NH: Virginia Tech Rant (guns, disarmament, gun control)

[TheKentuckykid9513]

Two weeks before the massacre a student was found to have a pistol on him concealed

[Stink808]

The man in the multi colored shirt was wrong and should have been confronted on it. Virginia might allow open carry but I am pretty damn sure that the college campus of VT doesn't so his arguement is worthless and false.

[BruceH59]

Good deal so much better then the crying Marxist liberals nonsense at most colleges.

[Rockholm66]

Great video!

[ArcanineTheFurry]

I carry my pistol encase of another VT. Enough BS gun control laws

[BIGSKYHAL50]

Nice to see this occuring at a university.

[Anothercoilgun]

YES!!!!

[xkjdhdglksh]

I LOVE the "brought to you by"'s Riddley, you Rule.

Riddley Rules!

[knightstalker1369]

I wonder if the good honest dead students voted for obama?

[Taors]

Good speech. Loved the reply from Craig T. Nelson.

[TehS4rge]

The Government wouldnt use US military to take our firearms or to quell a Coup. The UN would gladly provide troops. And of course they would be killed. I wouldnt fire on US Citizens but I would fire on UN troops regardless of what country they are from. Regardless of what anti gun people may want there are far to many gun owners who would rather die than give up the 2nd Amendment rights granted to us. I am but one soldier that would stand beside other gun owners and fight to the death

[jackbelias]

wouldnt use US military to take our firearms

Most of us would never comply. We took an oath to defend the constitution and our way of life, not pop culture Obamamania. Give me such orders and youll find yourselves armed with M249s, M240s, M2s, aromored vehicles, etc...

UN troops would gladly kill everyone who dared to disagree or speak out, that you are right about.

[conspiracy777]

You're not breaking the law if the law is unconstitutional ... SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED means ... SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, Impeded, restricted, constrained. It is the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The word BEAR in this context means CARRY. If a police officer wants to take your weapon, just ask if he/she intends to infringe on your right to keep and bear that arm. The second amendment IS YOUR PERMIT TO CARRY !!!!!

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

[deathmarch5]

You hit the nail on the head . You know that the federal gov by culling the states after we gave the federal gov power. Ok next issue is thatabsolutely it never said weather the man or woman may carry a firearm or when or where or what type. The laws that differ from state to state are policies. If that wasnt the case that all states in the union would have to comply together equally. But it apears that each state that recives more fed dollars has a stricter policy reguarding gun control.

[fczwartek]

It seems that the problem in the case of the Virgina tech shooter is;

A societal fixation and glorification of guns coupled with a mentality that "guns will solve your problems." There's no question that hollywood is a mass purveyor of this psychology.

and

A system that allows people who are psychotic and/or mentally unstable to purchase extreme firepower over the internet.

The answer to all your problem....just a click away.

[klaptongroovemaster]

Have you ever bought a gun? Internet sales require all the same background checks that gun store purchases do.

Face to face private sales are the ones that do not require background checks (in some states).

And of course, this particular nutjob got his gun WITH a background check. So fat lotta good it did.

And of course there's the obvious truth that criminals don't bother following gun control laws.

But I'm sure you've heard those obvious, common sense arguments before.

[fczwartek]

A non-citizen with a history of psychosis who was determined by a judge to be "an imminent danger to himself or others" (two years before he bought the guns used in the shooting), and who had been investigated for harassing female students, did legally purchase guns over the internet and passed all the necessary background checks.

You think it would be an improvement to society if it was made even easier for such a person to purchase guns?

[klaptongroovemaster]

I believe that if we had NO infringements whatsoever on the right to keep and bear arms, and we could somehow undo the sheepish reliance on government to protect us in favor of self-reliance, we would be MUCH better off.

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away!

If nearly every SANE person in society was armed, nutjobs like this wouldn't get more than a shot or two off before someone would take them out.

[fczwartek]

So anyone that is bat-shit crazy iinsane inherently has a right to bear firearms, and if they blow someone away the blame lies with the dead because they didn't have the foresight to carry a gun?

Why stop there. "No infringement whatsoever" means just that! Let the insane arm themselves with nukes too. No infringements now!

An arms race between private citizens!!! Weapons manufacturers are going to blow their loads when you propose your idea to them.

[klaptongroovemaster]

It's not my idea, and it's nothing new. The words "shall not be infringed" were written a couple hundred years ago.

I believe that self-defense is an unalienable human right, just as much as freedom of speech, religion, or due process of law.

The rights of others can be infringed by due process of law, however. So if someone has been found to be "bat-shit crazy iinsane" by a jury of their peers, then their right can be infringed.

But certainly NOT just because you are SKEERED of guns.

[fczwartek]

So I take it you're a one man well regulated militia then?

A militia of one. Sounds like a familiar marketing slogan I have heard before.......

Why is the clause about the well regulated militia always neglected? I mean, I know libertarians believe in self reliance and all. 

Isn't the 2nd amendment more about civic duty than individual self reliance?

[klaptongroovemaster]

The militia is every male between 18 and 45 years of age, with the exception of conscientious objectors.

You do realize that the first battle of the War of Independence was precipitated by government troops marching to Concord to seize the arms of the CIVILIAN militia, which included CANNON? This was fresh in our founders' minds when they penned those words.

[fczwartek]

The colonial militia was not a private army. Certainly not like Blackwater (Xe?) is today. They were not mercenaries or hired guns, but private citizens who came to the defense of their communities, maybe even at the expense of their own private property.

They did not come to the call individual self reliance, but to the call of civic duty. Thus the well regulated militia clause of the 2nd amendment.

I agree that was fresh in the minds of the writers of the constitution.

[klaptongroovemaster]

Of course they weren't mercenaries. They were citizens.  And it was expected that all citizens would be armed for both personal and common defense. And if they had high quality weapons, so much the better.

But as soon as some tragedy like this happens, the statist idiots want to start crying about "assault weapons" (as if they even knew what that meant) and basically pushing for a society where the only criminals with guns are the ones in uniform.

Precisely what 2A was to defend against.

[fczwartek]

You do realize that the United States citizenry is already the most heavily armed, by far, in the world. Something like 1/3 of all guns in the world owned by just 5% of the population.

There are about 90 guns for every 100 people in the USA. According to your logic the USA should already be the safest place on the planet.

But since its not even close to that, your prescription is "more firepower."

Einstein's definition of insanity.......

[klaptongroovemaster]

And where are the highest concentrations of guns per capita? Montana. Which also happens to have the lowest crime rater per capita.

Now compare that to the per-capita crime rates of some of our urban areas that have draconian gun control laws.

But by all means, you go live in DC, NYC, or Chigago and have the police protect you. We take care of ourselves, and it works a whole lot better.

[fczwartek]

Vermont, Maine, NH, Connecticut, and Rhode Island all have lower per capita rates of violent crime than Montana.

Even liberal gun restricting Massachusetts has a lower rate of total crimes per capita than Montana.

So first of all your statistics are bogus.

Nearly all the 15 million people who live in New England live in the urban "draconian" areas.

While you're busy doing comparisons, why not compare violent crime rates in the USA with that in "draconian" Europe too, or Canada even.

[klaptongroovemaster]

Then by all means, go live in one of those places, and let Big Brother take care of you. I'll take care of myself, thanks.

[fczwartek]

I'm against all forms of fascism. totalitarianism, and authoritarianism just like you are. I just think our methods differ.

On that I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[klaptongroovemaster]

And when the authoritarian, totalitarian fascists are the only ones allowed to have guns? What will you do then? Vote? ROFL. Fat lotta good that's doing us right now. Over 90% of the citizen feedback to congress on TARP was a big fat NO, and what did they do?

Taxation without representation is here - right here, right now. I'm not advocating violent overthrow. But if they start the bloodshed, it will be on their own heads.

[fczwartek]

Guns will not overthrow tyranny that is armed with nuclear warheads.

[klaptongroovemaster]

So... You think if there was another Revolution in America that the Feds would use nukes?!?!

That's just silly.

They have ample advantage with conventional weaponry, they won't kill themselves along with us.

Hopefully the mission and message of OathKeepers will spread, and our military simply won't follow any orders to kill our own.

[fczwartek]

Nukes? I agree that would be unlikely.

A single nuke? Yes probably if they think things are truly getting beyond their control.

A nuclear detonation would be accompanied by the usual propaganda that it is actually "saving lives."

A single low yield tactical neutron bomb would do the job. Everyone would fall in like pretty quickly after that.

You make a good point about conventional weaponry. A nuclear scenario is really only valid if overwhelming conventional force us unsuccessful.

[Warpath2198]

@fczwartek you give the military too much credit. Nuking your own citizens is not part of LOAC and it is an unlawful order. You kiddies really are in fantasy land. The govt. would be steam rolled long before some crazy politician decided that a nuke would solve things lol.

[fczwartek]

@Warpath2198

"it is an unlawful order"

.

So? Practically every single war, mission, operation, occupation, coup, invasion, overthrow that the US military has been involved with over the last 60 years has been unlawful. You really think they are going to let themselves be constrained by laws. ...talk about fantasy land.

.

Anyway, the whole scenario was a worst case hypothetical. But my original point is valid; taking up arms against the gvmnt is suicide.

[Warpath2198]

@fczwartek I can tell you are one of these people who try to twist things around but you don't know much about people and warfare. You are comparing troops being sent overseas to fight what they believe to be an enemy, to mass killing your own people? Sorry but it is much easier to kill people different then you like say other nations and races. Also an armed population that is dertetmined to win will always defeat what the percieve as a tyranny.

[fczwartek]

@Warpath2198

So you believe that the military won't kill you when you take up arms against the gvmnt, due to the simple fact that you believe yourself to be their "own people"?

.

I'm sure you're quite knowledgeable about the military and all that .. but where is there any historical precedent for that happening?

.

Anyway ... you're deluded to think that you're their "own people." Forget about race ... you're not part of the ruling CLASS.

[Warpath2198]

@fczwartek check out when the Soviets went under in 1991. They had tanks in the streets and citizens were jumping on them and attacking the tank crews and troops and they were offering no resistance. China Tiananmen Square that lone video whwere the tank is going around the student protester while the protester keeps getting front of it. Why didn't he not just run him over? There have been plenty of coup's lead by the military for thousands of years.

[fczwartek]

@Warpath2198

The Chinese killed an unknown number of "their own" at Tiananmen ... probably several thousand students. The one dude who didn't get run over was lucky.

.

The Soviet Union had been falling apart for a decade ... Gorbachev set the table for a non-violent hand off of power- which is largely what occurred- through democratization programs like perestroika and glastnost. The 1991 coup was a last ditch attempt by a hardline communist faction to take back power from Gorbachev.

[ski2exs]

@Warpath2198 EXACTLY. . .no one wants to attack their own people . . .especially when those people are not representing a direct threat. I don't care what their nationality, race or creed.

[Warpath2198]

@fczwartek Rome when Caesar removed the corrupt Senate his soldiers were not from a ruling class and they followed him. They knew the Senate was corrupt and oppressing the people. Caesar did not mass kill citizens as Sulla did years before him. Two military leaders who took power both took different paths towards the citizens.

[Warpath2198]

@fczwartek In Nazi Germany the military did not like Hitler. Hitler had to create his Waufen SS loyal to him and the Hitler youth program. Look at Germany near the end of WWI where their monarchy was removed by the military and attempted to turn it into a democracy until the rise of Hitler in 1927.

[Warpath2198]

@fczwartek In the USA the military is made up of mostly the middle class and people from poverty. Most of them are conservatives. Most military members do not like the officer corp and do not like politicians. So it really quite laughable to see someone like Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi come to power and just be able to will troops into killing their own people.

[ski2exs]

@fczwartek Being prior Army. . . .I agree with Warpath here. You may have a few freako's and some officers. . .but it won't take long to weed them out. Anyone who thinks the US Government can issue an order to the US armed forces to attack US civilians en mass and then honestly believes that they will do it is quite frankly very naive.

[fczwartek]

@ski2exs

This whole discussion is based on a futuristic hypothetical "what-if" scenario ... it would take a series of catastrophic failures of modern civilization before we got anywhere remotely near a place where that hypothetical beings to turn into reality.

.

That being said ... if the powers that be ever felt like their authority was threatened they absolutely would use violence to destroy the threat ... even if that meant waging war on american civilians. It is naive to believe otherwise.

[ski2exs]

@fczwartek Whatever gets you to sleep man. . . again. . .coming from PRIOR SERVICE. . . .it'll never happen. It will be the complete downfall of US government itself. They know this. . .this being the primary reason it will never happen.

[fczwartek]

@ski2exs

Since when do grunt soldiers have the authority, leverage or autonomy to question or disobey orders? They don't. At least not without severe consequences.

.

Yeah, some soldiers occasionally object to illegal orders or refuse to deploy for illegal wars ... but the vast majority do what they are told and were trained for .... unquestioningly.

.

All it would take was for the to gvmnt brainwash its soldiers to believe that even their fellow citizens were "terrorists" and the "enemy."

[ski2exs]

@fczwartek Wow. . . so. . .you honestly think all of us Officers are (were) like the Borg??

Oh ye of little faith.

[fczwartek]

@ski2exs

Listen ... I'm not here to pass any kind of judgement on your character or anything like that.

.

All I'm saying is that gvmnts have used military power to keep their "own people" in line countless times throughout history. It certainly has happened here too.

.

I just think its short sighted to believe that for some reason it can't possibly happen here again. I think your faith is unfounded.

[blue46gt]

What are you talking about? Its happened plenty of times.

[fczwartek]

What are you talking about? What has happened plenty of times?

If you are referring to a successful violent rebellion against a state armed with nuclear weapons...... I can't think of a single time that that has occurred. Maybe the closest thing was a military coup in Pakistan (which was nonviolent.)

In the case of the downfall of the Soviet Union that was probably the greatest example of a non violent revolution the world has ever seen. No guns needed.

So what are you talking about?

[Warpath2198]

@fczwartek Its kinda hard to wage a war when your soldiers are going AWOL due to lack of payment.

[Elephantintheroom01]

lets hope it doesnt try.

[tj5555555]

reason along with witt. tj

[BagOfEyebrows]

I wish we'd stayed longer to see Soap Box Idol - that was awesome!

[Weapon01]

I wonder how Cho (the V-tech killer) would've responded to a 5 or 15 students armed with M1's (Thompson, Carbines, pistols, shotguns... tanks) during that day.

Probably could've went better.

[GunOwnerDan]

Virginia Tech = Gun-Free Zone!

Killers love unarmed victims.

[Forgoten214]

Good point I defiantly agree.