Moving this video to bloodymario's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 3 days.

Odd that he brought out that "definition of insanity."

Raising taxes injures the economy and hurts the middle class, gun control doesn't work except to make life easier for criminals, appeasing world dictators leads to greater chaos.

So when are these results expected to change? Ha ha ha.

Quantumushroom, I presume you base your views regarding gun control on the inconsequential short term effects of gun control legislation on crime rates, most likely tested as a policy in various US states and typically cited by the NRA and various pro-gun lobbies supporting their industrial constituencies. You should try living in a country which has utterly insignificant gun ownership levels due to restrictions on ownership over a sustained period. Perhaps then you would not think that every law abiding citizen needs a gun for his or her protection and would be more than satisfied with the protection police, or privately hired security guards for business purporses can provide for you.

Quantumushroom, I presume you base your views regarding gun control on the inconsequential short term effects of gun control legislation on crime rates, most likely tested as a policy in various US states and typically cited by the NRA and various pro-gun lobbies supporting their industrial constituencies.

Washington DC: near-total "gun control" and highest murder rate in the US. The long-term failure of 60,000+ ill-conceived American gun laws on the books that only keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens is my proof that it doesn't work. "Gun-free zones" don't work. What works: burglars and carjackers thinking twice in states with concealed carry laws.

You should try living in a country which has utterly insignificant gun ownership levels due to restrictions on ownership over a sustained period. Perhaps then you would not think that every law abiding citizen needs a gun for his or her protection and would be more than satisfied with the protection police, or privately hired security guards for business purposes can provide for you.

America's Second Amendment is not about "needing" a gun, it's about recognizing self-defense as a fundamental human right from God (or for you atheists, "by the virtue of human birth"). It doesn't matter why anyone wants to own a gun and its none of the State's business.

BTW congratulations liberals, on the Clintons' recent confession to being part of the Evil Rich. Hell, I thought they couldn't be worth more than what, 10 million? Does anyone know how much of their 100 million dollars they've personally spent helping the poor?

You're right gun-free 'zones' don't work. When you're one of few states in country that on the whole has liberal gun ownership laws and simply ludicrous gun ownership levels compared to any other developed country, you'd be naive to propose than it would be anything but marginally more difficult for criminals to smuggle legally purchased firearms in from neighbouring states, unless you enforce highly stringent cross border checks. In the same way, a universal ban on firearms would likely not have any immediate drastic effects on violent crime involving firearms, other factors such as living standards, unemployment levels notwithstanding. A governmental requisitioning of all registered firearms would be far more effective, such the one conducted in Australia which saw 650,000 firearms surrendered in 1997, and a 47% decrease of firearms related deaths in just four years. Again though, with an estimated 50% of US households owning guns with a significant number unregistered, and a potentially far higher average gross amount, the effects would be unlikely to be felt immediately.

Pushing the libertarian approach of the Second Ammendment is skirting around the issue in two ways. Firstly the Second Ammendment talks about the need for a well trained armed militia which is arguable at best in terms of modern necessity and the likely initial motivation for the clause. Secondly where is this connection between the assumption that gun ownership is a supposed human right and the Second Ammendment? That's an separate argument entirely and is very debatable.

The state's role is to provide collective security, it's not simply true that individual freedoms should be protected at any cost and to any extreme case by default, that's a circular argument. How far would you take that absolute argument exactly? Hard drugs like cocaine? Biological weapons? In my view collective security includes restricting gun ownership to police and trained security personnel. Obviously your view differs but it's not logical to claim that by default without any justification as to why you draw the line exactly where you do.

Oh and just out of interest, how likely do you really think that faced with a gun pointing at your face, you'd be able to protect yourself with a loaded and armed firearms conveniently with you at all times (which you of course know how to use) and not tucked away and unarmed in a desk drawer to ensure your 4 year old doesn't get their hands on it?

Don't say criminals are dissuaded by the possibility of concealed weapons, anyone smart enough to conceptualise the above example knows they're empowered instead in any REAL situation.

You're right gun-free 'zones' don't work. When you're one of few states in country that on the whole has liberal gun ownership laws and simply ludicrous gun ownership levels compared to any other developed country, you'd be naive to propose than it would be anything but marginally more difficult for criminals to smuggle legally purchased firearms in from neighbouring states, unless you enforce highly stringent cross border checks.

There are more peaceful countries with more guns per person than the USA. Mind you, they have small, homogenous populations and guns are more a part of their sport culture. No matter the country, the bad guys have guns and can get guns. Always will.

I've lived in both kinds of states. The People's Republic of Mexifornia has stringent gun control laws in violation of the 2nd Amendment. Unless carrying illegally, the citizens there are unarmed sheep. The idea there is to keep people dependent on Big Government. Individual victims are unimportant.

In right-to-carry states (close to 40 states now) crimes shift from invasion (victims at home) and carjacking to theivery when the victim isn't around, though I always enjoy reading about a 90-year-old granny with an S&W permanently recalling some deserving idiot who tried to break into her home.

In the same way, a universal ban on firearms would likely not have any immediate drastic effects on violent crime involving firearms, other factors such as living standards, unemployment levels notwithstanding. A governmental requisitioning of all registered firearms would be far more effective, such the one conducted in Australia which saw 650,000 firearms surrendered in 1997, and a 47% decrease of firearms related deaths in just four years. Again though, with an estimated 50% of US households owning guns with a significant number unregistered, and a potentially far higher average gross amount, the effects would be unlikely to be felt immediately.

My understanding is that crime went up after Australia's gun ban.

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/aus.html

It only makes sense. If a guy holding a cricket bat doesn't know if I have a gun behind my back, he might not be so quick to attack. Take away that criminal's certainty that he won't be seriously injured and you only embolden him. There's simply no reason to believe that criminals will stop acquiring guns by any means necessary. Gun control punishes only the law-abiding.

Pushing the libertarian approach of the Second Ammendment is skirting around the issue in two ways. Firstly the Second Ammendment talks about the need for a well trained armed militia which is arguable at best in terms of modern necessity and the likely initial motivation for the clause.

The Supreme Court of the United States does not share the liberal view that 'The People' refers to organized militias. It is defined as an individual right.

Secondly where is this connection between the assumption that gun ownership is a supposed human right and the Second Ammendment? That's an separate argument entirely and is very debatable.

Self-defense is a fundamental human right. Firearms are merely a technological extension/expression of this right. People who believe in non-violence to the point they would not resist an attack from someone trying to kill them have the right to not resist and be killed, though most people would call such a thing "suicide by murder." But people do not have the right to hinder or remove others' right to self-defense just because they think disarmament will create "a safer environment". If there was a walled village somewhere that wanted to ban all guns, and all the people living there agreed to it, I don't see anything wrong with that. Unless they were going to be robbed.

The state's role is to provide collective security, it's not simply true that individual freedoms should be protected at any cost and to any extreme case by default, that's a circular argument. How far would you take that absolute argument exactly?

In addition to the right to bear arms--which truly is a right that should apply to every human being save criminals--I believe there are reasonable standards for self-defense that should never be infringed upon. There's no valid reason why any adult citizen of sound mind could not have a firearm to protect the lives of family and to a limited degree, property. Most Americans are unaware it's perfectly legal to own machine guns, and many hobbyists and collectors pay the extra licensing fees and do. We all know a missile launcher for home defense is as impractical as driving a dragster to work; it's not really an issue.

Hard drugs like cocaine? Biological weapons? In my view collective security includes restricting gun ownership to police and trained security personnel. Obviously your view differs but it's not logical to claim that by default without any justification as to why you draw the line exactly where you do.

I understand your point of view. Again, in countries like Japan where people are obedient rule followers, the State can get away with total gun control. However, the downside of that level of obedience is when the Emperor commands, "Go crash your plane into ship." There are certain segments of societies that can and do live without guns. But it only works if it's by choice and there are zero criminals about.

Oh and just out of interest, how likely do you really think that faced with a gun pointing at your face, you'd be able to protect yourself with a loaded and armed firearms conveniently with you at all times (which you of course know how to use) and not tucked away and unarmed in a desk drawer to ensure your 4 year old doesn't get their hands on it?

I think you've answered your own question in a roundabout way. If you think that it's impossible to defend yourself with a nearby firearm, how do YOU expect police and trained security personnel to save you? In America, there's no law that says a cop has to take a bullet for you or is required to give their life to save yours. American law loosely defines police as supposed to "protect society." That doesn't mean anythng to you and me personally. The joke is: 9-1-1 is govt.-sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.

The 4-year-old and gun safety issues are aided by the same thing that allows people to move relatively safely in a world of chainsaws, cars and not smoking while pumping gasoline: education.

Regarding your Wild West scenario, most criminals are after cash or other valuables. They don't want to have extended shootouts, and even when they're nutballs like the coward at Virgina Tech, they don't want anyone else being able to shoot back. While no single student with a gun may have been able to take out that nut, the more people that might've had a gun the better the odds would've been of stopping him sooner.

In the USA, guns are used to save lives over 2 millions times a year. Most of those incidents, the gun isn't fired, merely drawn.

Even if you never own a gun, don't you owe it to yourself to learn firearm basics and safety? They are a part of this world.

For those wondering about the relevance of these posts to this sift, B. Hussein Obama is a gun-grabbing leftist. Those that don't trust a citizenry with guns should not be trusted with power.

QM, the Clintons aren't liberal.

D:

Mix the labels as you like, whatever they are, the Clintons are not conservative or libertarian. I fully expect you to hate them now that they've been exposed as multi-multi-multi-millionaires.