Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "U.S. Government: "F*ck Your 1st Amendment!"" video.

Great. Now why don't you feel the same way about the 2nd amendment? Why do you want that same government you just complained about to disarm us?
2
***** How will you enforce a universal background check without some sort of gun registry? There is no such thing as a "military grade weapon". Also, a .22 is very deadly. Mental health checks? What you are looking for? And you will be deputizing doctors that will ban guns from anyone with any red flag. Smart guns? Technology has been known to fail. Ban 50 round magazines? Ever heard of tactical reload? Also, look up the VA Tech shooting. High round magazines have a tendency to jam which is why they are not used in the military. I see that as a pathway to disarm US citizens. Also, none of these proposed laws will actually lower shootings. You can't compare this to a car. Gun ownership is a right. Also, you can own and drive a car without a license or having the car registered as long as you are not on public roads. I drove a truck when I was 8.
2
David Pitts Not true.
1
***** 1. People with mental health problems can't get guns to begin with depending on what the health problem was. But that is after they have been diagnosed. 2. Technology have been known to fail 3. None of these proposed laws would have stopped any of these "mass shootings" (which is not a legally defined term by the way). 4. Owning and driving a car is not a right. Owning a gun is. Also, you can own a drive a car without registering it and without a license if you do it on private property 5. The proposed laws have not been shown to lower shootings 6. The 2nd amendment is there to prevent tyranny, it shouldn't matter what type of fire power you want to own. Also, people like high capacity magazines. And look up the VA Tech shooter. You don't need high capacity magazines to kill a lot of people 7. If you are going to stop a tyrannical government it will be the state or local government. That is because of state rights. The federal government can't just use the military to enforce state law without the consent of the state's legislature. Thus if the federal government were to become tyrannical to a certain state than it will essentially create a civil war of states against states. So in reality citizens will actually be fighting local government officials like police and sheriffs. Also, in the 1770s a bunch of farmers with pitchforks fought the strongest army in the world at the time. 8. A gun registry will do nothing to stop shootings and will only create a pathway to gun confiscation. And training? So you want to make gun owners more efficient killers? Alternative? How about we push policies that lower crime instead of attacking our rights. If you want to attack rights to lower crime I suggest you start with the 4th amendment and allow cops to randomly search people's homes.
1
***** My policy to lower crime is to take action to lower poverty, improve our public education system. and give our youth a greater opportunity to become successful. If you want to attack rights to lower crime I suggest you start with the fourth amendment. Allowing the government to look into your home would have allowed the cops to catch killers like Ed Kemper, or capture Cameron and Janice Hooker, or stopped James Holmes. Removing guns is not stopping the criminal. They will find ways to kill. Also, why do you think civilians need privacy?
1
***** Yes. Now I will ask you. Why do you support crime so much that you are not willing to attack the 4th amendment? Why do people need privacy unless they are hiding something? I am not hiding anything. Are you?
1
***** A nuclear bomb is not an arm, that is the difference and the line. "And I'm not for attacking the fourth amendment simply because you have nothing to hide doesn't mean that you don't want anything to be kept private" But allowing the government to randomly search people's homes and property will lower crime. That is your main goal. You are attacking a right, the 2nd amendment in this case, for "safety". I am simply saying that attacking the 4th amendment will achieve your goal better. I personally want to lower crime without stripping away our rights. You want to strip away rights, so why not the 4th amendment? "Maybe you have a medical history you don't want people to know about." Like a mental health problem? ". Maybe you had an affair and don't want people to know." Don't commit an affair. "Maybe you like drinking your own pee." Which isn't illegal so why should you care? We are trying to catch criminals. "None of these things are a crime, but can all be used against you." And owning a machine gun isn't a crime, but you feel that it should be illegal. "Why are you for taking away one amendment to save another?" You tell me? You are doing just that. You are arbitrarily picking the 2nd amendment when the 4th will be better in lowering crime. I personally don't want to attack any amendments. "You say owning a gun is a right," It is. So is privacy. But you are arbitrarily attacking one right. You are saying privacy is a right but owning a gun is "meh". I am not being a hypocrite here, you are.
1
***** You are attacking the 2nd amendment because you are making it more challenging for law abiding citizens to obtain guns. You are also placing restriction on what guns to own in that you feel that people should not be allowed to own automatic weapons (even though most gun deaths involve hand guns). A grenade launcher is an arm because it can be transported simply by carrying where a nuke can't. Drones have been around for a while now. They too can be transported by simply carrying. "Let people purchase firearms, that aren't fully automtic and designed for military use" You clearly have no idea what "military use" means. The M1 Garand was used in the military when fully autos were around. The fact is that just because a gun is an automatic doesn't make it immediately more deadly than one that isn't. The M1 Garand is 1. quick to reload 2. uses a round that is more powerful than a lot of automatics you are thinking of "Make sure that person is trained on how to use the gun" So make them or efficient killers? "and is registered" So the government can trace it if they do want to confiscate guns? "How is that attacking the 2nd amendment?" You are opening the doorway to gun confiscation with a gun registry. ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"." http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm Read that on the definition of "well regulated". You clearly know very little about guns and the english language and how it is used in the past. This is the exact reason why the founding fathers put in place the 2nd amendment, so people who lack knowledge don't make asinine decisions.
1
***** At the federal level it was. Also with the 7 day waiting period since that has shown not to lower violence. Same with a gun registry. I don't want the government knowing how many guns I have. And yes, filing paper work does make it harder to obtain. Even at that, how do you account for private sales? All of my guns were obtain privately. Two were gifts and two I bought from someone. You dick comment shows your maturity.
1