2.5 million acts of self defense with guns a year! You dont hear about that on the news. Criminals kill people with guns! Law abiding responsible NON criminals DO NOT kill people with guns. I own a gun and never have killed even 1 person (WOW what a shocker someone who owns a gun and HASNT killed anyone hmmmm...). This gun debate is old. Guns dont kill. End of story.
@markp64 you are using entirely anecdotal evidence. Like all american's you only focus on what happens in america and know absolutely nothing about the rest of the world. It's very simple, out of US, Canada, UK, and France guess who has the highest violent crime rate? And guess which one has the least gun control? I rest my case...on actual GLOBAL evidence not just "well in OUR country". But like a typical ignorant american you will ignore this proven point so I may as well be talking to a wall.
I think it's clear that you dont know what "anecdotal" means.
based on or consisting of reports or observations of usually unscientific observers
in other words peoples observations.
The stats that I posted were NOT anecdotal. They came directly from the CDC website.
Based on your response, it appears you are NOT american. This means that you have no clue about the concept of true freedom. The countries you cited are not even close to being free as the US
With that being said, this much freedom does come with a price. The price is that we have to accept what other people might do even if it is seen as BAD. However, I digress.
The UK had a greater number of murders in 2007 than any other EU country – 927 – and at a relative rate higher than most western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so."
From what I've heard in the past, I would usually disagree with Anne Coulter on several issues. However, I think she's right about what she's saying in this video for once.
@kn1feonly yes, Canada has roughly 10% of the population of the US, but even after THAT adjustment for population the US still has a much much higher gun death rate. 300 isn't 10% of 10000, where did you learn math?
@DCooper720 We also have a massive influx of people from impoverished countries coming here to try to make better lives for themselves. These people drive up our poverty rates and historically the higher a country's poverty rates are the higher their crime rates are going to be.
@DCooper720 I said the US has a massive influx of people from impoverished countries (mainly Mexico). I never said that the US has more immigrants than Canada. And any information that we have on immigration into the United States is invalid because we have so many people crossing the border and coming into the United States from Mexico that it is impossible to keep track of it all.
@DCooper720 There are also WAY more illegal immigrants in the United States than there are in Canada. It is estimated that there are 35,000 to 120,00 illegal immigrants in Canada and it is estimated that there are 12 Million illegal immigrants living in the United States.
@kn1feonly that's just because we actually welcome immigrants and don't force them into poverty like the US. In fact about a third of Canada's population is immigrants we just welcome them instead of marking them as "illegal"
@DCooper720 People are free to go through the process of becoming legal citizens but most of them just don't. And how do we force them into poverty? Most of the immigrants who come here are already living in poverty.
they are fucking retarded. How many times does it have to be said guns dont kill, the people who pull the trigger are who kill. Where is Uncle Ted when we need him? And yes every issue on ur NRA mags will have a section telling storys of the great american people who love life and freedom and love there familys who have protected themselvs and family with there guns.
Remember the L.A. Riots??? The police could no longer protect the businesses or people, everything was out of control. It wasn't until Asians pulled out their weapons and defended themselves and their businesses that the rioting calmed down. And as a responsible citizen I'd rather have my AR15 assault rifle than some stupid bolt action hunting rifle.
Also people love their guns and behave responsible all the time. Most hardcore drug addicts say they started with pot, but we're legalizing it slowly. Illegal immigration hurts America every day, but people's emotions rule the day there. Get the real facts and go beyond guns are evil and yucky.
I want to be the first serial killer who uses paper clips to kill. Then we can ban paper clips. Blaming the tool of death instead of the killer is absurd... YET I'd much rather face a killer with a paper clip than a gun... at least a better gun than mine that I legally own.
Last point I'll make (I'm sure both Carbongrips and slickbtk are saying, "Finally, asshole!" :)) I'm not suggesting guns be banned. Canada itself has about 2 million registered guns. What I believe is more guns are not the way to make things safer. Bigger guns, definitely not. Why the average person needs a fully automatic assault rifle or five different guns around their house or a concealed weapon escapes me. Thanks for the input, slickbtk. I disagree, but at least you tried to explain.
@shiverpunt You bring up the question of why a person needs an assault rifle, and the answer is that it protects against tyrannical governments and mob gangs. Think of it this way, if another country wanted to pull a hitler and invade america it would be an impossible move because even if they get passed the military they would then have to deal with 100 million armed citizens with not just hand guns. Look at iraq, its not their millitary that is the problem for our military it is armed citizens
the more people that have guns the better, and the more lethal the guns the better, it keeps everyone safer. Even the people without guns are protected by guns, or the fear of them possible having a gun. This principle works all the way up to countries and nukes, if the soviet union and america didnt have so much lethal and dangerous stock piles of nukes there would have been millions killed in war, but because of the weapons there were zero people killed in war.
@slickbtk She owned nothing. The fact is that with such accessibility to guns a greater death rate will automatically follow. She's right in that people will do twisted things regardless, but the survivability of a kid losing it and tearing up a cafeteria with a baseball bat is far greater than the same student opening up with a shotgun. She's defending something that is indefensible. If stricter gun control was in place fewer people get shot. Period.
@shiverpunt " If stricter gun control was in place fewer people get shot. Period."
#1, Bullshit, you're full of shit, however you want to put it. #2, you're not even a fucking American. Your opinion does not fucking matter. Go fuck yourself with a hockey stick you nosy elitist prick. Worry about your own fucked up country.
@CarbonGrips Wow. I had no idea I was dealing with the Debate Team's captain. My apologies. I'll let you get back to putting wax on you wall mounted antler while you pray you didn't get your sister pregnant again.
@shiverpunt your opinion on this matter is very naive, elementary and ignorant. To simply say that if there were more laws about guns less people would get shot is the statement of a dumb person. Its a nice fairy tale that makes logical sense only on a superficial and unrealistic level. As far as the child aspect goes, it is already illegal in many ways for a minor to buy a gun and bring it to school so I dont know how making another law would solve that, should the law be typed in bold font?
@slickbtk It's not a fairy tale, it's a fact. Countries with stricter gun laws have fewer gun related deaths, crimes and accidents. It's not just a statistical fact, it's common sense. Fewer people having guns mean fewer kids play with them, fewer people accidentally get shot, fewer people use guns to settle minor disputes, etc. Of course criminals will still get guns. It's in the job description. But the proof is out there. Just because it's from other countries it doesn't void it.
@shiverpunt you are confusing cause and effect, just because you can point to other countries with more restrictive gun laws and the fact that they have fewer gun related deaths doesnt mean that the former caused the latter. The bulk of americas gun related deaths are a consequence of drug laws and americas welfare system and a few other things. Similar to the gang violence in america during prohibition, you cant blame all the violence on tommy guns because its the fault of the prohibition laws.
@shiverpunt since you bring up a kid in a cafeteria one in a million example then I will bring one up too. Ruby Ridge and randy weaver, this is an incident where gun control and the enforcement of this gun control (sawed off shot gun regulation vilolation) was the reason why the federal gov ended up murdering a woman and child. So there is a counter to your cafeteria example that shows that gun control laws actually get people killed in that way too,although that is not the main point against it
@slickbtk .........................................................Sorry. Just imagining what your brain patterns look like. And just so you know, there were millions killed in war. The nukes kept the U.S and the Soviet Union from fighting each other directly but all they did was focus on other countries. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan in the 80's. These were all inspired by the Cold War and a fear of Communism or Democracy. Just because it wasn't your country doesn't mean it didn't happen.
@shiverpunt yes my point exactly, it was only the relatively unarmed (no stockpiles of nukes) countries that experienced massive death not the ones with all the nukes. This same dynamic is true on a smaller scale also. If only criminals were allowed to have guns then it would only be the law abiding citizens who would be victimized. Or if no one had guns then the weakest and unorganized would be victimized. you are too wrapped up in the fairy tale of less guns less murder that its hindering you
@slickbtk Nukes are a completely different animal. By that logic giving nukes to weaker countries would be a way to make the world safer. Is that why the U.S was looking so desperately for weapons of mass destruction? Were they planning to redistribute them to other countries to make the worlds a safer place? We can't use the same argument for nukes, it's ridiculous. Also a key point to remember is gun control does not mean gun ban. You think the two are married and that's not the case.
@shiverpunt The u.s. doesnt want other countries to have nukes because it makes the other countries safer. You assume that the u.s. gov's goal is for a safer world for the rest of the world, that is again a bit naive to assume, maybe you were half kidding but the u.s. doesnt want other countries to have nukes for the same reason criminals dont want weaker citizens to have guns. America is an oppressive and imperial power and craves sole power, so their actions are a counter example
@shiverpunt if other countries had nukes the world would be much safer, for example if vietnam had nukes then over a million deaths would have been avioded, the soviet union did have nukes and millions of deaths were avoided. I only wish that iraq would have had stockpiles of known nukes (not the gov lies but for real) because then obviously we would have never invaded and again murdered hundreds of thousands and displaced millions. The list goes on and on, and the same logic does apply to guns
@slickbtk yea millions of deaths were avoided during the cold war with the soviets... but the entire world was also on the brink of destruction several times.. it was thanks to great leaders like Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis that stopped us from destroying each other and the entire world in a nuclear war. all you need is one trigger happy world leader to push the button and you can say goodbye to humanity as we know it
These people are goofy. Yes guns are designed to kill. To kill bad guys that try to kill you. That is why the police take them to work everyday. If these people were interested in the truth then they would admit that guns are used for defense a lot more often than criminals use them to murder people. Don't expect honesty out of Bill Maher though. He is one of those guys that is against gun ownership, yet he owns a gun for self defense. He must be better than the rest of us.
@CarbonGrips You really don't believe that, do you? You can't possibly be that...skewed. More guns protect people only because so many people have guns in the first place. Compare U.S murders from firearms to countries with gun control. In 2009 the U.S had almost 10 000 murders from guns, fourth highest in the world, topped only by countries like Columbia, S. Africa and Thailand. Japan had 47. UK, 14. Ireland had 12. They barely broke double digits! You can't claim gun control puts you at risk.
@shiverpunt skewed? First off, bearing arms is an individual right here in the US so don't start off with the "other countries" do this and that. They're not the US, they dont' buy drugs like the US, they don't border Mexico, they don't have the freedoms we have, so don't try to draw parallels there. Seriously, it gets very old hearing you anti gun pansies talking about the fucking UK and China.
@CarbonGrips You're right. The U.S is in such a uniquely difficult situation. Other countries could never be used as models. Get real. Russia has lower murder rates from guns and if you try to say they aren't facing problems that dwarf the U.S then you're kidding yourself. And yes, once again toot the "we have the right" sound bite. I'm equally tired of hearing that. That was put into the constitution to protect citizens from a tyrannical government, not so you can have a gun rack in your truck.
@shiverpunt shouldn't you be off telling someone how they're dumb for believing in God or trying to figure out a way for you to suck Bill Maher's cock? I don't think we Americans need a god damn Canadian teaching us about what our constitution means. You're not an American, you don't fucking know shit about our country and I do not care WTF you think about how I should live. Fuck you, you stupid asshole. lol
@CarbonGrips You really aren't good at this. When did I mention anything about God or that people are dumb for believing in it? I appreciate that you have strong feelings about this issue, but at least make an effort to be coherent. No matter how many f bombs you use or how xenophobic you make your replies sound, you are doing nothing to EXPLAIN your position. So fuck me, fine. I don't care if you like me. Just stop knee jerking and give me a reasonable argument about how gun control is bad.
@shiverpunt Not good at what, looking at the comments you've left for other videos and seeing how you constantly talk down to people as if you're smarter & more astute than them? You're not American, so you have no dog in this hunt. The national debate over the 2A does not affect you 1 way or the other so you're entering into the debate why? Oh, because you think you're smarter than the rest of us & U don't want to pass up a chance to call us rednecks that fuck our sisters. Fuck you, Canadian!
@CarbonGrips Dude, settle. I never claimed to be smarter than you. I do believe you don't present you're arguments clearly and fall back on f bombs and "Love it or Leave it" party lines. And considering the U.S is the main source of illegal guns smuggled into Canada, I do have an interest in your gun laws. As for my redneck comment, I apologize. It was out of line, I was a little drunk and sleeping with my own sister at the time. Again, I just want to know why you think gun control is bad.
@shiverpunt I'm not presenting you with an argument. You are not American so I am not interested in justifying my constitutional rights or the intent of my founding fathers or why I believe I should have a right that you believe I shouldn't have. So, I'm not going to present an argument. I have nothing against Canada or it's citizens but I have no desire to debate my rights with some1 from another country, that spends his time online trying to belittle my country.
@shiverpunt If U want to argue that more guns kill more people then compare areas in the USA with areas in the USA. Compare Washing D.C.'s 30 year total handgun ban to the time when the Supreme Court struck it down. DC made murder capital during that stupid ban. That ban was struck down in 2008. In 2010 they had the lowest murder tally since 1963. None of you anti gun people were right. U said more guns will lead to more gun violence and once again, you're wrong. More guns meant less violence.
@CarbonGrips You're using an example of a gun ban in a small location inside a country of wide spread accessibility. Were people checked every time they drove into Washington D.C? Was it suddenly not part of regular U.S economy, traffic and travel? The handgun ban was a farce because it was impossible to regulate and guns became black market items that could be bought by simply driving a few hours and driving back home. A ban needs to be national to be effective.
@shiverpunt Second Amendment dumb fucking Canadian. There will be no national gun bans so stfu up about that stupid shit. I thought I told you to go worry about your own country. What the Fuck do you care about my country's rights. You don't live here, you don't know what the fuck is going on. Go fuck yourself you dip shit. I get so sick of hearing assholes from other countries trying to tell us how to live. Worry about yourself.
@TheRoninMercenary I don't go off of what a politician says an assault weapon is. The politicians that wrote the AWB bill decided what an assault weapon was based on no knowledge of weapons. It is what it is. It does not change because some politician says this new thing makes it an assault weapon or that new thing makes it one. An assault weapon is a weapon a military or police force, or any1 with common sense, would deem appropriate for mounting an assault.
@TheRoninMercenary I got to tell ya, I think it's obvious neither of us will change our minds. I'm really not wanting to continue this anymore. If that helps you feel like you've won something then fine by me. It's just getting boring is all.
People like you treat Guns as toys. They are not. Until you have experienced what it is actually like to be on the receiving end of these weapons you do not respect them. Nor do you respect others or the value of human life.
Where do you get that from? I treat firearms safely and properly at all times. I don't know why you want to pretend to know so much about me. Maybe so you can feel superior to me? Who knows? You being shot at does not make you an expert. In fact, it seems to have made you scared of anyone that owns a gun. That's a shame.
@jboritzki "I don't know why you want to pretend to know so much about me."
I don't pretend, I DO know.
Thanks to your videos I know your name, age, height, weight, eye color, basic geographical location. Which guns you own(and a few of their serial numbers) your basic political views and thought process. From reading over your all of your posts I know you are a habitual liar who when proven wrong tries to change his story.
I am very good at what I do. One of the best actually.
@jboritzki "Replacing the M4's M16's or AK47's that are select fire with semi auto only AR15's would be crazy and no military force would do it."
Assume is to guess I am talking facts with proof.
You stated that no military would issue semi autos over full auto/select fire. I proved you wrong and instead of saying "oh I didn't know that now I do" you tried to argue samantics about the definition of the word modern and ignoring that your statements about Military weapons were false.
@TheRoninMercenary When I said that no modern military would use semi autos in place of full autos, I meant it. You can dig up instances of 3rd world countries or the use of semi autos or bolt actions and then claim that makes me wrong or a liar, but I am not wrong and that is not a lie. Are semi autos used, yes. Are they used exclusivly, no. Would any modern military invade an enemy position with semi autos alone, hell no.
@jboritzki Indian is both a first world country(doing better than the USA right now) and they use semi autos in place of Full autos.
US military soldiers prefer to use semi fire over burst or full auto. Several Soldiers I personally know have put in requests to carry semi fire only rifles.
@TheRoninMercenary "People like you treat Guns as toys. They are not. Until you have experienced what it is actually like to be on the receiving end of these weapons you do not respect them. Nor do you respect others or the value of human life."
Are you actually saying that unless you're shot at you cant have respect for a gun or other people or for human life? I hope not because that is pretty fucking stupid right there.
The IRA didn't use fullauto assault rifles until the 80s.
Most Military outfits in developing countries like most African Countries with aid militaries are only allowed by Geneva convention to issue Semi auto rifles. That is why the FAL is so common in Africa and India
The Standard issue Battle rifle in the Indian Army?
Armtech L1A1 SAS(since you don't know that is a FAL variant in semi auto)
@TheRoninMercenary Ok, why you're being a smart ass about this is beyond me. I said modern militaries. If you're talking about 1980, that was 31 years ago. Every military has machine guns. Machine guns are used for suppressive fire. You can't mount an assault and expect to be successful without full auto capability. I see you own a gun. The kid I was arguing with wants it to be illegal for you to have that gun, but you're arguing with me over who has and don't have full autos.
@jboritzki First of all you waffle about like a kid with bipolar trying to twist what people say.
1980s is considered modern military. Any military or weapon that is still in active service is considered "modern".
You claimed that no military directly relies one semi auto rifles. Per the examples given you are wrong as many military's standers issue weapons are semi auto.
@TheRoninMercenary Fist off, kid, I've been shooting since before you or he were even born. Second, your definition of modern and mine differ. Third, if purple is not against handguns, he can tell me that. This video is about an idiot, talking about a crazy kid that killed with a handgun. He, and you, are both wrong about these weapons. You can hunt with them, people do hunt with them, they are used for defense, they are used for competition target shooting, and they are not "assault weapons".
@jboritzki As for the purple clown he is probably not only older than you but has probably seen more action.
He is right assault rifles have to recreational values. You do not need them to hunt, protect or amuse you. They are weapons designed for killing. You are right I own several guns, but Purple Clown is NOT against handguns, shot guns, or rifles. He is only against idiots(He lives in an area with many gun toting extremists) owning dangerous weapons that they don't know how to properly use,
@TheRoninMercenary Actually, that was a different video with this same guy that I was talking about where he was talking about the recent AZ shooting. My mistake on that.
What exactly is a "gun toting extremist"? Bill thinks one is anyone that owns a gun that he don't like the looks of or that does not vote Democrat. The people you kids need to be worried about shooting you are not people involved in politics. It's gang members, drug dealers or drug addicts. People that aren't into politics.
@TheRoninMercenary And don't think for a second that Bill Maher don't want that Beretta you got outlawed. When you start playing this game of deciding what people don't need because you don't see a reason for it in your personal life, it leaves the door open for someone else to walk into your life and start picking out the things you enjoy and deciding that you don't need it either.
@jboritzki First off all for someone who claims to have been shooting since before I was born you don't know your guns very well. The gun in that video was not a Beretta it even says so in the title.
Second as someone who has worked in law enforcement I know enough that a Glock 19 with a 30rd extended mag is NOT used for hunting or completion shooting, its used for killing people.
If you need a full auto gun to hunt, you do not need to be hunting .
@TheRoninMercenary "First off all for someone who claims to have been shooting since before I was born you don't know your guns very well"
The title says "P2FS" I figured it was a typo, since the "P" is close to the "9" and the Beretta is a "92FS" Yeah, I know guns pretty well. No1 was talking about owning or hunting with full autos. You're confused. Every1 I know in law enforcement are big advocates for the 2nd Amendment. & it's a 33 rounder.
@jboritzki I took the liberty of looking you up and your penny anti at best. You own a couple of .22 peashooters. By the time I was knee high to a grasshopper I was shooting guns that would knock you on your ass. A .22 is not going to stop someone so your claims of self defense is pointless. Unless you are using s .22 magnum you are not going yo be able to use it for hunting. From personal experience I have taken down guys who were armed with Assault weapon, with only my Beretta.
@TheRoninMercenary So you seen I own a couple of .22's. So what are you saying? That only kids own .22's? lol. You can't be serious. What gun owner does not own a few .22's? Big calibers stop people faster, but you're dead wrong that a 22 won't stop an attack, but this really isn't a caliber debate, is it? That Beretta is very accurate as are the Taurus copies. So are 2" snub nose revolvers for that matter. Guns, not all but a lot, are designed to be defensive tools so yes, they're designed to
@jboritzki In my neighborhood yeah only kids a squirrel guns. By the time you have hair on your peaches you have moved on to 12 gauges.
I seriously doubt you are a Gunshop owner.(if I am not misunderstanding your comment) They technically own every gun in the shop. But every gun owner I have ever met carries or prefers a compact .38, 9mm, or a 45. None of them would ever consider using a .22 for defense. Your run of the mill .22 round will not penetrate the human skull unless at close range.
@TheRoninMercenary My first gun was a Mossberg 500 12 gage and I still own it. I don't shoot to feel like a hard ass, I shoot because I enjoy target shooting and I can hit a 12' steel plate at 200 yards with a .22 rifle. I shoot the same plate at 86 yards with pistols too. I have carried a .357, a .45 1911, and a 9mm Sig but believe it or not, I don't like to carry a gun. Bad guys run away when U shoot at them. They don't ask what caliber. It's not the best man stopper, but it will do just fine.
@TheRoninMercenary The gang member that TRIED to pull his gun on me while saying "you're fucking dead" didn't get it out in time. I got mine out first and he stopped pulling. Luckily, his 2 buddies were either shocked or scared to pull their guns. Does that count? The crack head with the baseball bat that permanently damaged my eyes and tried to kill me with head shots from the bat, I think that qualifies as dangerous. Never been shot or shot at, probably because I got my gun out first.
@jboritzki You have no real experience with an assault weapon or any weapon aside from plinking around in your backyard. Sadly living in suburbia you have never experienced any real gun danger.
Have you ever had a gun drawn on you? - I doubt it.
Have you ever been shot at? - No.
Have you ever been shot? - No.
I have. My job used to be finding dangerous and desperate people who didn't want to be found. Some of them had no problems with the idea of putting a bullet in me. And one guy, did.
@jboritzki I am not going to try to justify or kid myself that I can use my Beretta for competitions or hunting. It was made for one purpose, killing people. And I have maximized its performance to kill people by adding Recoil reducing guide rod, lighter trigger pull, EXTENDED MAGAZINES, and Black talon ammo.
It is a LETHAL WEAPON and should be treated as such.
There is no reason, personal or otherwise for the average law abiding citizen to own a weapon of war.
@TheRoninMercenary kill people. Killing people and murdering people are different things. Bill Maher doesn't make that distinction. Guns are used by nuts to murder and rob, so the little old lady, the 5' tall mother, the father of 4 should not be able to protect themselves against those degenerates according to him. Of course guns R lethal weapons. So are knives. So what's your point? That I shouldn't have them? That you shouldn't have them? That's what Maher would like to see happen.
@jboritzki I for one would feel safer if no one had assault weapons. So what if I can't own them either.
Don't get me wrong I like guns but I appreciate their mechanical value. I would love to own a FN P90 and a FN FS2000 but I don't really need them. I would love to own a Barret M89 .50cal Sniper rifle. but there is no real reason to.
For self defense every in both of those situations you would want a pistol or shotgun for home defense, not a full auto long rifle.
@TheRoninMercenary The rifles me and Purple were talking about are not full auto rifles. They're semi autos. If you feel you have to have a "need" to own a gun then someone is going to come along and tell you that you don't "need" a gun for defense, call a cop. You don't "need" to hunt, there are grocery stores. No one can decide for you what you need and don't need. You shouldn't try to decide that for others as well.
@TheRoninMercenary "There is no reason, personal or otherwise for the average law abiding citizen to own a weapon of war."
Bullshit. That position has been rejected by Americans since before America was even a country. I would also point out how hypocritical that position is. You own a "weapon of war" but claim that citizens do not deserve that right. Well, you're a citizen aren't you? If you believe so strongly in that position then melt your guns down.
Yes Military's do indeed still use semi auto weapons. The US Military still issues the FAL .308 semi auto Assault rifle.
Also every single assault weapon used today has a semi-auto select firing lever. Actual soldiers or anyone who has taken the US military rifle range proficiency test will tell you they prefer semi auto fire.
Auto-fire is used for suppression not for actually killing individual targets.
3 round burst firing is even being removed from military guns.
@TheRoninMercenary Yes, everyone knows this. This silly kid however was making it appear as those a military force, uses semi auto weapons exclusively. I know they have semi autos, I know they are select fire, I know they use bolt action rifles and handguns. What I was saying was that every single military force uses weapons that are fully automatic. Replacing the M4's M16's or AK47's that are select fire with semi auto only AR15's would be crazy and no military force would do it.
I agree with a lot of the stuff that he says, but the way he keeps generalizing the right like they're all a bunch of gun nuts is almost disgusting. There are as much gooks on the hard left as there are on the hard right. I think the second ammendment(in which he's attacking) is nearly solely there for people to be able to use the first(the one that he's using at all times). People like Bill Maher are just plain afraid of guns because they've never even touched one. It's just plain ignorance.
@jboritzki you can never prevent people who will try to use them in crimes when in this country guns are so readily available they're practically giving them away. Gun access needs to be much harder to get reguardless. No more selling at local retailers, only special outfitters or production warehouses. Special permits used for even owning a gun should be as hard to get as it is to carry hidden. There should be a regulation to control how many guns an owner should have and also an exam to own.
@thepurpleclown This is so simple I don't see how someone can turn on a computer but still not understand this. Making guns harder to get makes them harder for LAW ABIDING CITIZENS to get. It does not make it harder for criminals to get. Ur idea about tests, wtf R U thinking? What convicted criminal is going to take a damn test or go to a store to buy a gun? And no, that is a damn lie, no one is "practically giving them away" They're expensive and sold like anything else. No1 is giving them away
@jboritzki not giving them away? you ever been to a pawn shop? Any retail stores? Hunting/fishing stores? Get real, theyre everywhere, they're not hidden away like a secret.
my idea for tests sounds like a reasonable idea, like the aptitude test for the military, to see if you're smart enough and coherent enough to actually own such a dangerous piece of weaponry. also concerning convicted criminals i dont believe they should ever be able to own guns in any case and is already in effect.
@thepurpleclown They sell guns, they don't give them away. When you say they give them away you might as well say the grocery store gives milk away because they sell it there & at the gas station, and the quickie mart etc. No one and no store gives guns away. They sell them and any store that sells them cannot sell them @ convicted criminals. & believe it not, killers usually do not kill as their first crime. They tend to already have other felonies on their records preventing them from owning
@thepurpleclown Any wtf? A limit on how many pieces of private property that is protected as a constitutional right to own? What makes a 22 year old video game playing kid think he is qualified to decide what American citizens should own and how many? Have you ever even fired a gun that involved pulling a trigger and not just hitting the B button? Do you know a damn thing about real crime? I'd say you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.
@thepurpleclown No, my point is rock solid. It gets very old hearing you anti gun people spew bullshit, knowing nothing about the subject, and pretending like you're an authority on the subject.
There is about 1 gun murder for every 100-140 times a gun is used in self defense, but you believe guns are a problem. You believe that because you know nothing at all about this subject. You have "feelings" on this matter and that's about all you have.
@jboritzki and it gets old thinking you pro-gun people think EVERY freakin' person should have/own a gun. sure i believe that you should be able to protect your home/family/property/etc. but everyone needs to understand the dangers along with owning weaponry. it needs a stronger regulation and stricter guidlines than it does today.
And what makes you come off like the expert in the subject? where is citation for that 1:100-140 statistic?
@thepurpleclown I get that stat from the NRA website. 1.5-2 million times a year a law abiding citizen uses a gun to defend themselves. That could mean firing it or just simply brandishing it. I was one of those people that brandished as a gang member tried to pull his pistol on me. No1 was shot and it was because I was armed and pulled faster. I have 5 friends that R cops. Family member that is a cop and federal judge and prosecutor. I'm also a little older than you
@jboritzki Guns are a problem in the sense they kill and are easy access to anyone, reguardless if you come off with 'criminals criminals criminals!' when in fact those people were law abiding citizens like yourself before they decided to shoot someone. think about it. sorry if i come off with 'feelings' on the subject but it is a serious issue and should not be taken lightly.
@thepurpleclown You'll know you're grown up when you realize that you won't know in a lifetime half as much as you think you know today. I remember being your age and thinking this was a simple thing to fix. Trust me, it's not. It's not a gun problem. I don't take people trying to take American's rights away in the name of public safety that is based on nothing. Know how many assault weapons were used in crimes back when the AWB was put into place? less than 1/10 of 1%. That ban stopped nothing.
@jboritzki i feel safer knowing that assault weapons cant be purchased. there's no point in owning one.
in fact, why own more than 1-2 guns? then you're going out of of the 'its used for protection' to obsession. im not trying to say people shouldnt own guns period, i just trying to say that there is a problem with the gun regulation system and that no matter how many people say 'guns dont kill people, people kill people' the fact is 'people with guns kill people'.
@thepurpleclown Well ya know, I like my assault LOOK-A-LIKE weapons that were put on the ban list. Interesting little fact for ya. The weapons they banned in 1994 were not assault weapons, they just looked liek assault weapons. But anyway, they're used for defense, recreation, hunting, varmint hunting, target shooting, collecting, etc. So because you want to "feel" safe, I should give up my rifles that are almost never used in crimes? Seriously bud, less than 1/10th of 1%, and they were banned.
@thepurpleclown "are you seriously trying to tell me the uses for an ASSAULT RIFLE? recreation? hunting? are you kidding?"
You are an anti-gun lawmaker's wet dream. You don't know what an assault weapon is. The "assault weapons" I, and everyone else owns, are not suitable for combat. Any military would have to be crazy today to use any of the rifles I own in a war.
@jboritzki i very much know what an assault weapon is. i know for fact the 'assault weapons' you own and others can buy at stores are semi-auto, not fully auto. the fully automatics were the assault weapons i was referring to, and hopefully not the same ones you're trying to defend for public use.
FYI, some military do use semi-automatic assault rifles.
@thepurpleclown No modern military force uses semi auto rifles to mound assaults. Citizens can get full auto weapons, but's a paperwork and expensive nightmare. So I suppose the law is structured so that only gun dealers or rich people can get them. To be honest though, I dont' have a big problem if they were made legal so long as illegally possessing one meant an automatic 20 years in prison with no chance of getting out early.
@thepurpleclown And I also own 7 guns and want to own more. They are all cool and useful in their own ways. They are of different calibers. You obviously don't have a hobby that involves guns, you've never lived on a farm, you don't understand why someone might want or even NEED more than 1 or 2 guns. What makes you think you should be giving lectures on what should be legal and what should not given you have no idea about what you're talking about?
@jboritzki you still havent explained why you NEED more than 2 guns. 7? what the hell for?
dont know what i'm talking about? its not hard to understand guns and their uses. they aren't molecular science, ya know. as a law abiding citizen, i have every right to voice my opinion. thank the 1st admendment for that.
@thepurpleclown And you can thank for 2nd amendment for the being the biggest protector of the 1st amendment bud.
Yes, I own 7 guns. That is actually not that many for an avid shooter such as myself. Sorry, 8 guns. 2 derringer pistols, 22 handgun, 9mm handgun, 2 .22 rifles, 1 shotgun, 1 AR15 rifle. I target shoot with them all. I carry 1 pistol at a time every day. My father-in-law, a detective, owns about 50 guns. That make you nervous too?
@thepurpleclown I don't "need" a gun. I want a gun. You don't "need" a car or a toaster. You want them. I have that right and you may not like this, but you had better get use to it. The second amendment, the state constitution, the recent supreme court rulings, guns aren't going to go away.
@jboritzki Actually you do need a car; it helps you get to work to pay for those guns you have. I could also argue you need a toaster; it's for making toast and not meant to kill. so what im saying is there are things we actually need.
guns were made to kill, so if you want guns you must be looking to kill.
if not, there are plenty of other sources of weaponry considered non lethal forms of recreation: such as paintball or airsoft guns.
@thepurpleclown 4 some reason my comment didn't post. No, U don't "need" a car or a toaster. U can walk or take a bus or eat untoasted bread. Some guns R designed 2 kill people that R trying to kill U. Some R designed as defensive tools to be used in defensive situations and some are designed strictly for target purposes. Some are designed for hunting small game, some are designed to hunt medium game, some are designed to hunt big game.
@thepurpleclown You seem to be confusing convenience with a need. & no1 is trying to weed their way around anything. U just don't understand much about firearms. Most guns are used for target practice, hunting, or collecting. Fewer are used in self defense and even fewer than that are used as murder weapons. Honestly, very few people anymore care that you don't like guns. U can't protect people from everything in a free society. U just have to get use to that.
@jboritzki Canada has much stricter gun laws, which have resulted in much more safetly and less deaths than compared to America. I think you clearly can protect people from guns, if not everything.
@thepurpleclown Don't care about Canada, I care about America. Canada is different in a lot of ways. Mexico does not border them is 1 difference. They don't have a 2nd Amendment is another. They did have just as many guns rights as we do and their gun crime was still lower, so what does that tell ya? That it's a gun problem? Well if it were, then their gun murder rate would have been the same as ours. Must be a different reason for the crime differences.
@thepurpleclown Just watched it. The man lost even more credibility as if that was possible. He lives in a bubble, surrounded by other far left people that live in bubbles. According to Bill, if you're on the right you're a nut and if you're on the left you're likely not a nut. He pretends that the right is the only side that uses war type phrases when referring to politics. The left or the dems do it just as often as the right or repubs. This guy is an elitist nut job.
@jboritzki Maher tells the truth as it is, you guys just can't accept it. The guy never states that the left doesnt have nutjobs, in fact he has. He just says that the right have gun totting crazies who follow the right to the letter, even on war phrases. Don't retreat, reload? LMFAO
@thepurpleclown And Obama just said "If they bring a knife, we'll bring a gun". You and Bill are either liars or totally ignorant if you think this only, or even mostly, comes from the right. Both sides use these kinds of words just as often as the other. Guns are not a right or left thing. I know plenty of left leaning people that own guns. Owning a gun does not make a person a nut or violent. Bill says most right people R nuts but a few left people are nuts. That is what he says.
@thepurpleclown I'd also like to remind you of the guy that shot up the Discovery Channel building and was killed by the police. He was a nut and does not represent everyone on the left, but if you want to play this game then don't forget he was an environmentalist, which is more of a left wing cause than a right wing cause.
@thepurpleclown Go hang in Toronto and tell me there aren't gun-related homicides there. The gun registry in Canada cost a billion dollars and has done little to reduce crime in urban areas.
@schwarzblatt you completely missed my argument. i never stated there weren't any gun crimes in Canada period. Compared to America, which breeds and attracts crime, Canada is much safer in gun handling.
And since most of the people in america are stupid motherfuckers, they shouldnt be allowed to have a GUN.
Because you know what ? I live in Poland...i love violent video-games and movies and Ive never seen a real gun in my entire life, and Ive never been mugged, or didn't even heard about anyone being SHOT in my hometown...so GUNS DO KILL People, so you shouldnt be allowed to have one.
@thedamned93 thats the same line every gun owner spouts everytime this argument comes up.
You implying the only people who get killed with guns are from the crazy people out there? What about the kid related deaths when a kid shoots another kid when both are under the age 10? last time i check kids that age arent crazy.
@thepurpleclown "What about the kid related deaths when a kid shoots another kid when both are under the age 10?"
That's about 50 kids a year. Fewer than swimming pools kill. You cannot make a law based on 50 deaths. Educating people to be more responsible about storing those guns makes much more sense. And so you know, that's 50 adult gun owners a year that owned guns that kids got a hold of. Over 306,000,000 people in the US and 50 deaths.
Three obtuse people in love with disarming the citizens so only the criminals and corrupt government can have guns to kill people with.
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall.
The simple fact is that a all out ban on guns in the US 'would' drasticl;y lower gun crime were it not for the fact that there are so many guns in the US that it would be impossible to enforce, there are the facts as I see it. I could be wrong but thats how I interpret the data.
@hughes7520 University of Florida did a study in 1993 that showed that figure. Other studies have shown the same figures. 90% of the time not a single shot is even fired in order to prevent the crime!!!
@hughes7520 You can look at a grouping of thirteen different studies of defensive gun use which range statistically from about 800,000 to the top of 2.5 million. The Department of Justice sponsored a survey which found there to be approx. 1.5 million defensive gun uses in a year in America, which dwarfs crimes and murders by a long shot.
So why is it then, that the western countries with the most restrictive gun laws have the lower rates of crime? By far, the lowest rates of crime. All crime, not just violent crime.
I find it interesting that they mentioned the NRA is for not regulating firearms, yet the more I research I find the NRA has introduced in the past several firearms bills & compromised with the other side on bills.
IT WAS GEORGE DUBYA !!
Rossclairborne 1 month ago in playlist More videos from librarien
2.5 million acts of self defense with guns a year! You dont hear about that on the news. Criminals kill people with guns! Law abiding responsible NON criminals DO NOT kill people with guns. I own a gun and never have killed even 1 person (WOW what a shocker someone who owns a gun and HASNT killed anyone hmmmm...). This gun debate is old. Guns dont kill. End of story.
NUFF SAID
markp64 2 months ago
@markp64 thousands of gun deaths in the US every year...no of course guns don't kill
DCooper720 1 month ago
@DCooper720
thousands of fucking stupid comments like the one you just made......no of course your not a fucking idiot
number of deaths from guns - 31,593 (as of 2008)
thats 10.23 deaths per 100,000 people
population of the US - 304,374,846 (2008)
number of acts of self defense with guns per year - 2.5 million
approximate number of people who own a gun who did NOT kill anyone just yesterday alone - 84,999,987 (that's 84 million fucktard)
markp64 1 month ago
@DCooper720
thats 31,024,995,255 (billion) times a year nobody was killed by someone who owned a gun!
You have just been OWNED on this subject! I suggest you take your sorry little ass and cancel your youtube account and then go move in with your mom.
markp64 1 month ago
@markp64 you are using entirely anecdotal evidence. Like all american's you only focus on what happens in america and know absolutely nothing about the rest of the world. It's very simple, out of US, Canada, UK, and France guess who has the highest violent crime rate? And guess which one has the least gun control? I rest my case...on actual GLOBAL evidence not just "well in OUR country". But like a typical ignorant american you will ignore this proven point so I may as well be talking to a wall.
DCooper720 1 month ago
@DCooper720
I think it's clear that you dont know what "anecdotal" means.
based on or consisting of reports or observations of usually unscientific observers
in other words peoples observations.
The stats that I posted were NOT anecdotal. They came directly from the CDC website.
Based on your response, it appears you are NOT american. This means that you have no clue about the concept of true freedom. The countries you cited are not even close to being free as the US
.....continued
markp64 1 month ago
@DCooper720
With that being said, this much freedom does come with a price. The price is that we have to accept what other people might do even if it is seen as BAD. However, I digress.
The UK had a greater number of murders in 2007 than any other EU country – 927 – and at a relative rate higher than most western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.
markp64 1 month ago
Maher is partially responsible for getting the nut, Coulter, out there in the media. Thanks Bill!
Tsnore 2 months ago
Did you catch the Monty Python Marathon?
ChomskyandCheetos 6 months ago
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so."
-- Adolf Hitler, April 11 1942.
AmericanBadass44 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
From what I've heard in the past, I would usually disagree with Anne Coulter on several issues. However, I think she's right about what she's saying in this video for once.
HellDevil75 7 months ago
canada has gun control laws less then 300 gun deaths a year
USA 10,000+ gun deaths a year
InWeedWeTrust420 7 months ago
@InWeedWeTrust420 I think the problem is not with guns. I think its just that America is generally uncivilized.
ToxicMayo9 7 months ago
@InWeedWeTrust420 Canada also has a much smaller population than the US.
kn1feonly 6 months ago
@kn1feonly yes, Canada has roughly 10% of the population of the US, but even after THAT adjustment for population the US still has a much much higher gun death rate. 300 isn't 10% of 10000, where did you learn math?
DCooper720 1 month ago
@DCooper720 We also have a massive influx of people from impoverished countries coming here to try to make better lives for themselves. These people drive up our poverty rates and historically the higher a country's poverty rates are the higher their crime rates are going to be.
kn1feonly 1 month ago
@kn1feonly Canada has FAR more immigrants then the US...that argument is not valid.
DCooper720 1 month ago
@DCooper720 I said the US has a massive influx of people from impoverished countries (mainly Mexico). I never said that the US has more immigrants than Canada. And any information that we have on immigration into the United States is invalid because we have so many people crossing the border and coming into the United States from Mexico that it is impossible to keep track of it all.
kn1feonly 1 month ago
@DCooper720 There are also WAY more illegal immigrants in the United States than there are in Canada. It is estimated that there are 35,000 to 120,00 illegal immigrants in Canada and it is estimated that there are 12 Million illegal immigrants living in the United States.
kn1feonly 1 month ago
@kn1feonly that's just because we actually welcome immigrants and don't force them into poverty like the US. In fact about a third of Canada's population is immigrants we just welcome them instead of marking them as "illegal"
DCooper720 1 month ago
@DCooper720 People are free to go through the process of becoming legal citizens but most of them just don't. And how do we force them into poverty? Most of the immigrants who come here are already living in poverty.
kn1feonly 1 month ago
wow i like anne coulter...used to hate her...is there something wrong with me?
Lvl22nerd 8 months ago
they are fucking retarded. How many times does it have to be said guns dont kill, the people who pull the trigger are who kill. Where is Uncle Ted when we need him? And yes every issue on ur NRA mags will have a section telling storys of the great american people who love life and freedom and love there familys who have protected themselvs and family with there guns.
stevearmbar 8 months ago
Remember the L.A. Riots??? The police could no longer protect the businesses or people, everything was out of control. It wasn't until Asians pulled out their weapons and defended themselves and their businesses that the rioting calmed down. And as a responsible citizen I'd rather have my AR15 assault rifle than some stupid bolt action hunting rifle.
jbravo70 9 months ago
Look at the dumb unthinking audience applauding the idea of genetic modification of personality.
mmeditatio 9 months ago
There is evil in the world
That's just plain silly... Brilliant Maher.
Also people love their guns and behave responsible all the time. Most hardcore drug addicts say they started with pot, but we're legalizing it slowly. Illegal immigration hurts America every day, but people's emotions rule the day there. Get the real facts and go beyond guns are evil and yucky.
NJburbsSeeker 9 months ago
I want to be the first serial killer who uses paper clips to kill. Then we can ban paper clips. Blaming the tool of death instead of the killer is absurd... YET I'd much rather face a killer with a paper clip than a gun... at least a better gun than mine that I legally own.
Gordy19671 11 months ago
Last point I'll make (I'm sure both Carbongrips and slickbtk are saying, "Finally, asshole!" :)) I'm not suggesting guns be banned. Canada itself has about 2 million registered guns. What I believe is more guns are not the way to make things safer. Bigger guns, definitely not. Why the average person needs a fully automatic assault rifle or five different guns around their house or a concealed weapon escapes me. Thanks for the input, slickbtk. I disagree, but at least you tried to explain.
shiverpunt 11 months ago
@shiverpunt You bring up the question of why a person needs an assault rifle, and the answer is that it protects against tyrannical governments and mob gangs. Think of it this way, if another country wanted to pull a hitler and invade america it would be an impossible move because even if they get passed the military they would then have to deal with 100 million armed citizens with not just hand guns. Look at iraq, its not their millitary that is the problem for our military it is armed citizens
slickbtk 11 months ago
the more people that have guns the better, and the more lethal the guns the better, it keeps everyone safer. Even the people without guns are protected by guns, or the fear of them possible having a gun. This principle works all the way up to countries and nukes, if the soviet union and america didnt have so much lethal and dangerous stock piles of nukes there would have been millions killed in war, but because of the weapons there were zero people killed in war.
slickbtk 11 months ago
@slickbtk
slickbtk 11 months ago
Respond to this video... coulter is normally off and sucking the gop's sac but in this clip she owned the other ass wipes.
slickbtk 11 months ago
@slickbtk She owned nothing. The fact is that with such accessibility to guns a greater death rate will automatically follow. She's right in that people will do twisted things regardless, but the survivability of a kid losing it and tearing up a cafeteria with a baseball bat is far greater than the same student opening up with a shotgun. She's defending something that is indefensible. If stricter gun control was in place fewer people get shot. Period.
shiverpunt 11 months ago
@shiverpunt " If stricter gun control was in place fewer people get shot. Period."
#1, Bullshit, you're full of shit, however you want to put it. #2, you're not even a fucking American. Your opinion does not fucking matter. Go fuck yourself with a hockey stick you nosy elitist prick. Worry about your own fucked up country.
CarbonGrips 11 months ago
@CarbonGrips Wow. I had no idea I was dealing with the Debate Team's captain. My apologies. I'll let you get back to putting wax on you wall mounted antler while you pray you didn't get your sister pregnant again.
shiverpunt 11 months ago
@shiverpunt your opinion on this matter is very naive, elementary and ignorant. To simply say that if there were more laws about guns less people would get shot is the statement of a dumb person. Its a nice fairy tale that makes logical sense only on a superficial and unrealistic level. As far as the child aspect goes, it is already illegal in many ways for a minor to buy a gun and bring it to school so I dont know how making another law would solve that, should the law be typed in bold font?
slickbtk 11 months ago
@slickbtk It's not a fairy tale, it's a fact. Countries with stricter gun laws have fewer gun related deaths, crimes and accidents. It's not just a statistical fact, it's common sense. Fewer people having guns mean fewer kids play with them, fewer people accidentally get shot, fewer people use guns to settle minor disputes, etc. Of course criminals will still get guns. It's in the job description. But the proof is out there. Just because it's from other countries it doesn't void it.
shiverpunt 11 months ago
@shiverpunt you are confusing cause and effect, just because you can point to other countries with more restrictive gun laws and the fact that they have fewer gun related deaths doesnt mean that the former caused the latter. The bulk of americas gun related deaths are a consequence of drug laws and americas welfare system and a few other things. Similar to the gang violence in america during prohibition, you cant blame all the violence on tommy guns because its the fault of the prohibition laws.
slickbtk 11 months ago
@shiverpunt since you bring up a kid in a cafeteria one in a million example then I will bring one up too. Ruby Ridge and randy weaver, this is an incident where gun control and the enforcement of this gun control (sawed off shot gun regulation vilolation) was the reason why the federal gov ended up murdering a woman and child. So there is a counter to your cafeteria example that shows that gun control laws actually get people killed in that way too,although that is not the main point against it
slickbtk 11 months ago
@slickbtk .........................................................Sorry. Just imagining what your brain patterns look like. And just so you know, there were millions killed in war. The nukes kept the U.S and the Soviet Union from fighting each other directly but all they did was focus on other countries. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan in the 80's. These were all inspired by the Cold War and a fear of Communism or Democracy. Just because it wasn't your country doesn't mean it didn't happen.
shiverpunt 11 months ago
@shiverpunt yes my point exactly, it was only the relatively unarmed (no stockpiles of nukes) countries that experienced massive death not the ones with all the nukes. This same dynamic is true on a smaller scale also. If only criminals were allowed to have guns then it would only be the law abiding citizens who would be victimized. Or if no one had guns then the weakest and unorganized would be victimized. you are too wrapped up in the fairy tale of less guns less murder that its hindering you
slickbtk 11 months ago
@slickbtk Nukes are a completely different animal. By that logic giving nukes to weaker countries would be a way to make the world safer. Is that why the U.S was looking so desperately for weapons of mass destruction? Were they planning to redistribute them to other countries to make the worlds a safer place? We can't use the same argument for nukes, it's ridiculous. Also a key point to remember is gun control does not mean gun ban. You think the two are married and that's not the case.
shiverpunt 11 months ago
@shiverpunt The u.s. doesnt want other countries to have nukes because it makes the other countries safer. You assume that the u.s. gov's goal is for a safer world for the rest of the world, that is again a bit naive to assume, maybe you were half kidding but the u.s. doesnt want other countries to have nukes for the same reason criminals dont want weaker citizens to have guns. America is an oppressive and imperial power and craves sole power, so their actions are a counter example
slickbtk 11 months ago
@shiverpunt if other countries had nukes the world would be much safer, for example if vietnam had nukes then over a million deaths would have been avioded, the soviet union did have nukes and millions of deaths were avoided. I only wish that iraq would have had stockpiles of known nukes (not the gov lies but for real) because then obviously we would have never invaded and again murdered hundreds of thousands and displaced millions. The list goes on and on, and the same logic does apply to guns
slickbtk 11 months ago
@slickbtk yea millions of deaths were avoided during the cold war with the soviets... but the entire world was also on the brink of destruction several times.. it was thanks to great leaders like Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis that stopped us from destroying each other and the entire world in a nuclear war. all you need is one trigger happy world leader to push the button and you can say goodbye to humanity as we know it
mbglosser 10 months ago
These people are goofy. Yes guns are designed to kill. To kill bad guys that try to kill you. That is why the police take them to work everyday. If these people were interested in the truth then they would admit that guns are used for defense a lot more often than criminals use them to murder people. Don't expect honesty out of Bill Maher though. He is one of those guys that is against gun ownership, yet he owns a gun for self defense. He must be better than the rest of us.
CarbonGrips 11 months ago
@CarbonGrips You really don't believe that, do you? You can't possibly be that...skewed. More guns protect people only because so many people have guns in the first place. Compare U.S murders from firearms to countries with gun control. In 2009 the U.S had almost 10 000 murders from guns, fourth highest in the world, topped only by countries like Columbia, S. Africa and Thailand. Japan had 47. UK, 14. Ireland had 12. They barely broke double digits! You can't claim gun control puts you at risk.
shiverpunt 11 months ago
@shiverpunt skewed? First off, bearing arms is an individual right here in the US so don't start off with the "other countries" do this and that. They're not the US, they dont' buy drugs like the US, they don't border Mexico, they don't have the freedoms we have, so don't try to draw parallels there. Seriously, it gets very old hearing you anti gun pansies talking about the fucking UK and China.
CarbonGrips 11 months ago
@CarbonGrips You're right. The U.S is in such a uniquely difficult situation. Other countries could never be used as models. Get real. Russia has lower murder rates from guns and if you try to say they aren't facing problems that dwarf the U.S then you're kidding yourself. And yes, once again toot the "we have the right" sound bite. I'm equally tired of hearing that. That was put into the constitution to protect citizens from a tyrannical government, not so you can have a gun rack in your truck.
shiverpunt 11 months ago
@shiverpunt shouldn't you be off telling someone how they're dumb for believing in God or trying to figure out a way for you to suck Bill Maher's cock? I don't think we Americans need a god damn Canadian teaching us about what our constitution means. You're not an American, you don't fucking know shit about our country and I do not care WTF you think about how I should live. Fuck you, you stupid asshole. lol
CarbonGrips 11 months ago
@CarbonGrips You really aren't good at this. When did I mention anything about God or that people are dumb for believing in it? I appreciate that you have strong feelings about this issue, but at least make an effort to be coherent. No matter how many f bombs you use or how xenophobic you make your replies sound, you are doing nothing to EXPLAIN your position. So fuck me, fine. I don't care if you like me. Just stop knee jerking and give me a reasonable argument about how gun control is bad.
shiverpunt 11 months ago
@shiverpunt Not good at what, looking at the comments you've left for other videos and seeing how you constantly talk down to people as if you're smarter & more astute than them? You're not American, so you have no dog in this hunt. The national debate over the 2A does not affect you 1 way or the other so you're entering into the debate why? Oh, because you think you're smarter than the rest of us & U don't want to pass up a chance to call us rednecks that fuck our sisters. Fuck you, Canadian!
CarbonGrips 11 months ago
@CarbonGrips Dude, settle. I never claimed to be smarter than you. I do believe you don't present you're arguments clearly and fall back on f bombs and "Love it or Leave it" party lines. And considering the U.S is the main source of illegal guns smuggled into Canada, I do have an interest in your gun laws. As for my redneck comment, I apologize. It was out of line, I was a little drunk and sleeping with my own sister at the time. Again, I just want to know why you think gun control is bad.
shiverpunt 11 months ago
@shiverpunt I'm not presenting you with an argument. You are not American so I am not interested in justifying my constitutional rights or the intent of my founding fathers or why I believe I should have a right that you believe I shouldn't have. So, I'm not going to present an argument. I have nothing against Canada or it's citizens but I have no desire to debate my rights with some1 from another country, that spends his time online trying to belittle my country.
CarbonGrips 11 months ago
@shiverpunt If U want to argue that more guns kill more people then compare areas in the USA with areas in the USA. Compare Washing D.C.'s 30 year total handgun ban to the time when the Supreme Court struck it down. DC made murder capital during that stupid ban. That ban was struck down in 2008. In 2010 they had the lowest murder tally since 1963. None of you anti gun people were right. U said more guns will lead to more gun violence and once again, you're wrong. More guns meant less violence.
CarbonGrips 11 months ago
@CarbonGrips You're using an example of a gun ban in a small location inside a country of wide spread accessibility. Were people checked every time they drove into Washington D.C? Was it suddenly not part of regular U.S economy, traffic and travel? The handgun ban was a farce because it was impossible to regulate and guns became black market items that could be bought by simply driving a few hours and driving back home. A ban needs to be national to be effective.
shiverpunt 11 months ago
@shiverpunt Second Amendment dumb fucking Canadian. There will be no national gun bans so stfu up about that stupid shit. I thought I told you to go worry about your own country. What the Fuck do you care about my country's rights. You don't live here, you don't know what the fuck is going on. Go fuck yourself you dip shit. I get so sick of hearing assholes from other countries trying to tell us how to live. Worry about yourself.
CarbonGrips 11 months ago
bwahahahaha
Man Coulter looks hilarious as a pirate.
redryan20000 1 year ago
watch?v=ualXsS9VanU
thepurpleclown 1 year ago
You really should look up what constitutes an assault weapon by state.
Each state defines it differently.
Just Google: US classifications of Assault weapon.
It should be the first link.
Example: If I thread the barrel on my Beretta to attach a compensator, here its legal. In California its and Assault weapon.
In some states like Arizona a high capacity clip or magazine that extends beyond the pistols grip is considered an assault weapon.
TheRoninMercenary 1 year ago
@TheRoninMercenary I don't go off of what a politician says an assault weapon is. The politicians that wrote the AWB bill decided what an assault weapon was based on no knowledge of weapons. It is what it is. It does not change because some politician says this new thing makes it an assault weapon or that new thing makes it one. An assault weapon is a weapon a military or police force, or any1 with common sense, would deem appropriate for mounting an assault.
jboritzki 1 year ago
@jboritzki Wow you try to advocate assault weapon ownership but you don't know anything about gun laws.
You need to look up gun laws from 1976-1986 and from 1990-1994.
TheRoninMercenary 1 year ago
@TheRoninMercenary I got to tell ya, I think it's obvious neither of us will change our minds. I'm really not wanting to continue this anymore. If that helps you feel like you've won something then fine by me. It's just getting boring is all.
jboritzki 1 year ago
People like you treat Guns as toys. They are not. Until you have experienced what it is actually like to be on the receiving end of these weapons you do not respect them. Nor do you respect others or the value of human life.
TheRoninMercenary 1 year ago
@TheRoninMercenary "People like you treat Guns as toys."
Where do you get that from? I treat firearms safely and properly at all times. I don't know why you want to pretend to know so much about me. Maybe so you can feel superior to me? Who knows? You being shot at does not make you an expert. In fact, it seems to have made you scared of anyone that owns a gun. That's a shame.
jboritzki 1 year ago
@jboritzki "I don't know why you want to pretend to know so much about me."
I don't pretend, I DO know.
Thanks to your videos I know your name, age, height, weight, eye color, basic geographical location. Which guns you own(and a few of their serial numbers) your basic political views and thought process. From reading over your all of your posts I know you are a habitual liar who when proven wrong tries to change his story.
I am very good at what I do. One of the best actually.
TheRoninMercenary 1 year ago
@TheRoninMercenary Lie? I'm not lying about anything. What the hell reason would I have to lie for? You assume too much.
jboritzki 1 year ago
@jboritzki "Replacing the M4's M16's or AK47's that are select fire with semi auto only AR15's would be crazy and no military force would do it."
Assume is to guess I am talking facts with proof.
You stated that no military would issue semi autos over full auto/select fire. I proved you wrong and instead of saying "oh I didn't know that now I do" you tried to argue samantics about the definition of the word modern and ignoring that your statements about Military weapons were false.
TheRoninMercenary 1 year ago
@TheRoninMercenary When I said that no modern military would use semi autos in place of full autos, I meant it. You can dig up instances of 3rd world countries or the use of semi autos or bolt actions and then claim that makes me wrong or a liar, but I am not wrong and that is not a lie. Are semi autos used, yes. Are they used exclusivly, no. Would any modern military invade an enemy position with semi autos alone, hell no.
jboritzki 1 year ago
@jboritzki Indian is both a first world country(doing better than the USA right now) and they use semi autos in place of Full autos.
US military soldiers prefer to use semi fire over burst or full auto. Several Soldiers I personally know have put in requests to carry semi fire only rifles.
TheRoninMercenary 1 year ago
@TheRoninMercenary "People like you treat Guns as toys. They are not. Until you have experienced what it is actually like to be on the receiving end of these weapons you do not respect them. Nor do you respect others or the value of human life."
Are you actually saying that unless you're shot at you cant have respect for a gun or other people or for human life? I hope not because that is pretty fucking stupid right there.
CarbonGrips 9 months ago
There are militaries that use only semi Autos.
The IRA didn't use fullauto assault rifles until the 80s.
Most Military outfits in developing countries like most African Countries with aid militaries are only allowed by Geneva convention to issue Semi auto rifles. That is why the FAL is so common in Africa and India
The Standard issue Battle rifle in the Indian Army?
Armtech L1A1 SAS(since you don't know that is a FAL variant in semi auto)
He is not say that they use only Semi Autos.
TheRoninMercenary 1 year ago
@TheRoninMercenary Ok, why you're being a smart ass about this is beyond me. I said modern militaries. If you're talking about 1980, that was 31 years ago. Every military has machine guns. Machine guns are used for suppressive fire. You can't mount an assault and expect to be successful without full auto capability. I see you own a gun. The kid I was arguing with wants it to be illegal for you to have that gun, but you're arguing with me over who has and don't have full autos.
jboritzki 1 year ago
@jboritzki First of all you waffle about like a kid with bipolar trying to twist what people say.
1980s is considered modern military. Any military or weapon that is still in active service is considered "modern".
You claimed that no military directly relies one semi auto rifles. Per the examples given you are wrong as many military's standers issue weapons are semi auto.
TheRoninMercenary 1 year ago
@TheRoninMercenary Fist off, kid, I've been shooting since before you or he were even born. Second, your definition of modern and mine differ. Third, if purple is not against handguns, he can tell me that. This video is about an idiot, talking about a crazy kid that killed with a handgun. He, and you, are both wrong about these weapons. You can hunt with them, people do hunt with them, they are used for defense, they are used for competition target shooting, and they are not "assault weapons".
jboritzki 1 year ago
@jboritzki As for the purple clown he is probably not only older than you but has probably seen more action.
He is right assault rifles have to recreational values. You do not need them to hunt, protect or amuse you. They are weapons designed for killing. You are right I own several guns, but Purple Clown is NOT against handguns, shot guns, or rifles. He is only against idiots(He lives in an area with many gun toting extremists) owning dangerous weapons that they don't know how to properly use,
TheRoninMercenary 1 year ago
@TheRoninMercenary Actually, that was a different video with this same guy that I was talking about where he was talking about the recent AZ shooting. My mistake on that.
What exactly is a "gun toting extremist"? Bill thinks one is anyone that owns a gun that he don't like the looks of or that does not vote Democrat. The people you kids need to be worried about shooting you are not people involved in politics. It's gang members, drug dealers or drug addicts. People that aren't into politics.
jboritzki 1 year ago
@TheRoninMercenary And don't think for a second that Bill Maher don't want that Beretta you got outlawed. When you start playing this game of deciding what people don't need because you don't see a reason for it in your personal life, it leaves the door open for someone else to walk into your life and start picking out the things you enjoy and deciding that you don't need it either.
jboritzki 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jboritzki First off all for someone who claims to have been shooting since before I was born you don't know your guns very well. The gun in that video was not a Beretta it even says so in the title.
Second as someone who has worked in law enforcement I know enough that a Glock 19 with a 30rd extended mag is NOT used for hunting or completion shooting, its used for killing people.
If you need a full auto gun to hunt, you do not need to be hunting .
TheRoninMercenary 1 year ago
@TheRoninMercenary "First off all for someone who claims to have been shooting since before I was born you don't know your guns very well"
The title says "P2FS" I figured it was a typo, since the "P" is close to the "9" and the Beretta is a "92FS" Yeah, I know guns pretty well. No1 was talking about owning or hunting with full autos. You're confused. Every1 I know in law enforcement are big advocates for the 2nd Amendment. & it's a 33 rounder.
jboritzki 1 year ago
@jboritzki I took the liberty of looking you up and your penny anti at best. You own a couple of .22 peashooters. By the time I was knee high to a grasshopper I was shooting guns that would knock you on your ass. A .22 is not going to stop someone so your claims of self defense is pointless. Unless you are using s .22 magnum you are not going yo be able to use it for hunting. From personal experience I have taken down guys who were armed with Assault weapon, with only my Beretta.
TheRoninMercenary 1 year ago
@TheRoninMercenary So you seen I own a couple of .22's. So what are you saying? That only kids own .22's? lol. You can't be serious. What gun owner does not own a few .22's? Big calibers stop people faster, but you're dead wrong that a 22 won't stop an attack, but this really isn't a caliber debate, is it? That Beretta is very accurate as are the Taurus copies. So are 2" snub nose revolvers for that matter. Guns, not all but a lot, are designed to be defensive tools so yes, they're designed to
jboritzki 1 year ago
@jboritzki In my neighborhood yeah only kids a squirrel guns. By the time you have hair on your peaches you have moved on to 12 gauges.
I seriously doubt you are a Gunshop owner.(if I am not misunderstanding your comment) They technically own every gun in the shop. But every gun owner I have ever met carries or prefers a compact .38, 9mm, or a 45. None of them would ever consider using a .22 for defense. Your run of the mill .22 round will not penetrate the human skull unless at close range.
TheRoninMercenary 1 year ago
@TheRoninMercenary My first gun was a Mossberg 500 12 gage and I still own it. I don't shoot to feel like a hard ass, I shoot because I enjoy target shooting and I can hit a 12' steel plate at 200 yards with a .22 rifle. I shoot the same plate at 86 yards with pistols too. I have carried a .357, a .45 1911, and a 9mm Sig but believe it or not, I don't like to carry a gun. Bad guys run away when U shoot at them. They don't ask what caliber. It's not the best man stopper, but it will do just fine.
jboritzki 1 year ago
@TheRoninMercenary The gang member that TRIED to pull his gun on me while saying "you're fucking dead" didn't get it out in time. I got mine out first and he stopped pulling. Luckily, his 2 buddies were either shocked or scared to pull their guns. Does that count? The crack head with the baseball bat that permanently damaged my eyes and tried to kill me with head shots from the bat, I think that qualifies as dangerous. Never been shot or shot at, probably because I got my gun out first.
jboritzki 1 year ago
@TheRoninMercenary "I took the liberty of looking you up and your penny anti at best"
What? Penny anti?
jboritzki 1 year ago
@jboritzki You have no real experience with an assault weapon or any weapon aside from plinking around in your backyard. Sadly living in suburbia you have never experienced any real gun danger.
Have you ever had a gun drawn on you? - I doubt it.
Have you ever been shot at? - No.
Have you ever been shot? - No.
I have. My job used to be finding dangerous and desperate people who didn't want to be found. Some of them had no problems with the idea of putting a bullet in me. And one guy, did.
TheRoninMercenary 1 year ago
@jboritzki I am not going to try to justify or kid myself that I can use my Beretta for competitions or hunting. It was made for one purpose, killing people. And I have maximized its performance to kill people by adding Recoil reducing guide rod, lighter trigger pull, EXTENDED MAGAZINES, and Black talon ammo.
It is a LETHAL WEAPON and should be treated as such.
There is no reason, personal or otherwise for the average law abiding citizen to own a weapon of war.
TheRoninMercenary 1 year ago
@TheRoninMercenary kill people. Killing people and murdering people are different things. Bill Maher doesn't make that distinction. Guns are used by nuts to murder and rob, so the little old lady, the 5' tall mother, the father of 4 should not be able to protect themselves against those degenerates according to him. Of course guns R lethal weapons. So are knives. So what's your point? That I shouldn't have them? That you shouldn't have them? That's what Maher would like to see happen.
jboritzki 1 year ago
@jboritzki I for one would feel safer if no one had assault weapons. So what if I can't own them either.
Don't get me wrong I like guns but I appreciate their mechanical value. I would love to own a FN P90 and a FN FS2000 but I don't really need them. I would love to own a Barret M89 .50cal Sniper rifle. but there is no real reason to.
For self defense every in both of those situations you would want a pistol or shotgun for home defense, not a full auto long rifle.
TheRoninMercenary 1 year ago
@TheRoninMercenary The rifles me and Purple were talking about are not full auto rifles. They're semi autos. If you feel you have to have a "need" to own a gun then someone is going to come along and tell you that you don't "need" a gun for defense, call a cop. You don't "need" to hunt, there are grocery stores. No one can decide for you what you need and don't need. You shouldn't try to decide that for others as well.
jboritzki 1 year ago
@TheRoninMercenary "There is no reason, personal or otherwise for the average law abiding citizen to own a weapon of war."
Bullshit. That position has been rejected by Americans since before America was even a country. I would also point out how hypocritical that position is. You own a "weapon of war" but claim that citizens do not deserve that right. Well, you're a citizen aren't you? If you believe so strongly in that position then melt your guns down.
jboritzki 1 year ago
Yes Military's do indeed still use semi auto weapons. The US Military still issues the FAL .308 semi auto Assault rifle.
Also every single assault weapon used today has a semi-auto select firing lever. Actual soldiers or anyone who has taken the US military rifle range proficiency test will tell you they prefer semi auto fire.
Auto-fire is used for suppression not for actually killing individual targets.
3 round burst firing is even being removed from military guns.
TheRoninMercenary 1 year ago
@TheRoninMercenary Yes, everyone knows this. This silly kid however was making it appear as those a military force, uses semi auto weapons exclusively. I know they have semi autos, I know they are select fire, I know they use bolt action rifles and handguns. What I was saying was that every single military force uses weapons that are fully automatic. Replacing the M4's M16's or AK47's that are select fire with semi auto only AR15's would be crazy and no military force would do it.
jboritzki 1 year ago
@jboritzki *facepalm*
thepurpleclown 1 year ago
I agree with a lot of the stuff that he says, but the way he keeps generalizing the right like they're all a bunch of gun nuts is almost disgusting. There are as much gooks on the hard left as there are on the hard right. I think the second ammendment(in which he's attacking) is nearly solely there for people to be able to use the first(the one that he's using at all times). People like Bill Maher are just plain afraid of guns because they've never even touched one. It's just plain ignorance.
geitepung 1 year ago
they need to make it much harder to get access to guns
thepurpleclown 1 year ago
@thepurpleclown "they need to make it much harder to get access to guns"
Why? It won't make it harder for the people that use them in crimes to get them.
jboritzki 1 year ago
@jboritzki you can never prevent people who will try to use them in crimes when in this country guns are so readily available they're practically giving them away. Gun access needs to be much harder to get reguardless. No more selling at local retailers, only special outfitters or production warehouses. Special permits used for even owning a gun should be as hard to get as it is to carry hidden. There should be a regulation to control how many guns an owner should have and also an exam to own.
thepurpleclown 1 year ago
@thepurpleclown This is so simple I don't see how someone can turn on a computer but still not understand this. Making guns harder to get makes them harder for LAW ABIDING CITIZENS to get. It does not make it harder for criminals to get. Ur idea about tests, wtf R U thinking? What convicted criminal is going to take a damn test or go to a store to buy a gun? And no, that is a damn lie, no one is "practically giving them away" They're expensive and sold like anything else. No1 is giving them away
jboritzki 1 year ago
@jboritzki not giving them away? you ever been to a pawn shop? Any retail stores? Hunting/fishing stores? Get real, theyre everywhere, they're not hidden away like a secret.
my idea for tests sounds like a reasonable idea, like the aptitude test for the military, to see if you're smart enough and coherent enough to actually own such a dangerous piece of weaponry. also concerning convicted criminals i dont believe they should ever be able to own guns in any case and is already in effect.
thepurpleclown 1 year ago
@thepurpleclown They sell guns, they don't give them away. When you say they give them away you might as well say the grocery store gives milk away because they sell it there & at the gas station, and the quickie mart etc. No one and no store gives guns away. They sell them and any store that sells them cannot sell them @ convicted criminals. & believe it not, killers usually do not kill as their first crime. They tend to already have other felonies on their records preventing them from owning
jboritzki 1 year ago
@thepurpleclown Any wtf? A limit on how many pieces of private property that is protected as a constitutional right to own? What makes a 22 year old video game playing kid think he is qualified to decide what American citizens should own and how many? Have you ever even fired a gun that involved pulling a trigger and not just hitting the B button? Do you know a damn thing about real crime? I'd say you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.
jboritzki 1 year ago
@jboritzki wow. any point you tried to make was just made ignorant with this response. trying to attack someone personally in a debate? *shakes head*
there are things that are regulated with private property already, so why not firearms which are a hazard? sounds like sound reasoning to me.
thepurpleclown 1 year ago
@thepurpleclown No, my point is rock solid. It gets very old hearing you anti gun people spew bullshit, knowing nothing about the subject, and pretending like you're an authority on the subject.
There is about 1 gun murder for every 100-140 times a gun is used in self defense, but you believe guns are a problem. You believe that because you know nothing at all about this subject. You have "feelings" on this matter and that's about all you have.
jboritzki 1 year ago
@jboritzki and it gets old thinking you pro-gun people think EVERY freakin' person should have/own a gun. sure i believe that you should be able to protect your home/family/property/etc. but everyone needs to understand the dangers along with owning weaponry. it needs a stronger regulation and stricter guidlines than it does today.
And what makes you come off like the expert in the subject? where is citation for that 1:100-140 statistic?
thepurpleclown 1 year ago
@thepurpleclown I get that stat from the NRA website. 1.5-2 million times a year a law abiding citizen uses a gun to defend themselves. That could mean firing it or just simply brandishing it. I was one of those people that brandished as a gang member tried to pull his pistol on me. No1 was shot and it was because I was armed and pulled faster. I have 5 friends that R cops. Family member that is a cop and federal judge and prosecutor. I'm also a little older than you
jboritzki 1 year ago
@jboritzki Guns are a problem in the sense they kill and are easy access to anyone, reguardless if you come off with 'criminals criminals criminals!' when in fact those people were law abiding citizens like yourself before they decided to shoot someone. think about it. sorry if i come off with 'feelings' on the subject but it is a serious issue and should not be taken lightly.
thepurpleclown 1 year ago
@thepurpleclown You'll know you're grown up when you realize that you won't know in a lifetime half as much as you think you know today. I remember being your age and thinking this was a simple thing to fix. Trust me, it's not. It's not a gun problem. I don't take people trying to take American's rights away in the name of public safety that is based on nothing. Know how many assault weapons were used in crimes back when the AWB was put into place? less than 1/10 of 1%. That ban stopped nothing.
jboritzki 1 year ago
@jboritzki i feel safer knowing that assault weapons cant be purchased. there's no point in owning one.
in fact, why own more than 1-2 guns? then you're going out of of the 'its used for protection' to obsession. im not trying to say people shouldnt own guns period, i just trying to say that there is a problem with the gun regulation system and that no matter how many people say 'guns dont kill people, people kill people' the fact is 'people with guns kill people'.
thepurpleclown 1 year ago
@thepurpleclown Well ya know, I like my assault LOOK-A-LIKE weapons that were put on the ban list. Interesting little fact for ya. The weapons they banned in 1994 were not assault weapons, they just looked liek assault weapons. But anyway, they're used for defense, recreation, hunting, varmint hunting, target shooting, collecting, etc. So because you want to "feel" safe, I should give up my rifles that are almost never used in crimes? Seriously bud, less than 1/10th of 1%, and they were banned.
jboritzki 1 year ago
@jboritzki are you seriously trying to tell me the uses for an ASSAULT RIFLE? recreation? hunting? are you kidding?
there's only one reason the assault rifle was invented...
thepurpleclown 1 year ago
@thepurpleclown "are you seriously trying to tell me the uses for an ASSAULT RIFLE? recreation? hunting? are you kidding?"
You are an anti-gun lawmaker's wet dream. You don't know what an assault weapon is. The "assault weapons" I, and everyone else owns, are not suitable for combat. Any military would have to be crazy today to use any of the rifles I own in a war.
jboritzki 1 year ago
@jboritzki i very much know what an assault weapon is. i know for fact the 'assault weapons' you own and others can buy at stores are semi-auto, not fully auto. the fully automatics were the assault weapons i was referring to, and hopefully not the same ones you're trying to defend for public use.
FYI, some military do use semi-automatic assault rifles.
thepurpleclown 1 year ago
@thepurpleclown No modern military force uses semi auto rifles to mound assaults. Citizens can get full auto weapons, but's a paperwork and expensive nightmare. So I suppose the law is structured so that only gun dealers or rich people can get them. To be honest though, I dont' have a big problem if they were made legal so long as illegally possessing one meant an automatic 20 years in prison with no chance of getting out early.
jboritzki 1 year ago
@thepurpleclown And I also own 7 guns and want to own more. They are all cool and useful in their own ways. They are of different calibers. You obviously don't have a hobby that involves guns, you've never lived on a farm, you don't understand why someone might want or even NEED more than 1 or 2 guns. What makes you think you should be giving lectures on what should be legal and what should not given you have no idea about what you're talking about?
jboritzki 1 year ago
@jboritzki you still havent explained why you NEED more than 2 guns. 7? what the hell for?
dont know what i'm talking about? its not hard to understand guns and their uses. they aren't molecular science, ya know. as a law abiding citizen, i have every right to voice my opinion. thank the 1st admendment for that.
thepurpleclown 1 year ago
@thepurpleclown And you can thank for 2nd amendment for the being the biggest protector of the 1st amendment bud.
Yes, I own 7 guns. That is actually not that many for an avid shooter such as myself. Sorry, 8 guns. 2 derringer pistols, 22 handgun, 9mm handgun, 2 .22 rifles, 1 shotgun, 1 AR15 rifle. I target shoot with them all. I carry 1 pistol at a time every day. My father-in-law, a detective, owns about 50 guns. That make you nervous too?
jboritzki 1 year ago
@jboritzki ...it is quite disturbing. hope you have a concealed weapons permit for that.
thepurpleclown 1 year ago
@thepurpleclown ".it is quite disturbing. hope you have a concealed weapons permit for that."
Everything I do is legal.
jboritzki 1 year ago
@thepurpleclown I don't "need" a gun. I want a gun. You don't "need" a car or a toaster. You want them. I have that right and you may not like this, but you had better get use to it. The second amendment, the state constitution, the recent supreme court rulings, guns aren't going to go away.
jboritzki 1 year ago
@jboritzki Actually you do need a car; it helps you get to work to pay for those guns you have. I could also argue you need a toaster; it's for making toast and not meant to kill. so what im saying is there are things we actually need.
guns were made to kill, so if you want guns you must be looking to kill.
if not, there are plenty of other sources of weaponry considered non lethal forms of recreation: such as paintball or airsoft guns.
thepurpleclown 1 year ago
@thepurpleclown 4 some reason my comment didn't post. No, U don't "need" a car or a toaster. U can walk or take a bus or eat untoasted bread. Some guns R designed 2 kill people that R trying to kill U. Some R designed as defensive tools to be used in defensive situations and some are designed strictly for target purposes. Some are designed for hunting small game, some are designed to hunt medium game, some are designed to hunt big game.
jboritzki 1 year ago
@jboritzki you didnt need a car back in the olden days, but you do need one.
dont try to weed your way around it. guns were made to kill, defensively or offensively.
thepurpleclown 1 year ago
@thepurpleclown You seem to be confusing convenience with a need. & no1 is trying to weed their way around anything. U just don't understand much about firearms. Most guns are used for target practice, hunting, or collecting. Fewer are used in self defense and even fewer than that are used as murder weapons. Honestly, very few people anymore care that you don't like guns. U can't protect people from everything in a free society. U just have to get use to that.
jboritzki 1 year ago
@jboritzki Canada has much stricter gun laws, which have resulted in much more safetly and less deaths than compared to America. I think you clearly can protect people from guns, if not everything.
thepurpleclown 1 year ago
@thepurpleclown Don't care about Canada, I care about America. Canada is different in a lot of ways. Mexico does not border them is 1 difference. They don't have a 2nd Amendment is another. They did have just as many guns rights as we do and their gun crime was still lower, so what does that tell ya? That it's a gun problem? Well if it were, then their gun murder rate would have been the same as ours. Must be a different reason for the crime differences.
jboritzki 1 year ago
@jboritzki
watch?v=dRuT5CM2ZEQ
thepurpleclown 1 year ago
@thepurpleclown Just watched it. The man lost even more credibility as if that was possible. He lives in a bubble, surrounded by other far left people that live in bubbles. According to Bill, if you're on the right you're a nut and if you're on the left you're likely not a nut. He pretends that the right is the only side that uses war type phrases when referring to politics. The left or the dems do it just as often as the right or repubs. This guy is an elitist nut job.
jboritzki 1 year ago
@jboritzki Maher tells the truth as it is, you guys just can't accept it. The guy never states that the left doesnt have nutjobs, in fact he has. He just says that the right have gun totting crazies who follow the right to the letter, even on war phrases. Don't retreat, reload? LMFAO
thepurpleclown 1 year ago
@thepurpleclown And Obama just said "If they bring a knife, we'll bring a gun". You and Bill are either liars or totally ignorant if you think this only, or even mostly, comes from the right. Both sides use these kinds of words just as often as the other. Guns are not a right or left thing. I know plenty of left leaning people that own guns. Owning a gun does not make a person a nut or violent. Bill says most right people R nuts but a few left people are nuts. That is what he says.
jboritzki 1 year ago
@thepurpleclown I'd also like to remind you of the guy that shot up the Discovery Channel building and was killed by the police. He was a nut and does not represent everyone on the left, but if you want to play this game then don't forget he was an environmentalist, which is more of a left wing cause than a right wing cause.
jboritzki 1 year ago
@thepurpleclown You gave me a link, I watched it. Watch this one.
watch?v=2mmnnOV1ZYc&feature=related
jboritzki 1 year ago
@jboritzki the only thing this link proves is 3 robbers were able to purchase their firearms as well in this country. FAIL.
thepurpleclown 1 year ago
@thepurpleclown "the only thing this link proves is 3 robbers were able to purchase their firearms as well in this country."
Jesus lol. Whatever kid. If you want your head buried in the sand then be my guest.
jboritzki 1 year ago
@jboritzki I'm the one keeping an open mind here. You're taking every thing you read or see as face value. Think outside the box.
thepurpleclown 1 year ago
@thepurpleclown Go hang in Toronto and tell me there aren't gun-related homicides there. The gun registry in Canada cost a billion dollars and has done little to reduce crime in urban areas.
schwarzblatt 1 year ago
@schwarzblatt you completely missed my argument. i never stated there weren't any gun crimes in Canada period. Compared to America, which breeds and attracts crime, Canada is much safer in gun handling.
thepurpleclown 1 year ago
guns dont kill people stupid mother fuckers with guns kill people
thedamned93 1 year ago
@thedamned93
And since most of the people in america are stupid motherfuckers, they shouldnt be allowed to have a GUN.
Because you know what ? I live in Poland...i love violent video-games and movies and Ive never seen a real gun in my entire life, and Ive never been mugged, or didn't even heard about anyone being SHOT in my hometown...so GUNS DO KILL People, so you shouldnt be allowed to have one.
Marobot 1 year ago
@thedamned93 With the guns?
SlightyDisturbedNBK 1 year ago
@thedamned93 thats the same line every gun owner spouts everytime this argument comes up.
You implying the only people who get killed with guns are from the crazy people out there? What about the kid related deaths when a kid shoots another kid when both are under the age 10? last time i check kids that age arent crazy.
thepurpleclown 1 year ago
@thepurpleclown "What about the kid related deaths when a kid shoots another kid when both are under the age 10?"
That's about 50 kids a year. Fewer than swimming pools kill. You cannot make a law based on 50 deaths. Educating people to be more responsible about storing those guns makes much more sense. And so you know, that's 50 adult gun owners a year that owned guns that kids got a hold of. Over 306,000,000 people in the US and 50 deaths.
jboritzki 1 year ago
Three obtuse people in love with disarming the citizens so only the criminals and corrupt government can have guns to kill people with.
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall.
-- Adolph Hitler, Edict Of March 18, 1938
stevefye 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Cars kill 64 TIMES MORE THEN GUNS!!!!
>>>> Google "WISQARS Injury Mortality Reports"
PLEASE PASS THIS ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We need as many tools as we can get to fight the media's ignorant, misleading and misguided propaganda about firearms, brainwashing society basically.
glenbjack 1 year ago
The simple fact is that a all out ban on guns in the US 'would' drasticl;y lower gun crime were it not for the fact that there are so many guns in the US that it would be impossible to enforce, there are the facts as I see it. I could be wrong but thats how I interpret the data.
hughes7520 1 year ago
2.5 million times a year guns are used to defend american lives BY americans. That's more than 38,000 or w/e bullshit number Bill Maher came up with.
safewaysecurity 1 year ago
@safewaysecurity Would you mind citing the source of that statistic?
And would you also please define how the guns were used to defend?
hughes7520 1 year ago
@hughes7520 University of Florida did a study in 1993 that showed that figure. Other studies have shown the same figures. 90% of the time not a single shot is even fired in order to prevent the crime!!!
safewaysecurity 1 year ago
@hughes7520 You can look at a grouping of thirteen different studies of defensive gun use which range statistically from about 800,000 to the top of 2.5 million. The Department of Justice sponsored a survey which found there to be approx. 1.5 million defensive gun uses in a year in America, which dwarfs crimes and murders by a long shot.
schwarzblatt 1 year ago
So why is it then, that the western countries with the most restrictive gun laws have the lower rates of crime? By far, the lowest rates of crime. All crime, not just violent crime.
Maddmardiggan 1 year ago
Very smart move you idiots.
Ban all guns. Ban all guns. Ban all guns. Ban all guns.
Some law abiding citizen's might comply. But not everyone.
BECAUSE CRIMINALS WILL ALWAYS BE ARMED!
seadude007 1 year ago
"Hey SHUT UP EVERYBODY I've gotta go to commercial!"
*Confused, frustrated look*
IAMtheNewWorldOrder 1 year ago
Guns don't kill people. Hercules kills people.
instereovideos 1 year ago
Comment removed
instereovideos 1 year ago
We have to much guns. No debate.
Superhumanattack 1 year ago
I find it interesting that they mentioned the NRA is for not regulating firearms, yet the more I research I find the NRA has introduced in the past several firearms bills & compromised with the other side on bills.
td84 1 year ago
YEA weed is illegal and nobody does it ! so lets make guns illegal and it will solve all our murder and armed robbery problems! sure!!!
jimg0007 1 year ago
gun control maybe not ....bullet control definately
lerxt42 1 year ago
great now i want to go watch monty python
TheCoolestNerdz 1 year ago 2
watch my video on gun control
MrKENRIVAS 2 years ago
Completely off topic but Ann Coulter looks like the women from Kill Bill with that eye patch.
ASSTOMP 2 years ago 2
ann: there is evil in the world.
bill: that's just silly.
who indeed is silly?
LPcustom76 2 years ago
GOOD LORD ANN!!!! EAT SOMETHING!!!!
LPcustom76 2 years ago
Jesus Bill Maher is funny but in this clip he is such a douchebag.
BigBoss1991 2 years ago