Comments by "nexus1g" (@nexus1g) on "CNN" channel.

  1. It's amazing how you keep cutting when he clearly has more to say. It's almost like you're afraid to let him talk. You talked more than he did. Everyone should trust CNN to lie by omission...
    84
  2. You're seeking to infringe on the natural rights of the people. You are immoral, Emma. You are asking for what's illegal, Emma.
    38
  3. Johnny, what you don't understand is that it will always be 0-29 being largely the Democratic demographic, and then 30+ is largely Republican. It'll stay that way always, because a Republican is someone with life wisdom while a Democrat is a young idealist.
    14
  4. "Her arguments are strong and water-tight" No they weren't.
    9
  5. JM AF, the principle behind the Second Amendment exists whether it's written in the Constitution or not. This is the same as the rest of the Bill of Rights. She does not have a brain. She said that the UK, Australia and Canada haven't had a mass shooting since passing gun laws. This is the most untrue thing she could have possibly said. Not that statistics matter, as this is a question of how much you can trample on another individual's rights, but she was the one that said her AP studies require her arguments to be "water tight". Clearly only if its in favor of the agreed upon narrative, maybe? She has no idea what she's saying or talking about. She's ignorant, and she's being used as an appeal to emotion for an agenda she doesn't even understand. Liberty is dangerous.
    9
  6. Eric, guns are about self-preservation. This is what the Second Amendment is all about. Humans aren't exceptionally tough, strong, have claws, poisons or spines -- our self-preservation comes from the deadly and wicked weaponry we fashion. These arms are what we're guaranteed to keep and bear in the Second Amendment. The concept of it being a natural right to self-preservation by keeping and bearing arms is not dependent on the Second Amendment. It exists whether it's in the Constitution or not. When the Federalists were writing essays regarding the Bill of Rights, specifically the Second Amendment, they were wondering why it would even need to be written in the first place because it was so painfully obvious to them that was a natural right. In fact, one writer showed concern that the Second Amendment may even be used as a way to abridge unbridled ownership of arms. And, yes, she is a silly child merely repeating rhetoric (a couple of outright lies even) that she's grown up hearing about.
    7
  7. In order to stop violence in America, you need to change its culture, not what its citizens have access to. Bike theft is the most prolific crime in Japan, and it's because of Japan's culture. Their population understand responsibility and accountability intimately, and that's something that's so clearly lacking in the United States. This is why *crime* (not guns) is a problem in America.
    7
  8. Flower Child, they have a natural right to life. Government's job is to punish those who would seek to infringe that right. Being a gun owner in no way infringes on the right to someone's life unless that gun owner shoots someone. Please learn what natural rights are and why they're so important to respect.
    7
  9. 1:44 And here's where she says, "I don't care about the Constitution or the Bill of Rights." As Franklin said, "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote." The armaments of the sheep is the Bill of Rights. The right to voice dissent. The right to arms. The right to be protected from the government busting down your door whenever it feels like. The right to not have guards posted in your house to ensure you behave. The right to a fair trial. etc. etc. etc. If we removed the rights of someone anytime the majority feels they don't have that right, we'd be living in that tyranny that some people think is impossible in this day and age.
    6
  10. kim, this isn't a pro-life issue. The guy that did this is going down, and that's the end of the responsibility for those deaths. It was 100% him and no one else. And, yeah, all she does is recite common anti-gun talking points.
    5
  11. And given a rifle and sent to war.
    5
  12. Ian, yeah, bots. It's all bots. No one can actually be a lover of liberty. That would be a travesty. Maybe, just maybe, someone actually has an opinion that differs from yours.
    5
  13. Johnny, the Supreme Court already ruled that the right to keep and bear arms exists whether it's written as an amendment or not. That ruling is proper given the writings of the Founding Fathers.
    4
  14. Samantha, you dare me to tell what to the parents?
    4
  15. Milliband 1948, I'm not sure where you got your information about the Second Amendment, but you really need to pick up the Federalist Papers and give it a read.
    4
  16. ​ @echopoint5943  The point of this speech is heaping their failure in how they treated their fellow human being at the feet of gun owners who never did anything wrong. When she said, "Those talking about how we should have not ostracized him? YOU DIDN'T KNOW THIS KID!" all I could think of was, "The child that's not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth." Aaron Stark is a confirmation of this. I'd recommend watching his TED Talk.
    4
  17. Mike Faller, you have no power to infringe on the natural rights of another person. Just stop, because you're being objectively immoral.
    4
  18. Nuclear power is some of the cleanest power you can get. Net energy nuclear fusion will be an energy revolution more important than the founding of electricity itself. 
    3
  19. Nick Chanas, objective morality is found in natural rights. What you're talking about is the most fundamental of immoral acts that you could conceive. Even if you remove the Second Amendment, likewise with any amendment in the Bill of Rights, it does not cease to exist. The government doesn't have the legitimate power to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms in the first place. It was only written, as with the rest of the Bill of Rights, as an extra measure of protection. In fact, in The Federalist #84, Hamilton warned of people like you that would think the wording somehow gives the government power it doesn't have or could simply be removed.
    3
  20. Jessica, I support that black man not going to prison in the first place because of what he chooses to put in his own body. Even then ALL rights should be reinstated once a full sentence is served.
    3
  21. Amy Baynard, why do you think Republicans is perpetually the "aging demographic that will be dead soon"? Idealistic liberals move en masse to conservative and libertarian views as they age. I didn't say it was everyone, only that age is always a division on the demographic.
    3
  22. Mark Keller, people who are talking about disarming the public are people like Dianne Feinstein, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Jan Schakowsky.
    3
  23. anglian, I don't think that has much of anything to do with it. I think that we just need to stop stigmatizing mental health so much, ensure that people are educated on mental health issues, get education out there regarding teenage angst and its understanding, chill out on the "all hope is lost, the economy is in the toilet, this nation sucks, you have no future, half the country hates you, etc." narrative, reach out with messages to at-risk groups offering help and support and letting these individuals who are at risk for committing these acts have a healthy outlet, and more.
    3
  24. People at TYT do coke. You'll hear John Iadarola from time to time constantly and endlessly sniff when he's on the panel.
    3
  25. I pay the NRA to lobby to maintain liberty in Congress, so no. Get rid of truly malicious lobbying first, and then I will give up lobbying for liberty.
    3
  26. Flower Child, we have the objective moral responsibility to wait until they act. Only through a person's actions can we then legitimately strip someone of their rights. Liberty is inherently dangerous. Safety is 1984.
    3
  27. Flower Child, don't break down to summary dismissal and simply restating your position. Keep up the discussion. We all have equal natural rights. It is immoral to infringe on those rights. What gives you or anyone the power to morally infringe on those natural rights?
    3
  28. Flower Child, there doesn't have to be a point. A natural right isn't something you need to explain to exercise.
    3
  29. "Now, show me 1st world countries that have banned guns and gun violence has gotten worse." I can show you that gun deaths in the US have steadily dropped in similar ways to nations that heavily legislated guns without having to ban or heavily legislate firearms.
    3
  30. Devil'sAdvocate, you're very wrong on rights being wholly subjective. Natural rights are objective to the nature of being. It has nothing to do with society, laws, people, but only the nature of existence. The nature of existence means that you must be able to adequately live. Being capable of living is the ability to defend oneself. In the case of humans, this is exercised through wicked and deadly weaponry fashioned and traded for. If we had evolved with poisonous spines, would you feel the same about this conversation should the argument be for the forced surgical removal of said spines from all people? Our continued existence in a life-threatening situation is only guaranteed by our own individual actions -- not the actions of others. If the government takes my right to own guns, and I am killed without that line of defense, does the government get punished? Does my local Congressman lose his life? Of course not. It's only my life lost and no one else's, so it's only my responsibility and no one else's. "You are completely downplaying slavery and it's popularity before it's downfall." I don't have to give you my version. Let me simply quote Jefferson in a draft of the Declaration of Independence: "he [King George] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another." "I think something needs to change. We lead the world in school shootings. You may not think things need to change and are fine with our status as the world leader in children dying in school shootings. We will see who is on the right side of history here. I'm done debating this point." You didn't debate. You just restated your original opinion while completely not addressing my points at all. "Do you really, really think that your backyard firearms are a match for our military and government technology have nowadays? Really? If our government wanted to subdue us, they would do it with or without your little peashooters. I worked for an entity that dealt with military weapon/technology. Let me just say that a 'peoples revolution' would be quickly annihilated. In less than a day. " Like in Afghanistan? Here we are 17 years later. "because 'Murica?" No, "because it's a natural right." I thought you were interested in having an actual discussion, but when one comes your way, you shut down awfully quick. You're not just looking to slap around the low-hanging fruit, are you?
    3
  31. empbac, Parkland had one resource officer that sat outside while he listened to shots going off, knowing kids were dying. More arms, more chances someone will stop the shooter. When he attacked "the left", the girl behind him said that he doesn't know any of their political affiliations, and that's why he narrowed it to the ones backing this movement and said that he wasn't attacking anyone personally -- which he wasn't. There are two types of instinctual responses in psychology: fight or flight. No one can look inside you. You have to figure out for yourself whether you're a fight or flight person. That deputy in the school was a flight person. Why don't we need armed soldiers in schools? Even if we ban all guns, a huge guy with a knife can come into a Kindergarten class and kill young kids, and without some sort of force equalizer, there's not a thing a teacher may be able to do about it. I use this as an example because this has happened in nations where guns are completely banned from citizens. If you care about children's lives, you would want to give them good protection. If I were a teacher in a classroom during a school shooting, locked in the room with my students, I'd much rather have a gun than not have one. The former gives you a chance, the latter doesn't.
    3
  32. aschoenb1, guns are not meant to increase or decrease safety of the whole. They are there as an individual choice for defense. Some homes may be safer with a gun and some may not. That is not an argument for trampling on everyone's rights.
    3
  33. I, a natural born citizen of the United States, am the NRA. You're calling to fight against me and the many, many other people who pool our money together to retain the natural right to self defense for all.
    3
  34. We have guns for killing. That's their purpose. That's why we keep them. We don't keep them as finger warmers.
    3
  35. R6 God, I'd rather take my own safety into my own hands because no politician who disarmed me is going to be executed if I die. At the end of the day, it's entirely up to me to make sure I keep breathing. It's the same with everywhere else too. You just don't hear the calls for reinstating gun ownership because dead people can't tell you that they'd be alive if they had a gun. Instead, you don't really care about lives, just lives that are rubbed in your nose.
    2
  36. Apollo, your rate of mass shootings after Port Arthur is the same as your rate of mass shootings before it. Nothing changed exceot giving up your natural rights to a government usurping power it doesn't have.
    2
  37. Galaxy, liberty is inherently dangerous. Your people once fought for liberty and freedom. What happened that you'd give it up so easily because some people die?
    2
  38. No, I have a very broad and complex philosophy of liberty that is based on Englightenment thinkers. There is no liberty to be free from fear. Money is a social construct to be governed by society. Life and self-preservation is not a construct of society nor humanity and is not under the jurisdiction of any person or entity to limit another person's access to that right. I seem to have a cavalier attitude because this isn't about people dying. It's about wanting to infringe everyone's rights when they've done nothing wrong and without even the courtesy of due process of law. With that being said, dying is something that will happen. Some will die "before their time" while others will live to an old age. Death is always tragic and nasty and horrific, but it's not going anywhere. If I die to a shooter, I'll be the one drawing fire from the shooter by engaging him. When it comes to fight and flight instinct, I fight. You are ok with people dying as long as it's not by a gun. I mean, after all, when someone is committing a stabbing attack you're not dying because you're able to run faster than the slowest person. I doubt you'd be in the back of the crowd keeping the knife-wielder busy. And you're ok with people dying because they didn't have a gun to defend themselves since you won't have your nose rubbed in that.
    2
  39. Lawmakers don't have legitimate and moral power to legislate guns.
    2
  40. Stop grandstanding against people's rights, and there will be nothing to defend against.
    2
  41. "Yes, you will still have your guns after. No one is suggesting that they take/keep them away from non violent, law abiding people." Except Dianne Feinstein, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Jan Schakowsky disagree with you.
    2
  42. She's not smart. She's just an unwitting pawn.
    2
  43. Mr. Carter, our individual and natural rights should never be infringed. They are already infringed upon heavily. Please stop. When you start infringing on natural rights, you cause a real existential threat to continued civilization.
    2
  44. Akif Murad, at the end of the day, the only person responsible to ensure you continue living is yourself. The ability to defend oneself is paramount to continued survival. It's, in fact, one of the most important natural laws that exist. I also didn't say that gun rights is as important as natural rights. The right to keep and bear arms IS a natural right. My choice of verbiage is mine alone. If you have an issue with what I said, address it and not how I present it. That would be an ad hominem fallacy. Have you ever read Locke or Rousseau?
    2
  45. JNagarya, you're very ignorant on this subject. The Bill of Rights are all natural rights. They're listed as they're the most frequently attacked natural rights. And you're right that it might not have been necessary. In fact, Hamilton argued in The Federalist #84 that no matter their wording, a Bill of Rights may be used as a "colorable" pretext to grant the government powers that it doesn't have. This is exactly what you're doing. Furthermore, natural rights has nothing to do whether any god exists or not. Natural rights are objective reality of pre--government human existence. Gun ownership is, in objective fact, a right. What your example addresses is how government provides justice to individuals' natural rights. Our rights extend to the point where we infringe on another's rights. For instance, if you rob a bank, you have infringed on others' natural right to ownership of property. Therefore, the government provides justice for this infringement by removing the rights of the criminal through, and this is a very important part, due process of law .
    2
  46. Lovett Ledger, the man who is drowning has every right to life. No one will force him to give up fighting for his life. Only he has the choice to give up his life. Rights exist whether government exists or not.
    2
  47. Akif Murad, I'm talking sense and logic. You simply don't understand. Natural rights are individual, not collective. You have a collective, utilitarian view of rights. That's objectively immoral. It doesn't matter what's greater or worse for society but what's in the best interest of each individual, per individual. If a government can't exist without infringing on natural rights of individuals who've done no wrong, it has no business existing.
    2
  48. Akif Murad, "The job of a police officer is to protect civilians, is it not?" It isn't, no. If it was there job to protect us, someone would be fired anytime someone was killed. "Also, fuck you for saying the military isn't safety." It isn't. It's defense, not safety. "Also, killing is never justified." So if someone is actively stabbing you, you can't legitimately kill them? That's a pretty prey attitude. No, I take that back. Even a timid deer will try to kill a wolf. I'm not sure what that makes you.
    2
  49. Oh yeah, those deadly dangers of lottery tickets. lol
    2
  50. Samsara Judgement, automatic weapons shouldn't even be limited in the first place, so bump stocks are certainly not a legal or moral problem.
    2