Comments by "Newbie Prepper" (@newbieprepper8451) on "Maxwell Frost Gives Fiery Speech Following Nashville Tragedy" video.

and what positive changes would you expect to see? please, tell us about these positive changes.
3
@hizzlemobizzle there are laws on federal levels already. i live in Chicago, and i bought a gun in Indiana, let me tell you the federal laws that were involved. 1. federal mandated background check when purchasing the gun. 2. federal mandated law requiring the Indiana gun shop to ship my gun to my state residence for pick up. 3. Federal mandated law requiring ANOTHER background check when picking up my purchased and paid for gun at my Illinois gun shop. that is not including the state law that mandated that i have an Illinois issued FOID card in order to purchase a gun or take posession of one in Illinois, and not to mention that the gun shop in Indiana REQUIRED that i present them my Illinois FOID issued card before even allowing me to touch a gun, imagine an Indiana gun shop requiring that an illinois resident show an Illinois FOID card to buy a gun in Indiana. stop listening to dumb talking points based on lies parrotted by celebrities and politicians whose only interest is to curb your rights.
3
@jaycorbin oh i see, i forgot to do research huh? let me show you my research. i LIVE in Chicago, and i TRAVELED to Indiana before to purchase a gun that my gunshop in Illinois did not have. and behold, i had to do a background check at the gunshop in Indiana, and i had to show them my Illinois issued FOID card that they dont use in Indiana, and then i had to have the gun shipped from Indiana to my local gunshop in Illinois to pick up, and then i had to do ANOTHER background check at the gunshop in Illinois in order to take posetion of the gun that i had already bought and paid for. your talking point of driving to Indiana to buy guns is based on false narratives and lies, maybe YOU need to do some research on federal gun laws.
2
@hizzlemobizzle you can cross any state lines you want and buy anything you want, so what? buying guns though is a little different. they are goverend by federal laws already. for example, as a resident of Chicago, i went to Indiana once to buy a gun, at the Indiana gunshop i had to show my Illinois issued FOID card to purchase a gun, then i had to pass a background check to purchase it, and then after i paid for it the Indiana gunshop had to ship my newly purchased gun to an Illinois gunshop for me to pick it up, and guess what, that Illinois gunshop ALSO asked for my Illinois FOID card AND did ANOTHER background check before i could take possession of my gun. so your whole premise of crossing state lines to buy something is based on lies.
2
@hizzlemobizzle no, to operate a booth at a gun show you must do background checks, gun shows dont allow unlicensed sellers to sell at their gunshows. that whole "gun show loophole" BS rhetoric is talks about private sellers selling a gun anywhere in a city where a gun show is being held or has plans to be held. you could literally sell a gun you own 5 miles away from a convention center a month before a gun show will be held and they count it as a gun show sale and claim its the gun show loophole. and as far as private sellers, there is already a federal law that governs that, its called the straw purchase law. if you buy guns from a gunshop, and then sell them privately, then you are skirting the straw purchase law and the feds should start investigating. when you buy a gun from a gun shop, the shop asks you for the reason for your purchase, and they note it on your background check form. one of the red flags is "resale". all this eludes you
2
@j0j0dartiste21 funny how Indiana and Michigan and Wisconsin have these loose laws and yet they dont have such gun violence? you think those states dont have to follow federal laws? you think those states dont respect Illinois laws? i live in Chicago and went to Indiana once to buy a gun. in Indiana i had to show the gun shop my Illinois issued FOID card, Indiana doesnt use those cards, but they still asked for it since i was from Illinois, and then i had to do a background check in Indiana to buy the gun, and then they had to ship it to Illinois to a gun shop for me to pick up, and at the Illinois gunshop i had to do ANOTHER background check to pick it up. your assumption that those other states have looser laws so its easier to buy a gun is based on lies that have been fed to you by politicians and celebrities bent on an agenda to curb your rights.
2
@hizzlemobizzle well, whats your solution to fixing this problem? so far the only things i hear from democrats and leftists is 1. background checks - those are already a thing. 2. fix gun show loophole - that doesnt exist either. 3. ban guns everywhere - bans dont work, unless you want to argue how successful the war on drugs has been .
2
@davidbrown3971 lets make a bet then, you pick the gun show and show me that you can buy a gun without any checks, bet you cant.
2
someone or some think tank should come up with a guideline to influence all candidates running for congress to stop listening to groups and activists whose only objective is to take control and curb citizens rights.
2
@zelda1477 which gun laws? background checks? this shooter passed background checks when she bought all her guns legally at gun stores. raise the age limit? this shooter was 28. safe storage? how hard would it be for this shooter to open her own safe in her house to grab her guns? capacity limits? this shooter had 3 guns on her, so a limit of 10 rounds per magazine would still give her 30 rounds for immediate use without reloading. safety training? safety training does not stop someone who is intent on shooting someone else. licensing? this shooter got her guns legaly after passing background checks, how much harder would licensing be? which laws would prevent a gun owner who legaly owns a gun from snaping one day and going insane? which law? here is a novel idea, SECURE THE DAMN SCHOOLS. news is coming out today that this shooter had several options for sites to shoot up, but ultimately chose this school because the other site had too much security. that other site did not get shot up because of too much security and not some laws that stopped it.
2
@hizzlemobizzle really? and how would you go about that?
1
@hizzlemobizzle tell me about those fewer gun deaths in Chicago which has restrictive gun laws?
1
@davegreene8588 how do you know that republicans ways are the wrong ways when you havent tried them? republicans ways are to secure the schools and have armed guards and even arm teachers if necessary. i havent seen any mass shootings in areas with a lot of guns, such as at gun shops, or gun shows, or gun ranges. its funny how politicians want armed guards protecting them with guns but to protect you they want to put up safe places and pass laws to curb your rights.
1
@jaycorbin im spewing bullshit here? lets make a bet, lets go to a gun show and you try to buy a gun at a gun show without passing a federal background check, see how far you get. you dont even know what that "gun show loophole" BS is about, and the politicians passing the laws are counting on your ignorance to now know anything. same with the Second Amendment Sanctuary BS.
1
@j0j0dartiste21 removing what checks? who is talking about removing any checks? absolutely no one is saying to remove those checks. and your second part of "Also just because you went through the process doesn't mean everybody else does" shows how stupid you really are. no one else has to abide by federal laws, just me right? oh look, this guy is coming into our shop, lets give him the works and make him abide by the law, everyone else can just come in and take what they want without question? what unicorns ass did you pull that wet dream out of?
1
@Tomshelton25 simple. 1. secure the schools. 2. make schools 1 point entry buildings, only 1 door you can come in through. 3. post armed guards at the entryway. 4. reinforce other entrances.
1
@hizzlemobizzle your whole premise of "private sellers" falls flat in this and EVERY school shooting that has occured. this school shooter bought its guns legaly at local gun shops. Uvalde school shooter bought his guns legally at gun shops. every school shooter has bought their guns legally. stopping fake loopholes and putting more gun free zones on doors is not going to stop a shooter who wants to shoot a bunch of helpless targets.
1
@hizzlemobizzle yea, i watched the video, plenty of problems with the solutions that David proposed. David lives in a country where gun ownership is a privilege, nothing more, so those solutions are common sense, but those common sense solutions do not work for rights. his first solution, getting a license to own a gun, name me any other right that you need a license to use? would you instill a licensing requirement on any one of your other rights? check with your previous partners and friends to see if they object? all it takes is 1 bad breakup from a phsychotic partner to negate your ability to protect yourself from that partner. how many women get killed by an ex boyfriend or ex husband, and you want to put that kind of power in their hands? excuse me Mr. ex-boyfriend, so and so wants to get a gun, do you feel they are safe to have a gun? absolutely not Mr Government, i dont believe my ex-girlfriend should have a gun so that she cant defend herself when i plan to come by and kill her next week. what else? safe storage? yea, because everyone know that if you lock your weapon in a safe and then go crazy and want to shoot up a school, of course that safe is going to prevent you from opening it and getting your gun. even with all those solutions, it does nothing, absolutely nothing to stop someone who already has a gun in hand. Davids proposals are good for a country that treats its citizens worse than pet dogs like Canada, but they dont work so well when they are rights. and yes, i say worse than dogs, because i would not punish my dog if he killled someone that was attacking him, but yet as Trudeau said publicly, you do not have a right to defend your life with a gun, in other words, if someone wants to kill you, you have to let them or get punished by the governemtn for protecting yourself. but i would leave you with this question, all those "common sense" propoals he proposed, would you put those on any other rights? how about voting rights? get a license to vote and your relatives and pat partners and whatever have to consent, and any single person says no and POOF, your right to vote is taken away? how about a license and a waiting period for abortions? how about just a simple consent from the father of the baby before an abortion is allowed? you wouldnt put those restrictions on any of your rights, but expect others to put it on theirs.
1
@Deondre_Clark commenting on a bunch of imbeciles who know absolutely nothing and are parroting the same lies spoon fed to them.
1
@Tomshelton25 and here is an update for you now, news is starting to come out that this shooter had several sites in mind but chose this school because the other site had "TOO MUCH SECURITY". OUT OF THE SHOOTERS OWN MOUTH WITH HER OWN WORDS, SECURING THE SCHOOL WOULD HAVE STOPPED HER.
1
@samsadowitz1724 your first point is nonsense, this person owned 7 different guns, and drove a relatively new car, she didnt suffer from poverty, in fact, none of the school shooters suffered from poverty as they all lived either in their parents homes or on their own and had enough disposable income to purchase guns. your second point is meaningless considering this shooter was already under the care of a doctor for mental health issues. your third point is just as meaningless, and by your statement if that is a reason to go out and cause such a henius act, then trans people should all be locked up because they could all do it because they are not included in the 1964 civil rights act. as for an uptick of anti trans legislation? i havent seen any, maybe you could clarify that one.
1
@samsadowitz1724 exactly, these nitwits parrot the same BS talking points that they get from celebrities and politicians that have ulterior motives.
1
@Lack_Of_Interest typical response from an uneducated lefty hoped up on meds. 9 of the last 10 public mass shooters made statements or wrote manifestos declaring that they chose the place to shoot up because on lack of any security or minimal security. but you go on and make assanine arguments about how schools should be prisons. the mass shooter is literally telling you that he will shoot up a school because its easy for him to get in and there is no security to stop him and your reaction is "oh we cant do anything to stop him because that would turn the school into a prison blah blah". you sound like a demented republican trying to justify their actions.
1
@jessea5044 the only changes they want to see is a dissarmed populace so they can rule wihtout question, just like in Canada, when they have a protest that someone doesnt like, they invoke emergency war powers and start stomping on anyone honking their horn too loud. the changes they want to see is more control over people.
1
here is some common sense items. 1. secure the schools. 2. arm people. i have yet to see a ban on anything that has ever worked. there was a ban on alcohol, called prohibition, national ban, we still had alcohol and now we have NASCAR as an ofshoot sport from the days of bootleggers trying to outrun cops. there is a national ban on narcotics, the only thing that has come from it is hundreds of thousands in prison, billions if not trillions wasted in the war on drugs, and you can still get those drugs in max security prisons apparently. murder capitol of the world El Salvadore has a national ban on guns. Mexico has a ban on guns and only 1 gun shop in the entire country yet 25,000 people are murdered by guns there. if a fox gets into your chicken coop and kills a chicken, you dont go and blame the sheep and take the gate off their fence, you secure the chicken coop better. so why is it that in such an instance as this the only thing democrats can come up with is going after lawful gun owners and curbing their rights?
1
@josiezen6122 really? i think the supreme court already ruled on that and reiterated their ruling several times over that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right and has nothing to do with membership in a national guard or a militia.
1
@sundayoliver3147 yes it does, and your point is?
1
and leftys are blaming anti trans laws, go figure.
1
laws and safety protocals wouldnt have done anything. news is coming out this morning that this shooter chose several sites but decided to go to this school because the other site had "TOO MUCH SECURITY" not that there were too many laws, just too much security at the other site. go figure. secure the damn schools instead of passing stupid laws.
1
@john.premose no, its actually what democrats want, whats democrats favorite saying about not letting tragedies go to waste? here is something for you to understand, 9 of the last 10 mass shooters left manifestos where they stated they chose their targets because they were unsecured easy targets. Nashville shooter passed up another target because "too much security". Colorado theater shooter wrote that he chose that particular theater because the airport was too secure and this was the only theater in close proximity to his house that forbit partons from concealed carrying weapons, making it a softer target. Buffalo grocery store shooter manifesto had an itemized list including targeting soft targets where CCW concealed carry was prohibited. Dylan Roof shot up a church, and his friends made police statements that said he was originally planning to shoot up the Charleston college but instead settled on the church because the college had too much security. Eliot Rodger's (2014 Isla Visto shooter) manifesto wrote out that he passed over several locations because of "security" such as cops with guns. the crime prevention research center did a study and showed that from 1950 through 2019, 94% of public mass shootings occured in "gun free zones", the washington post tried to fact check the study and found that from 2009 - 2016, 86% of public mass shootings occured in gun free zones. democrats have this data, and EVERYONE has been told by the shooters themselves what targets the choose, but democrats are the only ones trying to pass laws to curb peoples rights instead of looking at what is in front of them. do you understand that mass shooters pick easy targets and we should work on making those targets harder to hit or do you NOT understand that?
1