Jim Jefferies on US gun control

Post Reply New Topic

Not quite. The natural right to keep and bears arms (all weapons, not only firearms) is guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America. As such, Article Five of the Constitution defines expressly how the Constitution may be amended (two-thirds of both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives OR a national convention assembled at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds of the states; AND the request of legislatures of three-fourths of the states OR state-ratifying conventions of three-fourths of the states. Without amending the Constitution according to this constitutionally required method is, by itself, a violation of the Constitution.

Laws, on the other hand, can come and go quite easily requiring usually a simple majority vote of both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives and the president's signature.

So, "the right to bear arms, like any law, can be changed" isn't an accurate statement.

Also, the recent affirmations of the Second Amendment in 2010 and 2012 by the U.S. Supreme Court, not to mention the inability of the Congress to adopt gun-control laws much less amend the Constitution, and ongoing public-opinion polling which shows that majorities of Americans support the Second Amendment for the defense of themselves, their families and friends against violent crime and government abuse suggests to me, at least, that changing the natural right to keep and bears arms isn't going away very soon.

in fact it would be average citizens not militias that would raise up to stop and fix, not overthrow a corrupt broken government. the result would be a similar government just with its unlawful obtained powers rolled back to the 1900s style it was suppose to be. if the gov suspends all bill of rights, then it is no longer a gov for the people by the people, but a government trying to create a dictatorship. if you are behind supporting that then you on the wrong side. yes they will then claim anyone fighting for the bill of rights to be terrorist or militia as a propaganda.

all comes down to point of view. I don't view those who would fight for freedom from this gov that has removed our rights that predate the us as a legit government. a show jericho was good at what could happen. finally the military decided they no longer recognized the new gov as legit.( in the show this gov was behind 26 nuke stricts on the us, and civil war, all to gain control and remove the bill of rights and fix what they saw as a weak nation)

I don't think a future government that takes away all our rights is impossible. probably far off though. the founders of our nation saw this as possible heck they'd just defeated one in a war, they new it was possible. we've seen other nations in recent times do this. to think it can't and won't happen in the us cause we are so amazing is living blind.

so yes any government and military that would remove our rights, oppress people, round them up and camps will get compared to nazis.

well being of society, well to be honest, a complete military control where the military controls everything we do, say, think and live. were theres border checks, chips in our arms, and we go from work to home only, would be great for our wellbeing. no one would die, we would be completely safe from dangers, this however would mean no freedom, to many freedom is way more important then well being. anyways only way since the legal way is impossible to do, would be for the gov/president to illegally remove the 2nd amendment. which is why such people fighting against this gov would not be illegal in their actions.

really don't see a point in talking to antis though, they live in a make beleive world.
as for wiped away with eas, looks what happens when one black guy is shot by a cop, now do that times millions. how about adding in no freedom of speech, no internet. people will go crazy rioting all over. and when the military starts popping shots into the crowd, you're get uprising like happen in the middle east.

No way of telling what they would do if the time came. It's not just for the love of firearms but one has to ask WHY the right to bear arms would be removed and the answer would indicate a malevolence. Besides, it's not gonna happen. The last 6 years has seen a huge increase of new gun owners.


Obviously, you don't target an A-10 or an M1A. For a militia it would be more about small unit tactics such as ambushes, hit & run raids, use of IED's or other boobie traps, sabotage, long range rifle work where a skilled rifleman or two take out a few targets then vanish.
It's called guerrilla warfare and I'm surprised at how many people are ignorant of it whenever this topic comes up.

...the definition of "arms" is interesting, I'd imagine some people could debate what that means. Knives and bats? Pistols? Machine guns? Obviously some arms are legal and other aren't.

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.

...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....

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.

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.

...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 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.

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.