Great UC Berkeley Gun Rights Debate (video)

[darrenlobo]

http://youtu.be/Ma7FVqoOtUg

What a hidden gem! This is an unlisted video of a gun rights debate. The clowns at UC Berkeley must not have liked that John Lott destroyed the gun grabbers.

For anyone going into a debate or discussion of the issue this is must watch!

(For some reason it won't embed here.)

[Bullets&Whitewalls]

I started to watch it but have to stop now, i tagged the thread to come back to it tonight. Thanks for posting!

[DaveInOroValley]

[DaveInOroValley]

Just finished it and Lott did an amazing job and as expected the anti view was predominately based on emotion and one sided polls and not facts.

[darrenlobo]

Hiding video

Just spent my entire Saturday morning watching the whole video.

I enjoyed watching Lott present specific facts and trends that invalidate gun control and successfully dispute almost all of the arguments that the lady presented. I would definitely say that this was a win for the pro gun side.

I wonder why it is unlisted on youtube?

My guess is that the UC Berkeley clowns didn't like that Lott destroyed their side. They're trying to hide the video while being able to say they posted it online. I was in a gun rights debate on 11/18/12. The gun rights haters of the Thinking Society in Philadelphia made a video of it. They haven't posted it anywhere. I wonder why?

Myself & Concerned Gun Owners of PA have challenged some gun rights haters to debate. Groups like CeasefirePA, Lower Merion United. Don't hold your breath waiting for them to take up the challenge!

[Bainter1212]

Tagged for later.

[wenlee]

Berkeley is a frustrating place.

No surprised that it's unlisted. I debate these kind of people at school all day, they acknowledge that I'm right but "I agree with you, but I still think we should have more gun control..." "Why? I thought you agree with me?" "Yeah but I just do, I dunno."

Help me guys, what do I say to people who are willfully ignorant?

[send it_hit]

tagged

[Rez805]

Grabbing popcorn. And a notepad. Thanks for posting this.

[Trriemferent]

I wanted to punch the camera man but over all it was a good video. It wasnt one sided where we only hear from the anti group. I think both sides got give their point of view

[safewaysecurity]

John Lott is a jedi master. Also would have been nice to have a law professor that actually understood the real history of the 2nd amendment like Dave Kopeln

[Ronin2]

Just watched the entire video. Thanks for tagging it for us. As usual, it came down to emotion vs. reason. I think Lott did an awesome job refuting the anti gun arguments with facts. The problem is that the anti gun crowd does not want to be confused with facts... they just want to 'feel good" about doing something. They have the same approach to crime in general, joblessness and illiteracy.

Ultimately I blame the brake down of the American education system and the purging of "critical thinking" from the curriculum and replacing it with the "its all good" and "every child is a winner" mindset. Without critical thinking you cant analyze data and make value judgements. Without value judgements, "everyone is a winner". Without the ability to look at the gun violence problem critically, you wont be able to make value judgements... just emotional ones... hence the anti gun lobby arguments.

- I was a bit disappointed that no one brought up title 10 US Code defining the militia of the united states as:



I am also disapointed that no one brought up the various discussions of the right to bear arms in the context of the Federalist papers or gun control in the context of the battle of Lexington/Concord when the discussion was on the historical prespective of the 2nd amendment.

The 2nd Amendment expert was very duplicitous in his brief reference to "Miller";
"The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon."

The reason this is a very important decision IMHO is that it provides clear protection for "semi-automatic military style weapons" that would be "reasonably relate the preservation and efficacy of a well regulated militia! This is the very last thing the cun conrtol advocates want. (This point could also be an issue with the regulation of magazine capacity).

[someoneeasy]

I'll need to find time to watch this

[dvcrsn]

The history professor from Stanford demonstrated his ignorance rather thoroughly--Miller addressed which weapons the 2nd amendment dealt with--and I doubt if the gun banners would trumpet a civil rights case where only the lawyer for the government was involved

[Elysium]

Great debate.