I love it! Every video I have seen regarding gun control in Australia, the majority of the comments favoured guns! What does that say about our humble democracy? Not much.
Following DC vs Heller and its repeal of the gun ban in 2008, DC had the lowest murder and vehicular theft rates in 20 years, lowest aggravated assault rate in 28 years, and lowest forcible rape and violent crime rates in 32 years, and, with the exception of 2005, lowest property theft and burglary rates in 32 and 39 years respectively.
@hayesism I live in a country (Australia, where PJ gave this speech) where gun control is a difficult issue because we have to weigh up freedom with safety. We have no equivalent of this DC experiment. I envy America for having a clear answer where morality and pragmatism align so well. It therefore baffles me that there is so little debate about this issue in my country and yet so much in yours.
Mexico has strict gun control. All the bad boys get all the guns they want. Honest citizens cower because they can not defend themselves from either Narcos or their police accomplices.
Since gun controls have been implemented in Australia our murder rate has gone down by two thirds. Australia took guns off its citizens before the genie was really out of the bottle, it is too late for the USA.
where did you get this info? all of the statistics I have seen shows that crime in Australia has increased since the gun ban...not only in Australia but every country that has banned firearms...
The risk of dying by gunshot has halved since Australia destroyed 700,000 privately owned firearms, according to a new study published today in the international research journal, Injury Prevention.
@spike2141962 This is simply not the case; Australia's murder rate has steadily decreased since 2002, and is currently at a much lower rate than it was before the '96 ban.
@louiseobrien2010 no really, gun laws in UK well you cant have any except a shotgun, with allot of paper work, they are pulling out 300,000 guns off the street too, fully-automatic, semi's, you name it from ports, not enough man power, not enough funz, so what the government is doing is leaving the citizens helpless. citizens aint the problem, outlaws are, because they work outside the law.
sounds like AUSTRALIA is going down hill. they hav the same SOCIALIST BULLSHIT IN CANADA.......ppl r not allowed 2 arm themselves......but CRIMINALS???/...HELP yourselves........i hate COMMUNIST CANADA.............GO USA.......
I wonder why he said it was just the U.S. culture, and that it would not work in the U.S. the way it did in Australia? Anybody in Australia knows the dramatic and undeniable rise in the crime rate of their country after the imposed their gun ban, he should also. That was not a correct remark by him. If you doubt it then search and look at the crime statistics the year before, and the years after. Armed robbery in Australia up 45%, other crimes as high as 300%. Don't use govt. studies obviously.
@warriorprince1010 Who cares if Iran has a nuke. U managed to deal with the Soviets and they had thousands. Maybe instead of preparing for a war u should assist their nuclear programme thus having a say in its development and making a friend at the same time. Comparing guns to nukes is stupid. Dont even bother with that stupid argument. And dont take having guns for granted because everywhere else murderers and criminals kill and rob without fear because even fightin back with a stick is illegal
Nice try dude, but the reality is that there are over 700 million "REGISTERED" firearms in the hands of (for the most part) LAW-ABIDING citizens. Note that I said "registered"? That isn't counting things like curio and relics, and other UNREGISTERED firearms. Makes the idea of trying to take guns away from us kind of stupid.
This is a good point. And I love the points he brings up. Yaknow, what are you going to do, start going door to door and try to find over 200 million guns? Yaknow, evil people are going to do evil things with whatever they get their hands on. You can't fight circumstance. All you can do is take the most appropriate measures to correct mistakes. NOT go off the deep end and try to control the future, because you can't.
good point. You fascist shit have to live with the fact that I have guns, just like this guy said, you learn to live with it ok. If you don't like it, too bad for you, because I will own a gun based on my decision to own a gun, not yours.
As much as leftists will hate to admit this, the solution is MORE guns, not less. The only people that use guns irresponsibly on a scale worth legislating are the life long criminals who could care less about new gun restrictions. Therefore the only way to create a safer society is for the GOOD law abiding citizens to have firearms so they aren't turned into defenseless victims. And crime statistics reflect exactly that social model. The more an area owns LEGAL guns, the less crime there is.
And besides, use some common sense for once. Do you REALLY think a family owning a firearm in their home is a threat to society? The answer is obviously not. I grew up with several guns in my home and not once were they used to murder someone. We had them for recreation, as heirlooms passed down through the generations and for self-defense if God forbid some criminal low life decided it would be a good idea to break into our home and do God knows what to my family.
Also, look at the examples of Switzerland, the UK and Canada. In Switzerland every home is required by law to have a fully automatic and fully loaded modern assualt rifle in the case of a national emergency. And do you want to know how many gun crimes happen in Switzerland with all these "scary" guns floating around? Virtually none. Proof that the problem with gun crime in America isn't the presence of guns themselves but other much more important factors that are not easily solved.
In the UK guns have been virtually banned. Even the olympic shooting team has to practice outside of Britain. Yet since all handguns were banned gun crime has nearly DOUBLED. Now British residents complain about being utterly helpless as home invaders march through their homes emboldened by the disarmed households. And in Canada similar gun restrictions resulted in 40% HIGHER gun crimes. Clearly gun restrictions aren't the cure all solution that anti-self-defense leftists hoped them to be.
P J , great words. Fact of the matter is, a mass weapons collections here in the USA would result in massive bloodshed and rioting. Americans will not surrender thier guns. Or it will be a hand over the rusty old trinket while the 30 others are stashed away, with the ammo. Just boggles my mind that the Aussies handed over thier weapons, now they can bang spoons on pans like Argentinans when Australia goes BANKRUPT in a very short while, can anyone see they are on the ass end of the spreadsheet?
Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." — John Adams
if guns kill people, mattresses cause pregnancy. FROM MY COLD, GUNS SHOT RESIDUE COVERED HANDS. I obey the law. When it becomes illegal for me to defend myself, I will be a criminal.
Yeah I know, but def the hottest one in the room, and it was showing her for no other reason. I just like it how even the folks at the National Press Club get bored and decide to check out chicks.
Jews were disarmed by the nazis in the way the government is trying to do to us... what happened to them? They couldnt defend themselves and that led to the Holocaust.
Columbine is a great book. I recommend it highly. I took away something different than he did. I think the lesson of Columbine is the same as the lesson of Virginia Tech, Washington Park, or any other mass shooting:
It does not matter what you do, crazy people are just as intelligent as sane people. If they want to create chaos, they will find a way. Punishing the rest of us for the sins of the few is pointless and does not lessen the impact or resourcefulness of the psychopath.
He should have referred our Australian cousins to the Federalist Papers and the Bill of Rights.If he did in the full length talk,Fora TV should have chosen that as the clip.For that is the basis of widespread firearm ownership in the USA:Freedom.The ability to maintain it and if necessary,secure it.
Well automatic gun ban I can understand, you just need one psycopath to run into a school or a packer building to mow people down. However with the other guns you cannot just do that so easily, without being stopped by another person...
The problem with gun control is, its taking the weapons out of what we would call decent citizens, while having little or no effect on criminals who get hold of them all the time.
I don't see why he even needed to, he answered the problem of gun control completely objectively and without making any moral assumptions, i.e he wasn't about it shouldn't be done, but why it simply can't be done.
Handguns for self defense. Rifles & shotguns for hunting & self defense.
Automatic weapons for what now?
Oh yeah, killing large groups of people like you find in war (gang or 'legitimate') or a psychopath's Saturday night plans
Reasonable gun control was always that...reasonable. Politicians can't get it done because a large group of people, who are more in love with their apocalyptic fantasies then pragmatic public safety, are having their fears stoked by lobbyist looking to make money
alot of regular folk own automatics they dont go killing people....you should research the us constitutions 2nd amendment and why it was included by the founding fathers....i used to be against guns but now i see their importance....
However many regular decent folk own guns doesn't change the reality of what Hopeful says. Reasonable gun control, even such simple shit as tracking sales, cannot pass in this country because of apocalyptic, conspiracy theory fantasies. Rational discussion on the issue is impossible. Instead you get simplistic slogans like "Gun control to me is having your weapon on target" which says nothing, has no point but sounds all tough guy, which is good enough for far too many voters.
Perhaps. Most discussion on the topic does tend to be pretty tough guy macho and I'd like to meet a gun owner who isn't a little bit nuts about it. Rather than take your word on the gun registration = confiscation, can you direct me to some independent evidence?
"alot of regular folk own automatics they dont go killing people"
Reread my post please. My statement is not about the people who own them but the weapon's sole intended purpose. To imply I was stating otherwise is disingenuous.
"you should research the us constitutions 2nd amendment"
Ok, my 2nd masters thesis included a presentation on the Bill of Rights, so I have read 'a bit' on the 2nd (Rohner, Bryant, etc)
I fully support the 2nd but, like every Supreme Court decision, believe it doesn't apply to assaults weapons any more then it does to missiles
Review the court decisions; its not the 2nd that keeps assault weapons in legal flux; its the lack of political will in the face of the most well funded lobby in DC
"i used to be against guns but now i see their importance"
I've NEVER been 'against guns' but against weapons thats sole function is to kill large groups of people (aka Weapons of Mass Killing) in the hands of citizens under the guise of self defense or -LOL- a well regulated militia
To date the Supreme Court agrees with me, but if you know better, enlighten me
To be 100% clear-the 2nd in NO WAY protects your right to own assault weapons-'money as free speech' is whats protecting that "right"
Of course the purpose is to kill people. If you cannot imagine a scenario where it is morally right to kill people then you are an idiot. We have the second amendment to keep the government in check.
Since when is a selective fire weapon a "weapon of mass killing" anyway. Just shows your ignorance of firearms.
"To be 100% clear-the 2nd in NO WAY protects your right to own assault weapons-'money as free speech' is whats protecting that "right""
Maybe you've studied the 2nd, but you did not understand it, nor its importance.
The 2nd Amendment is legal authorization for the people to engage in armed rebellion against a government that no longer responds to them. How will they do that if they do not have the same infantry weapons as the standing army?
"How will they do that if they do not have the same infantry weapons as the standing army?"
You don't know what you are talking about. Every time the Supreme Court, you know the people who actually have a SOMEWHAT better understanding of the nature and reasoning behind the 2nd regarding Title 2 & similar weapons, rule on these matters they are calling you both ignorant & wrong
...."Read the Militia Act of 1792. Learn what it means."
Please enlighten me on how this applies. Again, the SC keeps re-affirming that many weapons (of a general military use) are not protected under the 2nd. Even the NRA has given up on the NFA. But it certainly hasn't stopped them from using it for propaganda to confuse citizens that don't study history or the law.
But please educate me because you clearly have studied this & not just read gun lobbyist propaganda
The ONE document that would be USEFUL in determining the Founder's intent for the Bill of Rights has NEVER been entered into the debate.
Go read it! You want to know how it applies? Just read it! Put aside your professor's Marxist utopian ideals and read the work of the Founder's. Their meaning and intent is blatantly obvious. I am horrified at how it has been ignored.
You misunderstand me, I have read it and I am asking you to explain how it applies to anything previously argued here.
By the way, you score no points using "Marxist utopian ideals." All you do is paint yourself as someone who can't argue a point without demonizing their opposition & even more to the point, that you can't comprehend nuance. Of course there is the larger point that nothing about Marx has entered into this discussion
And you have no understanding of history. Ever since Roosevelt began stuffing the Supreme Court with anti-Constitutionalist judges the judgements it has handed down have been a gross betrayal of any common sense reading of the Constitution.
Judicial academics since 1930 have been a joke. Their ability to pull off such a widely accepted con job disgusts me.
"Ever since Roosevelt began stuffing the Supreme Court with anti-Constitutionalist judges"
LOL, I know see the level you are operating on. If it doesn't fit what you want, then everyone else is wrong. You want to "throw down" on the the BOR then go for it
Your mind is filled with simple-minded propaganda & its clear you have never publicly debated a single ruling. I am not an expert but your knowledge is shallow& lacking any originality of thought
Provide the foundational flaws of the majority in US v Miller. Further expand on how these flaws apply to future restriction like 1994 AWB. You can use wikipedia, google, etc to outline the major points but quote mining for your rebuttal will be soundly mocked
And again, this is focused entirely on title 2 type assault weapons. I proudly support the 2nd & its protections on hunting & defense
I would suggest you PM me on this as 500 words or less will not be enough for either of us
Hate to disappoint you, but I have better things to do with my time than satisfy the attention cravings of a misguided anonymous internet user.
This is not a debate seminar. If it were, you'd be paying me (and yes, this IS what I do for a living). I've offered you a clear starting point. Whether or not you pursue it is up to you.
"I have better things to do with my time than satisfy the attention cravings of a misguided anonymous internet user"
I am confused then. Wasn't it you that chimed in to "educate me?" Weren't you the one claiming to know better then the Supreme Court(s)? Now you WON'T share your superior knowledge?
Since you debate for a living, where does "I know I am right but don't have to explain it to you" fit into your paradigm?
If you weren't going to "put up" perhaps you should have just....
@Hopeful71 The 2nd amendments doesn't say what a gun is used for. Therefore it doesn't matter what you claim they meant. They didn't want the government to be a monarchy again.
I'm not pro-gun but O'Rourke is on target. It is too divisive and the left should just leave it be. Law abiding Americans are too frightened and untrusting to let their guns go. I have many American friends who are decent and law abiding and very progressive in their thinking who support gun ownership. Hell, if they feel that strongly let them keep them. It's supposed to be a democracy. Ironically, in Australia it was conservatives who legislated gun control not the left.
Can't imagine what it's like to live in a society where almost anyone could be armed. Most Canadians don't ever see a gun except on a cop's hip in line at Timmy's.
It's no big deal because the majority do not. Don't go by what you see in an anti-gun show or movie. I live in Ohio abd ever since CCW law was enacted things have not really changed. You cannot just parade guns around in public or you go to jail for inciting a panic and aggravated mennacing.
they can't take or control or make you register gun's....what part of the 2nd amendment don't people understand... the right to "keep" and "bare" arms, shall not be "infringed" if you don't understand the "words" look in the dictionary! end of debate!!!!!!!!!!
I love it! Every video I have seen regarding gun control in Australia, the majority of the comments favoured guns! What does that say about our humble democracy? Not much.
OmegaRage 4 months ago
Following DC vs Heller and its repeal of the gun ban in 2008, DC had the lowest murder and vehicular theft rates in 20 years, lowest aggravated assault rate in 28 years, and lowest forcible rape and violent crime rates in 32 years, and, with the exception of 2005, lowest property theft and burglary rates in 32 and 39 years respectively.
hayesism 7 months ago
@hayesism I live in a country (Australia, where PJ gave this speech) where gun control is a difficult issue because we have to weigh up freedom with safety. We have no equivalent of this DC experiment. I envy America for having a clear answer where morality and pragmatism align so well. It therefore baffles me that there is so little debate about this issue in my country and yet so much in yours.
hayesism 7 months ago
Mexico has strict gun control. All the bad boys get all the guns they want. Honest citizens cower because they can not defend themselves from either Narcos or their police accomplices.
IrishFrisco 8 months ago
Since gun controls have been implemented in Australia our murder rate has gone down by two thirds. Australia took guns off its citizens before the genie was really out of the bottle, it is too late for the USA.
louiseobrien2010 11 months ago
where did you get this info? all of the statistics I have seen shows that crime in Australia has increased since the gun ban...not only in Australia but every country that has banned firearms...
spike2141962 11 months ago
@spike2141962
Google - Australian gun laws led to fewer deaths
14 December 2006
The risk of dying by gunshot has halved since Australia destroyed 700,000 privately owned firearms, according to a new study published today in the international research journal, Injury Prevention.
louiseobrien2010 11 months ago
@louiseobrien2010 Violent crime actually increased
MavHunter20XX 9 months ago
@spike2141962 This is simply not the case; Australia's murder rate has steadily decreased since 2002, and is currently at a much lower rate than it was before the '96 ban.
RebelWrestler45 9 months ago
@louiseobrien2010 no really, gun laws in UK well you cant have any except a shotgun, with allot of paper work, they are pulling out 300,000 guns off the street too, fully-automatic, semi's, you name it from ports, not enough man power, not enough funz, so what the government is doing is leaving the citizens helpless. citizens aint the problem, outlaws are, because they work outside the law.
GrizzPaul 10 months ago
sounds like AUSTRALIA is going down hill. they hav the same SOCIALIST BULLSHIT IN CANADA.......ppl r not allowed 2 arm themselves......but CRIMINALS???/...HELP yourselves........i hate COMMUNIST CANADA.............GO USA.......
chadberry75 1 year ago
I wonder why he said it was just the U.S. culture, and that it would not work in the U.S. the way it did in Australia? Anybody in Australia knows the dramatic and undeniable rise in the crime rate of their country after the imposed their gun ban, he should also. That was not a correct remark by him. If you doubt it then search and look at the crime statistics the year before, and the years after. Armed robbery in Australia up 45%, other crimes as high as 300%. Don't use govt. studies obviously.
MrUS1972 1 year ago
was the authors name jeff kass@BLUECOLLORSURVIVAL
priyasawhney 1 year ago
@warriorprince1010 Who cares if Iran has a nuke. U managed to deal with the Soviets and they had thousands. Maybe instead of preparing for a war u should assist their nuclear programme thus having a say in its development and making a friend at the same time. Comparing guns to nukes is stupid. Dont even bother with that stupid argument. And dont take having guns for granted because everywhere else murderers and criminals kill and rob without fear because even fightin back with a stick is illegal
ginjaninja1988 1 year ago
Columbine taught me that responsible citizens should be armed...such as teachers...licensed handguns should be allowed on campus.
BlueCollarSurvival 1 year ago
@warriorprince1010 They are both guaranteed in the Bill of Rights!
feck2112 1 year ago
@warriorprince1010 Ya lets ban News papers and shut down the internet too. You are still free to speak your mind about it.
feck2112 1 year ago
The only sensible thing I have heard about gun control in the U.S.!
MrUndersolo 1 year ago
Nice try dude, but the reality is that there are over 700 million "REGISTERED" firearms in the hands of (for the most part) LAW-ABIDING citizens. Note that I said "registered"? That isn't counting things like curio and relics, and other UNREGISTERED firearms. Makes the idea of trying to take guns away from us kind of stupid.
-Oz
Ozlanthos 1 year ago
This is a good point. And I love the points he brings up. Yaknow, what are you going to do, start going door to door and try to find over 200 million guns? Yaknow, evil people are going to do evil things with whatever they get their hands on. You can't fight circumstance. All you can do is take the most appropriate measures to correct mistakes. NOT go off the deep end and try to control the future, because you can't.
demboys18 1 year ago
good point. You fascist shit have to live with the fact that I have guns, just like this guy said, you learn to live with it ok. If you don't like it, too bad for you, because I will own a gun based on my decision to own a gun, not yours.
texasgringooo 1 year ago
google Doe's Account, its insane.
firefloat22 1 year ago
Just take away the guns from all gang bangers and homies. That would stop 90% of the crime. But good luck taking them away from criminals.
tripmatt1 2 years ago
Just sterilize the career felons and gangsters in prison and in two generations the pool of sociopaths would dry up
MongoloidBabyUSA 2 years ago
As much as leftists will hate to admit this, the solution is MORE guns, not less. The only people that use guns irresponsibly on a scale worth legislating are the life long criminals who could care less about new gun restrictions. Therefore the only way to create a safer society is for the GOOD law abiding citizens to have firearms so they aren't turned into defenseless victims. And crime statistics reflect exactly that social model. The more an area owns LEGAL guns, the less crime there is.
TaskForceSixTwoSix 2 years ago
And besides, use some common sense for once. Do you REALLY think a family owning a firearm in their home is a threat to society? The answer is obviously not. I grew up with several guns in my home and not once were they used to murder someone. We had them for recreation, as heirlooms passed down through the generations and for self-defense if God forbid some criminal low life decided it would be a good idea to break into our home and do God knows what to my family.
TaskForceSixTwoSix 2 years ago
Also, look at the examples of Switzerland, the UK and Canada. In Switzerland every home is required by law to have a fully automatic and fully loaded modern assualt rifle in the case of a national emergency. And do you want to know how many gun crimes happen in Switzerland with all these "scary" guns floating around? Virtually none. Proof that the problem with gun crime in America isn't the presence of guns themselves but other much more important factors that are not easily solved.
TaskForceSixTwoSix 2 years ago
In the UK guns have been virtually banned. Even the olympic shooting team has to practice outside of Britain. Yet since all handguns were banned gun crime has nearly DOUBLED. Now British residents complain about being utterly helpless as home invaders march through their homes emboldened by the disarmed households. And in Canada similar gun restrictions resulted in 40% HIGHER gun crimes. Clearly gun restrictions aren't the cure all solution that anti-self-defense leftists hoped them to be.
TaskForceSixTwoSix 2 years ago
SPOT! ON!
1x8twist 2 years ago
P J , great words. Fact of the matter is, a mass weapons collections here in the USA would result in massive bloodshed and rioting. Americans will not surrender thier guns. Or it will be a hand over the rusty old trinket while the 30 others are stashed away, with the ammo. Just boggles my mind that the Aussies handed over thier weapons, now they can bang spoons on pans like Argentinans when Australia goes BANKRUPT in a very short while, can anyone see they are on the ass end of the spreadsheet?
46Mongoose 2 years ago 3
Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." — John Adams
futurehelp 2 years ago 4
if guns kill people, mattresses cause pregnancy. FROM MY COLD, GUNS SHOT RESIDUE COVERED HANDS. I obey the law. When it becomes illegal for me to defend myself, I will be a criminal.
stabbyronnie 2 years ago 20
@stabbyronnie If guns kill people, pens misspell words.
regis7136 1 year ago
@stabbyronnie Me too
MavHunter20XX 9 months ago
Thank you for the unnecessarily long shot of the hot girl 0:42-0:49
hayesism 2 years ago 4
shes not that hott...
Spitfireman88 2 years ago
Yeah I know, but def the hottest one in the room, and it was showing her for no other reason. I just like it how even the folks at the National Press Club get bored and decide to check out chicks.
hayesism 2 years ago
Jews were disarmed by the nazis in the way the government is trying to do to us... what happened to them? They couldnt defend themselves and that led to the Holocaust.
neemguy81 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
FightDPower 2 years ago
Columbine is a great book. I recommend it highly. I took away something different than he did. I think the lesson of Columbine is the same as the lesson of Virginia Tech, Washington Park, or any other mass shooting:
It does not matter what you do, crazy people are just as intelligent as sane people. If they want to create chaos, they will find a way. Punishing the rest of us for the sins of the few is pointless and does not lessen the impact or resourcefulness of the psychopath.
Brotoi 2 years ago
He should have referred our Australian cousins to the Federalist Papers and the Bill of Rights.If he did in the full length talk,Fora TV should have chosen that as the clip.For that is the basis of widespread firearm ownership in the USA:Freedom.The ability to maintain it and if necessary,secure it.
AuroraKismet 2 years ago
Unfortunately, Australia doesn't have a bill of rights.
SharpesAccomplice 2 years ago
Neither does the US anymore
ajmoir 2 years ago
Well automatic gun ban I can understand, you just need one psycopath to run into a school or a packer building to mow people down. However with the other guns you cannot just do that so easily, without being stopped by another person...
The problem with gun control is, its taking the weapons out of what we would call decent citizens, while having little or no effect on criminals who get hold of them all the time.
therock27374 2 years ago
he didnt mention the constitution once.....thats sad....
lumpfish99 2 years ago
I don't see why he even needed to, he answered the problem of gun control completely objectively and without making any moral assumptions, i.e he wasn't about it shouldn't be done, but why it simply can't be done.
Slug99 2 years ago
Sad.
Handguns for self defense. Rifles & shotguns for hunting & self defense.
Automatic weapons for what now?
Oh yeah, killing large groups of people like you find in war (gang or 'legitimate') or a psychopath's Saturday night plans
Reasonable gun control was always that...reasonable. Politicians can't get it done because a large group of people, who are more in love with their apocalyptic fantasies then pragmatic public safety, are having their fears stoked by lobbyist looking to make money
Hopeful71 2 years ago
alot of regular folk own automatics they dont go killing people....you should research the us constitutions 2nd amendment and why it was included by the founding fathers....i used to be against guns but now i see their importance....
lumpfish99 2 years ago 2
However many regular decent folk own guns doesn't change the reality of what Hopeful says. Reasonable gun control, even such simple shit as tracking sales, cannot pass in this country because of apocalyptic, conspiracy theory fantasies. Rational discussion on the issue is impossible. Instead you get simplistic slogans like "Gun control to me is having your weapon on target" which says nothing, has no point but sounds all tough guy, which is good enough for far too many voters.
eirefrance 2 years ago
"Reasonable gun control, even such simple shit as tracking sales,"
The British agreed to register their guns. Two years later the government demanded they turn them in.
Registration, historically, is ALWAYS a precursor to confiscation. There are NO historical exceptions.
Is that not rational enough to serve as a reason to oppose "tracking sales"?
Brotoi 2 years ago 2
Perhaps. Most discussion on the topic does tend to be pretty tough guy macho and I'd like to meet a gun owner who isn't a little bit nuts about it. Rather than take your word on the gun registration = confiscation, can you direct me to some independent evidence?
eirefrance 2 years ago
Google "jeremy blanks gun registration"
That is your starting point. How far you follow it will depend on your genuine interest.
Brotoi 2 years ago
"alot of regular folk own automatics they dont go killing people"
Reread my post please. My statement is not about the people who own them but the weapon's sole intended purpose. To imply I was stating otherwise is disingenuous.
Hopeful71 2 years ago
"you should research the us constitutions 2nd amendment"
Ok, my 2nd masters thesis included a presentation on the Bill of Rights, so I have read 'a bit' on the 2nd (Rohner, Bryant, etc)
I fully support the 2nd but, like every Supreme Court decision, believe it doesn't apply to assaults weapons any more then it does to missiles
Review the court decisions; its not the 2nd that keeps assault weapons in legal flux; its the lack of political will in the face of the most well funded lobby in DC
Hopeful71 2 years ago
"i used to be against guns but now i see their importance"
I've NEVER been 'against guns' but against weapons thats sole function is to kill large groups of people (aka Weapons of Mass Killing) in the hands of citizens under the guise of self defense or -LOL- a well regulated militia
To date the Supreme Court agrees with me, but if you know better, enlighten me
To be 100% clear-the 2nd in NO WAY protects your right to own assault weapons-'money as free speech' is whats protecting that "right"
Hopeful71 2 years ago
Of course the purpose is to kill people. If you cannot imagine a scenario where it is morally right to kill people then you are an idiot. We have the second amendment to keep the government in check.
Since when is a selective fire weapon a "weapon of mass killing" anyway. Just shows your ignorance of firearms.
strongbadXCP 2 years ago
"Since when is a selective fire weapon a "weapon of mass killing" anyway. Just shows your ignorance of firearms."
Next time read the whole thread before commenting and you will not look so foolish.
Hopeful71 2 years ago
"To be 100% clear-the 2nd in NO WAY protects your right to own assault weapons-'money as free speech' is whats protecting that "right""
Maybe you've studied the 2nd, but you did not understand it, nor its importance.
The 2nd Amendment is legal authorization for the people to engage in armed rebellion against a government that no longer responds to them. How will they do that if they do not have the same infantry weapons as the standing army?
Brotoi 2 years ago
"How will they do that if they do not have the same infantry weapons as the standing army?"
You don't know what you are talking about. Every time the Supreme Court, you know the people who actually have a SOMEWHAT better understanding of the nature and reasoning behind the 2nd regarding Title 2 & similar weapons, rule on these matters they are calling you both ignorant & wrong
As for state militia...
Hopeful71 2 years ago
...."Read the Militia Act of 1792. Learn what it means."
Please enlighten me on how this applies. Again, the SC keeps re-affirming that many weapons (of a general military use) are not protected under the 2nd. Even the NRA has given up on the NFA. But it certainly hasn't stopped them from using it for propaganda to confuse citizens that don't study history or the law.
But please educate me because you clearly have studied this & not just read gun lobbyist propaganda
Hopeful71 2 years ago
"Please enlighten me on how this applies."
Exactly!!!!!
The ONE document that would be USEFUL in determining the Founder's intent for the Bill of Rights has NEVER been entered into the debate.
Go read it! You want to know how it applies? Just read it! Put aside your professor's Marxist utopian ideals and read the work of the Founder's. Their meaning and intent is blatantly obvious. I am horrified at how it has been ignored.
Brotoi 2 years ago
"Go read it! You want to know how it applies?"
You misunderstand me, I have read it and I am asking you to explain how it applies to anything previously argued here.
By the way, you score no points using "Marxist utopian ideals." All you do is paint yourself as someone who can't argue a point without demonizing their opposition & even more to the point, that you can't comprehend nuance. Of course there is the larger point that nothing about Marx has entered into this discussion
Hopeful71 2 years ago
"You don't know what you are talking about."
And you have no understanding of history. Ever since Roosevelt began stuffing the Supreme Court with anti-Constitutionalist judges the judgements it has handed down have been a gross betrayal of any common sense reading of the Constitution.
Judicial academics since 1930 have been a joke. Their ability to pull off such a widely accepted con job disgusts me.
Brotoi 2 years ago
"Ever since Roosevelt began stuffing the Supreme Court with anti-Constitutionalist judges"
LOL, I know see the level you are operating on. If it doesn't fit what you want, then everyone else is wrong. You want to "throw down" on the the BOR then go for it
Your mind is filled with simple-minded propaganda & its clear you have never publicly debated a single ruling. I am not an expert but your knowledge is shallow& lacking any originality of thought
Let's go!
cont...
Hopeful71 2 years ago
...cont
Provide the foundational flaws of the majority in US v Miller. Further expand on how these flaws apply to future restriction like 1994 AWB. You can use wikipedia, google, etc to outline the major points but quote mining for your rebuttal will be soundly mocked
And again, this is focused entirely on title 2 type assault weapons. I proudly support the 2nd & its protections on hunting & defense
I would suggest you PM me on this as 500 words or less will not be enough for either of us
Hopeful71 2 years ago
Hate to disappoint you, but I have better things to do with my time than satisfy the attention cravings of a misguided anonymous internet user.
This is not a debate seminar. If it were, you'd be paying me (and yes, this IS what I do for a living). I've offered you a clear starting point. Whether or not you pursue it is up to you.
Brotoi 2 years ago
"I have better things to do with my time than satisfy the attention cravings of a misguided anonymous internet user"
I am confused then. Wasn't it you that chimed in to "educate me?" Weren't you the one claiming to know better then the Supreme Court(s)? Now you WON'T share your superior knowledge?
Since you debate for a living, where does "I know I am right but don't have to explain it to you" fit into your paradigm?
If you weren't going to "put up" perhaps you should have just....
Hopeful71 2 years ago
"Ok, my 2nd masters thesis included a presentation on the Bill of Rights, so I have read 'a bit' on the 2nd (Rohner, Bryant, etc)"
Read the Militia Act of 1792. Learn what it means.
Brotoi 2 years ago
define an 'assault weapon'
mausermilitia 2 years ago 4
@Hopeful71 The 2nd amendments doesn't say what a gun is used for. Therefore it doesn't matter what you claim they meant. They didn't want the government to be a monarchy again.
home3363308 2 years ago
I'm not pro-gun but O'Rourke is on target. It is too divisive and the left should just leave it be. Law abiding Americans are too frightened and untrusting to let their guns go. I have many American friends who are decent and law abiding and very progressive in their thinking who support gun ownership. Hell, if they feel that strongly let them keep them. It's supposed to be a democracy. Ironically, in Australia it was conservatives who legislated gun control not the left.
seamoremonster 2 years ago 3
PJ telling it like it is.
Can't imagine what it's like to live in a society where almost anyone could be armed. Most Canadians don't ever see a gun except on a cop's hip in line at Timmy's.
buhgoil 2 years ago 3
It's no big deal because the majority do not. Don't go by what you see in an anti-gun show or movie. I live in Ohio abd ever since CCW law was enacted things have not really changed. You cannot just parade guns around in public or you go to jail for inciting a panic and aggravated mennacing.
TargetGuy2245 2 years ago
Gun control to me is having your weapon on target.
xxashyy 2 years ago 9
1 year ago?
Still awesome
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
@xxashyy Gun control means using two hands.
regis7136 1 year ago
A perfect world is not one without guns but one in which a gun never has to be fired.
Just some personal thoughts. I don't think its a quote from anyone.
VisitingXenoc133 2 years ago 2
How about no one getting shot. Hunting and tarhet shooting are too fun.
TargetGuy2245 2 years ago
they can't take or control or make you register gun's....what part of the 2nd amendment don't people understand... the right to "keep" and "bare" arms, shall not be "infringed" if you don't understand the "words" look in the dictionary! end of debate!!!!!!!!!!
dabigez357 2 years ago 4
That would be "bear" arms. I have bare arms when I wear a T-shirt.
:)
kshackleton 2 years ago 4
i have a teddy bear....:)
lumpfish99 2 years ago
Not only is it hard to take guns away from americans, if it is tried it will start a full out war. Nobody wants that.
thane17 2 years ago 3