I agree completely. As a serious student of the law and the Constitution, Mr. Ayoob stated what I have said for years "Weapons of war are EXACTLY what the Second Amendment protects" Case law proves this as in the case of conviction of a man in the 1930's for having a short barrel shotgun and the judge said this was not in common use by the MILITARY at the time! Why that never comes up in modern cases involving NFA or GCA is beyond me.
i just dont like the disingenuousness of it. Full automatic is never used aynmore. its all single controlled shots. Turns out better for some reason even with low recoil 223. So we could take FA away from regular grunts and we'd still be using them. AR15 is a weapon of war by any measure because its as efficient as possible for today's battlefield. And IF you actualyl believe the 2nd amendment, you have a righto to such a thing.
The AR Platform is a weapon of war when well regulated or set to a exacting standard, a Military Standard. The AR Platform is a Sporting Rifle when not regulated or set to an exacting Military Standard. Militia, or Minutemen are NOT National Guard or the Ready Reserves. The National Guard started off as Militia in concept, but is lost now to bureaucracy just as the Ready Reserve has. No longer are the days when the Active Duty Military carried their arms with them everyday 24-7-356. they are kept in an Armory locked up, the National Guard, in concept the original Minutemen also have their weapons locked in a centralized armory... having to travel to their unit, wait for the person with the key, the alarm codes, to unlock the weapons...this is not the action of a true Minuteman or Militia. The Minuteman keeps his weapons within reach from a few mm to a few yards depending, surely close enough that if an Aircraft start dropping paratroopers before the chutes hit the ground they would be ready for the fight...this is Minutemen, Militia. Early morning, under the cover of darkness, Too small to be seen on radar. to low and too quiet they land and start their offensive to kill as many as they can before retreating. They kill men, women and child, torture and behead children burning some alive. The National Guardsmen is headed to his armory, the ready reserve is headed to his base and armory...the Militia man, the minuteman is up, armed and in the fight, defending hearth, and home, family, neighbors both known or unknown...he is in the fight. Whether trained former Military and Combat Veteran as I am, Police and Former Military as my wife is, or a Competitive Shooter with the only stressor while shooting is a time clock, is far better than waiting for the NG or RR to get to and back from the respective Armory's to get into the fight. No sir they are all one in the same in a predawn raid Regular Military...to late. The National Guard again to late.... the ready reserves are still waiting for orders when the Militia, the Minuteman has already stepped into the fight. Regular Army, National Guard, the Ready Reserves do not defend, they avenge.....Minutemen, Militia, those who are ready now to fight...we defend. We are the defense of the farm, the family our neighbors, the Military and even the police and courts only avenge those who we fail to defend
My issue with "modern sporting rifle" is that the 2nd amendment doesn't specifically protect sporting arms. It's an attempt to appeal to those who choose security over freedom, and believe that the 2nd amendment applies only to sporting arms, which is an overall losing strategy. If they buy it, maybe you keep your AR, but lose your right to carry in public, and your 30 round magazines.
There's only two ways to fight tyranny: law and force. When the law fails? You know, like when inferior court judges, the Executive Branch, State Governors and Congress/Legislatures start to ignore Supreme Court rulings, etc.
Sporting rifle or " weapon of war" - doesn't matter. The very point of the 2A was to acknowledge that we possess the right to own & bear weapons = to those of the government/military in order to protect ourselves from tyranny.
Quite the contrary, our Right for Self Protection is a GOD Given Right, whereas our 2nd Amendment CURTAILS The Government from Abusing.., Limiting and/or Destroying those Natural Rights we People have at BIRTH!! THAT’s EXACTLY WHAT The Government doesn’t care for ~ OUR HAVING INALIENABLE RIGHTS [OUR OWN POWER!] for which THEY CANNOT TOUCH - NOT without OUR Surrendering said Rights..!!! Don’t EVER EVEN THINK ABOUT IT, Patriots🇺🇸 #2A 🇺🇸
I find it eternally curious (and aggrivating) that the former democracy of Canada has never had, does not have, and will likely never have, anything resembling the 2nd amendment to the United States Constitution. In my sad little country, to the North of the US of A, we the people (sheeple) are expected to let our 'government' do the defending and protecting of it's citizens for us. What a absurd joke. In addition, so as to rub salt into that already open wound of a policy, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has recently made it illegal for Canadian citizens to purchase handguns. Ironic then that he, upon making his journey's to various locations around Canada, should find himself eternally surrounded by what is certain to be a well armed security detail, which could lead one could infer that the PM feels that his life is worth defending, while the lives of the mere citizens ........are not. Canada......a sad country indeed.
Here’s a selection of some quotes directly from the Founders. I like to use these in arguments as well because it is difficult for someone to refute the words of the very men who wrote the Constitution. (I copy and pasted these to notes for easy access whenever I need them) George Washington said: "When government takes away citizens' right to bear arms it becomes citizens duty to take away goverment's right to govern.” Pretty clear John Adams said: "ARMS IN THE HANDS OF INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS MAY BE USED AT INDIVIDUAL DISCRETION FOR THE DEFENCE OF THE COUNTRY, THE OVER-THROW OF TYRANNY, OR IN PRIVATE SELF-DEFENSE." Thomas Jefferson said: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." “Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.” "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Frederick Douglass, a great African American politician, said: “A man's right rests in three boxes: the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.” Sam Adams, John Adams brother, said: “Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.” "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." Tench Coxe, a PA Delegate to the Continental Congress, said: “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an Americans.” Patrick Henry said:"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
@@bikerbobcat I had compiled them over time onto an album of screenshots on my phone. I don’t have the exact origin of each quote, but they should be relatively easy to look up on the internet using part of the wording. I do that sometimes, and I have had good success finding the author of the quote and where they said/wrote the quote. I have good confidence in the historicity of most of them because many came GunsNGadgets, AZ quotes, or other trustworthy sources. There’s also an app called founders quotes that send a quote each day to your notifications.
@@trev5.566 On a historical note, multi-shot firearms existed at the time of the founding and the Founding Fathers were personally aware of them. The Kalthoff repeater had a 30-round magazine and was invented in 1630. The Belton flintlock was invented in 1777 and was personally demonstrated to the Founding Fathers. Just a few years after the ratification of the Bill of Rights, Lewis & Clark carried the Girardoni air rifle (invented 1779) on their famous expedition and used it to great effect. The Founding Fathers knew technology would advance because they were seeing it happen in their lifetimes. If they only wanted us to have muskets they would have said so. No word in our founding documents is there by accident. I also like Thomas Jefferson recommending to his nephew to constantly carry a rifle on his walks and get good with it. You may wish to add that quote.
No person or group can legally or morally decide whether you can defend yourselves. Its up to us just as it was up to those in 1776 and earlier. Stand fast America!
"No person or group can legally or morally decide whether you can defend yourselves" you are wrong my friend. they CAN do it, and they DO do it. almost every damn day. your heart is right, but your head is not. defend yourself with deadly force from a robber or thug. brother, your whole day (life) will be dekcuf up
@ramonazteca " If circumstances should at any time obligate the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of ARMS who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist. " ~Alexander Hamilton Federalist No.28 1788
@@ramonazteca" The CONSTITUTION of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their RIGHT and DUTY to be at All Times ARMED." ~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Catwright June 5th 1824
Our founding fathers are smiling down on Mas because he’s leading the fight for freedom well, to know that the right to keep and bear arms is the key stone to our sacred constitution.
Superb, wholly accurate, and - most importantly - fundamental and essential to the preservation of individual liberties in the “great experiment“ we call the United States of America.
Unfortunately, not everybody agrees that liberty and self defense are inalienable rights as stated in the Declaration. Too many around the world believe in various amounts of government control, and self defense is seldom allowed.
@@loboheeler Most developed nations, including the USA, have mixed economies and protected freedoms. Often to a larger degree than the USA. The USA also has as much government control as they do. If you think of how many things would stop working without it you'll see it's not all bad. With utter freedom you should be allowed to drive on whichever side of the road you like. Does that sound like a good idea? Government control means that when you buy milk you probably won't contract tuberculosis of the stomach. Try catching a flight across country without government control. Good luck with that. I'm not sure where you get the idea of self-defense not being allowed, unless by that you mean firearms. Several countries have gun ownership rates up there with the USA, Switzerland for instance. But they are regulated. If you compare the crime rates and number of gun deaths with those countries they are miniscule compared to the USA. maybe you need to do some traveling and educate yourself about the planet. The current population of the earth is 8,076,994,357. The current population of the USA is 331 million. I think that makes it about 4% of the world's population. Just for a bit of perspective.
It doesn’t help much as long as States can enact their laws! Question? Can the Supreme Court give a decision on States having their own gun laws? Why is it pick and choose for states to do what they want and ignore the second. Amendment?
@@bradbenson6929Because the constitution is not without regulation whether it be at the state or federal level. You should’ve remembered this from fourth grade US history but apparently 99.6% of all Americans have forgotten that. If the constitution was so absolute then under the verbiage of the first amendment I should be able to hurl threats at you and yell “bomb” on an airplane. No different than how no state or federal entity can actually ban all firearms however some can be restricted. This is indeed legal under the constitution since its implementation. Your First, Second and Fourth amendment rights all have limited restrictions in lieu of the verbiage written as none of those three amendments are absolute. Same as with the fourth amendment on how there are exceptions to search warrants as statistically 89% of all searches conducted whether it be to a vehicle (mobility exception) or in a house warrantless (exigency). And those searches are indeed done legally. If you don’t like it go change the constitution. 🤷♂️🤷♂️ There’s a hell of a lot more to the constitution than the verbiage written for each amendment. People will read the second amendment being “A-well regulated militia……..” as the verbiage that it’s written as all of a sudden they think they’re now all scholars in constitutional law. That verbiage is the basis of laws to pre-exist that of further restrictions by the government. I’m a Texas prosecutor full-time and teach LSU legal part-time during the fall classes. Just over the fourth amendment alone I have 884 questions in my question bank we issue to entry-level legal students along with a seventeen (17) hour PowerPoint over the fourth amendment alone. That seventeen hours of PowerPoint presentation is what actually EXPLAINS the fourth amendment. In a nutshell the general public have no earthly ideas to what they’re talking about. Proof of this is when I issue these quizzes to the public they failed them miserably regardless of which questions I pick out of them. If you can’t pass these quizzes then you don’t know the constitution plain and simple
@@bradbenson6929 The 10th amendment stated that was NOT assigned to the federal government, was left to the states to decide. Guns WERE assigned to the federal government. The states cannot make laws against the U.S. Constitution. Yet, here we are.
The problem with certain members of congess is they either incapable of understanding or they are puppets of the democratic socialist party, on the take!
who defines "a good citizen"? The Constitution doesn't say anything about good citizens only owning guns. You are one of these common sense gun law type.
The media wants people to think AR15 ownership is something recent but I bought my first in 1978 , two years after my discharge and they were commercially available since the late 60s.
I love listening to this man speak from all of his wisdom thank you Wilson Combat Channel. Keep on speaking the truth every individual has a right for self-preservation and the right to protect him or herself and their family.
Hi. I’m a civilian gun owner form Poland and fun of the channel. My experience with gun laws is a little different, so I can offer a different perspective. I’m actually pleased with my country’s gun law. In order to buy a gun in Poland you have to get a license. Any Polish citizen without criminal record can get a license. It is comparable to getting a driving license here. You have to pass a theoretical test, practical test, and get checked out by a doctor. So, when I bought my first gun, I knew how to operate the thing safely. When I go to a gun store and show my license, I can buy any non-fully automatic weapon I desire. No background checks. No tax stamps. No barrel length, magazine size, grip or stock restrictions. When I import a gun, I don’t need to get a “kit”, or chop it to pieces to cross the border. I just register it normally like a car. I often recommend going to a range to friends. I would like as many people as possible to learn how to shoot and obtain the license. Gun related crimes in Poland are very low, and school shootings are non-existent, so we must be doing something right.
America can thank Hollywood for glorifying guns and the current gun crime in this country. Smoking cigarettes in the movies made you look "cool" . It took a long time for people to figure out they can also kill you. Maybe its time to "ban" Hollywood movies with gun violence in them. Ask Alec Baldwin and see what he thinks!
As always thank you Mass. You’ve stated before you’re not a lawyer but some of the things you’ve stated from the constitution could be almost as eloquent as a pastor reading from the Bible. God Bless!
As i tell most people, "almost every gun today has had it's basis in war"....including the musket, single shots, lever actions, bolt actions (Springfield 1903 comes to mind) and in modern times the self loading rifles...ect.
The second amendment does NOT give us the right to bear arms, we are born with that right. The second amendment only prevents the government from violating our rights. THAT is the conversation that should be had.
Agreed Also something that doesn't get talked a lot in regards to the 2A and that is *sovereignty.* From chatGPT before it got extremely biased: When the Founding Fathers spoke of "the people could assert their sovereignty," they referred to the idea that the ultimate source of political authority and power in the new nation rested with the citizens. The concept of sovereignty in the context of the American Revolution and the creation of the United States was closely tied to the principles of popular sovereignty and self-governance. In the traditional European model of governance, power was concentrated in the hands of monarchs or ruling elites, who held authority by divine right or hereditary claims. However, the Founding Fathers rejected this notion and believed that political legitimacy came from the consent of the governed, not from any divine or inherited right. They embraced the idea of popular sovereignty, which asserted that the people, as a collective body, were the true source of political power. In other words, the government derived its legitimacy and authority from the will of the people it governed. The citizens, through their participation and representation in the democratic process, could shape the laws and institutions that governed their lives. This idea of sovereignty was deeply intertwined with the concept of individual rights and liberties, as the Founding Fathers sought to create a system that protected the rights of individuals while promoting the common good. The Second Amendment, as part of the Bill of Rights, was seen as a critical safeguard for maintaining the people's sovereignty. It recognized the right of the people to keep and bear arms, which was instrumental in empowering them to protect themselves, their families, and their communities. The ability of the people to be armed was not just about self-defense against criminals or foreign invaders but also about preserving the citizens' ability to resist any potential future government that might infringe upon their liberties. The Founding Fathers saw the armed citizenry as a check on potential abuses of power by the government, ensuring that the government would always be accountable to the people it governed. By having the means to defend themselves and their rights, the people could actively participate in shaping the course of the nation, thereby asserting their sovereignty in the political landscape. In conclusion, the notion of "the people could assert their sovereignty" meant that the power and authority of the government emanated from the consent of the governed. It emphasized the people's role as the ultimate decision-makers and highlighted their right to bear arms as a means to protect their liberties and participate actively in the governance of the new nation.
My neighbor was a donut shop owner & he was murdered with a horribly stale donut by an irate customer who forgot his clip when he went storming into the shop to blow away my neighbor who he thought was always laughing at him.
The second amendment doesn't give us the right to have guns and protect ourselves that comes from God. What the second amendment does do is TELL THE GOVERNMENT WHAT IT CANNOT DO! "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"
Owning an AR-15 is like owning an expensive sports car. You don't need it, but it's legal to own, has a specific task it does, and it's a hell of a lot of fun.
Another comment. Has Massad ever been on Fox News or any other sources? Why aren’t we getting him out there more? Joe Rogan podcast as an example? He is a tremendous historian! A super brilliant debater! Tremendous common sense! Just plain down right Smart! How can we do this?
@@Damonbird775 It’s simple. Because they are more likely to give him a forum. They will listen to a conservative point of view! But you already knew that. !
@@bradbenson6929 I respect him far too much to wish that he appears on fox news which has a long established track record of lying. Him going on fox news is preaching to the choir. What does that do? If you are wanting to change people’s views or opinions and maybe have them vote your way, he needs to go on a channel where he can actually change people’s views. Everyone who watches fox news is overwhelmingly already pro gun. Make sense?
The trouble with the "use precise language" bit is that the AR-15 (as in Armalite) *is* an assault rifle - Armalite only ever made select fire AR-15s. Once Colt bought the design, they continued making select fire AR-15s. The Air Force bought and issued select fire AR-15s. This happened before a single civilian semiautomatic variant was ever sold to the public. The rifles that established the M16 and M16A1 specification were both AR-15s (the Colt AR-15 Model 603 and 604, respectively). Select fire AR-15s have always existed. There are thousands in civilian hands, it's not illegal to own them in most of the country. If the intent is to be precise in language (and exclude the select fire ARs), you'd need to clarify "civilian semiautomatic AR-15" or use some similar language to draw that line. As a precise language matter, AR-15 includes select fire and semiautomatic variants of the original select fire design. ARs can certainly be sporting rifles, but the issue with "modern sporting rifle" is that it seeks to retroactively change (or obfuscate) the history of the AR-15. It wasn't designed for Camp Perry target shooting, it was designed for warfare. And that's a good thing - most of the popular guns in the US have either a direct connection to such a design intent. The things that make a good service rifle tend to make for a good rifle in general. Letting antigunners draw a line between "military" firearms and "sporting" firearms is a massive mistake that NSSF and NRA allowed to happen. This distinction is created by the antigunners, and really didn't exist for the majority of American history. This is the issue with the "modern sporting rifle" term - by accepting the framing you yield that "military" guns can be subject to a greater scrutiny. It gives legitimacy to that antigunner argument.
Hoo boy... And people thought the backlash against the View for their witchhunt attempts against Jason Aldeen was bad... I dare say that that show going after Mas would put the final nails in that show's coffin...
Frankly the argument should be to have the full auto be made legal again. The second amendment ain’t for sport. Can’t stay on the defensive need to go on the attack if you want to win the game
If it wasn't for CNN I wouldn't believe the ar15 in 5.56 was any good for defense. When CNN found Kyle Rittenhouse guilty and showed the video of him shooting that guy in the arm that was trying to kill him. I was like DAMN, what have I been missing. Ar15 in 5.56 is possibly the best defensive firearm there is.
So can someone explain to me if the people should have weapons of war then how do you handle the argument from anti gunners who say then why don't you guys fight for grenades, tanks, rockets, etc etc etc. Shouldn't we also be fighting for thoae weapons too to stay logically consistent and if not why is there a cut off?
I would love to see a town hall style sit down with the "legend " Massad Ayoob and all main stream media to give them a proper education on the real meaning of the 2A and our rights not our permissions.
Toward the end of his 2nd term as President, Barrack Obama, in conjunction with Anderson Cooper, hosted a 'Town Hall' on CNN all about the 2nd amendment and the gun debate. There was a panel of 5 or 6 'experts' as well. I watched it live at the time, and have since tried to find this Town Hall on UA-cam but have had no luck in locating it. It is very much worth watching if you can find it.
Something that doesn't get talked a lot in regards to the 2A and that is *sovereignty.* From chatGPT before it got extremely biased: When the Founding Fathers spoke of "the people could assert their sovereignty," they referred to the idea that the ultimate source of political authority and power in the new nation rested with the citizens. The concept of sovereignty in the context of the American Revolution and the creation of the United States was closely tied to the principles of popular sovereignty and self-governance. In the traditional European model of governance, power was concentrated in the hands of monarchs or ruling elites, who held authority by divine right or hereditary claims. However, the Founding Fathers rejected this notion and believed that political legitimacy came from the consent of the governed, not from any divine or inherited right. They embraced the idea of popular sovereignty, which asserted that the people, as a collective body, were the true source of political power. In other words, the government derived its legitimacy and authority from the will of the people it governed. The citizens, through their participation and representation in the democratic process, could shape the laws and institutions that governed their lives. This idea of sovereignty was deeply intertwined with the concept of individual rights and liberties, as the Founding Fathers sought to create a system that protected the rights of individuals while promoting the common good. The Second Amendment, as part of the Bill of Rights, was seen as a critical safeguard for maintaining the people's sovereignty. It recognized the right of the people to keep and bear arms, which was instrumental in empowering them to protect themselves, their families, and their communities. The ability of the people to be armed was not just about self-defense against criminals or foreign invaders but also about preserving the citizens' ability to resist any potential future government that might infringe upon their liberties. The Founding Fathers saw the armed citizenry as a check on potential abuses of power by the government, ensuring that the government would always be accountable to the people it governed. By having the means to defend themselves and their rights, the people could actively participate in shaping the course of the nation, thereby asserting their sovereignty in the political landscape. In conclusion, the notion of "the people could assert their sovereignty" meant that the power and authority of the government emanated from the consent of the governed. It emphasized the people's role as the ultimate decision-makers and highlighted their right to bear arms as a means to protect their liberties and participate actively in the governance of the new nation.
None of us will live long enough to ever see such a thing. The powers that be are not interested (and never are) in actually having a free and open debate on such a topic because they realize that all of the data supports we who support the 2A., and not their warped perspective.
Every book Mas has recommended I have read. I now automatically purchase these books, I have never been disappointed. Great information. Thank you Mas!
I searched “Commentaries on the common law” is it the same as “Commentaries on the laws of England?” Thanks If u know or any book u liked he recommends I just found his channel. Good day & thanks
An AR is a modern day musket. Period. End of story. Our beautiful 2A gives us the right to exercise the right or not. It’s a choice that’s supposed to be left up to the law abiding individual citizen, not the government. ❤🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
In Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that its protection is not limited to "only those weapons useful in warfare."
Do you really need this. What’s gonna happen that would cause us to need it. I would buy it because it’s awesome looking but probably never shoot it. I have a 1911 made in 1913 and a 30-30 made in 1930. Never shot either one, probably never will.
At the time I write this there are 539 comments. I read most but skimmed the rest for context, so I apologize if I missed it. Only one is close to what I’ll say, about what is usually missing from both sides of this argument: ask a soldier, current or former, if they would take an AR into combat. The answer would be no.
Another thing we must be looking at is suppressors. To drive a vehicle we are to wear seatbelts becouse insurance companies pushed it due to the high cost of payouts to injuries. What about hearing loss to hunters and target sports shooters? Should that also be a safety issue? Hunters and their like should push for suppressors as protection against ear damage while hunting. (Nobody I have known or heard of wears ear-pro while hunting) Gives them a disadvantage. Everyone I know who goes to the range wears ear-pro and sometimes have trouble hearing the RO. Silencers are a win/win. On the other side of the coin, if a bad guy decides to put a silencer on a firearm and commit a mass shooting or the like, it will not cover the report of the firearm or make their shot invisible to the ear, it will still be heard. The argument suppressors make the gun silent is 110% Bullshit. Don't fall for that, but it protects the shooter.
I’d have to agree with you there. Also funny how some states tried to ban the AR but actual weapons of war like the Garand and others were perfectly fine to own still. Those rifles have millions of deaths attributed to them but they don’t consider it a weapon of war since it doesn’t look scary enough.
Great arguments. The next time I hear people say that assault rifles should be banned, I'll have some questions: Have you ever fired a gun? Have you ever handled a gun? Have you ever been in the presence of a gun? So why do you think you should be deciding things about guns?
Grow some balls and say it, we the people (any of us) should have access to any modern fire-arm. The AR-15 is a superset, and thus includes the M-16 and we should be able to own those as well.
Essentially all workable firearms types have been used as a military weapon, it just depends on which war. Lever action tube fed rifles were state of the art in the US Civil War. Even such oddities as a Drilling were used militarily, by the Luftwaffe as a survival weapon.
I believe this is the most important video Wilson Combat has ever produced. Share & spread this far and wide!!
I agree completely. As a serious student of the law and the Constitution, Mr. Ayoob stated what I have said for years "Weapons of war are EXACTLY what the Second Amendment protects" Case law proves this as in the case of conviction of a man in the 1930's for having a short barrel shotgun and the judge said this was not in common use by the MILITARY at the time! Why that never comes up in modern cases involving NFA or GCA is beyond me.
i just dont like the disingenuousness of it. Full automatic is never used aynmore. its all single controlled shots. Turns out better for some reason even with low recoil 223. So we could take FA away from regular grunts and we'd still be using them. AR15 is a weapon of war by any measure because its as efficient as possible for today's battlefield. And IF you actualyl believe the 2nd amendment, you have a righto to such a thing.
I concur 🇺🇸
Without a doubt, I whole heartedly agree.
Brownnoser.
This man has been my mentor from the first time I read gun magazines from the 1980s he's full of commonsense and wisdom
Yes Sir, me too-I have washed every one of his videos at least 15 times😂
I learn so much from these videos! Thank you for putting out such great content.
Glad you enjoy them! More are on the way.
Thank you Mas for this item of distinction. Very important!!
Well explained, Mas.
Excellent briefing sir ! I thank you for your knowledge and common sense .
🤩🇺🇸👍⚖️👁️👁️⚖️ It is a MODERN..sporting rifle! Great video!🤩🇺🇸👍
a constitutional AND natural right
The AR Platform is a weapon of war when well regulated or set to a exacting standard, a Military Standard. The AR Platform is a Sporting Rifle when not regulated or set to an exacting Military Standard. Militia, or Minutemen are NOT National Guard or the Ready Reserves. The National Guard started off as Militia in concept, but is lost now to bureaucracy just as the Ready Reserve has. No longer are the days when the Active Duty Military carried their arms with them everyday 24-7-356. they are kept in an Armory locked up, the National Guard, in concept the original Minutemen also have their weapons locked in a centralized armory... having to travel to their unit, wait for the person with the key, the alarm codes, to unlock the weapons...this is not the action of a true Minuteman or Militia. The Minuteman keeps his weapons within reach from a few mm to a few yards depending, surely close enough that if an Aircraft start dropping paratroopers before the chutes hit the ground they would be ready for the fight...this is Minutemen, Militia.
Early morning, under the cover of darkness, Too small to be seen on radar. to low and too quiet they land and start their offensive to kill as many as they can before retreating. They kill men, women and child, torture and behead children burning some alive. The National Guardsmen is headed to his armory, the ready reserve is headed to his base and armory...the Militia man, the minuteman is up, armed and in the fight, defending hearth, and home, family, neighbors both known or unknown...he is in the fight. Whether trained former Military and Combat Veteran as I am, Police and Former Military as my wife is, or a Competitive Shooter with the only stressor while shooting is a time clock, is far better than waiting for the NG or RR to get to and back from the respective Armory's to get into the fight.
No sir they are all one in the same in a predawn raid Regular Military...to late. The National Guard again to late.... the ready reserves are still waiting for orders when the Militia, the Minuteman has already stepped into the fight. Regular Army, National Guard, the Ready Reserves do not defend, they avenge.....Minutemen, Militia, those who are ready now to fight...we defend. We are the defense of the farm, the family our neighbors, the Military and even the police and courts only avenge those who we fail to defend
It’s not the right to own an AR-15 it’s a right to own a weapon
the second amendment is the only amendment that explains why its an amendment...necessary to a free state...
Unfortunately I live the THE most repressive state in the country when it comes to gun Rights- Illinois.
My issue with "modern sporting rifle" is that the 2nd amendment doesn't specifically protect sporting arms. It's an attempt to appeal to those who choose security over freedom, and believe that the 2nd amendment applies only to sporting arms, which is an overall losing strategy. If they buy it, maybe you keep your AR, but lose your right to carry in public, and your 30 round magazines.
As a hunky deep voice once said: "CHICKEN SHIT."
I agree
There's only two ways to fight tyranny: law and force. When the law fails? You know, like when inferior court judges, the Executive Branch, State Governors and Congress/Legislatures start to ignore Supreme Court rulings, etc.
"Modern Musket"
Favorite internet quote: Making good people helpless does not make evil people harmless. This applies to the war against AR-15's.
And all firearms
And all firearms
Sporting rifle or " weapon of war" - doesn't matter. The very point of the 2A was to acknowledge that we possess the right to own & bear weapons = to those of the government/military in order to protect ourselves from tyranny.
And people forget that the original oppressors were Great Britain.
@@RealMTBAddict Sadly, a large % of our population is completely ignorant about American history & civics.
Mine identify as sport utility rifles.....
Quite the contrary, our Right for Self Protection is a GOD Given Right, whereas our 2nd Amendment CURTAILS The Government from Abusing.., Limiting and/or Destroying those Natural Rights we People have at BIRTH!! THAT’s EXACTLY WHAT The Government doesn’t care for ~ OUR HAVING INALIENABLE RIGHTS [OUR OWN POWER!] for which THEY CANNOT TOUCH - NOT without OUR Surrendering said Rights..!!! Don’t EVER EVEN THINK ABOUT IT, Patriots🇺🇸 #2A 🇺🇸
I find it eternally curious (and aggrivating) that the former democracy of Canada has never had, does not have, and will likely never have, anything resembling the 2nd amendment to the United States Constitution. In my sad little country, to the North of the US of A, we the people (sheeple) are expected to let our 'government' do the defending and protecting of it's citizens for us. What a absurd joke. In addition, so as to rub salt into that already open wound of a policy, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has recently made it illegal for Canadian citizens to purchase handguns. Ironic then that he, upon making his journey's to various locations around Canada, should find himself eternally surrounded by what is certain to be a well armed security detail, which could lead one could infer that the PM feels that his life is worth defending, while the lives of the mere citizens ........are not. Canada......a sad country indeed.
I could listen to Massad Ayoob all day.
Was thinking the same thing......
Yup me as well
Agreed. Great presentation. And of course the wonderful speaking voice.
I can. And have. ❤️
Without question, great logical explanations, always. Gotta love it.
Here’s a selection of some quotes directly from the Founders. I like to use these in arguments as well because it is difficult for someone to refute the words of the very men who wrote the Constitution.
(I copy and pasted these to notes for easy access whenever I need them)
George Washington said:
"When government takes away citizens' right to bear arms it becomes citizens duty to take away goverment's right to govern.”
Pretty clear
John Adams said:
"ARMS IN THE HANDS OF INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS MAY BE USED AT INDIVIDUAL DISCRETION FOR THE DEFENCE OF THE COUNTRY, THE OVER-THROW OF TYRANNY, OR IN PRIVATE SELF-DEFENSE."
Thomas Jefferson said:
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
“Every citizen should be a soldier.
This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.”
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
Frederick Douglass, a great African American politician, said:
“A man's right rests in three boxes: the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.”
Sam Adams, John Adams brother, said:
“Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.”
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
Tench Coxe, a PA Delegate to the Continental Congress, said:
“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an Americans.”
Patrick Henry said:"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
These are great quotes. Do you have the sources these came from? I like being able to cite those as well.
@@bikerbobcat I had compiled them over time onto an album of screenshots on my phone. I don’t have the exact origin of each quote, but they should be relatively easy to look up on the internet using part of the wording. I do that sometimes, and I have had good success finding the author of the quote and where they said/wrote the quote.
I have good confidence in the historicity of most of them because many came GunsNGadgets, AZ quotes, or other trustworthy sources.
There’s also an app called founders quotes that send a quote each day to your notifications.
Thank you for those quotes!
@@DZ-wh6kv absolutely!
I love to post these during comment section 2A arguments. Most times nobody responds back 🤣
@@trev5.566 On a historical note, multi-shot firearms existed at the time of the founding and the Founding Fathers were personally aware of them. The Kalthoff repeater had a 30-round magazine and was invented in 1630. The Belton flintlock was invented in 1777 and was personally demonstrated to the Founding Fathers. Just a few years after the ratification of the Bill of Rights, Lewis & Clark carried the Girardoni air rifle (invented 1779) on their famous expedition and used it to great effect. The Founding Fathers knew technology would advance because they were seeing it happen in their lifetimes. If they only wanted us to have muskets they would have said so. No word in our founding documents is there by accident.
I also like Thomas Jefferson recommending to his nephew to constantly carry a rifle on his walks and get good with it. You may wish to add that quote.
No person or group can legally or morally decide whether you can defend yourselves. Its up to us just as it was up to those in 1776 and earlier. Stand fast America!
Well said brother!
"No person or group can legally or morally decide whether you can defend yourselves"
you are wrong my friend. they CAN do it, and they DO do it. almost every damn day. your heart is right, but your head is not. defend yourself with deadly force from a robber or thug. brother, your whole day (life) will be dekcuf up
@@ramonaztecaBETTER TO BE JUDGED BY 12, THAN CARRIED BY 6!!!!
@ramonazteca " If circumstances should at any time obligate the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of ARMS who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist. "
~Alexander Hamilton Federalist No.28 1788
@@ramonazteca" The CONSTITUTION of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their RIGHT and DUTY to be at All Times ARMED."
~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Catwright June 5th 1824
Our founding fathers are smiling down on Mas because he’s leading the fight for freedom well, to know that the right to keep and bear arms is the key stone to our sacred constitution.
We also have a right to own an M4.
Correct but the media goes for the AR
@@zachg9065 which the people misinterpret the initials as “assault rifle” (which we also have the right to keep and bear)
Superb, wholly accurate, and - most importantly - fundamental and essential to the preservation of individual liberties in the “great experiment“ we call the United States of America.
Unfortunately, not everybody agrees that liberty and self defense are inalienable rights as stated in the Declaration. Too many around the world believe in various amounts of government control, and self defense is seldom allowed.
@@loboheeler Most developed nations, including the USA, have mixed economies and protected freedoms. Often to a larger degree than the USA. The USA also has as much government control as they do. If you think of how many things would stop working without it you'll see it's not all bad. With utter freedom you should be allowed to drive on whichever side of the road you like. Does that sound like a good idea? Government control means that when you buy milk you probably won't contract tuberculosis of the stomach. Try catching a flight across country without government control. Good luck with that. I'm not sure where you get the idea of self-defense not being allowed, unless by that you mean firearms. Several countries have gun ownership rates up there with the USA, Switzerland for instance. But they are regulated. If you compare the crime rates and number of gun deaths with those countries they are miniscule compared to the USA. maybe you need to do some traveling and educate yourself about the planet. The current population of the earth is 8,076,994,357. The current population of the USA is 331 million. I think that makes it about 4% of the world's population. Just for a bit of perspective.
2nd Amendment has a reason for existing. And it’s gonna get tested
It doesn’t help much as long as States can enact their laws! Question? Can the Supreme Court give a decision on States having their own gun laws? Why is it pick and choose for states to do what they want and ignore the second. Amendment?
@@bradbenson6929Because the constitution is not without regulation whether it be at the state or federal level. You should’ve remembered this from fourth grade US history but apparently 99.6% of all Americans have forgotten that. If the constitution was so absolute then under the verbiage of the first amendment I should be able to hurl threats at you and yell “bomb” on an airplane. No different than how no state or federal entity can actually ban all firearms however some can be restricted. This is indeed legal under the constitution since its implementation. Your First, Second and Fourth amendment rights all have limited restrictions in lieu of the verbiage written as none of those three amendments are absolute. Same as with the fourth amendment on how there are exceptions to search warrants as statistically 89% of all searches conducted whether it be to a vehicle (mobility exception) or in a house warrantless (exigency). And those searches are indeed done legally. If you don’t like it go change the constitution. 🤷♂️🤷♂️
There’s a hell of a lot more to the constitution than the verbiage written for each amendment. People will read the second amendment being “A-well regulated militia……..” as the verbiage that it’s written as all of a sudden they think they’re now all scholars in constitutional law. That verbiage is the basis of laws to pre-exist that of further restrictions by the government. I’m a Texas prosecutor full-time and teach LSU legal part-time during the fall classes. Just over the fourth amendment alone I have 884 questions in my question bank we issue to entry-level legal students along with a seventeen (17) hour PowerPoint over the fourth amendment alone. That seventeen hours of PowerPoint presentation is what actually EXPLAINS the fourth amendment. In a nutshell the general public have no earthly ideas to what they’re talking about. Proof of this is when I issue these quizzes to the public they failed them miserably regardless of which questions I pick out of them. If you can’t pass these quizzes then you don’t know the constitution plain and simple
@@bradbenson6929 The 10th amendment stated that was NOT assigned to the federal government, was left to the states to decide. Guns WERE assigned to the federal government. The states cannot make laws against the U.S. Constitution.
Yet, here we are.
You've been failing the test for nearly a 100 years.
@@jhutch1470 'Militia" was based on the Militia Act of 1792 at the time of the writing.
This is outstanding. Thank you so much for posting. Every member of Congress should have to watch this.
Most of them could watch this, and still not have a clue. Or if by some miracle they did understand they'd deny it.
Search 'Jerry Nadler's brain explodes' , you can tell by his expressions that he thinks semi-auto means full auto.
The problem with certain members of congess is they either incapable of understanding or they are puppets of the democratic socialist party, on the take!
Clear, concise, common sense, and accurate. Massad Ayoob.
Filming this content with Massad is always an enlightening experience. He is a true professional.
The master in explaining why and how. Our community is truly blessed to have such a treasure. Thank you Mas!
Thanks for being a great advocate for the 2A and for good citizen’s rights to defend themselves and their communities! 👍🇺🇸✌️
who defines "a good citizen"? The Constitution doesn't say anything about good citizens only owning guns. You are one of these common sense gun law type.
The media wants people to think AR15 ownership is something recent but I bought my first in 1978 , two years after my discharge and they were commercially available since the late 60s.
"When they don't listen to logic, maybe they will listen to plain English". Excellent 👍
I love listening to this man speak from all of his wisdom thank you Wilson Combat Channel. Keep on speaking the truth every individual has a right for self-preservation and the right to protect him or herself and their family.
Anti-gun logic: The entire Bill of Rights protects individual rights...except for the 2nd.
Shall NOT be infringed 😉👍
Hi. I’m a civilian gun owner form Poland and fun of the channel. My experience with gun laws is a little different, so I can offer a different perspective. I’m actually pleased with my country’s gun law. In order to buy a gun in Poland you have to get a license. Any Polish citizen without criminal record can get a license. It is comparable to getting a driving license here. You have to pass a theoretical test, practical test, and get checked out by a doctor. So, when I bought my first gun, I knew how to operate the thing safely. When I go to a gun store and show my license, I can buy any non-fully automatic weapon I desire. No background checks. No tax stamps. No barrel length, magazine size, grip or stock restrictions. When I import a gun, I don’t need to get a “kit”, or chop it to pieces to cross the border. I just register it normally like a car. I often recommend going to a range to friends. I would like as many people as possible to learn how to shoot and obtain the license. Gun related crimes in Poland are very low, and school shootings are non-existent, so we must be doing something right.
America can thank Hollywood for glorifying guns and the current gun crime in this country. Smoking cigarettes in the movies made you look "cool" . It took a long time for people to figure out they can also kill you. Maybe its time to "ban" Hollywood movies with gun violence in them. Ask Alec Baldwin and see what he thinks!
Excellent content. As massad always delivers.
As always thank you Mass. You’ve stated before you’re not a lawyer but some of the things you’ve stated from the constitution could be almost as eloquent as a pastor reading from the Bible. God Bless!
Sir that was really awesome I thoroughly enjoyed that
As i tell most people, "almost every gun today has had it's basis in war"....including the musket, single shots, lever actions, bolt actions (Springfield 1903 comes to mind) and in modern times the self loading rifles...ect.
When guns are Outlawed, We will become OUTLAWS ! ❤
Truth, logic and wisdom.
The second amendment does NOT give us the right to bear arms, we are born with that right. The second amendment only prevents the government from violating our rights. THAT is the conversation that should be had.
Agreed
Also something that doesn't get talked a lot in regards to the 2A and that is *sovereignty.* From chatGPT before it got extremely biased:
When the Founding Fathers spoke of "the people could assert their sovereignty," they referred to the idea that the ultimate source of political authority and power in the new nation rested with the citizens. The concept of sovereignty in the context of the American Revolution and the creation of the United States was closely tied to the principles of popular sovereignty and self-governance.
In the traditional European model of governance, power was concentrated in the hands of monarchs or ruling elites, who held authority by divine right or hereditary claims. However, the Founding Fathers rejected this notion and believed that political legitimacy came from the consent of the governed, not from any divine or inherited right. They embraced the idea of popular sovereignty, which asserted that the people, as a collective body, were the true source of political power.
In other words, the government derived its legitimacy and authority from the will of the people it governed. The citizens, through their participation and representation in the democratic process, could shape the laws and institutions that governed their lives. This idea of sovereignty was deeply intertwined with the concept of individual rights and liberties, as the Founding Fathers sought to create a system that protected the rights of individuals while promoting the common good.
The Second Amendment, as part of the Bill of Rights, was seen as a critical safeguard for maintaining the people's sovereignty. It recognized the right of the people to keep and bear arms, which was instrumental in empowering them to protect themselves, their families, and their communities. The ability of the people to be armed was not just about self-defense against criminals or foreign invaders but also about preserving the citizens' ability to resist any potential future government that might infringe upon their liberties.
The Founding Fathers saw the armed citizenry as a check on potential abuses of power by the government, ensuring that the government would always be accountable to the people it governed. By having the means to defend themselves and their rights, the people could actively participate in shaping the course of the nation, thereby asserting their sovereignty in the political landscape.
In conclusion, the notion of "the people could assert their sovereignty" meant that the power and authority of the government emanated from the consent of the governed. It emphasized the people's role as the ultimate decision-makers and highlighted their right to bear arms as a means to protect their liberties and participate actively in the governance of the new nation.
YES the AR-15 is semi-automatic, but these dudes on line with 3D printers will fix that.
Same for the Glock...
Well regulated actually means well equipped and up to date in Ol English' not Gov over reach‼️💯
I could not love this video or what it stands for more, thank you sir!
Anything that can kill your enemy is a "weapon of war". (that's a very long list of things)
Including your bare hands.
My neighbor was a donut shop owner & he was murdered with a horribly stale donut by an irate customer who forgot his clip when he went storming into the shop to blow away my neighbor who he thought was always laughing at him.
the second amendment does not protect your right to several large rocks!!!
The second amendment doesn't give us the right to have guns and protect ourselves that comes from God. What the second amendment does do is TELL THE GOVERNMENT WHAT IT CANNOT DO! "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"
Outstanding video and presentation.
Owning an AR-15 is like owning an expensive sports car. You don't need it, but it's legal to own, has a specific task it does, and it's a hell of a lot of fun.
My very favorite human rights video ever. Thank you and God bless.
Thank you sir. It's an important and needs to be said more often!
Another comment. Has Massad ever been on Fox News or any other sources? Why aren’t we getting him out there more? Joe Rogan podcast as an example? He is a tremendous historian! A super brilliant debater! Tremendous common sense! Just plain down right Smart! How can we do this?
Is you respect him as a truth teller, why would you want him to go on Fox News?
@@Damonbird775 It’s simple. Because they are more likely to give him a forum. They will listen to a conservative point of view! But you already knew that. !
@@bradbenson6929 I respect him far too much to wish that he appears on fox news which has a long established track record of lying. Him going on fox news is preaching to the choir. What does that do? If you are wanting to change people’s views or opinions and maybe have them vote your way, he needs to go on a channel where he can actually change people’s views. Everyone who watches fox news is overwhelmingly already pro gun. Make sense?
At least every single American home should have one. Foreign and Domestic'' Long live the Republic ✝️🇺🇸✝️
Mass is such a legend. Who else could look into both cameras at once? Straight up legend 🫡 🇺🇸
Thanks Massad, once again you speak words of wisdom, truth, and direction
Nice explanation. Thanks for that.
The trouble with the "use precise language" bit is that the AR-15 (as in Armalite) *is* an assault rifle - Armalite only ever made select fire AR-15s. Once Colt bought the design, they continued making select fire AR-15s. The Air Force bought and issued select fire AR-15s. This happened before a single civilian semiautomatic variant was ever sold to the public. The rifles that established the M16 and M16A1 specification were both AR-15s (the Colt AR-15 Model 603 and 604, respectively). Select fire AR-15s have always existed. There are thousands in civilian hands, it's not illegal to own them in most of the country. If the intent is to be precise in language (and exclude the select fire ARs), you'd need to clarify "civilian semiautomatic AR-15" or use some similar language to draw that line. As a precise language matter, AR-15 includes select fire and semiautomatic variants of the original select fire design.
ARs can certainly be sporting rifles, but the issue with "modern sporting rifle" is that it seeks to retroactively change (or obfuscate) the history of the AR-15. It wasn't designed for Camp Perry target shooting, it was designed for warfare. And that's a good thing - most of the popular guns in the US have either a direct connection to such a design intent. The things that make a good service rifle tend to make for a good rifle in general. Letting antigunners draw a line between "military" firearms and "sporting" firearms is a massive mistake that NSSF and NRA allowed to happen. This distinction is created by the antigunners, and really didn't exist for the majority of American history. This is the issue with the "modern sporting rifle" term - by accepting the framing you yield that "military" guns can be subject to a greater scrutiny. It gives legitimacy to that antigunner argument.
I'd love to see Mas on the "View"!
Hoo boy... And people thought the backlash against the View for their witchhunt attempts against Jason Aldeen was bad... I dare say that that show going after Mas would put the final nails in that show's coffin...
Massad Ayoob is great, he has exceptional and unexpectedly funny (at times) presentation skill.
So well articulated, thank you!
Frankly the argument should be to have the full auto be made legal again. The second amendment ain’t for sport. Can’t stay on the defensive need to go on the attack if you want to win the game
Beautifully put Mas. Beautiful.
What a BS company...will not sell stripped AR lowers to dealers in NYS now.
If it wasn't for CNN I wouldn't believe the ar15 in 5.56 was any good for defense. When CNN found Kyle Rittenhouse guilty and showed the video of him shooting that guy in the arm that was trying to kill him. I was like DAMN, what have I been missing. Ar15 in 5.56 is possibly the best defensive firearm there is.
Plus most ARs can hold 30rnds
It would have been worse (for the perps) had it been an AR-10 or an M1A. Both get the job done.
You and Mr. Hackathorn are getting a little growly in your older years.
I’m all in…
your rights to own weapons are not given to you by the constitution. They are defended by the weapons
TRUTH!! AMEN!!! 🙏🇺🇸🇺🇸
This explanation is so simple it's brilliant 👍🇺🇸
So can someone explain to me if the people should have weapons of war then how do you handle the argument from anti gunners who say then why don't you guys fight for grenades, tanks, rockets, etc etc etc. Shouldn't we also be fighting for thoae weapons too to stay logically consistent and if not why is there a cut off?
Thank you for taking the time and effort it takes to do these videos.
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻Thank you again for another very informative and truthful video ❤️
I would love to see a town hall style sit down with the "legend " Massad Ayoob and all main stream media to give them a proper education on the real meaning of the 2A and our rights not our permissions.
If that were to actually happen you can bet the house that all of a sudden there would be "technical difficulties" with Massad's microphone too.
Toward the end of his 2nd term as President, Barrack Obama, in conjunction with Anderson Cooper, hosted a 'Town Hall' on CNN all about the 2nd amendment and the gun debate. There was a panel of 5 or 6 'experts' as well. I watched it live at the time, and have since tried to find this Town Hall on UA-cam but have had no luck in locating it. It is very much worth watching if you can find it.
the "main stream media" wants to literally kill us, they dont care about a logical argument from an expert
Something that doesn't get talked a lot in regards to the 2A and that is *sovereignty.* From chatGPT before it got extremely biased:
When the Founding Fathers spoke of "the people could assert their sovereignty," they referred to the idea that the ultimate source of political authority and power in the new nation rested with the citizens. The concept of sovereignty in the context of the American Revolution and the creation of the United States was closely tied to the principles of popular sovereignty and self-governance.
In the traditional European model of governance, power was concentrated in the hands of monarchs or ruling elites, who held authority by divine right or hereditary claims. However, the Founding Fathers rejected this notion and believed that political legitimacy came from the consent of the governed, not from any divine or inherited right. They embraced the idea of popular sovereignty, which asserted that the people, as a collective body, were the true source of political power.
In other words, the government derived its legitimacy and authority from the will of the people it governed. The citizens, through their participation and representation in the democratic process, could shape the laws and institutions that governed their lives. This idea of sovereignty was deeply intertwined with the concept of individual rights and liberties, as the Founding Fathers sought to create a system that protected the rights of individuals while promoting the common good.
The Second Amendment, as part of the Bill of Rights, was seen as a critical safeguard for maintaining the people's sovereignty. It recognized the right of the people to keep and bear arms, which was instrumental in empowering them to protect themselves, their families, and their communities. The ability of the people to be armed was not just about self-defense against criminals or foreign invaders but also about preserving the citizens' ability to resist any potential future government that might infringe upon their liberties.
The Founding Fathers saw the armed citizenry as a check on potential abuses of power by the government, ensuring that the government would always be accountable to the people it governed. By having the means to defend themselves and their rights, the people could actively participate in shaping the course of the nation, thereby asserting their sovereignty in the political landscape.
In conclusion, the notion of "the people could assert their sovereignty" meant that the power and authority of the government emanated from the consent of the governed. It emphasized the people's role as the ultimate decision-makers and highlighted their right to bear arms as a means to protect their liberties and participate actively in the governance of the new nation.
None of us will live long enough to ever see such a thing. The powers that be are not interested (and never are) in actually having a free and open debate on such a topic because they realize that all of the data supports we who support the 2A., and not their warped perspective.
There should be no concessions @ full auto, or caliber restrictions
Thank you for continuing to be quality, reliable, level headed content about important issues like this one.
🇺🇸
You hit it out of the park once again, Mas. Thank you for all you do.
Every book Mas has recommended I have read. I now automatically purchase these books, I have never been disappointed. Great information. Thank you Mas!
I searched “Commentaries on the common law” is it the same as “Commentaries on the laws of England?” Thanks If u know or any book u liked he recommends I just found his channel. Good day & thanks
An AR is a modern day musket. Period. End of story. Our beautiful 2A gives us the right to exercise the right or not. It’s a choice that’s supposed to be left up to the law abiding individual citizen, not the government. ❤🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Very well said. Thank you
In Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that its protection is not limited to "only those weapons useful in warfare."
Excellent !!!!!!! This should be nationally televised
Well said as usual!
Do you really need this. What’s gonna happen that would cause us to need it. I would buy it because it’s awesome looking but probably never shoot it. I have a 1911 made in 1913 and a 30-30 made in 1930. Never shot either one, probably never will.
Another great talk!!!! Thank you!!!
The definition of arms in the Dictionary. says weapons of war and armor of defense We shouldn't just have ar-15 we should have m4's and m240's Etc.
I love this guy.
A militia is comprised of regular citizens who aren't paid by taxpayers aka government. A militia is valintary and self supported.
I want to hear a podcast with Mas and the guy from gunguyTV
Well said, sir. Well said.
At the time I write this there are 539 comments. I read most but skimmed the rest for context, so I apologize if I missed it. Only one is close to what I’ll say, about what is usually missing from both sides of this argument: ask a soldier, current or former, if they would take an AR into combat.
The answer would be no.
Keep bringing the good content
Your 2nd Amendment American Right To Own An AR-15 Rifle
NOBODY is denying your right to OWN an AR15
This man is calm and peaceful to listen to
Another thing we must be looking at is suppressors.
To drive a vehicle we are to wear seatbelts becouse insurance companies pushed it due to the high cost of payouts to injuries.
What about hearing loss to hunters and target sports shooters? Should that also be a safety issue? Hunters and their like should push for suppressors as protection against ear damage while hunting. (Nobody I have known or heard of wears ear-pro while hunting) Gives them a disadvantage. Everyone I know who goes to the range wears ear-pro and sometimes have trouble hearing the RO. Silencers are a win/win.
On the other side of the coin, if a bad guy decides to put a silencer on a firearm and commit a mass shooting or the like, it will not cover the report of the firearm or make their shot invisible to the ear, it will still be heard. The argument suppressors make the gun silent is 110% Bullshit. Don't fall for that, but it protects the shooter.
The 1911 Wilson Combat sells is closer to the war version of that platform than the semi auto only AR-15 is to the war version of that platform.
I’d have to agree with you there. Also funny how some states tried to ban the AR but actual weapons of war like the Garand and others were perfectly fine to own still. Those rifles have millions of deaths attributed to them but they don’t consider it a weapon of war since it doesn’t look scary enough.
@@F80mthreeIt's only scary when It's a black rifle. 🤷🏻
Great arguments. The next time I hear people say that assault rifles should be banned, I'll have some questions: Have you ever fired a gun? Have you ever handled a gun? Have you ever been in the presence of a gun? So why do you think you should be deciding things about guns?
If mas speaks it is truth ..i genuinely think he could turn water into wine
Grow some balls and say it, we the people (any of us) should have access to any modern fire-arm.
The AR-15 is a superset, and thus includes the M-16 and we should be able to own those as well.
Every time this guy speaks nothing but logic is what I hear
Essentially all workable firearms types have been used as a military weapon, it just depends on which war. Lever action tube fed rifles were state of the art in the US Civil War. Even such oddities as a Drilling were used militarily, by the Luftwaffe as a survival weapon.
This man is a national treasure.