It's utter bullshit how the government thinks they could choose our rights. We should each choose our own rights, by choosing what you want and don''t want to do.
Guns may possibly preserve some of your freedoms during some future uprising or doomsday holocaust, but there not very useful in persevering freedoms during other times. By all means, have guns. But there are other tools to preserve freedoms during peacetime like speech, protest, and assembly. Be as diligent in preserving these as any firearm. Also remember to help preserve the freedoms of others. Never know when they might return the favor.
Lawyers wont protect u from martial law, where were the lawyers during the Holocaust or other genocides around the world, o wait those people were disarmed as well
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man" - Thomas Jefferson
Hmm.. a loaded question. Of the three, which is LEAST important to have access to for protecting your civil rights in a modern liberal democracy? ... Let me ask, FROM WHOM? If from criminals, then the answer is MONEY. If from government, then the answer is LAWYERS (because if I need it for government, then it is NO LONGER a modern liberal democracy.... now is it?) Answer to the second question, YES!!! In a FREE society, it is essential that they have the right to keep and bare arms.
sorry a few armed hillbilly's will not stop a government that wants to take them. If you for one min. think some idiot with a 3030 could do a fucking thing against an f18 you are as deluded as Manson. The days of an armed population keep us free are gone.
@edteach2u So 100 million gun owners can do nothing against the 2 million people in the military. Even if something happened most soldiers wouldn't kill their own families anyway. and also those 100 mil have enough guns to arm the other 200 million people. So you say that 300 million armed people can't beat a couple hundred politicians and brainwashed soldiers. You need to wake up
@giftedkidrules In addition who's to say the military will always be around? Nobody knows the future, there could be a nuclear war we could be left to fend for ourselves. I don't want to be left defenses. Having guns is not just about incase we need to shoot the government.
@edteach2u - Oh my.. you are sooo right, because when we poor old folk fought against the strongest military force of 1776 we had No chance. You're an absolute fool, and should NOT consider yourself American. Btw... those hillbillies don't just have 3030's anymore... they have 50 calibur anti-tank canons and Ak-47's. ;) Not to mention there is more than just one "hillbilly" ... AND, if they were sending F-18's to attack civilians, then you better remember, in the south, we have 'em too ;)
@VirbiusMoon Sorry idiot a 50 cal. can do nothing to most armor in todays military and certainly nothing against reactive armor on an M1. Most you you southern hillbilly's would drop your guns is you saw a guy with his pants down. Sooie Sooie here Piggy here Piggy. You sure got a perty mouth. Keep playing your banjo and I will paddle faster idiot one tooth. Remember we kicked your ass one and can do it again.
I know at first thought that line of logic seems sound, but then I offer you this little nugget of contest. If what you said was right, we would have been victorious in Afghanistan a long time ago. Alot has changed since 1865. For one, armies have to adhere to an ethical code of conduct, or the world will condemn them, so no more "Sherman Marches." Also, despite all of the advanced technology, nothing is as dangerous to a conventional army as a knowledgeable guerilla force.
If the government really wantted to kill you, they would just send a missile to your location so they can kill you without any danger from your guns. The fact is, the government are not interested in banning guns because they are more interested in the bribes they get from the NRA.. I dare one of you gun nuts to give all your guns to a friend for a month, your mind and heart will awaken.
i belive there should be a law that state that iff you want to have a gun you have to be shoot by it, in an arm or a leg, after that then you cold keep the gun
To answer your question, the order is money, lawyers, then guns. Need the money to hire the lawyers. The guns are for extreme cases. Yes they are a given right partly because the enlightenment writings of Locke an Paine, and all rights are natural not given by the state. As for Mahr, the average bong owner contributes more to gun violence than the NRA and 99.9 percent of gun owners combined.
@island4diver actually the average bong owner dosn't because most potheads are to damn stoned to be violnet. Its the drug dealers who were created by the government that are the ones using guns
@gunfighter964 My point had more to do with financial support. If the dealers did not have demand, they would not have money to buy guns or be killing each other over market share. You are right about pot heads not being violent, I'll take one over a drunk any day.
Take a hint from the Zaporozhian Cossacks. Freedom through blood, sweat, and tears, not negotiations with a tyrant. If you're not willing to fight, you're not deserving of freedom.
Written law can't stop murder, rape,theft ect. And the same go's for an attorney and court system! People are going to do what they want! I hope you or your loved ones don't experience crime. But part of me likes it when people like you are beaten or worse! And you blame cops for not coming faster. When its the law that states cops are not responsible for your individual safety! Look it up! Thats why I give my family members firearms & training!
the patriot act will be the mechanism that allows a massive "gun collection" policy. So, yes the patriot act is an abomination and we need to do EVERYTHING we can to repeal it. But in the end the final piece of the puzzle for a facist regime is gun collection.....Its not where we are at this moment in time, its where we will be in the future--all through implimentation of a step by step dismantling the bill of rights/constitution.....Bill Mahr is a fool (2nd Amend is the FINAL right)
Your point of view that hardcore gun owners(over 50 guns)would rather give up their freedoms instead of their guns(although the whole purpose of guns is defense from oppression)is quite intriguing as I have never thought about it that way. I do not agree completely however, as most people will eventually decide to draw a line in the sand, and decide to keep their freedom AND their guns.
When you look at the patriot act back when the attacks happened everyone one united then started talking about patriotism and what not. Now if you know a little bit of history you would know that if ANY law abiding citizen had done something with their guns then they would have the same fate that the branch Davidians had, those that would stand for their rights are made to look like psychopathic, dangerous baby killing people. Then in 04 if you didn't like the PA you were anti American.
Of course it is an essential right, as long as it is not infringed upon. We are not under British rule today because the arms used by the founding fathers were equal in power to those who would rule them. Any less is infringement of this right. The right to bear arms is the final line of defense from a tyrannical state, of this I have no doubt. That said, we are far from that point right now because of other freedoms we have and yes, ..more evil than guns yet still necessary, lawyers and money.
If worse came to worse the controlling government would have a large percentage of the population to deal with, and the only way the resistance could have a chance is with IRA style tactics.
America can only be taken over if we have no means to fight, and if the guns are gone it becomes that much harder. The majority of American are fine with continued degradations in freedoms, as long as they are safe and can live their lives. This is not the way America is supposed to be though, having the ability to reverse this and fight is based solely on having a means to fight.
The reason that guns are such an important issue because of the way America is at it's core. I am not talking about you liberals that live in the big cities and have never used a gun or see no reason for guns. If the government wants to take complete control of the people they could easily, and citizens would never be able to fight the US military in an all out war. But the example of Ireland and the IRA could take place if people still had guns. American is not a country that can be conquered.
the unfortunate truth is that the technology that is a gun exists. i therefore, will unfortunately have to maintain the level of technological advancement as the other guy in order to prevent someone having such a great level of superiority over me. the truth is that they exist... i wish this was not the case. but it will never be so. conciousness cannot forget knowledge. therefore i will have to own that tool.... its not cool or fun or anything of the sort to have to shoot back..
To Question 1: if you are talking about an individual's freedom, than guns are the least important of the three. If, however, you mean the freedom of the nation as a whole, than guns become the most important to protecting freedom.
I suppose you have a point that gun ownership perhaps does little to deter government action.
However, this does not address whether or not gun control reduces crime. Careful consideration and examination of the evidence will lead one to the counter intuitive conclusion that more individuals with guns means less crime.
Why are people so quick to give up rights that they don't care about. When is comes to drugs and gays, Bill Maher sreams about rights and the constitution. I want my 2nd ammendment rights, along with my 1st Ammendment right. I want ALL of my rights. I don't want to have to pick.
Both the right and left have things they would give up. Both sides want to shread the bill of right just in different ways.
Of course even the gun people have already given up "some" of that right already, remember its not the "right bear guns" its the right "to bear arms" and its specifically so people can fight the government and stay free.
But lets be honest; whats 300 armed million people against a few nukes?
We don't have tanks etc....in the sense of what it was meant to be, that right is already lost.
@gumbo2 Even though we can't go against tanks or the military we should still be able to defend ourselves against civil unrest. I enjoy shooting and like owning guns. I am responsible and not a violent person. Shouldn't I be allowed? I think we should make it harder to get guns instead of trying to make them illegal. It's not just the 2nd Ammendment under attack. Read the bill of rights and think about how many of the first 10 ammendments have been twisted.
All having a gun does, is make you more likely to get shot. Look at the statistics...personal firearms are far more likely to kill their owners than actually be used in protection against a criminal. The media teaches you to be afraid. It teaches you to believe murders and robberies are far more common than they actually, statistically are...so now you're more concerned about this gun--that does you more harm than good--than the fact that the corporations are screwing us into the ground.
@JNDarkness Just because having a gun may be dangerous. Should we get rid of the 2nd Ammendment? Should we get rid of freedom in the name of safety? I own guns for protection and because I enjoy shooting.
People scream about certian rights being taken away but then don't seem to care about others. The left and the right each have rights they care about and others they would like to see go away. I want ALL of my rights. I don't want to have to pick a few to keep.
@ImNotADoctor5 I store my guns properly, legally own them and safely use them. So what is the problem? Does it matter why I own them? The issue is safety and legality. Both of which I follow. If I only use my guns for target shooting and personal safety, who cares IF they can take a persons life. It's not what they can or could do. It's how are they actually used and treated.
@aqinthe I should be able to have cyanide to play tiddlywinks with. Just because they're manufactured to, and very easily kill people doesn't mean I can't have fun with them. I safetly use them for fun. And if you think that's irresponsible, then you're just infringing my rights.
Sound ridiculous? While I don't doubt you safely handle guns, the correlation seen globally with the strictness of gun control and the decrease in gun crime is undeniable.
@ImNotADoctor5 Cyanide isn't legal to own, my guns are. So that isn't a good example. I get your point thought. Why should legal gun owners be punished for the actions of criminals.
The main point I was trying to make was about the Democrats and Republicans picking and choosing what rights they are for.
@aqinthe Cyanide is a very good example, because it's illegal and it's universally understood why, and isn't ever contested. It's illegal because it's extremely dangerous and it's only designed purpose is to murder. Just like guns (only difference? They're legal).
At the end of the day, no one wants absolute freedom, they want safety. Governments pick and choose freedoms because that's what people want. I'm sure no one debates against withdrawal of "freedoms" to download child porn, for example
@ImNotADoctor5 Guns are also designed for target shooting and for hunting. Or should we oultaw hunting and force everyone to buy cage raised processed meat?
I'm not talking about absolute freedoms. I'm talking about the bill of rights that both parties pick and choose from. I agree total freedom would not be a good idea. But how about keeping the freedoms that were decided to be an important part of this country. Freedom to protest, freedom of speech for example.
@aqinthe Sorry, I wasn't talking about guns designed for legitimate purposes. Reading over my comments, I can see I didn't make that clear. I understand that some guns do have completely legal and reasonable purposes (like hunting), but I'm talking about handguns, not hunting rifles that size make it difficult to use illegally, and some aren't even powerful enough to kill a human.
I do understand that some guns have legal uses, but I think very strong checks need to be made before ownership.
@ImNotADoctor5 OK, I do agree with you about very strong checks needed before owning a gun. I think owning a gun is a great responsibility. How do you feel about owning a gun for personal protection.
Free people own guns or have the right too own guns. But here is my question the people created the states and the states created the Federal govt. Excepting that fact should lead you to believe that everything the govt. has is because the people have givin it to them. If the police are civil SERVANTS than they do not have any rights the ppl didnt give them you cannot give somebody something you dont have. Private citizens have the right to keep & bear arms it is the final check on Govt.
To ask the question which is least needed is not a very good question because you have to have a situation to figure out what you need and don't need. Second question. all right the founders of this country took a very good look at what they wanted to see in this country that is why the amendments where written as they where then. 1. free speech and opinion . 2. the right to have guns, to protect number 1 and freedom from oppression. after these amendments they get specific for what they are for
Guns are as important as free speech. Granted we can still have guns, but free speech is being trampled every day.
To be honest, LiberalViewer has it right, but only partially. Unarmed the american public can't do much against the government, armed with anything at all we can at least be such a pain in their ass they would be stuck in an endless war they couldn't win... Look at Iraq.
The answer to the posters questions are simple. For your first question, "which of these are least important...?" The answer is none. They are all equally important. It's more of a question of which are employed first. The gun being a fail safe if the first two fail. Your second question, "Should the right to keep and bear arms...?" Yes it is. There is a reason the founding fathers made it the 2ND Amendment to the supreme law of the land (Constitution).
anybody else what they can and cannot do, what they can and cannot put in their bodys, and what they can and cannot own or possess, putting restrictions on any of these things, or making any of them illegal is treasonous and something that i as an AMERICAN WILL NOT TOLERATE!!!
who ever is an AMERICAN< and doesn't want guns to be legal is a traitor, it is in our constitution, and it will not be taken from us, i will not allow it!!! if you have a problem with guns and you live in AMERICA, you were not meant to be a US citizen, and you need to move to a different country if you have a problem with our constitution!!! if guns are illegal, it will not stop criminals from having them, and then the good people will be left highly vulnerable, nobody has the right to tell
Answers: Guns, and Yes. I agree with the point that we have allowed our liberties to be eroded without armed response. In practice, however, it is a GOOD thing that we have resisted open warfare in an effort to bring about change within the system itself. If a revolution was started every time the government made stupid decisions, there would never be peace. There is no open revolt because Americans still hold out hope for renewal of those liberties through peaceful methods.
banning guns will cause more crime, gun conrol doesnt work, look at drug control is that working? no it isnt, i say that every person that can qualify for a gun should be required to have one. what criminal wants to rob a bunch of houses where everyone on the neighborhood has a gun.
I am anti death penalty. I believe in evolution. I am pro choice (with adjustments). I am anti drug prohibition. I am pro first amendment. Even for the highly annoying. I think PETA is full of idiots.
So even though I am anti lie, cheat, steal, swindle, rape, kill and abuse, the average Christian republican would call me a liberal extremist.
Meanwhile, gun prohibition will create one thing. A black market run by organized crime. Increasing corruption, crime and violence. Same as booze.
If you ban guns, people will kill each other with knives. If you ban guns, they'll use swords. Ban swords? Crossbows. Ban those? Umbrellas, canes, whatever.
@vaguelyhumanoid Um actually if you ban guns people will kill each other with guns anyways. Look at england, they banned, confiscated, and destroyed all legally owned handguns in 1997 however by 1999 the use of handguns in crime had gone up 40%.
I like guns. Not for any of that "So the goverment can't take my freedom crap" they have more subtle ways than appearing at your house with armed men then that, more along the lines of media, nationalism etc.
I like guns because I love the history behind them, I love the legal trade and ownership of guns, I love the pride companys have in their guns and most importantly I like to shoot guns. It's a hobby of mine. It also acts as a protection from intruders, not the goverment though.
To keep our country as free as posible the lawyers and money is more important. For personal liberties and safety the right to own a gun is important. Being a female and a criminologist/forensic psychologist the body of literature makes it clear that guns in a society effect crime patterns in a positive way for peacefull lawfull people. There is much more to it than simply looking at the number of gun deaths. The crime patterns are what is really important.
Could you cite some journals? If you are a forensic psychologist, I'd be very interested in the evidence to support you're claim. I'd hate to continue believing that gun control laws are better if the evidence suggests otherwise.
@merlord For a basic study that is online why dont you try looking up Kates & Mauser. Harvard Journal Of Law And Public Policy. Vol 30; Article. Would Banning Guns Reduce Murder and suicide. It is more of a review of the literature. Most of these journals are not online and the ones that are require heafty membership fees which is unfortunate because if more people had access to them it would shed light on the issue. Hope that helps. Hope you look into it even further. Good Day !!
@merlord If you are near a college with a criminology dept they will have many of these journals and they will let you go through them even if you are not a student. There are literally thousands of articles. I would suggest looking for reviews of the literature. These are often done by grad students and they will be kind of like a summary of 20 or so studies. It can give you a general feel for the entire body without having to spend weeks in there. lol Good Day !!!
@merlord You might also want to look into Kohen & Felson suitable target theory. That makes it pretty clear why the gun laws change crime patterns. IE, If you actually manage to make it hard for a criminal to get a gun, they simply go after weaker people or homes instead of large stores ect.
I love the criminology/psych combo. I really enjoy it pluss it pays about twice what a regular psych makes. lol Nice bonus for work I love.
@merlord all crime statistics I have ever seen point clearly toward gun ownership rates in a society having either 1) a neutral effect on overall violent crime rate (gun violence obviously decreases with fewer guns, accompanied by an increase in non-gun violence.. when a gun is unavailable, they use a knife) or 2) an inverse effect on gun ownership (the more restrictive the gun laws, the more crime and vice versa)
@pfarabee Crime is closely correlated to population density and societal factors such as poverty.
Some examples:
Vermont has no law restricting concealed carry in their state. Anyone who legally owns a handgun may carry it concealed in Vermont without a permit. Vermont is also almost dead last in gun violence and overall violent crime in the US.
Illinois, by contrast has a no-conceal policy.. noone can carry concealed weapons, and has some of the highest rates of violent crime
@pfarabee we also have to look at places such as Alaska, which also has total open carry policy, yet has much higher crime rates. The crowning jewel has to be Washington DC.. the murder and violent crime capitol of our country where it is illegal to even own a handgun. The clear indication is that there is either no correlation at all, or there is a positive correlation between gun ownership and reduction of crime rates. Unfortunately I don't have the sources, you'll have to do some digging.
@pfarabee the secret word, however, is "gun".. watch for it in arguments for gun control. Advocates of control always talk about "gun violence" but NEVER about overall crime or violent crime rates. If you outlaw knives, then there will OF COURSE be a reduction in "knife violence".. duh. But the true measure of success is what happens to the overall rate of violent crime. Someone advocating gun control will never discuss that, because the numbers consistently point against them.
@pfarabee so if you outlaw that little old lady's 38 special, all you have really done is either: a) reduced her to fending off a knife-wielding attacker with her own knife and leet fighting prowess.. or b) reduced her to wielding a knife in a gun fight. Either way, you have guaranteed that, if she is following the law, she is the assured loser.
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH What stat and how does comparing crime in Europe refute the point? If you are a law abiding citizen in the US, you are far less likely to to be the victim of an index crime than you are in most of Europe.
Republicans, and the Tea Party have to realize that their ideology of how to govern doesn't work in a complex society. They may win with rhetoric and by fooling the public again, but they can't govern with rhetoric. They will start a bigger, never ending war, as an excuse not to deal with domestic agenda like their predecessors before them, then they don't have to account for paying for wars. This is all they can deliver. Please share this.
Lol, I sincerely hope that this is you being ignorant...
For a start, I am not levering a system that is superior, I am highlighting a massive flaw.
Democracy is far from the best system by a long stretch. Democracy is mob rule, the mob doesn't care about real justice, the mob is an impatient, quick to anger, unpredictable yet somehow an easily manipulated giant. It never votes in favour of things that will help the economy, because there are millions of idiots and thick people.
@MarxIzalias Yes I believe I highlighted that flaw. If a goverment advertisement can use flashy images and cheap slogans to persuade the majority stupid then how can the country be made better? Intellectuals have always been short in demand.
However, you propose no replacement system. I believe yo are hinting towards dictatorship where a small party convince the public that they know best.
Why don't we mearley educate the majority on the maters of economics, health care etc.?
Education, doesn't work. A lot of people think this is the elixir for stupidity, but a lot of people neglect the fact that, people are educated about Islam, the Bible and many other things which have an intellectually blinding effect. Not everyone is smart nor is everyone just, especially considering that justice is an ill defined construct of vengeance.
Educating the masses... Currently most people can and will ignore you due to their beliefs.
@MarxIzalias So you're not suggesting a replacement for democracy just meerley highlighting fatal errors in its system. Even though a system you believe in may not exsist, what do you think it should en-corporate? How should the goverment rule?
@MarxIzalias Democracy in America is not mob rule. The constitution is there specifically to prevent that. If it were mob rule, bush would not have been president again blacks an women never would have gotten the vote and minorities would never get equal rights in general.
@MarxIzalias I call them a large group of angry voters. Yet as you can see from recent events, voters don't necessarily get what they want just because they are the majority. Our constitution is clear about this.
Thank you for the question. I don't think you can say one is more important than the other, but I believe collective gun ownership benefits all citizens, even if they don't own one themselves. And on the subject of freedom, on any issue, given the choice between more or less freedom, give me more. I find it ironic and very telling that until recently in the city of Chicago politicians can carry a gun, but citizens can not. And what has the violent crime rate been in that city?
Owning a gun is a freedom if I can't own a gun I wouldn't feel free. Who know there have been many times in the worlds history where gun control has been instituted a crooked government starts stripping the rights of its people by force. The most important to protect civil liberties in America is MONEY! Money rules everything you can use money for both guns and lawyers to it really is a stupid question no offense. Anyway if you want to own a gun you should. Don't forget DC gun crime went up....
It's true that freedom tends to get whittled down before armament becomes pertinent to a situation. Consider the 1770's where the (then) province of Massachusetts saw its elected legislature dissolved, its constitution suspended, and a military dictatorship erected in its place. We see that Massachusetts lost its freedom first and only then did the dictatorship pursue disarmament (April 19th 1775). But that's when the fight to reclaim freedom actually started.
I am a supporter of the right to bear arms. It's something that any American should have the free choice to own a gun or not. However, I'm also a supporter of gun owners being responsible for their guns. That means that if you own a gun and your kid steels your gun, takes it to school, and shoots someone with it, then you as the gunowner should be held responsible for that incident.
The Jews gave up their guns, but then in Warsaw, they gave the Wehrmacht a run for their money--too little too late. Too bad so many have forgotten this, especially too many Jews, and the rest of us for that matter! What a crock.
what democracy are you talking about? those commentators are not in a democracy. Read the constitution and bill of rights... I don't think you should be making political videos buddy, if you think you live in a "democracy" you're too misinformed to discuss these matters. go back to basics of American history and politics for about a year then give it another shot.
If progressives, liberals, socialists, etc. are truly afraid of gun owners, how about leaving them alone? I'm afraid of rattlesnakes but I don't get in thier face and scream at them. Very bad juju.
People who believe that a right have guns is the only important liberty to protect are no more than guns themsleves, in my view. Both just wait to be pointed at something and fired.
Are any of you at all concerned that the people who promiss to help you only protect this one Liberty, are not just using you as thier own living "gun"?
As long as we have our guns the government will never be able to enslave a free people. The branch davidians were poorly armed with few members. 150 million armed Americans > the government.
@laetrille US government has much better weapons and training than it's citizens. Also, Americans are not unified enough to take on the government if need be.
@laetrille US government has much better weapons and training than it's citizens. Also, Americans are not unified enough to take on the government if need be. I just mean that the government probably doesn't see any threat from a militia.
Of course its necessary. An unarmed nation is a weak nation. I forgot what this persons name was, but it was some Japanese name. He said "I would never invade america, there would be a gun behind every blade of grass." THAT is the strength of our nation, we have a nation where even the people are able to defend from a foreign invader. I know this may sound like im saying we all should be "WOLVERINES!" But its true. if china or whoever tries to invade, im grabbing a gun and joining a militia.
I think in order to keep a free society, you need something to protect yourself againts the Gov. They may have better weapons, but who will have the will to die for his cause, the soldiers who is only there for the money or the men and women fighting for their freedom?
Take my freedom, not my gun? That is stupid. How about keep the freedom and the guns.
But anyways, gun laws won't prevent anything, criminals will get them and even do now, illegaly. Just like gun "free" zones do nothing.
When it comes to my civil liberties, my number one fear is other nations.
Like the EU member states dictating new law due to the Euro Economic Zone say we have to. In order to keep trade relations. Second, minorities playing at being a victim, in order to change the very way we live. Like attempting to impose sharia law in a modern democracy. Neither money, or lawyers can help in this respect. But if occupation was the threat, i can protect my right to elect my own government only with force.
I think the whole point of the second amendment is to use the guns in case the government gets too powerful. Civil war, although very bloody and many lives will be lost, is done when there's a massive disagreement in government. That's what happened in the Civil War on the issue of slavery.
The patriot act, even though I really don't like it, doesn't restrict our freedoms enough to go to civil war. You can't buy your way to winning a civil war. It helps, but doesn't determine it all the way
I use my firearms for many different reasons. Hunting, target shooting, home defense...many practical reasons. I agree with you in the sense that guns alone will not save you from a rogue government, but it's not just protection from the government, it's protection from the local junkies, burglars, rapists, etc. I rely on nobody but myself to defend myself, police aren't paid to protect me, and I don't put my life or safety in anyone's hands but my own.
In 1787, when we had no standing army and had just revolted against an opprossive government, it made sense to keep your own musket in case your state had to form a militia quickly -- or in case the government became oppressive. Things are slightly different now.
There is absolutely no connection between gun ownership and murders. Even if a gun owner wants to commit a murder, he/she will purchase an illegal firearm to do the murder, they will not use their registered weapon for a hit. Wake up people, they want to take our guns so they can later take our freedom!
Libviewer.......ultimately guns played an enormous part in giving you the right to spew your views (as rediculous as they are). Without them none of us would have the freedoms we have today. So to answer your question....of the three choices the 2nd ammendment and the right to bear arms is without a doubt the most important.
@SerialCapitalist "Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and the keystone under independence. The rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good."
guns are the least important, and without question, the right to bear arms is NOT important in a free society. There is no reason to believe that someone is going to attack you in most places.
@Spartan404 - youtube we take sensible steps to restrict gun ownership, bar people from concealed carry, and a thousand other sensible steps to protect people's lives. google how many gun deaths there are in the u.s. every year.
@nicholas9999 I did, they have dropped remarkably since 1993 and most the murders were do to drug disputes. Meaning if we want to lower murders, we have to decriminalize drugs and open rehabs with the money we save. Also Criminologist Gary Kleck compared various survey and proxy measures and found no correlation between overall firearm ownership and gun violence. Almost 50% of Americans own guns, yet the gun murders relative to that are very small. Guns don't kill people, people do.
@Spartan404 - I will definitely agree on decriminalization of drugs, and opening rehabs. We have a huge number of gun deaths in the country due to accidents, suicides, etc., apart from murders and crazy gun shootings in bars. However, I'm not really against barring all gun ownership, just gun ownership in places and situations in which it is a major problem. In other words, gun laws need to be based on context and situation.
"We have a huge number of gun deaths in the country due to accidents, suicides, etc."
Accidents are preventable when you seriously take your responsibility of gun ownership seriously enough to make sure your weapons are secured from unauthorized persons.
Suicide risk has an underlying cause unrelated to guns; take away the gun and the suicidal person may still pursue self destruction by alternate but effective means.
@Watcher3223 - The problem here is that you're completely removing the concept of situation from the argument. However, situation highly affects human outcomes. If you want to improve society, then you take situation into account. Guns are deadly because they are just too easy to grab, and are therefore mediators of human tragedy. Humans are the way they are, you're not going to change that.
@nicholas9999 "The problem here is that you're completely removing the concept of situation from the argument."
On the contrary. I mention situations that aren't specious and oversimplified.
"Guns are deadly because they are just too easy to grab, and are therefore mediators of human tragedy."
And things like lack of opportunity, lack of financial security, lack of morality and ethics (some people do bad things for the "thrill"), and others that may provide motivation for malice don't count?
@Watcher3223 - Lol, the problem here is that you're removing the concept of situation from the argument. You continue to focus on person-based ideas. Those are fine, but situation is always an important factor in human behavior. Read some, e.g., Kurt Lewin.
"the problem here is that you're removing the concept of situation from the argument."
YOU are ignoring your own question by primarily concentrating on guns but not on more prevalent and far-reaching causes.
Again, WHY would anyone wish to become violent against others?
Just because a gun is more easily available?
The problem with that contention is that it ignores MOTIVE; the question of WHY someone would commit acts of malice. That question DIRECTLY addresses situation.
@Watcher3223 - I would prefer to stick with things we already know about in psychology. You would prefer to cough up crap. Please read a Social Psychology textbook, read lewin, etc. It's all about context and situation.
"I would prefer to stick with things we already know about in psychology."
Which is what?
So far, all I'm reading from you is this: just because you have a gun, you could be dangerously violent. That's not psychology, but oversimplified presumption borne from misunderstanding and even prejudice.
Prejudice, thus bias, is established if you already have a negative stance on weapons in the hands of people.
This can affect your objectivity, putting your assertion into question.
It's not a matter of wanting violence. This is about a one's ability to effectively defend against an aggressor if and when an attack happens. You can be a victim of violence at any time and any place, whether you have a gun or not, so your question raises no point.
The world can be a very cruel place, which includes the possibility of being forced to make some rather difficult decisions in situations involving very high stakes.
@Watcher3223 The important premise is to adhere and prevent the 'violent situation' that occurs via the prompt. The word is a 'cruel place' by the intentions of societal tragedies and it is off the boundaries of 'gun rights'. You would have best attempted the question with a Boolean value and that, I expected as I am concerned about how projectile techniques continue to deprive a lot of lives.
"The important premise is to adhere and prevent the 'violent situation' that occurs via the prompt."
Then you say this:
"The word is a 'cruel place' by the intentions of societal tragedies and it is off the boundaries of 'gun rights'."
The world is a cruel place because there will be people who won't care about others; gun rights doesn't have much to do with that except to provide a convenient scapegoat to avoid dealing with complex human problems in society (the prompt).
@Watcher3223 Not quite on the truth. Considering societies cruel places is a stimulation caused by other problematic processes, one of these processes is the monetary system. Projectiles are only the ends of the entire problem and provide a continuum so.
@Watcher3223 It appears you are not the efficiency. You picked excerpts off my scribes and are unable to detest a written problem of a society: the monetary system. No, weapons are the ends, not the means. The means is the threat. Yet, you are on track about the Slippery slope question, as war brings murder to a massive scale on the populace. Of course there can be a 'panacea' to violence in society. Move to a resource-based economy which is only a part of the mend.
@Watcher3223 "War is a word which was invented when one territorial group of people took away other people's land; they used force and violence, and war was a medium for doing that. You shot other people, stole their women and their resources, for your own gain; and nations invented war ever since man invented weapons, and as long you invent weapons, you can have war; and war is the means of protecting everything you've stolen from others. (cont)
"...nations invented war ever since man invented weapons, and as long you invent weapons, you can have war; and war is the means of protecting everything you've stolen from others."
Bringing up war? Straw man!
All I'm talking about are weapons in the hands of individuals who are more than willing to leave others alone if they are left alone themselves.
As for people who do commit crime: stand up against criminals as well as allow the law to work logically and impartially.
@Watcher3223 Your comment claiming straw fallacy to Jacque's words is factually a straw fallacy itself. You picked, again. This time, at Jacque's words, and you are unable to detest anything else from the quote as it is theoretically correct. Such as: murder happens in war.
"All I'm talking about are weapons in the hands of individuals who are more than willing to leave others alone if they are left alone themselves." More incoherent nonsense.
"Your comment claiming straw fallacy to Jacque's words is factually a straw fallacy itself."
Rubbish.
You're bringing up "war" on a matter concerning an individual civil right of self defense.
"War" had nothing to do with the argument.
Indeed, that's not what was even being talked about.
YOU are the only one bringing "war" up. What you ended up doing was tearing it down in an effort to try and discount my points without arguing them directly.
@Watcher3223 You have picked again, thrice! This time with my words. Only you have picked my first sentence of the paragraph in that comment, whilst you were overthrown and hid from the remaining paragraph as you have not refuted the fact of weaponry intentions, the statvs qvo, and the money system!
You are incorporating guns in civil rights and self defence as war brings these to a mass country scale; the whole establishments use war for credits. Hence the most obvious aspect of war: weapons!
@Watcher3223 Hurrah! You are unable to provide a counter for all the inconsistencies I described with human devices. Of course, if you admit you have lost, then I would graciously empathise your dignity, considering you digitally blur your face in a reflection from your Nintendo Entertainment System - as it may cause to assume you are the typical 'Internet tough guy'. Otherwise, if you continue to contraries, you may be the exposed subject of my upcoming Web Log articles. So glad we agree!
"You are unable to provide a counter for all the inconsistencies I described with human devices."
No, it's that I am tired of REPEATING MYSELF.
That means the argument is going NOWHERE.
I find amusement that you are taking this as some form of victory. I guess you'll take anything you can get then, meaning you're not very hard to satisfy ... or fool for that matter.
@Watcher3223 Yes! When an opponent repeats an argument in the form of repetition, it is an obvious indication it has been punctured. For complete failure to the confession of losing, you will be the subject of an upcoming Web Log article.
@Watcher3223 With benefit of hindsight, you may want to watch the documentary series Zeitgeist by Peter Joseph. However you should take into account the language transcendence in the first segment of religion, and the slight factual errors about Sirius, Attis, Dionysus, Krishna; but that does not stop the true point of the plot! Also see the Venus Project. These are not political changes, it aims to seek complete reforms of society, whilst I assume you are at the right of the political spectrum.
It's utter bullshit how the government thinks they could choose our rights. We should each choose our own rights, by choosing what you want and don''t want to do.
AK107DX 1 week ago
Guns may possibly preserve some of your freedoms during some future uprising or doomsday holocaust, but there not very useful in persevering freedoms during other times. By all means, have guns. But there are other tools to preserve freedoms during peacetime like speech, protest, and assembly. Be as diligent in preserving these as any firearm. Also remember to help preserve the freedoms of others. Never know when they might return the favor.
LancePoint9 1 month ago
Lawyers wont protect u from martial law, where were the lawyers during the Holocaust or other genocides around the world, o wait those people were disarmed as well
Swagster99 4 months ago
lawers and money wont help you when hitler, stalin, mao, pol pot, are in charge.
savage495 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man" - Thomas Jefferson
VirbiusMoon 6 months ago
Hmm.. a loaded question. Of the three, which is LEAST important to have access to for protecting your civil rights in a modern liberal democracy? ... Let me ask, FROM WHOM? If from criminals, then the answer is MONEY. If from government, then the answer is LAWYERS (because if I need it for government, then it is NO LONGER a modern liberal democracy.... now is it?) Answer to the second question, YES!!! In a FREE society, it is essential that they have the right to keep and bare arms.
VirbiusMoon 6 months ago
you dumb ass anti gun libreal
TheRivetthead 7 months ago
sorry a few armed hillbilly's will not stop a government that wants to take them. If you for one min. think some idiot with a 3030 could do a fucking thing against an f18 you are as deluded as Manson. The days of an armed population keep us free are gone.
edteach2u 7 months ago
@edteach2u So 100 million gun owners can do nothing against the 2 million people in the military. Even if something happened most soldiers wouldn't kill their own families anyway. and also those 100 mil have enough guns to arm the other 200 million people. So you say that 300 million armed people can't beat a couple hundred politicians and brainwashed soldiers. You need to wake up
giftedkidrules 7 months ago 3
@giftedkidrules In addition who's to say the military will always be around? Nobody knows the future, there could be a nuclear war we could be left to fend for ourselves. I don't want to be left defenses. Having guns is not just about incase we need to shoot the government.
Khyrid 4 weeks ago
@edteach2u - Oh my.. you are sooo right, because when we poor old folk fought against the strongest military force of 1776 we had No chance. You're an absolute fool, and should NOT consider yourself American. Btw... those hillbillies don't just have 3030's anymore... they have 50 calibur anti-tank canons and Ak-47's. ;) Not to mention there is more than just one "hillbilly" ... AND, if they were sending F-18's to attack civilians, then you better remember, in the south, we have 'em too ;)
VirbiusMoon 6 months ago
@VirbiusMoon Sorry idiot a 50 cal. can do nothing to most armor in todays military and certainly nothing against reactive armor on an M1. Most you you southern hillbilly's would drop your guns is you saw a guy with his pants down. Sooie Sooie here Piggy here Piggy. You sure got a perty mouth. Keep playing your banjo and I will paddle faster idiot one tooth. Remember we kicked your ass one and can do it again.
edteach2u 6 months ago
@edteach2u
I know at first thought that line of logic seems sound, but then I offer you this little nugget of contest. If what you said was right, we would have been victorious in Afghanistan a long time ago. Alot has changed since 1865. For one, armies have to adhere to an ethical code of conduct, or the world will condemn them, so no more "Sherman Marches." Also, despite all of the advanced technology, nothing is as dangerous to a conventional army as a knowledgeable guerilla force.
USN1985dos 6 months ago
If the government really wantted to kill you, they would just send a missile to your location so they can kill you without any danger from your guns. The fact is, the government are not interested in banning guns because they are more interested in the bribes they get from the NRA.. I dare one of you gun nuts to give all your guns to a friend for a month, your mind and heart will awaken.
ssssroryssss 8 months ago
the 2nd ammendment is the most important you libreal faggot
TheRivetthead 8 months ago
i belive there should be a law that state that iff you want to have a gun you have to be shoot by it, in an arm or a leg, after that then you cold keep the gun
TheAquarius1978 8 months ago
@TheAquarius1978 And I believe people with those kinds of ideas should never be allowed near a firearm.
ZzThrog3zZ 8 months ago
To answer your question, the order is money, lawyers, then guns. Need the money to hire the lawyers. The guns are for extreme cases. Yes they are a given right partly because the enlightenment writings of Locke an Paine, and all rights are natural not given by the state. As for Mahr, the average bong owner contributes more to gun violence than the NRA and 99.9 percent of gun owners combined.
island4diver 8 months ago
@island4diver actually the average bong owner dosn't because most potheads are to damn stoned to be violnet. Its the drug dealers who were created by the government that are the ones using guns
gunfighter964 7 months ago
@gunfighter964 My point had more to do with financial support. If the dealers did not have demand, they would not have money to buy guns or be killing each other over market share. You are right about pot heads not being violent, I'll take one over a drunk any day.
island4diver 7 months ago
Bill Mahr is NOT libertarian. He's completely Liberal.
dadoody 8 months ago
Take a hint from the Zaporozhian Cossacks. Freedom through blood, sweat, and tears, not negotiations with a tyrant. If you're not willing to fight, you're not deserving of freedom.
Vovk3 8 months ago
Weapons are needed. The right to bare arms is THEE most important freedom- for THEE most important reasons.
"...what country can preserve its liberties...that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms...The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson
"...they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it."
Abe Lincoln
UrSoMeanBoss 9 months ago
Written law can't stop murder, rape,theft ect. And the same go's for an attorney and court system! People are going to do what they want! I hope you or your loved ones don't experience crime. But part of me likes it when people like you are beaten or worse! And you blame cops for not coming faster. When its the law that states cops are not responsible for your individual safety! Look it up! Thats why I give my family members firearms & training!
DOWNRANGE06 9 months ago
Gun control doesnt work,bad guys will still have guns.
Humberto4790 9 months ago
@Humberto4790
It's not gun control, it's citizen control.
Vovk3 8 months ago
the patriot act will be the mechanism that allows a massive "gun collection" policy. So, yes the patriot act is an abomination and we need to do EVERYTHING we can to repeal it. But in the end the final piece of the puzzle for a facist regime is gun collection.....Its not where we are at this moment in time, its where we will be in the future--all through implimentation of a step by step dismantling the bill of rights/constitution.....Bill Mahr is a fool (2nd Amend is the FINAL right)
SonsOfLibertyRiders 10 months ago
Your point of view that hardcore gun owners(over 50 guns)would rather give up their freedoms instead of their guns(although the whole purpose of guns is defense from oppression)is quite intriguing as I have never thought about it that way. I do not agree completely however, as most people will eventually decide to draw a line in the sand, and decide to keep their freedom AND their guns.
mrfishy1098 10 months ago
When you look at the patriot act back when the attacks happened everyone one united then started talking about patriotism and what not. Now if you know a little bit of history you would know that if ANY law abiding citizen had done something with their guns then they would have the same fate that the branch Davidians had, those that would stand for their rights are made to look like psychopathic, dangerous baby killing people. Then in 04 if you didn't like the PA you were anti American.
MrGunman11 10 months ago
The Democrat party does not want to talk about gun control because they are afraid of losing votes.
crazyredlion4500 10 months ago
Of course it is an essential right, as long as it is not infringed upon. We are not under British rule today because the arms used by the founding fathers were equal in power to those who would rule them. Any less is infringement of this right. The right to bear arms is the final line of defense from a tyrannical state, of this I have no doubt. That said, we are far from that point right now because of other freedoms we have and yes, ..more evil than guns yet still necessary, lawyers and money.
wesley0a 11 months ago
a gun in a free society keeps me free end of argument
rsa1027 11 months ago
I hate the Patriot act and have never supported it, however alot of democrats did support it.
bigbenusa45 11 months ago
If worse came to worse the controlling government would have a large percentage of the population to deal with, and the only way the resistance could have a chance is with IRA style tactics.
mcmike1942 11 months ago
Comment Cont'd:
America can only be taken over if we have no means to fight, and if the guns are gone it becomes that much harder. The majority of American are fine with continued degradations in freedoms, as long as they are safe and can live their lives. This is not the way America is supposed to be though, having the ability to reverse this and fight is based solely on having a means to fight.
mcmike1942 11 months ago
The reason that guns are such an important issue because of the way America is at it's core. I am not talking about you liberals that live in the big cities and have never used a gun or see no reason for guns. If the government wants to take complete control of the people they could easily, and citizens would never be able to fight the US military in an all out war. But the example of Ireland and the IRA could take place if people still had guns. American is not a country that can be conquered.
mcmike1942 11 months ago
With firearms....you can always get it back. Without them...your fucked.
JimmyGunXD556 1 year ago
How about Lawyers, Guns, Money, and a M1A1 tank?
JHP717 1 year ago
Bill Maher is a "Libertarian" lol
SecularNumanist 1 year ago
@SecularNumanist my ass.
rifleman1002 11 months ago
i'd like to see them try to take away our guns and see what happens
galwaypeters2 1 year ago
the unfortunate truth is that the technology that is a gun exists. i therefore, will unfortunately have to maintain the level of technological advancement as the other guy in order to prevent someone having such a great level of superiority over me. the truth is that they exist... i wish this was not the case. but it will never be so. conciousness cannot forget knowledge. therefore i will have to own that tool.... its not cool or fun or anything of the sort to have to shoot back..
rcrmeyer 1 year ago
To Question 1: if you are talking about an individual's freedom, than guns are the least important of the three. If, however, you mean the freedom of the nation as a whole, than guns become the most important to protecting freedom.
To Question 2: Yes
RazorBladeKandy 1 year ago
@RazorBladeKandy for true protection, the Only true freedom you have is decisions and protection. guns keep us protected.
rifleman1002 11 months ago
I suppose you have a point that gun ownership perhaps does little to deter government action.
However, this does not address whether or not gun control reduces crime. Careful consideration and examination of the evidence will lead one to the counter intuitive conclusion that more individuals with guns means less crime.
Libertarianist 1 year ago
Actually at Waco they did kill cops so yeah it's good against the gov.
Humberto4790 1 year ago
Why are people so quick to give up rights that they don't care about. When is comes to drugs and gays, Bill Maher sreams about rights and the constitution. I want my 2nd ammendment rights, along with my 1st Ammendment right. I want ALL of my rights. I don't want to have to pick.
Both the right and left have things they would give up. Both sides want to shread the bill of right just in different ways.
aqinthe 1 year ago
@aqinthe
Of course even the gun people have already given up "some" of that right already, remember its not the "right bear guns" its the right "to bear arms" and its specifically so people can fight the government and stay free.
But lets be honest; whats 300 armed million people against a few nukes?
We don't have tanks etc....in the sense of what it was meant to be, that right is already lost.
gumbo2 1 year ago
@gumbo2 Even though we can't go against tanks or the military we should still be able to defend ourselves against civil unrest. I enjoy shooting and like owning guns. I am responsible and not a violent person. Shouldn't I be allowed? I think we should make it harder to get guns instead of trying to make them illegal. It's not just the 2nd Ammendment under attack. Read the bill of rights and think about how many of the first 10 ammendments have been twisted.
aqinthe 1 year ago
All having a gun does, is make you more likely to get shot. Look at the statistics...personal firearms are far more likely to kill their owners than actually be used in protection against a criminal. The media teaches you to be afraid. It teaches you to believe murders and robberies are far more common than they actually, statistically are...so now you're more concerned about this gun--that does you more harm than good--than the fact that the corporations are screwing us into the ground.
JNDarkness 1 year ago
@JNDarkness Just because having a gun may be dangerous. Should we get rid of the 2nd Ammendment? Should we get rid of freedom in the name of safety? I own guns for protection and because I enjoy shooting.
People scream about certian rights being taken away but then don't seem to care about others. The left and the right each have rights they care about and others they would like to see go away. I want ALL of my rights. I don't want to have to pick a few to keep.
aqinthe 1 year ago 7
@aqinthe Your "freedoms" to own a piece of equipment that's designed to take another human's "freedoms" to live? Because it's fun to own it? ...
ImNotADoctor5 2 months ago
@ImNotADoctor5 I store my guns properly, legally own them and safely use them. So what is the problem? Does it matter why I own them? The issue is safety and legality. Both of which I follow. If I only use my guns for target shooting and personal safety, who cares IF they can take a persons life. It's not what they can or could do. It's how are they actually used and treated.
aqinthe 2 months ago
@aqinthe I should be able to have cyanide to play tiddlywinks with. Just because they're manufactured to, and very easily kill people doesn't mean I can't have fun with them. I safetly use them for fun. And if you think that's irresponsible, then you're just infringing my rights.
Sound ridiculous? While I don't doubt you safely handle guns, the correlation seen globally with the strictness of gun control and the decrease in gun crime is undeniable.
ImNotADoctor5 2 months ago
@ImNotADoctor5 Cyanide isn't legal to own, my guns are. So that isn't a good example. I get your point thought. Why should legal gun owners be punished for the actions of criminals.
The main point I was trying to make was about the Democrats and Republicans picking and choosing what rights they are for.
aqinthe 2 months ago
@aqinthe Cyanide is a very good example, because it's illegal and it's universally understood why, and isn't ever contested. It's illegal because it's extremely dangerous and it's only designed purpose is to murder. Just like guns (only difference? They're legal).
At the end of the day, no one wants absolute freedom, they want safety. Governments pick and choose freedoms because that's what people want. I'm sure no one debates against withdrawal of "freedoms" to download child porn, for example
ImNotADoctor5 2 months ago
@ImNotADoctor5 Guns are also designed for target shooting and for hunting. Or should we oultaw hunting and force everyone to buy cage raised processed meat?
I'm not talking about absolute freedoms. I'm talking about the bill of rights that both parties pick and choose from. I agree total freedom would not be a good idea. But how about keeping the freedoms that were decided to be an important part of this country. Freedom to protest, freedom of speech for example.
aqinthe 2 months ago
@aqinthe Sorry, I wasn't talking about guns designed for legitimate purposes. Reading over my comments, I can see I didn't make that clear. I understand that some guns do have completely legal and reasonable purposes (like hunting), but I'm talking about handguns, not hunting rifles that size make it difficult to use illegally, and some aren't even powerful enough to kill a human.
I do understand that some guns have legal uses, but I think very strong checks need to be made before ownership.
ImNotADoctor5 2 months ago
@ImNotADoctor5 OK, I do agree with you about very strong checks needed before owning a gun. I think owning a gun is a great responsibility. How do you feel about owning a gun for personal protection.
aqinthe 2 months ago
Free people own guns or have the right too own guns. But here is my question the people created the states and the states created the Federal govt. Excepting that fact should lead you to believe that everything the govt. has is because the people have givin it to them. If the police are civil SERVANTS than they do not have any rights the ppl didnt give them you cannot give somebody something you dont have. Private citizens have the right to keep & bear arms it is the final check on Govt.
iamsean90 1 year ago
To ask the question which is least needed is not a very good question because you have to have a situation to figure out what you need and don't need. Second question. all right the founders of this country took a very good look at what they wanted to see in this country that is why the amendments where written as they where then. 1. free speech and opinion . 2. the right to have guns, to protect number 1 and freedom from oppression. after these amendments they get specific for what they are for
babyhead55 1 year ago
Guns are as important as free speech. Granted we can still have guns, but free speech is being trampled every day.
To be honest, LiberalViewer has it right, but only partially. Unarmed the american public can't do much against the government, armed with anything at all we can at least be such a pain in their ass they would be stuck in an endless war they couldn't win... Look at Iraq.
skyhop 1 year ago
The answer to the posters questions are simple. For your first question, "which of these are least important...?" The answer is none. They are all equally important. It's more of a question of which are employed first. The gun being a fail safe if the first two fail. Your second question, "Should the right to keep and bear arms...?" Yes it is. There is a reason the founding fathers made it the 2ND Amendment to the supreme law of the land (Constitution).
theo59643 1 year ago
anybody else what they can and cannot do, what they can and cannot put in their bodys, and what they can and cannot own or possess, putting restrictions on any of these things, or making any of them illegal is treasonous and something that i as an AMERICAN WILL NOT TOLERATE!!!
cronicjointpain 1 year ago
who ever is an AMERICAN< and doesn't want guns to be legal is a traitor, it is in our constitution, and it will not be taken from us, i will not allow it!!! if you have a problem with guns and you live in AMERICA, you were not meant to be a US citizen, and you need to move to a different country if you have a problem with our constitution!!! if guns are illegal, it will not stop criminals from having them, and then the good people will be left highly vulnerable, nobody has the right to tell
cronicjointpain 1 year ago
Answers: Guns, and Yes. I agree with the point that we have allowed our liberties to be eroded without armed response. In practice, however, it is a GOOD thing that we have resisted open warfare in an effort to bring about change within the system itself. If a revolution was started every time the government made stupid decisions, there would never be peace. There is no open revolt because Americans still hold out hope for renewal of those liberties through peaceful methods.
pfarabee 1 year ago
banning guns will cause more crime, gun conrol doesnt work, look at drug control is that working? no it isnt, i say that every person that can qualify for a gun should be required to have one. what criminal wants to rob a bunch of houses where everyone on the neighborhood has a gun.
501joshb 1 year ago
I am anti death penalty. I believe in evolution. I am pro choice (with adjustments). I am anti drug prohibition. I am pro first amendment. Even for the highly annoying. I think PETA is full of idiots.
So even though I am anti lie, cheat, steal, swindle, rape, kill and abuse, the average Christian republican would call me a liberal extremist.
Meanwhile, gun prohibition will create one thing. A black market run by organized crime. Increasing corruption, crime and violence. Same as booze.
thechurchofdave 1 year ago
If you ban guns, people will kill each other with knives. If you ban guns, they'll use swords. Ban swords? Crossbows. Ban those? Umbrellas, canes, whatever.
You can't legislate morality.
vaguelyhumanoid 1 year ago
@vaguelyhumanoid The easiest way to kill a room full of people is a flame thrower and a pipe bomb. Easily created at the local hardware store.
thechurchofdave 1 year ago
@vaguelyhumanoid Um actually if you ban guns people will kill each other with guns anyways. Look at england, they banned, confiscated, and destroyed all legally owned handguns in 1997 however by 1999 the use of handguns in crime had gone up 40%.
bigbenusa45 11 months ago
@bigbenusa45 Even more evidence against gun control.
vaguelyhumanoid 11 months ago
I like guns. Not for any of that "So the goverment can't take my freedom crap" they have more subtle ways than appearing at your house with armed men then that, more along the lines of media, nationalism etc.
I like guns because I love the history behind them, I love the legal trade and ownership of guns, I love the pride companys have in their guns and most importantly I like to shoot guns. It's a hobby of mine. It also acts as a protection from intruders, not the goverment though.
grobo11 1 year ago
Fuck gun control.
ATHEISTARCHIVEINC 1 year ago
gun controls does not work, in the UK scince handguns were banned rose 40%, 40% is proof it does not remove crime
TheAlexagius 1 year ago
I'm in Highschool, I keep a rifle in a gun bag next to my bed, nothing bad ever did, or ever will happen.
Koumrian 1 year ago
@Koumrian I am 47. I have owned a gun since I was 10ish. Not a single problem.
thechurchofdave 1 year ago
@thechurchofdave Exactly! Guns are very safe and pose no danger to anyone as long as you be careful and safe while handling it.
Koumrian 1 year ago
To keep our country as free as posible the lawyers and money is more important. For personal liberties and safety the right to own a gun is important. Being a female and a criminologist/forensic psychologist the body of literature makes it clear that guns in a society effect crime patterns in a positive way for peacefull lawfull people. There is much more to it than simply looking at the number of gun deaths. The crime patterns are what is really important.
shananagans5 1 year ago 13
@shananagans5
Could you cite some journals? If you are a forensic psychologist, I'd be very interested in the evidence to support you're claim. I'd hate to continue believing that gun control laws are better if the evidence suggests otherwise.
merlord 1 year ago
@merlord For a basic study that is online why dont you try looking up Kates & Mauser. Harvard Journal Of Law And Public Policy. Vol 30; Article. Would Banning Guns Reduce Murder and suicide. It is more of a review of the literature. Most of these journals are not online and the ones that are require heafty membership fees which is unfortunate because if more people had access to them it would shed light on the issue. Hope that helps. Hope you look into it even further. Good Day !!
shananagans5 1 year ago
@merlord If you are near a college with a criminology dept they will have many of these journals and they will let you go through them even if you are not a student. There are literally thousands of articles. I would suggest looking for reviews of the literature. These are often done by grad students and they will be kind of like a summary of 20 or so studies. It can give you a general feel for the entire body without having to spend weeks in there. lol Good Day !!!
shananagans5 1 year ago
@shananagans5
Well I'm in my second year of a psychology degree, so I'll have a look Thanks for the help.
merlord 1 year ago
@merlord You might also want to look into Kohen & Felson suitable target theory. That makes it pretty clear why the gun laws change crime patterns. IE, If you actually manage to make it hard for a criminal to get a gun, they simply go after weaker people or homes instead of large stores ect.
I love the criminology/psych combo. I really enjoy it pluss it pays about twice what a regular psych makes. lol Nice bonus for work I love.
shananagans5 1 year ago
@merlord all crime statistics I have ever seen point clearly toward gun ownership rates in a society having either 1) a neutral effect on overall violent crime rate (gun violence obviously decreases with fewer guns, accompanied by an increase in non-gun violence.. when a gun is unavailable, they use a knife) or 2) an inverse effect on gun ownership (the more restrictive the gun laws, the more crime and vice versa)
pfarabee 1 year ago
@pfarabee Crime is closely correlated to population density and societal factors such as poverty.
Some examples:
Vermont has no law restricting concealed carry in their state. Anyone who legally owns a handgun may carry it concealed in Vermont without a permit. Vermont is also almost dead last in gun violence and overall violent crime in the US.
Illinois, by contrast has a no-conceal policy.. noone can carry concealed weapons, and has some of the highest rates of violent crime
pfarabee 1 year ago
@pfarabee we also have to look at places such as Alaska, which also has total open carry policy, yet has much higher crime rates. The crowning jewel has to be Washington DC.. the murder and violent crime capitol of our country where it is illegal to even own a handgun. The clear indication is that there is either no correlation at all, or there is a positive correlation between gun ownership and reduction of crime rates. Unfortunately I don't have the sources, you'll have to do some digging.
pfarabee 1 year ago
@pfarabee the secret word, however, is "gun".. watch for it in arguments for gun control. Advocates of control always talk about "gun violence" but NEVER about overall crime or violent crime rates. If you outlaw knives, then there will OF COURSE be a reduction in "knife violence".. duh. But the true measure of success is what happens to the overall rate of violent crime. Someone advocating gun control will never discuss that, because the numbers consistently point against them.
pfarabee 1 year ago
@pfarabee so if you outlaw that little old lady's 38 special, all you have really done is either: a) reduced her to fending off a knife-wielding attacker with her own knife and leet fighting prowess.. or b) reduced her to wielding a knife in a gun fight. Either way, you have guaranteed that, if she is following the law, she is the assured loser.
pfarabee 1 year ago
@shananagans5
I would like to see this statistic, because even though I can't agree with you, comparing gun crime in America with Europe kind of refutes the point.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 1 year ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH What stat and how does comparing crime in Europe refute the point? If you are a law abiding citizen in the US, you are far less likely to to be the victim of an index crime than you are in most of Europe.
shananagans5 1 year ago
@shananagans5
Can you URL me the stats please if you have time?
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 1 year ago
Republicans, and the Tea Party have to realize that their ideology of how to govern doesn't work in a complex society. They may win with rhetoric and by fooling the public again, but they can't govern with rhetoric. They will start a bigger, never ending war, as an excuse not to deal with domestic agenda like their predecessors before them, then they don't have to account for paying for wars. This is all they can deliver. Please share this.
HOMIMOSHIRI 1 year ago
Lol, democracy is a joke when it considers minority rights, because democracy is an appeal to majority by it's very nature.
The government CANNOT have all the peoples best interests at heart and be purely democratic, it is impossible.
MarxIzalias 1 year ago
@MarxIzalias Well what would you want? Communism? Something that is a good idea however, is entireley impractical.
Choose communism and you choose a bitter life.
Yes, Democracy isn't perfect but it's the best system. You HAVE to rule for the majority.
grobo11 1 year ago
@grobo11
Lol, I sincerely hope that this is you being ignorant...
For a start, I am not levering a system that is superior, I am highlighting a massive flaw.
Democracy is far from the best system by a long stretch. Democracy is mob rule, the mob doesn't care about real justice, the mob is an impatient, quick to anger, unpredictable yet somehow an easily manipulated giant. It never votes in favour of things that will help the economy, because there are millions of idiots and thick people.
MarxIzalias 1 year ago
@MarxIzalias Yes I believe I highlighted that flaw. If a goverment advertisement can use flashy images and cheap slogans to persuade the majority stupid then how can the country be made better? Intellectuals have always been short in demand.
However, you propose no replacement system. I believe yo are hinting towards dictatorship where a small party convince the public that they know best.
Why don't we mearley educate the majority on the maters of economics, health care etc.?
grobo11 1 year ago
@grobo11
Education, doesn't work. A lot of people think this is the elixir for stupidity, but a lot of people neglect the fact that, people are educated about Islam, the Bible and many other things which have an intellectually blinding effect. Not everyone is smart nor is everyone just, especially considering that justice is an ill defined construct of vengeance.
Educating the masses... Currently most people can and will ignore you due to their beliefs.
Dictatorship doesn't work.
MarxIzalias 1 year ago
@MarxIzalias So you're not suggesting a replacement for democracy just meerley highlighting fatal errors in its system. Even though a system you believe in may not exsist, what do you think it should en-corporate? How should the goverment rule?
grobo11 1 year ago
@MarxIzalias Democracy in America is not mob rule. The constitution is there specifically to prevent that. If it were mob rule, bush would not have been president again blacks an women never would have gotten the vote and minorities would never get equal rights in general.
thechurchofdave 1 year ago
@thechurchofdave
Lol, yes it is, what else do you call a large group of angry voters.
@grobo11
You assume I am advocating a ruler... Mankind is not ready for a utopia and even if it was.
MarxIzalias 1 year ago
@MarxIzalias I call them a large group of angry voters. Yet as you can see from recent events, voters don't necessarily get what they want just because they are the majority. Our constitution is clear about this.
thechurchofdave 1 year ago
Thank you for the question. I don't think you can say one is more important than the other, but I believe collective gun ownership benefits all citizens, even if they don't own one themselves. And on the subject of freedom, on any issue, given the choice between more or less freedom, give me more. I find it ironic and very telling that until recently in the city of Chicago politicians can carry a gun, but citizens can not. And what has the violent crime rate been in that city?
SailTCB 1 year ago
Owning a gun is a freedom if I can't own a gun I wouldn't feel free. Who know there have been many times in the worlds history where gun control has been instituted a crooked government starts stripping the rights of its people by force. The most important to protect civil liberties in America is MONEY! Money rules everything you can use money for both guns and lawyers to it really is a stupid question no offense. Anyway if you want to own a gun you should. Don't forget DC gun crime went up....
TheBlomberFactory 1 year ago
It's true that freedom tends to get whittled down before armament becomes pertinent to a situation. Consider the 1770's where the (then) province of Massachusetts saw its elected legislature dissolved, its constitution suspended, and a military dictatorship erected in its place. We see that Massachusetts lost its freedom first and only then did the dictatorship pursue disarmament (April 19th 1775). But that's when the fight to reclaim freedom actually started.
Ishpeck 1 year ago
I am a supporter of the right to bear arms. It's something that any American should have the free choice to own a gun or not. However, I'm also a supporter of gun owners being responsible for their guns. That means that if you own a gun and your kid steels your gun, takes it to school, and shoots someone with it, then you as the gunowner should be held responsible for that incident.
DathanielTDK 1 year ago
The Jews gave up their guns, but then in Warsaw, they gave the Wehrmacht a run for their money--too little too late. Too bad so many have forgotten this, especially too many Jews, and the rest of us for that matter! What a crock.
axishans 1 year ago
what democracy are you talking about? those commentators are not in a democracy. Read the constitution and bill of rights... I don't think you should be making political videos buddy, if you think you live in a "democracy" you're too misinformed to discuss these matters. go back to basics of American history and politics for about a year then give it another shot.
rooftopeagle 1 year ago
If progressives, liberals, socialists, etc. are truly afraid of gun owners, how about leaving them alone? I'm afraid of rattlesnakes but I don't get in thier face and scream at them. Very bad juju.
TheRadar77 1 year ago
People who believe that a right have guns is the only important liberty to protect are no more than guns themsleves, in my view. Both just wait to be pointed at something and fired.
Are any of you at all concerned that the people who promiss to help you only protect this one Liberty, are not just using you as thier own living "gun"?
Zunile03scape 1 year ago
As long as we have our guns the government will never be able to enslave a free people. The branch davidians were poorly armed with few members. 150 million armed Americans > the government.
laetrille 1 year ago 27
@laetrille Yeah, your six-shooter would really help you against an UAV 10000 feet above aiming a Hellfire missle at you and your buddies.
Helltamirre 1 year ago
@Helltamirre No but my browning has more than enough power to reach it. 50cal > UAV
laetrille 1 year ago
@laetrille And built in radar to detect it, apparently.
Helltamirre 1 year ago
@laetrille My moneys on the UAV.
Fuctmentality 1 year ago
@laetrille That's called treason.
punkmusicmetal 11 months ago
@laetrille US government has much better weapons and training than it's citizens. Also, Americans are not unified enough to take on the government if need be.
theempiremelts 10 months ago
@laetrille US government has much better weapons and training than it's citizens. Also, Americans are not unified enough to take on the government if need be. I just mean that the government probably doesn't see any threat from a militia.
theempiremelts 10 months ago
Of course its necessary. An unarmed nation is a weak nation. I forgot what this persons name was, but it was some Japanese name. He said "I would never invade america, there would be a gun behind every blade of grass." THAT is the strength of our nation, we have a nation where even the people are able to defend from a foreign invader. I know this may sound like im saying we all should be "WOLVERINES!" But its true. if china or whoever tries to invade, im grabbing a gun and joining a militia.
benjaminchemistry 1 year ago
HAHAHAHAHA fakesagan HAHAHAHA.
Sorry but I had too.
mecher3k 1 year ago
Guns are the MOST important. You can take away my first amendment but when i have my gun I'll say whatever the fuck i want.
safewaysecurity 1 year ago
I think in order to keep a free society, you need something to protect yourself againts the Gov. They may have better weapons, but who will have the will to die for his cause, the soldiers who is only there for the money or the men and women fighting for their freedom?
Take my freedom, not my gun? That is stupid. How about keep the freedom and the guns.
But anyways, gun laws won't prevent anything, criminals will get them and even do now, illegaly. Just like gun "free" zones do nothing.
skater3shefik 1 year ago
When it comes to my civil liberties, my number one fear is other nations.
Like the EU member states dictating new law due to the Euro Economic Zone say we have to. In order to keep trade relations. Second, minorities playing at being a victim, in order to change the very way we live. Like attempting to impose sharia law in a modern democracy. Neither money, or lawyers can help in this respect. But if occupation was the threat, i can protect my right to elect my own government only with force.
speed1984 1 year ago
Well put
Slugg329 1 year ago
People think I'm paranoid because I own guns. If I own guns, what do I have to be paranoid about?
annasajerk 1 year ago
if guns were outlawed only outlaws would have guns.
individualanarchy1 1 year ago
I think the whole point of the second amendment is to use the guns in case the government gets too powerful. Civil war, although very bloody and many lives will be lost, is done when there's a massive disagreement in government. That's what happened in the Civil War on the issue of slavery.
The patriot act, even though I really don't like it, doesn't restrict our freedoms enough to go to civil war. You can't buy your way to winning a civil war. It helps, but doesn't determine it all the way
Tiosh 1 year ago
fakesagans a cunt
mastaODI56 1 year ago
I use my firearms for many different reasons. Hunting, target shooting, home defense...many practical reasons. I agree with you in the sense that guns alone will not save you from a rogue government, but it's not just protection from the government, it's protection from the local junkies, burglars, rapists, etc. I rely on nobody but myself to defend myself, police aren't paid to protect me, and I don't put my life or safety in anyone's hands but my own.
NickLikesToSweepPick 1 year ago
In 1787, when we had no standing army and had just revolted against an opprossive government, it made sense to keep your own musket in case your state had to form a militia quickly -- or in case the government became oppressive. Things are slightly different now.
Cabochon1360 1 year ago
Of the three, which is LEAST important to have access to for protecting your plants in a modern garden:
Soil, sunlight, or water?
Spartan404 1 year ago
There is absolutely no connection between gun ownership and murders. Even if a gun owner wants to commit a murder, he/she will purchase an illegal firearm to do the murder, they will not use their registered weapon for a hit. Wake up people, they want to take our guns so they can later take our freedom!
Bill Maher is a sell out!
Spartan404 1 year ago
Libviewer.......ultimately guns played an enormous part in giving you the right to spew your views (as rediculous as they are). Without them none of us would have the freedoms we have today. So to answer your question....of the three choices the 2nd ammendment and the right to bear arms is without a doubt the most important.
SerialCapitalist 1 year ago
@SerialCapitalist "Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and the keystone under independence. The rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good."
- George Washington
SerialCapitalist 1 year ago
guns are the least important, and without question, the right to bear arms is NOT important in a free society. There is no reason to believe that someone is going to attack you in most places.
nicholas9999 1 year ago
@nicholas9999 youtube College student shoots home invader, saves 10 lives
Spartan404 1 year ago
@Spartan404 - youtube we take sensible steps to restrict gun ownership, bar people from concealed carry, and a thousand other sensible steps to protect people's lives. google how many gun deaths there are in the u.s. every year.
nicholas9999 1 year ago
@nicholas9999 I did, they have dropped remarkably since 1993 and most the murders were do to drug disputes. Meaning if we want to lower murders, we have to decriminalize drugs and open rehabs with the money we save. Also Criminologist Gary Kleck compared various survey and proxy measures and found no correlation between overall firearm ownership and gun violence. Almost 50% of Americans own guns, yet the gun murders relative to that are very small. Guns don't kill people, people do.
Spartan404 1 year ago
@Spartan404 - I will definitely agree on decriminalization of drugs, and opening rehabs. We have a huge number of gun deaths in the country due to accidents, suicides, etc., apart from murders and crazy gun shootings in bars. However, I'm not really against barring all gun ownership, just gun ownership in places and situations in which it is a major problem. In other words, gun laws need to be based on context and situation.
nicholas9999 1 year ago
@nicholas9999
"We have a huge number of gun deaths in the country due to accidents, suicides, etc."
Accidents are preventable when you seriously take your responsibility of gun ownership seriously enough to make sure your weapons are secured from unauthorized persons.
Suicide risk has an underlying cause unrelated to guns; take away the gun and the suicidal person may still pursue self destruction by alternate but effective means.
Watcher3223 1 year ago
@Watcher3223 - The problem here is that you're completely removing the concept of situation from the argument. However, situation highly affects human outcomes. If you want to improve society, then you take situation into account. Guns are deadly because they are just too easy to grab, and are therefore mediators of human tragedy. Humans are the way they are, you're not going to change that.
nicholas9999 1 year ago
@nicholas9999 "The problem here is that you're completely removing the concept of situation from the argument."
On the contrary. I mention situations that aren't specious and oversimplified.
"Guns are deadly because they are just too easy to grab, and are therefore mediators of human tragedy."
And things like lack of opportunity, lack of financial security, lack of morality and ethics (some people do bad things for the "thrill"), and others that may provide motivation for malice don't count?
Watcher3223 1 year ago
@Watcher3223 - Lol, the problem here is that you're removing the concept of situation from the argument. You continue to focus on person-based ideas. Those are fine, but situation is always an important factor in human behavior. Read some, e.g., Kurt Lewin.
nicholas9999 1 year ago
@nicholas9999
"the problem here is that you're removing the concept of situation from the argument."
YOU are ignoring your own question by primarily concentrating on guns but not on more prevalent and far-reaching causes.
Again, WHY would anyone wish to become violent against others?
Just because a gun is more easily available?
The problem with that contention is that it ignores MOTIVE; the question of WHY someone would commit acts of malice. That question DIRECTLY addresses situation.
Watcher3223 1 year ago
@Watcher3223 - I would prefer to stick with things we already know about in psychology. You would prefer to cough up crap. Please read a Social Psychology textbook, read lewin, etc. It's all about context and situation.
nicholas9999 1 year ago
@nicholas9999
"I would prefer to stick with things we already know about in psychology."
Which is what?
So far, all I'm reading from you is this: just because you have a gun, you could be dangerously violent. That's not psychology, but oversimplified presumption borne from misunderstanding and even prejudice.
Prejudice, thus bias, is established if you already have a negative stance on weapons in the hands of people.
This can affect your objectivity, putting your assertion into question.
Watcher3223 1 year ago
@Watcher3223 I will ask you a question in this comment. Do you want violence?
SlimeTron5000 1 year ago
@SlimeTron5000
At least you are asking a question now, Thanasi.
It's not a matter of wanting violence. This is about a one's ability to effectively defend against an aggressor if and when an attack happens. You can be a victim of violence at any time and any place, whether you have a gun or not, so your question raises no point.
The world can be a very cruel place, which includes the possibility of being forced to make some rather difficult decisions in situations involving very high stakes.
Watcher3223 1 year ago
@Watcher3223 The important premise is to adhere and prevent the 'violent situation' that occurs via the prompt. The word is a 'cruel place' by the intentions of societal tragedies and it is off the boundaries of 'gun rights'. You would have best attempted the question with a Boolean value and that, I expected as I am concerned about how projectile techniques continue to deprive a lot of lives.
SlimeTron5000 1 year ago
@SlimeTron5000
"The important premise is to adhere and prevent the 'violent situation' that occurs via the prompt."
Then you say this:
"The word is a 'cruel place' by the intentions of societal tragedies and it is off the boundaries of 'gun rights'."
The world is a cruel place because there will be people who won't care about others; gun rights doesn't have much to do with that except to provide a convenient scapegoat to avoid dealing with complex human problems in society (the prompt).
Watcher3223 1 year ago
@Watcher3223 Not quite on the truth. Considering societies cruel places is a stimulation caused by other problematic processes, one of these processes is the monetary system. Projectiles are only the ends of the entire problem and provide a continuum so.
SlimeTron5000 1 year ago
@SlimeTron5000
"Considering societies cruel places is a stimulation caused by other problematic processes"
In other words, what I've been saying.
"Projectiles are only the ends of the entire problem and provide a continuum so."
Weapons are a means to an end, good or bad.
Again, the question remains: individual motive. WHY would someone murder?
You can only answer that question on an individual basis; there is no panacea to the problem with violence in society. A gun ban is no exception.
Watcher3223 1 year ago
@Watcher3223 It appears you are not the efficiency. You picked excerpts off my scribes and are unable to detest a written problem of a society: the monetary system. No, weapons are the ends, not the means. The means is the threat. Yet, you are on track about the Slippery slope question, as war brings murder to a massive scale on the populace. Of course there can be a 'panacea' to violence in society. Move to a resource-based economy which is only a part of the mend.
SlimeTron5000 1 year ago
@SlimeTron5000
"I am concerned about how projectile techniques continue to deprive a lot of lives."
The question: WHY would someone murder another? In the rush to "stop guns," nobody seems willing to answer that.
Let's say that you do take away guns, what have you done to actually do away with the motive of someone who has murderous intent?
And, as you can't be completely rid of guns, someone willing to murder may still get a gun whereas the victim may be rendered defenseless.
Watcher3223 1 year ago
@Watcher3223 Answer the question. Do you want violence? Yes or no.
SlimeTron5000 1 year ago
@SlimeTron5000
No.
But what I want will never change how things are and what I may be compelled to do just to protect myself from violence another may force upon me.
Therefore, your question poses a false dichotomy.
Watcher3223 1 year ago
@Watcher3223 "War is a word which was invented when one territorial group of people took away other people's land; they used force and violence, and war was a medium for doing that. You shot other people, stole their women and their resources, for your own gain; and nations invented war ever since man invented weapons, and as long you invent weapons, you can have war; and war is the means of protecting everything you've stolen from others. (cont)
SlimeTron5000 1 year ago
@SlimeTron5000
"...nations invented war ever since man invented weapons, and as long you invent weapons, you can have war; and war is the means of protecting everything you've stolen from others."
Bringing up war? Straw man!
All I'm talking about are weapons in the hands of individuals who are more than willing to leave others alone if they are left alone themselves.
As for people who do commit crime: stand up against criminals as well as allow the law to work logically and impartially.
Watcher3223 1 year ago
@Watcher3223 Your comment claiming straw fallacy to Jacque's words is factually a straw fallacy itself. You picked, again. This time, at Jacque's words, and you are unable to detest anything else from the quote as it is theoretically correct. Such as: murder happens in war.
"All I'm talking about are weapons in the hands of individuals who are more than willing to leave others alone if they are left alone themselves." More incoherent nonsense.
SlimeTron5000 1 year ago
@SlimeTron5000
"Your comment claiming straw fallacy to Jacque's words is factually a straw fallacy itself."
Rubbish.
You're bringing up "war" on a matter concerning an individual civil right of self defense.
"War" had nothing to do with the argument.
Indeed, that's not what was even being talked about.
YOU are the only one bringing "war" up. What you ended up doing was tearing it down in an effort to try and discount my points without arguing them directly.
That IS a straw man fallacy.
Watcher3223 1 year ago
@Watcher3223 You have picked again, thrice! This time with my words. Only you have picked my first sentence of the paragraph in that comment, whilst you were overthrown and hid from the remaining paragraph as you have not refuted the fact of weaponry intentions, the statvs qvo, and the money system!
You are incorporating guns in civil rights and self defence as war brings these to a mass country scale; the whole establishments use war for credits. Hence the most obvious aspect of war: weapons!
SlimeTron5000 1 year ago
@SlimeTron5000
You know what, I'm sick and tired of arguing with you and it's obvious it's deadlocked.
So, let's agree to disagree.
Good bye.
Watcher3223 1 year ago
@Watcher3223 Hurrah! You are unable to provide a counter for all the inconsistencies I described with human devices. Of course, if you admit you have lost, then I would graciously empathise your dignity, considering you digitally blur your face in a reflection from your Nintendo Entertainment System - as it may cause to assume you are the typical 'Internet tough guy'. Otherwise, if you continue to contraries, you may be the exposed subject of my upcoming Web Log articles. So glad we agree!
SlimeTron5000 1 year ago
@SlimeTron5000
"You are unable to provide a counter for all the inconsistencies I described with human devices."
No, it's that I am tired of REPEATING MYSELF.
That means the argument is going NOWHERE.
I find amusement that you are taking this as some form of victory. I guess you'll take anything you can get then, meaning you're not very hard to satisfy ... or fool for that matter.
Watcher3223 1 year ago
@Watcher3223 Yes! When an opponent repeats an argument in the form of repetition, it is an obvious indication it has been punctured. For complete failure to the confession of losing, you will be the subject of an upcoming Web Log article.
SlimeTron5000 1 year ago
@SlimeTron5000
"When an opponent repeats an argument in the form of repetition..."
That may also mean your opponent has a consistent assertion that isn't contradicting itself in the progress of argument.
"For complete failure to the confession of losing, you will be the subject of an upcoming Web Log article."
Go ahead. Your opinion, for whatever that may be worth, and whatever helps you feel better about yourself.
I don't really care, to be honest with you: you're just a cyberbully.
Watcher3223 1 year ago
@Watcher3223 With benefit of hindsight, you may want to watch the documentary series Zeitgeist by Peter Joseph. However you should take into account the language transcendence in the first segment of religion, and the slight factual errors about Sirius, Attis, Dionysus, Krishna; but that does not stop the true point of the plot! Also see the Venus Project. These are not political changes, it aims to seek complete reforms of society, whilst I assume you are at the right of the political spectrum.
SlimeTron5000 1 year ago
@SlimeTron5000
"I assume you are at the right of the political spectrum."
Left or right? Those are just two extremes.
I lean towards libertarianism and classical liberalism.
There are aspects on both sides of the left/right spectrum that I agree and disagree with so you can't exactly pin me as either left or right.
Left and right = black and white
Watcher3223 1 year ago