Comments by "Ronin Dave" (@RoninDave) on "Proposed Law To Allow Concealed Firearms During Riots" video.

  1. What the NRA (ie the gun manufacturers) want is to create a completely armed society where even anti-gun people will feel they have little choice but to have a gun. There'll be guns for everyone and every occasion. There'll be the smart little number for formal occasions with your name emblazoned on the handle. There'll be the fashionable one for parties. A simple functional one for business meetings. A heavy duty sawed off shotgun for walks in the park with the family. Pink ones for girls and blue for boys. A white gun will go great at a wedding, guns for school kids will come with erasers.... Basically everyone will become paranoid of everyone and whoever shoots first will be the one to tell the story (provided the other person is dead).  We'll have a Wild West society that not even the Wild West tolerated.
    43
  2. They want to give people the right to carry guns into a riot situation nothing about defending their homes/offices. This is so if the poor riot and protest which will be minorities a lot of "standing your ground" will be going on. On the other side, this gives police more authority to break down any protest no matter how peaceful if there's an agitator in the protestors' midst who just happens to gets trigger happy 
    25
  3. do republicans ever say anything positive that doesn't involve bringing up benghazi, cutting food stamps to the poor, lying about Obamacare, etc...? They have criticized Democrats but let's face it Republicans and Fox News are constantly shit-stirring 
    4
  4. Malcolm Alden you missed his point completely or you just didn't read it. He said nothing about people going in rage-fueled shoot outs because of Hollywood. It's the arguments gun nuts use which they believe the shit they see in Hollywood movies whether it be roving packs of homicidal street gangs or that they could  pull their gun out and easily take out a bad guy like in Die Hard.
    4
  5. Malcolm Alden are you seriously this dense? Ever hear of product placement? Any clothing, drinks, vehicle, phone, gun, etc... is a product placement thus an advertisement. Action films have constantly glorified guns while creating the image of crooks who are just bad people and evil government forces. The point is people believe the atmosphere created by these movies and one of the main messages is that you need a gun to handle it.
    4
  6. taxiuniversum right on the money. If you argue enough with these gun nuts you keep getting the same Hollywood scenarios of either homicidal maniacs who sound like 80s action movie street punks or a tyrannical government with black clad storm troopers who round up law-binding citizens because they're evil and why not?
    3
  7. Malcolm Alden again you are an idiot. No one is blaming Hollywood for doing this intentionally but we are pointing out the influence Hollywood has on this gun nut mentality. And no, no one I know thinks they can take on a whole hostage situation. What they believe is that they can shoot a moving shooting target in a dark movie theater like John McCain would do. Stop being so obtuse 
    3
  8. hyuugaamida fear-mongering? That's rich coming from the likes of you. The arguments for this kind of legislation as with most gun arguments is based in fear-mongering - fear of homicidal home invaders, fear of a tyrannical government who's going to throw you into FEMA Death Camps, fear of riots of minorities. 
    3
  9. why? No one died. Had he had a gun it would have been far far worse
    2
  10. Malcolm Alden what you are asking for has nothing to do with this.
    2
  11. Malcolm Alden you're still missing the point by a mile. Neither he nor I are saying action movies are causing people to go on shooting sprees. FFS can you not read? It is the atmosphere of fear and empowerment of guns that fuels pro-gun arguments. These arguments are grounded in fantasies of roving gangs, stormtroopers, and the belief one guy with a gun can fight them all off ala Die Hard.  You are arguing something completely different.
    2
  12. Malcolm Alden do you have anything resembling a point other than to belabor semantics? What medication are you currently on or not on that you should be taking? 
    2
  13. UltraSWG he was not stopped by men with guns. You are either lying or horribly mistaken. Your choice. He was tackled by two school officials
    1
  14. UltraSWG you're a liar. "Assistant Principal Sam King is being credited with bringing to an end the 5-minute rampage that authorities say began about 7:15 a.m. ET. King tackled the teen, Peck told reporters. A school resource officer was able to handcuff the suspect, Police Chief Thomas Seefeld said." http://edition.cnn.com/2014/04/09/justice/pennsylvania-school-stabbing/index.html Piss off with your little gun fantasy
    1
  15. UltraSWG proof? 
    1
  16. brotherm4n no it's not so ratchet down the faux outrage
    1
  17. UltraSWG still waiting on proof about the debunking of the story that the knife-wielding student wasn't taken down by unarmed individuals
    1
  18. ICEN no one wants to ban guns. TYT has said so tons of times but you guntards just won't listen. There's point in addressing your strawman arguments.
    1
  19. UltraSWG no the assistant principle tacked the kid first then the officer handcuffed and not once used his gun. You're a liar.
    1
  20. ICEN no you are just exaggerating what you want to believe.  "i have 5 rounds when I am being attacked by 2 people thanks so much!!!" Do you live in a movie-fantasy land where this is a likely occurrence? And you have 5 rounds to 2 people. Learn to aim better
    1
  21. ICEN you are not the military. The chances of you being in a firefight in your home with 2 or more people is that of getting struck by lightening. Stop with these childish action movie-induced fantasies! This is why gun control people cannot take people like you seriously. Your arguments are often about the most unlikely and frankly silly scenarios. You don't live in a Die Hard film, hate to break it to you buddy!
    1
  22. UltraSWG don't you have some more lies to make up?
    1
  23. UltraSWG but it had nothing to do with stopping the kid so you can stop spinning that lie. Guns had nothing to do with the story. Period.
    1
  24. ICEN well you certainly aren't winning this argument by changing topics. and no you aren't winning - we are all losing as more and more irrational people will be carrying guns who live in paranoid fear of hordes of murdering criminals and evil governments
    1
  25. UltraSWG actually gun ownership per household has been on a decline for 4 decades http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rate-of-gun-ownership-is-down-survey-shows.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 What has changed is that gun owners own more guns than previous gun owners did.
    1
  26. ICEN I'm laughing at the way you construct your "arguments." You certainly don't come off as a rational reasonable gun owner. And I said you aren't winning but losing in the general sense because we are creating a society that even the Wild West was against where people will walk around carrying guns 24/7 and with pharmaceutical consumption at all time high this does not bode well.
    1
  27. ICEN they don't say that. They say people like you are obsessed about guns and you prove them right
    1
  28. UltraSWG take it up with the New York times. And shame on you for lying about how a gun was involved in the knifing incident. That was just a boldface lie.
    1
  29. ICEN "After stupidity spitting from mouths I have to resort to calling people like you faggots " A faggot is either a burning piece of wood or a homophobic slur against someone who is homosexual or someone you perceive as such. I don't know how either relates to a disagreement over guns so I suggest again you are a mentally unstable gun owner who is nigh on illiterate. 
    1
  30. ***** and not that makes very little sense. Keep your little 4chanism out - we have enough guntardy to deal with here without that BS
    1
  31. Baulbustor who says I trust cops? That's called an assumption.
    1
  32. IamSpacedad typical conservative tactic - pretend that their actually minority views are what the American people believe in. the problem is as you pointed out is the gun manufacturers are able to pump a lot of money into the debate
    1
  33. Chazim76 Didn't say there was no such thing but the likelihood is far less than the fear-mongering would have you believe. So yes this fear of an unlikely type of intruder is irrational as is the idea that government is going to rise up and throw us in to death camps. Has that happened in modern day UK, Australia, Japan?
    1
  34. hyuugaamida well "you" have mad the death camp argument - you as in many pro-gunners and Alex Jones types. The tyrannical government argument in general is not far from this more extreme lunacy. You have to ask yourself why 50+ years ago when more households owned guns did people not express these concerns. It's only been in the last 20 years or so especially with the rise of rightwing radio that these ideas were pushed to the forefront of the gun debate. Having a gun in your home for defense is one thing but defending that right with a ludicrous argument of homicidal home invaders and tyrannical governments borders on mentality instability.
    1
  35. Evirthewarrior both are ridiculous. When more households owned guns 50+ years ago the idea walking around openly armed or concealed was not a major concern. It wasn't until household gun ownership started to decline that suddenly there was a need for guns both concealed and in the open coupled with bogus gun ban fears. The fear of outright ban on guns didn't start until the 80s and here we are 30 years later and yet still not dreaded total gun ban - but it's coming, the gun people say as they buy more guns.
    1
  36. Evirthewarrior they've been lying over 4 decades?  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rate-of-gun-ownership-is-down-survey-shows.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 I just don't see this heavy regulation. What I see is selfishness, paranoia, and bad arguments coming from the militant gun crowd
    1
  37. hyuugaamida "Back then the carrying openly of various defensive weapons was both culturally accepted and legal." Tell that to Dodge City and dozens of other western towns which made people check their guns when they entered the town. In 1789, guns were a one-shot affair and meanwhile much of the country was frontier where people needed guns both for protection and hunting for food. "Right...can someone please explain to me how this statement doesn't border on mental instability? You acknowledged guns are for defense, so you're explicitly acknowledging that there are threats to defend against." Quite easy. Saying you want a gun in case you need one is reasonable. Saying you need on because you are convinced homicidal maniacs will burst down your door at any moment (and I have seen/heard this many times) is not reasonable. You may wish to call it a strawman but this belief that you need a gun to prevent such a thing from happening is very strong. Hell, I was just arguing here with someone who asked me what should he do with 5 rounds when attacked by 2 people. That's irrational thinking. You know who also had guns because of an irrational belief they would need them when society collapsed? Adam Lanza's mom.
    1
  38. Evirthewarrior so they wanted to ban saturday night specials and assault weapons? Don't care myself. The former is likely to take your hand off and the latter isn't needed for hunting unless it's school children. Neither are needed for defense or hunting.
    1
  39. hyuugaamida to be honest none of that bothers me because you don't need a lot of that shit to hunt or even defend yourself. Criminals aren't militarized individuals. They're cowards who go for weak targets often unoccupied homes. Oh, wait but we need a 50-round clip magazine when we overthrow our dictatorship government and install a theocracy of white men! Silly me I forgot that part.
    1
  40. Chazim76 no, private ownership of guns was banned in accordance with the Treaty of Versailles. The Nazis lifted the earlier restrictions except for those they deemed undesirable so no they didn't confiscate guns because by the time they took power private gunownership was a thing of the past. Sorry did all the Europeans get together and rewrite history to foil American gun enthusiasts?
    1
  41. Evirthewarrior you know what would be better than forming these useless militia who have been doing nothing but playing war games for 20 years? Actually getting involved in the political process, supporting and voting for politicians who won't accept corporate bribes. Your idea is to do nothing but wait around with your guns until it's basically too late.
    1
  42. Chazim76 did the NRA pamphlet have the fire extinguisher argument? I've seen that ridiculous analogy more times than I can count. As to your woman scenario - mace. Car keys to the eyes. If a criminal has a gun on her from a distance, her gun is not going to do much good at that point anyway.
    1
  43. hyuugaamida "You'd have us believe it wasn't legal in cities like New York or Boston to carry a swordstick or a revolver in public. " Nice strawman. Needs a brain though
    1
  44. Chazim76 no you're not. You're running around in the woods waiting for the day to overthrow the government and/or resist the stormtroopers of fairyland. Fighting for your rights is what the unions did, the suffragettes did, what the civil rights activists did, what gay rights activists did, and what other activists do to this day and they don't run around in the woods shooting guns.
    1
  45. Chazim76 alright, house keys.  "It will do more than mace she can pull her gun and shoot back." You're an idiot. If someone has a gun trained on you are you seriously going to reach for yours? As soon as you make a sudden motion - bang! You're shot. Maybe you'll get lucky and not be hit or hit fatally but they have the advantage. Life isn't a Die Hard movie where bad guys let the good guys draw their guns
    1
  46. hyuugaamida "If one day it does come to violence, while an AR-15 won't make much of a difference against Predator drones and satellite surveillance it's sure as hell better than having nothing but a rock in your hand." WOLVERINES!!!!!
    1
  47. Evirthewarrior but you've already given up by not trying to work on the system as it is. Overthrowing the government is not going to make things better. You will still have super wealthy people and super poor people. The real root of the problem is as it has always been the flaws of humanity. It's one of the reasons laws were made in the first place to keep people from taking advantage of one another. The problem isn't government but the wealthy people who have influenced government in order to get around and manipulate those laws. You overthrow this government and the same people will do the same thing to the new one.
    1
  48. Evirthewarrior "you just said some bullshit that reinforced your "its hopeless" attitude." I didn't say it was hopeless but that it was pointless to go the militia overthrow the government route. Change the system for the better.
    1
  49. hyuugaamida Red Dawn - you  described the plot of red dawn
    1
  50. Chazim76 "IF he is going to shoot you what does it matter?" You're analogy just keeps getting dumber. Why wouldn't he just shoot to begin not giving her a chance at all? And how often do criminals just shoot people rather than just simply rob them? "if you think all a girl needs for self defense is a can of mace and a house key." by your ridiculous scenario a gun would be utterly useless. In a real situation if the criminal doesn't have a gun trained on her ready to shoot, mace and keys are just as effective. This isn't mortal kombat where you have to "finish him!" All you have to do is incapacitate and hightail it while shouting at the top your lungs.
    1
  51. Chazim76 "So all the jews had guns but they didn't use them." You posted this already to someone else and it still makes no sense.
    1
  52. hyuugaamida yeah you basically did and no I'm pretty good at handling you guys because your arguments are silly and weak.
    1
  53. hyuugaamida "Nope. A number of drugs neutralize pain-based defense methods, and even tasers can be resisted. Bullets? Blades? Not so much." So now we adding drugs to this scenario? Well unless she has a magnum round bullets can be shrugged off as well if you are high enough. Don't believe me? Read up on vietnam where opiates where used by the Viet Cong and NVA.  "You don't see a difference between an internal conflict between a government and its citizens and an invasion by a foreign power? These are fundamentally different." You're a literalist, aren't you? What you talk about - an AR-15 against predator drones, etc... being better than a rock is basically Red Dawn ie a group of lightly armed people taking on a much stronger military. I just imagined you in cammo with your AR-15 shouting "Wolverines" at an Apache Helicopter. "you didn't bother trying to recalibrate the old " the Founding Fathers didn't know what kinda weapons we'd have today" schtick after learning that repeating firearms existed for over a century prior to their writing of the Bill of Rights. No comment on that? You concede defeat on that point, or are you attempting to refute it's veracity by not even acknowledging it (if so, where'd you learn such a strange technique)?" I concede I don't know what the hell you are babbling about here.
    1
  54. hyuugaamida and what drug on earth can make someone shrug off a key in the eye or both eyes? "It's often the case that people like yourself who have a somewhat...sanitized...view of self-defense lack the simple understanding of what is required in a real situation." lol! this coming from your gun mastabatory fantasy of snapped spines and head shots. Watch Walking Dead too much? You live in a fucking movieland filled with drug-crazed zombie-like killers whom people can in a sudden life-or-death situation make accurate headshots.  This is why it is easy to handle you guys - you're silly and unrealistic. 
    1
  55. hyuugaamida "Earlier you said there were only single-shot firearms in 1789--this simply isn't true as I proceeded to point out. " I ignored it because it hardly had anything to do with the discussion. Try to understand that if it's possible but back at you - you ignored my bit about Western town gun laws. So concede you are doing the same thing you accuse me of doing. Anything less would be dishonest.
    1
  56. hyuugaamida oh, and seriously your one example - 100 Kalthoff repeaters? Yeah how many of those were around in colonial America? And if they were so great why didn't the British and later American armies issue them instead of the one-shot musket? Because they were freaking expensive!  See if you are going to make an example you have to use an example that makes sense and is poignant to the discussion. Your little factioid means fuckall.
    1
  57. hyuugaamida well we might as imagine our fictional assailant the incredible hulk since keys into the eye won't stop him. "You'd probably be surprised what a little training can accomplish. Our species is hardwired to fight much to the ire of pacifists, and this groundwork is easily built upon. Considering more people are killed each year in the US with another's hands and feet than with all types of rifles and shotguns combined, I don't see why you think it's such a silly, unrealistic idea. I mean it's relatively easy. We're soft, squishy things with a lot of vulnerable areas just waiting to be struck, cut, stabbed, shot, torqued, etc." And you just argued my point for me that keys, mace, a brick, hell even a finger to the eye or throat could do in this ne'er-do-well.
    1
  58. hyuugaamida "You made the argument that modern guns don't fall under the Second Amendment when in all actuality they're just a culmination of a long history of improving weapons technology," I did not make that argument. You made it for me. My point was guns were simpler affairs in those days and until Colt and the Henry guns as a whole in the lifetime of the Founding Fathers remained as such but by the time of the Old West with six-shooters and repeating rifles, the law in Western towns took practical action. The federal government wasn't involved because it was primarily a frontier problem at the time. However with prohibition came the gangsters and their machine guns then federal action backed by the NRA went into force to ban machine guns. The point I'm getting at is from the Founding Fathers downward until recently government officials and the general public had more practical sensible solutions to gun problems and no one cried about the 2nd Amendment or talked about paranoid fears of homicidal maniacs and tyrannical governments. Sorry but you lot are a small minority in this world and most people see you as gun crazy.
    1
  59. hyuugaamida no, you lot are a minority and I don't mean that because you're a gun owner. Hell, I've grown up with guns in my home but the thing is I don't have this slavish obsession people like you have thus gun owners like yourself are a minority. You're a loud minority strongly supported by the NRA and the gun manufacturers. What I have shown is thru the ages until relatively recently there had been sensible approaches when it came to firearms - now you group screams about movie-inspired homicidal killers and tyrannical governments wanting to throw us all into death camps. 
    1
  60. hyuugaamida I mean? See that's you guys' problem - you just assume the other side's argument without really reading/listening which is you lot flock to TYT gun vids with your ready made arguments and start dropping them like a drunken seagull with diarrhea
    1
  61. "when confronted by a criminal with a gun intent on killing you," seriously, what is the statistical probability of this scenario occurring? Even the scenario of a criminal with a gun drawn on you is more likely interested in your valuables and less so your life
    1
  62. genie0390 no the common sense view is if a criminal has the drop on you with a gun, you had over your money and live another day instead of being an idiot and trying to go for your gun when the criminal already has theirs pointing at you. You conservatards are dumb! No wonder you're a shrinking minority
    1
  63. genie0390 what the hell does that have to do with your little gun scenario? I said you conservatards are shrinking because you are apparently dumb enough to try and draw your gun when someone else already has a bead on you. Dumb!
    1
  64. YoungerBrother Wakeup yeah and when you pull your gun what's to stop him from pulling the trigger 10 times before you even aim?
    1
  65. YoungerBrother Wakeup all i need is once really. You seriously going to go for your gun when someone already has theirs trained on you? Are you in a Die Hard movie?
    1
  66. YoungerBrother Wakeup so you're going to risk your life over some money to take an opportunity to gun down the bad guy like some action movie hero? Who's being childish here?
    1
  67. YoungerBrother Wakeup the fact that he didn't shoot you from the beginning is a pretty good sign he's just in it for the money
    1
  68. we might see some standing your ground incidences at certain protest and rallies where there is a large gathering of minorities
    1