Aussie comedian goes to town on the 2nd amendment.

[Zamolxe]

If the leaders would really want to solve Brazil's issues they could in a heartbeat, and not by arming everyone. Wouldn't that just be sweeping the issues under the rug?
Solve the poverty, education, housing and social inequality issues and crime would disappear. Also, decriminalize drugs as most violence and corruption is related to drug trafficking in Rio.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Those are good ideas Zamolxe, but they don't protect innocent people in the short term and neither do the police there apparently.


The police even in countries where guns are totally outlawed are still probably going to have access to guns, even if they don't always carry them. An of course militaries are going to have guns, and I don't hear people too often calling for their militaries to get rid of all their guns. So maybe the idea coming out of Europe is simply that not everyone is qualified enough to have a gun. Is that it?

[Shezbeth]

Oh my, I see a whole lot of refusal of one another's viewpoints,... except one side has guns.

Just sayin'! Xp

I know which side the zombies prefer,....

[Snowflower]

Well, Shezbeth, if I disagree, are you suggesting that I say I agree instead?

[Shezbeth]

Whatever would make you suggest that? O_o

I'm saying there are those who are firm in their perception of validity and purpose in both gun ownership and the right to,... and there are those who are firm in their lack of perception of.

And there are those who are preferable to zombies.

[citsym]

It seems to me that the whole idea of this "gun control" or "no guns" in US is simply to have the US citizens unarmed and NOT dangerous towards DHS.
After all, seems to me DHS is getting ready to control US citizens even further:

The Denver Post, on February 15th, ran an Associated Press article entitled Homeland Security aims to buy 1.6b rounds of ammo, so far to little notice. It confirmed that the Department of Homeland Security has issued an open purchase order for 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition. As reported elsewhere, some of this purchase order is for hollow-point rounds, forbidden by international law for use in war, along with a frightening amount specialized for snipers. Also reported elsewhere, at the height of the Iraq War the Army was expending less than 6 million rounds a month. Therefore 1.6 billion rounds would be enough to sustain a hot war for 20+ years. In America.

Add to this perplexing outré purchase of ammo, DHS now is showing off its acquisition of heavily armored personnel carriers, repatriated from the Iraqi and Afghani theaters of operation. As observed by “paramilblogger” Ken Jorgustin last September:

[T]he Department of Homeland Security is apparently taking delivery (apparently through the Marine Corps Systems Command, Quantico VA, via the manufacturer – Navistar Defense LLC) of an undetermined number of the recently retrofitted 2,717 ‘Mine Resistant Protected’ MaxxPro MRAP vehicles for service on the streets of the United States.”

These MRAP’s ARE BEING SEEN ON U.S. STREETS all across America by verified observers with photos, videos, and descriptions.”

Regardless of the exact number of MRAP’s being delivered to DHS (and evidently some to POLICE via DHS, as has been observed), why would they need such over-the-top vehicles on U.S. streets to withstand IEDs, mine blasts, and 50 caliber hits to bullet-proof glass? In a war zone… yes, definitely. Let’s protect our men and women. On the streets of America… ?”…

“They all have gun ports… Gun Ports? In the theater of war, yes. On the streets of America…?

Seriously, why would DHS need such a vehicle on our streets?”

... Looking at what's happened with "mind control" who is to say that the Aussie comedian Jim Jeffries has not been "planted" with this sketch to weaken people's resolve to maintain firearms... seems plausible to me.

In fact, the use of the Port Author false flag and Sandy Hook indecent, indicates to me, he's either knowingly or unwittingly in the TPTB's pocket.

And this isn't just happening in US... The two incidents that 'triggered' gun control in the UK . The Hungerford massacre and Dunblane school shootings, both evocative names and very suspicious and probably some sort of early gun false flags.

Arguments over the second amendment just keep us divided and not focused on the real problem...

[Shezbeth]

Has anyone forgotten the 1.6 billion hollow-point? This ninja hasn't,....

[TargeT]

Posted by Ellisa (here)
With so many of the posters supporting gun ownership, could you tell me how you people feel in countries in which it is very unlikely that the people you meet have access to guns. Do you assume that what I just wrote is wrong, and everyone really, in fact, does have guns? Would you be very worried for your safety because there are so few armed people about the place? Would you feel frightened? Would you you feel safer in the US where the woman or man next to you may have a gun in their pocket?

Have you, in fact, ever actually travelled to a country in which personal gun ownership is uncommon (not illegal, farmers are usually allowed to have simple rifles)? Did you feel any different regarding personal safety there?

Switzerland, by the way, where gun ownership is encouraged, has the highest gun murder rate in the EU, and their rate is also high on the world scale. I think it is common sense to assume that easy access to guns would allow the death toll from gunshot to be high- for example there often seem to be tragic accidents involving the family gun.

I currently live somewhere that gun ownership is very uncommon, it is nearly impossible for the average citizen to obtain a fire arm; we have the #3 highest death rate per 100,000 people IN THE WORLD. Gun crimes are heavily punished here and there are signs on busy street corners trying to dissuade gun crimes. I've lived her 2 years now.

This is a very complex issue (violence, not the TOOL used) Violence will exist regardless of what tool there is, and in gun shootings or stabbings the numbers of victims are often similar enough that the lack of freedom by gun restriction is not justified. Focusing on just the tool is not helpful, especially when that tool can prevent murder and cause an environment that self-polices due to the "un known factor".... Is that person carrying? Are they able to defend them selves or are they just unarmed easy victims (the latter reflects where I currently live).

I've been to the EU several times, (western mostly) traveled the country...(BIASED AMERICAN POINT OF VIEW WARNING!!!!)... the peoples there are for the most part, compliant. The freedoms they lack are not overly missed, I consider EU the NWO's experimental success program; even the "punks" are mostly harmless vrs the government (though that seems to be changing a bit lately).

Posted by belljoshua565 (here)
TargetT Would you like to tell me how many gun shootings happen in Europe as compared to the U.S.?
I agree that his arguements are spurious but do you really need guns? They have only one purpose, that is to kill, is that the solution to anything?

Shootings? How about intentional homicide? the EU has very low numbers of homicide in general.

The UK is in the EU though right?

The EU has 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000

The US has 466 violent crimes per 100,000, the US has 88 guns per 100 people, we are BY FAR (FAR FAR FARRRRRRR) the highest gun owners per capita

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=N9efqhGBHZI

Guns aren't always the issue.. Violence is the issue, not the tool and preventing tools, especially ones that are particularly good at saving lives will not help violent culture.

Posted by Zamolxe (here)

Posted by TargeT (here)
in the first 15 min this video describes why you will not see my side of the argument, why most people live their entire lives with out changing their opinions on strongly held beliefs; this video shows us (with proof to back it up) the mental workings that trap us

Very interesting video, though I did not quite like the way he tried to explain consciousness.

So, are you trying to say that the first 15 mins of the video describe why you might BOTH not see the other's side of the argument or just why Napping might not see YOUR side of the argument?
I'm asking because my first impression (and I'm sorry if I'm mistaken) is that you don't "practice what you preach", that you are only taking in the possibility that he is wrong and not that also you might be wrong. Couldn't the same mechanism be triggered in your brain, "acting on a neural level as if you're being threatened, even if this threat comes from harmless opinions or facts that you may otherwise find helpful and could rationally agree with"? - quoted from the video -

If so, that would make your post seem condescending to say the least.

I have a fundamental understanding that prohibition never works, when you look at an issue and pick out one small piece while ignoring the holistic system you will not solve the issue at hand.

Guns are not the issue, violence is the issue. I do not believe this, I know it to be true. I am aware of the reaction provoked by a challenged strongly held belief, I used to be victim to it quite often. I don't think that I am reacting in a fight/flight/freeze manor to this (this is called couching (in linguistics) I do leave the door open that its possible I am wrong, but only if you assume humans need babysitters constantly) ; though there is a bit of exasperation present for sure (I have run into this "prohibition will save us" nonsense many times before, the basic premise of which is that humans are too stupid to make decisions for them selves so an authority figure (who is also human) must make it for them (and be exempt from said decision) which is always disastrous; historically.)

Posted by Zamolxe (here)
Only because the comedian doesn't know that many of these massacres might have been false flags, does that actually invalidate his arguments? Aren't the massacres still possible? Wouldn't there be a higher probability for these events to take place in a country where children/adults have a far greater ease to get hold of weapons?

Since his argument does not include any valid examples, yes it is completely invalidated.

The USA has 88 guns per 100 people.......... where are the massacres that equate to those numbers (do NOT ignore SSRI influenced shootings, those are special case and almost don't count)?

Posted by Zamolxe (here)
You say that guns bring lower crime rates. Most probably true, but is this how we want to solve problems? With fear? Instead of solving the underlying causes that lead to crime/war?

I do understand that I might be wrong and this mechanism inside my brain would prevent me to rationally see this, but still I hold my beliefs.

I did not say that, but I do agree.

We do not solve problems with restrictions, ever (restrictions are purely fear based); that only exacerbates problems and this has been shown repeatedly "ad nasium".

Posted by Zamolxe (here)
I don't believe you solve fear with fear.
I don't believe violence and war are an answer to anything,
I don't believe armed citizens are a way to deter other nations from invading, I think no country should invade or wage war on another country ever, period.
I don't believe armed citizens are a way to deter a government from sending its soldiers against the people. I think armed citizens would actually be an excuse/tool for the soldiers to be coerced into viewing the people as enemies ("terrorists")
I believe guns and violence will only sow confusion and fear in any revolution and I think a peaceful stand will always be the best solution for protest against a government.

You need to review history a bit more, we are not up against just governments here, we are not even up against just "people" here (at least not as the common term is understood). and "a peaceful stand" has never worked, there MUST be a transition period and that includes allowing people to defend themselves from those who do not transition as quickly as the rest.

Posted by Zamolxe (here)
I don't believe in "banning" in general but I also don't agree with tools for killing. I think killing is objectively wrong so... shouldn't this be banned? It just feels that guns shouldn't actually exist in the first place, even if this sounds really extreme.

If x people out of a population have thoughts of killing someone only a percentage of them will actually do it (why society has put those thoughts in their head is a different discussion). I trully and objectively believe that the percentage would be higher if the x people would have access to guns - it's just easier, a way to just pull a trigger and poof - than if those people would have to brutally do the killing (with knives/axes/rocks).
In my country almost nobody has guns, we have practically no gun deaths and I wouldn't want it any other way.

The number of deaths per shooting incident vrs the number of deaths per stabbing is nearly identical, the tool is not the problem; the mentality is.

your focus is being wasted on a tool when it should be aimed more at the mentality, and worse than that; you would wish to prevent people from protecting themselves with the best protection tool available.

Guns are not meant "only for killing" they are a tool and can be used for many many things, the majority of which (in modern form) is food gathering, sports/competition, and protection; killing barely rates on the scale in comparison to those.

Even most military members use their guns for protection, not aggression (while in war zones) the number of "killers" is very small, we found this out in the civil war, Vietnam, many many times.

[Shezbeth]

What he said. ^^^

[gittarpikk]

Posted by Snowflower (here)
My position on the subject mirrors many others in this thread. Guns don't kill. People kill. If they can't get guns and they want to kill, they will do it with knives. If they can't get knives, they will do it with rocks. So, the suggested bill to ban all rocks on the planet - makes as much sense to me as a bill to ban guns. And about those rocks. Someone that gets mad is less likely to throw rocks if they know their target is armed to the teeth with a pile of rocks. But if they know their target is sitting there defenseless - they will throw the rocks. Consequences. That's what it's all about.

I can see it now..Aussie comedian piss*e off one of audience and is beaten to death by limp noodle... well... the maybe the lil ole lady swinging her umbrella had a bit to do with it

Guns are sorta like a parachute.... not really needed until you real DO need it....but if you didn't have one...you wont ever need one again....

I do call BS of all the different 'areas' that 'have guns' as opposed to the ones where they are 'outlawed'
..seems you can pretty much find same areas that prove a point or prove it false depending only how you look at (skew) the data.... so for as many 'results' you wish to post...there are that many , if not more, that can be brought up nixing those results.

IMO Ron Paul nailed it when he mentioned you might not want to try home invasion in Texas..

[Operator]

Posted by TargeT (here)
---
Then he says "protection" is not a valid use for a gun...
---

We always forget to follow up with a confronting counter question:

So why then do law-enforcement officers wear them?

(I was tempted to type law-enfarcement ... )

[gripreaper]

Well, let’s take an example. Waco, Branch Davidian’s, April 19, 1993. A sovereign group of individuals, who had rescinded their corporate citizenship of slavery and retained their rights to allodial land patent title, their sovereign rights to believe as they wished and to maintain their own community without contracts of adhesion to the state, were summarily burned alive and slaughtered by the US corporate government, who did not and does not like those who step outside their mandated slavery.

And the Branch Davidian’s had guns. The government went in there with tanks and blow torches, so not a very even match when it comes to fighting tyranny.



You know how most of the people responded? Oh what a shame… that 82 men, women and children were burned alive by our government...well I guess tyranny has fully arrived and is greater than our ability to withstand it so I guess I’ll comply and follow all their rules and be a good slave. By the way, what else is on TV tonight and do we have any more of that fried chicken?

To couch the debate as a “gun control” issue misses the point of tyranny and why the second amendment was included by those who were not died in the wool masons tied to the crown, who saw an opportunity for self determination, self responsibility and self actualization, with ONE RULE. Do no harm to your fellow man.

America is now a failed experiment, the global elite banksters took control and run their statutory slave system, and we acquiesce to it and support it every day with our energy. Yes we do, admit it. WE built their military industrial complex and their sophisticated state sponsored draconian police force, and we did it by commercial use of debt. More debt, more raping and pillaging of this planet to service the usury on more and more debt, and more screwing your fellow man to "get ahead" of this slave system, which is impossible to get ahead in.

Small wonder people are losing it and violence is escalating. The system of usury and slavery has run its course. Its time for a whole new paradigm.

[Ellisa]

I still don't know if US citizens feel safer in an American state with virtually unrestricted gun laws or in a country where guns are banned or restricted to only soldiers, farmers and possibly police.

A gun has only one function. It is built to kill something. Modern guns can kill multiple targets in seconds. I just don't think that makes anyone safer.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Thanks for posting that video, Targe. I'm going to be sharing that one.

Posted by gittarpikk (here)
IMO Ron Paul nailed it when he mentioned you might not want to try home invasion in Texas..

Yes, Ron Paul is from Texas and he should know about the "Castle Law" there. A man's home is his castle and he is legally entitled to defend it lethally, whether that's with a gun or a crossbow or a rock. If someone doesn't like that, then they can simply find another state to break into someone's house. Many or most states in the south have similar laws though. I know Virginia has these kinds of laws. And there are actually more machine guns registered in Virginia than even in Texas. And our violent crime rate is 1.9 out of 1000 people, below the national median of 3.9.

FBI: More People Killed with Hammers, Clubs Each Year than Rifles

According to the FBI annual crime statistics, the number of murders committed annually with hammers and clubs far outnumbers the number of murders committed with a rifle.

This is an interesting fact, particularly amid the Democrats' feverish push to ban many different rifles, ostensibly to keep us safe of course.

However, it appears the zeal of Sens. like Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) is misdirected. For in looking at the FBI numbers from 2005 to 2011, the number of murders by hammers and clubs consistently exceeds the number of murders committed with a rifle.

Think about it: In 2005, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 445, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 605. In 2006, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 438, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 618.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...an-With-Rifles





Gives a new meaning to the phrase "ban hammers." As in, legislation to ban hammers, anyone? A hammer has one purpose: to smash something. Unless it has those prongs on the end, then it could also pull things I suppose...

[Mike Gorman]

I know this topic is divisive, and the apparent logic is that if people don't have easy access to guns you don't get these awful civilian massacres - BUT, is this necessarily true?
It is fine for a wisacre comedian to deliver an ironic word game to get people to think in different ways , but remember the Port Arthur shootings in Tasmania, in a country that
restricts gun ownership strictly, there have been other instances of 'out of control' people shooting in the U.K, Australia, New Zealand - and criminals will always be able to get guns
on the black market. The point remains very strongly that governments are kept in check by an armed citizenry, they have a much harder job to be tyrannical - and if you think they have nothing to gain
from being 'Tyrants', think again. I am with Ron Paul, I think we have the right to bear arms and to defend ourselves from all manner of threats, not least governments.

[Operator]

Posted by GalaxyHorse (here)
I know this topic is divisive, and the apparent logic is that if people don't have easy access to guns you don't get these awful civilian massacres
---

We should take the massacres out of the equation. They are only there as means for the division.
What should be on the agenda is "Is it a good idea if authorities have a monopoly on access to weaponry ?"

[Matt P]

We must always remember that we are shooting with less than a fully loaded weapon here because of the control of information. Mass media purposefully prevents almost ALL stories of when firearms are used to stop or prevent crime. Media only reports incidents of when guns are used in ways that make people think they are the problem. If we were all armed with ALL the ammunition about guns, I suspect this would be a very different conversation.

Matt

[TargeT]

Posted by Ellisa (here)
I still don't know if US citizens feel safer in an American state with virtually unrestricted gun laws or in a country where guns are banned or restricted to only soldiers, farmers and possibly police.

A gun has only one function. It is built to kill something. Modern guns can kill multiple targets in seconds. I just don't think that makes anyone safer.

I did answer your question.

I moved to the US Virgin Islands from Alaska.

I moved from one extreme to another (in many ways) Alaska allows anyone 18 and over to carry a fire arm concealed anywhere the public is permitted (schools, bars, and federal buildings are exempt) I used to carry a fire arm almost every day and it was routine to see 1 out of 5 people in public with an openly carried pistol on their hip.

I now live in the US Virgin Islands where gun ownership is basically illegal, we are the #3 murder capitol IN THE WORLD... Do I wish I had a gun with me at all times? yes, do I feel safer? HELL THE **** NO!!!

I guess you also missed my statistics on England (the UK) and it's OUTRAGEOUS violent crime statistics, when I was last in England I did not feel safe walking the streets, stab wounds are just as deadly as gun wounds.

Perhaps you looked at my previous post and pulled a TL;DR... this post should be of a more consumable size.

[observer]

The last thing I wish to be characterized as, is the member who resorted to ad hominem in reply to this thread. Sometimes you just have to call them like you see them - rules be damned.

I'm old, I'm cranky, I'm about fed-up with all the naysaying to the legitimate exposé concerning the tyranny of the Global Elite at this website, and when I see an apparent shill pushing an agenda.... well, it just pisses me off.

"Napping".... such an appropriate nic for someone with such little understanding of what they are advocating.

The first thing the Nazis did when they came to power was disarm all the "undesirables". Next, they rounded-up all those "undesirables", and summarily exterminated them. Do we learn anything from history?

I agree with everything each member articulated who has expressed their distaste for what was promoted in the OP.

[Wind]

Indeed guns don't kill people, people kill people... But that being said, I hope that one day we won't have the need for guns.