Jim Jefferies on US gun control

Post Reply New Topic

There are, at this time, many who understand the government is only a "tool" of large corporations. Don't believe me??? Then just ask Dick Cheney (or filth of his ilk).

The people who control these corporations know there are many patriotic Americans who understand this.

When you add up corporate profits lost because of public insurrection, to say nothing of personal safety, the equation changes. This would be especially true because of the way many patriotic Americans (in all walks of life) think. Corporate directors understand this as well.

They know a conflict would not be confined to a nice tidy battlefield somewhere far away. They will never allow a situation where they can not ship product.

People in many foreign countries are sheep, but in countries where they are not, you see insurrection. Corporate America will not allow this to happen.

Many foreign posters to this forum will not believe this.

Do you not realize that ousting a government is very different from fighting an insurgency, particularly a domestic one, and that our success in toppling the Afghan and Iraqi regimes contrasts fairly starkly with our failure to gain control of either country?

Let me explain to you a little bit about how this would go. First, some numbers. Over 30% of Americans report owning guns, which is probably low for a variety of reasons, but lets just call that a nice even 100,000,000 people for the sake of argument. The US military has a combined active and reserve strength of 2,000,000-ish. Now, assuming a full on revolt is going on, some percentage of that military is either going to actively turn, while only a small percentage of firearms owners need to rise up in order to vastly outnumber the military.

Now, that doesn't even matter that much, nor does the fancy hardware possessed by the military, because of the style of conflict we're talking about here, guerrilla warfare, not conventional. Who needs to shoot down drones when the pilots can be killed (and I don't mean on the battlefield, I mean murdered)? Same with tanks and their operators, jets helicopters and their pilots, etc. In their homes, on their way to work, while they're off base, etc? How about their families? Politicians, active military, police, opposition, can all of them be protected at all times, along with their loved ones? The state can't fight that way, not without turning the population further against it, while those fighting the state are dispersed and difficult to target without causing unacceptable collateral damage, which would be impossible to conceal in this day and age. If you were in the government, would you be willing to spend the rest of your life in a gilded cage over what comes down to domestic policy? Nobody can't be gotten to, and frankly, that's a good thing.

Also, the GAU Avenger is a 30mm anti-tank weapon firing DU shells mounted to a jet, not exactly an anti-personnel weapon like you seem to think; maybe you should put down the Tom Clancy and learn about the subject at hand before commenting next time. Even if you'd picked a more appropriate weapon, like say an M134, it's still not applicable to the style of war being discussed, and kind of points to shallow understanding of military equipment and strategy.

Yep. We surround them. Remember that.

You didn't really address the other points I made on this hypothetical situation, but straw man arguments are always a way to make you feel good about how smart you are.

I like how you didn't include all the local police forces when assessing the numbers of personnel who would be involved with fighting the insurgency. Please explain to me how this would go more, wise sage. You've clearly thought of all the variables.

Americans are mostly soft though, when faced with the prospect of death they will put down their firearms. They are not used to living in huts and barely having enough food and water to live. Real insurgents don't have loving families and big homes they would risk losing. The amount of surveillance in the US is extensive, so any insurgents could be easily tracked and wiped out. In fact, I'm sure the government already has a list of the majority of people who would lead the insurgents. And it would be easy to infiltrate insurgent groups and take out the leaders because they're all American who speak English, not Vietnamese, Iraqi, Afghani. The idea that you could effectively organize an insurgency in the US as easily in other countries is way off base.

If you'd like to belittle my knowledge about military weapons, I hope you feel better about yourself. The exchange reveals much more about your warped psychology than my ability to memorize useless facts. I happen to spend my time learning about other things, but that doesn't mean I can't have some favorite guns to learn about. But your demand that I learn about military technology before I can even make a comment is an controlling impulse, and you have no control over me.

You seem to suggest that going on a mass murder spree to fight against a legal amendment to the constitution would garner support for the insurgents rather than the government? Please. The insurgents would be gutless terrorists, proud Americans would gladly see those traitors eviscerated.

I just assume that anybody who supports gun control was never abducted, institutionalized, drugged, beaten, and raped over a period of years, without due process and on the taxpayers' dime.

Anybody who wants to remove my means of preventing that from happening to me again is just as much my enemy as the thugs who tortured me.

Exactly why those in the federal government who support extreme gun control want so desperately to make defenseless victims out of citizens. The Second Amendment will be the last domino to fall if they get their way.

If I'm reading you right, I think that's overly broad.

Proponents of gun control generally do seek to effect a ceteris paribus increase in each individual's probability of becoming victimized, but most don't intend such. Rather, most either have misplaced faith in the functional benevolence of government-as-a-whole (as opposed to that of the individuals comprising government), or else they don't mind a few cases like mine as long as the majority are kept safe (with undertones of "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas").

Not to say I discount their existence or the potential threat they pose, but I suspect it's very few proponents of gun control who seek to implement it for the purpose of violently exploiting it.

I agree that is usually true among citizens, but I singled out those gun-control supporters among our elected public officials. When U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein has a concealed-firearm permit (and has admitted to having possessed her firearm on the floor of the U.S. Senate, if she doesn't still do so), but acts and votes in ways to dismantle the Second Amendment, I can't see her actions as equitable or absent malice toward us simpletons who wish to enjoy the same rights she enjoys. While she is just one example, I blame others like her because they have done little or nothing to stop her and her cohorts. I see that fact as evidence that those in government are actively pursuing a double standard applied to the Second Amendment whereby the elite get to have guns while their "subjects" don't.

I suppose there might be some as you described among our elected officials who see little damage done to the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, but, for them, I blame the general dumbing down of our citizenry about all things constitutional.

I don't disagree with your details. I just wonder if the evidence we see isn't suggestive of a larger agenda, especially with the general trend among citizens, and our state and federal courts to appreciate and bolster the Second Amendment; in other words, maybe our successes are provoking their continue reactions despite our successes (a paradox?).

I think you're attributing to malice that which is explicable by stupidity. I don't think allistic persons raised in highly organized societies are capable of perceiving social topologies which aren't endorsed by the organization(s) said individuals deem legitimate. Such is the burden of being a herd beast.

More plainly, I suspect Senator Feinstein et. al. are literally incapable of seeing any social issue not outlined in their party's platform. Since the Democratic Party doesn't define firearm ownership as a class issue, such people are incapable of conceiving of gun ownership as being reserved for the elite. Rather they truly, earnestly believe that gun ownership should be reserved for those with certain security risks which they view to be legitimate, and those who qualify just so happen to be the elite.

Bit off topic but, much as I despise politics, I could get behind a Democrat who pushed for gun redistribution rather than gun control. Empty out those police armories, organize and arm every neighborhood and community that has been living in fear of the police. It'll never happen though.

Haha! I agree completely.

Such as? Your argument seems to be 'the US military is so technologically advanced that resistance would be futile', which I refuted. If you're going to claim that you're being straw-manned, it helps if you point out where.



Same as the military, only with less equipment and training and even more vulnerability, as they don't have barracks to live on. Ever seen the cops shoot? I have, hence part of the reason that I don't really consider them much of an issue, especially as they'd have many of the same divisions in loyalty that the military would.



Cite? Also, we're talking over 100 million people just among the directly gun owning, which as I previously said, means that only a small fraction need to do anything to cause serious trouble.



Who said anything about living in huts? We're not talking about Red Dawn here, you don't need to go off and live in the woods to occasionally murder a cop or a soldier or a politician, and if you're careful and don't talk about it, it's not even difficult to get away with. Crimes are typically solved after the fact by uncovering connections between the victim and the perpetrator, making random killings very difficult to solve barring a stupid mistake by the killer; again, maybe actually learn about things before posting?



"Take out the leaders"? More Clancy... Technology cuts both ways, strong encryption is widely available, and if you really want to be secure, one time texts are actually unbreakable. Further, who needs leaders? All you need is a list on a website of who to kill and where they live, it's pretty simple. You can't seem to grasp that this is not a conventional conflict being discussed, this is the government being seen as illegitimate by a large enough number of people that actual fighting breaks out, which means a hostile environment for agents of the state, English speaking or not. Troops in the street and commando raids mean nothing when the people ordering those things are afraid to leave their houses, which is what the situation would actually be.



I used the fact that you named a semi-obscure weapon but have no idea what it's actually used for to point out that you don't know what you're talking about and suggested that you might want to avoid that in the future so as to not appear ignorant; that's not control, that's advice. You also didn't seem to think the information was useless when you were attempting to use it to bolster your own credibility; I think I smell a bit of butthurt here...



So, do you actually work for DHS, or are you just hoping to some day?

Dox47, I'm not going to go back and forth any further with you over this hypothetical scenario, but I do disagree strongly with how you see this conflict panning out. Rest assured I've never read a page of Tom Clancy. Our predictions of human behavior vary too widely to find any common ground, and our assumptions of how the domestic terrorists would be organized and how the government would respond to this kind of situation are very far apart.

What I don't understand is why people would see the government as illegitimate, so much so as to become murderous terrorists in order to get their way. Our government is populated by politicians elected by the people, if they decide to change the laws, then that is legitimate. If someone disagrees and uses violence as a means to get their way, they seem much more like a member of al-Queda than an American who makes a positive contribution to society.

to be fair the A10 has mostly been used for close ground support. as our enemies don't use tanks. its loved by the troops for its ability to stay on scene for a long time raining down pain, loved by pilots for being able to take hits and make it home. it was designed with open conflict with the russians and there by taking out their tanks though.

as for insurgents. so you're saying none of them have families? they are all orphans? most have families. a lot of them have multiple wives and bunch of kids. who unfortunately get killed in the cross file. they're regular people mislead to believe they are fighting for a noble cause. here. people would fight for their families, so they families could be safe and free. soldiers will go through hell for the guy next to them imagine what they'd do if their family was the ones next to them?

imagine if tomorrow the government passes laws that make being black illegal, and order all blacks to be rounded up, deported or killed if they resist. would you see this as a legit government just cause they went about it in a semi legal way?

when the government does super wrong bad things legally they cease being legit in the eyes of the people. anything can be made legal, that doesn't make it right.

duch people much like the revolutionaries of the founders won't see them selfs as terrorist. the world and the england all called americans terrorists for their actions and if we'd lost it would have gone down in history as such.

if the possible event happens and the people you call terrorist manage to change the gov, they will be called heros and saviors of the republic. one mans terrorist is another mans hero. to what title wins goes to the victor.

also imagine this is pass, and the whole conservative/republican side disagrees.. say 49% disagree, while 51% passed it similar numbers to how obama was elected. now what you have isn't a terrorist but possible civil war. some states have already passed laws say they will not enforce any federal gun controls laws, so if the feds disband the 2nd amendment they won't support it and will arrest any federal agents caught trying to. now imagine they try the result is the state decides to leave. or worse you have atf/military fighting state troops, sheriffs, local police and national guard. texas has its own power gride, its own branch of air and army, i think they started stockpiling their own gold. they make a lot of the oil/gas. could see a possible states alling and forming around texas. guns/2nd amendment is very very important to lot of people and to some states. they won't go after it til they have slowly removed everything it protects til all that remains is the words on the paper and all guns have already been removed and destroyed. not going happen. just not worth the possible results and death tolls, no democrat politician wants that to be on their record.

Okay I couldn't resist.

That's not really my argument. See, it's difficult to have a conversation with you when you misrepresent what I say. For instance, the surveillance in the US is clearly in the hands of the FBI and CIA, not military. When did I say military technology? Never. And there are other factors to consider, which I tried to address but will clarify below.

And just because you say you refute an argument, doesn't mean you actually refuted it. You don't get to be the arbiter when you're biased towards one side of the debate.



Yes, everyone knows that cops will break ranks so join terrorists who kill cops. They are notorious for abandoning their brothers to join groups who murder innocent civilians.

It's still over a million more boots on the ground, many of whom know the ins and outs of local communities. I'm sure they know who militant gun owners are, and that information could be quite useful. More surveillance, and it has nothing to do with military technology.



I cite sources in my dissertation, not for internet discussions. Sorry but it's not worth the effort. I noticed you don't have any citations either, but I'm not asinine enough to ask for them.



You misunderstood me, maybe I wasn't clear. The types of people who typically engage in guerrilla warfare are extremely poor, hungry, angry young men with no political voice. I think the reason such people are willing to do so is because they literally have nothing to lose.

My observations of humans, along with research in sociology and psychology, have led me to believe that people will not engage in risky behavior that can lead to death, torture, incarceration, and loss of income for their families unless there is a significant reward. The minor political victory of murdering an innocent person to make a point about the legality of gun ownership seems to me to be much too small of an incentive to make such a great risk, particularly when there is no tangible benefits for the person pulling the trigger. In Iraq and Palestine, people have nothing, and will blow themselves up. Here, I don't see that happening.

And that does not factor in the moral implications of murdering an innocent person to make a political point. I think most Americans would have a hard time justifying that kind of action against a fellow countrymen to themselves.



Who posts the list on a website? A leader, perhaps? Where would that person get the information of the people who the terrorists should kill? Only a select few would have that information. In order to have an insurgency, you need leadership who can effectively direct actions so that they don't devolve into random actions that don't serve a greater purpose.

The government could easily post false lists of people to kill that would lead would-be terrorists into traps where they could be easily taken out. How would the insurgents defeat this strategy without central leadership and a means to communicate? The terrorists must rely on accurate information regarding who to kill, but I see no way of disseminating that information given the communications infrastructure of the US.

You realize that anyone caught accessing that webpage would be captured, tortured, and interrogated? It would be a huge risk to visit that webpage, what if the government found a workaround for the encryption software? Public computers would either block such websites or be monitored so the identity of the person viewing the page would be recorded. This plan is deeply flawed.



I reference the A-10 as an aircraft that small arms fire would have little impact on, and went on to use the Avenger as a weapon that would do nicely to combat a group of terrorists congregated at an airstrip. You are wrong that I have no idea what it is used for. I know it is used in Afghanistan, and not against tanks even though it has that capability.

If you're really offering advice, then try doing it in a way so that others will appreciate it, not in condescending, d*ck-ish way. But I know you're not so naive to believe that that's what your real motivation was. Just don't pretend, it's embarrassing. If you really want to help people and make the world a better place, feel free to do so.



Don't be silly. That kind of work seems very boring.