Comments by "Digital Nomad" (@digitalnomad9985) on "Gun Rights Are Women's Rights | 5 Minute Video" video.

  1. 3
  2. 3
  3. 3
  4. 3
  5. 2
  6. 2
  7. 2
  8. 2
  9. 2
  10. 2
  11. 2
  12. 1
  13. 1
  14. +The_Blazer "Gun laws do not impact criminals directly but that isn't the same as not impacting them at all. Every "illegal" gun started out as a legal gun built in a factory somewhere that eventually went lost or stolen somewhere, if you make it harder for the losing/stealing part to happen you reduce the supply of illegal guns" Not every illegal gun was originally manufactured for legitimate CIVILIAN use. In the US, most gun murders are "drive by" shootings where the instrument is a "machine pistol", a semi-concealable fully automatic weapon firing pistol caliber ammo. NONE of these were lost or stolen from a legitimate civilian private owner or dealer catering to same. The driver of violent crime is the ratio of risk between the good guys and the bad guys. In the UK, the most common form of theft from private homes is a small team of men breaking in to a home WHEN THEY KNOW THE OWNERS ARE HOME and awake and stealing their stuff and personal effects, getting the haul of a burglar and a mugger at the same time and not having to stay up late or fumble around in the dark. As the UK tallies crime, this does not count as a "violent crime", unless someone actually gets physically injured, even though the threat of force is central to the modus operandi. This does not happen in the US, for good and sufficient reason. Disarming all citizens in hopes of reducing the armament of criminals isn't just oppressive, it is bad policy with respect to every practical consideration. What you HOPE TO gain is not worth what you WILL lose. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin And in the end will loose both. - Digital Nomad
    1
  15. 1
  16. 1
  17. 1
  18. 1
  19. 1
  20. 1
  21. 1
  22. 1
  23. 1
  24. 1
  25. 1
  26. 1
  27. 1
  28. 1
  29. 1
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32. 1
  33. 1
  34. 1
  35. 1
  36. 1
  37. 1
  38. 1
  39. 1
  40. 1
  41. 1
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49. "Digital Nomad by your logic, feminists for the death penalty aren't for women's rights." Since I don't understand what you're getting at, it must not be my logic. Do you mean that feminists must against the death penalty to be for women's rights because some of the people being executed would be women? From my point of view (a constitutional view) felons do not have a constitutional (or moral) right not to be executed. A feminist might hold that they do. He might even hold that only women do. He couldn't get that idea from any principle I have promulgated, by any convolution of logic. " lets not make the case that women are deprived of rights" You can only hold that women aren't being deprived of rights if you hold that citizens have no right to keep and bear arms or defend themselves. Women aren't EXCLUSIVELY being deprived of rights, but it can be said that the deprivation of this particular right DOES harm women more than men. If this doesn't fit the narrative of an anti-feminist dogma, that's too bad. I am not a feminist, and not a MGTOW, I am a gentleman. To feminists, I am a NAZI and to MGTOW I am a naive dupe. A pox on both houses. Chivalry is mental hygiene. But regardless of my views, I will not deny a truth even if the denial would impart political advantage, and in this case, it does not. Women don't have different constitutional rights than men. They do have different abilities and weaknesses than men. When feminists deny this, they harm women. When YOU deny this, you empower feminism.
    1
  50. 1
  51. 1
  52. 1
  53. 1