Gun Control | The Complete Moderate's Guide
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 вер 2024
- Because of recent events, many people have become serious about wanting to have a conversation about gun control. Let's discuss the history of laws, Supreme Court decisions, and vocabulary so that we can all engage in that conversation on equal footing.
Website ► knowingbetter.tv
Store ► standard.tv/kno...
Patreon ► / knowingbetter
Paypal ► paypal.me/knowi...
Twitter ► / knowingbetteryt
Twitch ► / knowingbetteryt
Facebook ► / knowingbetteryt
Instagram ► / knowingbetteryt
Reddit ► / knowingbetter
---
Thanks to Cynical Historian for lending his voice:
/ cynicalhistorian
/ cynical_history
---
D.C. v. Heller - Mr. Beat - • Strengthening the Seco...
Guns in the Third Reich - A Response to Ben Shapiro and Others - Three Arrows - • Guns in the Third Reic...
Would Australian gun control work in the USA? - Cynical Historian - • Would Australian gun c...
What's the 2nd Amendment mean? (according to the US Supreme Court) - Cynical Historian - • What's the 2nd Amendme...
Gun Control in America (the actual laws and history) - Cynical Historian - • Gun Control in America...
jeffsachs.org/w...
[Australian Gun Control Facts]
www.npr.org/20...
[John Paul Stevens on Repeal]
pressroom.dicks...
[DICK'S Sporting Goods Statement]
www.guncite.com...
[Federalist Papers on 2nd Amendment]
www.politifact....
[Gun Show Loophole]
www.washington...
[Assault Weapons Ban]
www.firearmtuto...
[Machine Gun Ban]
---
Video Credits -
The Devastating Mk 19 Grenade Launcher In Action / Shooting [ Mark 19, 40 mm ] - Military Archive - • Mk 19 Grenade Launcher...
DAVID HOGG: The Unfiltered, Unpopular Truth! | Louder With Crowder - StevenCrowder - • DAVID HOGG: The Unfilt...
How to Make Your AR-15 "FULLY AUTOMATIC" (Sorta) (100% Legal) - UpNorthOutdoors - • Video
How does a Machine Gun Work, Full Auto AR15 Explained M4, M16 - modernpawn - • How does a Machine Gun...
DC: BEN CARSON ON NAZI GUN CONTROL, HOLOCAUST - CNN - • DC: BEN CARSON ON NAZI...
Photo Credits can be found at -
docs.google.co...
Music Credits -
"Furious Freak" and "Inspired" by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License
creativecommons...
Intro Art and Channel Avatar by PoetheWonderCat
/ thatcatnamedpoe
---
Hashtags: #politics #government #2A #guns #gun #guncontrol #guncontrolnow #gunviolence #laws #gunlaws #ar15 #firearms #rifle #parkland #NRA
My views on gun control: don’t give it to idiots
The hard part: finding out who the idiots are
simply the people who take it too far.
Wo! buddy I'm not that kind of guy, I was just saying that some people have extreme ideals.
people with a big criminal record
@Ben Ghazi how do you vet them? Its easy to say well just figure out if they are gonna use it for bad purposes till you realize you cant.
@Ben Ghazi So your saying that someone who has a lot of guns is suspicious or a reason to not allow them to get more? Also what states do not ask someone if they are a convicted felon?
-Be me.
-Own a musket for home defense since that's what the founding fathers intended.
-Four ruffians break into my house.
-"What the devil?" as I grab my powdered wig and kentucky rifle.
-Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first man, he's dead on the spot.
-Draw my pistol on the second man, misses him entirely because it's smoothbore and nails the neighbor's dog.
-I have to resort to the cannon loaded with grapeshot mounted at top of the stairs.
-"TALLY HO LADS!" the grape shot shreds two men in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel setting off car alarms.
-Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscalion
-Bleeds out waiting for the police to arrive since triangle bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up.
-Just as the founding fathers intended.
this shit made me laugh
I got mad respect for anyone willing to defend their home with a bayonet.
You do realize that there were repeating rifles at the time of the US Constitution's ratification, right?
@@publiccomment2053
You, uh... Do realize this is a joke, right?
My new favorite comment on youtube. Thank you. LMAO
You are misrepresenting the Australian situation on a few of key points.
1> Semi-Automatic rifles are banned. The only rifles you can own are bolt action or lever action.
2> Pump action shotguns are banned. Like Britain. Shotguns are limited to single and double barrel versions. There has been a loophole for lever action, and straight draw shotguns, though this will probably be closed soon.
3> Pistols are extremely hard to get. The process to get a pistol licence, including mandatory training and background checks takes about a year and a significant time and financial commitment.
4> Your guns may be sized by the police at any time, without cause. However, if you are the subject of a domestic valence complaint or apprehensive violence order (someone has a fear of you), of if you have ever sought help for a mental health issue (even 15 years later) your guns may be seized.
I hope that adds some context.
Sorry. The 30 round magazine is a STANDARD CAPACITY magazine.
These magazines are the factory standard when the rifle is sold.
I give the legal definitions as defined by the various laws - in this case, the Assault Weapons Ban. It defined a large capacity ammunition feeding device as anything over 10 rounds. If the factory is selling 30 round magazines, that's obviously legal now. That doesn't make it standard capacity though.
I understand that you are using a legal definition per the 1994 AWB, but ask any 11X and they will not call it a high capacity mag. The folly of allowing the legislature to define what X is results in states like New York, where a loaded 10 round magazine is considered high capacity or California where they want to classify ANY semi auto rifle that can accept a magazine as an assault weapon.
Knowing Better
Genetic Fallacy...
For a MILITARY SETTING, 30 rounds of ammunition in one magazine might be appropriate, but you don't exactly tend to need 30 rounds of high-velocity armor-piercing rounds to protect yourself from muggers.
Or shoot a pig.
@shingshongshamalama
No, you need a fully semi automatic bolt action rifled assault musket with chainsaw bayonet and iron dildo accessory.
Most gun show sellers are dealers, have an FFL, and still require a background check. Yes there are private sellers at gun shows but they are the minority. AND you would have to be a resident of that state in order to legally buy from a private seller since anything else would be interstate commerce regulated by the US governent and again would require an FFL.
Sorry bub, I live right here in Nevada and you can waltz in and out of gun shows with a militias worth of arms and no background check. Your assessment is wrong.
@@DuoXCity I went to a gun show in Nevada. I live in Maryland so couldn't purchase from private sellers and they had a booth where you could get a background check b4 purchasing from an FFL. Most vendors were FFL'S; I couldn't do business with them b4 stopping at the background check table and the private sellers wouldn't give me the time of day. You might live in NV, but you don't know what you're talking about.
Justin Barnes, there have been plenty of videos debunking this, even guys on Armslist won't sell to someone who doesn't have a CWP because we don't want the liability of possibly being charged for selling to a felon. If I sell any of my guns to anyone I don't personally know that person must have a CWP. I check to make sure it is current and take a picture of it. Gun owners know the laws and I would presume non-gun owners probably don't know the laws surrounding guns since they don't take the time to do the research themselves.
BTW some of those FFL holders are also local LE, so if you are not legal to buy one and try any way you may just find yourself getting a free pair of bracelets and a free tour of the local Jail. This happened when a reporter who was not legal was trying to demonstrate exactly what you're talking about. The charges were later dropped of course.
As a Mormon, I appreciated him calling the Book of Mormon “the sequel.”
Are you actually part of the cult
Did you visit, do you like the place, or just trolling
Mormonism is so weird it isn't even Christianity
@@kubobetterrelax7435 I don’t think you get to make that decision
@@charles9391 I'm not making the decision. Doctrine speaks for itself.
Founding fathers allow for cannons on a ship for crying out loud. They wanted people armed with cannons and yet you people are saying they didn't want fully automatics in use?
That comparison isn't quite equivalent. A single person/deranged psychopath would be far more lethal with a modern, fully automatic weapon than they would be with an 18th-century cannon.
We just don't know what the Founding Fathers would think of automatic weaponry and how they would legislate to regulate them or not. They simply did not envision their invention and potential effect on society.
Even if it were true that they did not envision the invention of faster and more powerful weaponry, would it not also mean that the internet is not protected by the 1A? Surely they didn't envision that either...
But they most probably did envision the advancement of weaponry, as any person who knows any little bit about firearms knows that if he wants to have an advantage over the enemy, he needs a weapon that's more accurate and faster; this is what every gun designer had in mind. Making firearms as fast, as accurate and as powerful as possible.
The 2A preserves your right to have weapons as part of a militia[1]. The militias are by definition not government-controlled, and were intended to safeguard the constitution against the federal government[2]. This is exactly why the militia should have the right to have weapons equivalent to that of a regular government army. Therefore I do believe that the people should have the right to bear all and any arms, not just those specified by the laws of an overreaching federal government.
[1] "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
[2] "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789
I myself am doubtful that the Founding Fathers were imagining a day when a single person could massacre dozens of people in a minute with a single firearm. That kind of horrible efficiency was so far removed from the 18th century. Maybe they did? I haven't seen any writings suggesting that was ever imagined.
Militias are not necessarily government controlled, yes, but I see no reason why they wouldn't be government regulated. Sure, militias (and private citizens) are guaranteed the right to bear arms, whatever those arms are, but it's only sensible that the government regulates the distribution and ownership of particularly dangerous weapons like grenades or machine guns.
Additionally, you point out that the purpose of a militia is to rebel against a potentially tyrannical government. I'd posit two other utilities the founders would have imagined: suppressing internal revolts and defending from foreign invasions.
He also claims you can’t own Granades but it’s a tax, but technically legal and difficult to obtain
The founding fathers would be here yelling about how shit the SCHOOLS are, not the guns used to gun down schoolkids. That's really what's at issue here: it's not that automatic weapons or assault rifles or w/e are 'too damaging/dangerous', that's just a way to dance around the core issue: our school system as well as broken families. Every single school shooter has severe trouble at home and/or severe trouble at school (like non-stop bullying) and the schools give 0 fucks about it and don't do anything to intervene. Also, look at parkland: that kid was sending off red flags to an array of people for months, and nobody did shit, but then everyone says 'the gun did it'. Wake the fuck up
Fun fact the founders were actually huge fans of taxidermy so the second amendment actually refers to actual bear arms.
I thought they liked sleeveless shirts.
Finally... I no longer need to hide
Another twisted gross perversion by this kid....
He should have renamed the clip "Complete Moderate DEMOCRAT'S Guide on Gun Control".
jesus
What absolutely pisses me off about the mental health talking point is that it's only a talking point for the four days after the actual shooting. If the problem is mental health, how about some actual . . . mental health care reform?
Well, you are asking politicians to do their job
yeah and how would we do that? put all su*cidal people back into asylums?
we did have mental health care, (the loony bin) but it didn't work out so well so instead of fixing it they decided to do nothing instead.
I'll tell ya what we need: Anger management classes added to every high school in the country. Teach kids how to control their emotions so they don't become adults who kill their neighbor or another driver in a fit of rage.
It's those emotion based murders, the rage crimes, that make up the bulk of the non-suicide gun deaths. We see it every damn day. Guy gets cut off in traffic, gets pissed, runs the driver off the road and beats, stabs, or shoots them to death. Or guy kills someone for talking trash, or sleeping with his girl, or blah blah blah.
This whole damn country has an anger management problem, and social media is only making that worse.
Nope. That would be communism.
That's not an M60, that's a shooty shooty bang bang!
Pew pew pew
@@PandemoniumMeltDown WHOA MAN... Be careful... You nearly got me with that last pew.
And me just 1 day from retirement ;-)
@@agnosticdeity4687 are you enjoying your first day of retirement?
No, that is quite clearly a brrt brrt
@@raptorcell6633 Nahhh, its like a duhgaduhgaduhgauughDUUUGHA
I can’t believe people still think “the gun show loophole” is actually a thing
Seth Gettys apartently they’ve never been to a gun show
Tre' Roney apparently not, dumb sods
I went to a gun show in Texas and purchased a gun from a private seller. No background check. No ID check. Nothing. I showed my ID to get in the building, but that was it.
jj bug Perfectly legal and always should be. Criminals but in large don’t go to gun shows
@@en5788 a private seller AKA a normal person who wants to sell their gun. not an arms dealer. no need to wait for a show. you can go do that just about anywhere
The issue with the militia argument is that when states used militia's for security it wasn't the state giving the people guns. The militiamen were expected to bring their own weapons, which would be individual owned. This is actually important to a new supreme court case about the age someone can own a handgun under federal law.
militia act not only is everyone part of the militia by law they are required to own a gun by federal law not simply allowed too .
Also a lot of countries had similar requirements like Germany that used to require men to own and carry arms in the 15th century and england requiring men to own and train with the longbow
Federal law identifies any male 17 or older as a member of the militia.
Pardon me, but given that the united states have a Federal Armed Forces and the National Guard for each state, wouldn't the latter count as a militia? Hence, civilians shouldn't be required or allowed to own assault weapons, as each State's National Guard already provides it, and the point of the militia / National Guard is to provide each state the means for basic self-defence and autonomy right? Also, a properly trained and organised militia force like the National Guard would be would be much more effective than a bunch of random civilians with guns right?
@@Randi-h5q A Militia is when normal civilians take up arms to act as a paramilitary to supplement actual armed forces. National guard is a state controlled military not a militia.
But even if what you say was true that is still not what is in the 2nd amendment which instills the right for any person to have the ability to arm themselves. Whether that be for national defense or internal tyranny.
"I even read the sequel. " bloody killed me, man.
Speaking of guns...
to this day people still argue whether it is a "real" sequel or simply fan-fiction that became (ahem) a cult classic
@@alexroselle Well played sir, my favorite comment I've read in quite some time!
Perfect delivery too, had me rolling.
Except ... the "God given" right to being armed *IS* actually in the sequel.
And now the design of the Nephites was to support their lands, and their houses, and their wives, and their children, that they might preserve them from the hands of their enemies; and also that they might preserve their rights and their privileges, yea, and also their liberty, that they might worship God according to their desires.
For they knew that if they should fall into the hands of the Lamanites, that whosoever should worship God in spirit and in truth, the true and the living God, the Lamanites would destroy.
Yea, and they also knew the extreme hatred of the Lamanites towards their brethren, who were the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi, who were called the people of Ammon-and they would not take up arms, yea, they had entered into a covenant and they would not break it-therefore, if they should fall into the hands of the Lamanites they would be destroyed.
Alma 43: 9-11
Love the channel, btw. Keep up the good work.
Australian Gun control is the most extreme,
*Laughs in British*
@Oliver Cheney pretty sure you can own even bigger caliber guns if you have a licence for it... in most of europe you can own semi automatic firearms, but even people living there go like "oh nah we cant own guns its impossible" because most of them simply havent even researched their own gun laws apart from "we have it more restrictive than america"...
@@domaxltv you're right but the thing is, in most of the European countries those guns can only be used for hunting and stuff like that. Its very hard legally to defend yourself should you have to shoot a trespasser
but i think britain still allows airsoft guns which are banned in the land down under. they have to use "gel-soft" guns
Oh Boi don't get me started, in Italy is a pain when a relative dies and he had a gun.
hahahah in chile you need the pope
This didn’t sound like a guy who sits in the middle to me. Oh and btw every gun show I went to had background checks if you wanted to buy a gun.
On the gunshow thing it depends on the state and the particular show. There are the same two gun shows at The Pasadeana Convention Center in Pasadena TX Two weekends every month two different shows on different days but at the same venue. Some of the sellers there are licensed dealers and are trying to clear out inventory from their shop as a licensed dealer they have to do paperwork and a check. A whole bunch of others are just private sellers who are not licensed they rent a table and sell their stuff just like a flea market and no they dont do any paperwork or checks. My friend I went with brought a cart and sold off 4 of his guns didnt do any paperwork what so ever he sold at least two to an off duty cop who was running his own booth but happened to collect older rifles my friend had a Mosen Nagant. So again really depends wether or not the seller is a licensed dealer or not. There were plenty their that day and most of the stuff that was new that people wanted to buy was sold by dealers.
It depends. I bought from a private seller, I had no background check (at the time), but this has been closed in the state of NV.
Most of the time they're referring too 70s - 90s gun shows and not soo much present day which is still outdated info to support their cause
I know right! It’s honestly kind of arrogant of him to me that he automatically thinks his opinions are moderate because he’s shot guns and has been in the military. Every other point he made leaned pretty far left.
No, he was pretty moderate. I'm about taking all guns away from all you gun people, so this guy was probably right down the middle.
That m60 twist was great
"what's your opinion on gun control" my friend asked passing me my AK as I climbed into my panzer omw to a cashier job.
Gun Control is being able to hit your target.
Gun Control is focusing on the front sight.
Gun Control is good trigger press.
Gun Control is a steady sight picture.
Gun Control is using both hands.
Gun Control is good shot placement.
Happiness, is a warm gun.
This guy doesn't know better he's a gun grabber.
@@joseyar9356 you are insane
@@averagejoe6031 probably is
@@averagejoe6031 Hee hoo gun bad
@@averagejoe6031 lol for using a tool...... do you even have nuts?
>i even read the sequel
*Shows the Book of Mormon*
I can't stop laughing
Liam IKR
...>i even read the sequel
Shows the Book of Mormon...
Now you know why he wants gun control. The book of Mormon demands that if you take a life that you have to shed blood to pay the blood debt. Back in the 1976, Gary Mark Gilmore committed several senseless murders in Utah, was convicted of them and sentenced to death. In Utah at the time, one of the forms of capital punishment available by the condemned's choice was death by firing squad to satisfy the Mormon church's need to settle blood debts by the state if sentenced to death. He demanded this form of death and got his wish. I forget how many were on the squad but the way it was set up, all of the Winchester 30-06 rifles were loaded by a prison official, the squad were all volunteers and all rifles were loaded with blanks except for one which had a live round in it. This was so if anyone had second thoughts after the fact, they could take solace in the possibility that they had one of the blanks. He was taken to a building which had a dirt berm in it. He was strapped to a chair placed in front of the berm and a target was placed over his heart. The order was given by the warden to fire and he was declared dead 2 minutes later. I read this account in the St. Petersburg, (Florida), times 42 years ago as it was 1977 when his time came due. He refused to appeal. While I personally believe in the death penalty, I'll never forget that article.
Saying the Qu'ran is a sequel is more accurate than that...
@UNIDEN2211 ...was he on death row for 20 yrs?...
Ironically no. Against his family's and the ACLU's wishes, he waived all of his rights to his appeals and wanted to just "Get on with it." Several other anti death penalty advocates filed appeals on his behalf but, and this was his right, he instructed the court to ignore them all. I don't think that it was but a few months between his guilty plea and the day of his demise.
@UNIDEN2211 No. He refused all appeals and went to the death house within a month or two.
That's a M240 tho
Aha, good pit trap my guy
But that's not an M60!!
He must not know what he's talking about.
This is such a smart tactic
lastcrusade101
*I T S A T R A P*
well its a Fabrique Nationale de Herstal Mitrailleuse d'Appui Général,or the short version FN MAG.just like any other forren guns they jest re label them and American think it a American gun.
thats not an m60
edit: oh
He put you on his Twitter lol
"You can't just omit several key talking points," omits several key taking points to serve his purpose.
Turd Ferguson very....
PhillipMargrave oh I’d really like to see them on the other side of the barrel 😂
@PhillipMargrave some might.... Those that I know both active and the veteran would not, goes against the oath we took when we inlisted. Only and the ONLY way would be to amend the constitution.
Other videos he goes into analysis of what the people ment. But for some reason he never acknowledges what the fathers ment at the time.
To be fair, it's impossible to touch on EVERY point of gun control from a moderate perspective and keep the video under 6 hours...
I like how he gets rid of the extremists in the first few minutes by saying “thanks Obama” and incorrectly saying M60 on purpose. Maybe I’m just overestimating him
You din't watch far enough :)
@@tehnoob19 and you misunderstood his comment
@@themadkraken1912 cant tell if the comment I was replying was a poorly timed joke or if you misunderstand this whole comment section
Obama is in no way an extremist. I say this as a far left extremist. (most of the far left thinks people should be allowed to own guns btw)
Heh, he fucking called you out if you made it past the first couple of minutes
Sorry dude but Maddison did think that the people had a right to keep arms
Arms means any arms. Thanks for disregarding all the federalist paper and all the discussions that matter.
@@oswaltedmund6257 and well regulated translates more towards well oiled/well working.
It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
Practically all modern references to the term “well-regulated” refer to activities that are
regulated by law, such as the airline industry, the fur industry, or the gambling “industry”.
fun facts: the common british soldiers of old were also referred to as "regulars". arms can be defined as anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands, or uses to cast at or strike at another.
@@paintzemute6364 sez who?
You need to prove an assertion like this. A quote would be good. Otherwise (unless you are a spiritualist medium) your assertion is worthless.
@@MrMartibobs use a dictionary, instead of making derogatory claims against another.
It is actually common knowledge that "regulated" has changed over the past 200 years.
Billy the Kid's group of men that defended John Tunstill's property and land in New Mexico were called Regulators.
I almost called you out on the M-60 comment. I'm glad I waited
Except you know when James Maddison let people privately own cannons for their ships.
Not only let them but practically said “ Of course, why wouldn’t you be able to defend yourself and your property effectively “
To defend SHIPS it wasn't for self defense it was for SHIPS
@@A.G-p6u
Yeah because defending your ship isn't also defending yourself.
A cannon is less dangerous in the modern day than even a handgun.
@@adomaster123
Pfffttt you gotta be joking
Hold on wait
"Your right to own a gun comes from the government"
You realize the bill of rights and amendments are to tell the governt what they can't do, not what the people can do, right?
Bill of Rights?
@@flynnshea4989 Shit youre right, my bad
He claimed to have sworn to protect the constitution, but he didn’t seem to understand the document at all.
There isn't a "middle" for this one. Either, a person is aware that we lose 2.6 million Americans a year, 1.3 million to cancer and heart disease and -8.5k- 10.5k to homicides after 2015, because the gov. (the same one these "moderates" want to "regulate the guns") poured Afghani heroin onto the streets, fueling yet another wave of gang wars...
Either you are aware, or you aren't aware. Pro-gun is educated. Anti-gun is ignorant. There is no middle.
@@manictiger There is a middle. You are basically just saying that you are right and the other side is stupid. Guns save lives. Brandishing a gun can keep people from doing something just like policemen in public do.
You almost got me with the m60 240B bit. I just bit my lips and tried to not have a stroke.
Yeah, he talked about his MOS and then said m60, i was like wtf
nice double entendre lol
Same lol
Yeah wtf? Edit: ah yeah.. lol
I almost was going to write a sarcastic comment about this like “ItS nOt A m60 ItS a 240B” just as a joke
I blame the magazine clip confusion on WWII movies and John Garand.
The M1 rifle dropping the entire clip into the magazine messed it up for everyone.
Yeah........
Which is kinda ironic since the en bloc clip was invented before Mauser came up with his stripper clip design.
I’m pretty sure the Mauser line did it first, but I could be mistaken
Yeah...you can blame Ferdinand Mannlicher for the enbloc clip.
I mean, he didn't invent the en bloc clip system, it was in fact invented before he was born (although just) and saw wideuse in almost every country to produce firearms. Hell, many parts of the Garand are based on the French RSC 1917, which used en bloc clips. Mannlicher invented them (which is why they also get called Mannlicher clips occasionally), in 1885. He was Austrian.
I don't think this is a guide to moderates. This is a guide to what liberals think moderate views are. Now that's not an issue, but labeling this as an objective critique of gun control is misled at best and disingenuous at worst.
Di... didn't you see the part of the video like 10 seconds in where it shows an automatic system classified him as a moderate
@@k4496 oh so I should completley dismiss everything he says because an "automatic system" says so? Gotcha. Don't I feel foolish.
@@k4496 I was labeled as an extremist but im a moderate. His views are left leaning for the most part. For example the bible part. It doesnt say you can own people. It says people owned people and it was bad. It also doesnt say anything about guns due to them not existing. Doesnt take much cognitive thought to realise this is mostly spewing what he thinks a moderate is.
CrazyCoffee
I hate when lefties claim to be moderates.
Like, why bullshit yourself or why try to bullshit others?
Unless you’re trying to disguise your leftist views as moderate so that any views coming from the right can be labeled as “far right” or “fringe right” beliefs
@@Kil23Joy He's on the left side of the Overton window for sure. America ranges from literal communes to literal nazis, the middle ground is a fairly significant piece of real estate and, compared to some on the left I've seen declare their hate for moderates, he's pretty moderate.
Yo you missed the court case where ya boi, Thomas Jefferson, ruled in the favor of merchant vessels being allowed to arm their ships with cannons.
And my name is tj too
Arming merchant ships in international waters during the Barbary War has zero to do with 2A.
@@obscuritystunt it has everything to do with it. But how about Cassius Marcellus Clay owning 6lb cannons(most advanced weapon of its day) and having them on the roof of his abolitionist newspapers building and when an angry mob came to burn the headquarters of "The True American" to the ground for daring to say black people shouldn't be property and should be allowed to vote he opened fire with a warning shot to disperse the crowd thereby using his second amendment right to defend his first amendment right? In 1860 to be anti 2A was to be anti 1A and pro slavery. In 1760 to be anti 2A was to be pro taxation without representation and pro military being allowed to just come into your home and take your things and stay there as long as they liked. In 1960 to be anti 2A was to be pro Jim Crow Laws.
jacob combs p6 lb cannons were not really new, they were just small caliber guns that were significantly less bank-destroying and more manageable than their full-size artillery counterparts.
@@MacCoalieCoalson hardly the point now is it? Yes he had the more manageable smaller guns that were often put on the quarter deck and forecastle and not the larger 18 lbs or 32lbs guns that were placed in lower decks for broadsides(only a fifth rate ship would completely lack 6lb guns), because he needed a canon he could aim and operate alone and which he could reasonably expect to effectively mount and use on the roof of his printing press the 6lb gun was 1000lbs the 12lb gun was easily 2000 and the 18lb gun was near enough 3000lbs. He still had a canon, like was actually on ships, as a private citizen and used it to defend his first amendment right and personal property from an angry mob that came to torch the place because he didn't approve of slavery. And merchant ships were owned and operated by private citizens in that. So the point remains it had everything to do with the individual right to possess arms for defense of self and property from threats of violence and tyranny.
The founding father didn’t imagine the internet....so should free speech be limited to scrolls and town criers?
Exactly
Great point
NO. WE SHOULD MAKE OUR OWN DECISIONS BASED ON SITUATIONS AS THEY ARE TODAY, 250 YEAR OLD DEAD PEOPLE ARE OUT OF TOUCH WITH OUR NEEDS.
@@nhannguyen-sr9vh you are an idiot
@lelennyfox34 Great IDEA! wOW DID NOT KNOW hOW SmART yOU ARE!
To say that the founding father's knew nothing of advancements in firearms is false. They were almost sold what was basically a gatling gun in the late 18th centure. Still muzzle loaded, but was more like a rapid fire revolver. They knew warfare tactics and tech advanced, many of these men faught in wars and studied the past.
That’s one of the many myths you’d hear the Anti 2A community use.
“You couldn’t own a cannon”
Yup, you absolutely could.
ok but they could not predict that a gatling gun would be put into a frame smaller than a musket while still proving far more lethal
Yeah, but trick question. Did civilians own gatling guns and cannons? No, the government did. Why do you the Confederates had to raid military bases to get cannons and arms. Imagine if the Hatfields and McCoys had access to cannons and gatling guns.
@@tylersmith3139probably the wealthier confederates owned cannons.
@@M4421-Oyes the absolutely could. You know at the time there was a musket that had the ammo and powder completely self contained in the gun. If I recall they wanted to outfit the continental army with it. That never happened due to issues with the gun, manufacturing large scale was non existent and they were expensive. But anyone with a brain could see that in the future such tech would eventually evolve.
The people of Hong Kong would disagree with what you think they need.
Got em.
Have you *ever* even talked to someone from Hong Kong? Why do you somehow feel informed enough to speak for them? No one in Hong Kong wants guns. You're way down your rural rugged individualist rabbithole if you think the people of Hong Kong can, or would even *want*, to fight a civil war with the PRC. They're expressly trying to avoid violence because it would give the much better armed government forces free reign to respond in kind and just massacre them.
@@niclas9990 peaceful protest should always be the first step but freedom sometimes comes at force of arms. I'm grateful not everyone is as naive as you are.
@@niclas9990 I've actually talked to people from HK and even went to HK recently. Trust me, with the things they've done for self defense, they are WISHING that they have a second ammendment. They had to tape magazines to their bodies, use sticks and stones, etc etc to defend themselves from the Chinese tyrants.
@@adityaali3147 They're not. They've actually got a sane strategy to achieve their goals; they *do not* have some gun-nut's deluded fantasy of outslinging government troops, as (being smarter than you give them credit for) they know what the state would immediately bring against them. *Guns or no guns, they can never hold their own against PRC forces.* So, in short, what you're saying is BS and if you'd been in HK, you would know that. There is *zero* talk about sourcing guns or even wishing they had them. It's you who want to frame it that way to fit your ideology and, frankly, it shows you have a very poor understanding of the situation there. It also does them a disservice: they're pragmatic and very savvy and are not political allies nor some kind of cheap moral tool that you can use to bolster your insane rhetoric.
I always control my guns. I use both hands. Helps my aim a lot.
never mind the only law we need don’t grip a gun like an idiot😂
Wow I do the same think with my wiener
never mind Better gun control is being proficient with both hands and (in a real emergency) your right foot
$10 says you didn't even watch the video before commenting.
You fucked up the actual joke: I'm very pro gun control. I use both hands at all time.
every gun show I've been too you have had to fill out a background check
Yeah most venders at gun shows are FFLs these days anyway. I was at one on Saturday, only the knife dealers weren't.
try crown point Indiana. walk right in. buy a gun from another "visitor" not a vendor super easy
Truth
@@stephenpawlik2286 It's illegal to sell a gun to a resident of another state. (Without going through a licensed dealer) And even if you're from Indiana, what is legal and what people are willing to do are very different. If you try to buy the gun off somebody who just bought it they'll say no. (They bought it to use it damn it!) And if you offer much more than the guns worth they'll still say no. You also can't sell handguns or "assault weapons" to anyone under 18 you aren't closely related to. In fact, you can be convicted for selling a gun to someone you had reasonable cause to believe is mentally incompetent.
Ok so there shouldn't be an issue enforcing a law that's already enacted in your area to ensure everywhere across the US follows those same procedures. I mean if it isnt going to do any harm and only do more protection then why is they're still a negative stigma about it.
Btw I'm talking about federal mandatory background checks for gun stores and gun shows.
I fundamentally disagreed with the premise of those video before watching it. Now I understand far more points of view other than simply my own or the polar opposite of my own. This is why I absolutely love KB. Thank you for making the internet more intelligent and less ignorantly furious about things we don’t really know.
michaelle Super chad comment
As an Army veteran you ought to "Know Better". Your understanding of the 2nd amendment is seriously flawed.
He's a moderate. To be moderate in a polarized political environment requires compromise. The problem I have with moderates is that they are willing to compromise with my rights. "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue." Karl Hess
Yeah, I watch Crowder. His stance on the 2A is what I like best about him. Any compromise of our Constitutional rights will eventually erode all of our freedoms.
Exactly. People don’t seem to understand how the English language works. As well as the fact that there was a pretty decent historical context provided for the Second Amendment and what they intended to do with it. That they absolutely intended for it to be an individual right.
The reason the first half is left off is because the first half is inconsequential.
Here watch:
“Bears, being a difficult thing for a person to kill with their bare hands, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”
“space travel, Being something that hasn’t been invented yet, The right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”
You see? It works no matter what goes in front of it. The right belongs to “the people”
You want to argue that that’s them explaining why they were extending this right to “the people?”
Fine.
If I give you a journal to write things down in. And you decide to use your iPad. Does that mean you relinquish ownership of the journal? Does that mean I can just take it back from you since you know you don’t use it anymore? No. I gave it to you. It now belongs to you. It’s the same with “the right of the people.”
Now let’s get really crazy.
“A well regulated reproducing class, being essential to the continuation of a society, The right of women to consensual sex, shall not be infringed.”
So does the right to consensual sex belong to the reproducing class or does it belong to women? That’d be women.
Does it belong to men? No. They gave it to women.
Is this activity confined by marriage? No. It simply states consensual.
Does this limit sex to attempted reproduction? No. Once again only consensual.
So one more time. We leave the sentence structure in tact and simply change the parameters. And we arrive at the same conclusion. The right to keep and bear arms was given to “the people.“ not “the militia.“
Finally. “The militia” and “the people” are terms distinctly Applied in the constitution. Much the same as there is a distinction between “the citizens” and “the people“ made in the 14th amendment. If they had intended the right to keep and bear arms to belong to “the militia” then they would have said “the militia!” If they had intended the right to keep and bear arms to belong to “the militia“ then they would have said “the militia!“
They didn’t. They said “the people” and if you look up people like George Mason and where the origins of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights came from you’ll understand.
Speaking of which. The bill of rights? Belongs to “the people” not “the citizens.”
Anyone in the United States who is a resident? Constitutes “the people“ and is subject to the full benefit of the Bill of Rights.
Citizen or no.
Also. Do not sow disingenuously and dishonestly sit there and pretend like our forefathers had no concept of the advancement of technology. Firearms had advanced multiple times in their generation alone. And semi automatic was already something that was being whispered about. Relatively speaking the invention of the Gatling gun was not far away. I mean my God the Greeks had essentially conceived of lasers. And Quite possibly had even crudely created them. Albeit focusing beams of light from the sun And using them to take down a navy fleet. Saying that they didn’t know what was on the other side of the Mississippi does not mean that they were incapable of understanding that certain things might be over there. Or could be over there. Just like certain firearms could exist in the future.
It made no never mind to how they wrote the second.
The Heretic Many of the founders were scientists and inventors. Thinking that they couldn't foresee advancements in technology is about as ridiculous as thinking Tesla couldn't foresee advancements in technology. The Puckle gun was patented in 1718. It was a rapid fire crew served weapon with a revolving cylinder magazine. Anytime someone states that the founders couldn't foresee rapid fire weapons, tell them they already existed.
Jacques Strapp Absolutely. But I don’t consider that argument disingenuous. I simply consider it arrogant. That we were so much smarter than they are I mean...
I was trying to focus more on the absolute disingenuous interpretation
That “thanks Obama” single handley ruined the like/dislike ratio
lol, true
Wasn’t that a joke?
Maybe, but It's probably more a symptom of looking at the problem from both sides. When not clearly agreeing with one side, in the gun debate, you alienate both sides.
@Gary Winthorp Look at, a profound constitutional expert! Say, where did you study laws?
@Gary Winthorp Didn't your mother teach you that answering with a counterquestion is considered as pretty discourteous ? Anyway, yes, at least me, inter alia I did study laws, and no, my alma mater doesn't have any reputation to be left, and my professor of constitutional law [R.I.P.] was a rather conservative Catholic *. . .*
22:42
Exactly. If you don’t open yourself to conversation, you embolden those who disagree with you to exclude you when they make decisions. You end up undermining yourself.
Funny how this is always a right wing talking point. Just asking questions, bro! So much for free speech.
@Wehdeo funfact- you were already excluded when they made their decision.
I was surprised that you didn't mention the fact that the 1994 assault rifle ban was not reinstated because it was showed to have no affect on gun violence
As he mentioned in the video, it was more passing through congress was increasingly difficult. Also *cough* nra *cough* campaign contributions
@@emilyscloset2648 even though it is more difficult to pass through if it was shown to have significant decrease in gun violence it would have still been passed through, however it didn't, it was shown to have little to no affect which is why the nra contributed to it not being reinstated
@@emilyscloset2648 It was more difficult to pass through congress? So what? It had zero effect on gun crime.
@@koleyo9072 Tfg
I'd also like to point out that Columbine happened _during_ the Bad-and-Scary-Army-Guns ban. Y'know, the shooting that gave every other little bastard the idea?
"I've even read the sequel" 😂😂😂 top tier video right here. That earned a like from me
Ahh, Utah :)
Dangerz OwnJust going to point out that Zoroastrianism has it’s own holy book and is older than Judaism.
tanakh, torah is a part of tanakh and is the part with the rules in judaism.
When talking about Australian Firearm Law, you missed one critical thing. Self-Defence is not counted by our government as a "Legitimate Reason" to own a firearm. It is a bad joke that our elected politicians take away our best self-defence tool whilst saying "oh no but you can still keep your guns! Just for every use other than the one you'll really really need"
Don't let people with armed security take away your ability to have your own security.
Amen.
But he's a "moderate" .
@@Aseutester Irrelevant. If you don't see the application of a firearm for personal protection, you are anti-gun. I'd sooner advocate the banning of hunting, rather than a person's right to self-defence.
@@Kesslerification "" means I'm being sarcastic ya Muppet, we agree!
@@Aseutester "Quotation Marks" are used to quote something, like the title. An exclaimation point in parentheses is used for sarcasm (!)
Interesting point, I've recently heard that the Wild West which most people would claim was a place where everyone had a gun, actually had forms of Gun control. Specifically, Tombstone made it that everyone had to surrender their gun when they are coming into town. I'm hoping to learn more from a paper written the Smithsonian, but it is kind of an interesting point about how inaccurately popular perceptions can be in relation to reality.
Yeah, the "Wild West" had lots of gun control, not just Tombstone. Also knife control laws, as there was a problem with Bowie knives and Arkansas toothpicks. Some of the knife laws have lasted into modern day, Texas notably only overturned theirs in the last few years.
Also worth noting that something like 75% of "cowboys" (although that term tends to get misused a lot, cowboys drove cattle, they didn't get in gun fights, generally) were foreigners, and at least 25% were people of colour. A lot of the things we think about are actually Spanish originally, like the saddle type and lassos. Wild West tends to be incredibly white washed. It was a low status job, like being a lumberjack. Dangerous, and isolated with low pay, but almost anyone could do it, and in a racist society where you could get lynched for most anything, the isolation might actually have been a bit of a bonus.
the Old West had some of the strictest gun control laws, AND some of the harshest penalties, even for small infractions.
these people today wish they could live in the Old West? shit. they wouldn't last a week. if the law didn't get them, the crazy outlaws would.
the past belongs way back there where it belongs.
Yeah, I read that too. I also came to understand it wasn't even remotely as "Wild" as often believed.
@@Lowlandlord you forgot gay. The Wild West was also super gay. Not many women about anyways 😅
Gun/cowboy mythology.
Your views don’t align with mine! You must support [party I don’t like]!
Yeah you commie, fascist, Zionist antisemite!
@@MrRooibos123 you forget nazi
The left"YOUR SO WRONG YOU ALT RIGHT NAZI
the right: YOU KNOW NOTHING LIBTARD!!!
Your views don’t align with mine! You must want to destroy everything that is good in the world!
Ben Shitpiro, is that you?
"This is a high capacity magazine" you mean standard capacity but hey, you obviously don't know better. You are just a statist
"Statist" is a term used by both left-wing and right-wing nutjobs. Too bad we can't send you idiots to an island and give you guns to duke it out before nuking it.
@@RoastedLocust >Calls people nutjobs
>Wants to put people in a special place by force
>Says he wants to kill anybody he considers a nutjob
>Clearly not a nutjob
Interestingly the military DOES have SBRs and SBSs which conflicts with that ruling.
I'm just here looking for the people yelling:
"ThAt IsNt A M60!!! He KnOwS nOtHiNg AbOuT gUnS!!!!"
Do you not care about single moms living in dangerous neighborhoods, getting jumped, and having to rely upon a police officer whose average response time is fourteen minutes, because you people have made it as difficult as possible for her to buy a gun for personal safety? I mean you’ve already explained what an amazing alternative the police system in this country is.
@@dabutchaistoxic i made a joke, i haven't stated any opinion on the subject matter of the video. I never said that i cared or didn't care about single moms living in dangerous places. Calm down.
@@ivanthehunter3530 I guess, his name is ".. Is Toxic". So, of course you had it coming!!!
@@shimantohassan1414 fair point, i should have known....
Atleast he's living up to his name!
Well its kinda expected to have kmowledge in firearms and how they work if you want to talk about them. Kind of why the whole "assault rifle" thing is around. Uninformed politicians and citizems wanting to ban something because it looks scary, not on how it actually functions
When it says "the right of the 'PEOPLE' to keep and bear arms" that right there, in and of itself, states INDIVIDUAL gun ownership. Thumbs down to you
Despite this guy being in the military,i suspect that he just may be a commie.
Omega SixtyTwo, my thoughts exactly.
The Killa he totally forget to mention we existed without background checks for hundreds of years
How do you know it doesn’t refer to “the people” as a collective?
“The people should elect the president” doesn’t mean every person chooses their own president.
@@joetanks602 because EACH INDIVIDUAL vote counts. Each individual counts. Each individual has the right to keep and bare arms. If an individual did not have arms there would be a militia that had no weapons. The militia is not the army but a last line of defense.
@Knowing Better
01:58 "Yes, I’m well aware of the fact that that’s not an M60, it’s a 240B. So if you see any comments below mentioning how that’s not an M60 and I have no idea what I’m talking about, it means they barely made it past the first minute."
*Nice b8, m8!* Approve that sneaky move to call out smartarses which are judging videos without even watching them. :-)
I have to say that it's not unusual for me to post something before finishing a video. If I wait with writing, I forget. If I wait with posting, the comment grows to giant proportions when I add stuff I think about over the course of the video. And we're all only human, sometimes one will forget to edit a rash post, especially if the video is appealing or aggravating.
@Gary Winthorp Don't forget to mention that those educated people will still have posted an aggressive comment rashly. Trolling is all about baiting, you can't troll someone who isn't stepping in it himself.
@Gary Winthorp You certainly have a weird definition of "stepping in it" and of aggressive and rash. But I get it, you felt like you had to win and thought twisting my words would be the way to do it.
@Gary Winthorp Oh, you're willfully dense. I guess ignorance is bliss. But for me life's too short for this.
@Gary Winthorp The goal is to see who didn't finish the video and only watched to that point
Well this video didn’t age well… @Australia
1:16 are you sure that isn’t a M240?
Edit: I saw your correction, I feel dumb, lol.
Here's an idea -
Let's end the stupid drug war and actually do something to help impoverished people and see where that takes us as far as gun violence is concerned.
If it's still a 'huge' problem, then we'll go from there.
Very very well said but as we all know what seems like an obvious step forward falls on deaf ears to a blind and out of touch Congress.
That's actually a pretty good point. What causes mass shootings is much more than just "guns". There's a ton of other factors that lead to mass shootings.
That in conjuncture with better family education, helping to lower divorce rates, and getting fathers back to their children and I think a great deal of our social issues would be on the way to being solved.
BASED
Something I never understood about the drug war in the US, is how everything was aimed to stop cocaine from going through the border, yet they talk very little about stopping addictions in the country. If there's no buyers, there's no product to sell.
Yes, I know that it's an utopia, but I keep reading about some celebs/politicians/athletes who use and go to detox, rehab (or they have ODs) and they don't get charged for using. That's a big failure.
Ok I'm going to dive into the mud and because there's an early challenge to watch the whole video so I comment on all points that I feel are missing supplementary information of relevance.
LOL like anyone will read all this.
The root of differences in this or any rights debate is your view in gov't philosophy. In general people will fall under one of two camps, Locke or Hobbes. The pro gun freedom side and arguably the founders fell under Locke "Life, liberty and property" (sound familiar?). The pro gun control side to include modern day definitions of "moderate" tend to fall under Hobbes. Research or read The Second Treatise of Gov't and Leviathan to understand your view and its implications when arguing one way or another.
In the spirit of honest discussion that is asked for in the video here, read and intelligently reply on these points to the video.
3:36
Viewers should note this statement is based on a Hobbes view of gov't. Gov't philosophy based on Locke which the founding fathers based their views on argues that you have at least all negative rights so the gov't does not allow you to have a gun or any property but can only force the restriction of possession. An important distinction. So the 2A doesn't allow you to possess arms but supposedly limits the gov't in its legal ability to restrict possession.
4:04
The "whole in the course of human events... does not originate from the Declaration of Independence but again from Locke’s 2nd Treatise of Gov't. Again a heavy basis for us Gov't
4:45
I would highly recommend everyone read the Federalist papers #29 and #46 with the understanding that it was Madison and Hamilton trying to convince the Anti-Federalists that there was no need to worry about tyrannical over reach of the federal gov't *because of* the individual’s right to bear arms. One phrase in those papers even reminds the reader that we are not like our European origins in that the proposed gov't does not infringe on that right. I think
5:55
This occurs earlier but the term State is being taken too literally. The term "State" should be taken in the same manner that for example "State Department" or "Secretary of State" is used. Those are Federal level "States".
6:18
The founding fathers were also not aware of blogs and wiretapping which does not suspend the 1st and 4th amendments when applied so ignorance of the law makers to the future cannot logically be selectively applied to the 2nd Amendment.
6:39
Note the historical context of the time of the NFA of 1934 where FDR wanted to ban all firearms but the Democratic party at the time warned that such would clear congress of any Democrats so they compromised with FDR to put a tax on a class of arms that was equivalent to ~100% tax essentially making the purchase prohibitive. Same with suppressors for those interested.
7:09
Note the decision made was an interpretation of a Supreme court filled with FDR nominees. Not exactly a surprise they "interpreted" the law in the odd fashion they did. Odd in that if the decision was to not infringe on ownership of military use only then that would mean I should be able to buy a machine gun. Before 2A people declare victory, it would eliminate non-Military use at the same time hence my saying "odd fashion"
McDonald v. City of Chicago
District of Columbia v. Heller
7:19
Ok let's keep the appeal to emotion fallacies out. "its only real purpose is to hide it under your coat so you could shoot people" really man? That condition seems like a good thing if you're a ~105lbs female nurse being circled by 3 thugs interested in more than directions to the ER in the parking lot after your 2nd shift is over.
8:19
States also enforce this with additional laws that make it illegal for selling a firearm to a prohibited gun owner (see your state laws for details). So the term "gun show loophole" is a misnomer. Additionally, just try an buy a firearm at a gun show w/o a background check (my brother’s wife's 2nd cousin once said stories don't count)
10:30
The premise of this argument is that most support the idea. Luckily, we are a representative republic so that a majority cannot easily abuse minority rights. To add a perspective, I would think those that support gay rights like myself would think be sympathetic to this concept.
16:58
The rate of reduction in the annual number of deaths due to firearms was unchanged after the Australian law passed meaning the Australian citizens gave up some freedoms in exchange for no additional benefits. An easy exchange for those not interested in the peaceful use of the banned items like I am but then again it's human nature to limit or ban the freedoms someone else uses (Gay rights, Right to Life, insert your political soap box here, mine is 2A :-) )
17:12
Glossing over the phrase "Completely ban all automatic and..." as something acceptable or moderate as I think is the intent in this section would ban most trap/skeet and hunting shotguns. The old "we don't want to infringe on hunting" claim starts to break down here and is not that moderate a position to have.
18:10
Very few are talking about it, most on the gun ban side support the idea knowing the complete ban is currently an over reach so you do so slowly. I'm stating this as a strategy not as a slippery slope fallacy to argue against the merits of restrictions to freedoms
18:13
Before we cheer that 2A repeal is not unconstitutional, neither is repealing the entire Bill of Rights and keep in mind that with a gov't that successfully enforces the repeal of the 2A, there is no means to prevent the same for the rest of the Bill of Rights. Reference Federalist Papers 29 and 46 again.
19:58
Note the killer in CA that used a semi-auto AK-47 mentioned earlier in the video waited his 15 day waiting period. Waiting periods give up freedoms in exchange for no benefit to the citizens of the state. Like heavy objects falling faster than lighter objects, it seems to make sense but isn't true.
20:39
These statistics change the definition of mass shootings to support the newly defined mass shooting" to appear to be decreasing.
20:50
I would expect a moderate to address as many gun control one liners as they do pro gun one liners so I waited and there was one. Fair enough if that's your position but then I have to question the title of the video when it states "moderate"
Well done!!! Maybe you were right no one reads it that would explain lack of thumb-ups
+
lol, yep philosophies of gov't are not conducive to tweet size arguments. :-)
I should have started with my compliments to his efforts to think beyond the average person (and military service!) so hopefully if he's watching this he knows my long winded post can be considered a compliment and not just some ranting against him.
I honestly agree on most points, especially that the Australian law is a strict downgrade on personal freedoms with no added benefit, but I don't know where the assumption comes from that "most" people supporting additional restrictions on firearms have the long-term agenda of sweeping bans. That's a strawman that's working to discredit a lot of people with more actually moderate views. Also, I don't think we're all "cheering" the constitutionality of a 2A repeal either. And the argument about the repeal of the Bill of Rights in it's entirety is certainly a slippery slope fallacy, even though you explicitly stated you were avoiding that in your previous point.
And sorry, but the gay rights analogy doesn't hold up. Gay people may be a minority, but gay rights supporters are not.
Bro that australia isnt living under a tyrannical government line aged like milk
You do not know the meaning of the word "tyrannical"
I like your videos, I often find myself disagreeing and agreeing with it in a span of minutes which is really cool, actually. However, in the beginning of this video you made a mistake that I just couldn’t get past, “your right to own a gun comes from the government”. That’s inaccurate, the constitution of the US isn’t about describing what citizens can do but about describing what government cannot do. It may seem like a triviality but it really isn’t, the Founding Fathers sought to protect what they thought was basic rights for every citizen and bearing arms was one of them. Following the logic you described one would have to conclude that the right of free-expression also comes from the government since it’s written in the 1st amendment, but that’s not how it works.
Anything that’s given can be taken away and the Founding Fathers knew that, that’s why they didn’t write “you’re allowed to have guns” but instead “the government is prohibited from taking your guns”, or “you’re allowed to say whatever you want” but “the government can’t prohibit you form saying what you want”. That constitutional understanding has shaped American jurisprudence ever since its inception and it’s the reason why you Americans have such a solid justice system. Trust me, coming from a country that’s had over 4 Constitutions last century alone all of which have had over 2000 articles trying to list everything citizens can and cannot do, this distinction matters A LOT.
Mentor WELL STATED!! You are absolutely correct. I was startled when he said the gov gives the right to own firearms. And yes, Jesus said to take up your sword when going out into the world
Damn you kicked that one perfectly centered between the goal posts.
If only all of the people in our legislative, judicial, and executive branches understood that concept and abided by it unerringly.
TheMentor 13 THANK YOU! “God given rights” isn’t reciting any Christian bible but the right of being alive, existing and being present. Since god created us. It’s our “god given right” to protect ourself regardless of what you use. That’s what our founding fathers meant and intended. It’s ludicrous to think if some one is seriously try to inflict bodily harm to me, I just can’t protect myself. “Oh no, I I’m getting attacked! I can’t do anything about it because I’m afraid of the consequences I’ll suffer if I live” 😂😂
TheMentor this argument is stupid on multiple levels. By the very fact of being a individual, you are a being who should be able to do whatever they want to themselves. Why are drugs illegal? Why was homosexuality illegal for decades? Why can't a men/women have multiple spouses? World does not work by that retarded ideology that you preach, government grants permission.
@@aratosm t. Illiterate moron
As a Ukrainian in 2022: people with guns (including/especially private military grade) play huge part in saving lives, democracy and freedom. Only thing is I agree - licence and (at least) every-year training.
I build my own guns, leave me alone.
2nd amendment argument works against “just owners”. People who don’t know how to use guns leach precious time of people who do know. And “know” not only about hitting target, but supporting gun shape and performance, and many more.
If you building your own cars, you still need licence. This licence shouldn’t require enterprise-level. This will be undemocratic. But licence newerless.
@@КирилоХацько I don't need a license to build my own car. That's only for driving on public roads. There is no gun equivalent to that.
Plus the government tracking where guns are is relatively tyrannical. I'm a leftist, and I think that all weapons except nukes should be legal.
@@ChrisJones-rd4wb there is equivalent, maybe not in US. Gun is forbidden for movement in collected state or only with lock attached. Only at workshop and “licenced” range it could be fully operational.
Government tracking is super dependent on country, I can’t comment US here.
Agree on legality. But I thought discussion about what licence should be like.
@@КирилоХацько In the US, you can shoot anywhere you have permission.
I think there should be no licensing. I am in full force for freedom over security. I also think all drugs should be legalized, and that if you really want to help gun deaths go down, try actually helping impoverished communities instead of spending money on the military fighting pointless wars.
"what is the militia? Is the militia not the whole body of the citizenry? There for the musket (military issued firearm) the bayonet, the sword and every terrible impliment of the soldier is the birthright of the American citizen" - Benjamin Franklin.
@@HerewardWake "dont listen to one of the founding fathers of the united states of america, when it comes to interpreting their laws" lol wut?
@@HerewardWake ok, the people who made the law had the wrong interpretation of it. so the assault weapons ban really means i can buy a full auto at walmart, with barrel shroud and all. the supreme-court just has the wrong interpretation.
i really hope youre not this willfully ignorant.
@@HerewardWake ok, my bad. let me read to you this little part of the second amendment written by some nobodies. "shall not infringe" can you please use that yuge brain to figure out what that means for me? k thanks
@@HerewardWake also, why would they write a constitution if they thought that nobody would care after they passed? why did they set up the bill of rights, to have the right to bear arms as the second most important one? right after free speech?
@@HerewardWake i stopped at, "its ambiguous". "shall not infringe",simple.
There are a few problems with this. First, by contemporary definition, that is, the definition at the time, a militia was organized by the military, comprised of civilians, using their own weapons. Weapons were not issued to militias, they were only issued to Regulars, the regular soldiers of the army.
Second, the term "the people" is used to refer to ordinary citizens of the US several other places in the Constitution, and even the Bill of Rights. Therefor, to claim that, in only one Amendment, that term means something else, is a logical and legal falacy. The authors chose their words carefully, the justification clause that preceeds it states the reason for the right, and therefor its potential scope. Indeed, the author of the Second Amendment and much of the Bill of Rights, James Madison, set a rather interesting precedent for this as President, in a Letter of Marque he issued to a Civilian vessel armed with field artillery, apparently considering artillery among the weapons permissible for ownership by civilians.
Third, to my knowledge, evidence was never put forward that the Vegas shooter had used a bumpstock to conduct the shooting; such assertions were anecdotal. Indeed, bumpstocks, in allowing the entire weapon to move forward and back far enough to release the trigger, reduce accuracy such that it would seem impossible for him to do what he was doing. He was managing groupings tight enough to hit individual people with multiple rounds from a single burst, all from a high floor of a motel down the street from the event. Generally speaking, if the range is high enough that you need a scope, you're not going to hit the target very well with a bumpstock.
Fourth, at the time when the Constitution was written, guns had already advanced from hand cannons, to wheel lock muskets, to flintlock muskets, and had recently become deadlier than ever before, with the advent of long, rifled barrels, which allowed General Washington to do something that had never been possible before: Position sharpshooters away from the battlefield, and shoot enemy commanders specifically. Yes, we basically invented snipers during the Revolution. In the early 1700s, the Puckle Gun was invented, essentially a small caliber artillery piece, with a revolver-like rotating cylinder for fast reloading. The Founding Fathers were more than aware that weapons would advance, they had been advancing, and had even advanced during the course of the Revolution. Yet nevertheless, they did not make the Second Amendment conditional on lethality. Instead, they outlined the nature of its guarantee, which the Supreme Court actually reaffirmed in US v. Miller of 1939 (as mentioned), though ironically, sawed off shotguns are actually used by the military and police, just in a fairly limited range of applications.
Fifth, the "gun show loophole" is something of a myth. If you purchase a gun from a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) they are required by Federal law to run a background check, or to check your CCP, to verify that you can legally purchase a firearm. There are no exceptions, whether the sale is at a store counter, or the trunk of the seller's car. In addition, if someone purchases a gun from someone else from a different state, FFL or not, the buyer must undergo a background check, and the purchase must be processed by an FFL in the buyer's home state. The only case in which a background check doesn't need to be run is private sales, from one non-FFL owner to another, who both reside in the same state.
Sixth, the reason tide pods get locked up is because someone sued. We live in a litigious society. However, there's a vast difference in the gravity of these two incidents. Locking up the Tide pods doesn't have severe negative ramifications for the security, function, and even survival of our country and society. That's the same reason that, despite the fact that cars kill faaaaaar more people than guns do per year (according to the CDC), you can still buy and sell them, and anyone can own one (even if not everyone can legally drive one), and of course, why nobody is talking about banning them. The gravity of the prospect of banning cars far outweighs those killed by them.
Some interesting notes: First, I do find it interesting how the Supreme Court always makes decisions on whether the 2nd Amendment applies to military-use weapons or civilian-use weapons, to favor the less capable of the two, having changed at least twice as stated. Second, It should also be noted that wooden dowels, belt loops, and even just pulling forward with your left arm can accomplish the same effect as a bumpstock, bumpstocks are just a way to package that back yard rifle trick and charge money for it. Third, when the Nazis began clearing the Jewish ghettos, they had no trouble doing that, except for one. Having stolen German military weapons, one ghetto managed to hold off the Nazis for a whole six months before running out of ammunition. Fourth, the reason for "assault weapon" bans is that the term "assault weapons" can be far more easily redefined than new regulations/bans can be enacted, and the effects far more broad, thus more easily facilitating the increased thinning of legal firearms. This is demonstrated by the point you made about the redefinition of bumpstocks as machine guns allowing ALL bumpstocks to be made illegal, seemingly, but not technically, violating the Constitutional provision forbidding the enactment of ex post facto laws. Fifth, on April 27, 2018, a man killed 7 children and wounded 12 more at a school in China, using a knife. Just because a gun is what you think of when pertaining to mass killing, and an "assault-style rifle" is what you think of when pertaining to a mass shooting, doesn't mean either of those are necessary. A mass shooting can be carried out with a wood-furnished deer rifle just as easily as an AR-15, and a knife can be just as deadly. The only constant is that any mass killing takes place where the killer can be most assured that his potential victims will not be armed, or protected by people who are armed.
I hope this was the kind of discourse you were hoping for, I tried to keep it brief because it's in comments, but... It seems I have failed.
This is factually incorrect. The militia centralized weapons stores for provision to militia members. So, at the start of the American revolution we have examples of colonists seizing arms from there depositories ala Lexington and Concord. Post-revolution we have examples such as the raid on Harpers Ferry by John Brown which targeted a local state militia armory.
"That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack."
Second Militia Act of 1792 (www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm)
I mean, with this and all the quotes by founding fathers about the people needing to be armed at all times it clearly shows that they knew that armories and powder stores could be attacked and cripple the militia, so it makes sense that the people should at least be able to BYOG when they show up to fight.
Depositories of spare muskets, muskets for those unable to afford them, or without a place to keep them, and small cannons, all purchased by other members of the militia who could do so, for those who couldn't. It was expected that the vast majority of the militia members would be bringing their own, it would have been logistically impossible otherwise, and of course if those civilian benefactors hadn't been able to purchase those weapons either...
Also Lexo we could mention that in many regular state units during the Civil War many soldiers in 1860 and 1861 brought their own weapons with them. That's why early combat was with muzzle loading flintlock muskets from grandad. Or later during 1864 why many soldiers privately purchased the new Henry Rifle because of it's use. Militia and even volunteer units (That gray area between regulars and militia) used their own privatly purchased weapons. This is a wonderful response. Applause all around.
>A mass shooting can be carried out with a wood-furnished deer rifle just as easily as an AR-15, and a knife can be just as deadly
Am I the only one who finds that sentence as deluded as can be?
A knife is much less deadly. We had a "mass killer" in Belgium who used knives and only managed to kill 1 person while harming a few others. Killing with a knife is actually fairly difficult.
We also had a mass killer in Belgium who used hunting rifles and only managed to kill 3. Hunting rifles are bulky and have much fewer shots.
An AR-15 can kill dozens in a span of minutes this routinely happens in the United States. This never happens anywhere else because we don't allow people to own military grade weapons.
The rest of your comment was interesting. I disagree with your opinions on the matter but that one sentence I singled out was just laughably wrong.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
Don't forget the federalist papers written by people like Hamilton after the Constitution was created that re-affirm that all citizens have the right to carry guns.
That the second amendment is under attack is a red herring. The argument has never been about revoking the 2nd amendment, it has always been about what level and type of armament constitutes "arms". Obviously, there are limits to what ordinances should be in the hands of civilians, but with "arms" potentially meaning anything from a bb gun to a nuclear tipped ICBM this is a difficult debate.
We have perfectly fine laws in place for what guns are legal and which aren't. If you want to ban accessories like bump stocks, fancy grips, etc, then go right ahead, that doesn't affect the right of citizens to own guns. However, what I'm not okay with is banning anymore guns, whether it be the 22mm Hunting Rifle (which I've shot before) or the AR 15. It's a slippery slope, and that cannot be in any way denied.
“I am increasingly persuaded that the earth belongs exclusively to the living and that one generation has no more right to bind another to it's laws and judgments than one independent nation has the right to command another.”
Thomas Jefferson
@Mystical Reviewer
It would be hilarious if they tried to ban angled foregrips. Pretty sure they'd lose that. Also, bump stocks can literally be home-made if you understand how spring poundage works.
These legislators need to go after the actual social causes of these problems and stop going after pieces of metal and plastic. Unless they plan on banning metal work and plastic-casting, they're never going to disarm the people. Nor should they ever be allowed to.
I disagree with your reading of the second amendment's intent. It's important to realize that weapons were a part of daily life for rural farmers within that community, and ensuring that they had weapons. Specific founding fathers, such as Madison and Jefferson, also made references to the ownership of these weapons by 'the people' as opposed to 'militia'. Militia in these days also simply could be used to refer to minutemen and other types of fast reacting forces that were more or less civilians of a specific community.
'He contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he described as "afraid to trust the people with arms"'
Now a lot of this was written in the federalist papers, but I think it's worth noting. Furthermore, the entire amendment itself differentiates between the people and the militia.
'A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
This should be read as (for our modern understanding) 'For the sake of a well regulated militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'.
None of this to take away from the points made in your video. Strict constitutionalism isn't necessarily the correct choice (The fact that the supreme court even reviews laws against the constitution, for example, didn't come until 1803).
Just me? Or does the like/dislike ratio seem inaccurate when you read the comments?
People, more often comment when they disagree rather than when they agree
Generally rule, if the dislike ratio is more than a quarter dislike the comments are going to be pissed.
When people get super angry they comment. This happens on basically all his videos.
When your ideology doesn’t provide you with a coherent argument-there’s always the dislike button.
Not sure, but he just "talked" about guns, so the dislikes are people against talking?
Heller didn’t give the individual the right, it verified what was always there
Exactly. This guys says that the state gives you rights? No one can give you rights. Rights can only be taken away. The default is anarchy. No laws, everyone does what they want. Laws get implemented to stop anarchy, a bunch of rights are taken away by the government. That's how it works.
@@denisl2760 Some of them are necessary and good - for example, taking away the right to murder another or steal their property.
Not that you argued that isn't the case, just felt I'd clarify for others reading.
@@CodyRockLee13 is 'murder' a right? I think a 'right' usually has a moral component to it, according to the definitions I've seen. just sayin.....
@@wickedhenderson4497 If the government doesn't make murder illegal then yes it is a right. For example in some muslim countries you have the right to murder "infidels". In the USA a mother has the right to murder an unborn baby.
@@denisl2760 no, that doesn't hold. and your examples don't back up your premise.
This didn't change my mind on gun control (I'm very pro-gun) but I very much appreciated it and it helped me to see the other side in a new light.
I feel the same way from the other side of the Isle. Have a cuppa'
as a UK citizen, both sides seem hundreds of years in the past.
@@samwise_productions "I even don't understand this colonial problem" *proceeds to drown oneself in tea
@@samwise_productions
I guess knife attacks, acid attacks and mass rapes are the future
@@mikhailasimov3285 school shootings are soooooo yesterday amiright
the fact that american conservatives are still in your comments seething about australia’s covid policies is a bit … concerning. the brain rot is real.
There is no conversation on how and when the government should kill me for my property
Let's start one. They shouldn't even know what property you have. It's that simple. They should just go mind their own fucking business face down in a ditch somewhere.
@UNIDEN2211 She won't live long enough either don't you worry.
When that property is illegally held and you refuse to proffer it, to the endangerment of those around you. Done, answered. Though, and maybe this will make you feel better, they'd rather just take it away and then never have to deal with you again.
@@niclas9990 How is it endangerment of those around you if you have something you aren't going to commit a violent act with and the government arbitrarily decides you can't have it?
@@niclas9990 so all those people locked up for possessing marijuana "with intent to distribute" should totally be put in jail or killed if they won't go? Because that's what you're suggesting. Weed is illegal and can endanger those around you. THINK OF THE CHILDRENNNN!N@NN@#" nah but for real, think about it
Meh. Personally, I think SBS and SBR laws are a meme and should be done away with along with suppressors. If youre worried about these, you've been watching too many movies.
Yuuuup! I'm a musician and an audiophile so I wear double hearing protection at the range because the risk of substantial hearing loss is so anxiety-inducing that I'd suffer serious mental health consequences if I started going deaf from my firearms training. Honestly, the #1 reason I'd hesitate to shoot a bad guy who is an actual threat to my life or bodily integrity (all attempts at de-escalation, escape, evasion, compliance, etc., having failed) is deciding whether the risk to my hearing is worth pulling that trigger. A silencer/suppressor would be highly beneficial to me at the range and within my home if I had to shoot a home invader who wanted more than just my property.
Thomas Jefferson wrote often of the individual's right to own a firearm.
Madison also supported people owning cannons and warships.
@@jeffslote9671 hell i would love to buy a cannon. probably couldn't afford a warship though.
@F .A Just like it was yesterday... so should it be today. If you own it and use it responsibly, what's the problem? The instant you use a cannon on something that isn't responsible, you get locked up - just like any other criminal destruction of property...
@@CaptainSeamus Yes but you see the problem is that you can't simply sit back and be reactive to problems like this. There are reasons why crazy things are illegal thus people have to strain and press in order to cause massive damage. Could you imagine if any pissed off person could stroll on down to the store and just pick up some c4? The issue is that some weapons have such killing potential that the mere risk of what they can do is simply not conductive to a society.
@@maxor669" Could you imagine if any pissed off person could stroll on down to the store and just pick up some c4? " Anyone who has knowledge about chemistry can make explosive right ??? "There are reasons why crazy things are illegal" those things are "crazy" becuz power hungry politicians said so.
Old video but what the hell... Thank you for your service. You're very wrong about fundamental rights and writing them down. The writing of them is a restriction on Government from interfering with them, not a legal statement assigning them. In the case of the Second Ammendment, there is no language that gives the people the right to bear arms, it only says Government can't infringe upon the right. Edit: Sorry dude, you clearly haven't read up enough on this. You certainly don't appear to have read the Federalist Papers, which specifically mention the ability of the Citizenry to have weapons as a hedge against a Federally regulated militia or standing army, should there ever be one.
I'm still amazed how many people still misinterpret "shall not be infringed".
which regulated militia are you part of
@@andrewmckenna00 The american people, who are the militia. They didn't mean regulated like you mean today.
@@andrewmckenna00 "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Where in there does it say the right of the Militia, the right of the Army, or the right of the Government? It does not. The 2nd amendment simple affirms the right of the American people to be able to create their own Militia as well as keep and own their own firearms without infringement.
@@bulldog71ss33 Commas are hard for these people. To be fair, they can't figure out what a "Period" is either.
@@usam-zf6gc so they didn't mean the word like today's usage?
Did they want to change infringed too?
You can't pick and choose which word you want to keep and use
As another crew served weapon specialist I was half way through a screee about calling that an M60...carry on good sir, carry on lol
I like how he skipped the part where all men age 18-45 were the militia by federal law, and as such were lawfully obligated to purchase current military weapons and kit and know how to use them.
And you're saying that applies to today?
5504berry I’m saying that almost nobody understands what militia means. It’s not a professional military by definition. You can’t waive the militia part away and cite our federal military forces, because a militia has nothing to do with them. And it still does apply today at least to some extent because it’s still in the constitution right now.
@@GunTheory ok so where was the NRA when the government tried to break up the Black Panthers? Where were you when Castil A law abiding gun carrying citizen was murdered by police in Minnesota? So you guys wanna pick and choose when this constitutional amendment applies but you only stand in protests if someone who looks like you gets killed or have their rights taken away. Get the buck outta here with that Nonsense.
5504berry That’s a lot of assumptions and a lot of not actually using your eyeballs to read what I said. Where did the NRA come into this? They are not a government entity, and they’re not relevant to what I said. And what part of what I said made you think I believe in conditional application of an absolute freedom? You’ve constructed some opponent of yours that clearly isn’t me. Perhaps ask to hear what I think before attacking me for holding some opinion when you don’t even know if I hold that opinion.
@@GunTheory the NRA is the largest political organization that trumpets 2nd Amendment rights, so yes they enter the conversation anytime a conversation about the subject comes up. Their membership defines and frames all conversations concerning gun laws.Two let's be honest, 2nd amendment advocates only see freedom to bear arms as a white man's right that is why there is no outrage when a minority is shot in a Walmart playing with a toy guy in an open carry state. Silence speaks volumes and I am betting you have never been worried about any minority's right to bear arms being violated. Nothing wrong with your point of view but be honest with yourself about the history. Americans can have a conversation about a difficult topic without degrading into ignorance as long as the full motives and histories are included. Enjoy you night, and I hope you really think about this ongoing conversation in a honest way.
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" got changed from John Locke's "Life, liberty, and property" because Jefferson didn't want to plagiarize, and some of the New England framers had some troubles with the two-legged "property" he kept at Monticello.
You completely misrepresented Presser V. Illinois. The case ruled on the assembly of the militia, not on individuals rights to own firearms. Also the majority opinion completely ignores the Supremacy Clause.
You also ignored US V. Cruikshank which states that while the Federal Government recognizes the individuals right to keep and bear arms, it will not interfere with a state violating that right, or first amendment rights for that matter- also ignoring the Supremacy Clause.
@John Lee exactly, the tenth amendment defines what POWERS the states have, which are those not delegated to Congress, nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution. The problem though, is the way the tenth amendment is written. It says ...The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it (the Constitution) to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The problem for the states is, the second amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, as a right of the people, that shall not be infringed. The way the second ament is written, it talks about the right to keep and bear arms, as though it exists separate from the Constitution, and the second amendment merely acts as a prohibition of power to infringe upon that right of the people. No where in the Constitution, does it create the right of the people to keep and bear arms. That means it's a right that exist in nature as a natural state of being.
The first amendment, is a prohibition on Congress establishing a religion, or interference with the practice thereof. Speech, which everyone likes to use as an example of the limits of rights, is not refered to as a right, neither is the press. Those are addressed as "freedoms", separate from the RIGHT to peaceably assembly. So right there, your right to peaceably assemble is protected. The limitation, is built into the protection. Again, the right isn't created anywhere in the Constitution, it's just protected by it. If the words "shall not be infringed" didn't mean what they do, then why not just throw keeping and bearing arms in, along with everything else in the first amendment? Instead, it's narrowly written, to specifically protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
What does US v Cruikshank have to do with gun rights? Wasnt that about the Colfax Massacre?
@@dannyburke1098 In their decision, the Supreme Court acknowledged that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, but stopped short of acting on behalf of the individual if the state stepped violated that right.
The premise of your analysis of is upside down and incorrect - the Bill of Rights codified a group of Inalienable Rights specifically off-limits for government encroachment and authority. It intellectually offensive for you to say that rights originate from the government, since that is the exact opposite of what the US Constitution states and represents. Additionally - no discussion about Constitutional Rights is complete without considering the State Constitutions of each Sovereign State. In fact, many of the men negotiating the US Constitution felt that the document itself clearly said that the Government couldn't encroach on ANY inalienable rights, and that codifying them at the Federal Level would run the risk of having an incomplete list, as well as conflicting with the Sovereign States' own rights declarations. And the majority of states reiterate the individual rights of arms. For instance, in my state it clearly states that these individual rights "Shall Not Be Questioned." Yep - it's illegal to even question my firearm rights in my state. The Bill of Rights itemizes the inalienable right to arms as its #2 item, and not by coincidence. It is, after all, 2nd Amendment - not the 4th or 8th, or 12th... but the 2nd, only behind the first. That's no mistake, is it?
Who or what gives you rights if not the collective agreement of the community you belong to?
An assault weapon is any gun that looks scary smh
My sks went from a hunting rifle to a assault weapon with a flash hider, high capacity mag, pistol grip, adjustable stock, and a forward grip in a hour
I've used AKs to hunt deer for years - effective to 300yds, works well, and I don't have to worry about banging it up in the field. I never understood the idea that a rifle like that wouldn't be effective for hunting - and frankly, it's the same idea as the militias and minutemen in the Revolution - they carried better firearms than the Brits - and why shouldn't we have better firearms than the government... oh, wait, I know why ...
...prohibit the federal government, including the U.S. military, from infringing upon or interfering with people’s...
According to some "wishful thinking" proposed gun laws and at least one that the sun has set on, My 16 year old Marlin .22 cal. rifle was / could become illegal. it has a 15 shot tube fed magazine under the barrel. Some want to make more than a 10 shot magazine illegal. HYPOTHETICALLY SPEAKING, I could wade into a crowd and kill 16 people without reloading. That's starting with 15 rounds in the tube and one in the chamber. There are more than enough gun laws and regulations on the books for the criminals to ignore now and to hobble the law abiding citizen from defending him or herself and homes now. Adding more will accomplish 3 things. 1) It will waste legislative time. 2) It will waste tax money. and 3) It will give criminals more laws to ignore and more worthless paper for them to wipe their collective asses with.
I live in one of 18 states where if we can qualify for a concealed carry permit, we don't need one to conceal a handgun on our person within our state borders. Some other "constitutional carry" states as we are called, even accept our drivers license as proof to legally conceal carry in their state. Speaking only for West Virginia, my state, it has not turned us into the old west either. Even most of our drug busts go off without firing a shot. This is not to say that people don't get shot in anger here but then by the same token, we don't have mass shootings here either. I believe it is because any potential shooter has to factor in the possibility that every one of his victims could actually be shooting back.
Call it a form of forced mutual respect if you will but over all, we keep our rights and generally, everyone is safer for it as a side benefit.
Democrats: um... Um... It kills things ban it
@@jeffmccrea9347 Constitutional carry statistically leads to more violent gun deaths than open carry.
Open carry is the way to go. Constitutional carry is for morons who masturbate to the letter and not the spirit of the constitution. Guns are necessary. Hiding them on your person is for criminals.
Sounds like you should move to Australia
And god said, let there be m60's for everyone
except its a 240 bravo its a trap
Amen
the assault weapon ban was idiotic because most of those features have no affect on function.
Which of the features in the ban have no function? Flash hiders allow better shooting at night because they deflect muzzle flash from the shooters eye, bayonet lugs... hold bayonets, fixed stocks...can't be a bump stock, pistol grips improve the ergonomics of a weapon to support one handed carry and improve reloading speed. Please clarify
Because a vast majority of shootings happen with handguns, and even half of all mass shootings and half of all mass shooting deaths happen with handguns. See the data provided for Mother Jones which supports this assertion.
Those features do not make the guns more dangerous in the context of civilian shootings nor civilian mass shootings. A civilian mass shooter does not use a bayonet. A collapsible stock is a sideshow when the real killer is handguns. Any focus on semiauto rifles of any kind is misplaced because handguns are as dangerous or more dangerous in practically every single civilian mass shooting. For example, Virginia Tech was handguns only, and only 10 round magazines, with a few 15 round magazines.
Reloading speed also doesn't really matter. Specifically, magazine capacity really doesn't matter. Mass shootings happen over many minutes, not seconds, which means that the shooter has all the time in the world to reload. It takes only a few seconds to replace a box magazine. It does not substantially change the rate of fire. Practically no mass shooters are ever stopped by being tackled during a reload. The poster child of this happening was the Gabby Giffords shooter, but what happened there was that his gun broke - he successfully loaded a new box magazine, but the spring in the new box magazine broke, and then he started to run away, and only then was he tackled. Most liberal-leaning news sites do not report this correctly, and it pisses me off. From what I can tell, only one mass shooter ever was stopped during reloading, and it was a shooting on a train or subway car, e.g. a very enclosed space.
K Dillon would you care to provide statistics on the number of crimes that have been committed in the last 50 years using bayonets that were mounted on a rifle? Because I'm pretty sure drive-by bayonetings have never been a thing. Also, bump stocks did not exist in 1994 when the AWB was passed, and would be considered "fixed stocks" under that law. Pistol grips are mostly to make the rifle more controllable in full auto fire, but none of the weapons covered by the AWB were capable of full auto fire.
'bump stocks did not exist in 1994 when the AWB was passed, and would be considered "fixed stocks" under that law" this is not clear, a federal regulatory agency would evaluate the new device and through the rule-making process evaluate if a bump stock is fixed or not. As for statistics, I don't have them, however, as you pointed out your own belief of the functional purpose of the pistol grip... you cannot then argue like the OP does that these features have no fictional affect.
this dillon guy is an idiot, since his argument is falling apart, he wants you to keep defining things for him...
go look it up and learn something yourself
There is no such thing as a "gun show loophole" jesus christ my guy..
he knows. He lied about all of it intentionally.
Can you prove it? All I've seen is anecdotes along the lines of "all the gunshows I've been to have done background checks" or similar. Individual sellers opting to use background checks in a gunshow does not necessarily mean that a (or the) loophole doesn't exist. Federal law only asserts that FFLs perform background checks necessarily, but individual sellers can sell at gun shows.
I'm not trying to get you in a "gotcha" moment or anything, I'm just genuinely curious if I'm missing something.
@@CodyRockLee13 2A advocates reject what they view as a misunderstanding or rather intentional misrepresentation of what people mean by "gunshow loophole". First and foremost calling it a "loophole" is already trying to muddy the waters so to speak in their view, as generally using such indicates some level of moral or legal skirting in order to bypass a restriction or law.
The truth of the matter is pretty simple. If you are a gun shop or similarly hold an FFL you are required to conduct a background check when selling a firearm to someone. If you are a private seller (ex. you or I) and you want to sell your gun anywhere; including gunshows, you can do so without conducting a background check provided that both you (the seller) and I (the buyer) live within the same state. If for instance we where from different states however (ex. you from Texas, I from Oregon), we would have to have an FFL holder run a background check.
This is where the delineation between "intrastate commerce" and "interstate commerce" comes into play also. Those that are pro-2A also generally assert that the Constitution specifically outlines that the federal government has no authority to regulate non-commercial, intrastate transfers. This is accurate from what i can find, hence why gun shops which are "commercial" in nature can be regulated alongside transferring firearms between states, even if said transfer is between private sellers.
On a final note relating to the topic at hand. When the topic of "universal background checks" is broached, the reason i can see that a lot of 2A advocates bulk at it, is that background checks are effectively universal already. The only exception is from a private seller selling to a private buyer in the same states, and that "loophole" as its liked to be called cannot be "fixed" without overreach of the federal government by violating the Constitutional provisions that have been put their specifically to restrict it when the document was written.
(Note: This is the federal law regarding firearms transfer/selling the best of my knowledge, some states do have laws that are more strict but none have less strict laws then this to the best of my knowledge)
(Note 2: I am not a lawyer or of any profession that makes me an expert on such matters, and as such this is not legal advice)
@@CodyRockLee13 The whole idea behind having what is called a Gunshow is a 2A belief, backed by freedom, for selling firearms, in a given marketplace upfront style fashion. Like a farmers market. Now, picture this, imagine your Farmers Market Company bringing in Farmers who are unlicensed to sell goods that aren't monitored and inspected that could cause outbreaks of viruses etc etc all in the name of greed for both the farmer and the market company. My point is I'd be damned if the pro 2A, hard working Americans that believe in the right to bear arms and or sell firearms are all just black market criminals. If that were the case then we'd have literal Central America inside of the US - gangs of gangs of gangs of Real murderous terrorists trotting abroad our neighborhoods putting fear in their own governments eyes. F*cking imagine lol. And it's actually hilarious how media in the US wants you to be scared of pro 2A'ers literally f*cking hilarious. Do this for me - Google search "do you need a background check to buy a gun" now CriminalWatchDog is the highlighted answer from Google that says you do not need a BC to buy a gun online which is inherently false. If you buy a gun online you are required by law to have that firearm shipped to an FFL. And FFLs are required by law to do a BC before you receive the firearm. US federal law does not require background checks for private sales which is why people believe the Gunshow loophole is an existential crisis which is not. If I could write a somewhat anti 2A law that requires Gunshows to only provide FFL dealers than I would. And I wish there was more clarity on the subject but there isn't and the media embellishes themselves on falsely portraying the 2A. If you could go yourself to a Gunshow and ask to purchase a firearm without doing a BC you wouldn't be able to. And many people have proven this point but the media will not. So I say don't let the media fill you with falsities!
But private sales is our 2A right and should follow with it. I should be backed by freedom in the US to sell my firearm to my relative or near friend without going through the government - and if you can't agree with that even a little bit then we're just apples from two different trees! Thinking on it more philosophically based on the right to keep and bear arms and more from my opinionated pro 2A point of view.. Anyway, I hope you could find this informative if not inspirational and with all do respect.
@@darklelouchg8505 very articulate and accurately spoken.
shall not be infringed fans vs average under no pretext enjoyers
comrade :D
Funny how cringe commies are the ones supporting gun bans, and think nobody has a right to own firearms to defend themselves from the hoards of useful idiots. You people are the most delusional folk in existence.
I personally lost it after he mentioned the book of mormon as the sequel to the bible, I can't stop laughing.
I mean the New Testament is the sequel to the Torah, and other people think Islam is the sequel to the Bible. I just don't know why the creators can't just come out and say what's cannon...
I've just been looking for your comment, thank you
Yeah, that was awesome.
@@Daniel-pl1vh so is the Book of Mormon like an alternate canon to the Quran?
pretty much...
The Qur'an: The New Testament got it wrong, because Jesus wasn't the son of God or the savior of mankind, but he was an important prophet and will be at the right hand of God on the Day of Judgment.
The Book of Mormon: The New Testament got it wrong, because Jesus will return in Missouri, not Palestine.
That's not an M60, that's a bow with fast charge, power 5 and a texture pack
I have so many of your videos in my watchlist but I have only managed to watch a handful. Why, you may ask? Because I have to watch each video several times in order to absorb all the info you somehow manage to pack into each one. Absolutely excellent.
Also your argument is defeated by a single word in the 2nd amendment, "the"
With out a qualifyer before or after the definite article means an entirety.
Example: The world, the book, the internet, and "the people"
Semantics.
@@CodyRockLee13 What else would written law be judged by?
Oh you, with your basic understanding of the English language.
How quaint.
How much research did you do into the founding fathers before you made this video? One specific law completely negates your statement that the founding fathers thought of the right to bare arms in the context of the militia and not an individual right. The Militia Act of 1791 which was in place until its replacement in the early 1900s. This law set the precedent on who is apart of the militia and who isn't. Obviously it was the usual, 18-45, male etc. However if the founding fathers insisted that ONLY MEMBERS OF THE MILITIA retain the right to keep and bare arms, then you would have seen the forcible disarmament or at least you would have seen the law prosecute individuals who carry out crime with the possession of a firearm, with the additional charge of possessing a weapon while not being qualified for militia service. This did not happen and so far as I have researched I have never seen a serious charge of possession of a weapon while not being party to the militia.
I also believe it is disingenuous for you to bring up the good ol "muh Muskets" argument, that the founding fathers didn't know what was on the other side of the Mississippi, so therefore they couldn't possibly have perceived a massive change in firearm technology over the years. This is completely and wholly insulting to anyone with a inch of intelligence. They weren't stupid and while yes, single shot firearms were the norm but rapid fire weaponry was right around the corner and many of them were big fans of these new weapons. Not once has a serious leader of this nation, mentioned the possibility of danger to the populace from rapid fire weaponry until modern gun control/ control fanatics brought the idea up. This is because it was common sense that no matter how dangerous a weapon is, there still has to be a human to pick it up and use it for evil. In which case you have law enforcement and the people to deal with this person. The founders may not have seen specifics, but they knew what was around the corner and most importantly of all, they knew the hearts of man. This is why they wrote the constitution in such a way that they could keep government in check, not the people. Remember the constitution is a limit on government, not the people.
The concept of rapid fire weapons is about as old as firearms. There are machine gun plans in the notebooks of DaVinci. It's one of those things like flight people thought about long before it was actually doable. You have a far better argument applying the 'Founders couldn't have imagined X" to Amendment one with regards to the internet.
Also then Dredd Scott decision specifically states that if blacks were granted citizenship they would get all rights that citizens have that included "To keep and Carry Arms wherever they went."
You could also look to Article one Section 8 which grants Congress the power to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal. That indicated that the Founders intended for civilians to own fully armed warships with crew armed with a variety of small arms.
12:59 Those are standard capacity just as a note, but as a pro-gun person, this is a pretty good explanation video.
I said the same thing too
I’m very much not an expert, but was he talking about legally vs the factory terminology? As in, that is the standard that comes with the weapon, but it’s legally considered high capacity? That would be my guess as to the discrepancy.
@@21Trainman most definitely he was using the legal term. In actual design speak, standard capacity is whatever the firearm was designed around. Huge discrepancy there since pro gunners are most likely to look at guns from a design standpoint, while anti gunners see it from a completely legal point of view.
@@hypnoticmoai6509 Completely _illegal_ point of view, _shall not be infringed_ is the law
@@TheSundayShooter
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
If the founding fathers thought it was important to add the first part, you ought not exclude it.
16:02 The exception to this might be the Kalthoff Repeater. Sure, you had to manually use the reloading mechanism, but you could, if you were a good-enough user, fire up to 60 rounds inside a minute. Which is certainly something.
Luckily, we don't have to guess what the founders meant. Madison made it pretty clear what they meant in Federalist No.46.
Each state today has a national guard, and many have a naval militia. The unorganized militia is every other able bodied man between 17 and 45, which can quickly be assembled in the wake of a military threat. The only difference today is that state allegiance isn't nearly as strong.
The following quote clearly establishes the right of the people to bear arms for the purpose of protecting against government tyranny. Same as today.
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
-James Madison
Personally I need a my medicinal m1 abrams
Forget the security blanket, get a security Maus tank...
The founding fathers did intend for the 2nd to include private ownership. A owner of a trading ship wrote to Adams asking is the 2nd extended to him outfitting his ships with cannon in order to defend against pirates. He was told that absolutely he could own cannons.
Ivan while you're right about the story I think you have the wrong man. Wasn't is Madison he wrote to?
Does American law even apply in international waters? I haven't read the letter myself.
@@crackingbreznuts3343 It was and still is, although more defined. The UN convention on international waters has answered this question by stating that vessels would abide the laws of the country of origin in international waters unless they are In the waters of a member nation. So an American ship in international waters can still keep firearms on board unless they want to sail to a non-American port where in most countries they have to provide legal documentation and declare the firearms the same way you declare firearms at an airport.
@@bindipig1225 when a right has to be earned in order to exercise it, that is no longer a right. that is a privilege. and the right to bear arms should not be considered a privilege.
@@bindipig1225 when you make it a privilege you deprive the of people of self-preservation. You simply turn the right to bear arms into a commodity of the 1%.
I highly recommend people with religious beliefs stop claiming something is 'god given.'
When it is taken away from you by a Mortal, it speaks so very poorly about your god....
It's a natural born right. Your atheist babble has been rejected since before the creation of the Bill of Rights.
I have owned and carried firearms for more than 20 years now. I am carrying a pistol right now.
But I nearly completely agree with you. It is difficult to be a moderate with an issue as polarizing as this one. And for what it's worth, I will subscribe to you. Good job on this and the video on Christopher Colombus.
Fudd.
Knowing better is wrong on so many levels, look for my comment on in the most recent category, I disprove most of what he builds his basis off of, such as the 2nd amendment not being for individuals (it was), if you want me to paste it here let me know
@@jimmyvonvitti5204 do it boi
Jimmy Vonvitti how is it for individuals?
As soon as someone starts with "I own...(insert firearm variation here)" then we know it is a Mother Demanding Action. And no, we do not care what is in your hand right now.
As a non-native speaker of English, I could be wrong, but isn't "God-given right" just a metaphor for a fundamental right?
We use "God" a lot in my native language to describe things that don't necessarily have to do much with religion and this seems like something that could also be used in that way if it were Dutch (my native language). Maybe it's different in English though!
Just wanted to point this out, because I feel like, other than that, Steven Crowder seems to be quite spot on most of the time and if he literally meant "Right given to you by God"... That'd be pretty weird.
Nice video, btw!
Both the literal and the metaphoric definitions are wrong, as explained in the video
Well being able to own a gun is actually a fundamental right in the United States as it's literally the second amendment.
Did you watch the video at all? Or only here to troll in the comments?
I did watch the entire video and it seems to be almost entirely factual, with the exception of one or two things that other comments have already pointed out. It seemed very nuanced and not biased to one side at all. Why would you call me a troll? That's a pretty easy way to kill a discussion right away.
Ghipoli I’m not sure fundamental is the right word there. It’s not a right upon which other elements of the American constitution rely. It’s not an essential element, it’s just a small detail.
This video is historically inaccurate. See Belton flintlock
Speaking of historically inaccurate, of course guns weren't mentioned in the Bible. They weren't invented until 1200 years after the Bible was finished. Idiot.
@@freddieh5539 of course you are correct. However the concept of arming one's self with the best technology of the day was. Luke 22:36 "...if you do not have a sword sell your cloak and buy one..." Now mind you I am paraphrasing and the words change a little depending on what translation of the Bible you are reading but it more or less the same. As a hema enthusiast and someone who loves history I will tell you that a sword was THE weapon of self defense of the day but they also weren't the cheapest either, so Jesus is actually making a pretty bold statement in saying to buy a sword in that most would have access to some half decent weapon such as farming implements (often the tools of revolts in the day) but specifically says to buy a sword which was the peak of self defense tech at the time as they weren't the cheapest to produce and they didn't even have great steel at the time but as far as something realistically to carry during every day Life it was the best option. So this concept of arming yourself with the best of what's available to you has been around since the time of the Bibles writing.
@@tylerwhite3196 - That is a good text to memorize.
@@freddieh5539 I'm not really much of a man of religion however words of wisdom are words of wisdom
We can't have a "Conversation" because you literally know nothing about the subject. Literally every statement you make is false.
There are letters penned by the men who wrote and signed the constitution explaining the intent behind the 2nd amendment.
To exclude the intent of the signatories who actually signed the document is bad mmkay.
Anyways still like your videos. Just didn’t seem moderate on this one.
Also failing to mention that gun crimes have been decreasing without legislation and if you remove suicide, mental defect and substance abuse they become negligible.
Making guns harder to obtain affects people in poverty and makes them more susceptible to becoming victims of violent and property crimes.
Maybe work on building up and supporting those poverty-afflicted areas rather than leave them a pump-action to fend for themselves??
Jesus fucking christ, this isn't mad max, why are americans first thought for protecting poor areas, let's arm the neighbourhood with weapons, instead if increasing security and police presence.
@@markbergin8821 because no one likes police. The hell I want more pigs in neighborhood for when there not gonna do anything?
He is not a moderate. He is a bleeding heart liberal BUT because the left has swung so far to the left people like him seem like moderates.
@@markbergin8821 Ideally you would have both.
@@dang7669 no, ideally you shouldnt have to be paranoid enough in your own safety to get a gun.
Americans have such a throbbing hard-on for guns, it's a bit unnerving. Guns clearly are not a deterrent, and they're ALWAYS a fatal threat, if you fuck up once, you've killed an innocent person.
And yeah, maybe you'd be in the legal right, but if you were able to live with yourself after fucking up like that, I'd be disgusted.
I am sorry, but what Presser v Illinois case are you looking at? The one that I remember learning about and just checking on again said that the court ruled that it was a indevidual right. Do provide you're information please.
And also, you said that we only had muzzle loader pistols and rifles and that lever guns were fairly new. But there is a issue with that statement, there wasn't, nor did the founding fathers not know what was to come. They new about repeating arms and even armed Lewis and Clark with them on their journey. I really feel as though you did not do much research on this topic prior to doing this video and I think that it has done more harm than good. This is feeding misinformation.
Dude that’s not an M60
*THATS A PIG*
What an ignorant statement, are you blind or what?
*That's definitely a cow*
Again, just to clarify this briefly as opposed to my earlier comment.
The Constitution granted government rights, not the people. The people have all rights not specifically granted to the government. The Bill of Rights highlighted things the government specifically can't do.
Also, The Book of Mormon is not a sequel. More like fan fiction.
Tbh the New Testament is already a fanfic. Which makes the BoM a fanfic of a fanfic. Rip Mormons.
Its so funny how the book of Mormon never makes an appearance in any debate that could include religion so seeing him just mention it as a sequel and hold it up had me laughing to tears. just so out of left field for me- but i prefer not to think of it like a fanfic- more like the toy story series. one is good, two is great but three just blows everything out of the water (we dont talk about the fourth to be seen- RIP dead sea scrolls)
I really liked this part, because I refer to it as "the sequel" pretty commonly, and see it all the time cause I live in SLC. In reality, most major world religions are sequels (fanfic) to the Old Testament (which is a nice polished anthology of stories that predate Judiasm and Christianity)
And the Bible is fiction 💁🏼♂️
You mean like the Ars Goetia?