*promote for protecting our freedumbs

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Wednesday, April 29th, 2009 6:23pm PDT - promote requested by volumptuous.

sane person: "well, we think selling shoulder-mounted nuclear-tipped RPG's to people convicted of violent crimes, should be outlawed."

crazy person: "THEYRE TRYING TO TAKE OUR GUNS!!!!"

sane person: "I use, commas weird,."

crazy person: "Permits mean permission. Gun ownership is a right. Gun permit means?"

"Dead-on" would be the opposite of what this clip is. The top 10 best U.S. states as ranked by the so-called
"Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence" have a 40% higher rate of
violent crime, including murder, than the 10 worst states by the same
ranking

Oi vey - not this debate again. The right to keep and bear arms is in the Bill of Rights. There's nothing wrong with gun ownership. I have to get a license to drive a car, so I don't see anything wrong with having to get a permit and receive training to own a gun either. Once I get that training, I see nothing wrong with buying and owning ANY kind of firearm I've received training for.

Owning a gun is a right and part of your freedoms. Guns can provide life saving protection. They are a tool and should be used wisely.

People who live without guns are conditioned to believe guns aren't necessary. People who live with guns are conditioned to believe guns are necessary.

It is your right to own a gun. Do it at your discretion

I think the last couple comment authors didn't actually watch the clip.

^Morganth:
it's not just that you confused correlation with causality (when looking at violent crime vs. gun-control laws, hence rendering your own argument utterly irrelevant); it's also that your bias made you deaf to what was actually said - that a particular subset of people that happen to be pro-guns exercise blatant hypocrisy whenever they argue that their 'freedoms' are being taken away now, when only a couple years back they didn't give two shits about Patriot Act.

I'm all for the right to keep and bear arms, though it's not one I'm personally interested in, but I've noticed also that gun proponents, at least the loud ones, only seem to be interested in their right to own guns so they can keep the government from taking their guns.

The idea was to have trained militias who could stand up against an oppressive government. I'm not saying that is the only case in which people should be allowed to have guns, but it sure would be nice to have those "well regulated" militias.

Just to clarify things, the second amendment reads as follows:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This is probably the most loosely-worded amendment, aside from the 9th, and open to a TON of interpretation.

Such as... As we already have a standing army - the very definition of a "well regulated militia" - the entire amendment is virtually rendered obsolete. Since we already have a strong military, the citizenry need not arm themselves. But then the crazies will say "But what if we need to use our firearms against our own military?" This is an INSANE place to argue from, as it seems pretty un-American to even consider firing upon your own military. We should not even give any legitimacy to such arguments.

I'll cite this PDF released by the Washington, DC MPD, specifically the graph on page 6. It shows just how frequently firearms are used in homicides, compared to other weapons. I was searching for a Pie Chart that broke down the circumstances in firearm-related deaths in DC prior to the handgun ban. It showed that over half of all deaths from firearms were suicides, homicides made up over a quarter, and "legal" shootings (where the shooter was found to be within his rights to protect his own life or the life of another) made up less than 1% of all firearm related deaths. I'm having a hard time finding this chart again, but I know it exists, and it's still out there.

The idea was to have trained militias

No - the idea was to have an armed population capable of quickly becoming a militia able to resist tyranny (foreign or domestic).

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
The idea was to have trained militias
No - the idea was to have an armed population capable of quickly becoming a militia able to resist tyranny (foreign or domestic).


Let me repeat myself:
[Your's] is an INSANE place to argue from, as it seems pretty un-American to even consider firing upon your own military. We should not even give any legitimacy to such arguments.

In addition, I strongly urge you to talk to a mental health professional. You come off as a ranting, paranoid-delusional-schizophrenic, and I fear for the safety of those around you.

Unfortunately, Dana is mostly right. The populace is often too stupid to follow the logic here, but the most stringent gun rights promoters have ignored the loss of other rights (which they often claimed their guns would protect)so long as their gun rights were (for the most part) left alone. Of course, requiring registration and/or (expensive) classes to own a gun do fit the definition of "infringed" :
" ...This means that the gun rights activists have already lost their most important fight and are being pushed down the slippery slope towards the loss of all gun ownership rights.
Regulation is encroachment and weakening of any right, so is registration.
I, for one, can't understand how any federal law restricting any gun ownership right in any way can be legal, since they all, by definition, would violate the second amendment. Somehow, it seems, the courts have changed the definition of "infringed" from "weakened/encroached" to "removed completely".
The founding fathers knew the definition of the words they put in the constitution, the bill of rights, and the amendments. It is disgusting that they are so often ignored or twisted, even by the courts but more often by the legislative and executive branches without meaningful opposition. Instead of poorly thought out (and logically unconstitutional) laws, they should be pushing for a constitutional amendment to "regulate" guns.
Even if you disagree with the gun rights activists, you should be enraged that our constitution and bill of rights are regularly being ignored. The next right they ignore/dilute/regulate may be YOUR favorite.

I think We need some new invocations...

*pointless dickwaving
*caution..endless drivel
*slapfight
*?!$%

Some of these hot button issues never result in discussing the video, but descend into *see above

>> ^kagenin:
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
The idea was to have trained militias
No - the idea was to have an armed population capable of quickly becoming a militia able to resist tyranny (foreign or domestic).

Let me repeat myself:
[Your's] is an INSANE place to argue from, as it seems pretty un-American to even consider firing upon your own military. We should not even give any legitimacy to such arguments.
In addition, I strongly urge you to talk to a mental health professional. You come off as a ranting, paranoid-delusional-schizophrenic, and I fear for the safety of those around you.


I propose that YOU are coming off as a ranting, delusional person who makes degrading attacks disguised as mental health advice.
I am sad for you and those around you, fear is the mind killer.
These arguments are what created this country, do you consider Washington's arguments (and actions based on those arguments) insane and illegitimate?
If you disagree with the written words of the founding fathers, the proper course of action is to petition your representatives to modify the constitution, not mock and degrade the ideals this great country was founded on, and not creating laws that are in complete opposition to any logical reading of the constitution. Another option would be to move to England and submit yourself to monarchical rule instead of living under constitutional law.
When written, it was certainly sane to believe that a well ARMED militia could not only fire on "their own" military (the British military was "their military" until the revolution) but win against "their own" military. Today, it is much less likely that such action would be victorious, but there are certainly possibilities of instances where it would not be "insane" to consider it. Just 5 years ago, it may have seemed insane for a Pakistani to think of fireing on their own military, today it happens daily. (I am not in any way supporting those people or their actions, just stating that what may "seem" insane today from one point of view may seem completely rational tomorrow from another point of view, and so should not be dismissed because you disagree and degrade another viewpoint.)
If the carefully thought out and debated written words were considered, instead of the attempting to legislate based on the ever changing, unknowable "intentions" of the founding fathers, we would be far better off and the constitution would be in far better shape.
I repeat... The founding fathers knew the definition of the words they put in the constitution, the bill of rights, and the amendments. It is disgusting that they are so often ignored or twisted...(to serve an agenda).

>> ^kagenin:
But then the crazies will say "But what if we need to use our firearms against our own military?" This is an INSANE place to argue from, as it seems pretty un-American to even consider firing upon your own military. We should not even give any legitimacy to such arguments.

Perhaps one day you might find yourself in one of our fine AmericanInternmentCamps. Don't think it could happen again? I submit that there are a great many Americans who would be more than happy to isolate all Arab Americans, Muslim Americans and/or Atheist Americans this very day. Furthermore, I suspect there are enough of them to make it happen if they were sufficiently motivated. I sure would like to have a militia to protect me from my government on that day.

Also, I feel I should remind you that we got to be the USA by shooting at our own military.

...You may also note that Texas has recently threatened secession. If they are serious and try it, they will be forced to take up arms against the CURRENT military. Fortunately for them, Texas is one state that may be as well armed as the remnants of our military, especially the military left on US soil. Try and tell THEM they're all crazy and see what happens. :-}
The point about internment camps is also a good one, and since Athiest Americans have a tendancy to out think Thiest Americans, so it would be a good fight.

>> ^EDD:
^Morganth:
it's not just that you confused correlation with causality (when looking at violent crime vs. gun-control laws, hence rendering your own argument utterly irrelevant); .


EDD- It actually seems it's the people wishing to control guns with regulation that have confused (non-)correlation with causality. They continuously claim that more regulation of firearms will make the populace "safer", when the facts show the opposite. If gun control kept guns out of the hands of those who use them for crime, Washington DC would be the safest city in the US. It is not, by far.

Freedom ain't free. Freedom costs a buck 'o five.

Everyone supports gun control to some degree. No one has ever questioned the wisdom of outlawing the possession of rocket launchers.

I also wish gun folk would cut out all the sanctimony and just honestly admit that they think guns and explosions are super neato and that they constantly fantasize about murdering burglars or other bad guys in some kind of thrilling shoot out.

>> ^kymbos:
Freedom ain't free. Freedom costs a buck 'o five.


Freedom is on sale at Wal*Mart this weekend. 3 for a dollar.

>> ^Morganth:
"Dead-on" would be the opposite of what this clip is. The top 10 best U.S. states as ranked by the so-called
"Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence" have a 40% higher rate of
violent crime, including murder, than the 10 worst states by the same
ranking


One thing I've noticed about statistics being used by pro-gun activists in the US, is it's always looking at either the difference in violent crime in between states, and the immediately 1-5 year effects of enacting harsher gun restrictions in other countries such as Britain.

For the first point, do you really think that in a US state which completely outlawed gun ownership it would really be that hard to smuggle weapons across the border from a neighbouring state which happens to have very lax gun ownership laws? Is the widespread evidence that guns are being bought in the US and used in Mexico for crime ring related violence not proof enough for you of the futility of such a narrow analysis?

For the second point, it's pretty clear that after purely enacting harsher gun laws there isn't going to be an immediate sudden dip in either gun ownership levels or as a result violent crime. In comparison a policy a while back in Australia encouraged a voluntary no questions asked hand over of guns. That alternatively, would have an immediate impact.

Given what I've said, consider the following statistic. Now I'm completely aware of the limitations, particular the issue of firearms being moved across borders, and the fact that it is likely living standards and poverty levels among other factors would have the overarching impact.

National Master ranking of murders with firearms (per capita) by country

Do you see a highly developed country above the US, 8th highest on the list? Yes, I'm sure despotic countries with a lack of data were neglected here, but that is of no real significance. How far do you have to go down before you see a developed country? How many times lower is the rate of murders with firearms for that country?

And it's no wonder. The US has the highest level of gun rate ownership in the world. 90 guns per 100 residents.

In the face of that, can you really tell me with all due certainty that gun ownership makes people safer and doesn't empower the criminal who is almost guaranteed to catch the victim without a gun just conveniently in reach? Can you really tell me without a shadow of a doubt that the whole notion that guns make people safer, a very parochially American view is not manufactured propaganda by the US gun industry to serve their own financial interests with a complete indifference to the death of their own countrymen?

Who needs guns? I was born with the ability to telepathically shut down the human nervous system. Try and take away my rights, fuckers.

There's no need to get all testy. The founding fathers were quite wise because they knew that an armed population was a strong deterrant. Armed populations are essentially partisan fighters that cannot be controlled. Even a large occupying army hsa a difficult time dealing with armed partisan populations (CIP Iraq). This deters foreign and domestic tyranny, because tyrants can only accomplish 'so much' before it becomes impossible to go any further unless they annihilate the entire population.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Everyone supports gun control to some degree. No one has ever questioned the wisdom of outlawing the possession of rocket launchers.
I also wish gun folk would cut out all the sanctimony and just honestly admit that they think guns and explosions are super neato and that they constantly fantasize about murdering burglars or other bad guys in some kind of thrilling shoot out.


I question the wisdom of outlawing rocket launchers. MmmmmK?
Just because I think guns and explosions are super neato (and I do) and because I constantly fantasize about murdering burglars and other bad guys (and bad girls, I'm not sexist) in some kind of thrilling shoot out (which would be much more thrilling with rocket launchers) doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of perfectly reasonable reasons to own guns. They are not mutually exclusive.

RedSky- can you really tell me with all due certainty that gun ownership makes people safer and doesn't empower the criminal who is almost guaranteed to catch the victim without a gun just conveniently in reach? Can you really tell me without a shadow of a doubt that the whole notion that guns make people safer, a very parochially American view is not manufactured propaganda by the US gun industry to serve their own financial interests with a complete indifference to the death of their own countrymen?

I can tell you with certainty that legal gun ownership makes people safer and doesn't empower the criminal as much as outlawing gun ownership does. The criminals, as you say, have many ways of buying guns illegally which are not affected by gun laws, these methods do NOT disapear when guns are made illegal, unless there is a magical way to make all guns disapear.
I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that having the law abiding portion of Citizens armed against the non-law abiding, well armed portion makes the law abiding portion safer. (ask any police officer if he's safer with a gun or without) If there truely were a way to remove ALL guns, that might not be true. I do not know of any such magic.

Go read the Constitution and Bill of Rights.. show me anything about individuals have "right" to any type of weaponry.

It says militias. The idea was armed militias could defend this country against all threats foreign and domestic.

If you make the argument that drug dealing gangs in inner cities are an armed militia... then I might go along with you on semi-automatic pistols in urban settings. However, if you aren't saying that, then your bullshit hiding behind 2nd Amd. is retarded. Armed militias -- go and read some 1700s hemp.

And Winston Pennypacker sounds british to me.

>> ^blankfist:
sane person: "I use, commas weird,."
crazy person: "Permits mean permission. Gun ownership is a right. Gun permit means?"




Sane person: "blankfist is ridiculous"

crazy person: "WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO HAVE A 'PERMIT' TO DRIVE A CAR OR PERFORM SURGERY? FUCK YOU REPRESSIVE GOVERNMENT!!!"

Redsky you hit the nail on the head with your first post, really did.

>> ^newtboy:
RedSky- can you really tell me with all due certainty that gun ownership makes people safer and doesn't empower the criminal who is almost guaranteed to catch the victim without a gun just conveniently in reach? Can you really tell me without a shadow of a doubt that the whole notion that guns make people safer, a very parochially American view is not manufactured propaganda by the US gun industry to serve their own financial interests with a complete indifference to the death of their own countrymen?
I can tell you with certainty that legal gun ownership makes people safer and doesn't empower the criminal as much as outlawing gun ownership does. The criminals, as you say, have many ways of buying guns illegally which are not affected by gun laws, these methods do NOT disapear when guns are made illegal, unless there is a magical way to make all guns disapear.
I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that having the law abiding portion of Citizens armed against the non-law abiding, well armed portion makes the law abiding portion safer. (ask any police officer if he's safer with a gun or without) If there truely were a way to remove ALL guns, that might not be true. I do not know of any such magic.


Firstly, from what position to you demonstrate this certainty that guns make people safer? Redsky offered you pretty damning evidence, and i won't reiterate those points, simply re-read his post. I live in britain, and i really like the char that redsky linked:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita

If you wish to demonstrate your certainty then please do, but don't offer up opinions as facts. Gun control has never been effected on a national scale, for an extended period of time, and with a mass de-armament - all of which are critical in any kind of test of gun control laws vs. crime rate.

You cannot know that criminals will still have such easy access to guns if guns were made to be illegal in the united states - how on earth could you claim such knowledge? Guns would in all likelihood be much harder to get hold of (see any other country for circumstantial evidence toward this), and they'd become more expensive as a result (natural assumption based on supply and demand and logistical impact on the price).

Finally you repeat yourself so i will:
How the hell can you claim to know beyond any shadow of a doubt that well armed law abiding citizens result in safer citizens vs. the non-law abiding ones? You cannot know this, there is literally no way for you to know this. What you state is opinion masquerading as fact.

>> ^newtboy:
(ask any police officer if he's safer with a gun or without)


I forgot about this part.

1. What point are you trying to make here? Ask a soldier if he feels safer with a gun or without too. Joe public isn't a police officer nor a soldier.

2. The police officer may FEEL safer with a gun, but does that make him actually safer? Again, there is absolutely no way to tell because it is impossible to present 2 identical environments with the variable being gun control. Try gun control out and let us see how it goes for the next 100 years, and in 100 years time we can compare 20 years solid of guns vs. no guns.

But again i slap my head and ask why i even bothered getting involved - people like you have no idea what constitutes evidence, fact, trends, anything like that. You've got such limited scope that you can't get past the idea that "If i have a gun i can protect myself against other guns!" There is SO MUCH MORE to it than that, such as "WHAT IF YOU GO FUCKING BATSHIT CRAZY AND START SHOOTING UP A SCHOOL?" but you'll never see that far you ignorant arse. Not only are you people ignorant but you're loud too, at least stay quiet and people might not realise.. and let those people get on with building a better world, you'll thank us later - but probably not.

What kills more people every year? Abuse of alcohol or abuse of firearms?
Just figured I'd toss that lit cigarette into the powder keg.

>> ^ReverendTed:
What kills more people every year? Abuse of alcohol or abuse of firearms?
Just figured I'd toss that lit cigarette into the powder keg.

I agree. We should only focus on a single cause of deaths and disregard anything else.

>> ^newtboy:
RedSky- can you really tell me with all due certainty that gun ownership makes people safer and doesn't empower the criminal who is almost guaranteed to catch the victim without a gun just conveniently in reach? Can you really tell me without a shadow of a doubt that the whole notion that guns make people safer, a very parochially American view is not manufactured propaganda by the US gun industry to serve their own financial interests with a complete indifference to the death of their own countrymen?
I can tell you with certainty that legal gun ownership makes people safer and doesn't empower the criminal as much as outlawing gun ownership does. The criminals, as you say, have many ways of buying guns illegally which are not affected by gun laws, these methods do NOT disapear when guns are made illegal, unless there is a magical way to make all guns disapear.
I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that having the law abiding portion of Citizens armed against the non-law abiding, well armed portion makes the law abiding portion safer. (ask any police officer if he's safer with a gun or without) If there truely were a way to remove ALL guns, that might not be true. I do not know of any such magic.


I cannot know either for certain, because social policy and effects cannot be tested in a controlled experiment as in science. I can though, examine statistics and try to discern conclusions. That is why I phrased my conclusion without certainty, while assertions which aren't based on any theory or data are merely unsubstantiated opinions.

I never claimed guns would disappear. Supply though would significantly dry up over time, and as a result prices would rise. Not to mention the mere conversion to illegality would introduce a significant barrier to entry for the aspiring petty criminal or mentally unstable gunman who with no prior history of crime, probably wouldn't have the contacts to acquire a firearm, at least without considerable difficulty. Again, would guns disappear from organised crime? Of course not, but the cost of their activities would certainly rise at least in the long term.

As for police officers being safer with guns. Yes, duh. You know what else would make them feel safer? Reducing the gun ownership rate per capita.

*length=1:07

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 1:07 - length declared by bareboards2.