'Let Me Finish, Let Me Finish!': Greg Steube Has Tense Exchange With Democrats Over Gun Control Bill
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 тра 2024
- At today's House Judiciary Committee hearing, Rep. Greg Steube (R-FL) decried a Democratic-supported gun control bill.
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: / forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: / forbes
More From Forbes: forbes.com
The fact he has to explain that to our congress is the bigger problem
Congress has been bought and paid for.
Indeed. Performing a tour of duty for this great nation should be a prerequisite of eligibility to run for office.
He's explaining things to politicians, not representatives.
Think about printing money.
The gov prints money to take a small amount of value from everyone's dollar right into their own pocket. Printing money is theft.
We live in times of taxation without representation, with a very questionable government attempting to disarm us in every way.
Not for much longer - Republicans will take control in November and clean up the mess
Exactly. My dad has a .223 'ranch rifle'. Its ballistics are identical to any AR out there. He is correct it's all about looks
It's interesting how people who are protected by armed security are always the ones saying you don't need a gun
The word "uninfringed" is on purpose so Americans have the same weaponery to fight the tyranical government!
How many school shooting with cops sitting around outside, and they DARE say you don't need a gun, popo will protect you.
Because they are also ordinary irrelevant civilians with no public influence... oh wait...
But how long will they really be protected after pissing off the Secret Service ❓😀😀😀😀😀
@@richhauxwell7848 you mean secret service like Kennedy had?
Thank god we have people like him able to speak among our moron politicians.
In the context of semi-auto rifles like the AR15, he needs to stop the language like, "As fast as you depress the trigger is as fast as a round comes out." (3:49)
That sounds frightening to people who are against guns (but are not against releasing criminals who have wounded or killed victims with guns).
@@geoh7777 yeah thats another issue, everyone today are pussy snowflakes that cant think and handle the truth. this society is collapsing.
@@geoh7777I think you're missing the statement. He is still on the topic of semi auto classifications and their umbrella of bans, anyone in that room should know as such of what he's talking about. "as fast as you can depress" clearly not meaning "as fast as you can _hold_ down the trigger"
@@yeejay6396 yeah still that not the bigger picture, small minded as they all are in this hearing, because its legislative thinking. they just broad up a wrong fact for this ban. the real question and or statement would be for example. 2 shooters nearly the same skill in a competion 1 has an ar platform gun the other has a handgun. who would win? the ar would in most situations. accuracy firepower magazin cap. modding capability. the ar is a better gun in nearly everything except concealment but u wont conceal such a beauty.
that why they wanna ban it because it better and therefore more deadly which infact is true considering the mass shootings.
It makes no difference
"I'm not questioning your amount of concern for your constituents, I'm questioning your intelligence about guns and thus your qualification to make laws about them." I would have loved to have heard Rep. Steube say that.
Brotha….that is f*cking poetic! 👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾 I’m using that exact quote every chance I get! 💯
@@davidcoleman1861 - You're welcome. 😃
That's where he was trying to go but clearly these kinds of people get emotional and ASSUME they know where he is going
Why would you want someone with an apparent lack of intelligence (what you meant was experience or knowledge btw), to ask a question about intelligence?
First off experience is not the same as knowledge. You can have knowledge without experience. You can also have experience without knowledge, something Greg clearly demonstrated.
You can have experience and knowledge without intelligence.
What Greg explained is the difference between the types of firearms as categorized by their function of fire and load. Getting confused by simple facts like why loading times, magazine clip sizes and such matter for the amount you can kill within a given time frame. So even though he has experience. He clearly lacks knowledge and intelligence. Not helped by the fact that he presented it all as a toddler would, showing pictures of guns and getting extremely specific as if that matters.
I get it guns are cool! They make you feel powerful and safe. Feeling powerful and safe is not the same as being powerful and safe.
@@Nemesis-pe7mw - "You can have experience and knowledge without intelligence."
If you don't have the intelligence to comprehend the what you experience, or the knowledge presented, you can't get anywhere. Your statement that you can have experience and knowledge without intelligence is absurd.
There is no such thing as a "magazine clip." They are two different components. Two examples of clips are "stripper clips," such as those used to load an SKS rifle, which is a narrow, shaped piece of steel on which the back end of a cartridge is retained in place. 10 of them to be exact in this case.
Then there is the En-Bloc clip used to load an M1 Garand, which is another stamped steel shaped clip which holds 8 rounds, and the clip and rounds are all placed into the receiver of the rifle together. These are just two styles of "clips."
A "magazine" is typically a rectangular box shaped enclosure (whether steel or plastic) that can hold 6 to 30 rounds, typically, depending on the firearm (pistol/rifle) and caliber. These are the devices you typically see being loaded into the grip of a semi-automatic handgun, or a larger magazine loaded into a rifle like an AR-15. There are also a myriad of rifles that utilize a much smaller magazine than that of the AR-15, which are typically hunting rifles.
No, while guns are fun to learn to shoot accurately, and the engineering of how they function is impressive, especially the varied ways the firearm's execution of their performance is accomplished, those who carry firearms for protection every day are merely looking to stay alive if they are the victim of an armed criminal. You may have noticed that no unarmed victim of an armed criminal, who survived, has said "Thank god I was defenseless."
A lot of people carry a pocket knife because of how handy they are to open a cardboard box, cut a zip tie, cut some string or a chord, or a myriad of other things that occasionally come their way. Others carry pens because you never know when you will need to jot something down, sign something, or maybe do some math. More people also carry a small flashlight/penlight of some kind, but many people also just rely on the light on their phone if light is needed in the dark, or to look behind something close to a wall, or find something that rolled under something on the floor.
People carry these things to be prepared "just in case." It's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. This is why most people who carry a handgun daily do so. It is no different than having their phone, their wallet, or that flashlight on them. The media, and politicians, however, like to portray this differently. Speaking with more people who carry daily will provide a more accurate picture of the mindset of these people.
If you have been away from your house and out in public, such as a parking lot, a retail store, a bowling alley, a grocery store, a restaurant, or most any other place, you have been around and among people who were concealed carrying, and you never knew it. And nothing happened. This is life every day for everyone.
If there are two convenient stores that a criminal is looking to rob, and the one on the left side of the street has a sign that says firearms are not allowed, and the one on the right side of the street does not have such a sign.....which one do you believe the criminal will feel safest in? The one where he knows all the law abiding customers will be defenseless, or the one where he doesn't know if someone, or multiple customers, may be armed? Which one would YOU rob if you were a criminal?
You said people can have experience and knowledge without the intelligence required to comprehend both. You don't know the difference between a magazine and a clip. You also seem believe everyone carrying a handgun for protection feels powerful and safe. None of these things demonstrate knowledge, or the intelligence to comprehend them, on your part. I have found I have got further in life knowing when I don't know something than the things I do know. When a person doesn't know something, and acts on that thing anyway, they usually end up going backwards.
I don't feel safe or powerful because I carry a handgun (with a State permit by the way, in effect making me a "certified good person" due to the more extensive background check). I feel "mostly prepared" to deal with being confronted by an armed criminal wishing me, or my family, harm. If it were to happen I will be nervous and scared (who wouldn't?), but with the training I've had, and the extensive amount of practice I've had, I feel I have a much better chance of surviving such an incident than a person who is not armed. Being able to shoot back is better than only being able to catch bullets with my body.
I also carry pepper spray in case that is the level of force required to deter someone, or multiple people, who wishes me harm.
I also have 4 years of martial arts training, which I enjoyed and was fascinated by very much. If hand to hand combat is what is needed for me to escape I am prepared that way as well.
And of course, I can run, if that is available to me.
No, I am not "hoping" nor looking forward to defending myself against an armed criminal or criminals. I hope it NEVER happens, as the vast majority of concealed carriers hope (there's always exceptions to everything). However, we can't control what other people are going to do, so like having a flashlight, a pen, or a pocket knife, it seems it is a good idea to be prepared if such an occasion were to arise.
In the meantime, it is fun to challenge myself to become very accurate with my carry guns, as well as enjoying the novelty of shooting historic military rifles, one of which is 124 years old. Shooting something so old, and with the engineering of that age, is very amusing and enjoyable. It is not something I would use for defense though.
People of power having to have this explained to them instead of doing their own due diligence is disgusting.
Democrats know the difference. They're gun owners too (they're hypocrites, remember). What you're hearing is what their lobbyists are paying them to lie about.
It is highly likely that most of them know. They are arrogant and contemptuous enough however, to believe they can con their constituents, most of whom were stupid enough to vote for them in the first place.
He had to put it at a 4th Grade level for all in Congress to understand. Semper Fi.
That's because they want to take your RIGHTS, to CONTROL you, it's that simple and ANYBODY, with half, of a functioning brain, knows it, which says a lot, about Demoncraps, I mean Democrats.🤔🤷
@@martyshannon7542 🦅🌎⚓️
The ENTIRE debate does not mention a word about taking guns away from criminals just taking away guns from law abiding citizens that have every right to defend themselves
*You beat me to the punch. Great comment!*
Amen 🙏.
"That is why our masters in Washington are so anxious to disarm us. They are not afraid of criminals. They are afraid of a populace which cannot be subdued by tyrants." ~ Jeff Cooper
👏 Exactly 💯
@@goosecouple they are the criminals
and banning citizens from having fully-auto rifles is already infringing.
Amen
I want an m4
@@devin3607 I like the older m16s before they switched to 3 round burst.
Pretty sure all m4s are burst fire.
@@LisaAnn777 i can confirm M4A1 and M4A2 rifles are safe, semi, 3rnd.
@@morvek that's what I was saying, Id prefer a older m16 with full auto instead of 3 round burst like in the m4s.
I know legally 3rd burst is considered "automatic" in the US, but I'd want a true fully auto if I could afford it lol
" ive witnessed my constituents DIE IN BATTLE" 😂😂😂😂 THIS WOMAN IS AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN NUTS
I thought the same thing. What an idiot.
Who was that?
So... She was there in combat with her constituents??🤣🤣🤣
Sounds like Sheila Jackson.... You know the last who says all ARs are Daniel Defense DDM4.... Or that they weigh as much as 15 heavy moving boxes.
@@EvLSpectre i heard her say that...strange.
The fact that I, a normal 20 something with no college degree, already knew all of this information, and they, politicians who’ve had years of education behind them and should be researching the crap out of this stuff since they’re making laws on it, needed this explained to them, is absolutely infuriating.
I think it’s even scarier that, the fact that those politicians are most likely going to ignore this person’s information and still think the AR15 is a fully automatic mass murder machine
The politicians know damn well how these firearms work. They know damn well that their objections are almost entirely cosmetic. But their VOTERS hate guns. They do not how what the reasons are that they get guns banned, they just want to get them banned. All of them. It won't stop with AR's, or Glocks, or whatever. They will ALWAYS find a new reason.
you assume they know anything about anything else. They are a face. The face of Martha's Vineyard. They hire the help to figure it out.
Same here, Chief.
They know exactly what they’re doing and they don’t care, because they’re being paid for exactly that - gaslight and act stupid, so they can dumb down everyone else.
The same people whining for gun control have armed guards literally carrying the exact guns they want banned.
They should have to lead by example
guns make it easier for bad guys to kill
@@ProtectChildrenNotGuns and bad guys do not obey gun laws. What is your point?
Can confirm they do want the guns we carry banned.
@@rupertpicante2079 if that is your reason for not doing anything about the gun violence then I am afraid that it is going to get worse for our kids. America is going to look more like a war zone
Shall not be infringed. “We must take into account the restrictions of the time the amendment was written”
“When it was written, there were no restrictions”
it means that civillians didnt have access to weapons and ammo to kill 10s or 100s in a very small amount of time
To those saying they had automatic weapons in the revolutionary war. I’m aware, but the fact you’re drawing an equivalency that an AR-15 which is widely accessible, much lighter, can carry vastly more ammo in a smaller space and can be used much easier is the same as the fucking pickle gun is laughable. You heard “automatic” and immediately jumped too “erm actually they had those during the revolution 🤡”
Try doing columbine with the fucking pickle gun.
@@DamfinsaowefinaweBut our military does, which is exactly why the 2nd amendment was written up in the first place. To prevent tyranny.
@@declanblaisure1449 look at all the tyrants our 2nd amendment is removing. All those middle and high schoolers, thousands of future tyrants removed by our amazing 2nd amendment.
@@Damfinsaowefinawethe puckle gun: am I a joke to you
You: yes
@@Damfinsaowefinaweyes they did. Automatic weapons existed before the Constitution was written.
Any politician/bureaucrat who does not know this basic firearm information, has NO business voting on any gun related legislation
they don't know the basics of anything. these are the teacher pets. they are there to work for the top rich elites. they are puppies with cobra venum.
it's funny to see that even the west has the same stupid shit we have here lol.
FINALLY SOMEONE TRYING TO BRING SOME SANITY TO THESE POLITICIANS
Sadly most of the time it falls on deaf ears. The democrats attack on guns has nothing to do with functionality, mass shootings or any other reason. It is soley because they dont want people standing up aginst their tyranny.
SO YOU ARE TELLING US THE FOUNDING FATHERS WANTED THE SECOND AMENDMENT SO IF THE FOUNDING FATHERS BECAME TYRANTS YOU COULD SHOOT THEM???? RUN THAT BY US AGAIN REPUBLICANS???? WELL, I'D LIKE TO HEAR REPUBLICANS SAY WHICH OF THEM AGREES OUR GUNS ARE MEANT AS A DETERENT TO "THEM". GO AHEAD, SAY IT
*Molon labe!*
As always , they will retain their selective hearing loss and this will fall on deaf minds
Waste of time. None of them were listening, and the only place anyone else will see it is here of on Cspan
Only a tyrannical government would only want to take the guns away from their citizens 🤷♂️
I'm going out to buy a gun right now, and it only shoots one shot at a time. It's called a tank.
It was one of Hitler’s 1st moves.
@Jasper Kensington 👍🏼
Historical consequences of
Gun Control Laws for the Unarmed citizens
1911 Turkey - 1.5M Armenian Christians Murdered
1926 USSR - 20M Murdered
1932 Guatemala 200k Murdered
1938 Cambodia 2M Murdered
1938 Germany - 19M Murdered
1945 China - 80M Murdered
1955 Uganda 300k Murdered
1979 Rwanda 800k Murdered
2022 United States ???
“Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
Sir Winston Churchill
thats why their doing it.
just like Australia
"Let Me Finish, Let Me Finish!"
...that's what she said.
😬😬😬😬😬
I feel like this didn't get enough love, ❤😂
Florida's Congressman Greg Steube is Awesome!
They heard nothing this man had to say, and that's the saddest part of it.
Worse, the next lady to speak immediately moved to strike at least part of his commentary.
bro he compared a lever action rifle to a semiautomatic rifle... they're not the same
@@resin420 he didn’t say they were the same though. Just mentioned how they function differently same with the pump action. But majority of the left don’t know the difference other than looks, which seems to be par for the course with about everything with the left.
@Joseph Avenetti and still said they were pretty much equal.. which definitely isn't true unless you're really proficient with a lever action.
@@resin420 they are equal both shot single shot squeeze shoot but with civilian lever action faster then with semi automatic
I love how ALL of the Democrats immediately start having temper tantrums before they even know why he’s asking. Defensive much?
Indeed. They KNOW they are nothing but leeches, sucking the lifeblood from our country and doing nothing for it.
Most Dem politicians and many 'publicans see our military as nothing but canon fodder to be used to advance their own greedy causes. May they be Judged accordingly.
Yeah I thought it was funny and sad at the same time. Spineless through and through.
Of course "Shenequa" had to get her two cents in.
And notice NOT ONE of them had been in combat...
Emotional grandstanding. It's there favorite tool.
Virginia is a good example of our gun rights that protect our republic and the right to peacefully assemble and protest. There were 20,000 armed peaceful protesters at the government opposing its legislation and no shots were fired. America is good.
Didn't that just get passed though?
@@summervibes2147sanctuary counties , set up when northam tried that bill the first time. Every county in western VA had town 2a meetings where there was a bigger crowd at those particular venues, than ever before. Including pd.
Amazing how little they actually know about fire arms.
“SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" That was put there for the exact reason we are having this debate, To defend against Tyranny. A TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT.
Well regulated is the part you conveniently ignore. It’s important
@@unclebrian1373 That refers to Militia. You are over looking the second part "the right of the people" not the Militia.
Enjoy the red wave Dems. once red takes house back its going to be so sweet to see you Dems. squirm. Biden/Harris are the worst presidents ever even next to Putin. FJB
@@unclebrian1373 Nice try but no cigar. To repeat...SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
@@unclebrian1373 You ignored the comma.
“Have any of the Democrat politicians serviced in a theater of war?”
“I know someone that did!”
“That’s not the question.”
“How dare you insinuate that we can’t talk about kids in danger.”
“That’s not the question either.”
Of course, none of them did, they hate men, can't even define what a fucking women is, and hate guns. Bet if they were required to serve, after a fair number of them had their feelbads hurt and suck started a shotgun, congress would do more for veteran suicides, because then they would have something to gain from it.
McCain was a closeted Democrat.
Senator Tulsi Gabbard (sp?).
@@nospam3409 yeah, but she’s center left. The rest of the Democrats actually hate her.
@@jordanhendrix2619 Agreed. Just saying she's a war veteran and a Democrat.
THIS NEEDS TO BE SHARED EVERYWHERE!!
Taught in schools
@@devin3607 should be or is?
@@Chapaveli5959 should be* i wish it was taught in schools
@@devin3607 guns and schools do not mix. But it should be explained by all the media platforms, and news stations. And if parents who own or want to own, want to truly learn about the guns here in the US, let them be the ones to teach their kids. Not the schools.
@@Chapaveli5959 parents should definitely teach their kids too
2035: "Your slingshot's rubber strips can't be heavier than 5 lbs of pressure"
“If Violent Crime is to be Curbed, it is only the intended victim who can do it, the felon does not fear the police, neither does he fear judge nor Jury. Therefore he must be taught to fear his victims” - Lt. Col. Jeff Cooper, USMC
Orah
I use to work for a place that had a jeff cooper review quote on their wall. which I thought was wild cause they had hella endorsements. but cooper was the one permanently on the wall.
A great quote by a pawn who fought for the rich
@@kronk9418 still a great quote
According to the CDC, between 2 and 5 _million_ crimes per year are averted by defensive use of a firearm.
The worst part is he has to explain this to the people making these bills…
They know what they’re doing. They are commies and want to kill us. Period! They need our guns
Exactly why I think every person responsible for making laws needs at the very least a basic course in every single issue up for debate. Especially firearms, before they make laws about things they know nothing about
Even worse, once he was done, a lady from TEXAS moves to strike his words.
Weapons of war also includes spears, arrows, swords, knives, sticks, rocks, ropes and water. Convicted felons don't follow gun laws.
The worst part is he compared a Glock with a weapon that has an effective range of around 300 yards. Wild.
Thank you for THE FACT AND TRUTH!
Select fire weapons should not be illegal...and they're not, but they also shouldn't require a tax to exercise the right to have them
They won't let you do it or have it.... Unless you give them enough money...
Greg is trying to do the impossible - argue with Democrats using facts.
Yep
It may be impossible but I am not a fan of the other option.
@@deadtoadsoup facts are facts.... plain and simple.... wordplay doesn't change that
@@deadtoadsoup name one thing this man said that was incitement? I'll wait. 🤡
@@deadtoadsoup if you're referring to J6, then your argument is weak. How about Beetlejuice inciting people to go after Supreme Judges? How about the BLM RIOTS of 2020? Again... I'll wait
Damn shame that this has to be explained to our government officials on this level
They know. It’s just political posturing to say “we did something.”
Is a weapon of war really defined by its ability to have its rate of fire changed though?
@@VeggiesOutFront anything can be a weapon of war and fucking rock can be a weapon of war
they know, but they are just making shit up at this point.
@@InAnOut- it literally was people use to have boys in their village practice sling from their young age so they can be use in hunting and later in war much like archery
The black chick next to me at the hospital waiting room intently watched this over my shoulder.(In DC btw) After it ended she jumped up and started screaming on her phone about "gun bad give me money!"
bro..
gun not bad, person behind the gun is
Please include clearly in the bill how criminals will obey these myriads of gun laws.
I love how he let the guy jump to the wrong conclusion and then educated him as to why he was asking to begin with...classic. Its an indication of how sensitive they are to being called out.
I'm not on either side politically but in recent years have started leaning right because of outbursts like the gentleman had. He didn't wait for context before jumping to a conclusion and with that mentality he should not have anything to do with what bills get passed or don't.
@@l.-._.-._.-._.-._.-.l the thing is that its become a case of anything senseless belongs to the left. its hard to stay in the middle when you have people saying things like ban the police. they are also very intolerant ironically enough so they are very quick to shun anyone that differs in opinion. more and more people will go to the right just because they are alienated from the left. it used to be whats the better way to get to the same goal now the goals have shifted. the right has kinda stayed to the same goal and possibly shifted a little but the left has completely changed what we all were aiming for. its no longer about how to improve the lives of everyone in the country. instead its about who needs to suffer and who is oppressed. its a witch hunt for some kind of retribution that only consumes and never gives anything worthwhile to the people.
People do this to me a lot. I like to let them carry on till they take a breath then i calmly tell them thats not what i said and continue to embarrass them by showing facts.
@@Ojthemighty they make it easy. Alm you have to do to make a leftist look ridiculous, is be familiar with reality
@@SomeUnkindledAsh exactly lol.
So many people who have NEVER HANDLED a firearm in their lives want to infringe upon the rights of those who do own them. Insane…
Some people actually need them to defend their families, between the ghetto and the rockies. Threats come in all sizes. It’s clearly to disarm the people for communist takeover.
Its always the people who don't know anything about guns/never shot them that are against them the most, it's because people fear what they don't know
While coincidently also afforded private security that we all don't have the luxury of having. Go figure...
Exactly
The only people that think their rights are being infringed have never actually read the constitution.
Well said my friend.
Typical example of their professionalism: “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” - Nancy Pelosi D-CA (Speaker of the House) in regards to the ACA (Obamacare) bill.
The debate on gun control is a debate between a freeman and a sheep. It will never end until ...
Founding Fathers: "Shall Not be Infringed !!!"
And who is the freeman and who is the sheep?,, by the way is free man!
@@lolalashy6522 Free man is the exact terminology of the Constitution as written, the sheep are the ones that feelings explain what was written. First would be conservatives/constitutionalist, and the second would be lefty maggots.
lefty maggots' are the ones that can't understand there's plenty of 'right of the people' and 'rights' in the constitution-but no where else does it say in exact meaning 'shall not be infringed'.
I want an M4 with selector switch. F semi auto.
Lmao!! "My daddy served in a war!" "I know of people that died!" They thought that would help their credibility!?
Lol 😂 yeah but did you serve?? Well no I didn’t but my grandfather did. Yeah asswipe I’m not asking about your grandfather I’m asking if you did?? 🤦♂️ my favorite in a debate with a liberal over one time when she tells me you don’t need an assault weapon and I asked do you even know what an assault weapon is? And she replies well no I don’t it doesn’t give you a right to insult my intelligence. Well you did that to yourself and you just lost the debate before I even started. You tell us what we can’t have but yet can’t describe anything about it. Like these democrats who don’t know Jack shit but tell you that you can’t have one.
Yes. I had an argument on Twitter with a woman who was totally ignorant about economics, but she claimed to be an expert because her late husband had been an economist for over 25 years.
@@garymanis6305 It's the most rampant behavior pattern I've observed since social media technology has become mainstream.. the whole "teenage mentality" syndrome. They learn a little bit about something and somehow think they are an expert.. about everything!
"My dad works at Microsoft!" - Halo 3 Team Slayer circa. 2007
Dem politicians are weak and pathetic Americans and most of them would never serve in the military. They think that's beneath them since they are elites.
Still blows my mind that he has to explain this to lawmakers.. they have no right to ban things when they don’t know the first thing about firearms …
Thank you for speaking the truth sir!
Jeez, its scary to realize the ignorance of politicians on basic weapon mechanics.
Sure politicians don't need to be rocket scientists.... but at least research and learn a bit when you are making laws
@@behcherry9815 agree, it does not take much to get a basic working understanding of most subjects up for political debate. The fact they appear to have had zero interest in doing so yet already dead set on legislating it is disgraceful to say the least.
Good job, Congressman Steube!!!!
Do you think he lays naked with his gun collection late at night when he is all alone and lonely? I do. He has man issues.
Except even he described an M16 selector options incorrectly, He said the three selector options for an M16 are: "fully automatic, three round burst and semi-automatic"...
Wrong... The three options are three round burst, semi-automatic and safe.
"Automatic" has not been an option since the Vietnam M16 A1 version.
M16 has a safe, semi-auto and 3 rd burst, m4, to which he refers, has full auto, 3 rd burst, and semi auto.
@@dsantos72 The M-16A2, 20' inch-barreled, fixed-stock version which I was issued after joining the US Army in late 1987, had "SAFE", "SEMI", and "BURST" marked above the three-position selector switch.
@@Remy4489 lol actually he said M4....
he destroyed those weak, corporate geezers who've never done anything physically challenging their entire lives
Gov't geezers.
Word!
no he didn't. he made the point that most weapons should be banned. he did a good service for the gun control issue.
Im Going to mark this and all that check marked as stupidity of people who think they’ve accomplished more then someone they know nothing about there’s a lot of dumb people in this world and this is proof.
@@jacobthorns5776 how did he make that point?
Hell yeah
My M4 didn’t have full auto in OIF 07/08
Very true. I retired from the Marine Corps in 2012 and have never seen an issue rifle that was full auto. It wasn't until very recently that the US Army and some other combatant commands began purchasing/modifying M4s with full auto capability. A complete waste of function for a service rifle. The M249 and M240B fill that role. You can't hit crap with full auto and you will run out of ammo before the firefight is over, which could last 12 minutes or 12 hours. Depends on CAS or artillery.
This is literally the only argument that needs to be made. Enough said
Well, now the majority will increase the extent of their desired ban...very informative for them.
The only argument that needs to be made is referring to the constitution and the part where it says. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!
@@devastor-phil310 exactly
@@devastor-phil310 the democrats and republicans are two sides of the same coin.
@@justineslick6463 And the only other argument that needs to be made is WELL REGULATED MILITIA.
Wow a politician used straight forward logic and reasoning to make a point? More of these please
Representative but yes
I know right I was so shocked like I was sure he was about to send out bullshit when he ask if any one served
@@1roxyfan491 A representative is a politician, he engages in politics.
@@arcticchod5370 not a career politician though
Logic and reasoning. That's why the others didn't understand.
Well done!
The argument is both obtuse and absurd, by that logic if they're all the same as long as the "mechanism" allows for semi or full auto then why isn't the military issuing fully automatic pistols instead of heavier and more expensive automatic rifles... Guess what, there's more to a weapon beyond just the fire selector...
I was in a restroom one time and a sign said "if the opposite of pro is con, then whats the opposite of progress? Congress!" And this is why
That's dope
😂😂😂😂😂
Yep, we are being conned by criminal democrats.
You tiped zime instead of time so your fully understandable and funny comment lost all of it's value
@@Jugoslavija ok
The woman who said “I’ve seen my constituents die in battle” is Rep Sheila Jackson from Texas, who also said an AR-15 rifle is “as heavy as ten boxes you might move” and fires a 50 caliber bullet.
Seems legit.
Another Democrat who belongs in long term care home
Well, there IS the Beowulf.
@@jojodancer1743 Nobody uses that round hardly though, I'd rather build a 458 socom than a 50 Beo. even then I'd rather build a 6.5 Grendel.
@@spiritovrlnd Nobody asked you what YOU would rather build you putz. I was responding to the original comment. Go drum up a debate somewhere else.
Daaaym bro pure fire
He spoke all FACTS!!!!
And even still, democrats be like: "was someone just talking?"
or they will say something like "but men can still get pregnant"
Makes sense now, Dems rely on 1.) stupid voters 2.) Lazy voters and 3.) emotion!
Ahhh........!? Pretty sure......most of those weapons have been used in mass shootings,....lol
Because they do not want you to explain how something works, they just want you to tell them how they are supposed to FEEL. That's why I love to see protestors asked question, they get that "someone tell me what my opinion was, again, please!" look on their face.
Correct. Ha!
I just feel so bad for this guy -- for how much information this man has to jam into such a small amount of time knowing how disconnected most people are to any of this.
He is implying that the AR-15 has the exact same functionality as a glock, because it is semi-automatic. Its like saying a barette 50. cal is the exact same functionality as a .22 plinker because its bolt-action.
@@jacobp8294 No he is commenting on the functionality of the trigger mechanism inside the firearms. He mentioned that the gentleman before him went over what you're referring to which is caliber size. He didn't imply anything; he made a statement of fact regarding the function of the triggers of an AR style rifle and a Glock pistol. I find it ironic you replied to someone commenting on the limited time he has to get across so much information to an audience that is completely disconnected.
@@sparky14jn triggered?
@@jacobp8294 Great reply and no I don't have an auto sear
@@jacobp8294 Imagine understanding the point of a 4 mins presentation.
And that's because it isn't about the type of gun. They just need to START banning something. Once they get that train going, they're coming for them all anyways. Classic sales technique. The first yes begets a second yes begets a third.
Hell yeah, right on. If you're going to take away our constitutional rights, you better not be arbitrary about it.
He’s right. We need to bring back selector switches that are functional!
“SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!”
Seriously! I told my aunt I have an ar15 and she scoffed asking, YOU HAVE AN AUTOMATIC ASSAULT RIFLE!? 🤦♂️I said nope neither, it’s an AR15 lol
Tried to educate her but I could see my words go through one ear and out the other.
@@DaseggMQB I hear ya, I’ve ran into MANY ppl like that. It’s always “it’s my way or no way” with them. There is NO REAL bipartisan anymore, it seems that whenever anyone other than the democrats try putting ANYTHING forward to get passed the other parties have to GIVE IN on so many other things just to get the democrats to budge. That’s not bipartisan, it’s CONTROL…… and that’s unfortunately the future of our nation unless something changes AND I MEAN FAST!!!
@@DaseggMQB Libs are not interested in truth. They know what they know and if you don't agree you're racist. Facts have no place in the democrat brain.
..... What do you mean functional? Fully auto matic?
That's fucking stupid and all the moron civilians that want fully automatic are dumb. The reason the US Army removed the fully automatic function from the AR-15 and M16 style platform is because people where just blowing a whole 30 round magazine at nothing and then running out of ammo in a long, drawn out combat situation.
The current military uses 3 selections: 3 round burst, single shot and then saftey.
Source: Infantry combat veteran, deployed to Baghdad in 05. Carried the Squad Automatic Weapon for 6 months and then had a modified M16 with a longer barrel that was free floating and 2 stage trigger with match grade ammo then switched over to a normal M16 for the rest of the deployment
Agreed.
"Has anyone in the democratic side served in a combat deployment?"
*a democrat who has not served in the military*
"mY fAtHeR!, mY fAtHeR...iM oFfEnDeD!!..."
Yeah you are never going to be able to reason with people who respond like this.
I like that someone was offended that he would suggest that none of them had served. And none of them had!
Jamie Lannister vibes...
ua-cam.com/video/YvXSeGiieqA/v-deo.html
@@jsatko I have concluded they get offended by the truth.
*Try to teach brain dead warm body shills*
That little man would get eatin up in a combat zone lmao
Yes 🙌🏻
Such simple education seems to be brushed aside by the fact “they” want to keep knicking away at our rights until they’ve completely stripped them away!
Thank God we still have strong 💪🏻 men to fight for us all!!
This man is educating, enlightening and fighting for gun rights against brainless idiots whom know nothing of firearms. I have had wonderful talks like this with friends.
I think you’re wrong my friend I believe they know exactly what kind of weapons they are they’re just doing what they’re blatantly saying they’re doing they’re trying to ban the guns all guns why else would you do magazines if you do magazines for a lot of guns most magazines are 15 rounds to 25 round magazines not counting obviously AR platform 30 round magazine why not just band 100 round drums or a 50 round drum instead they’re banning the most common magazines
@@kingxxmeatkingxxmeat9071 I see your point, but I can also see if none of these politicians have never handled or shot a firearm before also. I had a friend tell me that he could feel the power from shooting an AR-15, and I looked at him like he was nuts. I told him to let me know when he shot a .308 or a 7.62x54mm and let me know what he thought then. Hoping that explains why I said what I said :)
I absolutely do believe that there is a few with the purposes you have stated though.
You really think these idiots "dont know" about firearms? They are probably more knowledgeable than most BUT they play along with this administration in order to fulfill their commie agenda. I bet eqch amd every one in favor of ban bills actually rely on these weapons for their own safety.
Edit: Had to look some shit up, I guess conversion of M4s to the M4A1 began in 2014, the start of all U.S. Army forces being equipped with the automatic variant.
I deployed in 05. We had M4's in the company. I stand corrected. Carry on boys and girls
The problem I have with what he is saying, which is good info, is that he starts out in the beginning with false information. I am unsure if he does it out of ignorance or malice, but it is what it is.
I was infantry with over 200 combat missions in Baghdad in 05. There are no longer AR rifles issued in the US armed forces that are fully automatic.
fully automatic rifles where removed from service in the 70s. All AR/M16 style rifles now have 3 selections in the military, and its 3 round burst, single shot and off.
He kept saying it has fully auto, he is fully of shit.
whom?
"My father, my father" bet he's been using that phrase since he was in college to get away with things.
Spoiled-rotten brat in a grown man's body. So used to always getting his precious little way he throws a tantrum the moment he doesn't.
The burn when the guy said "he may or maybe not have served" I cracked up, passive aggressive blow.
but, but, but my father was registered for the draft, and my cousin was in the coast guard for 2 years during the gulf war...😂
He's literally the dude from the diner in good will hunting.
@@Mr.Average1957 So when you are asked if you served, do you answer with "my father did?"
That was the whole point: a straight and clear question.
"But they're just semi-automatic" doesn't change that gun related deaths are a problem. Comparing guns proportionally to deaths should be more telling than it is considering how there are more guns than people.
Little people should not be allowed to own firearms. Only rich people should be allowed to own guns.
The fact that this has to be explained shows just how ignorant these politicians are. They do not deserve to be in power if they don’t understand basic firearm functionality.
They aren't ignorant. It's malice at this point. You can't get taken to school this often and still be stupid.
He doesn't understand either. A gun is a machine that is engineered to do a certain thing. The "look" of the gun is based on it's functionality and anyone saying a handgun and a riffle have the same functionality is an idiot. Do you think a beretta pico and an ar15 have the same functionality?
@@HoomanPlays No.. they have the same functionality. You pull the trigger, the firing pin hits the primer, and a bullet comes out. The rifle is just built for rounds like 223 Remington.
The look of the gun is NOT based on weapon functionality. And before you say "Its made that way to withstand the pressure released when the bullet is fired", there are remington 223 pistols.
You might know remington 223 by another name, that name is 5.56 Nato. Exact same bullet by measurement.
@@HoomanPlays In regards to their trigger mechanisms, which is the argument he is going against, yes.
Even he knows that a rifle provides a steadier aim at longer distances with benefits to recoil control, stability, and accuracy. That's not what they were arguing about. Is a semi-automatic firearm a "weapon of war" and the only time that's really true is in regard to the M1911 which isn't even in service anymore (from my understanding).
Besides he is wrong on one point that he's arguing. We, the people, have the right to weapons of war. Especially considering we're getting to a point where a president made a veiled threat aimed at half the country.
Isn't he misrepresenting the issue though? It's not simply "how they look", the caliber difference is huge and therefore so is the penetration / destructive power.
SAY IT LOUDER FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE BACK!!! Thank you for finally dumbing this down enough that hopefully people will understand how ridiculous this witch hunt is!
The dems still won’t understand
@@jt3366
We were able to, up until 1986.
@@MajorisMons you still can but the price went threw the roof
Perhaps next time he can he can draw it out with Crayolas and stickers maybe the Democrats will be able to understand it then
@@jesseabreu3849 they don't care all Democrats care about is taking all are guns so they power over us
Protect this man 💯💯💯
Using words like "AR platform" falls on deaf ears with people who perceive that they weigh 80 pounds and can blow a hole the size of a basketball in a person.
Imagine making laws for stuff that you don't know
That's why they shouldn't have anyone over 65 to run for anything
thing is, we assume they don't know, I think they know exactly what they are talking about, But they want these weapons gone so they can keep power, best way to do that, is to confuse the public and straight lie about these weapons
@@justvibes2843 unless they are in a golf cart!😅😅😅😅 Seriously though I agree 👍👍👍👍
@@RenegadeSpider2 no one is confusing the public. The fact that it’s easier to buy a firearm in some states than it is to drink just further proves the point that republicans have their priorities mixed up. An AR-15, an M4, an HK416, all chambered at 5.56 or .300. Should not be handled by your average civilian with no extensive training, background check etc.
@@butter4484 1: we have background checks, I have a sister who was denied due to it, 2: it isn't your business who owns a gun and who don't, we have a thing call the 2nd admendment, and Don't talk and say "they didn't have modern guns in mind" back in the day, muskets were the top gun, muskets were to them what M16's are to us, fact is we can't even own those, so miss me with that bs
i love how defensive that dude got when asked if he served. he immediately saw it as an attack on his ego and credibility before it was explained that it was related to the experience of the difference between weapons for military purposes and civilian model.
we've become so fragile and ready to yell at eachother that we forget the true tragedies of humanity and the purpose of working together to establish a goal in a cohesive manner. eye for an eye nowadays.
He was butthurt over nothing, big guilt complex since he knows what their trying to do is stop Americans from defending themselves against criminals.
I thought his outburst was hilarious since I had a pretty good idea where the other gentleman was going with his argument.
But my father ! lol..
Both the “father’s son” and the unidentified female…. Were anticipating the question being raised they way they raise these questions, on grounds of emotion and empathy….. it never occurred to them that he was asking if they were truly technically qualified and informed to use the “weapons of war “ rhetorics.
We have not become Fragile the left has.
How about the other moron democrats "I have seem soldiers die in battle" WHERE ? unarmed sitting duck at ft hood?
Preach!
The right of the people to keep and bare firearms Shall not be infringed!
that woman just said she has seen her constituents die in battle. i am dying to know how exactly
Like trump saying he’s the most transparent president but yet he stole classified documents and we still find out he had more hidden. We know they’re both lying.
Yeah that raises a *_lot_* of questions....
She's probably a representative of Chicago
0:35
It battle with the criminals I guess
Sad days when people that don't know anything about anything, make laws against anything.
but gaying is fine :)
Most politicians are lawyers, i.e., they write the kinds of laws that give themselves and others of that occupation employment and enrichment. They make things illegal so that they can both prosecute and defend, and always profit from them. They are opportunists and parasites of the worst kind.
@@alovera8592They don’t mind those pocket rockets 💀💀
@@alovera8592 I like my guns like I like my men. Long, cocked and ready to spray.
@@alovera8592 pro gun and pro gay
Individuals should not speak on firearm or firearm laws/bills if they have never held a firearm before.
I fully agree
Thank you Greg Steube you know your guns and the Democrats do not know their guns
It seems Greg Steube stumbled upon a great talking point, ask a Democrat how many of you have served in the military or have first-hand knowledge of weapons.
Dems know nothing about anything
He has every one of his skin-tearing gun sights named and numbered. ooohhh.
I agree with his motives, but he actually listed selector options incorrectly ; He said the three selector options for an M16 are: "fully automatic, three round burst and semi-automatic"...
Wrong... The three options are three round burst, semi-automatic and safe.
"Automatic" has not been an option since the Vietnam M16 A1 version.
@@Remy4489 I thought he said three round bursts and semi... I don't recall him mentioning safety. But I appreciate the correction if there was one.
Thank you Greg Steube for upholding your oath. That's rare among politicians these days.
EXACTLY💯
The fact that any of us have to explain this to people who are actively trying to take them away is sickening.
Its a culture crisis, not a "gun problem".
Dwmocrats are dmb.
It breaks my heart to see and hear somebody try to explain this to people who has the power to legislate about something they are totally ignorant of. I cannot imagen how frustrating it must be for him.
We have that over here in the UK with knives. Any knife that can be opened with just momentum alone is illegal to even own... except you can make one by loosening the screw that fixes the knife to the blade
Like most things they make laws about but have no clue on the subject
They aren't ignorant... it is about power.... we have been having these same arguments for decades now and a lot of these people have been in office for 30+ years.
@@toorimakun So why hasn’t anything been done about this?
@@user-rr1py7nc6x
It goes back and forth.... they ban something.. it gets unbanned... they ban something else.
It so far has been impossible to completely stop this BS because too many people that vote just go to the polls and vote for who ever they have seen in the news with their team (R) or (D) next to their name.
(and of course the people in the news are all part of the wall street "uniparty" and aren't actually republicans or democrats)
This isn't even like "super indepth gun knowledge" or something, this is like "guns 101" knowledge. These are the very starting basics of understanding firearms. So the fact that this needs to be explained to so many people, including the ones MAKING LEGISLATION ON IT, is absolutely insane.
This isn’t even 101 it’s baby’s first gun
Yeah don't give them enough credit for being stupid. They're doing it on purpose specifically to ban everything.
It was a super in depth lecture for them. I doubt they even understood half the things he said. Remember these are the "fully semi automatic AR glock 15 with a 50 round magazine clip" guys.
The idiots need to be taught but they are still not listening they are still stuck on their term ASSAULT WEAPON?
This guy trying to say that an ar15 and a handgun is the same thing cos they are semi auto? Lmao what a too 😂 Get rid of ar15s America 🙄🙄 it's sooo incredibly simple
See this Is why this man is the goat 🥰
Amen Brother!
We need more people like this to stand up to these cronies
Unfortunately, this is a well-rehearsed stage play -- American liberties are being removed for the new citizens ( illegal immigrants ) and they will get their custom constitution as well that will render them slaves to the self-appointed criminal U.S. Government.
??
Pointless as "these people" are reading scripts. They are all in on it. Nothing EVER gets accomplished that benefits us.
Citizens worldwide are becoming disarmed all while global shortages of food, water, electricity, gas, diesel, and deadly weather rage across the planner killing people.
Those who can't see what's happening will be the first to die.
??
Not sure generalizations and "maybe" make good debate points.
Imagine a politician who actually upheld their oath to preserved the constitution, and protect America from all DOMESTIC threats
If the highest law of the land was actually upheld 99% of politicians, judges, and law enforcement officers would be found guilty of treason and deprivation of rights under the color of law at a minimum. Both carry the death penalty.
Hasn't happened yet... cause the biggest threat domestically is congress and the federal mafia that has set itself up as demi gods.
Wasn't this guy unfortunately since he is ignoring what the second amendment argues for.
@@LunarKn1ght True. The whole point was the people would have completely unrestricted access to all arms.
@@websterri yes, whatever the government had. The people were to have. So no government here could ever try and put their thumb on the citizens.
i dont think iv ever heard anyone say next slide and watch someone pick up the slide and move it
Get Brandon Herrera in office for Texas so he can school these clowns
The fact that the lady immediately asks for his words to be stricken from the record is so telling.
Edit: Several people in the replies have informed me that my initial understanding of that phrase was incorrect. “I move to strike the last word,” doesn’t mean that she is requesting his words to be stricken from the record, but rather to extend the discussion of the current topic (likely in this case to oppose it). Thanks to those who explained this clearly and in a calm manner.
She's from Texas. How the hell did she get elected in Texas?
@@jamescobrien Californian commies moving to Texas...
@@dametalone That makes sense now.
@@jamescobrien because everyone who left California because of how high it costs to live, moved to Texas/Arizona. They literally turned 2 of the most red states to blue in a couple of years.
she also actually said as stupid as this may sound, "i saw my constituents die in combat" she also said "ar15 are heavy like moving boxes' sheila jackson lee of texas google her many stupid aoc type shit it's so funny you won't believe your ears!
These are the types of people needed to be heard more often.
Exactly!
They don't listen, they don't hear, they don't care. They have their own agenda.
You say that until the same logic is used against the very beliefs you hold so closely
Like it or not you need both half’s of the coin to make a dollar one without the other is tyranny
facts
@@IdQuinc but liberals don't use logic.....sooo?
What they want to do is been done 37 years ago.
This is BASIC BASIC BASIC firearm knowledge.
Too Many Americans have been fooled to think guns are bad and taboo.
Like how the first politician (democrat) just immediately gets offended by Greg simply asking if anyone has served time in the armed forces
Those politicians aren’t stupid, they’re being paid to act stupid. They know exactly what they’re banning, they don’t care. That guy wasn’t offended by the question, he knows exactly what Greg was going to say next, so he fakes outrage and that’s gonna be the highlight all the mainstream media will focus on.
Screw that guy, useless sod
Sure, because it's a stupid question and was only done as a stunt and political theater. What does serving in the military have to do with wanting to protect people? My grandfather served in Vietnam and he was against guns like AR-15's. So does that mean he's right since he served? But here's a question... why did this guy lie about the guns' functionality being exactly the same? They're clearly not. AR-15's are more accurate for beginners. That's why they're chosen by these killers despite the fact that pistols would give them a covert advantage.
@@billybatson7852 did you not listen
@@MmmDaddyDom Oh, I did, person who doesn't know grammar or punctuation cuz he's a child.
What are you saying that I missed? A generalized statement means nothing. Be specific, kid. Are you saying that an AR-15 is NOT more stable than a pistol?
"Weapon of War" is a term utilized by the unintelligent. In Afghanistan we all carried knives. For some of us it was a fixed blade, others a folding knife. I had both. I spent a night on post where the illum was zero. The visibility was no further than 3 feet from my face. I was on a new post without even a radio, zero usable night optics. My night vision was useless as it requires ambient light to see anything. I sat there, for 4 hours, holding my knife because if anybody did attack, they'd be on me before I could see them. They want to ban semi-automatic rifles using the term "Weapon of War" ignoring the fact that they are not the only weapon that to this day falls under that heading. They don't hate "weapons of war". They hate you having the power to stand against them. My knife was no less a weapon of war. I f'ing hate that term.
“Weapon of War”
A single-fire muzzle loader musket was, and still is in a some countries, a “weapon of war”. It’s just an emotionally-charged buzz word made to advance the gun control debate.
It's a "Impact Statement" now used as a scare tactic.
@@lukeporras1288 so was the m1 grand 😂 so u mean to tell me I can’t have the ping gun🤓
Fully automatic in combat is rarely used anyways as it is extremely ineffective.
The few occasions it is used is when in close quarters combat in confined spaces where you have to make sure the enemy is downed proper so you can hold the trigger to increase your chances of hitting the target at least once. And preferably several times because one hit, even though the enemy doesn't wear any armor, is not a guarantee for taking that enemy out of the fight.
People that are hit by a single bullet do not get launched off their feet and die mid air like they do in the movies.
They get hit, they get a rush of adrenaline, then they feel the pain, then they might feel weak from the intense pain and shock of being hit, so they kneel over or slump down.
And eventually they might pass out and/or die on the spot.
But short of the last thing that could happen to them, during all other events, they can still fight back!
If you hit a person multiple times however, chances are their bodies will instantly shut down and go into panic mode to save itself from trauma. Or they will instantly pass out and die.
That's the only time fully automatic fire makes any sense, when you are up close and personal and whomever you hit could easily hit you back even though they are in pain.
So in that sense, ALL semi-auto rifles are weapons of war as that's how they are used in most situations in wars. Semi-auto only, because otherwise you are just wasting bullets.
Even if you can't hit the enemy directly, just having a constant overwhelming amount of bullets hitting near the enemy can be enough to keep them hiding in cover too scared to poke out as they know they are going to have their brains scattered behind them when they do due to accurate single shot fire being delivered down range by multiple shooters.
----------------
All of this being said, i find it hilarious how the guy points to an AR-15 and a Glock pistol and says "These are exactly the same".
No they are not... The AR-15 holds 30 rounds as a standard. The AR-15 punches much harder. And the AR-15 has way better accuracy and range.
Even if he's just talking about having to pull the trigger for each shot, the AR-15 is way more stable to shoot with. You will have an easier time delivering accurate shots on target when firing rapidly with the AR-15 where the Glock will want to just aim wherever when you pull the trigger too fast on it.
The AR-15 is designed with fully automatic fire in mind while maintaining a somewhat accurate grouping down range. The Glock can't even be designed for it because you really only have one point of contact with the pistol through the grip. The AR-15 has three points of contact, with the potential for a sling to assist you further in keeping it stable after each pull of the trigger.
THEY ARE NOT THE SAME! Even if you still have to pull the trigger for each shot.
One is a weapon whos use case is indistinguishable from a "weapon of war". The other is a sidearm that can still be used in a war for close range engagements.
And both are "scary looking" and both are designed for tactical operational use. Both examples are as lethal as they would be in a war zone and if an army was forced to use civilian AR-15's they would still be just as combat effective in 99% of cases.
The only person that doesn't just blindly agree with this guy I mean trust me Im all for having firearms and I don't personally want any taken away but at the same time to compare the two and say they are the same is just ignorant sure they both shoot bullets but not the same kind of bullets for one, and two like you said the stability, the extra ammunition and the more advanced engineering behind it just makes it a completely different weapon. Its like comparing a 410 derringer to a double barrel and saying they are the same.
I love when he asked a question about serving in the military and the Democrats scattered like cockroaches being sprayed with raid
🤣
Funny that you say that because the republicans just voted against the bill for veterans better access to healthcare and disability benefits
@@Deez_Nubz, What does that have to do with the 2nd Amendment? The Republicans under Trump finally allowed for the firing of the staff at Vet Clinics, before as long as they didn't murder you they couldn't be fired. And if you don't have the 2nd amendment then that will help this vet? Canada is looking for a triple boosted people to replace those who fled.
@@davidwaVR Why don’t you ask the republican who asked who served that same question?
@@Deez_Nubz Well at least I have some to ask. lol
He is 100 percent factually correct. This is the thing that drives me crazy the people who propose legislation have no clue the facts of the subject matter.
look, i'm not for gun control, but *you* aren't factually correct. he's wrong, m4's aren't fully automatic, I know, I carried one in OIF. All of DC is a joke.
@@Steffystr8mobbin I’m not sure about the military weapons but the semiautomatic civilian weapons he had pictures of are all simply one trigger pull one round. I hate hearing people call a semi automatic weapon an automatic weapon.
@@Steffystr8mobbin some m4 have all 3 mode some don't.
@@georgevaldez1449 Ohhh okay, I've only seen M4's with an automatic setting and a semi-automatic setting. I thought 3-rnd burst was a feature of the M16A1 (or M16A2 I believe) rifles.
@@gavinlee27 George is wrong. All M4 A1 rifles have the selector switch for auto three round burst. Same with the M16 A4 rifles.
@0:33 - 'You can yield to me, I've seen my constituents die in battle." How would she have seen her constituents die in battle?
“Shal not be infringed”
Speaking truth to those who choose not to listen to common sense is a Republican talking to a democrat. Guns don’t kill people. People kill people. Banning guns restricts law abiding citizens from accessing a firearm for protection. Criminals do not abide by the law and will do anything to get one to commit a crime. Let’s go Brandon!!!
exactly! lock up the criminals. they're the problem. the problem is also that democrats love criminals.
Just tell the ATF you wanna ID card that says your a criminal and youll be exempt from all laws.
Not to mention it is also Democrats helping violent criminals stay out of jail. The Dems are absolute criminals.
Second amendment is the only law criminals obey and abide by.
FJB
The fact that he completely shuts down the arguments of the next person who makes claims about automatic guns and the like. 10/10. Straight to the point.
I think he did not. In fact he was very duplicitous.
By his logic, only parents that can be concerned by mass murders in school are the ones that served. Service being totally irrelevant for the most part.
Now he makes it seem important by pointing out the function switch and drawing a parallel between a rifle and a handgun. As someone who served, I think he would be pretty disappointed if by HIS logic all the troops had to carry were handguns from now on with a fire switch for full auto, 3 burst and single fire.
Obviously the ban by class is nonsense on some level, but his point is also bullshit.
@@bruney74 His examples drawing similarities between civilian market rifles and civilian market handguns is important for dispelling the Democrats' argument that the deliberately designed-for-civilians rifle is a weapon of war because it's black, plastic, and goes bang just like the standard-issue service weapons are and do - while completely ignoring (out of ignorance or intent) the functional differences between service arms and civilian arms that defines explicitly what a "weapon of war" is.
They have intentionally muddied the definition in the minds of the ignorant of what an "assault rifle" is; that being a weapon that has passed service requirements, that is capable of selective fire, that is capable of holding at least 20 rounds, that is relatively lightweight + portable for long-term carry on extended deployment, and that has been adopted and issued as a regular piece of equipment in a regular standing army. Their use of the adjacent term "assault weapon" is deliberately confusing and misleading because it's a nonsense term with no fixed and accepted definition, and that allows them to define it however they please, and conflate it however they wish with what the accepted and firmly defined "assault rifle" is.
People have heard both terms before, but most people aren't well-versed in the differences between the two, and that is exactly what the Dems are preying upon in order to violate and invalidate your inalienable right as an American - given neither by God nor government, but by birth and citizenship - to keep and bear arms. The text is very clear: the government is in no way to disrupt, subvert, or deny your right to keep and bear arms. Full stop. Just like how there are "shall issue" states in the US regarding permits and such (because it would be unconstitutional to deny them to you), "shall" in the context of the Constitution clearly means "must" in the most extreme. The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms "MUST" not be Infringed, or else it violates the Most Supreme Law of the Land, by such absolute magnitude that any law beneath it that directly contradicts it is immediately null and void.
@@bruney74 What are you even talking about? Did you listen to anything in his presentation? He never said you had to serve to have an opinion, he was asking for someone with similar experience for him to ask the question to. You took what the Democrats said he was implying and you ran with it. You are completely off base and its ridiculous. He explained how the AR-15 was not the same as the weapons that soldiers carry in combat even though it looks similar. To call a rifle made for the civilian market a "weapon of war" is a complete joke. What does that even mean? Bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns are used in war more frequently than AR-15s, if we are banning "weapons of war" shouldn't the Remington 700 and Mossberg 500 be banned instead? And at that length, even a fixed blade knife is a "weapon of war" so why should you be allowed to own kitchen knives?
@@article1934 You aren't sure because you are wrong.
@@article1934 I don't know who told you the XM5 is not fully automatic, but they lied to you. It's also not only 20 round magazines, that's only the suppressed variant intended for special operations. The standard model that soldiers will be carrying has no suppressor and has 30 round magazines. The cartridge is also more powerful than any military prior has issued to general infantry, more powerful than the 7.62x51 used in the M14 and FAL. Nearly every rifle issued has a full auto selector because suppressive fire is a very important aspect of modern combat. If you have no experience in a topic you shouldn't speak like an expert. Even in boot camp they hand you an M4 with a full auto selector, it doesn't matter what branch or what job you do, even the cooks have trained on one.
Also the point with the bolt actions and pump actions is that militaries use these weapons in war, but they do not use AR-15s. If the text is going to read "weapons of war" it needs an actual definition instead of whatever you want to interpret it as.
Just ask anyone in Congress regardless of Party, and they have a personal defense weapon, or armed security. It should always be a defense weapon. The only way to amend the Constitution is by a Convention of the States, whereby it would be voted on. Unlikely to pass anyway, thankfully.
Great to see the sane Democrat Sheriff who stood up to the Governor, and denied her scheme.