PDA

View Full Version : Jim Jefferies - GUN CONTROL



tranzz
06-13-2016, 01:41 PM
Dude has valid points, even though I don't agree with everything.

I know it's an old video but I believe it relevant with current north american events.

0rR9IaXH1M0

InstantLoser
06-13-2016, 01:45 PM
No he doesn't. Most of his jokes are based on completely or semi-false data. Australias' murder rate actually went up after they confiscated guns.

The number that matters is "total murders", not "murders with X" (where X = Gun, Knife, club, chair leg, whatever's handy).

ToPHeR35
06-13-2016, 01:48 PM
We need sh*tty comedian control

tranzz
06-13-2016, 01:49 PM
No he doesn't. Most of his jokes are based on completely or semi-false data. Australias' murder rate actually went up after they confiscated guns.

The number that matters is "total murders", not "murders with X" (where X = Gun, Knife, club, chair leg, whatever's handy).Source?

Any source I am googling saying there was a slight spike immediately after the ban, but since then they have maintained the same numbers as pre-ban or even dropped slightly.

Not saying gun control is the answer, but in regards to "home safety" and having one locked in a safe he is dead on.

criminal_manne
06-13-2016, 01:50 PM
1. This video always get posted
2. He makes zero good points
3. He's not funny
4. No one gives a phuck what some cucked Australian thinks
5. OP is a phaggot

tranzz
06-13-2016, 01:52 PM
1. This video always get posted
2. He makes zero good points
3. He's not funny
4. No one gives a phuck what some cucked Australian thinks
5. OP is a phaggot

1. Never said it doesn't get posted, I said it is relevant to current events. I'm no pro-gun or against, was just curious on peoples thoughts.
2. He makes some good points in terms of home safety - I don't agree with everything.
3. Your opinion.
4. No one cares what a miscer thinks either lol.
5. Only on Weekends.

InstantLoser
06-13-2016, 01:53 PM
Source?

Any source I am googling saying there was a slight spike immediately after the ban, but since then they have maintained the same numbers as pre-ban or even dropped slightly.

Not saying gun control is the answer, but in regards to "home safety" and having one locked in a safe he is dead on.

So you saw the same source, which says initially they went up, and at best they're now back to what they were originally. So banning guns did absolutely nothing to reduce the murder rate. It was a "feel good" measure which has now successfully stripped the population of their right to self defense, and their right to protection against a tyrannical government, and produced zero positive results.

AGstrong
06-13-2016, 01:54 PM
He's got a point on the assault rifles. What in the blue fuk does a civilian need an assault rifle for?

Hunting?

InstantLoser
06-13-2016, 01:55 PM
He's got a point on the assault rifles. What in the blue fuk does a civilian need an assault rifle for?

Hunting?

Define "Assault Rifle". I guarantee Jim Jeffries can't.

kusok
06-13-2016, 01:56 PM
Source?

Any source I am googling saying there was a slight spike immediately after the ban, but since then they have maintained the same numbers as pre-ban or even dropped slightly.

Not saying gun control is the answer, but in regards to "home safety" and having one locked in a safe he is dead on.


No. He is wrong about that as well. It takes 3 seconds to punch a 3-digit combination and take out a handgun from your bedside drawer safe.


He is wrong on every single sentence he has stated in that idiotic rant.

criminal_manne
06-13-2016, 01:56 PM
He's got a point on the assault rifles. What in the blue fuk does a civilian need an assault rifle for?

Hunting?

To form militias. Unlike our cuck neighbors to the North we have freedom and liberty here in America. It's our right to form private armies to phuck up our government just in case they get out of line.

InstantLoser
06-13-2016, 01:58 PM
To form militias. Unlike our cuck neighbors to the North we have freedom and liberty here in America. It's our right to form private armies to phuck up our government just in case they get out of line.

They're pretty out of line right now. Will wait for Lord Trump to make America great again.

kusok
06-13-2016, 01:59 PM
He's got a point on the assault rifles. What in the blue fuk does a civilian need an assault rifle for?

Hunting?


Assault rifle is an invented term. If anything it refers to full auto-fire, which is already banned.

If by Assault Rifle you mean AR15 it's simply a semi-auto like any other, and why someone would need it is because it's a better gun. More accurate than handgun and shotgun, easier to operate, more stopping power than a handgun etc.

And also, you don't need to demonstrate a need in order to exercise a right.

tranzz
06-13-2016, 01:59 PM
Define "Assault Rifle". I guarantee Jim Jeffries can't.Why can't he? Isn't that like asking what color the sky is? or am I completely unaware of what an AR is.

AGstrong
06-13-2016, 02:00 PM
Define "Assault Rifle". I guarantee Jim Jeffries can't.a rifle intended for military (infantry) use.

And to the phaggot talking about militias against the us army... Just lol... Good luck bro.

tranzz
06-13-2016, 02:00 PM
To form militias. Unlike our cuck neighbors to the North we have freedom and liberty here in America. It's our right to form private armies to phuck up our government just in case they get out of line.The Purge needs to become a real thing.

alphafreak
06-13-2016, 02:02 PM
Here is the thing drugs are illegal but if you want drugs you can find it easily, samething with guns if you make them illegal the only people who would suffer would be law abiding citizens because criminals and psychos would buy guns on the black market and shoot up the place like they normally do.

Kiknskreem
06-13-2016, 02:02 PM
Not saying gun control is the answer, but in regards to "home safety" and having one locked in a safe he is dead on.

I guess he's never heard of a quick access safe.

tranzz
06-13-2016, 02:02 PM
No. He is wrong about that as well. It takes 3 seconds to punch a 3-digit combination and take out a handgun from your bedside drawer safe.


He is wrong on every single sentence he has stated in that idiotic rant.You realize how much can happen in 3 seconds? What if the emotional distress gets to someone and they are unable to press the right numbers.

Lot's to factor in rather than simply stating a 3 digit combo.

Kiknskreem
06-13-2016, 02:03 PM
He's got a point on the assault rifles. What in the blue fuk does a civilian need an assault rifle for?

People use them for all the same things they use handguns for.

Kiknskreem
06-13-2016, 02:04 PM
You realize how much can happen in 3 seconds? What if the emotional distress gets to someone and they are unable to press the right numbers.

Then they will be unable to access their firearm.

Your point?

kusok
06-13-2016, 02:05 PM
a rifle intended for military (infantry) use.

And to the phaggot talking about militias against the us army... Just lol... Good luck bro.


Military uses something that can also fire full auto. Not the same as AR15 semi-auto.


No army, US or any other, can beat a US population if US population decides to fight. Entire Chinese army shipped over to US would run into 30 US armed to the teeth militia VS 2 Chinese... That's the ratio. That's how many guns and gun owners there are in US. Many of these men are recent police, military, well trained hunters etc. AND large % of army would obviously defect and join the people, not the government. That is obvious.

EchoFour
06-13-2016, 02:06 PM
a rifle intended for military (infantry) use.

And to the phaggot talking about militias against the us army... Just lol... Good luck bro.

There isn't a military on the planet that issues an AR15.

edit: ^^ fkn wizard

Stizzel
06-13-2016, 02:06 PM
Oh look another retard posting this video how interesting

kusok
06-13-2016, 02:07 PM
You realize how much can happen in 3 seconds? What if the emotional distress gets to someone and they are unable to press the right numbers.

Lot's to factor in rather than simply stating a 3 digit combo.



If you hear a glass break, 3 seconds to get to your gun is much better than waiting for police to come to draw your outline in chalk on the floor.


Also, you're now changing the subject. You claimed a gun locked in a safe is not practical for home defense as one can not get to it quickly. You need to now admit you have not thought of a safe box, and move on. Debate honestly.

Would a home owner get nervous? Of course he can. But that's what training is for. And it's better to have the option than not to.

EchoFour
06-13-2016, 02:11 PM
I have an alarm system for the purpose of waking me up. It's not even set up to be monitored because my local PD's policy is to not dispatch unless two or more zones are tripped (srs). Two dogs for redundancy (semi-srs)

There's a Speedvault hidden two feet from my bed. Plenty of time to be armed before they make it upstairs.

TheAmericano
06-13-2016, 02:15 PM
Some of you just don't get it. It's about exercising our rights as Americans


- If you're willing to give up your freedom of speech or other rights , I'll think about give up my right to keep and bear Arms (but no not really)



Now,

- Should a kunt that has been interviewed by the FBI and place on a terror watch list and have a history of hate and violence, be ineligible to buy a gun....that's definitely something to discuss.

tranzz
06-13-2016, 02:16 PM
If you hear a glass break, 3 seconds to get to your gun is much better than waiting for police to come to draw your outline in chalk on the floor.


Also, you're now changing the subject. You claimed a gun locked in a safe is not practical for home defense as one can not get to it quickly. You need to now admit you have not thought of a safe box, and move on. Debate honestly.

Would a home owner get nervous? Of course he can. But that's what training is for. And it's better to have the option than not to.Agree'd with training - should be mandatory for gun ownership. Not only should it be mandatory but it should require a background check like above has stated and if there is a single red flag, why give that person a weapon that can kill someone you love in a second?

Again, I'm not against guns, but I am against giving a weapon to someone who is a clear threat.

chicagojosh
06-13-2016, 02:17 PM
a rifle intended for military (infantry) use.

And to the phaggot talking about militias against the us army... Just lol... Good luck bro. AGstrong, the 2nd amendment was not written for hunting. In the 1700's if you didn't hunt you didn't eat. think about when it was written, the colonies had just fought for independence from a tyrannical government. You may "laugh" about militias or "we the people" standing up to an army, but that is exactly how our fine country was formed. thank god for guns and patriots right?!?!?

Calhexas
06-13-2016, 02:20 PM
Military uses something that can also fire full auto. Not the same as AR15 semi-auto.


No army, US or any other, can beat a US population if US population decides to fight. Entire Chinese army shipped over to US would run into 30 US armed to the teeth militia VS 2 Chinese... That's the ratio. That's how many guns and gun owners there are in US. Many of these men are recent police, military, well trained hunters etc. AND large % of army would obviously defect and join the people, not the government. That is obvious.

How this always escapes anti-gun people is ridiculous.

Like our military isn't made up of US citizens and instead is androids or some sh!t. This isn't terminator phaggots

AGstrong
06-13-2016, 02:21 PM
Military uses something that can also fire full auto. Not the same as AR15 semi-auto.


No army, US or any other, can beat a US population if US population decides to fight. Entire Chinese army shipped over to US would run into 30 US armed to the teeth militia VS 2 Chinese... That's the ratio. That's how many guns and gun owners there are in US. Many of these men are recent police, military, well trained hunters etc. AND large % of army would obviously defect and join the people, not the government. That is obvious.i really don't think that the us military would ever fire on American civilians.

And if that's the reason for all of this, then why not buy fully automatic weapons? Surely those would be better for fighting the us military?

EchoFour
06-13-2016, 02:24 PM
Agree'd with training - should be mandatory for gun ownership. Not only should it be mandatory but it should require a background check like above has stated and if there is a single red flag, why give that person a weapon that can kill someone you love in a second?

Again, I'm not against guns, but I am against giving a weapon to someone who is a clear threat.

How about a required exam and IQ test for exercising your right to vote? Elections have far more devastating effects than guns IMO.

kusok
06-13-2016, 02:25 PM
Agree'd with training - should be mandatory for gun ownership. Not only should it be mandatory but it should require a background check like above has stated and if there is a single red flag, why give that person a weapon that can kill someone you love in a second?

Again, I'm not against guns, but I am against giving a weapon to someone who is a clear threat.


Difficult topic ^^^ Because who gets to decide who is dangerous? Let's say someone is under FBI investigation, and Hillary Clinton says (as she did say) you can't buy a gun while under FBI investigation. But yeah of course she can, her bodyguards can, and she can even run for President. And yet she will dictate to you what you can and can't do. Makes no sense.


As a gun owner I LOVE training. And I understand the reason why others would want it to be mandatory. But it's not so simple.

kusok
06-13-2016, 02:26 PM
i really don't think that the us military would ever fire on American civilians.

And if that's the reason for all of this, then why not buy fully automatic weapons? Surely those would be better for fighting the us military?


Full auto is banned.

Kiknskreem
06-13-2016, 02:27 PM
i really don't think that the us military would ever fire on American civilians.

Well you really need to study some history and psychology then.

Stizzel
06-13-2016, 02:29 PM
i really don't think that the us military would ever fire on American civilians

Ignorant

AGstrong
06-13-2016, 02:33 PM
Full auto is banned.isnt that an infringement on your rights?

If your rights say you can bare arms to fight against the government, shouldn't those arms include whatever the military uses?

kusok
06-13-2016, 02:35 PM
i really don't think that the us military would ever fire on American civilians.



Bro. I have some bad noos.

chicagojosh
06-13-2016, 02:37 PM
isnt that an infringement on your rights?

If your rights say you can bare arms to fight against the government, shouldn't those arms include whatever the military uses?

that argument could absolutely be made. conceal carry and open carry should really be allowed as well. "the right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed" it's the technological advancements that have brought about the issue of how far the 2nd amendment reaches.

tranzz
06-13-2016, 02:42 PM
Difficult topic ^^^ Because who gets to decide who is dangerous? Let's say someone is under FBI investigation, and Hillary Clinton says (as she did say) you can't buy a gun while under FBI investigation. But yeah of course she can, her bodyguards can, and she can even run for President. And yet she will dictate to you what you can and can't do. Makes no sense.


As a gun owner I LOVE training. And I understand the reason why others would want it to be mandatory. But it's not so simple.You can't prevent every act of violence but if there was a standard background check that would be sufficient (some would disagree), but like you said it is hard to decide who is dangerous, especially if it's a first offence.

Training regardless should become mandatory.

kusok
06-13-2016, 02:51 PM
You can't prevent every act of violence but if there was a standard background check that would be sufficient (some would disagree), but like you said it is hard to decide who is dangerous, especially if it's a first offence.

Training regardless should become mandatory.

ok, but then other things that kill other people also would need to be addressed, millions of people have been killed by things like say second hand smoke, or parents overfeeding their obese kids who go on to die, brb government mandatory cigar and ordering food at a restaurant training for citizens. lel

kusok
06-13-2016, 02:55 PM
i really don't think that the us military would ever fire on American civilians.



*cough*

- Dr. Evil, that too has already happened.
- Oh throw me a bone people!


Like for example, US government forces not only fired, but burned alive US civilians, including a dozen babies, on a suspicion that one of the gun parts owned by a person inside could have been the kind that could have been converted into full auto-fire.

Then there was Kent State.


And who knows what would happen at the Bundy ranch if US citizens didn't bring and point guns at the government pahggots. Phaggots backed off real quick.

linkherooftime
06-13-2016, 03:06 PM
taking seriously the political opinion of a comedian just lol

Tuksonrider
06-13-2016, 03:06 PM
You can't prevent every act of violence but if there was a standard background check that would be sufficient (some would disagree), but like you said it is hard to decide who is dangerous, especially if it's a first offence.

Training regardless should become mandatory.

As soon as you require something that is "mandatory" to exercise your right as a free individual, it's no longer a right.

Put it this way... let us make it mandatory. And to take this mandatory class, simply pay the gov't $10k. What? Can't afford it. Awwww...Too bad, so sad. No 2nd amendment right for joo!

tranzz
06-13-2016, 04:29 PM
As soon as you require something that is "mandatory" to exercise your right as a free individual, it's no longer a right.

Put it this way... let us make it mandatory. And to take this mandatory class, simply pay the gov't $10k. What? Can't afford it. Awwww...Too bad, so sad. No 2nd amendment right for joo!Why not a free course?

And, if they can afford a gun I'm sure those same people can cough up $10.00 for a class.

tranzz
06-13-2016, 04:34 PM
taking seriously the political opinion of a comedian just lolHow is it taking his side? Agreeing with some things he says is nothing unreasonable, like I've said 100 times in this thread, not everything he says I agree with.

Stizzel
06-13-2016, 05:36 PM
Why not a free course?

And, if they can afford a gun I'm sure those same people can cough up $10.00 for a class.

Guns are property, like anything else you own. You have no right to dictate to another person what they can and cannot do with their property, or what property they may own, just because you're scared. Doing it via proxy through the government doesn't change anything.

A-GAME
06-13-2016, 05:52 PM
No he doesn't. Most of his jokes are based on completely or semi-false data. Australias' murder rate actually went up after they confiscated guns.

The number that matters is "total murders", not "murders with X" (where X = Gun, Knife, club, chair leg, whatever's handy).

This. He's a liar who peddles crap jokes to morans, who are too lazy to look at the data themselves and realise he's full of 5hit.

moksha16
06-13-2016, 05:59 PM
AGstrong, the 2nd amendment was not written for hunting. In the 1700's if you didn't hunt you didn't eat. think about when it was written, the colonies had just fought for independence from a tyrannical government. You may "laugh" about militias or "we the people" standing up to an army, but that is exactly how our fine country was formed. thank god for guns and patriots right?!?!?

And at the time of those great guns and the great writing of the 2nd not a single musket on the planet existed that would allow a single retard to end the lives of 100 people by himself in the matter of a couple minutes.

If anyone thinks the very intelligent men that were the founders had any intent on that you are fuking delusional. (clearly thats redundant because gun nutz are delusional)

InstantLoser
06-13-2016, 06:12 PM
And at the time of those great guns and the great writing of the 2nd not a single musket on the planet existed that would allow a single retard to end the lives of 100 people by himself in the matter of a couple minutes.

If anyone thinks the very intelligent men that were the founders had any intent on that you are fuking delusional. (clearly thats redundant because gun nutz are delusional)

Gun-grabbers are phaggots. What now?

Stizzel
06-13-2016, 06:26 PM
And at the time of those great guns and the great writing of the 2nd not a single musket on the planet existed that would allow a single retard to end the lives of 100 people by himself in the matter of a couple minutes.

If anyone thinks the very intelligent men that were the founders had any intent on that you are fuking delusional. (clearly thats redundant because gun nutz are delusional)

Being called delusion by someone too stupid to know the difference between the IRS and chipotle is quite a compliment.

TheGattingBall
06-13-2016, 07:13 PM
No. He is wrong about that as well. It takes 3 seconds to punch a 3-digit combination and take out a handgun from your bedside drawer safe.


He is wrong on every single sentence he has stated in that idiotic rant.

You got a subscription to Padlock Monthly bro?

Tuksonrider
06-13-2016, 10:32 PM
And at the time of those great guns and the great writing of the 2nd not a single musket on the planet existed that would allow a single retard to end the lives of 100 people by himself in the matter of a couple minutes.

If anyone thinks the very intelligent men that were the founders had any intent on that you are fuking delusional. (clearly thats redundant because gun nutz are delusional)

Huh, and to think, a single musket was able to wage a war, win revolution against a superior army, and break the shackles of a tyrannical govt. Clearly, our founding fathers had no foresight.

hackerwacker
06-13-2016, 11:21 PM
And at the time of those great guns and the great writing of the 2nd not a single musket on the planet existed that would allow a single retard to end the lives of 100 people by himself in the matter of a couple minutes.

If anyone thinks the very intelligent men that were the founders had any intent on that you are fuking delusional. (clearly thats redundant because gun nutz are delusional)
The largest school massacre in US history was done with fire bombs and a bolt action rifle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Halfway
06-13-2016, 11:22 PM
He's got a point on the assault rifles. What in the blue fuk does a civilian need an assault rifle for?

Hunting?

To engage multiple, armed home invaders

Of course, in your progressive Wonderland you can't actually legally defend your home and family with deadly force no matter how many armed young men kick in your door

Darkhare
06-14-2016, 12:36 AM
No. He is wrong about that as well. It takes 3 seconds to punch a 3-digit combination and take out a handgun from your bedside drawer safe.


He is wrong on every single sentence he has stated in that idiotic rant.

even here in Canada my buddy can get from his bed to two safes and have his handgun loaded within 9seconds i think.


If you take ANY political advice from a comedian.... you're a ****en idiot.


Funny guy but he doesn't make a single valid point.

linkherooftime
06-14-2016, 12:50 AM
How is it taking his side? Agreeing with some things he says is nothing unreasonable, like I've said 100 times in this thread, not everything he says I agree with.didn't say you did, just throwing that out in the air

p5165
06-14-2016, 02:09 AM
Liberal logic: It's impossible to deport 11 million illegal immigrants, but it's very easy to forcefully confiscate over 300 million unregistered guns in this country (from irate gun owners, yeah that will go peacefully well...). Unlike the illegal immigrants that expose themselves every single second, you can just hide the guns in your basement and nobody except you will ever know that they even exist.

Just imagine the scenario of the government using all of its resources to send out the officers to knock on every single door... Crips & Bloods thugs Carlos, Jamal and ISIS rapefugee Mohammed open the door:

- Excuse me sir, do you have any weapons?
- Nope.
- Can I waste an hour searching through your house for any weapons without a warrant?
- Nah.
- Ok, have a nice day!

*Carlos slams the door shut, takes out his AK-47 from under the bed and laughs his ass off*

And if they ban Carlos from buying a second AK-47 in his collection, he'll just get it through the black market or mill one himself using a perfectly legal CNC machine and a blueprint that can be easily found on the web.

... BTW, all those gun manufacturers and gun shop owners will need a new job after you close their business. Welfare-leeching liberals better ask Bernie Panders to swing his magic wand and fart out some extra free stuff.

DennisR1977
06-14-2016, 03:27 AM
Why not a free course?

And, if they can afford a gun I'm sure those same people can cough up $10.00 for a class.

Taking a class doesn't mean you'll retain and use the information. People take drivers ed courses and still drive like mental midgets.

illriginalized
06-14-2016, 04:12 AM
lol.. I find it funny that we have people who think a president or any government body is going to come for our guns.

That's called treason.

That calls for civil disobedience.

That calls for hanging each and every individual fool that has committed, in part, treason on American citizens, on the U.S. Constitution.

tranzz
06-14-2016, 07:38 PM
Taking a class doesn't mean you'll retain and use the information. People take drivers ed courses and still drive like mental midgets.Of course it won't help everyone but it will help a vast majority - nothing is perfect.

DennisR1977
06-14-2016, 10:05 PM
Of course it won't help everyone but it will help a vast majority - nothing is perfect.

The only correct way, is it to teach it at a young age. Start teaching firearms safety in school again. We don't need to charge people to exercise a right, all that does is exclude people whom can't afford it.