7 Deceptive Claims Jimmy Kimmel Made About Guns in One Monologue

Yes it most certainly will make some defenseless and there is no reason to expand such limitations just as there is no need to expand the limitations on the freedom of speech to include hate speech.

 

They do it out of M-16’s and M-4’s which are functionally identical to AR-15’s since no one in the military ever uses the burst fire feature.

 

Sarin gas is not " arms "

 

Okay, who exactly can only use a semi-automatic rifle for defense? Who is the person who would be totally defenseless if they didn’t have a semi-auto rifle?

 

Ar-15’s are not “arms”. We can both play the arbitrary game.

 

Who said the right to bear arms is only about home defense?

 

Yes they are and you are wrong my statement was not arbitrary it is accurate and well defined.

 

You theoretically can have the rocket launcher (but not with the gas).

Or a fully operational tank.

Even a nuke.

The cost of the required stamp is, I believe, $250.

There are other costs that will be involved as well.

 

Ah, now the insane “we need to overthrow the evul gobbermunt!” Bullshit.

 

And that definition comes from whom?

 

Not insane very logical and accurate,

 

A dictionary try using one

 

Yes, your semi-auto rifle is definitely going to protect you against a tank or a B-52.

 

Guarantee you I can find a definition in a dictionary that supports me.

 

No but when the crew gets out to take a piss it can kill them thus neutralizing the B52 or tank which is as good as destroying them

 

Wrong.

Arms in the sens of the second means firearms which can be carried not WMDs sorry you lose sport

 

Not exactly.

You CAN have WMD's.

The cost of the safety needed to have them would be enormous in most cases.

 

This escalated from knowing what I need to knowing what I think. Pretty amazing if you ask me. Do you do parties?

 

If it were left up to people like you we would still be a British colony.

 

The whole argument for more firearms restrictions is bogus:

FACTS, FOLKS, FACTS!!!
From Aline Smith McKay:
Copied from Jeannette Selman Beard page. Thank you Jeannette
Numbers never lie There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. The U.S. population is 324,059,091 as of June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.000000925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:
• 65% of those deaths are by suicide, which would never be prevented by gun laws.
• 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified.
• 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – better known as gun violence.
• 3% are accidental discharge deaths.
So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Now lets look at how those deaths spanned across the nation.
• 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
• 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
• 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
• 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)
So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.
This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.
Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equal, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.
Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault are all done by criminals. It is ludicrous to think that criminals will obey laws. That is why they are called criminals.
But what about other deaths each year?
• 40,000+ die from a drug overdose–THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!
• 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths.
• 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide).
Now it gets good:
• 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer walking in the worst areas of Chicago than you are when you are in a hospital!
• 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If the liberal loons and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total number of gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides ................ Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions! So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It's pretty simple:
Taking away guns gives control to governments. The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.
Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs. So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed." We now know what they're trying to do.

 

So they don't use them to "lay down suppressive fire?" Huh. Does... Does that mean the military doesn't need them either?

 

Isnt a 3 round "burst" using the burst fire feature a common tactic in the military?

 

You should ask questerr. He seems to think he's the expert. Though I am somewhat concerned with his contradiction.

So far his claim to be able to determine what I need is founded on some sort of magical ability to measure my past, or maybe potential future, need to do something he calls "lay down suppressive fire." He then claims the model rifle I don't need is functionally the same as the ones used by the military because they don't actually use the feature that sprays the most bullets everywhere.

I wonder if the military has some sort of other use they might need the firearm for.

 

In the Army in 60-64 era, we fired the machine gun in bursts of 6. Course you could not count that fast but it was a way for them to have control of use of ammo plus to help keep the barrel cooler.

 

I'm really wracking my brain here trying to figure out why the military might need a light, maneuverable, easy to manage recoil, simple fire control rifle with a select fire feature that they don't use.