American History Teacher Responds to Kraut's Origin of American Gun Culture
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 бер 2023
- America has a gun culture the boggles the minds of non-Americans. What are the origins of American gun culture though? Kraut is a popular German UA-camr and explains what he thinks the origins are. Mr. Terry responds with his own thoughts. There are some things Mr. Terry disagrees with!
Original Video: • The Origins of America...
Links:
Gaming channel: / mrterrygaming
Discord - / discord
Twitter: / mrterryhistory
Twitch: / mrterryhistory
Tik Tok: / mrterryhistory
Instagram: / mrterryhistory
Facebook - / mr-terry-history-10913...
TeeSpring - mr-terry-history.creator-spri...
Patreon - / mrterry
Streamlabs - streamlabs.com/mrterry2
PayPal - paypal.me/mrterryhistory
For all business inquiries: contact@tablerockmanagement.com
What do you think it will take to change the American gun culture?
Banning lobbying
Subjugation.
@@plmPissekatt nope
I don't want it changed. But if you ask "what" it would take, the answer would easily be some kind of cataclysmic situation.
How about this question: why should our culture be changed?
When the US separated from England and rejected feudalism they had to deal with an important question: What does it mean to no longer have separate nobility and commoners? Is everyone a commoner ruled by an authoritarian state, or is everyone more like an ideal British nobleman with some level of real personal sovereignty? The English Civil War and John Locke meant that the wealthy US property owners really took seriously classical liberal ideals like The Rights of Englishman and God Given Natural Rights. "The right to keep and bear arms" has long been a sign of nobility, or at least freedom; peasants not getting weapons is pretty standard throughout the world and the past. "A man's home is his castle" is another similar phrase. The US went one way on that question, but much of the rest of the world went the other way - Imperial Japan being the archetypal example with exactly the expected result for gun culture. So yes, if we lose the cultural norm of private property and revert to pseudo-feudalism, universal gun ownership probably will be one of the first things to go.
Thanks for sharing!
feudalism in the British Isles effectively ended during the aftermath of the Black Death. Yes, it clung on and we still have echoes of it even today, but as a political system it had ended long before the 3rd British Civil War (US War of Independence)
@@InucroftU.S war of Independence would be more like the 4th British Civil war.
Gun ownership may become less popular as a result of pseudo-fuedalism but that by itself is no reason that it would end. Most gun owners today rarely shoot their firearms but still take an active interest them.
@@Inucroft then how do pass laws in england that prevent people from owning gun
Something to add about the civil war is that the ability for confederate soldiers to keep their rifles was seen as an open expression of reintegration back into the United States. It essentially said that even though they had rebelled, they were still citizens of the united states, and still were afforded the rights of a citizen. It was a massively successful form of reconciliation that was stated openly by former soldiers as one of the reasons that they didn't continue in rebellion.
Until they saw black men with guns.
@@kgra8346 yup. That’s why from then on gun laws through the country were designed to thwart black gun ownership. Hell even RR banned loaded open carry after the panthers did it in the 60s. The less racial version of gun culture we have now is a recent thing.
Almost all gun control can be traced back to Jim crow laws in the south
They didn't always get to keep their guns. The last standing CSA army didn't get that unless they were officers. There are thousands of firearms buried in an area above Durham. Now, that wasn't what Grant had negotiated, but Congress got involved and....there ya go. Sad, because those guns were THE most valuable asset most of those enlisted men had in their household (most were privately owned, not issued).
In general though, you are spot on. Those guns put food on the table.
@@kgra8346 Thus, the beginnings of gun control laws. Stayed that way until 1968 too.
The big thing Kraut got wrong/ignored IMHO is that the American Civil War is possibly the lead cause of American Gun Culture. One the one side you had the South which had not only higher gun ownership due to being more rural and therefore a higher need to defend your own property, but also in their mind have been on the recieving end of the "Tyranical North". And on the other side you have the North which got a bit caught with the pants down, because less people owned guns and therefore knew how to handle one and also after the war were more invested in not letting that happen again.
Also they were scared to death of their slaves, why do you think the 2nd amendment itself specifies well regulated militias.
@@mk-ultraviolence1760 “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.”*
@@Lobsterwithinternet that had to do with the founders wanting state militias instead of a standing federal army. Actually bother to learn context
@@avinashreji60 I have.
Do you happen to know the definition of a militia in regards to the constitution?
Let me enlighten you.
10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are-
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
@@avinashreji60 He was pointing out to MK-Ultra Violence that the second amendment didn't say anything about protecting oneself from ones slaves. I felt it was blatantly obvious myself, but I guess not.
Kinda surprised the “barely enacted any regulations to limit the ownership of firearms” claim went unchecked considering we’ve had almost of massive gun regulation being passed since 1930
Yup, over 26,000! Gun laws on the books in the US.
@@FreckleAkane does that include state laws or just federal?
From the view of a European barely any by comparison.
@@elvanallen8832 ok? And? Just because guns aren’t banned in the US doesn’t mean we don’t have gun laws
@@Crazy_Broke_Asian Guns are not banned in Europe that's some stupid misinformation which has to stop. Many people here in Europe have guns, especially on the country side, It's just that the regulations are more strict especially regarding acquisition, storage and carrying arms in public. You have to get also a license similar to a driver license and have a psychiatric attest that you are not disabled or mental unstable, there are definitely more hoops to jump through compared to many states in the US.
Originally the spanish looked for gold but that was short lived after a while they had established colonies and structure and used the encomienda system to enrich themselves
It also shows with how the Spanish and British managed their assets as encomiendas were considered provinces of Spain proper rather than as politically lesser colonies.
With the spanish conquest of the Aztecs it absolutely was in large part a military conquest. With their native allies they laid siege to the capital Tenochtitlan and took it, allowing them to do a form of conquest similar to that in europe. Smallpox killed a massive number of aztecs, but was only part of why they fell. Fun fact, the Spanish ran low on gunpowder for their cannons during the siege so they built trebuchets. It was the last time those are recorded being used in combat.
And comically, the trebuchet broke because the boulder fell back on it due to none of the conquistadors being engineers and knowing how to build one properly.
@@leholen381even funnier it went straight up 90 degrees
I do believe his point was made on the massive population decline following, obviously the Incas and Aztecs were forced into the Spanish empire, it’s just that many tend to say/believe that the European violence is responsible for the massive population declines, which isn’t true
@@braxton7577 It was certainly part of it. The Spanish spent 42 years of total war brutally conquering the Inca. And they were doing shit like offering a bounty on any and all Apache scalps for 300 years.
Loving that Kraut is getting more reactions from history specialists.
He makes very react-able content
@@MrTerry The Meme that the Pilgrims were persecuted is a myth. They kinda escaped England yes to The Netherlands. But they left The Netherlands because they deemed it TOO FREE !Q!!
Yes I love Kraut his videos are great even tho i dont agree with all his views the videos are nicely put together. Hope Terry reacts on the turkish century videos
He’ll never be able to redeem himself tbh after all the bs he did years ago
@1CE His weird way to try justify what the allies did in ww2 and even more so to justify what the US did in Vietnam was what made me look critically at his views nevertheless his videos are entertaining to look at/listen too. They are overall well made. I just greatly differ in my viewpoints and do say so when I comment. There is no reason for me not to watch his videos. However, I do understand everyone who doesn't want to watch his videos based on his early works/viewpoints.
It shouldn't end. Because my Hmong people have a history of being oppressed by government. And we had to flee Qing China, and adopted guns to defend us from future despots. As you pointed out, we are slowly become serfs to the government, landlords and the big banks if we don't own any form of property.
冰淇淋
The defense of life I think is what will keep firearms ownership high in the US. I owned guns before I owned a house, and you can be a renter and want to defend your life with a gun, also carrying a gun with self defense in mind is a common thing.
Exactly
Higher crime rates will only further deter wanting to give them away
@@1CE. i think once people have a right to anything they are less willing to give it up. European countries never had a right to bear arms and the attitude has always been peasants are unarmed. We did away with that distinction and have the right to everyone. People very rarely give control to their governments willingly.
Plus, now even Florida has permit less carry, which means now, for the first time in a long time, the majority of the US has constitutional carry once again! The left is losing this fight, and they're failing on birth control abortion as well!
@@SeanWinters when it comes to constitutional carry the left say things like people will carry guns and gun fights will erupt in the streets, and I say those people who do it are already carrying wether it’s legal or not.
@@1CE. Crime rates are on a downward trajectory though, have been ever since 1992 with the only exception being the shitshow that was 2020. Arguably, loosening carry laws contributed to the decline in crime.
The issue with the idea that moving to a rental society will change gun laws is that even living in a rented property, your property is in there, your possessions. It's still defending "your home."
But the difference is that you don't need to defend yourself as much since you don't have to defend your property a long ways away from law enforcement, which is what private ownership of guns was for in the first place.
@@Lobsterwithinternet i think something kraut missed is now gun ownership is now more geared to defending yourself and your loved ones
@@Lobsterwithinternet And we've seen how waiting for cops has been working out. It would also require Americans to trust the General, State, and Local Governments, which many don't for good reason.
Here's another point, why wouldn't the owner of a property that they are renting out to somebody not want the renter to defend their property for them?
@@Lobsterwithinternet if talking about America, gun ownership was meant for defense, however not just from criminals, but also from tyrannical government and the overreach of authority.
pakistan also has gun culture, it's pretty developed too, owning a gun is like some honorary title.
a lot artisans there build the guns (and ammo) it is quite impressive
And they often build weapons with very limited tools, sometimes even with their bare hands. Based off my experience, gun culture seems to be at its strongest in the province of Khyber Pakhtunkwa and their gun culture seems to stem from life on the frontier rather than property ownership, but this is just from what I’ve seen and heard
That's interesting! Is there anywhere I can watch or read more about that?
@@soffren vice made a video about it. Try searching “Pakistani gun making” on UA-cam and you’ll find plenty of videos
@@soffren i do not remember the precise links, but there were a couple of videos about the town of darra adam khel, which is one of the biggest gun centers in pakistan.
Who are some of the better Pakistani gunsmiths?
15:09 Think about the era in which the Civil War was fought as well. There was still a huge landmass to populate, there were still Native tribes that were living on very valuable land that the settlers wanted to take, there was still the possibility of European powers interfering with continent (whether they would or not is immaterial, it's the POTENTIAL that the citizens would look at), and there was still the myths and legends of the American Minutemen in the still relatively recent War of Independence. The Civil War was too close to all these factors - factors which reinforced the idea of gun ownership for protection of self and the nation. Despite the idea of private gun ownership having allowed the South to arm in rebellion, the other factors were major contributors and frankly I feel that at that time, in that era, the idea of amending the Constitution to remove the 2nd would be absolutely preposterous in the face of all the other factors.
We're a bit far from those factors but now there are cultural factors and the culture war that is a major influence on the American gun conversation. I don't feel that America will EVER follow Europe in this. It's not only tied to our culture itself - though primarily in the rural areas of the nation - but it's tied into the very mythos of the country in a way that would make the enforcement of any sort of ban potentially spark some sort of ... let's say crisis since what that crisis would look like would very much be tied to the situation and environment that the ban would be introduced.
To be fair, I'm a supporter of the 2nd but ... yeah, there needs to be SOMETHING done to stem the madness that is the mass shootings. People with no hope and nothing to live for OR who feel that violence is the only solution to have their voice heard are dangerous - maybe, just maybe, we oughta find out WHY those folks are losing hope or feel as though they have no voice and, you know, SOLVE THAT instead of focusing on the symptom of the problem. As harsh as it may seem, mass shootings are a symptom of a deeper issue and not the issue in and of itself.
If they really wanted to cut down on the mass shootings they would reopen all of the psychiatric hospitals that were shut down, then require people with serious mental health issues to stay there.
That would reduce the homeless population and the likelihood of this stuff happening.
I was raised around guns and hunting. I raised my kids the same way. My kids have respect for guns. They aren't obsessed but know how to use them if needed. If people are taught to use them safely and properly it's not a bad thing. I would call myself gun obsessed but ai appreciate having the guns I own.
I met about fifteen gun owners, and exactly one of them had any concept of what gun safety even was. For the rest, the firearm exclusively existed to stand-in for their genitals in a phallic exercise.
@@dashiellgillingham4579 Growing up with hunters, and in NY of all places, then joining the Marines, I have met many hundreds of gun owners or at least gun users without ever being interested in them myself, and my experience has been the complete opposite of yours. In fact, it is a requirement in the military to learn about gun safety even if you don't always follow it. You literally cannot pass bootcamp and can get kicked out afterwards without knowing how to safely use a gun both academically and practically. It is important to expand beyond our own personal bias and experiences when dealing with such a large issue.
@@dashiellgillingham4579 I push saftey. I am trained to conceal carry and grew up hunting, where I grew up hunters safety courses were required. I agree saftey is something that should taught. However many people get lazy and don't keep up on saftey and practicing.. the 2nd amendment gives us the right to bear arms, they just forgot that many people don't learn how to use them properly.
fascist
@@dashiellgillingham4579 this is absolutely a bald faced lie
My biggest issue with gun control advocates is they often misunderstand or flat out misrepresent statistics on gun violence and overall they are very unrealistic when it comes to what can actually be done about the civilian firearm arsenal in the United States. Statistically speaking gun violence was considerably worse in the 1980s and early 1990s than it is today, many act as though gun violence has never been as bad as it is right now. They often conflate gun homicides with suicides in the "gun deaths" statistics, but they frame it in a way people will assume "gun deaths" is referring to murder specifically. There is no correlation between high rates of gun ownership and gun homicides, but there is a correlation between high rates of gun ownership and suicide. That's why the "gun deaths" is often used to make a point.
A big problem gun control advocates have to overcome is how do you ban or restrict a "want?" If large segments of the population want to own certain types of firearms including the AR-15, there is going to be market for that whether legal or illegal. Considering there are already huge quantities of these types of guns in the civilian population it would be nearly impossible for authorities to constrict or stamp out a firearm black market, which ironically could lead to even more violence and criminality than what exists right now. This doesn't even get into scenarios where various law enforcement agencies, specially sheriffs, may just outright refuse to enforce certain types of gun control laws such as a ban on "assault weapons."
Then there's the concept of what constitutes a "mass shooting." For years "Mass shooting" was defined similar to how the FBI classifies a "mass killing event" which is an event where at least 4 people are *killed* NOT including the perpetrator. Using this definition, there have been about ~90 mass shootings in the United States since 1980. At some point in the 2010s, media outlets and some NGO's started using a different definition of "mass shooting" to where it is now defined as any event where at least 4 people are shot, regardless if there are any fatalities. This is why you now see some statistics that there have been 100 mass shootings so far this year, or somewhere along those lines.
Speaking of mass shootings, this brings up the next issue I have with gun control advocates which is their fixation on so called "assault weapons." In reality, according to the FBI's annual UCR roughly ~1-2% of all gun homicides are committed using a long rifle of any kind, including the now notorious AR-15. These types of firearms are very rarely used to kill people. About ~95-96% of all gun homicides are committed with hand guns, and that % jumps to about 98% with suicide. When taking this into account, it leads myself (and many other probably) to 2 possible conclusions:
#1: Gun control advocates very much plan to enact bans or heavy restrictions on most or all types of semi-automatics firearms including most hand guns. OR
#2 Gun control advocates have little to no understanding of the relationship between firearms and crime, specifically murder.
Now, as far as being realistic as to what can actually be accomplished. The Unite States has over 400 million privately owned firearms, and that statistic only includes legally owned guns. Can you realistically get the vast majority of those off the street? I think not, not without enacting some extremely authoritarian policies which would involve the mass mobilization of 10's of thousands of police officers, if not more. This doesn't even get into the problem of legality or how large chunks of the population would respond to these types of measures. Worst case scenario you could see some type of armed resistance which would obviously be a disaster.
I'm not even going to get into the conversation of Defensive Gun Use (DGUs.) There was the Kleck study from the 1990s that concluded there was a large amount of DGU's every year, potentially even outnumbering overall crimes committed with firearms, At some point in the 2000s the CDC replicated this study and came to a similar conclusion, although that study was recently rescinded at the request of the Biden admin. On the other hand, there was also a study conducted by someone affiliated with Harvard that demonstrated a very low number of DGUs, but this study only took into consideration DGU events where someone actually got shot. My personal opinion is I have no idea how many DGU's there are every year, it's a statistic that is basically impossible to get good data on especially since the extreme majority of DGUs do not involve the gun being fired or anyone getting shot.
In conclusion, while I do sympathize with some gun control advocates and support certain measures such as closing the straw purchase loop hole (AKA the "guns show" loophole) I find the tactics of many gun control pushers to be dishonest, misinformed, unrealistic (enact UK/Australian style gun control) or outright engaging in emotional manipulation. I also find certain gun control proposals to be elitist (gun insurance) and otherwise pointless that will do very little to combat gun violence (Banning pistol braces or magazine capacity bans.)
I think from a realist perspective, Americans should understand that guns are always going to be part of the culture, and the best course of action is to enact laws that aim prevent dangerous/mentally ill people from getting them in the first place (red flag laws) or by enacting harsher penalties for people who are irresponsible with firearms or possess firearms illegally instead of trying for unrealistic policies such as mimicking the type of gun control enacted in countries like the UK or Australia.
Sorry Mr. Terry for this extremely long comment but I feel like there is a ton of nuance missing from both sides on this issue and wanted to get my 2 cents in.
Yes people will want guns, yes people will get them illegally, yes there are a lot of them out there that are hard to track, that does not mean "do nothing" is not a viable option. Make people own weapons responsibly, make them registered owners and have cities operate a buyback system to reduce the number of guns out there and finally restrict semi-auto's FULLY around the country unless you have special license. The only solution gun nuts can see is people coming to "take our guns" well just look at Canada and Switzerland they have responsible gun owners and far less deaths from gun violence. Also not sorry for long post, deal with it.
@@MelvinatorB Not going to work. My guns are not for sale, especially to the gov.
@@MelvinatorB Not for a tax break, but what kind of scooby snack are we talking about?
Very good essay, but I must say that the “gun show loophole” is often misrepresented. Gun show sellers must have FFLs (Federal Firearm Liscences) and perform background checks. I have been to several gun shows and all sellers are licensed. The only time unlicensed gun purchases happen are in rural areas where for example someone will trade a rifle for vermin hunting in exchange for other goods.
@@fun_police8011 Exactly right, that's why I avoid the term "gun show loophole" as it doesn't describe the issue at all. I'm not entirely sure why that term caught on in the first place other than the fact politicians kept repeating it as a buzz phrase.
Many countries in Europe have higher rates of gun ownership than the British ex colonies yet kraut here says that they were almost as permissive as the US.
He also said that the US has barely enacted any laws to limit access to guns, what nonsense!
@@chris-porter that's not alot when compared to the rest of the developed world that nothing.
The distinction is how far away the weapon is from the life of the average person in a given population. For Europeans, it was usually issued to you for the purposes of the government, so it was seen as a tool for killing and as something that belonged to the military. For Americans, it was used for hunting, defending a home, killing dangerous wildlife, and recreation. And that tracks with the parts of the US that want gun ownership as a right vs those that want it banned - those that want it as a right tend to still have a private use for it that isn't killing people, while those who want guns banned only ever see them in the context of crime or war.
The correlation with property ownership is not a direct one, and the discrepancies show the flaws in attributing it to property. Home ownership is far higher in areas where population density is far lower for obvious reasons. But property ownership doesn't actually track with sentiments about gun ownership. Delaware, for example, has the second highest rate of home ownership of any US state, 78%, compared with Alaska at 64% and Nevada at 61%. But the more rural states, even with lower home ownership rates, are less accepting of regulation on gun ownership.
This is a great point. I think a good example of this is changing attitudes on pistol ownership. Prior to the 1980s pistols were rarely seen in media aside for killing, crime and war, and were generally banned for carry for most civilians. Since then, all states have liberalized relative to the 1980s in terms of pistol ownership and now something near 90% of Americans believe pistols should be legal as opposed too 37% in the 50s, even among people who support banning ‘assault weapons’. I wouldn’t be surprised if this is due to pistols now being extremely common in the hands of civilians and regularly opened carried in some areas.
@@jaydenbrockington4525 I'm afraid it's nowhere near that recent. Handgun ownership was not that uncommon even in the 19th century and there is a lot of bleed-over from wars with returning soldiers opting for something familiar. There was a reaction in the 1960s and 1970s to a rise in gun violence that lead to NRA-supported legislation restricting handgun ownership in a bid to stave off stricter regulations, and some of that was being dismantled in the 1980s, but handgun ownership was already more common then. It was also frequently shown in a positive light in media of the 1950s and 1960s. The major media push in the late 70s and early 80s was actually diminishing them in children's media, which is why all of a sudden everyone had laser guns in kids shows.
But you can see how common and accepted they were in the toys of various eras. Toy pistols go back a long way in the US. The "cap gun" (a toy that sets off a tiny charge to make a cracking noise) were invented in the 1860s, rubber band guns go back to the 1840s, and pistol style toys of similar design go even further back. The violence of the 60s, particular with the assassination of MLK, was really the tipping point in the US where views shifted against them, and by the 1990s that had reversed due to the backlash.
If you ask me, what I believe is causing an increase in these shootings has to do more with prescription medication. I believe that big pharma has gotten so big that demand has overtaken the supply, and they are now making specific drugs using different substances than before, and that is having an adverse side effect on people.
Example: I’ve been diagnosed with ADD early in my life, so I was prescribed adderall. Around the 8th grade, something happened with the distributor of the brand I normally took and I had to try a different brand. In theory, because it was still adderall and no change in dosage, I shouldn’t have felt any different. However, I became a more angry person. Every little thing pissed me off, and I couldn’t figure out why. Two weeks passed, and my mother suggested I go back to taking the other kind of adderall, and after I did, my anger went away and I returned to normal. I thank my stars that my mother was a pharmacist and thought it might’ve been the drugs causing my mood swings, and she was right.
Over 90% of Americans take some sort of pill or medication every day. You can’t tell me that this doesn’t play at least some sort of role in the increase amount of shootings. People aren’t likely aware of these changes happening to the drugs they take, and chemical imbalances in the body may cause them to snap.
Big pharma without a doubt is a major factor. I would also postulate that our 40+ hour work week society contributes to higher stress levels which are passed down to our children by stressed out parents unable to care for them properly and an overburdened education system which makes kids perform high stress menial tasks all day while using literal torture techniques like REM sleep deprivation, forced bad posture chairs, and lack of sunlight to name a few. As the saying goes, it is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.
"inactive ingredients" were likely different, what does that tell you about how inactive they really are ...
Well.. I completely disagree.
And available studies suggest a very small minority of school shooters were prescribed any medication prior to committing their crimes anyway.
Not that there isn’t a problem with big pharma, I just don’t see a causal link and connecting these two issues only serves to add confusion to the mess in my opinion.
@@selloutsam. They don't need to be currently on any medication at the time of the attack though. Medications like Ritalin and Prozac can have side effects long after their use has stopped.
@@ObamaoZedong Good point, but the research and evidence that exist doesn’t establish a causal link.
That leaves us speculating without evidence and I’m way more convinced the root problems are a confluence of other things.
Also, if there are existing correlations between psychotropics and gun violence then concluding that “meds lead to violence” could potentially be reading that backwards (the mental issues could lead to both the prescription and the violence, not just the violence as a result of the prescription). For that reason we should be cautious about speculating in the case that psychotropics could actually help to prevent violence. There is actually more studies and evidence for this than there is to say it causes it. Not that I’m convinced either way, like I said, personally I think it’s a confluence of other factors.
With the civil war I think you have to think too is that the Union was not all career soldiers. These were volunteers. Civilians given guns to fight and trained into fighting forces. Really many Union and Confederate soldiers were in a similar situation in way of training and expierence. Not to mention a lot of Union soldiers were also taken from local militias.
At the beginning of the war many Union soldiers were recent immigrants from Europe who had fought in the socialist/communist revolutions of 1848 which failed. They then fled to the United States, where they helped found the Republican party and plotted to overthrow the American system of government, with which they had great success.
However, later in the war much of the Union army had been enslaved on Lincoln's orders and were compelled to fight to the death on behalf of Lincoln and his cronies.
Hi. Thanks for the video. I believe the Philippines also has a "gun culture" if you can call it that!
Oh yeah? Please elaborate
@@MrTerry
The Philippines was colonized by the United States for 50 years, where gun culture was introduced and the first gun laws were only passed during the Marcos Regime.
Also Spain never really "controlled" the Philippines outside some walled cities and forts, with power going to Catholic Friars and local aristocrats who can do whatever. The ecomienderos never really took root
Mass shootings are limited to political squabbles and shooting random civilians are relatively uncommon due to strong communitarian values.
American gun culture won't go away because it runs parallel to human nature. We have a natural right to self-defense and the availability of arms facilitates that.
Then why don't most other countries have a gun culture?
Nice to see Mr. Terry pushing back in his new reactions
I don't agree when he says the US has passed very few gun laws. The US has thousands of gun laws on the federal and state level currently on the books. Not saying those laws are actually enforced.
Regarding feudalism, if we are arguing for feudalism as a system of class and land inheritance, I would say we already have the structure of a neo-feudal state. I say neo-feudal because obviously we don't have lords and serfs running around in the west (nice try established titles), but here in America in particular we have all essentially become second class citizens to our corporations thanks to our lawmakers. I don't believe in grand conspiracies, but I do believe in greed and it is quite disturbing how much the neo-aristocracy controls our media, stocks, and bipartisan system.
Again, I don't think that all rich people are trying to enslave us, but there are undeniably aristocratic dynasties that have evolved within business, finance, and government. It is logical to assume that these wealthy, powerful families can and have made plans to hold on to their power and I think that they are at least occasionally willing to work together. I don't think there is a grand conspiracy, but I do think that a collection of smaller conspiracies have done great harm to our system, see recent corporate law.
Agreed, there is some level of cooperation between the Big Government and Big Business and they mutually aid each other in their goals. Big Pharma doesn't want a small start up selling insulin for pennies on the dollar and cutting apart their cash cow? Here comes there buddies in the FDA shutting that start up down or some lobbyist group on K street proposing a slew of new regulations for all pharma companies that the big ones will just eat but will crush a new start up. We strayed away from a true free market and instead allowed monopolistic cartels and the government bearucrat class establish a quasi-aristocracy amongst themselves. Finish a career in the treasury department? Well Wall street has a cushy position for you. New administration needs an SEC chair? Hey, this big bank has an 'expert' for you!
The Net result? A modern feudal structure where you must be a part of the corporate/federal machine, no mom and pop capitalist allowed. They'll get rid of cash and put us on some Fed crypto currency, no more private transactions. Then for 'convenience' and 'ease of use' every transaction in the nation will require Fed coin/New Dollar whatever it'll be called. Then, if you do something 'bad' like run a red light, oh hey look they can automatically fine you, don't even need to send a court summons or anything. Most people pay the dumb ticket anyway, it's just 50 bucks or something. Not like it could spiral out of control from there or anything where if you say 'bad things' about the ruling elite on the internet you get your bank account turned off. That's just something they do in China, couldn't possibly happen here!
Didn't American businesses actually organise to completely undermine or destroy the worker unions? I don't think it's a conspiracy theory to say they did form an aristocracy and that they would want to organise to infringe on people's rights more and more.
The problem here is not aristocracy but rather plutocracy. Most American super-rich are still self-made on some level, even if they usually have significant social advantages. The issue comes from having a system where finance is allowed to unduly influence policy; old aristocracies actually had balances against that, because you couldn't just buy a title that you had to either inherit or earn through service.
@@Burgermeister1836 That may be true of the Tech Gurus, but it's hard to argue that Trump, for example, is a self made man, what with that "small loan of a million dollars." I really don't think anyone is going to be able to replicate the success of the Tech giants anytime soon, unless someone invents time travel. Recall, too, that the big Tech CEOs stole most of their greatest "innovations." Facebook was originally a Harvard site, Steve Jobs took all his ideas from his employees, and even Bill Gates may have stolen DOS, though I haven't looked too much into that one. I will agree that naked Plutocracy is worse than Aristocracy, if only because Aristocracies developed that sense of Noblesse Oblige once they realized people weren't buying into the whole "Divine Right" shtick anymore.
Unfortunately, rather than leaning into that concept of Noblesse Oblige, our Plutocratic class is trying to re-imagine Divine Right as a system of Meritocracy. In other words, they try to sell us on the idea that they earned their fortunes, that they are self made men and women, but remember that they stole all their greatest ideas. In the words of Socrates "Let us agree that the so-called best among us are but liars and thieves."
Great video terry :3. You should react to the origins of russian autocracy by kraut as well
Thank you!
I actually had quite a few issues with that video, personally. Kraut draws parallels between the extractive dynamic that the Mongol Empire had with its tributary states and uses that as the foundation for Tsarist autocracy. However, that ignores several critical issues, such as:
(1) Tsarist autocracy, or more broadly, European absolutism, had been developing within Europe, particularly France, at the same time, and was even more centralized and (conventionally speaking) autocratic than Russia was at the time, given that the power struggle, albeit in varied forms, continued from Ivan's time down to Peter the Great's reign, which did not exist in 16th century France (and arguably hadn't since the end of the Hundred Years War with England). Tsarist autocracy was a bit behind (although it would catch up, arguably reaching proper European absolutism during the reign of Catherine the Great), but the two forms of government were much more similar to each other than Tsarist autocracy was to the authority of the Khans, who were elected through a meeting of their society's elders and chiefs, the kurultai. While you can certainly identify similarities due to both governments being, essentially, authoritarian and militant, this was not out of the ordinary for the time. By contrast, and in my opinion, Russia's authoritarianism much more strongly resembled influences from another state, as I will get into below.
(2) Tsarist autocracy bears many, many more strong resemblances to Byzantine autocracy, and perhaps Bulgarian tsarism as well, than anything else. From the distinct religious role the tsar played in the state (which is characteristic of medieval Christian states), to the title (tsar=caesar), to their adopted state religion and religious bodies that operated as functions of the state (patriarchates and synods), to the adoption of Cyrillic and Byzantine architecture, not to mention the known and long-established cultural and economic links between Byzantium and the Rus, the Eastern Slavs as a whole had top-down Byzantine influence on the people, their religion and the state for centuries by the time Russia had established itself as a Tsardom, and the structure and function of the Tsar much more strongly resembled the autocratic imperator/basileus of the Byzantine-Roman Empire, to the point that when you identify their similarities and then place the Khanate traditions next to them, the similarities are almost alien by comparison.
To be clear, I'm not saying the Mongols, specifically the Golden Horde, had literally zero impact on Russia, that'd be absurd. But I do think that Kraut greatly overplays and overstates that impact.
@@steve8610 he makes it seem like the Mongols were the only major force that impacted Russian Autocracy.
Hello Mr. Terry. I was wondering what happened to the videos in which you reviewed the history of Pales-Isra conflixt? I think there were 3 videos. Were they taken down by UA-cam? Or you removed them yourself? Just curious!
From an outsiders perspective, I can see thinking the Civil War should have been a great argument against private gun ownership. But the Civil War, from the perspective of the South was that it was a fight against a tyrannical government, which directly reinforces that aspect of why guns ownership is enshrined in the Constitution.
Why would the Civil War be a argument for gun control?
Thats exactly why the founding fathers put it in.
The 2a not about hunting. Its to stand up the government over reaching
Bingo. I would say it’s similar to now when most people understand the reasoning for Jan 6th, irrespective of their view on the election. In both cases, the sentiment was understood, but the validity was in question.
Him stating that theres “increased gun violence” is also incorrect, it’s actually decreased. What we have is an increase in stimulation through media
Objectively, a lot of the worst gun crime in America happens in the places with the strictest gun control laws, and most of it is gang related.
With that crime in turn being highly concentrated down to specific city blocks, with most counties having annual homicide rate of effectively zero. In turn the majority of Firearm Deaths in the US are... self-inflicted, with the US not exactly being a chart topper for people looking to end themselves. There are many, many countries including ones where private firearm ownership is effectively banned with much more serious issues with that.
Mind in turn that within the past 5 years estimates indicate the number of firearms in US hands went from around 400 Million to around 500 Million, with current estimates putting things at 46% of US Household having at least 1 firearm. In turn the US owns a very disproportionate amount of the number of firearms in worldwide circulation.
In turn the past few decades have seen Firearm Laws trending towards more supportive of Self Defense. Concealed Carry went from rarely being supported, to Shall Issue, to pushing towards Constitutional Carry. Duty to Retreat has largely given way to Stand your Ground frameworks, including concepts like Castle Doctrine. In turn the expiration of the 1994 Federal AWB in 2004 combined with the rise of things like Call of Duty helped to popularize the AR-15, AK platform, etc. The previous Boomer Cowboy Gun focus in turn tends to be the exception. This period in turn consistently saw decreases in Violent Crime and Firearm Accidents Year over Year. In turn while the Gang Issues haven't been resolved the conversation point has moved from the problem of Gangs in the 1980s to people effectively trying to argue the 1999 Columbine Shooting would have been prevented by the 1994 Federal AWB which was in its 5th year out of 10 of being in effect in 1999.
Over 2,000 gun laws on the state and federal level I hate it when people say that the USA "has barely enacted" any gun laws.
I don’t think “gun culture” will “end” per se. I think if it somehow it becomes less prominent in massacres or homicides then people will largely ignore it. But natural urbanization and lower land ownership could further drive down gun ownership. People in professions involving guns, hunting, and sports might be the hold outs of gun owners.
Mmm not quite, look at the number of NCIS paperwork (back ground check to buy a gun from a FFL gunstore) during the "summer of love" in 2020. Firearms and ammo screeeeamed up in price as the supply out ran the demand and ever since prices especially for handloading and collectible firearms has gone up and stayed up. The number of new firearms owners went up way more than normal in 2020. From what i've seen in rhetoric and stances among people from MAGA types to ANTIFA, firearms owner ship is going to increase no matter what. The biggest thing tho is culture, some parts of the country your looked at like a weirdo for owning a firearm while others parts of the country it's normal. The lack of the general population knowing firearms law and how to navigate it is also a problem in my eyes and that doesn't include the difficulty in knowing firearms laws in state too state since there are differnces and some people have tryed to buy firearms in states like new jersey for example and when attempting to do the process there is mutiple different answers of the process from mutiple different authorities. Politicians as well also make getting a firearm so difficult and expensive thru legislation that its not available for a common person (strongly depends on the state you reside in) which is something mutiple state governments actively try and do to keep firearms ownership down and keep people misinformed which is nefariousness imo. I actually remember a anti gun politician in arizona got exposed by project veritas when her policy or messaging director was riding around with a AR pistol in his backpack calling it a crowd control weapon and knowing the majority of anti gun politicians want any kind of AR banned it was disgusting to see "rules for thee, not for me" on a balatant display.
If you ever want to see some of the really weird things that happen in regards to firearms and firearms law you should check out the fudd busters youtube channel. Lots of interesting things I didn't even know have been talked about in regards to firearms and law around it. The main host is also a lawyer.
3:12 I'd say it more came down to how they were going to rule them, mostly hands off-ish like British or direct control like Spanish. Finance is always the reason for starting but how do you keep it?
There is an idea that the landlord class is and has always been the enemy of the common people.
They aren't doing themselves any favors in fighting this conception.
You’ll eat the bugs and you’ll like it
Now to BLACKED Rock(not a typo)
Hello terry love your videos!
Thank you!
Also, what is often left out with the Aztecs is that they were so cruel that other native tribes teamed up with the Spanish to over throw them. The same was true with native tribes up north that teamed up with the British and French.
On the Spanish Empire being different from other colonial empires; I 100% agree with Kraut here. The Spanish Empire may have been partially about gold, but it was also partially about God, and that can't be said of the British/Dutch/French Empires, which were almost purely economic ventures before the Victorian age. I mean even in the time of Napoleon, as the Spanish Empire is on it's deathbed, the largest colonial holding of Britain is held not by the crown, but by the East India Company. On the other hand, everywhere a conquistador went, they claimed the land for the crown, and God, and then built a missionary. That's a substantially different type of colonialism.
what would end the american gun culture.....i cant see it ending voluntarily
people in america are very independent minded.
they like being their own boss. not bowing down to whatever government tells them
this is a big difference between america and places like western europe/asia
in America, it was born resisting greater authority and valuing the individual
in europe and asia, its always been about apeasing monarchy, and later government
what gun culture europe has, is small and usually focused on repelling larger powers (poland and switzerland)
while larger countries in europe and asia dislike populace having a gun culture as it lets them say no to government (see germany, france, hell even russia)
you also see very little individuality from asia
while in western europe, there is individuality, but its so easily shut down by government as...wtf are the people are people gonna do to protest? they try every week until their gov gets tired of it and then..poof.
heck, when crime happens, they have to rely on their police.
or mexico, no legal guns. they watch as criminals with guns kidnap people in the middle of a busy highway.
America, alot of factors go into it. from how big our country is (land mass) leading to long response times for police
to just people in america wanting to take their life into their own hands, not rely on others to protect them (look how well that ended for that texas school. police didnt save kids. they arrested parents who tried)
Lol, do you really think you with your guns could stop the American military if they wanted to get you? 😂
@@mixlllllll wouldn't be the first time. You realize why military had such a hard time in afganistan? cause the terrorists hid among civilians.
American military can't shoot civilians
if they wanted to hunt down gun owners, they'd have to face that same problem, but in a much larger country
add to that, military personel tend to be the biggest population of civilian gun owners.
if you think the american military is gonna disarm america......remember your basically asking the gun owners...to disarm....the gun owners.
your gonna find yourself facign the wall damned fast
This is great to see. These videos always strike me a little wrong, and seeing someone smarter than myself point out exactly WHY it bothers me is a great way to make me feel less crazy.
I super appreciate this. Like you have no idea.
To start changing gun culture we need to educate people how to be decent human beings and eradicate poverty. Thereby reducing violence in the system.
And how would that change gun culture?
Your poverty and violence.
Is not American gun culture.
Most people in the gun culture are law-abiding, hunters ,sports shooters people having them for defensive use
And just the fun of plinking.
Your use of being a decent human and reducing volince
Seems to be more of the thug / criminal element that are using gun to commit crimes. Thats not gun culture
I don't think either of those are anathema to gun culture. Gun culture doesn't have to change to reduce poverty and violence and reducing poverty and violence doesn't necessitate changing gun culture. If anything, it would solidify gun culture.
I don’t think anything will end American gun culture, the main reason is we unlike any where else in the world have a right to own a gun, it is part of our identity, we don’t see ourselves as subjects subordinate to the government like they do everywhere else in the world.
We don't see ourselves as subordinate to the goverment at least in Europe. We just have common sense :D
@@mixlllllll however you are subordinate to your government, if the government wants to oppress you which can happen in a generation there isn’t anything you can do. You have to shut up and take it and get on the cattle car. You can say no and they shoot you on sight. It’s ok you bent the knee to the king we shot at ours. That is the difference. If you think it won’t happen I’m sure the Wiemar republic never imagined it would happen to them.
Actually most if the army that conquered the Aztecs was native, rival tribes. The Spanish army was a small component of a larger force.
With their horses, war dogs, armor, and superior weaponry the Spaniards were very effective shock troops. As you say, a very small component of a much larger force - and yet a very important component. Their native allies protected their flanks, and as the tip of the spear they were almost invincible against the Aztecs.
"The pregnancy is very short" -Kraut
Had Britian literally given the colonies representation in parliament it would have solved everything
It would have solved a lot, but the world might have paid a high price. England was generally opposed to expanding the colonies westward far beyond their military reach in the port cities. The new USA went hog wild on expansion. Fast forward to European conflicts of the 20th century; the several colonies of GB along the Atlantic coast would not have had a lot to offer though it'd have arrived sooner.
Up until the 80s there was a long history of gun regulation. Concealed carry was uniformly banned from the early 19th century until the late 20th. Guns were banned in the famous "wild west" towns to encourage Eastern urbanites to move out there. When gun violence got out if control during prohibition the national firearms act was passed HEAVILY (for the time) automatic and other "dangerous" gangster weapons and mandating their registry. After the Kennedies and MLK assassinations the national gun act was passed requiring licenses for gun dealers. After the attempted assassination of Regan the Brady bill was passed to require documented background checks for most firearm transfers. Then there was the national assault weapons ban from 1994-2004. We've passed far more restrictive laws in response to far less loss of life during past episodes of gun violence. The modern example of un-checked gun violence is incongruous to the long history of gun regulation in the US.
Was only 90 degrees in Texas in WINTER
One thing I've discovered during my hobby of looking into history is that, for the longest time, most "Old World/Oriental" cultures had the mentality of "Land = Riches" or, in other words, more land means more economy.
Also, feudalism requires a context that isn't viable in the current era. Feudalism requires a complete collapse of central government (and, in this case, that means late Cold War era nuclear arsenals being the prerequisite, and that means mankind is going to be iron age at best _without_ Russia/USSR's Captain Ahab impression of a nuclear exchange plan).
In addition to that, the situation in the present is that we're in an era similar to the 2nd Industrial Revolution, a time of great change... and technology making rights and freedoms obsolete. People assume that rights and freedoms govern technology, but the reality is that it's the _other way around_ instead. The 'Technological Context' (the sum of human knowledge and its applications) determines pretty much everything from what rights and freedoms you can have to what sort of governments can be utilized... and we're living in a major sea-change in that regard.
You seem to have missed that under English law Englishman could be armed. The crown didn't allow it they were forced to sign the English bill of rights.
Thanks for sharing!
They forgot to mention that later on with the introduction of forced taxes to pay for this large naval presence the king of England restricted the types of firearms allowed to colonys to only buckshot firing smooth bores and anything more powerful was considered military weapons and therefore only allowed to military any permitted government agents. Thus ensuring the forced subjugation of colonists to whatever the king and his merry said they had to do. That's why gun ownership was so important to the founding Father's. So when the people had to stand up and say no they weren't relegated to resisting with weapons like the brown boss musket the minutemen had started with. Which was basically a glorified shotgun. But weapons have always been restricted when a crown subjugated a populace. Examples being Scotland being unable to possess swords or weapons of war by Edward longshanks. Or Rome banning so called barbarians from owning weapons and Armour without being part of the Roman legions and so on. It's always been less about the type of weapon but more about restricting a populations ability to fight back. That's why gun control never works out for the people cause history shows its any weapon of the times that they will ban to force subjugation of the populace. If guns weren't invented they still want to ban swords, battle axes, spears, etc to get the result they want. It's the ability to fight back they wish to stop not the tool.
As a Pollock, that's hilarious
I am glad that you keep exploring these types of topics instead of sticking to one single theme.
I used to be a fan of vlogging through history because he used to explore a lot of new topics but nowadays he keeps sticking to few topics like World war 1 for American civil war and has become routine.
Keep exploring new concepts and keep educating us about the history of the world.❤
On this issue, I would suggest there are historical and geographical factors from earlier than the US Civil War.
History first - Rousseau 1712-78 was very fond of armed militias and contrasted their friendly relationship with the populace to the cruel armies of tyrants (sound familiar?). He was a truly great writer and many of his ideas persist in western culture (for better or worse, the "noble savage' is another; and probably the most persistent is in his book 'Emile' where he developed the structure of primary and secondary education that we broadly still use today). Of course, not all his ideas persisted. In Emile he also wrote "Educate women like men, and the more they resemble our sex the less power will they have over us."
Marx once commented that all his best ideas came from Rousseau, and the idea of a militia or a people's revolutionary army (that curiously left wing variant) persisted. The English also had the right to bear arms in their 1689 Bill of Rights, (except of course if you were a Catholic). My point is that ideas like the US second amendment were very common in Europe in the decades leading up to the foundation of the USA; and foundational ideas (such as those of John Locke) often get 'locked in' to the political culture of nations; just like memorable early life experiences can sometimes have lifelong effects on an individual.
Now for Geography - I'll contrast Australia with the USA, because they are similar in many ways, but different at key points. The USA is blessed with by far the most arable land and convenient waterway systems on the planet; Australia is not like that, although does better on most mineral resources. Both have dangerous animals; in the USA it's things like bears, bison and mountain lions (big things that can eat you, but that you can see and shoot). In Australia it's more like snakes and other little biters. If they get you, it's not because they are hungry, it's because you didn't look out for them, and they're too small to easily target. The only large predators are crocs, but only in the north (which some Australians would say has its own culture).
In US culture, being competitive is advantageous for survival and thriving - fighting for your patch, fighting off large predators, fighting the elements, eliminating passenger pigeons, etc.. Historically, there's lots of things Americans feel the need to defend yourself against. That's nowhere near as true in Australia. It's environment is harsh and unforgiving, but not actually aggressive (e.g. most snakes just want to get away from you). The Australian environment is not fighting you, it just simply doesn't care if you survive or not. And if you don't survive it's often because you try to fight against it. It's collaboration, rather than competition that is the key to survival and thriving. The spirit of both lands imprint upon its generations of people. Australia and the USA have different gun cultures mostly IMHO because one has a geography that favours it, whereas the other doesn't. Just like Americans (competitively) live to work, whereas Australian (collaboratively) work to live.
PS: t always annoys me when (some) Australians get on their moral high horse about gun control. It's a country that relatively has never had widespread gun ownership, and I include long before it enacted gun control laws. Australia has an overall culture, like everywhere else, developed largely through the unconscious effects of its imprinted geography and history. And some of its moralising is also political. For example, if you hear an Australian complain about 'Brazilians', its probably because of a painful personal hair control experience, not because that country (like many others) has a far worse record than the USA on gun deaths.
Along those lines the proto-US is the one that developed one of the early Practical Rifle with the Pennsylvania Rifle. During the Revolutionary War made a habit of using Buck & Ball loads, and are effectively responsible for the development of the Pump Action Shotgun, which is part of why it caused a bit of a stir when the US showed up with them in WW1 despite that not being the first war the US had deployed the 1897 Winchester Pump Action Shotgun.
What I think would be required to end the “gun culture” would be a sense that everyone and the government is trustworthy.
There won’t be an event or a law passed that will make me confident in everything and everyone that would satisfy my concerns over self and my family’s safety, though I look forward to the day.
What do y’all think?
I’m a little peeved that he completely skipped the disarmament of the slaves, Natives, blacks, and Mexicans; in that order.
And that we’ve learned from that.
I think something that is largely looked over is how even within the US there are multiple perspectives on firearms. For example many in the Midwest view firearms largely in the context of hunting. This can be attributed to the low density population in wide open landscapes making it prime areas for hunters. Or the north east having the views in regards to “stoping criminals” wether this be by individuals or law enforcement due to the region being high density with multiple large metropolitan areas. Texas almost holding firearms to “holy relic” statuses due to their very existence coming from a revolutionary war against Mexico and a defining moment being the refusal to surrender a small cannon to federal forces. I think the many people don’t realize how even if “sides” agree on having or not having firearms in the US are made up by groups that may even have conflicting reasons for their position despite being on the same “side” of that debate.
In my experience, kraut knows a lot about Europe and europeans( a function of him living there) and almost nothing about Americans and unfortunately, he’s unaware of this
I had been waiting to own a firearm until I owned a house, now I'm going to get one to defend myself against a feudal overlord.
Another gunless renter proving the point.
Keep in mind during the US civil war most guns were made in New England.
I love Kraut!
Edit: and Mr. Terry!
Regarding the British colonies, firearms were accepted in Australia for the early settlers to deal with indigenous peoples and for farmers, but a national "gun culture" never developed, largely due to most people living in what would eventually become the 5 major urbanised capitals where they weren't needed. Also because the Crown understandably wasn't keen on encouraging widespread firearm ownership amongst former convicts lol
guns are here to stay. it may not be the way it was before but they will continue to persist. as long as the Gov't exists, Americans will continue to own as many guns as they can.
Why are you so fearful of your government?
@@mixlllllll I'm not fearful of my Gov't, I hate it. let me give you a list...
MK Ultra
Operation Northwoods
Operation Paperclip
Operation Fast & Furious
Operation Mockingbird
Tuskegee Experiments
Waco
Ruby Ridge
JFK
NSA Spying
Building 7
Gulf of Tonkin
Chicago Black Sites
Flint Water Crisis
Iran Contra
Gary Webb
NDAA
Patriot Act
Bilderberg Group
Bohemian Grove
Abu Grahib
Guantanamo Bay
why are you so dumb that you trust yours @@mixlllllll
hope our gun laws stay mostly the same, unloading at the range is to much fun for me to give up.
I’m assuming this guy didn’t read the stats on new gun owners since Covid if he think gun culture is declining.
Which is to say for those who haven't looked at it the stat from a few years before CoVid was a bit under 400 Million Firearms in US Circulation. The 2022 estimate is a bit under 500 Million, with 46% of US Household currently estimated to have at least 1 firearm in the home.
Also the past 3 decades has seen Concealed Carry go from almost an unknown to almost Universal, and Duty to Retreat give way to Stand your Ground with Violent Crime Rates and Firearm Accidents consistently trending down over that 30 year period of increased ownership and legal standing for Defensive Firearm usage.
I think the fact that we have don't have a high land ownership rate is a mute point because we have traded our land for our family and most people aren't interested in doing
I think that and Hollywood makes it look glamorous.
Economic feudalism maybe which we kinda had in the past when companies owned the town and everything in it to include the housing and food sources. One couldnt really leave the company bc every one owed the company money. SO companies became the feudal lords.
Please react to “What my trip to Japan was like” by Jaiden Animations. It’s really funny, and has some history and culture about Japan in it. I highly recommend watching it.
As long as we are armed we won't become feudal
I would say that Baldassare Castiglione The Book of the Courtier had an influence here from Italy. In fact Giovanni Della Casa's Galateo (Manners) did too.
The Gentleman.
Not an English idea,but an Italian one. Specifically from the Renaissance.
At that time it was a Rapier which later became a Smallsword. So long as you abided by Gentleman Ideals.
It was a military right primarily. And expected of ALL Gentleman to be armed.
You also had religion. Which supported weapons. Particularly Catholicism.
They supported sword duels the most. Until Sheiß Li....I mean, Anabaptists came along.
It was the Gentleman and aspiring Gentleman primarily. Though in England you had the sword and buckler.
Which when the English saw the big bad Italian Rapier they freaked out.
They screamed "unfair". So they mandated it be 40" or less. Because superior technology wasn't allowed. They then demonized it by saying it's a murder weapon. Like the AR-15 of it's day. Sort of.
Also Italian Rapier teachers beat England's Masters of Defence. It's why they were banned in cities.
The Founding Fathers would have known this. Galateo and The Book of the Courtier we're extremely popular books.
Odd note: If you ever hear that people were illiterate?
What they meant was illiterate in Latin .Not your own dialect. Mostly because laws and such were in Latin.
Then later it was French that was popular.
As for gun culture you can
- Fuse it with religion ( Catholicism did this with sword duels.)
- Existentialism
- Warfare / Crusades
- Reward for combat service
- Self Defense
- Cultural tradition from the Roman Empire. ( Broadly speaking)
There are ways around it.
Just like how I justify gun ownership without mentioning
Rights, Constitution or the Founding Fathers. Because I assume those are dead already. So I evolved it for myself.
There. Are. Ways.
Feudalism? Yes. Most likely. Which means my solution is more likely.
To end American gun culture? Get rid of Americans. But that won't solve the gun issue. At all.
Many tribes saw technology like guns as Magic.
I'd want magic if I were a tribal member.
It just would morph into a different gun culture. A different flavor
I believe the event would have to be a government taking the guns by force (successfully) and a few decades or centuries of not having them might change peoples minds.
You want the Federal Government to murder 46% of US Households, something on the order of 150 Million People, and seize approximately 500 Million Firearms so you can "feel safe"? Presumably because for some reason you think a government that would do that wouldn't throw you against the wall next?
I still find it strange that Australia doesn't have the same gun culture. Perhaps because the population remained concentrated in the original colonies. In NYC gun culture isn't a big thing, likewise Sydney or Melbourne. Sure, we had the frontier settlers and the concerns of settlers with native tribes, but very few Australians, even now live west of the Great Divide, so the concerns of those settlers never became mainstream in Australian culture. Today the vast majority lives in the five mainland state capitals. Most of the rest live in large regional coastal cities like Cairns, Townsville, Mackay, Sunshine Coast, Gold Coast, Newcastle, Wollongong, Geelong, Launceston, and Hobart.
Like an Australian outlined in the comments here Australia doesn't really have a lot of animals that are countered by a Firearm, the US does. Which is reflected in the US developing one of the early Practical Rifles with the Pennsylvania Rifle, and effectively being the ones who made Pump Action Shotguns a thing. Which is part of why the US bringing the 1897 Winchester Pump Shotguns into WW1 stood out a bit, despite that not being the first conflict the US had used them in.
They changed property to happiness in the declaration not because property was equated to happiness but because abolition was in the wings (i.e. slaves are not property but humans).
14:33 the prime minister of japan was assassinated with a homemade firearm, in a country that's far more restrictive on the chemicals that can make firearms work. and if you take a look at that home made firearm, it wouldn't take much imagination or work to turn it into an explosive. all a gun ban would do is take replace precise and replace it with something better suited for causing mass casualties. So what's the point?
He didn't say the Spaniards went to the new world to spread culture. He said the Spaniards handled their colonies like the romans.
Of course they went there for wealth, they just handled it very differently.
I remember in 2012, shortly after the Sandy Hook shooting where my father told me that if that doesn't shift gun culture, then nothing will. It does seem like the Civil War was the point of no return where gun culture could have been reformed, but I think that there may still be some hope regarding gun legislation since the NRA is losing popularity among Millenials and Gen Z (two groups which will enter politics fairly soon). So even though American gun culture may not undergo sudden changes any time soon, it seems like it's having a slow burnout, especially with all of the mass shootings that take place on a near daily basis.
Nra isnt a good player in the debate. Guntubers like Brandon Herrera are going to lead zoomers into owning guns.
What probably will happen is either guns will become more common or will be legislated around the cities only
Most gun owners I know openly dispise the NRA.
See, my big issue with the the mass shooting argument is that it’s really overblown if you think about the numbers.
For argument’s sake, let’s go ahead and say there is at least one mass shooting EVERY day of the year in the US.
That’s 365 mass shootings a year at minimum.
Now we could increase that number if we had a pattern of more mass shootings in a single day, but that doesn’t seem to be the case.
Next, if we keep in mind that almost all mass shootings are perpetrated by a single individual, that brings the average number of mass shooters in a year to the same number, about 365.
Now there are approximately 77.5 MILLION Gun owners in the US. If we compare that to 365 or so shooters, we get a percentage of 0.00047% of the gun owners in the US being mass shooters.
. . .
That’s not even a blip on the radar statistically, and while I absolutely sympathize with people who lose their lives and loved ones in these incidents, I’d say this is a clear sign of fearmongering against gun owners.
The NRA has never done anything. Them being gone would change nothing
@@MelvinatorB what exactly do you mean by “impose restrictions”? Because what you and I may find as sufficient for restrictions may be completely different.
Secondly, yes, I do see it as fearmongering when pundits and talking heads want to restrict the rights of _every_ American for the actions of a group that doesn’t even appear to make up 1/1000th of a percent of the whole of gun owners.
Trying to appeal to the lives lost in a tragedy doesn’t necessarily mean you’re in the right.
Something he fails to mention is not all the land was taken actually. While I will say its somewhat controversial, a few colonies of the British did legitimately purchase land from the Natives.
And not all slaves were abducted. Many were sold by their fellow Africans.
Renters insurance might be the end of gun ownership if we own nothing and are being happy but can't get insured if you own a firearm...but there's always bows and air rifles I guess.
Boy howdy, let's gooo!
I'm going to add something I, myself, only recently found out.
In the 1500s and 1600s, England was ruled by the Stuart kings, notably Charles II and James II (not James I, who was responsible for the King James Bible; he was also the son of Henry VIII and sister of Mary, known as "Bloody Mary," who had earned that nickname by murdering 300 Protestants in London in one day). These two kings, namely James II, had used disarmament against political opposition. The result was the Magna Carta being amended to have an English right to arms that the monarchy couldn't abrogate.
Thus, when the Founders of America were setting into place the idea of the common man being armed against a tyrannical government, they not only knew this history, they also had American events to contend with, such as Lexington and Concord, where the British, under Col. John Howe, attempted to seize stores of powder and shot. The colonists had attempted to peacefully protest, but when the Olive Branch Petition was rejected and King George III's response was read by John Hancock, and the colonists knew the king considered them traitors, they knew that the common man was going to have to fight the most capable military in the world at that time.
This was why the rules for regulating the Virginia militia was instituted in 1777, amended in 1779, and then codified into US federal law with the Militia Act of 1792 and later an amended act in 1795.
Additionally, certain things in the US Constitution are the direct result of private arms being used by the Continental Army. For example, Washington was able to bolster his forces with privately-owned cannon and mortars. This continued even after Washington successfully seized Fort Ticonderoga in New York State. Letters of Marque and Reprisal allowed private ships to fight the British as warships of the Continental Navy.
Thus it is that our "obsession" with guns is a direct result of knowing, even now, what we know tyranny and oppression are. We know that without the common man having arms, weapons, to defend himself, his property, his family, and his community, then nothing else matters, because everything we hold dear is dependent upon that fundamental phrase in the Declaration of Independence: "That we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, _that among these_ are the rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." (Emphasis Mine)
This is the reason why we have guns. We know that even now, evil people will do evil things -- especially if those evil people are in a group and call themselves "politicians" and "government."
Edit: Interestingly enough, I remember learning about how, from the time of Amerigo Vespucci, he noted in his diary that off what is now the American Eastern Seaboard, they could see smoke from fires "as far as the eye could see" on land. It wasn't until the English landed in 1607 and then 1620, that there appeared to be a discontinuity in history, come to find out that Cortéz and his men carried smallpox and malaria, two devastating diseases that utterly destroyed native populations. It is estimated that the natives of North America suffered more death here in North America, than did Europe during the Black Plague, despite the number of people who died being much less (90% of 15 million vs 66% of 300 million).
I think there are three main issues that prevent a real change to gun policy in America.
The first is the cultural depiction of guns. I get a sense that deep down many Americans think of themselves as Clint Eastwood who with a steely gaze and a big gun defends his live and property from all the criminal elements out there. This image is very powerful, and I love the movies, even though in the real world, the good guy with a gun often makes things much worse.
The second issue is fear and distrust. Many Americans fundamentally don't trust the government nor their fellow citizens. And they certainly don't believe that if something bad were to happen, that they can count on someone to come and save them. This ties in with the first point where the gun becomes a key part of personal security.
And lastly, guns have become such a part of the culture wars, that they help define identity. It's no longer just a practical tool but a symbol. A way to be different from the other. Which means that giving up their guns really means giving up a sense of belonging, too. Which will be a barrier few are willing to cross.
Second comment: Actually, no. American gun culture was not changed because of the Civil War, due to the West still needing to be settled. This really did not take off until after 1869, with the completion of the Transcontinental Railroad, built jointly by the Union Pacific and Central Pacific Railroads.
However, we have had regulations, mostly unconstitutional regulations (see the NYPRA v Bruen decision) since the 1934 National Firearms Act, which was aimed at curbing the use of the 1921 and 1928 Thompson SMG, namely used by the mafia here in the US. This was directly related to the Chicago St. Valentine's Day Massacre, and other mob violence, which used the "Tommy Gun" during Prohibition.
However, the Jim Crow-era "Black Codes" also attempted to prohibit black people from owning guns in the American South after the Civil War, namely enacted by the "Dixie-crats" as they were called, after the ratification of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. Despite poor black sharecroppers taking advantage of the 1862 Homestead Act ("40 acres and a mule"), black people were not given equal rights in terms of voting, assembly, free speech, and other rights. They also had to pay poll taxes and even do things like literacy tests to vote. All of these things were racially motivated, and involved more than just gun rights. And while slow to equalize, today, there are more black gun owners, as well as Hispanic gun owners, than ever before.
Property ownership is probably just decreasing due to urbanization. We'll see if the trend continues.
I do not see it happing with out the use of government force, even then with the Track record of one of the city police departments in my state haveing drugs come up missing out of the evidence locker I am sure in quit a few places where that is a problem now the same will be the case with turned in or confiscated firearms
Strange I don’t see property being part of the second amendment
I see a lot of your critiques of his video as semantics. One in particular where you say disease largely conquered them. Yes disease laid the ground work, but the word conquer means to overcome and take control of. Disease does not take control of anything, governments do so it is accurate to state that the Spanish conquered them.
I just want our rights restored ☹️ and then enacted on a global scale.
There's too much of the Scotts and Irish in the makeup of the US. Ungovernability almost seems to be a genetic trait of those three nationalities.
Proud American Irishman myself. I'll be damned and dead before any ATF bastard takes my guns
Even though it might have began with property ownership. Property ownership has nothing to do with owning a gun. Gun ownership has been about protecting yourself from a tyrannical government and defending your life.
Feudalism is exactly why we have the second amendment...
Well no one owns guns because they think some how they’ll be able to take on the government, that concept made much more sense when you just fired at each other in lines. What are you going to do against a m2 Bradley? Nothing because it’ll blow you to bits
@@ikematthews6866 Ok? A hypothetical scenario doesn't change my point.
@@ikematthews6866 Afghanistan absolutely shows what you can do against a Bradley. As long as Americans can retain their ownership to rifles I think they could absolutely take on a theoretical tyrannical government.
Even a renter recognizes the need to defend their life and their family's lives.
With roughly 500 million firearms in the hands of American citizens, our gun culture isn't going anywhere but up
Americans are becoming more renters is a bit of a stretch. The chart shows is basically early 21st century rise than fall, ie the property bubble that deflated. Property ownership has historically been around 65%. If anything, it fell back to its long term average. I think gun culture stays for now.
I'll be fucking dead before I submit to a feudal lifestyle
Given the fact that, according to UN estimates, American civilians own about 46% of the world's small arms, any attempt at reinstating feudalism would end in a similar manner to the French Revolution!
Got to mention to the BRITs it was all fun and games until the barrel got pointed at them 😅😅😅
In my college history class we learned God, Glory, and Gold were why the Spaniards created their empire
Ackshually its because of Ottoman monopoly over the Mediterranean trade and the prime location of Spain allowing it to explore the Americas far earlier than any other European powers
@@ihavenojawandimustscream4681 ok more correctly God, Glory, and Gold are why the individual men went out to explore, conquer, and colonize for the Spanish Empire.
Honestly, the people that support modern American gun culture are too stubborn to ever let it go.
Not sure if you are aware but this creator passed away. RIP man.
No he dint lmao
There's a complete lack of recognition that American gun culture is derived from the English right to keep and bear arms that was well established by the early 1600s.
Of course that gradually withered in England, but like so many cultural things Americans preserved what the English did not.
No doubt the threat of raids by Indians or slave uprisings or just much higher crime rates also contributed to Americans preserving this natural right of self defense, but the origins were already there in England before the first ship sailed for America.
By gradually withered you mean the UK government made a number of relatively quick moves in the wake of WW1, with good reason to believe the people in power were... concerned that they had a rather prodigious number of military trained young men who might have reason to not think kindly of the people who had ordered their friends to their deaths.
@@jebe4563 - ah! I'm not all that familiar with the history of how that happened in the UK. Interesting. That does make sense, but seems more of an argument for changing the government than ending the right to self defense.
And don't forget the Spaniards invented the Legend of El Dorado
Good point
I think "Knowing Better" covered the answer to your last question pretty well. We started out as a company town that slowly teetered on the power getting into the hands of the populous but has slowly been working against taking those powers and rights away from said population. Unions were crushed and threatened against by world market. Number 45 was pushing for deregulation. Bush Jr made corporations into people that can defend themselves against citizens. They've spent the 1900s building wealth, establishment of rules in corporate favor with lobbying, and indentured servitude through debt by the banking system. It's an odd reality to see the blind "patriots" always tote on about Murica being so great and freedom when you can clearly see where this is all going. What's the old saying... Love humanity, hate your fellow man...
“Bush Jr. made corporations in people”
Hate to be that guy, but Bush ain’t the guy to pin it on if you really want to get into the history of the corporate personhood debate (in America as a country) we’re gonna have to put it on James Monroe look up Dartmouth College v. Woodward way back in 1819 though that’s not to say that George W. Bush didn’t expand corporate personhood in America.
@Jesus Esquilin it was neocons in the last 20-30 years though who cemented the idea that corporations are people and the final checkpoint was Citizens United v FEC which was a conservative supreme court essentially declaring that because corporations are people then they have the freedom of speech to pump their endless wealth into politicial candidates who will do what they say and most win their elections
Uhhh.. But corporations dont even use indentured servitude through debt LOL, its easier just to use cheap labour from overseas, or just hire somebody who's actually skilled and you know, can't pull the legal and justice system on you.
@@randomusername12 Uhhh but hundreds of billion dollar companies have been raided and been found to been using undocumented immigrants some as young as 12 as a workforce in American factories and paying them cents to the minimum wage...
@@randomusername12 Yup it's easier to just use sweatshop slave labor in a prison factory in China to make those Iphones than it is to try and do some debt-servitude scam here in the US. Why bother with trying to establish an ugly practice here in your own backyard when you've got a place across the ocean to do all that distasteful shit? That's what the British did when they brought slavery to North America, they didn't want to look at it back home but they were perfectly fine with it out of sight an ocean away. Out of sight, out of mind. So modern corporations have no incentive to practice slavery-style crap here, they don't want that ugly stuff cluttering up their lawns. Imagine how all the urban hipsters with their starbucks and Iphones would feel if they actually lived next to the coffee and coco bean slave plantations that make their coffee or the strip mines for lithium and the factories with suicide nets around them in china that make their smartphones. They exported that shit overseas and then complain on twitter with that slave-made smartphone about how oppressive their own state/city is while drinking that cup of starbucks. How dare anyone have moral integrity and not be a raving hypocrite.
"ENTER the slave trade"? There have ALWAYS been slaves since the beginning of time. 5000bc in Egypt, some of the Northern and Southern hemisphere's tribes enslaved one another.
Please take care for yourself. You sound sick. Take care not to push yourself to keep a specific schedule everytime. We love you
From Gold God Glory to Gold Gold Gold as Filipino 😂