...I think it is a straw man - And perhaps it's a very American thing..a misconstrual I think - but their belief is that they are expressing a right to protect themselves from the 'government' - IF that government became 'tyranny'... the hunting is gloss. They truly believe the difference between living in the US as a free man and a Soviet hell is rednecks with guns.
Ah, nice gun. The Damascus effect on the alloy is caused by the small percentage of vanadium, which was only proved to be true very recently. By actual experiment. Much casting. Much acid etching. We have guns for game control, which is what we use them for. We have a rabbit problem. And I'm not kidding. They are a pain. As to insurgency.
We, in the UK, would lose unless something really strange happened,like a plague. Mass death, etc.
A few hundred characters isn't going to cover it, but essentially the IRA had to surrender, its ability to continue was totally compromised, but the UK govt had to make sure it kept Ireland and dissident republicans happy enough that they'd support joint rule. Effectively the IRA gave up and the unionists won
Your argument has too many assumptions, for one, you assume that a gun used on another human is used out of passion. Your argument assumes no nesscessity, sure no one started a revolution because of a Patriot Act, but things change, circumstances change, you never know when you would have to use it, thats why you have it, you acknowledge the tyranny in Democracy so you would have to understand if one day, tyrants go to far, then yes you would have to use it.
You sir are a disgraced to your country. People like you cowl down and bow to your government, let me tell you something ya british pansy, We WILL NEVER PERMIT A NORTH AMERICAN union, you can take your European union and shove it up your ass, We Are the United State of Amerca and we are a SOVERIEGN REPUBLIC, The new revolution is near. Join the fight or get the fuck out of the way Brit.
my question is, at what point does a crazy old man waiting for the gun showdown in the streets get sick of waiting like the frustrated vulture said to the other vulture and says, "fuck it, lets kill something"...
at what point does being ready for this type of end game turn into hoping for it? no one likes to be wrong.
I agree that the gun is for the sole purpose of killing people. However, that does not mean that fakesagen means to use it for that purpose at any point. It means that it is better to have and not need than to need and not have.
100-150 rounds with a range of 2 miles? Somebody get this guy the stats on a Kalashnikov stat! I applaud your owning firearms in what I consider a police state, that being said who are you to decide what someone needs vs just wants? You have no place to pass on that judgement. Personally I own several semi automatic pistols, a combat shotgun, a long range hunting rifle, and an ar-15. Do I need them? Probably not, would I like to be caught with my pants around my ankles... no.
well if i have to take the life of some one to protect my life thab so be it, but i have killed deer and turkey with an sks with is about the same as a ak. and we (us) can not have a fully auto gun eather. no one thought that the americans could kick great brits ass but we did
A lot of people do not have guns for hunting, we have them for self protection. If someone threatens your life or the life of someone you love or to rape you, what is wrong with being able to shoot them in order to stop that rather than call the police and be dead/raped/hurt by the time they arrive?
BTW in England, gun crime and violent crime rates soared after the instiution of the gun ban. Why?
Because criminals (those who commit rape, murder, armed robbery etc) DO NOT FOLLOW THE LAW. You take away citizens guns and all you have is a country with well armed criminals and easy targets. Harvard did a study on this, search google for it, they found that gun control is counterproductive (also the name of the study) and there is a reason law enforcement officers in America overwhelmingly support the rights of citizens to bear arms.
I have lived in both America and London, and I was terrified in London. Everyone I know there has been at the very least mugged at some point (even in the poshest areas) and I knew that if someone broke into my home and attacked me there was nothing I could do.
I've lived in London for 30+ yrs and I've never been mugged, in fact my brother is the only person I know who's been beaten up. My house was broken into when I was kid but all they took was an Atari520 (minus its power cable for some reason) - so I've no idea why you'd be scared here
Because London is not a safe city ( I realize the oxymoron there). I lived in a good neighborhood in Belgravia and someone still broke into my bedroom window (luckily I was not there, because had I been there would be absolutely nothing I could have done).
Finally gerberakasbah if you really feel this strongly about it, make a video response to this, ' cause commenting like this is frickin close to spam, you're repeating yourself over and over here
I used to make videos quite frequently. I closed my account because I had a stalker who found my address, the addresses of my parent's and husband's family, threatened all of them, posted them all over the web, and took a video of himself driving by my house... My safety and the safety of my loved ones is more important than whether or not I make a video. That's what comments are for. It's only spam if you have nothing to say but ad hominems for the maker of the video.
How I choose to voice my opinions is my choice. If the video maker does not like my opinions, he can block me, that is his choice. I would never troll anyone or insult them randomly so I do not know why I should not be allowed to use comments.
This really isn't a very weildly medium, the comments sytems has never been great (although its a lot better tahn it was) and whilst you may not troll or spam, millions do:)
If you don't want to make a video, fair enough -feel free to message or email me (see my channel for an address) and I'd be happy to continue the discussion
Actually the "gun crime soared" thing is massivley overstated. There were less than 100 shootings in the UK as a whole last year, and we have a population of 60m, so the actual numbers, although higher than they were in 1994 when the ban came in (15yrs ago) they're statistically almost insignificant.
Okay, even if it did not "soar" it increased, what it did not do was decrease. And that's just gun crime. Violent crime is quite bad in the UK, especially in London. Far worse than it was before the ban.
There are now more guns in the USA than there are people. All the un-stereotypical Americans, like me, are being muted by the people like you, who think you need 10 guns.
Okay, if you are a staunch supporter of gun control. Why don't you go ahead and put a sign on your lawn (and a bumper sticker on your car for good measure) that reads: "I do not own a firearm." And see how long it takes for someone to take advantage of that.
Why dont you "un-stereotypical" people ever look at evidence. Denmark, Sweden and Holland have some of the harshest gun control in Western Europe, and shocker - they also have the highest crime rates. Except for the UK, whose violent and gun crime rates doubled after the gun ban was instituted. Not to mention within the US, DC's crime rates soared (while the rest of the country's dropped) following their gun ban (Source "Harvard Study: Gun Control is Counterproductive")
And I suppose that police in America are just too "stereotypical" for you too. Since the Law Enforcement Alliance of America states on their website: "We know, and research backs us up, an overwhelming majority of Americas rank-and-file cops support private ownership of firearms.
Thats because they know, better than most, that disarming honest citizens does nothing to reduce crime, but will deprive citizens of the means of defending themselves from violent predators."
There is a plethora of evidence from multiple sources and examples in this country and others that gun control only benefits criminals, put your simplistic partisan bs aside (I do, Im not a Republican) and look follow the EVIDENCE. Otherwise you are just a stereotype of an American: faith fueled and none too bright.
Sighhhhh. Another stupid attitude to have. First of all, no one is going to say "hmm ill go rob that person who is defenceless". The odds of the being cought robbing ANYONE are the same in my opinion, i could grab a knife just like you could grab a gun. You are preparing for the stuff that wont happen. In some neighborhoods, you need a gun. But in your house? Fuck no.
I provided you with studies, quotes from official law enforcement sites, figures and stats... you respond with opinion and conjecture and yet somehow maintain the assumption that mine is the stupid attitude to have? Okay...
btw "no one is going to say, hmm I'll go rob that person who is defenseless"??? What world do you live in? It certainly isn't the real one.
Check the comments again, that one you are referring to and all the ones following it were my response to you. I used a Harvard study which you can easily google. I used a quote from the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, again you can verify that with a search. I used examples from various countries and cities. I provided EVIDENCE. You have none to provide, because there is no instance in which gun control has halted or slowed down (or done anything but increase) violent crime.
Okay, apparently Harvard scientists and police officers to you are "idiots" when it comes to crime. What makes you more qualified to form an opinion which is not backed by any fact?
I personally do not like weapons of any kind. If we lived in a utopia in which criminals magically had no guns (which gun control will never achieve, just like the war on drugs will never get rid of all drugs) and people did not rape, steal, kill and harm others... I would happily surrender all my weapons.
I never thought about the message deeply, but I know the t-shirt and think it is an amusing message. But don't know if dogmatic Christians feel hurt by this. I also don't know if there is a deeper message, but I think it is just for fun.
It is just for fun, and frankly anyone that gets upset about it needs to grow up. So far the only problem I've had was a Muslim guy in the gym - but even he saw the funny side
Americans like to think this is 1880 and we dont live in a society. Somehow we are totally disconnected from one another. I think this is an expression of a pervasive spiritual sickness in this country. Theres no going back folks only forward, freedom isnt being able to do whatever you want no matter how it impacts your fellow Americans. Freedom is a state of mind, and sensible rules arent necessarily in opposition to freedom.
Ummm....deer in Scotland live on hillsides with no natural predators. The numbers have to be controlled or they destroy the habitat, so the government shoots the older and weaker animals to keep the herds healthy and the numbers down. End of. I went stalking to help with the process and to see why people enjoy it. Turns out I didn't.
Every mofo totting guns in YT should shoot his head off. If one have a constitutional right to plug a turkey in one's ass, it doesn't mean on should, right.
While you may not think that an armed insurgency by Americans against our own forces could ever possibly be fought and won, I tend to disagree. Small guerrilla units, working in concert, could, and probably would, infiltrate and capture stateside bases, assassinate our corrupt leaders, and seize control of the government. None f this would be possible without access to firearms. Yes government is large, but the populace is larger, and many many people here are getting fed up.
The AK in the hands of the honest American gun owner will save lives should our Govt' start human extermination camps. this has happened in the near past in Europe and we can not let it happen in the USA.
What do the military or police forces use guns for? Why should they have guns? They're just normal people dressed up in costume. I don't see why they should get guns if nobody else can get them.
Guns will always be around, get the fuck over it. If you want the thugs, whether in government or no, to have a monopoly on weaponry, good for you. More power to you when you get crushed in any attempted rebellion, ye bunch of tepid fucks.
That's g0od to know! It would be a bad deal for the everyday citizen if law enforcement was made up entirely of "the law is the law" Nuremburg type thinkers (or non-thinkers as it were). But then, those types are more like true brownshirts than actual cops.
Fakesagan's AMD-65 isn't technically a true assault rifle. It's a semi-auto-only sporter version. But the original select-fire AMD-65 (a Hungarian tanker's rifle) is a true assault rifle (select-fire, intermediate caliber). Typically, intermediate calibers aren't ideal for big game but are useful against medium game. Only things I've ever killed with my guns are paint cans and beer bottles. XD
If a sizable chunk of US population were forced to go to war against it's own government, the government wouldn't last a week, perhaps a month, to be kind.
It'd make the Iraq insurgency look utterly ridiculous.
I suppose that the only reason I should reply is to expose your idiocy, though, it is readily apparent.
First, democracy isn't the opposite of communism. Second, they're not dichotomous, that is there are many other alternatives.
One being the actual form of governance in the US, which is a Republic.
Final thought: It's fine to be wrong, all of us are once in a while. However, don't pronounce your stupidity for all to see. Just shut up when you don't know what to say.
eh, look at iraq, an insurgency is doing pretty well against the modern u.s. military given the circumstances, now if it was the population that supports, funds, and supplys that army that was fighting you than have a insurgency to fight and establish supply lines and industry
That's a wonderfully good point. You don't need a massive army if you're fighting an assymetric war. You just need to make the enemy question the cost of imposing whatever action they want to. Now, imagine instead of mulisms in a foreign country willing to die for an american policy, imagine people within the actual united states. Even weakling armed civillians have a large degree of political power if they have the coresponding political will.
not that draconian???? gun INSPECTIONS?? you brits are fucking crazy. we are all conditioned by the public schools, but my god our brothers in britian have lost it.
Sorry but nothing but fail. In the USA we really dont care if someone in the UK likes our gun laws. We have the absolute right to own a gun for the purpose of protection from others and the government. Its the very reason we are no longer subjects of the crown. The crown tried to confiscate private guns and that sparked off the first shots of our revolution. Your nation proved why we should have this right. We wont give it up.
But we have a constitution here that is in place for a reason. They have the choice not to use the right but they cant take the right from those who want to use it. You bring up hunting. Hunting is irrelevent as its not what our right to bear arms is about. We have a specific right to have a gun thats main purpose is to kill people. Its what made us free. Your laws are why you are still a subject and not a citizen.
Crossis - clearly you misunderstand the nature of constitutional monarchies. They still rule by the will of parliament, not the other way around. Parliament is entirely elected, and I am very much a citizen. I don't need to own a weapon to have rights, and neither do you.
Laying the victory of the second world war into just one nations hands is disrespectful and incorrect. It took more than one nations efforts to end the war. Russia may have handed Germany some major defeats but so did the allies both on the scientific and the battle fields.
Although I disagree with your faith in the 'democratic' process, I agree that armed insurgency never acheives any lasting positive change at all.
BTW, I thought that the police can refuse you a shotgun license if they believe that you cannot secure it from theft adequately. I'm guessing that you live in the countryside. I doubt that you would find it easy to get a shotgun license if you lived in a flat in an urban area with a high burgalry rate and you had no security measures.
"I agree that armed insurgency never achieves any lasting positive change at all"
I believe it was that same "armed insurgency" against Great Britain, that precipitated the formation of the United States. Which I also believe is now one of the most powerful nations on the planet. Of course with world opinion, and some of us Americans opinions, being what they are, that change may not seem so positive. But it has been long lasting, and will probably continue. Due in large part to firearms.
I disagree that armed national liberation/anti-colonialisation struggles do form any real change. One ruling class is replaced by another more local one. In the case of America, the 'revolutionaries' were little better than their colonial oppressors. They were basically an elite of slaveowners and landowners who revolted against British Emipre because of the heavy taxation imposed upon them. The fact that America has become the dominant imperial power is not what I mean by positive change.
The same could be said of modern African states which, like America, were formed by European colonisation and later 'liberated' from imperial control only to be controlled by another elite group of oppressors.
I daresay that the citizens of an early United States would not agree with your points, as indicated by surviving writings. All of which clearly indicate the joy of throwing off the yoke of an oppressive Great Britain. That my government has become even more oppressive than Britain's rule, is not in dispute. (At least not by me). The fact remains, it was positive for them at the time, and the change did seem good for several years. True change almost always comes through violence. Historically.
Prehaps the same could be said of the citizens of the early soviets in 1917 Russia, or wherevever a coup has taken place. In the case of America I doubt that 'revolution' really meant alot to the African slaves owned by the 'revolutionaries' or to the indiginous people. Sure, it is a positive change for the new ruling class as they have aquired power, but for the people at the bottom of that society it changes nothing.
Yes, I'm sure it could, but the resulting governments are what make all the difference. What I'm talking about are the freedoms of the ordinary citizen, and the resulting lack of, or imposition of, oppression. Of course slaves and the indigent populace will still be in the same boat. That was not the point. The point was that armed insurgency can be responsible for change. Whether it is good or bad, long lasting or fleeting, depends on what the people responsible do with that change.
kill a target at 5 miles away? Sorry, this guy has no clue what he's talking about. Being permitted to own a weapon free and clear and being required to register each individiaul weapon is not the same thing. The state having detailed knowledge of what you own is NOT the same thing as having the liberty to bare arms.
Clearly ethos I was exaggerating for effect - sweet jesus there's no need to be a retard (oh and the M107 will chuck a round just under 7km, or to put it another way not far off 5 miles)
And I agree - but I think the state has a responsibility to know where all weapons are at any given time so when one gets used to commit a crime the user can be punished appropriately.
I'd argue it nullifies the legal reasoning that allows you to own a gun, but not the actual reason i.e. if someone breaks into my house I'm going to blow them away
Yes, that was exactly my point Crosisborg. It nullifies the right to bear arms as defense from the state. Owning a means of self defense is not at least in the eyes of some, an undertaking exclusively for protection from other individuals.
You keep saying that a guy can't fight the government with an AK. I don't think anyone is making that claim.
The people always have the power to fight their government. We outnumber them by a great deal. Sure they have bombs and we don't, but now you're talking about the wholesale destruction of their own infrastructure.
If the people as a whole are armed and able to resist, then the government can only oppress the people so far. If we disarm ourselves, then we open the door for disaster.
Clearly I'm using the AK as a metaphor for the whole gun culture.
I think you assume that the people are going to follow a rising, but history shows that very few people ever actively resist their government, no matter what it does. The actual number of people in Russia who were active Bolsheviks in 1917 for example, was very small, perhaps a few thousand at most.
Furthermore you have written constitution that protects your rights in aggressively
Ironically AK is not iconically American in any way. The americans invented and propogated the Stoner designed AR15. The Americans do have an act outlawing usually automatic weapons, and if FS had a fully automatic one in his posession he'd have been very foolish to show it on youtube. Regardless you can see from the safety mechanism in his video it is not.
That's a very true statement, but is it not defeatist to then throw our arms up in the air and accept whatever bull the state passes?
The government has been using our constitution as toilet paper for many years, and I mean even before Bush. Bush just had a nastier ass than the rest. It can't protect us forever, because as a people we consistently fail to protect it.
I don't actually own a gun, but I do defend my right to. Had I a little more money, I'd grab a Kalashnikov too.
Just a side note America didnt save our asses in WW2 Germany was already losing when you guys decided to put your twinkies down and join in on the winning side.
In December 1941 (when the US entered the war), it was far from certain who was winning. But anyway, it was mostly thanks to the USSR that the war was won by the Allies.
I'm not opposed to the idea of disarmament of advanced weapons, but I feel as though you're coming at it from the wrong direction Tothemattresses.
I think the greater disaster is disarming private citizens first. In the quest for global disarmament, why not start with the militaries of the world and work your way down?
I believe the citizens should be last people giving up their means of defense. I didn't contract my personal defense to the government, but somehow they have it anyway.
Military powers r collective organisations that tend to curtail their own use, and where they don't they break down into individuals without a common goal (look at any African army you care to mention, aside from SA)
Beside which you wont stop, or even slow, a coup with a semi auto AK
Finally individuals kill other individuals irrationally and w/out mandate. They're far more dangerous than an army in a world where the last actual rising in the US was by John Brown in 1850 something
I'm never suprised with the british culture of submission to authority. I guess thats what happens when you refer to your government as "Her Majesty's Government". Even though the US system has become the new empire, we still have a vague notion of rule by the people however delusional it may be.
And I never cease to be amazed at the arrogance of people making claims like this when they clearly don't know their own, or anyone else's history. Where, exactly, did your constitution come from? And whilst we're at it do you understand what a constitutional monarchy is or did you take a guess? As for submission we're rather good at not doing that, America's record is patchy at best.
Oh, btw, if you want an Empire go for it. Just remember the price of hubris
Sorry I'm a libertarian socialist.. I actually despise my government. All states for that matter. The constitution came from a bunch of wealthy slave holders that created a government to protect the wealth of the minorty from the "tryanny" of the majority. It was based off of the british model.
This is the purpose of all states throughout history. As said by the british philosopher john locke " The great and chief end, therefore, of men's uniting into common-wealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property".
The government is there to protect the intrests of the owning class from the intrests of the producing class.
Im increasingly coming to the conclusion that Libertarian is another way of saying naïve teenager
Locke's point was that if you want protection from your neighbour or the big guy down the road you need a government to consistently apply a law agreed on by a majority of people (radical stuff at the time) Moreover he said that in exchange we have to pay taxes to maintain the system, but that these too had to be fair and equitable. It wasn't that all government was inherently wrong
there is a good deal of naivety in Libertarianism, that's the conclusion I am coming to as well. I've been looking into it quite a bit the last few months. Some of the ideas behind it are valid though. I hope we can implement some Libertarian ideals at some point.
I'm not a libertarian in the context of "free market capitalism/classical liberalism" I am however one in the context of emma goldman, bakunin, and even noam chomsky.
I don't don't think you understand my position. I oppose the concept of private exploitative property. The property system is what gives rise to the state. I advocate real democracy, direct democracy.. worker ownership of the means of production.
@napalm - no, I get where you're coming from. You're essentially a social anarchist. My comments stand.
I don't understand is the term "private exploitative property" given that you don't believe in collectivism. You could impose a rule that stops private ownership but who would enforce it in a land w/out a dictatorship? Workers ownership only works if all workers own the means of production equally or if the factors are replicated for evry worker which is, in pure resource terms, impossible.
hey, I had a 410 just like that. killed plenty of squirrels and rabbits with it, It was great for that. and fun to shoot trap with. shooting trap with a 410 will make a shooter of you. haha, cheers mate.
I doff my cap to you, because I doubt I could hit a thing with it. In any case it has reached retirment age and accumulated prodigious quantities of rust having spent nearly 30 years in my grandmothers attic un-used and unloved.
Actually it isn't as in the UK we have red and grey squirrels. The red ones have been nearly wiped out by the grey ones, who are classed as vermin and are thus shot on sight. None the less I agree with hominid - they do actually taste pretty good
Are you allowed to own hand guns? Can you get a permit to carry a concealed weapon? Is there a legal limit to the number of guns you can legally own? I'm just curious about gun laws in other countries.
No hand guns (following the Dunblaine Massacre in 1996) No concealed weapons rights at all (following the IRA) I can have as many shotguns as I want, or with a firearms licence I can own as many rifles as I want but have to show need.
Thank you. I am aware if the IRA (as much as any American, anyway), but have never heard of the Dunblaine Massacre (sorry, but in my defense, that was the year I graduated high school!!). I'll going to go research that now. Thank you again.
What about the zombie apocalypse? The persistent hoards of the undead will not wait for you to reload your shotgun, they want brains and they invited all their friends!
That's why you have more than one shotgun! Your good looking fmeale friend who you're intrested in but who's always seemed unavailable to you will reload whilst you shoot (before either being bitten herself and/or shagging you at the end of the crisis)
Now now, females are not to be put in a subservient reloading role. My wife wants her own gun and something sharp and/or fiery for stabbing and/or burning.
Sorry Kalin but one of you is going to get eaten in the first wave.......but if you must then teach her how to start and run a chainsaw....always good for a laught in cqb
Seriously, you dont live in America we have the second or third largest population in the world. Unfortunately we are so spread out across this country the police cannot respond in an appropriate time usually when someone is trying to do harm to you or your family. We live by the saying over here in our country. It is better to have it and not need it (gun) then to need it and not have it. Unless you are saying that you have developed an ability to predict crime?
I'm not sure how having a gun makes you safer - if you have a gun, so does everyone else including the criminals. Moreover if you start brandishing it around you'll wind up getting shot for certain. If you don't its possible you might get shot, but is far less likely. What you actually like is the false sense of saftey offered by owning one
What the hell are you talking about? So if I am understanding you correctly, criminals that have guns should keep them while law abiding citizens should be disarmed so when a criminal wants to break into your house and kill your family and take your shit you can yell at him and tell him how much of a jerk he is for robbing or killing your family? You have to understand we are 300 million strong here if not more. You are going to have bad people and disarming the good people helps how?
No I think everyone should be disarmed. Having 300m people and 1bn guns is a recipe for disasters. Having 300m people and, say, 1m guns, would make far more sense.
I'm not suggesting that this is an achieveable target, but I am saying that resricting what can be bought legally means you restrict all sales legal and otherwise in time. For example buying pistols in the UK is now virtually impossible but its taken 10 years to get there.
You live on an island basically, can you not see the difference in diversity? The canadians we dont worry about much but the mexicans not only are they good at mowing the grass they also know how to fire weapons. :) I know it would be nice to have a world without guns. Who gets to carry these 1million guns? Who is qualified on this planet to decide who are the responsible, mentally stable people that should carry these 1 million guns? Its part of our culture and its here to stay.
I'm not sure that living on an island is relevant, perhaps you could explain?
And I agree, it isn't realistic to simply say "There Shall Be No More Guns" - but you have to start by constricting supply and doing it in a sensible way, and dumping the emotional baggage of a war that's been over for 200+ years.
I should point out that I think you should be allowed to own guys just not keep them in your house or carry them concealed
Oh so you dont know why the 2nd amendment was written into the constitution? It was placed there because our founding fathers knew there would come a day when our government would abuse their power and use it for their own gains and not for the people they are suppose to represent. You wanna know how they knew this?I know you know this answer. I am not trying to insult you, I have never been to the UK but I would like visit someday. :) The real Question is what's your definition of happiness?
Poopy on your 1st point - the 2nd amendment simply won't help now. The govt knows everything about you and can deploy overwhelming force already. Your deluding yourself if you think otherwise. Moreover, they enshrined that law to give them some shred of moral superiority over thier enemy. It was window dressing for treason.
This isnt a response to this directly but Islam is a horrible religion (as well as the rest) but they are violent to you guys what do you think they would do to us? Haha, you guys help them, we do to but we are the cause of most of the damage. I think our interventions in the last 60 years have gotten a few of our buildings blown up not really much considering our history. I mean we dropped 2 nukes on the Japs. We have a lot of enemies and Im not personally ready to make a step like that :)
Poopy on your 2nd point - we dealt with the IRA, we've dealt with the Islamists fine so far too, bar 1 bomb. There's no point in turning Britain into an armed camp, it shows fear. And fear of what? A bunch of beared wonders who spout a lot of shit.
And if you want to talk about enemies we held 1/3 of the earth for the better part of two centuries; but we're fine because we're not afraid. Fundamentally the US needs to grow a pair and stop firing randomly into the dark
Excuse me? "grow a pair" Im sure you arent talking about the country that bombs first asks question later to grow a pair? Im sorry but you wouldnt even exist in your country if my great grandfather didnt come over there and save your arse. He was an Army Ranger in WW2 he just died in 2002. Grow a pair huh? Please I think you are drunk or just fucking stupid. Your country would have been destroyed without a bullet fired if we didnt come over there to help you. No food = No resistance GAME OVER
That's exactly the problem - you give in to your fear too easily and as a result are always reaching for weapons to protect yourselves against figments of your own imgaination. The odds of you actually being shot, for example, are tiny. Yet everyone wants a gun, which actually increases your overall chances of get shot. That's what I mean about growing a pair. I am not questioning the courage of the US in WWII - although we can discuss the price you charged and why it took you so long to come
What fear? figments of imagination? I like having one because they are fun to shoot and if i should ever need it. I will have it. There you go again talking out of your arse. How do you know the chances of me being shot? For someone that has never lived here you sure know a lot of things for fact. There are at least 1-3 homocides a week in just the area i live in. I live close to Chicago but im sure its daily there. Please dont begin to tell me what my country is like when you havent been here
Poopy I've been to the US quite a lot actually, although I've not been to Chicago. If you take the US disaster cetnre stats for violent crime, murder, rape, robbery, assault, buglary & larceny theft, add them together and then divide by the population you've still got a >4% of expereincing any of them in a given year. In fact its almost a statistical certainty it'll never happen to you in your life. Thats what I mean by fearing your imagination.
Well now that you see there is a small percentage chance of me getting shot. Then what the fuck was your point about owning guns in the US then? So that also debunks your 'fear' claim. We dont own weapons because we are American. All you have done in our arguement is show that even though we own guns there shouldnt be any concerns about us owning firearms? I made you go from showing how we shouldnt own them to showing that even though we own them they dont really affect violence? Thanks
I agree to a certain extent with the false sense of safety. But the same is true for any weapon. I don't think the firearm offers this but rather people take it upon themselves.
That being said, whether I lived in the US or the UK I would always want to have the option to carry. Removal of firearm ownership won't curtail firearms, it's impossible and the UK is a great example of this (especially following the handgun ban).
Also, are you only allowed to have break-action shotguns?
And now that I've seen the video: While I agree almost 100%... I can't help but *empathise* with fakey a little bit. While there is indeed no rationale to believe that any form of armed insurgency (well, *openly* armed insurgency) will ever be succesfull, the thought that guns should be restricted to state organs is a bit... unsettling.
Ummm...state power is, and always has been, so much stronger than an individual's power (and it has to be in order to stop nut jobs like you and I taking over) - all thats unsettling is the realisation that you're powerless without your vote and your right to protest. Hence you've got to defend these things
You should check out onlywhenprovoked's recent video. He points out the absurdity of confronting the state with such limited firepower as civilians have.
I worked 5 yrs for a company in Germany that aside from manufacturing high precision sports pistols (cal. .22-.45) also imported M1A's, de-militarised and sold them as semi-automatic "sport" rifles to the general public... that is public w/ the proper licenses. I have an opinion about guns/rifles and in 5 yrs w/ plenty of opportunities never pulled the trigger. However, I've seen the damage some of the buyers have done....
Now living in the U.S.... that's like night & day in regards to the mentality of the individual in regards to guns/owning guns. I think it comes "with the territory" which translates to history.
and lovely to hear from you m'lady. There is clearly a difference between the US and the EU on gun ownership. I can't help but wonder if this essentially is because Americans have always wanted to beleive that civil disobedinece is always possible, when clearly it is not (look at the civil war)
...I think it is a straw man - And perhaps it's a very American thing..a misconstrual I think - but their belief is that they are expressing a right to protect themselves from the 'government' - IF that government became 'tyranny'... the hunting is gloss. They truly believe the difference between living in the US as a free man and a Soviet hell is rednecks with guns.
CityzenJane 1 year ago
Ah, nice gun. The Damascus effect on the alloy is caused by the small percentage of vanadium, which was only proved to be true very recently. By actual experiment. Much casting. Much acid etching. We have guns for game control, which is what we use them for. We have a rabbit problem. And I'm not kidding. They are a pain. As to insurgency.
We, in the UK, would lose unless something really strange happened,like a plague. Mass death, etc.
faunflynn 2 years ago
the IRA brought the brit gov. to the table and are now in gov. in NI
they now have a real ability to push for their goal of a united ireland - mostly at thru the means of armed insurrection
monobovoc 2 years ago
Clearly you don't understand the peace accord
Tothemattresses 2 years ago
interesting - elaborate
monobovoc 2 years ago
A few hundred characters isn't going to cover it, but essentially the IRA had to surrender, its ability to continue was totally compromised, but the UK govt had to make sure it kept Ireland and dissident republicans happy enough that they'd support joint rule. Effectively the IRA gave up and the unionists won
Tothemattresses 2 years ago
i see so the bombing of canary wharf wasnt a pivotal moment
before this no negotiations with 'terrorists'
after - talking and the lead up to what u have now
also- the brit gov. have been forced to agree to a united ireland if it is voted by the ppl in NI
the demoghraphics have been and are trending towards nationalist majority and a majority of pro united vote in the not too distant future
this is something Sinn Fein & the IRA took into account
a bit of forward thinking
monobovoc 2 years ago
"Effectively the IRA gave up and the unionists won"
so still pursuing ones political objectives by disarming and calling a halt to the armed way is .......losing
interesting - so by continuing an armed campaign that would mean not losing
kind of contradicts what you are saying in this vid
monobovoc 2 years ago
was the deer out to kill you
monobovoc 2 years ago
Your argument has too many assumptions, for one, you assume that a gun used on another human is used out of passion. Your argument assumes no nesscessity, sure no one started a revolution because of a Patriot Act, but things change, circumstances change, you never know when you would have to use it, thats why you have it, you acknowledge the tyranny in Democracy so you would have to understand if one day, tyrants go to far, then yes you would have to use it.
JIbaro386 2 years ago
But if you actually accept democracy then you have to accept you'll never use it
Tothemattresses 2 years ago
You sir are a disgraced to your country. People like you cowl down and bow to your government, let me tell you something ya british pansy, We WILL NEVER PERMIT A NORTH AMERICAN union, you can take your European union and shove it up your ass, We Are the United State of Amerca and we are a SOVERIEGN REPUBLIC, The new revolution is near. Join the fight or get the fuck out of the way Brit.
C0aX1000010002 2 years ago
And NAFTA is what exactly?
Tothemattresses 2 years ago
Total coinkadink your on these vid comments and I came.
Anyways, I feel the brits submit too easily but Clinton did help pass NAFTA indeed.
meltingiovanni 2 years ago
my question is, at what point does a crazy old man waiting for the gun showdown in the streets get sick of waiting like the frustrated vulture said to the other vulture and says, "fuck it, lets kill something"...
at what point does being ready for this type of end game turn into hoping for it? no one likes to be wrong.
pyrrho314 2 years ago
I agree that the gun is for the sole purpose of killing people. However, that does not mean that fakesagen means to use it for that purpose at any point. It means that it is better to have and not need than to need and not have.
spanky061970 2 years ago
100-150 rounds with a range of 2 miles? Somebody get this guy the stats on a Kalashnikov stat! I applaud your owning firearms in what I consider a police state, that being said who are you to decide what someone needs vs just wants? You have no place to pass on that judgement. Personally I own several semi automatic pistols, a combat shotgun, a long range hunting rifle, and an ar-15. Do I need them? Probably not, would I like to be caught with my pants around my ankles... no.
3091181 2 years ago
well if i have to take the life of some one to protect my life thab so be it, but i have killed deer and turkey with an sks with is about the same as a ak. and we (us) can not have a fully auto gun eather. no one thought that the americans could kick great brits ass but we did
94fwalker 2 years ago
A lot of people do not have guns for hunting, we have them for self protection. If someone threatens your life or the life of someone you love or to rape you, what is wrong with being able to shoot them in order to stop that rather than call the police and be dead/raped/hurt by the time they arrive?
BTW in England, gun crime and violent crime rates soared after the instiution of the gun ban. Why?
gerberakasbah 2 years ago
Because criminals (those who commit rape, murder, armed robbery etc) DO NOT FOLLOW THE LAW. You take away citizens guns and all you have is a country with well armed criminals and easy targets. Harvard did a study on this, search google for it, they found that gun control is counterproductive (also the name of the study) and there is a reason law enforcement officers in America overwhelmingly support the rights of citizens to bear arms.
gerberakasbah 2 years ago
I have lived in both America and London, and I was terrified in London. Everyone I know there has been at the very least mugged at some point (even in the poshest areas) and I knew that if someone broke into my home and attacked me there was nothing I could do.
gerberakasbah 2 years ago
I've lived in London for 30+ yrs and I've never been mugged, in fact my brother is the only person I know who's been beaten up. My house was broken into when I was kid but all they took was an Atari520 (minus its power cable for some reason) - so I've no idea why you'd be scared here
Tothemattresses 2 years ago
Because London is not a safe city ( I realize the oxymoron there). I lived in a good neighborhood in Belgravia and someone still broke into my bedroom window (luckily I was not there, because had I been there would be absolutely nothing I could have done).
gerberakasbah 2 years ago
Finally gerberakasbah if you really feel this strongly about it, make a video response to this, ' cause commenting like this is frickin close to spam, you're repeating yourself over and over here
Tothemattresses 2 years ago
I used to make videos quite frequently. I closed my account because I had a stalker who found my address, the addresses of my parent's and husband's family, threatened all of them, posted them all over the web, and took a video of himself driving by my house... My safety and the safety of my loved ones is more important than whether or not I make a video. That's what comments are for. It's only spam if you have nothing to say but ad hominems for the maker of the video.
gerberakasbah 2 years ago
How I choose to voice my opinions is my choice. If the video maker does not like my opinions, he can block me, that is his choice. I would never troll anyone or insult them randomly so I do not know why I should not be allowed to use comments.
gerberakasbah 2 years ago
This really isn't a very weildly medium, the comments sytems has never been great (although its a lot better tahn it was) and whilst you may not troll or spam, millions do:)
If you don't want to make a video, fair enough -feel free to message or email me (see my channel for an address) and I'd be happy to continue the discussion
Tothemattresses 2 years ago
Actually the "gun crime soared" thing is massivley overstated. There were less than 100 shootings in the UK as a whole last year, and we have a population of 60m, so the actual numbers, although higher than they were in 1994 when the ban came in (15yrs ago) they're statistically almost insignificant.
Tothemattresses 2 years ago
Okay, even if it did not "soar" it increased, what it did not do was decrease. And that's just gun crime. Violent crime is quite bad in the UK, especially in London. Far worse than it was before the ban.
gerberakasbah 2 years ago
There are now more guns in the USA than there are people. All the un-stereotypical Americans, like me, are being muted by the people like you, who think you need 10 guns.
AcdcfreakRocks 2 years ago
Okay, if you are a staunch supporter of gun control. Why don't you go ahead and put a sign on your lawn (and a bumper sticker on your car for good measure) that reads: "I do not own a firearm." And see how long it takes for someone to take advantage of that.
gerberakasbah 2 years ago
Why dont you "un-stereotypical" people ever look at evidence. Denmark, Sweden and Holland have some of the harshest gun control in Western Europe, and shocker - they also have the highest crime rates. Except for the UK, whose violent and gun crime rates doubled after the gun ban was instituted. Not to mention within the US, DC's crime rates soared (while the rest of the country's dropped) following their gun ban (Source "Harvard Study: Gun Control is Counterproductive")
gerberakasbah 2 years ago
And I suppose that police in America are just too "stereotypical" for you too. Since the Law Enforcement Alliance of America states on their website: "We know, and research backs us up, an overwhelming majority of Americas rank-and-file cops support private ownership of firearms.
Thats because they know, better than most, that disarming honest citizens does nothing to reduce crime, but will deprive citizens of the means of defending themselves from violent predators."
gerberakasbah 2 years ago
There is a plethora of evidence from multiple sources and examples in this country and others that gun control only benefits criminals, put your simplistic partisan bs aside (I do, Im not a Republican) and look follow the EVIDENCE. Otherwise you are just a stereotype of an American: faith fueled and none too bright.
gerberakasbah 2 years ago
Sighhhhh. Another stupid attitude to have. First of all, no one is going to say "hmm ill go rob that person who is defenceless". The odds of the being cought robbing ANYONE are the same in my opinion, i could grab a knife just like you could grab a gun. You are preparing for the stuff that wont happen. In some neighborhoods, you need a gun. But in your house? Fuck no.
AcdcfreakRocks 2 years ago
I provided you with studies, quotes from official law enforcement sites, figures and stats... you respond with opinion and conjecture and yet somehow maintain the assumption that mine is the stupid attitude to have? Okay...
btw "no one is going to say, hmm I'll go rob that person who is defenseless"??? What world do you live in? It certainly isn't the real one.
gerberakasbah 2 years ago
actually, you just said i would be taken advantage of
you did not mention any studies
wtf are u saying
stop repeating bullshit you hear from idiots you know
guns are bad
you dont need one
AcdcfreakRocks 2 years ago
Check the comments again, that one you are referring to and all the ones following it were my response to you. I used a Harvard study which you can easily google. I used a quote from the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, again you can verify that with a search. I used examples from various countries and cities. I provided EVIDENCE. You have none to provide, because there is no instance in which gun control has halted or slowed down (or done anything but increase) violent crime.
gerberakasbah 2 years ago
Okay, apparently Harvard scientists and police officers to you are "idiots" when it comes to crime. What makes you more qualified to form an opinion which is not backed by any fact?
I personally do not like weapons of any kind. If we lived in a utopia in which criminals magically had no guns (which gun control will never achieve, just like the war on drugs will never get rid of all drugs) and people did not rape, steal, kill and harm others... I would happily surrender all my weapons.
gerberakasbah 2 years ago
men who wear sandals do what?
TuplaP 2 years ago
MEN WHO WEAR SANDALS GET WHAT THEY DESERVE ^^
I never thought about the message deeply, but I know the t-shirt and think it is an amusing message. But don't know if dogmatic Christians feel hurt by this. I also don't know if there is a deeper message, but I think it is just for fun.
NetzKaiser 2 years ago
It is just for fun, and frankly anyone that gets upset about it needs to grow up. So far the only problem I've had was a Muslim guy in the gym - but even he saw the funny side
Tothemattresses 2 years ago
Good video man. I disagree entirely, but I enjoyed your arguments.
ChoseDeath 2 years ago
Thanks - and thanks for not being a punk about it like some :)
Tothemattresses 2 years ago
Americans like to think this is 1880 and we dont live in a society. Somehow we are totally disconnected from one another. I think this is an expression of a pervasive spiritual sickness in this country. Theres no going back folks only forward, freedom isnt being able to do whatever you want no matter how it impacts your fellow Americans. Freedom is a state of mind, and sensible rules arent necessarily in opposition to freedom.
duncan36 2 years ago
really good video
scorgie 2 years ago
"Lesbian vampire killer" from in your tags made me laugh xD
BishStoleMuhYoshi 2 years ago
I agree completely
NonPhixion1987 2 years ago
Don't worry, they have the handguns. They'll come for your shotguns soon.
eurohim 2 years ago
I somewhat doubt it - check out the countryside alliance for the "why"
Tothemattresses 2 years ago
Game control, game can't take care of itself without some dumbasses chasing them in the forest?
BeyondWrittenWords 2 years ago
Ummm....deer in Scotland live on hillsides with no natural predators. The numbers have to be controlled or they destroy the habitat, so the government shoots the older and weaker animals to keep the herds healthy and the numbers down. End of. I went stalking to help with the process and to see why people enjoy it. Turns out I didn't.
Tothemattresses 2 years ago
Every mofo totting guns in YT should shoot his head off. If one have a constitutional right to plug a turkey in one's ass, it doesn't mean on should, right.
BeyondWrittenWords 2 years ago
great vid
jonasthedude0 2 years ago
While you may not think that an armed insurgency by Americans against our own forces could ever possibly be fought and won, I tend to disagree. Small guerrilla units, working in concert, could, and probably would, infiltrate and capture stateside bases, assassinate our corrupt leaders, and seize control of the government. None f this would be possible without access to firearms. Yes government is large, but the populace is larger, and many many people here are getting fed up.
xxxchaindrive 2 years ago
Well spoken!
Gothicsublime 2 years ago
VERY strong points.
BoundlessEyes 2 years ago
The AK in the hands of the honest American gun owner will save lives should our Govt' start human extermination camps. this has happened in the near past in Europe and we can not let it happen in the USA.
Fockersnextdoor 2 years ago
Excellent video. 5*s and a subscription. Thank you for this. I agree 100%
UnknownVisions 2 years ago
What do the military or police forces use guns for? Why should they have guns? They're just normal people dressed up in costume. I don't see why they should get guns if nobody else can get them.
Guns will always be around, get the fuck over it. If you want the thugs, whether in government or no, to have a monopoly on weaponry, good for you. More power to you when you get crushed in any attempted rebellion, ye bunch of tepid fucks.
doucher337 2 years ago
In what sense is shooting at an intruder in your home an irrational act of passion? It seems to me rather a logical response to a threat.
Ramiiam 2 years ago
Incidentally those are very nice shotguns. But by your own logic, why shouldn't you be required to keep them locked up at your gun club?
Ramiiam 2 years ago
That's g0od to know! It would be a bad deal for the everyday citizen if law enforcement was made up entirely of "the law is the law" Nuremburg type thinkers (or non-thinkers as it were). But then, those types are more like true brownshirts than actual cops.
The spirit of Jim Go0se lives on!! XD
IggyHazard 2 years ago
Fakesagan's AMD-65 isn't technically a true assault rifle. It's a semi-auto-only sporter version. But the original select-fire AMD-65 (a Hungarian tanker's rifle) is a true assault rifle (select-fire, intermediate caliber). Typically, intermediate calibers aren't ideal for big game but are useful against medium game. Only things I've ever killed with my guns are paint cans and beer bottles. XD
IggyHazard 2 years ago
I like how you didn't resort to petty insults, however I disagree with your postions.
Nothiean 2 years ago
Very good video!!
Everything you said makes sence, it is a total rational argument. Well done.
thursgun 2 years ago
Great video, some excellent points.
4MinuteWarnings 2 years ago
"Men who wear sandals..."
Jessiqua42 2 years ago
awesome video subscribed
thebigeasy87 2 years ago
If a sizable chunk of US population were forced to go to war against it's own government, the government wouldn't last a week, perhaps a month, to be kind.
It'd make the Iraq insurgency look utterly ridiculous.
This is a good thing imo.
RPFS2008 2 years ago
The United States is not a democracy.
enclave2k1 2 years ago
yeah,,,its communism
you are fucking brilliant
TheMorbidAtheist 2 years ago
I suppose that the only reason I should reply is to expose your idiocy, though, it is readily apparent.
First, democracy isn't the opposite of communism. Second, they're not dichotomous, that is there are many other alternatives.
One being the actual form of governance in the US, which is a Republic.
Final thought: It's fine to be wrong, all of us are once in a while. However, don't pronounce your stupidity for all to see. Just shut up when you don't know what to say.
enclave2k1 2 years ago
"The United States is not a democracy. "
you are fucking brilliant
TheMorbidAtheist 2 years ago
eh, look at iraq, an insurgency is doing pretty well against the modern u.s. military given the circumstances, now if it was the population that supports, funds, and supplys that army that was fighting you than have a insurgency to fight and establish supply lines and industry
uglyox 2 years ago
uhhhhhh no
Camikaze999 2 years ago
That's a wonderfully good point. You don't need a massive army if you're fighting an assymetric war. You just need to make the enemy question the cost of imposing whatever action they want to. Now, imagine instead of mulisms in a foreign country willing to die for an american policy, imagine people within the actual united states. Even weakling armed civillians have a large degree of political power if they have the coresponding political will.
ethosflux 2 years ago
Damn man. Fakesagan's reply was pretty good. Can you really stand a chance against it?
streetmagicstyle 2 years ago
not that draconian???? gun INSPECTIONS?? you brits are fucking crazy. we are all conditioned by the public schools, but my god our brothers in britian have lost it.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
Gun control fails. How would you go about enforcing gun control? With guns, of course.
crazypants88 2 years ago
Sorry but nothing but fail. In the USA we really dont care if someone in the UK likes our gun laws. We have the absolute right to own a gun for the purpose of protection from others and the government. Its the very reason we are no longer subjects of the crown. The crown tried to confiscate private guns and that sparked off the first shots of our revolution. Your nation proved why we should have this right. We wont give it up.
Crosisborg 2 years ago
I'm not sure that my living abroad is relevant, there plenty of people in the US who feel the same way.
Tothemattresses 2 years ago
But we have a constitution here that is in place for a reason. They have the choice not to use the right but they cant take the right from those who want to use it. You bring up hunting. Hunting is irrelevent as its not what our right to bear arms is about. We have a specific right to have a gun thats main purpose is to kill people. Its what made us free. Your laws are why you are still a subject and not a citizen.
Crosisborg 2 years ago
To be fair, the Monarchy is just for tourism.
RPFS2008 2 years ago
The US has movie sets and Disney. Britain has Palaces and history :)
RPFS2008 2 years ago
Crossis - clearly you misunderstand the nature of constitutional monarchies. They still rule by the will of parliament, not the other way around. Parliament is entirely elected, and I am very much a citizen. I don't need to own a weapon to have rights, and neither do you.
Tothemattresses 2 years ago
I thought that fully automatic rifles were outlawed in the US as well as the UK. It seems I was wrong
tgseason12 2 years ago
Wow, Kickass guns! NoNo more Gun porn!!!
CincinnatusSPQR 2 years ago
I've heard you can't own handguns in the UK, is that correct?
fictionalize 2 years ago
Work that out for yourself.
Laying the victory of the second world war into just one nations hands is disrespectful and incorrect. It took more than one nations efforts to end the war. Russia may have handed Germany some major defeats but so did the allies both on the scientific and the battle fields.
Nemesisangel19 2 years ago
Although I disagree with your faith in the 'democratic' process, I agree that armed insurgency never acheives any lasting positive change at all.
BTW, I thought that the police can refuse you a shotgun license if they believe that you cannot secure it from theft adequately. I'm guessing that you live in the countryside. I doubt that you would find it easy to get a shotgun license if you lived in a flat in an urban area with a high burgalry rate and you had no security measures.
yeahwotevaman 2 years ago
"I agree that armed insurgency never achieves any lasting positive change at all"
I believe it was that same "armed insurgency" against Great Britain, that precipitated the formation of the United States. Which I also believe is now one of the most powerful nations on the planet. Of course with world opinion, and some of us Americans opinions, being what they are, that change may not seem so positive. But it has been long lasting, and will probably continue. Due in large part to firearms.
xxxchaindrive 2 years ago
I disagree that armed national liberation/anti-colonialisation struggles do form any real change. One ruling class is replaced by another more local one. In the case of America, the 'revolutionaries' were little better than their colonial oppressors. They were basically an elite of slaveowners and landowners who revolted against British Emipre because of the heavy taxation imposed upon them. The fact that America has become the dominant imperial power is not what I mean by positive change.
yeahwotevaman 2 years ago
The same could be said of modern African states which, like America, were formed by European colonisation and later 'liberated' from imperial control only to be controlled by another elite group of oppressors.
yeahwotevaman 2 years ago
I daresay that the citizens of an early United States would not agree with your points, as indicated by surviving writings. All of which clearly indicate the joy of throwing off the yoke of an oppressive Great Britain. That my government has become even more oppressive than Britain's rule, is not in dispute. (At least not by me). The fact remains, it was positive for them at the time, and the change did seem good for several years. True change almost always comes through violence. Historically.
xxxchaindrive 2 years ago
Prehaps the same could be said of the citizens of the early soviets in 1917 Russia, or wherevever a coup has taken place. In the case of America I doubt that 'revolution' really meant alot to the African slaves owned by the 'revolutionaries' or to the indiginous people. Sure, it is a positive change for the new ruling class as they have aquired power, but for the people at the bottom of that society it changes nothing.
yeahwotevaman 2 years ago
Yes, I'm sure it could, but the resulting governments are what make all the difference. What I'm talking about are the freedoms of the ordinary citizen, and the resulting lack of, or imposition of, oppression. Of course slaves and the indigent populace will still be in the same boat. That was not the point. The point was that armed insurgency can be responsible for change. Whether it is good or bad, long lasting or fleeting, depends on what the people responsible do with that change.
xxxchaindrive 2 years ago
kill a target at 5 miles away? Sorry, this guy has no clue what he's talking about. Being permitted to own a weapon free and clear and being required to register each individiaul weapon is not the same thing. The state having detailed knowledge of what you own is NOT the same thing as having the liberty to bare arms.
ethosflux 2 years ago
Clearly ethos I was exaggerating for effect - sweet jesus there's no need to be a retard (oh and the M107 will chuck a round just under 7km, or to put it another way not far off 5 miles)
And I agree - but I think the state has a responsibility to know where all weapons are at any given time so when one gets used to commit a crime the user can be punished appropriately.
Tothemattresses 2 years ago
The reason we do not allow the state to know where guns are at all times is because it nullifies the reason we have the right to bear arms.
Crosisborg 2 years ago
I'd argue it nullifies the legal reasoning that allows you to own a gun, but not the actual reason i.e. if someone breaks into my house I'm going to blow them away
Tothemattresses 2 years ago
Yes, that was exactly my point Crosisborg. It nullifies the right to bear arms as defense from the state. Owning a means of self defense is not at least in the eyes of some, an undertaking exclusively for protection from other individuals.
ethosflux 2 years ago
You keep saying that a guy can't fight the government with an AK. I don't think anyone is making that claim.
The people always have the power to fight their government. We outnumber them by a great deal. Sure they have bombs and we don't, but now you're talking about the wholesale destruction of their own infrastructure.
If the people as a whole are armed and able to resist, then the government can only oppress the people so far. If we disarm ourselves, then we open the door for disaster.
kainsilkfist 2 years ago
Clearly I'm using the AK as a metaphor for the whole gun culture.
I think you assume that the people are going to follow a rising, but history shows that very few people ever actively resist their government, no matter what it does. The actual number of people in Russia who were active Bolsheviks in 1917 for example, was very small, perhaps a few thousand at most.
Furthermore you have written constitution that protects your rights in aggressively
Tothemattresses 2 years ago
Ironically AK is not iconically American in any way. The americans invented and propogated the Stoner designed AR15. The Americans do have an act outlawing usually automatic weapons, and if FS had a fully automatic one in his posession he'd have been very foolish to show it on youtube. Regardless you can see from the safety mechanism in his video it is not.
ethosflux 2 years ago
That's a very true statement, but is it not defeatist to then throw our arms up in the air and accept whatever bull the state passes?
The government has been using our constitution as toilet paper for many years, and I mean even before Bush. Bush just had a nastier ass than the rest. It can't protect us forever, because as a people we consistently fail to protect it.
I don't actually own a gun, but I do defend my right to. Had I a little more money, I'd grab a Kalashnikov too.
kainsilkfist 2 years ago
Just a side note America didnt save our asses in WW2 Germany was already losing when you guys decided to put your twinkies down and join in on the winning side.
Nemesisangel19 2 years ago
Twinkies? What is that a fat joke?
In December 1941 (when the US entered the war), it was far from certain who was winning. But anyway, it was mostly thanks to the USSR that the war was won by the Allies.
TheFourEyedBandit 2 years ago
I'm not opposed to the idea of disarmament of advanced weapons, but I feel as though you're coming at it from the wrong direction Tothemattresses.
I think the greater disaster is disarming private citizens first. In the quest for global disarmament, why not start with the militaries of the world and work your way down?
I believe the citizens should be last people giving up their means of defense. I didn't contract my personal defense to the government, but somehow they have it anyway.
kainsilkfist 2 years ago
Military powers r collective organisations that tend to curtail their own use, and where they don't they break down into individuals without a common goal (look at any African army you care to mention, aside from SA)
Beside which you wont stop, or even slow, a coup with a semi auto AK
Finally individuals kill other individuals irrationally and w/out mandate. They're far more dangerous than an army in a world where the last actual rising in the US was by John Brown in 1850 something
Tothemattresses 2 years ago
I'm never suprised with the british culture of submission to authority. I guess thats what happens when you refer to your government as "Her Majesty's Government". Even though the US system has become the new empire, we still have a vague notion of rule by the people however delusional it may be.
napalmtube 2 years ago
And I never cease to be amazed at the arrogance of people making claims like this when they clearly don't know their own, or anyone else's history. Where, exactly, did your constitution come from? And whilst we're at it do you understand what a constitutional monarchy is or did you take a guess? As for submission we're rather good at not doing that, America's record is patchy at best.
Oh, btw, if you want an Empire go for it. Just remember the price of hubris
Tothemattresses 2 years ago
Sorry I'm a libertarian socialist.. I actually despise my government. All states for that matter. The constitution came from a bunch of wealthy slave holders that created a government to protect the wealth of the minorty from the "tryanny" of the majority. It was based off of the british model.
napalmtube 2 years ago
This is the purpose of all states throughout history. As said by the british philosopher john locke " The great and chief end, therefore, of men's uniting into common-wealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property".
The government is there to protect the intrests of the owning class from the intrests of the producing class.
napalmtube 2 years ago
I know you might have looked at my comment thinking I was some sort of ron paul conservative but no I'm actually a far left anarchist..
napalmtube 2 years ago
Im increasingly coming to the conclusion that Libertarian is another way of saying naïve teenager
Locke's point was that if you want protection from your neighbour or the big guy down the road you need a government to consistently apply a law agreed on by a majority of people (radical stuff at the time) Moreover he said that in exchange we have to pay taxes to maintain the system, but that these too had to be fair and equitable. It wasn't that all government was inherently wrong
Tothemattresses 2 years ago
there is a good deal of naivety in Libertarianism, that's the conclusion I am coming to as well. I've been looking into it quite a bit the last few months. Some of the ideas behind it are valid though. I hope we can implement some Libertarian ideals at some point.
hominidyohead 2 years ago
I'm not a libertarian in the context of "free market capitalism/classical liberalism" I am however one in the context of emma goldman, bakunin, and even noam chomsky.
I don't don't think you understand my position. I oppose the concept of private exploitative property. The property system is what gives rise to the state. I advocate real democracy, direct democracy.. worker ownership of the means of production.
napalmtube 2 years ago
@napalm - no, I get where you're coming from. You're essentially a social anarchist. My comments stand.
I don't understand is the term "private exploitative property" given that you don't believe in collectivism. You could impose a rule that stops private ownership but who would enforce it in a land w/out a dictatorship? Workers ownership only works if all workers own the means of production equally or if the factors are replicated for evry worker which is, in pure resource terms, impossible.
Tothemattresses 2 years ago
No it was based on Cromwell's ideal of a lord protector
Tothemattresses 2 years ago
indeed; precisley
Tothemattresses 2 years ago
hey, I had a 410 just like that. killed plenty of squirrels and rabbits with it, It was great for that. and fun to shoot trap with. shooting trap with a 410 will make a shooter of you. haha, cheers mate.
hominidyohead 2 years ago
I doff my cap to you, because I doubt I could hit a thing with it. In any case it has reached retirment age and accumulated prodigious quantities of rust having spent nearly 30 years in my grandmothers attic un-used and unloved.
Tothemattresses 2 years ago
Why would you kill a squirrel? That's just cruel and pointless.
madeye0 2 years ago
they taste great. If I don't eat them a wolf or coyote or coon will. or winter or disease will kill them off.
hominidyohead 2 years ago
Actually it isn't as in the UK we have red and grey squirrels. The red ones have been nearly wiped out by the grey ones, who are classed as vermin and are thus shot on sight. None the less I agree with hominid - they do actually taste pretty good
Tothemattresses 2 years ago
Are you allowed to own hand guns? Can you get a permit to carry a concealed weapon? Is there a legal limit to the number of guns you can legally own? I'm just curious about gun laws in other countries.
joshstevens76 2 years ago
No hand guns (following the Dunblaine Massacre in 1996) No concealed weapons rights at all (following the IRA) I can have as many shotguns as I want, or with a firearms licence I can own as many rifles as I want but have to show need.
Tothemattresses 2 years ago
Thank you. I am aware if the IRA (as much as any American, anyway), but have never heard of the Dunblaine Massacre (sorry, but in my defense, that was the year I graduated high school!!). I'll going to go research that now. Thank you again.
joshstevens76 2 years ago
JESUS CHRIST!!! That's fairly horrific!!
joshstevens76 2 years ago
What about the zombie apocalypse? The persistent hoards of the undead will not wait for you to reload your shotgun, they want brains and they invited all their friends!
kalin666 2 years ago 3
That's why you have more than one shotgun! Your good looking fmeale friend who you're intrested in but who's always seemed unavailable to you will reload whilst you shoot (before either being bitten herself and/or shagging you at the end of the crisis)
Tothemattresses 2 years ago
Now now, females are not to be put in a subservient reloading role. My wife wants her own gun and something sharp and/or fiery for stabbing and/or burning.
kalin666 2 years ago
Sorry Kalin but one of you is going to get eaten in the first wave.......but if you must then teach her how to start and run a chainsaw....always good for a laught in cqb
Tothemattresses 2 years ago
Seriously, you dont live in America we have the second or third largest population in the world. Unfortunately we are so spread out across this country the police cannot respond in an appropriate time usually when someone is trying to do harm to you or your family. We live by the saying over here in our country. It is better to have it and not need it (gun) then to need it and not have it. Unless you are saying that you have developed an ability to predict crime?
PoopyPaul 2 years ago
I'm not sure how having a gun makes you safer - if you have a gun, so does everyone else including the criminals. Moreover if you start brandishing it around you'll wind up getting shot for certain. If you don't its possible you might get shot, but is far less likely. What you actually like is the false sense of saftey offered by owning one
Tothemattresses 2 years ago
What the hell are you talking about? So if I am understanding you correctly, criminals that have guns should keep them while law abiding citizens should be disarmed so when a criminal wants to break into your house and kill your family and take your shit you can yell at him and tell him how much of a jerk he is for robbing or killing your family? You have to understand we are 300 million strong here if not more. You are going to have bad people and disarming the good people helps how?
PoopyPaul 2 years ago
No I think everyone should be disarmed. Having 300m people and 1bn guns is a recipe for disasters. Having 300m people and, say, 1m guns, would make far more sense.
I'm not suggesting that this is an achieveable target, but I am saying that resricting what can be bought legally means you restrict all sales legal and otherwise in time. For example buying pistols in the UK is now virtually impossible but its taken 10 years to get there.
Tothemattresses 2 years ago
You live on an island basically, can you not see the difference in diversity? The canadians we dont worry about much but the mexicans not only are they good at mowing the grass they also know how to fire weapons. :) I know it would be nice to have a world without guns. Who gets to carry these 1million guns? Who is qualified on this planet to decide who are the responsible, mentally stable people that should carry these 1 million guns? Its part of our culture and its here to stay.
PoopyPaul 2 years ago
I'm not sure that living on an island is relevant, perhaps you could explain?
And I agree, it isn't realistic to simply say "There Shall Be No More Guns" - but you have to start by constricting supply and doing it in a sensible way, and dumping the emotional baggage of a war that's been over for 200+ years.
I should point out that I think you should be allowed to own guys just not keep them in your house or carry them concealed
Tothemattresses 2 years ago
Oh so you dont know why the 2nd amendment was written into the constitution? It was placed there because our founding fathers knew there would come a day when our government would abuse their power and use it for their own gains and not for the people they are suppose to represent. You wanna know how they knew this?I know you know this answer. I am not trying to insult you, I have never been to the UK but I would like visit someday. :) The real Question is what's your definition of happiness?
PoopyPaul 2 years ago
Poopy on your 1st point - the 2nd amendment simply won't help now. The govt knows everything about you and can deploy overwhelming force already. Your deluding yourself if you think otherwise. Moreover, they enshrined that law to give them some shred of moral superiority over thier enemy. It was window dressing for treason.
Tothemattresses 2 years ago
This isnt a response to this directly but Islam is a horrible religion (as well as the rest) but they are violent to you guys what do you think they would do to us? Haha, you guys help them, we do to but we are the cause of most of the damage. I think our interventions in the last 60 years have gotten a few of our buildings blown up not really much considering our history. I mean we dropped 2 nukes on the Japs. We have a lot of enemies and Im not personally ready to make a step like that :)
PoopyPaul 2 years ago
Poopy on your 2nd point - we dealt with the IRA, we've dealt with the Islamists fine so far too, bar 1 bomb. There's no point in turning Britain into an armed camp, it shows fear. And fear of what? A bunch of beared wonders who spout a lot of shit.
And if you want to talk about enemies we held 1/3 of the earth for the better part of two centuries; but we're fine because we're not afraid. Fundamentally the US needs to grow a pair and stop firing randomly into the dark
Tothemattresses 2 years ago
Excuse me? "grow a pair" Im sure you arent talking about the country that bombs first asks question later to grow a pair? Im sorry but you wouldnt even exist in your country if my great grandfather didnt come over there and save your arse. He was an Army Ranger in WW2 he just died in 2002. Grow a pair huh? Please I think you are drunk or just fucking stupid. Your country would have been destroyed without a bullet fired if we didnt come over there to help you. No food = No resistance GAME OVER
PoopyPaul 2 years ago
That's exactly the problem - you give in to your fear too easily and as a result are always reaching for weapons to protect yourselves against figments of your own imgaination. The odds of you actually being shot, for example, are tiny. Yet everyone wants a gun, which actually increases your overall chances of get shot. That's what I mean about growing a pair. I am not questioning the courage of the US in WWII - although we can discuss the price you charged and why it took you so long to come
Tothemattresses 2 years ago
What fear? figments of imagination? I like having one because they are fun to shoot and if i should ever need it. I will have it. There you go again talking out of your arse. How do you know the chances of me being shot? For someone that has never lived here you sure know a lot of things for fact. There are at least 1-3 homocides a week in just the area i live in. I live close to Chicago but im sure its daily there. Please dont begin to tell me what my country is like when you havent been here
PoopyPaul 2 years ago
Poopy I've been to the US quite a lot actually, although I've not been to Chicago. If you take the US disaster cetnre stats for violent crime, murder, rape, robbery, assault, buglary & larceny theft, add them together and then divide by the population you've still got a >4% of expereincing any of them in a given year. In fact its almost a statistical certainty it'll never happen to you in your life. Thats what I mean by fearing your imagination.
Tothemattresses 2 years ago
Well now that you see there is a small percentage chance of me getting shot. Then what the fuck was your point about owning guns in the US then? So that also debunks your 'fear' claim. We dont own weapons because we are American. All you have done in our arguement is show that even though we own guns there shouldnt be any concerns about us owning firearms? I made you go from showing how we shouldnt own them to showing that even though we own them they dont really affect violence? Thanks
PoopyPaul 2 years ago
Poopy, if you really can't see how dumb that comment is I suggest we stop talking
Tothemattresses 2 years ago
Comment removed
RPFS2008 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There's 14,000 murders a year as a result of guns (there are more suicides -using guns- than that). Compared to the population, that is tiny.
The problem is way overhyped.
What Poopy was saying you admitted that even in the guntoting US "In fact its almost a statistical certainty it'll never happen to you in your life"
He has a point.
RPFS2008 2 years ago
I agree to a certain extent with the false sense of safety. But the same is true for any weapon. I don't think the firearm offers this but rather people take it upon themselves.
That being said, whether I lived in the US or the UK I would always want to have the option to carry. Removal of firearm ownership won't curtail firearms, it's impossible and the UK is a great example of this (especially following the handgun ban).
Also, are you only allowed to have break-action shotguns?
EtienneTheHat 2 years ago
Point taken - none the less, automatic or otherwise, that ain't for target shooting
Tothemattresses 2 years ago
And now that I've seen the video: While I agree almost 100%... I can't help but *empathise* with fakey a little bit. While there is indeed no rationale to believe that any form of armed insurgency (well, *openly* armed insurgency) will ever be succesfull, the thought that guns should be restricted to state organs is a bit... unsettling.
Killersepp 2 years ago
Ummm...state power is, and always has been, so much stronger than an individual's power (and it has to be in order to stop nut jobs like you and I taking over) - all thats unsettling is the realisation that you're powerless without your vote and your right to protest. Hence you've got to defend these things
Tothemattresses 2 years ago
Yes, you're right of course - this "unsettling feeling" is, after all, pretty damn irrational.
Still.... we humans *are* pretty damn irrational animals :-D
Killersepp 2 years ago
Dude, how did I miss you making videos again? I'm even *subscribed* to your channel :-/
Killersepp 2 years ago
You should check out onlywhenprovoked's recent video. He points out the absurdity of confronting the state with such limited firepower as civilians have.
Search: re: FEMA camps again
BeechBumagan 2 years ago
link me?
Tothemattresses 2 years ago
Does this help?
watch?v=6e5-saFKs14&feature=channel_page
BeechBumagan 2 years ago
sorry, no space at channel
watch?v=6e5-saFKs14&feature=channel_page
BeechBumagan 2 years ago
Well said... ★★★★★
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 2 years ago
Interesting subject.
I worked 5 yrs for a company in Germany that aside from manufacturing high precision sports pistols (cal. .22-.45) also imported M1A's, de-militarised and sold them as semi-automatic "sport" rifles to the general public... that is public w/ the proper licenses. I have an opinion about guns/rifles and in 5 yrs w/ plenty of opportunities never pulled the trigger. However, I've seen the damage some of the buyers have done....
[2]
anangel13 2 years ago
Now living in the U.S.... that's like night & day in regards to the mentality of the individual in regards to guns/owning guns. I think it comes "with the territory" which translates to history.
Again, interesting subject. Good to see you. :o)
~Angel XIII~
anangel13 2 years ago
and lovely to hear from you m'lady. There is clearly a difference between the US and the EU on gun ownership. I can't help but wonder if this essentially is because Americans have always wanted to beleive that civil disobedinece is always possible, when clearly it is not (look at the civil war)
Tothemattresses 2 years ago
I hope he responds. This could be a very good discussion between you two.
Xdrive05 2 years ago