Australian Comedian Jim Jefferies on Guns

originally posted by: GemmyMcGemJew

Have you read the constitution? So apart from hunting (no problem, should be aquired through hunting licenses, but just me), you genuinely believe the government will try to other throw the people? You have a gun to protect your family members from the government? You know how obsurd that sounds right? So if it's not for that reason , it is a WANT. What rights do you have to bear arms outside of this amendment?

The funny thing is these people who use the excuse that they need guns to "protect against government tyranny" don't seem to realise that the government has bigger guns than them. And tanks. And Jets. And Bombs. And Drones. I think they are a little to late to be able to do anything about the tyrannous government they all complain about.

a reply to: buddah6
Lmao...I have never seen anyone say that in any thread before. Fair play to you sir. But there is a reason no one has ever stated that....lol.
We are subjects cos of the monarchy...pfffff

a reply to: GemmyMcGemJew

Even funnier is he's fallen for the outright lie that us Aussies and Brits have no access to guns whatsoever. It just proves how off-the-mark he is with his argument.

originally posted by: GemmyMcGemJew
a reply to: Irishhaf
you genuinely believe the government will try to other throw the people? You have a gun to protect your family members from the government? You know how obsurd that sounds right? So if it's not for that reason , it is a WANT. What rights do you have to bear arms outside of this amendment?

Please point out where I said I wanted a gun to protect myself from the fed.. I never said that I said it is a constitutionally protected right...

That is a fact..there is no disputing that..

originally posted by: Irishhaf

Please point out where I said I wanted a gun to protect myself from the fed.. I never said that I said it is a constitutionally protected right...

That is a fact..there is no disputing that..

So let me get this right. You use the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms against tyrannous government reasoning yet you say you never said you wanted to protect yourself from the "fed".

What. The. Hell. ??

a reply to: Kryties

It's impossible to reason with them. They know the reason for the amendment but fail to acknowledge it when justifying needing a gun. It's rather embarrassing sometimes.

But you never know...without Hollywood they wouldn't have known you can destroy a tank with a handgun by shooting down the tank barrel and that ac130s are very susceptible to 9mm bullets when at 5000 feet. The whole thing is laughable, it's just a shame they don't realise the point they are trying to make is worthless based on their own premise.

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Irishhaf

Have you actually read the constitution???

Are you speaking of the 2nd Amendment? I presume you are.

You should probably take note of the word "Amendment".

Prohibition and Slavery were also in the American Constitution. They were repealed when common sense prevailed. So it looks like the Constitution CAN be changed when necessary, regardless of how loudly some people proclaim otherwise.

So show me... show where slavery was permitted and protected in the constitution...

everything I have read says its it was not authorized or protected by the constitution but it was also never outlawed... looks to me like a compromise to make sure the deal got done.

a reply to: Irishhaf

What is the justification for the amendment? Please explain? It's based on one thing. Please state what it is and say it aloud to yourself so you know why it's a "constitutional right". Say it 10 times aloud if needs be, as long as you understand the reason for why you are so irate over your "desire" for a gun.

a reply to: Kryties

I want you to quote where I said a bloody thing about tyrannical govt...

show me because I never said it.

a reply to: Irishhaf

-Right off the bat; comparing Australian culture to American is false equivalency.

True, as I have pointed out before, the homicide rate in America is sky-high. Even the killings not involving guns occur at a higher rate than all of Oz and Canada's homicides. I think what that tells me is that your culture needs fixing. Not sure what the problem is, though. Maybe it's just the economy and the corporatism. (Though most other countries are like that too.)

-Then he went to think of the children…

Well, someone has to.

-He was wrong with I like guns is the only reason to own guns, home defense in rural areas is very much a need,(45 mins to an hour+ response time for cops) there are people in America that must hunt year round to keep meat on the table, also a lot of us prefer wild game to heavily treated store bought crud. Then there is back country hiking, if you aren’t armed and you’re in cougar/bear/snake country your stupid.

You'd still be able to get guns for that sort of stuff over here, too. It would just be very slightly harder, and 18 year olds wanting to shoot up high schools would find it quite difficult.

-Then he apparently misunderstands the difference between living in a house and living in a flat in England.

What about living in a flat in America?

-Then he goes on about how people breaking in just want to steal your stuff… as if violent breakins never occur.

I think his point was that they usually just want to steal your stuff. Unless murderous raping break-ins are common in America? I suppose it's that culture again.

-Then again think of the children… I don’t have kids, so a kid isn’t likely to pick up my gun and shoot anyone. Also I grew up in a house without a gun safe, me and my sister never tried to play with the guns, so what has changed… kids used to be able to be trusted now we act like they cant be trusted to dress themselves.

It's not a problem intrinsic to the children, it's their bumbling and ignorant asshole parents. Sometimes the parents shoot the kids, sometimes the kids shoot the kids, sometimes the kids shoot the parents. I suppose I shouldn't care about them, though.

-Then about the school bs… highschool I went to every vehicle in the parking lot had guns in it… nobody shot up the school… most of our teachers were armed, the school resource officer had a gun.

I think that bit was just part of the comedy routine.

-He assumes his points are right, and assumes I disagree with him because he’s foreign… I could care less.

He wasn't speaking directly to you, you know.

-Slavery was never enshrined in the constitution, again apples and potatoes.

The right to bear arms wasn't involved initially either.

-You cant just walk into a Walmart… and pick up an AR variant, you still have to go through a back ground check… which he glossed over.

You can't or you couldn't? Has it always been like that?

-Apparently he doesn’t understand history… Nepal, Vietnam, are just 2 examples of soldiers wildly outgunned that won, so his drone argument falls flat as well.

I'm sure you already know this but the terrain in Nepal and Vietnam is vastly different to the terrain in the United States. I have a sneaking suspicion that a Vietcong style force would be significantly less effective at fighting in Florida than the Vietcong were at fighting in the jungles of Vietnam.

-Lastly it’s a comic show; that’s a really bad place to look for law inspiration.

Fair point. He's by no means perfect, I'm playing devils advocate to most of your post. Still, I very much agree with his statement about guns being less than perfect for home security, and I also believe that many people don't care about the second amendment and just want easy access to firearms. Sure, the second amendment is their sword and shield, but it's a means to an end.

originally posted by: GemmyMcGemJew
a reply to: Irishhaf

What is the justification for the amendment? Please explain? It's based on one thing. Please state what it is and say it aloud to yourself so you know why it's a "constitutional right". Say it 10 times aloud if needs be, as long as you understand the reason for why you are so irate over your "desire" for a gun.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."

I dont see a bloody thing in there about fighting the government...

also thanks for ignoring court precedents that have upheld private ownership of fire arms..

originally posted by: Irishhaf

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Irishhaf

Have you actually read the constitution???

Are you speaking of the 2nd Amendment? I presume you are.

You should probably take note of the word "Amendment".

Prohibition and Slavery were also in the American Constitution. They were repealed when common sense prevailed. So it looks like the Constitution CAN be changed when necessary, regardless of how loudly some people proclaim otherwise.

So show me... show where slavery was permitted and protected in the constitution...

OK.

From: law2.umkc.edu...

The Constitution and Slavery:
Provisions in the Original Constitution

Article I, Section. 2 [Slaves count as 3/5 persons]
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons [i.e., slaves].

Article I, Section. 9, clause 1. [No power to ban slavery until 1808]
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

Article IV, Section. 2. [Free states cannot protect slaves]
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

Article V [No Constitutional Amendment to Ban Slavery Until 1808]
...No Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article.

originally posted by: Irishhaf

everything I have read says its it was not authorized or protected by the constitution but it was also never outlawed... looks to me like a compromise to make sure the deal got done.

It wasn't until 31st Jan. 1865 that Congress passed the 13th Amendment banning slavery. Prior to that, see above.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

-we can absolutely agree that our culture is fubar... our education system is in the toilet, our children are not getting the masculine and feminine influences they need to grow up as well adjusted adults.

-Think of the children is an emotional response that typically leads to poorly thought out legislation, I am open to gun control.. I am not open to knee jerk poorly thought out legislation where we have to "trust" politicians to fix the over reaches later.

-I live in a two story house nobody is coming through my bedroom window... when they come through my first floor they run into dogs.

-children shooting themselves... The guardian
This was from 2014...

The tragedy of children killed accidentally by guns in the US is laid bare in new research that shows that as many as 100 boys and girls aged 14 and under are dying each year, substantially more than federal statistics have previously suggested.

100 a year is barely a blip on the radar statically... cant find it at the moment, I want to say it was just over 300 poison deaths in that year.

-The terrain in the US is so varied that many sections of the US could cause fits to any force trying to find anyone that didnt want to be found.

- You buy a gun from a store, gun store, gun show, walmart... you go through a background check.
walmart background checks

Walmart, the nation’s largest gun retailer, sells rifles, shotguns, and ammunition in some 1,700 outlets. (It doesn’t offer handguns, except in the state of Alaska.) In 2008, the company adopted even more rigorous standards by implementing a 10-point code of conduct as part of a partnership with the gun safety group Mayors Against Illegal Guns. In addition to refusing default proceed sales, Walmart agreed to videotape all firearm transactions, require background checks for all employees handling or selling guns, and create a system to trace guns sold by the company that are later linked to crimes, among other measures. (Mayors Against Illegal Guns is an earlier iteration of Everytown for Gun Safety, a seed donor of The Trace.) While some gun safety groups predicted that Walmart would set an industry standard, that’s not quite what’s happened. Some major retailers like Sports Authority and Gander Mountain have also implemented “don’t know, don’t sell policies.” But others, such as Cabela’s, have not. Currently, Walmart is the only big-box retailer to adopt the voluntary code, called the Responsible Firearms Retailer Partnership, and its policies have little influence on the thousands of independent gun stores across the U.S.

a reply to: Irishhaf

Lmao. So from your pespective they just thought this up. No justification for why they did the amendment no? No reason for its purpose? Does that not sound strange to you?

Private ownership in terms of hunting licenses, I have no problem. All countries have these types of licenses. But to feel it's needed under the false misinterpretation for why you country warrants people to have guns, that I have a problem with.

Your quote seems to be missing the section for why, convient that?

a reply to: GemmyMcGemJew

thanks for clearing that up...

I just showed you the 2nd amendment... was I supposed to make up another part to satisfy you... I think what your reaching for is the part that says "being necessary to the security of a free State" that covers quite a bit... and self protection is one of them.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Is he an ignoramus due to incorrect factual information, or because he disagrees with you? I have come across the unfortunate tendency of people to blur the lines between the two.

Because his "logic" behind why owning a gun for protection lacks all forms of logic, and is only the type of rhetoric spewed by people ignorant to the realities of owning guns and how to keep them and use them for protection.

It's not about disagreeing, although I disagree, obviously--it's about him talking out of his ass and pretending that it is "fact," as he so incorrectly stated at the start of that comedy segment.

a reply to: Kryties

You don't own a gun, do you? You've never trained with a firearm for self-defense or protection of your family, have you? You don't have any idea as to the many ways that one can securely store a firearm, yet have near immediate access to it in case of an intruder in your home, do you?

Instead of asking me for specifics as to why this comedian is ignorant to guns (aside from that he's from Australia, where he so eloquently states that guns are basically illegal), I would ask you this: Have you done any research into training and gun ownership that leads you to understand that what this guy says it "fact?"

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: GemmyMcGemJew

thanks for clearing that up...

I just showed you the 2nd amendment... was I supposed to make up another part to satisfy you... I think what your reaching for is the part that says "being necessary to the security of a free State" that covers quite a bit... and self protection is one of them.

From: www2.law.ucla.edu...

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” the Second Amendment says, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” But what did the Framing generation understand “free State” to mean?

Some say it meant a “state of the union, free from federal oppression.” As one D.C. Circuit judge put it, “The Amendment was drafted in response to the perceived threat to the ‘free[dom]’ of the ‘State[s]’ posed by a national standing army controlled by the federal government.”

Or as a lawyer for one leading pro-gun-control group wrote, “Presumably, the term ‘free State’ is a reference to the states as entities of governmental authority. Moreover, the reference to the ‘security’ of a free State must have something to do with the need to defend the state as an entity of government.”

Double post.