Soviet Style Gun Control

[MapleBalls]

Gun Control = Oppression & Communism. hahahahahaha. I Don't Care About Handguns, But There Is No Resign To Red Tape Long Guns.

[Mr2ndAmendment]

That's the difference between the UK and America. We wouldn't stand in lines to turn our guns in. It's not in our heritage, it's not how we operate, and it's not what we do. This country was founded through armed rebellion with the utmost respect for gun ownership, it's in our blood. Americans wouldn't wait in lines to turn guns in, they'd wait at home and give them the bullets first. Molon Labe.

[HeroReborn]

Awesome music, important message. 10 out of 10. Keep fighting for our right to protect our lives from those who care nothing for life.

[zipacna1980]

LOL. Firearms are allowed back in Russia since 1940s.it order to get a shotgun you need to have no history of menthal disorder and buy a lisence for 30 bucks. in order to get a rifle you have to own a shotgun for 5 years without any recorded accidents and clean criminal record. And they don't have a silly terms like 'assault rifle' etc. You may have your pistol grip, and a magazine for up to 10 rounds etc. You can litarally oun any rifle if it is not fully-auto and longer than 2 and a half ft.

[vetttech1999]

Great video

[sierrxhadlin]

When Hitler became chancellor he used the registry to disarm Berlin, then the registries of each country his armies evaded led to more confiscation. A country disarmed is easy target for communism. You may say it could never happen, but it did.

[Eidwlolatrhs]

the famine in Ukraine is a lie dudes! The nazis first talked about it, and then all the west adopted the nazi propaganda. All the photos taken from "ukraine" at the "famine times of the 1930's" where really from the famine of 1919. Even the photographer who took the pics admitted that FFS

[SM110989]

and i never endorsed sharia law, i said id rather pray to a fake place rather than a fairy tale book

[FPGOP]

Few things:

-Leftists don't mind killing babies, but killing terrorists or child killers is beyond bad in their eyes.

-Banning guns to reduce gun crimes would be like banning sexual intercourse with the purpose of reducing rape.

[anthonyAJR]

I doubt it. Liberals are starting to cause a backlash against leftwing politics. If that keeps up a second revoultion might break out and liberalism will be a thing of the past.

[kagibb]

an armed society is a polite society

[burnitup2k]

tiggy,

You, PERSONALLY, come for my weapons. Don't be a little passive aggressive faggot hiding behind a ballot box. Man the fuck up and go door to fucking door to take weapons from Americans. Or move to a continent of faggots like Europe.

[anthonyAJR]

Well said.

[faanunu]

Countdown from facsim to socialism/communism... 10 days!

[euahome]

You have no clue about what's happening in Russia, sorry

[WulfBand]

It's a Proven FACT than when gun control is implimented ONLY the Criminals have the guns. History shows this. The mass murders of complete populations after gun control was implimented.

Why does the NWO and the UN and Obama want it so bad. So they can start the Depopulation of the World without resistance.

Come One Come All - Obama Fans - Get your FREE ticket to your local FEMA Extermination Camp :)

[faanunu]

We are so screwed... if our next dictator is a true marxist.

[disturbedone5009]

you do know that obama has said that a bigger more powerful government will solve the problems america has today. if that leaves any room for doubt then i dont know how else to prove his is a marxist.

[faanunu]

I know I know. I'm still hoping... praying that I'm wrong or to wake up from this aweful nightmare.

[MyFartsRock]

during Katrina does anyone know if that old lady that was brought down in her house could ever sue?

[anthonyAJR]

Good Video.

[Medeasbiggestfan]

In 2007, 5.7 people per 100,000 in the US were murdered, in Britain it was 1.4 people per 100,000.

So either Americans are inherently more violent than Brits or it is easier to kill someone in the US than the UK.

[screwThePCPolice]

The murder rate is high in the US due to drug-related murders by rival gangbangers not law-abiding citizens.

[Medeasbiggestfan]

Sadly, we have drug crimes and gangland violence in the UK as well, but we have a lower murder rate because it's not as easy to get, maintain and keep lethal weapons in Britain as it is in the US.

[NJRocks281]

wrong, gun crimes tripled in the UK after the gun ban

[Medeasbiggestfan]

Last year in the UK there were 2.03 murders per 100,000 people. In the US last year there were 5.70 murders per 100,000 people. So either Americans are inherently more violent than Brits or it is easier to kill someone in the US than it is in the UK.

[NJRocks281]

Thats actually a very small difference considering how many more guns there are in the US. There is more to it than guns. Guns are just a tool. Wow 3 more murders in the US per 100,000 people. Is that what you call justification for robbing the entire civilian population of their property and rights. Your a European sheep.

[Medeasbiggestfan]

European don't see owning guns as a fundamental right, Americans do. That's fine! Europeans see the right to life as fundamental, Americans don't - fine.

We have different cultures, there is nothing wrong in that, but please don't condemn us for not having the same culture as you.

[NJRocks281]

I'm not condemning you, but Europeans rag on us constantly. Wtf is right to life???

[Medeasbiggestfan]

The right to life means no one in Europe can be condemned to the death penalty or have their life taken or put at risk by the state.

Just because some illeducated Europeans complain about other cultures doesnt make it right.

[Watcher3223]

The right to life and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms are intertwined.

It's called self-defense. The right to Keep and Bear Arms makes your ability to defend yourself against a malicious affront by a person who has no respect for your life all the more effective.

Nobody with civility wants to kill anyone, but it's a moral imperative to defend your life against someone who is willing to take it away from you unjustly. If you kill the bad guy, that's a consequence he brought upon himself.

[Medeasbiggestfan]

In the UK last year there were 2.03 murders per 100,000 people. In the US last year there were 5.7 murders per 100,000 people.

So last year, almost three times more people lost their fundamental right to live in the US than in the UK.

[Watcher3223]

Of course, you should understand that the United States has many times the population of people than the United Kingdom with many more metropolitan cities. In addition, the number is still relatively low for the U.S.

In addition, the figures cite murders and is not explicit at *how* one was killed and the breakdown of the statistics to show how the numbers were reached and that's if the numbers are even true since no source has been cited for verification.

[Watcher3223]

Furthermore, the statistic ignores one fact: you do not have to be killed to be a victim of violent crime where you could've had a chance of getting out of without being hurt if you could've defended yourself.

[Watcher3223]

Plus, in addition, according to the Department of Justice, Washington D.C. has some of the highest murder rates in the U.S., despite the fact that it's had strict gun control laws basically amounting to an outright ban for 30 years.

Meanwhile, the State of Vermont has virtually no restrictions on guns, yet enjoy some of the nation's lowest crime rates.

There are many different municipalities in the U.S., each with their own provisions both good and bad, that can have a bearing on your numbers.

[Medeasbiggestfan]

I gave the murder rates, which take population size into account. Also, the population density of the UK is 7 times higher than the US, so you would expect crime in the UK to be higher, not lower.

A little gun control in some states but not others will obvious raise gun crime in states with more restrictions because the guns are freely available in neighbouring states. So criminals can get guns and law abiding people can't use them. A complete gun ban is the only way, as Europe has proved.

[Watcher3223]

Population density is different to population size, which is massive in the U.S.

Plus, certain regions have greater density than others.

Comparing the U.K. to the U.S. is very tricky because the land masses of both countries are so drastically different in size and, in the case of the U.S. extremely varied from one region to another (and I'm only nicking the surface here).

In addition, you've failed to provide any source for your statistics, which invalidates your claim with your data.

[Watcher3223]

Plus, I view your claim with some irony.

"...criminals can get guns and law abiding people can't use them."

Think about that particular quote.

In addition, if criminals have their guns already, what makes you think a complete ban is going to make criminals give them up?

As for Europe proving that a gun ban is the only way, I find that to be a dubious claim, especially when the BBC claimed that violent crime was rising and the U.N. declares Scotland among the most violent countries.

[Watcher3223]

And then there's one country in Europe that appears to be in defiance of the gun ban claim: Switzerland.

[Medeasbiggestfan]

I'll send you the sources for my statements.

Violent crime is high in Scotland, but not as high as the US.

Switzerland does have high gun ownership, but they also have national service which all the Swiss must go on in order to maintain a well ordered and responsible militia (which is what the 2nd amendment really calls for).

If you want to keep guns in the US, that's fine, but please don't criticise us for not having them. Guns are not part of our culture and we don't want them to be.

[Watcher3223]

"Violent crime is high in Scotland, but not as high as the U.S."

According to the study I mentioned, the attack rate was 3% of Scotland's population versus 1.2% of America's population. England and Wales rates at 2.8%.

How is 1.2% greater than 3% and 2.8%?

"(which is what the 2nd Amendment really calls for)"

The 2nd calls for an *unorganized militia* according to U.S. Code Title 10, chapter 13, subsection 311, paragraph b 2. This is further bolstered by comments in the Federalist Papers.

[Watcher3223]

The 2nd Amendment indicates that *the people are the militia.* The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is related to the phrase "well regulated" under its obsolete definition: well-trained and well-equipped. The People are expected to ensure the security of a free state, by force if necessary.

As for criticizing, we will stop criticizing about your choice to be defenseless if you will stop criticizing our choice to keep the teeth of liberty.

[Watcher3223]

Since the People are the militia, they can only function in that regard if the People's access to arms and training are not restricted in any way by the government. The 2nd, like the other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights identify pre-existing rights of the people AS WELL AS *limits to Federal powers*.

The People have the right to Keep and Bear Arms and the government is prohibited from infringing on that right because the People serve an unorganized militia role.

[Watcher3223]

And here's the first paragraph of U.S. Code title 10, chapter 13 subsection 311. (Emphasis added)

"The militia of the United States consists of *all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age* and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age *who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States* and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

If you're a citizen, you're a member of the militia.

[Medeasbiggestfan]

The US Constitution calls for the militia to be 'well regulated'. This is the case in Switzerland, it is not the case in the US.

[Watcher3223]

Perhaps you missed what I mentioned about what "well-regulated" meant back when the 2nd Amendment was written?

"Well-regulated" meant well-trained and well-equipped. In other words, getting appropriate and effective training along with having uninhibited access to weapons and ammunition. It does not mean a militia that is under direction from a superior command.

Though the definition of the phrase "well-regulated" is perceived differently, it does not change the original intent.

[Medeasbiggestfan]

In the UK, we as individuals have given up the freedom to own guns in return for the state stopping everyone else from owning guns. In the same way we as individuals have given up the freedom to kill in return for the state stopping everyone else from killing. The vast majority in the UK want guns to be ban, so they are. If a majority of Americans want guns to be legal then they should be. This is how democratic societies determine what is legal and what is not.

[Watcher3223]

The only problem with giving up the freedom to own guns is that now the only people who will own guns are those who act in defiance of the law.

In addition, you're very mistaken about what the rights and responsibility to owning a gun entails.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms doesn't necessarily mean that you have a right to kill.

You have a right to defend yourself, including the use of lethal force IF IT IS JUSTIFIED. In other words, if you can safely walk away, you're expected to walk away!

[burnitup2k]

You do not understand the government of the US to make that statement. The US is a constitutional republic not a democracy. My rights as guaranteed in the constitution do not change with the occupant of the White House or Congress. Since we are a republic we are ruled by law not the mob like a democracy. And as such a simple majority of Americans cannot change the rights of the minority.

[Medeasbiggestfan]

This video criticises the UK for being different from the US, for not having a gun culture, for having a different set of values. That is what I object to.

Americans see lacking the right to bear arms as an infringement of fundamental rights, Europeans see capital punishment as something which belongs in the dark ages.

We have different cultures but there is nothing wrong with that. I wish the makers of this video would understand that.

[Watcher3223]

In regards to capital punishment, what you should understand is that the death penalty is only an option for heinous capital offenses, where the only punishment that can fit the crime is the death penalty, such as premeditated murder.

It's not a deterrent, but a commensurate punishment given the circumstances.

But, that punishment is only available if guilt can be proven beyond reasonable doubt AND if the jury can unanimously decide a guilty verdict. Death penalties are not given on whim.

[Medeasbiggestfan]

I did understand your point about 'Well-regulated', I was just pointing out what it actually says in the document which Americans are supposed to hold as sacred.

The fact that you defend state murder just validates my point that we have different cultures. Why not respect the fact that most people in the UK have never owned a gun, dont want to own a gun and dont want guns to be legalised?

[Watcher3223]

First, you *don't* understand the point of "well-regulated." I just elaborated it's meaning and intent, as well as other parts of the 2nd; you've disregarded it without attempting any kind of debate.

Plus, I'm not defending "state murder" as you so glibly and insultingly put it.

Execution as commensurate punishment for a heinous crime is not premeditated murder.

Understand what premeditated murder is (the planned killing of a person *with malevolent and depraved intent*) before you assert.

[burnitup2k]

And Europeans have neutered themselves to the point of outlawing any criticism of Islam.

So much for an enlightened idea like freedom of speech, expression and dissent.

[burnitup2k]

Great point Watcher.

From the 2004 election data county by county, you were 3x more likely to be murdered in a blue county as a red one.

Most red counties and states would most likely match the numbers that Medea is quoting for the UK.

[Medeasbiggestfan]

You think criticism of Islam is outlawed? Read any tabloid newspaper and tell me that.

We have the freedom to do whatever we like but we give up certain freedoms, like killing and steals from others, in return for the state stopping everyone else from killing or stealing from us. In the UK, the vast majority of people don't want the freedom to own guns. So the government in 1997 was elected by promising to ban them. This is how democratic societies (not necessarily democracies) work.

[Watcher3223]

Tabloid newspapers are not serious journalism.

Plus, nobody has freedom to murder and steal, not even in the United States. But, in the U.S., you have a right to defend yourself against someone who is trying to kill you or steal from you, including through the use of deadly force *if it is absolutely necessary*. Self-defense is not malicious, but a concept where you should be able to stop a violent act committed against you.

[Watcher3223]

As for the "vast majority of people don't want the freedom to own guns," what about criminals who may continue to own guns in defiance of the vote while continuing to break the law as their occupation?

And what about the "minority" of people who are decent and law-abiding and wants the freedom to own guns? Must they yield to the demands of a collective majority without contest?

That's the flaw of a democratic society; it puts the majority ahead of the minority.

[Watcher3223]

Democracy is valuable so long as it's grounded by supreme law so the minority can object against an illegal decision made democratically, which is the case with the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

To put it simply: Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding on what to have for dinner.

[Medeasbiggestfan]

Murder is when a human life is taken deliberately. The fact that you defend capital punishment just shows how different our cultures are - which was may point!

I know tabloids are rubbish but they criticise Islam, which burnitup2k said was outlawed in Europe.

I also know the flaws of a democratic society, but I wouldn't want to live in any other type of society.

Are you advocating legalise guns in the UK against the will of the people?

[Watcher3223]

Murder is the deliberate taking of human life UNLAWFULLY, WILLFULLY, AND WITH MALICIOUS INTENT.

The death penalty is a fair price that must be paid by the offender to atone for a crime of such horrid scope, provided that the crime can be proven beyond doubt and the verdict reached unanimously.

Differences aside, you're wrong because you can't or you refuse to recognize that justice and murder are mutually exclusive.

[Watcher3223]

As for living in a society, I'd rather live in a society where decisions can be made democratically, but measures are in place (Constitution, Bill of Rights) to keep the democratic process from perverting itself into mob rule, superseding inalienable individual rights.

This is why the U.S. is a representative democracy under a constitutional republic.

As for advocating against the will of the people, I'm suggesting that such advocation not come at the price of the rights of the individual.

[Watcher3223]

As for "outlaw," I'd disagree about journalism of any sort being illegal.

But, there is what could be called an "unwritten law" that has no legal standing, but nonetheless is one that mustn't be broken because it doesn't feel right to do so (whether it's truly right or not).

It can be speculated that, in the interests of political correctness, there is an unwritten law that keeps criticism of another's religion from being published in, say, a broadsheet publication.

[Medeasbiggestfan]

Again, few Europeans would agree with you about the death penalty, as the US and Europe have different cultures! I think capital punishment is draconian, akin to public flogging - worse in fact!

In Europe your life cannot be forfeited, no matter what crime you have committed. The right to life is inalienable, unlike the right to bear arms. Most people in the US would disagree, but thats alright, we're not the same, we have different cultures, different ideas of what is a right and what is not.

[Watcher3223]

To liken a death penalty sentenced and administered under due process of law to a "public flogging" is a misnomer.

As for the life of a violent murderer, what about the life of the victim?

The victim's life was malevolently *taken,* not forfeited, without any justifiable cause. There has to be a price for that, and it ought to be fair for the sake of the victim and his/her family.

Life is about responsibility, part of that responsibility is *honor*. Without honor, life has no significance.

[Watcher3223]

For a murderer not to render fair recompense (an eye for an eye) for his wrongdoing for the sake of the violated and for society is one of the most dishonorable and despicable ideas to read about.

It's a perversion of the sanctity of life. A convicted murderer does not have greater value than his victim, so he ought to pay his debt, as high as the price may be, because that is righteous.

[Medeasbiggestfan]

You can't preserve the sanctity of life by killing someone. Under an eye for an eye, if a person is assaulted then the perpetrator should be assaulted as punishment. Do you think that's right? If not, surely corporal punishment is less barbaric than capital punishment, yet you defend it?

The reason I brought up the death penalty was to show how different our cultures are. Americans think it is justified, Europeans think it is not. By defending death penalty, you prove my point.

[Watcher3223]

"You can't preserve the sanctity of life by killing someone."

But you disgracefully defy that sanctity by placing value of a murderer's life over that of the victim. Life without honor is not sacred or valuable.

"If a person is assaulted then the perpetrator should be assaulted as punishment."

Treat others the way you want to be treated.

Like many other things in life, this is a philosophy that goes both ways. Ideally, a convicted murderer deserves no less consideration in that regard.

[Watcher3223]

I never brought up corporal punishment, so why did you mention it?

I was talking about capital crimes and their appropriate punishments. Capital offenses are basically the worst crimes anyone could possibly commit; it's an extreme act of wrongdoing. If guilt is proven in such a case, then it is logically easy to decide on punishment that fits the crime.

Lesser crimes are more complex to sort out in terms of deciding appropriate punishment, so don't bring that up.

[Watcher3223]

A barbaric punishment is that which exceeds what is necessary. In other words, it's a punishment that isn't a fair.

What is unfair about the death penalty against a person who brought it on himself for killing another in willful and horrid mischief?

[Medeasbiggestfan]

You don't see the death penalty as barbaric, you don't think it exceeds what is necessary. I do.

I think human life is sacred and no one has the right to take a life, including the state. Killing a murderer won't bring back their victims it will just take another life.

Again, you just continue to prove my point about our cultures being very different.

[Watcher3223]

Punishing the murderer with a death sentence isn't about bringing the victim back, but collecting a debt commensurate with the crime. It is about appropriate consequences for murder.

Murder is not merely the simple taking of a human life, it is the taking of life with willful and evil intent. To pay for that crime is more important than life as it's a matter of honor to answer for that evil.

As for "proving" differences in culture, I DON'T CARE ABOUT THAT. This is about right and wrong.

[Watcher3223]

And, as for human life being sacred, to that degree, it is sacred enough to defend using deadly force against another willing and intending to harm you *if it becomes necessary.*

Defining what is necessary: If a person is coming at you with obvious intent to murder you and you have nowhere to run away, you have two choices: fight back or die.

If the victim has a gun, he has a better chance of surviving, especially if he's not as strong physically as his enemy or if the enemy has his own gun.

[Watcher3223]

And before you can try to turn it around on me.

A murderer has no right to defend his life once he's been sentenced to death and his right to appeal has been exhausted but he was still proven guilty. That is because he is paying his debt to society. A debt he brought upon himself.

A victim defending his life, OTOH, is different because he is being threatened for no good justifiable cause and must act in defense against an unfair affront.

[Watcher3223]

And I do understand that we disagree.

We will not resolve anything in the arguments.

[disturbedone5009]

i think punishment should match the crime exactly. if someone tags a building then the owner of that building should go to their house and tag it up. if they assault someone then they should be assaulted. if they murder someone by cutting their throat then they should have their throat cut. it is the only way it can be fair.

what do you think?

[Medeasbiggestfan]

I think that sounds horrific, unworkable, brutal and repressive. It goes against all the ideals of what a civilised society is supposed to represent, and it break pretty much every single convention of human rights. It makes the justice systems of North Korea and Saudi Arabia look measured.

[disturbedone5009]

so do you think if someone brutally rapes a woman that he deserves to go to jail, work out, get a college degree and be "reformed"? do you know most people who go to jail end up right back in? what does that say about the "punishment" and serving the time for violating someone else rights.

[Medeasbiggestfan]

The first duty of every justice system is to protect the public. So any criminal who would be a danger to the public should be locked up until they are no longer a threat. Prison should be about finding out way a person has committed a crime and fixing that problem.

I'm sure reoffending rates are high in the United States, but then the American justice system concentrates on punishment instead of rehabilitation.

[disturbedone5009]

the punishments do not fit the crimes. they have it easy compared to what they did to the people they victimized.

[Medeasbiggestfan]

The role of the justice system is not revenge and retribution.

[disturbedone5009]

the role of the justice system is to put people into prison so they may pay back the community for the crimes the commit. not to pat them on the back and say its not your fault you are a drug addict and killed someone for their money to get your next fix. its their job to make them never want to commit a crime again.

[Medeasbiggestfan]

I agree, and the best way to make sure they never want to commit a crime again is rehabilitation. Find out why they commited their crime in the first place and fix that problem.

[disturbedone5009]

how do you rehabilitate someone who figured out they can make more money selling crack then working at mcdonalds for minimum wage?

[Medeasbiggestfan]

You train them so they can get a job which pays more than drug dealing, you show them the consequences of their action and the effect they've had on the families of their victims.

[disturbedone5009]

they obviously dont care what the consequences are or they wouldnt have knifed the person to get their cash or paid for drugs instead of milk for their kids.

[Medeasbiggestfan]

Do a Google search for 'Youth scheme cuts reoffending'.

The first result should be a BBC article about how making people face up to their crimes cut reoffending by 99%.

[disturbedone5009]

maybe on young kids and teens but i doubt hardcore gang members really give a shit.

[Medeasbiggestfan]

The vast majority of gang members in the UK are teenagers.

In any case, if the courts feel a person is a danger to the public, they're not let out of prison for a very long time.

[disturbedone5009]

the uk is on a completely different level than the us. the us has some of the most violent gangs in history. some are completely based in prison. some are run from inside the prisons.

[Medeasbiggestfan]

Perhaps that's because of the overly harsh and disproportionate US justice system. Brutality breeds brutality.

[disturbedone5009]

no i really think that its because to them its cool to go to jail. the most popular musicians in america have all been to jail.

[SM110989]

the best way to stop gun violence, is to take away the guns. and anyone found with a gun serves 10 years before parole. rifles, for hunting get a new special permit and they must not be loaded, and all guns must be bolt action. strict gun control is the only way to stop gun violence. works here and in the UK and Aussie

[Medeasbiggestfan]

I agree, but most Americans don't. In a democracy it is the majority's view which counts.

I just wish the pro-gun people in the US would stop criticising the majority of Brits who support the UK gun ban.

[SM110989]

well luckily we dont live in the US. so we have a small chance of getting shot. mab if it was a hunting accident but thats about it. and in america u have a better chance of winning the lottery in some cities than seeing or getting shot. its pathetic

[markbotv3]

the best way to stop car accidents is to send every man woman and child a speeding and wreckless driving ticket in the mail. the public can not be trusted. it is better to be safe than sorry. that way when people do speed and arent caught by the law they have already been served their tickets. of course blacks and catholics would be issued tripple tickets cause they offend more than anglicans

[SM110989]

to me anyone who prays to a god is all christian, i dont give 2 shits if u r some other type of christian or muslim, and thats pretty illegal, u obviously dont know anything about law, im not even an american citizen and i know more than u, a ticket is a document stating your CURRENT, and PRESENT offense, ONE ticket for ONE infraction and since they already have a ticket, they would stil speed, ive gotten one, i still speed. and i already said ur an idiot, and guess what? u still r

[markbotv3]

it worked for gun controll in the UK. take away the guns from the people before they end up in the hands of those who would use them improperly. give the tickets before they speed and get away with it. its the same thing.

[SM110989]

did u just say that gun control, and speeding are the same thing? firearms possession is usually a federal crime, while speeding is a minor infraction. and when i say minor its just a fine. with firearms possession its usually jail time, community service, or large fines in excess of 50,000 or more CAD. dont compare apples and tires, ur in a whole new set of rules when u compare guns and speeding tickets

[markbotv3]

possesion of firearms is a felony? what the fuck totalitarian shit hole do you live in?....oh i c. .. poor fucking bastard you dont even know how bad you have it do you? VOTE FOR CAMERON you fucktard...get some of your lost dignity back

[SM110989]

possession of a illegal firearm is illegal. hence the illegal firearm, and gun registration is done by the provincial government, in conjunction with the RCMP federal investigators, and police service. ur calling canada a totalitarian shithole? hmmm. the only currency ur allowed to use in ur country, or even get access to is american, and we have this law, so that we dont have redneck gun tottin in the cab of the truck country, we have civilization. and respect.

[markbotv3]

my arent we just a little elitist? google "seven forms of propaganda" you just used 3 of em in yer last statement.

[markbotv3]

about the only policy i agree with on canada is your ULTRA strict imigration policy...you dont let just any fucktard in. so on that front we can take a queue to you.

[SM110989]

we let americans in so it has to have huge holes in it i know. and about the only policy i agree with in america is... srry i cant quite think of one right now. let me get back to u on that

[markbotv3]

you only let americans in for 6 12 and 18 hour passes...i worked at a check point dip shit. as far as borrowing money we get most of it from china of all the god awful places. and anyone who isnt a card carring commie is AGAINST liberal tax borrow and spend policies. and dont say "well bush borrowed...bush this bush that" BUSH WAS NOT A CONSERVATIVE!!! he was a neo con what ever that means...leftist republican i guess...anyway be sure to vote for CAMERON for PM. that is all

[SM110989]

ill vote for whichever PARTY i want to vote for. and ur right bush didnt do all that. no one person could fuck a country up like that in that short time. and i had my landladys family, from arizona, here for a whole month so thats more than 18 hours right?

[markbotv3]

with a visa

[SM110989]

friends, then the switch happens, and then the americans r there insulting undermining, and general distrust of them. and that makes the afghanni ppl not trust the coalition. all of them. ill put this in terms u can understand, DO U WANT MORE BODYBAGS COMMING HOME? i dont, on any side any country any religion.

[markbotv3]

mecca and medina are citys of pilgrimage for the muslims. no matter where in the world a muslim is they are to bow in the direction of mecca. as far as body bags are concerned its un fortunate but realisticly they are SAFER over there than here 4000 dead in six years of "fighting?" we lost more in the first 120 mins on iwo jima. your ignorance of your enemy is astounding. these chogies would blow themselves up along with you and your whole family for 72 raisins...they are crazy

[SM110989]

sorry r u comparing guerrilla warefare with a stationary enemy with artillery, MG emplacements, and bombers? dont compare the two, the japanese were a great waring civilization, and 2 completely different eras, and whoever thinks there crazy well yea thats true. and in afghanistan, Canada has the highest casulties PER CAPITA than any other country there. ooo and christianity is better? where ever u r u have to bend to a book. theres at least makes sense, book, location, book, LOCATION, thats me

[markbotv3]

no im comparing the casualties over there to natural deaths over here...and they are statisticlly safer fighting over there on the front lines than we are over here. lol you have been muslimized...enjoy sharia law traitor.

[SM110989]

r u retarded? i was refering to the japanese army of the 40s, and ur comparing a rag tag group of trained terrorists? an army against a terrorist cell? hmmm, and if ur in war there are no natural deaths. its all authorized murder. and u have been stupified by american and christianization

[markbotv3]

christianization? im jewish you racist anti semite

[SM110989]

i never said u were christian. and im not anti semite, u assumption making ass, all i said was stupified by americanism and christianization. nothing about hating a religion. i have family who are jewish, i could really care less if they were ow werent. and just because i said christianization doesnt mean im a antisemite

[markbotv3]

you are too an anti semite. i bet you have a swastika hanging in your room. does the SM in SM110989 stand for SKIN HEAD MAFIA perhaps? you should learn to love your fellow man instead of preaching hate

[SM110989]

yes, the SM stands for Skin Head Mafia. when have i preached hate?, give me a specific example of me preaching hate toward the jewish population? my family fought and my family died for the fight in WW2

[markbotv3]

i was just trollin ya man lol my bad

[markbotv3]

actually since november of last year i cant think of a single american policy i agree with either...see we can find common ground if we try =)

[SM110989]

the last 8 years i hardly agree wiht what america has done to the world. and hopefuly Obama will turn ur backwards war mongering country around

[markbotv3]

see thats where we disagree. mecca and medina shouldnt even exist on the face of the earth. bush did alot but not nearly enuf to the muslims as he could or should have. he was way too touchy feely when it came to not trying to offend anyone

[SM110989]

ok i dont know wat mecca and medina are, but they sound like religious places, but the reason bush wasnt as redneck as u, is because well do u want to stand in the middle of a few million ppl, then insult them all? especially a proud culture like the Muslim and Islam faiths? i wouldnt. but then u american were never that good at understanding these things. like afghanistan for instance, the british commonwealth states there, australia, canada britain new zeaaland, go in to small towns and make

[SM110989]

and speaking of poor, hows ur economy doing? were fine, do u want another loan? and wtf r u talking about cameron for? who is he?

[78997]

gun control means more innocent people to be killed by govt or the criminals

[jasbri1972]

My friend, good job on this video. It is a real eye opener. God bless