Being afraid IS NOT the same as being threatened. The number of people who use fear as a justification for murder and get away with it due to social paranoia should really be more of a concern than it is...
Right. Especially since many white people are afraid of black people, period, regardless of behavior. An objectively reasonable standard is best. If a person is standing on a door step and rings the bell, it is not objectively reasonable for the person inside to fear for their life. The subjective fear of the person inside (because they are paranoid and/or racist for example) should not allow for murder.
You’re absolutely right. Unfortunately, due to a number of systemic reasons, the lizard brain jn Americans will almost never listen to reason lol. Notice how in 2 decades we went from the “well regulated militia” to “anyone should be able to own a sawed off shotgun” and if you talked to a modern conservative, they seem to think this has been the norm since the countries founding. And these are the same people who want to go back to 1950s America lmfaoooo (to be fair, they want the social repression without any of the technological or modern advances being lost)
The use of “force “ in stand your ground law should be key. Someone ringing a doorbell , standing and waiting is not using force against anyone. So far from self defense.
I agree. Also I feel the, the cases mentioned at the beginning of the video are not evidence that the stand your ground laws or castle laws are not necessary. Do we really expect there to be no self defense cases where the shooting was clearly not justified? In a country of 330 Million people there are always going cases where things go wrong. Self defense does require people making correct choices. It's not a license to kill. Many self-defenses instructors will often warn people that even if they justifiably shoot someone in self-defense, they still might be sued, and will likely spend years in court no matter what, and their life will never really be the same.
I would say that the key should be the use of force or the threat of force. Someone threatening to bash your brain in with a bat while approaching you should be enough, you dont have to wait for the strike.
Castle Doctrine still requires a qualifying felony in order to justify use of force. It merely relieves a "duty to flee" if possible in public spaces, whereas one may put himself in danger within his own home, in turn causing a need for defensive force. Stand Your Ground laws have existed for a long time as interpreted state ConLaw in places like Kentucky. Their recent statutory enactment in many states is largely a reaction to malicious prosecutions after valid self defense incidents, that in theory doesn't change underlying criteria to use force at all. An unintended consequence has been with mutual encounters by gang bangers, where last man standing claims he was defending himself, even if the reality may be mutually aggressive combat. That's a consequence of corrupt politics and discriminatory drug laws causing a black market with huge financial benefits to lawyers, insurance, and prisons, among others, perpetrated as a fraud n society.
Because everything in America is an act of corruption, due to our capitalist system. Which is why we Americans are trained at a young age to reverse psychology ourselves in order to deal with and justify the crushing corruption.
Lobbying is one of those words that once had a very specific meaning and now has morphed into a more general term. You probably mean something different by it than the next person does. But I'll say that we certainly have the right to influence our government. We got some of the worst aspects of the post-Uvalde gun control stripped from the bill by calling our representatives and senators. Still, what remained is bad enough. We are seeing that now as the Biden admin is attempting to twist what IS in that law by creatively reinterpreting it much like the ATF is re-interpreting what is a gun never mind that the language itself in the law hasn't changed but rather what the ATF is SAYING it means has changed. Despite differences on the gun issue, I would think you would agree that suddenly deciding the same words mean something different now than at the time they were enacted is problematic to rule of law and basic fairness. Moreover, these laws are purposely vaguely written by Congressmembers who don't like gun rights specifically so the ATF can worm around like this. There was a court case in the USA checking the EPA's power because they were doing the same as the ATF in this regard. At the heart of it is a Constitutional principle because Congress is supposed to write the bills that become law not the bureaucrats in the executive branch. This is a rather involved discussion, but is really at the heart of much of these problems, and it is called Chevron deference if you want to look it up. Detailing it here would take a lot of space.
Does anyone remember the Japanese university student who was looking for a Halloween party. He knocked on the wrong door; a woman answered and then screamed. Her husband grabbed a gun and shot the student. Student died.
@@user-mn8lz7gf6dThose are the people who don't take firearm classes like the rest of us did. They probably bought it, barely take it out to stay proficient , never learned gun safety. They didn't learn that being a gun owner requires being levelheaded and your ego needs to be in check when dealing with others. I was taught to avoid unnecessary situations, to flee first and then call 911 because using a gun is the last option. One where you are unable to flee and imminent danger is present.
When I studied martial arts, my teacher told me about the Philosophy of Force. "When someone confronts you threateningly, your only goal should be to escape the situation using the least amount of force possible. First you Talk. Then you Walk. Then you Run. If none of those resolve the situation, only THEN do you Fight. The duty of those who possess the power to harm others is to avoid using that power at all costs." Anyone who uses force as a first resort is someone not fit to live in society.
We have many guns in our home, never once have I felt the need to pull a gun on a person at the door. There was even times we had a rifle near the door.
@Oh_Ok0 it's not lamo. Do you live even here? You probably don't a make wild claims like this. This rarely happens, its highly frowed upon on, and it's illegal. But keep living in la la land and take your basic rights away and let the goverment tample you.
I just cannot understand the thought process behind shooting someone, who just knocked on your door, without warning, without hearing who they are or anything. How in gods name is that perceived as a "threat"? Reminds me of the guy that threatened a little girl who was selling cookies and the guy started telling her that next time she rang the doorbell, he'd shoot her. Absolutely insane.
I visited america for the first time recently. My first night, I was walking and witnessed someone break into a car. All I could think about was myself. What if they're armed and hurt me if I try to get a look at their face to report it? So I just stared forward and kept walking. It felt horrible to be a bystander like that, and I dont think I would have if I wasn't afraid of the threat of firearms. America has so many problems and I dont think they truly realise how bad it is.
The biggest problem is that many of us in the states *are* aware of the many issues surrounding us, but feel so powerless to do anything about it. Especially with how violent a response we've been met with whenever we take to the streets to protest. Exercising our right to protest is absolutely vital and it *should* be safe, but instead we're met with tear gas, riot shields, and unrelenting police brutality.
@@kazeboiii the unfortunate truth. We think we're fighting each other but in reality polling shows wide agreement, but without the money we can't compete.
Fun fact. The guy in charge of the fort at the FAR END of the Oregon Trail, been there for years, was so diplomatic he was able to keep peace with the 7 nationalities in the fort, the Spanish, the Russians, the several native tribes in the area, and the Americans! The fort never fired a shot in anger during his tenure. Look him up. Dr. John McLaughlin, Father of Oregon. Not exactly a gun slinging cowboy.
....and thats what these pudding brained gun fetishist seem to be unable to process. This fuck brained ahistorical idea of everyone in the 19th and 18th century carrying everywhere they went wasn't actually a thing. Outposts, forts, and new settlements, etc al would confiscate any firearms you had on you before entering, never-ending that whole thing where they purposely misread what the 2nd amendment actually says
Since I moved out to a more rural area, the service people that come to my house are extremely cautious. The water guy knocked on my door to warn me he was going to work on my tank, and in his words said "so please don't shoot me!" He was trying to make light of it but god, what kind of insane world are we living in?
I lived in a rural area and the electric meter reader used to use a spotting scope to read people's meters rather than approach very closely. A spotting scope is a telescope of a type favored by target shooters, that can give you a very clear, magnified view from maybe 30-100 meters away.
If that's true, it's recent. I lived in outstate MN and outstate AZ most of my life, and never worried about being shot by my neighbors. The Border Patrol, maybe. Some of them are trigger happy idiots. But not my neighbors.
Swiss Citizen here. We have in Switzerland percentage wise almost the same amount of weapons in private hands as Americans. But we have very few gun crimes in general. No school shootings or anything. You know why? Because we treat each other with respect and compassion.
I also bet that you, in Switzerland, don't coddle violent criminals. We certainly do in the USA, especially in states like mine. It is a rare homicide in California that doesn't end with the reporter saying and the suspect has a long history of violent crime. But the answer of the state government is never to keep those who've proved themselves capable of wanton violence behind bars for the safety of the rest of us, rather they always pass more gun control laws. If they were really, as they claim they are, interested in public safety they'd not let tens of thousands of violent people run loose on the streets.
In 1774 250 years ago England banned guns/gunpowder in colonial America!! Attempted gun confiscation by 8-900 English soldiers in Mass. on April 19-1775 started that 8-year war for American independence (1775-1783) & England almost won that war!! England came back in 1812-1815!!
Yeah it's probably also a mindset thing. Isn't Switzlerand one of those countries rated with highest happiness or something? A lot of shooters have some form of mental issue whether that be trauma or mental illness or whatever but if that happen less, the same result happens: less gun crime if there's no motive.
It’s because of gun violence that my husband and I have seriously considered leaving the country. We have two kids, and we don’t believe we can count on their safety anymore. It breaks my heart that we can’t feel safe in our own country.
Where exactly would you go? You are unlikely to get into Australia, here in Europe its much worse unless you are rich enough to own a castle and send your kids to Eton etc. So you're moving to Canada?
@@jp783 You understand the term "I'm going to wet you up?" Getting mugged at knifepoint in my country is as common as learning to ride a bike, it's just part of life for kids
Literally no one is defending the people mentioned at the beginning of this video. All of their actions were illegal, and of the dozens of gun owners I know, every last one of them would gladly see those people go to prison.
@@smileychessthe laws as they stand embolden killers to kill. That’s a fact. End of story. States where stand your ground goes into effect objectively see a rise in gun deaths. Sure, these psychos may go to jail for it because they still broke the law, but the law itself is what directly influences these people. They’re pleading not guilty for a reason, because they have enough reason and logic to think that they’re interpreting the law correctly. Those people are dead because one one thought they were legally entitled to kill them. That’s the issue, the fact that there is even a trial is the problem, killing people out of FEAR not out of THREAT
@bonglee66 - Can you? I spend a LOT of time around 2A advocates and gun owners. Misusing, mishandling, or illegally brandishing firearms is grounds to be shamed to the highest degree.
Port Arthur was horrific. My brother was in the same class as one of the victims. She’d gone on holiday with her mum. Then there was Alannah and Madeline- they were hunted down! So yes! We were very keen to not have a repeat. And we haven’t. This is why Australians as a whole just don’t understand why America won’t do anything to stop it. Like ‘thoughts and prayers’ achieves anything! 💔
I'm an American who was at Port Arthur six months before, fortunately for me. And I agree that many Americans are absolutely nuts on gun issues. What can I say?
That was a Mos-sad and C.I.A. Operation to disarm it's Citizens , Wake up and stop drinking the cool aid . C.i.a has been caught so many times using False flags , setting up crazy people with radical Ideologies , And enticing them to 'gun free zones" . Please stop being biased because of mainstream media blowing smoke up your arse . And look at the Aussies now ? They are killing all of you slowly , you cannot even go down the street anymore before you are attacked by "men" and women with guns , Give me a Break .
@@danielcarroll3358 Yep yer Nutz ! Did you see all the Yemenis Children dead from the U.N. and the U.S.? Yep we hired 12 year old boys from Darfur trained them gave them fully automatic weapons to fight on the front line in Yemen , so many dead Children , I guess that's called stand your Ground and give me your tax money to disarm you and get attack by who ?? . HOWEVER WE NEED AMERICA TO GET RID OF YOUR GUNS , BORDERS OPENED AND RUSSIA AND CHINA IS GOING TO Attack , so lets hand in those firearms and bend over rover .👍 Good times , feeding emotional propaganda to make us soft and ready for the taking . I Love China , Good times . B.T.W my Wife is very upset seeing so many weak willed Women . She Loves her Glock's , Good Times .🙏
After one of the mass shootings, Chris Hayes on MSNBC made a passing description of all this gunplay as “sacrifices to Moloch.” Call me crazy (heck, I think it’s a crazy idea), but at this point maybe the young man was “on” to something…?
We are living under the tyranny of the reinvention of the past. The 'originalists' invented that term to empower their personal, contemporary whims. That is why they ignore the past and rewrite laws to force their will on the majority.
In America, you are supposed to receive due process in the Courts and proportionate punishments. But citizens can summarily execute a person on suspicion of a property crime. Crazy!
Honestly, i don't even think that we are that bitterly divided on the issue of gun control. Studies have shown that a majority of gun owners support stricter gun control laws (not banning all guns but stricter laws) but they are being overshadowed by the very loud, obnoxious and, frankly, murderous "get off my lawn" crowd. (Not gonna link but you can literally type "gun owners support gun control" in any search engine and it'll pop up) Edit: sorry, hadn't gotten to that bit of the video yet!
You are being overshadowed by the gun manufacturing companies that make money through the sales. If being vocal affected change we'd live in a different world. The wingnuts are just another tool of capital. Another illusion of an enemy. I'm willing to bet Democrats would not even bring a bill to vote that had a chance of passing to restrict gun distribution. The people most responsible you will never meet and don't need to speak, they pay people to do it for them.
@@cherylbrown-m4i bullshit. I live in Missouri and it's legal for me to buy an AK off a homeless man with nothing more than two signatures on a Starbucks napkin.
I live in the area that the girls were shot in. It was a terrifying event for our county, and even though I live about 30 minutes away I never do u-turns in parking lots or nearby houses anymore
According to THE NEW YORK TIMES, four states - Tennessee, along with Arizona, Georgia and Virginia - enacted laws in 2010 that explicitly allows loaded guns in bars. Again: loaded guns carried by patrons in bars and restaurants serving alcohol is legal in parts of the USA.
@@nashvegas4476 You're feasting on a lot of innocent dead bodies that BEFORE they were born ya'll supposedly cared so much about. We judge you all for very good reasons. Thinking what you wrote being some incredible and funny turn of a phrase is just one more iron the rest of us throw on the fire at this point and if that judgement makes you resentmentful... My answer is for you to live. That's all. Live... Another two, three, four decades. Squeeze the juices out of life. And then, while aged and surrounded by your loved ones and friends such as they are... Please shuffle off this mortal coil STILL being resentful that others thought your character, intelligence, judgement and morals were all trash. We all know that's what nearly every angle you guys take on every conceivable issue boils down to that anyway.
My best friend in grade school and my maternal grandmother both died by gun "accidents." At 61, almost 62 years old, I cannot stand guns, don't want one near me, have no desire to own one and wish they didn't exist. I've suffered quite enough from those freaking things.
@@tneita3166 Seeing as how there's no way to know when someone will be subject to the stresses that snap a mind, a safer guideline would be "NO ONE should have access to guns, period." But of course sanity cannot be allowed to rule the day.
As an Australian we also have to have a license to own and use guns and if you’re found to do things against that you’ll have your guns taken away by the authorities. It makes me feel really safe
Fellow Aussie and same. I got told recently that us Aussies are actually jealous of American freedoms. Like we're really not. "you're jealous you can't keep yourself safe" from what, crazed gunmen? Don't have that problem here buddy
@@katerrinah5442 yeah, what on earth do they possibly think we are jealous of? We're perfectly happy with things the way they are re: the gun situation here, thank you very much! You always know somebody has no idea what is actually going on when they accuse you of being jealous of them.
@@philbydeeWhat y'all are describing is the bat shit lunacy gun-humping culture that has been allowed to be promoted in this country. The second amendment should have been repealed as soon as we had a full, standing military. I, personally, am envious of the swift and decisive action governments like yours and NZ took after mass shootings. We need legislators with balls here that will refuse to take money from the gun lobbyists and actually give a shit about what the citizens want. Public safety is just one of their responsibilities they consistently ignore. Sincerely, A jealous American.
@@philbydee One of the most disgusting things about Americans is that they have this incredibly stupid self-sucking belief that everyone in the world wants to be them. (Speaking as an American sick to death of HUAH jingo boys and girls.)
@@katerrinah5442as an American I think it’s the other way. I’m so jealous that Australia was able to reform gun laws and the statistics prove that gun reform is effective. Many Americans believe that owning a gun is so the government can’t become tyrannical. I always tell them that it made sense when the second amendment was written but nowadays if the us government becomes tyrannical they have access to drones and fighter jets like seriously how is a firearm suppose to counter a drone strike? I hate the second amendment and the bloodshed that it allows and nothing being done.
The problem is that the criminal will always have access to weapons. No matter how restricted the law is. When you want to ban guns, you are not disarming the criminal. You are disarming the victims.
In Europe, criminals also have access to weapons. Even when there have been gun shootings in Denmark and Sweden, people feel safe and if someone wants a weapon, you need training and a licence. The shootings have been between criminal gangs.
But another problem is that in countries like the UK and Japan, both of which have strict gun laws, have much less gun violence. Even if criminals disregard the law it's still harder to get guns when they aren't sold in a public store. They have to go locate an actual gun dealer, meet up, try not to get caught on the way, and then they have a weapon. Probably more steps but it's still more complicated than just buying one from a gun store.
@@mariustan9275 But there is yet another problem. What do you care about, the general level of violence or specifically the level of gun violence? If the murderer didn't have a gun and stabbed the victim with a kitchen knife, would it make you feel better? I assume that no. Therefore, it makes sense to talk about the general level of violence, and not any specific one. Moreover, in order not to exclude self-defense cases, it makes sense to consider only cases of aggression performed by criminals. Surprisingly, there is absolutely no correlation between gun laws and crime rates. You know, there is such a country called Switzerland. It has some of the most permissive gun laws and one of the lowest crime rates. And yet there is Chicago, for example, with the opposite situation. And yes, life in Japan is actually quite calm, which I would not say about the UK though, but this has less to do with their gun laws and more to do with their immigration policy.
When I was a kid, the NRA was a pretty good organization, mostly teaching gun safety and catering to collectors. In 1975 I got a questionnaire from them: “We want to know your thoughts on gun rights.” It consisted of three “questions”: 1) True or False, the US Constitution says “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” 2) True or False, the Constitution is the law of the land. 3) I want to support the NRA with the following contribution…
The NRA is to The LEFT what Planned Parenthood is to The RIGHT A SCAPEGOAT Neither The NRA NOR PLANNED PARENTHOOD are BAD organizations but they are BOTH SCAPEGOATED because BOTH The LEFT AND The RIGHT believe they need a BOOGEYMAN to HATE The LEFT HATES The NRA despite the FACT that they support GUN SAFETY and The RIGHT HATES Planned Parenthood even though they do MORE than JUST ABORTION and have done MORE to REDUCE ABORTION than The RIGHT-Wing EVER has by giving people BIRTH CONTROL AND CONDOMS and SUPPORTING sex education that focuses on SAFE SEX instead of that ABSTINENCE BULLSHIT that MANY on the RIGHT SUPPORT ABSTINENCE education does NOT REDUCE ABORTION and MARRIED FEMALES can still get UNWANTED PREGNANCIES SIMPLY WAITING UNTIL MARRIAGE does NOT MAGICALLY PREVENT females from having UNWANTED PREGNANCIES That’s a TOTAL LIE and it should NOT be taught in schools These organizations are treated like bad organizations NOT because they ARE but because The LEFT and RIGHT ALWAYS WANT a BOOGEYMAN to HATE
Back then, my dad would read between the lines, and he taught me to question and research. 30 years later, he turned into a Fox/Sinclair parrot conspiracy theorist. I was so sad.
Defunding schools has certainly helped make sure many people's understanding of the Constitution begins and ends with that excerpt from the 2nd Amendment.
@@Galaar The OTHER amendments are POINTLESS without The 2nd Amendment because without The 2nd Amendment It would be MUCH EASIER for the government to VIOLATE the OTHER amendments
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person,” said Madison. this is the original authors first version of the second amendment before the government hacked it up
Even if that is true, it's irrelevant. The text that was voted on that eventually became the 2nd amendment (your so-called "hacked-up" version) is the only version that is legitimate. Drafts are often corrected or altered in order to achieve a consensus. You're portraying Madison as somehow divinely infallible or pure (a theme covered in the video). The fact that the final version differs from your alleged original draft should indicate to you that Madison's contemporaries and equals did not consider him so. Did Madison vote in favour of, or against, the text as it currently stands? That might also tell you something.
@@cottawalla You make some good points, except that both versions actually have the same basic meaning if you use good reading comprehension. The militias are comprised of individuals and individuals need to be able to own and operated weapons to protect. Same in both. The issue comes that others adaption of the original have left modern people confused, even though the meaning is basically the same. The original is context and context is everything!
@famseymour The final adopted version clearly says that States have the right to retain militias for the purpose of self defence, and to that end the federation of which it is a member shall not prevent the people of a state from bearing arms. State governments may, and do, legislate arms control, but not the federal government. That's very different to the original draft, which effectively says that the people shall not be prevented from bearing arms, neither by the federal government nor any state government. It refers to country rather than state.
It was made for white men in particular during that time. It was not made for us black folks or even for women at the time. Now we all can legally and responsibly own firearms. The problem is lack of representation so anybody on this side of the fence automatically assumes the person who has guns is white, male, conservative, christian, bigoted and unhinged. Those people exist. Remember the Klan in Charlottesville or the Proud Boys? They don't represent the rest of us though. And I believe in protecting vulnerable people against such groups.
@@Chill-mm4pnAs a former 2A nut that conveniently ignored history is one of my biggest problems with the reich wing gun crowd tho, and I for one think it's a big part of what's standing in the way of 2A individual rights actually leading to a decent freedom preserving society the way they claim to want it to. I still believe there's a potential for armed responsible and respectable citizens to serve some kind of check and balance role like the crowd claims and you seem to try to fulfill from the sounds of it, but the turbo alt rightist militia chuds are certainly no help to our rights, they're a massive liability to them. Always good to hear from gun owners that aren't rightist chuds tho. Love it or hate it gun ownership by minorities and liberals and leftists is one of the few actionable ways we can discourage the worst of the far rightist crowd, so they know it's not such a given that we'd be a "soft target" if they ever got the idea to actually try some shit.
There was one school shooting in the UK and the government tightened up gun laws. Since then there hasn't been another school shooting, after guns were essentially banned. Now if you want gun you'll need either a shotgun or rifle licence, a reason why you need one like permission to hunt on a farmers land. It'll need to locked away in a gun safe, and the ammo will need to be locked in a separate ammo safe. Police can come round uninvited to carry out checks that the guns/s and ammo are safely stored.
All I know is that when I see commercials on here for bullet proof backpacks for kids to take to school "just in case" there's a problem in this country with guns.
@@johnlast6066 So make that children and teens, if you insist. But even if you compare the up to 19 yo in the US with other similar countries, the death rate by guns per 100.000 in the US is 5.6, while it’s 0.3 in average industrial nations. In the UK, Germany, the Netherlands and Japan it’s 0,1.
I once ordered something for delivery and kept receiving texts on the status of the delivery. One of the texts said "X is approaching your residence and will...ring bell/leave order in safe location" and I was like "what? I don't need to know this. Why are they telling me this?" Then it hit me, it was to protect the delivery driver from sh*t like this.
As a Canadian, we have access to guns but there are some hoops to jump through. I think the US is bat shit crazy for allowing all this carnage because of some manufactured devotion to their constitution, specifically the 2nd Amendment. Here in Canada we get a lot of US media and I being a bit of a political junkie pay attention to it for the sheer entertainment value. I have noticed that a lot of far-right politicians and pundits are not so devoted to other amendments and like you said cherry-pick the parts they like and advocate for changes or outright removal of the parts they don't like. You never hear Trump or DeSantis, supporters scream from the rooftops when certain media outlets are banned from the White House press room or something similar in other states.
I fear that one day Americans will notice that The Great White North, is just like the US... but free! Might have to build a wall when that time comes 😅
You seem a little bit confused, so let me clarify things for you: Canada is a country that supports mass euthanasia of the poor/mentally ill. Canadian opinions on how "bat shit crazy" the United States is regarding the value of human life go straight into the trash.
@@TheJrr71 different obstacles to social advancement - health insurance in America vs taxes and rent in Canada. Objectively superior passport. Objectively worse weather. No homicide pockets - well, Nunavut is some years as murdery as St. Louis, but, it only takes a few murders with their population for it to look that way. Definitely better place to incorporate. Definitely worse place to develop. Better place to live? Depends. Probably about even for brokes and the rich, and a bit worse, overall, for the middle class, especially employees. Personally, I don't see Canada surviving as a country on the map in the medium run due to its slow failure as a nation since the 1960s, but this is my optimism speaking, another theory is that it will just become increasingly authoritarian as it succumbs to the same geographical determinism that made Russia a secret police state. The failure of Canada as a nation is even something acknowledged by the Prime Minister. Nobody would refer to Somalia as a "post-state nation." It is a failed state. The Somalis know they are Somalis, speak Somali, have their culture, heritage, and lineages close to heart - "the soul of Somalia is poetry" - and are plainly a nation, but did not make a state work, at least not since the 1990s .A "postnational state" is thus plainly a euphemism for a failed nation. You don't see America taking down statues of George Washington. This is not necessarily a bad or a good thing, but it is obviously a thing.
Media outlets being banned from the white house isn't a violation of their free speech. It doesn't stop them from talking. It merely stops them from talking to the presidents officials. They can still write whatever they want as long as they don't slander or libel people.
This is a perfect summation of the religious, emotional core of America's gun culture. I'll add that there is a rational component to it. These people see themselves as belonging to an alpha tribe of real, patriotic, Christian Americans, who need constant protection from the oppressed rabble (then: slaves, natives, now: urban minorities, Muslims, immigrants, etc.) that they fear will rise up against them. They've lost faith in the ability of the police to do this, so they stockpile guns. It's paranoia, but rational within their world view.
"...that they fear will rise up against them." What an eye opener! That line has helped me understand this inexplicable situation. The small men carry big weapons because the minorities who's throats they step on will surely rise up one day to exact revenge. I never thought of guilt as a motivator.
Leeja Miller is a very smart lawyer who frames issues in ways that seem reasonable. On balance what also needs to be considered is why we as a society have many disturbed individuals who misuse any instrument, whether car, knife, or other. What I would ask Leeja to consider is that political systems cycle back and forth and at the moment we are being divided by forces because it benefits those in control, left and right. The 2nd Amendment is not just about self-defense. it is about preventing tyranny if and when history repeats itself. It is clear we need to fix the underlying societal ills that create mass shooters. It is also clear historically that a disarmed population is ripe for exploitation. Here are other factors that must factor into the analysis and while reasonable people can differ in degrees as to how the following considerations should be weighted, no one should be dismissive of these truths: Historic Distrust of Government: History is replete with examples where authoritative governments, under the pretext of maintaining peace, have disarmed citizens only to later oppress them. From Nazi Germany to Stalin's Soviet Union, disarmament has been a precursor to grave human rights abuses. Firearms as Equalizers: In situations where physical strength might dictate the outcome, firearms can serve as equalizers. For women, the elderly, or others at a physical disadvantage, in terms of physical strength in "might makes right" violence scenarios, a firearm can potentially offset this disparity, providing a means of self-defense against potential attackers or abusers. Empowerment and Autonomy: Feminism champions the empowerment and autonomy of women. Firearms, when used responsibly and with appropriate training, can be tools of empowerment, allowing women to take active roles in their own safety and protection against threats. Over-reliance on Government: While governments play a crucial role in maintaining law and order, it's important to be mindful of becoming overly reliant on them for personal security. History shows that governments can fail or become oppressive, making it essential for citizens, especially marginalized groups to have the means to defend themselves. Societal Implications: Advocating for responsible gun ownership and training can help foster a society where potential perpetrators are deterred, knowing that their would-be victims have the means to defend themselves. Respectfully,, disarming the law-abiding leaves them and those they would otherwise protect vulnerable. Do you trust those currently in power to be honest arbiters of what is in the greatest interest of the greatest number? Is Democracy in fact still four wolves and one sheep deciding what to have for dinner? The point of the Bill of Rights, despite its imperfections, is the First Amendment allows sheep to protest what is on the menu. The Second Amendment is there to protect the First.
Good video. I did actually learn some things. :) A favorite fictional law-enforcer liked to say, "Follow the money". Private gun ownership in the USA is an industry worth billions. So it is inevitable that the people making this money wish to keep doing so - meaning a chunk of money put into mass marketing, political influence and media. Amongst other results, the NRA changed - from an organization all about safety and education into this screaming thing whose response to any issue is always "WE NEED MORE GUNS!!!!!!" As an Australian, I can say that Australia's gun laws were generally much tighter than the USA's even before the Port Arthur horror. But it was all being done at the State level, and getting Australia's States to unanimously agree on ANYTHING has always been an uphill battle. So there was a great deal of inconsistency and numerous loopholes - most of which was eliminated after this tragedy. One anecdote from then. The Premier of Queensland (equivalent to a US State Governor) openly supported the new laws despite knowing full well it would cost him an impending election. But, as he said, "It was the right thing to do." Yes, he lost that election, but gained a lot of respect.
Killing the business model though guns are not like cars when they get better and old ones wear out ,guns just put holes in stuff and don't really wear out ,they are small though so you can have cupboards full of them though I guess.if you can't find something better to do with the money.or you could just steal some money for another gun I guess.
as someone who was raised with guns, my 95 year old grandpa has been a lifetime supporter of the NRA. Three of the four men in my family served in the military....i'm using this to preface the fact that i no longer support the guns i was raised around. This problem we have is out of control.....much like a sinking ship, there isnt much you can do besides abandon it or ride it down into the abyss. Fair Winds and following seas....
@@PrimericanIdol False dilemma. Plus you are more likely to die at the hand of your own gun vs actually ever needing it in some stupid what if scenario.
I think the key important difference between Australia and the U.S. is also time period. At the time of Australia's Federation era you had John Stuart Mill, and his macro-ethical frameworks of rule utilitarianism. This deeply influenced the idea of early Australian lawmakers not to see laws as if divinely inspired or crafted from some desire or contemplations of a categorical imperative, but rather at its core recognized the need for laws to be adapted, changed, and that humans are limited in aforethought as to time, place and resources--That humans are only human, and so are their laws. So we have none of that 'Founding Fathers' stuff. Hence why we also have no bill of rights, because the argument being that if laws cannot defend (or not stop) your responsibilities and rights on their own, they do not exist in praxis. We also tend to view 'rights' as inseparable of intellectual duties. You have the right to live in a democracy -> You have a duty to vote, failure to do so is failure to maintain a social contract underpinning democracy. You have freedom of association -> You have a duty to recognize collective bargaining and not impinge the material wellbeing of others in expressing theirs. It's a *very direct* form of rule utilitarianism, with a bit of neoplatonism and collective oneness of a society we (mostly) want to participate in. This can have its darker aspects--Like why when politicians want top appeal to a voter's feelings, they'll use words like 'fair go', 'egalitarianism', etc with the assumption their policies embody it or circumventing structuralist critiques in favour with the *assumption* that things are fine as they are. It tends to bias apathy or the status quo of relations (in that it's very, *very* difficult to understand personal inputs and collective wellbeing in any one moment), rather than making appeals to being the 'better angels of our nature' as your Abraham Lincoln put it so eloquently. But given Australia's seemingly high resistance to the overt right wing reactionaries and 'prelapsarian'/'Clash of Civilizations'/'Liberal end-stage-ism' rhetoric that crops up in Europe, Japan, South Korea or the U.S. and more, maybe I shouldn't be complaining (and yes... I recognize the hypocrisy of this statement and the one above it) ...
In 1774 250 years ago England banned guns/gunpowder in colonial America!! Attempted gun confiscation by 8-900 English soldiers in Mass on April 19-1775 started that 8-year war (1775-1783) for American independence & England almost won that war!! England came back in 1812-1815!!
The bigger issue for me as a Brit who used to have a gun licence for shotguns and a rifle for deer hunting is the need to carry a gun on a shopping trip or in public places in general, that fear of attack by strangers is a societal problem not a gun problem per se, fix your society and maybe there would be less fear and less need to carry guns on a shopping trip. As for someone accidently pressing your doorbell looking for someone, when they have mistaken the address, that as happened to me a couple of times, whereby I have politely pointed out you have the wrong house it's that one 2 doors down your looking for, no need to blast the person in the face for a simple and honest mistake.
We had a very robust federal mental health system in this country, until 1981, when Reagan fucked it all up. Also, he cut federal aid to states for their mental health programs. Unsurprisingly, homelessness, poverty, and street people suffering from mental health issues skyrocketed. The response from him and dragon lady Nancy was, pretty much, “Suck it up, buttercup.” It truly was, “Mourning In America.”
Oh I definitely agree that sentiment. Unfortunately that fear of attack by strangers is too damn deeply rooted and regularly fed by current events and a news cycle that only throws more fuel onto the fire.
Due to the "stand your ground" laws, depending on the state, someone can come to your door to knock, even if they're a delivery person, and you can shoot through your door and kill them, and use "I was afraid for my life" as an excuse, and get away with it, sadly. And many use that excuse to shoot someone out of sheer hate for their gender or color, or other "reasons".
@@user-mn8lz7gf6d Maybe you should find a middle ground, in most places on earth the laws allow for that, but none of the people in this video were being assaulted, they were just afraid or racist.
This is actually not true, I was perusing florida's stand your ground laws quite recently and nowhere can somebody be non-threatening such as a delivery person or a maintenance person and be shot at or subject to deadly violence much less be threatened with deadly violence. A clear and present threat of grievous bodily harm or intentional theft must be present including on the individual's property for a person to so much as threaten lethal force.
Talk about cherry picking in this video and boy did she do a whole lot of it The mass shooting numbers are highly inflated and then she leaves out that more Americans use firearms for self-defense than for homicides. And also conveniently leaves out The anti-gun groups who also support politicians like moms demand action and every town for gun safety.
What is even weirder is that the presence of so many guns on the territory has made the life of policemen absolutely terrible. In most western countries, policemen rarely expect someone over-speeding to be armed and dangerous, but in the US where so many arms are in circulation, this is the default posture. One of my friends (he was French) who was driving in California was forced to pull over because he was driving in the wrong lane, he didn't know about carpooling. When he reached for his car papers and brought them back he found himself in front of a gun muzzle. The policeman had panicked and believed he was looking for a gun.
@@peterrenn6341 True... However, in France, a policeman cannot draw his weapon on his own without a direct order from his superior. The cases when a cop is allowed to fire are so restricted that when it happens it usually hits the news.
@@peterrenn6341 Yet we see time and time again police being too high-strung and shooting someone. Both police and private citizens need to get trained for situations where they may have to use deadly force. However, mandating training without providing it undermines the constitution and turns a right into a privilege that can be withheld. Like in SC several years ago where the county would issue the licenses to certain people but not to others that looked different if you know what I mean.
@@jaredmackey4511 Agreed. And there are many cases here on YT that show real cases where 5 or 6 "Highly Trained Police Officers" simply empty their weapons into a car because ONE officer THOUGHT the driver was reaching for a gun...... (In one such video.... an officer fired ONE shot....why? Because all officers got 3 days leave if they discharged their weapon whilst on duty!)
So helpful to have this whole narrative spelled out. I despise the NRA and the cherry picking of constitutional arguments, but I appreciate you laying out that there’s a lot more to it! Didn’t even know about the Hollywood-ification of the Wild West. Another great video!
EVERYBODY despises the NRA, especially us progun folk They take pro-2a money and don't even *try* to challenge anything legally or pass anything to increase our rights
@@Drygon52 Well the claim they the idea that the 2nd protects an individual is new. The worrying is exactly the same "the right of the people" as in the 1st and 4th amendments so everyone assumed it was an individual right. This includes the supreme Court in Dred Scot decision in 1857. The court said that of Black people had rights it would be impossible to deny them guns. She also claimed that racism caused the "reasonable belief" standard to be adopted. At the time it was almost none of the prior it applied to would have ever seen a Black man. Englishmen rarely did when the common law was being formed. Want more? Oh right the idea that the founders only wanted guns available for the common good. Very windy considering the right applied to all agrees and both sexes and only 18-35 year old males served in the militia. Really if it wasn't a literal rewiring of the facts of Sam incident she got it wrong. Also not one of the cases she listed had saying to do with stand your ground.
Why does this women not have her own network talk show? She’s doing the research and lays out her show so well perfectly. Her ending that’s simply stated clear things wrong, and drawing our quick empathy reminded me of something John Oliver would do.
I can't understand worshipping the constitution. I mean it was literally written at a time when the only people who "mattered" were land owning white men. It's had a bunch of amendments to "fix" parts of it that didn't keep up with changing times. It's so clearly not a perfect, infallible document, and treating it like gospel is just...cringey and weird to me.
What really gets me is that they ABSOLUTELY threw out the ''A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,'' part of the amendment. The militia *IS* the right of the people to bear arms.
Lets phrase this amendment another way so its clear for even the most brain damaged among us. "A well balanced breakfast being essential to a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat oat meal shall not be infringed." Who has the right? The well balanced breakfast or the people? What relevance is a breakfast being "well balanced" have on the right to keep and eat oatmeal?
@@davidjftooley If, as you say, the predatory clause is not relevant, why was it included in the amendment? No other amendment has one. Why did Madison not just write: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”? Surly he knew this would be a more clearly written statement.
@texasflood1295 Because Madison wasn't the only one writing the Constitution. It was an agreement of ideas, not the vision of one person. But, a prefatory clause is still not relevant to the right. I could just as easily say "Because we done like ourselves some guns and cing my cousin nakked.... The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. " and the right would remain unchanged.
Remember that whole exchange when the second amendment was written, where it was determined by one of the writers that it was perfectly acceptable for a private citizen to own a naval cannon? This woman is a shameless statist, and a great example of why we all need to be well armed.
I like your Christian conservative argument. What is odd is that the current court is full of Catholic who don't normally take that line of reasoning. I've felt that the Constitution isn't a suicide pact and it needs to be interpreted to allow states and cities to pass laws about safety.
A well regulated militia was included in the constitution to primarily appease the South and allow Southerners to tragically put down slave revolts. James Madison crafted that language in order to mollify the concerns coming out of Virginia and the anti-Federalists, that they would still have full control over their state militias, and those militias were used in order to quell slave revolts.
@@michaelbrininstool4515 I’d recommend “Madison's Militia: The Hidden History of the Second Amendment” by Carl T. Bogus and “The Second: Race and Guns in a Fatally Unequal America” by Carol Anderson
@@michaelbrininstool4515 what citation is needed? It's common sense. When the second amendment was written, who had guns and who didn't? Why the need for state militias when it proved ineffective during the revolution war? Southern states didn't want a federal control militias because the government could decide not to fund or arm southern states, leaving them defenseless against the slave revolts. They saw what happened in Hati. "Madison knew that the militia's prime function in his state and throughout the south was slave control. His use of the word 'security'... Is consistent that the federal government would not undermine their security against slave insurrection by disarming the militia."-Carl T Bogus "
I live in the Ghetto, where it’s a daily occurrence that crime happens. I’d have to be STUPID not to protect myself & my grandbaby. Absolutely stupid. Most people have no idea what it’s like to be afraid to take out your trash. A 15yo girl was just taken at knife point & threatened with her life. Pepper spray isn’t enough. I will arm myself to protect the LIFE OF A CHILD (& myself) Seriously dumb AF not to.
Personally speaking, i lean to the left, but i believe guns are not inherently evil. Ultimately, the problem is that guns, in the hands of irresponsible people, are dangerous, but when treated with respect and used sensibly, firearms are a powerful and incredibly useful form of tool. To that point, the people depicted in the thumb nail are actually being very responsible with their guns, none of them have magazines in their wells, their barrels are all pointed away from other people, and they’re exercising good trigger discipline. The sight of a whole family sitting happily with guns can definitely be a bit disconcerting, but that’s the way responsible people handle their firearms, and i’d rather they have them than folks who are pointing loaded weapons at the cameraman just to look, “cool,” for the camera.
I agree, but sadly our voices are drowned out by the unhinged bigots and those who are too closed minded to see us as decent people who just happen to be left leaning.
Ironically Germany has its own "stand your ground law" that actually gives much more power to someone acting in self defense. That you can "stand your ground" against unrighteous behaviour for example has always been a fundamental principle of German jurisprudence overall. The difference is that Germany is not an Oligarchy.
It doesn't. German self defense law is incredibly strict - you only have the right to defend yourself up to the level of aggression of the offense (ie, you cannot hit people who throw popcorn at you), you cannot attack fleeing people, and the attack has to be happening right now (you can't just be an easily frightened american that imagines the attack) German self defense laws do not give "much more" power, they're far more restricted and much more sensible than US laws.
@@fy8798 There are some grains of truth in your descriptions but also some rather blatant mistakes. In German self defense law there is for example no consideration regarding the "level of aggression of the offense". But its indeed a common misconception that this would be the case. Example. If such a consideration would exist in German law, then you couldn't punch someone in the face who is robbing you, since in German law the value of property is lower than the value of health. Another example. If such a consideration would exist in German law you couldn't attack your rapist with a knife, since in German law the value of health is lower than the value of life. But in both examples you CAN act in violation of a certain value that is considered HIGHER, due to the violation of a LOWER value. Because the claimed consideration regarding the "level of aggression" simply doesn't exist. There is just one example in the entire German self defense law that leaves a tiny door open for a "blatant disparity". The classic example in jurisprudence is an old man with a gun who shoots children to stop them from stealing his cherries. The value disparity of the cherries against the life of the children is so ridiculous, that the German self defense law creates this special case, that OTHERWISE would be totally legal due to the fact that an actual consideration regarding the "level of aggression" doesn't exist. And yes, there are indeed legal cases where it has been considered self defense by a German court to punch someone in the face who wouldn't stop insulting someone. You can't attack fleeing people, thats true. But you can arrest them by force! The attack has to be happening right now, thats true. But that doesn't mean you cannot argue with being frightened when you misjudge those limits. The German self defense law has even own legal terms for this kind of self defense overreach that is still explicitly considered excusable. "Putative self defense" and "self defense excess". I agree that German law is much more sensible. But thats basically my point. You can have a sensible self defense law, that still allows you a shit ton of freedom to defend yourself. "Sensible" and "restrictive" are not the same.
Germany has much less gun ownership, and has the benefit of not having politicians using rhetoric that encourages people with paranoid delusions from using their guns in inappropriate situations.
@@unconventionalideas5683yes. Germany has a great track record of ignoring paranoid delusions. I hope some day we can achieve such a utopia and unstained history such as Germany.
In Portugal, i grew up thinking America was the shit, that it was the place to be. But now the more i age, the more i realise no, it's actually so dangerous and a bit ridiculous, im sure you guys have so many good things about your country, specially the people, I've met a few American guys/girls and you have such a friendly aura to yourselves. But this gun law thing is scary, your politicians seem to prioritize money over the safety of theire own constituents
So you admit politicians prioritize money over safety, but want us to give up our guns so only the corrupt politicians and their police forces have access to them?
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
One of the things that you didn’t deal with in your discussion was the fact that the 2nd Amendment was written to support the concept of the state militia being one of the main means by which southern states enforced slavery as well as defend against slave rebellion which was fairly common in colonial America. The initial iteration of the 2nd Amendment put the control of the militia under federal control but Patrick Henry argued at the Constitutional Convention that if the militia was under the purview of the federal government that the federal government may not allow the militia to be used in their more common role which was not defend the country but rather to put down slave rebellion as well as recover lost property, i.e. runaway slaves. So this whole notion of having a gun to fight tyranny is rooted in the idea that federal overreach could impede the South’s ability to maintain its economy and “way of life.” One of the other reasons that Henry argued was that a militia under federal control might if the situation dire enough conscript enslaved persons and free blacks. The former would essentially mean the loss of property for wealthy southern landowners and the latter would create a possible subsequent social disruption where an “underclass” with no legal and meaningful social standing would be armed. Once state militias became nationalized, i.e.,The National Guard the need for a 2nd Amendment as it was intended no longer exists.
Former teacher here. Unless you mean homeschooling, don’t do that. It’ll most likely (like 99% likely) increase the anxiety especially when they lockdown for real. Call a child therapist in your area and ask them how they recommend handling the situation.
@@CraigScottFrost Safety drills do not require consent forms. Not only are bullet proof back packs illegal in many areas, back packs in general are often outlawed without notice. Unless you live in a place like Chicago or Philadelphia or other cities where stray bullets on the way to or from school are a problem (which is what they were designed for) that wouldn’t help. At this point the only thing you could do as a parent to prevent playing the Russian Roulette that is public education (mass shootings are only one of the many many bullets in that game) is homeschool. This is coming from a former teacher who homeschools.
@@CraigScottFrost You wanted to know what you could do to avoid school shootings and school shooting drills. Homeschool is the ONLY way to avoid that. Many homeschoolers work multiple jobs and most of us use different remote style school apps on computers and pads, helping when things aren’t clear. Actual instruction time in schools is only about 10-15 minutes per class a day, so roughly two hours a homeschool day covers everything an 8 hour public school day covers and most do it between 7-10 at night. And you don’t have to do it every weekday. Fifteen hours can be divided many ways during a 7 day week. Kids don’t have to go to sleep early when they don’t have to wake at 5 AM for to catch the bus so there’s nothing wrong with night homeschool. One on one teaching is very quick. But it’s definitely not for everyone. Teachers with guns is an excellent answer to school shootings, if people want more dead kids. In the last week I’ve read multiple news stories of principals and teachers being brutally beaten by kids. If the staff had been armed they would’ve either shot the kids or the kids would’ve taken the gun from them. I’ve also watched multiple videos on UA-cam by former teachers who were so overworked and abused by administration they had literal psychotic breaks. I came close myself before my career change after I was ordered to stop reporting felonies being committed by staff that directly resulted in kids being abused in every way possible sometimes resulting in their deaths. Nothing ever happened to the criminals. I was fired for reporting the crimes and teaching victims how to sue the school system. Education is too broken and abusive towards teachers to trust them with firearms for multiple reasons.
@@CraigScottFrost For adults. Check your area in relation to minors. By area that means not only state law but county and city laws. Also check school rules as many schools ban children wearing armor, which bullet proof plates count as. Before you ask why, the answer is almost everything related to school dress codes are arbitrary and devoid of reason and rationality.
I remember when I was in high school. We had to go around neighborhoods to sell tickets. I was with my friend and we went up to this house. We rang the doorbell, and this older white guy opens it. Upon seeing us, he has us wait while he closes the door. We wait, and he comes back. Me, trying to be the greatest salesman ever, asked the guy if he wanted some tickets. He politely said no, so I thanked him while he closed the door. After that, I look at my friend and he's spooked. Turns out, the guy grabbed a gun when he came back, and I had no idea. Thankfully nothing happened, but it was one of many lessons to help me be more aware.
Well except for the fact that, A) Shall not be infringed, means just that. Just because people have RE-interpreted it differently doesn't mean it was meant to be different. The army uses short barreled shotguns for everything, the only reason the courts ruled the other way is because they wanted to punish people. No actual historical founding for it other than that. Short barreled rifles are also very much in common use in military. B) It says "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE" not the militia....
In todays NY Times there is an article about a person in Texas who suddenly and without warning shot their Uber driver in the back of the head (killing them) because the car passed a sign that indicated how many miles away a city in Mexico was. The passenger/ killer panicked thinking they would be kidnapped and driven over the border to Mexico. All due to a road sign. They were on the way to where the passenger/ killer requested to go and were nowhere near the border. Love of guns and fear of Hispanic Americans. The killer will probably get off due to having felt threatened- even though no one was actually threatening her.
Removing the duty to retreat has had tragic consequences...it sends the message that anyone can use a gun based on their "fear" during a given situation...even if the other person is unarmed and poses no immediate threat...every gun owner should support laws which encourage responsible and accountable gun ownership...bring back the duty to retreat.
If I am attacked I have the right to self defense. Requiring me to retreat first is ridiculous. On the other hand, deadly force is only warranted in response to a clear threat of death or gross injury.
The constituation should be rewritten every 100 years, just to modernize it, and give way to add or remove certain things that either dont work, arnt being used anymore, or need to be added to make things more clear.
@user-fk2yk8gg8jI mean yea, it's basically just fundamental principles according to which a government is acknowledged to be governed. Nothing says it can't be rewritten. The Constitution has been amended 27 times before. Do you know what it means to amend the constitution?
@user-fk2yk8gg8j Ok so it's still a constitution after it's been amended. So we can change and rewrite a lot of parts that don't make sense, or don't live up to the modern day. So my original argument still stands.
@user-fk2yk8gg8j Yes a man is still a man even if it's in writing. And a woman is a woman, and a dog is a dog, and a car is a car, and a tree is a tree, if it's all in writing and the law says it is. And until things start getting out of hand and the laws and right need to be changed to prevent the bad things from happening due to those previous rights and laws. Either threw more regulation or less. A man is still a man, and a woman is still a woman, and a dog is a dog, and a car is a car, and a tree is a tree, until otherwise.
This 100%, I don't want to fight fair when my life or the lives of people I care about are in danger. Fighting fair is for movies and fools, in reality do what you need to be the one who survives.
I don't discount the statement of M.G. but a can of pepper spray can also put any person down. Including not making you regret killing another person and incapacitates someone physically stronger. So can a taser. These items are much easier to deploy for protection as well.
@@Sentrme It is not easier to deploy a taser or pepper spray than fire a gun. Tasers and Pepper spray require precision that a firearm doesn't, because you aim for center mass instead of a particular target.
@@Sentrme that's true. good point. guns are much more threatening, though. probably more of a deterrent. I can also be more of an offensive force with a gun since it has a longer range.
Funny that you say "not individual right until recently", the founders in the federalist papers clearly say individual use of guns was protected and needed!
According to this paragraph taken from Federalist No. 46 written by James Madison, the Author of the 2nd Amendment, Why did he write the 2nd Amendment? “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.” - James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
Some girl got into my car by accident I screamed “I’m what the fuck??” Cause I was just parked looking for a place. She immediately exited and was like “oh my god sorry!” and left. No gun no problems Canada ❤
How Canadian, she said "sorry". But you're correct, if you had a gun and had the culture to stand your ground at all costs, you might have shot her. Canadians have lots of guns....mostly hunters. Unfortunately more criminals are using hand guns.
@@jimclarence5441 if I was more reactive yes. We do have guns but many people don’t it’s not something you ever see really. I feel much safer knowing most people don’t.
@@jimclarence5441 if I was more reactive yes. We do have guns but many people don’t it’s not something you ever see really. I feel much safer knowing most people don’t.
In 1774, 250 years ago England banned guns/gunpowder in colonial America!! Then attempted gun confiscation by England in April 1775 started that 8-year war for American independence (1775-1783) & England almost won that war & England came back 1812-1815!!
How does she use and ignore Machiavelli at the same time? Is she arguing we should have military weapons but only in the home? The only people tearing country apart are people who want to send armed groups to disarm peaceful people. No mention of the racial aspect of “gun” violence. How cowardly. Czech Republic has ownership in its charter of rights and they also can purchase same weapons. Same proportion of licensed concealed carry also.
@@hansjanko7966 but she isn’t arguing for automatic weapons in homes is she. They don’t only take them out for “military” use! Why would you make that up? They have the oldest and largest shooting competitions in the world. Private ranges galore.
Bruh that first example got me salty. Also stand your ground cant even apply, there has to be an actual threat. Hope that 84 year old got punished for that
The amendments not hard. It means if there is a need for a well regulated militia to maintain a free republic (there is and likely always will be) the right of the people to bear arms (meaning all of them because the goal is for the people to protect themselves from a tyrannical government and a handgun isn’t doing that) shall not be infringed
Exactly, why is it so hard for people to do unbiased research? Seriously though I check the validity of pro-gun channels because I want to get an unbiased opinion. Eventhough I may agree with what they're saying.
Exactly. I don't understand how people keep forgetting that. I'm fairly left leaning myself, but still pro gun. It is frustrating hearing people who I otherwise mostly agree with, being so misinformed on how the legal purchase of firearms is actually done in this country. You can't just walk in somewhere, give them money and walk out with your boomstick. But apparently that's how many left leaning people seem to think it works. I am glad to see that, over time, more and more left leaning people are buying guns. I hope this is not the case, but we may need them to deter the radical Christian fundies some day. I actually used to work at a gun shop. It's funny, the amount of times that 'good ol boys', rednecks and so on, handled guns improperly and very unsafely, including flagging myself with them on multiple occasions. While usually the new gun owners were much more respectful and cautious.
@@samuelkoebbe5638 It's very nuanced. It depends a lot on who you are, where you live, and from whom you are purchasing from; from a licensed dealer or a private individual. In Pennsylvania a resident can legally buy a long gun from another private individual PA resident who is selling it, all without a state or federal background check; but a handgun would be required to be transferred through a licensed dealer, who preforms a backgroung check. The legal gifting of handguns between spouses, parents/grandparents to children/grandchildren does not need to be done through a licensed dealer; but between sibling would need to be through a licensed dealer. A thing of note when looking at the laws in PA is that, generally long guns (most rifles and shotguns) aren't considered a "firearm" for laws such as Title 18. I believe this is also where the misnamed "gun show loophole" comes up. Gun shows tend to have large numbers of people looking to buy a gun all in the same place at the same time. So as a private individual PA resident with a long gun for sale, it is a convenient place to find a person that would like to buy it; and if they are another private PA resident, no background check is needed. But such a sale could have taken place just about anywhere else in the state; and been arranged through any other means of communication.
@@samuelkoebbe5638 armed leftists unite. I ain't opposed to background checks, but some of these other proposals leftists make only sound good on paper. In practice it will only further price the working class out of the ability to afford firearms and reserve it as a right for rich bureaucrats who can buy their "good moral standing" from the police state
I live in California. The state either the strictest gun laws. But criminals still have guns. How is that? Also, the Los Angeles DA, Gascon, has removed the gun charges from criminal and gang members when they are charged. They need to enforce the laws they have in the books and not cherry pick what laws they do not enforce. BTW I am a Mexican immigrant who served in the military. 🇺🇸
They have them because other states are just a quick drive on the freeway and they can nuy all the guns they want in those loosely-regulated states. If every state had the strict laws, then most criminals wouldn't be able to get their hands on them (especially if we applied the strict laws to ammunition sales" so Mr. Jones, it says here you only legally own a .22 rifle, but you're attempting to buy rounds for a .45 handgun, care to explain why that is to this ATF agent I've called?"). For instance, I'm in NC which has decent background checks/permitting laws. But SC is ~1 hour from my house. My husband's friend was refused a gun-buying permit in NC, so he drove to SC, showed his NC driver's license, and bought five firearms from a single store, then happily drove them all back to NC. The friend is a good guy and almost definitely will not harm anyone. But NC has millions of people who might not be as harmless!
@@Religations “Starting July 1, Floridians will be allowed to carry a concealed weapon without a license if they meet the current requirements needed to obtain a permit, including not having been convicted of a felony or found guilty of a crime relating to controlled substances within a three-year period.” Rob DeSantis passed this without anyone voting on it
@@lisettes.9598 this is FL. The state that doesn’t know how to vote and picks a fight with Mickey Mouse. Look, any headline over the past 20 years that lead with “Florida man/woman” has always been bonkers! You know this is going to be a shit show.
Oh yeah, based on the stuff I saw on the news I would never approach somebody's door unannounced. I don't even know how door-to-door sells people still even feel safe like I don't know how Mormons feel safe. Well maybe because most of them are white but I just I couldn't do it. There's just no way there's just no way of whatever do door to door sales It is not worth my life because someone felt threatened by my existence
Wonderful video & discussion. Another interesting example is Switzerland, with a very active gun culture. “The International Crime Victims Survey conducted in 2004-05 reported that approximately 28.6% of all households in Switzerland owned rifles and 10.3% owned handguns, giving Switzerland the second-highest percentage of firearm ownership in Europe.” However! Switzerland has a “homicide rate of 0.50 per 100,000 population, giving Switzerland one of the lowest homicide rates in the world.” (Both quotes from Wikipedia)
Exactly. Countries like Switzerland. Canada, etc. do a much better job separating the responsible, honest citizens from the irresponsible, ill-intent and dangerous. The proper law structure and licensing requirements goes a long way to the right sorting out and true balance and doing what is necessary to stop mass gun violence breaking society.
I really hadn't thought of how many people see the constitution as holy scripture. It makes so much sense. I am really enjoying your channel. Thank you for all of the information without the weirdness of other lawyer channels.
When they also worship their presidents like gods (That story if Washington who could never tell a lie... Yeah, right... The slave owner who used all the ways to keep his slaves despite they few laws helping them, like changing them of state when the time to let them go was near and who made a revolution to keep being the richest man in the US, but yeah, he was pure and never could tell a lie... Just to say, he got his ass kicked by Canada when he tried to invade), it only goes with it that the constitution is part of their bible and the founding fathers are saints.
@@Benjifan2000 It was legal but also immoral, abolitionists already existed at that time, it was the age of enlightment, people were thinking more of humans' rights, and people with some empathy could already see they were hurting other people. Washington also always tried to bypass the more humane laws that said a slave had to be freed after x years in some states so he was taking those slaves and moving them to another state in another of his properties. It might have somehow been legal like people hiding their fortume in taxe free states or countries but Washington was very immoral and selfish.
@@Benjifan2000 No, like I told you, people were already finding this immoral and made an abolition act about it. It was normal for those who were selfish since the more empathetic people were fighting this by putting laws. From the digital encyclopedia of MountVernon: The Gradual Abolition Act of 1780, the first large-scale abolition law in the Western Hemisphere, was passed by the Pennsylvania General Assembly on March 1, 1780. To appease slave owners, the law gradually emancipated slaves without making slavery immediately illegal. The law allowed Pennsylvania slave owners to keep enslaved individuals they already owned unless they registered them annually. At the same time, the law provided for the eventual freedom of those newly born into slavery. Ironically, the Gradual Abolition Act of 1780 later jeopardized Washington's status as a slave owner. During Washington's residence in Philadelphia, while President of the United States, he instructed his secretary, Tobias Lear, to request an analysis of the emancipation provisions of the Act from Attorney General Edmond Randolph. Based on Randolph's findings, Lear advised Washington to rotate the enslaved workers he had brought from Mount Vernon out of Pennsylvania every six months to prevent their legal emancipation. Washington asked Lear to keep this matter to himself: “I ask that these feelings and this opinion be known only to yourself and Mrs. Washington. 8 He had Mount Vernon's slaves transported across state lines every six months to prevent their legal emancipation. These enslaved people included Washington's cook Hercules, his valet Christopher Sheels, Martha Washington's maid Ona Judge, and other enslaved domestic workers including Moll, Austin, Gilles, and Richmond. So yes, Washington knew what he was doing was bad and he still did it.
Fun fact: Direct sale of military arms to individual citizens is Federal law and Title 36, a program directed by Congress and regularly reviewed by the GAO. Details: ua-cam.com/video/u_-Y7tIpISY/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/5YGb1unu7zs/v-deo.html
I do delivery driver gig work sometimes, but I have not done DoorDash or anything similar in the last few weeks since the recent shootings. I live in the Midwest, so everyone and their mother has a gun. I have in the past knocked on the wrong door, pulled in the wrong driveway and tried to get in a car that looked like mine but wasn’t. I don’t think I deserve to get shot for a mistake and being a small woman, I don’t have much in the way of protection.
Machiavelli wrote at a time of mercenary armies that were virtually a law unto themselves. This is highlighted in his book The Prince written at a time of wars in Italy. The Constitution so needs amending in line with a modern reality but...., good luck with that! Love your site and thank you!
It never surprises how many people will cherry pick the constitution and treat it like it was chiseled from granite. It’s a living document. It needs to breathe.
I've been involved with firearms for a large part of my life, mostly competitive shooting, a byproduct of living in the southern US. I believe there's also a strong dislike of taking any accountability with many people opposed to all firearms regulations. In conversations I've had with people which I cited having a strict gun transfer, licensing, and records system such as Finland's could solve some problems like unregulated individual sales of guns many people give all manner of excuses as to why that's a bad idea. Some say registration of firearms always occur before a dictatorship takes power, or that it tramples on their personal freedom, etc. I what I get from reading between those excuses is that these people want zero accountability in their part. Unfortunately there are 120 firearms in the US per person and an uncountable amount of ammunition as well as incomplete firearms parts that could be assembled into a gun. My realist perspective on gun violence in the US is that even if we banned all firearms today we would keep having rampant violence for probably the next 100 years. In Russia there are still firearms and ammo occasionally showing up which were hidden during the Russian civil war over a century ago, yes ammunition can still work even after all that time. I believe to truly reduce gun violence and violence as whole (because we have have high rates of violence in general) it will take a multi part approach. First a strict registration and licensing system that would require training from a military or police instructor to purchase a weapon or concealed carry license. Next severe punishment for possession of unregistered firearms. Permanent revocation of weapons permits, and a $20,000 fine at minimum, we fine drunk drivers $10,000 after all, both of these endanger the public. And anyone who sells a firearm illegally without going through an ownership transfer would be held accountable for in equal regard for crimes committed by the person they sold it too. We also desperately need to do something about mental health care in the US. Many highly disturbed individuals are able to simply walk into a gun shop and buy a firearm that day with a 15 minute background check to the FBI. If they have no record of criminal activity they're clear to purchase the gun. They have to admit themselves if they have an mental issues that would make it dangerous for them to possess a firearm. Back in college I wanted to be a therapist or social worker. I gave up though after really getting to see how individuals really aren't cared for at all and instead of regular therapy and or having a place to live and be taken care of they are simply prescribed drugs and left to their own devices. Sorry for the rant but I wanted to post what I've been thinking about regarding all of this for years.
Obsessed with guns? Me? Never. I support the 2nd Amendment with passionate verve, even though I haven't owned a firearm in almost 20 years. I support any law abiding citizen with a clean record to own guns. Oh, and i do have a perfect record.
Guns give people (especially those who can only talk a good fight) the illusion of feeling powerful, consequential, not to be ignored, the same as knives, chains, steel pipes... the only difference between a knife and a gun is even the weakest and most cowardly person can follow through on that feeling with a gun in their hand.
@@u4iadreamsExcept the kind of bloke who needs a gun to feel like a man is very particular about the women he forces himself on, he prefers too drunk to fight back, even with a gun, or too trusting about drinks that have been out of their sight for a split second. He'll only give women who look like they might be too difficult a second look if he is with four or five fellow AR15 toting friends.
@@atheistsfightclub6684 It sounds like you're talking about SA. There are so many other circumstances as well. Like... just chilling at home (awake or asleep) when someone breaks in to name just one. But even sticking with SA, I think having a gun would make me "too difficult".
@@swiswach3130 I'm British, and I've visited America 2 times. Once in 2001 and a second time in 2010. In Florida in 2010 I was surprised to see a shop on a side street selling guns as if it was a candy store. For me, coming from a country where we don't have guns, I am horrified by the blase attitude of many Americans to owning and carrying a gun. The amount of gun violence in America definitely deters me from wanting to visit or live in the country. When I was a young British boy I loved and idolised America as the land of the free and home of the brave. Now that I have grown up and understand the reality my opinion of America has massively decreased, and one of the main reasons for that is your gun laws and the terrifying amount of mass shootings in the country. If you are not scared or disturbed by the amount of innocent people getting shot in America then, I'm sorry, I think you love guns more than you love human life. :-(
It is well put together, and with all the insane gun violence we need some kind of regulation, but it also struck me as very much the viewpoint of a white person who does not have to argue with bears. I'm the only white person in my family, and we live in an all white area. When New Years Eve rolled around in 2000 our family was armed and ready in case the threats against our lives turned real. For black folks, having a gun makes white supremacists think twice about following through on threats. Also things are a bit different for country folk like us - rich people with second homes up here tend to feed bears, so we have bear problems now - even a cracker fired from my shotgun didn't give one bear pause when he was tearing out the side of my goat shed to get a goat dinner. It took real bullets and lots of them to get him to finally leave while still hungry. And I'm not too quick to take our Constitution lightly. I've worked with a lot of refugees. When I asked one Eastern European man I was helping how he and his men found the courage to stand against Soviet tanks back in the day, he told me the U.S. Constitution gave them courage. He'd grown up being told that the U.S. only wrote the Constitution once because they got it right the first time. I had no idea how much of an example that thing sets around the world till I started working with these people and saw how much our Constitution inspires them to seek freedom and justice in their own country. Of course - that's why many of them wound up as refugees and once they land here they find out we don't live up to our own hype. But maybe we take that Constitution too much for granted - we shouldn't. Still - school shootings, etc - all this whacko gun fetishizing - we definitely have got to handle that. Of the top 15 gun owning countries in the developed world, we're the only ones who regularly have gun deaths. The other countries all have strict regulations - that should tell us something, shouldn't it?
So well thought out, researched, and presented! Thank you! I think one way the situation can be dealt with is by abandoning the Electoral College (most people actually want reasonable gun control), and applying term limits to the obviously corruptible Supreme Court. The days of politicians and judges voting with their hearts rather than their wallets might even start to come back.
Im so glad to have lived through the two times since the invention of the internet that conservatives had to go online and try to argue that we shouldn't award elections to the candidate with more votes.
Im on the small percentage that believes to either get rid of guns entirely (except for hunting game animals only, or if you are about to fly overseas to fight in a war) or at least have the 19 step system like Japan has for gun control. If you miss just one of those 19 steps, no license and no gun, and have to wait till next year to try again. Thats what Japan has set up. And shootings there are extremely rare.
I support you on the issue of how the United States government should implement the laws, and procedures to obtain a firearm. Approximately, a year ago I obtained my license to carry to a gun in Puerto Rico. I can tell you that it is much more difficult to obtain a license in Puerto Rico than in states like North Carolina,or Georgia where in many occasions it could only take a week to obtain it. The FBI in Puerto Rico takes about a month to investigate for possible criminal records, any gangs associations, or other possible negative situations that may deny the acquisition of the license. I honestly think a mental assessment should be added as a firearm's license requirements. Exist too many people in the United States with mental issues, or mental illnesses who should not have access to a firearm. Many people do not have the total mental capacity to understand when a firearm should be used as the last resort for their own protection. Now, I also support people who obtained the license to carry a weapon for protection. My reasoning behind this is based at the many dangerous areas of the United States where assaults, robberies, and murders occurs, by thugs who obtained firearms without even having the right to one, using underworld connections. So I can tell you that I am against violence, but I am not against citizens with good values who only seek to defend themselves against criminals. 😁👍Changing the subject, I can tell you that I like your UA-cam videos!
Fun fact: in my country (Poland) gun laws are much simpler and there are no insane limitations or bans that plague USA like the ones that make attaching an accessory hand-grip a felony. BUT we do evaluate people who want to have guns - they need to have a sensible reason (being in real, confirmed, over-average danger - very rare since we don't live in a war zone as apparently US citizens in their own country; or "just because" i.e. having a gun hobby - hunting, collecting or sport shooting), they need to be trained and have to pass exams (on the law and on practical SAFE use of firearms) AND have to have a psychiatric evaluation. Result - some gun types are almost completely unrestricted (cap&ball black powder replicas), others require the above mentioned license AND we have no mass shootings and almost zero gun-related accidents (the last one was the moronic chief of the national police who exploded an RPG in his office).
You start out making Poland sound like the epitome of 'gun freedom' and then you do a 180 and say that everyone need permission to own a gun, and then, only for a "reason". Sounds like New York-style "freedom".
No one seems to realize that these morons are right next to Russia if I was them I would be armed to the teeth But their pollocks what the hell do they know That's why they got their asses handed to them war world 2 in under 2 weeks!
So the depiction of the U.S. just being a big warzone is very much so not true. The majority of deaths by firearm in the U.S. are suicide. Of the roughly 30%-40% that are homicides. Let's take Ohio as an example. According to the U.S. CDC, Ohio has 16.5 firearm deaths per 100,000. But, the homicide rate, which accounts for all manners if which, is 9.3 per 100,000. This is sadly an indicator of a lot of suicides but, also shows that you're not likely to be gunned down just walking on the sidewalk. Hell, by statistics, in Ohio, you're over 5 times more likely to die of a drug overdose at 48.1 per 100,000. The grand majority of which, mass shootings included, tend to occur in certain areas of certain cities. The U.S. also has the 3rd largest population in the world at roughly 9 times the population of poland. With literally hundreds of major population centers. Outside of those those areas where crime tends to occur in cities. There are plenty of places that have incredibly low crime rates. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4325838 Edit: autocorrect changed warzone to earshot.
In the Miller case the reason the short barreled shotgun was bannable was because it wasn't commonly used in the military. The flip side of that is that weapons commonly used in the military are not bannable. Today's military uses short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, suppressors.... All those items should be removed from the NFA.
According to this quote from George Mason, what is the purpose of Gun Control in America and who is the party of Slavery? “[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man - who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.” George Mason
The problem with stand your ground laws is you don't have to use common sense. All the old man needed to do, was to ask the boy, " what do you want" that is the common sense thing to do, not just pull the trigger and then tell the police that he was scared to death of the black boy, is why he shot the boy. Common Sense people.
All he had to do was not answer the door and then 'stand his ground' if someone tried to break in. My brain explodes at the thought of knocking someones door and trying to work out what might be considered suspicious in their head and would get me shot.
The comparison between the bible and the constitution is so interesting! Separation of church and state has got to be one of the most basic things a state needs to function properly. Coming from a (not particularly rich) secular country, i can dfinitely say that some of the things that work the best here do so because we're not tethered to some private, self governing institution that does not necessarily have the common good as a priority.
THANK YOU, This is the first time that I have heard anyone state the WHOLE 2nd, usually it is only the second part that is quoted, and THAT is where the problems start. The other problem is that somehow, a lot of people believe that you cannot amend an amendment.
That people want to remove the prohibition of government infringing the right is exactly why it shouldn't be removed, it'd be a horribly dangerous expansion of government power. It does say the right shall not be infringed, it's a right, not a privilege, that means it can be exercised without permission from government. Get stuffed.
Many of friends and I own guns and NONE of them have ever shot anyone. There would be no need for the second amendment if individuals were not allowed to own and carry firearms. If any country does not trust their citizens with guns, then they shouldn’t trust them with weapons as soldiers on the battlefield.
@@ratofvengence look closely at the homicide rates in countries from Mexico all the way to Argentina!!?? Like Rio de Janerio, Sao Paulo Brazil can have 4-500 murders a month!! BTW many Hispanic/Latin/Brazilian folk in America will tell about the crime in Latin America south of the American border! They will say that America is much more safer than any banna republic nation!!! Black Africa has a very, very high murder rate too much, much higher than America!! Most black African countries are extreme danger zones for foriegners!!
Being afraid IS NOT the same as being threatened. The number of people who use fear as a justification for murder and get away with it due to social paranoia should really be more of a concern than it is...
Right. Especially since many white people are afraid of black people, period, regardless of behavior. An objectively reasonable standard is best. If a person is standing on a door step and rings the bell, it is not objectively reasonable for the person inside to fear for their life. The subjective fear of the person inside (because they are paranoid and/or racist for example) should not allow for murder.
You’re absolutely right. Unfortunately, due to a number of systemic reasons, the lizard brain jn Americans will almost never listen to reason lol. Notice how in 2 decades we went from the “well regulated militia” to “anyone should be able to own a sawed off shotgun” and if you talked to a modern conservative, they seem to think this has been the norm since the countries founding. And these are the same people who want to go back to 1950s America lmfaoooo (to be fair, they want the social repression without any of the technological or modern advances being lost)
I'm waiting for the current supreme court to decide that gay panic is a justifiable reason to kill gay people...
a lot of cops use this same excuse.....cant be a brave warrior if you get scared at the drop of a hat
@@keirangrant1607 Good point. Why is it that all those wannabe badasses are so afraid they insist they need a ton of firepower?
The use of “force “ in stand your ground law should be key. Someone ringing a doorbell , standing and waiting is not using force against anyone. So far from self defense.
I agree. Also I feel the, the cases mentioned at the beginning of the video are not evidence that the stand your ground laws or castle laws are not necessary. Do we really expect there to be no self defense cases where the shooting was clearly not justified? In a country of 330 Million people there are always going cases where things go wrong. Self defense does require people making correct choices. It's not a license to kill. Many self-defenses instructors will often warn people that even if they justifiably shoot someone in self-defense, they still might be sued, and will likely spend years in court no matter what, and their life will never really be the same.
These cases haven't even been tried yet
In the context of what a young male Negro is likely to do when waiting by a door late at night, it is self-defense.
I would say that the key should be the use of force or the threat of force. Someone threatening to bash your brain in with a bat while approaching you should be enough, you dont have to wait for the strike.
Castle Doctrine still requires a qualifying felony in order to justify use of force. It merely relieves a "duty to flee" if possible in public spaces, whereas one may put himself in danger within his own home, in turn causing a need for defensive force.
Stand Your Ground laws have existed for a long time as interpreted state ConLaw in places like Kentucky. Their recent statutory enactment in many states is largely a reaction to malicious prosecutions after valid self defense incidents, that in theory doesn't change underlying criteria to use force at all. An unintended consequence has been with mutual encounters by gang bangers, where last man standing claims he was defending himself, even if the reality may be mutually aggressive combat. That's a consequence of corrupt politics and discriminatory drug laws causing a black market with huge financial benefits to lawyers, insurance, and prisons, among others, perpetrated as a fraud n society.
I'm always surprised of how what americans call "lobbying" in the rest of the world we call it "bribing"
Because "lobbying" sound much fancier and chic than saying "bribing" or "corruption"
Because everything in America is an act of corruption, due to our capitalist system. Which is why we Americans are trained at a young age to reverse psychology ourselves in order to deal with and justify the crushing corruption.
Lobbying is one of those words that once had a very specific meaning and now has morphed into a more general term. You probably mean something different by it than the next person does.
But I'll say that we certainly have the right to influence our government. We got some of the worst aspects of the post-Uvalde gun control stripped from the bill by calling our representatives and senators. Still, what remained is bad enough. We are seeing that now as the Biden admin is attempting to twist what IS in that law by creatively reinterpreting it much like the ATF is re-interpreting what is a gun never mind that the language itself in the law hasn't changed but rather what the ATF is SAYING it means has changed. Despite differences on the gun issue, I would think you would agree that suddenly deciding the same words mean something different now than at the time they were enacted is problematic to rule of law and basic fairness. Moreover, these laws are purposely vaguely written by Congressmembers who don't like gun rights specifically so the ATF can worm around like this. There was a court case in the USA checking the EPA's power because they were doing the same as the ATF in this regard. At the heart of it is a Constitutional principle because Congress is supposed to write the bills that become law not the bureaucrats in the executive branch. This is a rather involved discussion, but is really at the heart of much of these problems, and it is called Chevron deference if you want to look it up. Detailing it here would take a lot of space.
10000000%
Lobbying is just legal bribery.
Does anyone remember the Japanese university student who was looking for a Halloween party. He knocked on the wrong door; a woman answered and then screamed. Her husband grabbed a gun and shot the student. Student died.
that's what happens when people aren't educated in when to shoot and when not to shoot.
Her husband is not her husband anymore. He is now someone's bich.
That's Texas for you.
@@joesmith-t2z Louisiana*
@@user-mn8lz7gf6dThose are the people who don't take firearm classes like the rest of us did. They probably bought it, barely take it out to stay proficient , never learned gun safety. They didn't learn that being a gun owner requires being levelheaded and your ego needs to be in check when dealing with others. I was taught to avoid unnecessary situations, to flee first and then call 911 because using a gun is the last option. One where you are unable to flee and imminent danger is present.
When I studied martial arts, my teacher told me about the Philosophy of Force. "When someone confronts you threateningly, your only goal should be to escape the situation using the least amount of force possible. First you Talk. Then you Walk. Then you Run. If none of those resolve the situation, only THEN do you Fight. The duty of those who possess the power to harm others is to avoid using that power at all costs." Anyone who uses force as a first resort is someone not fit to live in society.
Excellent thinking. So the order of events would be: Diplomacy/talk, Flight, and the last resort of Fight. I love this. Thanks.
Same here. My first Karate class 1973, the instructor began by explaining that your first defense is avoiding the trouble to begin with.
Or as Mr miyagi said in cobra kai: no be there
unfortunately being unreasonable/callous is the new normal.
@@user-mn8lz7gf6d That can be solved by putting ppl like that in the ground or in an urn.
Imagine believing you have the right to shoot someone ringing your doorbell.
We have many guns in our home, never once have I felt the need to pull a gun on a person at the door. There was even times we had a rifle near the door.
Uh, the second amendment does not give ANYONE the right to murder people.
The second amendment is NOT and NEVER has been a murder defense.
@nil981 too bad it's being used like one...
Only evil people like you imagines something like that.
@Oh_Ok0 it's not lamo. Do you live even here? You probably don't a make wild claims like this. This rarely happens, its highly frowed upon on, and it's illegal. But keep living in la la land and take your basic rights away and let the goverment tample you.
I just cannot understand the thought process behind shooting someone, who just knocked on your door, without warning, without hearing who they are or anything. How in gods name is that perceived as a "threat"? Reminds me of the guy that threatened a little girl who was selling cookies and the guy started telling her that next time she rang the doorbell, he'd shoot her.
Absolutely insane.
You left out shooting someone through a locked front door.
It's called racism.
@@travelingjohn69 It's called great targeting.
A lot of people have been killed by kids in bigger cities,gangs use them all the time.
There was a recent story in the news about a lady "shot while knocking." In actuality, She was trying to kick down the door.
I visited america for the first time recently. My first night, I was walking and witnessed someone break into a car. All I could think about was myself. What if they're armed and hurt me if I try to get a look at their face to report it? So I just stared forward and kept walking. It felt horrible to be a bystander like that, and I dont think I would have if I wasn't afraid of the threat of firearms. America has so many problems and I dont think they truly realise how bad it is.
The biggest problem is that many of us in the states *are* aware of the many issues surrounding us, but feel so powerless to do anything about it. Especially with how violent a response we've been met with whenever we take to the streets to protest. Exercising our right to protest is absolutely vital and it *should* be safe, but instead we're met with tear gas, riot shields, and unrelenting police brutality.
@@kazeboiii the unfortunate truth. We think we're fighting each other but in reality polling shows wide agreement, but without the money we can't compete.
You shouldn't snitch anyway
@@tankiegirl No you definitely should, or finish the job yourself.
@@kazeboiii This is another reason as to why the people carry weapons
Fun fact. The guy in charge of the fort at the FAR END of the Oregon Trail, been there for years, was so diplomatic he was able to keep peace with the 7 nationalities in the fort, the Spanish, the Russians, the several native tribes in the area, and the Americans! The fort never fired a shot in anger during his tenure. Look him up. Dr. John McLaughlin, Father of Oregon.
Not exactly a gun slinging cowboy.
A person who knew how to use their words!? That's crazy
....and thats what these pudding brained gun fetishist seem to be unable to process. This fuck brained ahistorical idea of everyone in the 19th and 18th century carrying everywhere they went wasn't actually a thing. Outposts, forts, and new settlements, etc al would confiscate any firearms you had on you before entering, never-ending that whole thing where they purposely misread what the 2nd amendment actually says
The mountain named for him is just to the West of me. I'm looking at it now. Climbed it several times over the years.
@@gregvetter5070 My several greats uncle.
Through his half breed wife.
Since I moved out to a more rural area, the service people that come to my house are extremely cautious. The water guy knocked on my door to warn me he was going to work on my tank, and in his words said "so please don't shoot me!" He was trying to make light of it but god, what kind of insane world are we living in?
The world in WHiCH politicians JUDGES prosecutors put criminals back on the street no MATTER WHAT they do.
¿The USA? This is not a universal fear...
I lived in a rural area and the electric meter reader used to use a spotting scope to read people's meters rather than approach very closely. A spotting scope is a telescope of a type favored by target shooters, that can give you a very clear, magnified view from maybe 30-100 meters away.
I live in Kansas, this never happens.
If that's true, it's recent. I lived in outstate MN and outstate AZ most of my life, and never worried about being shot by my neighbors. The Border Patrol, maybe. Some of them are trigger happy idiots. But not my neighbors.
Swiss Citizen here. We have in Switzerland percentage wise almost the same amount of weapons in private hands as Americans. But we have very few gun crimes in general. No school shootings or anything. You know why? Because we treat each other with respect and compassion.
I also bet that you, in Switzerland, don't coddle violent criminals. We certainly do in the USA, especially in states like mine. It is a rare homicide in California that doesn't end with the reporter saying and the suspect has a long history of violent crime. But the answer of the state government is never to keep those who've proved themselves capable of wanton violence behind bars for the safety of the rest of us, rather they always pass more gun control laws. If they were really, as they claim they are, interested in public safety they'd not let tens of thousands of violent people run loose on the streets.
In 1774 250 years ago England banned guns/gunpowder in colonial America!! Attempted gun confiscation by 8-900 English soldiers in Mass. on April 19-1775 started that 8-year war for American independence (1775-1783) & England almost won that war!! England came back in 1812-1815!!
Yeah it's probably also a mindset thing. Isn't Switzlerand one of those countries rated with highest happiness or something? A lot of shooters have some form of mental issue whether that be trauma or mental illness or whatever but if that happen less, the same result happens: less gun crime if there's no motive.
@@mariustan9275 it's not a mental health issue if that's what you're getting at.
The entire planet has a mental health crisis.
It’s just weird anyway, and I’m American.
I can understand people having 1 gun, I can’t understand people having an arsenal in their houses.
It’s because of gun violence that my husband and I have seriously considered leaving the country. We have two kids, and we don’t believe we can count on their safety anymore. It breaks my heart that we can’t feel safe in our own country.
If Trump becomes president again, expect a mass exidis from America
@@gregmayo6987 Exodus? lol
Where exactly would you go? You are unlikely to get into Australia, here in Europe its much worse unless you are rich enough to own a castle and send your kids to Eton etc. So you're moving to Canada?
@@tobiasmccallum9697 where the hell in Europe are you?!
@@jp783 You understand the term "I'm going to wet you up?" Getting mugged at knifepoint in my country is as common as learning to ride a bike, it's just part of life for kids
IF you are persuing someone you do NOT fear for your life. Stand your ground laws give murderers the license to kill.
Literally no one is defending the people mentioned at the beginning of this video. All of their actions were illegal, and of the dozens of gun owners I know, every last one of them would gladly see those people go to prison.
@@smileychessthe laws as they stand embolden killers to kill. That’s a fact. End of story. States where stand your ground goes into effect objectively see a rise in gun deaths. Sure, these psychos may go to jail for it because they still broke the law, but the law itself is what directly influences these people. They’re pleading not guilty for a reason, because they have enough reason and logic to think that they’re interpreting the law correctly. Those people are dead because one one thought they were legally entitled to kill them. That’s the issue, the fact that there is even a trial is the problem, killing people out of FEAR not out of THREAT
@bonglee66 - Can you? I spend a LOT of time around 2A advocates and gun owners. Misusing, mishandling, or illegally brandishing firearms is grounds to be shamed to the highest degree.
Stand your ground laws do not. Stop talking about topics you clearly don't understand.
@@smileychess
It's also illegal
Port Arthur was horrific. My brother was in the same class as one of the victims. She’d gone on holiday with her mum. Then there was Alannah and Madeline- they were hunted down! So yes! We were very keen to not have a repeat. And we haven’t. This is why Australians as a whole just don’t understand why America won’t do anything to stop it. Like ‘thoughts and prayers’ achieves anything! 💔
Viewed from the outside - from Australia - the situation in the US is utterly psychotic (and not just in terms of guns violence).
I'm an American who was at Port Arthur six months before, fortunately for me. And I agree that many Americans are absolutely nuts on gun issues. What can I say?
That was a Mos-sad and C.I.A. Operation to disarm it's Citizens , Wake up and stop drinking the cool aid .
C.i.a has been caught so many times using False flags , setting up crazy people with radical Ideologies , And enticing them to 'gun free zones" . Please stop being biased because of mainstream media blowing smoke up your arse .
And look at the Aussies now ? They are killing all of you slowly , you cannot even go down the street anymore before you are attacked by "men" and women with guns , Give me a Break .
@@danielcarroll3358 Yep yer Nutz !
Did you see all the Yemenis Children dead from the U.N. and the U.S.?
Yep we hired 12 year old boys from Darfur trained them gave them fully automatic weapons to fight on the front line in Yemen , so many dead Children , I guess that's called stand your Ground and give me your tax money to disarm you and get attack by who ?? .
HOWEVER WE NEED AMERICA TO GET RID OF YOUR GUNS , BORDERS OPENED AND RUSSIA AND CHINA IS GOING TO Attack , so lets hand in those firearms and bend over rover .👍
Good times , feeding emotional propaganda to make us soft and ready for the taking . I Love China , Good times .
B.T.W my Wife is very upset seeing so many weak willed Women .
She Loves her Glock's , Good Times .🙏
After one of the mass shootings, Chris Hayes on MSNBC made a passing description of all this gunplay as “sacrifices to Moloch.” Call me crazy (heck, I think it’s a crazy idea), but at this point maybe the young man was “on” to something…?
We are living under the tyranny of the past. All laws should be reviewed and updated regularly.
Thomas Jefferson himself said the constitution should be completely scrapped and rewritten every few years to prevent this.
As was said by the founding fathers, but people conveniently forget that
"We are living under the tyranny of the past." I love this. Well said.
We are living under the tyranny of the reinvention of the past. The 'originalists' invented that term to empower their personal, contemporary whims. That is why they ignore the past and rewrite laws to force their will on the majority.
Love what you said❤
6:44 The 16th century, back when guns were rare, expensive, and could only fire one shot before needing at least half a minute to reload.
In America, you are supposed to receive due process in the Courts and proportionate punishments. But citizens can summarily execute a person on suspicion of a property crime. Crazy!
Due process has never existed in America it is a myth.
Not to mention the militarized police becoming the judge, jury and executioner.
@@kathrynpupos9103 why we need the 2nd Amendment, especially if you're Black. You can't trust the police not courts for protection.
Honestly, i don't even think that we are that bitterly divided on the issue of gun control. Studies have shown that a majority of gun owners support stricter gun control laws (not banning all guns but stricter laws) but they are being overshadowed by the very loud, obnoxious and, frankly, murderous "get off my lawn" crowd. (Not gonna link but you can literally type "gun owners support gun control" in any search engine and it'll pop up)
Edit: sorry, hadn't gotten to that bit of the video yet!
You are being overshadowed by the gun manufacturing companies that make money through the sales. If being vocal affected change we'd live in a different world. The wingnuts are just another tool of capital. Another illusion of an enemy. I'm willing to bet Democrats would not even bring a bill to vote that had a chance of passing to restrict gun distribution. The people most responsible you will never meet and don't need to speak, they pay people to do it for them.
all they need to do is actually enforce the laws. they exist. they just dont care
Its the loud ppl but its also massive lobbying and propagandizing. Its the money that stops or neuters sensible legislation.
@@cherylbrown-m4i bullshit. I live in Missouri and it's legal for me to buy an AK off a homeless man with nothing more than two signatures on a Starbucks napkin.
so why do they want to ban the AR platform when the majority of gun deaths come from hand guns ?
I live in the area that the girls were shot in. It was a terrifying event for our county, and even though I live about 30 minutes away I never do u-turns in parking lots or nearby houses anymore
According to THE NEW YORK TIMES, four states - Tennessee, along with Arizona, Georgia and Virginia - enacted laws in 2010 that explicitly allows loaded guns in bars. Again: loaded guns carried by patrons in bars and restaurants serving alcohol is legal in parts of the USA.
Freedom, its delicious.
@@nashvegas4476 needing to carry a gun everywhere you go in your own country is the opposite of freedom. reflect on that.
@@nashvegas4476carrying gun to protect yourself feels awesome
@@robdoe5433 Exactly.
@@nashvegas4476 You're feasting on a lot of innocent dead bodies that BEFORE they were born ya'll supposedly cared so much about. We judge you all for very good reasons. Thinking what you wrote being some incredible and funny turn of a phrase is just one more iron the rest of us throw on the fire at this point and if that judgement makes you resentmentful... My answer is for you to live. That's all. Live... Another two, three, four decades. Squeeze the juices out of life. And then, while aged and surrounded by your loved ones and friends such as they are... Please shuffle off this mortal coil STILL being resentful that others thought your character, intelligence, judgement and morals were all trash. We all know that's what nearly every angle you guys take on every conceivable issue boils down to that anyway.
My best friend in grade school and my maternal grandmother both died by gun "accidents."
At 61, almost 62 years old, I cannot stand guns, don't want one near me, have no desire to own one and wish they didn't exist. I've suffered quite enough from those freaking things.
Haha, glad those idiots checked themselves out of the gene pool. They either weren't acting safely or had poorly maintained or cheap ass guns.
The utter, literal INSANITY of this obsession with guns is beyond me. I swear half the people in this country are raving lunatics.
@@Serai3lunatics should not have access to "GUNS", Period,,,.
@@tneita3166 Seeing as how there's no way to know when someone will be subject to the stresses that snap a mind, a safer guideline would be "NO ONE should have access to guns, period." But of course sanity cannot be allowed to rule the day.
The gun is the symptom, not the cause, so it's not logical to have an aversion to all of them.
As an Australian we also have to have a license to own and use guns and if you’re found to do things against that you’ll have your guns taken away by the authorities. It makes me feel really safe
Fellow Aussie and same. I got told recently that us Aussies are actually jealous of American freedoms. Like we're really not. "you're jealous you can't keep yourself safe" from what, crazed gunmen? Don't have that problem here buddy
@@katerrinah5442 yeah, what on earth do they possibly think we are jealous of? We're perfectly happy with things the way they are re: the gun situation here, thank you very much!
You always know somebody has no idea what is actually going on when they accuse you of being jealous of them.
@@philbydeeWhat y'all are describing is the bat shit lunacy gun-humping culture that has been allowed to be promoted in this country. The second amendment should have been repealed as soon as we had a full, standing military. I, personally, am envious of the swift and decisive action governments like yours and NZ took after mass shootings. We need legislators with balls here that will refuse to take money from the gun lobbyists and actually give a shit about what the citizens want. Public safety is just one of their responsibilities they consistently ignore.
Sincerely,
A jealous American.
@@philbydee One of the most disgusting things about Americans is that they have this incredibly stupid self-sucking belief that everyone in the world wants to be them. (Speaking as an American sick to death of HUAH jingo boys and girls.)
@@katerrinah5442as an American I think it’s the other way. I’m so jealous that Australia was able to reform gun laws and the statistics prove that gun reform is effective. Many Americans believe that owning a gun is so the government can’t become tyrannical. I always tell them that it made sense when the second amendment was written but nowadays if the us government becomes tyrannical they have access to drones and fighter jets like seriously how is a firearm suppose to counter a drone strike? I hate the second amendment and the bloodshed that it allows and nothing being done.
The problem is that the criminal will always have access to weapons. No matter how restricted the law is.
When you want to ban guns, you are not disarming the criminal. You are disarming the victims.
In Europe, criminals also have access to weapons. Even when there have been gun shootings in Denmark and Sweden, people feel safe and if someone wants a weapon, you need training and a licence. The shootings have been between criminal gangs.
@@word20 Sure, people in France felt especially safe this summer.
@@gr4tisfactionyh people are afraid in switzerland where everyone has a gun 😂
But another problem is that in countries like the UK and Japan, both of which have strict gun laws, have much less gun violence.
Even if criminals disregard the law it's still harder to get guns when they aren't sold in a public store. They have to go locate an actual gun dealer, meet up, try not to get caught on the way, and then they have a weapon. Probably more steps but it's still more complicated than just buying one from a gun store.
@@mariustan9275 But there is yet another problem. What do you care about, the general level of violence or specifically the level of gun violence? If the murderer didn't have a gun and stabbed the victim with a kitchen knife, would it make you feel better? I assume that no. Therefore, it makes sense to talk about the general level of violence, and not any specific one. Moreover, in order not to exclude self-defense cases, it makes sense to consider only cases of aggression performed by criminals.
Surprisingly, there is absolutely no correlation between gun laws and crime rates. You know, there is such a country called Switzerland. It has some of the most permissive gun laws and one of the lowest crime rates. And yet there is Chicago, for example, with the opposite situation.
And yes, life in Japan is actually quite calm, which I would not say about the UK though, but this has less to do with their gun laws and more to do with their immigration policy.
When I was a kid, the NRA was a pretty good organization, mostly teaching gun safety and catering to collectors. In 1975 I got a questionnaire from them: “We want to know your thoughts on gun rights.” It consisted of three “questions”: 1) True or False, the US Constitution says “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” 2) True or False, the Constitution is the law of the land. 3) I want to support the NRA with the following contribution…
The NRA is to The LEFT what Planned Parenthood is to The RIGHT A SCAPEGOAT Neither The NRA NOR PLANNED PARENTHOOD are BAD organizations but they are BOTH SCAPEGOATED because BOTH The LEFT AND The RIGHT believe they need a BOOGEYMAN to HATE The LEFT HATES The NRA despite the FACT that they support GUN SAFETY and The RIGHT HATES Planned Parenthood even though they do MORE than JUST ABORTION and have done MORE to REDUCE ABORTION than The RIGHT-Wing EVER has by giving people BIRTH CONTROL AND CONDOMS and SUPPORTING sex education that focuses on SAFE SEX instead of that ABSTINENCE BULLSHIT that MANY on the RIGHT SUPPORT ABSTINENCE education does NOT REDUCE ABORTION and MARRIED FEMALES can still get UNWANTED PREGNANCIES SIMPLY WAITING UNTIL MARRIAGE does NOT MAGICALLY PREVENT females from having UNWANTED PREGNANCIES That’s a TOTAL LIE and it should NOT be taught in schools These organizations are treated like bad organizations NOT because they ARE but because The LEFT and RIGHT ALWAYS WANT a BOOGEYMAN to HATE
Back then, my dad would read between the lines, and he taught me to question and research. 30 years later, he turned into a Fox/Sinclair parrot conspiracy theorist. I was so sad.
@@dolliscrawford280 😢
Defunding schools has certainly helped make sure many people's understanding of the Constitution begins and ends with that excerpt from the 2nd Amendment.
@@Galaar The OTHER amendments are POINTLESS without The 2nd Amendment because without The 2nd Amendment It would be MUCH EASIER for the government to VIOLATE the OTHER amendments
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person,” said Madison. this is the original authors first version of the second amendment before the government hacked it up
Even if that is true, it's irrelevant. The text that was voted on that eventually became the 2nd amendment (your so-called "hacked-up" version) is the only version that is legitimate. Drafts are often corrected or altered in order to achieve a consensus. You're portraying Madison as somehow divinely infallible or pure (a theme covered in the video). The fact that the final version differs from your alleged original draft should indicate to you that Madison's contemporaries and equals did not consider him so. Did Madison vote in favour of, or against, the text as it currently stands? That might also tell you something.
@@cottawalla You make some good points, except that both versions actually have the same basic meaning if you use good reading comprehension. The militias are comprised of individuals and individuals need to be able to own and operated weapons to protect. Same in both. The issue comes that others adaption of the original have left modern people confused, even though the meaning is basically the same. The original is context and context is everything!
@famseymour The final adopted version clearly says that States have the right to retain militias for the purpose of self defence, and to that end the federation of which it is a member shall not prevent the people of a state from bearing arms. State governments may, and do, legislate arms control, but not the federal government.
That's very different to the original draft, which effectively says that the people shall not be prevented from bearing arms, neither by the federal government nor any state government. It refers to country rather than state.
It was made for white men in particular during that time. It was not made for us black folks or even for women at the time. Now we all can legally and responsibly own firearms. The problem is lack of representation so anybody on this side of the fence automatically assumes the person who has guns is white, male, conservative, christian, bigoted and unhinged. Those people exist. Remember the Klan in Charlottesville or the Proud Boys? They don't represent the rest of us though. And I believe in protecting vulnerable people against such groups.
@@Chill-mm4pnAs a former 2A nut that conveniently ignored history is one of my biggest problems with the reich wing gun crowd tho, and I for one think it's a big part of what's standing in the way of 2A individual rights actually leading to a decent freedom preserving society the way they claim to want it to. I still believe there's a potential for armed responsible and respectable citizens to serve some kind of check and balance role like the crowd claims and you seem to try to fulfill from the sounds of it, but the turbo alt rightist militia chuds are certainly no help to our rights, they're a massive liability to them.
Always good to hear from gun owners that aren't rightist chuds tho. Love it or hate it gun ownership by minorities and liberals and leftists is one of the few actionable ways we can discourage the worst of the far rightist crowd, so they know it's not such a given that we'd be a "soft target" if they ever got the idea to actually try some shit.
There was one school shooting in the UK and the government tightened up gun laws. Since then there hasn't been another school shooting, after guns were essentially banned. Now if you want gun you'll need either a shotgun or rifle licence, a reason why you need one like permission to hunt on a farmers land. It'll need to locked away in a gun safe, and the ammo will need to be locked in a separate ammo safe. Police can come round uninvited to carry out checks that the guns/s and ammo are safely stored.
All I know is that when I see commercials on here for bullet proof backpacks for kids to take to school "just in case" there's a problem in this country with guns.
Fun fact: schools are gun free zones. Nice try
To a European, it is utterly incomprehensible that people wouldn’t do anything about the #1 cause of death of their children.
I love America, but if I could, I'd move to Europe...
To be fair. They don't care about adults, children, animals, or the planet either.
@@DruCypher Sad, but hard to argue against.
Guns aren't the number 1 death for children. That study includes 18 and 19 year Olds which are 30 percent of the deaths. You know adults.
@@johnlast6066 So make that children and teens, if you insist. But even if you compare the up to 19 yo in the US with other similar countries, the death rate by guns per 100.000 in the US is 5.6, while it’s 0.3 in average industrial nations. In the UK, Germany, the Netherlands and Japan it’s 0,1.
I once ordered something for delivery and kept receiving texts on the status of the delivery. One of the texts said "X is approaching your residence and will...ring bell/leave order in safe location" and I was like "what? I don't need to know this. Why are they telling me this?" Then it hit me, it was to protect the delivery driver from sh*t like this.
As a Canadian, we have access to guns but there are some hoops to jump through. I think the US is bat shit crazy for allowing all this carnage because of some manufactured devotion to their constitution, specifically the 2nd Amendment. Here in Canada we get a lot of US media and I being a bit of a political junkie pay attention to it for the sheer entertainment value. I have noticed that a lot of far-right politicians and pundits are not so devoted to other amendments and like you said cherry-pick the parts they like and advocate for changes or outright removal of the parts they don't like. You never hear Trump or DeSantis, supporters scream from the rooftops when certain media outlets are banned from the White House press room or something similar in other states.
Cheers from the Pacific West Coast of Canada.
I fear that one day Americans will notice that The Great White North, is just like the US... but free!
Might have to build a wall when that time comes 😅
You seem a little bit confused, so let me clarify things for you: Canada is a country that supports mass euthanasia of the poor/mentally ill. Canadian opinions on how "bat shit crazy" the United States is regarding the value of human life go straight into the trash.
@@TheJrr71 different obstacles to social advancement - health insurance in America vs taxes and rent in Canada. Objectively superior passport. Objectively worse weather. No homicide pockets - well, Nunavut is some years as murdery as St. Louis, but, it only takes a few murders with their population for it to look that way. Definitely better place to incorporate. Definitely worse place to develop. Better place to live? Depends. Probably about even for brokes and the rich, and a bit worse, overall, for the middle class, especially employees. Personally, I don't see Canada surviving as a country on the map in the medium run due to its slow failure as a nation since the 1960s, but this is my optimism speaking, another theory is that it will just become increasingly authoritarian as it succumbs to the same geographical determinism that made Russia a secret police state.
The failure of Canada as a nation is even something acknowledged by the Prime Minister. Nobody would refer to Somalia as a "post-state nation." It is a failed state. The Somalis know they are Somalis, speak Somali, have their culture, heritage, and lineages close to heart - "the soul of Somalia is poetry" - and are plainly a nation, but did not make a state work, at least not since the 1990s .A "postnational state" is thus plainly a euphemism for a failed nation. You don't see America taking down statues of George Washington. This is not necessarily a bad or a good thing, but it is obviously a thing.
Media outlets being banned from the white house isn't a violation of their free speech. It doesn't stop them from talking. It merely stops them from talking to the presidents officials. They can still write whatever they want as long as they don't slander or libel people.
This is a perfect summation of the religious, emotional core of America's gun culture. I'll add that there is a rational component to it. These people see themselves as belonging to an alpha tribe of real, patriotic, Christian Americans, who need constant protection from the oppressed rabble (then: slaves, natives, now: urban minorities, Muslims, immigrants, etc.) that they fear will rise up against them. They've lost faith in the ability of the police to do this, so they stockpile guns. It's paranoia, but rational within their world view.
Facts..💯
"...that they fear will rise up against them."
What an eye opener! That line has helped me understand this inexplicable situation. The small men carry big weapons because the minorities who's throats they step on will surely rise up one day to exact revenge. I never thought of guilt as a motivator.
Leeja Miller is a very smart lawyer who frames issues in ways that seem reasonable. On balance what also needs to be considered is why we as a society have many disturbed individuals who misuse any instrument, whether car, knife, or other. What I would ask Leeja to consider is that political systems cycle back and forth and at the moment we are being divided by forces because it benefits those in control, left and right. The 2nd Amendment is not just about self-defense. it is about preventing tyranny if and when history repeats itself. It is clear we need to fix the underlying societal ills that create mass shooters. It is also clear historically that a disarmed population is ripe for exploitation. Here are other factors that must factor into the analysis and while reasonable people can differ in degrees as to how the following considerations should be weighted, no one should be dismissive of these truths:
Historic Distrust of Government: History is replete with examples where authoritative governments, under the pretext of maintaining peace, have disarmed citizens only to later oppress them. From Nazi Germany to Stalin's Soviet Union, disarmament has been a precursor to grave human rights abuses.
Firearms as Equalizers: In situations where physical strength might dictate the outcome, firearms can serve as equalizers. For women, the elderly, or others at a physical disadvantage, in terms of physical strength in "might makes right" violence scenarios, a firearm can potentially offset this disparity, providing a means of self-defense against potential attackers or abusers.
Empowerment and Autonomy: Feminism champions the empowerment and autonomy of women. Firearms, when used responsibly and with appropriate training, can be tools of empowerment, allowing women to take active roles in their own safety and protection against threats.
Over-reliance on Government: While governments play a crucial role in maintaining law and order, it's important to be mindful of becoming overly reliant on them for personal security. History shows that governments can fail or become oppressive, making it essential for citizens, especially marginalized groups to have the means to defend themselves.
Societal Implications: Advocating for responsible gun ownership and training can help foster a society where potential perpetrators are deterred, knowing that their would-be victims have the means to defend themselves.
Respectfully,, disarming the law-abiding leaves them and those they would otherwise protect vulnerable. Do you trust those currently in power to be honest arbiters of what is in the greatest interest of the greatest number?
Is Democracy in fact still four wolves and one sheep deciding what to have for dinner? The point of the Bill of Rights, despite its imperfections, is the First Amendment allows sheep to protest what is on the menu. The Second Amendment is there to protect the First.
Good video. I did actually learn some things. :)
A favorite fictional law-enforcer liked to say, "Follow the money". Private gun ownership in the USA is an industry worth billions. So it is inevitable that the people making this money wish to keep doing so - meaning a chunk of money put into mass marketing, political influence and media. Amongst other results, the NRA changed - from an organization all about safety and education into this screaming thing whose response to any issue is always "WE NEED MORE GUNS!!!!!!"
As an Australian, I can say that Australia's gun laws were generally much tighter than the USA's even before the Port Arthur horror. But it was all being done at the State level, and getting Australia's States to unanimously agree on ANYTHING has always been an uphill battle. So there was a great deal of inconsistency and numerous loopholes - most of which was eliminated after this tragedy.
One anecdote from then. The Premier of Queensland (equivalent to a US State Governor) openly supported the new laws despite knowing full well it would cost him an impending election. But, as he said, "It was the right thing to do." Yes, he lost that election, but gained a lot of respect.
Killing the business model though guns are not like cars when they get better and old ones wear out ,guns just put holes in stuff and don't really wear out ,they are small though so you can have cupboards full of them though I guess.if you can't find something better to do with the money.or you could just steal some money for another gun I guess.
as someone who was raised with guns, my 95 year old grandpa has been a lifetime supporter of the NRA. Three of the four men in my family served in the military....i'm using this to preface the fact that i no longer support the guns i was raised around. This problem we have is out of control.....much like a sinking ship, there isnt much you can do besides abandon it or ride it down into the abyss. Fair Winds and following seas....
as someone with guns, it is absurd how easy it is to get guns.
Well, the NRA used to be sane and was about gun control, not the 2nd A.
Ok then, become helpless and empower the criminals who WILL be using these weapons against you.
@@rudyardganuelas6254 What are you talking about? It's not as easy as people think. And in some states, it's as hard as it is in some other countries.
@@PrimericanIdol False dilemma. Plus you are more likely to die at the hand of your own gun vs actually ever needing it in some stupid what if scenario.
I think the key important difference between Australia and the U.S. is also time period.
At the time of Australia's Federation era you had John Stuart Mill, and his macro-ethical frameworks of rule utilitarianism.
This deeply influenced the idea of early Australian lawmakers not to see laws as if divinely inspired or crafted from some desire or contemplations of a categorical imperative, but rather at its core recognized the need for laws to be adapted, changed, and that humans are limited in aforethought as to time, place and resources--That humans are only human, and so are their laws.
So we have none of that 'Founding Fathers' stuff.
Hence why we also have no bill of rights, because the argument being that if laws cannot defend (or not stop) your responsibilities and rights on their own, they do not exist in praxis.
We also tend to view 'rights' as inseparable of intellectual duties.
You have the right to live in a democracy -> You have a duty to vote, failure to do so is failure to maintain a social contract underpinning democracy.
You have freedom of association -> You have a duty to recognize collective bargaining and not impinge the material wellbeing of others in expressing theirs.
It's a *very direct* form of rule utilitarianism, with a bit of neoplatonism and collective oneness of a society we (mostly) want to participate in.
This can have its darker aspects--Like why when politicians want top appeal to a voter's feelings, they'll use words like 'fair go', 'egalitarianism', etc with the assumption their policies embody it or circumventing structuralist critiques in favour with the *assumption* that things are fine as they are.
It tends to bias apathy or the status quo of relations (in that it's very, *very* difficult to understand personal inputs and collective wellbeing in any one moment), rather than making appeals to being the 'better angels of our nature' as your Abraham Lincoln put it so eloquently.
But given Australia's seemingly high resistance to the overt right wing reactionaries and 'prelapsarian'/'Clash of Civilizations'/'Liberal end-stage-ism' rhetoric that crops up in Europe, Japan, South Korea or the U.S. and more, maybe I shouldn't be complaining (and yes... I recognize the hypocrisy of this statement and the one above it) ...
In 1774 250 years ago England banned guns/gunpowder in colonial America!! Attempted gun confiscation by 8-900 English soldiers in Mass on April 19-1775 started that 8-year war (1775-1783) for American independence & England almost won that war!! England came back in 1812-1815!!
The bigger issue for me as a Brit who used to have a gun licence for shotguns and a rifle for deer hunting is the need to carry a gun on a shopping trip or in public places in general, that fear of attack by strangers is a societal problem not a gun problem per se, fix your society and maybe there would be less fear and less need to carry guns on a shopping trip.
As for someone accidently pressing your doorbell looking for someone, when they have mistaken the address, that as happened to me a couple of times, whereby I have politely pointed out you have the wrong house it's that one 2 doors down your looking for, no need to blast the person in the face for a simple and honest mistake.
We had a very robust federal mental health system in this country, until 1981, when Reagan fucked it all up. Also, he cut federal aid to states for their mental health programs. Unsurprisingly, homelessness, poverty, and street people suffering from mental health issues skyrocketed. The response from him and dragon lady Nancy was, pretty much, “Suck it up, buttercup.” It truly was, “Mourning In America.”
Oh I definitely agree that sentiment. Unfortunately that fear of attack by strangers is too damn deeply rooted and regularly fed by current events and a news cycle that only throws more fuel onto the fire.
do you know how much more pevalent crime is in the US?
Due to the "stand your ground" laws, depending on the state, someone can come to your door to knock, even if they're a delivery person, and you can shoot through your door and kill them, and use "I was afraid for my life" as an excuse, and get away with it, sadly.
And many use that excuse to shoot someone out of sheer hate for their gender or color, or other "reasons".
Brain rot
that's not true.
counterpoint: people who are being threatened and/or assaulted shoot that person and get charged with murder.
is that better?
@@user-mn8lz7gf6d Maybe you should find a middle ground, in most places on earth the laws allow for that, but none of the people in this video were being assaulted, they were just afraid or racist.
@@user-mn8lz7gf6dWhat are you talking about?
This is actually not true, I was perusing florida's stand your ground laws quite recently and nowhere can somebody be non-threatening such as a delivery person or a maintenance person and be shot at or subject to deadly violence much less be threatened with deadly violence.
A clear and present threat of grievous bodily harm or intentional theft must be present including on the individual's property for a person to so much as threaten lethal force.
Talk about cherry picking in this video and boy did she do a whole lot of it The mass shooting numbers are highly inflated and then she leaves out that more Americans use firearms for self-defense than for homicides. And also conveniently leaves out The anti-gun groups who also support politicians like moms demand action and every town for gun safety.
What is even weirder is that the presence of so many guns on the territory has made the life of policemen absolutely terrible. In most western countries, policemen rarely expect someone over-speeding to be armed and dangerous, but in the US where so many arms are in circulation, this is the default posture. One of my friends (he was French) who was driving in California was forced to pull over because he was driving in the wrong lane, he didn't know about carpooling. When he reached for his car papers and brought them back he found himself in front of a gun muzzle. The policeman had panicked and believed he was looking for a gun.
- and the policeman is the one with the training which is probably the only reason he didn't pull the trigger
@@peterrenn6341 True... However, in France, a policeman cannot draw his weapon on his own without a direct order from his superior. The cases when a cop is allowed to fire are so restricted that when it happens it usually hits the news.
@@peterrenn6341 Yet we see time and time again police being too high-strung and shooting someone. Both police and private citizens need to get trained for situations where they may have to use deadly force. However, mandating training without providing it undermines the constitution and turns a right into a privilege that can be withheld. Like in SC several years ago where the county would issue the licenses to certain people but not to others that looked different if you know what I mean.
@@jaredmackey4511 Agreed.
And there are many cases here on YT that show real cases where 5 or 6 "Highly Trained Police Officers" simply empty their weapons into a car because ONE officer THOUGHT the driver was reaching for a gun......
(In one such video.... an officer fired ONE shot....why? Because all officers got 3 days leave if they discharged their weapon whilst on duty!)
@@lesfreresdelaquote1176 it only takes a second for someone to pull a gun and let one off.
'hold on, let me get approval from my supervisor '
So helpful to have this whole narrative spelled out. I despise the NRA and the cherry picking of constitutional arguments, but I appreciate you laying out that there’s a lot more to it! Didn’t even know about the Hollywood-ification of the Wild West. Another great video!
EVERYBODY despises the NRA, especially us progun folk
They take pro-2a money and don't even *try* to challenge anything legally or pass anything to increase our rights
She got pretty much everyone wrong. Why appreciate it?
Please tell us what she got wrong
@@Drygon52 Well the claim they the idea that the 2nd protects an individual is new. The worrying is exactly the same "the right of the people" as in the 1st and 4th amendments so everyone assumed it was an individual right. This includes the supreme Court in
Dred Scot decision in 1857. The court said that of Black people had rights it would be impossible to deny them guns.
She also claimed that racism caused the "reasonable belief" standard to be adopted. At the time it was almost none of the prior it applied to would have ever seen a Black man. Englishmen rarely did when the common law was being formed. Want more? Oh right the idea that the founders only wanted guns available for the common good. Very windy considering the right applied to all agrees and both sexes and only 18-35 year old males served in the militia. Really if it wasn't a literal rewiring of the facts of Sam incident she got it wrong.
Also not one of the cases she listed had saying to do with stand your ground.
Reeeeeeeee
Why does this women not have her own network talk show?
She’s doing the research and lays out her show so well perfectly.
Her ending that’s simply stated clear things wrong, and drawing our quick empathy reminded me of something John Oliver would do.
I think we have more than enough partisan hacks in the media right now thank you very much.
I think your second line answers your first.
I can't understand worshipping the constitution. I mean it was literally written at a time when the only people who "mattered" were land owning white men. It's had a bunch of amendments to "fix" parts of it that didn't keep up with changing times. It's so clearly not a perfect, infallible document, and treating it like gospel is just...cringey and weird to me.
What really gets me is that they ABSOLUTELY threw out the ''A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,'' part of the amendment. The militia *IS* the right of the people to bear arms.
Your post is contradictory. Want to try again?
What does it mean to have a well regulated militia?
Lets phrase this amendment another way so its clear for even the most brain damaged among us.
"A well balanced breakfast being essential to a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat oat meal shall not be infringed."
Who has the right? The well balanced breakfast or the people? What relevance is a breakfast being "well balanced" have on the right to keep and eat oatmeal?
@@davidjftooley If, as you say, the predatory clause is not relevant, why was it included in the amendment? No other amendment has one. Why did Madison not just write: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”? Surly he knew this would be a more clearly written statement.
@texasflood1295 Because Madison wasn't the only one writing the Constitution. It was an agreement of ideas, not the vision of one person.
But, a prefatory clause is still not relevant to the right. I could just as easily say "Because we done like ourselves some guns and cing my cousin nakked.... The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. " and the right would remain unchanged.
Remember that whole exchange when the second amendment was written, where it was determined by one of the writers that it was perfectly acceptable for a private citizen to own a naval cannon?
This woman is a shameless statist, and a great example of why we all need to be well armed.
Agreed
2nd amendment aside, the right to own weapons precedes all other rights.
All political power comes from the barrel of a gun.
I like your Christian conservative argument. What is odd is that the current court is full of Catholic who don't normally take that line of reasoning. I've felt that the Constitution isn't a suicide pact and it needs to be interpreted to allow states and cities to pass laws about safety.
And if it doesn’t allow the reasonable safety of the citizenry, it should be amended appropriately
@@oldvlognewtricks Get after it. LOL 38 states to ratify.
@@LeeQuessenberry First, 38 states would have to value the health and safety of the citizenry…
@@oldvlognewtricks And?
@@LeeQuessenberry
They don't
A well regulated militia was included in the constitution to primarily appease the South and allow Southerners to tragically put down slave revolts. James Madison crafted that language in order to mollify the concerns coming out of Virginia and the anti-Federalists, that they would still have full control over their state militias, and those militias were used in order to quell slave revolts.
Free the South
Well, I would love to see a citation or two on that. The framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have written otherwise.
@@michaelbrininstool4515
I’d recommend
“Madison's Militia: The Hidden History of the Second Amendment” by Carl T. Bogus
and
“The Second: Race and Guns in a Fatally Unequal America” by Carol Anderson
Those slaves weren’t nearly as docile, happy and stupid as some people would have us believe🤷🏾
@@michaelbrininstool4515 what citation is needed? It's common sense. When the second amendment was written, who had guns and who didn't? Why the need for state militias when it proved ineffective during the revolution war?
Southern states didn't want a federal control militias because the government could decide not to fund or arm southern states, leaving them defenseless against the slave revolts. They saw what happened in Hati.
"Madison knew that the militia's prime function in his state and throughout the south was slave control. His use of the word 'security'... Is consistent that the federal government would not undermine their security against slave insurrection by disarming the militia."-Carl T Bogus
"
I live in the Ghetto, where it’s a daily occurrence that crime happens. I’d have to be STUPID not to protect myself & my grandbaby. Absolutely stupid.
Most people have no idea what it’s like to be afraid to take out your trash. A 15yo girl was just taken at knife point & threatened with her life. Pepper spray isn’t enough.
I will arm myself to protect the LIFE OF A CHILD (& myself) Seriously dumb AF not to.
Yes, but do you use a pistol or semiautomatic rifle?
@@kellharris2491 Like most people, I assume she uses a semi-automatic pistol
@violamateo If the government can be trusted to have nukes, why not?
@@violamateo- if you had good Gun Control laws, theoretically, there is no limit
Gun Control laws don't work the way you think they do
In other words a poverty issue that can be solved by alleviating the circumstances that created poverty.
Personally speaking, i lean to the left, but i believe guns are not inherently evil. Ultimately, the problem is that guns, in the hands of irresponsible people, are dangerous, but when treated with respect and used sensibly, firearms are a powerful and incredibly useful form of tool. To that point, the people depicted in the thumb nail are actually being very responsible with their guns, none of them have magazines in their wells, their barrels are all pointed away from other people, and they’re exercising good trigger discipline. The sight of a whole family sitting happily with guns can definitely be a bit disconcerting, but that’s the way responsible people handle their firearms, and i’d rather they have them than folks who are pointing loaded weapons at the cameraman just to look, “cool,” for the camera.
I agree, but sadly our voices are drowned out by the unhinged bigots and those who are too closed minded to see us as decent people who just happen to be left leaning.
Ironically Germany has its own "stand your ground law" that actually gives much more power to someone acting in self defense.
That you can "stand your ground" against unrighteous behaviour for example has always been a fundamental principle of German jurisprudence overall.
The difference is that Germany is not an Oligarchy.
It doesn't. German self defense law is incredibly strict - you only have the right to defend yourself up to the level of aggression of the offense (ie, you cannot hit people who throw popcorn at you), you cannot attack fleeing people, and the attack has to be happening right now (you can't just be an easily frightened american that imagines the attack)
German self defense laws do not give "much more" power, they're far more restricted and much more sensible than US laws.
@@fy8798 There are some grains of truth in your descriptions but also some rather blatant mistakes.
In German self defense law there is for example no consideration regarding the "level of aggression of the offense".
But its indeed a common misconception that this would be the case. Example. If such a consideration would exist in German law, then you couldn't punch someone in the face who is robbing you, since in German law the value of property is lower than the value of health. Another example. If such a consideration would exist in German law you couldn't attack your rapist with a knife, since in German law the value of health is lower than the value of life. But in both examples you CAN act in violation of a certain value that is considered HIGHER, due to the violation of a LOWER value. Because the claimed consideration regarding the "level of aggression" simply doesn't exist.
There is just one example in the entire German self defense law that leaves a tiny door open for a "blatant disparity". The classic example in jurisprudence is an old man with a gun who shoots children to stop them from stealing his cherries. The value disparity of the cherries against the life of the children is so ridiculous, that the German self defense law creates this special case, that OTHERWISE would be totally legal due to the fact that an actual consideration regarding the "level of aggression" doesn't exist.
And yes, there are indeed legal cases where it has been considered self defense by a German court to punch someone in the face who wouldn't stop insulting someone.
You can't attack fleeing people, thats true. But you can arrest them by force!
The attack has to be happening right now, thats true. But that doesn't mean you cannot argue with being frightened when you misjudge those limits. The German self defense law has even own legal terms for this kind of self defense overreach that is still explicitly considered excusable.
"Putative self defense" and "self defense excess".
I agree that German law is much more sensible. But thats basically my point.
You can have a sensible self defense law, that still allows you a shit ton of freedom to defend yourself.
"Sensible" and "restrictive" are not the same.
Germany has much less gun ownership, and has the benefit of not having politicians using rhetoric that encourages people with paranoid delusions from using their guns in inappropriate situations.
Yes. I always look to Germany as an example to avoid fascism.
@@unconventionalideas5683yes. Germany has a great track record of ignoring paranoid delusions. I hope some day we can achieve such a utopia and unstained history such as Germany.
In Portugal, i grew up thinking America was the shit, that it was the place to be. But now the more i age, the more i realise no, it's actually so dangerous and a bit ridiculous, im sure you guys have so many good things about your country, specially the people, I've met a few American guys/girls and you have such a friendly aura to yourselves. But this gun law thing is scary, your politicians seem to prioritize money over the safety of theire own constituents
So you admit politicians prioritize money over safety, but want us to give up our guns so only the corrupt politicians and their police forces have access to them?
Yes, we are not a country free for citizens; we are free for corporations and wealth hoarders. ❤ Live well, friend
You too friend, hope things there improve
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
One of the things that you didn’t deal with in your discussion was the fact that the 2nd Amendment was written to support the concept of the state militia being one of the main means by which southern states enforced slavery as well as defend against slave rebellion which was fairly common in colonial America. The initial iteration of the 2nd Amendment put the control of the militia under federal control but Patrick Henry argued at the Constitutional Convention that if the militia was under the purview of the federal government that the federal government may not allow the militia to be used in their more common role which was not defend the country but rather to put down slave rebellion as well as recover lost property, i.e. runaway slaves. So this whole notion of having a gun to fight tyranny is rooted in the idea that federal overreach could impede the South’s ability to maintain its economy and “way of life.” One of the other reasons that Henry argued was that a militia under federal control might if the situation dire enough conscript enslaved persons and free blacks. The former would essentially mean the loss of property for wealthy southern landowners and the latter would create a possible subsequent social disruption where an “underclass” with no legal and meaningful social standing would be armed. Once state militias became nationalized, i.e.,The National Guard the need for a 2nd Amendment as it was intended no longer exists.
Glad you typed this because I was going to comment the same thing.
State militias to defend against slave revolts.
My 4yo has to do active shooter drills at preschool & it scares him so much that I’m keeping him home next time.
Former teacher here. Unless you mean homeschooling, don’t do that. It’ll most likely (like 99% likely) increase the anxiety especially when they lockdown for real. Call a child therapist in your area and ask them how they recommend handling the situation.
@@AngryPug76 Active shooter drills and 4 years old should not belong in the same sentence.
@@CraigScottFrost Safety drills do not require consent forms. Not only are bullet proof back packs illegal in many areas, back packs in general are often outlawed without notice. Unless you live in a place like Chicago or Philadelphia or other cities where stray bullets on the way to or from school are a problem (which is what they were designed for) that wouldn’t help.
At this point the only thing you could do as a parent to prevent playing the Russian Roulette that is public education (mass shootings are only one of the many many bullets in that game) is homeschool. This is coming from a former teacher who homeschools.
@@CraigScottFrost You wanted to know what you could do to avoid school shootings and school shooting drills. Homeschool is the ONLY way to avoid that. Many homeschoolers work multiple jobs and most of us use different remote style school apps on computers and pads, helping when things aren’t clear. Actual instruction time in schools is only about 10-15 minutes per class a day, so roughly two hours a homeschool day covers everything an 8 hour public school day covers and most do it between 7-10 at night. And you don’t have to do it every weekday. Fifteen hours can be divided many ways during a 7 day week. Kids don’t have to go to sleep early when they don’t have to wake at 5 AM for to catch the bus so there’s nothing wrong with night homeschool. One on one teaching is very quick. But it’s definitely not for everyone.
Teachers with guns is an excellent answer to school shootings, if people want more dead kids. In the last week I’ve read multiple news stories of principals and teachers being brutally beaten by kids. If the staff had been armed they would’ve either shot the kids or the kids would’ve taken the gun from them. I’ve also watched multiple videos on UA-cam by former teachers who were so overworked and abused by administration they had literal psychotic breaks. I came close myself before my career change after I was ordered to stop reporting felonies being committed by staff that directly resulted in kids being abused in every way possible sometimes resulting in their deaths. Nothing ever happened to the criminals. I was fired for reporting the crimes and teaching victims how to sue the school system.
Education is too broken and abusive towards teachers to trust them with firearms for multiple reasons.
@@CraigScottFrost For adults. Check your area in relation to minors. By area that means not only state law but county and city laws. Also check school rules as many schools ban children wearing armor, which bullet proof plates count as. Before you ask why, the answer is almost everything related to school dress codes are arbitrary and devoid of reason and rationality.
I remember when I was in high school. We had to go around neighborhoods to sell tickets. I was with my friend and we went up to this house. We rang the doorbell, and this older white guy opens it.
Upon seeing us, he has us wait while he closes the door. We wait, and he comes back. Me, trying to be the greatest salesman ever, asked the guy if he wanted some tickets. He politely said no, so I thanked him while he closed the door. After that, I look at my friend and he's spooked.
Turns out, the guy grabbed a gun when he came back, and I had no idea. Thankfully nothing happened, but it was one of many lessons to help me be more aware.
Well except for the fact that, A) Shall not be infringed, means just that. Just because people have RE-interpreted it differently doesn't mean it was meant to be different. The army uses short barreled shotguns for everything, the only reason the courts ruled the other way is because they wanted to punish people. No actual historical founding for it other than that. Short barreled rifles are also very much in common use in military. B) It says "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE" not the militia....
In todays NY Times there is an article about a person in Texas who suddenly and without warning shot their Uber driver in the back of the head (killing them) because the car passed a sign that indicated how many miles away a city in Mexico was. The passenger/ killer panicked thinking they would be kidnapped and driven over the border to Mexico. All due to a road sign. They were on the way to where the passenger/ killer requested to go and were nowhere near the border. Love of guns and fear of Hispanic Americans. The killer will probably get off due to having felt threatened- even though no one was actually threatening her.
Could have been a knife.
@@YorktownUSA WHAT could have been a knife?
@@kindnessfirst9670 the persons action did not stem from the gun.
Removing the duty to retreat has had tragic consequences...it sends the message that anyone can use a gun based on their "fear" during a given situation...even if the other person is unarmed and poses no immediate threat...every gun owner should support laws which encourage responsible and accountable gun ownership...bring back the duty to retreat.
If I am attacked I have the right to self defense. Requiring me to retreat first is ridiculous.
On the other hand, deadly force is only warranted in response to a clear threat of death or gross injury.
The constituation should be rewritten every 100 years, just to modernize it, and give way to add or remove certain things that either dont work, arnt being used anymore, or need to be added to make things more clear.
@user-fk2yk8gg8jI mean yea, it's basically just fundamental principles according to which a government is acknowledged to be governed.
Nothing says it can't be rewritten. The Constitution has been amended 27 times before.
Do you know what it means to amend the constitution?
@user-fk2yk8gg8j Ok so it's still a constitution after it's been amended. So we can change and rewrite a lot of parts that don't make sense, or don't live up to the modern day.
So my original argument still stands.
@user-fk2yk8gg8j What did people have in 1775 that people in 2023 have?
@user-fk2yk8gg8j Yes a man is still a man even if it's in writing. And a woman is a woman, and a dog is a dog, and a car is a car, and a tree is a tree, if it's all in writing and the law says it is.
And until things start getting out of hand and the laws and right need to be changed to prevent the bad things from happening due to those previous rights and laws. Either threw more regulation or less. A man is still a man, and a woman is still a woman, and a dog is a dog, and a car is a car, and a tree is a tree, until otherwise.
I'm a woman. I am at a physical disadvantage pretty much everywhere. with a gun, I am strong and I am equal to a man.
If I had daughters I'd teach them how to handle themselves with a firearm. It's the great equalizer.
This 100%, I don't want to fight fair when my life or the lives of people I care about are in danger. Fighting fair is for movies and fools, in reality do what you need to be the one who survives.
I don't discount the statement of M.G. but a can of pepper spray can also put any person down. Including not making you regret killing another person and incapacitates someone physically stronger. So can a taser. These items are much easier to deploy for protection as well.
@@Sentrme It is not easier to deploy a taser or pepper spray than fire a gun. Tasers and Pepper spray require precision that a firearm doesn't, because you aim for center mass instead of a particular target.
@@Sentrme that's true. good point. guns are much more threatening, though. probably more of a deterrent. I can also be more of an offensive force with a gun since it has a longer range.
Funny that you say "not individual right until recently", the founders in the federalist papers clearly say individual use of guns was protected and needed!
According to this paragraph taken from Federalist No. 46 written by James Madison, the Author of the 2nd Amendment, Why did he write the 2nd Amendment?
“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.”
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
Some girl got into my car by accident I screamed “I’m what the fuck??” Cause I was just parked looking for a place. She immediately exited and was like “oh my god sorry!” and left. No gun no problems Canada ❤
How Canadian, she said "sorry". But you're correct, if you had a gun and had the culture to stand your ground at all costs, you might have shot her. Canadians have lots of guns....mostly hunters. Unfortunately more criminals are using hand guns.
@@jimclarence5441 if I was more reactive yes. We do have guns but many people don’t it’s not something you ever see really. I feel much safer knowing most people don’t.
@@jimclarence5441 if I was more reactive yes. We do have guns but many people don’t it’s not something you ever see really. I feel much safer knowing most people don’t.
In 1774, 250 years ago England banned guns/gunpowder in colonial America!! Then attempted gun confiscation by England in April 1775 started that 8-year war for American independence (1775-1783) & England almost won that war & England came back 1812-1815!!
How does she use and ignore Machiavelli at the same time?
Is she arguing we should have military weapons but only in the home?
The only people tearing country apart are people who want to send armed groups to disarm peaceful people.
No mention of the racial aspect of “gun” violence. How cowardly.
Czech Republic has ownership in its charter of rights and they also can purchase same weapons. Same proportion of licensed concealed carry also.
An example for having the military weapons only at home and they are not allowed to take them out, but just for military exercises is Switzerland
@@hansjanko7966 but she isn’t arguing for automatic weapons in homes is she.
They don’t only take them out for “military” use! Why would you make that up?
They have the oldest and largest shooting competitions in the world.
Private ranges galore.
Bruh that first example got me salty. Also stand your ground cant even apply, there has to be an actual threat. Hope that 84 year old got punished for that
What a difference a typo makes. It really was about giving permission to wear sleeveless garments. What a multitude of lives could have been saved
Let’s not forget the NRA backed California banning guns after the black panthers marched onto the capitol building in Sacramento while carrying guns
The amendments not hard. It means if there is a need for a well regulated militia to maintain a free republic (there is and likely always will be) the right of the people to bear arms (meaning all of them because the goal is for the people to protect themselves from a tyrannical government and a handgun isn’t doing that) shall not be infringed
US citizen here. I've met people here who think owning guns is a 'God given right'. Several people have said that to me.
Yeah thats super common.
I'd like to know which God gave them that right. I know the God I worship wouldn't give me that right, and for good reason.
Because it is! 😂
Can't handle the freedom and guns of the USA than move to a gunphobics country.
would love the same people prove the existence of a god in a court of law. Let alone the pros and cons of free for all gun ownership
Yes because the Constitution protects our natural rights, it doesn't give us our rights
This is a great analysis about a difficult subject, thank you 😊
Well, it IS what I expected. I'm genuinely confused - what did most people expect?
@Leeja Miller
We already have background checks. You do them for every individual gun you purchase. It's called the Form 4473.
Exactly, why is it so hard for people to do unbiased research? Seriously though I check the validity of pro-gun channels because I want to get an unbiased opinion. Eventhough I may agree with what they're saying.
Exactly. I don't understand how people keep forgetting that. I'm fairly left leaning myself, but still pro gun. It is frustrating hearing people who I otherwise mostly agree with, being so misinformed on how the legal purchase of firearms is actually done in this country. You can't just walk in somewhere, give them money and walk out with your boomstick. But apparently that's how many left leaning people seem to think it works.
I am glad to see that, over time, more and more left leaning people are buying guns. I hope this is not the case, but we may need them to deter the radical Christian fundies some day.
I actually used to work at a gun shop. It's funny, the amount of times that 'good ol boys', rednecks and so on, handled guns improperly and very unsafely, including flagging myself with them on multiple occasions. While usually the new gun owners were much more respectful and cautious.
@@samuelkoebbe5638 It's very nuanced. It depends a lot on who you are, where you live, and from whom you are purchasing from; from a licensed dealer or a private individual.
In Pennsylvania a resident can legally buy a long gun from another private individual PA resident who is selling it, all without a state or federal background check; but a handgun would be required to be transferred through a licensed dealer, who preforms a backgroung check.
The legal gifting of handguns between spouses, parents/grandparents to children/grandchildren does not need to be done through a licensed dealer; but between sibling would need to be through a licensed dealer. A thing of note when looking at the laws in PA is that, generally long guns (most rifles and shotguns) aren't considered a "firearm" for laws such as Title 18.
I believe this is also where the misnamed "gun show loophole" comes up. Gun shows tend to have large numbers of people looking to buy a gun all in the same place at the same time. So as a private individual PA resident with a long gun for sale, it is a convenient place to find a person that would like to buy it; and if they are another private PA resident, no background check is needed. But such a sale could have taken place just about anywhere else in the state; and been arranged through any other means of communication.
@@samuelkoebbe5638 armed leftists unite. I ain't opposed to background checks, but some of these other proposals leftists make only sound good on paper. In practice it will only further price the working class out of the ability to afford firearms and reserve it as a right for rich bureaucrats who can buy their "good moral standing" from the police state
@@Chudchanning Exactly
I live in California. The state either the strictest gun laws. But criminals still have guns. How is that? Also, the Los Angeles DA, Gascon, has removed the gun charges from criminal and gang members when they are charged. They need to enforce the laws they have in the books and not cherry pick what laws they do not enforce. BTW I am a Mexican immigrant who served in the military. 🇺🇸
They have them because other states are just a quick drive on the freeway and they can nuy all the guns they want in those loosely-regulated states. If every state had the strict laws, then most criminals wouldn't be able to get their hands on them (especially if we applied the strict laws to ammunition sales" so Mr. Jones, it says here you only legally own a .22 rifle, but you're attempting to buy rounds for a .45 handgun, care to explain why that is to this ATF agent I've called?"). For instance, I'm in NC which has decent background checks/permitting laws. But SC is ~1 hour from my house. My husband's friend was refused a gun-buying permit in NC, so he drove to SC, showed his NC driver's license, and bought five firearms from a single store, then happily drove them all back to NC. The friend is a good guy and almost definitely will not harm anyone. But NC has millions of people who might not be as harmless!
Very nervous as I live in Florida. July 1 is going to be a very very scary day and every day going forward.
Wait I live in FL. What's going on?
@@Religations “Starting July 1, Floridians will be allowed to carry a concealed weapon without a license if they meet the current requirements needed to obtain a permit, including not having been convicted of a felony or found guilty of a crime relating to controlled substances within a three-year period.” Rob DeSantis passed this without anyone voting on it
@@Jennzelnick I’m gonna be sick
@@Jennzelnick you do realize states like AZ, Alaska, and Kansas allow concealed carry and are doing just fine?
@@lisettes.9598 this is FL. The state that doesn’t know how to vote and picks a fight with Mickey Mouse. Look, any headline over the past 20 years that lead with “Florida man/woman” has always been bonkers! You know this is going to be a shit show.
America, the land of the fearful. A true dystopia.
In the USA, it's no longer safe to knock on a stranger's door. I can't remember the last time anyone but a delivery person approached my house.
Oh yeah, based on the stuff I saw on the news I would never approach somebody's door unannounced. I don't even know how door-to-door sells people still even feel safe like I don't know how Mormons feel safe. Well maybe because most of them are white but I just I couldn't do it. There's just no way there's just no way of whatever do door to door sales It is not worth my life because someone felt threatened by my existence
Congress DESPERATELY need to hear ALL OF THIS!!!
Wonderful video & discussion. Another interesting example is Switzerland, with a very active gun culture. “The International Crime Victims Survey conducted in 2004-05 reported that approximately 28.6% of all households in Switzerland owned rifles and 10.3% owned handguns, giving Switzerland the second-highest percentage of firearm ownership in Europe.” However! Switzerland has a “homicide rate of 0.50 per 100,000 population, giving Switzerland one of the lowest homicide rates in the world.” (Both quotes from Wikipedia)
Exactly. Countries like Switzerland. Canada, etc. do a much better job separating the responsible, honest citizens from the irresponsible, ill-intent and dangerous. The proper law structure and licensing requirements goes a long way to the right sorting out and true balance and doing what is necessary to stop mass gun violence breaking society.
No country can just do an endless anarchy free for all like what's going on in the U.S.
I really hadn't thought of how many people see the constitution as holy scripture. It makes so much sense. I am really enjoying your channel. Thank you for all of the information without the weirdness of other lawyer channels.
When they also worship their presidents like gods (That story if Washington who could never tell a lie... Yeah, right... The slave owner who used all the ways to keep his slaves despite they few laws helping them, like changing them of state when the time to let them go was near and who made a revolution to keep being the richest man in the US, but yeah, he was pure and never could tell a lie... Just to say, he got his ass kicked by Canada when he tried to invade), it only goes with it that the constitution is part of their bible and the founding fathers are saints.
@spacecat6022 Yea, because owning slaves at a time when it was legal is totally a legitimate criticism.
@@Benjifan2000 It was legal but also immoral, abolitionists already existed at that time, it was the age of enlightment, people were thinking more of humans' rights, and people with some empathy could already see they were hurting other people. Washington also always tried to bypass the more humane laws that said a slave had to be freed after x years in some states so he was taking those slaves and moving them to another state in another of his properties. It might have somehow been legal like people hiding their fortume in taxe free states or countries but Washington was very immoral and selfish.
@@spacecat6022 Calling someone immoral and selfish for doing something that is completely legal and normal for their time is the weirdest thing ever.
@@Benjifan2000 No, like I told you, people were already finding this immoral and made an abolition act about it. It was normal for those who were selfish since the more empathetic people were fighting this by putting laws. From the digital encyclopedia of MountVernon:
The Gradual Abolition Act of 1780, the first large-scale abolition law in the Western Hemisphere, was passed by the Pennsylvania General Assembly on March 1, 1780. To appease slave owners, the law gradually emancipated slaves without making slavery immediately illegal. The law allowed Pennsylvania slave owners to keep enslaved individuals they already owned unless they registered them annually. At the same time, the law provided for the eventual freedom of those newly born into slavery.
Ironically, the Gradual Abolition Act of 1780 later jeopardized Washington's status as a slave owner. During Washington's residence in Philadelphia, while President of the United States, he instructed his secretary, Tobias Lear, to request an analysis of the emancipation provisions of the Act from Attorney General Edmond Randolph. Based on Randolph's findings, Lear advised Washington to rotate the enslaved workers he had brought from Mount Vernon out of Pennsylvania every six months to prevent their legal emancipation. Washington asked Lear to keep this matter to himself: “I ask that these feelings and this opinion be known only to yourself and Mrs. Washington. 8 He had Mount Vernon's slaves transported across state lines every six months to prevent their legal emancipation. These enslaved people included Washington's cook Hercules, his valet Christopher Sheels, Martha Washington's maid Ona Judge, and other enslaved domestic workers including Moll, Austin, Gilles, and Richmond.
So yes, Washington knew what he was doing was bad and he still did it.
Fun fact: Direct sale of military arms to individual citizens is Federal law and Title 36, a program directed by Congress and regularly reviewed by the GAO. Details:
ua-cam.com/video/u_-Y7tIpISY/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/5YGb1unu7zs/v-deo.html
I do delivery driver gig work sometimes, but I have not done DoorDash or anything similar in the last few weeks since the recent shootings. I live in the Midwest, so everyone and their mother has a gun. I have in the past knocked on the wrong door, pulled in the wrong driveway and tried to get in a car that looked like mine but wasn’t. I don’t think I deserve to get shot for a mistake and being a small woman, I don’t have much in the way of protection.
You could always carry a gun yourself.
Machiavelli wrote at a time of mercenary armies that were virtually a law unto themselves. This is highlighted in his book The Prince written at a time of wars in Italy. The Constitution so needs amending in line with a modern reality but...., good luck with that!
Love your site and thank you!
It never surprises how many people will cherry pick the constitution and treat it like it was chiseled from granite. It’s a living document. It needs to breathe.
I've been involved with firearms for a large part of my life, mostly competitive shooting, a byproduct of living in the southern US. I believe there's also a strong dislike of taking any accountability with many people opposed to all firearms regulations. In conversations I've had with people which I cited having a strict gun transfer, licensing, and records system such as Finland's could solve some problems like unregulated individual sales of guns many people give all manner of excuses as to why that's a bad idea. Some say registration of firearms always occur before a dictatorship takes power, or that it tramples on their personal freedom, etc. I what I get from reading between those excuses is that these people want zero accountability in their part.
Unfortunately there are 120 firearms in the US per person and an uncountable amount of ammunition as well as incomplete firearms parts that could be assembled into a gun. My realist perspective on gun violence in the US is that even if we banned all firearms today we would keep having rampant violence for probably the next 100 years. In Russia there are still firearms and ammo occasionally showing up which were hidden during the Russian civil war over a century ago, yes ammunition can still work even after all that time.
I believe to truly reduce gun violence and violence as whole (because we have have high rates of violence in general) it will take a multi part approach.
First a strict registration and licensing system that would require training from a military or police instructor to purchase a weapon or concealed carry license.
Next severe punishment for possession of unregistered firearms. Permanent revocation of weapons permits, and a $20,000 fine at minimum, we fine drunk drivers $10,000 after all, both of these endanger the public. And anyone who sells a firearm illegally without going through an ownership transfer would be held accountable for in equal regard for crimes committed by the person they sold it too.
We also desperately need to do something about mental health care in the US. Many highly disturbed individuals are able to simply walk into a gun shop and buy a firearm that day with a 15 minute background check to the FBI. If they have no record of criminal activity they're clear to purchase the gun. They have to admit themselves if they have an mental issues that would make it dangerous for them to possess a firearm. Back in college I wanted to be a therapist or social worker. I gave up though after really getting to see how individuals really aren't cared for at all and instead of regular therapy and or having a place to live and be taken care of they are simply prescribed drugs and left to their own devices.
Sorry for the rant but I wanted to post what I've been thinking about regarding all of this for years.
Consider political advocacy 👍
You don't have a right to drive a car. You have a right to keep and bear arms.
Obsessed with guns? Me? Never. I support the 2nd Amendment with passionate verve, even though I haven't owned a firearm in almost 20 years. I support any law abiding citizen with a clean record to own guns.
Oh, and i do have a perfect record.
Guns give people (especially those who can only talk a good fight) the illusion of feeling powerful, consequential, not to be ignored, the same as knives, chains, steel pipes... the only difference between a knife and a gun is even the weakest and most cowardly person can follow through on that feeling with a gun in their hand.
and women. You forgot to mention it evens the field so women have a chance.
@@u4iadreamsExcept the kind of bloke who needs a gun to feel like a man is very particular about the women he forces himself on, he prefers too drunk to fight back, even with a gun, or too trusting about drinks that have been out of their sight for a split second. He'll only give women who look like they might be too difficult a second look if he is with four or five fellow AR15 toting friends.
@@atheistsfightclub6684 It sounds like you're talking about SA. There are so many other circumstances as well. Like... just chilling at home (awake or asleep) when someone breaks in to name just one. But even sticking with SA, I think having a gun would make me "too difficult".
@@u4iadreams💯Women are just as proficient with their guns.
This is an excellently written and well presented investigation and critique of this unfortunate subject that costs so many innocent American lives.
I haven't seen anyone escape the country because they were afraid of guns
@@swiswach3130 I'm British, and I've visited America 2 times. Once in 2001 and a second time in 2010. In Florida in 2010 I was surprised to see a shop on a side street selling guns as if it was a candy store. For me, coming from a country where we don't have guns, I am horrified by the blase attitude of many Americans to owning and carrying a gun.
The amount of gun violence in America definitely deters me from wanting to visit or live in the country. When I was a young British boy I loved and idolised America as the land of the free and home of the brave. Now that I have grown up and understand the reality my opinion of America has massively decreased, and one of the main reasons for that is your gun laws and the terrifying amount of mass shootings in the country. If you are not scared or disturbed by the amount of innocent people getting shot in America then, I'm sorry, I think you love guns more than you love human life. :-(
It is well put together, and with all the insane gun violence we need some kind of regulation, but it also struck me as very much the viewpoint of a white person who does not have to argue with bears. I'm the only white person in my family, and we live in an all white area. When New Years Eve rolled around in 2000 our family was armed and ready in case the threats against our lives turned real. For black folks, having a gun makes white supremacists think twice about following through on threats.
Also things are a bit different for country folk like us - rich people with second homes up here tend to feed bears, so we have bear problems now - even a cracker fired from my shotgun didn't give one bear pause when he was tearing out the side of my goat shed to get a goat dinner. It took real bullets and lots of them to get him to finally leave while still hungry.
And I'm not too quick to take our Constitution lightly. I've worked with a lot of refugees. When I asked one Eastern European man I was helping how he and his men found the courage to stand against Soviet tanks back in the day, he told me the U.S. Constitution gave them courage. He'd grown up being told that the U.S. only wrote the Constitution once because they got it right the first time. I had no idea how much of an example that thing sets around the world till I started working with these people and saw how much our Constitution inspires them to seek freedom and justice in their own country. Of course - that's why many of them wound up as refugees and once they land here they find out we don't live up to our own hype. But maybe we take that Constitution too much for granted - we shouldn't.
Still - school shootings, etc - all this whacko gun fetishizing - we definitely have got to handle that. Of the top 15 gun owning countries in the developed world, we're the only ones who regularly have gun deaths. The other countries all have strict regulations - that should tell us something, shouldn't it?
No actually this is trash, and gun violence isn't an issue.
@@dyotoorion1835
Gun violence isn't an issue in America and neither are mass shootings.
So well thought out, researched, and presented! Thank you! I think one way the situation can be dealt with is by abandoning the Electoral College (most people actually want reasonable gun control), and applying term limits to the obviously corruptible Supreme Court. The days of politicians and judges voting with their hearts rather than their wallets might even start to come back.
The United States have a lot of gun laws. The rise in crime over the last few years can be traced back to the soft on crime policies.
Im so glad to have lived through the two times since the invention of the internet that conservatives had to go online and try to argue that we shouldn't award elections to the candidate with more votes.
@@RobertDrane The United States awards the presidency to the winner of the Electoral College. What's to argue? The rules haven't changed.
@@bartdoo5757 never stop doing you bro, its beautiful
Im on the small percentage that believes to either get rid of guns entirely (except for hunting game animals only, or if you are about to fly overseas to fight in a war) or at least have the 19 step system like Japan has for gun control. If you miss just one of those 19 steps, no license and no gun, and have to wait till next year to try again. Thats what Japan has set up. And shootings there are extremely rare.
I support you on the issue of how the United States government should implement the laws, and procedures to obtain a firearm. Approximately, a year ago I obtained my license to carry to a gun in Puerto Rico. I can tell you that it is much more difficult to obtain a license in Puerto Rico than in states like North Carolina,or Georgia where in many occasions it could only take a week to obtain it. The FBI in Puerto Rico takes about a month to investigate for possible criminal records, any gangs associations, or other possible negative situations that may deny the acquisition of the license. I honestly think a mental assessment should be added as a firearm's license requirements. Exist too many people in the United States with mental issues, or mental illnesses who should not have access to a firearm. Many people do not have the total mental capacity to understand when a firearm should be used as the last resort for their own protection. Now, I also support people who obtained the license to carry a weapon for protection. My reasoning behind this is based at the many dangerous areas of the United States where assaults, robberies, and murders occurs, by thugs who obtained firearms without even having the right to one, using underworld connections. So I can tell you that I am against violence, but I am not against citizens with good values who only seek to defend themselves against criminals.
😁👍Changing the subject, I can tell you that I like your UA-cam videos!
one of my people 🇵🇷
There should be no license required, you know that.
Fun fact: in my country (Poland) gun laws are much simpler and there are no insane limitations or bans that plague USA like the ones that make attaching an accessory hand-grip a felony. BUT we do evaluate people who want to have guns - they need to have a sensible reason (being in real, confirmed, over-average danger - very rare since we don't live in a war zone as apparently US citizens in their own country; or "just because" i.e. having a gun hobby - hunting, collecting or sport shooting), they need to be trained and have to pass exams (on the law and on practical SAFE use of firearms) AND have to have a psychiatric evaluation. Result - some gun types are almost completely unrestricted (cap&ball black powder replicas), others require the above mentioned license AND we have no mass shootings and almost zero gun-related accidents (the last one was the moronic chief of the national police who exploded an RPG in his office).
You start out making Poland sound like the epitome of 'gun freedom' and then you do a 180 and say that everyone need permission to own a gun, and then, only for a "reason". Sounds like New York-style "freedom".
@@olwill1 Yeah, I noticed that, too.
No one seems to realize that these morons are right next to Russia if I was them I would be armed to the teeth But their pollocks what the hell do they know That's why they got their asses handed to them war world 2 in under 2 weeks!
So the depiction of the U.S. just being a big warzone is very much so not true. The majority of deaths by firearm in the U.S. are suicide. Of the roughly 30%-40% that are homicides. Let's take Ohio as an example. According to the U.S. CDC, Ohio has 16.5 firearm deaths per 100,000. But, the homicide rate, which accounts for all manners if which, is 9.3 per 100,000. This is sadly an indicator of a lot of suicides but, also shows that you're not likely to be gunned down just walking on the sidewalk. Hell, by statistics, in Ohio, you're over 5 times more likely to die of a drug overdose at 48.1 per 100,000. The grand majority of which, mass shootings included, tend to occur in certain areas of certain cities. The U.S. also has the 3rd largest population in the world at roughly 9 times the population of poland. With literally hundreds of major population centers. Outside of those those areas where crime tends to occur in cities. There are plenty of places that have incredibly low crime rates.
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4325838
Edit: autocorrect changed warzone to earshot.
@@jakdmavika9233 smash that like button boy!
In the Miller case the reason the short barreled shotgun was bannable was because it wasn't commonly used in the military. The flip side of that is that weapons commonly used in the military are not bannable. Today's military uses short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, suppressors.... All those items should be removed from the NFA.
According to this quote from George Mason, what is the purpose of Gun Control in America and who is the party of Slavery?
“[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man - who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.”
George Mason
The problem with stand your ground laws is you don't have to use common sense. All the old man needed to do, was to ask the boy, " what do you want" that is the common sense thing to do, not just pull the trigger and then tell the police that he was scared to death of the black boy, is why he shot the boy. Common Sense people.
All he had to do was not answer the door and then 'stand his ground' if someone tried to break in. My brain explodes at the thought of knocking someones door and trying to work out what might be considered suspicious in their head and would get me shot.
The comparison between the bible and the constitution is so interesting! Separation of church and state has got to be one of the most basic things a state needs to function properly. Coming from a (not particularly rich) secular country, i can dfinitely say that some of the things that work the best here do so because we're not tethered to some private, self governing institution that does not necessarily have the common good as a priority.
Thank you for the back history on the 2nd amendment. We have grown to love our weapons too much.
THANK YOU, This is the first time that I have heard anyone state the WHOLE 2nd, usually it is only the second part that is quoted, and THAT is where the problems start.
The other problem is that somehow, a lot of people believe that you cannot amend an amendment.
That people want to remove the prohibition of government infringing the right is exactly why it shouldn't be removed, it'd be a horribly dangerous expansion of government power.
It does say the right shall not be infringed, it's a right, not a privilege, that means it can be exercised without permission from government. Get stuffed.
It's really nice to watch a video from someone who truly knows what they're talking about. You're very smart.
They fact that you call those who disagree with you "bat shit crazy" sort of ends the rationality of discussing it with you.
Yeah, the name calling automatically discredits them.
Many of friends and I own guns and NONE of them have ever shot anyone. There would be no need for the second amendment if individuals were not allowed to own and carry firearms. If any country does not trust their citizens with guns, then they shouldn’t trust them with weapons as soldiers on the battlefield.
"If any country does not trust their citizens with guns"
Seen the US homicide rate lately?
@@ratofvengence look closely at the homicide rates in countries from Mexico all the way to Argentina!!?? Like Rio de Janerio, Sao Paulo Brazil can have 4-500 murders a month!! BTW many Hispanic/Latin/Brazilian folk in America will tell about the crime in Latin America south of the American border! They will say that America is much more safer than any banna republic nation!!! Black Africa has a very, very high murder rate too much, much higher than America!! Most black African countries are extreme danger zones for foriegners!!