Kent Brian yes Chicago , New York City , philly are cities that have highly restricted gun laws and states like California , new Jersey and Massachusetts are all tightening up nicely too on laws. Lots of other states are getting restricted soon also. Be aware folks .... its gonna get messy soon
David Beppler So, another tax, basically? No thanks. The Government steals more than enough money and still manages to fuck up everything. People with legal firearms aren’t the problem, haven’t been the problem and won’t be the problem. Any sort of gun legislation will only affect those who have done no wrong.
Weed, that I can grow in my backyard for free, costs money to buy. Why? Because it is illegal therefore harder to get. Don't ban guns, mandatory insurance solves the problem. ;)
rotsen995 it was sarcasm. Are you on the Spectrum? Mexico legalized drugs in 1940 and it was a resounding success. WW2 & the US forced them to change their tune.
veksone77 what’s gonna stop the criminals from bashing in the head of the old lady baker and taking her gun? She was baking and didn’t see it coming. She had no time to react and get to her gun. Now a criminal has a her gun. I’m sure glad they changed that law......
The constitution says the police and national guard are allowed to own firearms as they are part of a well regulated militia. Citizens are not. The solution is Mandatory insurance anyway. solves all the problems pretty quickly.
Want to create another drug-like violent underground economy...ban guns. All the bad guys will still have guns...the law abiding will be sitting targets. Like all of the European countries that limit guns to the law-abiding, strong arm robbery increases greatly.
Modern Minute man that's what I was thinking I don't want multiple cops frisking kids outside the school every morning not to mention it wouldn't help the most powerful criminals would still have guns
Yes the only people who need disarmed in this country are the criminals ... no matter who they are. We already have laws preventing criminals from owning legal firearms... so go take the illegal unregistered 1's off the street 1st
I think you're right which means this is an excellent opportunity to educate him and apply, actual, common sense laws, and getting him to focus on disarming criminals, not taking firearms from law abiding citizens who are exercising our 2A guaranteed right. This is a perfect chance for us to create another ally. We should hook him up with Collin Noir.
APE MAN imagine if they made that a law ....hmmm Give law abiding citizens the right to battle the criminals and disarm them ...... where do i sign up ?????
Cops frisk way more than 20 guys on the corner every day. They also have the right to search your home and seize property. The do that every day too. Anyway the solution is mandatory insurance.
I bet that if you asked that gentleman whether he trusts the police or the government, he would answer in the negative. Yet, he wants people to surrender all of the guns to those very people. I don't think he has thought this all the way thru.
I didn’t know people still made the argument this guy is trying to make. If you have this simplistic of a view on a subject you just shouldn’t speak out about the subject until you learn more.
What is there to know? Guns are weapons designed for war used by soldiers to efficiently kill our enemies. They should be insured against the damage they can do. Mandatory insurance would solve the problem pretty quickly. ;)
@@mosessalazar465 buddy do you know the main reason why we have guns in the first place? Do you know why literally the SECOND amendment made by the founding fathers was a right to arms? Because when your citizens are armed that prevents tyrannical governments from ensuing. When the citizens are armed the monopoly of power lies with the people, which is how all countries should be. Yall forget how lucky we are that we have this amendment. Yes maybe taking away rifles may save lives here but you have to remember as soon as you take them away the people lose power. Yes we can still vote and express our opinions but what happens when the very systems of our govenrment are use to oppress us? People like the man in this video who think removing guns would be good are delusional because the 2nd amendment is the insurance against oppression.
Muneeb Ahmad the guy in question is naive but I’m afraid so are you if you really believe that having guns as regular citizens could save us from oppression in any way. What, are you gonna organize an army of elderly neighbours with 6 bullets each to rebel against the government trying to fck you up the arse? Against their military force?
"We could take all the guns if we really wanted to" By "we" you include yourself Tony Rock. Or are you going to force gun-owning policemen and women to go door-to-door to take away our God-given rights to self-preservation and only line of defense against tyranny... while you crack some jokes on a stage about how terrible America is.
Theyungcity23 Not my by myself. I'm but one of 400,000,000 people. If you haven't thought it through, a citizenry armed with 300,000,000 guns can defend themselves from tyranny and invaders much better than if they had 0 guns. And your argument of "you think you'll stop the military BRO?" assumes that the U.S government is going to arbitrarily assume to nuke its entire country for no reason and wipe out its entire population. If you cannot even fathom a government creeping on your rights, encroaching on your private matters, and then intruding on your property unconstitutionally... That's because the country you live in has 300,000,000 fucking guns protecting your ass. Name one country that hasn't been under a dictatorship or otherwise extremist government,or occupied by invaders in the past 200 years. I'll give you the list; 1.) U.S.A.
Armand Babakhanian the us doesn't have to nuke the entire country to get rid of what will be deemed terrorist activity. The vast majority of people will side with their government and not the tiny disorganized band of dudes who think they can take it over. Most citizens with guns will side with whatever tyrannical government. Most won't care or even be aware of what's going on politically. The real defense against tyrannical government is the written word and the sharing of ideas. That's protection. The us military is protection. Not bubba with a shotgun who may decide that Trump is tyrannical and decide to shoot up the gay club. That's far from well regulated. America isn't a proper comparison to other countries because it's so young. But during the time people argued that there civil war was an act of a extremist government. People still do.
Theyungcity23 - Ya because all of USA's military strength was able to snuff out a bunch of islamic radicals with nothing but AK-47's, oh wait... The US military isnt going to drone and nuke the people its trying to govern. Glassing the USA just to take some guns would be retarded because the government and military needs those same people to pay taxes. Gorilla warfare is more effective against tyranical governments than Apache helicopters.
I think you seriously underestimate the gun owning public and their passion for firearms and the associated rights. Any attempt by the US government to disarm the people would be met with severe resistance from the public and many from within the government. Soldiers and law enforcement are some of the strongest proponents of the 2nd Amendment. 300-400 million guns and trillions of rounds of ammunition is truly the mightiest military in the world and that is the US population. Take a look at the history of trying to control a resistant population...it generally does not go very well for the tyrant. You might also look up your states militia laws...if you are able-bodied you are part of your state's militia.
Yes, let's blame inanimate objects and totally ignore how most violent offenders come from broken homes. "We gotta get the knives," sounds just as dumb for a reason.
A. Steven Stelmach-Bondar you should've given speeches at those dead schoolchildrens funerals and spread that wealth of knowledge you pretend to posses
HHTwice Look at the studies, every single mass school shooter except for one came from a single mother home. It's pretty fucked up to try and hold the lives of dead children over my head simply because you've misdiagnosed the problem at the physical, material level. Bad people are always going to find access to some sort of weapon if they intend to hurt someone. Someone needs to be seriously stupid to think that passing another gun law would prevent that. Look at Europe, take away guns and psychos just start running people over with cars. This is a people problem, not a gun problem.
David Beppler A compound bow can do that and distance is just an arbitrary criteria, anyway. An automobile is far more dangerous since the driver is basically in an armored pod from which he can mow down pedestrians in. Just look at Europe, take away guns and fucked up people are just going to think of other ways to kill. Banning guns is probably the most shallow solution to a complex problem I can think of.
Because blaming guns is the easy thing to do. Fixing the real reasons to our violence problem is way harder and it would mean a lot of people would have to admit their social engineering was a complete failure.
How about this instead....we create 2 countries. Tony Rock can live in the one where guns are illegal but gun crimes and violent criminals are punished with a slap on the wrist. I'll live in the one where guns are legal and gun crimes and violent criminals are punished very strictly. We will see which one succeeds in the long run.
A CDC study conducted a couple of years ago posited that defensive uses of a gun occur in this country somewhere between 100,000 to 3,000,000 times a year (depending on whose numbers you take). And when a gun was introduced defensively, the intended victim sustained fewer and lesser injuries. Weight that against 14,000 homicides per year. So there's that.
And? If anything it just ends up explaining more of rightwing thinking from actual conservatives, you understand their position better. So what people end up seeing is a well though-out conservative opinion(unless its dave rubin) vs a slew of buzzwords and canned-phrases from a liberal. Joe Rogan might be trying to make them out to be bad, but he is really just exposing the shallowness of liberals.
We can take guns away the moment we decide to also ban vehicles of any sort, pets, alcohol, prescription meds, junk food, swimming, sky diving, war, combat sports, sports period, basically anything that can be seen as dangerous in certain circumstances and have cost people their lives. Hell let's just require people to stay at home and not leave because it's dangerous.... Oh wait...
This guy cracks me up “just take the guns, in can be done” good luck with that.... police will not want any part of this, and most ppl in the military are all for ppl keeping their right to bare arms. I have a better solution, you get caught illegally possessing a firearm, it’s 20 years in prison right off the bat. And as far as Chicago, 100+shootings over the 4th of July weekend alone in one of the cities with the strictest gun laws. How many of those ppl actually legally purchased those firearms? I would bet less than 5, and that’s being extremely generous. Then you have anti gun protests lol bc the easy answer is to blame the tool, instead of the lowlife burdens of society committing the crimes.
Sweatyzues Being a constitutionalist isn't establishment, it's libertarianism. Free to say and think whatever you want, free to protect yourself from others and an oppressive government, and free to own property (and wealth) without being taxed excessively to pay for services of illegals and slackers.
the argument is always instating a bureaucracy that can determine who is able to own certain things. Sounds familiar. Not sure when or where. But yeah it's cool, people like this have your best interest in mind
2:55 "The problem is...defining who gets to keep one and who doesn't get to keep one." "Let's have that argument later. Let's get the guns first." What in actual fuck??
I think the best argument against taking guns away is London. London/England has gun control, they have a huge knife-based crime problem and are considering legislation to control knives. Obviously the problem is more endemic of human nature, not the weapons used to express it.
The problem is, when you advocate for taking people’s guns it doesn’t have an end. It will always escalate, always continue, always end with a police state with a monopoly on force. Or it ends when we say No, you can’t have my guns.
In the 80s and 90s Washington D.C had a ban on pistols and most firearms. In that time period Washington D.C witnessed its worst wave of crime and solidified itself as one the most dangerous cities in the U.S. However when it lifted its gun ban crime decreased. Though there were secondary factors in the minimization of crime the legalization of firearms did nothing to increase crime or violence.
The story he told was not a jewelry store it was a gun store in Georgia from what he said. It matches exactly. You don’t take guns from people that legally own them! Let gun ownership continue to increase, have more training and safety for guns, improve wealth in heavy gang areas. Most illegal gun use is by gangs. Focus our efforts there.
Owning a business should not be a prerequisite for owning the most efficient and effective means of defending yourself. Simply being a law abiding citizen, is all that should matter.
I live in Germany. It’s technically possible to carry a gun. But carry licenses are almost never granted. But if you want to own a gun and use it for specific events like hunting or sport shooting it’s pretty rad to become a licensed gun owner.
You cannot strip any legal gun owner of his/her firearms. It cannot and will never happen. Tougher laws, tougher law enforcement, and better public education is a good start!
Joe - what the hell are you talking about? I legally carry a concealed firearm ALL the time and have been for years - have I ever been in a situation where I needed to use my gun NO ! But, I'll be damned if I'm put in a situation where I needed my gun and didn't have it.
This Solution is to have EVERYONE armed. Active shooters will think twice before engaging fire inside a public space for fear of the reality of being immediately outnumbered by everyone who is armed.
Don't get me wrong I'm not a firearms expert, or a passionate pro/anti gun person. I have no relevant information on the topic. This is a question from a curious outsider looking in. Wouldn't police teams going door to door confiscating guns result in a ton of violence between people sent to take the guns and people willing to fight a loosing battle to keep their guns? Not to mention innocents harmed in the crossfire, and word of confiscation sparking outrage and rebellion across the country? Also you have the matter of police officers refusing to disarm citizens due to personal views and creating an imbalance between gang members, drug dealers, ect who own guns illegally and can slide under the radar.
You need to address the anti gun advocates, because they are the ones that directly create the hard line legal gun owners who will no longer negotiate their rights AT ALL. Anti gun advocacy want an age limit of 21 to buy a gun, but they’re currently trying to take guns away from retired Vets creating a limited time you can own a gun in your lifetime, limiting your rights. They’re tactics are deceptive creating ZERO trust. They want complete control. And they end any conversation because of it.
Pandora's box has already been opened. No one in the country actually knows the amount of firearms that exist in American hands. "From my cold dead's hands." Charleton Heston.
A grandma who runs a bakery can still get robbed and someone steals that gun...then what? The problem is still that guns exist and are given to the general public...
That's a bit of a fallacy. You dont solve a gun problem with more guns. That's like saying the cure to mercury poisoning is more mercury. The vast majority of gun owners in Canada cant carry their guns guns around unless it's for a valid reason (hunting, for exemple). I've never met a single person in Canada worried about getting shot at on a daily basis yet I often hear it from americans.
If I wasn't armed 4 years ago there's a decent chance I wouldn't be here today. I understand the thought process but I'll keep my 9 thank you very much.
I will say this. Dude is willing to have a conversation. I mean an actual conversation. Not like the fake ones we see on so many shows and news panels. I disagree with most of what he said. But I still respect him. The kinda guy you can talk shit out over a beer and cheeseburger. And even if you don't change each other? Mknds. You can still walk away seeing each other with respect. Granted I don't know the guy but if the way he talks carries through in every conversation. Then my point stands.
Why did he drop that point with the baker lady? What if the robber had a gun? Both of those ladies would have died. Having a gun isn't gonna protect you from a person with a gun that intends to kill you first.
I think increasing the federal budget to help low income communities to get better educated through college as well helping those with mental illnesses and depression to fine help; will do more to so decrease suicides, gang related crimes...etc. I don't think taking guns away is just as easy as it sounds.
This guy says "we can get rid of all guns in any area" and then says the lady running a bakery gets to keep her gun.... so I guess that's not getting rid of the guns in that area ?
I guarantee if police are going to start showing up at people's houses attempting to confiscate their guns, there is going to be a lot of blood spilled. Imagine some cop coming in your house and taking your TV and leaving, same story.
It's pretty simple. Just have proper regulations to prevent any idiot from getting a gun. The bakery lady can keep her gun and sociopath Jimmy from highschool won't go pass the background investigations. Edit: Also iimplement a more reasonable age restriction ffs
How would the legal guns be the hardest to get when they're literally registered in the owners names? wouldn't the illegal guns that are being sold on the black market actually be the hardest to get ahold of
There’s just a lack of precedent it’s like you can’t pick and choose who you removes right to have a gun because people will use that in a tyrannical way to strip innocent people of their rights
Yeah a shootout in a jewellery store with customers in it sounds really good rather then just losing some materialistic possessions that noone in the shop at the time actually owns Also joe skips the question " what if the guy had a gun"? in regards the ladies behind the stove and continues to say it's a good thing to thing to see
Weird how outside of the United States, no other country in the developed world has this problem. Could be something to do with the prevalence of firearms and lax gun laws.
Joe's guest hasn't thought this out very well. "Let's get the guns back," is the best example. I need to hear the reasoning behind the goal, followed by the process you want to put in place to achieve it. Which guns, from whom? How you gonna do it, an amnesty period? Laughable bro. You may scare 1% of gun owners with legislation just enough to get them to surrender their weapons. The rest, you will have to collect, which will cause chaos on a level I don't think you comprehend.
