Comments by "Night Raven" (@GiRR007) on "Radical Living" channel.

What are they gonna do about it Try and wack you with their sticks XD
25
@mikepierce5621 and you apparently don't know how a gun works
5
@daniby9894 ok but... Most of the "massacres" are caused by hand guns...
2
@kenny6920 Maybe you are the one that doesn't under stand that ANY kind of limitations on the 2nd amendment hurts the law abiding. Criminals don't obtain their weapons legally incase you you didn't know. So punishing those who do. Wont stop a single fucking thing.
2
@kenny6920 If they sell it then yes you should . I don't imagine it would be something your average thug would be able to get his hands on. You can already buy and own a rocket launcher . They are for use against the military.
2
@kenny6920 There is actually very little to suggest harsher gun laws reduce gun crime. Its not even correlated since again, the US doesn't have the highest gun crime despite having the most guns. Just look at Australia, their crime rate actually went up after they confiscated guns. I want people to be able to protect themselves in what ever way they see fit. The state is not what gives people that right. Nor should it ever be. You are the one that believes the opposite. It is only people like you who are under the impression of might makes right and to always obey someone just because they have authority. More lives are saved with guns in the US than taken. If you are completely incapable of surviving on your own that's fine but that doesn't mean everyone elsea is. And it doesn't mean the state can just subjugate the entire country just by shutting off some utilities if that's what you are suggesting, if anything that would make it worse for the state. People need very little to actually survive, most of what we have currently are just luxeries. An individual doesn't need to provide for everyone, just themselves. The united states isn't a collective and was never intended to be, it was seperated into 50 states for a reason. There are more ways to get necessities than just from the state. All you are saying is that you'd rather live in an authoritarian state that takes peoples freedoms and rights just so YOU can have your own sense of safety and security under the guise of being compasionate. Your own comfort over others freedom. Truly exemplifying your sentiment of being unconfident in providing for yourself. To be fair your logic is at least sound if not selfish and evil. But "those willing to sacrifice essential Liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither and will lose both." You might recognize that as being the words of one of our countries founders.
2
@kenny6920 A person being able to protect themselves isn't a comfort its a right, not only under the constitution but just as a natural right all humans have. Comfort however is not a right. No one has the RIGHT to be comfortable. And even if the right to use a gun was a simple comfort and not a right, at the very least that "comfort" doesn't infringe on YOUR rights. In america liberty ;above all else; is the most important value of the country. Freedoms aren't granted they are inherent within each person, the law does not grant freedoms. And sure there are some limits to freedoms, but guess what, we already have a way of judging when to limit a persons freedoms. Its precisely when their own freedoms interfere with ANOTHER persons freedoms.
2
@januarysson5633 well yes but you are always going to have to be paying for the public service whether you are using it or not.
1
@januarysson5633 My point is since the public service is always taking money from you that will logically reduce the amount of care you can receive from the private insurance just on the fact that you now have less money than you other wise would have.
1
@kenny6920 united states isn't even in the top 1 countries for mass shootings though . despite having the most guns.
1
@kushal4956 literally half of the country is Republican though... A majority if the country even if toy are looking at it state by state.
1
@kenny6920 Well when your law hurts law abiding citizens and empowers criminals... Yeah its best not to have a law like that.
1
@xythiera7255 No. Democrats are the extreme left, pushing things like socialism and communism in some cases. Taking everything from the rich. Giving more power to the government take away peoples rights. Yeah we have leftist even in america unfortuntly.
1
@kenny6920 The right to not be fearful doesn't exist. No one is forcing you to be fearful or not, that is entirely up to you. Its life liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness, not the GURRENTEE of happiness. You can free try to obtain your own source of happiness but the happiness itself isn't entitled you It's something you have you get yourself. Laws cant control peoples minds and force them to be happy and fearless.. Why would you even want that in the first place ? Why would you want the government of all things to be responsible for YOUR happiness? Don't you want the right to choose and obtain that for yourself ? Why do you have so much faith that the government has YOUR best interest in mind? What have they done to earn such trust from you I simply MUST know. Do you just trust anyone who has authority?
1
@kenny6920 More so than me having faith in some random "good guy with a gun" I have faith in MYSELF. I have faith that I will always have MY best interest in heart more so than anyone else. I also have faith that any other person would also want to protect their own life instead of it being in the hands of some criminal or government. So with that, I want to be able to protect myself in anyway I see fit. Not just from criminals but from my own government if need be. I don't have to trust everyone with a gun because I know at the very least I trust myself. Not that I believe that the "social structure" always has my best interest at heart ;as it often hasn't for many people according to history; but since you brought it up, why would guns interfere with the social structure more so than anything else? Surly if the social structure was as stable as you seem believe then if anything guns would increase its security as they give people more control over their own lives instead of having it all rest at the head of a single entity that could potentially yield to any number of weaknesses, thus making the entire structure more safe no? This also aids in mitigating the amount of harm that be caused by said entity just incase something did go wrong. You see I too believe in laws, in as far as they they are generally necessary for society. Not always in their morality and intent but never the less, I also recognize that laws are not absolute. They have no actual power besides the power we all collectively decide to give them. Thus not everyone can/will/ or even should follow laws, and when you base society around the expectation that everyone will follow the law or even that all laws will be objectively moral and worth following you are putting not only your own life at risk but the lives of everyone in said society. As I said previously we already have limits to freedom in that one persons freedoms end when another persons begins, we don't need more. And yes weapons are entitled to U.S. citizens based on the 2nd amendment of the United States Constitution. Me owning a gun in no way makes my life miserable, quite the opposite in fact it makes me feel safer. So if for some reason me making myself feel safer makes some else feel unsafe that can only mean that said person had intent to do me harm, so they should feel miserable. Obviously people shouldn't just break the law, I never said they should. But people WILL break the law, people DO break the law, and in the cases where they do I want to be in the position to protect myself in the best way I can, as everyone has the right to just in case. Because there will always be bad people in this world, they will use anything from a gun to a knife to a bomb. So in the event ;however unlikely it may be; that I am confronted with a situation that puts my life in danger from people operating outside of the law I want as great of a chance at me protecting myself as possible. IE a fire arm. sorry about such long essays
1
@kenny6920 My freedoms in no way conflict with reality. I would imagine the creators of the greatest country in the world would know what they are talking about in regards to what the country should be founded upon. It's fine if you don't trust someone with a gun, but it isn't your right to take someone's gun away because you don't trust them. We already screen first responders, but in regards to non lethal options being given to cops that would not reduce deaths. When a cop is given a taser for example they are more likely to use it on a person compared to a gun leading to more deaths over all compared to if they didn't have a taser. This is why cops now need to have a certain amount of training and experience before even being issued a taser. There are plenty more ways to kill people besides a gun, remember George Floyd? It is literally stated in the second amendment "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" This isn't a matter of interpretation , its very outwardly expressed by the founding fathers that they wanted to arm the populace of the country. If they didn't then why would they even add it. The entire country of America start as a bunch of rebels seceding from an oppressive government, its literally what the country was built on. I never said my goal was to strictly curb gun violence even though it would be desired, and I never said the more guns you have the less gun crime you have. I have attempted however to explain that reducing the amount of guns a countries populace has does not reduce the amount of crime that occurs as I mention with the Australia example. Hell it doesn't even reduce the amount of GUN crime a country has. The U.S. has more guns than any other country but MUCH less gun crime compared to them. Reducing guns wouldn't even slow down gun deaths because as I said, criminals don't obtain their guns legally, so making it harder for legal gun owners to get guns wont reduce the amount of guns criminals have. And like I said before, more crimes are PREVENTED using guns than are committed using guns. A country having more guns does not make it easier for more gun deaths to occur, those 2 variables are simply not correlated. If you want to make people safer that's more of a problem with mental health than it is guns. Not allowing someone to have a gun who hasn't even committed a crime just because they aren't up to some arbitrary standard of mental aptitude is an awful idea. Take the elderly for example? A lot of elderly people are not as mentally capable as most of the general population. Are you seriously going to take away their only means to defend themselves because they're old? Like I said, obviously the amendments have limits, and I described to you exactly where said limits lie. The limit is precisely where you begin to infringe on another persons rights. You can say whatever you want to me all I have to do is walk away, however if you start following me around that's stalking which a crime. Just like I can't point my gun at you wildly or threaten you with it. That's called brandishing and it is also illegal. That is the equivalent of your example of the 1st amendments limitations, basically not pointing the gun at people. A more apt equivalent of taking away an innocent persons right to defend themselves would be if you made it illegal to say certain words. As I sure hope you can imagine that would be horrible. The United states military is realistically incapable of stealing this country from it's citizens. The US military couldn't even take Afghanistan from a bunch of mountain bandits after 2 DECADES. They couldn't even take Vietnam. And we have a much larger population and more weapons than both those country's combined. Not to mention that OUR military is currently based out OUR country. We own this country not the government. If we wanted to take this country from the military it would be an inevitability. Apart from commiting actual genocide against the country's populace the United States military has absolutely no chance at defeating the population of the USA. How would it serve the people to give the state MORE power? If anything we should actively be trying to take power AWAY from the government, they already have too much. Governments don't exactly have the greatest track record. Hell it wouldn't be the first time in history a countries government betrayed its own people. No one is breaking any laws by simply preparing for the unlikely event that the united states government does for some reason turn on the people its meant to serve. Preparing for a fight isn't the same as taking action. It is literally just standing by and it would be rather foolish for people to not at least prepare for such a scenario given that it as it has happened so many times in the past already.
1
@jessicaely2521 Ahh yes were so wrong about not wanting to give the government more power. You would think germany would have learned its lesson about that by now...
1
@S.H.N.80s Wow your hilariously wrong
1
@corvuscorone7735 maybe
1
@niunia19991 Country's differ, in america its obviously much better for the individual to be able to protect themselves when they deem it nessecary, instead of waiting several minutes for someone else to come and save them. And alot of the countries that "eliminate" guns still have gun crime and mass shootings, which is often more lethal in those countrys compared to the US.
1