Aussie Comedian Jim Jeffries: the best gun nut routine ever

[Xavier_Onassis]

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 $^%##%^^%.

[sirs]

Of course you have a 1st amendment right to spew ignorance.  Who ever said you didn't?  Oy   

[Plane]

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. 

[sirs]

Your second amendment right , gives you your first amendment right.

BINGO!!

[Xavier_Onassis]

Jeffries is right about so much of what he says that  any errors are minuscule.

[Plane]

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.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Just go the Daily kos and watch it. That cannot be hard to do.

[sirs]

Still doesn't debunk this idiot's ignorance on the 2nd amendment

[Xavier_Onassis]

He is dead right about everything.

And he is funny as well.

[sirs]

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

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.

[sirs]

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

[Plane]

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.

[sirs]

Well added       (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)

[Plane]

  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.