General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Hobbs
Type Ashton
comments

Comments by "Hobbs" (@hobbso8508) on "" video.

@Anon54387 Many countries actually go much further than the US when it comes to rights. Unfortunately, guns are not a right.
4
@Anon54387 Linking to a legitimate authority isn't a fallacy. An appeal to authority is a fallacy when the authority is not an authority in the field being discussed. That is not the case here. Everything else you said is just grasping st straws because of your own bias. You start with the conclusion they are wrong and work backwards.
4
@1VaDude The gun show loophole is in reference to private sales. As you already stated, if it's legal privately ot's legal at a gun show. No, universal background checks are not to make a gun registry. That being said, a gun registry would substantially drop the number of criminals with guns. No, registries do not equal confiscation.
4
Switzerland has mandatory military service. Both nations have gun registries.
3
Because it would actually solve the issues of gun trafficking? The founders also had a registry.
3
SCOTUS, as we know, can change their rulings, and nothing they ruled matches early US history, 1800s US laws or the Federalist Papers.
3
Okay. The US has more. There, you happy now?
3
Did the facts hurt your feelings?
3
Well regulated militia. Also, using "that's the law" as an argument is pathetic. Talk about bootlicking.
2
Violent crime did not increase with bans. The least safe European countries are generally poorer and less developed than the safer countries. If you remove city centres from any nation the crime rate goes down.
2
@landocallbackesian3884 If you remove cities from any nation violent crime drops. Crime is just higher in cities, that's a fact. Yet even the most rural US states with the lowest homicide rates are higher than every other developed nation. The UK had a school shooting followed by a widescale set of restrictions and bans. Violent crime dropped in the UK for about 20 years straight. Australia has seen similar drops after their shootings and restrictions around the same time. If you remove Republican states gun violence drops substantially. The source of illegal guns drops even moreso.
2
@landocallbackesian3884 Yet homicides are still higher than every other developed nation.
2
@landocallbackesian3884 Care to support your initial claim that violence increased with bans?
2
@landocallbackesian3884 Also, US violent crime, especially homicides, going down is not really an achievement when the US homicide rate is the highest in the developed world.
2
 @keonyang3332 Sounds perfectly sensible to everyone with half a brain. Licensing and registration are perfectly reasonable. You sound very political and unreasonable with your responses.
2
Most guns used in crimes in Mexico come from the US. Making guns far harder to obtain would go a long way to stopping vioent criminals.
2
Facts don't care about your hurt feelings.
2
@samielkhayri9272 Switzerland has mandatory military service for all men. It certainly puts a big difference into the levels of training and respect around weapons. They also register all of their weapons, as do pretty much every country. The US is a major outlier in the huge prevelence of completely unregistered firearms.
2
In fact, when the Bill of Rights was ratified the Virginia State legislator specifically pointed out that keeping people armed would help them stop a slave uprising.
2
That explains why European countries have so much gun violence...oh wait, no it doesn't.
2
So you're saying there are actually more shooters than are counted? That's even worse.
2
Lol, no. The government controls the military, that's just a fact.
2
@Anon54387 The US has the largest prison population in the world. 1% of the US population is in prison. Being hard on crime doesn't work, it just makes more criminals. We need guns off the street, it worked in dozens of countries and it will work here. We need prison reform while we're at it.
2
Probably because the Australian gun violence numbers are lower than before the ban. Seems like an odd point to make. Especially as those new laws made it so that not a single shooting event broke double digits in terms of those injured or killed. In fact gun deaths dropped to less than 1 per 100,000 in 2018, for a total of around 260, meaning even if every single shooting that happened, happened on a different day, there would not be enough shootings for 1 per day in the entire nation, absolutely crushing your "daily" claim. That also includes all accidental events, all suicides, everything. Only looking at homicides that number drops even more, to just around 30 homicides per year. Yes, the militia is run by the government. Those people who got their rifles and bits and bobs were under the directive of the US federal government. No, the US does not have more freedoms than other countries, in fact it is missing some very crucial ones, such as: A right to housing. A right to healthcare. A right to clean water. A right to your own body. A right to not be enslaved. All of these are on some level not protected in the US. The Nazis actually removed gun restrictions that were put in place after WW1. By relaxing gun laws they were able to build a grassroots violence fascist movement. I agree that crime is strongly linked to wealth inequality, but guns make all violence exponentially worse. It allows specific instances of crime to be more serious just by the addition of a deadly weapon. No, every state does not have mandatory background checks. Many states have private sales without the need to get any sort of check. There are also the issues with a lack of licensing and registry, meaning someone could drive to a lax state, load up on guns, then sell them in a more restrictive area. That's why guns in places like Chicago that are used in crimes all come from outside the city. People traffic guns into the area to sell in illegal private sales after legally purchasing them 2 states over.
2
@Anon54387 Nope. Catch a grip kid. Just because your worldview was shattered with sources doesn't mean you need to act like a baby.
2
So current gun owners are organised? What club are they a member of? Where do they practice? How can they assemble?
2
@1stsampan And of course all of those are under the orders of the Federal governments right? Since that's how a militia works.
2
And then the cops show up and shoot everyone.
2
You're missing the context about the militia. It literally doesn't say it all. Even the phrase "bear arms" is historically in relation to military.
2
How about you stop giving those people guns.
2
Facts don't care about your feelings.
2
@1VaDude Registration would stop both private sales and straw purchases, which is how 90% of criminals get their guns. Fear mongering and repeating your ignorance on gun laws doesn't change that.
2
@vashmatrix5769 Like what?
2
@vashmatrix5769 "Let's start with her acting like it's for only a militia. Court ruled against that false premise years ago & recognize it as an individual right. Also if you look up what the militia was, it's the people, & they were expected to bring their OWN arms." However, as a militia they are still subject to the orders of the state if called upon. "Then she either misunderstood or is just dishonest about what "well regulated" meant in that context then, it really means to make regular." No, it means they need to be able to be activated, trained and deployed by the states. "The idea they'd give control to government after that's who they just fought because they came for our arms, makes no sense." Because they were overthrowing a foreign government and installing their own democratic republic. "Then she goes on to completely misunderstand the (broken) rule against a standing army." There was no rule against a standing army. The militia was proposed as an alternative to a standing army, but it was always known a standing army could be created. The well-regulated militia in that case would still exist as they are subject to individual states, not the federal government. That being said, we now have an actuall well-regulated militia, it's called the National Guard.
2
@vashmatrix5769 It's not about once, the entire point is to create a militia that the states can use at any time. So you submit to training and gather evwry so often with other militia members at direction of the state? Several things wrong with this point. The US is indeed a democratic republic, it is also constitutional, it can be both. When you vote for representation you are a democracy. The founding fathers have nothing to do with current day democracy. I think you would agree that only allowing male landowners to vote was not a good system, yet that rather undemocratic system that supported slavery and suppressed human rights was exactly what the founding fathers installed. Since then all men and women 18 or older have been given the right to vote, a big step in US democracy. There are some lingering issues, bit that doesn't suddenly make it non-democratic. What would you rather? A lottery system where representatives are chosen at random?
2
Want to know what actually makes up a vast majority of gun violence in the US? Poverty. Want to know which group has been marginalised for generations and has a significantly higher proportion of people in poverty? African Americans. Asian crime is in fact lower than White crime in the US.
2
@philroe2363 What's funny is all of these events are news worthy. In the US they would be a footnote because of how frequent shooting are. Gun smuggling isn't even a thing in the US because you just buy the guns in an area with loose restrictions and sell them pretty much anywhere you want. Even with rising homicides in Australia they had less than 300. In the US there were over 26,000. Even accounting for population the US is roughly 7 times worse. Want me to start listing drive-by shootings in the US?
1
@keonyang3332 It's not smuggling, it's trafficking. Smuggling I done over international borders, while is just the illegal dealing of something. Since all the guns are already in the country there is no need to smuggle them. Maybe learn what words mean before commenting again.
1
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State?
1
@chazcov08 So all gun owners should be ready to serve their state militia. Sounds good.
1
@chazcov08 Nah, the militia will do fine without me. The National Guard will manage anything a milia would do.
1
@1stsampan Sure, but the US does not and as a result training, licensing and registration all fall by the wayside.
1
@1stsampan Czech Republic also has licensing and registration. People have to take a 30 question quiz with a pool of 501 questions, and are only allowed to get a single question wrong. They have to then show they can both operate their weapons, and they have to describe the various parts of the gun. They also have to pass a mental health evaluation, and can have their guns taken away should there be mental health concerns at any point in the future. And no, I don't wonder about Jamaica. They have massive wealth inequality issues and smuggle their guns from the US. Jamaica's gun problem is a US gun problem. Also funny you have to compare the US to a non-developed nation just to make it look good.
1
@1stsampan Homicides...using US guns. They have both an issue with wealth inequality, and with US gun imports. Those things together result in very high homicide rates. Yes, less developed nations have more crime on average, especially homicides, mostly due to higher levels of wealth inequality and higher levels of poverty. The US actually has the highest homicide rate in the developed world for a similar reason. Canada has licensing, registration and transportation rules for their guns. All owners are required to show competency and must register their arms on the national gun registry. Doing so sharply reduces instances of illegal gun sales and misuse.
1
@1stsampan This is incorrect. While gun shops nationally require background checks, not all private sales do. In fact over half US states require no checks of any kind in private sales.
1
@1stsampan 1. So just the easiest to conceal, most often used in homicides and most often trafficked and sold illegally? Wonder why it works so well. 2. Jamaican officials have previously reported over 80% of guns in Jamaica are from the US. Also funny you mention Glocks, as in 2 separate incidents Glocks were privately purchased in the US and trafficked into Jamaica before being used. Officials have also caught Jamaicans living in the US and trafficking guns. 3. Yes, mostly because those drug lord employ thousands of poor people, and exploit millions of those in severe poverty with drugs and violence. The idea that a few rich people are the only cause of violence in the Caribbean is just naive. In fact gangs in Jamaica are usually focused in fighting people in the next street over, not making deals with Colombians.
1
@1stsampan Guns actually kill more kids than anything. Plenty of countries make private weapon sales illegal.
1
@1stsampan Firearms are actually the leading cause in the US. Fentanyl is never sold legally. The only usage of it in a medical setting is directly in hospitals. Overdoses are from illegal use.
1
@1stsampan 1. So stop giving those criminals firearms. Stop making it so easy for people to import guns. It's not that hard. Why do you think they get them from the US? Because of the incredibly lax laws. The exact same happens in Mexico. 2. You specifically said kids. Look up those numbers and don't just assume adult numbers can be transferred directly to kids. Firearms recently overtook vehicles. Drug poisoning is at number 4.
1
@1stsampan I emplore you to read the article you posted. It talks about the tough written and practical test people take, the registering or arms, and the inability to aquire illegal firearms in the country. This puts it in stark contrast to US law.
1
@Anon54387 It's not a human right.
1
 @dtsh4451 Switzerland also has mandatory military service, gun licensing and registration. Arguing the laws are looser because of barrel lengths is entirely disingenuous.
1
 @keonyang3332 Not really, but they also get their guns used in crimes from the US so...
1
@keonyang3332 Mostly the US, between 70 and 90 percent.
1
But they have an army now, so clearly we don't need a militia. Gun density is the dumbest metric you could possibly use.
1
Hitler didn't ban guns, in fact he loosened gun laws. Yes, we need IRS agents, but thanks for repeating the lie about them being armed and not mostly desk jockeys replacing retiring employees. She explained why the 2nd was written, try again. Encouraging the killing of criminals rather than proper justice is sickening. You're a braindead propagandised coward. Go back on tour so you can shoot more civilians.
1
Brazil is a significantly less developed nations. England does not have escalating gun problems. Australia did not have robberies increase.
1
@Anon54387 Brazil is categorised as developing, not developed.
1
How about we stop giving guns to criminals, felons and whackos?
1
@keonyang3332 I am blaming the government, Republicans to be specific. They just aren't allowing the ATF to do their jobs. A gun registry would help substantially.
1
 @keonyang3332 It's entirely ineffective. There needs to be a registry and there needs to be significant background checks and education on guns. There is neither.
1
Well regulated militia.
1
You get everyone to register their guns for starters. When guns are so much easier to trace back to a person it's much easier to enforce things.
1
@signiturelady People already do register guns in some places in the US, so that's just false.
1
@signiturelady Weapons like that are brought in from outside. If everywhere had to register the number of unregistered guns would drop substantially. The US being against it is neither here nor there. It works, end of story.
1
@keonyang3332 Nope. Over 700 arrests were made in the program you are referring to, allowing the reduction of serial straw purchases for gun trafficking. The weapons sold would have been sold anyway. But instead they would have never been traced. The idea that stopping hundreds of gun traffickers is somehow a bad thing is a real piece of mental gymnastics.
1
Then why did Hamilton advocate for a militia controlled by the federal government?
1
So a bunch of less developed nations, and a country at war. Well I'm convinced.
1
 @keonyang3332 Pretty dumb point.
1
 @keonyang3332 You first kid.
1
So guns aren't the leading cause of deaths for children in the US? Homicides are not far higher in the US than any other developed nation? Which statistics hurt your feelings the most?
1
@keonyang3332 Nope, still guns. The numbers are higher than cars. Cars are licensed and registered though, so sure let's do that.
1
@keonyang3332 The CDC. You're out of date by a few years. Also the frequency of use of cars means they are way safer than guns. But I agree with you point, we should license and register guns. Oh and no, homicides were the majority, not suicides. Thanks kid.
1
@keonyang3332 Then you should try reading the CDC stats. Guns topped vehicles years ago. No, there is not a gun registry. There are paper records of sales, that's it. It doesn't record private sales, and requires individual gun shop locations to be checked for sales. It is a purposefully convoluted and slow process that makes checking if a gun is registered to a person in real time inpossible. Claiming this is a registry is plain stupid. Go get AN education kiddo.
1
@keonyang3332 Again, the serial number has to be traced using paper records to individual gun shops. 4473s are not digitised, are not held by the ATF, and are not required for individual sales. Tracing a gun found in NYC can take a long time, and usually leads to a gun shop down in Georgia or South Carolina. Finding the specific shop in the sea of sellers and paper records can be arduous, and again, that's if they didn't buy the gun privately down there which requires no 4473. The idea that this is the same as a registry, where guns can be matched directly to people's name and address, and can be checked in real time against the ID of the person with it, is just ridiculous. There is no registry, in fact the laws are designed specifically to make a registry illegal. Nope, guns are the leading cause of both suicides and homicides. According to the FBI in 2019 guns were used in over 10,000 homicides, hands and feet were used in just 600. Seriously, where do you get these obvious propaganda statistics from?
1
@vashmatrix5769 Facts don't care about your feelings snowflake.
1
@Anon54387 Doesn't work. The US tried the "tough on crime" approach. It failed.
1
@samielkhayri9272 Nonsense. Switzerland has plenty of guns, far less gun crime.
1
 @keonyang3332 Doesn't matter. Heller was just overruling a previous court ruling, it can swing back in the future. And yes, I live here.
1
@keonyang3332 Roe v Wade was older than that. The Supreme Court has been a one for years now.
1
@keonyang3332 Until it gets overruled. See how SCOTUS works now?
1
@keonyang3332 You're missing the point. Relying on partisan judges who have recently come under increasing scrutiny for ruling in favour of friends and being paid in vacations over constitutional scholars is just idiotic.
1
@keonyang3332 So you agree that the Supreme Court is perfectly capable of being corrupt. You agree that your argument currently relies on a supreme court decision, but you seem to be having trouble reconciling these 2 facts. If judges can be corrupt, even overturning 50 year old decisions, why should we care about their rulings from a standpoint of constitutional correctness?
1
 johnobama6629 Okay kiddo.
1
Why would we compare Colombia and not other developed nations?
1
johnobama6629 Yeah, you are. Your paranoid propaganda riddled brain has convinced you that up is down and left is right. Antifa are anti fascists, nothing about what you said makes any sense.
1
Okay. What is the murder rate in the US compared with other developed nations? And no, local gun control doesn't work. Without national control those cities just get guns funnelled into them from outside.
1
@UltralightMotorcycleCamping 53 is terrible for a developed nation. Almost every country on the list has more gun control than the US so that's hardly an argument. All of the nations with less homicides have more control. No, the US homicide rate would not be near the lowest. The US homicide rate is high in all 50 states. Cities are always more dangerous, they are just extra bad in the US because of all the guns. Yes, the solution is uniform measures. Current gun control in those violent cities is worthless as people import guns from other areas through private sales and straw purchases.
1
@UltralightMotorcycleCamping Any in developed nations? Weird how gun nuts always points to places like Brazil, and not far more closely associated countries like Italy, France, Canada, Germany, Spain. Because the issue is not the laws, but the fact they are worthless as they currently stand. Gun crimes would be lower, as they are in plenty of other developed nations, if the laws were more uniform. Violent crime is broadly unchanged by local gun law changes. The real questions is where do guns in gun control areas come from. We already know the answer of course, it's from areas with lax laws. I don't want to take you guns. Gun registration would substantially reduce illegal guns on the streets by making it substantially easier to track and trace the sources of said illegal arms. As for your decades of data, having a gun makes you more likely to be shot, fact. US homicide rates are high in all 50 states, not just the big cities, fact. The US is a major outlier in the developed world for having a ridiculously high homicide rate, fact. History of US gun control: 1. Watch children get shot. 2. Do nothing substantial. 3. Claim nothing works. 4. Repeat.
1
@UltralightMotorcycleCamping Never mentioned gun deaths, we were discussing the murder rate, which as I stated is substantially higher in the US. Nice red herring though. All illegally owned firearms were at some point purchased legally. Buying guns from private sales doesn't change that those guns were once bought legally. There also is not a gun registry. All sale records are paper, and all paper records are only kept for 5 years. Of the guns used in crimes about 45% are purchased in private sales, and another 45% are bought in straw purchases. Criminals can report whatever they want, the fact is that owning a weapon makes you more likely to get killed. There is less crime in developed nations with gun control. Why are you asking me to look at what someone else said? I advocate for registration, any attempt to claim otherwise is dishonest. The history of US gun control is failure. There are more guns than ever, with less ability to track them and more availability than ever for criminals. Every effort has been taken to make tracking gun origins and stopping the illegal purchase of guns almost impossible. You know what would be a great defence against school shootings? Not giving people guns. Worked on Australia and the UK, both of which enacted stricted laws after shootings. Again, you don't understand the second amendment, which is why you only post the second half of that sentence. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the free state". Of course, once you read that, and have half a brain in your head, you understand that it's about having a militia, not letting everyone have guns unfettered. If you look into it further you'll find that Hamilton wrote about a militia being an alternative to a standing army. So not only is it worthless as the US has a standing army now, it also means that anyone using the second amendment as a defence should agree to do whatever the military action the federal government asks of them. You should try watching the video you replied to.
1
@UltralightMotorcycleCamping Nope, but thanks for making shit up so you can ignore the actual argument, which is that the US homicide rate is exceptionally high. Nope, it's 5 years. It's also illegal to digitise them. Your paranoia is over something illegal. If you were correct then why is the US homicide rate so high. In reality the issue is the different crimes and the way the countries record them. Crime is higher in the US. Never said taking guns away. Also funny you think robbers would be armed when they can't get guns lol. There is a difference between the completely unenforceable laws that now exist and an actual registry. Again, ignoring the point. Stopping shootings is about stopping guns. Obviously you don't understand the second. It's literally explained in this video. And yes, a standing army, specifically the standing militia of every state, negates the need for the second. You are literally misinterpreting it while explaining how people misinterpret it. More misinterpretation while claiming others are misinterpreting, it's pathetic. A pro-gun advocate who doesn't understand the second isn't exactly new, pretty sad really. Completely unable to actually argue the points so you try to attack me personally. Pathetic. Read a book kid.
1
So we ban handguns. Thanks.
1
So if the federal government ordered you, as a member of the militia, to go somewhere and fight, you would of course do so correct.
1
Someone trained you well.
1
@Anon54387 Who would that be? Obviously not this video.
1
 @WickedMapping Escalation isn't self defence.
1
Not even close. I can think of several human rights the US fails on.
1
"Well regulated meant well trained." So you advocate for a training test before people can legally purchase a firearm?
1
@keonyang3332 Yet many gun owners are waiting to use their guns, saying how they can't wait to be attacked or have their house broken into so they can legally kill someone.
1
Wow, wrong twice. Well-regulated means they can be activated, trained and deployed by the state governments. Almost every single gun used in crimes in restricted areas comes from low restriction areas.
1
Oh wow, the US is performing better than nations that aren't even fully developed.... Meanwhile, in the developed world, the US is doing terribly.
1
@keonyang3332 No it isn't, you just don't know what a rate is. The US has more stabbings.
1
 @keonyang3332 Seems like you've gone off the deep end. Again, the US RATE is high, regardless of population.
1
@keonyang3332 Not sure you know what hypocritical means. They have more, a lot more.
1
@keonyang3332 That the US has a higher rate of shootings AND a higher rate of stabbings than the UK...and that's somehow hypocritical. Like I said, you don't understand the words you keep trying to use.
1
@keonyang3332 That's not grammar, that's just using the correct word lol. Why would the size of a population change the rate of homicides?
1
How about the relationship between the lingering effects of racism and crime?
1
Lol what?
1
@kevykevTPA Always love it when right-wingers make a million and one excuses for all the shootings.
1
Czech Republic has a rather significant gun licensing test that requires knowledge of laws, firearms, ammunition and forst aid. They also require a practical exam with firearm inspection, field stripping, preparation, loading, shooting and handling of malfunctions procedures. Finally they have to pass a health evaluation, checking for amnesia, eyesight, hearing, balance and any known illnesses or disabilities. This is redone every 10 years. You will be banned from ownership if you got a DUI in the last 3 years, misused firearms in any way, or were recently released from prison. All firearms are also registered.
1
And?
1
@countschad Not sure what point you are trying to make.
1
@countschad Not sure how that relates to self defence, but you do you.
1
@countschad Disarmament. Seems entirely unrelated.
1
@countschad No it wasn't. Did you not watch the video? You're using a partisan interpretation created by Republicans and their judges, not the historical definition used for centuries.
1
@countschad Cool, post them then, because as this video points out the 2nd Amendment was frequently discussed from the perspective of military and being under Federal control, not private ownership.
1
@countschad Yet "bear arms" historically was used in a military context, not an individual one. Meaning the people have the right to use their firearms in a federal or state militia, not unilaterally.
1
@countschad Right, but as a federal system he's referring to state vs federal militias. Again, bear arms is a military term in the 1700s
1
@countschad Right, in the militia.
1
@countschad Alexander Hamilton never wrote that. He wrote something similar in Federalist Paper 29 titles "concerning the militia" and stated that said militia would need to be assembled once or twice a year.
1
@countschad The Thomas Paine quote is not only missing the middle, it is also in an essay titled "Thoughts on Defensive War", and is at length about the US defending themselves from the British. He also wishes for a world without guns, but understands that we need them to protect against foreign invaders. Self defense in this quote is about defense of the nation, not the individual.
1
@countschad This was in a draft of the 1776 Virginia Constitution and never made it to final copy. It was not within the Federalist Papers and was likely removed in the next draft to correct the obvious error. Want to know what did make it into the Virgina constitution? "That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence 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
@countschad You should probably actually read the Federalist Papers rather than posting out of context quote after quote. It would make you look a lot smarter. As for this particular quote, it was in reference to the Shays rebellion, which was a group of 4,000 soldiers who tried to take control of an armory. They were anticipated and 8 people were killed before the mostly unarmed mob abandoned their plans. The leaders were killed as a result. If Jefferson was saying what you believe he would have advocated for them taking the armory. He did not. In fact, they were stopped by a militia and restricted from being armed for the most part. It seems that Jefferson advocated for small skirmishes with thousands of protesters rather than an actual armed insurrection. Sounds like he would be greatly on favor of the BLM and antifa movements.
1
@countschad Yeah, not a founding father. My turn. Unlike you I'll use the actions of the founders: 1. After the War of Independence everyone wanting to own a gun was forced to swear an oath of fealty to the government or be permanently disarmed. 2. All guns were registered and failure to present a registered arm when mustered was punishable. Get wrecked kid.
1
@countschad You know George Tucker wasn't a founding father right? Meanwhile, the actual founders showed us their opinions on the 2nd Amendment: Right after the War of Independence the government required all people wanting to own firearms to swear an oath of loyalty to the government. They also had a full registry of all firearms, and anyone missing their weapon would be punished. All firearm owners could also be mustered at any time. So maybe look at what the founders did rather than pulling all the out of context quotes you can find.
1
@countschad So we're just ignoring the actions of the founders to spew more out of context nonsense? Fine. George Mason was constantly upset with the other founders for disagreeing with him and watering down his policies. This is no exception.
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
@countschad Again, their actions required an oath of loyalty to own arms and all firearms were registered. Try addressing the point.
1
@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
@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
@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
@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
 @JayReacio Knife violence is also bad in the US, almost double the UK.
1
@JayReacio You're the one claiming knives are a big issue in Europe. You're wrong.
1
@JayReacio Good, so we agree that your point is red herring and was worthless to say. Cheers.
1
@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
@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
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
@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
@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
@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
 @keonyang3332 Nope, not international, INTENTIONAL, as in on purpose, as in not an accident.
1
@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
"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
@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
But the UK is substantially safer than the US. Murders are far lower, even knife crime is lower in the UK.
1
I'm not sure you understand the scale of the US gun violence problem.
1
@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
@jojje3000-1 So how many shooting fatalities did Sweden have last year?
1
@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
@mako8091 Local gun store? Well no, because of the restrictions in those areas. Gun stores 1 state over? Absolutely.
1
@Anon54387 It's both.
1
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
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
@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
@keonyang3332 The 46 minue well researched video shows you have no idea what you're talking about.
1
@keonyang3332 Because it's not a debate, and debates are not good guidesticks for researched content. The sources used speak for themselves.
1
@keonyang3332 So we agree, not a debate but a well research argument based on the evidence in the sources.
1
@keonyang3332 Like?
1
@keonyang3332 Good luck with that.
1
@keonyang3332 You're under the delusional category. Gun nuts usually are.
1
@Anon54387 It's a right of the militia.
1
The unorganised militia are still subject to the orders of the states. They still have to gather and be trained when required.
1
@pelinalwhitestrake8195 The Unorganized Militia is the selective service.
1
@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
@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
@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
@pelinalwhitestrake8195 1. Gubment 2. Yes actually. 4. Nope. It's not bait, you just suck at this.
1
A militia is a group of people, a breakfast is not.
1
@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
@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
@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
@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