Comments by "nexus1g" (@nexus1g) on "26 Dead After Mass Shooting In Texas Church" video.

  1. Don't be a pansy. Arm yourself, train yourself, and don't be a victim.
    5
  2. We're a country that hasn't forgot how easily the world and governments can go to shit.
    3
  3. Patricia, no one is taking ours? It's already happened. 1834 NFA. 1938 FFA ->1986 FOPA.
    3
  4. Mark, the right to self defense is as fundamental and universally objective as the right to free speech.
    2
  5. "composed of the body of the people," You're missing that part.
    2
  6. Mark, if rights are not individual but collective alone, we could morally murder an innocent person to save humanity. Would you murder an innocent person to save all of humanity?
    2
  7. Lancelot, you don't understand what liberty is and natural rights are, and you definitely don't understand why they are important.
    2
  8. You need to get a better shtick in life, troll. I refuse to believe that anyone is as stupid as you without it being intentional, George.
    2
  9. Mark, you're willfully spreading ignorance. I already explained this to you in another thread. Again, I'll copy and paste here for posterity in case someone actually thinks you might be right: Hamilton was concerned that the Bill of Rights would be taken by future generations to be an exhaustive enumeration of rights or to imply limitations to those rights which didn't exist. This quote is dishonest. Just after he said it was dangerous, he explained why: "They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted." He was worried that enumerated rights like the Second Amendment would be taken advantage of (e.g. repeal the Second Amendment and the government can do anything they want).
    2
  10. Hemingway, we're here having a discussion. It's definitely more productive than whatever you posted.
    2
  11. NWA, that is their purpose: to kill. That is a valid purpose.
    2
  12. Liberty is inherently dangerous. I don't see how voting to err on the side of safety is not the soft and easy way to go.
    2
  13. Mark, you obtusely misread and cherry pick the most dishonest arguments you can, and then you think it's out of line to call you on it? Please.
    2
  14. likquid, there is never a reason for gun control. Personal liberty is more important than our lives.
    2
  15. Mark, Madison wrote, "Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals." Rights are individual, not collective.
    2
  16. Mark, if it's treason to take up arms against your own government, why would Jefferson say the men who participated in Shays' Rebellion should be pardoned?
    2
  17. Mark, there's nothing hypocritical here. Private property is private property. That's a person's personal liberty to say what can or cannot be done on their private property. There is no right which allows you to infringe someone else's rights. Just because Jefferson preferred peaceful methods to change doesn't mean he thought there would not be times when the use of arms would be necessary.
    2
  18. They never ruled against individual gun rights for citizens. It wasn't even addressed. Jefferson wrote, "[And] what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two?"
    2
  19. "from 1789 until 2008 SCOTUS always ruled against individual gun rights for citizens." Wait, what? Alright, I'm tired of this. This isn't dishonesty; you're, flat out, a liar.
    2
  20. Patricia, how do you figure that I associated you with anything on the left? I only associated you with people that hate guns, which you clearly said. You're chomping at the bit to bait a specific response so bad that you're not even making any sense.
    2
  21. I have comprehended it. That's why I called you a pansy. If I didn't comprehended, I probably would have said thank you for the pancakes.
    2
  22. How about when Russia disarmed its citizens under the monarchy, then the Bolsheviks exploited that to commit the Red Terror of genocide?
    1
  23. Jayne, people in the US aren't just left to die either. We have our own system of safety nets that does not include universal healthcare. Liberty is inherently dangerous. Safety is the easy way that provides immediate satisfaction with long-term sadness.
    1
  24. Naomi, yeah, you haven't devolved into a dystopia in 20 years. Give it time. History will repeat itself. A mass shooter wouldn't know what parishioners are armed until it was too late for him. And if I were a parishioner, I'd rather die shooting and drawing his fire, giving everyone else more time than live unarmed and unable to do anything. As well, the more there are armed, the more likely you will have someone in a place where they can stop the shooter. If the neighbor sees who's coming out of the church, he doesn't have to fire. Your hypothetical implies that the instinct is to just shoot at anyone with a gun. That's wrong. A normal person's instinct is to hesitate. And, yes, the instinct to hesitate will occur on the other side too. Certainly the driver of the truck the hero got into while holding his AR-15 didn't get attacked right off the bat, even though that driver wasn't sure what was going on.
    1
  25. Naomi, mass shootings account for (literally, I did the math) 0.005% of annual deaths. Our gun deaths are on a decline. And, yes, those nations have been around for a long time, but outside of Japan, weapons restrictions are new. Feudal Japan disarmed the populace because they feared the people. The people found it so necessary to have instruments of war that they trained using what they had, namely farm tools: nunchaku (crop thresher), kama (sickle used to cut up bundles of plants), bo (stick), tonfa (mill handle), and others. When your government oversteps its bounds, and it eventually will, then you will learn why keeping your arms and not allowing your government to track what arms you own, is very important.
    1
  26. My math is right. Mass shootings kill about 100-150 people a year. REALLY not alarming. Typically there are about 30,000 gun deaths a year. That accounts for a little over 1% of all deaths. Hardly alarming. Most of those deaths are suicides which makes it even less alarming. Gang activity accounts for a significant portion of the rest. There's also police shootings and justified shootings in that figure. In short, it's a disingenuous number. Handgun deaths have gone up. Long gun deaths (like the ones you want to ban) have gone down or stayed roughly even at some 100 deaths annually. Despite all of this, there is never justification for infringing on personal liberties.
    1
  27. Naomi Collinson Tour numbers are most likely falsely inflated. What is your source? And, yes, the 30,000 a year includes suicides.
    1
  28. Naomi Collinson What you want isn't reasonable.
    1
  29. Naomi Collinson Ask the Afghan mujaheen. They retained territory against both the Soviets and the US with infantry armaments.
    1
  30. Naomi Collinson I think those countries are stupid about it. They're myopic. This is a natural right that shouldn't be infringed upon in any form or fashion, and it already is being infringed on heavily. The 1934 NFA and the 1986 FOPA show that worrying about slippery slopes when it comes to gun rights isn't a fallacy.
    1
  31. Naomi Collinson What's uneeasonable about it is that you want to infringe on the natural rights and essential liberties of people who've done no wrong without due process of the individual simply for the sake of a little safety. Liberty is inherently dangerous.
    1
  32. What's unreasonable about wanting to limit firearm capabilities is that the firearms we keep are meant for war and rebellion just as much as anything else. That's what's wrong with it. You've already taken true military weapons, which is not only against the Constitution and natural rights but also against SCOTUS rulings. You're not getting anymore.
    1
  33. Sheldon, I have history by my side to prove my claim is not fallacy.
    1
  34. Quoting me dishonestly now. How quickly we forget the recent history that the Weimar disarmed its people and the NSDP took advantage of that disarmament.
    1
  35. Or how about when England disarmed the protestants and the Anglican church went uncontested in their genocide.
    1
  36. How about when the British Empire disarmed the people in the American colonies so that they were at the mercy of the native tribes that the British were bribing to attack new settlements that got out of line?
    1
  37. Naomi, people in cities don't carry by and large (liberal centers). Stop being victims.
    1
  38. How about when Turkey disarmed its citizens then murdered 1.5 million Armenians?
    1
  39. When you disarm your people, you get to kill anyone who gets out of line without contest. See Tienanmen Square where even though the people had no weapons, they were gunned down and run down with tanks.
    1
  40. Like I said, you're just quoting me dishonestly now.
    1
  41. Sheldon, if you have to resort to dishonesty to make your point, you should reconsider your stance.
    1
  42. "Give it time. HIstory will repeat itself." Don't mind me, just quoting myself, because you're a liar.
    1
  43. Stop lying.
    1
  44. You're purposefully omitting key points in my quotes. You're lying. You should understand that this is just making you look like a childish imbecile.
    1
  45. Well, we've apparently stepped into Sheldon's pseudo-stalker, creepy land, so I'm stepping out before you show up at my door saying, "Don't mind me, just quoting you."
    1
  46. Those who gave up their natural rights are the ones who will win the Darwin Award.
    1
  47. Just because you don't take personal liberty seriously doesn't mean that it's the right way to go about things.
    1
  48. The Second Amendment is as much about being prepared to fight in a war as it is about anything else. And you weren't listening to those who were opposing the assault weapons ban.
    1
  49. I'm not talking about in the US military, I'm talking about against the remnants of the US military, those who will still engage fellow citizens, in the case rebellion against tyranny is necessary. I'm also talking about citizenry ready to defend the land if we're ever invaded.
    1
  50. Steve, because you can punish unsafe actions. Which is what laws are supposed to do. They bring justice after the fact. It's an usurpation of legislative powers to ban innocuous activity because there's a derived risk unrelated to the original activity. For instance, we don't ban cars that can go faster than the speed limit, we punish people for going over it.
    1
  51. Naomi, they do have mass shootings. And your assumption is that there should be more mass shootings because you think that apparently people en masse are chomping at the bit to kill a bunch of people indiscriminately.
    1
  52. You need to learn what authority is. If I quote Einstein on relativity, I don't need to show the specific papers he was referencing. You clearly don't understand logical arguments. I do have evidence, I've presented the evidence, you're just trying to say it's not valid evidence, which is clearly is. You argue like a lawyer, not an intellectual.
    1
  53. The National Institute of Justice is a foremost governmental authority on such matters and such statements can be taken at face value. Also, why does the presence of law enforcement deter crime? It's because there is a higher chance to have deleterious effects for committing a crime. Your targets being armed provide the same type of higher-risk environment. This is simple logical progression able to be evaluated on its own.
    1
  54. Sheldon, there's hardly anything to prove as it's common knowledge. See the use-of-force continuum. The first step of force is presence. The National Institute of Justice explains, "The mere presence of a law enforcement officer works to deter crime or diffuse a situation." Your turn.
    1
  55. If you're not assuming, cite your sources and give your evidence rather than making claims without backing them up.
    1
  56. Sheldon, you're assuming here that it doesn't work. You're only opining an ignorant opinion on what is and isn't an effective deterrent and assuming that lack of law will lead to an arms race among citizens when for 140 years of no gun legislation, that didn't happen.
    1
  57. Sheldon, it follows that the higher the level of danger of participating in a criminal act, the less likely that criminal act tends to occur. This is why police patrol instead of sitting at HQ waiting for a call. It's been proven that presence is the first step in deterring crime. That can be expanded to include any presence that creates a risky environment within which for the crime to occur, including video surveillance, alarm systems, locks, and more up to and including at least one person at the location being armed, with the more who are armed, the more cameras there are, the more alarm systems there are, the more locks there are, etc. the higher the risk to the criminal.
    1
  58. Naomi, your response isn't showing up, but thankfully I have the full reply showing in my email. You're right that this shooter (and others) chose targets based on who those targets were. And for the sake of argument let's say that you're right, and that these victims would be chosen regardless of armed status. Do you think unarmed victims or armed victims would stand a better chance when he inevitably attacked? This guy was trying to sneak firearms out of the AFB he was at when he served. If we disallowed all citizens from having guns, it could have still easily been the same situation had he been a little smarter with his smuggling. I'm not sold that the shooter would have been just as likely to attack the exact same targets at a gun range as a church. The idea of armed targets being at a location seems to me to make it more likely that someone seeking to commit such an act will be deterred from acting on the impulse (no pun intended) in the first place. And the simple probability is factually and inarguably against you that armed targets have a lowered risk of death than unarmed targets by the sole virtue that they have an added measure of capability of fighting back from a distance with deadly ranged weapons versus having to get close first and then having to contend with the size and strength of the shooter, and that guy was no small fry. The person that shot the shooter, as far as we know, did stop his rampage killing. There is enough evidence to suggest that he wasn't done, even if it was going to be a new target he was going to drive to. He had multiple more full magazines in his vehicle. We can be sure that he didn't shoot himself as he went out to his still-running vehicle. There was doubtlessly still extreme danger in his continued freedom, whether that danger was to more citizens or police. And Vegas would have happened no matter what. This guy had the money and international contacts to get anything in the world he wanted as far as firearms and explosives. He had no past and no history. There's nothing we can do against that. That's the kind of thing that's going to happen no matter what laws we do or don't pass.
    1
  59. Sheldon, that's just a slippery slope fallacy. The fact of the matter is that a shooter is likely to not go someplace they have a feeling there will be anyone armed.
    1
  60. I don't know if there are NRA bots, but if there are, it's sad we need them to keep Congress from infringing further in individual liberties and natural rights.
    1
  61. Mike Sprigg Technicology That's the point of personal responsibility. Police aren't going to die if they don't make to you on time. The politician who usurped your power won't die. The only person who dies is you, and no one else. That means the only person respinsible for your own safety is you, so you might want to take that responsibility seriously.
    1
  62. Mike Sprigg Technicology Liberty is inherently dangerous. There's zero reason to give up my personal security for security. The idea of such is utterly ludicrous.
    1
  63. Mike, there's never a time for a wake up call from personal liberty. You've stupidly given up your personal liberties and natural rights, don't expect anyone else to. As Jefferson wrote, "What signify a few lives in a century or two?" And, yes, he was actually talking about an armed rebellion with people being shot.
    1
  64. There's no such thing as a "Second Amendment guy".
    1
  65. It's that a monster sexual thing?
    1
  66. It's like being a furry, but more tentacly and more oozing.
    1
  67. Keeping the government in check, self defense against all threats, protection of property, wild animal defense (especially in places like Alaska). There's four.
    1
  68. Shimohi, we punish the act of murder. You want to punish ownership. Do you really see an equivalence here?
    1
  69. Mark, the Virginia Declaration of Rights was before the Constitution. Therefore, the militia was, as it's written in the document, "composed of the body of the people". The Constitution changed the legal definition of "militia".
    1
  70. peter, I pay the NRA to lobby Congress to ensure they maintain everyone's personal liberties and stay true to the Constitution. I have to bribe them to not listen to you.
    1
  71. There's nothing to debate. Liberty is inherently dangerous. The only thing you have to argue against is personal liberty, and that's not a fight you can morally win.
    1
  72. Naomi, I have no idea what points I haven't addressed. Be specific. Always err on the side of personal liberty, not safety. Safety is a rabbit hole that leads to a dystopian future.
    1