Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Democrats Filibuster For Gun Reform" video.

  1. Kyle once again displays his ignorance. Most gun purchases without a background checks are private. The gun show loophole is a myth. Magazine limits don't work, for example look at the VaTech shooting. You can own a helicopter, tank and grenade launcher. You can't ban certain types of guns because the 2nd amendment was created to prevent tyranny. Unless the government is willing to have the same guns the no, they can't ban certain types of guns. A gun buy back program would not go well in the US in that very few people will participate. In terms of stats, the number of guns have been increasing while the number of gun murders have been decreasing for the past 20 years. You do have an individual right to own a gun. It states it clearly in the constitution. Regulated means well prepared. We had more than muskets when the 2nd amendment was written. We had the puckle gun which was developed in the 1600s, we had the Belton Flintlock, we had the Girandoni air rifle that was used in the Lewis and Clark expedition. Also, the idea that just because technology improved that we can change a right is asinine. We have the internet and YouTube, should we change freedom of speech? I love how Kyle says to read the debates on the 2nd amendment when he didn't even know what type of guns there were. Anyway, have a slave patrol is similar to having border patrol. Slaves were property and that is another issue in itself, not a gun issue. The Harvard study that Kyle keeps pointing to was not peer reviewed and does not say that more guns leads to more crime. I will give a link later. Kyle is clearly ignorant on this issue. With that said I will never push to take away his freedom of speech even though he uses it to take away my 2nd amendment right.
    15
  2. http://www.guns.com/2015/08/25/want-to-buy-a-tank/ http://www.dailydot.com/lol/operational-tank-for-sale-armslist/
    2
  3. I agree with what the article says and that is a huge part of my stance on the issue.  In the US murder has been dropping for the past 20 years while the number of guns have been rising.  Now Stefan Molyneux did an informative video on it look at states and basically seeing no correlation as well.  Overall, what Kyle is saying is wrong. He has said that more guns will lead to more deaths.  But, more importantly, the gun issue is simply, at least to me, a smoke screen masking a much larger issue and that is of crime.  Particularly crime that is gang related and race related in that blacks commit a disproportional amount of crime.  That is the real issue being ignored here.
    2
  4. This is just reactionary which is scary. How about they push for gun law reform at any other time besides after a mass shooting? That is because there isn't a gun problem in the US. Most gun deaths are from suicide which is not a gun issue. And murder by guns have been dropping for over 20 years. Also, as history has shown, when politicians vote for gun laws to chip away of the 2nd amendment they lose elections.
    2
  5. I did later. I made a mistake and will man up and admit it. This does show that just because something comes from Harvard doesn't make it true. The sources Kyle mentions is also not in an peer review journal thus is just as unreliable.
    1
  6. You should always question sources. Just because it comes from Harvard doesn't make it the holy grail of gun research.
    1
  7. In some ways that is true. Being peer review can help that, although even peer review articles can have errors in them. The CDC did a study on gun laws and basically said there isn't a correlation between gun laws and crime due to several variables involved. That is my stance.
    1
  8. http://www.snopes.com/harvard-flaw-review/
    1
  9. With regressive liberals like Kyle it doesn't take much thought to give a counter-perspective.
    1
  10. You can, it is just regulated like fully autos are.
    1
  11. First off, my mistake. I can actually admit when I made a mistake. But I can also correct it. Also, I can leave it up in the comments without editing it. I can man up to my mistakes. One, it goes to show that just because it comes from Harvard doesn't necessarily mean that it is reliable. So how about the CDC analysis http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/rr/rr5214.pdf Pretty much it says that gun laws have no effect on crime. While searching for the Harvard study Kyle mentions you can't find it in any peer reviewed journal. At this point it is not very reliable and just some guy writing his opinion. So I apologize for my mistake, but if anything you have allowed be to give more supporting info to go against what Kyle said.
    1
  12. " No it does not state it clearly in the constitution that you can personally own a gun. Thats just how it was interpreted by the supreme court but many legal experts disagree with that interpretation. Many believe it was not intended to allow all people to own guns and even if it was it says well regulated so we even if people can own guns we should allow some and now allow others. Regulated does not mean prepared. Regulated means regulated." Yes it does say that and the SC ruled on it and so did legal experts. Regulated means well prepared. "Refusing to acknowledge that we can absolutely change that right is asinine. The founders put the process of amending the constitution into the constitution for a reason. they knew that times would change and thus the constitution would have to change to reflect that change. And that includes changes to the 2nd amendment. You really think George washington if you showed him the killing power of an automatic M16 would say "yeah everybody should be able to have one"? No fuckin way. Comparing it to free speech is a false comparison. Yes technology changed but speech has not. What is being said has not changed. Guns or arms themselves have absolutely changed since then. And of course we should think of the implications that has for interpreting the 2nd amendment to balance the rights of all people with common sense and the values we want our society to have. " Yes the founders put a process in the constitution to change a right. If democrats want to change the 2nd amendment they have to go through the process to do it. See how far it gets. Chances are not very. That is why they never do it. Yes the founders knew times would change. Weapons have always evolved. We had sticks, then we had stones, then we had swords and then guns. To think that the founding fathers didn't think guns would get better is a foolish way of thinking. And yes you can compare this to free speech. Technology allows for more speech to be spread and the greater risk of misinformation or formation of cults and groups. "Yes Kyles freedom of speech takes away your 2nd amendment rights. That makes sense. All hes calling for is universal gun background checks and bans on certain unnecessary weapons for home/self defense or hunting. How does that take away your right to own a gun? All you have to do is go through a background check and you cant own an Ak-47 with a 50 round banana clip, silencer, and laser sight. sorry." You can't ban certain types of weapons because the 2nd amendment was designed to prevent tyranny. Again, if you want to ban the AK47 then you have to add an amendment.
    1
  13. No guns means limited gun crimes. Just like if we were to place strict limitations on cars then traffic laws will drop. It doesn't mean there is no crime or problems. Guns are not the problem. The problem is crime. I really don't see a correlation between southern states and murder. Three of the top five states are northern or middle(MO, NV and MD). DC is number one and has some of the strictest gun laws in the US.
    1
  14. "Just a few days ago it came out that a 13 year old went to try to by alcohol, cigarettes, a lottery ticket, etc. and he was denied. Then he went to a gun show and was able to purchase a gun, without even so much as an ID." I would kind of like to see the reference for this story.
    1
  15. "Yes, you absolutely can. "... ..., the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" (because I know you don't care about the first half of the sentence)." Actually I very much do and support the entire 2nd amendment. "Banning automatic rifles isn't infringing your right to bear arms. And, yes, if you DO want to argue that any discernment of what arms you can bear is an "infringement" (which is subjective, at best), then this logic would extend to nuclear weapons, high-explosives, etc." Explosives are not an arm, neither is a nuclear weapon. Even at that you can still own things like an RPG. "1) It's an Amendment. It isn't a Right. It's an Amendment. Why do they call them Amendments? Because the people in the 1700's who wrote this knew the world would require different laws, and that laws were made to changed. Amended." It is a right. " 2) The Amendment doesn't even mention Tyranny. It mentions security. General security. " Yeah, like security from the government " This is what the Amendment actually says. It doesn't say "Everyone should be permitted to own any weapon they please, to prevent tyranny." Which is what you're saying." I understand exactly what it says. It was designed so that the people can be armed and be free from a tyrannical government. "It doesn't say that for many reasons. Mostly, because it doesn't make sense. We have a representative government. Tyranny would be someone with a gun taking over the people's government. We have the guns needed to stop that -- armies and national security agencies. Militias aren't a protection of the people's government. In fact, as we've seen from the Clive Bundy ranchers -- militias are much more of a threat to the people's government, and we rely on police forces to keep militias in check." We have a checks and balance system to try to keep things civil. But we should always have the option to fight back if needed much like what happened in the revolutionary war when the constitution was written. The government should always fear the people and not the other way around. ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," This was written at a time when we didn't have an army, we didn't have police. You know, the later 1700's." Congress has the ability to maintain a navy and raise an army. The states have the ability to create a police force. "A well-regulated militia is necessary to what? Really, in this world, why is your militia so important that we need to keep a hundred million guns lying around?" Because the government should always fear the people. The government should be the servants and not the masters. "It is fucking nauseating to see people like you pretending to be the authority on Constitutionality, while all you do is ignore and paraphrase the shit out of it. The 2nd Amendment pertains to... what's that... a "well regulated militia"? You'd never know it talking to the people who think they love it so much." I know and understand the entirety of the 2nd amendment, clearly you don't. "It'd be nice if we could leave the 2nd Amendment as is and just ignore it and use our own discretion and make our own laws. But since people think it's not an Amendment, they need to be taught that is IS an Amendment. And we can do that by amending it. It'll never happen, I know. Not because it's fundamentally unchangeable (it's actually an Amendment, so it absolutely IS changeable). But rather, because weapon-merchants and right-wing politics has made too many people too god damn retarded on this issue." Amendments are rights given to the people and restrictions on the government.
    1
  16. What are you thanking Kyle for lying? http://www.snopes.com/harvard-flaw-review/
    1
  17. " But even more so, regulating who gets guns according to the numbers results in less suicides, reduce gun deaths, children being safer, less criminals attaining new guns. Yeah, how dare we take measures to ensure the well-being of the American public? Crazy. lol" Yep, we need the government to protect us. Meanwhile that same government takes brides and the majority of congress members are millionaires. But as long as they "protect us" then it is all good.
    1
  18. Chances are he will lose come next election. Fact is people like their rights.
    1
  19. Nico, you just showed how the federal government always ruins the economy by not understanding basic economics.
    1
  20. A lot of people don't turn them into an automatic. Doing so is a felony and most people follow the law.
    1
  21. You said a lot of people turn them into automatics. I say they don't. You now day that no one is debating that. So why did you say what you originally said?
    1
  22. Fair enough
    1