FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
TYT - Gun Appreciation Day fail

TYT - Gun Appreciation Day fail

(2:24) January 19th was Gun Appreciation Day. Fortunately nobody got killed otherwise it wouldn't be the laughing matter that it is. The day ended with five gun appreciators accidentally shot but not killed. Looks like the gun lobby shot itself in the foot. Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks tells the story.

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1784 days ago)
So what point is trying to be made here when it "proved your point"? That guns are unsafe and that's why we should not own them? How many people have cut themselves with knifes or fallen off ladders? They are accidents too so should they be banned? Should we ban cars too because people get killed every day in accidents?
ReplyVote up (111)down (51)
Original comment
So what point is trying to be made here when it "proved your point"? That guns are unsafe and that's why we should not own them? How many people have cut themselves with knifes or fallen off ladders? They are accidents too so should they be banned? Should we ban cars too because people get killed every day in accidents?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1784 days ago)
First, Cenk doesn't say "it proved your point", he said "it proved our point" ...that accidents happen with guns. Secondly, you keep using the argument that "other things kill people too, so should we ban those things?" Yes, cars, ladders, knives, cigarettes, toys covered in lead paint, wallpaper containing arsenic kill(ed) people too - so legislation was introduced to make people's lives safer. At least in the UK toys no longer have lead paint, wallpaper is not made with arsenic etc. This is probably the same in the USA. Cars haven't been banned, but the law has both modified cars (safety windscreens, no internal sharp bits) and behaviours (speed limits, lower levels of alcohol, wearing seat-belts etc) to reduce the number of people killed. Rolls Royce had to modify the winged lady on the front of their cars so that anyone who was hit by it didn't have their guts ripped out. Nobody had a problem with that. In the UK we generally find it incomprehensible that the same principles of legislating for the common good are rejected by so many gun nuts in the USA. Yes, we've all heard the paranoia of "second amendment, right to bear arms, yadda yadda, stop tyrannical governments blah, I need an arsenal of assault rifles at home, bollocks". However, would you support someone who wants to drink a bottle of vodka then drive at speed through a pedestrian zone? I doubt it (but anything's possible). I guess you'd say something like, "No, you can drive your car in a safe way otherwise we'll lock you up or take away your right to drive." If you accept limits on the design and use of cars for the common good, why don't you accept limits on the design and use of guns?
Original comment
First, Cenk doesn't say "it proved your point", he said "it proved our point" ...that accidents happen with guns. Secondly, you keep using the argument that "other things kill people too, so should we ban those things?" Yes, cars, ladders, knives, cigarettes, toys covered in lead paint, wallpaper containing arsenic kill(ed) people too - so legislation was introduced to make people's lives safer. At least in the UK toys no longer have lead paint, wallpaper is not made with arsenic etc. This is probably the same in the USA. Cars haven't been banned, but the law has both modified cars (safety windscreens, no internal sharp bits) and behaviours (speed limits, lower levels of alcohol, wearing seat-belts etc) to reduce the number of people killed. Rolls Royce had to modify the winged lady on the front of their cars so that anyone who was hit by it didn't have their guts ripped out. Nobody had a problem with that. In the UK we generally find it incomprehensible that the same principles of legislating for the common good are rejected by so many gun nuts in the USA. Yes, we've all heard the paranoia of "second amendment, right to bear arms, yadda yadda, stop tyrannical governments blah, I need an arsenal of assault rifles at home, bollocks". However, would you support someone who wants to drink a bottle of vodka then drive at speed through a pedestrian zone? I doubt it (but anything's possible). I guess you'd say something like, "No, you can drive your car in a safe way otherwise we'll lock you up or take away your right to drive." If you accept limits on the design and use of cars for the common good, why don't you accept limits on the design and use of guns?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1784 days ago)
We have laws governing the sale and distribution of weapons in the US. Still, there are accidents with guns and I understand that. Both the US and UK have laws about safety on cars and there are deaths caused by cars every single day. You want to ban guns even though there are laws in place to help prevent crime and misuse of a weapon; however, you do not want to ban cars which kills and injures more people than guns. Does that seem logical? Both guns and cars are tools and if used properly and safely, they should both be allowed. Of course there will be some people that use them illegally (drunk drivers for example) but you do not prevent law abiding citizens from owning a car even when innocent children were killed by the illegal or unsafe use of them. But you want us to give up all our guns because of some illegal or unsafe use of them are occasionally used to injure or kill other people. Seems you are picking on a smaller problem when a bigger one (cars) exists and you should be focusing your attention on those instead.
ReplyVote up (101)down (42)
Original comment
We have laws governing the sale and distribution of weapons in the US. Still, there are accidents with guns and I understand that. Both the US and UK have laws about safety on cars and there are deaths caused by cars every single day. You want to ban guns even though there are laws in place to help prevent crime and misuse of a weapon; however, you do not want to ban cars which kills and injures more people than guns. Does that seem logical? Both guns and cars are tools and if used properly and safely, they should both be allowed. Of course there will be some people that use them illegally (drunk drivers for example) but you do not prevent law abiding citizens from owning a car even when innocent children were killed by the illegal or unsafe use of them. But you want us to give up all our guns because of some illegal or unsafe use of them are occasionally used to injure or kill other people. Seems you are picking on a smaller problem when a bigger one (cars) exists and you should be focusing your attention on those instead.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1784 days ago)
Where did I say I want to ban guns? Where did I say I want you to give up all your guns? Commenting on "the sale and distribution" does not answer my last question. Pay attention.
ReplyVote up (58)down (101)
Original comment
Where did I say I want to ban guns? Where did I say I want you to give up all your guns? Commenting on "the sale and distribution" does not answer my last question. Pay attention.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1784 days ago)
Your comment: "Yes, we've all heard the paranoia of 'second amendment, right to bear arms, yadda yadda, stop tyrannical governments blah, I need an arsenal of assault rifles at home, bollocks'." That bollocks at the end tells me that you do not support us having assault rifles at home. If I misinterpreted that, please advise what you really meant. So you're okay with the people in the US owning guns, right? Regarding your last question, I do accept limits on the design and use of guns. We already disallow several guns such as fully automatic ones. We also have laws that say you cannot murder people with them and that limits their use. What other limits do you think we should have that we do not already have? If you think we should ban a weapon (what people are calling assault rifles) that statistically has very little people hurt or killed, that is unreasonable because more people are killed by non assault rifles. Remember, only 0.1% of people are killed by any rifle of any kind when you look at all the gun killings so why pick on a weapon that is not used very often for murders?
ReplyVote up (34)down (117)
Original comment
Your comment: "Yes, we've all heard the paranoia of 'second amendment, right to bear arms, yadda yadda, stop tyrannical governments blah, I need an arsenal of assault rifles at home, bollocks'." That bollocks at the end tells me that you do not support us having assault rifles at home. If I misinterpreted that, please advise what you really meant. So you're okay with the people in the US owning guns, right? Regarding your last question, I do accept limits on the design and use of guns. We already disallow several guns such as fully automatic ones. We also have laws that say you cannot murder people with them and that limits their use. What other limits do you think we should have that we do not already have? If you think we should ban a weapon (what people are calling assault rifles) that statistically has very little people hurt or killed, that is unreasonable because more people are killed by non assault rifles. Remember, only 0.1% of people are killed by any rifle of any kind when you look at all the gun killings so why pick on a weapon that is not used very often for murders?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1784 days ago)
Thank you. Now we know you and I both accept limits on the design and use of guns, we are discussing the matter of degree. A limit on the size of the magazine, for instance, would allow you to hunt deer and shoot anyone breaking into your house, but would also limit the number of shots (and injuries) if a nutcase ran amuck in a cinema or school. Would this not be a sensible step in the right direction?
Original comment
Thank you. Now we know you and I both accept limits on the design and use of guns, we are discussing the matter of degree. A limit on the size of the magazine, for instance, would allow you to hunt deer and shoot anyone breaking into your house, but would also limit the number of shots (and injuries) if a nutcase ran amuck in a cinema or school. Would this not be a sensible step in the right direction?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1784 days ago)
This is great. We do agree about limits and it is only the degree of those limits that we don't agree. If you have ever visited a shooting range and took target practice, you will realize how hard it is to actually hit a target that isn't moving. Guns are powerful and they tend to move your hands and arms after each shot. So imagine some maniac running toward you and you're in a panic and scared for your life so you're shaking. How likely are you to hit the target on the first shot? What about the second shot? What if there were more than one person that is attacking you? Are you sure that the number of shells in a clip is designed to kill more people or is it designed to hit a single target with at least one bullet because you're spraying a greater quantity of bullets? Remember that the worst school massacre in history didn't even use guns of any kind so you can ban them all you want and the nutcases will find something else to use or will still find those banned items on the black market.
Original comment
This is great. We do agree about limits and it is only the degree of those limits that we don't agree. If you have ever visited a shooting range and took target practice, you will realize how hard it is to actually hit a target that isn't moving. Guns are powerful and they tend to move your hands and arms after each shot. So imagine some maniac running toward you and you're in a panic and scared for your life so you're shaking. How likely are you to hit the target on the first shot? What about the second shot? What if there were more than one person that is attacking you? Are you sure that the number of shells in a clip is designed to kill more people or is it designed to hit a single target with at least one bullet because you're spraying a greater quantity of bullets? Remember that the worst school massacre in history didn't even use guns of any kind so you can ban them all you want and the nutcases will find something else to use or will still find those banned items on the black market.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1784 days ago)
Your "what if?" argument doesn't easily take us to a principle. "What if you're in a panic and shaking and your attacking maniacs have a lot of children and pregnant women standing behind them in the line of fire? Are you saying it's better to hit a lot of innocent people than... etc." I would suggest the principles for a society that wants to allow wide gun ownership should be 1) Yes responsible people can own guns but it's not universal (i.e. 8 year-olds should not, people with dementia should not). 2) There are places where you are not allowed to take a gun (e.g. on an aeroplane). 3) The type and number of guns that people can own should be appropriate to the likelihood of their stated desire to own them. So you don't need an elephant gun to shoot deer. You don't need an arsenal to fight off a small army if your stated desire is to shoot a burglar on your premises (and there is almost 0% likelihood of being attacked by a small army).... And yes, there will always be people who subvert the principles, but that doesn't mean we should not aim to have as many people adopt them as possible: just because some people steal doesn't mean we should legalise stealing across the board. So, cengland0, we agree gun-owning societies should have limits on the design and use of guns. Do you also agree these societies should also be aiming to establish principles of the order (if not the exact detail) I suggest: 1) not universal; 2) not everywhere; and 3) limits on type and number?
Original comment
Your "what if?" argument doesn't easily take us to a principle. "What if you're in a panic and shaking and your attacking maniacs have a lot of children and pregnant women standing behind them in the line of fire? Are you saying it's better to hit a lot of innocent people than... etc." I would suggest the principles for a society that wants to allow wide gun ownership should be 1) Yes responsible people can own guns but it's not universal (i.e. 8 year-olds should not, people with dementia should not). 2) There are places where you are not allowed to take a gun (e.g. on an aeroplane). 3) The type and number of guns that people can own should be appropriate to the likelihood of their stated desire to own them. So you don't need an elephant gun to shoot deer. You don't need an arsenal to fight off a small army if your stated desire is to shoot a burglar on your premises (and there is almost 0% likelihood of being attacked by a small army).... And yes, there will always be people who subvert the principles, but that doesn't mean we should not aim to have as many people adopt them as possible: just because some people steal doesn't mean we should legalise stealing across the board. So, cengland0, we agree gun-owning societies should have limits on the design and use of guns. Do you also agree these societies should also be aiming to establish principles of the order (if not the exact detail) I suggest: 1) not universal; 2) not everywhere; and 3) limits on type and number?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1783 days ago)
I agree with some of your points. #1. We have limits on who can own guns and it's not universal. Don't know why you thought it was universal. If you need a list of the people who cannot own them, let me know and I can google it for you. #2. There are places you cannot take guns and those laws are already in place. Note that those are the places most mass murders occur because the criminals know nobody else will have guns there. #3 I disagree about the number of guns people can own. Why do you think we should limit that? There are collectors that want civil war and revolutionary war guns. Why shouldn't they be allowed to collect as many as they can afford? Each gun has specific uses. For example, a rifle is good for long range and a gun for short range. A rifle is bigger than a gun. Why shouldn't I be able to own both because I might want to use them for different purposes? We do need an arsenal to fight off a small army according to our 2nd amendment. Remember, that's the main reason for our gun ownership and defense, hunting, and collecting is secondary. Regarding your 0% likelihood statistic, tell that to the people in LA during the riots. I agree the probability is low but it's clearly not 0%. Stealing is not a victimless crime so I'm not advocating making it legal -- don't know why you're even bring that up. Regarding limits on the types of guns, currently there are limits on the types we can own. As an example, regular citizens are not allowed to own fully automatic weapons. What other limits are you proposing? Limit the number of bullets to 10 per clip? That will do nothing because I can change a clip in 2 seconds or less. The reason our president has suggested this limit is for political reasons only and not based on any statistical data. The president even admitted that in his speech by saying he will appoint a group of people to investigate the science of these crimes and to get more data. So he acted quickly only to please a few people that may have been impacted recently by one of the mass shootings and not based on any other factors. You can tell this because the first 80% of his speech was talking about how sorry he is to have heard of those tragic events and that he spoke to all the families impacted by Sandy Hook and other mass shootings to come up with recommendations for change.
Original comment
I agree with some of your points. #1. We have limits on who can own guns and it's not universal. Don't know why you thought it was universal. If you need a list of the people who cannot own them, let me know and I can google it for you. #2. There are places you cannot take guns and those laws are already in place. Note that those are the places most mass murders occur because the criminals know nobody else will have guns there. #3 I disagree about the number of guns people can own. Why do you think we should limit that? There are collectors that want civil war and revolutionary war guns. Why shouldn't they be allowed to collect as many as they can afford? Each gun has specific uses. For example, a rifle is good for long range and a gun for short range. A rifle is bigger than a gun. Why shouldn't I be able to own both because I might want to use them for different purposes? We do need an arsenal to fight off a small army according to our 2nd amendment. Remember, that's the main reason for our gun ownership and defense, hunting, and collecting is secondary. Regarding your 0% likelihood statistic, tell that to the people in LA during the riots. I agree the probability is low but it's clearly not 0%. Stealing is not a victimless crime so I'm not advocating making it legal -- don't know why you're even bring that up. Regarding limits on the types of guns, currently there are limits on the types we can own. As an example, regular citizens are not allowed to own fully automatic weapons. What other limits are you proposing? Limit the number of bullets to 10 per clip? That will do nothing because I can change a clip in 2 seconds or less. The reason our president has suggested this limit is for political reasons only and not based on any statistical data. The president even admitted that in his speech by saying he will appoint a group of people to investigate the science of these crimes and to get more data. So he acted quickly only to please a few people that may have been impacted recently by one of the mass shootings and not based on any other factors. You can tell this because the first 80% of his speech was talking about how sorry he is to have heard of those tragic events and that he spoke to all the families impacted by Sandy Hook and other mass shootings to come up with recommendations for change.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1783 days ago)
If you are serious about having a debate, you need to pay closer attention to what people write. Where did I say I thought gun ownership *was* universal? I said "*almost* 0% likelihood" not "0% likelihood". Where did I suggest you're advocating making stealing legal? If I have to keep addressing your lack of precision, it becomes too tedious to bother.
Original comment
If you are serious about having a debate, you need to pay closer attention to what people write. Where did I say I thought gun ownership *was* universal? I said "*almost* 0% likelihood" not "0% likelihood". Where did I suggest you're advocating making stealing legal? If I have to keep addressing your lack of precision, it becomes too tedious to bother.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1783 days ago)
Your comment, "gun ownership should be 1) Yes responsible people can own guns but it's not universal (i.e. 8 year-olds should not, people with dementia should not)." Since we were discussing applying limits to our existing system, it appears you thought there was already a universal ownership law and you wanted it changed. Your comment about almost 0% (but not quite 0%) was agreed with by me so no problem. Your comment, "just because some people steal doesn't mean we should legalise stealing across the board" was a reply to my comment so it sounds like you thought I was okay with making stealing legal because some people do break the law and steal. If you no longer want to bother discussing things with me because of these minor misunderstandings between us, that's your right. Sorry you feel that way.
Original comment
Your comment, "gun ownership should be 1) Yes responsible people can own guns but it's not universal (i.e. 8 year-olds should not, people with dementia should not)." Since we were discussing applying limits to our existing system, it appears you thought there was already a universal ownership law and you wanted it changed. Your comment about almost 0% (but not quite 0%) was agreed with by me so no problem. Your comment, "just because some people steal doesn't mean we should legalise stealing across the board" was a reply to my comment so it sounds like you thought I was okay with making stealing legal because some people do break the law and steal. If you no longer want to bother discussing things with me because of these minor misunderstandings between us, that's your right. Sorry you feel that way.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1784 days ago)
You are quite right, cars do kill people everyday and are dangerous. That's why there's a test, and a minimum age, driving laws, a requirement of a license, the enforcement of driving laws and consequences for being dangerous and irresponsible behind the wheel. Americans accept all this, why is it such a big leap to enforce something similar for gun ownership?
ReplyVote up (49)down (110)
Original comment
You are quite right, cars do kill people everyday and are dangerous. That's why there's a test, and a minimum age, driving laws, a requirement of a license, the enforcement of driving laws and consequences for being dangerous and irresponsible behind the wheel. Americans accept all this, why is it such a big leap to enforce something similar for gun ownership?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1784 days ago)
Does every country require testing and licensing to drive any vehicle including bicycles? You also never mentioned the number of people that die from falling off laders and if those should be banned? Do you want to license ladders and people using knifes and bathtubs (people drown)?
ReplyVote up (106)down (38)
Original comment
Does every country require testing and licensing to drive any vehicle including bicycles? You also never mentioned the number of people that die from falling off laders and if those should be banned? Do you want to license ladders and people using knifes and bathtubs (people drown)?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1784 days ago)
You have ignored every valid point made and stubbornly argue your immature 'should we ban ladders' point. Ladders are designed to help reach high things, knives are a tool for cutting, bathtubs for washing. These things serve a purpose. People have very rare and unfortunate accidents with these objects. Guns, however, are designed to kill and injure. Hand guns and assault rifles are designed to kill and injure people. That is their purpose. When someone accidentally shoots someone, the gun they used has fulfilled it's purpose. So your argument is redundant. There is no logical comparison between a gun and a ladder.
Original comment
You have ignored every valid point made and stubbornly argue your immature 'should we ban ladders' point. Ladders are designed to help reach high things, knives are a tool for cutting, bathtubs for washing. These things serve a purpose. People have very rare and unfortunate accidents with these objects. Guns, however, are designed to kill and injure. Hand guns and assault rifles are designed to kill and injure people. That is their purpose. When someone accidentally shoots someone, the gun they used has fulfilled it's purpose. So your argument is redundant. There is no logical comparison between a gun and a ladder.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1784 days ago)
This is where you might have misunderstood why we have guns. Law abiding citizens do not purchase them with intent to murder people. We keep them as a tool for: 1. Self Defense. 2. Hunting. 3. To create a militia in case the government attempts to take our rights away. This is the same as a knife -- we buy them for the purpose of cutting. Unfortunately, sometimes people use tools intended for a valid purpose to harm others. For example, how many people buy baseball bats to beat people to death when the purpose of the bat was to play sports?
Original comment
This is where you might have misunderstood why we have guns. Law abiding citizens do not purchase them with intent to murder people. We keep them as a tool for: 1. Self Defense. 2. Hunting. 3. To create a militia in case the government attempts to take our rights away. This is the same as a knife -- we buy them for the purpose of cutting. Unfortunately, sometimes people use tools intended for a valid purpose to harm others. For example, how many people buy baseball bats to beat people to death when the purpose of the bat was to play sports?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1784 days ago)
I'm from the UK and am pretty much ignorant on this subject, but somehow I can't believe the "hunting and forming a militia" reasons for having a gun. What percentage of gun owners shoot their own food? It can't be significant. I would imagine that most legally owned guns are for self-defense, and I think that's fair enough when you can expect anyone breaking in to your house would have one (I think if I lived in the US I'd want one). In England, if someone loses it with their spouse or Boss it ends with a broken nose. A readily available gun turns it into something else. But I think it's too late for America, you're stuck with it.
Original comment
I'm from the UK and am pretty much ignorant on this subject, but somehow I can't believe the "hunting and forming a militia" reasons for having a gun. What percentage of gun owners shoot their own food? It can't be significant. I would imagine that most legally owned guns are for self-defense, and I think that's fair enough when you can expect anyone breaking in to your house would have one (I think if I lived in the US I'd want one). In England, if someone loses it with their spouse or Boss it ends with a broken nose. A readily available gun turns it into something else. But I think it's too late for America, you're stuck with it.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1784 days ago)
Believe it or not, our 2nd amendment states we have the rights to bear arms for the purpose of building a militia to overthrow the government if it becomes too powerful or tries to take our rights away (not quoted exactly). The right to bear arms for defense and for hunting is not explicitly granted to us in our constitution. That right has been an interpretation of the 2nd amendment by our supreme court and the judges have decided we can own guns for those two additional purposes. So technically, the main reason we can own guns is to overthrow our government if we need to. The entire text of our 2nd amendment is as follows: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Original comment
Believe it or not, our 2nd amendment states we have the rights to bear arms for the purpose of building a militia to overthrow the government if it becomes too powerful or tries to take our rights away (not quoted exactly). The right to bear arms for defense and for hunting is not explicitly granted to us in our constitution. That right has been an interpretation of the 2nd amendment by our supreme court and the judges have decided we can own guns for those two additional purposes. So technically, the main reason we can own guns is to overthrow our government if we need to. The entire text of our 2nd amendment is as follows: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Darwin's Radio (1784 days ago)
Average number of human lives ended through firearms in the USA per year stands about 30,000. Average number of governments overthrown each year; zero. There comes a point where well intentioned charters from 1787 can become at best irrelevant and at worst dangerous.
ReplyVote up (129)down (50)
Original comment
Average number of human lives ended through firearms in the USA per year stands about 30,000. Average number of governments overthrown each year; zero. There comes a point where well intentioned charters from 1787 can become at best irrelevant and at worst dangerous.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1784 days ago)
Not sure where you're getting your information from but it's very common for countries in Africa to have their government overthrown. It's not an average of zero per year like you assumed. Also, we overthrew our government once before when we were under the rule of a dictator/monarch of England. We have now become an independent country because of that. It can happen again if our country becomes tyrannical especially now that we own 300,000,000 guns in America.
ReplyVote up (43)down (101)
Original comment
Not sure where you're getting your information from but it's very common for countries in Africa to have their government overthrown. It's not an average of zero per year like you assumed. Also, we overthrew our government once before when we were under the rule of a dictator/monarch of England. We have now become an independent country because of that. It can happen again if our country becomes tyrannical especially now that we own 300,000,000 guns in America.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Darwin's Radio (1783 days ago)
Let's go with the FBI (smaller figure but still heartbreaking) "FBI Uniform Crime Report, between 2006 and 2010 47,856 people were murdered in the U.S. by firearms". I'm not sure where you're going with comparisons to 2nd world countries in Africa - seems straw man to me, but lets go down that road. Some of those governments overthrown around the world are democratically elected and are overthrown by minority groups armed to the teeth. That's the trouble with arming everyone, you also end up arming the psychopathic.
Original comment
Let's go with the FBI (smaller figure but still heartbreaking) "FBI Uniform Crime Report, between 2006 and 2010 47,856 people were murdered in the U.S. by firearms". I'm not sure where you're going with comparisons to 2nd world countries in Africa - seems straw man to me, but lets go down that road. Some of those governments overthrown around the world are democratically elected and are overthrown by minority groups armed to the teeth. That's the trouble with arming everyone, you also end up arming the psychopathic.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1783 days ago)
So you then agree that it's possible for a small group of armed people to overthrow a government. Well, that's the purpose of our 2nd amendment. You stated the average is zero governments overthrown each year and when I proved you wrong you resort to quoting death by gun statistics. You don't see that as irrelevant?
ReplyVote up (121)down (38)
Original comment
So you then agree that it's possible for a small group of armed people to overthrow a government. Well, that's the purpose of our 2nd amendment. You stated the average is zero governments overthrown each year and when I proved you wrong you resort to quoting death by gun statistics. You don't see that as irrelevant?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1784 days ago)
Agreed that this was the intent of the 2nd Amendment. Do you think your Bushmaster will really help against the Drones, Tanks, APCs, Artillery, Air force and nuclear weapons of the state. OR... to be 'true' to the 2nd Amendment should your neighbour have the right to keep some battle field nukes in their garage? You know...just in case.
ReplyVote up (103)down (33)
Original comment
Agreed that this was the intent of the 2nd Amendment. Do you think your Bushmaster will really help against the Drones, Tanks, APCs, Artillery, Air force and nuclear weapons of the state. OR... to be 'true' to the 2nd Amendment should your neighbour have the right to keep some battle field nukes in their garage? You know...just in case.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1784 days ago)
If you believe the Air Force can use nuclear weapons against the people of the United States, you should read up on the "The Posse Comitatus Act"
Original comment
If you believe the Air Force can use nuclear weapons against the people of the United States, you should read up on the "The Posse Comitatus Act"
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1784 days ago)
Well...sir..one would assume that if you are in civil war (fighting against your tyrant) that said tyrant would have no problem dismissing laws that get in the way...like Posse Comitatus. And besides... as has been pointed out to you before, The Posse Comitatus Act was repealed once... it can be repealed just as easily again Im sure.
ReplyVote up (56)down (101)
Original comment
Well...sir..one would assume that if you are in civil war (fighting against your tyrant) that said tyrant would have no problem dismissing laws that get in the way...like Posse Comitatus. And besides... as has been pointed out to you before, The Posse Comitatus Act was repealed once... it can be repealed just as easily again Im sure.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1783 days ago)
During the deployment of the well-regulated militia, I'm sure the people making those decisions to repeal Posse Comitatus would be the first to go. And is it a civil war when you have your citizens fighting for their freedoms against a tyrannical government? Or is that a war between citizens?
ReplyVote up (101)down (52)
Original comment
During the deployment of the well-regulated militia, I'm sure the people making those decisions to repeal Posse Comitatus would be the first to go. And is it a civil war when you have your citizens fighting for their freedoms against a tyrannical government? Or is that a war between citizens?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1783 days ago)
Syria (at the moment) is described as a civil war. You can do the math.---shall we take from your avoidance of the issue that you do feel your neighbour should be allowed to stock battle field nukes? All in keeping with the 2nd.
ReplyVote up (101)down (58)
Original comment
Syria (at the moment) is described as a civil war. You can do the math.---shall we take from your avoidance of the issue that you do feel your neighbour should be allowed to stock battle field nukes? All in keeping with the 2nd.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1783 days ago)
What issue did I avoid? Regarding nuclear weapons, the answer is no. No citizen is allowed to own a nuclear weapon. We do not even allow other countries to own them. For example, we will not allow Iran to own one and they are not even American citizens.
ReplyVote up (36)down (101)
Original comment
What issue did I avoid? Regarding nuclear weapons, the answer is no. No citizen is allowed to own a nuclear weapon. We do not even allow other countries to own them. For example, we will not allow Iran to own one and they are not even American citizens.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1784 days ago)
Will everybody PLEASE stop taking cengland0's bait. He's on just about every post, and is just a troll with nothing better to do. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS.
Original comment
Will everybody PLEASE stop taking cengland0's bait. He's on just about every post, and is just a troll with nothing better to do. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1784 days ago)
Oh I don't think he is a troll. He is misguided through facile logic and a distorted world view but he is genuine. I think he believes what he writes and I do think he will come with a (relatively) open mind to an argument. I just wish he would stop using fallacious arguments in many of his retorts LINK
Original comment
Oh I don't think he is a troll. He is misguided through facile logic and a distorted world view but he is genuine. I think he believes what he writes and I do think he will come with a (relatively) open mind to an argument. I just wish he would stop using fallacious arguments in many of his retorts LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1783 days ago)
I agree. He seems willing to engage to a certain extent, but I get the impression it's like arguing with a Jehovah's witness: you can get so far with logic and reason, then blind faith kicks in. (and thanks for the link to fallacious arguments)
Original comment
I agree. He seems willing to engage to a certain extent, but I get the impression it's like arguing with a Jehovah's witness: you can get so far with logic and reason, then blind faith kicks in. (and thanks for the link to fallacious arguments)
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1783 days ago)
sorry - mispost
Original comment
sorry - mispost
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1784 days ago)
Looks like the Guns are Keeping us safe tour has made a stop in Lone Star College LINK
Original comment
Looks like the Guns are Keeping us safe tour has made a stop in Lone Star College LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
London1 London1 (1784 days ago)
Still an idiot then, cengland0? If I buy a ladder, it's unlikely I'll be able to kill someone else with it. You're some kind of unemployed douche, aren't you? Likes the sound of his own typing, as well!
Original comment
Still an idiot then, cengland0? If I buy a ladder, it's unlikely I'll be able to kill someone else with it. You're some kind of unemployed douche, aren't you? Likes the sound of his own typing, as well!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1784 days ago)
For the record, I am far from being unemployed. I work for a large bank. I also own two companies -- one LLC and one DBA. Regarding a ladder, it is unlikely but possible. It is unlikely that I'm going to buy a gun to kill someone too. I will probably die of old age and never have the need to kill anyone else with any weapon of any kind. However, I still have weapons just in case.
Original comment
For the record, I am far from being unemployed. I work for a large bank. I also own two companies -- one LLC and one DBA. Regarding a ladder, it is unlikely but possible. It is unlikely that I'm going to buy a gun to kill someone too. I will probably die of old age and never have the need to kill anyone else with any weapon of any kind. However, I still have weapons just in case.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: rossglory (1783 days ago)
please leave cengland0 alone. he's unbelievably entertaining and an important insight into the surreal dystopia that is 21st century usa.
Original comment
please leave cengland0 alone. he's unbelievably entertaining and an important insight into the surreal dystopia that is 21st century usa.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1781 days ago)
Latest comment: What drug cartel sponsors this idiot?
Original comment
Latest comment: What drug cartel sponsors this idiot?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1783 days ago)
having multiple guns in your house for self defence is just BS, the one gun people are most wary of if pointed in their general direction is a shotgun, hand guns as cengland0 has already agreed too are inaccurate, rifle too cumbersome for use in a house. Point a shot gun in your general direction and you are going to stop doing whatever it is you are doing pretty quick. As for guns to rise up against your tyranical gov. utter rubbish, your Bushmaster is going to do nothing against a fighter jet or even a drone dropping nerve gas, perhaps you want to use your gun against a nice little tank rolling down Main street? If you really thought about it you would see how illogical your 2nd amendment is, to fight you need wepons that are equal or better than your opposition, while true having a rifle or musket put you on a level par with the opposition 200 years ago a rifle against a modern army has no chance, you may as well go back to mzzle loading wepons for all the good it will do you. Now if you had those then I would be Ok with you sticking with your 2nd amendment. Laws change and adapt with time , you can't hold on to what is now an outdated and foolsih idea without becoming a target for riducle.
Original comment
having multiple guns in your house for self defence is just BS, the one gun people are most wary of if pointed in their general direction is a shotgun, hand guns as cengland0 has already agreed too are inaccurate, rifle too cumbersome for use in a house. Point a shot gun in your general direction and you are going to stop doing whatever it is you are doing pretty quick. As for guns to rise up against your tyranical gov. utter rubbish, your Bushmaster is going to do nothing against a fighter jet or even a drone dropping nerve gas, perhaps you want to use your gun against a nice little tank rolling down Main street? If you really thought about it you would see how illogical your 2nd amendment is, to fight you need wepons that are equal or better than your opposition, while true having a rifle or musket put you on a level par with the opposition 200 years ago a rifle against a modern army has no chance, you may as well go back to mzzle loading wepons for all the good it will do you. Now if you had those then I would be Ok with you sticking with your 2nd amendment. Laws change and adapt with time , you can't hold on to what is now an outdated and foolsih idea without becoming a target for riducle.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Hecklthorpe (1783 days ago)
Well said.
Original comment
Well said.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1783 days ago)
You haven't seen one of my handguns called "The Judge." I can tell because you are talking about shotguns and hand guns and their accuracy factors. Read about "The Judge" and the 410 gauge shells that it takes as an option. It also will take a 45 colt, 225 grain shell too. The one problem this gun has is it can only hold 6 shells without reloading and it's not as easy as changing a clip like a standard 9mm is.
Original comment
You haven't seen one of my handguns called "The Judge." I can tell because you are talking about shotguns and hand guns and their accuracy factors. Read about "The Judge" and the 410 gauge shells that it takes as an option. It also will take a 45 colt, 225 grain shell too. The one problem this gun has is it can only hold 6 shells without reloading and it's not as easy as changing a clip like a standard 9mm is.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1784 days ago)
I think the point being made cengland0 is that a firearm in your home is statistically more likely to hurt someone in your home by accident than be used in defence. LINK
ReplyVote up (48)down (101)
Original comment
I think the point being made cengland0 is that a firearm in your home is statistically more likely to hurt someone in your home by accident than be used in defence. LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1784 days ago)
Your link did not work.
Original comment
Your link did not work.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Georgia Dome demolition fail
Georgia Dome demolition fail
Meanwhile in Alabama, how to tow a car
Meanwhile in Alabama, how to tow a car
Epic slip 'n' slide fail
Epic slip 'n' slide fail
When a quiet time fishing goes wrong
When a quiet time fishing goes wrong
Frisbee dog fail
Frisbee dog fail