Comments by "😊 Erin Thor" (@Erin-Thor) on "Federal judge overturns California's ban on assault weapons" video.

“Assault” weapons they banned were not military versions, they were civilian versions that fire one shot at a time.
219
@colemanhill — While I take issue with your politicizing an non-political discussion, and I wouldn’t wish an ANTIFA mob on my worst enemy... you speak the truth. People who say coyotes are timid, more scared of you that you are of them are 100% bonkers. I’ve had two run ins with wild hogs in my life, and people don’t realize they are NOT cute little pigs. I climbed a tree when hiking in NC and they used their tusks to start whittling the tree down from about 6” to about 2” in an amazingly short few minutes. Friends distracted them so I could run to a bigger tree. And as a kid, they will ruin crops and cause major headaches.
7
@stevestults1111 — If you remember from college, statistics don’t equal correlation, the cause has more to do with economic and social factors than any others. And if you include all murders or deaths by human for those countries, you will see that the total deaths are about equal per capita. The only difference is death by screwdriver, hammer, axe or shovel.
5
@stevestults1111 — I half agree with your “a locked up firearm is no good for protection,” comment. But there are fingerprint reader + code + key lock boxes and gun safes. I have a small gun safe bolted to my nightstand and one bolted in my car. It takes all of one or two seconds to have the gun in my hand if it’s ever needed. I’m sure you’re going to respond won’t work if you are hit and fingers bloody, and you are correct. It would take an extra 15 to 30 seconds to enter the code, about the same if I needed the key, So you’re right, I’d be dead possibly. But I also frequently open the safe when I start my car or hit the sack, and just tap it closed when I get out or up. IMHO, that’s a small price to pay to keep a gun from being stolen. Which by the way, is where most guns used in crimes come from. Most common sources are theft from homes, usually by someone who knows you have unsecured weapons or finds them on entry, or from public sales like garage or flea markets.
3
@d3bbi339 — No, I don’t ‘know’ what the founders intent was outside of what history books and records of that time tell us. The 2a intent was to create a balance of power in the people, lest the government turn dictatorial. And you are correct, the ‘well armed militia’ line is now comical given the military we have today that couldn’t have been imagined when the constitution was inked. That a bunch of citizens armed with firearms could defend against jets, tanks and attack helicopters is laughable. But your statements indicate you don’t understand my perspective at all. A gun or “assault rifle” doesn’t do anything, it just has the capability to give you a chance to survive an attempt. I’ve been robbed, held at gunpoint for four hours and the police afterwards were like “no big deal, you can file a report if you want but they’ll never catch the guy.” No gun has ever jumped out and shot someone, people did that. Did the availability of the gun mean they used it instead of a hammer, axe or shovel? Absolutely. We are blaming the gun, and ignoring the human factor. The human factor IS THE CAUSE. And our constitution was written in pencil ✏️, which means as public opinion shifts if we don’t work together to curb gun violence, we WILL face the loss of the second amendment. And then law abiding citizens will turn in their guns, and criminals will laugh.
3
@prind142 — Never! And new Black gun owners is great! What I’m saying is our constitution is written in pencil, it can and has been changed. Think back 4, 5, 6 elections back. We’ve gone from gun control being laughed at, gradually to this last election where EVERY democratic candidate lists gun control on its positions list. Voters express their concerns to politicians, who must capitulate to be elected. If we don’t address concerns, fight all gun laws, we will eventually see the day when the 2A is modified or deleted. THAT is what concerns me.
2
@92JoseR true, but we can easily see why. Voters express their concerns to politicians who want to stay elected, politicians must listen and capitulate if they want to remain in office. Newsom (?) is just trying to address voters fears and curb gun violence, which I agree with in principle, but calling out black rifles as “illegal assault weapons” is just a brainless move.
2
@stevestults1111 — LOL! “Some” Folks ... Too Funny. Sadly I live in Texas where I can say that is occasionally true. (Ducking)
2
@4dfish — If he is me, then he knows the difference. Do you know the percentage of incidences where a self defender has fired all shots and doesn’t remember how many shots they fired? Hint it even happens with police. Or my sweet old neighbor who caught two men burglarizing his barn. One rushed him and he fired a warning shot. Then while he was distracted dialing 911, another rushed him and he fired a second warning shot. Then during the 911 call you can hear them asking how many shots you got man, and the remainder of the call was thumps as they beat the crap out of him. So yes, on RARE occasions that extra round or two can save a life, and I for one would not like my option taken away. The police are NOT there when needed, they come afterwards... you can either be prepared or be a sheep.
2
Newsom is just reacting to what his voters tell him is important to them. Every mass shooting, more people want stricter gun laws. I applaud the sentiment, but the execution sucks eggs.
1
@prind142 Google Changes to the US constitution.
1
@prind142 — I like the way you think, but no.
1
@prind142 — Please tell that to the citizens of England, Australia, and others who adapted their constitutions to make personal firearm ownership illegal. The beauty of out constitution is that it can be changed. Please know I am NOT saying it should be, I’m with you on the 2A, but it is possible. And if you understand politics, our nation, and it’s laws, you know it possible and can see the trend towards tighter gun laws. If we can’t adapt, we CAN lose our 2a rights. Then, like Australia, if your home is invaded by gun wielding thugs, and you shoot them defending your family, you too can go to prison for longer than the home invaders. (One case the criminals got 2-3 years each, and the homeowner got 12 years.)
1
@d3bbi339 I think you missed my point. Yes, they had an understanding, but they couldn’t have imagined the tech our current military has, the satellites, ships, etc., thinking that their concept of balanced power was unrealistic today was your point. And you were right, today it’s pointless.
1
@d3bbi339 not what I said and you know it.
1
@d3bbi339 — Benjamin Franklin’s quote should be required reading for all Americans. “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Well phrased sir.
1
@darthcelsius6393 — And semi automatic weapons can counter just, tanks and attack helicopters? Where do you guys come from?
1
@prophetvoluntaryist4945 think about the weapons class... if a deranged person wanted to do harm, would you rather him have a 9mm semi-auto handgun w 20 rounds or a .50 cal with 250? How about lobbing a few hand grenades into a concert? There’s a reason to limit military weapons to the military...and while I’m on the fence myself, I do see the point.
1