Del. Nick Freitas' guns speech goes viral.

[usmctanker242]

Do we refuse to address Chrystal Meth, since you know, there are meth labs all over the place and the ingredients are available?



If you are unwilling to properly learn how to use your gun and take an exam to prove it, then you do not deserve to have a gun.

Well, the Bill of Rights completely disagrees with you in no uncertain terms. That being said I personally believe it's every citizens duty to learn how to safely and effectively operate a firearm.

 

[nac386]

Well, the Bill of Rights completely disagrees with you in no uncertain terms. That being said I personally believe it's every citizens duty to learn how to safely and effectively operate a firearm.

You could interpret the second amendment to mean you cannot pass any legislation regarding guns at all, in which case we have already undermined the second amendment with all of the current laws.

The second amendment does not give a legal age to purchase a firearm, so do you believe that children should be allowed to purchase a firearm? It also does not say that a felon should not be able to purchase a firearm, so do you believe that criminals should be able to purchase guns? What about a known terrorist?

 

[usmctanker242]

You could interpret the second amendment to mean you cannot pass any legislation regarding guns at all, in which case we have already undermined the second amendment with all of the current laws.

The second amendment does not give a legal age to purchase a firearm, so do you believe that children should be allowed to purchase a firearm? It also does not say that a felon should not be able to purchase a firearm, so do you believe that criminals should be able to purchase guns? What about a known terrorist?

Personally I feel like the 2nd amendment is there to protect the people from the government, but also from each other. As for "criminals" what is the actual law there? Is it all felony offenders or just certain offenders? Personally I don't feel like a guy who gets busted for a DUI or a small possession charge should forever lose their right to self defense. As for children I'm not sure... I shot guns when I was a kid and I know many people who do.

I see where you're going and personally I don't feel like quality firearms training is a bad idea. I do, however, have an issue with having mandated training and a test because you're now placing a tax on a constitutional right. Just like people shit their pants at having to have an ID for voting (even if the state provides one for free) a training course and test would be a tax on your right to own a firearm.

 

[bufetadanacara]

I doubt you read the whole pile of shit, I stopped reading when he said welfare state breaks families apart.

How is that not true?

I could see that. Families used to stay together more before the welfare followed as it does today.

If the woman doesn't need a man in the house to help support her and her children, then she isn't encouraged to keep her man.

 

[spamking]

I think almost every public space that has hundreds of people should have armed security. Movie theaters, schools, malls, restaurant parks, etc. Most places that are considered "gun free zones" don't even advertise that.

For example, there is a mall near me that if you search their website you will find one line in the guidelines that says, "Firearms restricted on mall property."

Does anybody actually read that? Does anybody care? If you carried a concealed weapon in the mall, nobody would know. If anybody found out, you'd only be breaking mall rules and be asked to leave.

I really think the whole "gun free zones" thing is overplayed in a way. I can't imagine that anybody with a concealed weapon permit is looking through a movie theater's website to find out if they allow weapons on property. The weapon is concealed for a reason.

I think depending on the gun free zone that anyone caught carrying (concealed or otherwise) could be charged with a crime or fined. So many won't carry. I understand that there are those who do and I'm actually okay with that as long as it's concealed and they're licensed to carry.

I think part of the problem is that most politicians are put in a situation where grandstanding is their only option.

I'd like to see this guy debate this topic with somebody who is not an imbecile from the Democratic party (however hard that will be to find), to discuss real ways to address the issues. But I think it will be hard to find a Democrat who is willing to be honest and not pander to the more anti-gun base, and it will be hard to find a Republican who is willing to be honest and not pander to the pro-gun base.

I think it's hard to find anyone on either side who won't pander . . . but in some cases that's expected. I just want facts involved when folks discuss whatever they're talking about. I just want folks to drop the hyperbole and move on.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Cheers, I think the very first point explains where in principle we are different and I understand where you are coming from.

Right on. Seems to be a cultural thing in general. Not liking to be told what to do is what I consider to be a positive trait. My take on history is that a lot of folks came to America in search of a more self-determined lifestyle.

I disagree with this entirely.

Ok. Sorry you couldn't find any common ground in there.

You think a guy who cites the abortion industry as a contributing factor to gun violence is trying to start an intelligent discussion?

Really?

I know you're a gun nut but seriously dude...

He's claiming to cite a Brookings study. Plus it's one small piece taken out of context. Might he been better served to leave it out? Sure. Am I going to disregard everything else because I'm triggered? Nope. I'm pro-choice and consider the matter settled (barring an Amendment). It's pretty easy to not give a shit that it's in there.

I also think it serves his overall message by suggesting there's evidence that something the other side backs could be one of many factors. Instead of scoffing and ranting, the reaction by the gun-grabbers should be to open their minds to dialogue. It's obvious the problem is cultural if it's only recently a problem. Guns sure aren't new on the scene. So whatever changed should be looked at. At least in intelligent discussion anyway.

If you're bored and want to debunk his Brookings study claim I'm sure many here (including myself) would love to see it.

Gun free zones are obviously not gun free if there is paid security armed with firearms present. That seems like a misnomer if there ever was one.

But if that is how we are defining gun-free, then what is the alternative? Who is supposed to have firearms in a school building, besides the paid police officer?

The talking point is always that people attack places that are "gun free zones" because people can't defend themselves. How can they make that point without acknowledging the armed security?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990

Presuming this is the root of the term, it's as good a definition as any.

Simple one: more money for suicide prevention ( vast majority of gun deaths)

Fuck that if it's tax dollars. Thumbs up for charity work.

Does anybody actually read that? Does anybody care? If you carried a concealed weapon in the mall, nobody would know. If anybody found out, you'd only be breaking mall rules and be asked to leave.

I really think the whole "gun free zones" thing is overplayed in a way.

You might right. Only two things I'd throw out there is that not all carry is concealed and people who lawfully carry on the regular are probably more inclined to follow the rules than average Joe.

Well, the Bill of Rights completely disagrees with you in no uncertain terms. That being said I personally believe it's every citizens duty to learn how to safely and effectively operate a firearm.

Common-sensers cry for more education but then don't want to provide for it by making firearm use and safety part of the P.E. curriculum in high school. Seems more like they want to errect roadblocks than ensure safety. They sure as fuck don't want to enable people's familiarity and confidence around guns.

I had to take swimming class and I don't swim. It was called drownproofing. I guess just in case I somehow wound up in water. Seems like similar reasoning would apply. We should all know what safe behavior is, even if we're not the one holding the firearm. Cause you might just end up around one even when you don't intend to.

You could interpret the second amendment to mean you cannot pass any legislation regarding guns at all, in which case we have already undermined the second amendment with all of the current laws.

That's the correct interpreatation. Gun laws were meant to exist at the state and local level. Not the federal level. All federal legislation is a clear violation, so yes, we've allowed our fundamental rights to be severely undermined.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

...because that's where the gangs are.

Fantastic! I'm glad you recognize part of the problem.

Now the more important question is to ask why there are gangs in cities like Chicago.

The weak-minded looking for an easy answer will try to reduce this complex problem down to a single word like "poverty". Poverty is clearly not the reason gangs exist. The poorest areas in the United States are in rural South Dakota, yet you will find virtually zero gang activity, or gang violence.

This is all just nonsense. Cities are not blaming all of their problems on other places. On this one single point, the fact is that the guns in Chicago are not purchased in Chicago, and often are not even purchased in the state of Illonois. That is the statement here, and it is a fact.

Again, this is just refusing to acknowledge the reasons why cities like Chicago are a black-hole magnet for crime guns. This is nothing more than people in these large cities blaming others for the desires of their own citizens.

For what purpose?

Don't cast stones in glass houses.

 

[nac386]

That's the correct interpreatation. Gun laws were meant to exist at the state and local level. Not the federal level. All federal legislation is a clear violation, so yes, we've allowed our fundamental rights to be severely undermined.

Why do you believe gun laws were meant to exist at the state and local level? The Constitution says that the right cannot be infringed on, wouldn't that include the state and local level? States do not have the right to strip you of your Constitutional right, that is why the Constitution exists in the first place.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Just one minute in and this guy had already name checked abortion and the welfare state. If he could have found a way to somehow wedge teh gays into that opening he would have had a right-wing redneck trifecta.

Yeah this guy is a fucking clown and should soon be forgotten. He's right that gun control might not correlate as strongly with lower violent crime globally but guess what does? Low wealth inequality and based off his welfare state remarks he'd probably support pro-inequality policies that would only generate more violence.

Anyone who thinks gutting the welfare state and reducing access to abortions is the answer to school shootings is a fucking partisan hack that shouldn't be taken seriously.

 

[Post Mortem]

I think i found this in the you laugh, you lose. I forget who to give the credit to, sorry.

 

[Satanical Eve]

Whenever I think of "Good guy with a gun" I always think of the donut shop scene in Boogie Nights.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Why do you believe gun laws were meant to exist at the state and local level? The Constitution says that the right cannot be infringed on, wouldn't that include the state and local level? States do not have the right to strip you of your Constitutional right, that is why the Constitution exists in the first place.

The Constitution created a relationship between the states via a federal government. This federal level had limited scope and responsibility. The Bill of Rights was a list of things the feds were expressly forbidden from doing or commanded to do. Those restrictions being applied to states came later, after the Civil War, with an interpretation of the 14th Amendment (that I personally don't understand or agree with). The 2nd was never meant to restrict state and local governments. Just the feds. That's why it was so simple and absolute.

 

[Cid]

He's claiming to cite a Brookings study. Plus it's one small piece taken out of context. Might he been better served to leave it out? Sure. Am I going to disregard everything else because I'm triggered? Nope. I'm pro-choice and consider the matter settled (barring an Amendment). It's pretty easy to not give a shit that it's in there.

I also think it serves his overall message by suggesting there's evidence that something the other side backs could be one of many factors. Instead of scoffing and ranting, the reaction by the gun-grabbers should be to open their minds to dialogue. It's obvious the problem is cultural if it's only recently a problem. Guns sure aren't new on the scene. So whatever changed should be looked at. At least in intelligent discussion anyway.

If you're bored and want to debunk his Brookings study claim I'm sure many here (including myself) would love to see it.



Fuck that if it's tax dollars. Thumbs up for charity work.

How is it taken out of context?

He says these people come from broken families and then attributes abortion as a contributing factor to broken families.

That was the context.

I don't really need to break down the study do I? A family that has two kids decides to abort the third for whatever reason. The decision is regretted by a party and that results in a break up. Got any other ways abortion results in broken families?

Now weigh that up just against the amount of families that you think never existed because of it, which have a 100% success rate of not breaking up.

It doesn't need an analysis for both of us to know that even if he is right and abortion is a factor in broken homes it's an incredibly negligible one. In gun deaths even more so.

All he's doing is partisan finger pointing... welfare, abortion, kinda got bored after that.

Honestly it's hard for me to really give a shit about the issue.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

How is it taken out of context?

He says these people come from broken families and then attributes abortion as a contributing factor to broken families.

That was the context.

I don't really need to break down the study do I? A family that has two kids decides to abort the third for whatever reason. The decision is regretted by a party and that results in a break up. Got any other ways abortion results in broken families?

Now weigh that up just against the amount of families that you think never existed because of it, which have a 100% success rate of not breaking up.

It doesn't need an analysis for both of us to know that even if he is right and abortion is a factor in broken homes it's an incredibly negligible one. In gun deaths even more so.

All he's doing is partisan finger pointing... welfare, abortion, kinda got bored after that.

Honestly it's hard for me to really give a shit about the issue.

I doubt abortion has anything to do with it. He probably should have left it out. I'm not gonna throw out the rest of the message because of it though. Different perspectives.

 

[Cid]

I doubt abortion has anything to do with it. He probably should have left it out. I'm not gonna throw out the rest of the message because of it though. Different perspectives.

My perspective is that I file all my american gun knowledge into the delete folder of my memory and could still do better.

Granted I only got three paragraphs in.

 

[Trotsky]

Okay, let's start at the very beginning. He starts off by saying that these shootings occur in gun-free school zones. The obvious hack-political point being made there is that more guns would make them more safe.

That's untrue, many schools have SROs on campus with guns. The SRO in the most recent situation stayed outside while the shooting occurred.

He then says gun-control doesn't work because Chicago and Baltimore have high murder rates. He fails to mention that 60% of the guns used in Chicago crimes come from outside of the state. Meaning, people buy guns where there is no gun control, and use them in cities with gun control.

He says the shooters come from broken homes, which are encouraged in some way by Democrats. That is just a ridiculous statement, the shooters come from a massively diverse background. Some rich, some poor, some white, some black, some Hispanic, etc. It is just a dumb point.

He somehow ties abortion to mass shootings, without really specifying how that makes any sense.

He literally begins by running through talking points, that have obvious counter points, and completely ignores the fact that these debates have already occurred. That is called grandstanding. Saying things people have already said, that have already been countered, without offering a single new response.

 

[Fluffernutter]

Can someone just type some Cliffs of his speech?