It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Gun Control Is BS - Penn and Teller Google Video

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 10:53 PM
link   
Google Video a show called BS by Penn and Teller.

Someday when America actually becomes a full fledged police state they'll try to snatch up every single gun they can. America will be a very different country when that day happens.

I'm not American but I'm personnally thankful to see rampent gunownership in the states. I think it's the reason why we haven't seen a New World Order police state yet because America's "Leaders" must be very scared about all the ownership.

Constitutions are all well and good but when your government takes away your civil liberties right from under you what else do you have? What other option do you have but to pick up the rifle and physically defend your God given rights?

No man or woman would enjoy a world where they must surrender freedom for security. It's false security. It's Tyranny.

Just look at the militization of the police forces. I'd rather deal with terrorists frothing at the mouth then the military police forces that are being built. It's very intimidating and last time I went to Washington it was like visiting the soviet union. Security apparatus everywhere. Guns in your face everywhere.

I know for a fact that the South is itching for another civil war. Too bad they didn't win the first one. North America would have been better off.

May Dixie once again be on the move...

have fun in the coming revolution. It will be a very happy time.

[edit on 3-12-2006 by jinsanity]




posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 12:25 PM
link   
It's not there.

Please post operating links when refering to other sites.



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Yo wheres the link I love pen and teller those guys are crazy.



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   
That sucks. Google took it off. Didn't even bother with any of their other episodes.

Well it was good. They made some good points. You'll just have to find it yourselves if you really want to see it. Damn it was a good one.

Did you know that Columbine was a "Gun Free Zone" when the shooting occurred?

Gun control is BS because it only hurts law abiding citizens. Criminals don't register their guns. Why Becaue they obtain them ILLEGALLY. lol.


[edit on 4-12-2006 by jinsanity]



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Considering Penn and Teller is a show on a TV station, the reason why full episodes of it are removed are simple.

TV Station requests google to take down illegal clips, google complies.

If you ask why other shows stay on Google indefinatly?
Alot of TV stations either don't care or see that having video's on Google Video or Youtube is actualy good advertisement.



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 02:36 PM
link   
true but this is the only episode of penn and teller that has been taken off. Probably becvause it's their best one and it gets the point across very well.



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 02:46 PM
link   
You are probably right in your assumptions. It is quite apparent that there are forces that wish to disarm the American public. It will not happen,not without government blood flowing through the streets.

Guns don't kill people,people kill people. If you don't believe that, I tell you what I can do. I can leave a loaded gun laying on any table in a room and I guarantee you that gun does not hurt anyone unless some knuckle head comes along and grap a hold of it.



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 02:52 PM
link   
There are responsible gun owners out there. Does anyone ever see someone trying to shoot up at a gunshow? No because they'd be dead before they can pull the trigger.

In the show there was this woman who is now some kind of public servant and she had an incident back in Texas where her, her mom and father were having breakfast when a man drove his truck through the windows, got out and started randomly killing people.

He killed her dad and her mom but not her (probably because she's a babe) She owned a gun but the laws at that time said she had to keep it in the glovebox of her car.

She felt betrayed by a stupid law and doesn't know why she followed it in the first place.

Then she was talking about some new laws passed in her town and how there was alot of negative feedback. How fender benders would turn into a shootout at the OK corral but it simply didn't happen.

And then they talked about the american revolution. If it weren't for Guns America wouldn't have been free and wouldn't have set the standard for all the world to follow at that time.

I believe it was Jackson who said that in order to keep the powers that be in check there should be a revolution every 20 years. Sad that thats not the case.





[edit on 4-12-2006 by jinsanity]



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 05:38 PM
link   
All GunControl laws do is make it easier for criminals to cause mayhem. If everybody in a bank had a gun and 3 armed robbers walked in and threatened to kill people for money, I garauntee you those 3 men are not walking out of there without atleast having been shot up.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 05:51 PM
link   
I have dealings with law enforcement in my city, and I can promise you, I have never heard them say anything but positive things about an armed public. We have concealed/carry permits here. They realize they can't be everywhere and bad guys think twice before trying to pull off a crime.

There is a reason for the 2nd Amendment: You have a right to protect yourself and your family. Freedom of speech wasn't won with a pen, but with the barrel of a gun. Unfortunately, most Americans have forgotten their rights, allowed bureaucrats to restrict and suspend their rights, and/or never taken the time to learn their rights.

Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who give away their freedom for the promise of security deserve neither." Guess what I'm getting for Christmas!






[edit on 4-12-2006 by MrMicrophone]



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 06:18 PM
link   
It will get far worse than it is today before the revolution, but never forget it probably will happen infact it would probably be a very healthy thing for america for it to happen.


But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
Most beautiful document in the WORLD.

I heard recently that the amount of Guns in america has either surpassed or will soon surpass the population of this country. It wouldnt be easy to round up that many weapons, no they will have to convince us to give them up before they will ever get them out of our hands thats for sure. They have already tried it. Thank goodness for the NRA, if the amount of intelligent individuals on ATS, that truly understand why we need guns, is any indication of how many americans understand why we need them then we are in good shape.

The time for the revolution will be when any of the bill of rights are abolished, then the world will witness either how great our country is or how meager.



posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
All GunControl laws do is make it easier for criminals to cause mayhem. If everybody in a bank had a gun and 3 armed robbers walked in and threatened to kill people for money, I garauntee you those 3 men are not walking out of there without atleast having been shot up.

Shattered OUT...


And how many of the armed customers, and of the innocent bystanders would be hurt or dead? There´s a serious flaw in your argumentation:

The money the bank loses will always be repaid by insurance. You can´t have the same for lost lives....



posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 08:20 AM
link   
Where do these anti-gun people come from and why do they not have their facts stright??? I'm tired of posting all of the links that show that violent crime DECREASES when Concealed Carry laws are enacted. I'm not gonna do it again - so you anti-gun nuts can just go search the hundreds of other threads bearing that stat out!

Let's just get the basics straight and the rest should bear itself out - criminal will ALWAYS find a way to get guns, no matter if they are made illegal or not. A concrete example of this is drugs. Drugs are ILLEGAL! They cannot be made, tranported or sold anywhere in the US, yet drugs are EVERYWHERE! Anyone who wants to buy drugs can find them and purchase them within a matter of hours. Want to know something? The same applies to fully automatic weapons - illegal yet criminal seem to have an abundance of them. Armor piercing munitions - also illegal, yet the criminals are loaded down with the bullets known as "Cop Killers."

If you want to be intellectually honest, you have to face the simple fact that banning guns will give the criminal element total control by disarming law-abiding citizens. The facts are all right there. Concealed Carry laws contribute to the safety of common law-abiding people. I know, I am a certified NRA instructor. I own nearly a dozen firearms. I have never committed a crime. I have never intentionally harmed anyone. All of my weapons are safely stored and are NOT subject to being stolen (My gun safe weighs over 1000 pounds!).

Now moving on to the far more nefarious "The government is going to confiscate [my] weapons claim." Um, no they're not. First of all, I am protected by the Second Ammendment. Secondly, let's assume some rogue President issued some edict in some ill-advised attempt to do this - they would have to pry that gun out of my cold, death rigormortised hands! Their blood would run in the streets like rivers of red! Let me assure you ABSOLUTELY that I am NOT alone in this sentiment. The NRA alone boasts MILLIONS of members who share in this sentiment; without mentioning the tens of millions more people who own guns but are not members.

Additionally, I have family members in law enforcement who have told me that they would never support such an order - disarming law-abiding citizens for no reason. I have 3 cousins in the armed forces. One a Marine, the other an Army Ranger and the third in the Air Force. Each of them have told me separately that to obey such an order would be treasonous as it is an illegal order in violation of the Constitution. Their standing orders are to disobey any illegal order!

In short, the notion of this is pure fallacy. We saw what happened in NO after Hurricane Katrina when they attempted to disarm people. A direct result of that was a Federal law prohibiting that from ever happening again and complete outrage against the government for even allowing it to happen in the first place. Any attempt to subjugate the American people to the will of a police state will be met with very bloody results!



posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 08:30 AM
link   
I grew up with guns, MANY MANY guns in my house. My dad had a wall full of firearms. He believed in gun ownership (obviously) and I learnd gun safety before I could ride a bike. There is nothing wrong with owning a wepon. Also there is nothing wrong with obtaining those wepons legaly.

Currently I do not own a gun. I have a small child in my house so I believe that it would be safer to not have a firearm in my house at this time. (keeps the rugrat from shooting himself pretty effectivly)

But it is my constitutional right to own a firearm if I so choose. Now obtaining it through legal means is the way to go untill they strip that right from americans altogether I will only purchase a gun through legal means.

What does that show? Not much. Criminals will always get guns. Heck they will get full autos off the back of a truck. So disarming the law abiding citizens in this country only leads to Criminals and law inforcement being the only ones that have guns. I say piss on that when my boy gets older im getting my 357 back.



posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lonestar24
And how many of the armed customers, and of the innocent bystanders would be hurt or dead? There´s a serious flaw in your argumentation:

The money the bank loses will always be repaid by insurance. You can´t have the same for lost lives....


There's another serious flaw, and that comes from history: a well-armed public has never been able to withstand a takeover.
Everybody in Iraq has firearms and knows how to use them. Ditto Afghanistan and a host of other countries in that area (historically we can also name a thousand examples like the Phillippines.) Their armies are weak and technologically backward and they all fell to invaders.

Pre-invasion there was violence between the citizens. Post-invasion, well, civil wars like the one in Iraq are not uncommon. There's no gun control there now.

You see the scenario played out over and over again in history.

It's the military that need better technology and it's the scientists that need money and support for technological development. If you threw your energy and money into military and scientific research rather than in worrying about the 2nd Amendment, we'd all be a LOT safer.



posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

There's another serious flaw, and that comes from history: a well-armed public has never been able to withstand a takeover.
Everybody in Iraq has firearms and knows how to use them. Ditto Afghanistan and a host of other countries in that area (historically we can also name a thousand examples like the Phillippines.) Their armies are weak and technologically backward and they all fell to invaders.

Pre-invasion there was violence between the citizens. Post-invasion, well, civil wars like the one in Iraq are not uncommon. There's no gun control there now.

You see the scenario played out over and over again in history.

It's the military that need better technology and it's the scientists that need money and support for technological development. If you threw your energy and money into military and scientific research rather than in worrying about the 2nd Amendment, we'd all be a LOT safer.


I am not sure what you are implying here,but if you are implying that an unarmed citizenry is just as safe as an armed citizenry,...I couldn't disagree more.

[edit on 5-12-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
It's the military that need better technology and it's the scientists that need money and support for technological development. If you threw your energy and money into military and scientific research rather than in worrying about the 2nd Amendment, we'd all be a LOT safer.


Sure, that has worked out extremely well for North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba and dozens of other dictatorships!
All of those countries threw all of their resources toward military and technology and the citizens of each of those nations are prospering at the hands of their respctive leaders.


Come on! The citizens of this country are the "Well-armed militia" that was intended in the Constitution. The revolutionary war demonstrated that armed civilians could repel an armed invader. And the knowledge that so many CITIZENS are armed is what keep the politicians from thinking that they can become dictators!



posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
There's another serious flaw, and that comes from history: a well-armed public has never been able to withstand a takeover.
Everybody in Iraq has firearms and knows how to use them. Ditto Afghanistan and a host of other countries in that area (historically we can also name a thousand examples like the Phillippines.) Their armies are weak and technologically backward and they all fell to invaders.

Pre-invasion there was violence between the citizens. Post-invasion, well, civil wars like the one in Iraq are not uncommon. There's no gun control there now.

You see the scenario played out over and over again in history.

It's the military that need better technology and it's the scientists that need money and support for technological development. If you threw your energy and money into military and scientific research rather than in worrying about the 2nd Amendment, we'd all be a LOT safer.

There is no problem with what I have said, the flaw that lonestar pointed out is a worst-case scenario that would happen if the criminals believe that their lives are worth less than a few bucks, if I know that I'm going to rob a bank and everybody in that bank has a gun, I'll tell you that I'm thinking twice about walking inside.


Criminals do not fight on the level, they attack the weak and down-trotted, they look for easy targets, a civilian with a gun who knows how to use it is NOT an easy target. That's what criminals are, civilians with guns with the intent of hurting others.

I seem to believe that the United States of America was formed (with help from a European nation) from a well armed and trained militia(the experience from previous conflicts from many of the militiamen helped turn the tide). The people in Iraq and Afghanastan who had guns, IMO for the most part did not know how to use them, how I know this? Well seeing pictures with 12 years old wielding AK-47's twice their size seems to show me that compared to our troops; they don't know the first thing about arms and rifles.

There is a fine line between owning a gun, and properly knowing how to use one. The best gun control comes from gun knowledge, teach people how to use guns, how to be safe with them and there should be less of a problem than uneducated people wielding pistols and rifles. Gun Control laws are far from the answer, it just promotes a more arrogant society.

Shattered OUT...




top topics



 
0

log in

join