Comments by "Mark Zuckergecko" (@markzuckergecko621) on "Compilation: Bad Takes On 4th Of July Mayhem" video.

@SunflowerGunpowder yes, it is. Just because you have the right to buy a gun doesn't mean a seller has to sell it to you. If some twitchy weirdo walks into your store trying to buy a gun, you have every right to say "nah bro, not happening, you're a little twitchy". We don't need government to step in and determine who's allowed to have a gun, we should all be allowed to have a gun.
18
@FantomKat libertarians don't want a complete absence of government either, if they did, they would be anarchists, not libertarians. Libertarians just want government limited to very basic necessities.
17
@coolioso808 no. If someone has already committed acts of violence and is not in prison, then the issue of them committing more violence is a failure of the judicial process, not the gun itself.
14
@ThisCommentWillBeRemoved that's why they're so angry. It's a jungle up inside their little control center. Every one of their positions is directly contradictory to one of their other positions, their brain is like the meme of Charlie from Always Sunny with the conspiracy flow chart.
14
Wait till you figure out he's also laughably misinformed on taxation and healthcare.
10
@Healcraft I used to be of that position too, but over the years I've become more of a 2A absolutist. To kind of elaborate on my other post, imagine some kid that grows up in a shitty situation and joins a gang as a teenager, he kills someone and goes to prison real young, spend a long time there, gets out in his 20s or something like that but has done his best to reform while in prison and really wants to get clean. But it's obviously not that easy, especially if he's got no other place to go except back home, around the same people he got in trouble with in the first place. Are you saying this guy can't have a gun? Because I think that guy has more reason to have a gun than the vast majority of other people. And the alternative is that he either just has a gun anyway, because going back to prison for having an illegal gun is better than getting killed, right? Or he can just get back in with his old crew. Nah man. I don't like that. Guns are the great equalizer, and as I said before, if this guy is still a violent threat, and he was let out of prison, then that's not the fault of gun laws, it's the fault of whoever decided he was good to let out of prison. And whether the gun laws exist or not, he's getting a gun.
10
@clintholmes2061 you can have a tank. And yes, they would be infringing on your rights if they said you couldn't. And circling back to the "assault rifle" comment, tell me what exactly you think that means? Give me an example of a rifle that's not an "assault rifle", and what the difference is?
10
@clintholmes2061 "seemingly intended for hunting humans", WTF does that mean? You can "hunt" humans with any gun. "Seemingly" according to who? You? What determines what a gun "seems" like it's meant to do? Being serious here. Give me specifics. Name a specific type of rifle that you consider to be an "assault rifle", and another specific type of rifle you consider to be a "non-assault rifle".
10
"Hold on, Mr. Robber! I'm reloading my musket! I trust you'll adhere to 1800s battle etiquette and allow me the proper time!"
9
@clintholmes2061 be more specific. What is the exact and specific difference between a rifle that's "good for hunting deer" and one that's "good for hunting humans". And give an example, like I've asked twice now. Tell me the exact type of rifle that would be an example of each of these.
6
@dibdab7990 because the risk of penalty is a major deterrent, probably the single most effective deterrent. If it was legal, every angry ex girlfriend in history would have killed her ex boyfriend. And a lot of them have thought about it, and then immediately thought "nah, prison would kinda suck".
6
@clintholmes2061 of course they do, I'm asking YOU to give me a clearly defined difference, since you're the one making the claim about "assault rifles". I want to see if you actually know what you're talking about, or if you're just repeating the propaganda you've been fed. So far, you've dug yourself a pretty deep hole. And it's realllllly funny watching you desperately try to dig out of it.
5
@clintholmes2061 wtf are you talking about? The best weapon to defend yourself from a would be attacker is a weapon of equal or greater power. Are you trying to tell me that if someone breaks into your house, or a public place with a semi automatic rifle, then people should only be able to defend themselves with handguns? What kind of sense does that make? There's no difference in "defense" and "offense" in terms of the type of gun, the difference is the intended usage. ANY gun can be used for either. You're quite literally advocating to legislate intent, before the fact. That's completely insane. We can't know with 100% certainty whether or not someone will commit a crime before they do, so people have the right to be prepared for when that does happen. With anything available. There is no wiggle room for this. Your positions are very clearly poorly thought out, the fact that you admittedly know nothing about guns themselves should be your sign that you don't know anything about this subject as a whole.
5
Exactly, I understand why you might think it's a good idea on the surface, if someone commits a crime with a gun, we want to be able to find out who it was if they're not caught in the act. But in practicality, that would inevitably abused by the state to prevent certain people from having guns in the first place, and it's not even necessary for enforcing laws, nor would it be efficient. All you're able to find is who purchased the gun, not who used it.
4
@FantomKat yes, they don't want to pay taxes, or receive taxes. It goes both ways. Libertarians think people should be able to take care of themselves and the people they care about without the government playing middle man.
4
Maybe we should be asking why the US consumes 75% of the world's pharmacuedicals in the first place, despite making up just over 4% of the world's population.
4
@whatsgoodmyguy4391 nah fuck that. Nobody should go to jail or prison just for having a gun. That's absolute nonsense. Having an object shouldn't be a crime, I don't care what that object is. What you do with the object is what may or may not be a crime.
4
@Niever by a tremendous margin, gun deaths are actually relatively low when compared to other causes of death, and even lower when you eliminate self inflicted gun deaths. And those can definitely be eliminated if we're trying to look at the problem of gun violence, since someone who's going to do that would have just found another way if it wasn't a gun.
3
@skippy9273 lmao, that was in the deleted scenes from the Matrix - "woah! He's got an assault rifle! I can't dodge those bullets! Woah!"🤣🤣🤣
3
@clintholmes2061 but homicide and killing are not the same thing, that's why self defense exists in legal terms. And someone who's willing to kill someone (illegally) doesn't care whether it's legal to have a gun in the first place. So people have the right to defend themselves from potential murderers, using the same or greater force.
3
@Face2theScr33n he probably has armed security. I know Jimmy isn't Elon rich or anything like that, but he's wealthy. I'm not talking about secret service or any of that shit. But I wouldn't be surprised at all if Jimmy has security most places he goes.
3
It's about whatever the hell you want it for, you don't need a reason. You just can't use a gun to kill people just because you feel like it, because that's already illegal to do using any tool.
3
@kalkal6125 more roof top Koreans = no far left = better society for all regular people.
3
@JohnSpartan-117 depends. The US prison system is just all sorts of fucked up. There are ways that we should be more harsh, there are people who walk after a couple of years for horrific crimes. And there are also people who get institutionalized over things they should have never been locked up for in the first place. We need to revisit the entire system. And I'm not one of those "tear the system down" progressive types, no, we keep the existing system for now, but slowly implement a better system.
2
@clintholmes2061 no they're not. That's a make believe term that stupid people who don't know anything about guns use.
2
@wtice4632 doesn't matter what percentage of people are "moral", which by the way is a subjective and essentially junk term, when used in the broad sense like that, what matters is that penalties are put in place for when people act immorally, because all people have done immoral things, no matter how subjectively moral or immoral you think they are. And guns aren't an action, they're an object. You don't ban an object because of the action people can take with it. You can kill someone with a hammer too, but we don't ban hammers, because it's already illegal to kill someone with a hammer. It's not illegal to use it to hammer a nail.
2
@BrockOBauma he was dressed like a lady, he's the most stereotypical insane leftist antifa type I've ever seen.
2
@whatsgoodmyguy4391 well yea, you arrest them if they commit a crime. Not just because they have a gun.
2
@myresponsesarelimited7895 I don't. That's exactly what I'm saying, it shouldn't be illegal to have a gun. It's illegal to make laws saying it's illegal to have a gun.
2
@danbauer3669 nobody is saying a gun is the same as a knife, what they're saying is that the ownership or possession of the object itself shouldn't be a crime, because using it as a weapon is already a crime. No matter what that weapon is, even your bare hands.
1
@danbauer3669 of course a gun is a deadly weapon, I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that. I think the problem here is that you just don't listen, because you have this entire linear argument worked out in your head, and it doesn't work if anyone else interjects.
1
@danbauer3669 if you're acknowledging that you're not listening (accidentally), then how in the hell would you know if I'm listening? You're admittedly (accidentally) only listening to your side of the argument.
1
100% of the people who advocate against guns know nothing about guns, or gun laws.
1
@loneneko yea that's the stupid part. "Better government" by giving the government more power isn't going to work, that's the problem in the first place. It's not like the people in power now said "vote for me and I'll make everything worse!" They're politicians. They lie. Look how many progressive candidates and representatives the progressive base has turned on, just in the last few years. That's how pretty much all of them are. The solution is to cut off their legs, LESS government.
1
@FantomKat you sound like the smug first year college nephew, who just got into politics and thinks he knows something, and as soon as he's put in his place by one family member just moves on to ranting to whoever else will listen, as though they didn't just hear him show his ass for the idiot he is.
1
@Invictus your brain is a potato.
1
@skutch Blobaum got any data on that, chief?
1
@JohnSpartan-117 riveting rebuttal. Please tell me more.
1
@questworldmatrix yea sure, let's just tell all that kids old homeboys they can't have guns. I'm sure they'll politely comply.
1
@clintholmes2061 lmao "not an expert" is a massive understatement, you don't even qualify as a laymen. You would fall into the category of "knows nothing" on the topic of firearms and firearm laws. You clearly have no idea what differentiates one gun from another, as you've danced around it this entire thread. And we all know you would love nothing more than to get some kind of gotcha, but you can't do that, because you don't know. As evidenced by your ignorant comment about handguns just now, you do understand that reloading is a thing that exists, right? And you do understand that the overwhelming majority of gun homicides in the US are committed with handguns, right? Think about this critically for just one second. Is it easier to conceal a rifle, or a handgun? And don't you think concealing a weapon is pretty essential if you intend to act violently with it?
1
@chitownladyj rifles have existed since the first time people had the idea to fire multiple rounds at once, this is very ancient, people killed the shit out of people since far before that, thats kind of our thing. We didn't get the idea to just run in rough shot and kill random people en masse for no reason other than "angry" until about 30 years ago. We need to examine what happened 30 years ago and why people are so angry. Because guns didn't change, and gun laws only changed in the opposite direction, more restricted, but people changed.
1
@JamesP29 not only do they not get it, they don't want to get it. You show them statistics, you use common sense arguments, you show them results from countries with high crime and strict gun control, they don't care. They just want to feel self righteous, and they don't care who gets harmed because of it.
1
Exactly, it's already against the law to shoot people, anyone who doesn't care about that sure as hell isn't going to care if it's illegal to have the gun in the first place.
1
@shimmzalmighty6641 75% of all the world's pharmacuedicals are consumed by Americans. Really think about that number. That's staggering. By comparison, the US makes up 4.25% of the world's population.
1
@8.8mmAlaskan no, he's saying "the government sucks, so they should be the only people allowed to have guns" is Jimmy's brain dead take.
1
@myresponsesarelimited7895 "shall not be infringed". And yet here we are, with very infringed gun rights. Everyone who enforces those unconstitutional laws is in violation of the constitution.
1