Started By
Message
re: Stand up comedian Jim Jefferies on Gun Control
Posted on 8/31/15 at 9:47 am to Bama3714
Posted on 8/31/15 at 9:47 am to Bama3714
quote:
1)Do you really honestly trust the governments of the world in a scenario where none of the people in ANY of the nations had a means to defend themselves?
Many countries, I would trust. And I still don't see how citizens of one country having guns affects what another country does to it's citizens. Especially if those countries are separated by an ocean.
quote:
2)Name me one single means of resisting totalitarian oppression in that scenario.
Has this scenario risen in an age where information is so easily traded?
1
Posted on 8/31/15 at 9:49 am to Bama3714
quote:
if that scenario occurred, do you not think that would result in one heck of a political nightmare for us to act? You really think nothing would be done?
So in that case, the US government would still come to their aid even is US citizens didn't have guns? Then your 3 step program doesn't hold up.
Posted on 8/31/15 at 9:51 am to pvilleguru
Has information ever been so easily available? How would that stop an oppressive government?
Posted on 8/31/15 at 10:02 am to pvilleguru
quote:
So in that case, the US government would still come to their aid even is US citizens didn't have guns? Then your 3 step program doesn't hold up.
Why would our government then give a frick what the citizens thought if they were no longer checked and balanced? Maybe they would. Maybe there would be benevolence and no oppression for the first time in history over the long term. Why would there be, though? Why would any sane person want to take that chance?
Maybe there would be benevolence worldwide. But with all of the leaders calling for a world government, does it give you the warm fuzzies that we could trust in such a system to not be oppressive?
If the lack of oppression over the past couple hundred years doesn't have anything to do with the American citizens' guns (more specifically the Constitution of the Constitutional Republican forms of governments set up in the Western nations.. of which checks and balances and gun rights are the staples), what would you chalk it up to?
This post was edited on 8/31/15 at 10:03 am
Posted on 8/31/15 at 10:09 am to Phat Phil
As a responsible gun owner, I'm a firm supporter of more stringent gun control. At least half of this country's population is too stupid to be within 10 feet of a firearm
or a voting booth
or a vagina
or a voting booth
or a vagina
Posted on 8/31/15 at 10:26 am to Phat Phil
this thread was a nice read for a Monday morning.
lots of laughs were had.
lots of laughs were had.
Posted on 8/31/15 at 10:30 am to AUbagman
quote:
That makes this comparison very, very shitty.
Yep, no comparison at all.
Posted on 8/31/15 at 2:26 pm to Bama3714
quote:
So you REALLY think that the general public would stand no chance against the US military, especially considering that many in the US military would side with the people? Now, the citizens may not topple the government, but do you not see that it prevents oppression?
Remember Waco?
Posted on 8/31/15 at 2:42 pm to Bama3714
quote:
At the end of the day, they willingly gave their guns up
Exactly. That is the key point people miss.
It doesn't MATTER if "the people can't beat the military."
It doesn't MATTER that the country would be safer if everyone had fewer guns.
What MATTERS is Americans are armed to the teeth, and if you tried to disarm them it wouldn't happen willingly. In fact it would start a campaign of violence unlike anything we have seen since the Civil War.
Too many times people want some policy without thinking of the practical application. When it comes to guns we will NEVER be free from gun violence because that would require a society that is free from guns, which we refuse to have.
AT BEST you can pass restrictions on FUTURE gun ownership and background checks, or FUTURE bans on things like clips or "assault weapons," but there will still be enough "grandfathered" guns from the post-Brady Bill era that we won't see any significant drop in gun violence due to those policies. The only way to really drop the gun violence would be to COLLECT the guns already out there, and that isn't politically feasible.
I normally hate this line of reasoning, but if you want to live in a society that has less gun violence you have to leave this country. We have gun violence baked into our crust and our future because of practicalities.
This isn't even considering the fact that the NRA is one of the most powerful lobbies in America, so powerful that a Democratic President with a Democratic Congress couldn't pass gun laws.
If that doesn't blow a hole in the hope of those who think there is some magic solution for less gun violence I don't know what will.
This post was edited on 8/31/15 at 2:44 pm
Posted on 8/31/15 at 3:02 pm to five_fivesix
quote:
As a responsible gun owner, I'm a firm supporter of more stringent gun control. At least half of this country's population is too stupid to be within 10 feet of a firearm
or a voting booth
or a vagina
This is where I parked my car.
If they made it 10x harder (but not more expensive) to get a gun, I wouldn't care or complain. Make the process as stringent as possible, just make it still attainable.
Posted on 8/31/15 at 4:17 pm to 3nOut
The National Firearms Act of 1934, Gun Control Act of 1968 and all Executive orders limiting purchases of firearms and ammunition should be revoked, reversed and done away with.
Posted on 8/31/15 at 5:24 pm to 3nOut
quote:
Make the process as stringent as possible, just make it still attainable.
If we just applied this to voting instead, we would fix a lot of the other shite wrong with this country.
Posted on 8/31/15 at 7:13 pm to Stonehog
quote:
Lack of education
Doesn't cause gun violence.
quote:
rewarding people for not working
Doesn't cause gun violence.
quote:
continuing programs aimed to keep people in a cycle of poverty,
Doesn't cause gun violence.
bullshite. Poverty definitely increases violence...when those people are unemployed they take to the streets. Most end up in gangs because crime is the only thing that pays for them..with gangs and crime comes gun violence.
Our welfare state incentivizes these actions through rewarding people for not working, and the system rewards people for broken homes. Single moms receive more benefits than married ones, and they keep spitting out kids to get more benefits and all of the kids are lacking a father presence and they join a gang because it ends up being the only form of "brotherhood" or social guidance they can find, and it just creates a broken society mired in poverty where all they know is gangs and welfare.
All you have to do is look at the culture, hell it's marketed and romanticized in movies, music, etc. Black people socially reject and belittle the ones who get out of the hood and make something of themselves by getting an education and a good job. They are seen as sellouts and "uncle toms".
No government policy will solve the problem. No amount of gun control will solve the violence. The only thing that will fix our inner city problems is a change of mindset and culture that focuses on education and hard work.
"An idle mind is the devil's workshop"
Posted on 8/31/15 at 7:23 pm to pvilleguru
quote:
Why isn't all of Europe being oppressed by their government?
HItler got rid of guns in Germany when he took power. Read a history book. Just because it isn't "happening" at the moment doesn't mean it can't happen at some point in the future to those nations. History shows that it eventually will. How many nations, since America was founded, have been ruled by evil dictators who killed millions when the citizens weren't armed? How many dictators has America had in that timeframe who killed our own citizens without any form of due process?
And yes, the US military wouldn't be able to defeat the citizens. 300+ million privately owned guns and millions of gun owners vs 2 million active military members that would be stretched out over the entire nation. Because a gun grab would have to be door to door and people would be prepared for it and ambush whatever military didn't defect when they showed up.
Our missiles, navy, nukes, etc would be worthless in this instance because our government wouldn't bomb it's own cities.
Posted on 8/31/15 at 7:26 pm to deltaland
People like SH like to think the Armed forces would destroy citizens and infrastructure. 
Posted on 8/31/15 at 7:57 pm to Alahunter
Even if they did, and even if he is correct the odds of the citizens winning that fight was slim, the odds of overthrowing a tyrannical government without guns is 0. No chance.
With guns you have a chance. The argument against guns because "the military is too strong to defeat" is a stupid one because if you give up your guns you damn sure won't defeat them. I'll take a slim chance over no chance any day
With guns you have a chance. The argument against guns because "the military is too strong to defeat" is a stupid one because if you give up your guns you damn sure won't defeat them. I'll take a slim chance over no chance any day
Posted on 8/31/15 at 8:21 pm to Phat Phil
Love it. And especially love the "10 %" present in this thread.
Posted on 8/31/15 at 8:55 pm to Robert Goulet
quote:
I find Jim Jefferies hilarious, but i am not a fan this bit and his atheism/christian stuff.
The Bible is a book of fairy tales. Don't get offended if people view them as such. If you have resolve in your beliefs, you shouldn't care if he makes fun of them. If you want to believe God ripped a rib out of Adam and he rubbed some dirt out of it and woman was born, go ahead. Some people don't.
Posted on 8/31/15 at 8:57 pm to hawgfaninc
quote:
he makes some good points
How so? There really is no comparison between the U.S. and Australia. Australia is a low-populated island nation that can easily shore up its borders. The U.S., on the other hand, is the third most populated country in the entire world and shares a porous border with a Third World country where drugs, guns, and even people travel freely across by the thousands. If you ban guns in the U.S., like drugs there will be a huge black market of relatively low-cost Mexican-imported firearms for criminals to stock up on.
Posted on 8/31/15 at 9:04 pm to deltaland
quote:
With guns you have a chance. The argument against guns because "the military is too strong to defeat" is a stupid one because if you give up your guns you damn sure won't defeat them. I'll take a slim chance over no chance any day
Waco destroyed this little fantasy.
Page 5 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News