Good argument on 2nd amendment

[Lou Newton]

Tennessee Linda posted this on Facebook:

Lou Newton shared Daily Mentions's video.

45 mins ·

Pause
-5:04
Additional Visual Settings
Enter Watch And ScrollClick to enlarge
Unmute
Click for more
29,293,822 Views
Daily Mentions added a new video: Powerful Gun Speech.Like Page
February 14 at 9:16pm ·

The most articulate gun speech I've ever heard.
Everyone needs to hear this.
Make this go viral.

Bill Whittle is the speaker in the video.

[glen smith]

Wrong application of the analogy –

Cutting off the horns of a gazelle is equated with gun control.
This is the wrong use of the analogy of a leopard attacking a gazelle.
It is not horns of the leopard which are attacking the gazelle,
but fangs and claws of the leopard.

“Cutting” off the fangs and claws of the leopard would be the correct analogy.
The gazelle does not have either fangs or claws.

He is correct in that cutting off the horns of the Gazelle makes it easier for the leopard, but it is not the horns of the gazelle that are used to attack.

For this analogy to work gun control must be equated to cutting off the fangs and claws of the leopard which would greatly benefit the gazelle
or for gun control to limit the 2nd amendment rights of the gazelle to have fangs and claws.

Just another example of the lack of correct thinking.
Not the smartest gun argument and said in front of the congress - how embarrassing.

Statistics used to justify guns when compared to other deaths and weapons is very old news,
yet there is the need to constantly remind those who think the problem is guns.

Also very old news is what has happened to citizens in some nations where citizens cannot have guns, yet there is the need to constantly remind Americans.

The best part, and only original part of this video are the faces of the congressmen and senators.
I wish that is what the video had concentrated upon - how uncomfortable they were.

[Lou Newton]

Wrong application of the analogy –

Cutting off the horns of a gazelle is equated with gun control.
This is the wrong use of the analogy of a leopard attacking a gazelle.
It is not horns of the leopard which are attacking the gazelle,
but fangs and claws of the leopard.

“Cutting” off the fangs and claws of the leopard would be the correct analogy.
The gazelle does not have either fangs or claws.

He is correct in that cutting off the horns of the Gazelle makes it easier for the leopard, but it is not the horns of the gazelle that are used to attach.

For this analogy to work gun control must be equated to cutting off the fangs and claws of the leopard which would greatly benefit the gazelle
or for gun control to limit the 2nd amendment rights of the gazelle to have fangs and claws.

Just another example of the lack of correct thinking.
Not the smartest gun argument and said in front of the congress - how embarrassing.

Statistics used to justify guns when compared to other deaths and weapons is very old news,
yet there is the need to constantly remind those who think the problem is guns.

Also very old news is what has happened to citizens in some nations where citizens cannot have guns, yet there is the need to constantly remind Americans.

The best part, and only original part of this video are the faces of the congressmen and senators.
I wish that is what the video had concentrated upon - how uncomfortable they were.

Hi Glen,

I posted this for Linda.

It is a very good analogy:

Taking the weapons, the gazelle uses to defend itself, away is what gun control does. It does not remove the claws of the murderer, he does not obey laws. The only one left with no means to defend himself it is law abiding citizen. Gun control removes the horns the innocent gazelle uses to defend itself. Yes the lion uses claws and teeth, but gun control does not take those away from the lion.

[glen smith]

Hi Glen,

I posted this for Linda.

It is a very good analogy:

Taking the weapons, the gazelle uses to defend itself, away is what gun control does. It does not remove the claws of the murderer, he does not obey laws. The only one left with no means to defend himself it is law abiding citizen. Gun control removes the horns the innocent gazelle uses to defend itself. Yes the lion uses claws and teeth, but gun control does not take those away from the lion.

You are right that this can be another way of thinking about it. However, gun control takes the legal weapons away from murderer and victim, both the leopard and gazelle, and not just the gazelle which is how Bill Whittle misuses the analogy. You and I have heard or read better presentations defending the 2nd amendment. I am aware of your source (Linda) for the post. I went directly to You Tube to listen to this video and to see the hype for its promotion. The hype is not by Linda but the promotion for he video.

There was a time when gun control laws prevented some of the altered semi-autos on the market today.
Generally, they were not available to most people and were rare because of the federal license required.
Before that federal law outlaws used machine guns.
After the law machine guns were confiscated and soon criminals did not have access.
Not sure this would work today because the mentality of many gun owners is different than in 1934.

The campaign to staunch the flow of such weapons into society began in the states the previous decade, when at least 27 of the 48 states enacted measures to restrict or outlaw the sale and possession of fully automatic weapons prior to 1934. The definition of automatic weapons limited the size of the magazine and included semiautomatics.

National Firearms Act of 1934, enacted a series of measures aimed mostly at stemming the spread of ever-more destructive weapons into the hands of criminals at a time of spiraling gangland violence. Chief among the weapons and accessories it regulated were sawed-off shotguns (defined as those having a barrel shorter than 18 inches), machine guns, and silencers.

[Lou Newton]

Glen writes:

However, gun control takes the legal weapons away from murderer and victim, both the leopard and gazelle, and not just the gazelle

I disagree with what you say. Gun control takes the weapons away from legal citizens, but NOT criminals. It is already illegal for criminals and insane people to possess weapons. So further laws do not remove legal weapons from them. When you buy a weapon you state that you will not use it for illegal purposes. If one plans a illegal activity, he already has an illegal weapon. If he is a felon, he already has an illegal weapon.

The very point is that gun control does NOT take weapons away from criminals, but it only takes weapons away from law abiding citizens.

[glen smith]

FAKE VIDEO

This video is a fake presentation before a joint session of congress of video cuts to construct a virtual world.

I kept thinking about how much I enjoyed the discomfort level of many in the audience. This made me realize how impossible this scenario is. I begin to question the scenes of the audience in that how impossible it is to gather them together and to have them listen to someone I had never heard. So, I looked it up. I thought I was an aware skeptic and not so gullible, but he fooled me until I took time to think it over and realize the whole thing was impossible.

It is a funny joke on me. How embarrassing!

https://spectator.org/31575_bill-whi...ual-president/
Whittle’s new project is called Mr. Virtual President. He will be making videos which will look like he'’s the President of the United States, saying what he would say if he were President of the United States.

His first effort is a segment of a virtual State of the Union speech in which he talks to Congress about guns and gun control legislation.

glen might add, not just Congress but a joint session of Congress. It is the exception for either house to be addressed by a non member. Testimony and addresses are before committees. Call me gullible.

Reply to Lou's post:
The very point is that gun control does NOT take weapons away from criminals, but it only takes weapons away from law abiding citizens.

It is to be expected that criminals will not turn in guns which are declared by law to be illegal. What gun control allows is the confiscation of these weapons and stopping the manufacture and import of such weapons. It is thought that over time this reduces the availability of such weapons just as it did after the 1934 federal law.

What I doubt is the ability of customs to stop the smuggling of these weapons into the USA. Thus, making illegal guns another source of income for foreign crime syndicates. Effective gun control must be accompanied by the eradication of smuggling. It is this that might make gun control effective.

Currently, it is the mentally unstable and political radical who are using these rapid fire with large magazines to murder police and innocent civilians and spread terror. Gun control of these weapons would make it much harder for these lunatics to obtain such weapons but would not prevent criminals from obtaining them from smugglers.

[Steve Hollander]

Gun control is really just people control. Who will defend my family if I am unable to? Nobody. The LEO's take reports after it's too late. I am responsible for the safety of my family to the best of my ability. The Lord is my protector. He will show me what to do at the time.

[Lou Newton]

FAKE VIDEO

This video is a fake presentation before a joint session of congress of video cuts to construct a virtual world.

I kept thinking about how much I enjoyed the discomfort level of many in the audience. This made me realize how impossible this scenario is. I begin to question the scenes of the audience in that how impossible it is to gather them together and to have them listen to someone I had never heard. So, I looked it up. I thought I was an aware skeptic and not so gullible, but he fooled me until I took time to think it over and realize the whole thing was impossible.

It is a funny joke on me. How embarrassing!

https://spectator.org/31575_bill-whi...ual-president/
Whittle’s new project is called Mr. Virtual President. He will be making videos which will look like he'’s the President of the United States, saying what he would say if he were President of the United States.

His first effort is a segment of a virtual State of the Union speech in which he talks to Congress about guns and gun control legislation.

glen might add, not just Congress but a joint session of Congress. It is the exception for either house to be addressed by a non member. Testimony and addresses are before committees. Call me gullible.

Reply to Lou's post:
The very point is that gun control does NOT take weapons away from criminals, but it only takes weapons away from law abiding citizens.

It is to be expected that criminals will not turn in guns which are declared by law to be illegal. What gun control allows is the confiscation of these weapons and stopping the manufacture and import of such weapons. It is thought that over time this reduces the availability of such weapons just as it did after the 1934 federal law.

What I doubt is the ability of customs to stop the smuggling of these weapons into the USA. Thus, making illegal guns another source of income for foreign crime syndicates. Effective gun control must be accompanied by the eradication of smuggling. It is this that might make gun control effective.

Currently, it is the mentally unstable and political radical who are using these rapid fire with large magazines to murder police and innocent civilians and spread terror. Gun control of these weapons would make it much harder for these lunatics to obtain such weapons but would not prevent criminals from obtaining them from smugglers.

It was obvious to me that this man was putting in the audience and was not really there. But that does not take away the good arguments he put forth.

As far as gun control goes:

If our lawmakers do not follow the supreme law of the land, then how can anyone expect the people to follow the law. Laws become meaningless.

The 2nd amendment to the US Constitution reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A militia was simply the citizens of every town bringing their own weapons to protect their town. The federal government had no authority over it and neither did the state government. The people held the power, not government.

Jefferson said it was the DUTY of every man to own a rifle or musket and know how to use it.

The US Congress was to make no laws pertaining to the possession of these weapons by the people.

This system still works in Switzerland. The local people possess tanks in a building in their town. Every male citizen is required to train and be part of the army. Every male citizen possesses a Steyr Aug that is a FULL AUTO assault rifle. This has NOT caused widespread violence, but violence is almost non existence with every house having a trained person with a full auto rifle in it. Also it has kept Switzerland out of wars. The people hold the power instead of the government and the government can not declare a war the people do not support. Even NAZI Germany did not attack Switzerland when they possessed all that gold that Hitler wanted. They knew that every Swiss citizen was part of the army, and very well trained from youth on how to use a rifle.

Also trained men tend to respect these weapons and follow good gun safety to the T.

Either the people hold the power, or the few in power of the government hold the power. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

If liberals want to make laws infringing on the right of the people to possess these weapons, then FIRST the US Constitution needs to be changed by amendment.

Otherwise our lawmakers are lawbreakers. They have already broke the law when they banned some weapons years ago.

[Lou Newton]

Gun control is really just people control. Who will defend my family if I am unable to? Nobody. The LEO's take reports after it's too late. I am responsible for the safety of my family to the best of my ability. The Lord is my protector. He will show me what to do at the time.

I agree with you Steve. Plus that right is God given and no government has any right to take it away.

[glen smith]

Lou, your post # 8 starts with “It was obvious to me that this man was putting in the audience and was not really there.” – You waited to post this information after I figured this was a fake video –and revealing such in my post #6.

Just as I informed you about your post of the fake news of Trump removing a federal judge, I would have appreciated you telling me my misunderstanding in your post #3 as part of the reply to my post #2 where I commented:
Not the smartest gun argument and said in front of the congress - how embarrassing.
&
The best part, and only original part (information) of this video are the faces of the congressmen and senators.
I wish that is what (Congress) the video had concentrated upon - how uncomfortable they (Congress) were.

There are several disappointing aspects of this video.
1. Bill Whittle demonstrates no expertise on the gun issue in that he presents old material that many others have already presented.
2. For me, his spoof in this video trivializes the seriousness of the issue – appearing as a sophisticated Saturday Night Live skit. It is just another political cartoon.
3. Just because we might agree with the point of view does not justify reducing the debate to ridicule or a dishonest presentation.

There is powerful influence in integrity.

[Lou Newton]

Lou, your post # 8 starts with “It was obvious to me that this man was putting in the audience and was not really there.” – You waited to post this information after I figured this was a fake video –and revealing such in my post #6.

Just as I informed you about your post of the fake news of Trump removing a federal judge, I would have appreciated you telling me my misunderstanding in your post #3 as part of the reply to my post #2 where I commented:
Not the smartest gun argument and said in front of the congress - how embarrassing.
&
The best part, and only original part (information) of this video are the faces of the congressmen and senators.
I wish that is what (Congress) the video had concentrated upon - how uncomfortable they (Congress) were.

There are several disappointing aspects of this video.
1. Bill Whittle demonstrates no expertise on the gun issue in that he presents old material that many others have already presented.
2. For me, his spoof in this video trivializes the seriousness of the issue – appearing as a sophisticated Saturday Night Live skit. It is just another political cartoon.
3. Just because we might agree with the point of view does not justify reducing the debate to ridicule or a dishonest presentation.

There is powerful influence in integrity.

Glen, I did not choose to post this, Linda posted it and I posted it for her. She has cancer and does not post herself anymore.

I missed your comment about the video being in front of Congress, sorry.

Linda liked this video and is entitled to her opinion. I see nothing wrong with it and do not understand why anyone would pick it apart for it does not say anything that is not true. Whittle is not my favorite at all, but I think he did a pretty good job on this one.

[RoyDavid]

Dear Lou..just an observation from a guy in the cheap seats. I wonder if it would seem so benign to you if someone were performing a gun ban speech selfie in front of their own cellphone but made it appear as though they had audience of a wildly cheering joint session of congress..and then such espionage was launched over the internet to 29 million viewers? Would you then say just the content of the speech matters?

The fact that you claimed to know that this was a virtual hoax, and then posted and endorsed it, is troubling to me. Is our right to defend ourselves such a weak argument that we use these kind of shenanigans to support it? If it was just Lou doing this, I would just shake my head and kinda chuckle and would not bother with any of this response. The problem is you are publicly referring to yourself as the "Bond Servant of Jesus". This has explicit implication that you have bound yourself to the Truth..the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth as you walk in His Way and His Life. Your manipulation of this deception for your own benefit reeks. Furthermore it reeks on all of us who have taken His Name, and consequently on our Savior.

Integrity is all we have to spread His Gospel of Love, and is far more important than winning a political argument.

[Lou Newton]

Dear Lou..just an observation from a guy in the cheap seats. I wonder if it would seem so benign to you if someone were performing a gun ban speech selfie in front of their own cellphone but made it appear as though they had audience of a wildly cheering joint session of congress..and then such espionage was launched over the internet to 29 million viewers? Would you then say just the content of the speech matters?

The fact that you claimed to know that this was a virtual hoax, and then posted and endorsed it, is troubling to me. Is our right to defend ourselves such a weak argument that we use these kind of shenanigans to support it? If it was just Lou doing this, I would just shake my head and kinda chuckle and would not bother with any of this response. The problem is you are publicly referring to yourself as the "Bond Servant of Jesus". This has explicit implication that you have bound yourself to the Truth..the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth as you walk in His Way and His Life. Your manipulation of this deception for your own benefit reeks. Furthermore it reeks on all of us who have taken His Name, and consequently on our Savior.

Integrity is all we have to spread His Gospel of Love, and is far more important than winning a political argument.

There is a difference between a spoof and a hoax. There is a difference between a joke and a lie.

This man is well known for his spoofs about giving speeches in front of joint sessions of congress. It is made quite obvious by the background. In a joint session of congress we see the vice president and speaker of the house sitting behind the person instead of an US flag. Also notice no feedback from the so called audience. Some would be cheering and others booing if this was real. I assumed our members had watched a joint session of Congress before.

I guess I overestimated the intelligence of the audience, or is it that when people look at things with a critical spirit they miss the obvious.

Poor Linda, she thought this was the best argument against gun control that she eve seen. I was just trying to give her a voice on our little forum since she has taken ill.

There was a post lately of how we should look for what others have to share and offer. I can see why so few want to share anything in church. Who wants to take all the backlash. It is far easier to keep quiet.

Politics is trying to influence and manipulate people. Standing for the truth is a far different thing.

Politicians want to force their will upon others. Bearers of truth only offer the truth for others to choose for
themselves.

People who are trying to force their will upon others, or manipulate them, get angry when people do not choose their way.

The bearers of truth get sad when people reject the truth.

[glen smith]

RoyDavid and Lou,
Bill Whittle apparently made a public announcement of his intent to do spoof State of the Union messages as if he was president. However, until the video posted I knew nothing of Bill Whittle and nothing of the spoof until questions came up when reflecting about the video. Bill Whittle bears no fault any more than any other political spoof or cartoon. He warned us.

It is my gullibility and ignorance to have swallowed the fake hype about this video. My criticism was because I, at first, thought it was real. Comedy or political satire need not follow many rules. If I had known before viewing this video that it was both a spoof and that the hype did not actually mean that it was the best speech on the subject ever made against gun control, I would found it fun and amusing. Never would I have thought it needed to be critiqued.

RoyDavid, I thought it was presented with an endorsement by Lou.
Lou, making the effort to place the video in the context of a spoof would have been appropriate.

The only harm done here on this forum is the wasted time.
Let me start over at post #2 which was my first.

This is such a great way to present ones rebuttal to political issues. It seems better than the opposition’s response following the State of the Union message. I like the idea of taking one issue at a time. It is a shame Bill Whittle is not really an expert but just sums up the positions of others. I bet those close ups of congressmen is something most wish they could erase.

[Lou Newton]

RoyDavid and Lou,
Bill Whittle apparently made a public announcement of his intent to do spoof State of the Union messages as if he was president. However, until the video posted I knew nothing of Bill Whittle and nothing of the spoof until questions came up when reflecting about the video. Bill Whittle bears no fault any more than any other political spoof or cartoon. He warned us.

It is my gullibility and ignorance to have swallowed the fake hype about this video. My criticism was because I, at first, thought it was real. Comedy or political satire need not follow many rules. If I had known before viewing this video that it was both a spoof and that the hype did not actually mean that it was the best speech on the subject ever made against gun control, I would found it fun and amusing. Never would I have thought it needed to be critiqued.

RoyDavid, I thought it was presented with an endorsement by Lou.
Lou, making the effort to place the video in the context of a spoof would have been appropriate.

The only harm done here on this forum is the wasted time.
Let me start over at post #2 which was my first.

This is such a great way to present ones rebuttal to political issues. It seems better than the opposition’s response following the State of the Union message. I like the idea of taking one issue at a time. It is a shame Bill Whittle is not really an expert but just sums up the positions of others. I bet those close ups of congressmen is something most wish they could erase.

Thanks for your reply Glen.

If a joke is announced as a joke, it loses it's punch. I thought everyone would be able to see this was a spoof.

When Trump made his State of the Union he did not put forth material as anti liberal as the video contained and he was booed often. Certainly no one could make this speech before congress and it be silent.

BUT the arguments are still valid and Linda did think it was the best she had ever heard. I can see how she would think that, it covered all bases.

After all we preach the gospel and none of it is new information and it was not our idea.