Why does every tyrant always support gun control? ~ Get new episodes in your inbox once a week: thewhyminutes.... / whyminutes / thewhyminutes Host: / nickfreitasva
@@wjdyr6261 "except in democrat strongholds where they promote and glorify lawlessness" All examples from the USA show is that America's gun laws don't work. Unlike the laws in countries that have gun control.
"Not a blacksmith could be found in the whole land of Israel, because the Philistines had said, “Otherwise the Hebrews will make swords or spears!” 1 Samuel 13;19 (Fun fact: The word "Philistines" is the linguistic ancestor of the modern word "Palestinians.")
Just remember, a politician advocates stripping you of your right to defend yourself, because a bad person committed an act of evil. Where exactly do you think that line would stop?
They’re gonna keep doing this with everything. I notice this bias a lot in society both historically and now, people see one act of evil committed by a group and apply it to be the whole group is evil, or use that as justification to attack everyone else
Just because someone abused their gun rights to kill, doesn't mean the law abiding citizen should lose their rights too. Imagine applying that logic to any other ammendment. For example, Kanye voted for Trump. "Well it's time to remove black people's right to vote. They can't take the responsibility."
As an Australian, I can tell you there are still shootings and gun crimes that go on here and gun ownership is extremely regulated! June 2019 my hometown of Darwin was the most recent mass shooting and the gun that was used was a 12 gauge pump action shotgun which you can't even buy here unless you have a category C or D gun license which is very hard to get! The Second Amendment is just one of many reasons why I want to leave Australia and live in the USA
I hear the southern states are pretty good about firearms ownership. Just something to note, we do not generally have access to select-fire weapons. Had to sadly inform my friend from Sydney of that.
@@Hackenberg Yeah, That I understand a bit I studied a fair bit about firearms and each state as for states I've been tossing up between Alaska, Tennessee, and Texas!
Yeah, there was another one in QLD during covid. Cops got called to somewhere remote, got ambushed. I think two cops got shot and one of the ambushers died in the firefight. Don't know if the cops made it.
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that a revolution is winnable. The founders frequently talked about how citizens have a duty to throw off, violently if necessary, any government that infringes on their rights and/or fails to fulfill the responsibilities given it. Any law that restricts what a private citizen can have without placing an identical restriction on all levels of government is unconstitutional.
The important part that I think people forget to mention is that a government violating the constitution is equivalent to committing treason against the body that elected it.
Also, the South needed firearms to prevent slave revolts. Black Slaves were starting to outnumber the white population in virginia, and they lived in fear of black people uprising. Giving slave owners the right to form private militias enabled slavery to exist for almost another century.
When George Washington became the commander in chief, he did let common people possess firearms only if they swore loyalty to the United States and it's Government. Anyone who didn't would have their arms taken away by the army.
There is no revolution. You’re at a stage where the only time you’ll ever need to revolt against someone is if you keep stupidly voting in the worst people. But your population are some of the dumbest I’ve had to interact with online that I’m not too surprised Biden got voted in and Obama won twice.
The 2A says nothing about hunting because it has nothing to do with hunting. Its a means for defense of self against any and all threats, foreign or domestic, especially Tyranny.
@@Firedrake1313 And an insane shi+load of legal paperwork and an agreement to be surveilled by the government until you die... upon which, the gun is then confiscated by said government.
Not only is gun control authoritarian, it’s also an infringement on our right to bear arms. Yet neither branch of government is willing to claim gun control is unconstitutional and prohibit states from violating their citizens’ 2nd Amendment Right. Also, the militia back then was mostly farmers and they provided infantry support to the Continental Army that was smaller than the British Army. The Colonial Congress could not afford to arm every citizen willing to fight alongside the Army regulars, and (in my opinion) “regulated” refers to the militia being trained and led by the regular Army to fight the British Army. At the time, muskets were military grade weapons made for war (obviously) and many young boys below the age of 18 had one. One of the problems with analyzing history is that we tend to look at it from today’s perspective instead of the perspective of the people who lived in that period of time. Furthermore, guns are just tools. Take away guns from a criminal, and then you will have the same problem that anti-gun countries have…stabbings or improvised bombings. Murderers will find a way to commit murder. That’s why I think more severe punishment for criminals is more effective than punishing all law abiding gun owners. Great video!
Coupla fun facts: When the Nazis came to power in Germany - which they did, by the way, democratically! - one of the first things they did was ban private ownership of guns (I guess it makes it easier to herd people into cattle-trucks if they can't shoot back!). Switzerland has a higher level of gun ownership than the USA, yet gun crime is almost non-existent there; gun crime is not about availability of guns (felons will always obtain them, they don't care what the law says!), it's about culture. Over here in the UK gun ownership is VERY heavily regulated, and hand-guns (pistols) cannot be owned privately at all; so we don't have any gun crime, right? Er ... no, we certainly do!
Ah I didn't know that about Switzerland. It's hard when we make comparisons because they are very homogeneous compared to America that is very heterogenous. What are some gun cultures we could adopt though?
@@2snipe1 Ah, I don't think it's about "gun culture" specifically (tbh, I think Americans who ARE into guns have that reasonably well sorted), I think it's the broader culture that for some reason turns out a higher number of people who are driven to use a gun nefariously, either in insane killing sprees or for systematic criminal behaviour. Drugs are probably a major part of it, but maybe there's also something more fundamental ... 🤷♂️
Slight correction: the Nazis loosened gun laws for people that supported them. In fact the Nazis gave every branch of government an armed paramilitary wing and gave them guns. The only real restriction was that privately handguns were restricted to military officers and party leaders. They just relinquished guns from Jews, homosexuals and other minorities.
I'm no historian so correct me if I am wrong. The whole reason we have a bill of rights was because the Anti-Federalists refused to ratify the Constitution because it would lead to an over-centralized government and diminish individual rights and liberties. The Bill of Rights wasn't about giving us rights. We don't have a 2a Right... The Bill of Rights protects our inalienable rights specifically from government overreach. It was supposed to tell Congress that above all our rights these specific rights are untouchable by Congress.
Run for President in the next term. You will have my vote and the vote of many others. You have good common sense and a good sense of the constitution rights of Americans. We don't need any more corrupt politicians in the Presidential office.
He who gives up his liberty in exchange for security deserves neither and loses both. Jefferson Distrust and caution are the parents of security. Benjamin Franklin
If someone starts thinking of 'gun control' remind them: "In a life or death struggle where seconds count, the authorities are just minutes away." A scenario to propose to them: A person breaks into your house, they have decided to kill you for any number of reasons (grudge, drugs, mental issues, your money, your body, etc) and emergency services has told you the authorities are just 5 minutes out. What are you gonna do against a determined attacker for 5 minutes? Can you run for 5 minutes straight while staying close enough to be found and not attacked? Try to fight back? Lets assume they have the same weapon as you, or even just a knife. Are you trained to fight with that weapon, enough to ensure you can survive for those minutes? Are you able to prevent yourself from being injured? No, even an unskilled fighter can get a lucky hit in. You will be injured, this isn't a movie where you will magically unlock Neo powers. You will be bruised and bleeding by the end. If they survive then you need to worry about being sued for being 'too brutal', if they die you will be investigated. And what if it happens while you are already injured? Your arm or leg in a cast. Maybe you are in a wheelchair. Just discharged from the hospital. How well are you gonna fight against an attacker with full mobility in melee? And even if new laws are passed- Anything made by human hands can be copied by other human hands. Anything built by humans can be destroyed by humans. No law will stop things from being constructed. No lock, door or window will stop someone determined to enter. The only insurance that will keep you alive is your ability to defend yourself, don't let others reduce your ability. Stay safe everyone.
Having lived through the gradual erosion of personal freedoms in the UK and mostly by Conservative governments I can unequivocally agree that you must resist the encroachment of authoritarian regimes who insist that your freedoms are less important as the state will protect you and the state knows better Together with these reductions in freedom has come an increase in crime beyond all imaginable bounds and with it an absolute guarantee that should you defend yourself from harm in any way that you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and the word of a criminal will be accepted over yours and the law will protect the criminal before you!
The idea of gun control is like defanging and declawing all cats because another one scratched somebody, leaving them unable to protect themselves from anything.
I have taken a complete 180 on control gun, and now all I want is for people to know how to properly use a gun, make sure their kids don't get killed, and a background check to make sure your not crazy! This is a total 180, from my former position of Assault Weapon Bans, and a very strick gun control policy! Amazing, what happens when you educate yourself on the matter!
So who decides "crazy"? Background check is exactly like a poll tax, gotta pay to play. Others have addressed the 360 part so I don't need to, however it does seem like you did go right back to your original path.
@@Azurethewolf168 Conspiracy theories. You have no grasp of reality. We don't need or want guns in Canada. We don't have that gun culture here. It's a peaceful country.
I hold a steadfast belief that it is high time to rekindle the spirit of Dixieland and its service. In moments where tyranny takes the shape of law, it becomes the duty of individuals to resist. I stand in support of abolishing property taxes on real property ownership, corporate taxes, and both state and federal income taxes. Easing the tax burden on individuals and businesses empowers them to invest in their communities, generate employment opportunities, and propel economic prosperity. I firmly believe that fair taxation solely resides within sales taxes, directed exclusively towards national defense, as well as supporting law enforcement through the Sheriff and police departments. Introducing County-Based Elections for Governors and Senators holds significant merit in upholding Republic principles. Directly electing governors sometimes leads to candidates from densely populated urban areas dominating statewide elections, often sidelining the voices and interests of various counties. Embracing a county-based system for selecting governors ensures a more equitable representation of diverse regions, granting each county a fair say in choosing their leaders. Furthermore, I advocate for the abolition of the seventeenth Amendment, as it dilutes the original essence of state representation in the federal government by enabling the direct election of U.S. senators. I propose the Constituency Capitalist Constitution Republic for the United States, a political system where representatives are elected based on constituencies, guided by capitalist principles entrenched within a constitution. This form of governance ensures that both the fundamental rules and the structure of the government are constitutionally defined, operating as a republic. Regarding the Second Amendment, I strongly affirm the right to possess fully automatic arms, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, 50BMG arms, and 40mm grenade launchers. These arms serve as essential tools for self-defense, personal safety, and the preservation of individual freedoms. Additionally, I advocate for the abolition of all communists federal agencies including the Federal Reserve, ATF, FBI, NSA, IRS, Department Of Health, Department Of Education, CDC, FDA, NIH, and CPS/DCF, classifying them as terrorist organizations. I also advocate for the complete cessation of foreign aid to all foreign nations, the enforcement of border closure, and a return to the Gold standard. Throughout human history, individuals have armed themselves with the most effective weapons and ammunition available. Their continuous efforts centered on securing the most capable means of protection and defense. One unwavering aspect that remains unchanged and will continue unaltered is an individual's right to safeguard their life, family, property, and home. A profound statement by James Monroe echoes this sentiment: "The right of self-defense never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and the necessity for nations and individuals." This necessity arises from the fact that humanity comprises not only benevolent individuals but also those capable of perpetrating heinous acts. Among us exist murderers, thieves, trespassers, robbers, rapists, and tyrants who can potentially organize into formidable groups. Consequently, the existence of an army and police force is imperative for maintaining regular security, conducting patrols, apprehending criminals, and ensuring justice prevails, safeguarding against murderers, thieves, trespassers, robbers, looters, and rapists. Over time, numerous governments emerged, with leaders crowned to oversee various military and police forces, among other responsibilities geared towards the welfare of the people. These governments enacted laws, and currently, governments worldwide restrict civilian possession of weapons. This prohibition of free possession of weapons for self-defense is absurd and unconscionable. Public consensus on this matter remains divided. While some advocate for the right of citizens to possess guns as a contributing factor to public well-being, others fear that such access to weapons may result in increased criminal activity, believing that only government-authorized individuals should possess firearms. My stance strongly aligns with the freedom of weapon ownership, rooted in the belief that possessing and carrying weapons and ammunition is a natural and fundamental right. Every individual holds the inherent right to protect themselves, their family, their property, and their home. Moreover, I firmly believe that it's crucial for people to be armed not only to protect themselves and their possessions but also to safeguard their freedom and liberty from potential tyrants. History illustrates the pivotal role an armed populace plays in resisting oppression. For instance, the Holocaust stands as a stark reminder of the catastrophic consequences of unchecked government power and the pivotal necessity of civilian armament as a defense against authoritarian regimes. The right to keep and bear arms extends beyond mere self-defense; it serves as a safeguard against potential tyranny. An armed citizenry acts as a deterrent to oppressive governments, ensuring that power remains decentralized, and the populace can resist encroachments on their freedoms and human rights. Conversely, opponents of free gun ownership express concerns about potential misuse of firearms and accessibility to criminals. They argue for strict regulations, suggesting that only government-authorized individuals should possess firearms, relying on a robust police force for citizen protection. However, empirical evidence challenges this perspective. Statistics indicate that districts with higher numbers of armed citizens witness lower crime rates, highlighting the potential deterrent effect of armed civilians against criminal activities. In conclusion, the unalienable right to possess weapons stands as a cornerstone of a free society. History repeatedly emphasizes the dangers of disarming citizens, with authoritarian regimes often disarming populations before committing atrocities. Removing restrictions on firearms is crucial to ensure individuals retain the means to defend themselves against any threat, including potential government overreach. An armed and vigilant populace serves as a safeguard against encroachments on their liberties. Given these insights, I advocate for the elimination of all laws restricting free gun possession, empowering individuals to be armed and vigilant, equipped with sufficient weapons and ammunition to maintain independence from any potential abusers, including their own government.
That is true. It puts the state above the people, and the people are above the state. It should have never happened, but people were too weak to stop it.
It is and they are going to have hell trying to implement. I think I speak for most Americans when I say “we would rather die on our feet than to live on our knees”.
Preach it brother! Common sense on full display. Unfortunately, our government is now infested with people that have no reverence for our constitution and that somehow their views/feelings, are more important.
@@loqutisborg5416 Technically the logical statement should be "A higher number of guns under civilian ownership correlates with a lower homicide rate." Which is in no way warped and is completely logically consistent.
@@thebarefootadventurer8467 Whether I think they should (I do) is irrelevant. The Constitution isn’t a document to give us ideas to consider, it’s a set of rules and laws for how the country functions. The document says “arms”, so if it’s “arms”, the answer is ‘we should have access that is not infringed’. This applies to hand grenades, anti-aircraft guns, artillery, depleted uranium rounds, and even biological weapons (again, “arms”). I personally think we should amend the Constitution to state that biological weapons are exempt, but only if the government has to agree to divest theirs as well.
It also mentions something about a militia, so you shouldn't be allowed those weapons if you're not part of a militia. Also guess what the government will regulate next.
Exactly. And also, on the militia thing, I used to try to first explain to people how they don't understand what that is actually saying, such as "regulated" does NOT mean "government oversight and control" as it does today, but at that time, meant "functioning properly for purpose". But it's easier to just point out, it says "the right of THE PEOPLE". If they meant the right of people in a militia then THAT is what they would have said. But they didn't - it's the "right of THE PEOPLE", so any other words elsewhere in the Constitution doesn't change that fact.
"It is nothing compared to the atrocious record of what happens when an heavily armed governement decides it is no longer interested in the rights of its own citizens." Exactly. Like "50 thousand people die of gun violence every year" Yeah, but in the last century only about a 100 million of unarmed populace died under their government. It would take 2000 years to catch up." And looking back at the last 2000 years, we know a lot of shit can go down in that timeframe.
I always thought that americans were irrationally obsessed with weapons. Now I think that you are not obsessed enough. I live in a very safe 1rst World country, where owning a weapon is extremely difficult, self defense is terribly restricted and punished, if you defend yourself, family or home you have more chances to end up in jail for a longer time than your attacker. Now, as police force is more and more dedicated to our politicians security, we are slowly abandoned to criminal gangs, who face very soft and short punishment, while our properties and families are defenseless. Do not give up your weapons. Organize and protect yourselves. Politicians interest is not your best interest, your police will obey them, not you. You only have yourselves
They also ignore that these countries had less "gun violence" before gun control. Swedes in the US commit less crime the same as Swedes in Sweden. It's not the country, not the guns, but the people.
3:52 Perfectly articulated the problem with politics/politicians. Like the other sayings: Politics is about compromise or Politics is about the art of the possible
Another thing to note is that the vast majority of gun crimes are conducted through handguns. "Assault weapons" (which isn't even a real term for gun classification) are largely a scapegoat for other problems.
Plus, something that they neglected to mention is that one of the original definitions for militia wasn’t the military the military was its own thing militia was “a militant populous” also known as, unofficial soldiers
I live in a town that just did away with the police force because the town fathers say that there is no money to fund them. Now if I need police protection, I must call the County Sheriff and wait twenty to forty minutes for them to come. I will protect myself and family by whatever means necessary!
That’s so disturbing. Even more so that it’s happening in many places around the country. It’s such a logically inconsistent idea: “we can only trust the police with guns!” “But the police are bad, and we need to defund them!” Ok, so who’s going to protect you then? These people aren’t right in the head.
@@proudyank4785 "you can hate a man but still agree with a true statement." Funny how that statement only holds true in authoritarian regimes, mainly because the state is always more heavily armed than the people.
As remember reading some years ago there is a law passed in 1795 that is named the militia act of 1795 that required all men to own maintain and be proficient with the military firearms "of the day" meaning that the Founders knew there would be improvements in firearms in the future. It's my understanding ththat tthe law is still on the books. There were improvements in firearms during the Revolution that allowed "rapid fire" relative to the usual combat rifles of the day. One of the more famous being the Ferguson Rifle named after it's inventor Major Ferguson of King Mountain fame. He may have been a great mind as far as invention but poor understanding what happens when you threaten the families, lives and freedom of the Over Mountain Men.
“We are reduced to the alternative of chusing an unconditional submission to the tyranny of irritated ministers, or resistance by force. The latter is our choice. We have counted the cost of this contest, and find nothing so dreadful as voluntary slavery. Honor, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. …We exhibit to mankind the remarkable spectacle of a people attacked by unprovoked enemies, without any imputation or even suspicion of offence. They boast of their privileges and civilization, and yet proffer no milder conditions than servitude or death. In our own native land, in defence of the freedom that is our birth-right, and which we ever enjoyed till the late violation of it-for the protection of our property, acquired solely by the honest industry of our fore-fathers and ourselves, against violence actually offered, we have taken up arms. We shall lay them down when hostilities shall cease on the part of the aggressors, and all danger of their being renewed shall be removed, and not before.” ~Declaration of the Causes and Necessities of Taking Up Arms~ (in part) 2nd Continental Congress, July 6, 1775
If you mix the statistics between criminals using guns, and legal owners using guns, it’s epidemic homicide. Not what’s really happening tho. They are illegal in Mexico. Homicide rates many times US. Because criminals use them that way.
A lot of the weapons in the hands of the cartels come from the US though, so there is an argument to be made that gun violence in Mexico is partly to blame on how comparatively easy it is to acquire guns in the US that are then transferred to cartels. On the other hand, if they couldn’t get them from the US, they’d just source the guns from somewhere else.
@@glenndavis4452 They don't need to get the weapon in question with full auto, as they pay gunsmiths to make the conversion for them. There's also been some cases of police and military personnel trafficking their weapons to cartels, both from the border and in Mexico itself. They have also come into possession of straight up miniguns though. I really have no idea how they got their hands on those. Seems too high profile and complex of a system for it to be second hand. But eh, I'm not an expert.
@@josueroberto7356 Yeah. They’re no joke. The Mexican government literally needs to bring the Army to arrest high level members. Bothers me how many like that are in the US now. Someone said there have been 48,000 applications for firearms from illegals in the last year.
@@uanime1 It doesn't matter. Multiple-shot firearms existed before the US was founded and the Founding Fathers were personally aware of many of them. The Kalthoff repeater was invented around 1630 and could have a 30-shot magazine. The Belton flintlock was personally demonstrated to George Washington, who considered equipping the Continental Army with them but declined because Belton raised the price. Just a few years after the signing of the Bill of Rights, Lewis & Clark used the Girardoni Air Rifle (designed 1779) to great effect on their expedition. There was also the Puckle gun, a revolver-ish crew-served heavy weapon designed two centuries before Samuel Colt was born.
@@TrazynPrime " yea but those shot took time making it different" So you admit that it was impossible for a musket back then to fire 30-60 shots per minute.
Remember what happened to Germany and Australia after they banned guns and contrast that to the events of the Alamo, and Lexington and Concorde were we said no to gun confiscation.
Let's play: -- 'A well regulated School System, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed'. -- Who gets to have Books? The People or the Schools? 😁
@Condor512 I get it. You are trying to say that it's a collective right, which this argument has been disproven and squashed a long time ago. Gun rights are individual rights. So the answer would be the people. You just used a stupid example, and it is all I'm pointing out. Bud.
A well regulated School System is in it self dictatorial, that would defeat the purpose of a free state from the get go. A School System also would decide what books are important and would not carry them, so the People would no be free to "bear" their own books or even write them. Your first mistake is making a Well Regulated Militia equivalent to a Well Regulated School System. your second mistake People are the ones who have rights no the schools. I played. Check Mate....mate.
You should screen this for your colleagues in the General Assembly. Not that the Fairfax/Alexandria/Falls Church delegations would understand it, being authoritarians themselves.
The gun cultures in the US is obviously a great deal different than the culture in Europe. I don’t expect nor believe American citizens should ever relinquish their right to arms but I can’t say your country doesn’t have a problem when anyone from you regular Joe Six pack to a potential School Shooter are all capable and able to walk into a Pawn Shop down the road and buy a semi automatic weapon. I don’t know to what extremes politicians want to take Gun Control in the US. But just on a moral level I can’t say I don’t believe some measures aren’t needed. What they are is a real problem to try figure out though and incredibly unlikely to ever find compromise
Mass shootings are overwhelmingly gang related in inner cities. Mass shootings like you first think in your head are very very rare and on the gun violence scale, an anomaly. Also, mass shootings and school shootings like today are very new. Before the late 90s to 2000s, things like Sandy Hook were absolutely unheard of. Yet we've always had guns and actually less gun laws. It's a socialital problem. This generation is mentally unequipped to handle the stressor of life and they have such disregard for said life also.
Your statement is reasonable- the thing the 'common sense' gun laws that are advocated for here do not seem to prevent very much crime. Most of the gun laws do more to give politicians talking points and the ability to claim they 'did something' than address the issues behind the violence. The states (California, New York, Illinois) that have the strongest gun laws have the most homicide. There is also the fact that percentage wise, there is far, far more homicide from blunt trauma and deaths from other causes that does not get widely reported on.
@@S1D3W1ND3R015: modern problems from modern people I take it? From what I understand half the casualties from guns in the US are accidental or Su*cide. Around 45/50% are actually homicide. But when that number can reach anywhere between 10 to 20 thousand (homicides alone) it’s hard to not feel like something just might want putting in place to decrease those numbers
@Rockstar-bq5fm Lots of things can be done to prevent or lower those however. They never want to have a legitimate debate without the word ban, confiscate, or heavily restrict lawful people. The fact is, gun homicides are declining while gun ownership is skyrocketing. Which is the opposite of what they tell us. Also suicides are a completely different issue. That should be tackled differently.
@@Rockstar-bq5fmactually, roughly 60% of gun deaths are suicide, and almost 70% of the remaining figure is gang shootings; most of which happen in the cities with the strictest gun control (NY, La, Detroit, Chicago). The actual number of gun deaths is drastically lower than that of deaths caused by drunk driving.
I live in B.C Canada, our gun rights are being stripped daily. They say no one needs an A r for hunting. Well get this, our federal government just hired out foreign contractors to do a deer hunt from helicopters and yes you guessed it they used full auto A R 15 to mow down the deer and leave them to rot. The story is on the CCFR UA-cam channel.
Brazil has pretty stick gun control laws. They also have an issue with criminals building their own guns from scratch. It's almost as if criminals don't care about the law and find a way to subvert it.
The same people who say that guns and walls are bad are defended by guns and walls .
Exactly.
If you need an unarmed populace to govern, you suck at governing- Nick Freitas
Even if you americans have tanks at home you will still be too stupid to act.
Because it's true
But you don't have weekly mass shootings or a high crime rate.
@@uanime1 except in democrat strongholds where they promote and glorify lawlessness
@@wjdyr6261
"except in democrat strongholds where they promote and glorify lawlessness"
All examples from the USA show is that America's gun laws don't work. Unlike the laws in countries that have gun control.
It has never been about guns, it has always been about control.
Exactly.
Communism works by taking control- exactly what Sniffy and his regime are doing.
"Not a blacksmith could be found in the whole land of Israel, because the Philistines had said, “Otherwise the Hebrews will make swords or spears!”
1 Samuel 13;19
(Fun fact: The word "Philistines" is the linguistic ancestor of the modern word "Palestinians.")
*ALWAYS*
@@patrickbodine1300 Yes sir.
I took an oath in the military to defend the Constitution not the Goverment
Our founding documents are not based on technologies, which change... they're based on human nature, which doesn't.
Human nature and the nature of government, neither of which have changed significantly in recorded history. 😢🤔🤓🍻
🙌
Powerful words🙌🙌🙌
@@alsaunders7805look at political cartoons from the 1920s and see how accurate they are to today
Well said
Just remember, a politician advocates stripping you of your right to defend yourself, because a bad person committed an act of evil. Where exactly do you think that line would stop?
They’re gonna keep doing this with everything. I notice this bias a lot in society both historically and now, people see one act of evil committed by a group and apply it to be the whole group is evil, or use that as justification to attack everyone else
I use that logic with politicians. There may be some good ones but as a whole, they are all criminals.@@Azurethewolf168
Look to Canada and learn what happens! *Hint I go to jail for defending myself!*
@@zartan-1975:F::€kin’
Pussy! How heavily armed must you be to feel comfortable?
Just because someone abused their gun rights to kill, doesn't mean the law abiding citizen should lose their rights too. Imagine applying that logic to any other ammendment. For example, Kanye voted for Trump. "Well it's time to remove black people's right to vote. They can't take the responsibility."
As an Australian, I can tell you there are still shootings and gun crimes that go on here and gun ownership is extremely regulated! June 2019 my hometown of Darwin was the most recent mass shooting and the gun that was used was a 12 gauge pump action shotgun which you can't even buy here unless you have a category C or D gun license which is very hard to get!
The Second Amendment is just one of many reasons why I want to leave Australia and live in the USA
I hear the southern states are pretty good about firearms ownership. Just something to note, we do not generally have access to select-fire weapons. Had to sadly inform my friend from Sydney of that.
@@Hackenberg Yeah, That I understand a bit I studied a fair bit about firearms and each state as for states I've been tossing up between Alaska, Tennessee, and Texas!
So much for the town name of Darwin, survival of the fittest weapons eh!
@@IC.XC.NI.KA. I don't understand what you're on about, like what do you mean?
Yeah, there was another one in QLD during covid. Cops got called to somewhere remote, got ambushed. I think two cops got shot and one of the ambushers died in the firefight. Don't know if the cops made it.
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that a revolution is winnable. The founders frequently talked about how citizens have a duty to throw off, violently if necessary, any government that infringes on their rights and/or fails to fulfill the responsibilities given it. Any law that restricts what a private citizen can have without placing an identical restriction on all levels of government is unconstitutional.
The important part that I think people forget to mention is that a government violating the constitution is equivalent to committing treason against the body that elected it.
The tree of liberty is thirsty.
Also, the South needed firearms to prevent slave revolts. Black Slaves were starting to outnumber the white population in virginia, and they lived in fear of black people uprising. Giving slave owners the right to form private militias enabled slavery to exist for almost another century.
When George Washington became the commander in chief, he did let common people possess firearms only if they swore loyalty to the United States and it's Government. Anyone who didn't would have their arms taken away by the army.
There is no revolution. You’re at a stage where the only time you’ll ever need to revolt against someone is if you keep stupidly voting in the worst people. But your population are some of the dumbest I’ve had to interact with online that I’m not too surprised Biden got voted in and Obama won twice.
The 2A says nothing about hunting because it has nothing to do with hunting. Its a means for defense of self against any and all threats, foreign or domestic, especially Tyranny.
But why doesn't everyone have to join a "well regulated militia"?
@@AlexRussell-kd9pd Because we are a free people. Service is not mandated by the constitution.
@@AlexRussell-kd9pd because that's not what well regulated meant in the 1700's and militia just means people.
“If you need an unarmed populous to govern, then maybe you suck at governing” - nice
The Kalthoff repeater could fire up to 60 rounds a minute and AR-15s aren't used by the military. You can't even get a fully automatic rifle today.
You can, but it's $$.
@@Firedrake1313 And an insane shi+load of legal paperwork and an agreement to be surveilled by the government until you die... upon which, the gun is then confiscated by said government.
You give an inch and they take a mile, just look at us in Canada.
Not only is gun control authoritarian, it’s also an infringement on our right to bear arms. Yet neither branch of government is willing to claim gun control is unconstitutional and prohibit states from violating their citizens’ 2nd Amendment Right. Also, the militia back then was mostly farmers and they provided infantry support to the Continental Army that was smaller than the British Army. The Colonial Congress could not afford to arm every citizen willing to fight alongside the Army regulars, and (in my opinion) “regulated” refers to the militia being trained and led by the regular Army to fight the British Army. At the time, muskets were military grade weapons made for war (obviously) and many young boys below the age of 18 had one. One of the problems with analyzing history is that we tend to look at it from today’s perspective instead of the perspective of the people who lived in that period of time.
Furthermore, guns are just tools. Take away guns from a criminal, and then you will have the same problem that anti-gun countries have…stabbings or improvised bombings. Murderers will find a way to commit murder. That’s why I think more severe punishment for criminals is more effective than punishing all law abiding gun owners.
Great video!
after the revolution, every able body male was the militia
Coupla fun facts:
When the Nazis came to power in Germany - which they did, by the way, democratically! - one of the first things they did was ban private ownership of guns (I guess it makes it easier to herd people into cattle-trucks if they can't shoot back!).
Switzerland has a higher level of gun ownership than the USA, yet gun crime is almost non-existent there; gun crime is not about availability of guns (felons will always obtain them, they don't care what the law says!), it's about culture.
Over here in the UK gun ownership is VERY heavily regulated, and hand-guns (pistols) cannot be owned privately at all; so we don't have any gun crime, right? Er ... no, we certainly do!
Ah I didn't know that about Switzerland. It's hard when we make comparisons because they are very homogeneous compared to America that is very heterogenous. What are some gun cultures we could adopt though?
@@2snipe1 Ah, I don't think it's about "gun culture" specifically (tbh, I think Americans who ARE into guns have that reasonably well sorted), I think it's the broader culture that for some reason turns out a higher number of people who are driven to use a gun nefariously, either in insane killing sprees or for systematic criminal behaviour. Drugs are probably a major part of it, but maybe there's also something more fundamental ... 🤷♂️
@@monty5692 fatherlessness
@@monty5692 thanks, ya those make sense as factors.
Slight correction: the Nazis loosened gun laws for people that supported them. In fact the Nazis gave every branch of government an armed paramilitary wing and gave them guns. The only real restriction was that privately handguns were restricted to military officers and party leaders.
They just relinquished guns from Jews, homosexuals and other minorities.
The sheep been telling other sheep to hand the guns over the wolves, and only the wolves have the right to protect the sheep.
Almost as if the system has cultivated an army of obedient drones and have successfully weaponized stupidity via the Dunning-Kruger effect ...
All you have to do is look to nature, how many times has a pack of wolves "protected" a herd of sheep?
I'm no historian so correct me if I am wrong. The whole reason we have a bill of rights was because the Anti-Federalists refused to ratify the Constitution because it would lead to an over-centralized government and diminish individual rights and liberties. The Bill of Rights wasn't about giving us rights. We don't have a 2a Right... The Bill of Rights protects our inalienable rights specifically from government overreach. It was supposed to tell Congress that above all our rights these specific rights are untouchable by Congress.
Run for President in the next term. You will have my vote and the vote of many others. You have good common sense and a good sense of the constitution rights of Americans. We don't need any more corrupt politicians in the Presidential office.
Both parties prop up their own ppl
Presidents aren't Elected, they're Selected :/
"If voting worked, they wouldn't let us do it" - Mark Twain
Yes, this.
Couldn't have said it any better. Thank you for your channel.
He who gives up his liberty in exchange for security deserves neither and loses both. Jefferson
Distrust and caution are the parents of security. Benjamin Franklin
That double feed jam. 😂
If someone starts thinking of 'gun control' remind them:
"In a life or death struggle where seconds count, the authorities are just minutes away."
A scenario to propose to them: A person breaks into your house, they have decided to kill you for any number of reasons (grudge, drugs, mental issues, your money, your body, etc) and emergency services has told you the authorities are just 5 minutes out.
What are you gonna do against a determined attacker for 5 minutes?
Can you run for 5 minutes straight while staying close enough to be found and not attacked?
Try to fight back? Lets assume they have the same weapon as you, or even just a knife.
Are you trained to fight with that weapon, enough to ensure you can survive for those minutes?
Are you able to prevent yourself from being injured? No, even an unskilled fighter can get a lucky hit in.
You will be injured, this isn't a movie where you will magically unlock Neo powers. You will be bruised and bleeding by the end.
If they survive then you need to worry about being sued for being 'too brutal', if they die you will be investigated.
And what if it happens while you are already injured? Your arm or leg in a cast. Maybe you are in a wheelchair. Just discharged from the hospital.
How well are you gonna fight against an attacker with full mobility in melee?
And even if new laws are passed- Anything made by human hands can be copied by other human hands. Anything built by humans can be destroyed by humans. No law will stop things from being constructed. No lock, door or window will stop someone determined to enter.
The only insurance that will keep you alive is your ability to defend yourself, don't let others reduce your ability.
Stay safe everyone.
Having lived through the gradual erosion of personal freedoms in the UK and mostly by Conservative governments I can unequivocally agree that you must resist the encroachment of authoritarian regimes who insist that your freedoms are less important as the state will protect you and the state knows better
Together with these reductions in freedom has come an increase in crime beyond all imaginable bounds and with it an absolute guarantee that should you defend yourself from harm in any way that you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and the word of a criminal will be accepted over yours and the law will protect the criminal before you!
The idea of gun control is like defanging and declawing all cats because another one scratched somebody, leaving them unable to protect themselves from anything.
Pretty apt analogy :)
Great analogy
the people should be allowed to have the same weapons as the military
The people are SUPPOSED to have the same weapons as the military.
The people can’t afford the same weapons
@@drakerobinson3252doesn’t sound like a good thing
@@drakerobinson3252 Welcome to capitalism - Profits over People!
@@drakerobinson3252I paid more for my AR15 than the police pay for pull automatic M4 carbines. Mine isn’t an expensive AR either.
I have taken a complete 180 on control gun, and now all I want is for people to know how to properly use a gun, make sure their kids don't get killed, and a background check to make sure your not crazy! This is a total 180, from my former position of Assault Weapon Bans, and a very strick gun control policy! Amazing, what happens when you educate yourself on the matter!
If you took a 360, wouldn’t you land right back at your former beliefs?
A 360 means you went around the circle…back to the start
So who decides "crazy"? Background check is exactly like a poll tax, gotta pay to play. Others have addressed the 360 part so I don't need to, however it does seem like you did go right back to your original path.
Ok fine, 180
@@tashikoweinstein435 You say stupid sh!t and then admit you were wrong, I think I am in love.
You’re lucky. Up here in Canada we are experiencing an Orwellian situation.
We're fine up here in Canada
You’re deluded
@@wyleecoyotee4252no your not, wait until your rights are taken away too
@@Badkharma21everyone said that about COVID until it happened, or that trump would be president
@@Azurethewolf168
Conspiracy theories.
You have no grasp of reality.
We don't need or want guns in Canada. We don't have that gun culture here. It's a peaceful country.
I hold a steadfast belief that it is high time to rekindle the spirit of Dixieland and its service. In moments where tyranny takes the shape of law, it becomes the duty of individuals to resist. I stand in support of abolishing property taxes on real property ownership, corporate taxes, and both state and federal income taxes. Easing the tax burden on individuals and businesses empowers them to invest in their communities, generate employment opportunities, and propel economic prosperity. I firmly believe that fair taxation solely resides within sales taxes, directed exclusively towards national defense, as well as supporting law enforcement through the Sheriff and police departments.
Introducing County-Based Elections for Governors and Senators holds significant merit in upholding Republic principles. Directly electing governors sometimes leads to candidates from densely populated urban areas dominating statewide elections, often sidelining the voices and interests of various counties. Embracing a county-based system for selecting governors ensures a more equitable representation of diverse regions, granting each county a fair say in choosing their leaders.
Furthermore, I advocate for the abolition of the seventeenth Amendment, as it dilutes the original essence of state representation in the federal government by enabling the direct election of U.S. senators.
I propose the Constituency Capitalist Constitution Republic for the United States, a political system where representatives are elected based on constituencies, guided by capitalist principles entrenched within a constitution. This form of governance ensures that both the fundamental rules and the structure of the government are constitutionally defined, operating as a republic.
Regarding the Second Amendment, I strongly affirm the right to possess fully automatic arms, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, 50BMG arms, and 40mm grenade launchers. These arms serve as essential tools for self-defense, personal safety, and the preservation of individual freedoms.
Additionally, I advocate for the abolition of all communists federal agencies including the Federal Reserve, ATF, FBI, NSA, IRS, Department Of Health, Department Of Education, CDC, FDA, NIH, and CPS/DCF, classifying them as terrorist organizations. I also advocate for the complete cessation of foreign aid to all foreign nations, the enforcement of border closure, and a return to the Gold standard.
Throughout human history, individuals have armed themselves with the most effective weapons and ammunition available. Their continuous efforts centered on securing the most capable means of protection and defense.
One unwavering aspect that remains unchanged and will continue unaltered is an individual's right to safeguard their life, family, property, and home. A profound statement by James Monroe echoes this sentiment: "The right of self-defense never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and the necessity for nations and individuals."
This necessity arises from the fact that humanity comprises not only benevolent individuals but also those capable of perpetrating heinous acts. Among us exist murderers, thieves, trespassers, robbers, rapists, and tyrants who can potentially organize into formidable groups.
Consequently, the existence of an army and police force is imperative for maintaining regular security, conducting patrols, apprehending criminals, and ensuring justice prevails, safeguarding against murderers, thieves, trespassers, robbers, looters, and rapists.
Over time, numerous governments emerged, with leaders crowned to oversee various military and police forces, among other responsibilities geared towards the welfare of the people. These governments enacted laws, and currently, governments worldwide restrict civilian possession of weapons.
This prohibition of free possession of weapons for self-defense is absurd and unconscionable.
Public consensus on this matter remains divided. While some advocate for the right of citizens to possess guns as a contributing factor to public well-being, others fear that such access to weapons may result in increased criminal activity, believing that only government-authorized individuals should possess firearms.
My stance strongly aligns with the freedom of weapon ownership, rooted in the belief that possessing and carrying weapons and ammunition is a natural and fundamental right. Every individual holds the inherent right to protect themselves, their family, their property, and their home.
Moreover, I firmly believe that it's crucial for people to be armed not only to protect themselves and their possessions but also to safeguard their freedom and liberty from potential tyrants.
History illustrates the pivotal role an armed populace plays in resisting oppression. For instance, the Holocaust stands as a stark reminder of the catastrophic consequences of unchecked government power and the pivotal necessity of civilian armament as a defense against authoritarian regimes.
The right to keep and bear arms extends beyond mere self-defense; it serves as a safeguard against potential tyranny. An armed citizenry acts as a deterrent to oppressive governments, ensuring that power remains decentralized, and the populace can resist encroachments on their freedoms and human rights.
Conversely, opponents of free gun ownership express concerns about potential misuse of firearms and accessibility to criminals. They argue for strict regulations, suggesting that only government-authorized individuals should possess firearms, relying on a robust police force for citizen protection.
However, empirical evidence challenges this perspective. Statistics indicate that districts with higher numbers of armed citizens witness lower crime rates, highlighting the potential deterrent effect of armed civilians against criminal activities.
In conclusion, the unalienable right to possess weapons stands as a cornerstone of a free society. History repeatedly emphasizes the dangers of disarming citizens, with authoritarian regimes often disarming populations before committing atrocities. Removing restrictions on firearms is crucial to ensure individuals retain the means to defend themselves against any threat, including potential government overreach. An armed and vigilant populace serves as a safeguard against encroachments on their liberties.
Given these insights, I advocate for the elimination of all laws restricting free gun possession, empowering individuals to be armed and vigilant, equipped with sufficient weapons and ammunition to maintain independence from any potential abusers, including their own government.
This was hilarious. You realise this is a youtube comment section right
@@miquelr2353 where else redneck like me can post it 😂lol
@@miquelr2353you read it, so did I
@@straven1662 No actually I clicked on show more and scrolled down 6 pages to type a snarky reply :D
TLDR. I'm sorry that happened to you, or congratulations. Whatever is appropriate.
Well said my friend, respect this work. God Bless America 🇺🇸
God isn't going to save us - only we can do that :)
As a retired cop I can attest,
"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."
"Any law that requires or neccitates an exemption for the State, that law is in and of itself, unconstitutional."
Woah... where is that quote from?
@@thebarefootadventurer8467 It is from me.
That is true. It puts the state above the people, and the people are above the state. It should have never happened, but people were too weak to stop it.
@@bigguns45acp Good quote.
It is and they are going to have hell trying to implement. I think I speak for most Americans when I say “we would rather die on our feet than to live on our knees”.
Sure would, but the dying part isn't exactly plan A. That's what the guns are for.
This needs to be shared with everyone. Direct and to the point. Thank you
We are not obsessed with guns!, we are obsessed with FREEDOM!
Nick Freitas is a great representative of the Peoples Will. I'd cross State lines to vote for this guy.
Shall not be infringed, is the best part. This video content is exactly what we need. Thanks.
Preach it brother! Common sense on full display. Unfortunately, our government is now infested with people that have no reverence for our constitution and that somehow their views/feelings, are more important.
1991: 200 million guns, 24,700 homicides.
2020: 400 million guns, 21,570 homicides.
MORE guns means LESS homicides.
Warped fuckin' logic
@@loqutisborg5416
... care to elaborate?...🤔
@@loqutisborg5416 Technically the logical statement should be "A higher number of guns under civilian ownership correlates with a lower homicide rate." Which is in no way warped and is completely logically consistent.
“Those who would trade freedom from safety deserve neither and will lose both” -Benjamin Franklin
It didn’t say ‘small’ arms, it said “arms”- we should be able to own anything the government does. Don’t like it? Amend it.
Do you think hand grenades and HE rounds should be sold unrestricted at your local walmart?
@thebarefootadventurer8467 they're able to be legally owned with the proper checks and papers actually. Same with fully automatic arms.
@@thebarefootadventurer8467 Whether I think they should (I do) is irrelevant. The Constitution isn’t a document to give us ideas to consider, it’s a set of rules and laws for how the country functions. The document says “arms”, so if it’s “arms”, the answer is ‘we should have access that is not infringed’. This applies to hand grenades, anti-aircraft guns, artillery, depleted uranium rounds, and even biological weapons (again, “arms”). I personally think we should amend the Constitution to state that biological weapons are exempt, but only if the government has to agree to divest theirs as well.
It also mentions something about a militia, so you shouldn't be allowed those weapons if you're not part of a militia. Also guess what the government will regulate next.
@@uanime1 the general population can be classified as militia from a Constitutional pov
Hail to the next secretary of Common Sense. Thank you, brother Nick.
Hooah... I like that counter to the hunting statement. "If you need an unarmed populace to govern, you probably suck at governing." -Nick Freitas
The 1A says that we have Freedoms!!!
The 2A ensures that we have it!!!!
The 2A makes all the others possible!!!!!
Exactly. And also, on the militia thing, I used to try to first explain to people how they don't understand what that is actually saying, such as "regulated" does NOT mean "government oversight and control" as it does today, but at that time, meant "functioning properly for purpose". But it's easier to just point out, it says "the right of THE PEOPLE". If they meant the right of people in a militia then THAT is what they would have said. But they didn't - it's the "right of THE PEOPLE", so any other words elsewhere in the Constitution doesn't change that fact.
"It is nothing compared to the atrocious record of what happens when an heavily armed governement decides it is no longer interested in the rights of its own citizens."
Exactly.
Like "50 thousand people die of gun violence every year"
Yeah, but in the last century only about a 100 million of unarmed populace died under their government. It would take 2000 years to catch up."
And looking back at the last 2000 years, we know a lot of shit can go down in that timeframe.
I always thought that americans were irrationally obsessed with weapons. Now I think that you are not obsessed enough.
I live in a very safe 1rst World country, where owning a weapon is extremely difficult, self defense is terribly restricted and punished, if you defend yourself, family or home you have more chances to end up in jail for a longer time than your attacker.
Now, as police force is more and more dedicated to our politicians security, we are slowly abandoned to criminal gangs, who face very soft and short punishment, while our properties and families are defenseless.
Do not give up your weapons. Organize and protect yourselves. Politicians interest is not your best interest, your police will obey them, not you. You only have yourselves
europe?
@@ArgoPower Yes, and a veeeeery leftwinged country
@@jdjo5950 north west?
@@ArgoPower South west. Spain, under a government of socialist and comunist
Thanks for you post. Once they get the populace disarmed, it's very hard to regain freedom. Sorry it happened to your country.
You're 100% right.
Well regulated actually means well equipped and up to date in Ol English', not Gov over reach‼️💯
It doesn’t guarantee how many bullets you can have in your gun .
They also ignore that these countries had less "gun violence" before gun control. Swedes in the US commit less crime the same as Swedes in Sweden. It's not the country, not the guns, but the people.
3:52 Perfectly articulated the problem with politics/politicians. Like the other sayings:
Politics is about compromise or
Politics is about the art of the possible
Another thing to note is that the vast majority of gun crimes are conducted through handguns. "Assault weapons" (which isn't even a real term for gun classification) are largely a scapegoat for other problems.
Shall not be infringed means shall not be prohibited
Also the second amendment says the right of the "people" to keep and bear arms. Not the right of militia members to keep and bear arms.
Plus, something that they neglected to mention is that one of the original definitions for militia wasn’t the military the military was its own thing militia was “a militant populous” also known as, unofficial soldiers
Quill pens today would either result in a lot of letters or a bunch of life style influencers needing to find other things to do.
I live in a town that just did away with the police force because the town fathers say that there is no money to fund them. Now if I need police protection, I must call the County Sheriff and wait twenty to forty minutes for them to come. I will protect myself and family by whatever means necessary!
That’s so disturbing. Even more so that it’s happening in many places around the country. It’s such a logically inconsistent idea: “we can only trust the police with guns!” “But the police are bad, and we need to defund them!” Ok, so who’s going to protect you then? These people aren’t right in the head.
Jefferson openly said revolution was a necessity every now and then...
Great video as usual. thanks for what you do
This was supremely well done.
Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.
Oh does it? Even if whole america would rise against the goverment you would still be obliterated by the army in no time.
Why are you quoting the Communist leader Mao?
@@uanime1because in this case he was 100% right, you can hate a man but still agree with a true statement.
@@proudyank4785
"you can hate a man but still agree with a true statement."
Funny how that statement only holds true in authoritarian regimes, mainly because the state is always more heavily armed than the people.
Nick!!!!
We NEED you in National leadership!!!!!!!
As remember reading some years ago there is a law passed in 1795 that is named the militia act of 1795 that required all men to own maintain and be proficient with the military firearms "of the day" meaning that the Founders knew there would be improvements in firearms in the future. It's my understanding ththat tthe law is still on the books. There were improvements in firearms during the Revolution that allowed "rapid fire" relative to the usual combat rifles of the day. One of the more famous being the Ferguson Rifle named after it's inventor Major Ferguson of King Mountain fame. He may have been a great mind as far as invention but poor understanding what happens when you threaten the families, lives and freedom of the Over Mountain Men.
"Live free, or die.
There is no empty words."
- Jstark, 19** - 2021
“We are reduced to the alternative of chusing an unconditional submission to the tyranny of irritated ministers, or resistance by force.
The latter is our choice.
We have counted the cost of this contest, and find nothing so dreadful as voluntary slavery. Honor, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us.
…We exhibit to mankind the remarkable spectacle of a people attacked by unprovoked enemies, without any imputation or even suspicion of offence. They boast of their privileges and civilization, and yet proffer no milder conditions than servitude or death.
In our own native land, in defence of the freedom that is our birth-right, and which we ever enjoyed till the late violation of it-for the protection of our property, acquired solely by the honest industry of our fore-fathers and ourselves, against violence actually offered, we have taken up arms. We shall lay them down when hostilities shall cease on the part of the aggressors, and all danger of their being renewed shall be removed, and not before.”
~Declaration of the Causes and Necessities of Taking Up Arms~ (in part) 2nd Continental Congress, July 6, 1775
Well said my friend.
If you mix the statistics between criminals using guns, and legal owners using guns, it’s epidemic homicide. Not what’s really happening tho.
They are illegal in Mexico. Homicide rates many times US. Because criminals use them that way.
A lot of the weapons in the hands of the cartels come from the US though, so there is an argument to be made that gun violence in Mexico is partly to blame on how comparatively easy it is to acquire guns in the US that are then transferred to cartels.
On the other hand, if they couldn’t get them from the US, they’d just source the guns from somewhere else.
@@josueroberto7356
I heard Venezuela picked up some slack. Don’t know where their full auto comes from, not regular US issues.
@@glenndavis4452 They don't need to get the weapon in question with full auto, as they pay gunsmiths to make the conversion for them. There's also been some cases of police and military personnel trafficking their weapons to cartels, both from the border and in Mexico itself. They have also come into possession of straight up miniguns though. I really have no idea how they got their hands on those. Seems too high profile and complex of a system for it to be second hand. But eh, I'm not an expert.
@@josueroberto7356
Yeah. They’re no joke. The Mexican government literally needs to bring the Army to arrest high level members.
Bothers me how many like that are in the US now. Someone said there have been 48,000 applications for firearms from illegals in the last year.
Right on Brother. Unfortunately the people that need to here this will not listen.
People forget that the wheel lock musket that could fire 30-60 shots per min and that was a musket back then.
How fast do you think people could load that single shot musket?
@@uanime1 yea but those shot took time making it different
I don't think so, typo in the numbers. It takes about 2 seconds for the average person to get off a shot from an autoloader
@@uanime1 It doesn't matter. Multiple-shot firearms existed before the US was founded and the Founding Fathers were personally aware of many of them. The Kalthoff repeater was invented around 1630 and could have a 30-shot magazine. The Belton flintlock was personally demonstrated to George Washington, who considered equipping the Continental Army with them but declined because Belton raised the price. Just a few years after the signing of the Bill of Rights, Lewis & Clark used the Girardoni Air Rifle (designed 1779) to great effect on their expedition. There was also the Puckle gun, a revolver-ish crew-served heavy weapon designed two centuries before Samuel Colt was born.
@@TrazynPrime
" yea but those shot took time making it different"
So you admit that it was impossible for a musket back then to fire 30-60 shots per minute.
My right to self preservation is not open to negotiation. Full stop!
Remember what happened to Germany and Australia after they banned guns and contrast that to the events of the Alamo, and Lexington and Concorde were we said no to gun confiscation.
Lower crime rates than the USA.
Let's play:
-- 'A well regulated School System, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed'. --
Who gets to have Books? The People or the Schools? 😁
Having soft-core or even hard-core erotica in schools with underage minors isn't a right there bud. 😂
@@S1D3W1ND3R015 you missed the entire point of my comment, 'bud'.
@Condor512 I get it. You are trying to say that it's a collective right, which this argument has been disproven and squashed a long time ago. Gun rights are individual rights. So the answer would be the people. You just used a stupid example, and it is all I'm pointing out. Bud.
@@Condor512Simple. The people.
Gosh. That was easy.
A well regulated School System is in it self dictatorial, that would defeat the purpose of a free state from the get go. A School System also would decide what books are important and would not carry them, so the People would no be free to "bear" their own books or even write them.
Your first mistake is making a Well Regulated Militia equivalent to a Well Regulated School System. your second mistake People are the ones who have rights no the schools.
I played. Check Mate....mate.
Another case of the liberal "anything I don't like is authoritarian" argument.
It's totalitarian, not authoritarian.
You should screen this for your colleagues in the General Assembly. Not that the Fairfax/Alexandria/Falls Church delegations would understand it, being authoritarians themselves.
So much truth, not used to a politician speaking this way!
The gun cultures in the US is obviously a great deal different than the culture in Europe.
I don’t expect nor believe American citizens should ever relinquish their right to arms but I can’t say your country doesn’t have a problem when anyone from you regular Joe Six pack to a potential School Shooter are all capable and able to walk into a Pawn Shop down the road and buy a semi automatic weapon.
I don’t know to what extremes politicians want to take Gun Control in the US. But just on a moral level I can’t say I don’t believe some measures aren’t needed. What they are is a real problem to try figure out though and incredibly unlikely to ever find compromise
Mass shootings are overwhelmingly gang related in inner cities. Mass shootings like you first think in your head are very very rare and on the gun violence scale, an anomaly. Also, mass shootings and school shootings like today are very new. Before the late 90s to 2000s, things like Sandy Hook were absolutely unheard of. Yet we've always had guns and actually less gun laws. It's a socialital problem. This generation is mentally unequipped to handle the stressor of life and they have such disregard for said life also.
Your statement is reasonable- the thing the 'common sense' gun laws that are advocated for here do not seem to prevent very much crime. Most of the gun laws do more to give politicians talking points and the ability to claim they 'did something' than address the issues behind the violence. The states (California, New York, Illinois) that have the strongest gun laws have the most homicide. There is also the fact that percentage wise, there is far, far more homicide from blunt trauma and deaths from other causes that does not get widely reported on.
@@S1D3W1ND3R015: modern problems from modern people I take it? From what I understand half the casualties from guns in the US are accidental or Su*cide. Around 45/50% are actually homicide.
But when that number can reach anywhere between 10 to 20 thousand (homicides alone) it’s hard to not feel like something just might want putting in place to decrease those numbers
@Rockstar-bq5fm Lots of things can be done to prevent or lower those however. They never want to have a legitimate debate without the word ban, confiscate, or heavily restrict lawful people. The fact is, gun homicides are declining while gun ownership is skyrocketing. Which is the opposite of what they tell us. Also suicides are a completely different issue. That should be tackled differently.
@@Rockstar-bq5fmactually, roughly 60% of gun deaths are suicide, and almost 70% of the remaining figure is gang shootings; most of which happen in the cities with the strictest gun control (NY, La, Detroit, Chicago). The actual number of gun deaths is drastically lower than that of deaths caused by drunk driving.
You are always very well spoken. Thank you. America thanks you!
Wow. I think this has changed my outlook on firearms. Thank you for simplifying that for a much better understanding. 👍💯
Politicians should take notes from this guy. He politely states his opinion without bashing the other side. This is how civil discourse should be.
Well said Nick & thank you for your service and sacrifice! 🇺🇸👍🏻🙏🏻
Thank you brother for everything you have been doing.
Unbelievably perfectly stated. Thank you sir for your work and words. From one proud American to another, you are greatly appreciated.
Also it says shall not be infringed… as in the government should have no power to limit, diminish, or interfere with this right.
There's also the fact that "regulated" from the 1790s ain't the same as today.
When good Men do nothing evil reigns free.
Best rights explaination I've seen in a long time! thanks
Truth!
Well stated sir. The citizens of Virginia are lucky to have you as a delegate standing for their rights.
Okay I've been listening to this guy for a while now and I see a potential president here .
The most important thing to remember is that American is unique.
Excellent rundown 💯
They who would trade essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin
God bless you Nick!! ❤
Wounded Knee prime example of what 2a is about.
I love the National Guard is mentioned alongside a clip of a soldier's rifle malfunctioning. Reminds me of qual day when I was in lol.
I live in B.C Canada, our gun rights are being stripped daily. They say no one needs an A r for hunting. Well get this, our federal government just hired out foreign contractors to do a deer hunt from helicopters and yes you guessed it they used full auto A R 15 to mow down the deer and leave them to rot. The story is on the CCFR UA-cam channel.
Absolutely!
Nick, you're a national treasure. Please keep doing what you're doing.
LOLed at 1:30 when the guys rifle suffered an FTE. 😂
It ejected fine, it just then proceeded to double feed hard, lmao.
Awesome! Just Awesome. The truth always prevails. Job well done sir. 🇺🇸✝️
Just as it did in the novel "1984".
I'm with you 100% ❗
If we don’t protect. Ourselves…. Who will?
Brazil has pretty stick gun control laws. They also have an issue with criminals building their own guns from scratch. It's almost as if criminals don't care about the law and find a way to subvert it.