Comments by "Ricardo Cabeza" (@ricardocabeza6006) on "NRA Bragged About Blocking AR-15 Ban Days Before One Killed 10 People" video.

What’s humiliating is you thinking a semi-automatic shot gun and an “assault rifle” such as an Armalite-15, are in any way mechanically different.
3
Yup. Platoons of riflemen are very ineffective. That’s why the military still uses them... right? Study Vietnam and, you’ll learn warfare is not always about the biggest budget and best technology. Not to mention the massive deterrent an armed populous was, when Hitler was planning his dream of a ground invasion of America. History is not on your side...
3
What about a fully-semi-automatic weapon? Those sound super scary too! Oh... and what if it’s black? That makes it look extra scary. Pistol grips? I don’t know what those do, but if the military has it, then ban it too! However, if anyone dares require an ID to vote, you are violating the constitutional rights of citizens!
2
@cautiouslyhopeful ... So we should ban a certain gun because of its color and a pistol grip? And it looks like something in the military? While having a distinct mechanical difference from military grade rifles. This is why “gun people” laugh at you. Because you want cosmetic restrictions. Just a reminder, Columbine occurred during an so called assault weapons ban.
2
@West Park... No. You’re right. Let’s ban a weapon because it looks scary. Mean while these events can continue to happen because the weapon that doesn’t look scary and functions identically to the one prohibited, is still available.
2
@justmy2cents652 ... Guns have existed the entire time this country has been around. Mass shootings are a modern issue. If the existence of guns hasn’t changed, then what has changed? The people...
2
It’s Boulder... they don’t exist there. Arguably it’s the bluest part of an already blue state. However, feel free to point out any mass shootings that have occurred at gun shows or shooting ranges. However, the facts show these events occur regularly in “gun free zones”.
2
Are they the government? Because the bill of rights is written to what the government can and cannot do. But this was a cute attempt. Unfortunately, your ignorance is showing as a result.
1
@danforster6525 ... Why do you feel they are obligated to? Their objective is ensuring our second amendment right is not violated by the government. You are clearly having issues understanding the difference between a private organization and the government. Also, the only example of this even happening is when Trump was in attendance as President. It was requested (not required) by the secret service. And the private organization obliged their request.
1
@danforster6525 ... It’s important that the government doesn’t restrict this right. Not a private organization. That’s what the NRA’s main objective is. And once again, the only example of this is when a sitting president was in attendance. Are you reading what I’m typing? Because you keep ignoring these facts and repeating yourself.
1
@danforster6525 ... Let’s say a Trump supporter goes to a MAGA rally. That’s within their constitutional right granted by the first amendment. Correct? Now, the next day this Trump supporter gets fired from work for wearing his MAGA hat, as political attire is not allowed at work and his first amendment right does not extend to the private workplace. Do you think this is fair? I do think this is fair. So, we already separate government and private organizations, when it comes to our rights. This is how a King Soopers in Boulder, CO can put a sign on the door saying “no firearms allowed”.
1
And that’s called being a hypocrite...
1
It would be hypocrisy if the NRA was the government. Maybe one day you’ll understand that the bill of rights states what the government can or cannot do.
1
So one animal... killed another animal... in the wild... wow, what a compelling story... Did you know mean lions hunt down and kill poor helpless antelope? Soooo sad....
1
Don’t worry! Biden said today he’s not in a hurry to push any legislation. Only when the time is right.
1
Can you tell me a mechanical difference between a semi-automatic shot gun and what you’d call an “assault rifle” such as an Armalite-15?...
1
@cautiouslyhopeful ... Can you please quote me where I say we should do nothing? Because what I’m saying is we shouldn’t be focusing on the cosmetics. Stop pushing the narrative of AR-15s are the problem. When there is no functional difference between them and something that you would not consider an “assault rifle”. Current House legislation uses the phrase “military style weapon”. That’s ridiculous. That’s not any type of classification of weapon. It’s an ambiguous phrase that makes people feel good.
1
@cautiouslyhopeful ... Cool. So an active shooter just show up with multiple handguns to navigate the laws you’d like to see? And the law abiding citizen, wanting to carry to protect them self has only five shots? Ever shot a handgun at a target 10 yards away? You’ll want more than five shots... And what is a high rate of fire? What defines this ambiguous phrase? But I’m sure glad someone inexperienced with firearms wants to establish regulations that makes them feel ok...
1
@angiecarle3041 ... Ahh yes. When you can’t attack the argument, you attack the character of the person arguing. So I’m assuming you don’t have anything to refute my argument. You just want to throw out frivolous insults.
1
Did you want to quote the whole amendment, or selectively quote a part, out of context, that suits the narrative you want to push?
1
@quadcom ... A militia regulated by the government, by definition, is the military. A militia, by definition, is not regulated by the government but, instead self regulated and comprised of private citizens. “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state” establishes the answer to why we have this right. And in order to have a militia, we must have the right established with “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. This amendment, along with the other nine of the bill of rights, specifically speaks to what the government can and cannot do.
1
@robertnewland8702 ... I do recall two brothers that walked into a crowd in Boston with backpacks containing pressure cookers filled with metal objects...
1
I love how everyone wants to comment about a militia vs the government. Why not argue against the last point I made about WW2 in my comment? No one wants to touch that fact? Also, if anyone can tell me the mechanical difference between a semi-auto shotgun and, an armalite-15, that’d be great.
1
@sluttyMapleSyrup ... Hahahahaha. Did you just compare the militarization of Germany leading up to WW2, to a constitutional right that states the US Government cannot prevent it’s citizens from being armed? You understand people under the rule of the Third Reich, did not have a right to firearms? Every example in history of a totalitarian regime, begins with disarming of the populous. Did you take a history class? I’ll leave you with a quote from the tiny mustache man himself. "the most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms."
1
@sluttyMapleSyrup ... Yes, select people did have firearms. Which is why the 2A is “right of the people” not just a select few. There is a big difference. We may politically disagree but, I want you to have the same rights that I have. And see my initial comment about how Germany looked to invade the US during WW2. The major deterrent being an armed populous. It’s not always about tyranny from your own government.
1
@sluttyMapleSyrup ... Wow. You just rewrote history with that comment... To repeat myself once again, he did not have an armed society. Specific people within his society could carry arms. This is vastly different from a constitutional right that extends to everyone. I’m glad you want to pretend these are the same though...
1
@sluttyMapleSyrup ... True of False. All people under the rule of the Third Reich had access to firearms? True or false. The second amendment grants all people the right to bear arms. The answer to both of these is also available on Wikipedia, since that’s where you like to do your “research”
1
@puellamservumaddominum6180 ... You know who is guaranteed to have a zero percent success rate? People without any firearms.... I also love your idealized version of a country split into chaos, where military personnel don’t take sides as well. It’s happened before in our country’s history. It’s also happened in ever example of civil war that history has to offer.
1
@meganesenpai ... This is already the case. It is federal law that purchasing or possessing of a firearm is prohibited if you have been convicted of any crime and sentenced to more than one year in prison. With the exception being state misdemeanors. Many states, including Colorado, extend this prohibition to all felons.
1