Comments by "Hobbs" (@hobbso8508) on "Type Ashton" channel.

  1.  @countschad  Again, they literally took away people's firearms after the war and made people swear an oath to get them back. This is just a lie.
    1
  2.  @countschad  Again, their actions required an oath of loyalty to own arms and all firearms were registered. Try addressing the point.
    1
  3.  @countschad  They also required militia to be mustered and inspected every 2 years, and were fined if they failed to respond or dis not have their equipment. If they couldn't pay they were imprisoned. Again, actions over out of context quotes.
    1
  4.  @countschad  How do you enforce a "duty" to be armed? You get how this is how a military works right? The militia is treating everyone of a certain age like military personnel. That's the whole point of it. Honestly, try reading your quotes as you copy and paste them.
    1
  5.  @countschad  Again, you pick a quote that agrees with me. How can you guarantee they are disciplined enough to operate their arms? Oh right, mandatory training in the militia. Honestly, you really do sound silly.
    1
  6.  @countschad  George also wrote this: "That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." 🤣
    1
  7. ​ @JayReacio Knife violence is also bad in the US, almost double the UK.
    1
  8.  @JayReacio  You're the one claiming knives are a big issue in Europe. You're wrong.
    1
  9.  @JayReacio  Good, so we agree that your point is red herring and was worthless to say. Cheers.
    1
  10.  @JayReacio  I'm not the one bringing up entirely irrelevant points, only to run from them when they are put into context. Sorry your knife argument fell so short. Try again.
    1
  11.  @JayReacio  Which makes it a red herring. You made a point, and are now stating that it's not even relevant. Thanks kiddo. Violence is lower in a lot of countries though, so why not ask yourself why that is. Why does the US stand out so much with such a high homicide rate in the developed world? Especially when it comes to gun violence. I mean seriously, you are trying to claim that everywhere is violent, then trying to use that to claim that we should inject guns into that violent society. It's utterly demented. "Fires usually start in kitchens, so we've mandated all building to store cans of gasoline in the kitchen cabinet above the cooktop." That's you, that's how you sound.
    1
  12. Oh no, the cop that stopped you for having a brake light out claimed he smelled weed in your car and is now ripping the entire car apart. Once he's done you'll have to pay the repairs out of pocket.
    1
  13. ​ @keonyang3332  Maybe try reading that Stanford source again. Your personal bias about the ATF is not relevant. Yes, mass shootings have 3 or more victims. I'd say if 3 people got shot that's a big deal, but hey that's just me. Are you saying there are even more shootings we don't know about? We should really do something about all these guys then.
    1
  14. ​ @Anon54387  Except in a historical concept your only bear arms in the military, and a well regulated militia would be the equivalent of selective service. If you're over 25 you don't qualify any more. It's a right FOR THE MILITIA. And no, the ATF is not a loose cannon, they are just enforcing the law. And no, the Hammonds started a wildfire when a controlled burn went out of control onto Federal land.
    1
  15. ​ @keonyang3332  Oh no, the ATF is enforcing the law... You're conflating several things at once here. For starters it's a mass shooting because it's both intentional and involves 3 or more people. Most car crashes are neither of those, and comparing total car accidents to individual shootings is nuts. Why don't we compare the hundred killed by hands and feet to the 10,000+ killed by firearms?
    1
  16. ​ @keonyang3332  Nope, not international, INTENTIONAL, as in on purpose, as in not an accident.
    1
  17. ​ @Astronaut_Bear  Always funny when Americans try to claim the US is some moral shining example of anti-tyranny, when it was founded by a bunch of slave owning oligarchs who restricted voting to landowning men. As for inalienable rights, the UN has a solid list you can read. And no, the 2nd is not interpreted how you want just becasue the original intent upsets you.
    1
  18. No
    1
  19. "gave up freedom" They have more freedoms in Germany. "to live a regulated high taxed life" Taxes really aren't that high, and once you take into account the services you get, people are actually better off. "putting spin on what the 2nd amendment" She referred specifically to legal interpretations and the Federalist Papers. It's not her own spin. "The fact is that we are winning the debate every single day here in the US" Not with that homicide rate, or that incarceration rate. "FBI stats clearly show who the perpetrators of violent crime are and where they are prevalent." It's honestly pretty uniform. Blaming people living in poverty doesn't help your case. "The states with the most restrictive gun laws have the highest crime." Mississippi has the highest homicide rate. "And you may want to watch out for the people overrunning the borders of Europe because there is a problem there that's fairly new and you may end up on the receiving end of a violent crime." On average migrants commit less crimes than native born citizens. That's true in both Europe and the US. "Pretty sure most everyone in Switzerland is white and by fbi ststs those people generally aren't the problem." Bit of a weird thing to say, unless you think there is some underlying racial difference to crime rates based on genetics?
    1
  20.  @keonyang3332  Not only is gun ownership not a human right, but I'm also not sure why you think using licensing for owning guns is a bad thing. As for my point on having more freedoms, Germany protects more human rights than the US, providing a number of social services that the US does not. Costs are far lower overall. Healthcare alone is a mess here. You're just wrong about the 2nd. She isn't spinning anything, she posts a source and has done multiple times. Bear arms historically has a specific military meaning. There is no "part b" to the second amendment, it's a single sentence, meaning the only one spinning here is you. The fact it says shall not be infringed is really meaningless. None of them are to be infringed that's how rights work. Rates account for population. How dumb are you? I agree, we should invest in poor communities. Weird we're just naming Republican southern states isn't it? Wonder why. Crime is higher in cities on average, but not by much. Immigrants have lower crime rates than the US average.
    1
  21. But the UK is substantially safer than the US. Murders are far lower, even knife crime is lower in the UK.
    1
  22. I'm not sure you understand the scale of the US gun violence problem.
    1
  23.  @jojje3000-1  For perspective, last year Sweden had 62 fatal shootings with a population of just over 10 million. The US had about 20,000 fatal shootings with a population of 332 million. The US shooting rate is 10 times higher than Sweden. So yes, Sweden works. 62 shootings in a year across 10 million people really isn't that many, given individual cities in the US exceed that number without breaking a sweat. Jacksonville in Florida near me regularly sees over 100 shootings per year. You consider that 62 a national crisis, while in the US it's just a Tuesday.
    1
  24.  @jojje3000-1  So how many shooting fatalities did Sweden have last year?
    1
  25.  @Leco070  No, I know all of that, it just doesn't change much. Remove all the suicides and the gang violence and the US is still leagues ahead in gun homicides. And this is before you even consider that Sweden also has a gang issue, which means their shooting statistics also go down. I'm not sure why you would ignore gang violence though, surely giving guns to gang members is a problem. That's a hallmark of a system not working. But you know what, I'm going to be generous and ignore all of Sweden's gang violence and give you all the concessions you asked for. The end result? Sweden shootings: 64 (0.62 per capita) US non-suicide non-gang shootings: ~14,024 (4.25 per capita) So congratulations, even using the most BS numbers that favour the US as much as possible you still get the US as almost 7 times more shootings per capita. What's worse, Sweden has high numbers for Europe.
    1
  26.  @mako8091  Local gun store? Well no, because of the restrictions in those areas. Gun stores 1 state over? Absolutely.
    1
  27. Thankfully they changed the law to allow drug price negotiation recently.
    1
  28.  @Anon54387  It's both.
    1
  29. ​ @yippie6862 Social welfare programs in democratic nations are socialism. Socialism also does not have to involve state ownership.
    1
  30.  @yippie6862  I agree, they have degrees of socialism. Worker cooperatives are also a non-government example.
    1
  31. The Founding Fathers forced gun owners to swear an oath of loyalty to the government in order to own guns. They also registered all arms.
    1
  32. The Founders were the government. They wouldn't give up their arms to themselves, that makes no sense. The Federalist Papers specifically state that the well regulated militia is subject to the orders of individual states. The National Guard negates the need for the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court has been bought and paid for at this point. Their rulings are getting more and more ridiculous. Type Ashton lives in Germany.
    1
  33.  @vashmatrix5769  No, they're bought and paid for because the justices have zero oversight and literally accept bribes. Yes, they can have a standing army. She's from the US. Germany learned a lot from the war, which is why they stopped copying US segregation laws.
    1
  34.  @keonyang3332  The 46 minue well researched video shows you have no idea what you're talking about.
    1
  35.  @keonyang3332  Because it's not a debate, and debates are not good guidesticks for researched content. The sources used speak for themselves.
    1
  36.  @keonyang3332  So we agree, not a debate but a well research argument based on the evidence in the sources.
    1
  37.  @keonyang3332  Like?
    1
  38.  @keonyang3332  Good luck with that.
    1
  39.  @keonyang3332  You're under the delusional category. Gun nuts usually are.
    1
  40.  @Anon54387  It's a right of the militia.
    1
  41. The unorganised militia are still subject to the orders of the states. They still have to gather and be trained when required.
    1
  42.  @pelinalwhitestrake8195  The Unorganized Militia is the selective service.
    1
  43.  @pelinalwhitestrake8195  "(which is the Organized Militia)" Wrong. This is just incorrect. They aren't trained until after they get drafted. They are entirely unorganized.
    1
  44.  @pelinalwhitestrake8195  "Perhaps you should read the link I provided since no where does it state the Selective Service is the Militia" Because the militia was defined before the Selective Service existed, why would it mention it? "the UNORGANIZED MILITIA which is every able-bodied males 17-45" That's just the selective service. Seriously, the requirements are identical. It was created to register the unorganized militia. "The Drafted once trained becomes part of the Federal Military not the Militias." Only after they are trained. Before then they are the unorganized militia. "Oh and the Selective Service Act was passed on May 18th,1917 while the Militias were ratified in 1791 with the Bill of Rights." Correct. The Selective Service Act was a registration system for the militia. All of this is pointless though, as even if you were right, which you very clearly are not, then by your own argument all women and all men over the age of 45 do not have the right to firearms.
    1
  45.  @pelinalwhitestrake8195  1. No it wasn't. The Militia Act has not been amended since before the Selective Service Act. 2. It used to be up to 45, it was amended. 4. The Militia Act is both the Militia, the Selective Service is for registration of the unorganized militia. 5. Wonderful, so we agree that this line of reasoning is worthless to the overall point in the video.
    1
  46.  @pelinalwhitestrake8195  1. Gubment 2. Yes actually. 4. Nope. It's not bait, you just suck at this.
    1
  47. A militia is a group of people, a breakfast is not.
    1
  48.  @HanselLeiderhosen  A militia isn't just anyone with a gun. As you already said, it's people who are trained. It also requires the militia to be subject to the orders of the states. Also love that you want to give guns to toddlers lol
    1
  49. ​ @Anon54387  That's because those things are not related. You seem really confused about what the well regulated militia is and how it functions. This was discussed in detail multiple times, and even Stanford Law don't agree with you.
    1
  50.  @HanselLeiderhosen  Well trained by who? What is a militia if not subject to the orders of the states? Ignoring the context of the amendment is just ignorance.
    1