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

@HanselLeiderhosen Nope, trained by the states. The DMV has nothing to do with the militia. What a weird red herring. Training by government because they are at the orders of government, that's the whole point of the militia. It does lack context, the context is the militia. You want anyone and everyone to own a gun with zero stipulations, while also agreeing that the militia needs to be trained. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
1
@HanselLeiderhosen Nope. It's specifically for the militia. Your imagined interpretation doesn't match constitutional scholars, such as at Stanford Law. The phrase "bear arms" was ALWAYS used historically to describe military.
1
@HanselLeiderhosen Sounds like an infringement to me. Fascist.
1
 @keonyang3332 Weird you keep ignoring the rest of the amendment. Stanford Law covered this.
1
@keonyang3332 Yes, that's all you have. Again, Stanford Law covers this.
1
@keonyang3332 That's not how you debunk a source.
1
@keonyang3332 By using a source? Okay kid.
1
@keonyang3332 The Second Amendment: A Biography by Michael Waldman, published week by Simon & Schuster. There is a whole explanation of how the 2nd was reinvented.
1
@keonyang3332 It's like you want to be made fun of.
1
@keonyang3332 Except you sent it to me lol. Jokes also need to be funny, and given Babylon Bee is just a mixture of anti-trans content and strawman arguments, I don't really see the point in watching it.
1
@keonyang3332 Considering this conversation it sounds more like projection from yourself.
1
As we now know, Supreme Court decisions are meaningless and can change over time, so using one as an argument isn't valid. The interpretation for 2 centuries was about military service. Also cute that the country of segregation is mouthing off about European liberties. The US has always been less free.
1
Black market weapons in the US are either stolen from law abiding citizens or purchased in private sales. The loose laws and large availability is why guns are so prevalent in crime in the US. Restricting certain weapons, and requiring training and registration would go a long way towards stopping criminal gun use.
1
@josephlewis7443 You seem to have missed the point. Your original question was "Do you also believe that if all guns are taken away from law abiding citizens that the criminal element will also comply with those same laws?" and the answer is yes, because those criminal elements get their guns from law abiding citizens in the first place.
1
Nonsense. They only restrict unlawful gun owners.
1
@ronniecopley3847 Registration stops illegal private sales. Gun transportation and storage laws reduce theft and accidents.
1
@ronniecopley3847 The US does not have gun registration or any sort of federal gun storage or transportation laws. Brazil is a developing nation. If you want a better comparison look at Switzerland.
1
@ronniecopley3847 1. That's not a gun registry. 2. I live in Florida, I can buy a gun in a private sale with zero checks.
1
@ronniecopley3847 Most of Europe currently have gun registries, as do the other developed nations of the world. Obviously they are doing something right. Plenty of countries without gun registries have dreadful dictatorships. Hitler was elected, guns had nothing to do with it. In fact most gun bans were specifically to stop political extremists from forcing their will onto the people by gathering a small army or loyal supporters.
1
@ronniecopley3847 Very few if any. The UK has had a grand total of 18 this century, that's less than 1 per year. Switzerland, with far far more guns than the UK, has also only had 18 mass shootings, albeit with a much smaller population. In contrast the US has had (as of mid September) 501 mass shootings. The US has more mass shootings in a week than the UK has in 23 years.
1
@ronniecopley3847 Actually it's so they can trace illegal weapons more easily, find gun traffickers and punishment them, and return weapons back to their rightful owners. We register cars, but there hasn't been some mass punishment or targeting of legal car owners.
1
@keonyang3332 And Switzerland. I could do more if you want, but I guarantee you that all of Europe combined won't come close to 500 mass shootings for a single year.
1
@keonyang3332 UK has a population about 1/5 the population of the US, so 1 mass shooting per year turns into 5 per year. The UK has 100 times less mass shootings per capita, at least. Switzerland is roughly 1/35 the population of the US, so 1 per year becomes 35 per year. Per capita Switzerland has about 15 times less mass shootings per capita. You could do this yourself you know, I gave you the numbers. Even then my numbers are rough and actually a little high.
1
@Anon54387 If everyone carrying is doing it illegally then they're far easier to catch BEFORE they commit a violent crime. Come on champ, this isn't rocket science.
1
@keonyang3332 Look it up yourself then. You're in such a bubble that you can't comprehend the idea that mass shootings are rare in moat developed nations. The mixture of propaganda driven ignorance and American exceptionalism than drips from your every comment is so sad.
1
@keonyang3332 Go Google "per capita". Also funny you consider 4 people getting shot as "low" lol.
1
Then try reading the Federalist Papers, as she mentioned. And stop with the weird racist propaganda. The US has a gun problem, end of story.
1
Well hold on a second, I'm pretty sure one of the arguments against guns being a danger is that guns don't shoot people, people shoot people. So now you're telling me that gun control will control those people and stop them shooting other people? That sounds perfect.
1
So if the federal government told you to go somewhere and fight you would do it?
1
@Anon54387 It's a right of the militia.
1
@philroe2363 1. The fact that you have to compare the US to developing nations is very telling. There is a reason we compare the developed nation of the US to other developed nations. 2. Your 90% claim is nonsense. The real number is 13%. Most homicides have nothing to do with gangs. 3. Gun registration WOULD deal with illegal gun ownership, as would licensing. Republicans are against both. 4. Harvard has thoroughly debunked the defensive gun use studies. People both dramatically overestimate how often they defensively use their weapons, and completely mischaracterise the actual altercations. On review most defensive gun uses were illegal escalations of people brandishing weapons, not a legitimate defensive use. Maybe try acrual research rather than whatever some right-wing ideologues parrotted to you.
1
@philroe2363 1. No they aren't. Having been to several of those countries, including Venezuela which soon after became pretty much a warzone, they are not developed at all. 2. 90% of people don't even live in cities. I gave you the real stat, your number is so fake it's laughable. 3. Given how much people drive on the day to day, a lot actually. 4. "Why Permitless Carry Is Bad for Florida: Studies show that weakening public carry laws is associated with a 13–15% increase in violent crime rates, as well as an 11% increase in rates of homicides committed with handguns. One recent study found that when states weakened their concealed carry laws and removed provisions like live fire training and violent misdemeanor prohibitions—both of which Florida currently has—they experienced a 22% increase in gun assaults and a 35% increase in gun homicides." 5. Your inability to understand the analysis is your own problem. The claims about defensive gun use are utterly delusional, and have been proven false through detailed analysis of the studies. That's just a straight up fact.
1
@philroe2363 1. I believe that less developed nations have less infrastructure and more crime. Again, if you want to compare the US to underdeveloped nations rather than world leaders like Italy Germany, France et cetera then we can do that, but don't then tell me the US is some amazing country. Either it has crime like an underdeveloped nation, or it's an advanced and safe country, not both. 2. Which again, is still wrong. It's 13%. Perhaps checking actual homicide numbers would help you there. 3. Yes, because in 1921 there were far less cars, only about 8 million compared to the 290 million we have today, and they drove far less distance. By your own metric cars and roads are dozens of times safer. Also funny you say they were not registered, this is false. There was a car registration system in 1921, which is actually how we know how many cars were on the road. 4. So when a study does show something it's obviously biased and therefore studies never show anything. Makes perfect sense. This is what happens when you start with a conclusion then dig your heels in too hard. Your source is both incorrect as it criticises only one of many studies, and is obviously biased. My stats came from John's Hopkins, and used data from 2020, meaning your source is out of date. 5. Nope, you're just delusional. Claims of defensive gun use has been proven to be far more often offensive escalations than legotimate defenses. Sadly, the fact is that the US has a homicide problem, and children like you refuse to fix it by licensing through training and psychological analysis, and registering the weapons used in more than 2/3rds of homicides.
1
@Anon54387 Self defense is indeed a right, but that has nothing to do with guns. No, they wanted the rights of the militia to not be infringed. Comparing the US to less developed countries is always funny. It's the only way to make US stats look good. Trying to argue that US military spending is low is actually comical. The US spends more than the next 10 countries combined, and more than half of those are allies.
1
@kevykevTPA Weird you mentioned slavery when your country had slavery for 90 years solid and had to start an incredibly deadly war to end it. Then you had segregation for another 100. So what exactly did your 2nd amendment do other than oppress people?
1
'In working order" makes absolutely no sense in the context of a militia with zero training, zero registration and zero checks of any kind. How could you possibly confirm the militia is "in working order" without any of these things?
1
How about both.
1
@jackbrown8052 Aside from the blatant whataboutism, and the comparison of an act on the self vs and act on someone else, there also has been some pretty dramatic shifts against smoking. The reason politicians don't talk about it is there isn't one party yelling about how we should stop taxing cigarettes, and smoking on public transit and in hospitals should be completely legal. It's not a partisan issue.
1
 @jackbrown8052 You didn't read my comment did you? Or did it just go over your head?
1
@jackbrown8052 Except quite a lot has been done over the years.
1
@Anon54387 The mere existence of a license proves that far more is being done to keep cars safe than guns.
1
Not any more. Gun deaths have surpassed car deaths. How would criminals get whatever guns they want? You get people smuggle guns OUT of the US right? Japan also has one of, if not THE lowest homicide rate in the world. Schools already have security, we still have shootings.
1
@keonyang3332 Nope, from guns. Former Prime Minister, he wasn't Prime Minister when he was shot. How many US presidents have been shot while in office. Oh right, 4. Yes, other countries do it better. Why would it work in the US, there has never been adequate gun control. Your comment makes no sense.
1
@vashmatrix5769 "They were expected to bring their OWN arms & powder from home." And were still subject to the call of the state. "The prefatory statement is saying because of the militia may be needed & they need to be competent with their arms, the individual right to keep & bare shall not be infringed." Yeah, no. In fact in the federalist papers they specifically outline training by the state, not individual competency based on ownership. "We have democratically elected officials" That's democracy. Really not sure what you think democracy is, but voting in officials is a democracy.
1
@vashmatrix5769 1. Yes you can. The National Guard replaces the need for a militia of people by creating an actual trained and well regulated militia. 2. The right is for the militia, did you miss that? Your argument is nonsensical. 3. True, you could for example create a system where only a very small portion of the population votes. However we do not have that, because we are a democracy. Maybe you just don't understand what a democracy is. Your constant argument that the US is a constitutional republic does not mean it is not also a democracy. Obviously I'm speaking with a baboon for you to come out with such childish nonsense.
1
@tesladrew2608 Arguably North Korea isn't even a republic, they are a monarchy if you ask me.
1
The supplementary force is the selective service. All you are advocating for is only men aged 18-25 to have the right to guns. As has been explained multiple times, rights also have limitations. Requiring firearm registration is no different than registering to vote.
1