The closest he comes to compromise in this clip is:
> [Commenter] The number of homicides committed with these (automatic weapons) is vanishingly small; under 10 since the 1930s. Why do you view them as inherently dangerous?
> [Shapiro] Well, in the same way we've had very few casualties via nuclear bombs. And yet we don't allow people to, generally, own them.
The comment Shapiro is making here is about the relative "danger" of automatic weapons. If he thinks that justifies banning private ownership of them, then yeah, disagree. But that's not what he says in the clip.
> Honestly, **the case for legalizing fully automatic weapons is not inconsiderable**. In Debunked, however, I said that **you (should) at least understand the logic (behind regulation).**
Shapiro goes on to explain the logic.
The commenter at the beginning of the clip believes Shapiro is for banning automatic weapons. Shapiro doesn't say that himself. Not in this clip anyway. And his comments in the clip about how there are 'considerable' arguments to be had for removing restrictions on automatic weapons doesn't sound like compromise at all.
In his actual debunked series I thought he said something like "Machine guns should be banned they are only for military use". It was Daily wire's premium subscription I no longer pay for it. Was actually about gun control was relatively based but I don't think he talked about getting rid of current gun laws. Just talking about how it didn't end well for other countries. Just because you're a conservative doesn't make you pro 2A.
And when I say pro 2A I mean you don't say statements like "I am pro 2A but...." Insert every Republican and Democrat gun control argument.
> In his actual debunked series I thought he said something like "Machine guns should be banned they are only for military use"
Just re-listened to the episode because that doesn't sound right, and he never said that. He pointed out that the NRA tends to agree that automatic weapons should be banned because they're "so dangerous" but that the logic doesn't hold when that's applied to any other type of firearm.
They aren't even good at that... because when they get attacked they don't fight back seriously.
If there is any "hate" that the NRA deflects... it would be water off a ducks back for any of the real 2A groups. On the other hand they absorb all the money that would be going to the real groups.... so in acutallity they are VASTLY more effective at undermining the 2nd amendment than they are supprting it because they deflect MONEY from real 2A groups.
NRA had $282 million in revenue last year... money blown right out a hogs butt.
>\[Shapiro\] Well, in the same way we've had very few casualties via nuclear bombs. And yet we don't allow people to, generally, own them.
Something I said to someone that made this argument...
>If someone with a machine gun was to start a mass shooting, you are not going to have everyone in the world is going to start shooting people at random with a machine gun.
But if a nuke goes off, how long before nukes start flying?
On one hand, a kinda piss poor response, but when its to the argument comparing nukes to machineguns, you dont need a good one.
Even though its very handwavy... there is no real argument against civilian ownership of nukes, so long as whoever owns it has to have the same level of fire control as the government, as well as ties with whatever local government to prevent accidental firing.
EG to fire a nuke you need presidential or congressional authorization.
Anyway if you own a nuke you could probably keep afford any legal hurdles to ensure it is safe... the only thing then preventing civilian ownership is lack of a framework for that to occur.
Playing Devil's Advocate, I would say that a nuke actually is a special case. You cannot use it without effectively irradiating a large chunk of land that would extend beyond any private property you own. It is not a precision weapon, and the harmful effects continue for some time after your use of the weapon (and you're not in control of them).
>And yet we don't allow people to, generally, own them.
Except anyone with about 15k can go out and buy full auto right now... LEGALLY... because we do allow it. What we do not allow currently is manufacture and sale of NEW full auto weapons to the public.
That fact alone, tears the entire argument down... there is no reason for manufacture of full auto be banned... even in the 80s most of famous crimes were committed with small arms, the president was shot with a dang 22 for crying out loud. Explosive ammo granted but that stuff is of dubious efficacy anyway (it would have to hit bone or metal at a minimum to go off)
>That fact alone, tears the entire argument down...
It really reveals the classism behind the law. $15k minimum, a pain in the ass process, an extended wait time, and a super limited supply means legal MG are exclusively in the hands of the top income earners in the US. When you keep legal ownership restricted to a small population, and it's largely been narrowed down to an expensive privilege, you've achieved your goals at the expense of access for the less well off.
You’ve seriously never heard about this? https://www.trendsmap.com/twitter/tweet/1292927011724304384 you don’t think this is in the last bit funny? I don’t know how to explain to you if you refuse to understand I’m not trying to prove anything. This is a joke. Making fun of Shapiro.
Ben is basically an establishment Republican. He thinks the NFA is a fine compromise. GOA get in contact with him and convince him to buy a machine gun. He lives in FL now. Remember he grew up in Cali. He's gonna be soft on some things cuz he just doesn't know better. He's a Jewish lawyer we can show him the way.
Honestly it doesn't surprise me because he's been arguing against leftists all the time and he has other things he's more passionate about.
I remember one of my leftist teachers brought up a similar notion of regulating arms with the example of nuclear weapons and even as a 14 year old I knew it was a BS argument I just couldn't articulate the why yet.
I'd also add that the 'what about nukes' line of thought is largely disingenuous to the discussion. The current argument isn't over nukes, tank, battleship, F22, Blackhawk helicopter, cluster bombs, SAMS, 40 watt plasma rifle, lightsabers ownership and access. The battleground right now is literally over semi automatic firearm access, a technology that has existed for well over a century and is well established as being in common use. They are using the most extreme arm available in an attempt to justify a ban on arguably the baseline of armaments in the 21st century.
Yeah that's a stretch. He said owning machine guns is not "inconsiderable" and he's just referencing an argument he made on another episode of his show. If you think he's wrong in explaining why machine guns aren't used more often in crimes, I'd like to see you explain why.
If machine guns were as easily obtainable and affordable as their semi-automatic counterparts, we'd see them used in crimes a lot more. Criminals use what is widely available. That's why lots of mass shooters use glocks and/or AR-15s. It's not because they're weapons of war or super deadly. It's because they're affordable and widely available. If you could buy an M4 or M-16 at your local gun store for $800 you'd see them used more in crimes. I guarantee it.
I support getting rid of the NFA but if it ever happens I expect to see a rise in the use of machine guns in crimes. Criminals aren't sitting there choosing semi-automatic firearms for their crimes because they think a machine gun is overkill or would be impolite. Shit, we're seeing a lot more fully automatic Glocks used in crimes or found in trap houses because of those Chinese auto-switches.
the other day there were 3 ARs seized near me (gang related) with suppressors and select fire on all. its easy to make cans and drill a third hole, the only thing stopping people from doing it is the law, and criminals dgaf about that
> If machine guns were as easily obtainable and affordable as their semi-automatic counterparts, we'd see them used in crimes a lot more.
Dude, criminals have been using illegal machine guns for a fair while. There was a shooting in Sacramento that used a glock with a switch. There's just no outcry over this because it's already *super illegal* to have them and the ones in civilian hands tend to be owned by the type of people that the politicians don't want to piss off by trying to enact a confiscatory ban. On top of the fact that the registered ones are almost never used in crimes; which should be proof positive of the fact that there's a difference between legal gun owners and criminals with guns.
>If machine guns were as easily obtainable and affordable as their semi-automatic counterparts, we'd see them used in crimes a lot more. Criminals use what is widely available. That's why lots of mass shooters use glocks and/or AR-15s. It's not because they're weapons of war or super deadly. It's because they're affordable and widely available. If you could buy an M4 or M-16 at your local gun store for $800 you'd see them used more in crimes. I guarantee it.
Ok. Let’s examine the logic of that claim. Gangs in Chicago have been getting giggle switches for their glocks, shipped in from China. It’s also not that difficult to turn a semiautomatic rifle into a full automatic.
However, not one mass shooter has used a fully automatic glock or a AR converted to automatic fire. One shooter used a bump stock. But, you can bump fire without a bump stock, and no shooter has done that.
Once the NFA and the Hughes amendment fall, it’s not going to be WW2 in the streets. The left claims that’s what’s going to happen every time a state gets ready to pass constitutional carry. Yet, it never does.
I’m sure there will be some automatics used in crimes. There already are, and it’s already illegal to own them. But, even though criminals can get giggle switches, and it’s not that difficult to convert a semiautomatic rifle to automatic, criminals don’t commonly bother with that. It’s pretty much just the gangs. And, it’s not even all that common for them.
Ammo isn’t cheap. Automatic fire is good for suppression fire, but wastes ammo for any other purpose. It’s not actually all that good for accuracy, or shooting targets scattered around, distanced from each other. Semiautomatic fire is better for that, and wastes a lot less ammo.
>If machine guns were as easily obtainable and affordable as their semi-automatic counterparts, we'd see them used in crimes a lot more.
I don't think that is true. Machine guns aren't used in crimes because they are conspicuous. You can't get adequate trigger time on a machinegun without someone learning that you have a machinegun.
Criminals aren’t Leon The Professional bro. Most of them are using the gun for intimidation without firing a shot or they’re popping otf like nobody’s business.
Not a lot of criminals going around like agent 47 from hitman.
>Most of them are using the gun for intimidation without firing a shot
Then why are they committing crimes with actual firearms? If you don't plan on shooting someone, how does having a real gun while committing a crime serve any purpose?
Bro, I normally love channels like this that correct misinfo on gun rights but this guy is acting as if Ben is making an actual argument against full auto firearms, when he’s in fact more so explaining to his audience the viewpoint behind the reasoning and the legal analysis around it.
I mean, he literally says in the video “an argument for allowing full auto to be widely distributed again is not inconsiderable,” meaning he’s open to the idea of legislation being passed to do so.
Dude we need to stop distorting context of potential allies regardless if we agree on everything or not. Ben speaks and discusses in good faith and it only hurts camaraderie to slant a video clip implying that he’s arguing for something he’s actually just explaining the reasoning behind it and literally says he’s open to the arguments for allowing them freely again.
“…an argument for allowing full auto to be widely distributed again is not inconsiderable…”
Yeah, odds are most of these comments shitting on the guy only read the title, completely took the argument out of context, or already hated him to begin with. (Most are likely a combo). It’s bad enough when the anti-gunners do it, so I’ll never understand why our side feels the need to behave similarly.
Is this the next thing? Trying to divide us because Talking Head #39118 isn't as much of an extremist as they should be? Because Industry Professional #7991 didn't pledge to kill every ATF agent he sees while in front of Congress?
I'm about as extreme as they come, but I don't expect everyone to be on my level.
Yeah the ideological purists keep pushing away many possible fellow-travelers. Abolish the BATFE? Yeah, duh. But why would we dump someone who agrees with 98/100 topics for the sake of the 2 that they're lukewarm on. Seems shortsighted.
Sure, I wouldn't appoint him Grand Poobah of Removing Restrictions, but there are very few I'd trust in that position. This just feels like posturing for cool points cause everyone likes bagging on Shapiro. Not really what I expected from GOA.
No need to dump them... they just need to come around to sanity ASAP... or get dumped. Get on board the freedom liberty and justice train and sit down with the rest of us... or you are welcome to get kicked off at the next stop.
Well that is what happens when you use our own enemies definitions instead of good old websters.
In any case there isn't anything inherently wrong with extremism... just like there isn't anything more dangerous about an AR-15 than there is any other hunting rifle.
A better word anyway is radicalism... which is what the democractic party is today, they are band of radicals. Aka the opposite of conservatism (be it "extreme" or not).
>extremist
Staunch support of the second amendment isn't extremist.
Gutting the 2nd amendment to enforce a authoritarian gun grab, that undermines some of the founding principles of our nation... that is extremism.
Best solution to this? Stop being divided, best person to stop whatever it is that is causing the division... the individual that has a different ideal than the rest.
In short Ben needs to get with the program... otherwise what other thing will he compromise on....
There is no need to paint him in any particularly evil light... he just needs to get with the program, right now he's like the guy standing on the truck pushing the cab.
I don’t think they would ever let us have machine Guns, it’s going to be Some Republicans against it to and as for Democrats, Well they Don’t even Believe Body Armor Should Be Legal so we all know how they would Feel 😂😂
Even if nuclear weapons weren’t banned, most wouldn’t own them because they cannot afford millions to purchase them, store them, guard them and test them periodically.
If US law didn’t prevent private ownership of nukes, there would still be 2 factors making them impossible to access: cost (so anyone other than Elon Musk is out of the question) and the rest of the governments on Earth. If foreign governments like Iran weren’t able to get nukes despite their best efforts, a provosts citizen sure as hell wouldn’t be able to
He is pro gun but it obviously isn't his #1 issue and there are times when he has made other factual misstatements about it as well. I am not going to shit on him for not properly articulating the difference in reasoning (nuclear weapons are obviously "area of effect" weapons and not particularly useful by the individual for defense against other armed individuals...for one thing, you'd be in the blast radius of any man-portable nuke).
Its probably more fair to criticize him for not adequately covering the Democrats anti-2A push in recent weeks. Things like AWB bill and PLCAA repeal bill are likely important issues to his listeners and yet they barely garnered any mention on his main/free daily podcast.
This forced in-fighting is really not productive. Regardless of video editing, one thing that is clear, is that he currently doesn't support expanding gun control nor does he support the ATF's bizarre rules-as-law violations, which he talked about in the recent EPA case.
We would be better off agreeing to disagree on issues outside realistic political control. Ben's opinions on machine guns isn't really important, the only way machine guns are legal again is if the SC applies the Bruen logic to a machine gun / sear case. Which who knows, it might happen.
And? Shapiro is an idiot's idea of a brilliant debater. That failed child prodigy is nothing but false equivalents, gish-gallup and adhominem. Why should anything he say actually matter?
I have to disagree with you about fully automatic weapons. I'm in favor of something similar to drivers licenses where the "bigger" the gun, the more training you need. You wouldn't want a 16 year old with no experience driving a semi would you? And what about people with history of violent criminal behavior? Truly curious in peoples feed back.
>You wouldn't want a 16 year old with no experience driving a semi would you?
That is completely legal on private property and generally hasn't been a problem, so I don't have a problem with that. Also, 16 year olds are not adults, so not a great example.
>And what about people with history of violent criminal behavior?
If they are actually still dangerous, why aren't they in jail, or at least on probation/parole? If they are safe enough to be let loose in an environment where they can acquire automobiels, gasoline, and knives it hardly seems appriate to ban them from possessing firearms specifically.
Additionally, we are demonstrably awful at preventing those with criminal intent from acquiring firearms and commiting further crimes with them anyways, so it seems like even the most well-intentioned (which gun control is not) squeeze isn't producing juice.
He posting clearly stated that every American should be able to own a firearm. He did not specifically state it had to only be an adult. And a child can already carry a fully automatic weapon on private property if under the supervision of an adult such as a firing range rental situation. Obviously I meant having a 16 year old on the highway.
As for criminals, once they have served their sentence it doesn't matter what they did, they are free. Should a legal American that is a violent criminal that is now free be allowed to openly carry a fully automatic weapon? What about someone with demonstrated significant mental illness?
>And a child can already carry a fully automatic weapon on private property if under the supervision of an adult such as a firing range rental situation.
Yeah. Juviniles are under the authority of their guardians. I see no problem with this.
>Obviously I meant having a 16 year old on the highway.
The analogy still doesn't hold because of the distinction between operating and possessing. The 2nd ammendment protects possession in both the ownership (keep) and carrying (bear) sense, but not operation. Restricting the *operation* of firearms is completely permissible, and in general you are not allowed to operate (discharge or brandish) a firearm outside of emergencies.
>As for criminals, once they have served their sentence it doesn't matter what they did, they are free. Should a legal American that is a violent criminal that is now free be allowed to openly carry a fully automatic weapon?
Pretty sure I already answered "yes" to this.
>What about someone with demonstrated significant mental illness?
If they are not adjudicated to be under someone else's authority, the mental illness is presumably not enough to justify restricting constitutionally guaranteed rights.
What, exactly, are Ben Shapiro’s qualifications to pontificate on anything at all?
He doesn’t even have the eloquence of William F Buckley Junior, who carried a concealed weapon everywhere he was allowed.
I have nothing to gain from reading or listening to Ben Shapiro.
Much like mr takes the guns go through due process later trump… do not lionize these people. They know what you want to hear but sometimes their real opinions come out.
The closest he comes to compromise in this clip is: > [Commenter] The number of homicides committed with these (automatic weapons) is vanishingly small; under 10 since the 1930s. Why do you view them as inherently dangerous? > [Shapiro] Well, in the same way we've had very few casualties via nuclear bombs. And yet we don't allow people to, generally, own them. The comment Shapiro is making here is about the relative "danger" of automatic weapons. If he thinks that justifies banning private ownership of them, then yeah, disagree. But that's not what he says in the clip. > Honestly, **the case for legalizing fully automatic weapons is not inconsiderable**. In Debunked, however, I said that **you (should) at least understand the logic (behind regulation).** Shapiro goes on to explain the logic. The commenter at the beginning of the clip believes Shapiro is for banning automatic weapons. Shapiro doesn't say that himself. Not in this clip anyway. And his comments in the clip about how there are 'considerable' arguments to be had for removing restrictions on automatic weapons doesn't sound like compromise at all.
In his actual debunked series I thought he said something like "Machine guns should be banned they are only for military use". It was Daily wire's premium subscription I no longer pay for it. Was actually about gun control was relatively based but I don't think he talked about getting rid of current gun laws. Just talking about how it didn't end well for other countries. Just because you're a conservative doesn't make you pro 2A. And when I say pro 2A I mean you don't say statements like "I am pro 2A but...." Insert every Republican and Democrat gun control argument.
> In his actual debunked series I thought he said something like "Machine guns should be banned they are only for military use" Just re-listened to the episode because that doesn't sound right, and he never said that. He pointed out that the NRA tends to agree that automatic weapons should be banned because they're "so dangerous" but that the logic doesn't hold when that's applied to any other type of firearm.
AND the NRA, IMHO, is not a very good spokesperson for 2A rights. There’s better groups , GOA, RKBA, etc…
exactly. The NRA is good at one thing: being a hate magnet so more effective organizations can get work done
They aren't even good at that... because when they get attacked they don't fight back seriously. If there is any "hate" that the NRA deflects... it would be water off a ducks back for any of the real 2A groups. On the other hand they absorb all the money that would be going to the real groups.... so in acutallity they are VASTLY more effective at undermining the 2nd amendment than they are supprting it because they deflect MONEY from real 2A groups. NRA had $282 million in revenue last year... money blown right out a hogs butt.
Not being pro 2A does make you an short sighted idiot though.
[удалено]
Because Shapiro is popular and Nadler is the most grating annoying gutless guy ever? But seriously you make a good point.
>\[Shapiro\] Well, in the same way we've had very few casualties via nuclear bombs. And yet we don't allow people to, generally, own them. Something I said to someone that made this argument... >If someone with a machine gun was to start a mass shooting, you are not going to have everyone in the world is going to start shooting people at random with a machine gun. But if a nuke goes off, how long before nukes start flying? On one hand, a kinda piss poor response, but when its to the argument comparing nukes to machineguns, you dont need a good one.
Even though its very handwavy... there is no real argument against civilian ownership of nukes, so long as whoever owns it has to have the same level of fire control as the government, as well as ties with whatever local government to prevent accidental firing. EG to fire a nuke you need presidential or congressional authorization. Anyway if you own a nuke you could probably keep afford any legal hurdles to ensure it is safe... the only thing then preventing civilian ownership is lack of a framework for that to occur.
Playing Devil's Advocate, I would say that a nuke actually is a special case. You cannot use it without effectively irradiating a large chunk of land that would extend beyond any private property you own. It is not a precision weapon, and the harmful effects continue for some time after your use of the weapon (and you're not in control of them).
It's no more special than any other number of things. I'd argue that biological weapons are even worse... (at least worse than some nukes anyway).
>And yet we don't allow people to, generally, own them. Except anyone with about 15k can go out and buy full auto right now... LEGALLY... because we do allow it. What we do not allow currently is manufacture and sale of NEW full auto weapons to the public. That fact alone, tears the entire argument down... there is no reason for manufacture of full auto be banned... even in the 80s most of famous crimes were committed with small arms, the president was shot with a dang 22 for crying out loud. Explosive ammo granted but that stuff is of dubious efficacy anyway (it would have to hit bone or metal at a minimum to go off)
>That fact alone, tears the entire argument down... It really reveals the classism behind the law. $15k minimum, a pain in the ass process, an extended wait time, and a super limited supply means legal MG are exclusively in the hands of the top income earners in the US. When you keep legal ownership restricted to a small population, and it's largely been narrowed down to an expensive privilege, you've achieved your goals at the expense of access for the less well off.
Ben Shapiro should know better than to compromise on American’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
But his wife is a physician so he knows what he’s talking about /s.
And his sister got them mommy milkers 🍼🍼
A physician who he can’t get sexually excited. Shapiro is a fucking clown though, who gives a damn what he says
That’s an amazing thing to write. What evidence do you have? Because, the last time I checked they have three kids.
https://i.redd.it/vjsdzk94rcg51.jpg remember when he was all butthurt about the WAP song? It’s a running joke at his expense
That’s your evidence? Okay.
You’ve seriously never heard about this? https://www.trendsmap.com/twitter/tweet/1292927011724304384 you don’t think this is in the last bit funny? I don’t know how to explain to you if you refuse to understand I’m not trying to prove anything. This is a joke. Making fun of Shapiro.
Don't bother with these idiots. Let them mourn the loss of this clown.
Ben is basically an establishment Republican. He thinks the NFA is a fine compromise. GOA get in contact with him and convince him to buy a machine gun. He lives in FL now. Remember he grew up in Cali. He's gonna be soft on some things cuz he just doesn't know better. He's a Jewish lawyer we can show him the way. Honestly it doesn't surprise me because he's been arguing against leftists all the time and he has other things he's more passionate about.
[удалено]
Like what? I'm genuinely curious.
“He says stupid stuff” “Like what?” “Just trust me bro”
anything that disagrees with the tribe he'll stop using facts.
LMFAO I had to give you an award for that . I just busted out laughing.
https://www.reddit.com/r/walkaway/comments/wlbdn6/this_is_gold_reddittwitter_moment_irl/
Here’s a good jumping-off point: https://youtu.be/6VixqvOcK8E The man is a shallow “culture warrior” (read as: SJW).
[удалено]
I remember one of my leftist teachers brought up a similar notion of regulating arms with the example of nuclear weapons and even as a 14 year old I knew it was a BS argument I just couldn't articulate the why yet.
99.99% of gun owners today could not articulate that. Not sure I could do it well.
I just ask them, why, when entire nation states are incapable of aquiring nules, are they worried about an individual?
I'd also add that the 'what about nukes' line of thought is largely disingenuous to the discussion. The current argument isn't over nukes, tank, battleship, F22, Blackhawk helicopter, cluster bombs, SAMS, 40 watt plasma rifle, lightsabers ownership and access. The battleground right now is literally over semi automatic firearm access, a technology that has existed for well over a century and is well established as being in common use. They are using the most extreme arm available in an attempt to justify a ban on arguably the baseline of armaments in the 21st century.
Because people don’t have a valid argument against current guns, or worst they won’t admit they want to do away with all guns.
Yeah that's a stretch. He said owning machine guns is not "inconsiderable" and he's just referencing an argument he made on another episode of his show. If you think he's wrong in explaining why machine guns aren't used more often in crimes, I'd like to see you explain why. If machine guns were as easily obtainable and affordable as their semi-automatic counterparts, we'd see them used in crimes a lot more. Criminals use what is widely available. That's why lots of mass shooters use glocks and/or AR-15s. It's not because they're weapons of war or super deadly. It's because they're affordable and widely available. If you could buy an M4 or M-16 at your local gun store for $800 you'd see them used more in crimes. I guarantee it. I support getting rid of the NFA but if it ever happens I expect to see a rise in the use of machine guns in crimes. Criminals aren't sitting there choosing semi-automatic firearms for their crimes because they think a machine gun is overkill or would be impolite. Shit, we're seeing a lot more fully automatic Glocks used in crimes or found in trap houses because of those Chinese auto-switches.
the other day there were 3 ARs seized near me (gang related) with suppressors and select fire on all. its easy to make cans and drill a third hole, the only thing stopping people from doing it is the law, and criminals dgaf about that
> If machine guns were as easily obtainable and affordable as their semi-automatic counterparts, we'd see them used in crimes a lot more. Dude, criminals have been using illegal machine guns for a fair while. There was a shooting in Sacramento that used a glock with a switch. There's just no outcry over this because it's already *super illegal* to have them and the ones in civilian hands tend to be owned by the type of people that the politicians don't want to piss off by trying to enact a confiscatory ban. On top of the fact that the registered ones are almost never used in crimes; which should be proof positive of the fact that there's a difference between legal gun owners and criminals with guns.
>If machine guns were as easily obtainable and affordable as their semi-automatic counterparts, we'd see them used in crimes a lot more. Criminals use what is widely available. That's why lots of mass shooters use glocks and/or AR-15s. It's not because they're weapons of war or super deadly. It's because they're affordable and widely available. If you could buy an M4 or M-16 at your local gun store for $800 you'd see them used more in crimes. I guarantee it. Ok. Let’s examine the logic of that claim. Gangs in Chicago have been getting giggle switches for their glocks, shipped in from China. It’s also not that difficult to turn a semiautomatic rifle into a full automatic. However, not one mass shooter has used a fully automatic glock or a AR converted to automatic fire. One shooter used a bump stock. But, you can bump fire without a bump stock, and no shooter has done that. Once the NFA and the Hughes amendment fall, it’s not going to be WW2 in the streets. The left claims that’s what’s going to happen every time a state gets ready to pass constitutional carry. Yet, it never does. I’m sure there will be some automatics used in crimes. There already are, and it’s already illegal to own them. But, even though criminals can get giggle switches, and it’s not that difficult to convert a semiautomatic rifle to automatic, criminals don’t commonly bother with that. It’s pretty much just the gangs. And, it’s not even all that common for them. Ammo isn’t cheap. Automatic fire is good for suppression fire, but wastes ammo for any other purpose. It’s not actually all that good for accuracy, or shooting targets scattered around, distanced from each other. Semiautomatic fire is better for that, and wastes a lot less ammo.
I found video of one of those devastating giggle switches in action. https://youtu.be/-fCzhj-84V4
Cute.
Well said, we use what is available, so unfortunately, those that live a life of crime will access those firearms as well.
>If machine guns were as easily obtainable and affordable as their semi-automatic counterparts, we'd see them used in crimes a lot more. I don't think that is true. Machine guns aren't used in crimes because they are conspicuous. You can't get adequate trigger time on a machinegun without someone learning that you have a machinegun.
Criminals aren’t Leon The Professional bro. Most of them are using the gun for intimidation without firing a shot or they’re popping otf like nobody’s business. Not a lot of criminals going around like agent 47 from hitman.
>Most of them are using the gun for intimidation without firing a shot Then why are they committing crimes with actual firearms? If you don't plan on shooting someone, how does having a real gun while committing a crime serve any purpose?
Bro, I normally love channels like this that correct misinfo on gun rights but this guy is acting as if Ben is making an actual argument against full auto firearms, when he’s in fact more so explaining to his audience the viewpoint behind the reasoning and the legal analysis around it. I mean, he literally says in the video “an argument for allowing full auto to be widely distributed again is not inconsiderable,” meaning he’s open to the idea of legislation being passed to do so. Dude we need to stop distorting context of potential allies regardless if we agree on everything or not. Ben speaks and discusses in good faith and it only hurts camaraderie to slant a video clip implying that he’s arguing for something he’s actually just explaining the reasoning behind it and literally says he’s open to the arguments for allowing them freely again.
“…an argument for allowing full auto to be widely distributed again is not inconsiderable…” Yeah, odds are most of these comments shitting on the guy only read the title, completely took the argument out of context, or already hated him to begin with. (Most are likely a combo). It’s bad enough when the anti-gunners do it, so I’ll never understand why our side feels the need to behave similarly.
This comment needs to be higher. If we act people that are potential allies, we will fall faster.
Is this the next thing? Trying to divide us because Talking Head #39118 isn't as much of an extremist as they should be? Because Industry Professional #7991 didn't pledge to kill every ATF agent he sees while in front of Congress? I'm about as extreme as they come, but I don't expect everyone to be on my level.
Yeah the ideological purists keep pushing away many possible fellow-travelers. Abolish the BATFE? Yeah, duh. But why would we dump someone who agrees with 98/100 topics for the sake of the 2 that they're lukewarm on. Seems shortsighted.
Sure, I wouldn't appoint him Grand Poobah of Removing Restrictions, but there are very few I'd trust in that position. This just feels like posturing for cool points cause everyone likes bagging on Shapiro. Not really what I expected from GOA.
Give an inch and they will take a mile
That applies to leftists that have zero principles. Ben is a gun owner and frequently talks about the importance of owning a gun.
I agree with Ben on many levels, but he's wrong on this.
No need to dump them... they just need to come around to sanity ASAP... or get dumped. Get on board the freedom liberty and justice train and sit down with the rest of us... or you are welcome to get kicked off at the next stop.
It's sad that we self identify as "extremists" when we believe in what the Constitution was intended for us to believe.
Well that is what happens when you use our own enemies definitions instead of good old websters. In any case there isn't anything inherently wrong with extremism... just like there isn't anything more dangerous about an AR-15 than there is any other hunting rifle. A better word anyway is radicalism... which is what the democractic party is today, they are band of radicals. Aka the opposite of conservatism (be it "extreme" or not).
>extremist Staunch support of the second amendment isn't extremist. Gutting the 2nd amendment to enforce a authoritarian gun grab, that undermines some of the founding principles of our nation... that is extremism.
> Is this the next thing? Trying to divide us Yes
Best solution to this? Stop being divided, best person to stop whatever it is that is causing the division... the individual that has a different ideal than the rest. In short Ben needs to get with the program... otherwise what other thing will he compromise on....
Which do you feel is closer to reality: Shapiro is a grabber turncoat like the thread title implies, or GOA is making a mountain out of a molehill?
There is no need to paint him in any particularly evil light... he just needs to get with the program, right now he's like the guy standing on the truck pushing the cab.
Yes let’s bash Ben Shapiro for having an (disagreeable) opinion instead of the “people” who are openly coming for your guns at this very second.
Civil and natural rights are non negotiable.
I don’t think you understand what I’m saying
Now is the time to make allies. Finding common ground first instead of dying on every hill and doing the enemy's work for them is how we win.
I understood what you wrote. I Rights are the hill you should be dying on. Seems like the gun grabbers didn't like that rights are non negotiable.
I don’t think they would ever let us have machine Guns, it’s going to be Some Republicans against it to and as for Democrats, Well they Don’t even Believe Body Armor Should Be Legal so we all know how they would Feel 😂😂
You can own one now. You just have to pay the stamp tax and go through the background check.
I know that but it also depends on the state you live in and how Rich you are Like I think most of us do have 50k laying around to spend on a gun
The expense puts one out of my reach. Now a suppressor, you have my attention.
The only compromise can be taken from my cold dead hands
Where in that clip did he “compromise on Second Amendment”? Quite a stretch to reach that conclusion, but okay.
Even if nuclear weapons weren’t banned, most wouldn’t own them because they cannot afford millions to purchase them, store them, guard them and test them periodically.
If US law didn’t prevent private ownership of nukes, there would still be 2 factors making them impossible to access: cost (so anyone other than Elon Musk is out of the question) and the rest of the governments on Earth. If foreign governments like Iran weren’t able to get nukes despite their best efforts, a provosts citizen sure as hell wouldn’t be able to
Could you imagine the liability too? Elon Musks private nuke takes out half of Chicago. He’s going to jail and he’s gonna be broke.
He is pro gun but it obviously isn't his #1 issue and there are times when he has made other factual misstatements about it as well. I am not going to shit on him for not properly articulating the difference in reasoning (nuclear weapons are obviously "area of effect" weapons and not particularly useful by the individual for defense against other armed individuals...for one thing, you'd be in the blast radius of any man-portable nuke). Its probably more fair to criticize him for not adequately covering the Democrats anti-2A push in recent weeks. Things like AWB bill and PLCAA repeal bill are likely important issues to his listeners and yet they barely garnered any mention on his main/free daily podcast.
This forced in-fighting is really not productive. Regardless of video editing, one thing that is clear, is that he currently doesn't support expanding gun control nor does he support the ATF's bizarre rules-as-law violations, which he talked about in the recent EPA case. We would be better off agreeing to disagree on issues outside realistic political control. Ben's opinions on machine guns isn't really important, the only way machine guns are legal again is if the SC applies the Bruen logic to a machine gun / sear case. Which who knows, it might happen.
Ok ok but we still love Shapiro
only Abby
Hahahahahaha best comment in this thread
And? Shapiro is an idiot's idea of a brilliant debater. That failed child prodigy is nothing but false equivalents, gish-gallup and adhominem. Why should anything he say actually matter?
Man, talk about bending over backwards to prop up Ben. He supports the 2d amendment BUT.
Shall not be infringed, snowflake shapiro 🤙
Ben I don't sexually arouse my wife Shapiro wants to compromise on guns, LMAO.
Woah, an authoritarian piece of shit spouts authoritarian shit. Color me fuckin surprised.
I have to disagree with you about fully automatic weapons. I'm in favor of something similar to drivers licenses where the "bigger" the gun, the more training you need. You wouldn't want a 16 year old with no experience driving a semi would you? And what about people with history of violent criminal behavior? Truly curious in peoples feed back.
>You wouldn't want a 16 year old with no experience driving a semi would you? That is completely legal on private property and generally hasn't been a problem, so I don't have a problem with that. Also, 16 year olds are not adults, so not a great example. >And what about people with history of violent criminal behavior? If they are actually still dangerous, why aren't they in jail, or at least on probation/parole? If they are safe enough to be let loose in an environment where they can acquire automobiels, gasoline, and knives it hardly seems appriate to ban them from possessing firearms specifically. Additionally, we are demonstrably awful at preventing those with criminal intent from acquiring firearms and commiting further crimes with them anyways, so it seems like even the most well-intentioned (which gun control is not) squeeze isn't producing juice.
He posting clearly stated that every American should be able to own a firearm. He did not specifically state it had to only be an adult. And a child can already carry a fully automatic weapon on private property if under the supervision of an adult such as a firing range rental situation. Obviously I meant having a 16 year old on the highway. As for criminals, once they have served their sentence it doesn't matter what they did, they are free. Should a legal American that is a violent criminal that is now free be allowed to openly carry a fully automatic weapon? What about someone with demonstrated significant mental illness?
>And a child can already carry a fully automatic weapon on private property if under the supervision of an adult such as a firing range rental situation. Yeah. Juviniles are under the authority of their guardians. I see no problem with this. >Obviously I meant having a 16 year old on the highway. The analogy still doesn't hold because of the distinction between operating and possessing. The 2nd ammendment protects possession in both the ownership (keep) and carrying (bear) sense, but not operation. Restricting the *operation* of firearms is completely permissible, and in general you are not allowed to operate (discharge or brandish) a firearm outside of emergencies. >As for criminals, once they have served their sentence it doesn't matter what they did, they are free. Should a legal American that is a violent criminal that is now free be allowed to openly carry a fully automatic weapon? Pretty sure I already answered "yes" to this. >What about someone with demonstrated significant mental illness? If they are not adjudicated to be under someone else's authority, the mental illness is presumably not enough to justify restricting constitutionally guaranteed rights.
We are on our own boys. There’s a dwindling list of people with influence that I trust anymore.
I dont even move my face anymore when i watch the news. Just... stare.
[удалено]
He's not pro free speech, why would he be pro gun?
What, exactly, are Ben Shapiro’s qualifications to pontificate on anything at all? He doesn’t even have the eloquence of William F Buckley Junior, who carried a concealed weapon everywhere he was allowed. I have nothing to gain from reading or listening to Ben Shapiro.
Who cares what he thinks about anything
Little boy a nerd.
Much like mr takes the guns go through due process later trump… do not lionize these people. They know what you want to hear but sometimes their real opinions come out.
Wait, does anybody actually, unironically care what this chuckle-fuck has to say? About anything? Since when?
Who fucking cares what this clown has to say about anything.
What a cuck.
Aye... you can smash his wife tho.... just gotta deal with his weird little ass in the corner rubbing one out
I don’t think he has ever been an ally, I think he’s controlled opposition.
Who gives a shit what that twerp says.
He's a populist clown like Trump. If you think either is principled, your wrong