I tell ya, they will never get my fully automatic belt-fed multi-barreled machine gun, Never. Muhuhuhahahahahaha haha, ah uh hold on, I don't really have one of those. But I really want one.
...did she just say something smart?...wow...i mean i would never have liked her before, but thats a good take on the issue. shes still pretty stupid, but she just said that she'll protect the second amendment.
Assult rifles and machine guns are alreay illegal. An assualt weapon is select fire and a machine gun fires rifle rounds full auto. A sub-machine gun fires pistol rounds full auto. A semi-automatic is a gun that fires one shot per triggerpull without haveing to rack a bolt or action. The only guns that are not semi-auto are bolt actions, pump actions, and lever actions. I don't think revolvers are technically semi-auto.
FYI semi-auto means one shot per trigger pull not full auto or burst fire. Most guns are semi-auto. Glocks, 1911s, and Berretas are semi-auto. Most people don't know what semi-auto, assult weapon, or machine gun means. All three are differant types of guns.
@bigbenusa45 I couldn't have said it better myself. I don't think that 70% of people know what a semi-automatic is. I think when they heard the "loaded" (pardon the pun) word "assault weapon" they will instinctively picture a fully automatic belt-fed machinegun. The media certainly doesn't help by misleading the public either.
@bigbenusa45 Even w/ the semi-auto rifle there are different classifications, and also w/in auto-loading pistols, revolvers. You can't put a lable on firearms to be self inclusive. Each firearm is disigned with a specific aspect in mind.
That for all you idiots out there that think it's guns make criminals, they'll just go to the next best thing, knifes and blunt objects. But that's stupid to think they'll go to knifes when they'll have guns regardles, no matter how you legislate.
Sorry to burst your bubble hardikg121 but they will never be able to get the guns off the streets. Any machinist can build you an illegal AK-47 that is select fire unlike the legal semi-auto AK you can get at your local gun store. All they need are the blue prints which you can get for free off the internet.
@HardikG121 By all due respect - victims of mass-murderers like Harris and Klebold don't give a sh...t what they were shot with. Son of Sam used a revolver. A regular six-shooter, and that did the job. Don't get me wrong; I personally wouldn't buy a semi-auto. But a government gets elected to serve, not to restrict. You hire a worker to do a job, not to let him tell you how to live.
@AntonScream Sure, but I'm being a pragmatist here. I feel that the government gets elected to protect, along with to serve. As part of that protection, I feel that the they should reduce these weapons that cause harm to our society. I'm not in favor of getting rid of the right to bear arms alltogether. However, I feel that strong background checks and restrictions are needed on guns. I don't think its right to make it so easy to aquire a gun.
@HardikG121 You seem to be a nice person and you got a point. To be honest, I am a christian, so i don't want someone get shot anyway. I'd love it to be so easy - forbid this, and no ones brains will be bashed out anymore.
But the reality is different. it's bad guys who shall be restricted, it is bullets that shall restrict their existense, and it is ANY kind of weapon the citizen is comfortable with he shall use for that purpose.
@HardikG121 A Glock on my hip, a Remington 700, and a AK-47 in my trunk are all I need for protection. Gun control provides a false sence of security, and I feel owning a gun is better then having a false sence of security. No law will ever disarm criminals and anyone can get a gun illegaly even in countries like mexico and england with extremly tough gun guntrol. BTW the goverment is not required by law to prtect you, legally the police don't have to help you as the suprem court ruled.
@AntonScream Furthermore, what do we as citizens need semi-automatic weapons for anyway? For hunting? When was the last time someone needed an assault-rifle to hunt? I think that by restricting dangerous weapons from the public would make this country safer. BTW, I respect your effort to voice your opinions.
@HardikG121 Again, I'd prefer shooting dead targets. Unfortunately the bad guys always know the way to get an illegal automatic weapon. iy is not a problem to them. If law abiding citizens are restricted to be AS POWERFUL as the bad guys, they'll always have less chances to prevail.
@HardikG121 The LA Riots. Legally owned semi-automatic rifles including AK-47s were very useful and effective. They were used to protect innocent people from murder and bussinesses from looting and damage thus protecting livelyhoods as well as life. Semi-Autos are very important for the security of this free state. Semi auto rifles are great anti-riot guns. FYI All handguns that are not revolvers or single shot are semi-auto.
@HardikG121 Murder is illegal and so are machine guns which BTW are not semi automatics. Yet people still commit murder and are still able to buy illegal machine guns.
@HardikG121 Gun-control advocates look at guns only as a means to harm others even though they are more often used to prevent injury. According to a 1995 study entitled “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun” by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, published by the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology at Northwestern University School of Law, law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year.
@HardikG121 That means that firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to shoot with criminal intent. Of these defensive shootings, more than 200,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse. About half a million times a year, a citizen carrying a gun away from home uses it in self-defense.
@HardikG121 Again, according to Kleck amd Gertz, “Citizens shoot and kill more criminals than police do every year [2,819 times versus 303].” Moreover, as George Will pointed out in an article entitled “Are We a Nation of Cowards?” in the November 15, 1993, issue of Newsweek, while police have an error rate of 11 percent when it comes to the accidental shooting of innocent civilians, the armed citizens’ error rate is only 2 percent, making them five times safer than police.
@HardikG121 Those studies and others indicate that often the mere sight of a firearm discourages an attacker. Criminologist John Lott from the University of Florida found that 98 percent of the time when people use guns defensively, simply brandishing a firearm is sufficient to cause a criminal to break off an attack. Lott also found that in less than 2 percent of the cases is the gun fired, and three-fourths of those are warning shots.
@HardikG121 The police can't protect us. They are there to enforce laws and to arrest criminals after they commit a crime. But they arn't are personal bodyguards. So I have to protect myself and my family with my own gun.
@HardikG121 Why do you think banning guns is a good idea? It won't work. Weed and crack are avilible despite being banned. Building an AK-47 from scratch is something any machinist can do.
@HardikG121t You said "here are 30% morons that believe that semi-automatic weapons should be allowed" You are the moron. Do you even know what semi-auto means? Of course you don't, most antigun biggots don't.
@pred123424 Or ABC is pulling that number out of their ass. I would like to see Palin in Nugent in office together just to see the different gun bills that might be able to get passed.
lets just take away corvettes vipers, ferraris and other fast "race cars" driving fast kills people too, oh and while we are at it lets ban teh sale of table salt and sugar in grocery stores because all those things kill more people than guns do, whats next government gonna start telling restaurants how many calories we can have in our food, oh wait they already do
Do you really think that all of those murders bein committed are bein committed by people who would have obeyed the law anyway?
As a matter of fact, I do, Sarah. Case in point: Fort Hood gunman Nidal Malik Hassan, concealed carry permit holder and, up until November 5, 2009, a "law-abiding citizen" and a "responsible gun owner".
"Do you think that gun violence is caused by people who would have followed any law anyway?"
Sarah, my sweet, simple (emphasis on simple) Sarah, let me explain a few things to you:
1.) By the logic of your question, I could claim that the laws against murder, theft, rape,etc. are useless and should be repealed because people who want to kill each other don't obey them.
2.) Governor Palin, I'd like to introduce you to Nidal Malik Hassn, concealed carry permit holder/former "law abiding citizen".
@patsfanczar Nor is it written that you can carry guns anywhere you go either. Nor is it written to you can carry GUNS where you want, or even own them, it says you can keep and bear ARMS. By your logic, people should be able to own RPG's, hand grenades, bazzokas, and be able to cover their lawns with landmines.
@JRserver YAY, WELCOME TO LEARNING THE CONSTITUTION WITH PATSFANCAR. Today, we will talk about the SECOND amendment!
*Ahem*
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Now what does this mean? It means that there should be a militia of the people to protect the people from the government. Now it says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...
... Note the word INFRINGED, what it means, and the fact that there is a SHALL NOT before it. Arms means anything that can be used as such. What this part is saying is that the people may have ANY ARM THEY CHOOSE. People were INTENDED by the founders to be BETTER armed than the military. This is the only part of the constitution where such specific pieces of property are defended. So yes, it is legal to own ROCKETS, GUNS, and I would go even as far as to say NUCLEAR BOMBS.
@patsfanczar "People were INTENDED by the founders to be BETTER armed than the military."
Uh, no they weren't, otherwise the American people would BE the military. At the time of the Second Amendments writing, the United States did not have the standing army that we have today, so it was reasonable to expect that the population would serve as a militia. Now is quite different, my friend, and following your logic, Tim McVeigh, once a law-abiding citizen, should have had acess to RPG's and nukes
@JRserver The military is a government entity. The idea was to make sure that the country they had just founded was not going to become like the country they had just defeated. Rights are protected not by the constitution, but by the guns of the people themselves. All the constitution does is outline our government. McVeigh was not law abiding, even before he blew up a bunch of innocent people with a bomb that the law said he wasn't supposed to even have made.
On the topic of what protects rights - "The pen is mightier than the sword". The civil rights movement, women's sufferage, Ghandhi's defeat of the British empire, Nelson Mandela's defeat of apartheid, all accomplished without a single bullet being fired.
On the topic of McVeigh - He had no ciminal record prior to Oklahoma City, and was even awarded a bronze star during his military service. Perhaps former law abiding citizen Nidal Malik Hassan would be more to your liking.
@JRserver Wrong, McVeigh was involved in the Waco shootout, and he made a bomb at home that, again he shouldn't have had. You also need to look at what DIDN'T happen without guns: the fall of communism in Europe and the fall of the Nazi Regime. In both those areas, gun control was what happened first, and it took an outside power to end it. The Revolution did not happen without shots fired (and started with attempted gun confiscation).
@patsfanczar "he made a bomb at home that, again he shouldn't have had."
I though you said weshould be able to own anything up to and including weapons grade plutonium. By your logic, McVeigh was well within his rights.
Comparing American Revolution guns to modern firearms is like comparing a water pistol to a firehose. And the notion that a disorganized, untrained citizenry even with guns is going to take down the likes of the Nazi's is something I take with a big grain of salt.
@JRserver AS far as armed militiamen taking down the Nazis, everybody took the idea that the colonials could take down the British Empire (that the sun used to never set on) with a rather large grain of salt as well. An armed militia protects rights, the end. This is what the founders experienced and knew well. You could take a lesson from them.
@JRserver Um, are you aware that the revolutionaries were CIVILIANS, not a full on military? They were weekend trainers who tried in all their might to avoid a bloody revolution, but it came down to it, and they won.
@patsfanczar Oh, nothing, just that firearms of the 18th century had about one one-thousandth the destructive capacity that they do today, and as such, any comparison of modern firearms with Revolution era firearms isn't apples and oranges, it's apples and posion ivy.
@JRserver Flintlock was the state of the art in revolutionary America. They didn't force Americans to go back to matchlock or crossbows because it "WUZ DANGEROUS!!!!!" As well, people weren't limited from the use of new repeating firearms with the advent of the affordable Colt cap-and-ball revolvers. Why? People understood the constitution, and that the people should be better armed than the government.
@patsfanczar "Flintlock was the state of the art in revolutionary America." That's about the only time in the histroy of the world anyone has every described 18th century firearms, which had so-so accuracy, took nearly a minute to reload, and were very prone to misfire, as "state-of-the-art". In any case, their effectiveness at the time does not change the fact that one could only shoot one target at a time with them, in addition to their aforementioned flaws.
@JRserver That was the state of the art. You don't even know the definition of that term, LOL. You think state-of-the-art means that something has to be perfect. It really is hard to debate with someone as naive as you. You don't understand anything but control of another person's life, and you are denying reality.
@JRserver You don't seem to understand firearms at all, or the fact that that is an entirely moot point. What the constitution says is what the constitution says.
A.) The constitution "says" nothing about handgun ownership or concealed carry much less RPG's, land mines, and nuclear weapons, and I'd certainly be hard pressed to find any convincing indicator that the Founding Fathers would have intended for anyone to own any of those.
@JRserver It says you can own ANY arm you wish. ARM means ARM, whether you like it or not, and whether you think the founders intended it or not (which they did intend for it to be any arm, or they would have been more specific).
@patsfanczar You HONETSLY believe that the Founding Fathers, if they knew then what we know now about firearms technology, would let you own fully automatic weapons? Oh, who am I kidding, you think you're contistutionally entitled to own nuclear weapons.
@JRserver A) nukes are expensive, well guarded, and just overall unreachable for anyone anyway. You have never read many of their quotes I see, Jefferson thought a revolution every 20 years would be healthy for the maintenance of freedom.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-Alexander Hamilton
You will find more of this in my description on my channel page.
@patsfanczar Look at the Second Amendment itself: what comes before the phrase "keep and bear arms" and "free state" - WELL REGULATED
It doesn't matter whether or not you can afford nukes, the fact that you feel you have a right to own them makes you dangerously unsuited to own any kind of weapon, as anyone who posits such a belief, and REALLY TRULY BELIEVES IT, is clearly criminally insane.
@JRserver I think you are tyrant then because you want to take my arms, as ALL tyrants have done. It seems insane only from your radical point of view (note two opinion terms there). Well regulated talks about the militia. It is saying that because there must be a military to defend america, the people must have arms to defend themselves. I call it as I see it, and the constitution demands it.
"Every Communist must grasp the truth, political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
@patsfanczar Whatever, you think you have a rgiht to own anything without restricion or oversight, and reality dictates otherwise, and because of that, you fundamentally can NOT be trusted with a firearm.
@JRserver LOL, you think your view on sanity counts? You don't think anybody should own any firearm at all, so what does this fake sanity assessment on George Washington and company mean? Government restriction leads to more government restriction which ultimately results in tyranny. No country that has ever gone down this path has ended well. Gun control is about control, not safety.
Such an appropriate quote now:
"When only cops have guns, it's called a "police state."
@patsfanczar No, I don't think that EVERYONE should be barred from ownership of non-automatic firearms, but because of your perspective on what you believe you should be permitted own, I think you should be, because anyone who thinks that there is no cut off within the 2nd Amendment and that their ownership permissibilty goes up to and includes nuclear weapons, is NOT someone that society at large should be giving a gun to.
@JRserver You think I am insane because of the way I interpret the constitution? You yourself said that arms are arms, and that nuclear devices are among those. George W. and friends thought that the people should be able to own any arm, and they did have some rather powerful weaponry back then.
What is ths? Non-automatic? Seriously? For what purpose is it then that you see people are fit to own firearms, since you don't like the idea of an action that can cycle under internal forces?
@patsfanczar People can own guns for defense against a home invader, I'm not against that. The notion of us needing an arsenal as a deterrent against governement tyranny is a double edged sword to me, since anyone with the slightest problems with a current President's legislative agenda can just plug that in to justify going crazy with guns (see health care reform.)
@JRserver People have had guns, but there hasn't been a rebellion since the civil war, even though there has been a lot to piss people off. Again, gun owners see the use of their guns as a last resort. You say you are pro-allowing people to defend themselves from a home invader (make my day laws), but you are anti-automatic firearms.
@patsfanczar "You say you are pro-allowing people to defend themselves from a home invader (make my day laws), but you are anti-automatic firearms."
Dude, you have such a firm grasp on the obvious!!! You know, I'm also against people driving their cars on sidewalks and thorugh malls, do you think that makes me anti-vehicular homicide?
@JRserver When one says "automatic firearms" the term means any firearms that can automatically load its own chamber using forces from the shot. It does not have to be "full auto" to do this. "Semi auto" just means that there is a little capture sear (usually, this is the primary way it is done in a rifle, handguns use different methods to do the same job) in the trigger mechanism that keeps the hammer from moving after it is re-cocked.
@JRserver Didn't I tell you that it is written in the constitution that we MUST be armed, and that it is for the purpose of keeping the government in check? Additionally, almost all handguns (the only practical self-defense firearm) are automatic, excepting the fading double action revolver. People hunt with automatics, I use an automatic shotgun for pheasant hunting. I don't see why you need something in order to have it. After all, you don't NEED a lot of things you HAVE.
@JRserver What do you mean "uh, no." You liberals are all geniuses in your own minds, at least it appears that way. You take your opinion as fact to support another of your own opinions. By the way, when I say that the second amendment technically says we can privately own nukes, I mean we can own any nuke we could afford to buy on the free market, which is void of nukes at the moment. I never meant that our own government had to supply us with nukes.
@patsfanczar The "uh no" means that semi-automatics are NOT automatics, and you seem to be utterly ignoring the fact that I'm completely against people owning automatics. As far as nuclear weapons go, I'll try again: it doesn't matter to me how you purchase them, you nor anyone else should own them. PERIOD.
@JRserver Who is the one here who has a page almost completely dedicated to firearms? Thought so. Automatic mean automatic loading of the chamber, which is common among handguns used for self defense and hunting firearms. Automatic refers to the firing mechanism. The terms semi, full, double-action, and single action are all terms used to define the trigger mechanism. I told you the operational difference between the two.
@JRserver As far as the nukes thing, you really seem to have gotten your shorts is a tight knot. Fact is, if an American civilian were able to get his hands on a nuke, there are about a dozen terror organizations that already have one, and your dreaded vigilante who loses his mind when he touches a firearm would be the least of your worries.
@patsfanczar Yes, how great would it be if we could kill ourselves AND our enemies at the same time?! The world would be a much safer place than it already is with us being capable of wiping out all life on Earth 7 to 12 times over.
@JRserver Have you heard of something called the cold war? Seems there are a lot of lessons you could learn from it. Dates you should look at range from 1948 to 1985.
@patsfanczar Yeah, no add individuals owning nuclear weapons, and it might not have ended QUITE so peacefully. (Seriously, that comparions is among the top ten most idiotic I've EVER heard; I feel like directing you to that scene from "Billy Madison" with the judges very harsh judgement.)
@JRserver The legal ability does not mean anything in the world is possible. However, I'm done with this issue: nukes cost millions and are closely guarded by every government that has them, virtually impossible to get anyway you put it. Throw this issue away, what we are arguing about is the ability to own firearms.
@JRserver Back on topic (plz just forget about the nukes), now you were arguing in favor of a total ban on firearms that load their own chambers with the help of forces from a round of ammunition. Now why are you so afraid of these auto-loaders that this fear needs a ban to subside?
@JRserver An automatic is more likely to give friendly fire than anything else? You can't even give me a case where a responsible carrier accidentally overshot and hit a guy who is toting a gun that he supposedly wasn't supposed to have in the first place.
@JRserver Murphy's law is hardly a law of physics and the universe, and by the logic of that law, the world would be gone. Murphy's law is hardly a reason to ban concealed or open carry. You still need to explain to me how an auto chamber loader is more likely to give friendly fire than any other sort of action (I don't mean full auto, most full auto guns are far to large to practically carry everywhere, and even machine pistols are bulky, and are rather uncommon).
@patsfanczar The type of gun being used is irrelevant to it's potential to cause friendly fire if everyone is packing, but a firearm that can spray HUNDREDS of bullets in a matter of seconds certainly carries a far greater danger of this than one that can't
@JRserver The only firearm I can think of that shoots hundreds of rounds each second is an entirely experimental and unconventional arm by the name of metal storm, and it is a little big to carry everywhere. You, again, are misconstruing the idea of automatic that I defined for you. Practical full auto arms which you seem to be describing are non-existent: all are far to bulky to carry, open or concealed.
@patsfanczar But you argue that we should be allow to own any kind of weapon, up to and including nuclear; ergo, you support owning and carrying such weapons as these. Is that an accurate assessment?
@JRserver I don't necessarily support the ownership of a nuclear weapon, but the constitution says a ban on such is prohibited; it would be impossible to acquire as an individual anyway. However, I support the exercise of the right to bear arms with the ownership of as many firearms as one can get, including full-auto firearms.
@patsfanczar You support full auto ownership because the Constitution doesn't specify which weapons are ok to own, I do not because it's morally insane, that is the difference between us.
@JRserver The constitution specifies what arms are legal to own, you just can't face the fact that by saying "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" it specifies arms, which are ANY and ALL arms available. Might I refer you to Federalist paper #46 by one of the founders, James Madison, to define what the constitution writers' intent was?
@patsfanczar "The constitution specifies what arms are legal to own, you just can't face the fact that by saying "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" it specifies arms, which are ANY and ALL arms available." Uh, no
@JRserver Uh, no means nothing to me. When I say firearms, what do I mean? Any firearm. When I say auto what do I mean? Any auto. Arms means arms, it specifies it as exactly as it needs to, or does it have to name every single make and model in your mind?
@patsfanczar Any when I say, "You're fucking wrong", what does that mean? You're fucking wrong; don't try to argue Constitutional law with a Political Science major.
@JRserver "Political Science" is the art of telling lies to get people to vote for you, LAW is what the constitution is, and the constitution is a specific as it needs to be. When I say animal, do I mean any animal? Of course. When I say city, do I mean any city? Duh. Arms means ANY and ALL arms.
@JRserver The second is general for a reason. It speaks generally of arms not out of mistake, but because the writers wished to allow arms in general. Now you speak of "a violent overthrow of the government" (which is a revolution, you can save yourself some characters in the comment by using the proper word) being a bad thing. The second was written into the constitution to allow that to happen in the event it would be truly necessary.
@patsfanczar And is it truly necessasry because the government actually IS tyrannical, or because you just don't like Obama's health care plan; that ain't tyranny, that's democracy.
And just ask yourself this: do you REALLY, TRULY, INH YOUR HEART OF HEARTS BELIEVE that the founding fathers wouls have been ok with citizens owning fully automatic and nuclear weapons, if they knew then what we know now?
@JRserver Right, especially since more than half of the united states did not want that plan. Tyrrany is when the government controls the people, and we are there. The first arms that have firepower similar to a fully automatic (though not technically a fully automatic) were being experimented with BEFORE the days of the founders. Yes, I am talking about the puckle repeater, and though it was impractically expensive and didn't work well, it had firepower.
@patsfanczar "more than half of the united states did not want that plan."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!! Oh, thank you, I haven't laughed like that in MONTHS!!! That's what Fox "News" would have you believe; I can pull up ten polls showing two thirds of the general public and 70% of DOCTORS saying they support the public option.
@JRserver I see, and where are these polls? The polls I saw had nearly all doctors (some 90%) opposed to the plan and over 70% of Americans. Forget that, though, this is a gun debate.
@patsfanczar Uh, yeah it was; the only place you could possibly find polls showing most citizens/doctors oppose the public option is fox, who, btw, are known to show polls that add up to 120%
@JRserver Stuck on the automatic issue? The founders intended that the people be BETTER armed than the government (federalist #46), and there was plenty of weaponry back then that had considerable firepower (remember that the founders never made a law controlling field or naval artillery), and people could see where firearms where going.
@JRserver That is yet another of your opinions that you seem to base as fact. By the way, I do have 0 credibiligy (whatever that is), but considering I know more gun owners than you do, I know more about guns than you do, and I know more facts and quotes than you do, I believe my opinion would be higher on an outside neutral person's influence than yours.
@JRserver A correctyl? Is that related to a pterodactyl? LOL. Anyway, you don't, I know well over two dozen gun owners and even more who advocate gun ownership, all of whom are quite friendly and polite. I actually have yet to meet a gun owner that isn't only not impolite, but that isn't totally friendly.
I said I know two dozen, and these are just the ones I know best. Forget the ones that I have just met and are completely friendly and probably better educated than you. As I said, two out of your dozen friends are illegally owning their firearms, as nobody who has been busted for possession of a controlled substance nor somebody who attempted to take his own life may legally own a firearm (see brady bill). As for Mr. Revolution, he is right, and trusting the government is always fatal.
@patsfanczar I never said they were illegally owning firearms, I said one attempted suicide and one nearly overdosed on coke, but he was not busted and hasn't done coke since. I don't think either of them SHOULD owe their guns, but that doesn't change the fact that they bought them legally, proving that "law abiding citizens" are not inherently safe to leave firearms with.
And as for Mrt. Revolution, uh, no he's not right, and out of the three of them, he's the LAST one who should own a gun.
@JRserver They clearly aren't as law abiding as you think if they overdose on coke. You are far to trusting of the government, no government is deserving of trust.
@JRserver "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so."
-Adolph Hitler
So there it is, the experts say that gun bans DO WORK.
You think that a disorganized, untrained mass of people that happen to have guns are going to single handedly bring down the Third Reich, who have far more advanced firearms, not to mention a standing army, tanks, aerial bombing capabilities, and sidearms that can be converted to be fully automatic (which I'm sure you're all for, btw)?
@patsfanczar Additionally, when a responsible gun owner decides to become the next Nidal Malik Hassan, his ability to kill is significantly hampered by his lower caliber firearms.
@JRserver Hassan was not a responsible gun owner, he was in the military and issued with a gun, carried it in a "gun free zone", and in the name of islam went around shooting at guys that had all the skill to stop him if they were allowed to carry their firearms.
@JRserver He didn't have one, he was open carrying as an officer (Major, if I am not mistaken) on base where soldiers always have to check firearms into the armory (which is stupid, if you can't trust your soldiers with a gun, who can you trust at all?). Fact is, without this gun free zone, Hassan might have thought twice before tying to take his love of allah out on the soldiers under him if every soldier was at least carrying the standard issue M9.
@patsfanczar When the Columbine shooting happened, how did it end? When Virginia Tech, happened, how did that end? When, the gunmen of mass shootings commit suicide at the end, that tends to deflate the argument that they give a damn about what happens to them at that point.
At, of course, there's still the danger of friendly fire if everyone, without restriction, is packing at all times.
@JRserver There is not ONE case you can give where a carrier using his or her firearm ended up killing someone who would be a victim anyway. You argument might hold some air if it actually was a common occurrence, but it isn't. Why? People who carry, train. Training prevents FF.
@patsfanczar Again, Murphy's Law - Because it has NOT happened does not mean it CANNOT happen. If training prevented friendly fire, then I guess the info in the recent Wikileaks leak isn't worth jacksquat, right?
@JRserver Once again, the law does not revolve around murphy's law. Banning and arresting because it COULD happen in a very unlikely scenario is hogwash and you know it.
@patsfanczar I've never propsed arresting anyone on what they MIGHT do, and you cannot point to a single instance where I did. But, of course, you ignore the basic laws of logic that firearms cannot be carried en masse without incurring collateral damage based on your narrow (and inaccurate) reading of the Constitution.
@JRserver You have proposed arresting on what might happen, quite inadvertently, by advocating strict control on firearms. People *might* overshoot and kill a bystander, so we should arrest those who carry. Someone *might* commit a crime so he should not have a gun and if he does he should be arrested.
@patsfanczar I never said we should arrest those with carry permits, I said we should outlaw CCW because there are too many "What ifs" for it to be considered a safe means of deterring crime.
@JRserver Life is a what if. You think that it works to ban on the basis of a what if. This has been proven a mistake. The "what if a burglar comes in and robs my hole-in-the-wall business" is much more likely (especially when arms are not carried) than your one "what if someone stupidly overshoots and hits a stupid person that is standing up in the way quite stupidly". There are what if scenarios in everything, and banning on one unlikely one is full of holes.
@patsfanczar Uh, no it's not. People die every year from people firing straight up into the sky. And BTW, if someone, your words, "stupidly overshoots and hits a stupid person that is standing up in the way quite stupidly", should said shooter be reprimanded in anyway for taking an innocent life while they were trying to be a hero.
@JRserver You do realize that the mythbusters themselves busted that lie? Anyway, it usually isn't a responsible gun owner, most of the time it is those gang banging felons that by law are not allowed guns. You know what? People would get reprimanded for being stupid if they make a mistake while trying to hard to be the hero. It is called involuntary manslaughter (or negligent homicide), that would be the punishment given if a case like civilian FF were true.
@JRserver You seem to be getting this picture that when a gunman holds up a busy place where there are people with lots of arms (which doesn't happen because crooks don't go where there might be people that fight back) that everyone instantly draws and fires, ENTIRELY oblivious to what is beyond the target. This doesn't happen even with one person. Carriers train, owners are safe. Your argument calls upon an entirely hypothetical scenario that just doesn't happen.
@patsfanczar If I assume that you have not been in such a life or death scenario with firearms, and I can only assume you have not as you have given no indication of this, I have to ask what, pray tell, you are basing this assumption (and, barring any first hand experience you may or may not have in this arena, it IS an assumption) on that this is how gunfights go down?
@JRserver I have never experienced a case like this, never wish to, never plan to. I, however, do know by experience that toters are well trained and well versed. I know by fact that your dreaded case of everyone overshooting and creating their own massacre is a myth that has not happened. For one, not everyone carries. For two, I know that I would have heard of it happening. You can't ban based on what MIGHT, in an astronomically unlikely chance, happen.
@patsfanczar When it comes to guns in public, OH YES I CAN base my fears on what COULD happen, and that's exactly my point, that we DON'T KNOW what would happen if everyone nad their brother were packing heat in public and a gun fight went down; when it comes to guns and the general public, "We might be able to stop the gunmen without incurring collateral damamge, but I don't know for sure" doesn't cut it for me.
@JRserver The fact is that is hasn't happened. It is an empty case that I can guarantee would not happen. Why? As I said, ALL carriers are well trained, and people naturally would run or get under cover, which would even further reduce the chance of a carrier missing and hitting someone. Civilization could survive a million years and your case would never happen. Anyway, areas that allow conceal carry have lower overall crime rates than those that don't.
@patsfanczar Soldiers are also well-trained marksmen, yet as the Wikileaks info reveals, we've incurred significant friendly fire in Afghanistan. Your argument that training equals perfect firing ability with no chance of collateral damamge simply holds no water whatsoever.
I love Sarah palin now.we have so much in common
videosbythe5 2 weeks ago
Holy shit Sarah Palin made sense.
mhoyer01 2 months ago
All good citizens has the right to protect themselves from the any danger that they might encounter.
blam7 4 months ago
semi auto full auto pistol knife dosnt matter i think mre ppl should have guns because if 1 idiot trid to rob a bank 15 others would take him down
DomTheRulerOfUndead 5 months ago
I'll say it, if it was Obama Vs. Palin in 2012, I'd vote for Palin. It might be a specticle, but at least I doubt she'll sell our country to China!
MavHunter20XX 6 months ago
she's right.
nitewolf89 9 months ago
I tell ya, they will never get my fully automatic belt-fed multi-barreled machine gun, Never. Muhuhuhahahahahaha haha, ah uh hold on, I don't really have one of those. But I really want one.
TimothyJay1 10 months ago
God shes trying to say she grew up around firearms? Has anyone seen the hunting video?
Falconscott100 1 year ago
The most stupid woman I've ever seen. Maybe she's laughing at Gabrielle Giffords.
oterrivelivan 1 year ago
@oterrivelivan I agree. The people that support gun rights are probably the most stupid people in the world
HardikG121 1 year ago
...did she just say something smart?...wow...i mean i would never have liked her before, but thats a good take on the issue. shes still pretty stupid, but she just said that she'll protect the second amendment.
pr0sn1p3r45 1 year ago
Assult rifles and machine guns are alreay illegal. An assualt weapon is select fire and a machine gun fires rifle rounds full auto. A sub-machine gun fires pistol rounds full auto. A semi-automatic is a gun that fires one shot per triggerpull without haveing to rack a bolt or action. The only guns that are not semi-auto are bolt actions, pump actions, and lever actions. I don't think revolvers are technically semi-auto.
bigbenusa45 1 year ago
@bigbenusa45 Don't worry, they'll somehow write it where revolvers will be concidered semi-auto.
MavHunter20XX 6 months ago
FYI semi-auto means one shot per trigger pull not full auto or burst fire. Most guns are semi-auto. Glocks, 1911s, and Berretas are semi-auto. Most people don't know what semi-auto, assult weapon, or machine gun means. All three are differant types of guns.
bigbenusa45 1 year ago
@bigbenusa45 I couldn't have said it better myself. I don't think that 70% of people know what a semi-automatic is. I think when they heard the "loaded" (pardon the pun) word "assault weapon" they will instinctively picture a fully automatic belt-fed machinegun. The media certainly doesn't help by misleading the public either.
drj90210 1 year ago
@bigbenusa45 Even w/ the semi-auto rifle there are different classifications, and also w/in auto-loading pistols, revolvers. You can't put a lable on firearms to be self inclusive. Each firearm is disigned with a specific aspect in mind.
That for all you idiots out there that think it's guns make criminals, they'll just go to the next best thing, knifes and blunt objects. But that's stupid to think they'll go to knifes when they'll have guns regardles, no matter how you legislate.
MavHunter20XX 6 months ago
Sorry to burst your bubble hardikg121 but they will never be able to get the guns off the streets. Any machinist can build you an illegal AK-47 that is select fire unlike the legal semi-auto AK you can get at your local gun store. All they need are the blue prints which you can get for free off the internet.
bigbenusa45 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
more power to her!
drum192192 1 year ago
I can't believe I agree with this lunatic!
hhhyr55l 1 year ago
70%??? That's a lie! There can't be THAT many dumb f...s out there.
AntonScream 1 year ago
@AntonScream On the other hand, there are 30% morons that believe that semi-automatic weapons should be allowed.
HardikG121 1 year ago
@HardikG121 By all due respect - victims of mass-murderers like Harris and Klebold don't give a sh...t what they were shot with. Son of Sam used a revolver. A regular six-shooter, and that did the job. Don't get me wrong; I personally wouldn't buy a semi-auto. But a government gets elected to serve, not to restrict. You hire a worker to do a job, not to let him tell you how to live.
AntonScream 1 year ago
@AntonScream Sure, but I'm being a pragmatist here. I feel that the government gets elected to protect, along with to serve. As part of that protection, I feel that the they should reduce these weapons that cause harm to our society. I'm not in favor of getting rid of the right to bear arms alltogether. However, I feel that strong background checks and restrictions are needed on guns. I don't think its right to make it so easy to aquire a gun.
HardikG121 1 year ago
@HardikG121 You seem to be a nice person and you got a point. To be honest, I am a christian, so i don't want someone get shot anyway. I'd love it to be so easy - forbid this, and no ones brains will be bashed out anymore.
But the reality is different. it's bad guys who shall be restricted, it is bullets that shall restrict their existense, and it is ANY kind of weapon the citizen is comfortable with he shall use for that purpose.
AntonScream 1 year ago
@HardikG121
background checks and waiting periods are a good thing but other than that no
wootfortoot 1 year ago
@HardikG121 A Glock on my hip, a Remington 700, and a AK-47 in my trunk are all I need for protection. Gun control provides a false sence of security, and I feel owning a gun is better then having a false sence of security. No law will ever disarm criminals and anyone can get a gun illegaly even in countries like mexico and england with extremly tough gun guntrol. BTW the goverment is not required by law to prtect you, legally the police don't have to help you as the suprem court ruled.
bigbenusa45 1 year ago
@AntonScream Furthermore, what do we as citizens need semi-automatic weapons for anyway? For hunting? When was the last time someone needed an assault-rifle to hunt? I think that by restricting dangerous weapons from the public would make this country safer. BTW, I respect your effort to voice your opinions.
HardikG121 1 year ago
@HardikG121 Again, I'd prefer shooting dead targets. Unfortunately the bad guys always know the way to get an illegal automatic weapon. iy is not a problem to them. If law abiding citizens are restricted to be AS POWERFUL as the bad guys, they'll always have less chances to prevail.
AntonScream 1 year ago
@HardikG121
the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting or even self defense
wootfortoot 1 year ago
@HardikG121 The LA Riots. Legally owned semi-automatic rifles including AK-47s were very useful and effective. They were used to protect innocent people from murder and bussinesses from looting and damage thus protecting livelyhoods as well as life. Semi-Autos are very important for the security of this free state. Semi auto rifles are great anti-riot guns. FYI All handguns that are not revolvers or single shot are semi-auto.
bigbenusa45 1 year ago
@bigbenusa45 Thats true, but semi automatic weapons were also used to KILL innocent people as well
HardikG121 1 year ago
@HardikG121 Murder is illegal and so are machine guns which BTW are not semi automatics. Yet people still commit murder and are still able to buy illegal machine guns.
bigbenusa45 1 year ago
@HardikG121 jpfoDOTorg/filegen-n-z2/ngj-download-view.php
bigbenusa45 1 year ago
@HardikG121 Gun-control advocates look at guns only as a means to harm others even though they are more often used to prevent injury. According to a 1995 study entitled “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun” by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, published by the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology at Northwestern University School of Law, law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year.
bigbenusa45 1 year ago
@HardikG121 That means that firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to shoot with criminal intent. Of these defensive shootings, more than 200,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse. About half a million times a year, a citizen carrying a gun away from home uses it in self-defense.
bigbenusa45 1 year ago
@HardikG121 Again, according to Kleck amd Gertz, “Citizens shoot and kill more criminals than police do every year [2,819 times versus 303].” Moreover, as George Will pointed out in an article entitled “Are We a Nation of Cowards?” in the November 15, 1993, issue of Newsweek, while police have an error rate of 11 percent when it comes to the accidental shooting of innocent civilians, the armed citizens’ error rate is only 2 percent, making them five times safer than police.
bigbenusa45 1 year ago
@HardikG121 Those studies and others indicate that often the mere sight of a firearm discourages an attacker. Criminologist John Lott from the University of Florida found that 98 percent of the time when people use guns defensively, simply brandishing a firearm is sufficient to cause a criminal to break off an attack. Lott also found that in less than 2 percent of the cases is the gun fired, and three-fourths of those are warning shots.
bigbenusa45 1 year ago
@HardikG121 The police can't protect us. They are there to enforce laws and to arrest criminals after they commit a crime. But they arn't are personal bodyguards. So I have to protect myself and my family with my own gun.
bigbenusa45 1 year ago
@HardikG121 Why do you think banning guns is a good idea? It won't work. Weed and crack are avilible despite being banned. Building an AK-47 from scratch is something any machinist can do.
bigbenusa45 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HardikG121t You said "here are 30% morons that believe that semi-automatic weapons should be allowed" You are the moron. Do you even know what semi-auto means? Of course you don't, most antigun biggots don't.
bigbenusa45 1 year ago
70% of people seriously think semi automatic assault weapons should be banned?
xmanhockey7 1 year ago
@xmanhockey7 70% of people are dumb ass hell too.
pred123424 1 year ago
@pred123424 Or ABC is pulling that number out of their ass. I would like to see Palin in Nugent in office together just to see the different gun bills that might be able to get passed.
xmanhockey7 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sarah Palin, I completely agree.
monkeydude3987 1 year ago
ABC made up statistics. 70% against gun ownership-my ass.
flabeachcomber 1 year ago
@flabeachcomber
Aw....mathematically challenged. What else is new.
Take this for instance: Sarah Palin's Alaska receives the highest in per capita federal money than any other state in our nation.
How's that fakey/BS-ey right-wing thing workin' out for ya. Keepin' ya poor? You betcha!
jbugko 1 year ago
@jbugko No worse than Obama care. Alaska is doing better than most of the other states. She must have done something right.
flabeachcomber 1 year ago
lets just take away corvettes vipers, ferraris and other fast "race cars" driving fast kills people too, oh and while we are at it lets ban teh sale of table salt and sugar in grocery stores because all those things kill more people than guns do, whats next government gonna start telling restaurants how many calories we can have in our food, oh wait they already do
EstevanL 1 year ago
This is the only intelligent thing this woman has ever said and the only thing she and I will ever agree on.
nutnfancyfan01 1 year ago
She may be stupid, but she understands the 2nd amendment.
And uh... "70 percent of the country wants a ban on assault weapons?".
Last time I checked, the United States has an extremely high rate of gun ownership... I call bullshit on that stat.
smartbomb33 1 year ago
@smartbomb33 They probably polled like 10 selected people to come up with that 70%.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
Do you really think that all of those murders bein committed are bein committed by people who would have obeyed the law anyway?
As a matter of fact, I do, Sarah. Case in point: Fort Hood gunman Nidal Malik Hassan, concealed carry permit holder and, up until November 5, 2009, a "law-abiding citizen" and a "responsible gun owner".
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver ...and shooting in a gun restricted area. Weird, thought those laws were supposed to have worked.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
see guys, shes got it right.
annasajerk 1 year ago
"Do you think that gun violence is caused by people who would have followed any law anyway?"
Sarah, my sweet, simple (emphasis on simple) Sarah, let me explain a few things to you:
1.) By the logic of your question, I could claim that the laws against murder, theft, rape,etc. are useless and should be repealed because people who want to kill each other don't obey them.
2.) Governor Palin, I'd like to introduce you to Nidal Malik Hassn, concealed carry permit holder/former "law abiding citizen".
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver You can't defend yourself with a rape or a theft, and it isn't written into the constitution that you can rape, steal, or murder either.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar Nor is it written that you can carry guns anywhere you go either. Nor is it written to you can carry GUNS where you want, or even own them, it says you can keep and bear ARMS. By your logic, people should be able to own RPG's, hand grenades, bazzokas, and be able to cover their lawns with landmines.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver YAY, WELCOME TO LEARNING THE CONSTITUTION WITH PATSFANCAR. Today, we will talk about the SECOND amendment!
*Ahem*
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Now what does this mean? It means that there should be a militia of the people to protect the people from the government. Now it says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...
patsfanczar 1 year ago
... Note the word INFRINGED, what it means, and the fact that there is a SHALL NOT before it. Arms means anything that can be used as such. What this part is saying is that the people may have ANY ARM THEY CHOOSE. People were INTENDED by the founders to be BETTER armed than the military. This is the only part of the constitution where such specific pieces of property are defended. So yes, it is legal to own ROCKETS, GUNS, and I would go even as far as to say NUCLEAR BOMBS.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar "People were INTENDED by the founders to be BETTER armed than the military."
Uh, no they weren't, otherwise the American people would BE the military. At the time of the Second Amendments writing, the United States did not have the standing army that we have today, so it was reasonable to expect that the population would serve as a militia. Now is quite different, my friend, and following your logic, Tim McVeigh, once a law-abiding citizen, should have had acess to RPG's and nukes
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver The military is a government entity. The idea was to make sure that the country they had just founded was not going to become like the country they had just defeated. Rights are protected not by the constitution, but by the guns of the people themselves. All the constitution does is outline our government. McVeigh was not law abiding, even before he blew up a bunch of innocent people with a bomb that the law said he wasn't supposed to even have made.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar
On the topic of what protects rights - "The pen is mightier than the sword". The civil rights movement, women's sufferage, Ghandhi's defeat of the British empire, Nelson Mandela's defeat of apartheid, all accomplished without a single bullet being fired.
On the topic of McVeigh - He had no ciminal record prior to Oklahoma City, and was even awarded a bronze star during his military service. Perhaps former law abiding citizen Nidal Malik Hassan would be more to your liking.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver Wrong, McVeigh was involved in the Waco shootout, and he made a bomb at home that, again he shouldn't have had. You also need to look at what DIDN'T happen without guns: the fall of communism in Europe and the fall of the Nazi Regime. In both those areas, gun control was what happened first, and it took an outside power to end it. The Revolution did not happen without shots fired (and started with attempted gun confiscation).
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar "he made a bomb at home that, again he shouldn't have had."
I though you said weshould be able to own anything up to and including weapons grade plutonium. By your logic, McVeigh was well within his rights.
Comparing American Revolution guns to modern firearms is like comparing a water pistol to a firehose. And the notion that a disorganized, untrained citizenry even with guns is going to take down the likes of the Nazi's is something I take with a big grain of salt.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver By the laws your anti-second friends, of course. Unless you would like for me to break every law I believe breaks the second.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@JRserver You don't even understand my logic. When McVeigh used a HOME MADE BOMB to kill innocent people, he was well out of his rights.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@JRserver AS far as armed militiamen taking down the Nazis, everybody took the idea that the colonials could take down the British Empire (that the sun used to never set on) with a rather large grain of salt as well. An armed militia protects rights, the end. This is what the founders experienced and knew well. You could take a lesson from them.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar The revolutionaries WERE soldiers, not random people who shoot static paper targets on the weekends that don't fire back.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver Um, are you aware that the revolutionaries were CIVILIANS, not a full on military? They were weekend trainers who tried in all their might to avoid a bloody revolution, but it came down to it, and they won.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar Um, are you aware that you could get off three shots a minute in 1776, if you were GOOD?
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver LOL, I know this, I have shot black powder and confirmed this. What is that supposed to mean for your argument?
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar Oh, nothing, just that firearms of the 18th century had about one one-thousandth the destructive capacity that they do today, and as such, any comparison of modern firearms with Revolution era firearms isn't apples and oranges, it's apples and posion ivy.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver Flintlock was the state of the art in revolutionary America. They didn't force Americans to go back to matchlock or crossbows because it "WUZ DANGEROUS!!!!!" As well, people weren't limited from the use of new repeating firearms with the advent of the affordable Colt cap-and-ball revolvers. Why? People understood the constitution, and that the people should be better armed than the government.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar "Flintlock was the state of the art in revolutionary America." That's about the only time in the histroy of the world anyone has every described 18th century firearms, which had so-so accuracy, took nearly a minute to reload, and were very prone to misfire, as "state-of-the-art". In any case, their effectiveness at the time does not change the fact that one could only shoot one target at a time with them, in addition to their aforementioned flaws.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver That was the state of the art. You don't even know the definition of that term, LOL. You think state-of-the-art means that something has to be perfect. It really is hard to debate with someone as naive as you. You don't understand anything but control of another person's life, and you are denying reality.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar And you apparantly don't seem to realize that ballistic weapons have evolved ASTRONOMICALLY since 1776.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver You don't seem to understand firearms at all, or the fact that that is an entirely moot point. What the constitution says is what the constitution says.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar Two points:
A.) The constitution "says" nothing about handgun ownership or concealed carry much less RPG's, land mines, and nuclear weapons, and I'd certainly be hard pressed to find any convincing indicator that the Founding Fathers would have intended for anyone to own any of those.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver It says you can own ANY arm you wish. ARM means ARM, whether you like it or not, and whether you think the founders intended it or not (which they did intend for it to be any arm, or they would have been more specific).
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar You HONETSLY believe that the Founding Fathers, if they knew then what we know now about firearms technology, would let you own fully automatic weapons? Oh, who am I kidding, you think you're contistutionally entitled to own nuclear weapons.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver A) nukes are expensive, well guarded, and just overall unreachable for anyone anyway. You have never read many of their quotes I see, Jefferson thought a revolution every 20 years would be healthy for the maintenance of freedom.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-Alexander Hamilton
You will find more of this in my description on my channel page.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar Look at the Second Amendment itself: what comes before the phrase "keep and bear arms" and "free state" - WELL REGULATED
It doesn't matter whether or not you can afford nukes, the fact that you feel you have a right to own them makes you dangerously unsuited to own any kind of weapon, as anyone who posits such a belief, and REALLY TRULY BELIEVES IT, is clearly criminally insane.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver I think you are tyrant then because you want to take my arms, as ALL tyrants have done. It seems insane only from your radical point of view (note two opinion terms there). Well regulated talks about the militia. It is saying that because there must be a military to defend america, the people must have arms to defend themselves. I call it as I see it, and the constitution demands it.
"Every Communist must grasp the truth, political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
Mao-Tse-tung
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar Whatever, you think you have a rgiht to own anything without restricion or oversight, and reality dictates otherwise, and because of that, you fundamentally can NOT be trusted with a firearm.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver LOL, you think your view on sanity counts? You don't think anybody should own any firearm at all, so what does this fake sanity assessment on George Washington and company mean? Government restriction leads to more government restriction which ultimately results in tyranny. No country that has ever gone down this path has ended well. Gun control is about control, not safety.
Such an appropriate quote now:
"When only cops have guns, it's called a "police state."
-Claire Wolfe
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar No, I don't think that EVERYONE should be barred from ownership of non-automatic firearms, but because of your perspective on what you believe you should be permitted own, I think you should be, because anyone who thinks that there is no cut off within the 2nd Amendment and that their ownership permissibilty goes up to and includes nuclear weapons, is NOT someone that society at large should be giving a gun to.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver You think I am insane because of the way I interpret the constitution? You yourself said that arms are arms, and that nuclear devices are among those. George W. and friends thought that the people should be able to own any arm, and they did have some rather powerful weaponry back then.
What is ths? Non-automatic? Seriously? For what purpose is it then that you see people are fit to own firearms, since you don't like the idea of an action that can cycle under internal forces?
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar People can own guns for defense against a home invader, I'm not against that. The notion of us needing an arsenal as a deterrent against governement tyranny is a double edged sword to me, since anyone with the slightest problems with a current President's legislative agenda can just plug that in to justify going crazy with guns (see health care reform.)
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver People have had guns, but there hasn't been a rebellion since the civil war, even though there has been a lot to piss people off. Again, gun owners see the use of their guns as a last resort. You say you are pro-allowing people to defend themselves from a home invader (make my day laws), but you are anti-automatic firearms.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar "You say you are pro-allowing people to defend themselves from a home invader (make my day laws), but you are anti-automatic firearms."
Dude, you have such a firm grasp on the obvious!!! You know, I'm also against people driving their cars on sidewalks and thorugh malls, do you think that makes me anti-vehicular homicide?
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver When one says "automatic firearms" the term means any firearms that can automatically load its own chamber using forces from the shot. It does not have to be "full auto" to do this. "Semi auto" just means that there is a little capture sear (usually, this is the primary way it is done in a rifle, handguns use different methods to do the same job) in the trigger mechanism that keeps the hammer from moving after it is re-cocked.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar Whatever. You don't need, nor should you have, automatic firearms.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver Didn't I tell you that it is written in the constitution that we MUST be armed, and that it is for the purpose of keeping the government in check? Additionally, almost all handguns (the only practical self-defense firearm) are automatic, excepting the fading double action revolver. People hunt with automatics, I use an automatic shotgun for pheasant hunting. I don't see why you need something in order to have it. After all, you don't NEED a lot of things you HAVE.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar Uh, no
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver What do you mean "uh, no." You liberals are all geniuses in your own minds, at least it appears that way. You take your opinion as fact to support another of your own opinions. By the way, when I say that the second amendment technically says we can privately own nukes, I mean we can own any nuke we could afford to buy on the free market, which is void of nukes at the moment. I never meant that our own government had to supply us with nukes.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar The "uh no" means that semi-automatics are NOT automatics, and you seem to be utterly ignoring the fact that I'm completely against people owning automatics. As far as nuclear weapons go, I'll try again: it doesn't matter to me how you purchase them, you nor anyone else should own them. PERIOD.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver Who is the one here who has a page almost completely dedicated to firearms? Thought so. Automatic mean automatic loading of the chamber, which is common among handguns used for self defense and hunting firearms. Automatic refers to the firing mechanism. The terms semi, full, double-action, and single action are all terms used to define the trigger mechanism. I told you the operational difference between the two.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar Ergo, if it's automatic, you shouldn't have it.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver So you are afraid of my Semi-auto shotgun? Don't worry, it's actually completely harmless.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@JRserver As far as the nukes thing, you really seem to have gotten your shorts is a tight knot. Fact is, if an American civilian were able to get his hands on a nuke, there are about a dozen terror organizations that already have one, and your dreaded vigilante who loses his mind when he touches a firearm would be the least of your worries.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar Yes, how great would it be if we could kill ourselves AND our enemies at the same time?! The world would be a much safer place than it already is with us being capable of wiping out all life on Earth 7 to 12 times over.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver Have you heard of something called the cold war? Seems there are a lot of lessons you could learn from it. Dates you should look at range from 1948 to 1985.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar Yeah, no add individuals owning nuclear weapons, and it might not have ended QUITE so peacefully. (Seriously, that comparions is among the top ten most idiotic I've EVER heard; I feel like directing you to that scene from "Billy Madison" with the judges very harsh judgement.)
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver The legal ability does not mean anything in the world is possible. However, I'm done with this issue: nukes cost millions and are closely guarded by every government that has them, virtually impossible to get anyway you put it. Throw this issue away, what we are arguing about is the ability to own firearms.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar You don't HAVE the legal ability to own nukes.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver Didn't I say that what we were debating was firearms? GOOD LORD, I never said people had the legal ability to own a nuclear device.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar Youuuuu.....kinda said they had the CONSTITUTIONAL right to.
Good day, sir
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver The constitution says that, I was only interpreting it for you. Again, where you gonna get a nuke even if it is legal.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar Where you get it is irrelevany; you have no right to and you were misinterpreting the Constitution.
Good day, sir
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver Back on topic (plz just forget about the nukes), now you were arguing in favor of a total ban on firearms that load their own chambers with the help of forces from a round of ammunition. Now why are you so afraid of these auto-loaders that this fear needs a ban to subside?
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar For the same reason I'm against conceald carry: friendly fire, only with an even more deadly weapon
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver An automatic is more likely to give friendly fire than anything else? You can't even give me a case where a responsible carrier accidentally overshot and hit a guy who is toting a gun that he supposedly wasn't supposed to have in the first place.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar Ever heard of Murphy's Law?
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver Murphy's law is hardly a law of physics and the universe, and by the logic of that law, the world would be gone. Murphy's law is hardly a reason to ban concealed or open carry. You still need to explain to me how an auto chamber loader is more likely to give friendly fire than any other sort of action (I don't mean full auto, most full auto guns are far to large to practically carry everywhere, and even machine pistols are bulky, and are rather uncommon).
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar The type of gun being used is irrelevant to it's potential to cause friendly fire if everyone is packing, but a firearm that can spray HUNDREDS of bullets in a matter of seconds certainly carries a far greater danger of this than one that can't
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver The only firearm I can think of that shoots hundreds of rounds each second is an entirely experimental and unconventional arm by the name of metal storm, and it is a little big to carry everywhere. You, again, are misconstruing the idea of automatic that I defined for you. Practical full auto arms which you seem to be describing are non-existent: all are far to bulky to carry, open or concealed.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar But you argue that we should be allow to own any kind of weapon, up to and including nuclear; ergo, you support owning and carrying such weapons as these. Is that an accurate assessment?
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver I don't necessarily support the ownership of a nuclear weapon, but the constitution says a ban on such is prohibited; it would be impossible to acquire as an individual anyway. However, I support the exercise of the right to bear arms with the ownership of as many firearms as one can get, including full-auto firearms.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar You support full auto ownership because the Constitution doesn't specify which weapons are ok to own, I do not because it's morally insane, that is the difference between us.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver The constitution specifies what arms are legal to own, you just can't face the fact that by saying "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" it specifies arms, which are ANY and ALL arms available. Might I refer you to Federalist paper #46 by one of the founders, James Madison, to define what the constitution writers' intent was?
patsfanczar 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@patsfanczar "The constitution specifies what arms are legal to own, you just can't face the fact that by saying "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" it specifies arms, which are ANY and ALL arms available." Uh, no
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver Uh, no means nothing to me. When I say firearms, what do I mean? Any firearm. When I say auto what do I mean? Any auto. Arms means arms, it specifies it as exactly as it needs to, or does it have to name every single make and model in your mind?
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar Any when I say, "You're fucking wrong", what does that mean? You're fucking wrong; don't try to argue Constitutional law with a Political Science major.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver "Political Science" is the art of telling lies to get people to vote for you, LAW is what the constitution is, and the constitution is a specific as it needs to be. When I say animal, do I mean any animal? Of course. When I say city, do I mean any city? Duh. Arms means ANY and ALL arms.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@patsfanczar I can tell you've never set foot in a college class room.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver The second is general for a reason. It speaks generally of arms not out of mistake, but because the writers wished to allow arms in general. Now you speak of "a violent overthrow of the government" (which is a revolution, you can save yourself some characters in the comment by using the proper word) being a bad thing. The second was written into the constitution to allow that to happen in the event it would be truly necessary.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar And is it truly necessasry because the government actually IS tyrannical, or because you just don't like Obama's health care plan; that ain't tyranny, that's democracy.
And just ask yourself this: do you REALLY, TRULY, INH YOUR HEART OF HEARTS BELIEVE that the founding fathers wouls have been ok with citizens owning fully automatic and nuclear weapons, if they knew then what we know now?
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver Right, especially since more than half of the united states did not want that plan. Tyrrany is when the government controls the people, and we are there. The first arms that have firepower similar to a fully automatic (though not technically a fully automatic) were being experimented with BEFORE the days of the founders. Yes, I am talking about the puckle repeater, and though it was impractically expensive and didn't work well, it had firepower.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar "more than half of the united states did not want that plan."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!! Oh, thank you, I haven't laughed like that in MONTHS!!! That's what Fox "News" would have you believe; I can pull up ten polls showing two thirds of the general public and 70% of DOCTORS saying they support the public option.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver I see, and where are these polls? The polls I saw had nearly all doctors (some 90%) opposed to the plan and over 70% of Americans. Forget that, though, this is a gun debate.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar Fox News polls don't count.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver And your CNN polls do? Besides, it wasn't a fox poll.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar Uh, yeah it was; the only place you could possibly find polls showing most citizens/doctors oppose the public option is fox, who, btw, are known to show polls that add up to 120%
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver Stuck on the automatic issue? The founders intended that the people be BETTER armed than the government (federalist #46), and there was plenty of weaponry back then that had considerable firepower (remember that the founders never made a law controlling field or naval artillery), and people could see where firearms where going.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar dude, you have ZERO credibiligy on this issue, since you believe you have the Constitutional right to own nuclear weapons.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver That is yet another of your opinions that you seem to base as fact. By the way, I do have 0 credibiligy (whatever that is), but considering I know more gun owners than you do, I know more about guns than you do, and I know more facts and quotes than you do, I believe my opinion would be higher on an outside neutral person's influence than yours.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar No, you and I know an equal # of gun owners, and your opinion isn't worth jack squat unlessit's grounded in facts, which yours is not.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver You follow me to find out how many gun owners I know? You stalker, I want my gun now.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar If I remember correctyl, You brought up the "I know more gun owners than you do" argument.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver A correctyl? Is that related to a pterodactyl? LOL. Anyway, you don't, I know well over two dozen gun owners and even more who advocate gun ownership, all of whom are quite friendly and polite. I actually have yet to meet a gun owner that isn't only not impolite, but that isn't totally friendly.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar "I actually have yet to meet a gun owner that isn't only not impolite, but that isn't totally friendly."
Then you clearly don't know anyone outside of the dozen or so gun owners you already know, and that makes for a pretty pathetic sample size.
JRserver 1 year ago
I said I know two dozen, and these are just the ones I know best. Forget the ones that I have just met and are completely friendly and probably better educated than you. As I said, two out of your dozen friends are illegally owning their firearms, as nobody who has been busted for possession of a controlled substance nor somebody who attempted to take his own life may legally own a firearm (see brady bill). As for Mr. Revolution, he is right, and trusting the government is always fatal.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar I never said they were illegally owning firearms, I said one attempted suicide and one nearly overdosed on coke, but he was not busted and hasn't done coke since. I don't think either of them SHOULD owe their guns, but that doesn't change the fact that they bought them legally, proving that "law abiding citizens" are not inherently safe to leave firearms with.
And as for Mrt. Revolution, uh, no he's not right, and out of the three of them, he's the LAST one who should own a gun.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver They clearly aren't as law abiding as you think if they overdose on coke. You are far to trusting of the government, no government is deserving of trust.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar I'm alot less trusting of the insane, like, um, you
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so."
-Adolph Hitler
So there it is, the experts say that gun bans DO WORK.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar Let me get this straight:
You think that a disorganized, untrained mass of people that happen to have guns are going to single handedly bring down the Third Reich, who have far more advanced firearms, not to mention a standing army, tanks, aerial bombing capabilities, and sidearms that can be converted to be fully automatic (which I'm sure you're all for, btw)?
Good luck and Godspeed
JRserver 1 year ago
@patsfanczar Additionally, when a responsible gun owner decides to become the next Nidal Malik Hassan, his ability to kill is significantly hampered by his lower caliber firearms.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver Hassan was not a responsible gun owner, he was in the military and issued with a gun, carried it in a "gun free zone", and in the name of islam went around shooting at guys that had all the skill to stop him if they were allowed to carry their firearms.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar He was UP UNTIL the Ft. Hood shooting; how else did he get a CCW?
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver He didn't have one, he was open carrying as an officer (Major, if I am not mistaken) on base where soldiers always have to check firearms into the armory (which is stupid, if you can't trust your soldiers with a gun, who can you trust at all?). Fact is, without this gun free zone, Hassan might have thought twice before tying to take his love of allah out on the soldiers under him if every soldier was at least carrying the standard issue M9.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar When the Columbine shooting happened, how did it end? When Virginia Tech, happened, how did that end? When, the gunmen of mass shootings commit suicide at the end, that tends to deflate the argument that they give a damn about what happens to them at that point.
At, of course, there's still the danger of friendly fire if everyone, without restriction, is packing at all times.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver There is not ONE case you can give where a carrier using his or her firearm ended up killing someone who would be a victim anyway. You argument might hold some air if it actually was a common occurrence, but it isn't. Why? People who carry, train. Training prevents FF.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar Again, Murphy's Law - Because it has NOT happened does not mean it CANNOT happen. If training prevented friendly fire, then I guess the info in the recent Wikileaks leak isn't worth jacksquat, right?
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver Once again, the law does not revolve around murphy's law. Banning and arresting because it COULD happen in a very unlikely scenario is hogwash and you know it.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar I've never propsed arresting anyone on what they MIGHT do, and you cannot point to a single instance where I did. But, of course, you ignore the basic laws of logic that firearms cannot be carried en masse without incurring collateral damage based on your narrow (and inaccurate) reading of the Constitution.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver You have proposed arresting on what might happen, quite inadvertently, by advocating strict control on firearms. People *might* overshoot and kill a bystander, so we should arrest those who carry. Someone *might* commit a crime so he should not have a gun and if he does he should be arrested.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar I never said we should arrest those with carry permits, I said we should outlaw CCW because there are too many "What ifs" for it to be considered a safe means of deterring crime.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver Which would essentially mean that when someone carries, you will arrest them for what MIGHT happen.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar It CCW every becomes outlawed, pretty much.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver Life is a what if. You think that it works to ban on the basis of a what if. This has been proven a mistake. The "what if a burglar comes in and robs my hole-in-the-wall business" is much more likely (especially when arms are not carried) than your one "what if someone stupidly overshoots and hits a stupid person that is standing up in the way quite stupidly". There are what if scenarios in everything, and banning on one unlikely one is full of holes.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@patsfanczar Uh, no it's not. People die every year from people firing straight up into the sky. And BTW, if someone, your words, "stupidly overshoots and hits a stupid person that is standing up in the way quite stupidly", should said shooter be reprimanded in anyway for taking an innocent life while they were trying to be a hero.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver You do realize that the mythbusters themselves busted that lie? Anyway, it usually isn't a responsible gun owner, most of the time it is those gang banging felons that by law are not allowed guns. You know what? People would get reprimanded for being stupid if they make a mistake while trying to hard to be the hero. It is called involuntary manslaughter (or negligent homicide), that would be the punishment given if a case like civilian FF were true.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar Busted what myth? I've never watched that show.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver You seem to be getting this picture that when a gunman holds up a busy place where there are people with lots of arms (which doesn't happen because crooks don't go where there might be people that fight back) that everyone instantly draws and fires, ENTIRELY oblivious to what is beyond the target. This doesn't happen even with one person. Carriers train, owners are safe. Your argument calls upon an entirely hypothetical scenario that just doesn't happen.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar If I assume that you have not been in such a life or death scenario with firearms, and I can only assume you have not as you have given no indication of this, I have to ask what, pray tell, you are basing this assumption (and, barring any first hand experience you may or may not have in this arena, it IS an assumption) on that this is how gunfights go down?
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver I have never experienced a case like this, never wish to, never plan to. I, however, do know by experience that toters are well trained and well versed. I know by fact that your dreaded case of everyone overshooting and creating their own massacre is a myth that has not happened. For one, not everyone carries. For two, I know that I would have heard of it happening. You can't ban based on what MIGHT, in an astronomically unlikely chance, happen.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar When it comes to guns in public, OH YES I CAN base my fears on what COULD happen, and that's exactly my point, that we DON'T KNOW what would happen if everyone nad their brother were packing heat in public and a gun fight went down; when it comes to guns and the general public, "We might be able to stop the gunmen without incurring collateral damamge, but I don't know for sure" doesn't cut it for me.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver The fact is that is hasn't happened. It is an empty case that I can guarantee would not happen. Why? As I said, ALL carriers are well trained, and people naturally would run or get under cover, which would even further reduce the chance of a carrier missing and hitting someone. Civilization could survive a million years and your case would never happen. Anyway, areas that allow conceal carry have lower overall crime rates than those that don't.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar Soldiers are also well-trained marksmen, yet as the Wikileaks info reveals, we've incurred significant friendly fire in Afghanistan. Your argument that training equals perfect firing ability with no chance of collateral damamge simply holds no water whatsoever.
JRserver 1 year ago