Great discussion, It seems to me that the High School students better understand the idea of "Freedom of Speech" than most of the University Students. I loved it.
In context to the day, “well-regulated” means “in proper working order.” The “militia” is all able-bodied individuals. We the people are the militia and we are to train in the effective use of firearms.
@@philrobertson2705 No, not the NRA. They have done more in recent years to set our 2nd Amendment Rights back. GOA is far more deserving of our support.
It's correct that the AR-15 is not an assault rifle, but I seem to be missing the bit where "Shall not be infringed" means limiting the type of weapon is in step with the second amendment.....
I always use the argument that in Australia, after giving up their guns, the incidences of armed home invasions have skyrocketed. It really brings home the point. Also we need to publicize incidences that have been solved by a good guy with a gun, and the numbers of people saved by having guns. Also, we should be talking about why would a government want to remove guns from people? What nefarious schemes could conceivably be brewing that could be facilitated by an unarmed public? Perhaps going back to what happened in Italy, Germany, and the other countries you mentioned would tie things up, especially with young people that might not automatically know what you are implying.
You are correct. As of 2008, every 13 seconds an American uses a gun in self defense. That fact is never reported. See this link: www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/08/01/every-13-seconds-an-american-uses-a-gun-in-self-defense/
shadowflash0 - Still looking for a "reputable" reference for Australia, however, in searching I found this Cato Institute report that describes what happened in England. (I'll post an Australia link if I find one I don't think is biased - either way.) - It pretty far down the report and the reports long. In this report, read the heading "Gun Controls in Great Britain" where it states "So the overall UK burglary rate is significantly worse ... In the United States, only a fairly small percentage of home burglaries take place when the occupants are home, but in Great Britain, about 59 percent do. In surveys, American burglars say that they avoid occupied homes because of the risk of getting shot. English burglars prefer occupied homes because there will be wallets and purses with cash, which do not have to be fenced at a discount. British criminals have little risk of confronting a victim who possesses a firearm. If success is measured by a reduction in handgun crime, then the Great Britain handgun confiscation was a failure. A July 2001 study from King’s College London’s Centre for Defense Studies found that handgun-related crime increased by nearly 40 percent in the two years following implementation of the handgun ban." "www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/costs-consequences-gun-control#full"
shadowflash0 - I have a good link to a Australian Parliament report by Crime Prevention Research Center based in Swarthmore, PA USA. Read the text because what the author is saying is that the ban did NOT work and gives his reasons why using actual data even though at first glance the data may support something else. See chart 3 (It spiked right after the ban peaking in 2001 but has slowly decreased after that.) crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Report-on-gun-related-suicides-and-crime-for-the-Australian-Parliament-Rev.pdf
YES 'YES 'YES thats what ive been telling people my hole life the true meaning of the Second Amendment to be able to overthrow your own government if it were to become tyrannical but they have manipulated the system to that is almost impossible now
Within reason. No nuclear weapons. Personally, I don't think governments should have those either. Anything that is a legitimate WMD is unnecessary. Missiles, nukes, so on. I'm even ok with tanks and jets being privately owned. People own planes, people already own tanks. I have yet to hear about anyone going on a rampage with them. If you can afford them, more power to you. I'll just keep my AR-15's and equivalent rifles.
@@zagorith14 assuming someone can afford them and is capable of operating them there are additional regulations not pertaining to their status as arms that apply. Example you presented nuclear weapons, there are in the US EPA standards regarding the radioactivity from the bombs that would have to be met to keep and store them. Plus they need a delivery method with its own regulations. Then there are international regulations regarding them and the materials they are made of. Aircraft require pilots licenses and FCC licenses to operate them so owning them just gives you the ability to park them somewhere. Tanks aren't street legal so owning them just lets you park them somewhere. At the end of the day what do you think is going to happen if we allowed private citizens to purchase million dollar aircraft or tanks?
When she started talking about the "Republican answer" being "river rocks," I couldn't help but go to the google machine. Low and behold...that happened in 2018. Tom wolf was the governor. Tom wolf, democrat.
Mira Costa must have some intellectual giants in leadership to be showing it students what fair open mindedness looks like. The students there are going to be better prepared to meet the challenges of the world and create success for themselves and their communities!
41:54 "I don't think the CDC, the Center for Disease Control, should be investigating our constitutional rights." Dr. Fauxci didn't get the message. Michael Knowles was way ahead of his time.
So glad this talk was given at a high school. It gave Knowles the opportunity to relay the rudimentary principles behind 2A. The woman in the end said baseball bats and river rocks were Republican solutions. Knowles should have pointed out that those are school district and Democrat proposals. Republican solutions involve trained personnel WITH guns, not without.
Thank you for your presentation. This will be used when any dumbocrat (spelled correctly) says that have THE SOLUTION to this issue. You presented this very well and well presented. Thank you and I will make sure many more people watch this presentation and the logic you have provided. - John
That was actually nice to see these young people getting the opportunity to ask Mike Knowles about gun control and the second amendment and actually getting to answer in a civilized way. After this I was thinking wow, everyone was heard and now each individual can go away and come to there own conclusion how nice is that.
I'm in favor of allowing mentally stable and trained teachers to carry consealed in schools as well as openly armed guards protecting schools. We can start suing schools that get targeted for mass shootings for their lack of security, rather than the manufacturer of the firearm used. These policies and actions would drastically decrease the number of mass shootings occurring at schools. 92-98% of all mass shootings occur in gun-free zones. That being said, why are schools gun free zones? I get that high school students shouldn't be armed, but why not the teachers and why not have guards?
That first girl is a shining example of what a Liberal vs Conservative debate should be like. I with calm say something, bring evidence and make a point. You with calm counter and ask a logical question. Amazing!
AR 15 is classically American. It is one of the most customizable rifles. It is the hot rod of firearms. It is an implement that can be configured in ways to fit what you want.
How refreshing a university and its students who are intelligent and capable of discerning upon the issues and in so doing are respectful and probing and mature.
Would be so thankful if we could have this discussion in Sweden. Here it seems we’re so indoctrinated in the idea that the government will always be there to protect us and tyranny is only in movies. However, even if Sweden have very strict laws on guns we’ve today have the most numbers of shootings in Europe. That’s of course not done with legal guns but with illegal guns, smuggled in over the borders by criminal gangs consisting of people from other countries who immigrated to Sweden. And the police are saying themselves they can’t win this fight. And the laws are not keeping up in order to prosecute these thugs and they don’t get deported. They don’t even get to prison in many cases. And when they do, they stay for a few years and then they’re back out and at it again. So we’ve ended up in a situation were criminals and the police are the only ones carrying guns. But the police are losing and common citizens aren’t allowed to arm themselves for protection. At the same time we’ve got about the highest taxes in the world, paying for things like the police to protect us. Which they can’t longer guarantee us to maintain. But we can’t protect ourselves either. Because we’re not allowed to. It’s quite absurd and really a pretty good but also depressing fact saying how little we price freedom. It’s a word for this. It’s called SOCIALISM.
Good event with very engaged young people. You could perhaps structure your arguments more concisely and prepare your presentation of facts and statistics in relation to expected questions. I hope you can do more of these high school talks.
Michael, I love you bro. I need help with how you reason that we shouldn't be allowed to have machine guns? I personally think they're generally impractical for most situations, even defensive, but wouldn't they follow the same line of logic as any other firearm? I think that on the right our problem is we only fight to keep ground after the left has taken it, and we consider "wins" to be when we're able to preserve just a little more.
From a purely constitutional interpretation you are correct. However, there is also "reasonable" interpretations of our rights. For instance, despite our 1st amendment right to free speech, its illegal you falsely shout "fire" in a crowded theater. Fully automatic weapons and nuclear missiles fall into this interpretation. However, since the term "semi-automatic" can be broadly interpreted to apply to ALL guns of ALL types that auto load or are revolver weapon designs this would only exempt "single shot" weapons, and that has been considered to be "unreasonable" and thereby unconstitutional.
Phil Robertson I definitely see the point you’re making, but would propose this angle to it and would like to see what you think. I think that Michael could have made a better argument on nukes for self defense by saying that they represent an indiscriminate force that would likely harm others no matter how their implementation is used? Like if I’m in a home invasion and use a nuke, at that point you’re not just stopping the invader, but you’re doing something that would harm many others as well. The same could be said for most explosives, biological, chemical weapons, etc. in other words there’s no “responsible” way to use a nuclear weapon in self defense. The only thing that would make a fully automatic weapon not to be able to be responsibility used is the same thing that would make any shooter of any semi automatic weapon, and that’s the intent to do harm, so I think the point still stands. Also, nothing in the constitution or the Supreme Court has said that automatic weapons are unconstitutional to my knowledge, and it’s definitely legal to own one, they’re just very expensive because they were banned from manufacture in the 1986 update to the NFA.
Anyone with any experience shooting firearms knows a fully-automatic gun is not insanely more effective than a semi-automatic gun. Your finger cannot move the trigger back and forth as with full-auto fire, but it is fairly close. So, classifying them in the same group as nuclear fucking warheads is silly.
Phil Robertson also the shouting fire falsey is not comparable to legitimate expression of rights, as it is intentionally calling for action that can cause harm to others. Shouting fire in a theater is akin to somebody misusing their 2A rights to hurt somebody else.
@@philrobertson2705 the second amendment pretty much states that we the people are the millita being that we should be as heavily armed as the federal government with the same weapons as the federal government's military. The founders expected the people to be armed the same as the military and be able to keep the government in check, and did expect the People's weapon technology to advance with the military.
Does not need to be a constitutionally protected right to ride a bicycle. To go further than the second amendment. We have the right to do anything as long as we cause no harm to others.
Disagree with Michael on saying it's a good idea to limit the exposure of machine guns & it was good they're regulated federally. It's not good Michael, & it's completely unconstitutional!
"i was just wondering, i was just wondering"...no you weren't "just wondering" you have an opinion that you are pressing. take ownership of your attack.
Really enjoy Shapiro and knowles, mostly because they are so logical. Except when they are “OK “with machine gun ban . All gun laws are infringement. “ shall not be infringed”. Wish Shapiro or knowles would have a complete segment on this and explain further, to be intellectually honest . Not trolling , I honestly listen to them all the time .
If left wing socialist with aspirations of communism are loosing sleep over my scary black 22 rifle...Aka AR-15......I'd say that's a good thing....All the more reason for the 2A.
The parents of a Michigan student who is accused of killing four classmates and wounding seven others during a mass shooting at Oxford High School on Tuesday pled not guilty to four counts of involuntary manslaughter. Prosecutors charged the couple with involuntary manslaughter after it was revealed that their 15-year-old son took the 9 mm semi-automatic handgun he used in the mass shooting from their home. Brad Dress, Michigan Couple Plead Not Guilty to Involuntary Manslaughter Charges in School Shooting, The Hill, December 4, 2021.
Argument against arming teachers: "What if the weapon starts whispering evils into the teacher's ear, corrupting their soul till they start using the gun on students who don't turn in their homework?" Argument against gun ban: "What if criminals don't follow laws?"
The 1-minute hate directed at the AR-15 is the same tactic used to ban pistols under the National Firearms Act of 1934. Note--the pistol ban failed. FDR's boys didn't want to share power and they threw away an offer that all legal guns would have to be registered nationally--and kept on the premises of nationally-recognized gun clubs, removed only upon authorization of the county sheriff. The legal gun owners would have to be members of the gun club and would go through a federal licensing process. The FDR Administration threw away that win and handguns were quietly deleted from the bill--but handgun substitutes (sawed off shotguns and short barrel rifles) remained. The poster boy Thompson submachine gun was the reason for national registration and taxation. Today, the AR-15 ban is a Trojan horse intended to ban handguns--and anything else that would deter a howling lynch mob from pillaging and burning before conducting mass murder. Dictatorships utilize "spontaneous mobs" to maintain power.
California is suppose to allow people to use their second amendment rights, but it doesn't allow anyone visiting the state to use their second amendment rights.
An ar10/15 type rifile is a very effective wounding weapon on a ranged line of skirmish in a battle against tyrannical forces, hand guns are worthless in defending freedom....and need not be considered!!! Soldiers use rifles not hand guns!!!!! Tyrant's fear effective weaponry that can be used against them.... Not how many people die from ineffective non-skirmish weapons like hand guns, example a hand gun brace makes a hand gun more effective at range by aim stabilization, so they are banning braces, adjustable stocks and grips also help the user aim better at skirmish ranges, so ban adjustable stocks/grips, standard capacity magazines allow for effective periods of suppressive fire to prevent advances of the skirmish line, better ban those too ...... Logic shows the tyrant's are in preparation to commit tyranny by deprivation of effective arms... Its not what the weapon looks like, its how effective it is in a battle against tyrannical advance that scares them, wake up politicians are not stupid, they are power hungry and don't mind looking stupid if it gets them more power!!!!!!
PART of me wants to say "MAGNIFICENT!", MCHS welcoming Michael. And i do say that. HOW i hope those the Left will attack for "allowing" him will not merely get through, but GIVE THEIR ATTACKERS a lesson---THE lesson they need TO REALIZE that TODAY'S "liberalism" IS NOT LIBERAL. And, and BUT: EVERY school should be presenting Michael's and other opposing views DAILY. Particularly "universities", and it's NOT like there's ANYBODY who doesn't know this; WE KNOW who obstructs this WITH EVERY MEANS THEY CAN, and WHY.
I think the idea of trying to ban rifles is much more sinister. The effective defense against a government as well armed as our own (if they attempted to assert themselves in a manner requiring such resistance) would be notably stunted if the only things the citizenry had access to was pump action, bolt action, muzzle loaded and other single fire rifles and pistols.
Thats the idea and why the Democrats push so hard for a generalized ban. Don't let their rhetoric fool you. They're still the party of slave-owners and would become tyrannical in a heartbeat if their agenda wins the day.
There is not a single legitimate right that allows anyone to harm others -- period. THAT is the source of the very few legitimate restrictions on the WAYS our rights can be exercised.
You absolutely can hunt with an AR-15. Most of them are .223, which is acceptable to hunt deer. I hunt with a .264 or .270, but I have killed a deer with an AR. Now, while hunting elk or bear I use .300 Win mag. You can absolutely use an AR to hunt, though.
The problem are all those fully semi automatic revolver pistols in the unregulated average law abiding citizen out there we need to ban those. Not the firearms the citizens. Making unconstitutional laws would do exactly that. Make the average firearm owning citizen a criminal. Then there would be no point in obeying the law, criminals don't obey the law.
Why the hell is the guy opening keep saying "WITH MY honor"....instead of properly saying "with honor" or "its my honor"... Just stuck out to me as soon as I started listening to this video...
He was super nervous. Probably a little star struck too in front of Knowles. I get tongue tied when speaking in public. So, I’ll just stick to UA-cam for now.
He is a high school student! lol I have no idea how old you are but if you are over 20 I am sure you remember how nerve racking it could be to stand up in front of a crowd of your fellow students and talk. It is obvious he is extremely nervous
Shall not be infringed. Means no background checks. Means the ability to go into a store and purchase weapons without restrictions. Period. I'd rather live with dangerous freedom than peaceful slavery
@Fish Sandwich Bull.. If the IRA was doing this the English would be making a big stink about it.. Even fighting in British held Ulster has stopped.. You are a few decades behind the times..
@Fish Sandwich Five.? Guess I'm behind the times.. I actually thought the IRA was defunct by now.. I haven't heard of them since Jerry Adams visited here just after 9-11.. Just who are they terrorizing now.?
Is the AR-15 more deadly than a hand gun? - No. Both shoot at the same speed. I can hit the same amount of targets in the same amount of time. Most handguns are use larger ammunition that's more powerful so you're less likely to survive. I can also hide the gun which is why it's much more lethal than a rifle which you would be able to run from as you'd see it from a ways off.
You can immediately tell who has actually fired a gun. That guy who claimed that the AR 15 is "worse" than a handgun obviously has not tried to shoot a rifle. Everything from holding the weapon to the amount of recoil to the reloading process is easier with a handgun. This guy also didn't listen when Knowles stated the facts that backed up the premise that handguns are actually deadlier.
Good to see Knowles is so logically inconsistant that he thinks an ar15 is "less deadly" (to use gun control wording) than a full auto, and thinks that there is a line in the sand for "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", and it is linked to how fast a gun can fire.
Why does he feel it's good that full auto is banned. Other then that good video. PS: A full auto is a waste of ammo to me so I really don't want one but thats not the issue is it?
I think we need to work more on education, then people could understand their own government 2nd amendment and constitution... but, our children are stupid like some of these could just proved.
Ill give it to the kids for being courteous and respectful during the speech and the questions.
most of them were asleep
ua-cam.com/play/PLTfaKJ_50JdoC9NaC8T3cOF9dNlHiDuw6.html
Except for those pussies that got up and left because they didn’t like the statistics
Because college professors haven't gotten their hands on them yet where the more polished brainwashing and disruptive training begins.
@@dr.funkenstein9790 the majority is what we’re looking for
Kudos to Mira Costa High School!!!!
Where is this school
I am the United States of America, and I support this message.
Great discussion, It seems to me that the High School students better understand the idea of "Freedom of Speech" than most of the University Students. I loved it.
Ben used to be my favorite and I still like him but Michael wins hands down.
agreed
If only this could be played at every high school in the country...excellent job Michael!
We stand to protect the USA Constitution, and Freedom.
One of the best speeches I've heard!
Listen to any of Ben Shapiro's speeches.
In context to the day, “well-regulated” means “in proper working order.” The “militia” is all able-bodied individuals. We the people are the militia and we are to train in the effective use of firearms.
Join the NRA. They have great programs on the proper use of a weapon, how to use them safely, and how to be a responsible gun owner.
@@philrobertson2705 No, not the NRA. They have done more in recent years to set our 2nd Amendment Rights back. GOA is far more deserving of our support.
@@zagorith14 GOA?
Thanks for coming to our school! I was there with my Gadsden flag!
legendary
It's pretty sad how a basic history lesson is now considered controversial.
It's correct that the AR-15 is not an assault rifle, but I seem to be missing the bit where "Shall not be infringed" means limiting the type of weapon is in step with the second amendment.....
Author of the greatest book ever written. 😜👌
I always use the argument that in Australia, after giving up their guns, the incidences of armed home invasions have skyrocketed. It really brings home the point. Also we need to publicize incidences that have been solved by a good guy with a gun, and the numbers of people saved by having guns. Also, we should be talking about why would a government want to remove guns from people? What nefarious schemes could conceivably be brewing that could be facilitated by an unarmed public? Perhaps going back to what happened in Italy, Germany, and the other countries you mentioned would tie things up, especially with young people that might not automatically know what you are implying.
You are correct. As of 2008, every 13 seconds an American uses a gun in self defense. That fact is never reported. See this link:
www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/08/01/every-13-seconds-an-american-uses-a-gun-in-self-defense/
Hey man, you happen to have the source for that home invasion bit?
shadowflash0 - Still looking for a "reputable" reference for Australia, however, in searching I found this Cato Institute report that describes what happened in England. (I'll post an Australia link if I find one I don't think is biased - either way.)
- It pretty far down the report and the reports long.
In this report, read the heading "Gun Controls in Great Britain" where it states "So the overall UK burglary rate is significantly worse ... In the United States, only a fairly small percentage of home burglaries take place when the occupants are home, but in Great Britain, about 59 percent do. In surveys, American burglars say that they avoid occupied homes because of the risk of getting shot.
English burglars prefer occupied homes because there will be wallets and purses with cash, which do not have to be fenced at a discount. British criminals have little risk of confronting a victim who possesses a firearm. If success is measured by a reduction in handgun crime, then the Great Britain handgun confiscation was a failure. A July 2001 study from King’s College London’s Centre for Defense Studies found that handgun-related crime increased by nearly 40 percent in the two years following implementation of the handgun ban."
"www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/costs-consequences-gun-control#full"
shadowflash0 - I have a good link to a Australian Parliament report by Crime Prevention Research Center based in Swarthmore, PA USA. Read the text because what the author is saying is that the ban did NOT work and gives his reasons why using actual data even though at first glance the data may support something else.
See chart 3 (It spiked right after the ban peaking in 2001 but has slowly decreased after that.)
crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Report-on-gun-related-suicides-and-crime-for-the-Australian-Parliament-Rev.pdf
Awesome that high school allowed you to speak there
If the government has it then the people should be able to have it
YES 'YES 'YES thats what ive been telling people my hole life the true meaning of the Second Amendment to be able to overthrow your own government if it were to become tyrannical but they have manipulated the system to that is almost impossible now
Within reason. No nuclear weapons. Personally, I don't think governments should have those either. Anything that is a legitimate WMD is unnecessary. Missiles, nukes, so on. I'm even ok with tanks and jets being privately owned. People own planes, people already own tanks. I have yet to hear about anyone going on a rampage with them. If you can afford them, more power to you. I'll just keep my AR-15's and equivalent rifles.
@@zagorith14 assuming someone can afford them and is capable of operating them there are additional regulations not pertaining to their status as arms that apply.
Example you presented nuclear weapons, there are in the US EPA standards regarding the radioactivity from the bombs that would have to be met to keep and store them. Plus they need a delivery method with its own regulations. Then there are international regulations regarding them and the materials they are made of.
Aircraft require pilots licenses and FCC licenses to operate them so owning them just gives you the ability to park them somewhere.
Tanks aren't street legal so owning them just lets you park them somewhere.
At the end of the day what do you think is going to happen if we allowed private citizens to purchase million dollar aircraft or tanks?
This exactly the kind of language we need in all of our gun control debates. I hope you've saved this speech!
Way to go knowles. Good speech very good with the stats and entertaining enough to entertain kids lol. Very educational and worth the watch.
When she started talking about the "Republican answer" being "river rocks," I couldn't help but go to the google machine.
Low and behold...that happened in 2018. Tom wolf was the governor. Tom wolf, democrat.
Well done Michael. Respectful, succinct, and persuasive.
Man, this guy's nailing it!
Mira Costa must have some intellectual giants in leadership to be showing it students what fair open mindedness looks like. The students there are going to be better prepared to meet the challenges of the world and create success for themselves and their communities!
Well done, Michael.
41:54 "I don't think the CDC, the Center for Disease Control, should be investigating our constitutional rights."
Dr. Fauxci didn't get the message. Michael Knowles was way ahead of his time.
I’m actually surprised that a high school had Michael Knowles as a speaker. 😮 that’s awesome
So glad this talk was given at a high school. It gave Knowles the opportunity to relay the rudimentary principles behind 2A. The woman in the end said baseball bats and river rocks were Republican solutions. Knowles should have pointed out that those are school district and Democrat proposals. Republican solutions involve trained personnel WITH guns, not without.
Thank you for your presentation. This will be used when any dumbocrat (spelled correctly) says that have THE SOLUTION to this issue. You presented this very well and well presented. Thank you and I will make sure many more people watch this presentation and the logic you have provided. - John
Interesting, this interview was informative.
Info
ua-cam.com/play/PLTfaKJ_50JdoC9NaC8T3cOF9dNlHiDuw6.html
I disagree, I believe we should be able to have fully-automatic fire arms.
The regulations on supressors and SBRs are ridiculous as well.
Wow some really great thinkers at Mira Costa. I’m impressed!
That was actually nice to see these young people getting the opportunity to ask Mike Knowles about gun control and the second amendment and actually getting to answer in a civilized way. After this I was thinking wow, everyone was heard and now each individual can go away and come to there own conclusion how nice is that.
Today I learned that Michael Knowles takes notes with Sharpies.
I'm in favor of allowing mentally stable and trained teachers to carry consealed in schools as well as openly armed guards protecting schools. We can start suing schools that get targeted for mass shootings for their lack of security, rather than the manufacturer of the firearm used. These policies and actions would drastically decrease the number of mass shootings occurring at schools. 92-98% of all mass shootings occur in gun-free zones. That being said, why are schools gun free zones? I get that high school students shouldn't be armed, but why not the teachers and why not have guards?
At centennial high school Boise Idaho we need a speaker
Very good speech and one I'll revisit for reference. With luck, the kids learned something.
That first girl is a shining example of what a Liberal vs Conservative debate should be like. I with calm say something, bring evidence and make a point. You with calm counter and ask a logical question. Amazing!
Very proud of these HS students. They are much more thoughtful and less triggered than college campuses. Maybe there’s a lesson here.
Excellent
AR 15 is classically American. It is one of the most customizable rifles.
It is the hot rod of firearms. It is an implement that can be configured in ways to fit what you want.
How refreshing a university and its students who are intelligent and capable of discerning upon the issues and in so doing are respectful and probing and mature.
Would be so thankful if we could have this discussion in Sweden. Here it seems we’re so indoctrinated in the idea that the government will always be there to protect us and tyranny is only in movies. However, even if Sweden have very strict laws on guns we’ve today have the most numbers of shootings in Europe. That’s of course not done with legal guns but with illegal guns, smuggled in over the borders by criminal gangs consisting of people from other countries who immigrated to Sweden. And the police are saying themselves they can’t win this fight. And the laws are not keeping up in order to prosecute these thugs and they don’t get deported. They don’t even get to prison in many cases. And when they do, they stay for a few years and then they’re back out and at it again. So we’ve ended up in a situation were criminals and the police are the only ones carrying guns. But the police are losing and common citizens aren’t allowed to arm themselves for protection. At the same time we’ve got about the highest taxes in the world, paying for things like the police to protect us. Which they can’t longer guarantee us to maintain. But we can’t protect ourselves either. Because we’re not allowed to. It’s quite absurd and really a pretty good but also depressing fact saying how little we price freedom.
It’s a word for this.
It’s called SOCIALISM.
Good event with very engaged young people. You could perhaps structure your arguments more concisely and prepare your presentation of facts and statistics in relation to expected questions. I hope you can do more of these high school talks.
Michael, I love you bro. I need help with how you reason that we shouldn't be allowed to have machine guns? I personally think they're generally impractical for most situations, even defensive, but wouldn't they follow the same line of logic as any other firearm? I think that on the right our problem is we only fight to keep ground after the left has taken it, and we consider "wins" to be when we're able to preserve just a little more.
From a purely constitutional interpretation you are correct. However, there is also "reasonable" interpretations of our rights. For instance, despite our 1st amendment right to free speech, its illegal you falsely shout "fire" in a crowded theater.
Fully automatic weapons and nuclear missiles fall into this interpretation. However, since the term "semi-automatic" can be broadly interpreted to apply to ALL guns of ALL types that auto load or are revolver weapon designs this would only exempt "single shot" weapons, and that has been considered to be "unreasonable" and thereby unconstitutional.
Phil Robertson I definitely see the point you’re making, but would propose this angle to it and would like to see what you think. I think that Michael could have made a better argument on nukes for self defense by saying that they represent an indiscriminate force that would likely harm others no matter how their implementation is used? Like if I’m in a home invasion and use a nuke, at that point you’re not just stopping the invader, but you’re doing something that would harm many others as well. The same could be said for most explosives, biological, chemical weapons, etc. in other words there’s no “responsible” way to use a nuclear weapon in self defense. The only thing that would make a fully automatic weapon not to be able to be responsibility used is the same thing that would make any shooter of any semi automatic weapon, and that’s the intent to do harm, so I think the point still stands. Also, nothing in the constitution or the Supreme Court has said that automatic weapons are unconstitutional to my knowledge, and it’s definitely legal to own one, they’re just very expensive because they were banned from manufacture in the 1986 update to the NFA.
Anyone with any experience shooting firearms knows a fully-automatic gun is not insanely more effective than a semi-automatic gun. Your finger cannot move the trigger back and forth as with full-auto fire, but it is fairly close. So, classifying them in the same group as nuclear fucking warheads is silly.
Phil Robertson also the shouting fire falsey is not comparable to legitimate expression of rights, as it is intentionally calling for action that can cause harm to others. Shouting fire in a theater is akin to somebody misusing their 2A rights to hurt somebody else.
@@philrobertson2705 the second amendment pretty much states that we the people are the millita being that we should be as heavily armed as the federal government with the same weapons as the federal government's military. The founders expected the people to be armed the same as the military and be able to keep the government in check, and did expect the People's weapon technology to advance with the military.
Go back more than twenty-five years before there were mass shootings, and ask the question, "Why?"
Does not need to be a constitutionally protected right to ride a bicycle. To go further than the second amendment. We have the right to do anything as long as we cause no harm to others.
Every gun law is an infringement.
🙌🙌🙌🙌
Disagree with Michael on saying it's a good idea to limit the exposure of machine guns & it was good they're regulated federally. It's not good Michael, & it's completely unconstitutional!
I keep getting an "Abed from community" vibe, every time I watch a Michael Knowles show...
LOL
SIX SEASONS AND A MOVIE!!!
"i was just wondering, i was just wondering"...no you weren't "just wondering" you have an opinion that you are pressing. take ownership of your attack.
Really enjoy Shapiro and knowles, mostly because they are so logical.
Except when they are “OK “with machine gun ban . All gun laws are infringement. “ shall not be infringed”.
Wish Shapiro or knowles would have a complete segment on this and explain further, to be intellectually honest .
Not trolling , I honestly listen to them all the time .
I have always said Gun rights are a matter of National Security and need to be maintained no matter what the cost.
Hey look it's me in the center with the plaid green shirt!!
If left wing socialist with aspirations of communism are loosing sleep over my scary black 22 rifle...Aka AR-15......I'd say that's a good thing....All the more reason for the 2A.
In the end there is only way to protect ones rights!!!
Not to nitpick Mr. Knowles but the ar-15 is a common deer hunting rifle. With correct configuration and shot placement it is an excellent deer gun.
The opening speaker looks like a younger Michael DeLuise
The parents of a Michigan student who is accused of killing four classmates and wounding seven others during a mass shooting at Oxford High School on Tuesday pled not guilty to four counts of involuntary manslaughter.
Prosecutors charged the couple with involuntary manslaughter after it was revealed that their 15-year-old son took the 9 mm semi-automatic handgun he used in the mass shooting from their home.
Brad Dress, Michigan Couple Plead Not Guilty to Involuntary Manslaughter Charges in School Shooting, The Hill, December 4, 2021.
Its scary how quiet those kids are. Could be a bad thing. Could be a bad one.
Soon they will ban Jerry's trigger finger as a rate increasing device!
Jerry Miculek. A god among trigger fingers.
They will never be able to ban Jerry's fingers. Not gonna happen! Who would be stupid enough to try 🤣
Argument against arming teachers: "What if the weapon starts whispering evils into the teacher's ear, corrupting their soul till they start using the gun on students who don't turn in their homework?"
Argument against gun ban: "What if criminals don't follow laws?"
I'm not hunting deer. I'm hunting tax collectors.
-George Washington
Assault rifles should be legal too.
The 1-minute hate directed at the AR-15 is the same tactic used to ban pistols under the National Firearms Act of 1934. Note--the pistol ban failed. FDR's boys didn't want to share power and they threw away an offer that all legal guns would have to be registered nationally--and kept on the premises of nationally-recognized gun clubs, removed only upon authorization of the county sheriff. The legal gun owners would have to be members of the gun club and would go through a federal licensing process. The FDR Administration threw away that win and handguns were quietly deleted from the bill--but handgun substitutes (sawed off shotguns and short barrel rifles) remained.
The poster boy Thompson submachine gun was the reason for national registration and taxation. Today, the AR-15 ban is a Trojan horse intended to ban handguns--and anything else that would deter a howling lynch mob from pillaging and burning before conducting mass murder. Dictatorships utilize "spontaneous mobs" to maintain power.
California is suppose to allow people to use their second amendment rights, but it doesn't allow anyone visiting the state to use their second amendment rights.
An ar10/15 type rifile is a very effective wounding weapon on a ranged line of skirmish in a battle against tyrannical forces, hand guns are worthless in defending freedom....and need not be considered!!! Soldiers use rifles not hand guns!!!!! Tyrant's fear effective weaponry that can be used against them.... Not how many people die from ineffective non-skirmish weapons like hand guns, example a hand gun brace makes a hand gun more effective at range by aim stabilization, so they are banning braces, adjustable stocks and grips also help the user aim better at skirmish ranges, so ban adjustable stocks/grips, standard capacity magazines allow for effective periods of suppressive fire to prevent advances of the skirmish line, better ban those too ...... Logic shows the tyrant's are in preparation to commit tyranny by deprivation of effective arms... Its not what the weapon looks like, its how effective it is in a battle against tyrannical advance that scares them, wake up politicians are not stupid, they are power hungry and don't mind looking stupid if it gets them more power!!!!!!
PART of me wants to say "MAGNIFICENT!", MCHS welcoming Michael. And i do say that. HOW i hope those the Left will attack for "allowing" him will not merely get through, but GIVE THEIR ATTACKERS a lesson---THE lesson they need TO REALIZE that TODAY'S "liberalism" IS NOT LIBERAL. And, and BUT: EVERY school should be presenting Michael's and other opposing views DAILY. Particularly "universities", and it's NOT like there's ANYBODY who doesn't know this; WE KNOW who obstructs this WITH EVERY MEANS THEY CAN, and WHY.
I think the idea of trying to ban rifles is much more sinister. The effective defense against a government as well armed as our own (if they attempted to assert themselves in a manner requiring such resistance) would be notably stunted if the only things the citizenry had access to was pump action, bolt action, muzzle loaded and other single fire rifles and pistols.
Thats the idea and why the Democrats push so hard for a generalized ban. Don't let their rhetoric fool you. They're still the party of slave-owners and would become tyrannical in a heartbeat if their agenda wins the day.
Thank God the amount of legally purchased firearms was double that of the military last year. Seriously, we've still got a chance
finely a speaker that is not afraid to state the facts !!!
Not to mention more kids die from bicycle accidents then ar15s.
There is not a single legitimate right that allows anyone to harm others -- period. THAT is the source of the very few legitimate restrictions on the WAYS our rights can be exercised.
The high and tight kid with his top button undone is killing me 😂 #reasonablenoddingintensifies
I haven't really seen the "Daily Wire" specifically focus on the second amendment and all that goes with that. This was also to see.
You absolutely can hunt with an AR-15. Most of them are .223, which is acceptable to hunt deer. I hunt with a .264 or .270, but I have killed a deer with an AR. Now, while hunting elk or bear I use .300 Win mag.
You can absolutely use an AR to hunt, though.
The problem are all those fully semi automatic revolver pistols in the unregulated average law abiding citizen out there we need to ban those. Not the firearms the citizens. Making unconstitutional laws would do exactly that. Make the average firearm owning citizen a criminal. Then there would be no point in obeying the law, criminals don't obey the law.
Assault rifle is a rifle that has been used in an assault.. Assault bat assault twisted tea assault hammer etc
Why the hell is the guy opening keep saying "WITH MY honor"....instead of properly saying "with honor" or "its my honor"...
Just stuck out to me as soon as I started listening to this video...
He also said he wanted to "dank the Young Democrats".
He was super nervous. Probably a little star struck too in front of Knowles. I get tongue tied when speaking in public. So, I’ll just stick to UA-cam for now.
Genevieve Rachelle have I ever told how much I love that bunny rabbit.
God I sound so creepy.
He's a kid. Nervous & excited. He'll grow out of it.
He is a high school student! lol I have no idea how old you are but if you are over 20 I am sure you remember how nerve racking it could be to stand up in front of a crowd of your fellow students and talk. It is obvious he is extremely nervous
I always have to wait at least 5 days and that's on a bolt gun not a semi-automatic scary gun! And I do have a concealed carry it doesn't matter! Wtf
Shall not be infringed. Means no background checks. Means the ability to go into a store and purchase weapons without restrictions. Period. I'd rather live with dangerous freedom than peaceful slavery
I'm 100 % with you on the issue of guns..putting security at city schools basically ended school shooting in the ghetto..
what is laural and yanny ?
Some police departments have unlimited resources.
We should have autos, they were banned because the ban was snuck in a bill unrelated to it
Use of the Armalite rifle helped free Ireland from English rule..
@Fish Sandwich Bull.. If the IRA was doing this the English would be making a big stink about it.. Even fighting in British held Ulster has stopped.. You are a few decades behind the times..
@Fish Sandwich Five.? Guess I'm behind the times.. I actually thought the IRA was defunct by now.. I haven't heard of them since Jerry Adams visited here just after 9-11.. Just who are they terrorizing now.?
Is the AR-15 more deadly than a hand gun?
- No.
Both shoot at the same speed.
I can hit the same amount of targets in the same amount of time.
Most handguns are use larger ammunition that's more powerful so you're less likely to survive.
I can also hide the gun which is why it's much more lethal than a rifle which you would be able to run from as you'd see it from a ways off.
Pretty lame the q&A was so short. That is the best part of these videos.
Just ask yourself this.... Do you trust the the Government? No? The gun debate is over!
You can immediately tell who has actually fired a gun. That guy who claimed that the AR 15 is "worse" than a handgun obviously has not tried to shoot a rifle. Everything from holding the weapon to the amount of recoil to the reloading process is easier with a handgun. This guy also didn't listen when Knowles stated the facts that backed up the premise that handguns are actually deadlier.
He's not wrong though a rifle is deadlier than a handgun I agree with everything Knowles said except that
Sadly, the whole constitution has become a bipartisan issue.
Watch Mark Passio
Machine guns arent banned theyre just highley regulated and expensive
Q&A @ 29:55
Is it Laura or Yenny, it's Covfefe
My 12 gauge pump loaded with 00 buck is far more deadly than my AR 15 or my .45 or my .22 auto loader or my 14 inch Bowie or my.......
Good to see Knowles is so logically inconsistant that he thinks an ar15 is "less deadly" (to use gun control wording) than a full auto, and thinks that there is a line in the sand for "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", and it is linked to how fast a gun can fire.
Ya Boi Dayron you are completely confused, he didn’t say an AR 15 is less deadly than a full auto weapon. He said the opposite
Well, i will be deamned. It seems like four years ago dems had the ability to have a discussion without shouting and whining...
Why does he feel it's good that full auto is banned. Other then that good video. PS: A full auto is a waste of ammo to me so I really don't want one but thats not the issue is it?
I shoot tin cans in my backyard with my M1 Garand ....
Michael Knowles looks exactly like Michael Corleone
I think we need to work more on education, then people could understand their own government 2nd amendment and constitution... but, our children are stupid like some of these could just proved.