Do Supporters of the Right to Self Defense Owe Obama a Debt Of Gratitude?

I think you just used a " Fact". ...Chances are that it will be ignored, denied, ridiculed  and you'll be branded a Libtard ...............................

How "easily" has been widely debated.  Regardless, someone with bad intentions can easily make multiple items found in houses and garages across the country into deadly weapons with far less skill.  People who wish to do bad things will.  

This video is on YT and not illegal. It provides proof. Why does an ordinary citizen  need this?  The answer is pretty clear to me. Any smart kid could do this and bring it to school for Show&Tell

True..but see my comment to Elchappo36 above. Kids are smart as hell. I've looked atr several videos and websites.

You're right...Bad people will do anything.  I'm assuming the guy in the video doesn't have bad intent, however..why? Why does he need this?

It's a rush for people.  Just like car or motorcycling racing is for some people, or setting off fireworks, or jumping out of airplanes or a multitude of other things.  

Those are all rushes that (for the most part) only endanger themselves and in many states, personal Fireworks are illegal. 

This is a bit different, don't you think?

I don't condone converting the guns to full auto, Jak.  I just answered your question honestly.  

I remember our annual 4th of July party when the neighbors would either leave town or invite friends for the show.  Those fireworks were illegal.  In fact, our supplier got busted and punished for selling them.  Wasn't long after he completed his sentence and paid his fines and costs that they made them legal here.  Were they only bad because they were illegal?  Could they be used irresponsibly when they were illegal?  Of course, and they still can.  Them being illegal didn't stop a great many of us from obtaining and using them, though.

Bad people are going to do bad things, regardless.  Punishing good people who get a thrill out of something but aren't hurting others isn't going to change that.  Few people alter their ARs, the ones who do are probably going to acquire such a weapon and do that whether the gun is banned or not.

How about we stick to the argument rather than attacking the arguer - though I know with his horns he can defend himself well enough.

It was Nimitz who said we don't need facts, not Mr Goat.

I think some facts can be relevant to an argument like this - mainly because i know next to nothing about guns.

I've learned more about guns on aM in the last few months than I learned in the prior 60 years.

In Australia, we've had far more limits on guns than most other countries - ever since we first began here - originally for the wrong reasons. But it has turned out to give us the seventh lowest homicide rate in the world (UN statistics).

A few years ago we had our first massacre at Port Arthur. The then far right Prime Minister immediately passed legislation to further restrict gun ownership.

An amnesty was established so that everyone with guns, even if not licesnsed, could hand them in and be paid their full price. It proved extremely successful.

The new laws meant that no semi-autos or autos were permitted. Each person wanting to own a gun had to show good cause -such as being a farmer who may need to put a sick or injured animal out of its misery, or a hunter needing to cull feral animals that damage the environment, security guard etc. Each also had to be adult and clear of any criminal or psychiatric history. Had to be a member of a shooting club and demonstrate safety skills. Had to own a secure lock-up where the gun is kept, keep ammunition separate and show proof of this.

Meantime, I am assured by friends who are experienced sailors that it is impossible to smuggle anything through Australian coastal waters because the patrols and surveillance are everywhere. This does not stop the organised crime syndicates - but since they only murder each other, it doesn't seem to matter.

The result of the laws and buy back has been that our homicide rate has now dropped even lower, despite having a population continually growing through immigration.

I live with no locks on my house, never lock my car, and walk where ever i wish with a feeling of safety. There are some areas in cities where I wouldn't go because some delinquent kid might pull a knife and demand my purse - but at 60 I'm free of any hassles from would-be rapists. It is wonderful to have this feeling of freedom and trust and to know that it is realistic.

If I'm breaking no law or infringing on the rights of others, why I would 'need' such a weapon is none of your business.  With the same provisos, if I own a Trident nuclear sub and fully loaded F-16's, it's none of your damned business.

That's the part which slavers fail to grasp.  Other people's lives are none of their damned business.

So the correct response to 'bad people with smarts' is to deny access to firearms on the part of otherwise law abiding citizens.

As with every other idea to come out of the hivish liberal 'mindset,' collective punishment, too, is 'bad.'

Uh oh!  Boz brought logic to a contest of wits with liberals.  That's not fair! :-)

Oh, goody.  Another flamebaiter.  Gee, that's new and different. :-)

No.

With what part of the notion of self defense (by WHATEVER means may be used against you) being a HUMAN RIGHT are you having trouble?  Hint: that Aussies have been so thoroughly pussified as to give up that right is of no consequence to me...just as whatever they may have gotten in return is of no consequence to me.  Follow this reasoning if/as you may:

1) NO PERSON has the right to forcibly impose him/herself upon another by any means whatsoever.

2) ALL PERSONS have the human right to self defense by whatever means may be used against them by an aggressor.

That's kinda-sorta the point.  No person can defend him/herself against a threat which/who employs superior force.  I've yet to see a black belt which could stop a bullet.

Precisely.

Although you wouldn't know it by reading some of these responses, I was actually PRAISING Obama's efforts. :-)

I do not blame Obama.  I THANK HIM!

Damnit, nobody seems to appreciate it when I try to give Obama credit for something.  I guess they all must be racists. :-)

mmm - so -

Slavers prefer to keep slaves unarmed in order to prevent insurrection.

That is close enough to the original reason for restrictions in Australia - to control the majority who were convicts used as slave labour, and to "defend" against Aboriginals trying to defend their territories for hunting and gathering.

It may work for a time, perhaps even a long time. But slaves can still overwhelm by numbers and strategy if they succeed in organising themselves. This would be one reason why their education is kept to a limited level - just enough to be useful workers.

There are many ways of keeping slaves enslaved and unaware of it, and all are used simultaneously. It seems to me that the gun issue hardly touches it.

Thank him for what exactly? You act like he's responsible for this statistic somehow, but you don't elaborate. But that's how conspiracy wonks operate, on insinuation. Cowardly tbh.

I guess he doesn't elaborate because doubt and controversy stir discussion. I'd say the tactic has worked.

Of course. What is easier than making an insinuation, with no need to back it up? It's done well for Alex Jones and Donald Trump.

Aah. I see now the difference.

In Australia, we only have the legal right to use sufficient force to deter the aggressor.

By using legal precedent, the limits are slowly refined. There are always new cases.

In the last few years, it became illegal to use a "king hit" or "coward punch" unless it was clear that the agressor's intent was murder. This was due to a sudden spate of such hits during semi-drunken bar brawls - in which a single fist blow to the jaw killed a person. Each case was somewhat different: the victim had done absolutely nothing provocative; one had raised a hand to scratch his head and the attacker, being paranoid, had misinterpreted the action. In another case there was a deliberately thrown punch that deserved defence but not at a lethal level --- and so on. There were just too many of them -- as if the publicity had twigged people to the possibility and set them off.

The NSW govt also set a closing hour for last drinks at 1pm in red light districts. This turned out to have a dramatic effect on reducing all kinds of brawls and injuries, and so has now been extended to the whole of NSW.

The state pays for medical expenses of those who cannot afford their own - which is all of the pub-goers - so the state has a strong interest in reducing the costs of violence.

Yes, in a way, some of us are pussies in Australia. Although pussies also have fangs and claws and can be quite tactical. If you met one of our warriors abroad, you would not want to be his enemy. We are very good at improvisation.

And that fact might defeat everything I just said. Yet in practice it doesn't. The more difficult it is to harm another person, the more effort it takes to do it, the more likely it is that impulsive crimes do not occur. The heat of the moment passes.

I like your comment and I acknowledged your point in the previous comment that gun control does work.  Australia is but one more example of how that is successful.  Unfortunately the Gun advocates don't want to hear that..