Comments by "nexus1g" (@nexus1g) on "Gun Rights Advocate Guns Down Her Children" video.

  1. Person Oisels I point you to US v Cruikshank. "The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." Make sure that you understand the topic before you call bullshit.
    2
  2. Future psychological breaks don't necessarily show up on psych evals. They're worthless.
    2
  3. Realm Of Unknown You're not thinking. First of all, votes against universal background checks are only due to poison pills in the bills in question. When it comes to psych evals, two things are going to happen: 1. Mentally ill people are typically very good at hiding their illnesses. 2. It prevents people from getting diagnosed and getting the help they need just so they don't have to give up their god-given rights.
    2
  4. xMckingwill We care today and find it morally reprehensible that there was a stripping of natural rights of a people, just like today, I think it's morally reprehensible that you'd strip the natural rights of self defense from people. Your original intent was false equivocation of an issue of stripping of rights and giving more power to the government for disarmament of all people.
    1
  5. TheBlackiwid "So you have the right to not get killed by thhe constitution too I guess? or is the american one the only one that has not declared the right to live?" The Bill of Rights limits Congress' ability to pass law. It does not grant rights. Nature grants rights. The Bill of Rights is just a recognition of those rights. The right to be armed exists with or without it being written down.
    1
  6. Y_strikes 80% of the country doesn't want psych evals. That's utter nonsense. You're probably just referencing a poll that asked about 1000 people or something.
    1
  7. Boner Patrol The issue with this is that bias can easily creep into psych evaluations.
    1
  8. pichum4st3r More people just need to take their natural, personal responsibility for self defense seriously.
    1
  9. Andrew Rooks You're still asking for Congress to overextend its privilege.
    1
  10. Andrew Rooks There are thing far more important in the long run than protecting a hundred or so people a year.
    1
  11. Andrew Rooks Because the right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes shall not be infringed. As I said in my last post, there are more important long-term issues at stake than a hundred lives a year or so lost to crazy people with these so-called assault rifles.
    1
  12. Andrew Rooks Alright, I'm not going to get into a semantics debate with you. I'll just let you have the point that the armed forces use AR-15 platform rifles. I want you to answer honestly -- in 100 years' time, who will care that any of these people lived or existed?
    1
  13. lunhil12 Actually, Japan just outright bans ownership of them and then gives very, very few exceptions to that rule.
    1
  14. Andrew Rooks Guess what? It's easy to drive up and spray down an entire block when you know people aren't going to fight back. Gang violence is going to happen. You know that AK-47 was against the law.
    1
  15. boris Renderos Yeah, exactly. The first people disarmed would be minorities. They're most likely to get felony charges and get harassed by police if you don't pass the paper bag test.
    1
  16. Darrell barron Yeah, as long as you're not the one being murdered without a chance to defend himself, you're all fine with the situation. I bet that would change in the moment before someone kills you.
    1
  17. Andrew Rooks No, what you're seeing are Chinese Type 56 rifles which are semi-automatic only; unless they're being sold by a Class III FFL at about $20,000 or so. If it was modified to fire fully automatic, then it was illegal. If it was a true AK-47, there's no way some banger had one legally.
    1
  18. Irving Ceron Exactly. That's why I'm all for those released from prison (whether on parole or not) to have their arms rights restored. It's not right that they aren't allowed to protect themselves out there, and get thrown back in jail if they're found with protection.
    1
  19. xMckingwill Really? Dianne Feintsein in 1994 stated regarding the weapons included in her assault weapons ban, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban; picking up every one of them. Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in. I would have done it." Jan Schakowsky this past year stated, "Oh, absolutely. I mean I'm against handguns," in response to the question if that assault weapons ban is just the beginning. She also said, "I don't know. I don't know that we can't," when she was told that the anti-gun lobby can't ban handguns with the Second Amendment as stated. So take some egg off that face of yours to fry up with your crow that you're eating.
    1
  20. xMckingwill You didn't read my whole post. There was also Jan Schakowsky that you missed. That was just 2013. Furthermore, Dianne Feinstein is still in the Senate championing gun bans as well as Schakowsky. These people stay in the Senate for so long because their opinion is not entirely stand-alone.
    1
  21. Tommy boy That's fine when things are going smooth in your country, but when tyranny tries to take over again, the first thing they will do is disarm everyone who doesn't agree with them, and they'll use soft targets like psych evals to do it.
    1
  22. Tommy boy How am I delusional? I'd like to see an explanation of that. And, yes, I know all of the nations of Europe. I can point out any country on a satellite image with no borders. In fact, I can even group European countries by language family. Any more baseless insults?
    1
  23. Tommy boy I'm not saying there is some conspiracy right now, and I wouldn't even know what it would look like in the future for tyranny to take hold in our modern nation. However, the fact that you seem to think that it's utterly impossible seems unrealistic and foolish to me. While the chances of some things are very, very low, you still pay for insurance to protect them every month because of what's on the line, right? That doesn't make you paranoid or delusional, it's prudent. I think you're overreaching that Germany has fewer shootings than the US because of psych evals. I doubt you could even prove that. The UK doesn't have psych evals.
    1
  24. Andrew Rooks I never said your family were bangers. Sorry, but there's no way a banger has a legal AK-47. If your family was in the PJ's or lower-middle class, then your family didn't own one either.
    1
  25. Irving Ceron Note: Been convicted of a crime. Tons of people commit crimes and never get caught.
    1