7 Deceptive Claims Jimmy Kimmel Made About Guns in One Monologue

Ask the Vietnam veterans who were known for drinking and smoking dope precisely in the areas you describe.

Or the Afghanistan veterans of the Russian army who had massive alcohol problems.

Small arms are often the only weapons they have along with some IEDs. The enemy in vietnam won with little more than that. IEDs are not regulated they are illegal which is irrelevant if one wants to make and use them the key word being IMPROVISED.

Once again you are historically wrong.

The second exists for many purposes including resisting and preventing government tyranny and that is fact which your illogical and historically inaccurate views cannot challenge. That in fact is the reason why so many want the second gone it is simply in the way of creating an orwellian utopia.

 

what if the tyrannical government your protecting yourself from is on the state level? and not the Federal Level?
Lots of examples in US history of this happening..

 

IEDs for modern insurgencies still require high explosives to make them effective, which are illegal for most citizens to own or make. The improvised comes from the construction of the bombs themselves.

Vietnam and Soviet-era Afghanistan are not modern insurgencies. Technology has moved by leaps and bounds since then.

Trying to fight a modern insurgency with small arms and pipe bombs will get you killed.

 

Which can be stolen.

Yes they are modern insurgencies.

People get killed in every war but without guns defeat is ensured.

 

Take your first sentence, apply that to AR-15’s. Why can’t the same be true?

Conflicts from 30-50 years ago when most modern insurgency/counterinsurgency tactics have been invented in the last 15 years don’t qualify as modern insurgencies.

Who said no guns at all?

 

It is true they CAN be stolen but there is also no reason to ban such high quality weapons.

Yes they qualify as modern insurgencies and most tactics used have been around for centuries.

Every gun control effort is ultimately aimed at total banning and confiscation. When a ban on weapons like ar15s will fail to accomplish ANYTHING, and it WILL fail, the next step will be more and more bans until the second is a meaningless paper tiger. That IS the ultimate goal.

In addition any failed law should be repealed as the brady bill was there is NO point to banning ARs whatsoever and such laws should never be permitted regardless of what they address.

 

Sure there is: 60 dead 500 wounded in Las Vegas, 50 dead in Orlando, 20 dead in Sandy Hook.

So centuries ago militaries had MRAPs and insurgents used cell phones to detonate EFP’s?

Banning AR-15’s will fail to accomplish anything? When was the last time someone killed 60 people and wounded 500 with a bolt action rifle?

 

Centuries ago insurgencies existed and the tactics have changed little you are confusing tactics with technology.

Those crimes do not create a reason to undermine the second amendment any more than nazis marching in the street create a need to undermine the first amendment

 

Tactics and technology are indelibly linked, especially in modern warfare.

How does a lack of AR-15’s infringe upon your 2nd amendment fights?

 

Linked but not the same and the tactics have changed little.

I explained how as in there is no reason to ban them and when such a ban fails more will inevitably follow.

 

The tactics have changed a lot. Insurgencies used to require actual direct combat between forces. Now an insurgent with time, materials, and a phone can kill occupiers without ever even seeing them.

And I gave three reasons to ban them.

 

They still ultimately require direct confrontation if they hope to win which is why the iraqis insurgents lost.

You gave excuses which were wrong.

There is no reason to ban them

 

The Iraqi insurgents lost? Last time I checked, the Shi’a ones won pretty big.

Mass shootings are the reason to ban them.

 

No they are not the reason as mass shooting can use ANY weapon such as virginia tech. Vegas also proves you wrong as no law or ban would have stopped it.

 

When was the last time someone used a bolt action rifle to kill 60 and wound 500 in a single sitting?

 

Very good simply willfully ignore the Virginia tech example.

The right to bear arms is not limited to bolt actions and there is no reason to ban ARs.

 

Are you denying that now the leftist talk has moved to taking away semi-automatics?

 

If these late night show host were merely "making fun" you'd have a point. They have decided they will be the moral and political voices of the country each of which you and I are more highly qualified listening to their remarks.

 

maybe he should be. He appears to think the same as mass murderers. So you support this man that demeans women correct?

 

Since when, what studies have they prevented especially private studies? They are BEHIND stopping gun violence, it is the means where the difference come. Strawman.

 

You really don't know the difference, do you?

 

And you think THAT is why we have the 2nd Amendment.....................

Try Lexington and Concord for a start.

 

Business owners who didn't want to be murdered and have their business looted and burned down.

 

do you support kimmel or not? Pathetic non answers. You guys are so weak you cant even say you support someone that we know you do. Answer or prove yourself weak.

 

There is no lack of information or research on gun deaths. Data is readily available and can be compiled and analyzed by anyone who wants. The same data can produce many different conclusions depending on your agenda. This intentionally misleading information is used to push gun laws and has been very effective where I live. In Los Angeles, only law enforcement, politicians, celebrities, and criminals carry guns. Many guns are banned altogether.

The NRA has absolutely nothing to do with public information and do their best to clarify much of the misinformation, but people only look to sources that support their beliefs. If you want to believe that guns are the reason for violence, you will find studies to support that.