Comments by "Harry Stoddard" (@HarryS77) on "Democrats Blame Bernie For School Shooting" video.

  1. It'd be like proposing that Lockheed Martin be held liable every time its bombs are dropped on civilians. Try floating that by the Democratic establishment and count the nanoseconds it takes for them to dismiss you as a crank.
    6
  2. gsts You're an idiot. If you want an analogy it'd be like wearing brass knuckles to a fight against someone with a bazooka. That's the level of disparity between some wannabe paramilitary types with AR-15s and the strongest, most expensive, most technologically advanced military in history. Curious how conservatives love to ratchet up the cost and might of the military and then make noise about how they need muh gunz to fight a tyrannical gubment. Why should one expect a consistent worldview, I guess.
    6
  3. "Blame Bernie" is the new "Thanks Obama."
    5
  4. gsts "A person's personal self-defense..." We're not arguing self-defense. We're arguing efficacy. Civilian gun ownership is not an efficacious resolution to a hypothetically tyrannical government. "You are comparing a gun to a pair of brass knuckles?" No, you did. I was just showing how comparing guns v. US military is not comparable to your example, brass knuckles v. baseball bat. The guy with knuckles has at least a chance against the bat; a bunch of wannabe militiamen drinking beer in the woods on their weekends in order to give some substance to their sad lives have no chance against the US military. There are much better, more efficacious, and peaceful ways to prevent tyranny. Overfunding the US military is not one of those, nor is some religious devotion to guns. "Because your local police would fight against tyranny if they had to." That part and the conspiracy bit about Obama had me in stitches. You're a cook.
    3
  5. Police etc. have weapons because they have authority, which grants them exceptional status from certain laws. Police can run red lights, but you can't. Police can confiscate property; you can't. Police can imprison people; you can't. Citing police as lawful owners of guns is a poor argument because police by their nature are excepted from many laws and behaviors that ordinary citizens are expected to follow. The fact that owning a weapon is not a crime is a fact about the law, a fact that could be otherwise. If owning a gun was made to be a crime, then owning a gun would be a crime. You're confusing criminality with morality, only the latter of which is debatable.  The notion that focusing on guns will produce no results is objectively untrue, as demonstrated by all the countries that have significantly reduced mass shootings and killings following the enacting of strict gun control laws. The United States is far and away an outlier with respect to the rest of the developed world. Gun control will not solve the underlying causes of violence in America, but it will make it much harder for mass murderers to kill 10, 15, 20, 50 people in a matter of minutes. It will provide people with greater safety while we address those underlying causes, which are likely very complex and deeply ingrained in our culture. It is obviously NOT a matter of individuals: this is a systemic problem that could take decades or generations to resolve; and in the meantime, how many more children, how many more people have to die so that you can enjoy the recreation of pulling a trigger? To me, the placement of my enjoyment over another person's life is the definition of immorality. As a gun owner you should be glad to forfeit your weapons if it means that society as a whole could be safer. You're arguing against a straw man since very few people want a total ban on all firearms. Instead, what is being urged is a restriction on the types of firearms and paraphernalia that can be owned and who can own them. Moreover, a majority of Americans support gun control legislation, including universal background checks, closing gun show loopholes, banning high capacity magazines and AR-15 type weapons. This is not a controversial issue.
    3
  6. Jesse Simmons "Modern sporting rifle" is a euphemism. It's civilianized military weapon. No accident that those are the types of weapons that are used in mass shootings—that's what they're made for. If you want to recreationally shoot a hunting rifle or something, not many people are going to bother you about that.
    2