actually, it isn't.
machine guns - m-60, browning 50 cal m2, thompson submachine gun, the bren
assault rifles - m-16 (including civilian ar-15), ak-47, ....here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assault_rifles

they're different.

You don't need high speed internet either, technically (I do, but I am a robot). Technically, you don't need a lot of things, it is all pretty much arbitrary when you talk in those terms. When you make people have to sign up for certain rights via some sort of process, it is the beginning of a real erosion of rights. I'll even meet people half way to say if you want to be in public areas with a gun, some kind of permit is needed like cars...I don't like it, but Ill give you that. But as long as I am not using it to commit crimes, your right to restrict my behavior is over...period. It might be that freedom comes with a hefty prices of dead people, innocent people, innocent people that we could of protected with ever increasing restrictions of social liberties. I mean, look at Saudi Arabia, lower murder rates than even some European countries of pretty good order. But they live in a totalitarian dictatorship, and I am not trying to make a scarecrow argument about totalitarian dictatorships and whatnot, what I am trying to say is people dying isn't the only important metric when talking about rights to do things.


It might be true that more people will die with lacks gun laws, it might be true that more people die because of lacks drug lacks, lots of things might be true about how freedom serves to make economics weak, countries less secure, more prone to internal strife and faction, it might be true that the seeds of freedom and the ability to self regulate cause harms that extend beyond ones self. Even so, I still don't think a better framework exists for conducting ourselves that doesn't cripple and stifle people who have done no wrong. If the price for a drunk driver is abolition, the price of a murder disarmament, the price of wreck less driving horse drawn carriage, then we have failed to address the underlying problem and snub out freedoms ability to creatively deal with complex social challenges via the creative process of problem solving.

I think history has shown that any attempts to snub out action instead of guide it fail miserably. Gun control starts and ends with people, not laws, I suggest we start there. Starting neighborhood gun responsibility programs, safety education for youths, ect...whatever, I don't know, I can't pretend to know what is the best way to address the complex issue of gun control for every community, the point is that is their bag, it can be done without force given the context of the USA. Not every country has that luxury, children roaming the streets with AK-47s is not a real problem in this country, nor would it be if gun control laws were more lacks. We do have problems, I don't want there to be any mistake about that, but I don't think the solution is wholesale elimination of thing that only CAN be dangerous, I mean, anything can be dangerous, ask the folks in Oklahoma about ammonia nitrate...you don't even need a licence to buy that stuff.

Point is, the world is dangerous, and I think freedom allows for a certain amount of that danger to exist. It is the price we pay. We should look to the unwritten code that manages us, the code of culture and community.

"The freedom which we enjoy in our government extends also to our ordinary life. There, far from exercising a jealous surveillance over each other, we do not feel called upon to be angry with our neighbour for doing what he likes, or even to indulge in those injurious looks which cannot fail to be offensive, although they inflict no positive penalty. But all this ease in our private relations does not make us lawless as citizens. Against this fear is our chief safeguard, teaching us to obey the magistrates and the laws, particularly such as regard the protection of the injured, whether they are actually on the statute book, or belong to that code which, although unwritten, yet cannot be broken without acknowledged disgrace."

Pericles' Funeral Oration from the Peloponnesian War

Your video, Silo annihilated with ak-47, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

The question is, what ground do you have to make *any* knowledge claim? If you can't tell me even one thing you know for certain, then what do you actually know? As I gave in my example, if you asked someone what time it is and they said I think it's 3 pm, do they actually know it?

The point is that we do know things, and we operate in a world of certainty, but the only way to justify that knowledge is by pointing to God. You can't justify it by pointing to yourself.

I happily admit that there is a theoretical possibility that everything is a computer program designed to deceive me into believing a particular state of affairs, but as a sane person, I go about life assuming that my senses do a pretty good job of telling me about the world around me. If you have difficulty with this, you are deranged.

Do everyones senses work equally well? Is everyones reasoning equally valid? If you're satisfied with circular reasoning, ie, that your senses are valid because your senses tell you they're valid, then you should have no problem with the argument that God exists because He exists.

So outright, I reject the notion that there is any need for absolute certainty, much less that someone's imaginary friend they keep telling me about can provide it.

There is when making knowledge claims. Again, if you can't make any, what do you actually know?

Reality is invariably self consistent, the coincidence of that alone is enough to convince me to pay attention to people who do their darndest to understand it (reality) and do my darndest to understand it myself.

What's your theory about why it should it be "self-consistent", or comprehensible by human beings at all?

And no, even if there is some way to improve our current degree of certainty by the ten to the power of negative eighty two percent we lack to achieve absolute certainty, then you don't get to arbitrarily claim that God is that way because a book says he knows everything. And especially not if you had a personal revelation.

That isn't the argument. The argument is, there are only two routes to truth. One is that you're omnipotent. Two is revelation from an omnipotent being. Everyone else is living in a world of uncertainty and does not really know anything. The argument is, without God, you can't prove anything.

My buddy Shane told me yesterday that the buck stops with him, and he was simply born with complete omniscience. He knows absolutely everything. He's coming over to dinner tomorrow, if you stop by my place he can tell you about it too. It's crazy, some weird and rare genetic defect from what I understand. But I'll tell you, boy am I glad he has that defect because if he didn't, I'd only be about 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% sure that it's a bad idea to get shot in the head by an AK 47. I mean, you never know. There are times when I want to test those odds.

I'm sure you could name any number of situations where it seems very likely that you know something, but the question remains, how do you prove it? You don't have any proof for your claims no matter how obvious they may seem.

Whether or not we can know anything for certain to such an extreme is a functionally useless question to start with, I like to think of it as the Sudoku of philosophy - for some it is fun and maybe challenging to work through, it might even make someone feel vaguely intellectual when they're watching an action flick, but it is otherwise utterly pointless.

I happily admit that there is a theoretical possibility that everything is a computer program designed to deceive me into believing a particular state of affairs, but as a sane person, I go about life assuming that my senses do a pretty good job of telling me about the world around me. If you have difficulty with this, you are deranged.

So outright, I reject the notion that there is any need for absolute certainty, much less that someone's imaginary friend they keep telling me about can provide it.

Reality is invariably self consistent, the coincidence of that alone is enough to convince me to pay attention to people who do their darndest to understand it (reality) and do my darndest to understand it myself.

And no, even if there is some way to improve our current degree of certainty by the ten to the power of negative eighty two percent we lack to achieve absolute certainty, then you don't get to arbitrarily claim that God is that way because a book says he knows everything. And especially not if you had a personal revelation.

My buddy Shane told me yesterday that the buck stops with him, and he was simply born with complete omniscience. He knows absolutely everything. He's coming over to dinner tomorrow, if you stop by my place he can tell you about it too. It's crazy, some weird and rare genetic defect from what I understand. But I'll tell you, boy am I glad he has that defect because if he didn't, I'd only be about 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% sure that it's a bad idea to get shot in the head by an AK 47. I mean, you never know. There are times when I want to test those odds.

>> ^chingalera:

Country's
Motto: Faith, Unity, Discipline
Last 5 empires to rule :British, Sikh, Durrani, Mughal, and Mongol.
By 2030 it is expected to overtake Indonesia as the largest Muslim country in the world (About 97% of the population) The majority are Sunni, with an estimated 5–20% Shi'a.
Between the dominant strain and the 5-20% of Shi'a throw-backs to the 4rth century,of the rest.... The Ahmadis (sect considered non-Muslim by virtue of a 1974 constitutional amendment, how fucking retarded and out-of-synch with 21st century sensibilities with a view to societal evolution is that,hello??),Quraniyoon..etc etc, and the rest of the religions or disciplines to be found on the planet.
It's an ancient seat of human society, rich on culture and heritage, unfortunately, Muslim religion dictates much of influence on government policies as well. Oh. They have the fucking atomic bomb, too. That's worrisome...nah, fuck it, they're not suicidal.
I have a silly question for y'all. How many 14-year-old kids do you know or have heard of in Canada ,the United States or Denmark who can fashion replacement parts for an AK-47 in a hut with a dirt floor and a home-made smelt?
The alternatives to not-so-'precise or humane air strikes involve equally as 'problematic and inhumane aspects. I can think of only one scenario where everybody wins.
UN-TEACH SHIT-THINK TO EACH NEW GENERATION. A similar fix would make North Korea a country full of humans being instead of robot putty husks, in just outside of 2 generations.


This is why Obama destabilizing the country by ramping up Drone attacks and soldiers in Afghanistan is stupid. We don't own the world, but we act like we do.

Country's
Motto: Faith, Unity, Discipline

Last 5 empires to rule :British, Sikh, Durrani, Mughal, and Mongol.

By 2030 it is expected to overtake Indonesia as the largest Muslim country in the world (About 97% of the population) The majority are Sunni, with an estimated 5–20% Shi'a.

Between the dominant strain and the 5-20% of Shi'a throw-backs to the 4rth century,of the rest.... The Ahmadis (sect considered non-Muslim by virtue of a 1974 constitutional amendment, how fucking retarded and out-of-synch with 21st century sensibilities with a view to societal evolution is that,hello??),Quraniyoon..etc etc, and the rest of the religions or disciplines to be found on the planet.

It's an ancient seat of human society, rich on culture and heritage, unfortunately, Muslim religion dictates much of influence on government policies as well. Oh. They have the fucking atomic bomb, too. That's worrisome...nah, fuck it, they're not suicidal.

I have a silly question for y'all. How many 14-year-old kids do you know or have heard of in Canada ,the United States or Denmark who can fashion replacement parts for an AK-47 in a hut with a dirt floor and a home-made smelt?

The alternatives to not-so-'precise or humane air strikes involve equally as 'problematic and inhumane aspects. I can think of only one scenario where everybody wins.

UN-TEACH SHIT-THINK TO EACH NEW GENERATION. A similar fix would make North Korea a country full of humans being instead of robot putty husks, in just outside of 2 generations.

He was running point, drawing fire (successfully)away from his squad with his LT. I'm surprised he doesn't have a wheelbarrow to carry those huge balls. His squad was pinned by machine gun fire. You can hear it, he's not getting shot at by the machine gun, from the sound of it he's taking fire from small arms most likely AK-47's and what not. As for poor training? I think he showed some pretty damn good discipline for staying calm as he draws fire upon himself, with rounds landing inches from him pretty regularly.

>> ^Yogi:

I hope Obama destroys this country...I really want to help these crazy people feel like they're sane.


I know right? It would be very oddly reassuring to wake up some morning and Obama has a press conference brandishing an AK-47, shooting it into the air and screaming of jihad.

It would be strangly comforting to discover that the world is, in fact, black and white and straight out of a early 1950's serial fiction story.

There would be no consequences, everything would reset back to normal for the next episode.

Wow, I have just lost respect for Bill Moyers. He has stooped to flat out lying and playing a fear mongering video that is full of BS. Right at 1 minute he says "one of the guns used was an AK-47 type assault weapon that was banned in 1994." This is a flat out lie. The so called "assault weapon ban" did not actually ban any weapons, it only banned cosmetic features on semi automatic replicas, or more accurately it limited a gun to having no more than two military style features found on the real assault weapon. His "AK-47 type assault weapon" would have still been legal, it just might have looked less scary.

The 1994 Assault Weapon Ban was political stunt that banned something that people feared, but didn't do squat to prevent crime. The DOJ conducted a study on the effect of the 1994 Assault Weapon ban and found that its effects on gun violence was "too small for reliable measurement, because assault weapons are rarely used in gun crimes." The Brady Center did a study of the ban and their findings were that "assault weapons" were only used in 1.6% of gun crimes.

I can't believe he played that clip of a scary muslim instructing on how easy it is to go to a gun show and walk out with a fully automatic weapon without a background check or showing any ID, without checking the facts claimed. That is total fear mongering BS. First of all you can't buy a gun at all, even at a gun show without a background check. Second, to legally own a fully automatic weapon requires a class 3 firearms license, which isn't easy to get or cheap, and you must register your weapons with the ATF. Way to go on fact checking that video Bill.

How come you never hear about the crimes that are prevented by people lawfully carrying a gun? A NIJ and another independent study from 1993 and 1994 found that 800,000 to 2.5 million crimes per year are prevented each year most of which the victim never had to fire a shot.

7 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by Hybrid.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Ape-With-AK-47

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by BoneRemake. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.