I’m actually struggling with this exact same thing. I’m a truck driver mostly in the south it’s against my company‘s policy to carry a firearm on the truck. About six months ago two guys tried to steal my truck and it’s just by the grace of God that I was able to get out of there. But honestly I really wanna carry my firearm in my truck although it’s against company policy I’m legal to do so. I know what I want to do but I also want to follow the rules and I’m very conflicted
there are other legal options as a truck driver! but with attacks on driver who wonder into the wrong area at the wrong time, I will never be an easy victim just because the company I work for wants me to be defenceless! DO WHAT YOU NEED TO DO but be smart about it!!!!
When seconds count, police it'is just minutes away... Bosses ? Well... They'll never be there, and will replace you as soon they receive a note from the ER or worse, from the morgue.
Great video series, John. I really love the way you express yourself and your point of view to your audience without getting too political. You are so thoughtful and clear minded. I find myself agreeing with you and your philosophy especially when it comes to gun training and self protection. I don’t know you personally but I would guess you are a really good person to anyone you are in contact with. Thank you for all that you do.
I find myself working to become good, safe, sane, moral and prudent. You are an inspiration to many, including me. I am also a duel citizen in the kingdom of God. Thank you for challenging us to be better people.
Regarding stopping property crime, here is something to consider. All that is required for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing when they had the power to do something. You will likely be saving someone else grave harm.
@Patrick Baptist that comment is insanely moronic. If you ever get robbed or home invaded at gunpoint, just assume they will only take your property I mean you don't want to be a murderer geez. Why do you even watch this show.
How big? What's the difference? What is 'drunk', quantifiably? Drunk driving is one of the fatal 4 factors in road deaths..." Speeding Drink and drug driving Driving while distracted Non-wearing of seat-belts These are the 4 primary causes of deaths on the roads, internationally. Apply that thinking to firearms. Your OODA loop just shrunk.
@@antpassalacqua Fantastic reasoning skills. The evidence exists; You can deny or ignore it all you like, the data is there, and the analysis is sound.
About 10 years ago I was framed by a corrupt Chicago cop. I became a felon of a gun crime obviously I'm not allowed to go and buy guns from the store anymore but I live in Chicago where obviously it's dangerous as h*** here.... I wonder what would happen if a person in my situation access then carry the firearm illegally illegally and then successfully used it to thwart an attack.... What'll happen? then maybe they'll say oh OK well you saved your life and you shot a carjacker or an armed robber whatever so that's OK we're not gonna charge you with murder but they still want to make you serve 3 years for having the gun I mean that's messed up.... It's all about money I remember my lawyer knowing that the case was bad after spending $25000 3 years just to end up convicted anyway he tells me at the end of it for another 15000 he can get it all reversed and restore my rights because it was unconstitutional... Well I didn't have the money.... And even then though what if I never got the The conviction reversed why should that matter even a person who has a felony conviction should still be able to protect himself and his child Why is it that I was given all my other rights back except for 1 for 1 the most important one
After Hillary walked from any consequences of breaking nearly every law governing the safeguarding of classified information the government has, I decided that the "law," such as it is, is now a mere suggestion. I no longer call myself law-abiding, preferring instead the _peaceable_ moniker. Laws I judge illegal or immoral I _will_ ignore.
Laws don't apply to the elites. Hunter Biden bought a gun while addicted to crack and meth. People have been on the ATF about it but they have no interest in doing anything. Hunter's girlfriend (his dead brother's widow, not that it matters) found the gun in his truck (presumably not secured) and threw it in a trash can outside a grocery store across from a high school. When she came back for it after changing her mind, it was gone. The store manager called the police, Hunter's girlfriend told them what happened, Hunter came down and made a statement, the gun was returned by the local homeless person, and nothing happened to anyone. The Secret Service came to the gun shop he'd bought the gun from and tried to take the 4473. The manager refused to allow them to take it because only the ATF is allowed to take 4473s. Nothing ever happened. You can bet if one of the Trumps had actually done anything they're being accused of they'd be in jail yesterday. If you or I break the law and the police officer doesn't like it we're going to get acquainted with the legal system.
Lots to think about John. I've been avoiding 'gun free zones' so as not to break the law. My local post office was robbed at gun point; this in a town that is way below the average crime stats in the state. Yet I'm expected to go into that environment unarmed. Doesn't make sense. And thanks for your honesty.
Just recognize that post offices are federal facilities, and federal felonies are no joke. I would never recommend breaking the law to someone. Especially in a public forum. :)
I live in California where it is near impossible to get a concealed carry permit, but I’m 71 years old and in poor health, so I’m a target and crime is rampant. So what should I do? Obey the law or protect myself?
A metaphor I use is...there is a no swimming sign at a popular lake. A person ignores that sign and wades into the water only to flail and is now drowning. Do I abide by the 'no swimming' sign or rescue the drowning person?
Much of what you say is accurate in a general sense. Using terms like safe, sober, sane, and moral can introduce ambiguities into the conversation unless those terms are defined or accepted in your particular jurisdiction There are also the common terms for being a 'legal' or 'lawful' person depending on their context. There are laws that are 'legal' but are not lawful and those that are totally 'lawful' are just that. Legal simply means a law was written and is considered legal, but a lawful law means it was based upon the Constitution which is the Law of the Land. Laws that do not comport with the Constitution are null and void.
In WI where I live we’re a middle ground state but have Castle Doctrine. I believe only D.C is like us and I wish you could explain to others what a middle ground state is?! Thank you 🙏
I feel the same way ...when I go out to eat with my wife or to the store and I see the big sign on the door with a x with a gun sign saying no firearms ....that always makes me feel uncomfortable like I'm going to get into trouble but the world we live in today we never know when trouble will come so I carry it with me anyway....hopefully I never haft to use it but the risk out ways me not keeping it on me...😐
Yeah, I think it's a bit minimizing to say something's "only property." I mentioned this on another video, but basically my view is that, since people have to spend their time working in order to earn the money to spend on property, stealing possessions is basically stealing a portion of someone's finite lifetime, however small it may be, and one should respond accordingly.
I think he was referring to materialistic things that can be replaced But I see what you two gentlemen are saying. In my personal opinion I don’t think I’d have that moral standing to shoot somebody for something that can be replaced , in comparison to a life that can’t.
@@joseinfante7540 yea maybe if someone stole something thats cheap but anything that cost me a week worth of work or more its 100% moral to me, I dont support thieves
On the alcohol being legal but not prudent and all that, I actually carry to stay sober, my gun is my no option answer, I cannot drink while carrying so my gun keeps me sober, wether is legal or not it is my way of forcing myself to not consume alcohol because carrying for self defense is more important to me than alcohol so it works for me 🤷♂️ #onedayatatime
Great vid as always John and yeah I agree that sometimes those things that are lawful may not be moral anything like that. I do disagree ya on the Texas thing but we have talked about that before but other then that great vid brother.
Another scenario could be a person in rough country where there is no cellular connection. There is an accident and his glasses are lost or broken and he or another person needs to get to a hospital. I have determined that my personal vision is good enough to get out to where I can get cellular service/someone else to drive. Is it legal, no. Is it good, sane, …. YES I worked 10 miles from my house and there was a 5x5 foot area that you might get a signal with a bag phone. No hope with a modern phone. The nearest cellular reception was 4-5 miles away. Everything I was doing there was good, sane,…, and yet I could have had to do something illegal.
John, I agree on everything that you discuss except on the personal property issue. Who pays when the criminal steals you car? We do. Most crooks get away with it time and time again. And if they do get caught, well most of time it’s just a slap on the wrist. When your personal property may be your only means of income, it’s just not a “material” thing. There was a time when people payed for their sin by hanging when they stole your horse or stole your cattle! But we have a little thing called insurance and this is the out card for a criminal and the reason why states have laws against using deadly force for auto theft…..and WE continue to pay more for everything because that criminals steals. Love your channels. Keep up the great work.
Great video, and I totally agree with just about everything you said, however, I disagree about the alcohol. I don't think having alcohol in your system should remove your right to self defence. If it's legal for someone to go out for dinner, have a beer or two with their dinner, and then drive home while under .08, then they should absolutely be able to carry a gun. Furthermore, driving is an "active" endeavor, while carrying a gun is a "passive" endeavor. So long as you don't mess with the gun, there's no danger. And if the need to use it arises, would you rather be drunk and armed, or drunk and unarmed? Obviously the best option is to just not drink in the first place, but either way, it should not be illegal.
A family member of mine is a convicted felon. Manslaughter because of a plea deal that in other circumstances would be self-defense but because of context, was difficult to obtain that defense. Did 8 years by getting out early on parole. Really wish I could share this hobby with him but unfortunately we cannot. He is reformed man, married, bought a home, and is about to have his first child. Wish there was like a program or something to restore rights to former felons but it is what it is.
Why I don't call myself a "Legal" car owner. Or a "Legal" baseball glove owner. I believe a firearm is a possession just like a car or a glove. I believe in the 2nd Amendment - Constitutional Carry. It is a right just like free speech. The law should only intervene when an individual has issues that make it essential to prevent them from having a firearm - felons, mentally ill, issued threats, a danger to self or others, etc. The government's primary purpose is to protect its citizens. But for the average, law-abiding citizen, owning a firearm must be the same as any other piece of property. To infringe on this is to violate the Constitution.
Yes. I like to say that I am a peaceful gun owner. I have no desire to harm anyone, but if someone threatens me or those around me I will act to prevent harm. I have also decided that I will not comply with laws restricting what I may own because they are infringements on my natural right to self defense. Breaking those laws causes no harm. In that case I will not be law abiding but I will be peaceful. The Constitution does not give us the right to keep and bear arms, it recognizes and affirms our natural right to them.
I disagree with John on use of deadly force on defending property. In my opinion the legal system is saying that a human life is worth more than any property. That's where the problem starts . That believe encourages thieves to feel entitled to our property. It's not that I value my property above a human life , but the problem is thieves value my property about life . The whole system has basically given rights to your property to criminals. I'm not going to watch a criminal take what I've worked for.
"In my opinion the legal system is saying that a human life is worth more than any property. That's where the problem starts...but the problem is thieves value my property about life ." So you want to be on the same moral plane as a criminal?
@@papimaximus95 the problem is that if a homeowner approaches a thief to stop the theft, that thief would not hesitate to cause bodily harm or death to the homeowner. The Texas law gives the upper hand back to the homeowner.
A problem is that we assume the person is insured. What if they cannot afford insurance and the robber is taking away their life savings and their livelihood. Then the victim didn't just lose a TV they can readily replace, but the great loss may possibly destroy their life. Is that as significant as being wounded physically? The Texas law, as I recall, also depends on whether it is dark. If you can identify the thief, you may be able to retrieve your goods. After dark, that is much more difficult. Also, research you Bible for God's law to the Jews. I will have to check, but I think that was the source of the Texas law idea concerning time of day.
@@davidr7333 The mental gymnastics you guys are going through is hilarious and I feel bad for John. He tries to put out good content to help people, but most of the people who watch him completely ignore him. As for the idea of someone not having insurance and the item destroying their life, well that's on the homeowner. You shouldn't purchase items you cannot replace, and irreplaceable items like family heirlooms should be stored in such a way that an invader would have to go through you to get them (therefore they become defensible). We have seen homeowners scare off thieves before and it didn't require them to shoot because the simple knowledge that the jig is up and the police are coming is enough for most thieves, and for those who don't take the hint that's what a big iron is for. Stop the mental gymnastics and just be honest if you really are just itching to pull the trigger you should just say it...yes you will be condemned by some, but at least I could respect someone who is being honest instead of someone making up reasons why they think they should be able to do XYZ.
I'm not an expert on alignment or self defense but I have had a good description given to me. When it comes to lawful vs chaotic the laws you cherish or ignore come from the character not the land you're in at the time. If you travel to the 9 hells and refuse to be a slaver or to enslave a creature you're breaking the law while in a "good" kingdom if you murder you're breaking the law. So if you were to use the law of the land your character's alignment would change based on location. However if you live by a code or have a predictable pattern to your decision making then you are lawful everywhere you go. Conversely chaotic people are not predictable and just do what they want at the time. I would say then that if you live the "GSSMP" lifestyle then you're lawful. Good vs evil is another discussion.
This is brought up pretty frequently in D&D contexts, and has always been one of the sticking points of the 2-dimensional alignment system. However, I think most people would tend towards the idea that a "lawful" person believes in a specific code. Your code could be to always follow local law. Or to always follow a religious law. Or to always follow the laws of your home. Or some philosophical principle. Etc. So your predictable pattern could have you jumping from legal system to legal system based on location, or it might not. A chaotic person tends to just do whatever feels right for them at the time, without any specific guidelines drawn up in advance. It might happen to follow local laws, or it might not (even if they generally agree with the local laws). Of course, a rational person would argue that no pre-determined code can possibly account for every possible scenario, so if your code is "be good no matter what", then you're basically lawful good and chaotic good at the same time. As such, there's an implication that "lawful" requires your code have a least a bit of complexity so you can actually separate different kinds of "good".
Another, IMO, is prohibition of cannabis which I find to be unethical, immoral, and heinous. In Florida, one technically can hold a ccw permit and a medical card, but that violates Federal law and can bring into question your ATF 4473 qn. 21e (formerly 11e). Choices and decisions guided by personal moral and ethical justifications are difficult, and will challenge the integrity of your principles.
I suffer from herniated disc from birth . I’ve been taking CBD capsules a derivative of cannabis for my pain , yes they make it from hemp as well but I find the cannabis CBD Version works best for me . That doesn’t make me a criminal Or an insane person, I was just born imperfect , I hope that in your eyes The government should strip me of my God-given right to self-defense and my Second Amendment.
@@joseinfante7540 I'm sorry that has happened to you, and you are absolutely not a criminal. The list is long and established of benefits to the mind and body that cannabis serves. You have the compound in your brain right now as a matter of fact, and a system of neural uptake designed specifically for it. Even just by the numbers 100k related deaths a year, plus 400k tobacco related deaths. That's an entire Woodstock dead from substances deemed legal.
Cannabis kills no one through intoxication and opens up areas of your mind that are beneficial in you questioning and examining life, your place in the Earth system, in the universe, questioning arbitrary authority. Would you suppose it's not a coincidence that the dangerous, deadly, and utterly stupefying substances are legal, yet the harmless ones that are verifyably beneficial countless times over and cause you to question aspects of societal structure and authority are illegal?
As ex military who loves playing with guns I prefer living in a country where there's no necessity for them, but if I lived in the states (where I'd probably feel the need to be an owner) then I'd want all owners to be as responsible as you are. I enjoy your videos as much for your level headed calmness as your interesting analysis.
@@goodgame3374 I think it depends on the person as to whether you want to carry one. I would want female family to carry them since there are men who assault women in any country and by default most women don't stand a chance. It's ugly fact but its a fact.
@@AzayBae I understand, I buy pepper spray for my wife & mother when in the states, but your suggestion doesn't work if you walk through what would happen. It would be helpful in a few circumstances in countries with low crime even though most rapes are by family, friends & dates, & the street ones often involve stealth attacks on women with headphones. But even if there was more benefit, once 50% of the population has access the crims will get their hands on the guns then you're back to the US situation where everybody needs to carry. So it's good in theory but doesn't work in practice. Countries with high crime are a different matter of course.
John, thanks for explaining the difference between a "legal" gunowner and a GSSM&P person who owns a gun legally. Also, I agree with you on the Texas law that allows using a gun to stop a property crime. It's legal, but immoral.
Amen on the intoxication point, I'll refer everyone to the ASP video of the 2 young guys drinking and the uncle punches one and they both pull out and shoot him, and he was unarmed. Great Topic John!
Im 21 and lived in Texas my whole life. Not the most law abiding citizen and I love my guns, but my last resort is to pull a gun out and shoot someone. I would rather lose a fight than have to shoot somebody. Thanks for your videos! Everyone should know about that ASP
That's fair but remember you have no idea what a person is thinking. Some people don't just want to pay beat you up or rob you. Or if they do want your stuff, they also don't want a witness.
Excellent points as usual John, and I with you agree on Texas law permitting deadly force defense of property. In doing that, they're equating property with human life, which is wrong, IMO.
At the same time, that property equates to a quantity of someone's life,that they exchanged labor for that property, sometimes many years,as in the case of a home and possessions.
@@jaycousland9835 That's true and I agree, but I'm just not willing to kill someone over those things. No matter how valuable, or how long it took to get it, their life (even if it's a criminal) and my freedom are worth infinitely more. I pray that neither of us will ever be in that situation.
How about concealed carry where it is not legal to do so? I can cross a line that is barely a mile from me and go from a legal concealed carrier to committing a felony. That line is a State line. My rights have suddenly gone away!
Wow. Absolutely amazing video. Thank you so much, John. Given your background in philosophy, theology, law, and self defense, you would be able to crush Law School so easily, haha. I love you, my man. God bless.
John I would love to see you do an information video about Avenues to reinstate your 2nd Amendment rights. I know someone who 30 years ago as a teenager (19) committed a theft with a bunch of friends no one was injured or hurt but he was arrested even though he only served a couple of months apparently federally this prohibits him from purchasing a firearm. In his State he is legally allowed to have a concealed carry permit but federally prohibited from purchasing a gun. Again he has not committed any crime in 30 years, the crime he did commit was as a very young adult 19 years old. He has contacted three local lawyers and has went to our local sheriff's office for Direction and how to get that reinstated with no one being able to guide him. Additional info he was never charged with a felony it was a misdemeanor but because it could have had a sentence of one year even though he was only sentenced to a couple of months this is the reason he can never purchase a firearm federally.
"He has contacted three local lawyers and has went to our local sheriff's office for Direction and how to get that reinstated with no one being able to guide him" So you think John or the YT commentators can help him?
@@papimaximus95 yes I do, he knows lawyers who are directly involved with the gun community. We are in a small town and the local lawyers have never dealt with this particular problem therefore they weren't sure where to send him. Our local sheriff's office didn't see any reason he couldn't carry they're the ones that went over his background and said he's legally allowed to carry in the state.
John I have a question for you. Another UA-camr bought up the fact that; trying to escape from prison/jail is a natural act in other countries. He made good points in the reasons why they don’t get charged for escape. Look into and let me know your opinion. Since you’re granddad was doing a natural act.
Just because I go to a restaurant with my family and have a few beers does not mean I should not be able to defend myself and family. I’ll take myself armed with a buzz over being defenseless. Everyone one of us would wish we had our gun if/when that time comes.
While laws vary between states, in much of the country guns are not registered and owners do not need legal permission beyond NICS check. Many people do not even know that you don’t register your firearms. Even my Texas born wife asked me about my gun registrations! So point of this is that calling people “legal gun owners” reinforces erroneous assumption that government can and should have power to regulate guns. It is like using terms “assault weapon” (for my imprecise remote paper punch in 22LR) or “gun violence”. When we use language of those who seek to oppress us, we handicap ourselves. Assault weapon is whatever someone uses to assault someone or something. For example during demolition my crowbar, saw and hammers are assault weapons directed at whatever I’m taking apart. Gun violence is violence committed against a gun or guns. While I dropped a pistol once, I would never deliberately harm a firearm (ie direct violence at it.). Violence is an act committed by a human - such as anti’s in their efforts to harm guns. Legal gun owner is repetitive, like lying politician.
I started carrying a gun right after the shooting at the theater in Aurora, CO in 2012. That was the last straw for me as I actually went to watch that Batman movie at a theater here in OK that same day and realized it could have just as easily happened where I was. I didn't get a CCP because I feel they are an unfair tax on those of us who wish to defend ourselves and the 2nd amendment gives anybody the right to do so and I carried illegally up 2019 when OK passed constitutional carry. We all must stand up to unjust laws.
When someone lives in a place where open carry is illegal and concealed carry is either illegal or may issue and they get denied a permit I don't think there's anything wrong with them carrying anyways
Bastiat covered "The Law" better than I can. "The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish! If this is true, it is a serious fact, and moral duty requires me to call the attention of my fellow-citizens to it. Life Is a Gift from God. We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life, in physical, intellectual, and moral life. But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. This process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course. Life, faculties, production! In other words, individuality, liberty, property, this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place."
I think self defense laws have gotten worse over time. If I was alive in say the 1800s or so, I would have had no qualms or hesitations with helping to defend someone in public who looked like they needed help. Now with this love of lawsuits in modern times, I'm scared to death to basically help anyone except myself or family and friends. I'm even scared of defending myself to an extent because of the tremendously expensive and emotionally taxing process of going through the legal system after using self defense.
No moral person really wants to have to use our firearms and saying that I've never had to shoot but I have been shot at but thank God the road tractor I was driving prevented me being hit , but like I said I don't want to use my weapon simply because I'm accountable for every shot that drives down that barrel . And no one including me want a death on the rather it was justified or not , so thanks John us vets do need real world training too
Correction: one does not, cannot “lose rights” Rights can only be violated. Not “taken” or “lost” one can only be under threat of being caged or killed for exercising them. “Inalienable” means UNABLE TO BE ALIENATED FROM.
@@ASPextraYou clearly don’t understand what “Rights” are then. You are just repeating the lie that you’ve been told. “Due process” has nothing to with “rights”. (Go read the 5th Amendment carefully, I also recommend the Federalist & Anti-Federalist Papers) This is why we are where we are in this country because most just believe what they’ve been told. Men or constructs of men cannot “take ones Rights”. A man in prison still has his “rights” he’s received a sentence via “due process” where by he’s unable to utilize/have possession of his property. A Free Man always has his “Rights”. If you don’t understand that then you believe that you yourself only have privileges that MAN gave you and can subsequently take away.
When the bad men come to lock you in a cage, you have no rights. Full stop. Those rights, abrogated after due process, are removed. Denial of reality doesn't change reality. You have no freedom, no liberty, no property. And if your crime is egregious enough, no life.
Here's one for you. People have been prosecuted for providing water for undocumented immigrants. And not even directly handing it to them but simply setting up a water station in a desert area.
My opinion is that it's immoral to take someone else's property and moral to defend what's yours. If you subscribe to the Judeo-Christian belief system, the holy books absolutely support killing thieves.
I really wish Washington would allow lethal force to protect some property. Car theft or converter theft is a huge problem here. I knew I was going to retire soon. I knew my income would be limited. I bought a new truck that I intend to be my last car purchase. I worked hard to pay the truck off in two years and clear my other debts. I would not be able to replace that truck if it were stolen or vandalized. It's our only transportation. It's loss would be catastrophic to us. If it were legal for me to do so, I would use lethal force to protect my truck. Since it's not legal, I would not use lethal force. Going to prison would be even more catastrophic to my family.
You've just described perfectly *why* it is illegal to use deadly force to protect property. If you have a valuable truck, it should absolutely be insured for the value of the truck minus your deductible. Full stop.
@@ASPextra It is, but now it's a 7 year old truck. It's in great shape but I could not replace it for what insurance will pay. It would kill me to shoot someone. I'm a RN.Hurting someone is not in my makeup. However we are being pushed to do just that. Thugs seem to be running the show now
That's not true. If the truck is taken, the obligation of the insurance company is to replace it. I've had it happen. They will lowball you, but have them run an exception report and show you the comparable vehicle they found in your area to replace your vehicle. This is common knowledge.
Under a strict interpretation of the Second Amendment, all firearm possessors are legal possessors. To avoid infringing the Second Amendment there is only one solution, since you can't involuntarily deprive a living person of their Second Amendment rights for any Constitutional reason, if they don't voluntarily surrender their firearm and/or submit to arrest, you must shoot them dead and pry any weapons from their cold dead hands. Incarcerated prisoners have the right to arm themselves, they should be given firearms and left to govern themselves. The survivors who have self respect and respect for others, they can then be considered for rehabilitation and reintegration into society. The right to freedom from justifiable homicide is not as absolute as the right to keep, bear and die with arms in your hand. That would solve so many problems.
Edit: John does a series on morals. You should watch it. He challenged me to and i have changed my stance. He addresses everything i have stated in this comment thread in that video and in this context, his use of the word “morals” is ethical and justified. So what follows was me being unaware that he has clearly defined self defense morals based on academic interpretation. In other words, he did his homework folx. As an instructor it is his obligation to clarify and teach a guiding set of morals. And i did indeed assume. Edit: Beginning of corrected comment thread: the word “Morals” is a sticking point because it is highly subjective. For instance if you were wronged in some way, like dissin some folx mother, they may believe they are morally justified to murder another. Or like sex outside of wedlock which is perfectly accepted in more liberal cultures but more conservative would say that person has loose morals. So ideology and cultural upbringing apply to the meaning of the word “morals” John, i know you’re a christian. So, something as simple as homosexuality has “moral” implications based on the culture your raised in. I dont know and dont care about your views on the subject but historical evidence suggests that your religion is more likely to tie a homosexual to a bumper and drag them to death. Then tie them to a fence post for the crows and feel morally justified to have done it. It may seem simple to think well were talking about gun control here so context means everything. And as such i think the word you should use is “common sense” and micro cultural awareness or just cultural awareness which can differ from block to block in an urban sprawl like Houston or Detroit or LA where dissin someones homeboy or throwin the wrong gang sign is moral justification to murder. So. Again. “Morals” means something different to to different groups. Common sense and prudence. Common sense says murder gets you prison time. (Objective)Prudence says dont do the crime if you dont want the time. (Objective) Morals says i can do what my people say is righteous or acceptable implicitly or explicitly (Subjective)
@@ASPextra I am not assuming anything. Nowhere in my comment am i making an assumption. I made a statement. I think that the word “morals”, a subjective word, is not the word that should be used in an objective conversation about gun usage. Morals aren’t considered in a courtroom with objective preponderance of facts. Im also not saying that a person shouldn’t evaluate their personal morals to be in line with a greater collective happiness either. Im not debating the existence of better morals. Just its usage in this context as being highly subjective as morals can be different by being in line with cultural or micro cultural differences that can be one door away. I will look up the morals video in a few moments. Im not above being corrected. I will delete my post if i think i have misstepped.
@@ASPextra i edited my OP to reflect my change of opinion. If you like we can delete this whole thread. Although. My edit (i hope) makes it so it could be educational but it could also be confusing. It is an interesting debate. I will leave its deletion up to you. Just reply here and i will delete it.
Nitpick, in d&d “lawful” v “chaotic” don’t so much relate to following the law, it’s more of a belief in order vs anarchy kind of thing. So I can describe myself as lawful good without fully believing in obeying all laws at all times, because a truly lawful good person would be obligated to disobey evil laws. In Christianity we are called to obey the law, but only when it doesn’t contradict God’s law.
John, you know I love your videos but you knew this was coming when you gave the example of ignoring traffic laws when your passenger is having a heart attack... This example really only holds water if you are less than 5 minutes out from an emergency room. Otherwise, that heart attack victim would benefit much much more by getting rapid treatment from an advanced life support ambulance. On the ambulance, we can not only administer life saving Nitroglycerin but we can more positively identify their symptoms of a cardiac event & this will allow them to much more likely bypass the waiting room & get them into the Cath Lab where they need to be to survive that heart attack.
Realistically, I can be at the emergency room much faster than your ambulance can be at my house. The further from town I am, the more likely that's true (until we start talking about helicopter distances). I had a girl collapse in a Taco Bell once, and I could have driven her to the hospital faster than the ambulance reached us even though the fire station that picked her up was literally a stone's throw away on the other side of the street. Sure, the emergency room processing takes some time, but it also takes time for your ambulance to get back to the emergency room and that lab. So even if I got to the ER at the same time you got to the house, and the immediate care the EMTs give is better than the lack of care during processing, I don't think that makes up for how much less time is spent between initial care and doctor care when we're at the hospital so much faster. It might be different in a crowded city during rush hour, or if your ER is routinely full of non-emergency patients. But most of the places I've lived, the only reason to waste money on an ambulance is if you can't physically move the person, or if it's unsafe to do so. (Or if you don't have any idea where the hospitals in the area are.)
@@GeekOfAllness honestly brother, it's all a craps shoot. If you know what you are doing, have the medical gear & knowledge to adequately diagnose & treat yourself in the pre-hospital setting, go for it. There is a chance that the crew that would be responding to your 911 call would have been a bunch of idiots but there is the same degree of likelihood that your ER doc that day was an idiot or even just having a bad day with bad outcomes. Or that the ER nurse triaging patients as they come through the waiting room misses your obvious signs & symptoms of a heart attack or whatever medical emergency you happen to be dealing with. My point is, all of life is risk vs. reward & you have the right to choose the manner in which you risk your life as you see fit. I hope that you never have to rely on any emergency responders but, just know, if you are in my area & you call, I'll come & do my best for you. Have a great night.
Amen, they don't mix. If I drink and that may only be a few times a year! I turn my gun over to the wife, just not worth it and who can hit anything drunk! I live in Dallas Tx and just an average grandpa but feel the same and I say if you have to maybe aim low like a foot. Just no reason to kill someone if you don't have to. Just saying. Very nicely said by the way. I always feel like I fall short but trying with my whole heart.
It is a Moral and Prudent approach to remove the President and Vice-President from power ASAP for many reasons but the strongest reason is for being stupid!!! I know my comment is probably going to be removed but making the comment is the moral thing to do!!! God Bless us all!!! Long Live The Republic!!!
Trusting in God’s creations is foolhardy at best. God’s Word says that no one is righteous, and that sinful man has sin on his mind continually. Trust in God. But be prudent and wise about your dealings with men. If that includes arming yourself against the worst of them, then you are doing the right thing.
@@JeremyWinkels Instead of looking at Moses, an sinful man who was not allowed into the promised land why not look to the perfect example of Jesus Christ. Watered down, commercialized, convenient religion is what you have my friend.
@@JeremyWinkels Are you a follower of Christ? Or just religious? Because Christ said take up your cross and follow me. Guess where he was going. Not to the gun range to work on His draw. One obscure verse that leaves much to the imagination concerning the apostles carrying swords is what you think negates the many clear teachings of Christ and His actions? And the actions of all the apostles?
Exactly. The law doesn't set moral standards Its legal to pay for and consume animal products, but its immoral to support such suffering when it can be avoided by eating plant based and buying vegan alternatives
I’m actually struggling with this exact same thing. I’m a truck driver mostly in the south it’s against my company‘s policy to carry a firearm on the truck. About six months ago two guys tried to steal my truck and it’s just by the grace of God that I was able to get out of there. But honestly I really wanna carry my firearm in my truck although it’s against company policy I’m legal to do so. I know what I want to do but I also want to follow the rules and I’m very conflicted
It's a no brainer. Carry to protect your life. The company will never know unless you're forced to use it. At that point the job is meaningless.
Truck drivers always can get another job, if you have to defend yourself.
If you have it carry it. It sucks to need it and its at home. 🙏🏻
there are other legal options as a truck driver! but with attacks on driver who wonder into the wrong area at the wrong time, I will never be an easy victim just because the company I work for wants me to be defenceless! DO WHAT YOU NEED TO DO but be smart about it!!!!
When seconds count, police it'is just minutes away... Bosses ? Well... They'll never be there, and will replace you as soon they receive a note from the ER or worse, from the morgue.
Jesus! John, what a video, uuff, NO ONE can do it better! Thanks buddy, hats off to you, sir. This made me feel good, inspired, relieved 😌 🙏
Great video series, John. I really love the way you express yourself and your point of view to your audience without getting too political. You are so thoughtful and clear minded. I find myself agreeing with you and your philosophy especially when it comes to gun training and self protection. I don’t know you personally but I would guess you are a really good person to anyone you are in contact with. Thank you for all that you do.
I find myself working to become good, safe, sane, moral and prudent. You are an inspiration to many, including me. I am also a duel citizen in the kingdom of God. Thank you for challenging us to be better people.
Wonderful!
Great series! I will be recommending these inside and outside the self defenders community. Thanks for taking the time and effort to do this.
Your approach, as always, is broad and enlighening, John. Thanks.
Probably my favorite discussion video you've done! I often think about disparities between legality and morality.
Nice talk John. Hope to meet you one day as I'm in Flagstaff.
John, you're really good guy. I appreciate your opinions!
Regarding stopping property crime, here is something to consider. All that is required for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing when they had the power to do something. You will likely be saving someone else grave harm.
I pray every time I go to the range that this will be the only context in which I’ll ever have to pull a trigger.
Excellent lecture John. One thing I will say is, to some people, certain property IS their life. They must protect it at all cost.
And I think that’s a very poor choice.
@Patrick Baptist that comment is insanely moronic. If you ever get robbed or home invaded at gunpoint, just assume they will only take your property I mean you don't want to be a murderer geez. Why do you even watch this show.
I like the doctrine of competing harms. It makes sense to me. It's kinda like if the ends justify the means.
Granddad sounds like Chaotic Good.
Yeah maybe chaotic neutral 😂😂😂
Excellent perspective John👍🏻🏆
GOOD,SANE,MORAL, AND PRUDENT!!!! COULD NOT HAVE SAID IT BETTER!!! THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE!!!
Thought of all this myself. Nice to not be alone.
I think there’s a big difference between having a beer and getting drunk.
How big? What's the difference? What is 'drunk', quantifiably? Drunk driving is one of the fatal 4 factors in road deaths..."
Speeding
Drink and drug driving
Driving while distracted
Non-wearing of seat-belts
These are the 4 primary causes of deaths on the roads, internationally.
Apply that thinking to firearms.
Your OODA loop just shrunk.
bro get real lmao
@@antpassalacqua Fantastic reasoning skills. The evidence exists; You can deny or ignore it all you like, the data is there, and the analysis is sound.
Thank you!
Being Gay, Housing Anne Frank, Defending your Family, Taking Cannabis and other medicines... All illegal, all morally acceptable.
Took me two reads to see what you meant there.
awww yeah, busting out the D&D references! brings me back..
About 10 years ago I was framed by a corrupt Chicago cop. I became a felon of a gun crime obviously I'm not allowed to go and buy guns from the store anymore but I live in Chicago where obviously it's dangerous as h*** here.... I wonder what would happen if a person in my situation access then carry the firearm illegally illegally and then successfully used it to thwart an attack.... What'll happen? then maybe they'll say oh OK well you saved your life and you shot a carjacker or an armed robber whatever so that's OK we're not gonna charge you with murder but they still want to make you serve 3 years for having the gun I mean that's messed up.... It's all about money I remember my lawyer knowing that the case was bad after spending $25000 3 years just to end up convicted anyway he tells me at the end of it for another 15000 he can get it all reversed and restore my rights because it was unconstitutional... Well I didn't have the money.... And even then though what if I never got the The conviction reversed why should that matter even a person who has a felony conviction should still be able to protect himself and his child Why is it that I was given all my other rights back except for 1 for 1 the most important one
Awesome videos, truth , logic, common sense
After Hillary walked from any consequences of breaking nearly every law governing the safeguarding of classified information the government has, I decided that the "law," such as it is, is now a mere suggestion. I no longer call myself law-abiding, preferring instead the _peaceable_ moniker. Laws I judge illegal or immoral I _will_ ignore.
Laws don't apply to the elites. Hunter Biden bought a gun while addicted to crack and meth. People have been on the ATF about it but they have no interest in doing anything. Hunter's girlfriend (his dead brother's widow, not that it matters) found the gun in his truck (presumably not secured) and threw it in a trash can outside a grocery store across from a high school. When she came back for it after changing her mind, it was gone. The store manager called the police, Hunter's girlfriend told them what happened, Hunter came down and made a statement, the gun was returned by the local homeless person, and nothing happened to anyone. The Secret Service came to the gun shop he'd bought the gun from and tried to take the 4473. The manager refused to allow them to take it because only the ATF is allowed to take 4473s. Nothing ever happened. You can bet if one of the Trumps had actually done anything they're being accused of they'd be in jail yesterday. If you or I break the law and the police officer doesn't like it we're going to get acquainted with the legal system.
You won't get the Hillary or Trump deals when you break the law. You'll get hammered unfortunately.
Damm i got called out. Totally drinking a margarita with my hi power on lol
You the man John!
Lots to think about John. I've been avoiding 'gun free zones' so as not to break the law. My local post office was robbed at gun point; this in a town that is way below the average crime stats in the state. Yet I'm expected to go into that environment unarmed. Doesn't make sense. And thanks for your honesty.
Just recognize that post offices are federal facilities, and federal felonies are no joke. I would never recommend breaking the law to someone. Especially in a public forum. :)
I live in California where it is near impossible to get a concealed carry permit, but I’m 71 years old and in poor health, so I’m a target and crime is rampant. So what should I do? Obey the law or protect myself?
CA is entirely county-dependent. Heck, even the local Chief of Police can issue. So there are really only 4 counties that are no issue.
A metaphor I use is...there is a no swimming sign at a popular lake. A person ignores that sign and wades into the water only to flail and is now drowning. Do I abide by the 'no swimming' sign or rescue the drowning person?
Much of what you say is accurate in a general sense. Using terms like safe, sober, sane, and moral can introduce ambiguities into the conversation unless those terms are defined or accepted in your particular jurisdiction
There are also the common terms for being a 'legal' or 'lawful' person depending on their context. There are laws that are 'legal' but are not lawful and those that are totally 'lawful' are just that. Legal simply means a law was written and is considered legal, but a lawful law means it was based upon the Constitution which is the Law of the Land. Laws that do not comport with the Constitution are null and void.
In WI where I live we’re a middle ground state but have Castle Doctrine. I believe only D.C is like us and I wish you could explain to others what a middle ground state is?! Thank you 🙏
I feel the same way ...when I go out to eat with my wife or to the store and I see the big sign on the door with a x with a gun sign saying no firearms ....that always makes me feel uncomfortable like I'm going to get into trouble but the world we live in today we never know when trouble will come so I carry it with me anyway....hopefully I never haft to use it but the risk out ways me not keeping it on me...😐
Explain to me how using deadly force isnt moral when someone is stealing your car, thats your life right there for most people including me
Yeah, I think it's a bit minimizing to say something's "only property." I mentioned this on another video, but basically my view is that, since people have to spend their time working in order to earn the money to spend on property, stealing possessions is basically stealing a portion of someone's finite lifetime, however small it may be, and one should respond accordingly.
I think he was referring to materialistic things that can be replaced But I see what you two gentlemen are saying. In my personal opinion I don’t think I’d have that moral standing to shoot somebody for something that can be replaced , in comparison to a life that can’t.
@@joseinfante7540 yea maybe if someone stole something thats cheap but anything that cost me a week worth of work or more its 100% moral to me, I dont support thieves
@@m916c it seems like your saying that a persons life should be based off your paycheck?
@@neilweidner9361 nope the criminals are saying their life is worth my paycheck
On the alcohol being legal but not prudent and all that, I actually carry to stay sober, my gun is my no option answer, I cannot drink while carrying so my gun keeps me sober, wether is legal or not it is my way of forcing myself to not consume alcohol because carrying for self defense is more important to me than alcohol so it works for me 🤷♂️
#onedayatatime
Interresting points. Good video!
Glad you think so!
Great vid as always John and yeah I agree that sometimes those things that are lawful may not be moral anything like that. I do disagree ya on the Texas thing but we have talked about that before but other then that great vid brother.
Another scenario could be a person in rough country where there is no cellular connection. There is an accident and his glasses are lost or broken and he or another person needs to get to a hospital. I have determined that my personal vision is good enough to get out to where I can get cellular service/someone else to drive. Is it legal, no. Is it good, sane, …. YES
I worked 10 miles from my house and there was a 5x5 foot area that you might get a signal with a bag phone. No hope with a modern phone. The nearest cellular reception was 4-5 miles away.
Everything I was doing there was good, sane,…, and yet I could have had to do something illegal.
John! You absolution rock! Thank you for all you do! I'm so much more in tune with my surroundings thanks to your daily videos.
John, I agree on everything that you discuss except on the personal property issue. Who pays when the criminal steals you car? We do. Most crooks get away with it time and time again. And if they do get caught, well most of time it’s just a slap on the wrist. When your personal property may be your only means of income, it’s just not a “material” thing. There was a time when people payed for their sin by hanging when they stole your horse or stole your cattle! But we have a little thing called insurance and this is the out card for a criminal and the reason why states have laws against using deadly force for auto theft…..and WE continue to pay more for everything because that criminals steals. Love your channels. Keep up the great work.
I think you misinterpret horse thieves in history.
Very wise
I love how you broke this down, exactly how I feel when it comes to how they try to enforce law 👍
I seen a video where a officer ran into a bank gun fight with no mag in his ar-15... he said "oh shit....."
Well thought out information
Great video, and I totally agree with just about everything you said, however, I disagree about the alcohol.
I don't think having alcohol in your system should remove your right to self defence. If it's legal for someone to go out for dinner, have a beer or two with their dinner, and then drive home while under .08, then they should absolutely be able to carry a gun. Furthermore, driving is an "active" endeavor, while carrying a gun is a "passive" endeavor. So long as you don't mess with the gun, there's no danger. And if the need to use it arises, would you rather be drunk and armed, or drunk and unarmed? Obviously the best option is to just not drink in the first place, but either way, it should not be illegal.
A family member of mine is a convicted felon. Manslaughter because of a plea deal that in other circumstances would be self-defense but because of context, was difficult to obtain that defense. Did 8 years by getting out early on parole. Really wish I could share this hobby with him but unfortunately we cannot. He is reformed man, married, bought a home, and is about to have his first child. Wish there was like a program or something to restore rights to former felons but it is what it is.
Contact your state bar association. Hope he has some savings because its not going to be cheap... Do you have a private range?
Why I don't call myself a "Legal" car owner. Or a "Legal" baseball glove owner.
I believe a firearm is a possession just like a car or a glove.
I believe in the 2nd Amendment - Constitutional Carry. It is a right just like free speech.
The law should only intervene when an individual has issues that make it essential to prevent them from having a firearm - felons, mentally ill, issued threats, a danger to self or others, etc.
The government's primary purpose is to protect its citizens.
But for the average, law-abiding citizen, owning a firearm must be the same as any other piece of property. To infringe on this is to violate the Constitution.
Yes. I like to say that I am a peaceful gun owner. I have no desire to harm anyone, but if someone threatens me or those around me I will act to prevent harm. I have also decided that I will not comply with laws restricting what I may own because they are infringements on my natural right to self defense. Breaking those laws causes no harm. In that case I will not be law abiding but I will be peaceful.
The Constitution does not give us the right to keep and bear arms, it recognizes and affirms our natural right to them.
I disagree with John on use of deadly force on defending property. In my opinion the legal system is saying that a human life is worth more than any property. That's where the problem starts . That believe encourages thieves to feel entitled to our property. It's not that I value my property above a human life , but the problem is thieves value my property about life . The whole system has basically given rights to your property to criminals. I'm not going to watch a criminal take what I've worked for.
"In my opinion the legal system is saying that a human life is worth more than any property. That's where the problem starts...but the problem is thieves value my property about life ."
So you want to be on the same moral plane as a criminal?
@@papimaximus95 the problem is that if a homeowner approaches a thief to stop the theft, that thief would not hesitate to cause bodily harm or death to the homeowner. The Texas law gives the upper hand back to the homeowner.
A problem is that we assume the person is insured. What if they cannot afford insurance and the robber is taking away their life savings and their livelihood. Then the victim didn't just lose a TV they can readily replace, but the great loss may possibly destroy their life. Is that as significant as being wounded physically?
The Texas law, as I recall, also depends on whether it is dark. If you can identify the thief, you may be able to retrieve your goods. After dark, that is much more difficult.
Also, research you Bible for God's law to the Jews. I will have to check, but I think that was the source of the Texas law idea concerning time of day.
There's also the moral issue. A thief has no right to what's mine, and if I can't defend it is it really mine?
@@davidr7333 The mental gymnastics you guys are going through is hilarious and I feel bad for John. He tries to put out good content to help people, but most of the people who watch him completely ignore him.
As for the idea of someone not having insurance and the item destroying their life, well that's on the homeowner. You shouldn't purchase items you cannot replace, and irreplaceable items like family heirlooms should be stored in such a way that an invader would have to go through you to get them (therefore they become defensible). We have seen homeowners scare off thieves before and it didn't require them to shoot because the simple knowledge that the jig is up and the police are coming is enough for most thieves, and for those who don't take the hint that's what a big iron is for.
Stop the mental gymnastics and just be honest if you really are just itching to pull the trigger you should just say it...yes you will be condemned by some, but at least I could respect someone who is being honest instead of someone making up reasons why they think they should be able to do XYZ.
I'm not an expert on alignment or self defense but I have had a good description given to me. When it comes to lawful vs chaotic the laws you cherish or ignore come from the character not the land you're in at the time. If you travel to the 9 hells and refuse to be a slaver or to enslave a creature you're breaking the law while in a "good" kingdom if you murder you're breaking the law. So if you were to use the law of the land your character's alignment would change based on location. However if you live by a code or have a predictable pattern to your decision making then you are lawful everywhere you go. Conversely chaotic people are not predictable and just do what they want at the time. I would say then that if you live the "GSSMP" lifestyle then you're lawful. Good vs evil is another discussion.
This is brought up pretty frequently in D&D contexts, and has always been one of the sticking points of the 2-dimensional alignment system. However, I think most people would tend towards the idea that a "lawful" person believes in a specific code. Your code could be to always follow local law. Or to always follow a religious law. Or to always follow the laws of your home. Or some philosophical principle. Etc.
So your predictable pattern could have you jumping from legal system to legal system based on location, or it might not. A chaotic person tends to just do whatever feels right for them at the time, without any specific guidelines drawn up in advance. It might happen to follow local laws, or it might not (even if they generally agree with the local laws).
Of course, a rational person would argue that no pre-determined code can possibly account for every possible scenario, so if your code is "be good no matter what", then you're basically lawful good and chaotic good at the same time. As such, there's an implication that "lawful" requires your code have a least a bit of complexity so you can actually separate different kinds of "good".
Damn John , this whole time I thought you were a damn Boy Scout 😂
Excellent video , thank you .
You’ve earned my like & sub .
Good, sane, moral, prudent. Got it. 😉
Dang it, he killed the joke with his definition of "sober"
Another, IMO, is prohibition of cannabis which I find to be unethical, immoral, and heinous. In Florida, one technically can hold a ccw permit and a medical card, but that violates Federal law and can bring into question your ATF 4473 qn. 21e (formerly 11e).
Choices and decisions guided by personal moral and ethical justifications are difficult, and will challenge the integrity of your principles.
Yep.
I suffer from herniated disc from birth . I’ve been taking CBD capsules a derivative of cannabis for my pain , yes they make it from hemp as well but I find the cannabis CBD Version works best for me . That doesn’t make me a criminal Or an insane person, I was just born imperfect , I hope that in your eyes The government should strip me of my God-given right to self-defense and my Second Amendment.
Considering weed is a plant, not a drug, I really wish they would update that
@@alexfrederick9019 The Poppy is also a flower.
@@joseinfante7540 I'm sorry that has happened to you, and you are absolutely not a criminal.
The list is long and established of benefits to the mind and body that cannabis serves. You have the compound in your brain right now as a matter of fact, and a system of neural uptake designed specifically for it.
Even just by the numbers 100k related deaths a year, plus 400k tobacco related deaths. That's an entire Woodstock dead from substances deemed legal.
Cannabis kills no one through intoxication and opens up areas of your mind that are beneficial in you questioning and examining life, your place in the Earth system, in the universe, questioning arbitrary authority.
Would you suppose it's not a coincidence that the dangerous, deadly, and utterly stupefying substances are legal, yet the harmless ones that are verifyably beneficial countless times over and cause you to question aspects of societal structure and authority are illegal?
Thanks for clearing this up. Everything the Nazis did was 100% legal too.
Legal doesn't equal moral
As ex military who loves playing with guns I prefer living in a country where there's no necessity for them, but if I lived in the states (where I'd probably feel the need to be an owner) then I'd want all owners to be as responsible as you are.
I enjoy your videos as much for your level headed calmness as your interesting analysis.
There is no such country, we don’t live in a children’s fairytale.
@@daa3417 I'm sorry that you have such a dark view of the world. There are plenty of such places, but I'm not looking for an argument.
@@goodgame3374 I think it depends on the person as to whether you want to carry one.
I would want female family to carry them since there are men who assault women in any country and by default most women don't stand a chance.
It's ugly fact but its a fact.
@@AzayBae I understand, I buy pepper spray for my wife & mother when in the states, but your suggestion doesn't work if you walk through what would happen.
It would be helpful in a few circumstances in countries with low crime even though most rapes are by family, friends & dates, & the street ones often involve stealth attacks on women with headphones.
But even if there was more benefit, once 50% of the population has access the crims will get their hands on the guns then you're back to the US situation where everybody needs to carry.
So it's good in theory but doesn't work in practice. Countries with high crime are a different matter of course.
John, thanks for explaining the difference between a "legal" gunowner and a GSSM&P person who owns a gun legally.
Also, I agree with you on the Texas law that allows using a gun to stop a property crime. It's legal, but immoral.
Honest works
Neutral good may not sound as righteous as lawful good, but its the purist form of good.
Amen on the intoxication point, I'll refer everyone to the ASP video of the 2 young guys drinking and the uncle punches one and they both pull out and shoot him, and he was unarmed. Great Topic John!
Sooo curiouse in a hypothetical world if the ponys were running on said freeway at what max speed might they reach??? 🤣
there are times when a property crime can quickly turn into a deadly crime.
There are times when no crime can turn into a deadly crime.
Doesn't mean you can shoot someone for no crime...
Im 21 and lived in Texas my whole life. Not the most law abiding citizen and I love my guns, but my last resort is to pull a gun out and shoot someone. I would rather lose a fight than have to shoot somebody. Thanks for your videos! Everyone should know about that ASP
That's fair but remember you have no idea what a person is thinking. Some people don't just want to pay beat you up or rob you. Or if they do want your stuff, they also don't want a witness.
Excellent points as usual John, and I with you agree on Texas law permitting deadly force defense of property. In doing that, they're equating property with human life, which is wrong, IMO.
At the same time, that property equates to a quantity of someone's life,that they exchanged labor for that property,
sometimes many years,as in the case of a home and possessions.
@@jaycousland9835 That's true and I agree, but I'm just not willing to kill someone over those things. No matter how valuable, or how long it took to get it, their life (even if it's a criminal) and my freedom are worth infinitely more.
I pray that neither of us will ever be in that situation.
How about concealed carry where it is not legal to do so? I can cross a line that is barely a mile from me and go from a legal concealed carrier to committing a felony. That line is a State line. My rights have suddenly gone away!
A difficult issue for sure.
Wow. Absolutely amazing video. Thank you so much, John.
Given your background in philosophy, theology, law, and self defense, you would be able to crush Law School so easily, haha.
I love you, my man.
God bless.
John I would love to see you do an information video about Avenues to reinstate your 2nd Amendment rights. I know someone who 30 years ago as a teenager (19) committed a theft with a bunch of friends no one was injured or hurt but he was arrested even though he only served a couple of months apparently federally this prohibits him from purchasing a firearm. In his State he is legally allowed to have a concealed carry permit but federally prohibited from purchasing a gun. Again he has not committed any crime in 30 years, the crime he did commit was as a very young adult 19 years old. He has contacted three local lawyers and has went to our local sheriff's office for Direction and how to get that reinstated with no one being able to guide him. Additional info he was never charged with a felony it was a misdemeanor but because it could have had a sentence of one year even though he was only sentenced to a couple of months this is the reason he can never purchase a firearm federally.
"He has contacted three local lawyers and has went to our local sheriff's office for Direction and how to get that reinstated with no one being able to guide him"
So you think John or the YT commentators can help him?
@@papimaximus95 yes I do, he knows lawyers who are directly involved with the gun community. We are in a small town and the local lawyers have never dealt with this particular problem therefore they weren't sure where to send him. Our local sheriff's office didn't see any reason he couldn't carry they're the ones that went over his background and said he's legally allowed to carry in the state.
@@Martha-hm7tk Have you tried Google? How about the Bar association of the next largest city in your state? You can do this....I have faith in you.
John I have a question for you. Another UA-camr bought up the fact that; trying to escape from prison/jail is a natural act in other countries. He made good points in the reasons why they don’t get charged for escape. Look into and let me know your opinion. Since you’re granddad was doing a natural act.
Wanting freedom is humanity's default standard. Doesn't make it right at all.
I think there is a bigger discussion to have with other people on your channel.
I don’t know if it is still legal on NYPD but drinking a beer for lunch on duty was allowed 😳😳😎😎
Oh really? That's hilarious in a modern context.
Just because I go to a restaurant with my family and have a few beers does not mean I should not be able to defend myself and family. I’ll take myself armed with a buzz over being defenseless. Everyone one of us would wish we had our gun if/when that time comes.
While laws vary between states, in much of the country guns are not registered and owners do not need legal permission beyond NICS check. Many people do not even know that you don’t register your firearms. Even my Texas born wife asked me about my gun registrations!
So point of this is that calling people “legal gun owners” reinforces erroneous assumption that government can and should have power to regulate guns. It is like using terms “assault weapon” (for my imprecise remote paper punch in 22LR) or “gun violence”. When we use language of those who seek to oppress us, we handicap ourselves.
Assault weapon is whatever someone uses to assault someone or something. For example during demolition my crowbar, saw and hammers are assault weapons directed at whatever I’m taking apart.
Gun violence is violence committed against a gun or guns. While I dropped a pistol once, I would never deliberately harm a firearm (ie direct violence at it.). Violence is an act committed by a human - such as anti’s in their efforts to harm guns.
Legal gun owner is repetitive, like lying politician.
I started carrying a gun right after the shooting at the theater in Aurora, CO in 2012. That was the last straw for me as I actually went to watch that Batman movie at a theater here in OK that same day and realized it could have just as easily happened where I was. I didn't get a CCP because I feel they are an unfair tax on those of us who wish to defend ourselves and the 2nd amendment gives anybody the right to do so and I carried illegally up 2019 when OK passed constitutional carry. We all must stand up to unjust laws.
I saw the title and NFA laws popped in my head immediately. Wonder why?
When someone lives in a place where open carry is illegal and concealed carry is either illegal or may issue and they get denied a permit I don't think there's anything wrong with them carrying anyways
Proud chaotic good, right here.
Bastiat covered "The Law" better than I can.
"The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!
If this is true, it is a serious fact, and moral duty requires me to call the attention of my fellow-citizens to it.
Life Is a Gift from God.
We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life, in physical, intellectual, and moral life.
But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. This process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course.
Life, faculties, production! In other words, individuality, liberty, property, this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place."
I think self defense laws have gotten worse over time. If I was alive in say the 1800s or so, I would have had no qualms or hesitations with helping to defend someone in public who looked like they needed help. Now with this love of lawsuits in modern times, I'm scared to death to basically help anyone except myself or family and friends. I'm even scared of defending myself to an extent because of the tremendously expensive and emotionally taxing process of going through the legal system after using self defense.
I carry wherever I go, allegedly because my life is my responsibility no exceptions.
No moral person really wants to have to use our firearms and saying that I've never had to shoot but I have been shot at but thank God the road tractor I was driving prevented me being hit , but like I said I don't want to use my weapon simply because I'm accountable for every shot that drives down that barrel . And no one including me want a death on the rather it was justified or not , so thanks John us vets do need real world training too
Like the guy in new York, home invasion, but guy never registered gun, or he was a felon 10years ago. And he still went to jail
Correction: one does not, cannot “lose rights” Rights can only be violated. Not “taken” or “lost” one can only be under threat of being caged or killed for exercising them. “Inalienable” means UNABLE TO BE ALIENATED FROM.
No, due process is a thing.
@@ASPextraYou clearly don’t understand what “Rights” are then. You are just repeating the lie that you’ve been told. “Due process” has nothing to with “rights”. (Go read the 5th Amendment carefully, I also recommend the Federalist & Anti-Federalist Papers) This is why we are where we are in this country because most just believe what they’ve been told. Men or constructs of men cannot “take ones Rights”. A man in prison still has his “rights” he’s received a sentence via “due process” where by he’s unable to utilize/have possession of his property. A Free Man always has his “Rights”. If you don’t understand that then you believe that you yourself only have privileges that MAN gave you and can subsequently take away.
When the bad men come to lock you in a cage, you have no rights. Full stop. Those rights, abrogated after due process, are removed. Denial of reality doesn't change reality. You have no freedom, no liberty, no property. And if your crime is egregious enough, no life.
Here's one for you. People have been prosecuted for providing water for undocumented immigrants. And not even directly handing it to them but simply setting up a water station in a desert area.
I agree it's totally immoral to take life over property. night or day.
That's good to know. Can I get your address?
My opinion is that it's immoral to take someone else's property and moral to defend what's yours. If you subscribe to the Judeo-Christian belief system, the holy books absolutely support killing thieves.
@@bwofficial1776 100%
I really wish Washington would allow lethal force to protect some property. Car theft or converter theft is a huge problem here. I knew I was going to retire soon. I knew my income would be limited. I bought a new truck that I intend to be my last car purchase. I worked hard to pay the truck off in two years and clear my other debts. I would not be able to replace that truck if it were stolen or vandalized. It's our only transportation. It's loss would be catastrophic to us. If it were legal for me to do so, I would use lethal force to protect my truck. Since it's not legal, I would not use lethal force. Going to prison would be even more catastrophic to my family.
You've just described perfectly *why* it is illegal to use deadly force to protect property.
If you have a valuable truck, it should absolutely be insured for the value of the truck minus your deductible. Full stop.
@@ASPextra It is, but now it's a 7 year old truck. It's in great shape but I could not replace it for what insurance will pay. It would kill me to shoot someone. I'm a RN.Hurting someone is not in my makeup. However we are being pushed to do just that. Thugs seem to be running the show now
That's not true. If the truck is taken, the obligation of the insurance company is to replace it. I've had it happen. They will lowball you, but have them run an exception report and show you the comparable vehicle they found in your area to replace your vehicle. This is common knowledge.
Shall not infringe surpass local and state
Dual citizenship, love it!
Nicely explained, may your tribe increase!
Under a strict interpretation of the Second Amendment, all firearm possessors are legal possessors. To avoid infringing the Second Amendment there is only one solution, since you can't involuntarily deprive a living person of their Second Amendment rights for any Constitutional reason, if they don't voluntarily surrender their firearm and/or submit to arrest, you must shoot them dead and pry any weapons from their cold dead hands. Incarcerated prisoners have the right to arm themselves, they should be given firearms and left to govern themselves. The survivors who have self respect and respect for others, they can then be considered for rehabilitation and reintegration into society. The right to freedom from justifiable homicide is not as absolute as the right to keep, bear and die with arms in your hand. That would solve so many problems.
I think you miss the idea of due process in the Constitution in this interpretation of 2A.
Edit: John does a series on morals. You should watch it. He challenged me to and i have changed my stance. He addresses everything i have stated in this comment thread in that video and in this context, his use of the word “morals” is ethical and justified. So what follows was me being unaware that he has clearly defined self defense morals based on academic interpretation. In other words, he did his homework folx. As an instructor it is his obligation to clarify and teach a guiding set of morals. And i did indeed assume.
Edit: Beginning of corrected comment thread:
the word “Morals” is a sticking point because it is highly subjective. For instance if you were wronged in some way, like dissin some folx mother, they may believe they are morally justified to murder another. Or like sex outside of wedlock which is perfectly accepted in more liberal cultures but more conservative would say that person has loose morals. So ideology and cultural upbringing apply to the meaning of the word “morals”
John, i know you’re a christian. So, something as simple as homosexuality has “moral” implications based on the culture your raised in. I dont know and dont care about your views on the subject but historical evidence suggests that your religion is more likely to tie a homosexual to a bumper and drag them to death. Then tie them to a fence post for the crows and feel morally justified to have done it.
It may seem simple to think well were talking about gun control here so context means everything. And as such i think the word you should use is “common sense” and micro cultural awareness or just cultural awareness which can differ from block to block in an urban sprawl like Houston or Detroit or LA where dissin someones homeboy or throwin the wrong gang sign is moral justification to murder.
So. Again. “Morals” means something different to to different groups. Common sense and prudence. Common sense says murder gets you prison time. (Objective)Prudence says dont do the crime if you dont want the time. (Objective) Morals says i can do what my people say is righteous or acceptable implicitly or explicitly (Subjective)
You assume much. Did you watch the video on Moral?
@@ASPextra I am not assuming anything. Nowhere in my comment am i making an assumption. I made a statement. I think that the word “morals”, a subjective word, is not the word that should be used in an objective conversation about gun usage. Morals aren’t considered in a courtroom with objective preponderance of facts.
Im also not saying that a person shouldn’t evaluate their personal morals to be in line with a greater collective happiness either. Im not debating the existence of better morals. Just its usage in this context as being highly subjective as morals can be different by being in line with cultural or micro cultural differences that can be one door away.
I will look up the morals video in a few moments. Im not above being corrected. I will delete my post if i think i have misstepped.
@@ASPextra i edited my OP to reflect my change of opinion. If you like we can delete this whole thread. Although. My edit (i hope) makes it so it could be educational but it could also be confusing. It is an interesting debate. I will leave its deletion up to you. Just reply here and i will delete it.
Yeeeeee yeeeeee
Nitpick, in d&d “lawful” v “chaotic” don’t so much relate to following the law, it’s more of a belief in order vs anarchy kind of thing. So I can describe myself as lawful good without fully believing in obeying all laws at all times, because a truly lawful good person would be obligated to disobey evil laws. In Christianity we are called to obey the law, but only when it doesn’t contradict God’s law.
I would say that would be neutral, not lawful.
NATZEEZ!!! 🤯
John, you know I love your videos but you knew this was coming when you gave the example of ignoring traffic laws when your passenger is having a heart attack... This example really only holds water if you are less than 5 minutes out from an emergency room. Otherwise, that heart attack victim would benefit much much more by getting rapid treatment from an advanced life support ambulance. On the ambulance, we can not only administer life saving Nitroglycerin but we can more positively identify their symptoms of a cardiac event & this will allow them to much more likely bypass the waiting room & get them into the Cath Lab where they need to be to survive that heart attack.
Realistically, I can be at the emergency room much faster than your ambulance can be at my house. The further from town I am, the more likely that's true (until we start talking about helicopter distances). I had a girl collapse in a Taco Bell once, and I could have driven her to the hospital faster than the ambulance reached us even though the fire station that picked her up was literally a stone's throw away on the other side of the street.
Sure, the emergency room processing takes some time, but it also takes time for your ambulance to get back to the emergency room and that lab. So even if I got to the ER at the same time you got to the house, and the immediate care the EMTs give is better than the lack of care during processing, I don't think that makes up for how much less time is spent between initial care and doctor care when we're at the hospital so much faster.
It might be different in a crowded city during rush hour, or if your ER is routinely full of non-emergency patients. But most of the places I've lived, the only reason to waste money on an ambulance is if you can't physically move the person, or if it's unsafe to do so. (Or if you don't have any idea where the hospitals in the area are.)
@@GeekOfAllness honestly brother, it's all a craps shoot. If you know what you are doing, have the medical gear & knowledge to adequately diagnose & treat yourself in the pre-hospital setting, go for it. There is a chance that the crew that would be responding to your 911 call would have been a bunch of idiots but there is the same degree of likelihood that your ER doc that day was an idiot or even just having a bad day with bad outcomes. Or that the ER nurse triaging patients as they come through the waiting room misses your obvious signs & symptoms of a heart attack or whatever medical emergency you happen to be dealing with. My point is, all of life is risk vs. reward & you have the right to choose the manner in which you risk your life as you see fit. I hope that you never have to rely on any emergency responders but, just know, if you are in my area & you call, I'll come & do my best for you. Have a great night.
Carry dirty if ya have too.....? at times ?
Fishing expedition, profiling, patrolling for profit immoral
Amen, they don't mix. If I drink and that may only be a few times a year! I turn my gun over to the wife, just not worth it and who can hit anything drunk! I live in Dallas Tx and just an average grandpa but feel the same and I say if you have to maybe aim low like a foot. Just no reason to kill someone if you don't have to. Just saying. Very nicely said by the way. I always feel like I fall short but trying with my whole heart.
better judged by 12 than carried by 6... come on..
It is a Moral and Prudent approach to remove the President and Vice-President from power ASAP for many reasons but the strongest reason is for being stupid!!! I know my comment is probably going to be removed but making the comment is the moral thing to do!!! God Bless us all!!! Long Live The Republic!!!
Carrying a gun for defense seems like a massive distrust in God’s creations (mankind).
Trusting in God’s creations is foolhardy at best. God’s Word says that no one is righteous, and that sinful man has sin on his mind continually.
Trust in God. But be prudent and wise about your dealings with men. If that includes arming yourself against the worst of them, then you are doing the right thing.
1st!! Hah!
You say you are subject to the kingdom of God. And yet you advocate for the killing of humans made in God’s image.
Exactly the opposite my friend. Only advocate for DEFENDING human life with any force necessary. Moses took a life while defending innocent life.
@@JeremyWinkels Are you not aware of the new covenant?
@@JeremyWinkels Instead of looking at Moses, an sinful man who was not allowed into the promised land why not look to the perfect example of Jesus Christ. Watered down, commercialized, convenient religion is what you have my friend.
@@r.h.w.1776 are you suggesting that God removed the right he gave us for self defense? Two of his disciples had swords?
@@JeremyWinkels Are you a follower of Christ? Or just religious? Because Christ said take up your cross and follow me. Guess where he was going. Not to the gun range to work on His draw. One obscure verse that leaves much to the imagination concerning the apostles carrying swords is what you think negates the many clear teachings of Christ and His actions? And the actions of all the apostles?
Exactly. The law doesn't set moral standards
Its legal to pay for and consume animal products, but its immoral to support such suffering when it can be avoided by eating plant based and buying vegan alternatives
Plant Lives Matter!!!
jfc, fuckkng vegan elitist
I would but im scared the soy gonna turn me into a girl
@@fredwalter923 phytoestrogen doesn't have the same affect as animal estrogen that is in meat, dairy, and eggs
@@GAJake killing animals for any reason is unnecessary, therefore unethical