Ad traumatically depicts one of the most common pro-gun-control arguments Apr 16, 2013• By Abraham• (via Copyranter) Share on Facebook Ready for Another One?Give us a few more minutes and we'll make you laugh, cry, gasp, or ache... Guaranteed! Pablo Picasso and Salvador Dali painting the same egg Portraits of Nazi concentration camp survivors revisiting Buchenwald [6 pics] Get the best of 22 Words in your inbox Like 22 Words on Facebook comments Greenspey says: The irony is that this explains the other side’s point equally as well. Because firearms have changed citizens should have the right to bear the same firearms as the infantry of the governing powers keep and bear. Thus, if the government’s infantry carry such firearms, so should the citizens have the right to carry in order to protect themselves from its own government or evil people with modern firearms.The 2nd amendment was not written to protect people from citizen on citizen crime, but for the bigger picture of the possibility of a tyrannical government threatening to destroy its own people. Rachael says: That is a very good point. Thank you. Rachael says: But what about tanks and rocket launchers? Just thought of it. Jack says: What about them? The fact is that if I own a rocket launcher and never use it, the rocket launcher has harmed nobody. But I can beat someone to death with my bare hands, and the fact that I didn’t own a rocket launcher helps nobody.Gun control is simply the myth that restricting general access to guns reduces violent crime, which even a casual look at the before-and-after statistics will show is untrue. So the case for gun control is contradictory right on it’s face. You don’t even need to argue about why we SHOULD have guns, because gun control actually results in MORE violent crime.If the goal is a reduction in violence, we should seriously discuss universal gun ownership instead. Rachael says: I am saying that the argument is flawed because Greenspey says that the weaponry our military uses and what is available to the civilians should be equal, thus allowing automatic weapons to be in our hands. While I don’t disagree, as you can see from my first comment, I was making his argument complete by including things like tanks and rocket launchers, which I personally don’t believe should be in the hands of civilians. In the end, I was just trying to make the commenter see that his logic is flawed because it is incomplete, and it must be improved upon. So that’s what it is about. Alex says: Jack…what you fail to grasp is clear logic. If you are implying that we should be allowed to all have rocket launchers then you are making it very easy for evil people to wreak havoc (much like yesterday in Boston). Why make it easier for people to have access to these things? You say you would never use it, but someone living next door to you with evil intentions might! You are asking for pure anarchy which is not a pleasant world to live in! How does that protect us? You are probably thinking, “well if we both have rocket launchers than we are both protected.” Some people don’t have any fear or care about their lives…and if they had access to these weapons they would use them just for the sake of it…so he fires his bomb…then you fire yours…then the next person fires his/hers and so on…what kind of a world would that be to live in???!!Pretty sad…. Humans... says: Pretty sad, yep.What’s sad is that you don’t understand the argument. Not only was Jack NOT the one to bring up rocket launchers, but you disregard the statistics that say gun control doesn’t work. If you want a repeat of the Prohibition laws in the 20s, then go ahead and make tighter gun laws. Shannon says: Awesome point. Thanks stevenhassell says: exactly… and if one of those office people had a gun/musket firing back he would of never even tried to reload. tragady ended. same in sandyhook.. if the teachers were packing it would of ended before it started. we have become such a tree hugging world. criminals are still going to have guns, take guns away from criminals not citizens. Alex says: Greenspray…your logic is just as outdated as this ad portrays. The idea that gun laws protect you from a tyrannical government taking over is absurd. First of all, do you really think that the fact that allowing all citizens to bear automatic weapons would prevent a tyrannical government from taking over?! I assure you that, should an evil empire choose to take over the country, they will not be worried about “Vern and Ella” and the automatic weapons they bought online. I think the US military has a few other tools that might just make it a little easier for them should they truly want to take over. Like Rachel says, should everyone be able to own tanks, drones, Stealth Bombers, or even nuclear bombs in order to protect us from a potentially evil government (who has access to all of these weapons and much more) from taking over!?! Wake up and stop trying to justify your sick state of mine with claims that you are merely trying to be good and protect the people from tyrannical governments! And moreover, I think the evidence clearly shows the dangers of doing nothing to control the gun violence (by not limiting what kind of guns are available) far outweigh any dangers of a tyrannical government taking over! If you look at this issue rationally and intelligently, then it is obvious the cost of doing nothing is far worse than the potential cost if something is done with respect to gun control! Jack says: Alex, your logic is lacking logic. First, many regular peoples have successfully defended themselves from hostile governments, both foreign and their own, with readily available firearms. One example would be the Afghan’s, many times against many enemies, and they are currently holding the world’s biggest superpower in stalemate. Not too bad for a bunch of farmers and herders with 1960′s weapons tech. So your first contention is clearly incorrect. But that is of little import, since that isn’t the real issue.Your second, “I think the evidence clearly shows the dangers of doing nothing to control the gun violence (by not limiting what kind of guns are available) far outweigh any dangers of a tyrannical government taking over!” is entirely false. Look up any country, state, or city that enacted sweeping gun restrictions any time in the last 100 years. Quick and easy examples are Great Britain, Mexico, Chicago, Washington DC, but you pick whichever one you want. Now look at the violent crime rates, including murder, before AND after the controls, and see what happens.For those who won’t bother, what you would see is a HUGE spike in violent crime, sometimes as much as doubling, within ten years, and it stays up. This is the evidence clearly showing the risk of NOT having gun control? I think not. And then think about what gun control IS. I mean, is there a more tyrannical act than to forcibly (using guns, no less) take away someone’s property, which property he uses to DEFEND HIMSELF and his family? I mean, how can you say that not having gun control is a higher risk than having tyrannical government, when having gun control IS tyrannical government?Did you even think this through? Chris says: Do you make this stuff up you go along or do you just pull it off of propaganda sites that twist the facts to fit the position? If nothing else, I thank you for the laugh, Jack. It has been a hard day and your silliness made it a bit easier to get through.I am surprised you didn’t quote how much less crime there is in states that don’t require carry permits. John says: Yeah- propaganda sites like the FBI UCR, National Institute of Justice, Journal of Criminology, and history books- you know, those propaganda sites… not the ones Chris believes in, like the Brady campaign, MSNBC and CNN… you know, the ones that tell the truth all the time…(sarc.) facepalm… Alex says: Nice try Jack, but you need to give your head a shake. First of all, it isn’t “the people” of Afghanistan who are holding the world’s biggest superpower in a stalemate — it is a gang of crazy wingnuts (like yourself) called the Taliban. Secondly, if the US decided to drop the bomb (which I am not suggesting, but a “tyrannical government” that you fear likely would) then I assure you the “farmers and herders” would be gone. Point is, if a “tyrannical government” really wanted to take over the US, I assure you they will not be worried about the wingnuts like yourself who has a few guns in the backyard. Get out of the 1800s Jack!Secondly, your listed statistics in your second point regarding places that have more stringent gun laws is misconstrued and inaccurate. What about places like Canada? Moreover, your twisted mindset is trying to say that “it isn’t guns that kill people, it is people who kill people” or “why not ban iron rods because you can kill someone with that.” To be honest, I am not even going to explain my point regarding asinine comments like that because, if you can’t see how ridiculous those statements are, then I don’t think you are bright enough to ever understand normal logic.One thing that has always baffled me is why don’t the crazy gun rights advocates like yourself have a problem with guns not being allowed on planes? After all, isn’t it written in the constitution that you have a right to bear arms? Nowhere does it say “except on planes” correct? Yet, when guns are banned from planes…something magical happens! You don’t see any gun murders on planes do you? Yet, we are allowed to take on suitcases….according to your logic we can still kill people with those right? Implying that everyone has a right to carry firearms and have automatic weapons is as absurd as saying we should be allowed to carry guns on planes because it is our right and we need to be able to defend ourselves! Kay A. Ess says: Jack, there are no weapons you can legally buy that will protect you from the government should they decide they want you or your stuff. Do you have a squadron of F-16s in your garage? A nuclear arsenal? Drones? Secret forcefield technology? Your government could kill you from 1000 miles away — they are NOT going to engage you in hand-to-hand combat or a firefight.This reality negates the argument that we need guns to protect ourselves from the government. JK says: Kay,How’s Afganistan doing against squadrons of F-16s, drones, and other secret technology? What’s their population? (Around 30 million, according to wiki) You don’t think 315 million Americans with semi-automatic rifles could resist a government?You’re right that if they want MY stuff they could do it. The question is, what if they want everyone’s stuff?Also, you’re right if they want to nuke it all and destroy it, but that’s not the debate. The debate is centered on whether or not the 2nd amendment was put in place to make sure that every bit of power (even military power) wasn’t taken away from the American citizenry. stegokitty says: “I assure you that, should an evil empire choose to take over the country, they will not be worried about “Vern and Ella” and the automatic weapons they bought online”I assure you that you are wrong. You cannot take over the strong man’s house unless you bind him first. It would be impossible for a tyrannical government to take over a country where everyone was packing. Think before you speak. Alex says: So how would that house of yours hold up to a Nuclear bomb Stegokitty?Think before you speak… Alex says: Another thing, I am far more fearful of wingnuts like yourself “packing” than the likelihood of some tyrannical government taking over! And I don’t want to need carry a gun to protect myself from wingnuts…I want the government to do that for me. Quizikl says: What if the Government determines that YOU are the wingnut they need to subdue? Eric says: I wouldn’t mind having a tank and a rocket launcher. Rachael says: Especially when the zombie apocalypse happens. Eric says: Why does everybody bring up automatic weapons when a majority of the gun crimes committed in the U.S. are with smaller firearms, pistols, etc? After Sandy Hook, everybody was talking about automatics, talk about flawed logic.THERE WERE NO AUTOMATIC GUNS INVOLVED!!! Chris says: Eric, so a semi automatic weapon that fired 154 rounds in less than five minutes is much better? This wasn’t a smaller firearm. JK says: Chris, I thought it took 2 hours.Has anyone else noticed how much mis-information STILL goes around regarding Sandy Hook? Do any of y’all remember there being another person who was apprehended in the woods? What about how wrong the initial reports were (Mom worked at the school. Mom was AT the school, etc.)I’m usually not a conspiracy theory person, but the details of Sandy Hook were always, and continue to be confusing. I wasn’t there, so I don’t know what guns were used, how long it took, who was involved, and what were the other connections.I ask the following in all seriousness, if you have a link to information or a news source that can clear it all up, I’d be grateful. Bartman says: There was no email, text messaging or internet when the first amendment was passed, yet they are all covered by that same first amendment. Which renders this argument pointless.As the inimitable Ted Nugent observed, do you really think the Second Amendment was written to protect our right to go hunting? Doug says: And gun laws affect (restrict) those who abide by the laws. Those who disregard the laws are unaffected by them. Ed in this video was disregarding the laws already on the books regarding attempted murder, etc. But he would obey a law that restricted him to a musket? Seems unlikely. Ahab says: I wouldn’t be using Ted Nugent as a source if you want to present yourself as sane. I mean, I understand that shooting pigs from a helicopter is fun and all, but that man is not right in the head.I’m for gun ownership, but I think that people need to be able to pass a safety course and a few mental evaluations before they are handed their M-16′s. Jeff says: The ad says that “Guns have changed. Shouldn’t our gun laws?”. I would say that the laws have changed. Many years ago if you had the money, you could buy a gun. No more complicated than buying a pair of shoes. Now there are age restrictions, background checks, etc… So, some progress has been made.I favor the right to own guns, but I think laws restricting their sale should be much more strict. More strict background checks. Background investigations. No internet sales. No gun show sales. Much more control. And much, much more serious penalties for those circumventing those controls and for anyone committing a crime with a gun. Jake says: While I agree with you about background checks and getting rid of the loopholes at gun shows, there are already a lot of restrictions depending on what state you live in. I live in Michigan, and buying a gun here is a big pain in the neck! Bograt1887 says: “No internet sales.”Why? You do realize you cannot actually have a gun mailed to your door, right? When you order a firearm online, you are required to have it shipped to a local FFL Dealer, who then carries out proper background checks and other procedures before you are allowed to leave with your new gun.“No gun show sales.”Again, I must ask; “why?” And please don’t say “gun show loophole.” A lot of people seem to think gun shows are the Red Light District of firearms sales(or something like that), when it’s really just about putting a bunch of sellers in the same place, driving up competition and driving down prices. Included in this are private sellers, who end up only comprising 20%-25% of all sales at any given gun show. People screech about the fact that these private sales don’t require background checks, but statistics show that it just doesn’t matter; only .7%-1.7% of guns used in crimes on the streets were acquired at gun shows.The “Gun Show Loophole” can be made out to be a terrifying monster till the anti-gunners turn blue; anyone with common sense can see that it is merely a windmill. Corban says: This ad also a poignant reminder that if someone in the office had a concealed carry permit, they could have stropped this guy from shooting the place up. Lee Shelton says: Just post a sign banning guns. Problem solved. Amy says: For everyone who says they need weapons to protect themselves against a tyrannical government, where were you when the TSA came in? How are your guns protecting you from paid-off elected representatives who vote against your best interests? If you want to say that we need weapons to keep our government in check, please follow this thought to its conclusion and tell me who you are going to shoot to get our freedoms back? DJ says: Slippery slope much? Begbie says: Ok, at a basic level unless we’re going to change the 2nd amendment (which will never happen), we have to follow it. “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Note the first clause: “A well regulated militia being necessary…”. As far as I can tell, this means that people should have the right to bear such arms as to form a decent militia. Weapons classed as “destructive devices” by the government currently (e.g. high caliber, explosives, gas) would not be necessary, but assault weapons, pistols, shotguns, and rifles definitely would. Note: I am not challenging the ethics of gun control, I am simply interpreting the current law as it applies to it. Chris says: Yes…Gun laws should be changed: even the forefathers knew it.ON THE JEFFERSON MEMORIAL:“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” Corban says: That quote explains why the framers left the constitution open to amendment, and not why gun laws specifically should be made more strict to suit the agenda of a certain political party. Chris says: How are those things exclusive? Can’t the constitution be amended with gun control on mind? You sort of proved my point. Corban says: I agree completely that the Constitution can be amended, but that quote only serves to argue the possibility that the law can be amended, rather than the reason(s) that the law ought to be amended in this specific case.See the difference? Tink says: I think their point was that many people argue ‘but bearing arms is a right guaranteed in the constitution!’, and that their argument is that this doesn’t always have to be the case. The constitution should reflect the society in which it us used. Perhaps rules relevant 300 years ago are less relevant today. Will T says: This was about the last time you actually had the ability rise up against your government, now your pea shooter doesn’t have a chance against some hellfire missiles so quit acting like that is an option.Guns don’t kill people but responsible gun owners won’t ever protect you from some random jerk if Fort Hood is an example. I don’t think you can always be on guard. I wonder what you can do with a hand gun when these weirdos start using pipe bombs. There is a line to be drawn whether you think so or not there already is one. You don’t get to own a missile or a bazooka for example and nothing spells collateral damage like banana clips.I am not anti-gun but anytime I hear this crap like we are among a league of batmen that could prevent every tragic events if only they could bring their utility belts is laughable. So you are telling me that because I have a couple hundred in my pocket and can walk from my car to a gun show I am now Sam Fisher? The problem is more complex than that but no one wants to debate it. I blame it on meds being used as some miracle fix-all for everything from a bad day to forgetting a priest fondled you 20 years ago(really there is a magic pill for that?) as well as the hate that is spewed by fanatics of religion like most the worlds ills for example.Hired assassins don’t kill people their spouses do. Some how they don’t get off scot-free of any blame. Andrew says: Also, because of the evolution of television and the internet, we need to change laws on the freedom of speech. I mean, that was when there was only newspapers so it is completely irrelevant. littlemike says: That’s just it! How can the First Amendment possibly protect modes of communication that the founding fathers could never have imagined or predicted?! Free speech needs to be limited to quill pens on parchment or standing shouting in the village square, along with hand-printed newspapers, and maybe oil painting, as they were the only means available at the time, just as only single-shot flintlocks were the common and typical firearm used by soldiers and civilians, right? That silly old Constitution is just so OLD and irrelevant!The hypocrisy of the left is so thick you can cut it with a knife.