Jim Jefferies Comedian on gun control

a reply to: Onslaught2996

Protection, in what world do you live in where you are on constant vigilance ..ie..sleeping, having sex..etc..

Moot point, that has no bearing on gun ownership. That situation would be the same with or without a gun. But I sure as hell would rather have gun then a knife if someone breaks into my house.

(2) Access to guns, are your guns just lying around for you to grab it or are you a responsible gun owner who makes sure their children can't take it or a criminal..like locking it up.

There's these things called "biometric gun safes" that open instantly upon verification, with a finger touch. They come in all sizes.

(3) The right to protect against your own government..made sense when you were evenly armed..but now you are outgunned and simply don't have the organization to group together to attack a well oiled machine. Who would lead..without a solid leadership and organization..it would be like picking off fish in a barrel.

Lets pretend that scenario came to pass, you would rather have nothing and bend over and take it, rather then at least try to defend yourself with what you have? Such a typical defeatist mindset.

originally posted by: Onslaught2996
The thing about gun owners is..they never argue any points..just call anyone who disagrees with them an idiot

So you're selectively ignoring the posts from people who are arguing specific points?

Thank you for establishing your worthiness in this discussion.

a reply to: Onslaught2996

1- So one only need protect themselves when they are sleeping? Logic fail.
2- Many gun owners have their guns locked in security cases under counters and furniture that open with three touches of a finger. The gun can be had in seconds. Another fail. Not all homes have children.... Or didn't you know that?
3- Ask the Taliban if they had the same weapons that the Soviets did when they invaded.

a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

I don't have an issue with gun owners who are just willing to use it in a life or death situation.

Nowadays though..they deem anything life or death...ie walking aggressively.

How about the ones who say they will kill because someone took their TV..etc.

A lot of them come off as bloodthirsty..and these are usually the most vocal of the group.

One of their lines is.."if they can raise their head...they are still a threat"

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: Onslaught2996

originally posted by: redhorse
a reply to: Onslaught2996


Some particular low points; an assumption that teachers would shoot children because children give teachers a hard time

So your so sure a teacher will not have a bad day and just walk in with a gun, if she was legally allowed to, in a class room and start firing?

You can make this guarantee? You would trust you kid in a school with an armed teacher and just hope they are sane and can handle pressure like a normal person?

Can you make a guarantee that a teacher wont bring a gun to school anyway w out having a legal CC for it and take students out.........

Can you guarantee they wont come in with a knife and go stab happy?

Can you make a guarantee they wont bring in a bomb when theyve had enough bs from the kids......

See how that "what if" works?

If theres such a concern about teachers not being stable then perhaps there needs to be more stringent standards......

But I digress, because I know that the concern really isnt how stable the teachers are, its about guns, youre just using the teachers as a patsi to drive home a talking point

Of course not..my point is..would you want your kids to be protected by an armed stranger? Someone you barely know.

a reply to: Onslaught2996

Why are you asking for posters to make guarantees for other people OP. This is the progressive mindset in a nutshell. IT is failed logic based upon assumptions of the greater masses.



Bad things happen all the time to blame the guns instead of the person is progressive logic. It is like blaming the car instead of the driver. But progressive logic is also selective it seems.


Let me ask you this OP is Australia more free today or less free today? Governments want people unarmed and passive for a reason.......CONTROL. What would happen in Australia if a crazy government gained control what could the people do.......NOTHING.

originally posted by: Onslaught2996
Points he makes.

(1) Protection, in what world do you live in where you are on constant vigilance ..ie..sleeping, having sex..etc..

(2) Access to guns, are your guns just lying around for you to grab it or are you a responsible gun owner who makes sure their children can't take it or a criminal..like locking it up.

(3) The right to protect against your own government..made sense when you were evenly armed..but now you are outgunned and simply don't have the organization to group together to attack a well oiled machine. Who would lead..without a solid leadership and organization..it would be like picking off fish in a barrel.

More points he made but I suggest watching it.

Let me see if this old guy can answer your questions.

(1) I don't think anyone expects to be protected 24/7 every minute it just isn't possible and thats reason the many police agencies ask citizens to protect themselves because they know they can't do it. What are you going to do when criminals beat on the door and you wait on 911 and the police to come? And just what are your chances of defending yourself if your firearm is taken away as opposed to having one? The first 5 minutes are critical.

(2) Some people have quick access safes next to the bed for just this reason. just reach in and it matches your hand and viola' instant access. In my case we have no children at home, they are grown. But when they were children they were locked up and taught gun safety and how to shoot very young and could have cared less about guns, which was a shame because he was a world class shooter.

(3) I will bet the North Vietnamese never thought about the mismatch or they would have never thought about going to war. Right now with 88% of Americans owning firearms and over 300 million guns in the hands of citizens there isn't a larger standing army anywhere in the world. And given the latest police violence against unarmed citizens lets ask minority neighborhoods how they feel about gun control, I'll bet they want shooting lessons. Never mind the fact our fearless leaders protected by scores of secret service are reducing military might below a million.

Fish in a barrel don't shoot back.

a reply to: butcherguy

You know what I love about you guys..the cry about "don't compare our countries"..unless of course you need to use another country to attempt to make a point..

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Onslaught2996
The thing about gun owners is..they never argue any points..just call anyone who disagrees with them an idiot

So you're selectively ignoring the posts from people who are arguing specific points?

Thank you for establishing your worthiness in this discussion.

Yeah and it goes both ways.How many times have we heard people say gun owners are crazy, behind in the times, paranoid, opposing government, are racist, etc, etc.

Goes both ways. Most gun owners want to keep their guns out of protection. Rural people prefer them for protection from wild animals, dangers like burglars, people passing through causing trouble. Suburbans/city people usually for protection from the criminal element who does not use the tools for good reasons like most legal gun owners.

IMO anti-gun people are either fearful of a gun being in the hands of someone other than an official, state-sanctioned murderer like police or the army. And they live in areas where they're more likely to encounter a criminal with a gun or someone who's irresponsible with one.

originally posted by: Taupin Desciple
a reply to: Onslaught2996

I thought he was great. Very funny. The most valid point was the last one starting at 14:40. If anyone thinks they can take out the military, I say let them try. 1 Less stupid individual to worry about.

Thanks for posting.

Really?

A bunch of uneducated dingdongs in the Middle East did a pretty good job of it for about a decade.

There are a few facts that the anti-gun crowd conveniently forgets when the "citizens vs military" argument rears its ugly head: 1) Guerrilla tactics work. 2) A vast majority of the standing military would not fight against the citizenry. 3) Nearly all military veterans are gun owners.

Look at what happened recently with Cliven Bundy. Agree or disagree about the politics of the situation, a group of armed citizens kept the government at bay.

originally posted by: Onslaught2996
a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

I don't have an issue with gun owners who are just willing to use it in a life or death situation.

Nowadays though..they deem anything life or death...ie walking aggressively.

How about the ones who say they will kill because someone took their TV..etc.

A lot of them come off as bloodthirsty..and these are usually the most vocal of the group.

One of their lines is.."if they can raise their head...they are still a threat"

This post seems to have moved the goalposts .
Moved to "All gun owners are aggressive nutcases ".

originally posted by: Onslaught2996

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: Onslaught2996

originally posted by: redhorse
a reply to: Onslaught2996


Some particular low points; an assumption that teachers would shoot children because children give teachers a hard time

So your so sure a teacher will not have a bad day and just walk in with a gun, if she was legally allowed to, in a class room and start firing?

You can make this guarantee? You would trust you kid in a school with an armed teacher and just hope they are sane and can handle pressure like a normal person?

Can you make a guarantee that a teacher wont bring a gun to school anyway w out having a legal CC for it and take students out.........

Can you guarantee they wont come in with a knife and go stab happy?

Can you make a guarantee they wont bring in a bomb when theyve had enough bs from the kids......

See how that "what if" works?

If theres such a concern about teachers not being stable then perhaps there needs to be more stringent standards......

But I digress, because I know that the concern really isnt how stable the teachers are, its about guns, youre just using the teachers as a patsi to drive home a talking point

Of course not..my point is..would you want your kids to be protected by an armed stranger? Someone you barely know.

armed strangers ...........like the cops? The millitary?

If your childrens teachers are strangers then you arent doing what you should be doing as a parent........

originally posted by: Onslaught2996
a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

I don't have an issue with gun owners who are just willing to use it in a life or death situation.

Nowadays though..they deem anything life or death...ie walking aggressively.

How about the ones who say they will kill because someone took their TV..etc.

A lot of them come off as bloodthirsty..and these are usually the most vocal of the group.

One of their lines is.."if they can raise their head...they are still a threat"

They're most vocal because the PTB want people to think most if not all are bloodthirsty and violent. So they report and exploit the violent percentage that is nowhere near the majority or even half. They want people arguing against eachother over every issue. Imagine if all our effort was put towards uniting and telling them for once and for all "No more. It ends now oppressors."

a reply to: Onslaught2996

Are you going to address my reply or continue to hold your ears and shout?

a reply to: Onslaught2996

YOU ARE ALL protected, 24/7 outside of your perception, the ONLY differences are RANGE and TACTICS. If YOU are concerned with a question of their skill then they have to know how to shoot to get authorized to carry . If you're questioning their SANITY then perhaps GUN CONTROL funding should be put into mental health instead of disarmament strategies like questions that boil down to NO.

originally posted by: Onslaught2996
a reply to: SubTruth

I would say that the majority just "LIKE" guns and some actually use it for the purpose they wanted on for..protection.

Why would you need an arsenal if you didn't just love guns..if it was for protection one would suffice.

WOW you really have no idea about this topic OP. You are painting with such broad brush strokes you are going to paint yourself in.


People own guns for many reasons and this really is progressive logic wrapped up in progressive logic with a side order of progressive logic.


Let me ask you this OP why did the founding fathers of the US put the 2nd in? Do you trust the government you live under?

a reply to: Answer

Yet the government fears in citizens co much...that they continue to screw you over..

They have no fear of guns owners. They can outgun and out match you.

Unlike those other countries..the military here will first hand knowledge of the country they would be attacking.

Keep believing your own military would not engage you, if it helps you sleep at night.

originally posted by: Onslaught2996


Of course not..my point is..would you want your kids to be protected by an armed stranger? Someone you barely know.

Why is this always the anti-gun viewpoint? I have never seen a gun owner suggest that teachers should be handed guns willy-nilly with no training but that's the anti-gun version of the argument because it's the irrational way to look at it.

If teachers were properly trained and legally able to get a concealed handgun permit, they should absolutely be able to carry a gun at school.

In response to your "armed stranger you barely know" point: have you ever researched the qualifications to be an armed security guard? The requirements and training are LAUGHABLE but I don't see any complaints when rent-a-cops are armed.

originally posted by: Onslaught2996
a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

I don't have an issue with gun owners who are just willing to use it in a life or death situation.

Nowadays though..they deem anything life or death...ie walking aggressively.

How about the ones who say they will kill because someone took their TV..etc.

A lot of them come off as bloodthirsty..and these are usually the most vocal of the group.

One of their lines is.."if they can raise their head...they are still a threat"

Really.......most gun owners come off as bloodthirsty?

Funny ive never heard of that line ......

I feel like youre maign stuff up

Please show statistics that say most legal gun owners are bloodthirsty and see everything as a threat........

I believe its been shown that the number of CC gun owners who have actually committed reckless acts of killing or maiming are so very low that its virtually negligible.......

in fact the number of incidents with legal gun owners , compared to police incidents that were unlawful is staggering......

And thats saying something considering that there are more then quadruple the number of gun owners to police officers.......

And those are just the incidents that were prosecuted against LEO's

No offense but you are so far off base in your assumptions its laughable

a reply to: Onslaught2996

I disagree with your stance on guns but I agree the military (most of them at least) would not only engage citizens, they would wipe them out in a lot of those incidents.

They have outgunned the citizens but stripping them of their guns means ultimate control. Crowbars versus armored vehicles. There's no comparison. Even if the citizens revolted with guns I think they'd be smacked hard.