Jim Jefferies on US gun control

Post Reply New Topic

I usually just ignore videos anyway. I don't want to waste ten minutes listening to a bunch of drivel that I could read in one minute.

>people who try to use videos of comedians to prove a point instead of just having their argument or point on the subject.

I usually just ignore Thomas81's posts, anyway. They all seem to be variations of the same anti-American rhetoric, with no redeeming social features at all.

You, too? I thought I was the only one.

I especially avoid any video that doesn't include at least a sentence description.

Oh, wow, when did this become a gay bathhouse? There's butthurt and santorum everywhere. Seriously, no wonder other members avoid this forum and don't bother joining in conversations.

This bubble you guys live in, is the reason why we can't have nice things and why people avoid you. Good luck with your guys circle jerk. Wash your hands when your done.

That used to be a sure sign of an impending "Rick-Roll". Now it just means that the person who posts it can't think of anything to say.

Wow, what a clever and original statement, good stuff and really helpful, it sure showed us.

I gave you one on "effectiveness" and "suicide".

This seems to be the gist of Thomas81's interest in our gun laws.
http://www.wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=229659&start=15

I guess we naughty Americans are supposed to adopt draconian gun legislation so Tommyboy can feel all warm and fuzzy abut watching the news as it pertains to the US of A. Of course, when that doesnt work we'll need more gun control.....

Please post within the forum rules.

Yet you took the energy to reply here.

What makes you think some of the America-can-do-no wrong rhetoric isn't just as irritating to us rest of the world posters? Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

Actually this was mentioned in the bit. Do you really think the US government fears people with guns when the government has drones that can blow you up without you even knowing you are a target? Please. An army of citizens with assault rifles could be wiped out as easily as me stepping on an ant.

How many years has it been since we conquered Iraq and Afghanistan again? I keep forgetting.

Facts to consider in this hypothetical situation:

1) Like ants, we surround them; the number of privately owned firearms in the United States (270 million) dwarfs whatever arsenal they have. Therefore, I believe that, in military terms, it would be a turkey shoot.

2) Like the statement "you have to sleep sometime," drones have to land eventually (especially when they run out of munitions and are no longer useful unarmed); I believe that such landing fields would quickly become a skeet shoot to those who oppose their use against citizens ("Pull!"). And, that isn't even considering the ability of mediocre hackers who have proved the ability to digitally commandeer drones http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/1 ... gress-told .

people fly those, people with families, people who eat, sleep and can be shot, people whose families may be the very people targeted, would you blow up your family cause some guy who you don't know, sitting in a bunker hundreds of miles a way without a care for anyone but themselves told you to? I'm willing to be most military won't target us citizens for the president. the reality is a lot of military makes up the pro gun people who would be the targets, kinda hard to have them kill themselves. you'd probably have troops walking off base with equipment, drones targeting the gov, shoot outs on bases, whole bases turning to the resistance etc. the marines tend to be very honor bound and swear to protect the constitution. the whole people with guns can't stand up to the gov doesn't understand the gov is people not robots, people who in the ground level are part of the communities they expect them to kill. besides that, can you imagine the moral when air force starts bombing US cities, the masses will grow to resent the gov, they'll start joining the resistance. just like in afgan like dox said. It's why we had to do all kinds of restrictive ROE, every civilian you kill causes 2-5 people or more to join the other side, you end up providing more man power and support to the people you're trying to kill.

no they won't use drones, planes, bombs, etc. they'll need to make them seem like terrorists, that the gov is the victims, you don't do that by bombing cities and having civilians die in the cross fire. or by locking down whole cities, besides we don't even have enough military to secure the whole nation maybe one state if you move all of them there. to be honest you'd be off worrying that if the nation goes into anarchy that there isn't enough man power to bring back order and if they do it might take years one city at at time.

luckily It seems highly doubtful that any of this will happen, still better safe then sorry.

Ummm..., I think we ousted those governments pretty quickly. The rest of the military operations in those countries was not intended to be a conquest.