Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Nadler Asks Chip Roy: 'What Do You Use Semi-Automatic Weapons For?'" video.

Dudes with Toyota pickup trucks and sandals defended themselves against US occupation in Afghanistan. It might have taken them 20 years, but they resisted.
2
@johnoakley6666 "troops busting down your door happens on a regular basis" - Look up the yearly average for SWAT raids.
2
@philipslighting8240 Even according to anti-gun statistics, there's 80,000-120,000 defensive gun uses each year. Middle of the road estimates are between 300,000-500,000, and you'll hear the pro-gun side cite 700,000-2 million defensive gun uses per year. Even according to the lowball statistics begrudgingly accepted by researchers on your side, there's at least 80,000 attackers fended off by drawing a firearm on a yearly basis. So which attacker? At least eighty thousand. Per year. Give it twelve and a half years, that's one million attackers. Again, according to lowball statistics one in 300 Americans will have the opportunity to fend off an attacker on a twelve year span. Now, do you have a smoke alarm, Mr Paranoid? Do you use the seatbelt, Mr Paranoid?
2
@Liam1H "The US has the worst gun violence in the world" - That's not true. "By far and away the most mass shootings using Semi Auto weapons" - Because most weapons made after 1950 are semi-automatic. Mass shootings in other countries also typically involve semi-automatic weapons because they're legal in other countries too. Only certain places like the UK impose a ban on semi-auto centrefire, limiting civilians to semi-auto rimfire. Semi-auto weapons are the norm, not the exception. "then perhaps we've demonstrated that we, as a nation are not responsible enough for those kinds of weapons" - Because a pump action shotgun is so harmless, right?
2
@obijuan3004 The second amendment was based on the English Bill of Rights of 1689. In the Federalist paper No. 46 James Madison argues that the militia would be used to keep the federal army in check. Alexander Hamilton published an essay in 1788 that the militia is the best possible security against a standing army. The slavery argument is nonsensical. Non-slave states attacking slave states to free states right after the US being formed would clearly go against the point of the Union. It's a retroactive fetishization of the civil war. "There is nothing about tyranny in the Constitution" - But the declaration of independence states: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "The NRA is a gun manufacturer lobby" - And? I don't like the NRA. "you are a customer" - Yeah? Let's say you drive a Toyota. Do you want Toyota to go out of business? Companies make good products, I'd like to buy them. You think this is a revelation?
2
You can't replicate the Japanese society anywhere else. There's plenty of countries with restrictive gun laws that do extremely poorly. They're not Japan.
1
Some of the early gun laws were passed precisely to disarm former slaves. You're implying they didn't need them, well many people didn't want them to have them. Is that crazy? What's crazy is trying to pretend you don't know that the vast majority of weapons manufactured in this century are semi-automatic, or that most countries allow ownership of semi-automatic weapons. That's certified lunacy.
1
I saw a video of an Italian woman hunting hogs with a semi-auto shotgun. She put multiple shots on a charging hog and despite being wounded he kept coming. She had to grab the empty shotgun and beat the hog in the head to get him to collapse. They're tough.
1
No, they're not. Semi-automatic firearms are the vast majority of firearms produced since probably the 1940s-1950s. Banning semi-automatics would mean forcing people to go back almost a century. There's almost no use of automatic weapons in mass shootings, in fact the most common weapon is the handgun.
1
@Liam1H "Semi automatic weapons were developed strictly for the purpose of putting put a lot of lead in the enemies direction" - This isn't even true, because the military was very stringent about ammo expenditure. When the first magazine fed weapons were introduced, they had magazine cut off systems and soldiers were meant to single feed each round. You were only to disable the magazine cutoff in an emergency or when allowed by your officer. Only machine guns were meant to "put a lot of lead" in the air, while soldiers with individual rifles were supposed to be disciplined marksmen.
1
You're the one arguing nonsense. When you refer to the right of a body, actually you mean the right to evict another body. That discussion is a moral argument about where we draw the line at recognizing rights, and if a human in gestation has them. In the firearms subject, one side wants to be left alone and the other wants to sic the cops on their political opponents to kick their doors down and retrieve firearms. There's no moral argument here. There's no line to be drawn. You think fetuses have no rights? That's fine. Some people do. That's fine too. Wanting to have cops use violence to enforce gun laws? Not fine, and that needs to be argued.
1
Funny, you should take a trip to Afghanistan and remind the Taliban that they can't hold back drones, helicopters and anti-tank missiles.
1
@peejay6930 Yeah, after they captured them. How many US servicemen killed by helicopters and anti-tank missiles during the GWOT? Still funny.
1
@cre8tvedge "If the cartel is coming to your house you have something going on that is way outside the ordinary American's life." - Not true. I happen to know someone who had his brother survive a gang driveby where the gang shot at his windows. I haven't heard back but it was assumed to be a mistake with the address. He returned fire with his AR. They drove off to the nearest hospital. One was dead on arrival, one died in the ER and two were wounded.
1
@obijuan3004 Hilarious. The security of a FREE state, meaning if a state stops being free, it no longer fits the bill.
1
@obijuan3004 That's a wall of text full of logical fallacies and purposeful misrepresentations. The people who drafted and ratified the bill of rights clearly foresaw the danger of a federal standing army. The people who declared independence clearly stated that a government that does not serve the people should be dissolved. Everything else you're trying to say to detract from the facts is pure bull. One guy was quoting Mao. Power flows from the barrel of a gun. And for all his flaws, Mao was right. What can a government do without the means to violently enforce its will? You can own a Tomahawk missile, just no defense contractor will sell it to you. Rocket engines are legal. Small scale turbine engines are legal. GPS and INS systems are legal. Even a conventional warhead is legal. You cannot fire a rocket into the air without FAA clearance, you cannot fly an unmanned aircraft over most locales without authorization and registration, you cannot communicate with your missile or have the missile itself use radar in any way that violates FCC broadcasting, and you cannot detonate explosives outside designated bombing ranges. Every functionality you have in a Tomahawk is legal, you're just not able to use it without pissing off several agencies. Saying that the Las Vegas guy couldn't have gotten more kills through other means makes no sense. Ever heard of the Happy Land fire? Some dude with a can of gas and a lit match killed 87. There is no answer. Look at Europe. When attacks like the Charlie Hebdo and the Bataclan massacre became more difficult to pull off, extremists started telling their martyrs to go solo and rent trucks. No matter what, you will always be at the mercy of dangerous people. I know it's a sobering reality, but you do really have to come to terms with the fact that even without guns your family can still end up in the wrong place at the wrong time.
1
@obijuan3004 "nowhere in the Constitution does it say you can call a law, like say Obamacare, government tyranny and stage an armed attack on the federal government, just because you don' t like the law" - This is beyond childish. "your answer to domestic terrorism is Shite Happens, don't worry about it" - What's your answer? PATRIOT Act? NDAA? Censorship of the internet? TSA? "I'm trying to give a heads up here" - Quit the concern trolling. "that will make China the winner" - As if you cared. Again, this is pure concern trolling. "Here is one Missile law, 18 U.S. Code § 2332g" - Funnily enough it doesn't apply to Tomahawks. As long as you don't have a guidance system meant to target aircraft, that law doesn't apply.
1