Posted on 06/21/2015 9:08:23 PM PDT by MinorityRepublican
"I'm going to talk about something now that sort of splits the crowd a little bit," Australian comedian Jim Jeffries says. "Gun control."
"Don't get excited," he continues, "because the other people have guns!"
"Shhhhh."
In this hilarious act, Jeffries says he believes in the right of Americans to have gun, but seems skeptical of the argument -- often made by gun rights activists often claim -- that Americans need guns for their own security.
"In Australia we had guns, right up until 1996. In 1996 Australia had the biggest massacre on earth. Still hasn't been beaten," Jeffries says. "Now after that they banned guns. Now in the 10 years before Port Arthur, there were 10 massacres. Since the gun ban in 1996, there hasn't been a single massacre since. I don't know how or why this happened. Maybe it was a coincidence."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Still hasn’t been beaten/ What about Anders Behring Breivik?
Your gonna want them guns when the muzzies try to take over.
Wonder why no one has punched his lying teeth out of his lying mouth?
I don’t know for a fact but I would almost bet a paycheck that it didn’t change the violent crime rate a bit. If anything more probably since. Didn’t they have a rash of muzzies targeting coffee shops a while back? In fact, IIRC, while it wasn’t actually in Australia didn’t they have some ragheads blow up some 270 of them a decade or so back? The dope is just a dipsh!t comedian but some one may want to point out a few things to him.
After Australians lost their gun rights, their crime went UP. And they have worked very hard to hide that fact.
“In 1996 Australia had the biggest massacre on earth.”
Um....Nazis? Stalin? Mao? Pol Pot? For that matter, we’re only talking about 35 deaths at Port Arthur. Just about every government in the history of the world can beat 35 deaths.
Yo, Jim, the world can’t afford two Australias.
The inclusion of Hitler into the argument doesn’t help or work much. Shortly after WW I ended....the freely elected parliament was scared to death over a possible ‘red revolution’ coming into Germany from the Soviet Union and knowledge that most all of the German troops who came home....brought their weapons with them. It’s at this point that the first gun control episode occurs, and within a decade....a second measure occurs because of the continuing fear of an internal revolution. Hitler and the Nazis....as they come into power in 1932 simply add one more bit of legislation to the bulky program that already exists....namely forcing all gunsmiths to keep accurate records of their repairs, with serial numbers and names of the owners. Gun control in Germany was in full effect before the Nazis arrived.
When I was working in Australia there were reports almost daily of shootings. Back when they first banned them, two days later a cop was shot with a sniper rifle. Oh, and also home invasions increased - and - should you protect yourself from the invader(s) and they’re injured, you’d be the one going to jail. Yep. One homeowner was able to escape punishment because it couldn’t be decided who had the knife.
Gun control like the Left fantasizes about might actually work on an island nation like Australia. Hand in hand with extremely strict border security (oops, now the Left has a problem) where the government is able to prevent any guns from entering into the country, you might be able to reduce gun violence in time because they can’t be carried in like they can from Mexico or Canada. They have to come by sea or air and the government can better control what enters the country that way.
So there is an apples and oranges difference between the U.S. and Australia as long as you Aussies are willing to accept a police state where all entry points into the country are severely screened.
Jim Jeffries, along with even most Americans, doesn’t understand that Americans possess a fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms.
This right is enumerated by the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution.
This right isn’t for hunting, target practice or even defense against criminal.
It’s much more radical then that.
The right to keep and bear arms is intended as a barrier to government oppression and terror.
That the people possess the ability to rise up against the government.
Without it, all our other rights are nothing but pretty words.
"Oh, Napoleon. Like anybody could know that."
Indeed.
The 2008 Mumbai attack left 184 dead. A few armed citizens would have been useful in that situation.
He had to move to Britain, and is now a Comedian to the Americans on your Left Coast.
You pay him, he's yours
So the Australian massacre was a once in a lifetime event. They should feel stupid for banning them. BTW - The Chinese are moving south because of global cooling. Better start making guns Aussies.
I was thinking that too, but then he does deal with it at the end.
Not the musket business—that was funny but the Constitution doesn’t mention muskets at all. It was a more absolute point the framers were making: the right to bear arms.
The part about drones, is where he gets to it. Kind of makes the whole thing not funny anymore. Kind of refutes his whole shtick. Did the Australians ever have to fight a tyrannical government? Does their whole existence as a nation depend on a fight for liberty? Think before answering.
Hey gasbag, I’ll take a country with unpopular gun laws over a country that $hit$ on the right to do process any day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.