"Eeeek, an AR-15 !!!"

in #anarchy2 years ago


Most people who whine for "gun control" do so out of fear, emotion, and ignorance. Specifically, their lack of familiarity with guns creates in them a psychological aversion and fear of what they perceive as foreign, scary and taboo.

(Note: While in this video I say that somewhere around three million Americans own AR-15's, the actual number is probably between five and ten million.)


▶️ DTube
▶️ IPFS
Sort:  

They have been conditioned by media to fear guns. That and gun grabbers are racist, like these politicians in Illinois.

Why would people need media influence to fear killing machines? If I approached you with an axe in a threatening way, would you only be afraid if you had seen a person killed with an axe somewhere? I find that the media glorifies guns more than anything.

You are way more likely to be killed by someone driving a car but you don't have an irrational fear of them. That's because every time you see a car in a movie or dramatic TV show or video game it is not used in an act of violence. This is more like if you were afraid of an ax all by itself. It's the threatening person holding the ax that is what you fear isn't it?
Why are you not calling for more ax laws, and have you never seen The Shining?
Guns aren't killing machines, people are. That's why gun control laws are entirely ineffective.

A car is used for transport, a knife is used for cutting, and a gun is used for...?

recreation, sustenance, and personal, self and national defense. Cars kill about 71 times as many people annually by accident than fatal gun accidents. There is your killing machine.

wrong, guns are used for killing, duh!

occasionally, but not often enough for that to be their designed or intended use. The average handgun in America is used in a homicide only once every 10,000 years.

Your statistic is impertinent since I am not talking exclusively about accidental gun death. I'm slightly afraid being "on the road" for that reason. However, cars are not made to kill, yet guns are, and driving a car means accepting the risk, but going outside doesn't mean accepting that one might be unnaturally killed. "sustenance, and personal, self and national defense..." These are good reasons depending on where you are, but in a city you don't need guns for sustenance, and you don't need assault weapons for self defense. You definitively don't need a gun for entertainment, and unlike a car with the justification of timely travel, entertainment is a poor reason to allow such dangerous tools to be used by civilians in non-rural areas. Heck, a shooting has happened since this conversation began at Maryland High School!

25% of those killed are pedestrians, they didn't even agree to take the risk of driving. Going outside does mean accepting that one might be unnaturally killed as does staying home.
I live in a city and I hunt. Semi auto sporting rifles like AR-15 are not assault rifles and are suitable for personal defense. I definitely do need a gun for entertainment, that is what I like to do for entertainment. Maryland has all the strict racist gun control laws your heart could desire, thanks for proving they don't work. Too bad there was not an armed teacher handy huh?

"25% of those killed are pedestrians, they didn't even agree to take the risk of driving." They took the risk of going near cars. Again cars have a good reason to be owned by civilians and they are more regulated than guns. Regulate guns like cars, is that what you're implying with your argument? Everything you said after that is subjective. I'm not making emotionally backed arguments by saying killing machines or pointing out a shooting.
If I were to use the fact that I think killing animals for recreation is obscene as an argument it would have the same objective value as "I definitely do need a gun for entertainment, that is what I like to do for entertainment." Since I'm not using my vegetarianism to refute objective arguments, I would appreciate if you do the same with yours. You don't need guns for entertainment is an objective statement.
If you could only be entertained by guns, I doubt you'd be here. Lastly, yeah, what if teachers were armed? I'm sure there wouldn't be any confusion as to who the original shooter or shooters are in all the gunfire. I'm sure the stressed underpaid teachers won't use them for something else on their last nerve. I'm sure the cost of arming and training teachers like a militia won't cost you any in taxes... Point to an example, I don't accept hypothetical answers to something that isn't hypothetical.

Yes, the axe is a very scary killing implement, I fear things, not people.

Ah, you think I fear guns, what a delightful strawman. To say that one or the other is the problem would be like saying that overpopulation is the result of too much sex or not enough birth control. Just replace overpopulation, sex, and birth control with mass shootings, guns, and gun control.

It's actually not a Straw Man, as the mockery is of your "logic" or lack of it:

Why would people need media influence to fear killing machines? If I approached you with an axe in a threatening way, would you only be afraid if you had seen a person killed with an axe somewhere? I find that the media glorifies guns more than anything.

The premise you made is that people DON'T need media influence to fear killing machines because your Rhetorical is ANSWERED that people don't need to even have had the experience to base that fear on.

The point being is that you EVADED addressing the Rhetorical in kind with specificity to what you were arguing. The real strawman is your switching the subject from people fearing killing machines, to people fearing people WITH killing machines. You then attach your ridiculously imbecilic opinion of what the media presents the guns as, which is hardly GLORIFIED but demonized, and by your own opinion guns are used for....? (begging the question fallacy). Let me answer that for you: Killing People (glory hallelujah? is that your qualifier for glorified, mitigated to an utterly prejudiced function devoid of any meaningfulness by revoking context and impairing any real understanding by creating confusion and interpretation where clarity and quality (ex. qualify glorified with what exactly?).

I will do you one better and let you walk off as a reasonable example of "Nice strawman" after throwing up a strawman., if you can demonstrate that SOMEHOW my comment could be interpreted as a strawman, and I won't bring up what I said above about your opinion.

"The real strawman is your switching the subject from people fearing killing machines, to people fearing people WITH killing machines." Where was the subject switched? I have been talking about people with guns. Your implication that I'm was only blaming guns is the strawman and is illogical since guns are a result of people. "You then attach your ridiculously imbecilic opinion of what the media presents the guns..." No, this is what your side is doing, I am saying media is not necessary for people to fear guns.

Where was the subject switched? I have been talking about people with guns

This is where:

Why would people need media influence to fear killing machines?

You didn't talk about people with guns, you said clearly People don't need the media to fear killing machines. You didn't say people WITH killing machines.

Your implication that I'm was only blaming guns is the strawman and is illogical since guns are a result of people.

Wrong, it doesn't matter if guns were the results of people, the only thing that matters is that you didn't talk about people, but only guns. When you went to switch the topic to People with Weapons from People Fearing Weapons, you did so to rhetorically answer that guns are scary regardless of personal experience to reinforce the fear.

There is no "my side". Your imbecilic opinion thinks that the media Glorifies Guns, when in fact the media doesn't do ANY such thing, and attacks guns wanton while being portrayed in crime and lawlessness 24/7. There are no Redeeming qualities of guns, like sportsmanship that is featured in the media, and not even anything that would pass for Glorifying.

Yeah you are saying the same thing:

media is not necessary for people to fear guns.

The conversation was never about People with guns, but people being afraid of killing machines. (because guns are used only for killing).

You are strawmaning me by repeatedly ascribing views I don't hold to my arguments as if I'm the one derailing the argument. "...the only thing that matters is that you didn't talk about people..." There's your strawman, stop this or there is no point in continuing as you are arguing against something that isn't my position at this point. "The conversation was never about People with guns, but people being afraid of killing machines." Okay, well I'm talking about people with guns and so is everyone else I've ever heard talking about this. You're the only one talking about people fearing objects. "There are no Redeeming qualities of guns, like sportsmanship that is featured in the media, and not even anything that would pass for Glorifying." This is your opinion, mine is the opposite, but that is irrelevant because I'm talking about guns, and you're derailing it by bringing up the media after failing to explain why it's necessary to fear guns.

I think what you are trying to explain HOPLOPHOBIA = irrational fear of weapons, more particular firearms.

You are wrong for the following reason. I don't need to see, be around, or be used to something to have good reason to fear it. By your logic, you should be as afraid of all the weapons you've never seen as much as the anti-gunners are afraid of guns. Also, if you're not afraid of something that can easily kill you in an instant, then there's something wrong with you.

You feel that way because you are not around guns in real life but you do see them in movies television and in games, where they are not used as they are generally used but instead used to drive the plot of the drama by being used for violence. Anytime a gun is shown on a dramatic TV show or movie it will be used, usually inappropriately, by the end of the show. That's how you condition a fear response.

So are you saying it's inappropriate to portray guns a killing machines? Tell me, how does one use a gun without being violent? Also, how am I not around guns IRL when there are three in my house?

I would probably say "foolish" instead of "inappropriate". So you have three guns, and guns can only be used for violence, tell me about the violence you have committed with them. How many people have you killed, with three guns it ought to be at least 3 right?

Of the 3, two are from my late grandfather which haven't been used by me, and were used for target practice by the retired marine and my father. The other is my supersonic air-soft rifle, which I have blasted poor apples and containers to bits with. No violence occurred through these weapons as no animals were killed and nobody was threatened by them. However, my justification for their presence is that they are single-shot, so I can protect myself yet I couldn't easily shoot many people with it.

as long as you only have to protect yourself from one person and you take them down with one air gun round right?
So you are just like everyone else who owns guns who doesn't do anything bad? why not just restrict those who do the wrong things?

The "You are wrong..." comment was directed towards the maker of the video. The other is at @superdavey

In order for a fear to be irrational, it either has to be unfounded, or based on something false. The fear of guns is based on the fact that guns are machines designed for the soul purpose of killing. Is it irrational to fear death? You may say guns are for protection, but how does it assure that goal? I wonder, do you think it is irrational to fear Islam? You have an irrational fear of not being armed my friend.

You are trying to fabricate a rational excuse for what is an emotional response. A gun doesn't kill someone by itself. It can be used by another PERSON to kill someone. The same is true of cars, knives, chainsaws, and a few dozen other things which are in your house right now. Fearing death is rational. Fearing a THING that won't kill you on its own, when there's no one around who wants to use it to kill you, is an emotional response.

Well, considering that I live with 3 guns, I think we can rule out the idea that I'm any more afraid of guns than you are. My point is, it isn't possible to make necessary use a gun without killing, injuring, or threatening someone, unlike all the other things you mentioned. This is not an emotional response, it's a logical refutation of your comparison. There are things you can defend yourself with that don't kill. By blaming only the person with intent while ignoring the device that magnified their potential to carry out that specific intent, which is the purpose of the device, is intellectually dishonest. I'm afraid of people with guns, because people are unpredictable and guns are an amplifier.

"guns are machines designed for the soul purpose of killing. "

False, the average handgun in America will be used in a homicide about once every 10,000 years. Guns are designed with the sole purpose of protecting, feeding or entertaining the user safely, except that is more than one. Saying guns are designed for a sole purpose is foolish since they are designed for many different applications.

How a gun ensures protection, at least with the threat of severe injury, at most with death. If when you accidentally use something and someone in it's way is killed or injured, I wouldn't call it safe. For necessity, a gun is designed for one purpose in mind, to kill for whatever reason, any other use is like juggling knifes and should be restricted to a shooting range. Finally, let me debunk that statistic 3 times. If that's true, it's only because there are so many guns in America. I wasn't taking about homicide, I said killing, meaning one's self or another, intentionally or accidentally. Lastly, 10,000 years, so I guess this doesn't apply to America or guns considering neither have existed for even a quarter of that time.

Statistically, because of course guns have not been around for 10,000 years, the average gun in America will be used in a homicide once every 10,000 years. Thus to claim that their primary use is homicide is clearly false. Thus you need to come up with a better answer. In fact they are not designed to kill but to protect, those that are not designed for hunting or target shooting, and that is what they are used for as many as 3 million times a year.
Accidental gun fatalities are at an all time low, despite gun numbers being at an all time high and a much larger population and much more liberal gun laws.
Why do you care what method people use to commit suicide?
Gun suicides have trended down over time as well.

Yes indeed, for the longest time guns were only used as plot devices in dramatic productions. But now we live in an age of reality TV and so we get to see guns as they are actually used in America, almost never for gun violence. Unless you consider shooting an alligator gun violence. They have lost the culture war and they don't know it.

I think we need to have a march for all the kids who want to grow up to live in a free country and be able to defend themselves, we should hold it on March 24th in Washington DC, we should call this march "The March For our Lives" what do you think?

i'm from Australia, we have to apply for a licence and register firearms, if during the application for a liscence we stated " i want a firearm to kill people " we wont be getting a liscence. infact " home defence " will disqualify you too.
%90 of our population are urban-based.
there are more registered firearms in public hands now than before the buyback and gun ban. though no semi-auto weapons are allowed except for special purposes and then only 5 round mags.
A clunky old ww2 era m1 is a lesser danger. i mean it has to be held against a shoulder to fire. tho given a choice of do you want to be shot by a 5.56 or a 7.62 ill take the 5.56
I guess i am just posting to say i envy your freedoms over there

If during the gun buying process in America you say "" I want a firearm to kill people " they won't sell it to you. Unless you are a criminal buying from another criminal, the people who actually shoot people. I wouldn't want to be shot with anything.

in most (all?) states you don't have to give any reason when you buy a gun. however, in some states, a permit to carry concealed requires "good cause", for which in some counties "self-defense" would be enough, and in others would get you denied.

Mostly in those cases it has to do with whether you are white or not and/or how well you know the white police chief or sheriff.

in 98% of successful defensive gun use it is not even necessary to actually fire much less kill anyone. So "home defense" and "I want to kill people" are not the same thing are they?

Then claim your own freedom: are you a Citizen or a Free, Independent Sovereign.

My daughters school. ! Stoneman In Florida! I am blessed she cane home alive !! NOW ! I am not afraid of guns. Been around them my whole life ! Got my 1st 12 guage duck gun at 11 years old. But times have changed. 18 years olds buying ar15 is out of line. There not grown up enough. Not these days. What’s the difference. There is a different. My 12 guage could kill a few people / not 100s. We have a right to drive / but we don’t have a right to drive a tank at 18. Reasonable restrictions would save thousand of lives. Having no restriction. Age / training / education is just crazy. And it took my daughter being in a room with a crazy kid blowing people , kids away for me to realize that. I 100 percent guarantee if all the ar 15 owners were put in my shoes with there daughter or son in a room with a kid killing her friends and he bought the weapon leagully with almost no reasonable checks on him. You would change your mind as I have. Maybe that’s what it will take. Enough gun owners experience what I have. Bring this killing to your household and your mind will be changed forever. This message comes from a Person who believes in the right to bear arms from childhood. God bless

If the State didn't have these daytime prisons for children & young adults, there wouldn't be 1000's of them sitting there as targets. State's cops didn't do anything to protect them either--and, btw, the cops don't even HAVE a legal duty to protect citizens. And, finally, you assume that the Parkland story told by the media & the rest of the Left is true. I seriously doubt you are pro-gun freedom either, or you wouldn't be reacting so hysterically.

I would not say hysterical ! I’d be curious to see if your child was shot at you n school!! How you would react

More kids die of the flu than being shot. You are either in the grips of a hysteria, lying, or both.

And I have been pro gun my whole life. My family of hunters have had guns for 4 generations. I am still pro gun in general. I changed my mind on an 18 year old kid buying ar15 s. Plus I don’t believe the back round check system in this country is working.

You want to use guns to ban 18 y.o.'s (who are legal ADULTS) from buying guns...the irony & arrogance is incredible.

My neighbors kid is dead !!! That is DEAD !! 15 years old. That kind of thing forces you to look at the big picture. And some minor changes in our system to save lives. Woujd be a good thing.

No, that kind of thing makes your FEELZ drown out your intellect, which is exactly why politicians use these times to scare people into falling for their authoritarian BS.

That's really terrible. I'm sorry for the lost of your neighbor child, and the grief and fear you are experiencing.

Maybe it's not the time to ask and maybe I should have waited a longer time, but I don't know if that is the case.

And I like to ask you a question that you by know means need to answer, but that may lay out what it's about ......and maybe show you another, of the many, sides of the big picture.

Lets assume you have the big picture, would you feel justified to come, with weapons, to my door to take the means of defense for me and my family, from me, by way of thread of violence and if I don't obey the use of violence?

Would you feel justified to hire a giant group of people with guns and give them the command to do that for you with the permission to murder someone who does not eventually obey your will of having those guns removed, via that group of people?

I think you would not feel justified to do any of those things..(that's a guess).. but by way of asking the government you are doing what is said in the second question. I hope you can see that in a way.

I wish you strength.

(English is not my native language, so I may have said something, not in a way as it's suppose to be said)

My guess is that you're a liar who is pretending to know one of the alleged victims of alleged-shooter Cruz, so that your comments will carry more weight.

  1. This is an unsupported (and false) assertion: "Reasonable restrictions would save thousand of lives." 2) No, if my daughter was almost killed, I wouldn't irrationally and immorally demand state violence against millions of people I don't know. Your mind was not changed. Your FEELZ were changed. As a result, you are asking "government" to grab more power. The SAME "government" that CREATED the defenseless victim zones in schools to begin with, and then FAILED to protect the kids--the cowardly pigs staying outside. And the same "government" that got dozens of warnings about that kid in particular, and did nothing.

I am sure that was a very scary thing, how are any of those things the problem and not the fact the authorities were called over 45 times and never arrested him or referred him to be committed? It's not possible that any law about AR-15s could save 1000s of lives. At 18 you could drive a semi just like the guy used in Nice to kill more people than anyone ever has with a gun. My child's school received one of a series of high profile threats, I didn't blame the telephone.

Well I just dont agree , That kid likely would of killed a few people with a differant gun , But not 17 people , Officials will allways drop the ball , I don;t trust them . Thats the reason I have never in the past been for banning guns or changing my right to bear arms , But after this I have come to believe that 18 is to young to buy ar15 s .

Do you at least realize that there are DOZENS of semi-auto guns just as powerful, or more powerful, than AR-15s?

you seem to have made the best argument against yourself. you should listen to yourself, now you trust the authorities?
I've seen a kid who can get off 6 rounds a minute with a muzzle loading rifle, there are a bunch of them, they have contests, how many minutes did the shooter have?

It didn't have to be an AR-15. It could have been handguns, or a machete, or running a rented van into a sporting event, or any of a number of other things. Someone bent on causing a lot of casualties will find a way to do it, regardless of what laws are in place. The act of committing murder itself says the person obviously does not believe in the law. Age has very little to do with maturity overall. Picking an arbitrary age for 'responsibility' is really just blowing smoke. There are 12 year olds out there that I would trust to be responsible with firearms unsupervised, and there are 40 year olds that I wouldn't. A person't age is really irrelevant.

In this individual's case, he obviously had some mental issues going on. He was reported for it multiple times with no action taken. He tried to get help himself and no effective action was taken (a common theme with mass shooters). Blaming the tool used is just misplaced anger, I think.

Another great video Larken. Keep up the good work.

Grew up with guns, former military, and gun owner; I think you're on point. Curious how you feel about the ideas floating around in Massachusetts where you can question the agency of a gun owner and ask for authoritative intervention?

I am in Mass and have not heard about that, can you tell me more?

"He noted that GOAL opposes two “extreme risk protection order” bills in Massachusetts that would allow a judge to order the temporary removal of guns from someone ruled a danger to themselves or others. Wallace said the bills would not prevent people deemed dangerous from causing harm by other means."

http://northborough.wickedlocal.com/news/20180312/stronger-measures-concern-local-gun-rights-advocates

not to mention that a judge or your police chief can take your guns away already in MA. Any anti gun shit that passes is bad, they just keep chipping away here.

Initially heard the story on npr on the day of the walk-out.

Funny how they report on that and not how much money Soros spent to disrupt the school day for millions of kids to push his political agenda.

Hey Larkin, My Russian wife and I (Mike) spoke with you and Amanda a bit at Anarchapulco, just after my new buddy Danny Shine inrweviewed you. Please check out my article - "As Above So Below - Blockchain is a Mirror of the Akashic Record / Creation's Cosmic Ledger" on Steemit. Thanks : https://steemit.com/introduceyourself/@mwmartin/as-above-so-below-blockchain-is-a-mirror-of-the-akashic-record-creation-s-cosmic-ledger

"People who support gun control don't think about it, they feel about it."

I find this extremely important... How do you think we can have people recognize this within themselves? Telling people "you get emotional about this!" won't go to well.

That like/dislike ratio makes me feel at home in d.tube.

We need 'TV control'. Guys with badges and 🔫 need to break Into people's homes and shoot their 📺

I can't see the video. Dtube doesn't work on my computer. Sure would be nice if you included the transcript Larken.
Upvoted anyway though.

Excellent video. To the point about how we've been conditioned:
Probably 50 years ago, a friend and myself went hunting along the railroad tracks not far out of town. We knew we were kinda close, within the city limits but weren't that concerned.

Sure enough a cop showed up, probably heard my side by side go off. He parked and started walking across the field towards us and I broke down my double barrel and we walked toward him. No one was concerned, no one feared anything.

He told us we couldn't shoot there and we said ok and left. Today, you'll get a gun pulled on you at the very least.

High School 1970 vs 2015

Scenario 1: Jack goes quail hunting before school and then pulls into the school parking lot with his shotgun in his truck’s gun rack.

1970 — Vice Principal comes over, looks at Jack’s shotgun, goes to his car and gets his shotgun to show Jack.

2015 — School goes into lock down, FBI called, Jack hauled off to jail and never sees his truck or gun again. Counselors called in for traumatized students and teachers.

"Today, you'll get a gun pulled on you at the very least."
Not if you are out hunting in the woods in season with a permit. They banned visible guns in racks here decades ago, kids still go hunting and shoot trap after school, I see them at the gun club.

Very true. Very sad. The moral decay is the difference. I won't go into to all the reasons why because I don't have that much time.

Arming AI humanoid robots seems much more intimidating in my opinion. Though, that is likely due to my lack of familiarity and experience with robots.

FDEDOR2.jpg

This is a robot known as FEDOR. It is allegedly capable of performing a variety of tasks autonomously, including dual firing pistols, driving a vehicle, using tools, and a range of physical movements.

rusandroid-russia-fedor-autonomous-robot-car-driving-tests-1080p.jpg

FEDOR drilling.jpg

Of course the mind likes to wander into thoughts about a fictional story called Terminator. Should that story be taken as an indication that we should ban robots that can sometimes be described as "Assault Robots"?

FEDOR1.jpg

Should we altogether halt the development of robots because they may have the capacity to kill, despite all of the other useful things they may be able to do?

Russia-artificial-intelligence-humanoid-robot-Vladimir-Putin-741964.jpg

Humans have developed a wide variety of tools throughout history that can be used to kill. There are countless examples of situations that having that ability has been our greatest asset. The human body itself is not the most useful form when it comes to survival. Having the capacity to engineer tools with growing complexity has assured our ability to overcome adversity and facilitate adaptation. Like it or not, this includes tools designed with killing as the sole function. To single out one form of tool over another because of the individual's perceived polarity of the use of that tool would be to impose a limitation of the ability of the human to continue to adapt and evolve.

The problem is never the tool, but the one who misuses it.

Guns are more than readily available where I live anyone can buy one and not even legally if the cops or army catch you with one they either confiscate or most probably ask for a bribe, I don't have one because I can't use them and I don't want to accidentally kill someone. As for the US you can have all the weapons you want, but there is one thing you have to ask yourselves, are you really prepared to use them when the shit hits the fan? Because I have seen two people murdered with AR-15, and even if I had had a cannon all I would have done is see how to get the hell out of there (like the cops in Florida).

Remember that church shooting in Texas? We ready. Americans use their guns defensively as many as 3 million times a year. I would rather have a gun and not need one than need a gun and not have one, wouldn't you?

When the SHTF? Whether or not you use the gun at the right time is not the issue. Just knowing that guns may be may be in the hands of the people has a totally different out come than knowing that guns are not in the hands of the people.

I really don't understand, " Whether or not you use the gun at the right time is not the issue"- if you don't use it at the right time why have one? Just to say you have it?

Exactly, just knowing that someone has a gun totally changes how you may act around that person. And the same can be said of the public. As Larken mentioned in the video countless amounts of people saved lives by just brandishing their guns and never having to fire them. It is a major deterrent without ever being fired. Now if you needed to fire the gun and you you feel you may not be ready to shot someone, you can get training to make sure that you are ready to shoot when necessary, if that is your concern.

OK, even though I can tell you a lot of people here have been carrying weapons when they were killed and didn't even have the chance to use them.

But sometimes they do shoot back right? How often are those without guns able to shoot back?

Never, have you seen a hit? I have, these guys just start shooting at the person who doesn't even know what hit him. See these guys don't even know the victim, I saw one of these hits just half a block from my house they cornered the victims car and one guy sprayed him from the window and then the other one from the front, they used weapons that use 9mm bullets but they weren't pistols, and they are good with these weapons because there were three other people in the car and just one of them had a bullet graze her. Also the victim had a gun, never used it.

People die in car wrecks who are wearing their seatbelts, is that an argument against wearing one?

so in your nation with strict civilian gun control you witness a lot of hits, we don't see that here where we are free to own guns.

I think the actual number of people that are afraid of them are relatively low. I offered to deactivate mine if it broke a certain amount of steam. And you know what. The internet did not want to deactivate my rifle. So I donated the $1 to the local FFA trap club. I hope they can all share those 4 shells that the stunt.... I mean poll earned....

The fear mostly manifests in the hearts of authoritarian socialistic people. One person with a AR15 scares the hell out of them. Take that same fearful person and march 200 armed soldiers in front of them and that's fine.

This indicates a heavy leftist preference of grouping and self identification with a social construct, such as an army or group of enforcement. The leftist authoritarian socialist prefers putting individuals in a jail or cage. The right wing authoritarians prefer putting leftist socialist groups in a jail or cage.

Socialists don't care or fear the thing, they fear the individual and want them punished. That's why this doesn't end with banning pistols, then banning rifles, then banning shotguns. They won't stop until individuals are in jail. It's about punition.

I'm used to guns because my grandfather was a Marine, it's not uncommon for me to see them on civilians in public, and I own a Black Hawk supersonic-pellet rifle which I could easily kill someone with without a well placed shot. That being said, I favor more gun control for the following reasons. First of all the second amendment was written in a time when people used muskets and cannons, so it's terribly outdated. Second, specific guns like automatic and military weapons shouldn't be obtainable by civilians, if they want to use them they should be restricted to shooting ranges, and all other weapons as strong as my pellet rifle should require initial and remedial training, background checks, and a permit similar to what you need to drive a car, and liability insurance depending on the gun, where you are, and how you plain to use it. I often hear people say that this is unreasonable because it would make it easier for the Government were to oppress us in a "take over". My response, if the Government were against you, your guns aren't going to help you against drone and airstrikes.

The purpose of the Second Amendment was, first and foremost, to make sure the people always outgunned the "government." That was also the reason they opposed a standing army. Apparently you WANT the ruling class to greatly outgun the people. Why is that? And if you think people are helpless against a modern army if they only have "small arms," you need to read a history book. Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq immediately come to mind.

Bingo. I feel like Illinois recent ban of guns over 50 ounces was an attempt to make sure no one would be "heavily armed".

First of all the second amendment was written in a time when people used muskets and cannons, so it's terribly outdated.

First of all when the second amendment was ratified there were 22 shot, magazine fed, suppressed repeating rifles available, so your premise is false not that it actually would make sense if it was not. At the time they communicated with broadsides and letters, so therefore modern communications aren't protected by the 1st amendment?

Second, specific guns like automatic and military weapons shouldn't be obtainable by civilians, if they want to use them they should be restricted to shooting ranges, and all other weapons as strong as my pellet rifle should require initial and remedial training, background checks, and a permit similar to what you need to drive a car, and liability insurance depending on the gun, where you are, and how you plain to use it.

Oh, so we should pass the laws we already have? Your solution is what we did in the 1930s? You want people to have permits for pellet guns? Why? How many people are killed with pellet guns?
You needed training for your pellet gun? really?
Let me get this right, there are 71 times as many fatal car accidents than fatal gun accidents and you think we should make gun laws more like car laws, how is that working out?

Insurance, that's a funny one, the idea of demanding that is because you think the insurance would be too expensive for poor people right? You imagine that guns are so dangerous that the insurance would be expensive, but of course in reality guns are so safe that gun insurance is free with your NRA membership. So sorry that won't keep legal guns out of the hands of poor black people like you would want.
I like how you don't know how insurance works, do you think any insurance covers intentional criminal acts committed by the policyholder?

I often hear people say that this is unreasonable because it would make it easier for the Government were to oppress us in a "take over". My response, if the Government were against you, your guns aren't going to help you against drone and airstrikes.

Oh right, too bad nobody told the Taliban that huh? We can't even defeat a few thousand illiterate goat herders, millions of armed Americans are unstoppable. How will you keep the drone operators children safe?

TRANSLATION: We need to widen the existing power-gap between the Masters & the Slaves even MORE.

Caution: Phishing Scammer!

Please do not click on the link!

The link will take you away from Steemit.com. Please be careful.