7 Deceptive Claims Jimmy Kimmel Made About Guns in One Monologue

People like to call the slippery slope argument a logical fallacy, but not one single soul who is being intellectually honest can deny that is the strategy of the left in a wide variety of issues, especially this one.

They start off with "all we want to do is ban this one particular type of weapon... this one particular firearm.... this one particular modification...." (etc.)..... then when they get that, they move to the next thing, and the next, and the next.

 

Right. The only sane way is your way. The idea that Madison was trying to create a coalition between people who wanted a standing army, and people who thought that standing armies are a threat to liberty is completely insane.

Acknowledgement of the need for a military force, and the need for the people to be able to defend themselves against that force is totally batzo crazy. It's not like he said exactly that in federalist 46.

 

IMO...it's more often stupidity than insanity. And then of course there are the ones that are merely making up for not being well endowed with certain particulars.

 

Any sane person knows that there's no way to know what Madison is talking about here. It's totally ambiguous.

 

Just in case that wasn't ambiguous enough, he continues to be even less clear:

 

I have no desire to remove anyone's rights, grew up on a farm, grew up with seeing a shotgun hanging on the wall of the hayshed, grew up with my grandfather blasting the hell out of any snake, harmless or otherwise. See the pertinent point is, I grew up.

 

How often do you have to lay down suppressive fire against multiple attackers assaulting your home?

 

Your post has exactly what the **** to do with mine? Are you senile?

 

You can't trust them bloody British, they could sneak back anytime.

 

You don't have that figure in your notes about me? I'm not sure why your figuring that into the calculation, but if that's really something you need to know, how can you claim to know what I need if you don't already know?

 

Doesn't that happen to everyone on a weekly basis?

 

I'll just take that as a "Never".

You do not have a need a for an AR-15 for defense. Your defense can be easily handled with a handgun or shotgun, just like every other American.

 

Which is irrelevant as no one else is qualified to say what find of firearm someone else needs and rights are not predicated on needs.

 

I mean if someone is trying to "lay down suppressive fire" with 5.56 nato, they probably got all their ballistic knowledge from the picture on the back cover of a Rambo DVD box set.

It's a small light round designed to stop inside whatever it hits. It's not exactly the best tool for spray and pray.

 

Right, why would someone need an AR-15 for defense?

The 2nd Amendment already is not an absolute right, unless you are going to argue your right to a nuclear weapon cannot be infringed.

 

Except US infantry use that round for exactly that purpose literally every day.

 

You'll take what as never? You'll take my argument that you don't have enough information about me to make a claim that you know what I need as: you'll never be able to know what you'll need to know in order to make that claim?

Wait, you switched from a caliber to a specific rifle model. Which is it I don't need?

While we're on the subject of things I don't need, what about your opinion regarding what I need? I'm pretty sure I don't need that.

 

I’m pretty sure you’re a ****ing whack job since you think you need a 30 round semi-auto rifle for self defense. How times are a full squad of people trying to kill you?

 

One more time rights are not predicated on need.

One does not need freedom of speech but they have it.

Yes all the rights in the BOR are limited but the limitations are few and narrowly defined as they should be as is the right to keep and bear arms.

 

I am pretty sure anyone who thinks they can make such judgements of others is a fool.

One more time read SLOWLY.

Rights are not predicated on need least of all some idiots subjective view of what others need

 

Why can those limitations not be expanded to include firearms like the AR-15?

Not being able to own rifles like those will not in any way make someone defenseless.

 

Not out of an ar-15 they don't. Civilians are not allowed to own SAW platforms.

 

Why should my Second Amendment right not allow me to own a rocket launcher loaded with Sarin gas? That is the arm I choose to bear and my Right doesn’t have anything to do with need, yes?