DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Xavier_Onassis on March 26, 2015, 04:30:07 PM
-
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/25/1373205/-Australian-comedian-tries-to-make-sense-of-American-gun-laws-nailed-it?detail=email# (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/25/1373205/-Australian-comedian-tries-to-make-sense-of-American-gun-laws-nailed-it?detail=email#)
Your First Amendment gives the right to say your Second Amendment is $^%##%^^%.
-
Of course you have a 1st amendment right to spew ignorance. Who ever said you didn't? Oy ::)
-
Your second amendment right , gives you your first amendment right.
This guy is careless with facts, the Port Arthur massacre has been exceeded, several times.
Once this very week by a fellow who didn't use a gun.
-
Your second amendment right , gives you your first amendment right.
BINGO!!
-
Jeffries is right about so much of what he says that any errors are minuscule.
-
Jeffries is right about so much of what he says that any errors are minuscule.
That video clip won't download for me.
I am having to imagine how he is better off being unarmed when being attacked.
My Imagination is being strained severely.
-
Just go the Daily kos and watch it. That cannot be hard to do.
-
Still doesn't debunk this idiot's ignorance on the 2nd amendment
-
He is dead right about everything.
And he is funny as well.
-
The humor is subjective, as there are plenty of folks that some people find hysterical who are bores to me, and vice versa. The opinion about what he's right on however, is about as wrong as you could possibly be.
But instead of pissing about "he's right", no "he's wrong", in this, a debate forum, why not provide an example of what he's supposedly so "dead right on". A fact, not an opinion of his, but some supposed "fact' he's pushing, and let's debate those merits
unless of course, that's not why you're here, as a member of this, a debate forum
-
Well, he is certainly right about the guy who claims that he needs his gun for protection and, being responsible, locks it in a safe.
He is also right about the fact that if you keep a loaded gun in a drawer, your children is more likely to kill another child with it while playing. This happens quite often.
And he is also right about how totally ineffective puny pistols and hunting rifles would be against the weapons that the government has.
When it comes to overthrowing oppressive governments, the NRA advocates bringing a gun to a drone fight.
Of course, since Obama is sooooooooooooooooooooooo oppressive, it is a woer that the NRA has not already tried to overthrow him.
-
The common sense stuff is pretty common sense.....not to mention that irresponsible gun owners (those that leave loaded firearms for easy access by children), are by definition, idiots. As in no one disagrees with that premise
Those are a mere fraction of legal gun owners however. And the idea of trying to paint gun owners, as being that globally irresponsible is but one of the points of ignorance I can point to. The vast majority of those that leave loaded firearms under pillows and in unlocked drawers are those that have acquired their firearms illegally in the 1st place
The 2nd amendment may not stop an oppressive Government from trying to impose fascist rule, but we're sure going to make it bloody upon those that try. Not to mention the amount of military folk that understand the role of the military, and the protection of its citizenry from enemies, both foreign & DOMESTIC
In other words, we're not going to ignore the Constitution and disarm, just because the Government has already managed to out gun its citizens
-
And he is also right about how totally ineffective puny pistols and hunting rifles would be against the weapons that the government has.
This is a good argument for the public having more and better weapons ,it is not an argument for the public to have fewer and weaker weapons, that these are not adequate to the intended purpose.
-
Well added 8) (stand by for the hyperbolic response that such an inquiry equates to we now want to carry bazookas, and park the lastest model M1-Abrams in the car port)
-
There are some tanks in the control of states, but Federal influence on State guard is so strong that it doesn't seem like a serious counter to the federal monopoly on military force.
It seems clear that our founders wisdom was that there should not be a federal monopoly on military force.
Though there is not any practical means for a lot of us to own jet fighters or even fuel them, we can own a huge number of small arms.
This means that should the government ever become odious to a really great number of the people, the enforcement of the odious policies would require a lot of risk.
Also collecting this number of weapons up would take just about forever.
-
The link worked for me today.
Guy has great delivery , quite funny.
No grasp of the numbers tho...
-
Numbers are really not important to the argument.
Owning a gun will rarely protect anyone from getting killed. They are more likely to get killed with their own gun, or have some member of their family shoot them or some other member than to stop a home invader.
The Founding Fathers were referring to the right to own MUSKETS, not automatic weapons. If everyone had a musket, the mass murders that gun nuts cause would never happen, because of the time and complications of loading a musket.
And, as you say, he is funny and makes sense, two talents that sirs and his ilk will never master.
-
Numbers are really not important to the argument.
LOL...that's like saying facts don't really matter. What matters is we need to make decisions based on emotion, and what might happen with a gun (of course ignoring the mountain of facts and examples of a gun actually, not imagining, but actually being used to save lives from getting killed)
For those who have used it to defend theirs or someone else's life, would scowl at your inferrence that it couldn't happen. It's better to have one and never have to use it, than to need one, but not have one. The fact that there are so many responsible gun owners, and an ever growing increase in firearms sold, YET NO SUCH increase in violent or even accidental crime. Quite the opposite in fact, (except of course in those locations where guns are far more restricted in ownership by law abiding citizens), which again is why you and your comedian friend here are so willfully ignorant on this issue.
And no, the founding fathers weren't referring specifically to muskets, otherwise they would have stated that in the Constitution. ::)
Perhaps the most glaring point of yours and his ignorance is the notion that criminals will all of a sudden start obeying greater and greater restrictive gun laws. Make it harder for them to own, make it harder for them to reload, make it harder for them to use....yea, that's it. When in reality, criminals BY THEIR VERY LABEL, could care less about any existing or proposed new gun laws. They'll still get their fully automatic weapons and concealed pistols either by theft, or black market, still kill with it. All the while the responsible gun owner is screwed trying to defend himself/herself, and their loved ones, with their legislated single shot rifle......all because idiots like this comedian can excel in comedy but be so severely lacking in any common sense
-
He is vastly more logical than you will ever be.
Funnier, too.
There are deceased morticians funnier than you.
-
Numbers are unimportant for many of his statements. Statistics are not required to disprove the statement that a gun in a safe is not going to be of much use against a home invasion. All the firearms available to the public when the Bill of Rights were written were muskets and pistols that at most shot two bullets. It is totally obvious that Monroe was not imagining AK-47's or pistols with ten or fifteen bullets.
It is also true that while perhaps a bad government might be removed with muskets (though there is no historical evidence that this has ever happened), it is most certainly true that the puny weapons prized by the NRA and its goofy members would be useless against the riot control and military weapons and drones that the government now has.
-
Context is important!
It is true that when the Second amendment was adopted the public had nothing available but muzzleloaders.
Also true that the government had nothing available but muzzleloaders.
For small arms the public was just as well armed as the army , there was even a certain number of cannon in private hands.
Early attempts to disarm Americans included that the British confiscated hundreds of weapons from Boston, infuriating them.
Decades later there was an attempt by the Mexican government to disarm Texans , infuriating them.
Did you note the joke that Mr. Jeffries made about the Australian attitude vs the American attitude?
After the Port Arthur Massacre the government of Australia spoke to the Australians as a strict parent speaks to a misbehaving child, Australians promptly fell in line and allowed billions in property to be confiscated.
Then when the US has a serious massacre , the US government timidly proposes slightly increasing the restrictions and the American Public replies in the tones of a parent to a misbehaving child, the US government meekly falls in line.
This is the more desirable situation, the government should respect the people, and to insure this, considerable power should reside with the people.
-
Not, however, the power to go ape and massacre dozens of school children.
-
Perhaps no one should have the power to kill a child.
When the government has not got this much power , it would be safe for the people to have less power.
-
He is vastly more logical than you will ever be.
Funnier, too.
There are deceased morticians funnier than you.
I'm not trying to be funny, which I guess is a good thing, since you don't find me funny. Glad we got that cleared up. I'll await for you to try and refute the logic placed before you and the comedian. Good luck with that
-
Not, however, the power to go ape and massacre dozens of school children.
And who the hell supports that?? Again, your trying to use fringe acts as somehow common place.
-
Lunatics massacring groups of people for no good reason happens several times per year in this country. We seem to have more of these massacres than anyone else. And the preferred method nearly always involves GUNS.
-
Lunatics massacring groups of people for no good reason happens several times per year in this country. We seem to have more of these massacres than anyone else.
Really?
While the murder rate falls here, year by year?
If we had enacted strict gun control the rate of improvement would be credited to gun control, don't tell me it would not.
But since the improvement coincides with defeats of gun control , can we not make the coincidence seem causal?
Australia is seeing about the same improvement in crime rates as we are , but there it looks like the result of gun control, try to tell them different, the evidence is an illusion, they are a much smaller population, with a lot fewer Urban areas.
The same rate of improvement looks more dramatic on the smaller stage.
-
Lunatics massacring groups of people for no good reason happens several times per year in this country.
And millions of people are saved from potential loss of life, with the use of a gun.....exponentially more than those massacred
We seem to have more of these massacres than anyone else. And the preferred method nearly always involves GUNS.
And thankfully, exponentially more lives are SAVED with that same GUN, than those taken in those infrequent lunatic led massacres. That's the brilliant ignorance that you and your comedian friend seem to share
-
The murder rate is not the same thing as the asshole gun nut goes ape and massacres a bunch of people rate.
That particular rate has gone up in recent years, because there are more gun nut assholes with more dangerous guns.
-
People being killed vs those saved by the use of a IS the point being made here.
And no, not even the rate of massacres have been going up. That's merely your biased perception...minus the actual facts to the contrary. I recall very clearly your proclamation a couple of years ago, that these massacres were going to be happening practically every other month. You're perfecting the art of being wrong
-
You have no actual figures, you? You just pull nonsense out of some nether orifice and presume it is true.
-
That's been posted here adnauseum, from the records kept by the FBI. But I love the effort of projecting, precisely what you just accused me of. Bravo. You perceive that massacres are going up.....ergo, you presume it must be true :o
-
The murder rate is not the same thing as the asshole gun nut goes ape and massacres a bunch of people rate.
That particular rate has gone up in recent years, because there are more gun nut assholes with more dangerous guns.
That kind of guy is rarer than one in a million.
Right now we possess more than one gun each, tho the distribution is not even.
How much gun confiscation would be required to make one gun hard to find for that one in a million guy?
Then of course you would really need to gather up everything elese that these guys could use, Knives cars , airplanes and hammers.
If you don't gather all of the dangerous stuff , you will have never done enough.
In the meantime , the normal( rational )criminal will have run of the place, and that type is a lot more common.
-
The fact remains that these mass murders mostly happen in the US. There are typically two in Europe when there are ten here.
There are too many guns to take them away from the gun nuts. But that does not mean that the gun nuts are not nuts.
Their insane love of guns has made this country less safe for everyone.
-
The evidence is otherwise.
That is why the numbers matter.
-
The numbers that matter are the large number of gun related deaths in the US as compared with the much smaller rate of gun deaths in Western Europe, Australia and Japan.
-
The numbers that matter are the large number of gun related deaths in the US as compared with the much smaller rate of gun deaths in Western Europe, Australia and Japan.
No.
Our rate of violent death might be about the same or higher if the law were less co-operative with the people.
Giving us Japans laws would not make us into Japan.
England had a low rate of murders before it instituted gun controls , and of course a low rate of murders (compared to us) afterwards.
There may be some benefit to gun control , but it seems to be a mild benefit anywhere.
There may be a cost , and in the USA the cost could be atrocious. During the time that the government was confiscating there would be open season on unarmed non criminals for armed criminals to exploit.
A lot like Chicago is.
-
The numbers that matter are the large number of gun related deaths in the US as compared with the much smaller rate of gun deaths in Western Europe, Australia and Japan.
Again...this is the ignorance in play here......willful at that. Pointing out gun related deaths in a country far bigger than any of the others, with a 2nd amendment freedom none of the others have. Add to that the ongoing overt effort in ignoring the millions more lives saved in this country with the use of a gun, vs those taken by one
THAT's what really matters here