Jim Jefferies on US gun control

Post Reply New Topic

Hmmm..., well I have very low expectations of government. Throughout human history, government has reliably done two things: collect taxes and build armies. The notion that it has some responsibility toward right and wrong is not really manifest in its history.

We ultimately have no rights, other than what the government gives us. And if the government decides to change what those rights are, it's legitimate, because people don't govern, governments do.

Yes this kind of legislation could not happen now.

But generally speaking, Western nations tend to become more liberal over time. If incidents of mass shootings in the US increase in the next 20 or 30 years, and public perception of guns gradually changes, it could eventually happen.

and this is why people like me and dox will never have common ground with people like you. our rights are not givin by the government it is only acknowledged and protected by the government.
they can not take what they didn't give. if you read the bill or rights it says that its just acknowledging rights that are basic human rights given by no man or government. the founding fathers didn't not think they were giving us these rights and future leaders could just take them away. perhaps this is why americans are so resistant to being told what to do compared to european nations who were use to being ruled by kings telling them what to do. this is why non gun owners went out in masses to buy guns when they were told they might not be allowed to have it. why they fought back when people try to tell them they can't have big soda drinks . they won't be happy when the government says you have no more rights you dirty peasants you are are beneath us now shut up and do what we say. they will resist cause they view freedom and the right of their kids to be free and do as they wish far far far greater then thier house, income, or even losing their life.

lots of those "militian terrorist" as you think they will be called, are cops and military. they will walk off the job. also currently they take guns with 9 people in california. imagine if at one house they lose 4 cops, kill 2 guys and 4 kids. times that by millions of houses. do you think they going want to go to the next house after loosing 4 guys and killing 4 babies? killing anyone can be tough on cop. I don't imagine many of the truly good ones could come back from that. mean while while they going door to door whos protecting their families? no many will just walk off and go home to be with their families, a bunch will join the resistance, and the remaining ar the cops who shoot unarmed people while they are handcuffed, people who have no value of human life and see being a cop as a job that pays money and lets them shoot people. truly their job is already dangerous without having to go to otherwise lawful peoples home for a armed shoot out that may last hours and lead to the deaf of plenty of people on both sides.

these so called terrorist, are teachers, pastors, cops, firemen, doctors, paramedics, cooks, etc. what will people think when they hear their ^ insert above, was swatted and killed? wonder if they'll hat the cops? i mean look what happens in cop on civilian shooting now. it be way more backlash. cops just want to go home at the end of the day, and this s**t would mean 80% likelihood they won't for crap pay and small pensions. most just won't do it.

people like you seem to view cops and military as soulless robots that just do what ever they are told to. they are people with emotions, likes, and families. probably half or more cops in the nation support gun rights. 1/4 probably are the very people you'd call terrorist. now the DHS is another thing, but it'll take time to get the DHS to 10million strong and armed and people are already watching them.

correction european nations tend to become more liberal over time. but american is made up of all the pro gun wild, not wanted, people that europe kicked out

every mass shooting and attempt at a ban just makes more pro gun people maybe if they didn't try to ban guns each time and mass shootings happen way way more often, even still the nation is split on guns. it'll take more then 30 years to dissolve that.

for someone who isn't anti gun you talk the talk and seem to be quite focused on removing all guns. most people who aren't anti and aren't pro guns don't talk about them at all. they too busy focused on their interests.

The bill of rights is just a piece of paper. Human rights are a myth.

Yes, I don't think that the police would be able to go into people's home and take their guns. It's more likely that legislation would offer a reward for turning in guns, and anyone caught using or possessing a gun after a grace period would be fined/imprisoned. People who are registered with guns would maybe face steep fines if they do not turn in their gun after a certain amount of time, but maybe that is not necessary. But I agree it would be a bad idea to actually attempt to physically collect guns.

But if pro gun people start murdering innocent cops and government officials to make a political statement, I have a hard time believing there would be much sympathy for them. Cops don't treat cop killers very kindly.

Well, I believe the US is much more liberal now than it was 60 years ago. There are ebbs and flows but we removed institutional discrimination regarding race, gender, and disability, we have universal health care, services for poor people keep expanding, and inevitably gay marriage and and pot will be legal. The gun issue is moving more slowly but each successive generation is more liberal than the next.

Maybe 30 years is an underestimation of how long it will take. But I do think it is inevitable.

What about those individuals in military and law enforcement who would refuse to violate the constitutional rights of citizens who own and possess firearms (Second Amendment), keep them in their homes or on their persons (Fourth Amendment), expect to be treated fairly (Fifth Amendment), expect to have the ability to have their firearms returned to them immediately after they are determined to be innocent of any crime (Sixth Amendment) unless they are unconstitutionally imprisoned for such ownership and possession (Eighth Amendment), if necessary, sue at least for compensation of the value of their firearms (Seventh Amendment), and failing all that, claim that their rights to own and possess firearms are retained to the people (Ninth Amendment) or reserved to the states (Tenth Amendment)?

In other words, it is invalid to change the terms of a legal agreement without the consent of all parties to the agreement. The Constitution for the United States of America, and its Bill of Rights, can't be ignored by one self-serving party to allow that party to violate it. In other words, it is a covenant. It is locked in. It can't be ignored just because someone says it can.

I have no doubts that some will ignore this truism. They do already. And, we (including majorities in the military and law enforcement, according to most polls) surround them.