When Gun Owners Become Hypocritical Hippies


Rights come with responsibilities. Understanding this principle is what distinguishes an adult from a child. Yet the gun lobby rejects this basic bargain. You drive a car, you need a license. You sell food, you submit to health inspections. Buy a boat, you must insure it
and pass a test to operate it. Not guns. There is no federal duty to undergo
training or prove competence. No requirement to demonstrate sound mental health or good character. No vision test to prove you can see what you’re shooting at. There’s no obligation on states to report accurately their protective orders to the federal background check system, which is why some 700,000 names are missing from that system. In Canada, an applicant for a gun
license must produce character references including from spouses and ex-spouses, attesting to good character and sound mental health. A gun is a machine to dispense death. Too many chafe against obvious rules that in every other developed country protect people against gun accidents and gun death. “If it feels good, do it.” That was the old hippie slogan. Conservatives usually reject such self-indulgent permissiveness, but not when it comes to guns. Then, it’s the “me generation all the way.”

47 Replies to “When Gun Owners Become Hypocritical Hippies

  1. To be fair, there are overregulations with other products and activities as there are underregulations with guns and shooting.

  2. You drive a car you also need insurance too. So I propose enhanced background checks – the character check is a good one too. And gun safes with EVERY weapon.

  3. Other side “none of these other things are rights, it’s a defense against evil/tyranny, and just no”

    Response read the 2nd amendment; if you want to be part of a well regulated militia Ok
    If you don’t think lowering the number of guns makes people safer or that it would be effective against a military with jdams and cluster bombs your an idiot,
    Lastly if people just say no there are enough guns in circulation that arguments are moot

  4. the fundamental axiom of the video "rights come with responsibilities" is false.

    driving a car is not a right
    owning a boat is not a right

    owning a gun is

  5. I like this video a lot, but I wish the title was less offensive. Obviously this is meant to change minds but how is anybody who doesn’t already agree with these sentiments expected to take this seriously with such an insulting title? I’m disappointed.

  6. Any restrictions placed on one amendment should be but on all amendments, journalist should be licenced and prove they are not mentally ill or bias

  7. Your argument doesn't hold water. Gun rights in America stem from the 2nd Amendment (remember that document??) You shouldn't need permission from government to own firearms; you shouldn't need to pass a fitness or eye exam to own firearms; you just plain need to be a adult U.S. citizen. Only exception would be if you were institutionalized for certain psychiatric disorders. If we needed permission, we would be speaking The King's English today. This is just another video on socialist crap to whittle away our constitutional rights.

  8. As a massage therapist I have to go to a state approved school, take a test, take ongoing continuing education courses and ethics training and can be reviewed by the state board for unethical conduct. I have to get and renew a state license. I own guns but didn’t have to do any of that.

  9. I'm pro-gun, but I would concede that there should be a reasonable safety and competence test and for firearms licensing that should be required to purchase a firearm. Like you said, just like a drivers license. However, I would strongly oppose the requirement for "character references" and "mental evaluation." Those are subjective, flimsy restrictions that treat gun applicants as "guilty until proven innocent."

    A psychopath could easily drive a car into a crowd and we don't require mental health assessments for driver's licenses. Same should go for firearms license.

  10. To be fair, this is a given right, not a privilege like driving a car or boat. Maybe they should start requiring training and licenses to members of the media for free speech. So that moronic people with absolutely no credentials don't go on TV and brainwash our country. In my opinion, the media is a much bigger threat to our country than guns……

  11. Just remember this is the same guy who advocated for the Iraq war.
    We cannot let people like this be acceptable again in polite socity because Trump is bad.

  12. I think there are a lot of different arguments that could be brought up here. I think if you ever want to convince a conservative that guns should be banned, you'd have to give an alternate method for fighting a tyrannical government. As I understand it, gun ownership is the only current way. Another question that should he posed is – what is the price of a human life? I mean we definitely put a price on them. We allow automobiles for our convenience, yet over 1000 kids a year die from them. Should we not pick a number … Say 500 and anything over that number gets banned? This way you aren't picking things you like (cars) but not things you don't ( guns) and being all hypocritical. Philosophically, it doesn't matter why the thing exists. The absolute number of deaths it causes should be the only thing to matter, right? So I propose our first question be " what is that number" . If your answer starts with " it depends", you'd probably have to try really hard to convince me you aren't just picking and choosing hypocritically.

  13. Wasnt this the same guy who wanted to go to war with iraq? You know the whole war fought based on a lie? Countless people lost their lives? Now hes going to lecture me on firearms? Ok there big morally superior politician

  14. You realize that the NRA are pushing for those missing names to be put into the database, right?

  15. Defending yourself is a natural born right. Not a privilege like driving. Criminals don't bother with any of your so called "common sense law" You ultimate goal is to ban all firearms plain and simple. Speak the truth and at least will respect your honesty.

  16. Non of the things you mentioned prior to gun ownership are in the constitution. Guns have drove crime down. While 33000 people may have died from guns 500,000 to 2.5 million were save according to CDC. Its irresponsible to post this propaganda.

  17. Driving a vehicle is a privilege, not a right. Selling food is not a right. practicing medicine is not a right, selling alcohol, not a right. Free speech is a right, to keep and bear arms is a right. Frum's argument is invalid.

  18. The problem is no one wants responsibility. So they look to the government to enforce responsibility. Which is a governing body that enacts rules and regulations as a standard. Soon you'll need permission from the Office of Maternity to have a child. You'll need to be evaluated, inspected, conditioned, and licensed.

  19. Wasn’t this dude on the Bush administration…he’s literally a war criminal. David from is an establishment hack 100%

  20. It is a right of the people and a personal responsibility. That's how mature adults live their lives…personally responsible.
    How obtuse and underhanded to conflate rights and privileges.

  21. Declaring equivalency between cars and guns no doubt provides a clever quip for a facile, off-hand, quickie argument. But cars are not guns. Pretending so — committing the error of category confusion — fails in at least two ways:

    1. Automobile (or more broadly, transportation) rights did not get a constitutional amendment. On that ground alone we are talking about two different things. Why? One pertains to the basic human right of survival through self defense and protection. The other one doesn't.

    2. Automobile licensing and proficiency testing may offer some common lessons learned to improve gun ownership in terms of proficiency and safety. But a car owner improves proficiency and safety through continual, usually daily use of his/her vehicle. Even police officers do not use their guns every day. Some never use them outside of a firing range, which they must attend for regular training and testing. Should common citizens submit to the same or similar rigor? If so, by what and whose standards, and at what cost? How will this requirement (gun classes and range shooting can get expensive) not discriminate against the poorest of us?

    Then, we must consider how well all the licensing and proficiency evaluation helps in the ways we want "common sense" gun control measures to work — namely to reduce gun violence. When it comes to car ownership, have licensing and proficiency evaluation accomplished that goal? Hardly. Car related deaths, either through accidental or felonious means, far outstrip gun deaths. On the other side of the ledger, some of the most deadly shootings have been at the hands of gun owners proficient in the use of their guns.

    And for the clincher, do we really expect that ex-spouses are going to give favorable character references? Has anyone visited a divorce court lately? Please.

  22. Ahh, less then 5 seconds in, and that's where certain "god chosen" people and their CULT of brainless minions, consider Constitutional rights as a "bargain" to be constantly renegotiated in their favor.

    This insanity will end, there is no alternative, it will end, the only question is how badly will it end and with how much damage to the world.

  23. Driving a car is not a right, buying a boat is not a right, those are not good analogies. Plus, if rights come with responsibilities, and you say an example of gun rights being responsibly exercised is to how in Canada you need character references to buy one, does that mean to exercise my right of free speech here on YouTube I first need character references? Moreover, if you've ever been to a gun range, you will find they have plenty of safety rules you must follow. "Guns are machines that dispense death"–is that necessarily a bad thing? Was the 101st Airborne at Bastogne bad for "dispensing death" at the SS Panzers?

  24. Being required to have a license from the Government to Simply own a firearm is complete bs. Why should I have to ask the Government to exercise my right? let alone ask for a license. There's nothing to it when it comes a firearm in learning how to properly use one. The right to self defense of person, liberty, and state is a RIGHT and not a PRIVILEGE. All of the things you mentioned in your stupid argument are privileges. Those who commit treason upon the people shall be the first ones to hang.

  25. Again the child blabbering BS from the wrong orifice, yeah there is a big difference between a right and a privilege. Also might want to read up on State laws noncommercial vehicle drivers or non-commerce usage of a vehicle 99% of the people do not realize a drivers license is not mandatory either.

  26. Damn, Frum, is it too much to ask you to stand closer to the razor and clean yourself up a bit when you sit before a camera?

  27. The man's argument is flawed. We are talking about a pre existing right, that the Bill of Rights was written to keep government from infringing on. "Do you need a license from the government to speak…no" As to needing a licence and insurance for driving a vehicle, not a God given right. In fact, when cars first came out, no licence or insurance was required. But soon it became clear that some rules had to be enacted for the safety of everyone else. I do agree that with power comes great responsibility (Wait a minute…did I just take a quote from a movie?)

  28. You just compared privileges to rights. You can lose your privileges, such as driving a car, I don’t need your approval when it comes to my rights.
    Should I have to pass an IQ test to be afforded the freedom of speech? I don’t see everyone in an uproar to limit free speech, unless you’re a leftist attacking people for a different opinion.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *