Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "AR-15 rifles to protect crops from hogs" video.

  1. I agree that killing is out of necessity. If hogs are not killed, they spread pretty easily. Killing mothers and babies? They'd kill you for a spot on this Earth, and we're killing them to control their population and prevent damage to our resources. You're using an emotional argument to justify your beliefs and your agenda. In a factual sense it doesn't matter if they are younglins or females. Females will carry more babies and babies will grow.
    1
  2. Would they? They like to use that 700,000 number, but that's not really the number of people who were prevented from buying a weapon - it includes false positives and delays. Criminals don't get BG checks when stealing guns or buying them from other criminals. Am I against background checks? No, against federal laws regarding universal background checks. A private sale within state lines with my legally owned property isn't the feds' business, it's the state's.
    1
  3. Hogs don't have a lot of eyesight, so if you shoot one they'll scatter, and there's a chance one might run at you. Not a fun thing to happen, and you'll want a semi auto.
    1
  4. Haven't you seen what they do to the crops? They'll bust the fences in no time. You'd have to put a full on Berlin wall fence that not only goes up but also goes down into the ground so that they won't dig under it. You get a fence for your backyard. When your property has several acres it stops being cost effective to put fences you'll have to replace all the time.
    1
  5. It's a civilian grade rifle, though.
    1
  6. There's already a license. It's called Second Amendment, emitted in 1789 and it never expires.
    1
  7. And out of 300 million firearms owned by 80~100 million people, existing in 44% of households aren't killing anyone every year. If guns are exclusively for killing, they have a massive failure rate then, Also, how many people die every year on the roads when talking on the cell phone, texting, checking their email on the smartphone or playing around with the GPS? They can bring it on, I've been doing this for months now.
    1
  8. >certain jobs they CANNOT do them without a car "They are exceptions, like military and police. They should need a permit." >the main use of cars is transportation "And yet they are a greater public health issue than weapons." >alot of people would live with ban on cars that go over 100MPH And they're probably also okay with AWBs, because they want a nanny state. Don't use "common sense" bans - they want that. Threaten illogical car bans, because the bans proposed are just as illogical.
    1
  9. >all firearms should be registered Why? Canada threw away their registry. Why? It doesn't solve murders (the same way a car registry doesn't solve "hit and runs"). It's just a database. It's worthless and expensive. >should require a license You don't need a license to drive a car in your property, just to drive in public. Why not the same with guns? >You cant defend yourself against your government anymore You might want to read into Vietnam, Soviet-Afghan war, Afghanistan, etc.
    1
  10. >cars are pretty much impossible to live without They are as easy to live without as cocaine. I spent the first 20 years of my life without driving any car. >there is a lot of regulation already in place Only in public roads. You can drive anything from a tank to a go-kart in your property. Just like guns, most states require a permit to carry. The "fast car" can be more effective, but I don't doubt a lot of people would live with a ban on cars that go faster than 70mph.
    1