Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
On December 22 2012 13:19 micronesia wrote: Yea, the idea that the current government can get anything controversial done is almost laughable at this point... I don't think we could get Congress to formally agree with the statement: "water molecules have both hydrogen and oxygen"
depends on your definition of water, as would you not take a drink out of a facuet or even bottle water and call that water which may not be chemically the same as or pure as H2O.
As far as my thoughts on gun control "debate" like anything that is politicized it's apparently done by mostly two people who believe they are 100% right and think the other people are insane.
Anyways, I would say sane people would concede that guns make killing easier compared to other available weapons in a general sense.
And to that end at what level of gun ownership are most people willing to give up for less gun violence over a long run. After all a nation with as many guns as the US it takes a very long time for guns and their equipment to go out of circulation/use in private hands.
gun control doesn't have to equal illegal to own any guns
I feel like I am in a good country with very bad people, I am tired of feeling like I am living in the ghetto of the western world, I just wish the USA would get its freakin act together and start raising kids right, start rebuilding society. Lets get healthcare, lets stop valuing possessions over people, you are not your Facebook friends, you are not your iPad3, lets show kids Bill and Teds Excellent Adventure "be excellent to each other", and Fight Club "horrors of materialism"
If its freakin 9/11 lets just say STOP IT, stop letting that event define who we are, we don't need to be paranoid, angry, resentful people, lets go back to having respect for each other and love each other again.
On December 22 2012 10:55 AmericanNightmare wrote: As someone who will have children in public school soon.. I would choose a school that allowed armed teacher in the class. I do not believe that they would pull them out to settle down wild children because unlike more than half of you irrational people.. I have faith in people to do what's right..
...are you serious? If you had "faith in people to do what's right" then why the fuck would you even need guns? Dumbest thing I've read today.
In case they don't... The dumbest thing I've read today are several post on here.. where people think they fully can comprehend something based solely on something they read and never slightly personal experience.. I've known lots of teacher in my lifetime who I would trust them to look after my child gun or not... If I'd trust them with that much... I don't see why a gun would matter.. people understand that a child left with me will be in the "presence" of firearms.. AND the child will never know it OR be in danger from it.. AND STILL PEOPLE DO IT..
I would gamble my kids life on that the gun the teacher was concealing would be used to protect his life before it would be used haphazardly to kill him or anyone else.. or a crazed persons gun kill him.. I would really do it.. BECAUSE the teachers I either know or known have all demonstrated to be of excellent character.. The gun owners I know have demonstrated to be of excellent character.. A teacher who are proven trustworthy and stable should be allowed to carry.
If you are basing this idea on teacher you know/knew .. (I'm assuming from china) then I'm truly sorry for the people who educate(d) you..
OK so you make it a requirement for all teachers in the US to carry guns in order to make schools safer. By that logic shouldn't you also require ushers and ticket clerks at movie theaters to carry guns since there was a shooting there too. Also there was a shooting at a mall so perhaps all mall staff should be required to carry guns too? Post office staff? Where does it end, with every adult in the US walking around with concealed carry? Sounds like the wild west to me. You better hope none of those people are having a really bad day or have some undiagnosed mental problems.
Watch from 35:35 on, Jesse Venture destroys the gun control/ban debate. If it's not clear to these people by now after all these arguments, then they simply are just choosing not to.
Sorry, are you for or against greater gun control? Because from what I heard he destroyed his credibility by rehashing the same old arguments against gun control. Nothing new here, and what was there wasn't delivered well at all. Shall we go through his position one point at a time?
1) Mexico has strict gun control but still has a massive amount of gun related deaths. He really opens with mexico? Off to a poor start in my opinion. Piers counters correctly asserting that there is a war going on over drugs that is financed by American drug money and fought with weapons brought in America. Maybe he is starting off with his weakest argument to make Pires feel a little better about himself.
2) He then proceeds to ignore the statistics on gun related deaths in Europe (add Australia and China to that list). Piers "America has more gun deaths that the a fore mentioned countries(12,000 US, 50 Britain). That's inarguable." Jesse "No. How else will we defend ourselves from an oppressive government?" (Me thinks Jesse has a hard time counting)
3) He then justifies this position by citing the Philippines as an example of where a dictator disarmed the population (FYI Ferdinand Marcos was being supported by the United States. Marcos was even given asylum in Hawaii after his government fell to UNARMED PEOPLE) So Jesse was pandering to the fear of an oppressive government. Firstly let me say that the semi-automatic small arms that are being procured in the US would in no way enable a civilian population to fend off a dictatorial regime. The government has the advantage of being on home soil and probably would have co-opted many citizens just as has happened countless of times before. America has the largest and most technologically advanced military in the world. Would you really trust that people like Jesse could defend the constitution against that???
Secondly. the US government has so many checks and balances written into the constitution that the chances of it becoming an authorterian regime is almost nill. The government can't even agree on how to avert the fiscal cliff, I fail to see a situation where there is a sudden bi-partisan will to disestablish the countries democratic organs. They are too well protected in the legislation.
4) "A gun is a tool. People kill people." Well there are some tools that are designed to do somethings better than others. A shotgun is good for home defense because the buckshot is good indoors and minimizes the chances of a bullet missing the target and injuring an innocent bystander. A military style assault weapon is a tool designed to KILL HUMANS. You can't conceal it, it is for intimidation and death dealing. Politicians arent trying to disarm the entire population. That has been made clear. They are trying to stop tools made for killing form being for the purpose for which they were designed; that is to kill. Clear enough yet?
I think I've made my point. This guy isn't fit to be a politician. The fact that you think that he destroyed the debate reflects your ignorance and a propensity to submit to populism.
this is really fascinating. Are americans so fearfull of their own government, that they always have to declare the highest mistrust in saying, the second i dont like u anymore i will, i will arm myself.
isnt this also a qustion about the society, are americans so fearfull of their own society in order to mistrust, not just some people, but everyone? Did i miss something or shouldnt, the government act in a way society wants.
Isnt it crazy that those mass murderers just take that right? they feel betrayed by society, arm themself and do something incredibly stupid, every weapon-lover proclaims to have a right to?
It is the most self-centered view, about only me knows whats right and wrong. By all means no one can claim that.
On December 22 2012 15:45 WoodLeagueAllStar wrote: Now 5 more people died in a shooting today.
I feel like I am in a good country with very bad people, I am tired of feeling like I am living in the ghetto of the western world, I just wish the USA would get its freakin act together and start raising kids right, start rebuilding society. Lets get healthcare, lets stop valuing possessions over people, you are not your Facebook friends, you are not your iPad3, lets show kids Bill and Teds Excellent Adventure "be excellent to each other", and Fight Club "horrors of materialism"
If its freakin 9/11 lets just say STOP IT, stop letting that event define who we are, we don't need to be paranoid, angry, resentful people, lets go back to having respect for each other and love each other again.
My own personal opinion is that if people in America really want things to change, then they will simply have to stop buying firearms. There are so many people with so many guns already, and the way the US law system is set up makes making real changes almost impossible anyway. America needs a change in the way it's society views guns and weapons and such a change happens over a long period of time, and when that happens and anti-gun groups gain more traction then you could see progress.
I personally don't see any reason why, in a modern nation in the 21stC people feel the need to carry/own a tool that's only job is to kill other people.
On December 22 2012 12:14 Nagano wrote: Also, if you really want to solve this issue, and not just feed your anti-gun irrationality, you'd go for a law that would provide for tighter screening of individuals, better mental healthcare, and a media that does not feast on this butchery and turn the murderers into anti-heros, fueling more people who would've otherwise off'd themselves in their parents basement to try and make a new world record on body count
It seems completely alien to me, as there is no gun culture here. All i have said is that there needs to be strong controls on who can and can't own a weapon. To me that is common sense.
The majority of gun-owners would agree with you here. That's what everyone wants. What the politicians are pushing is a "ban" on "assault weapons". Like it will do anything of the sort. It sounds nice but it is modeled after the current CA AWB, which has accomplished nothing it promised except make Feinstein and other politicians win political points.
It will be the same nationally. The politicians will pat themselves on a "good bill" that will not actually do anything. And the public will believe it.
You say that the majority of gun owners would agree with 'strong controls on who can and can't own a weapon' then why has the NRA actively lobbied against background check legislation such as the Brady Act? They are hardly a fringe organization. You try to speak for all the gun lobby in this thread and make them sound very reasonable but the political reality seems somewhat different. Where is the large group of sensible gun owners in the US lobbying politicians for stricter background checks? All I see is complete obstructionism for any kind of change.
On December 22 2012 15:45 WoodLeagueAllStar wrote: Now 5 more people died in a shooting today.
I feel like I am in a good country with very bad people, I am tired of feeling like I am living in the ghetto of the western world, I just wish the USA would get its freakin act together and start raising kids right, start rebuilding society. Lets get healthcare, lets stop valuing possessions over people, you are not your Facebook friends, you are not your iPad3, lets show kids Bill and Teds Excellent Adventure "be excellent to each other", and Fight Club "horrors of materialism"
If its freakin 9/11 lets just say STOP IT, stop letting that event define who we are, we don't need to be paranoid, angry, resentful people, lets go back to having respect for each other and love each other again.
5 people die every day from shootings in the USA. We have 350,000,000 people. Why is this suddenly national headline news?
I swear to god, if I see CNN with a headline tomorrow "GANG MEMBER DRIVE-BY SHOOTS OTHER GANG WITH GUNS" i'm going to lose it.
On December 22 2012 16:12 Cillas wrote: this is really fascinating. Are americans so fearfull of their own government, that they always have to declare the highest mistrust in saying, the second i dont like u anymore i will, i will arm myself.
isnt this also a qustion about the society, are americans so fearfull of their own society in order to mistrust, not just some people, but everyone? Did i miss something or shouldnt, the government act in a way society wants.
Isnt it crazy that those mass murderers just take that right? they feel betrayed by society, arm themself and do something incredibly stupid, every weapon-lover proclaims to have a right to?
It is the most self-centered view, about only me knows whats right and wrong. By all means no one can claim that.
In a word. Yes. Mistrust of authority is a large part of the foundation of the United States. It is such a large part of what it is to be American that it might be difficult for some people to understand. The only thing that peoples from elsewhere in the world might have to compare it to is adolescent rebellion in a lot of cultures, which causes people to look down on us as being childish. It is one of those cultural differences that makes politics so frustrating.
We can all have this debate over gun control and cultural biases, but none of us should expect any enlightening agreement. The best we can really hope for is that we all leave the conversation with some amount of respect for each others opinions on the topic. I understand peoples concerns about firearms being used to commit atrocities that fuel these debates, and I respect their wish to not be surrounded by them. However, I believe the atrocities that could be committed against a disarmed population to be of a greater risk to society and so I continue to live in America.
I hope that those who disagree with America constitutional right to keep and bear arms can respect our beliefs on the topic and stop thinking of us as childish or insane. I have the same hope for those who share my belief in the second amendment rights; that we stop thinking of others as foolish or naive. We disagree. It doesn't make any of us right or wrong, just of differing opinions.
On December 22 2012 12:14 Nagano wrote: Also, if you really want to solve this issue, and not just feed your anti-gun irrationality, you'd go for a law that would provide for tighter screening of individuals, better mental healthcare, and a media that does not feast on this butchery and turn the murderers into anti-heros, fueling more people who would've otherwise off'd themselves in their parents basement to try and make a new world record on body count
It seems completely alien to me, as there is no gun culture here. All i have said is that there needs to be strong controls on who can and can't own a weapon. To me that is common sense.
The majority of gun-owners would agree with you here. That's what everyone wants. What the politicians are pushing is a "ban" on "assault weapons". Like it will do anything of the sort. It sounds nice but it is modeled after the current CA AWB, which has accomplished nothing it promised except make Feinstein and other politicians win political points.
It will be the same nationally. The politicians will pat themselves on a "good bill" that will not actually do anything. And the public will believe it.
You say that the majority of gun owners would agree with 'strong controls on who can and can't own a weapon' then why has the NRA actively lobbied against background check legislation such as the Brady Act? They are hardly a fringe organization. You try to speak for all the gun lobby in this thread and make them sound very reasonable but the political reality seems somewhat different. Where is the large group of sensible gun owners in the US lobbying politicians for stricter background checks? All I see is complete obstructionism for any kind of change.
You are assuming that the people who are lobbying for gun control are not gun-owning Americans. You would apparently be surprised at how many people I have met while shooting who support legislation removing the right to own firearms from convicted criminals, and from members of households containing mentally ill people. I have even met people who own weapons they store at the range because they don't think that it's right for people to keep dangerous weapons in a location where children are often left unsupervised, regardless of whether the weapons are unloaded, dismantled, or locked away. The NRA speaks for all gun owners in the way that people try to work any bargaining process by opening with an offer much less than they are expecting to spend, or much higher than they are willing to sell for. Not in the way that everyone actually agrees with the things they say. It's a part of the democratic process for many involved parties to begin at extremes and gradually work to an agreement by making concessions from each side.
On December 22 2012 15:45 WoodLeagueAllStar wrote: Now 5 more people died in a shooting today.
I feel like I am in a good country with very bad people, I am tired of feeling like I am living in the ghetto of the western world, I just wish the USA would get its freakin act together and start raising kids right, start rebuilding society. Lets get healthcare, lets stop valuing possessions over people, you are not your Facebook friends, you are not your iPad3, lets show kids Bill and Teds Excellent Adventure "be excellent to each other", and Fight Club "horrors of materialism"
If its freakin 9/11 lets just say STOP IT, stop letting that event define who we are, we don't need to be paranoid, angry, resentful people, lets go back to having respect for each other and love each other again.
5 people die every day from shootings in the USA. We have 350,000,000 people. Why is this suddenly national headline news?
I swear to god, if I see CNN with a headline tomorrow "GANG MEMBER DRIVE-BY SHOOTS OTHER GANG WITH GUNS" i'm going to lose it.
Ahhh, let the poor guy vent.
Even as an outsider looking at your country it is frustrating to see a nation full of well-informed, intelligent people (as evidenced by TL) consistently ignore acts of violence on their home turf.
On December 22 2012 12:14 Nagano wrote: Also, if you really want to solve this issue, and not just feed your anti-gun irrationality, you'd go for a law that would provide for tighter screening of individuals, better mental healthcare, and a media that does not feast on this butchery and turn the murderers into anti-heros, fueling more people who would've otherwise off'd themselves in their parents basement to try and make a new world record on body count
It seems completely alien to me, as there is no gun culture here. All i have said is that there needs to be strong controls on who can and can't own a weapon. To me that is common sense.
The majority of gun-owners would agree with you here. That's what everyone wants. What the politicians are pushing is a "ban" on "assault weapons". Like it will do anything of the sort. It sounds nice but it is modeled after the current CA AWB, which has accomplished nothing it promised except make Feinstein and other politicians win political points.
It will be the same nationally. The politicians will pat themselves on a "good bill" that will not actually do anything. And the public will believe it.
You say that the majority of gun owners would agree with 'strong controls on who can and can't own a weapon' then why has the NRA actively lobbied against background check legislation such as the Brady Act? They are hardly a fringe organization. You try to speak for all the gun lobby in this thread and make them sound very reasonable but the political reality seems somewhat different. Where is the large group of sensible gun owners in the US lobbying politicians for stricter background checks? All I see is complete obstructionism for any kind of change.
The NRA is simply the largest organization of it's kind and has a storied history in the U.S.. Lately they have not been as concerned about maintaining and protecting 2nd amendment rights, but more about preservation of their organization. There are other guns rights organizations that are beginning to have some clout, such as Gun Owners Association and the Second Amendment Foundation, the geniuses behind the Heller vs DC and Moore vs Madigan victories. There's a growing transition to supporting those two orgs specifically because they still fight for individuals at the court level.
You don't have to take my word for it, spend some time around gun rights forums, read up on guns rights politics, and you'll soon realize the NRA isn't nearly as popular as it once was and that a large number of people believe that the org is not acting in gun owners' best interest . It's in your personal interest to paint firearms owners as loonies, but what I'm saying is that when half of all households have at least 1 firearm, statistically you just can't think most firearm owners are all in agreement with the NRA's obstructionist policy. Sadly the NRA seems to be the main organization for this kind of event because they have the most money behind them. And they have the most money behind them because people look to who is the biggest / has the best shot at influencing Congress when they want to donate money/pay for membership. It's a catch-22 really, but what we're starting to see is a shift to better guns rights orgs over time.
On December 22 2012 12:14 Nagano wrote: Also, if you really want to solve this issue, and not just feed your anti-gun irrationality, you'd go for a law that would provide for tighter screening of individuals, better mental healthcare, and a media that does not feast on this butchery and turn the murderers into anti-heros, fueling more people who would've otherwise off'd themselves in their parents basement to try and make a new world record on body count
It seems completely alien to me, as there is no gun culture here. All i have said is that there needs to be strong controls on who can and can't own a weapon. To me that is common sense.
The majority of gun-owners would agree with you here. That's what everyone wants. What the politicians are pushing is a "ban" on "assault weapons". Like it will do anything of the sort. It sounds nice but it is modeled after the current CA AWB, which has accomplished nothing it promised except make Feinstein and other politicians win political points.
It will be the same nationally. The politicians will pat themselves on a "good bill" that will not actually do anything. And the public will believe it.
You say that the majority of gun owners would agree with 'strong controls on who can and can't own a weapon' then why has the NRA actively lobbied against background check legislation such as the Brady Act? They are hardly a fringe organization. You try to speak for all the gun lobby in this thread and make them sound very reasonable but the political reality seems somewhat different. Where is the large group of sensible gun owners in the US lobbying politicians for stricter background checks? All I see is complete obstructionism for any kind of change.
The NRA is simply the largest organization of it's kind and has a storied history in the U.S.. Lately they have not been as concerned about maintaining and protecting 2nd amendment rights, but more about preservation of their organization. There are other guns rights organizations that are beginning to have some clout, such as Gun Owners Association and the Second Amendment Foundation, the geniuses behind the Heller vs DC and Moore vs Madigan victories. There's a growing transition to supporting those two orgs specifically because they still fight for individuals at the court level.
You don't have to take my word for it, spend some time around gun rights forums, read up on guns rights politics, and you'll soon realize the NRA isn't nearly as popular as it once was and that a large number of people believe that the org is not acting in gun owners' best interest . It's in your personal interest to paint firearms owners as loonies, but what I'm saying is that when half of all households have at least 1 firearm, statistically you just can't think most firearm owners are all in agreement with the NRA's obstructionist policy. Sadly the NRA seems to be the main organization for this kind of event because they have the most money behind them. And they have the most money behind them because people look to who is the biggest / has the best shot at influencing Congress when they want to donate money/pay for membership. It's a catch-22 really, but what we're starting to see is a shift to better guns rights orgs over time.
I don't think all people who own guns are loonies. I know there are some people (mostly farmers) in NZ who own guns and it doesn't bother me at all. Why? Because I know my country has very strict background checks and licensing laws, it probably takes about as much effort to own a gun license as to own a car license and that seems perfectly sensible and justified to me because of the inherent danger of guns. We have a good system in place that people can use guns for work or recreation with little chance of them falling into the wrong hands.
What I don't understand is that you say most gun owners and lobbyists in the US are very reasonable about the issue and yet your country still doesn't have strict national background check and licensing laws in place mostly because of gun lobbyists. Do you see the disconnect there? Why it is so difficult for such eminently reasonable laws to be enacted? Is it really all the fault of those on the side of gun control?
After the Brady Act was originally proposed in 1987, the National Rifle Association (NRA) mobilized to defeat the legislation, spending millions of dollars in the process. While the bill eventually did pass in both chambers of the United States Congress, the NRA was able to win an important concession: the final version of the legislation provided that, in 1998, the five-day waiting period for handgun sales would be replaced by an instant computerized background check that involved no waiting periods.[15] The NRA then funded lawsuits in Arizona, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, North Carolina, Texas, Vermont and Wyoming that sought to strike down the Brady Act as unconstitutional. These cases wound their way through the courts, eventually leading the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Brady Act in the case of Printz v. United States. In Printz, the NRA argued that the Brady Act was unconstitutional because its provisions requiring local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks was a violation of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution (Brief Amicus Curiae of the National Rifle Association of America in Support of Petitioners, Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 1997). Based on these grounds, the NRA told the Court "the whole Statute must be voided." In its 1997 decision in the case, the Supreme Court ruled that the provision of the Brady Act that compelled state and local law enforcement officials to perform the background checks was unconstitutional on 10th amendment grounds. The Court determined that this provision violated both the concept of federalism and that of the unitary executive. However, the overall Brady statute was upheld and state and local law enforcement officials remained free to conduct background checks if they so chose. The vast majority continued to do so.[16] In 1998, background checks for firearm purchases became mostly a federally run activity when NICS came online, although many states continue to mandate state run background checks before a gun dealer may transfer a firearm to a buyer.
Here's an interesting take from political theorist Hannah Arendt on the risk of proliferating guns or promoting gun ownership -- the impact it might have on that OTHER sacred right, freedom of speech.
Guns pose a monumental challenge to freedom, and particular, the liberty that is the hallmark of any democracy worthy of the name — that is, freedom of speech. Guns do communicate, after all, but in a way that is contrary to free speech aspirations: for, guns chasten speech.
This becomes clear if only you pry a little more deeply into the N.R.A.’s logic behind an armed society. An armed society is polite, by their thinking, precisely because guns would compel everyone to tamp down eccentric behavior, and refrain from actions that might seem threatening. The suggestion is that guns liberally interspersed throughout society would cause us all to walk gingerly — not make any sudden, unexpected moves — and watch what we say, how we act, whom we might offend.
As our Constitution provides, however, liberty entails precisely the freedom to be reckless, within limits, also the freedom to insult and offend as the case may be.
We're a long away from everyone being armed to the hilt and treading on glass, but I just think it raises an interesting question.
The whole argument that guns make people safer is based on this idea that the threat of violent retaliation would not only deter criminals, but force people to conform to 'social norms'. So how does that impact our right to disagree, offend, or protest?
On December 22 2012 17:59 Defacer wrote: Here's an interesting take from political theorist Hannah Arendt on the risk of proliferating guns or promoting gun ownership -- the impact it might have on that OTHER sacred right, freedom of speech.
Guns pose a monumental challenge to freedom, and particular, the liberty that is the hallmark of any democracy worthy of the name — that is, freedom of speech. Guns do communicate, after all, but in a way that is contrary to free speech aspirations: for, guns chasten speech.
This becomes clear if only you pry a little more deeply into the N.R.A.’s logic behind an armed society. An armed society is polite, by their thinking, precisely because guns would compel everyone to tamp down eccentric behavior, and refrain from actions that might seem threatening. The suggestion is that guns liberally interspersed throughout society would cause us all to walk gingerly — not make any sudden, unexpected moves — and watch what we say, how we act, whom we might offend.
As our Constitution provides, however, liberty entails precisely the freedom to be reckless, within limits, also the freedom to insult and offend as the case may be.
We're a long away from everyone being armed to the hilt and treading on glass, but I just think it raises an interesting question.
The whole argument that guns make people safer is based on this idea that the threat of violent retaliation would not only deter criminals, but force people to conform to 'social norms'. So how does that impact our right to disagree, offend, or protest?
I think it's ironic that the gun lobbies preach liberty and freedom from the government and then suggest that the government deploy hundreds of thousands of armed police/guards into schools.
In the spirit of bumming people out, Slate magazine has been doing it's best to track all gun deaths in America since Newtown. The tally does not include suicides (60% of gun deaths), which often go unreported.
The only thing that is accomplished by anti-gun grandstanding and political speechifying is a massive short term increase in the amount of guns and ammo sold in US. I am skeptical that banning certain types of fire arms will prevent crazy people from going on shooting rampages. I am more interested in mental health care related strategies for identifying and treating potential shooters.
I find the same in attitudes in the people who want to prevent law abiding, responsible, and sane people from owning guns, and the people who want to censor video games and other kinds of media. Neither of them tend to be consumers of the product they fear. They don't really understand the product. They don't understand why a person would legitimately wish to consume the product. They ascribe bizarre and sinister reasons why a person would chose to consume the product. They ascribe bizarre and sinister consequences to availability of the product. It is difficult to find common ground in such a scenario.
Watch from 35:35 on, Jesse Venture destroys the gun control/ban debate. If it's not clear to these people by now after all these arguments, then they simply are just choosing not to.
Hahaha this guy just comes of like an idiot and he's not destroying any discussions.
"Look at germany, italy, spain... i think the facts are indisputable." "No" <-- You see that this is not an argument?
Seriously, you guys in america are afraid, that the goverment will opress you and use the military against you? First of all. That's not realistic at all. But IF... they would do that. You think a few texans with semi-automatic guns would be able to form a resistance against the biggest and strongest army in the world.
I love how he mentions mexico, as a country that has strict gun laws and still a lot of shootings. But that's such a dumb argument, because he acts like the only diffrence between Mexico and America are the gunlaws. The mexican goverment ist undermined by the drug mafia, the whole system is fucked up and nobody is able to enforce the law against the drug mafia. Last time I checked, the situation in the USA was kinda diffrent, much more compareable to a country like germany, spain, italy or france, where gun laws are very strict and people don't fucking shoot each other on a daily basis.
EPT
