Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "9-Year-Old Shoots Uzi, Kills Instructor" video.

Accidents happen. So should we eliminate our freedoms and rights to keep us safe from ourselves? On Kyle's interpretation of the 2nd amendment. The idea was to have the states and local governments (that is where the state part comes in) have ability to protect themselves from tyranny of the federal government and local citizens can have protections from local government. Plus the technology of the time doesn't matter. Based on that argument we should ban free speech. This fool can reach out to more people because of technology. They didn't have email and Twitter than. It took days to deliver mail and communicate at that time. I guess we should have limited speech. To say we don't have any threats to worry about is asinine. Tell that to people living in the ghetto. Oh, I forgot, liberals hate poor people and want to limit them from anything they can use to make themselves better. Kyle needs to read more. Or maybe we should limit his free speech until he can prove he is intelligent. No, no matter how stupid he is I will never push to take any of his rights away even though he wants to take mine away.
2
So based on your thinking we should ban free speech. Because of improved technology we can communicate better thus we should place restrictions on free speech. People can use free speech to start riots.
2
Isen gard So are guns, read the constitution again. It was designed to allow citizens to protect themselves from the government. There is a reason why fascist governments in the past took guns away.
2
Sondre C. What do you check in a background check? And what is a gun made for war? Who uses an Uzi in war? Saying a gun designed for war is similar to an assaults weapons ban, you can define an assault weapon as anything Thus more guns are banned. Comparing free speech to guns is legit. There is just as much danger, if not more with free speech. Riots and cults are started from free speech. Look at someone like Alex Jones who is a huge conspiracy theorist. He says things that one can strongly believe and then go off and commit a terrorist attack against the government. Look at Ferguson, MO recently. A few ignorant people jumped to conclusions and a riot starts destroying people's personal property. It isn't ridiculous except to those that want to pick and choose what rights they want. It always is funny how gun bans get brought up but bans on nothing else that kill just as well. All guns bans are is a way for the government to control you but mask it by saying they are protecting you. I don't see them banning swimming even though there are more deaths by swimming.
1
Sondre C. Ok, what guns do you think are suitable for self defense and others not? The VA Tech shooter killed 33 people with two handguns, one of 15 round clip and another of 10. Problem is that for in home protection handguns have limited fire power and more power could be needed. No other western country has to deal with the same situation we do. We are way more complex than other countries in the world. I compared gun rights to free speech because people say guns have gotten better, well so have technology meaning communication is better. So based on that we should change free speech. Speech has raised crowds and caused riots. This has to do with that rights were not to be questioned. It is funny how the left agree with politicians that want to remove a right for the sake of "safety" but don't want to eliminate other aspects in life that are just as dangerous such as what we eat, what clothes we wear, limitations on swimming and so on. The reason is because guns are a very important right and are the last line of defense against tyranny. Here is something for you, the federal government doesn't care about your safety. If they did they will regulate more things than just guns.
1
Jack Barnes Nukes are not an arm. And free speech is just as dangerous as a gun. Free speech is used to cause riots and start cults which can eventually lead to killing. The way the country was set up was to have state rights. States were to control domestic policies, federal government control foreign policies and the constitution were to place limitations on the governments. It isn't so much of an individual against the federal government but would be a state against the federal government. With every state having a representative that is what will happen. It would be the individuals against the state and local governments like what happen in Athens, TN. Also the US army is ran by US citizens. To say they will turn on their own citizens in that extreme of a manner would be asinine. And even in the almost impossible case they would why do you want to remove any line of defense the US citizens have? If you feel that the US government is that powerful than we have a problem. It shouldn't be. You named one person who didn't ban guns. Stalin banned guns, Pol Pot banned guns.
1
Jack Barnes As I said you listed one fascist regime that didn't eliminate guns. Others have. Plus I still rather have guns to at least have a fighting chance. That is the flaw in your argument. You are basically giving up already.
1