience that. And, they may, in fact, be delusions but they've already saved my life 3 times in the last 5 years. If those are delusions I'll take that over your definition of reality any day. Have a good easter weekend, man. Peace to you and yours.
I have worked and lived on 4 continents in Avionics and EW my life was probably more at risk in this line of work than that of the average person and yet I have never felt the need to carry a weapon; I am bound to meet my end in one way or another and I would rather be killed than accidently kill an innocent person, besides if someone wants to kill me they would probably go about it in stealthy way. And what do you suggest I should do when I get on a plane, wear a parachute?
@GODandPEACE there are always situations where things are beyond our control or foresight to change. The point from the self defense perspective is to mitigate the risks on the decisions you can control. The rest is up to God (tm), etc. Manage the risks you can control within reason. If it's not reasonable in your mind to carry a weapon then don't do it. But why must you criticize my right to mitigate my own risks?
For one thing weapons are designed for the sole purpose of killing and while you might be a responsible person you have to admit that putting weapons in the hands of yahoos who are ignorant, full of hate and primitive in their thinking and who often end up with an arsenal big enough to start a small war is not a good idea, and what about the people who don't want to raise their families surrounded by a bunch of armed "cowboys"?
@GODandPEACE these responsible gun owners are exactly the ones that u want as your neighbors and around your kids. They know how to handle themselves and are just as likely to come to your aid in a life or death crisis if needed. I would rather have them as a neighbor any day over someone who hears gunshots, calls the police, locks their doors and just hopes for the best for u and yours. I suppose is u wand neighbors like that though you could live in California or DC.
@GODandPEACE u absolutely have the right to disagree and even express that disagreement. My question was why MUST u criticize my beliefs, as in what compells u to do so. But in truth I have to say I don't mind so much honestly. If anything we can learn something from one another, and that's never a bad thing.
@GODandPEACE weapons are tools. They can be used to protect or to harm. The tool is not to be judged it is neither right nor wrong. Do u look down on police officers for carrying weapons? Ur answer also implies thrall all/most gun owners are irresponsible "cowboys". While there will always be idiots in the world I think u would find that the vast majority of gun owners are responsible tax paying adults. Go hang out at a gun range for a weekend or take a basic shooting class and see for yourself
@GODandPEACE more to the family point, I personally feel children should be taught about guns, gun safety and shooting starting from an early age. My 9 year old has been taught since she could crawl and she safely handles a gun better than a lot of 30-40 year olds I know. For her age she's also a pretty damn good shot. U tell me, what's more dangerous? A house with a child who's kids are uneducated or one who's family members are all taught how to be responsible gun owners?
@merddyn2002 you fail to realize that not all children are raised as yours. Many are around guns but never learn how to properly use them. I know this as I live in the south
you're right plus guns don't kill people so thats not an excuse, just bacause some people do wrong things with the guns it doesn't mean that we should loose our rights, thats what people don't understand that its about our rights not about the gun, if thats the case that means that they should band knifes, rocks off the land, thats insane but thats how some people think,
you're right plus guns don't kill people so thats not an excuse, just bacause some people do wrong things with the guns it doesn't mean that we should loose our rights, thats what people don't understand that its about our rights not about the gun, if thats the case that means that they should band knifes, rocks off the land, thats insane but thats how some people think,
Every criminal was once a "law abiding citizen" before they snapped and robbed a convenience store at gun point, or impulsively murdered their cheating wife, or mowed down their fellow classmates out of social anger.
I agree you have the right to bear arms for recreational purposes, target practice, or maybe hunting (though no longer needed for survival).
In 2010 within city limits, it would be best to minimize the ease of acquisition of firearms so that innocent people and police die less.
That, is a very naive attitude. So, you are claiming the gun makes the criminal? How absurd is that? I have no idea how a logical person could ever come to such a thought process. A gun is simply an inanimate tool, it has no ability to force any human to do anything.
Here is a fact for you. Only .06% of the gun in the United States have ever been used in a crime. That's 6/100 of 1%.
Here is a much more efficient and less dangerous solution, punish the criminals.
I never said "the gun makes the criminal"- you assumed that is what I was implying. What I am saying is that all criminals were once non-criminals before they ever committed their first crime, which crime may or may not have been gun related.
I fully agree that guns are inanimate tools, and as such, guns don't kill people- people kill people- BUT they use guns as the tool to do it with!
The point is that it should be a lot harder than it is for anyone to own a gun.
Then perhaps you think what people are allowed to say about their gov't should be restricted also. Or perhaps gov't approval as to which religion you follow or actually mandated by the gov't. Or the press being gov't controlled. Or the need for a warrant, or privacy?
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so freaking hard to understand?
You are obviously a shallow thinker to come to the conclusion you have
I suppose when you take away guns and they start using knives, we ban those also?
1. Knives are completely different than guns (obvious)
2. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion and right to own property has nothing to do with guns being used to kill people.
3. People think guns are cool and want to have them so they claim Right to bare arms and think that this issue is over personal freedom. Well sorry- this aint 1791 when that amendment was adopted and when people actually NEEDED guns because there was barely a government.
There should be much stricter rules on being able to attain and permit a firearm. You should have to take a firearms aptitude test, and you should have to prove that you are a responsible owner.
You know how easy it is to buy a gun? You need a clean record , proof of ID, and be over the age of 18.
I am surprised that more police haven't protested against the very government that they work for to push for more regulation on gun control so that they and their colleagues get shot less.
Actually, the vast majority of police support the 2A. They understand that an armed society is a civil society. They also realize that they have no way to protect citizens, they are simply a clean up crew. They are not even required by law to do so.
Those people that kill cops already are restricted from owning weapons, funny thing is criminals do not follow the law, amazing isn't it.
Sadly, logic and truth escape simple minded people such as yourself.
Once again you're missing the point- I never once said there should be a gun ban- I said there needs to be stricter regulations/control over who can own a gun and how easily they can acquire one.
"An armed society is a civil one" lmfao...say that to yourself and think about it.
"They also realize they have no way to protect citizens"? Are you kidding me? "Ever heard of the credo they operate by? "Serve and protect"?
"They are not required by law to do so?" Haha- You must be joking right?
LOL, you are a delusional one now aren't you. You do realize you are fighting fact, I can not lose this debate.
Google, lincoln county woman kills intruder. Then come back and make the claim the cops can protect you. Like the saying says, LE is only minutes away when seconds count.
You really need to look at some SCOTUS rulings, LE is not obligated in any way to protect you. It makes sense because it is an impossible task for them to accomplish. They investigate crime, not stop it.
We laready have HUNDREDS of laws on the books that address just that. Yet, they solve nothing. Criminals by definition, do not obey the laws. It that really so hard to comprehend? The highest crime rates are those areas with the MOST restrictive laws. Ever wonder why? I suppose not as reality just seems to escape you. D.C AFTER Heller, just had it's lowest crime year in 35 years. CCW and gun ownership are rising, crime is falling.
Yes the woman in "lincoln county woman kills intruder" was able to defend herself- but could she have still defended herself with a 50,000 volt tazer? I know I would have been able to.
Again, you think that I think nobody should be able to have guns. To be clear, I think that for ADDED safety, if you really think you need a gun, you should be able to have one.
Also, I know that when gun control (ban) laws are passed, crime rates go up because criminals think they are up against less.
But in an ideal world the only people who should have guns are LE- since this is not an ideal world, I do agree that guns can be used as a deterrent for added safety when LE can't get there in time, as you mentioned. But my point still stands that it is way to easy for someone to acquire a gun.
Ideal world? There we go again with the liberal delusion of utopia..
And you're point has been completely debunked. only you can't see that.
But, perhaps you can explain how criminals get guns considering we already have hundreds of laws against that, and how passing more laws will change that?
And you want to subject an elderly woman to the using a tazer against a mad man. That's rather narcissistic don't you think?
Here's MY point. If a citizen has committed a crime and is not stable enough to be trusted with their rights. They shouldn't be free anyway. You people don't want to punish criminals. yet are willing to reduce the freedoms of those people who do follow the law. That's an amazingly dangerous thought process.
I full support the punishing of all criminals. I even support the death sentence in some cases. This entire time you've assumed things that you think I think, that are not true. Why is that? It sounds like you have a lot of anger built up over these false assumptions that only reside within your mind. Now I'm starting to think the only person that shouldn't have a gun is you!
I made no assumptions, they were only what would have been a rational outcome of your comment's and opinions. You are full of hypocrisy, and your opinions do not compute with each other. Not uncommon for shallow thinking.
ROFL, you formed an opinion that I should be restricted my RIGHTS because you don't have rational thought patterns and the ability to comprehend logic and fact.
You people are so quick to restrict others of their rights, it would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.
Im not saying all conservatives are like this, but my conservative friend does the exact same thing time and time again- when he senses defeat, he goes into this sort of illogical back lashing, aimlessly firing meaningless irrelevant insults, like a loose cannon (no pun intended), rather than making any further congruent points about the topic at hand or simply agreeing to disagree. Again, with this impulsive and senseless behavior, youre about the last person I would trust with a firearm.
Sense's defeat...rofl, hardly. Like I said, I have fact on my side. I would guess that your conservative friend experiences the same sort of amusement I do. Trying to talk logic to a shallow thinker and pointing out their illogical thinking process is amusing. You only see it as an insult because you can not see your own lack of logic in your contradicting opinions. Only you could see it as coming out of a top of a conversation, even more amusing.
So get rid of the laws that don't work and make better ones that do.
For the 4th (?) time now- I never once said I supported a ban on firearms by "removing a right from society"
What is LE's job if it is not to stop crime?
The kind of restrictions on firearms that I am supporting would help shift the percentage of firearm owners to a more responsible demographic. Again, it was straight firearm bans that led to increased crime rates.
All laws, including the 2A, are written for a reason.
When the 2A was written, there were some pretty good reasons for it. However, as we progress as a society, the goal is to put as much power as possible into those who we know we can trust- like LE, and not rely on our fellow common citizens, who are untrained and operate under no specific protocols to protect each other and themselves.
Criminals, by definition, do NOT follow laws. That is the perfect example of your shallow thinking. "Just pass a law, I am sure they'll follow it!"
Any restriction is a ban to someone, and any infringement is the removal of a right.
LE's job is to investigate crime and make an attempt to find the responsible person to stand trial. They can't even do their job until after a crime has happened, which means there is already a victim.
And here is an example. I support people having to take a basic test on how gov't works and passing it before they are allowed to vote.
I would bet that you would think that is wrong and infringing someone's right. Yet, voting is NOT a constitutional right.
Keeping and bearing arms IS a constitutional right, that is NOT to be infringed. Yet you are all to willing to infringe on that by trying to decide who is deserving of that right.
Well thank you- the "test" that you speak of for voting is not only one I would also agree with, it is also similar to the idea that I have in mind for gun control.
Also similar to a test someone might have to take before getting a driver's license. Can't get a license to drive unless you know how to operate a motor vehicle- shouldn't be able to get a gun permit if you can't pass a test about the risks and dangers involved, and of course how to operate and be responsible with a firearm.
Those are the kind of laws that I think should be passed... and again you put false words into my mouth- I never once said "just pass a law and I'm sure they'll follow it."
Of course they won't follow it and again you missed the point.
"A right is above the law and the power of men." Well I guess- but after all it was written by men, and before those men wrote it, it didn't exist. It was written for a practical reason, not because it was just thought of as being some divine right.
Since that practical reason is now much less practical, it makes less sense.
What is more important here? A few lines on a 200+ year-old piece of paper or the effect that those lines have on society?
But besides all of that, what I think LE should do first, since according to you they don't do very much as it is, is putting more time, money, effort and man power into stopping illegal weapons first.
How many criminals got weapons from non-criminals because it was so easy for them to acquire?
And that 200 year old piece of paper as you call it, created the greatest nation that provided the greatest freedoms and wealth for the common man in the history of the world. It deserves far more respect and is more relevant today than it was then.
A little stat for you. Only .06%, that's 6/100 of 1% of firearms in this nation have ever been used in the commission of a crime. Think about that percentage before you get all riled up to infringe on my rights.
And here is something that freaks out shallow thinkers also. The restriction of a felon to have a gun. Now on the surface it "makes sense" as no one what's a dangerous person armed. But how many millions of non violent "felons" are restricted in their ability to exercise their right to self defense or to protect their families?
I want the dangerous thugs locked away where they belong instead of being turned loose on society.
Crime is perpetuated by gov't to seize power and deny rights.
They weren't written by men, they were recognized by men. Our founders only put them in the bill of rights to make it very evident that tyranny and the greed for power from men would never have the power to unrecognize (sic) them.
They did consider them above men, which is what makes them a right and NOT a privilege.
But, you see, you are confusing rights, with privileges. Voting and driving are not rights.
Yet, keeping and bearing arms are, the restriction or giving anyone the power to restrict a right or to require a test to have a right is a very dangerous slippery slope.
Freedom is NOT necessarily safe. But, it is much, much safer than tyranny.
Well correct me if I'm wrong, but you do have a right to possess a driver's license if you pass the test and continue to exhibit safe and responsible driving.
Now why is that? Well- because you can kill someone with a car if you don't know what you're doing- you can even kill someone with a car if you DO know what you're doing and do it on purpose.
Cars are dangerous machines and so are guns (even more so than cars), so why is it easier to get a gun than it is to get a driver's license?
NO, actually driving is NOT a right, you seem to have a real problem being able to discern between the two. The state at a whim could revoke your driving license and you would have little to no recourse or real impact on your freedom.
And it is very debatable whether or not a gun is actually more dangerous than cars.
Yet, you still seem to be stuck in that shallow pool. The freedom to keep and bear arms has a far more sinister outcome if it's infringed.
I didn't say "driving is a right" I said you have the right to possess a driver's license if you pass the test and exhibit good driving. You must have a reading problem because every time I have to correct you on what I said.
And yes, your freedom would be heavily restricted in all senses of the word if the state took away your driver's license.
It sounds like you would rather have a gun than a car- I don't know anyone who would agree with you. I guess if you live out in eaglecreek maybe lol
Case # 2 - "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579.
Case # 1 - "Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. - Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22
The ONLY RIGHTS we have in this country are those defined in the constitution, period. Everything else is a privilege and subject to regulation, by the people. Even the freedom of speech isn't open ended in the constitution. There is nothing in it about driving, transportation, voting and some rights are even limited.
Shall not be infringed, makes it rather undeniable, that the 2A is a right above gov't regulation. The fact that it has been infringed does not do anything but weaken the people.
What those rulings state is that the roads are public property that the city can not deny access to it. They extend no right to the individual to actually drive.
That puddle of yours is drying up.
If you don't believe me, go try driving without a permit and see how that works out for you.
Rights require no permit. A privilege does. Perhaps you will next want to distribute license's that allow people every freedom only as permitted. When the 2A is restricted, all rights suffer.
Oh brother, like I said, you are a shallow thinker. You do NOT have a RIGHT to own a drivers license. You really need to look up the words "right" and "privilege". They are not one in the same.
Your comprehension of freedom is seriously skewed. Freedom is NOT the ability to go to the grocery store or the movie.
All of our systems are heavily flawed including the government itself. I'm not saying that dumping money into flawed systems is the answer, but carefully investing in important areas can't hurt.
If you don't think investing in such things will work then please tell me what will.
The current state of education is absurd. Teacher's rebel against anything that makes them accountable, yet bitch for more money. The inmate is running the asylum. Don't hurt anyone's feelings, don't use red ink, blah, blah, blah.
And we continue to crank out under educated people ripe for the dependency that our gov't desires for them.
IT WAS MADE SO WE CAN FIGHT BACK AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT IF IT GETS OUT OF CONTROL WE CAN FIGHT BACK.......WHAT THE CONSTITUTION WAS MADE FOR....FOR THE PEOPLE TO BE IN CHARGE NOT THE GOVERNMENT (REPUBLICANS) OR WE CAN BE "sheep" TO THE GOVERNMENT WE WILL FAIL ESPECIALLY WITH THIS SOCIALIST MAN IN CHARGE OF THE COUNTRY (OBAMA)
No offense, but either goatface is insane and foolish; or she is a bot account for a gun control group. How could anyone, with a sound mind, believe that a free society can be achieved with out an armed citizenry to enforce it?
goat face? assuming you're referring to the goatee. Seems like you're agreeing with me, but you seem to be doing it in an abusive manner so i'm a little confused :) please clarify :)
that's exactly right. hitler did not storm to power with an iron fist. people forget that. hitler was active with the nazis back into the late twenties. they used quiet bullying tactics to take power. hitler could've been crushed any number of times early on. he ruled by fear NOT force.
if germany has an armed populace now all of a sudden the nazi tactics can't work.
I say the Second Amendment is, in order of importance, the first amendment. It is Americas First Freedom, the one right that protects all of the others. Among freedom of speech, of the press, of religion, of assembly, of redress of grievances, it is the first among equals. It alone offers the absolute capacity to live without fear. The right to keep and bear arms is the one right that allows to exist at all.
All military type firearms are to be handed in immediately...The SS, SA and Stahlhelm give every responsible opportunity of campaigning with them. Therefore anyone who does not belong to one of the above-named organizations and who unjustifiably nevertheless keeps his weapon...must be regarded as an enemy of the national government. — SA Oberfuhrer of Bad Tolz, March, 1933.
In a safe and civilized society, the people out gun and out number their government and criminals. That is liberty. In a dangerous and barbaric society, the government and criminals out gun and/or outnumber the people. That is tyranny and fascism.
who was it that said, give me liberty or give me death. that was the first sentance uttered in favour of the right to bear arms. and protect ones self and home and property.
try and bear arms at work, and see what it gets you, Fired.. this is the truth. your rights, and mine, are going by the way side because of political powers and private powers. how do you stand agianst it? protest, and have one pointed at your head? protest with one, and be shot for looking like your going to do something bad.. our country is fucked, plain and simple.
your one of the fiew lucky ones. my work, and many others Forbid any kind of weapon, plastic or otherwise. in this new world, Policy has the same power as LAW. where any private institution has the ability to make Policy.
Distinctivly funny that the vast majority of U, S and Gay literally worship guns and their distinctivly funny amendment supporting guns for *EVERYONE* (lol), without paying attention/caring about the resulting civil genocide and the statistics that prooves it. Even funnier how the only reason for this nature is patriotism for a country that obviously wants it's retarded, gun-loving citizens to kill eachother, effectivly culling down the population for the sake of Darwin's principles of survival
and your one retared moron. HELLO, people kill people.. if they didn't have guns they would be using knives. and excuse me, but if the idiots on the receiving end had a gun to shoot back, it wouldn't be a problem.. the fuckers who started it would be dead. if someone walked into a bank and attempted to hold it up, and EVERYONE else had a gun, that bank wouldn't be held up.. period.
I know, by mindblowing statistics and logical conclusions, that guns result to murder, rather than safety. In Norway it's illegal to carry around weapons, cause unlike you Americans, we Norwegians actually evolved, rather than being stuck in the wild wild west. our vikings discovered that weapons kill, and murder leads to tragedy, so we did the only rational and obvious thing to do - outlaw them. that's why we feel safe; so safe that the thought of defending ourselves with a gun is retarded.
Mimd blowing statistics? Did you know there is just as much violent crime in the uk as there is in the U.S.? Other than your obvious OPINION could you quote some statistics for me? "Wild west" I have heard that unintelligent statement from so many uninformd europeans.
you want statistics? gun related deaths in the US pr. year: over 12 000. gun related deaths in norway pr year: about 10. happy? well, u shouldnt be. u're the one with the 0,00004% chance of getting shot each year, while i have a comforting 0,000002%. and that's only by guns. ALL weapons (almost including pocket knives) are illegal in the streets of Norway. so my odds of getting murdered by any weapon is significantly smaller than yours. touché, cowboy ;)
Population of norway=4.8 million. Obviously you're going to have overall less gun related deaths. I've had this debate a few dozen times already. The majority of anti-gun arguments are debunked through a simple matter of population ratios. By the way, the south west united states is just that. The south west. Now honestly stop making these ignorant statements. You make yourself look like a damn fool. I can always point to switzerland as well.
fair enough... a totally valid arguement for an idiot surrounded by other idiots to debate with...
do u honestly think i didnt concider the VAST population differences? how the hell do u think i reached the two numbers determining a citizens chance of getting shot each year? 12 000 / 308 000 000 and 10 / 4 800 000. it's that simple. why dont u do the math urself before u accuse those smarter than you of being ignorant and a damn fool, you damn fool.
All you seem to know about America is what you've seen in movies. Lets make make a few point shall we? Cities inside the united states with highest gun crime have the most restrictive gun laws inside the united states. Now lets look at switzerland; There are more gun owners,and more guns per person per capita than in the united states,gun related deaths in switzerland? 300. Mostly suicides. 34 gun crimes were commited in 2006. Now in America most gun crimes are commited with illeagall firearms.
hey, u asked for statistics. i gave u statistics. are u rly gonna keep arguing? u wanna argue statistics? ofcourse u cant! so u cleverly accuse me of pulling my TRUE facts and numbers out of movies! alriiight, i'll play along...
okay, first of all, u dont count suicides. the 12 000 shotdown americans each year did not suicide. anyway, so switzerland has a relatively insignificant number by comparison. with 7.6mill citizens, chance of getting shot each year is 0,000004%. so what is your point?
I didnt say you got the statistics from movies. Both are quite insignificant. More so for me on a local level. Not to mention I am trianed and experianced with firearms,am armed,so me getting shot? Seems very slim. And regarding percapit which you brought up "do the math" in switzerland vs united states, so I gave it to ya. You still insist that guns cause crime? Cause death?
i too was amazed with the differences between switzerland and USA. i honostly think, in no attempt of generalizing, that the reason for that is strict immigration laws (im sorry minorities. u're good people, but u're killing me...). that being said, i still prooved to u that even the single most "life-approving" and clearly one-of-its-kind gun-carrying country in the world still has double the ammount of gun-deaths than a country with no guns. so yes, i still insist that guns cause crime!
I think the that people in America should be allowed to carry water pistols or pop guns. Guns that fire actual bullets are nasty things that hurt other humans. in the UK we do not have the right to bear arms and I think you will agree are a much better society with our NHS and welfare services. Get rid of guns and go socialist thats the way to go.
A pop gun is a small caliber pocket pistol. Capable of being just as dangerous as a hand cannon. And your society is being taken over by disenfranchised muslims. Your comments, are jokes. Why do you feel the need to poke your nose into an issue that is an American issue, which does not affect any issues in the uk. Now run along, little sheep. Let the government decide everything for you.
A much better society? You mean your society where the government has absolute control and you don't have the guns to stop them. People who dislike guns are fools.
Get a brain, guns kill guns maim guns are for soldiers not for mindless rednecks who need to carry one to bolster their manhood. Are you serioulsy suggesting that if you don't like a government you should use guns to overthrow it. Sounds like facism to me. The days of the USA are numbered the UK is planning an invasion.
Your arguments are based on Ad Hominem Abusive and the Appeal to emotion fallacies and thus your arguments are invalid and thus unsound. Let me know when you can debate like an educated adult.
Just a joke, seriously guns kill and hurt other living creatures. Whilst I am sure that you are a sane humane person there are many others with guns who are not. How many massacres have occured in schools etc by crazies with guns. Why dont we still carry swords round our waist? In a civilised society why should there be a need to carry a gun. Our police do not carry guns and will not in the forseeable future. Guns need to be controlled
@goatface1000 Really, your only defense against crime is to hide from it. The ignorance that the law can protect you is absurd. And since you claim that the UK is now so civilized, because they have confiscated your ability to protect yourself, do me a favor.
Go take a stroll in Southwark or Newham at about 2AM, and see how that all works out for you. Or, just keep cowering in your mommies basement thinking the world s safe.
I did actually walk around Southwark late at night in the summer without any problems. I know people who live in Newham they have no problems. My mother has no basement and I am not the cowering type. Your wild west fantasies are the sign of an incomplete mind.
What would you do walking in areas like that walk around with your gun in your pocket ready to shoot the first person to ask you the way to London Bridge?
This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future! Adolf Hitler
Hilter never said or wrote that a total myth. Are you seriously trying to equate a society with no guns as being akin to nazi Germany? That is the silliest idea I have ever heard. Guns are nasty machines invented for the sole purpose of killing people or animals. Is that what you would like to do?
To keep my liberty yes. You cannot have a free society with out an armed citizenry. And Do you deny the fact that Hitler disarmed the Jews before rounding them up and exterminating them? I have seen Holocaust survivors testify about Hitlers gun control. And guns do kill people and animals. That is the whole point.
What do you know of Jewish people? I can assure you that the jews of Germany would not have been a group in which gun ownership was prevelant. I find it strange how you can use the holocaust to justify gun ownership. Even if every Jew Germany had a gun the end result would have been the same.
In Nazi Germany if you were found with a gun and you were not a Nazi solder or a police, you were shot instantly. And I use the Holocaust because it is an example of why the people should out gun their own government. I find it strange that you believe that the government cannot be, for some magical reason, corrupt and become oppressive; and that the people, unarmed, will some how magically overthrow such a government.
you're correct in asserting that the jews probably wouln't have been big gun owners, but that is their mistake. but since we are talking in the hypothetical, lets say the jews were armed. meaning most families had a gun in the house.
the nazis didn't simply overrun germany, they crept into control. quietly sweeping jews from their houses isn't so easy with a shotgun blasting away at nazi bastards.
the jews of the 30's were compliant. had they not been...
Simple logic and common sense, yet Goatface1000 won't be able to compute it. I don't see how he could seriously think that a free society can exist without guns
So Mr, Rubenstein sees the Gestapo coming and gets his gun out and starts blasying away naive my friend. They thought they were being taken to labour, not death camps. i agree that any of those nazis that died was good but jews owning guns would not have stopped the holocaust.
Comparisons between an elected government and an evil bunch of occupiers like the Nazis are invalid I would certainly agree with using guns on them. However that is in response to military action and also against the military
@goatface1000 You do realize the Nazi's WERE ELECTED into office, right?
It is very valid and but one of many examples of why a simple democracy can fail. It is a perfect example as to why the people need the ability to both defend themselves and to snuff out tyranny.
You can't just dismiss those facts because like everything else, it debunks your opinion.
Guns are just tools. In the right hands, they are tools to ensure freedom. In the wrong hands, oppression. Study history, it's all there.
Hitler was elected however the enabling act that was passed let him get rid of all opposittion. The nazis were evil scum and I would cheerfully have fought against them with guns but overthrowing a tyranny is totally differnent to walking down the road carrying a gun. The fact that I oppose guns does not make me a coward you are the coward he needs to carry one.
@goatface1000 ROFL, what? Oh, yes, your opposition to guns does in fact make you a coward. You are afraid and you know it. Fear is the only emotional way a person could come to the opinions you have.
Democracy and every other form of gov't fails without the necessary tools to protect freedoms. That tool is in fact a firearm, no other tool has the ability to do the job.
I carry a firearm to protect myself, my family and my country. If you choose to be a victim and subject, feel free to do so.
You talk of black and muslim thugs and deny you are racsit? You talk of freedom but you need a gun to enforce it? You call me a flea, and yet you do not me I am not I assure you a coward I am a fighter and have been all my life. I have my beliefs and will stand up for them, fact that they are not yours does not make me a coward. You are such a cliche I bet you support the death penalty oppose abortion and go to church on Sunday. THE GOAT HAS WON GIVE UP YOUR GUN
@goatface1000 LOL, that's what you use to label me? More ignorance I see. The fact is those ares we talked about are mostly populated by those populations, that doesn't make me a racist, just stating fact, nice try though
As far as my beliefs, abortion is a personal choice, although I see it as wrong, it's not my place to tell someone else how to believe. The death penalty is absolutely appropriate. Church? haven't been there since I was a kid.
Your beliefs define both your ignorance & cowardice
i didn't suggest that it would have stopped the holocaust. what it would do is create an entirely different dynamic in germany. the end result may have been the same, perhaps, but maybe not.
many of the jews believed they were going to labour camps, but many didn't. how many is many, i don't know. but again, different dynamic.
hitler moved effortlessly and barely challenged all through the 30's not because nobody could stop him, but because they were afraid of him.
The degree of INSISTENCE in this pre-sent-ation is designed and culculated to further inculcate stupidity into the culture of the USA. Such fanatical OPINIONS, protected (bullshit) by the (bullshit) constitution, blah blah blah blah blah demands the commentator blow off his own head if his ARGUMENT is faulty or simply wrong. It is because denying atomic bombs to criminals is a REGULATION. Unless it absolutely is not, in my strongly held opinion. SO I'm never wrong, IMO. Forget the Humble bit.
listen2meokidoki 1 week ago
too bad I wanted monkey arms :(
HoukouAoi123 4 months ago
I believe in the right to bear arms to a certain degree. But I feel that it was written when the United States was fighting Britian, and afterwards felt they would be in another war with Britain. it is outdated a bit, and I hate it when people associate arms with fire arms when there are other arms as well such as a knife, or a club.
imperatorcaesar100 8 months ago
The Holy Bible instructs us to arm ourselves. Read Luke 22:36
PaulKersey10 10 months ago
I think if the government decided to be totalitarian tomorrow, all the citizens in the country carrying handguns wouldn't be able to stop them. And they'd be a lot smarter than just saying, "Yeah, you have no rights anymore." Stripping America of it's constitutional rights would require a lot of brainwashing and corruption like Hitler's Germany.
But I agree with every other point you made.
Canyadigit2 1 year ago
People should not have the right to have guns unless you work 4 the Gov.
Obama 2012!
MrLiberal4life 1 year ago
@MrLiberal4life Yeah cause the government always has their citizens rights as their highest priority. Tell that to the German and Polish Jews, if you can find one.
You are obviously not a student of history. Every major civilization that barred it's citizens from bearing arms has eventually had their government strip their personal freedoms and liberty.
merddyn2002 1 year ago
@merddyn2002 No Jews were killed in WW2 its made up B/S.
MrLiberal4life 1 year ago
@MrLiberal4life My family escaped Germany and saw those events beginning first hand. That's why they left. U calling my grandparents liars?
merddyn2002 1 year ago
@MrLiberal4life lmao yea no jews where killed we only have how mnany pictures how many i witness testiments ? your ignorant
1bigtarget 10 months ago
@MrLiberal4life
Oh there were Jews killed.., as well as Catholics. Also targeted/murdered were alcoholics, people with any type of mental illness, the mentally retarded, and anyone who wasn't considered a perfect specimen. Many of these people were used as slave labor and either worked or starved to death.
PaulKersey10 10 months ago
@MrLiberal4life Let's say it really was BS...so what? Does that change the fact that people without arms usually find themselves under the hand of tyranny? If the Native Americans had guns...we wouldnt be having this conversation. If the African slaves had firearms...they never would have been slaves. AS soon as Hitler took over he took away the right to firearms. HONEST leaders dont mind if people have guns, bcuz they know as long as they dont piss people off noobody will shoot them.
chefshitpiece 2 months ago
@merddyn2002 In theory it is not true that an armed or weaponised population can resist the government. European Jewry would still have been murdered. Of course had the jews and gypsies and homosexuals and mentally handicapped each had a neuclear bomb under their beds, ready for deplymet, ten yes, They would have still been exterminated with the satisfaction the all LIFE dies too. WHat the USA needs is the fruits of the renaisance, rationalism and humanism. Or, common sense it lately lacks.
listen2meokidoki 1 week ago
@MrLiberal4life "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
merddyn2002 1 year ago
@MrLiberal4life Wow your a dumbass and You seem like a troll anyways your names a dead give-a-way but Obama doesn't need to be into office again .
opel1111 1 year ago
@MrLiberal4life "Going to try to get on SS I think. Working hurts my feet anyway." wow boo hoo hoo. Its no wonder you would think only the government officers should have firearms. Not a good American citizen anyway the right to bear arms was to protect us from our government. This man is right. and you seem to need to go back to school with the posts your making.
Libertyin2010 11 months ago
@MrLiberal4life yea people shouldnt have the right to own guns so i guess obamoas secret service should give up their guns right ? to be anti gun is to be un american the constitution state plain as day that i have the right to keep and bear arms and you cammoi liberals will not take my guns
1bigtarget 10 months ago
@MrLiberal4life either you are a troll or pretty much ignorant notice how i said ignorant but dont worry youll understand when someone puts a knife to your neck because im sure theyll happily let you get out your phone and call the police
shadypyro415 3 months ago
Dude, you like the liberal news and talk shows has done it again. You left out in you comment this. THE PEOPLE have the right to bear arems. THE PEOPLE are the two words that liberals, communist, democrates, rich, want us to forget. I asked my State Atterney to defind these two words in the 2nd Amendment, and they called me and said they could NOT defind them.
tock101 1 year ago
Awsome video man, I subscribed because you seriously speak the truth on this one man. So glad to hear someone who is very educated and knows how to make points speak on our right to bear arms! I would love to see you speaking publicly about the issue!! Rock on brotha! I'll stay tunned in to see what else you have to say!
JustinLloyd1000 1 year ago
Your entire argument is based on your lack in faith of our government. Secondly, this amendment was written during a time when we, a brand new country had just opposed Great Britain, the largest and most powerful nation of the time. War was inevitable. The U.S, at the time, lacked organized military and therefore had to turn to Militia. And the statement you made at the end causes me to not be proud of being American. It's people like you who cause foreign nations to think we are pigs!
ItalianMobBoss69 1 year ago
you rock dude
ducksrule1234 1 year ago
@PoliticalExile3 Thats good coming from a dickhead like you also do you do tricks like beg and rollover.Your just another brain dead moron who talks shit
MrAquafan 1 year ago
Americans are dumb. Than they wonder why they have the most murders in the world
MrBigBadBobby 1 year ago
call be a dumbass on the streets and i will shoot you... lol
911mykidsdead 1 year ago
you're right plus guns don't kill people so thats not an excuse, just bacause some people do wrong things with the guns it doesn't mean that we should loose our rights, thats what people don't understand that its about our rights not about the gun, if thats the case that means that they should band knifes, rocks off the land, thats insane but thats how some people think,
cperlera 1 year ago
you're right plus guns don't kill people so thats not an excuse, just bacause some people do wrong things with the guns it doesn't mean that we should loose our rights, thats what people don't understand that its about our rights not about the gun, if thats the case that means that they should band knifes, rocks off the land, thats insane but thats how some people think,
cperlera 1 year ago
The trouble with the right to bear arms is the dumb crackers that have them i e THE STUPID AMERICAN PEOPLE WHO ARE JUST PLAIN DUMB
MrAquafan 1 year ago
Arizona has just become the 3rd state to allow the concealed carry of handguns to anyone who can legally own one. Alaska and Vermont are the other two. Coincidentally, AK and VT have some of the lowest crime rates in the country. New Mexico is mulling over this also.
TattooedHoodlum 1 year ago
@TattooedHoodlum
Correction: AZ now allows conceal carry *without a permit*
TattooedHoodlum 1 year ago
"I reject any measure, by any government body, that requires registration of.. inventory of arms."
Google search "Return of Militia." Soon after ratification, everyone able-bodied male aged 18-45 had to register himself, his arm and his ammunition. This information was collected BY the State governments FOR the Federal Government. Not a single objection was raised by a single, individual citizen. Gun-nuts are a new thing.
freatork1 1 year ago
X. "...to make returns to the adjutant general of the state at least once in every year, of the militia of the brigade to which he belongs, reporting therein the actual situation of the arms, accoutrement, and ammunition... an adjutant general shall make a return of all militia of the state, to the Commander in Chief of the said state, and a duplicate of the same to the president of the United States."
freatork1 1 year ago
Apparently views and opinions have become the currency for insults and ignorance.
My views on the Second Amendment and various related topics pretty closely match our bearded friend here...
Don't agree with me/us? Go read something else and post your drivel there.
Aeryn007 1 year ago
It just fascinating how yahoos all over the world from the most primitive to the most advanced nations all think the same; they all want to carry weapons to protect their valuables that most of us consider garbage, the only person you have to watch out for is the garbage collector.
GODandPEACE 1 year ago
@GODandPEACE you won't mind shipping me all your garbage then will you? please only send garbage worth $100 or more. And yes, protecting your property is part of that, but protecting your liberty is the primary reason for the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment allows you to protect the first amendment freedoms. I believe that each of us as individual citizens are responsible for that.
merddyn2002 1 year ago
@merddyn2002
Let's cut the BS, most of you guys can't even read much less know what is in the constitution, besides the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791 when people were much less civilized and the land was more savage. The simple truth is that you have a rural mentality that you share with a person who lives in a remote village in the heart of the jungles of South America, you just can't help it you were raised in that primitive mentality built on ignorance and fear of the unknown.
GODandPEACE 1 year ago
@GODandPEACE wow, u truly are ignorant. I have a 127 point IQ which is borderline genius. I work for a university as an IT manager and am relatively well read both in eastern and western philosophy. I did all of this without a college education. I also live in one of the largest cities in the US, Houston. Sure I'm illiterate. As to your other point.
merddyn2002 1 year ago
@GODandPEACE U think today's times aren't savage? Open up any newspaper in any major city and you'll see if anything we're MORE savage than we were in the 1700's. I'm relatively sure most historians would agree. In the last 5 years living in Houston I have had to draw my weapon no less than 3 times do de-escilate a situation where I was being robbed/car-jacked. In all 3 situations I walked away without a scratch and with my property and nobody got shot. How would you fair in the same situation?
merddyn2002 1 year ago
@GODandPEACE bottom line, i respect your right not to be armed. That's your choice. The right to bear arms is my right. Express your opinion all day long. You're guaranteed that. In fact, I'll lay down my life in the use of my arms to help protect your right to express that opinion, even if you disagree with me. That's what citizens do.
merddyn2002 1 year ago
@merddyn2002
For someone who claims to have 127 point IQ you don't sound very bright to me, I was talking in general and I said most of you guys, meaning most of those who want to carry weapons.
I was never in a situation where I needed to draw a weapon except in the military, but then I never lived in bad neighborhoods and trailer-parks.
When it comes to protecting my rights I trust that role to democracy, if it were up to yahoos I would probably wouldn't be here today.
GODandPEACE 1 year ago
@GODandPEACE
As much as I enjoyed this very "stimulating" conversation, I have more important things to do and besides I don't want to keep you away for too long from your delusions.
GODandPEACE 1 year ago
@GODandPEACE your argument that you don't go to or live in bad neighborhood and trailer parks is both a thinly veiled insult and a very common misconception. If you believe that your lack of exposure to crime ridden areas provides you anything more than superficial insulation from being the subject of an attack you are simply being naive. There is nothing I can really do to contest that perspective other than to point to the world around you as evidence. Bad things CAN happen to YOU.
merddyn2002 1 year ago
@GODandPEACE Unfortunately that's not a lesson you're apt to learn until you're already a victim. I hope you never have to experience that. And, they may, in fact, be delusions but they've already saved my life 3 times in the last 5 years. If those are delusions I'll take that over your definition of reality any day. Have a good easter weekend, man. Peace to you and yours.
merddyn2002 1 year ago
@merddyn2002
I have worked and lived on 4 continents in Avionics and EW my life was probably more at risk in this line of work than that of the average person and yet I have never felt the need to carry a weapon; I am bound to meet my end in one way or another and I would rather be killed than accidently kill an innocent person, besides if someone wants to kill me they would probably go about it in stealthy way. And what do you suggest I should do when I get on a plane, wear a parachute?
GODandPEACE 1 year ago
@GODandPEACE
Peace to you and yours too (I couldn't fit it in the previous comment)
GODandPEACE 1 year ago
@GODandPEACE there are always situations where things are beyond our control or foresight to change. The point from the self defense perspective is to mitigate the risks on the decisions you can control. The rest is up to God (tm), etc. Manage the risks you can control within reason. If it's not reasonable in your mind to carry a weapon then don't do it. But why must you criticize my right to mitigate my own risks?
merddyn2002 1 year ago
@merddyn2002
For one thing weapons are designed for the sole purpose of killing and while you might be a responsible person you have to admit that putting weapons in the hands of yahoos who are ignorant, full of hate and primitive in their thinking and who often end up with an arsenal big enough to start a small war is not a good idea, and what about the people who don't want to raise their families surrounded by a bunch of armed "cowboys"?
GODandPEACE 1 year ago
@GODandPEACE
Besides I have the right to criticize what you stand for if it goes against my own values, don't I?
GODandPEACE 1 year ago
@GODandPEACE these responsible gun owners are exactly the ones that u want as your neighbors and around your kids. They know how to handle themselves and are just as likely to come to your aid in a life or death crisis if needed. I would rather have them as a neighbor any day over someone who hears gunshots, calls the police, locks their doors and just hopes for the best for u and yours. I suppose is u wand neighbors like that though you could live in California or DC.
merddyn2002 1 year ago
@GODandPEACE u absolutely have the right to disagree and even express that disagreement. My question was why MUST u criticize my beliefs, as in what compells u to do so. But in truth I have to say I don't mind so much honestly. If anything we can learn something from one another, and that's never a bad thing.
merddyn2002 1 year ago
@GODandPEACE weapons are tools. They can be used to protect or to harm. The tool is not to be judged it is neither right nor wrong. Do u look down on police officers for carrying weapons? Ur answer also implies thrall all/most gun owners are irresponsible "cowboys". While there will always be idiots in the world I think u would find that the vast majority of gun owners are responsible tax paying adults. Go hang out at a gun range for a weekend or take a basic shooting class and see for yourself
merddyn2002 1 year ago
@GODandPEACE more to the family point, I personally feel children should be taught about guns, gun safety and shooting starting from an early age. My 9 year old has been taught since she could crawl and she safely handles a gun better than a lot of 30-40 year olds I know. For her age she's also a pretty damn good shot. U tell me, what's more dangerous? A house with a child who's kids are uneducated or one who's family members are all taught how to be responsible gun owners?
merddyn2002 1 year ago
@merddyn2002 you fail to realize that not all children are raised as yours. Many are around guns but never learn how to properly use them. I know this as I live in the south
88daadaad88 1 year ago
@merddyn2002 A family taught to use them responsibly. Is the best way.
hannigan06 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you're right plus guns don't kill people so thats not an excuse, just bacause some people do wrong things with the guns it doesn't mean that we should loose our rights, thats what people don't understand that its about our rights not about the gun, if thats the case that means that they should band knifes, rocks off the land, thats insane but thats how some people think,
cperlera 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you're right plus guns don't kill people so thats not an excuse, just bacause some people do wrong things with the guns it doesn't mean that we should loose our rights, thats what people don't understand that its about our rights not about the gun, if thats the case that means that they should band knifes, rocks off the land, thats insane but thats how some people think,
cperlera 1 year ago
Every criminal was once a "law abiding citizen" before they snapped and robbed a convenience store at gun point, or impulsively murdered their cheating wife, or mowed down their fellow classmates out of social anger.
I agree you have the right to bear arms for recreational purposes, target practice, or maybe hunting (though no longer needed for survival).
In 2010 within city limits, it would be best to minimize the ease of acquisition of firearms so that innocent people and police die less.
Verbalmint 2 years ago
That, is a very naive attitude. So, you are claiming the gun makes the criminal? How absurd is that? I have no idea how a logical person could ever come to such a thought process. A gun is simply an inanimate tool, it has no ability to force any human to do anything.
Here is a fact for you. Only .06% of the gun in the United States have ever been used in a crime. That's 6/100 of 1%.
Here is a much more efficient and less dangerous solution, punish the criminals.
Eaglecreekbrewer 2 years ago
I never said "the gun makes the criminal"- you assumed that is what I was implying. What I am saying is that all criminals were once non-criminals before they ever committed their first crime, which crime may or may not have been gun related.
I fully agree that guns are inanimate tools, and as such, guns don't kill people- people kill people- BUT they use guns as the tool to do it with!
The point is that it should be a lot harder than it is for anyone to own a gun.
Verbalmint 2 years ago
Then perhaps you think what people are allowed to say about their gov't should be restricted also. Or perhaps gov't approval as to which religion you follow or actually mandated by the gov't. Or the press being gov't controlled. Or the need for a warrant, or privacy?
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so freaking hard to understand?
You are obviously a shallow thinker to come to the conclusion you have
I suppose when you take away guns and they start using knives, we ban those also?
Idiots
Eaglecreekbrewer 2 years ago
You're obviously the shallow thinker because:
1. Knives are completely different than guns (obvious)
2. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion and right to own property has nothing to do with guns being used to kill people.
3. People think guns are cool and want to have them so they claim Right to bare arms and think that this issue is over personal freedom. Well sorry- this aint 1791 when that amendment was adopted and when people actually NEEDED guns because there was barely a government.
Verbalmint 2 years ago
There should be much stricter rules on being able to attain and permit a firearm. You should have to take a firearms aptitude test, and you should have to prove that you are a responsible owner.
You know how easy it is to buy a gun? You need a clean record , proof of ID, and be over the age of 18.
I am surprised that more police haven't protested against the very government that they work for to push for more regulation on gun control so that they and their colleagues get shot less.
Verbalmint 2 years ago
Actually, the vast majority of police support the 2A. They understand that an armed society is a civil society. They also realize that they have no way to protect citizens, they are simply a clean up crew. They are not even required by law to do so.
Those people that kill cops already are restricted from owning weapons, funny thing is criminals do not follow the law, amazing isn't it.
Sadly, logic and truth escape simple minded people such as yourself.
Eaglecreekbrewer 2 years ago
Sorry, you are showing your shallow thinking again. The SCOTUS disagrees with you, as does fact.
The gun ban didn't work in the UK, nor Oz, nor Germany, Nor Russia, Nor China or any other place it was tried.
The UK is now talking of regulating knives because the gun ban didn't work.
And we don't "claim" the right, it simply IS a right, and one that is to not be infringed upon.
Eaglecreekbrewer 2 years ago
Once again you're missing the point- I never once said there should be a gun ban- I said there needs to be stricter regulations/control over who can own a gun and how easily they can acquire one.
"An armed society is a civil one" lmfao...say that to yourself and think about it.
"They also realize they have no way to protect citizens"? Are you kidding me? "Ever heard of the credo they operate by? "Serve and protect"?
"They are not required by law to do so?" Haha- You must be joking right?
Verbalmint 2 years ago
LOL, you are a delusional one now aren't you. You do realize you are fighting fact, I can not lose this debate.
Google, lincoln county woman kills intruder. Then come back and make the claim the cops can protect you. Like the saying says, LE is only minutes away when seconds count.
You really need to look at some SCOTUS rulings, LE is not obligated in any way to protect you. It makes sense because it is an impossible task for them to accomplish. They investigate crime, not stop it.
Eaglecreekbrewer 2 years ago
We laready have HUNDREDS of laws on the books that address just that. Yet, they solve nothing. Criminals by definition, do not obey the laws. It that really so hard to comprehend? The highest crime rates are those areas with the MOST restrictive laws. Ever wonder why? I suppose not as reality just seems to escape you. D.C AFTER Heller, just had it's lowest crime year in 35 years. CCW and gun ownership are rising, crime is falling.
Like I said, A shallow thinker.
Eaglecreekbrewer 2 years ago
Yes the woman in "lincoln county woman kills intruder" was able to defend herself- but could she have still defended herself with a 50,000 volt tazer? I know I would have been able to.
Again, you think that I think nobody should be able to have guns. To be clear, I think that for ADDED safety, if you really think you need a gun, you should be able to have one.
Also, I know that when gun control (ban) laws are passed, crime rates go up because criminals think they are up against less.
Verbalmint 2 years ago
But in an ideal world the only people who should have guns are LE- since this is not an ideal world, I do agree that guns can be used as a deterrent for added safety when LE can't get there in time, as you mentioned. But my point still stands that it is way to easy for someone to acquire a gun.
Verbalmint 2 years ago
Ideal world? There we go again with the liberal delusion of utopia..
And you're point has been completely debunked. only you can't see that.
But, perhaps you can explain how criminals get guns considering we already have hundreds of laws against that, and how passing more laws will change that?
And you want to subject an elderly woman to the using a tazer against a mad man. That's rather narcissistic don't you think?
Eaglecreekbrewer 2 years ago
Here's MY point. If a citizen has committed a crime and is not stable enough to be trusted with their rights. They shouldn't be free anyway. You people don't want to punish criminals. yet are willing to reduce the freedoms of those people who do follow the law. That's an amazingly dangerous thought process.
Eaglecreekbrewer 2 years ago
I full support the punishing of all criminals. I even support the death sentence in some cases. This entire time you've assumed things that you think I think, that are not true. Why is that? It sounds like you have a lot of anger built up over these false assumptions that only reside within your mind. Now I'm starting to think the only person that shouldn't have a gun is you!
Verbalmint 2 years ago
I made no assumptions, they were only what would have been a rational outcome of your comment's and opinions. You are full of hypocrisy, and your opinions do not compute with each other. Not uncommon for shallow thinking.
ROFL, you formed an opinion that I should be restricted my RIGHTS because you don't have rational thought patterns and the ability to comprehend logic and fact.
You people are so quick to restrict others of their rights, it would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.
Eaglecreekbrewer 2 years ago
Im not saying all conservatives are like this, but my conservative friend does the exact same thing time and time again- when he senses defeat, he goes into this sort of illogical back lashing, aimlessly firing meaningless irrelevant insults, like a loose cannon (no pun intended), rather than making any further congruent points about the topic at hand or simply agreeing to disagree. Again, with this impulsive and senseless behavior, youre about the last person I would trust with a firearm.
Verbalmint 2 years ago
Sense's defeat...rofl, hardly. Like I said, I have fact on my side. I would guess that your conservative friend experiences the same sort of amusement I do. Trying to talk logic to a shallow thinker and pointing out their illogical thinking process is amusing. You only see it as an insult because you can not see your own lack of logic in your contradicting opinions. Only you could see it as coming out of a top of a conversation, even more amusing.
Eaglecreekbrewer 2 years ago
But, let's summarize shall we.
You support passing more laws, when the fact is the ones we already have don't work anyway
You support locking away criminals for eternity, yet believe that we should focus on removing a right from society to protect them from us
You believe LE is obligated and even able to protect you.
You claim you understand that crime goes up with firearm restrictions, yet support them anyway.
You believe that the 2A is a privilege not a right.
Yet you see no contradiction
Eaglecreekbrewer 2 years ago
So get rid of the laws that don't work and make better ones that do.
For the 4th (?) time now- I never once said I supported a ban on firearms by "removing a right from society"
What is LE's job if it is not to stop crime?
The kind of restrictions on firearms that I am supporting would help shift the percentage of firearm owners to a more responsible demographic. Again, it was straight firearm bans that led to increased crime rates.
Verbalmint 2 years ago
All laws, including the 2A, are written for a reason.
When the 2A was written, there were some pretty good reasons for it. However, as we progress as a society, the goal is to put as much power as possible into those who we know we can trust- like LE, and not rely on our fellow common citizens, who are untrained and operate under no specific protocols to protect each other and themselves.
Verbalmint 2 years ago
The 2A isn't a law. It is a RIGHT. A right is above the law and the power of men.
And history has proven that LE isn't always trustworthy. And you are exactly wrong. This one statement shows your boat load of fail.
Eaglecreekbrewer 2 years ago
Criminals, by definition, do NOT follow laws. That is the perfect example of your shallow thinking. "Just pass a law, I am sure they'll follow it!"
Any restriction is a ban to someone, and any infringement is the removal of a right.
LE's job is to investigate crime and make an attempt to find the responsible person to stand trial. They can't even do their job until after a crime has happened, which means there is already a victim.
And who are you to say who can exercise a right?
Eaglecreekbrewer 2 years ago
And here is an example. I support people having to take a basic test on how gov't works and passing it before they are allowed to vote.
I would bet that you would think that is wrong and infringing someone's right. Yet, voting is NOT a constitutional right.
Keeping and bearing arms IS a constitutional right, that is NOT to be infringed. Yet you are all to willing to infringe on that by trying to decide who is deserving of that right.
Eaglecreekbrewer 2 years ago
Well thank you- the "test" that you speak of for voting is not only one I would also agree with, it is also similar to the idea that I have in mind for gun control.
Also similar to a test someone might have to take before getting a driver's license. Can't get a license to drive unless you know how to operate a motor vehicle- shouldn't be able to get a gun permit if you can't pass a test about the risks and dangers involved, and of course how to operate and be responsible with a firearm.
Verbalmint 2 years ago
Those are the kind of laws that I think should be passed... and again you put false words into my mouth- I never once said "just pass a law and I'm sure they'll follow it."
Of course they won't follow it and again you missed the point.
"A right is above the law and the power of men." Well I guess- but after all it was written by men, and before those men wrote it, it didn't exist. It was written for a practical reason, not because it was just thought of as being some divine right.
Verbalmint 2 years ago
Since that practical reason is now much less practical, it makes less sense.
What is more important here? A few lines on a 200+ year-old piece of paper or the effect that those lines have on society?
But besides all of that, what I think LE should do first, since according to you they don't do very much as it is, is putting more time, money, effort and man power into stopping illegal weapons first.
How many criminals got weapons from non-criminals because it was so easy for them to acquire?
Verbalmint 2 years ago
More freedom restrictions from you?
And that 200 year old piece of paper as you call it, created the greatest nation that provided the greatest freedoms and wealth for the common man in the history of the world. It deserves far more respect and is more relevant today than it was then.
A little stat for you. Only .06%, that's 6/100 of 1% of firearms in this nation have ever been used in the commission of a crime. Think about that percentage before you get all riled up to infringe on my rights.
Eaglecreekbrewer 2 years ago
And here is something that freaks out shallow thinkers also. The restriction of a felon to have a gun. Now on the surface it "makes sense" as no one what's a dangerous person armed. But how many millions of non violent "felons" are restricted in their ability to exercise their right to self defense or to protect their families?
I want the dangerous thugs locked away where they belong instead of being turned loose on society.
Crime is perpetuated by gov't to seize power and deny rights.
Eaglecreekbrewer 2 years ago
They weren't written by men, they were recognized by men. Our founders only put them in the bill of rights to make it very evident that tyranny and the greed for power from men would never have the power to unrecognize (sic) them.
They did consider them above men, which is what makes them a right and NOT a privilege.
Eaglecreekbrewer 2 years ago
But, you see, you are confusing rights, with privileges. Voting and driving are not rights.
Yet, keeping and bearing arms are, the restriction or giving anyone the power to restrict a right or to require a test to have a right is a very dangerous slippery slope.
Freedom is NOT necessarily safe. But, it is much, much safer than tyranny.
Eaglecreekbrewer 2 years ago
Well correct me if I'm wrong, but you do have a right to possess a driver's license if you pass the test and continue to exhibit safe and responsible driving.
Now why is that? Well- because you can kill someone with a car if you don't know what you're doing- you can even kill someone with a car if you DO know what you're doing and do it on purpose.
Cars are dangerous machines and so are guns (even more so than cars), so why is it easier to get a gun than it is to get a driver's license?
Verbalmint 2 years ago
NO, actually driving is NOT a right, you seem to have a real problem being able to discern between the two. The state at a whim could revoke your driving license and you would have little to no recourse or real impact on your freedom.
And it is very debatable whether or not a gun is actually more dangerous than cars.
Yet, you still seem to be stuck in that shallow pool. The freedom to keep and bear arms has a far more sinister outcome if it's infringed.
Eaglecreekbrewer 2 years ago
I didn't say "driving is a right" I said you have the right to possess a driver's license if you pass the test and exhibit good driving. You must have a reading problem because every time I have to correct you on what I said.
And yes, your freedom would be heavily restricted in all senses of the word if the state took away your driver's license.
It sounds like you would rather have a gun than a car- I don't know anyone who would agree with you. I guess if you live out in eaglecreek maybe lol
Verbalmint 2 years ago
Case # 2 - "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579.
Verbalmint 2 years ago
Case # 1 - "Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. - Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22
Verbalmint 2 years ago
The ONLY RIGHTS we have in this country are those defined in the constitution, period. Everything else is a privilege and subject to regulation, by the people. Even the freedom of speech isn't open ended in the constitution. There is nothing in it about driving, transportation, voting and some rights are even limited.
Shall not be infringed, makes it rather undeniable, that the 2A is a right above gov't regulation. The fact that it has been infringed does not do anything but weaken the people.
Eaglecreekbrewer 2 years ago
What those rulings state is that the roads are public property that the city can not deny access to it. They extend no right to the individual to actually drive.
That puddle of yours is drying up.
If you don't believe me, go try driving without a permit and see how that works out for you.
Rights require no permit. A privilege does. Perhaps you will next want to distribute license's that allow people every freedom only as permitted. When the 2A is restricted, all rights suffer.
Eaglecreekbrewer 2 years ago
Oh brother, like I said, you are a shallow thinker. You do NOT have a RIGHT to own a drivers license. You really need to look up the words "right" and "privilege". They are not one in the same.
Your comprehension of freedom is seriously skewed. Freedom is NOT the ability to go to the grocery store or the movie.
And if I had to make a choice, You bet I would.
Eaglecreekbrewer 2 years ago
You have a reading problem. And you're really saying you would rather own a gun than a car?
Wow what has this country come to? You are a prime example of why we need to invest more in our education system!
I think I'm getting dumber by talking to you.
Verbalmint 2 years ago
Like I said, your just a shallow thinker without the ability to go even one layer deeper. Obviously a victim of the universal gov't edu. system.
And I hardly have a reading problem, the fact that you want to ignore facts and history is on you, not me.
The fact that you think investing more money on our edu. sys. is just another fine example. Spending more money never has worked and it never will.
PC and liberals have destroyed it, not a lack of money.
Eaglecreekbrewer 2 years ago
I've gone to private school my whole life.
You need to re-read those cases.
All of our systems are heavily flawed including the government itself. I'm not saying that dumping money into flawed systems is the answer, but carefully investing in important areas can't hurt.
If you don't think investing in such things will work then please tell me what will.
Verbalmint 2 years ago
one word........
ACCOUNTABILITY.
The current state of education is absurd. Teacher's rebel against anything that makes them accountable, yet bitch for more money. The inmate is running the asylum. Don't hurt anyone's feelings, don't use red ink, blah, blah, blah.
And we continue to crank out under educated people ripe for the dependency that our gov't desires for them.
Eaglecreekbrewer 2 years ago
IT WAS MADE SO WE CAN FIGHT BACK AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT IF IT GETS OUT OF CONTROL WE CAN FIGHT BACK.......WHAT THE CONSTITUTION WAS MADE FOR....FOR THE PEOPLE TO BE IN CHARGE NOT THE GOVERNMENT (REPUBLICANS) OR WE CAN BE "sheep" TO THE GOVERNMENT WE WILL FAIL ESPECIALLY WITH THIS SOCIALIST MAN IN CHARGE OF THE COUNTRY (OBAMA)
jb122894 2 years ago
Ad Hominem is not a fallacy. Ad Hominem Abusive is. Calling someone a marxist or a liar is not abusive and therefore not a fallacy
ArcanineTheFurry 2 years ago
Offline to shoot targets.
ArcanineTheFurry 2 years ago
Great vid man. Love your views....
Deeked 2 years ago
No offense, but either goatface is insane and foolish; or she is a bot account for a gun control group. How could anyone, with a sound mind, believe that a free society can be achieved with out an armed citizenry to enforce it?
ArcanineTheFurry 2 years ago
goat face? assuming you're referring to the goatee. Seems like you're agreeing with me, but you seem to be doing it in an abusive manner so i'm a little confused :) please clarify :)
merddyn2002 2 years ago
@merddyn2002
I was refering to goatface1000
ArcanineTheFurry 2 years ago
@merddyn2002
I wasn't offering to you. And I appose gun control as well
ArcanineTheFurry 2 years ago
Lastly, our current leader is a bad man. He is just as much of a traitor as bush. Its been one year and he has yet to make good on critical promises
ArcanineTheFurry 2 years ago
Could you send this outstanding commentary to my video "Never too Late" and post it as a video response?
Great Job! 10000*
Rockholm66 2 years ago
Offline
ArcanineTheFurry 2 years ago
Third of all, even if the Jews could not overthrow the Nazis, at least they would not have died in a camp
ArcanineTheFurry 2 years ago
You forget that the Jews and minorities outnumbered the Nazis
ArcanineTheFurry 2 years ago
@ArcanineTheFurry
that's exactly right. hitler did not storm to power with an iron fist. people forget that. hitler was active with the nazis back into the late twenties. they used quiet bullying tactics to take power. hitler could've been crushed any number of times early on. he ruled by fear NOT force.
if germany has an armed populace now all of a sudden the nazi tactics can't work.
theMETALDOVE 2 years ago
I say the Second Amendment is, in order of importance, the first amendment. It is Americas First Freedom, the one right that protects all of the others. Among freedom of speech, of the press, of religion, of assembly, of redress of grievances, it is the first among equals. It alone offers the absolute capacity to live without fear. The right to keep and bear arms is the one right that allows to exist at all.
~~~ Charlton Heston, Former NRA President
ArcanineTheFurry 2 years ago
Problem with replying on your page tried twice will try once more if does work I am going to bed and will reply in the morning.
goatface1000 2 years ago
Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed. -—Sarah Brady
ArcanineTheFurry 2 years ago
All military type firearms are to be handed in immediately...The SS, SA and Stahlhelm give every responsible opportunity of campaigning with them. Therefore anyone who does not belong to one of the above-named organizations and who unjustifiably nevertheless keeps his weapon...must be regarded as an enemy of the national government. — SA Oberfuhrer of Bad Tolz, March, 1933.
ArcanineTheFurry 2 years ago
by I meant
ArcanineTheFurry 2 years ago
In a safe and civilized society, the people out gun and out number their government and criminals. That is liberty. In a dangerous and barbaric society, the government and criminals out gun and/or outnumber the people. That is tyranny and fascism.
ArcanineTheFurry 2 years ago
who was it that said, give me liberty or give me death. that was the first sentance uttered in favour of the right to bear arms. and protect ones self and home and property.
cavalley1 2 years ago
I don't think most women I know should be allowed to bare arms.
busterbone 2 years ago
Right to free speech denied on YouTube. I wrote a comment and it was censored apparently. I only hope our right to bear arms isn't censored as well.
awarenessis 2 years ago
try and bear arms at work, and see what it gets you, Fired.. this is the truth. your rights, and mine, are going by the way side because of political powers and private powers. how do you stand agianst it? protest, and have one pointed at your head? protest with one, and be shot for looking like your going to do something bad.. our country is fucked, plain and simple.
danratsnapnames 2 years ago
I do and have. Nothing has happened. Just need to have your cover squared away :)
my24939 2 years ago
your one of the fiew lucky ones. my work, and many others Forbid any kind of weapon, plastic or otherwise. in this new world, Policy has the same power as LAW. where any private institution has the ability to make Policy.
danratsnapnames 2 years ago
lol Notice I didn't mention legally.....just have your cover squared away....take care.
my24939 2 years ago
right to bear arms my ASS.
danratsnapnames 2 years ago
Distinctivly funny that the vast majority of U, S and Gay literally worship guns and their distinctivly funny amendment supporting guns for *EVERYONE* (lol), without paying attention/caring about the resulting civil genocide and the statistics that prooves it. Even funnier how the only reason for this nature is patriotism for a country that obviously wants it's retarded, gun-loving citizens to kill eachother, effectivly culling down the population for the sake of Darwin's principles of survival
leirgauk 2 years ago
and your one retared moron. HELLO, people kill people.. if they didn't have guns they would be using knives. and excuse me, but if the idiots on the receiving end had a gun to shoot back, it wouldn't be a problem.. the fuckers who started it would be dead. if someone walked into a bank and attempted to hold it up, and EVERYONE else had a gun, that bank wouldn't be held up.. period.
danratsnapnames 2 years ago
What would you know about gun ownership, Mister Norwegian?
GrimRetort 2 years ago
I know, by mindblowing statistics and logical conclusions, that guns result to murder, rather than safety. In Norway it's illegal to carry around weapons, cause unlike you Americans, we Norwegians actually evolved, rather than being stuck in the wild wild west. our vikings discovered that weapons kill, and murder leads to tragedy, so we did the only rational and obvious thing to do - outlaw them. that's why we feel safe; so safe that the thought of defending ourselves with a gun is retarded.
leirgauk 2 years ago
Mimd blowing statistics? Did you know there is just as much violent crime in the uk as there is in the U.S.? Other than your obvious OPINION could you quote some statistics for me? "Wild west" I have heard that unintelligent statement from so many uninformd europeans.
GrimRetort 2 years ago
you want statistics? gun related deaths in the US pr. year: over 12 000. gun related deaths in norway pr year: about 10. happy? well, u shouldnt be. u're the one with the 0,00004% chance of getting shot each year, while i have a comforting 0,000002%. and that's only by guns. ALL weapons (almost including pocket knives) are illegal in the streets of Norway. so my odds of getting murdered by any weapon is significantly smaller than yours. touché, cowboy ;)
leirgauk 2 years ago
U.S. Population=308 million.
Population of norway=4.8 million. Obviously you're going to have overall less gun related deaths. I've had this debate a few dozen times already. The majority of anti-gun arguments are debunked through a simple matter of population ratios. By the way, the south west united states is just that. The south west. Now honestly stop making these ignorant statements. You make yourself look like a damn fool. I can always point to switzerland as well.
GrimRetort 2 years ago
fair enough... a totally valid arguement for an idiot surrounded by other idiots to debate with...
do u honestly think i didnt concider the VAST population differences? how the hell do u think i reached the two numbers determining a citizens chance of getting shot each year? 12 000 / 308 000 000 and 10 / 4 800 000. it's that simple. why dont u do the math urself before u accuse those smarter than you of being ignorant and a damn fool, you damn fool.
leirgauk 2 years ago
All you seem to know about America is what you've seen in movies. Lets make make a few point shall we? Cities inside the united states with highest gun crime have the most restrictive gun laws inside the united states. Now lets look at switzerland; There are more gun owners,and more guns per person per capita than in the united states,gun related deaths in switzerland? 300. Mostly suicides. 34 gun crimes were commited in 2006. Now in America most gun crimes are commited with illeagall firearms.
GrimRetort 2 years ago
hey, u asked for statistics. i gave u statistics. are u rly gonna keep arguing? u wanna argue statistics? ofcourse u cant! so u cleverly accuse me of pulling my TRUE facts and numbers out of movies! alriiight, i'll play along...
okay, first of all, u dont count suicides. the 12 000 shotdown americans each year did not suicide. anyway, so switzerland has a relatively insignificant number by comparison. with 7.6mill citizens, chance of getting shot each year is 0,000004%. so what is your point?
leirgauk 2 years ago
I didnt say you got the statistics from movies. Both are quite insignificant. More so for me on a local level. Not to mention I am trianed and experianced with firearms,am armed,so me getting shot? Seems very slim. And regarding percapit which you brought up "do the math" in switzerland vs united states, so I gave it to ya. You still insist that guns cause crime? Cause death?
GrimRetort 2 years ago
i too was amazed with the differences between switzerland and USA. i honostly think, in no attempt of generalizing, that the reason for that is strict immigration laws (im sorry minorities. u're good people, but u're killing me...). that being said, i still prooved to u that even the single most "life-approving" and clearly one-of-its-kind gun-carrying country in the world still has double the ammount of gun-deaths than a country with no guns. so yes, i still insist that guns cause crime!
leirgauk 2 years ago
I think the that people in America should be allowed to carry water pistols or pop guns. Guns that fire actual bullets are nasty things that hurt other humans. in the UK we do not have the right to bear arms and I think you will agree are a much better society with our NHS and welfare services. Get rid of guns and go socialist thats the way to go.
goatface1000 2 years ago
A pop gun is a small caliber pocket pistol. Capable of being just as dangerous as a hand cannon. And your society is being taken over by disenfranchised muslims. Your comments, are jokes. Why do you feel the need to poke your nose into an issue that is an American issue, which does not affect any issues in the uk. Now run along, little sheep. Let the government decide everything for you.
GrimRetort 2 years ago 2
A much better society? You mean your society where the government has absolute control and you don't have the guns to stop them. People who dislike guns are fools.
ArcanineTheFurry 2 years ago
Get a brain, guns kill guns maim guns are for soldiers not for mindless rednecks who need to carry one to bolster their manhood. Are you serioulsy suggesting that if you don't like a government you should use guns to overthrow it. Sounds like facism to me. The days of the USA are numbered the UK is planning an invasion.
goatface1000 2 years ago
Your arguments are based on Ad Hominem Abusive and the Appeal to emotion fallacies and thus your arguments are invalid and thus unsound. Let me know when you can debate like an educated adult.
ArcanineTheFurry 2 years ago
Woke up this morning listened to the radio news. Felt real bad had the Britian conquered America blues.
Their troops are marching through every city & town and as they march past the US lay their rifles down.
I'm gonna fly my Spitfire lord over Times Square and when looked down saw the union jack flying there.
goatface1000 2 years ago
More irrelevant gibberish that has nothing to do with the topic. Sad that you cant argue to save your life
ArcanineTheFurry 2 years ago
Just a joke, seriously guns kill and hurt other living creatures. Whilst I am sure that you are a sane humane person there are many others with guns who are not. How many massacres have occured in schools etc by crazies with guns. Why dont we still carry swords round our waist? In a civilised society why should there be a need to carry a gun. Our police do not carry guns and will not in the forseeable future. Guns need to be controlled
goatface1000 2 years ago
@goatface1000 Really, your only defense against crime is to hide from it. The ignorance that the law can protect you is absurd. And since you claim that the UK is now so civilized, because they have confiscated your ability to protect yourself, do me a favor.
Go take a stroll in Southwark or Newham at about 2AM, and see how that all works out for you. Or, just keep cowering in your mommies basement thinking the world s safe.
Eaglecreekbrewer 2 years ago
I did actually walk around Southwark late at night in the summer without any problems. I know people who live in Newham they have no problems. My mother has no basement and I am not the cowering type. Your wild west fantasies are the sign of an incomplete mind.
What would you do walking in areas like that walk around with your gun in your pocket ready to shoot the first person to ask you the way to London Bridge?
goatface1000 2 years ago
Straw man?
ArcanineTheFurry 2 years ago
This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future! Adolf Hitler
ArcanineTheFurry 2 years ago
Hilter never said or wrote that a total myth. Are you seriously trying to equate a society with no guns as being akin to nazi Germany? That is the silliest idea I have ever heard. Guns are nasty machines invented for the sole purpose of killing people or animals. Is that what you would like to do?
goatface1000 2 years ago
To keep my liberty yes. You cannot have a free society with out an armed citizenry. And Do you deny the fact that Hitler disarmed the Jews before rounding them up and exterminating them? I have seen Holocaust survivors testify about Hitlers gun control. And guns do kill people and animals. That is the whole point.
ArcanineTheFurry 2 years ago
What do you know of Jewish people? I can assure you that the jews of Germany would not have been a group in which gun ownership was prevelant. I find it strange how you can use the holocaust to justify gun ownership. Even if every Jew Germany had a gun the end result would have been the same.
goatface1000 2 years ago
In Nazi Germany if you were found with a gun and you were not a Nazi solder or a police, you were shot instantly. And I use the Holocaust because it is an example of why the people should out gun their own government. I find it strange that you believe that the government cannot be, for some magical reason, corrupt and become oppressive; and that the people, unarmed, will some how magically overthrow such a government.
ArcanineTheFurry 2 years ago
@goatface1000
you're correct in asserting that the jews probably wouln't have been big gun owners, but that is their mistake. but since we are talking in the hypothetical, lets say the jews were armed. meaning most families had a gun in the house.
the nazis didn't simply overrun germany, they crept into control. quietly sweeping jews from their houses isn't so easy with a shotgun blasting away at nazi bastards.
the jews of the 30's were compliant. had they not been...
theMETALDOVE 2 years ago
Simple logic and common sense, yet Goatface1000 won't be able to compute it. I don't see how he could seriously think that a free society can exist without guns
ArcanineTheFurry 2 years ago
So Mr, Rubenstein sees the Gestapo coming and gets his gun out and starts blasying away naive my friend. They thought they were being taken to labour, not death camps. i agree that any of those nazis that died was good but jews owning guns would not have stopped the holocaust.
goatface1000 2 years ago
French resistance did a pretty good job. And helped the allies a good deal.
GrimRetort 2 years ago
@GrimRetort
i forgot about the french resistance...and just imagine if that lone frenchman had a gun. ha ha
theMETALDOVE 2 years ago
Lol! Yeah.
GrimRetort 2 years ago
Comparisons between an elected government and an evil bunch of occupiers like the Nazis are invalid I would certainly agree with using guns on them. However that is in response to military action and also against the military
goatface1000 2 years ago
@goatface1000 You do realize the Nazi's WERE ELECTED into office, right?
It is very valid and but one of many examples of why a simple democracy can fail. It is a perfect example as to why the people need the ability to both defend themselves and to snuff out tyranny.
You can't just dismiss those facts because like everything else, it debunks your opinion.
Guns are just tools. In the right hands, they are tools to ensure freedom. In the wrong hands, oppression. Study history, it's all there.
Eaglecreekbrewer 2 years ago
Hitler was elected however the enabling act that was passed let him get rid of all opposittion. The nazis were evil scum and I would cheerfully have fought against them with guns but overthrowing a tyranny is totally differnent to walking down the road carrying a gun. The fact that I oppose guns does not make me a coward you are the coward he needs to carry one.
goatface1000 2 years ago
@goatface1000 ROFL, what? Oh, yes, your opposition to guns does in fact make you a coward. You are afraid and you know it. Fear is the only emotional way a person could come to the opinions you have.
Democracy and every other form of gov't fails without the necessary tools to protect freedoms. That tool is in fact a firearm, no other tool has the ability to do the job.
I carry a firearm to protect myself, my family and my country. If you choose to be a victim and subject, feel free to do so.
Eaglecreekbrewer 2 years ago
You talk of black and muslim thugs and deny you are racsit? You talk of freedom but you need a gun to enforce it? You call me a flea, and yet you do not me I am not I assure you a coward I am a fighter and have been all my life. I have my beliefs and will stand up for them, fact that they are not yours does not make me a coward. You are such a cliche I bet you support the death penalty oppose abortion and go to church on Sunday. THE GOAT HAS WON GIVE UP YOUR GUN
goatface1000 2 years ago
@goatface1000 LOL, that's what you use to label me? More ignorance I see. The fact is those ares we talked about are mostly populated by those populations, that doesn't make me a racist, just stating fact, nice try though
As far as my beliefs, abortion is a personal choice, although I see it as wrong, it's not my place to tell someone else how to believe. The death penalty is absolutely appropriate. Church? haven't been there since I was a kid.
Your beliefs define both your ignorance & cowardice
Eaglecreekbrewer 2 years ago
@goatface1000
i didn't suggest that it would have stopped the holocaust. what it would do is create an entirely different dynamic in germany. the end result may have been the same, perhaps, but maybe not.
many of the jews believed they were going to labour camps, but many didn't. how many is many, i don't know. but again, different dynamic.
hitler moved effortlessly and barely challenged all through the 30's not because nobody could stop him, but because they were afraid of him.