Hello: This is the exact type of video that RUclips chooses to demonetize. If you want to support my work , check out the Patreon: www.patreon.com/HorsesPT Best, Michael S.
Saying guns is part of the colonization culture doesn't explain why guns have special status in America. The British colonized ALL of North America with gun, but some how USA citizens recognize gun ownership as a right while Canada recognizes gun ownership as a privilege.
The weirdest thing for me was seeing some of my progressive friends saying we were inching towards fascism in 2020-2021, only to then go back to being anti-gun as soon as the next president took office. I’m not even conservative, either. I just don’t understand some people’s thought processes. If you don’t trust the government, it doesn’t make sense to want to give them more power.
@@scottbogen1168The same people will tell you about how Israel has lasers they can use as weapons...but the boat that took out that bridge, is a conspiracy.
@@garrett3108the actual number is definitely higher, though it's worth noting, at a large scale there's 2 fairly distinct groups of gun owners: people who own one gun (a handgun or shotgun in a drawer/closet for defense), and people who own a lot of guns (enthusiasts, collectors, etc.)
We certainly deserve the right to privately own fully armed battle tanks. A tank crew, being more than one person and working in tandem with each other, is quite literally a well-regulated militia.
He was right by saying that grammar was different in 1789 than it is now. Words have different meanings. In the 1890's a gay person was a happy person but now he or she if gay is a homosexual. We need to update the meaning of our Constitution. I grew up learning gun safety and target shooting. I wasn't ever really into hunting as I don't like killing an animal. From my reading the book, "On Combat", I can see that very few people can actually kill another human being, but the NRA and the GOA don't care. They just want kickbacks from firearms manufacturers as more and more guns are sold. I think we need universal background checks plus checks on person to person gun sales. I don't have much in the way of guns compared to what online SHTF guns sites recommend, and most of my handguns are single action, meaning not made for a civilian civil war.
@@PatrickThreewit Boy, you sure did spend a lot of time typing this when you could've just said "I know nothing about guns and am scared of them." Your line about "single action handguns" alone proves that. You understand the M1911 and Browning Hi Power are SAO, _right?_ Even if you hadn't broadcast your ignorance that way, you hold up the NRA as if the average gun owner doesn't hate that organization more than the ATF. We don't have much time in this world, and we weren't meant to spend it this way.
Everything else about money has changed, too. If I need to come up with $500 by the end of the week, I have a lot of options. I can sell something on FB Marketplace, or take out a loan, or put it on credit, and so on. If I’m living in 1850, coming up with $13 could be an impossible task.
Also don’t forget that a big part of a guns cost, is all the costs of the red tape needed in the production. Such as lawyers, federal permits, auditing, unreadable taxes and further costs.
The other thing he did was compare apples to oranges. 22LR firearms are almost always less expensive than firearms that shoot a heavier load, this is because less pressure is involved. A walker colt revolver needs to be much stronger thing than a 22lr anything. Also, if you look at all of the earlier colts, he was tooling up to produce them, which costs money. New tech is more expensive than old tech, we all know that. He was producing cutting edge firearms and demanded cutting edge prices.
Guns are a huge part of american culture. Like they are integral to the national character. Firearm possession is literally enshrined in their founding documents, their nation was built on rebellion and revolution, which would not have been possible without guns. So asking them to give up guns is like asking them to give up everything that makes them American. In Europe, firearms arent a significant part of their culture. Barely a part of it at all. Thats why its so difficult for non-Americans to understand the fascination. Thats my interpretation as a British person anyway. Its the fundamental aspect of their identity, the American way of life, maybe the most important part.
Idk, wasn't the UK "saved" (built) on weapons during the two world wars? Built on violence and force with colonialism? Why isn't your society's identity based on them? What perpetuates the idea that America needs weapons but the UK doesn't?
This was said perfectly and is likely the only sane comment here. My boyfriend (Who is also from the UK) said pretty much the same thing many times. Freedom of Speech and Expression as well as the RIGHT to own Firearms is what makes the United States what it is and it is a complete and total fluke that we are still able to practice such individual freedoms in our modern age of government over reach and control. I hope we still are able to do so long into the distant future. ~ A Pro-Gun LGBT person
Yes sir, but it is the right that all other rights are built on. The second amendment was written to protect us against government oppression, which is a reason we can have funny memes on our phones and yall can’t.
just wait for the completely sane person to argue that having assault rifles at home does in fact not raise risk for kids "you just have to educate them early enough" 😂😂😂 delusional
@@MichaelBecker93 unsafe because they are out in the open all of my firearms are in a attic in a gun safe all with barrel and trigger locks and empty mags in another location and ammo in another locked location.
18:17 The passage talking about gun violence increases between 1958 and 1968 mention Glock being introduced the the civilian market. Glock didn't start manufacturing firearms until 1982 and they didn't hit the American market until 1986.
Horses fails to note that there is a widespread belief that there are many more gun owners than is recorded by pollsters since owners have become increasingly wary of discussing such matters with random callers.
Also, many of those "viol3nt" stats are from good people stopping bad guys.. Yet it shows up on the statistics as if it was a bad thing, when it's not.
@calholli Absolutely correct. Also, if you take the liberal cities with the strictest gun control measures out of the equation, then the violent crime rate is miniscule. Horses made himself an extremely biased, manipulation of the facts here. It just goes to show that even someone intelligent like this creator, can be badly brainwashed in leftwing colleges
@@patricknowak7509 PoI^ce shoot^ngz aren't considered self def3nse-- yet it's nearly always taking out bad peopl3 and saving lives.. granted, they make plenty of mistakes also.
As a Georgian, many people here have a similar attitude towards gun ownership. Even though we have pretty strict (and frankly, foolish) concealed carry laws, many civilians still have guns, often more than one. Gun ownership, as well as the right to bear arms of any sort, have a history that dates back centuries here. Ironically enough, the only time in its history when Georgians were made to give up their arms was in 1917 (we all know how that fairytale went lol). Even that happened after a brief war against the Red Army. There's a street named after the young Junkers who fought the Russians in the capital Tbilisi. Nowadays, the legality of gun ownership has become a much more politicizes issue, even in Georgia, with most opposition parties trying to revert the current government's gun laws and allow concealed carry after passing a psych evaluation. If it does materialize, Georgia will be the first post-Soviet country to legalize cannabis AND civilian gun ownership. Funny how things can change in a realtively short period of time
@@connerkelley6906 They weren't. Consider this, the terms "white power", "all lives matter", and others came after the existence of terms "black power" and "black lives matter" but in both of the latter's cases, they did not mean what white supremacists twisted them mockingly into being. Do search this up yourself if you don't believe me, because in both of the black's instances they were meant as empowering slogans for freedom and recognition, black power because they had no power so it was a movement to gain their rights and lose their oppressions. Black Lives Matter became the name to emphasize the blacks who feel injustice and have not been feeling mattered. But with that aside I don't even know what is wrong with large black communities having their own type of representation after all we brought them here, we failed to treat them decently for 200+ years (slavery, segregation, private schools to loophole around desegregation, racial profiling etc) to this day. If you ain't afraid of white-majority countries having power then what is wrong with black-majority countries having power? Afraid they'll shoot you for being racist? Settlers afraid they'll be deported or have vengeance brought upon them for all their ancestors have done? There are for sure ultranationalist and reactionary groups of color but they do not represent the majority in the same way the Taliban does not represent the majority of Islamic people.
A well balanced breakfast, being necessary to the productivity of a healthy person, the right of the people to cook and eat bacon, shall not be infringed.
2 delicious slices of the bacon Is the due of every human on the earth (on the earth!) 2 delicious slices of the bacon Is what we get instead of social justice (justice!)...
The term "Well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment means "sighted-in and regularly trained" not "regulated" in the modern sense of being controlled by the government. Old shooting manuals will talk about the "regulation of the sights" which means getting the sights zeroed in. Now, in old England, it was standard to require every Englishman to regularly practice with the long bow, as it was crucial in times of war to have plenty of well-trained archers. In the US, while no lesser a personage than Ben Franklin Himself said that training in the bow might be best, it was generally recognized (and more and more so as gun technology advanced) that it was a good thing to have plenty of trained shooters on tap in case of war. So when the US became a country, the founders made it very clear that everyone (may not apply if female or POC) who wants one may have a gun because this way there would be lots of trained shooters. I personally may or may not agree with this, but this is how we got here.
@@S1ipperyJim wrong. in 18th century vernacular "well regulated" means "functioning properly" and has nothing, what so ever, to do with government oversight. my favortie example is a man writing to his brother celebrating his watch being "returned to a well regulated state.". not to mention supporting clauses in no way limit or restrict subject clauses.
This is exactly right. It was originally the intention of the founding fathers that the US exist with a militia alone and no standing army. For the miniscule federal budget of the time a militia was much cheaper, and they feared the possibility of a military takeover. They eventually realized that a standing army was necessary to secure American interests.
In Mexico Article 10 of the constitution allows any civilian to own firearms that are deemed "acceptable" by the government (Hint, none of them are), but even with that restriction already in place, more draconian laws were implemented in 1972, 4 years after the government had massacred students in Tlatelolco for the crime of assembling (They weren't even protesting at the time). No one spoke against gun control and now we live in a country where organized crime is free to kidnap and rape our families while corrupt military and police institutions look away and also engage in crimes against their own citizenship. If you give away your gun rights you are condemning your people to live in a dystopian anarcho tyranny.
Drugs flow north into the US, guns flow south into Mexico. Been like that for decades but I do wish some of those guns would find their way into the hands of the citizens instead of the cartels.
@@BrorealeK If you seriously don't think Tlatelolco + El Halconazo + the subsequent guerrilla movements that formed inside the country aren't what moved the government to pass that law then you suffer from a mental disability.
Love it or hate it, guns aren’t going anywhere. Your best bet is to take a firearms safety course and move to a county where the police don’t play games.
It's not an M4.. It has an A2 stock and looks like an 18" barrel... That, plus the fact that it has a long range scope says that it's most likely an SPR. That picture was taken before the M4 even existed.
@@thinkharder9332 It's not a carbine stock.. it's fixed M16 style stock.. and that barrel looks quite long.. It sticks way out past the FSB. If you look close-- it actually looks like it's an 18" heavy barrel with nothing on the end of it. You can see the threads at the end of the barrel. My point was, it is more of a SPR/ DMR "setup"-- for long range. The longer barrel/ the heavy barrel/ the fixed stock/ the variable optic. It's not a "foul" setup. It's just not an Mforgery; but instead: it's setup for longer range shooting. It's fairly common for the time; especially how companies would only sell them for "sporting" back then.. So the fact that it's fixed stock, no bayonet lug, no muzzle device, etc.... It's probably around the "assault weapons ban" time frame.. Anyway, it's just funny how people think it's "foul" lol.. It's just a sign of the times, back then. You can thank Bill Clinton for that loadout. lol.. It doesn't look like an M4 because the concept wasn't even a thing yet.. At least they were showing innovation and deviation away from the M16.. It just wasn't perfected yet.. It's on an A4 flat top upper receiver.. But that mount is made to mimic the carry handle and float high so that you can still use the iron sights below it. It's a pretty sick retro setup if you ask me. ;)
11:25 The Spanish conquistadors considered firearms “extremely advanced” weapons, just like their swords. They were armed to the teeth with them when they conquered the Aztec and Inca empires. So saying that early Americans didn’t look at a gun as a weapon is ridiculous. They were “not efficient” weapons, sure. But they were weapons.
They were much more efficient when it came to production and training though. Also the conquistadors armed their allies, who were rival kingdoms and tribes to the Aztec Empire with firearms. They were really advanced to almost all of Europe during the times of the Spanish conquests of the Americas and were used to full effect in every battle.
@@stiofanmacamhalghaidhau765you might want to rethink the middle east aspect, they have a massive firearm culture there, and much more loose on safety than American gun culture. I've seen some videos.
2:03 "The majority of America believe gun ownership is a Right" It IS protected under the Right to bear arms so maybe a better sentence would have been "The majority of Americans support gun ownership as it's historically been protected under the 2nd amendment"
Maybe he should have included the rapid change in guns from way back then to now. They weren’t necessarily granting them the right to a firearm that could load and fire in seconds lol
@@stuffystuffsityas6302 the second ammendment protects ARMS, not firearms, but ARMS in their entirety. It's clear that the principle behind it was to ensure americans could be armed, own and bear weapons. And for context, many americans owned war-ships and cannons at the time of the founding, which were used to fight the revolutionary war. You also need to keep in mind that even though muskets are slow, the military had the same slow obsolete weapons that the people did. Allowing the people to be armed with muskets at the time of the founding would be no different than allowing modern citizens to be armed with M249s and M16s
@@BrorealeK what do you mean which “many”? What I’m trying to say here is that private citizens owned war-ships and cannons which were used in the revolutionary war
@@stuffystuffsityas6302 The puckle gun, averaging 9 shots per minute (3x faster than conventional muskets) and with an 11 round magazine , was created in 1718 and used as ship guns by the British. This was included in "arms" The Ferguson rifle was a breech loading rifle the British used literally during the revolutionary war against them, was also way faster than a musket and "light infantry troops could continue loading and firing without breaking cover, even when lying prone". Like a modern gun, able to be quickly loaded and held prone while remaining concealed. The Belton Flintlock was a repeating flintlock rifle presented directly to the Continental Congress in 1777 and could fire 8 shots before reloading. Literally a repeating rifle in 1777. A century or more even before this they had guns with multiple barrels that could fire as many times as there were barrels, or could fire a devastating 8 .50 caliber rounds at once. And within the founding fathers' lifetime percussion cap repeating weapons more similar to what we have today, and are in fact still used today, were born (1820s, ~40yrs after 1776). Yes. They. Did. Know.
@@dannydanumbayea he going to need it I would personally wait until Bidens out and see if a gun friendly president comes because a man who did literally nothing but buy gun parts is resting in a cell right now in New York FJB but this is a free country just be careful of the crazy uncle in Washington he found the mushrooms again😂
When youre settling the apalachian mountains a gun is in fact needed for defence against wild animals and such. You cant use a hatched as the law guy said
Yep, Greetings from WNC, a couple years ago we had a really bad bear problem. Bears are usually a lot more scared of you than you are of them, but imagine waking up with a mad or sick one on your porch or getting trapped inside your fenced in yard with 3 cubs and a protective mom. Guns are a must, my nephew has hit two dear and had to humanly put them outta their misery. Everyone in my family carrys a rifle and a pistol with them at all times. Shall Not and Will not be infringed.
True, everyone who makes anti-gun arguments, i have noticed at least, are not real outdoors people who LIVE there. They might visit or go hiking or something, btu they've never had to build their own cabin or hunt for their food or survey their own land. If they were, they'd know how important a firearm can be for your survival in these situations. City people think that they're so protected from these scenarios, but society is very delicate, and someone might not always be there to sell you food, you might have to grow or obtain it yourself 1 day. Plus, there is no reality where I'm gonna walk through say, the Smokey Mountain wilderness, without being armed. Bears and Mountain Lions are common.
Also, self defense against highwaymen and fending off attacks by Native Americans was ABSOLUTELY what was in mind for those colonists. Not just "warmaking". Ridiculous.
One statistic that I think would have been interesting to include is violent crime with any weapon across countries. My intuition would say that we’re not much more violent than other countries, we just use guns as the weapon instead of a knife or a club or something
I mean, we do have a violence issue, but yeah, anytime I hear someone say "gun violence," I stop caring about what they have to say, because it's such a blatant manipulation of data. Knife attacks are just as horrific as gun attacks. Dying is dying. I think the other problem is how many people don't realize just how dangerous knives are. And the section of this video where Horses talks about how you had to think about it, and there was a barrier of entry to violence is so dumb. Many of the worst atrocities in history predate guns. People have willingly and gleefully murdered with knives, axes, clubs, etc for all of human history. The difference was that a handful of psychopaths who were strong enough could keep getting away with it, and everyone else had to live at their mercy. Guns simply allowed the less strong to have the ability to kill as well. Now, any psycho can kill, but additionally, any normal person can protect themselves. But yeah, another note regarding your thought on "gun violence" stats is well founded, because it also includes self defense cases, self inflicted deaths (which alone account for two thirds of gun deaths), and police shootings. It's disingenuous to say the least.
Your intuition isn't really correct at least on a quick comparison to European homicide rates (ignoring method of homicide). US is >5x higher than UK, Germany, France, Spain, etc
@@Tmanownshe literally put homocides per 1000 in the video and USA still ranks fairly far above other well developed countries, theres no blatant misinterpretation of data here, your just deafening yourself to the facts that guns are dangerous.
@mortalakira I literally said we have a violence issue in general. All I was saying was the phrase "gun violence" is a litmus test on whether someone is just interested in the guns, or interested in the root causes.
As a “gunlovin American” I boil it down to this. I believe people will always have guns, whether or not they are illegal. Therefore I want guns to defend myself.
At this point it's pretty much impossible to keep hands out of ther american public like i mean i could go down the hardware store and buy the stuff to build shotgun.
Allowing private pwnership of guns was something that was uniquely British before it was uniquely American. The French, Spanish, Portuguese, Danes, etc did not allow it, preferring instead for their colonist to depend on their militaries for protection. Britain however incentivized colonists to protect their own land to have a firmer foothold on said land particularly in the frontier. So the idea that American see guns as a way of protecting "you and your own" us okder than the country itself
The very large objective lens scope was popular as a tactical item In the 80s and 90s due to the large field of view it provides. Sunlight tubes were similarly popular, and is just a plain tube 2 or 3 inches deep that threads on the front of the scope to act as a visor. They're actually pretty nice to use, weight and bulk aside.
Yeah my uncle used to have a 20x magnification optic on his fixed carry handle AR. After he gave it to me I replaced it with a 3x magnification prism. It’s so much easier to use now lol.
I live on a rural area in America and from my experience it's not a love of guns that perpetuates their sale, its a mistrust of the federal government, the dissolution of law and order in metropolitan areas and the desire to defend one's self. When you look at what's going on in this country and elsewhere, it seems pretty sane to me my friend.
@@tefky7964 Why would you make the assumption they dont? They're usually the most civic minded people who are involved in their communities and vote in every election. Real talk, what do YOU do?
"perceived" dissolution of law and order in metropolitan areas. Actual crime and murder rates have been falling for decades - what you might be referring to is internet and cable news fearmongering.
I love this take on gun violence because it’s based on literally nothing but personal experience. Rural southern areas have the highest gun death per capita rates anywhere in the country. You live in a rural area of America, why would crime that takes place in cities influence your decision at all? Do you think that the reason there is more crime in cities than there is in rural areas is because of your way of life? The true disillusionment is with the core of the issue and the contributing factors; poverty and mental health. In reality then, we’re kind of attacking the same points from different angles, the federal government and self defense. I want the federal government to provide more resources to mental health institutions and better infrastructure in impoverished communities. You want the federal government to remove all taxes and “send the inner-city folk back to where they came from”. There’s probably some compromise here.
You can tell the scope of this video, in an effort to appear unbiased and based in historical context, has been narrowed and framed to the extent that it accomplishes neither. He displays the text of the 2nd Amendment, declares it to be confusing, and moves immediately into vivisecting definitions in context of the era. For someone who seemed keen on providing context to the topic, he completely ignored the State Constitutions that have duplicate articles with alternate formatting. For example, in Pennsylvania's Constitution from 1776: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." And again, it specifically mentions self-defense before anything else. In Delaware's Constitution "person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use." Notice the same order of importance there? Google is your friend, and I promise you that the English language has not changed all that much in 200+ years He cites two clashing expert opinions as a way to frame the Gun Control Debate as an equally-matched logical debate, yet the anti-gun point is hilariously unfounded. "Cornell has indicated that the right to bear arms had almost nothing to do with personal self defense" Which had nothing to do with the header-text "Bear Arms" as those two words has intentionally wide scope. It's meant to cover *every* use-case of a firearm: armed combat, hunting, sport, self-defense, etc. as described in those original constitutions. This is also founded upon Supreme Court Judge Scalia's official opinion, as mentioned later in the video. Pistols were common and popular far before Samuel Colt. Blackbeard was famous for carrying 6 pistols, Colt simply gave people the same capability in the size of one. Samuel Colt did what every modern company's marketing department does. It was not new at the time, and it's not going out of style anytime soon. Colt was successful because his designs were revolutionary in the industry. You also forgot to mention how popular firearms became with women of the era, as goes the phrase "God created man. Samuel Colt made them equal" Gun Rights are Women's rights. The video mentions that firearms were used to control the slave population, but fails to mention that non-whites were prohibited from owning firearms, which could be used to fight for their freedom. Another point against gun control, because it's also racist. The framing on the phrase: "...Guns are used to 'settle disputes'..." is very belittling their importance. The lack of firearms historically leads to oppression, enslavement, and genocide, in that order, with every democidal Authoritarian government of the last century, be it the Nazis, Soviets, CCP (even today with the Uygher Muslisms), Cambodia, Iran, etc.
I find it extraordinary that I had to scroll so far to finally read a comment like this. I believe horses made an attempt to be unbiased in the making of this video but the framing in the script lets his biases bleed through.
Thank you, I thought it was preposterous when he stated that for DECADES the court did not view the 2A as an individual right. The courts always thought of it as an individual right. It was only after activist constitutional scholars and judges tried to subvert the 2A with their ridiculous "collectivist" interpretation that the Supreme Court felt the need to put that to rest with Heller.
"It was you, it was me, it was every man, We've all got the blood on our hands We only receive what we demand, If we want hell, then hell's what we'll have" Cookie Jar by Jack Johnson
@@mightymayo121 Aww poor Clay somehow thinks he's more powerful than the united states government. Showing off your room temp IQ there buddy hahahahahaha
I think we should also realize that many other countries don’t allow guns. It’s hard to say Americans love guns and compare it to the rest of the world when other populations are banned from owning them.
@6:32 It's interesting that US founding fathers can change their mind so drastically on the issue of not having a standing Army (calling it 'antithetical to American Liberty') yet people still cling to the belief that the 'right to bear arms' originating from the same period (which was due to not having a standing army) is so set in stone in the constitution that it can't be changed in the modern day. Yet today US has gone from not having a standing army to having the largest most powerful military in the world by a LONG way. I think this is purely due to the extreme capitalist mindset in the US which has led to US economy and weapons industry simply making too much money to allow a change for the better for their society.
Another example of a non-capitalist knowing nothing about economics. The firearms industry is quite small. No defense contractor even breaks the top 50 biggest companies in the U.S. Money that goes into weapons lobbying is miniscule compared to other issues that lobbyists get involved in.
@@S1ipperyJim Yeah because it is by national standards. Like I said, not one single defense contractor or gun company breaks the top 50 largest US companies. Many US individual companies are larger than the entire gun industry.
We, the Turks, built our country with our weapons, just like the Americans. But then we were disarmed. Many times in my country, the soldiers dismissed the government elected by the people, that is, staged a coup, and many dictators in Europe tortured the people. In America, none of these happened, soldiers could not stage a coup against the government elected by the people, a dictator could not take away people's freedoms, as in Germany and Italy. Know this well, folks, the reason why governments and leftists are against guns is to restrict the freedoms of the people as they wish. An armed nation cannot be enslaved. 
Self defense is a human right but not every human can express that right freely without a mountain of ridicule and disdain from the public/lawmakers anywhere on earth, in some cases it has the potential be classified as assault to fight back against an attacker during a robbery or physical attack on a person (this often happens in places where firearms are explicitly illegal anyways so you're mostly dealing with knife, car, improvised weapon attacks) which is a leap in logic in and of itself, this world we all live in is truly mad when you see it for what it is
Self-defense against fucking what? Everyone in America claims it for self-defense, but no one ever talks about the time having a gun on them saved their life. It’s always this future all seeing evil coming for their families lives. If some stranger pulls a gun on you in an alley, I doubt they’ll wait patiently for you to get your gun out for a fair duel. They’ll shoot you the moment you reach for it. Just be fucking honest with yourself. You like guns and you fetishize the potential violence you could “save yourself” from
He didnt speak on how the first and second world wars, or even korea and nam, changed firearms form factor and braought on a new age of semi and fully automatic firearms. This was a big change to the culture, similar to the change from muskets and flintlocks to revolvers and lever guns. I appreciate not talking in length on the wars, though something may be said about americas veiws towards guns and violence in general during vietnam. I fully advocate gun ownership, but i comes down to the individual to be smart, aware, safe and ready. No one derserves to die for someone else, dont put yourself on either side of a gun in a violent or stupid mindset, but be the good guy with the gun, get training, and i cant stress it enough, dont be stupid. Ps. Remember, violent felons "arent allowed" to own guns!!👍
The National Firearms Act was enacted in June of 1934 in response to the perceived threat of the mob's use of Thompson submachine guns. Before this act, you could buy a Thompson through mail order and have it delivered to your home...that being said, most of the people buying Thompson submachine guns were homesteaders who needed it to protect livestock and property from vermin and predators....not the Chicago mob.
Soldiers for most of history were expected to purchase their own equipment. It’s simple: the government mandated that people spend a ton of money on a thing.
That part was funny to me for a few reasons "You're going to jail!" "Why?" "For not having a gun!" "I shouldn't be in trouble for that!" "What the fuck are you going to do about it without a gun? Bitch."
@@universome511 what? No something being very expensive does not mean that people can’t be forced to buy it anyway. Health insurance is prohibitively expensive and it’s illegal not to have it
I think you were a little misleading on some points. Suggesting that Southerners, Prospecters and Xenophobic Urbanites are the only people who would have a gun seems to put people in a box. And suggesting the gun ownership primarily is a way to "settle dsiputes" is a little narrow minded. Guns are definitely used in that manner but that's not really the core of American Gun Culture. The best way to describe it would be more in line with romanticism around the revolutionary war. The more modern POV is more associated with Cold War survivalism, Anti-government sentiments, Distrust of the government, and popular culture. The idea that gun owner ship is more linked to racism, is a bit divorced from reality. As for the NRA, they have all but disintegrated. The real thing you should have addressed should have been the intent behind the creation of felonies as a way to disenfranchise minorities and strip them of voting and gun rights. The proliferation of Firearms is more or less linked in increased central federal power, and the subsequent incompetence to deal with the consequences of removing local powers over the subject. It is at this point though, and uncontrollable power as the equipent to manufacture firearms is readily and freely available without necessitating federal overwatch as making a gun is relatively easy. The path forward is likely a stalemate.
Yeah had to stop watching when he said that early European colonists brought with them a new technology, rifles. The colonists had muskets. Rifles were extremely rare and were used only in sport hunting, not warfare.
@@frederiksrensen6116 Yes some people out there most likely do. as to the validity of that claim that i do not know. but it wouldn't surprise me at all to say the least.
I'm going to honest it's justified to carry a gun and own one these days because most of the time law enforcement won't help you but the sad thing is if you defend yourself then you're going to get arrested
The mythology of firearms is so prevalent that my firend who literally said "no one will steal from me becuase i have guns" and yet within a month of buying a gun the gun was stolen still was unshaken by his belief that guns inherently made his house more safe
The biggest problem with guns is the inherent constant responsibility that we as a society must maintain to keep them; all contingent on mental health, laws, the economy, and etc... Something with such potential destructive capabilities must take a lot of discipline that many are not capable of. This is why countries with the least amount of gun deaths either have very strict laws or complete bans. Gun owners will taunt education, but they don't know if they will always be of sound mind to responsibly own them. People will always face adversity and struggle; and every gun owner is not going to triumph. Sadly, it will seem like an easy answer to problems...
Countries with the least amount of gun deaths were historically and otherwise generally peaceful anyway (mass immigration has changed this to some degree). The United States, for all of its virtues and faults, has never been exceptionally peaceful compared with First World peers.
Your videos are something I would save for later as a treat and get excited about to watch because they make me think. I like how long they are without being inflated for, good videos to watch while eating, You bring topics and ideas that I wouldn’t have really given much thought other wise, and I thank you for that. I like learning.
It is safe to say America will always have an affinity to guns. What better way can the government convince its people to endorse mass weaponry and wars than to convince them they need protection .
It's interesting how a lot of modern American political topics have been historically used to justify violence in the past (immigrants bringing the "violence", etc.) and just how ingrained guns are in American culture.
No, it grows out of unflinching unrelenting will grow out of organization of communities if you believe change achieve for the barrel of a gun, you got a really f***ed up mentality
As always you create a thoughtful discussion, worthy of hearing out. I'm glad you did this video and I think the like to dislike ratio itself says quite a lot about the subject
I really like the 4:3 aspect ratio the video took. It’s an interesting form that just has a different tone to it. Keep up the work and thanks for an informative video and not misleading information
In contrast, Brazil seems to hate guns and we have more gun related deaths per year than some countries fighting wars. People who want to use firearms in a tyrannical manner will find a way to acquire them anyway, gun control only serves the purpose of keeping law abiding citizens as sheep. I'd be a proud gun owner if I had the chance.
I'm from Ireland and live in Florida, never had a gun, shot one once back home. I got an ad for a holster during the video but then I get them everyday lately
I think firearms related content only has a certain number of advertisers that want to run ads over it, and it would make sense that firearms adjacent companies would be ok with advertising on something tagged as firearms content. I also think that geolocation plays a big role in what ads are served. I get all kinds of ads that seem targeted but for someone else. 😂
Pretty much every country fought their wars and civil wars in the history with firearms. Only the US of A has this lingering issue. Figure it out guys.
0:33 the graph says selected european countries as in hand picked to make the usa look alot worse. also mexico has 3 times the murder rate so this stat is bias and all around wrong
Exactly.. many of those "violent" stats are from good people stopping bad guys.. Yet it shows up on the statistics as if it was a bad thing, when it's not... All the rest are from poIice, bIack gangz and mexlcan carteIz all fight^ng each other.
America is one of the only contries that includes suicide in gun violence statistics (because guns and gun violence are politisized here). So those stats are a little misleading.
Most nations start off violently that’s a moot point. Most peoples throughout history settled disputes with violence, that’s a moot point. If guns kill people, why don’t we put the gun on trial?
Dude it's the availability that's the problem, if someone in your country has a psychotic episode they can get a gun within the hour. In other countries they have to wait at least a couple of weeks, at which point they usually calm down and get help.
....because they are fun and functional. That's why I love them still. I enjoy the "power I feel when I fire them" ...and when I say that, I mean that actual energy released from the round when I fire it. I *_do not_* feel like it gives me power over anyone or anything. Instead, if I'm carrying (just my personal opinion), I have to be the best citizen I can be. I can't be getting into ego battles, road rage nonsense, anything like that....nor can I be dumb enough to act like I'm some cop or authority figure. If I had the money, I'd have a private armed security force to protect my family and myself. I can't afford that, so I do the job myself. I'm not a sheepdog type. If there is a shooting, I'm getting my family to safety. I'm not running from them towards the gunfire, hoping to play hero. Sure, if I feel I am in a position to stop something like that, there is a moral obligation to do so....but the safety of my family comes first.
Values and ideas are the things that matter. That's what makes an "American". A gun is not a value, it's not an ideology. . A gun is a weapon, a tool, a product. nothing more. And like all products companies need to emotionally manipulate people into purchasing them. By tying guns to nationalism. The same way the cigarette industry tied cigarettes into freedom, individuality self-empowerment and sex appeal. These are just objects, they only have the power and the mythology that WE project onto them.
Believe me, us gun owners need no such encouragement from companies. They are tools, and important ones. It not so much the physical gun itself but the purpose it fulfills that fits in with the "mythology" (I use quotes because there's nothing mythic about this purpose). The idea that this "gun culture" only emerged since the 70s or 80s is just laughably false. The militia, being a force to protect against all threats foreign and domestic, has been well understood in much of America since the 1600s, long before the Revolution even happened. The people should posses the ability to defend the nation and themselves, and of course will need weapons to be able to do so. As such, there has always been interest surrounding guns and their availability. Pretty much all throughout American history up to the 1960s and 70s, civilians had access to the same kind of guns the military was using, sometimes even better ones since the military almost always just contracted gun makers to make their base model in bulk while civilians had options for accessories and additional features for those same models.
@@POCKET-SAND I would be much more comfortable with well-regulated local militias as a counter to governmental power than individual gun owners shooting black folks because they got the wrong address. The fact remains though that guns in the American context are not used for militia purposes.
@@alphajackal6648 I suggest you study up on the 18th century definitions for both "regulated" and "militia." In the 18th century, the word "regulated" meant something akin to well-equipped, well-prepared. It did not yet take on the modern meaning of being associated with limits and oversight. Therefore, the actual meaning of the phrase is that a well-equipped militia is necessary, so hampering the ability of people to obtain guns violates this. Next, the terms "militia" and people are interchangeable. The Founding Fathers used these terms interchangeable because they were one in the same. Laws from pre-Revolution Colonial times define the militia as all able-bodied men between a certain age range, though it may have differed slightly from colony to colony. In many areas, these "militia" (meaning all able-bodied men in a given area) were required to provide their own guns. This view is still in effect to this day, as the Militia Act of 1903 defines all able-bodied men not already in the military or National Guard as part of the unorganized militia of the country, the National Guard being the organized militia. Your "local militia" already exists, it's comprised of all your local able-bodied men. You may even be one of them.
@@POCKET-SAND To be honest, I don't really care about the 'intended' meanings behind the words. The men who wrote them are long dead and gone, and didn't live in the same world we do. When I say I'd be more comfortable with a well-regulated militia, I mean in the sense of a local, disciplined force of people prepared to defend local autonomy against hierarchical overreach as a counterbalance to a crushing and unaccountable bureaucracy. What I see in practice are guns being used for oppressive, not liberatory purposes. Everyone I know who is a gun nut doesn't care at all about government overreach as long as it leans in their favor at the time, and allows them to act upon their most unneighborly impulses with systemic protection.
@@alphajackal6648 It is said that the smallest minority in the world is the individual. Anyone who denies the rights of individuals cannot be considered a friend to any kind of liberty. There can be no "local disciplines force" without the right for the individual to bear arms, otherwise it'd just be another armed band of statist tyrants, but ones who serve a different state. And to be honest, your interpretation and opinions are of little value. What matters is what is written in the Constitution, and we must go by the meaning as it was at the time the document was written, otherwise there would be no point in having laws if they could just arbitrarily change as the language changes. "unneighborly impulses with systematic protection" I suggest you read news sources that aren't skewed to the far left, the "system" does not support gun owners. On the contrary, it goes out of its way to violate its own laws to oppress gun owners by giving systemic protection to criminals while making it as hard as possible for the gun owner to defend himself, leading to the need for gun owners' insurance and legal services to come to the aid of these gun owners should they ever use their 2nd Amendment rights to defend their homes.
A armed society is a polite society America has a culture problem not a gun problem the UK has almost the strictest gun laws in the world yet London has a shooting almost daily you just don't hear about it
define 'a shooting' 109 homicides in london last year by ANY cause 334 gun murders in london over the last TWENTY years that's a city area with a population just under 10 million define 'a shooting' and you could also while you are at it point at the source you are using for 'almost daily' or you could just do what people usually do in this situation and either get verbally violent (fight response - high odds) or ignore me/ delete (flight response - low odds). you are now a sociology experiment. congrats.
A armed society can indeed be a polite society if you look at Switzerland as an example. But Swiss people own Semi Automatic rifles to defend their nation. Americans own Automatic guns to defend themselves against their own nation
If you really read the Second Amendment carefully, it's obvious to anyone that the phrase "well regulated" refers to the militia, but "shall not be infringed" refers to the right of all people to bear arms.
Why weren't Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, El Salvador, or any cartel controlled country in the list? You're picking and choosing what stats to use to make it fit what you want it to say. Guns are our rights and that will never change.
i mean, it makes sense to just pick countries with working governments/societies when talking about firearm bans. Taking cartel controlled countries into account would be like taking WWII into account when talking about infant mortality*, the results would just be meaningless *(in my example, infant mortality was analyzed to look at medical progress)
You prolly should have talked to someone that actively participates in gun culture as it is now, unless this was just your own personal thoughts on how gun culture is the way it is now. History is great, but the present is important too. most people aren't historians, and you'll find an overwhelming majority of legal gun owners do treat their gun as tools, but tools that need to be respected, where an owner needs to be disciplined in their maintenance and upkeep. Their time shooting with friends and family as another opportunity to be with loved ones. The freedom you are so unaware of can range from many interpretations, but as just some black dude living in philly, its protecting personal freedom. My right to defend myself from people that wish to harm me, and it isn't really any deeper than that. I think this was a weak one and while I'm not faulting you for putting your thoughts out there, that takes a lot of vulnerability most people this day and age can't do, but coming out swinging with objective or unbiased when it doesn't seem like you really understand why Americans (still) love guns, yet not just reaching out and asking why... It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. still love your stuff though!
@@CarrotConsumer this is a deeply disingenuous comment. He refers to Legal gun owners, as in people who don't commit violent crimes with firearms. By excluding those people from the analysis, all you see is the negative, violent, criminal aspect. YOU are the one with blinders on, not him.
The point is this. If the cops and robbers have guns. Then so shall common man. Especially when the “cops” or government, are the biggest robbers there are 😂
A poll requiring someone to answer honestly isn't exactly an accurate way to judge something being polled. Some people would rather the pollster would simply leave them alone and simply answer no.
I love my RUclips , consume content constantly , but yours is the only channel I support through Patreon because I don’t ever want you to stop . Thanks for what you do Micheal , i hope you are very proud of what you’ve created here ✌️🇮🇪
love the graph at the start listing other countries while leaving out crime rates as factor, truly amazingly helpful information... 9:25 how would you come to that conclusion? self defense is not the only reason for gun ownership after all. Especially considering that the US government is regularly murdering it's citizens. The 2nd amendment is really *quite* clear and I don't see how there is any room for interpretation. The NRA is not exactly well liked in the firearm community. I personally don't believe in giving up rights for perceived security. America has a crime problem and a lack of empathy, without addressing the underlying issues even 'Thanos snapping' all firearms will not stop the violence.
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -Madison, Fed 46
What Americans don't understand is that other countries, with "strict" laws have guns too I live in Austria and like, 30-40% of the population are gun owners. And there's no huge industrial complex and ridiculous lobby behind it, no cultural inclination towards guns, so that percentage is quite high And we have laws that, by the view of most Texans, would appear draconic, but end up being some paperwork and an evaluation. It's all in all around 2 hours of administrative work to get yourself a gun. And that's if you want to go the legal route Because whilst there are laws, they aren't enforced. You can buy guns "illegally" and no one will ever care in any way I think American perspective is skewed because the other English speaking countries have quite limiting laws on guns. But these really are the exception. And a lot of psychological Manipulation from the gun lobbies too obviously
That's certainly a fun bit of info to know concerning firearms possession and purchase in Austria. As a Texan, I can at least personally say that the paperwork for buying a legal firearm in the United States can take two hours as well (or even a weekend, depending on the time you sent your paperwork and criminal background check to the FBI). I've experienced surprise by many non-Americans that we have any paperwork at all, and I assure them that we've had background checks for decades at this point, to which the typical response is "but I heard that I could buy a gun at Wal-Mart without any ID". I'm afraid the issue of American philosophy, in general, and when it comes to guns, specifically, is clouded by disinformation and demagogic appeals made by different interest groups.
Its good to hear from another country's perspective on the same subject. But I think from your end, you do not see just how insanely different every place in the US is. Most of the violence comes from the few huge cities we have where gun laws are strict and they are suffering from different problems.
Americans love to believe that the talking points manufactured by gun manufacturers, it's not for your freedom, it's to make a profit. I don't know how Americans get conflated to
A big fundamental difference between the united states and the multiple European countries that allow gun ownership is the framing of the relationship between citizens and the state. France for example, actually allows for ownership of 'cooler' guns, but the context in which you may use one is extremely limited. A gun is more like a book checked out of a library, useful for practical learning and even just for enjoyment, but ultimately not owned by the reader and to be returned to its real owner, the depository. This is because self defense is more or less illegal (of course it varies) in Europe. You do not have the explicit right to defend yourself from real or perceived threats, therefore there is no valid reason for the ownership of a weapon by the average citizen in the eyes of the state. The United States is predicated on individual sovereignty, no reason is required to pursue it beyond the inevitable existence of threats in the world.. Think about socialized medicine. When the state provides healthcare, it reasonably follows that it will want to get some return on the investment and not see it wasted. It is public money, and the government is arbiter of public well-being. Sometimes, this leads to unfortunate outcomes like the UK NHS' controversial removal of life support, "Baby Alfie", etc. Weapons of all kinds are antithetical to this, because even the most clear cut self defense I creases expenditures. Not to be derogatory, but what happens if you vandalize a police vehicle? You will be pursued by a monopoly of force for damaging government property. Application of force by cirizens in all cases threatens that monopoly and similarly "damages government property". America is much more willing to let its citizens go without care, but also allows for a hypothetical defense situation to be primarily between the citizens that the government simply arbitrates. I hope this helps
14:19 You forget to mention that, for just as many slavers, an equal amount of abolitionists and slaves took up arms against the institution, much of it in Bleeding Kansas. If individuals didn't own firearms, you'd still see hired or government armed guards at plantations, just like any other slave nation in history. At the time, there were many states that banned freedmen from possessing firearms, in fear that they'd foment a slave revolt, like John Brown almost achieved. Earlier in the video, you also forgot to mention that the first gun law in history was that of punishing any colonist who knowingly provided muskets, powder, or musketballs to Native Americans. This is because, if Europeans were "proficient" at firearm usage, Natives were "advanced". Often they had better equipment, training, and tactics than European militia. Within a generation, the primary tool for resisting colonialism was the musket, and the tool the colonizers used to stop this was gun control. Ultimately, any gun control is based around and achieves one vision. "Rich, mostly white, pro-government, pro-capitalist men as the only ones who can be trusted to enact violence." Guns will always be used to settle disputes; Government is nothing but the threat of violence written down on fancy paper. The only question is, who gets a seat at that negotiating table?
@@otte385 yet in saddams iraq, people had open access to firearms, yet the people couldn't free themselves from saddam. In fact, some of the gun owning civilians join the massacres of the iraqi state themselves
As a reenactor that regularly uses flintlocks they are not as "clunky and inaccurate" as you say they are. They are slow yes, but they are reliable. Granted you know how to use one.
The love of guns is a lot to do with land ownership, most European countries it’s hard to own land so the need to defend it is less needed historically
Like most average american boys I have had experience with guns growing that started with nerf guns and rifle shaped sticks that led to airsoft guns and eventually being allowed to shoot the real thing under supervision as a teenager and the line "never point it towards anything you don't want to kill" really stuck with me and made me question every piece of pro gun propaganda I've ever heard growing up. Why is there such a serious dedication and obsession to a tool that is really only used to kill? Why are so many civilians today just ready and willing to murder another person at any time?
Guns are attractive for the very same reason that oversized trucks have recently attracted the attention of the American consumer: They appeal to the fragile ego.
So are we not going to talk about the main reason? To rebel against a tyrannical government should our social conventions and constitutional protections fail us and it comes into the hands of the wrong people?
i mean, a tyrannical government could just drone strike people into subservience. And I think at least authoritarian governments are most likely going to come from the people, as they did in most other places. These people would then be armed...
@@truly_infinite in the navy's real life wargames based on the US where strategists plan out hypothetical situations where the country goes into chaos i dont recall why in this specific case but the game was deadlocked for a while when a single guy managed to cut off one of the interstate highways and the army was unable to effectively supply their positions. Im saying this because youre leaving out a lot of things by saying they'll just drone strike people. Making the drones means finding a factory where you can make them, people who will help you, and people who will supply you with the technical knowledge and physical materials that will make up said drones, then transporting them to the places you need them, finding your target and choosing a place and time to strike is not as easy as you make it sound, why do you think Israel bombs entire buildings? it's hard to drone strike a guy when he's A) surrounded by innocent, uninvolved people including children. B) indoors or underground for the majority of the day.
@@truly_infinite Also idc how many people are armed, that argument you made is pro-russia propaganda, Ukraine shouldn't surrender just because the enemy is greater in numbers.
@@Jetiix i'm sorry, where did I imply Ukraine should surrender? If you took that from my comment, then I'm sorry, I'm quite anti-Russian and pro-Ukranian, including pro-Ukraine-Help stuff
Hello:
This is the exact type of video that RUclips chooses to demonetize. If you want to support my work , check out the Patreon:
www.patreon.com/HorsesPT
Best,
Michael S.
We desperately need and want more content like this
Thanks for making it, despite knowing it would be demonetized.
I joined your Patreon because I'm quite smitten with your work. Of course, I expect a shirt any minute.❤😊
Saying guns is part of the colonization culture doesn't explain why guns have special status in America. The British colonized ALL of North America with gun, but some how USA citizens recognize gun ownership as a right while Canada recognizes gun ownership as a privilege.
Also your explanation of the revolution is wrong. The main factor that caused the revolution is slavery.
Imagine living the past 4 years and still believing the government will protect you.
The weirdest thing for me was seeing some of my progressive friends saying we were inching towards fascism in 2020-2021, only to then go back to being anti-gun as soon as the next president took office.
I’m not even conservative, either. I just don’t understand some people’s thought processes. If you don’t trust the government, it doesn’t make sense to want to give them more power.
@@scottbogen1168 They don't believe anything they say. It's all gaslighting.
Ong bro
@@scottbogen1168The same people will tell you about how Israel has lasers they can use as weapons...but the boat that took out that bridge, is a conspiracy.
100 years*
e: actually like literally all of history but we're just chronologically close to a lot of good examples. never forget wounded knee
"Hello American, I am conducting a survey on behalf of the US Government. Do you have any guns?"
A flawless means of collecting valid statistics.
No, I don't.
Nope not at all, can’t stand those fully semi-automatic grenade launchers
Lol is pew government funded? I didn’t know that
It’s a bit irrelevant, honestly, seeing as the number is 120 guns per 100 citizens… all it means is the actual number is likely much higher
@@garrett3108the actual number is definitely higher, though it's worth noting, at a large scale there's 2 fairly distinct groups of gun owners: people who own one gun (a handgun or shotgun in a drawer/closet for defense), and people who own a lot of guns (enthusiasts, collectors, etc.)
Mid-video ad was for a gun holster. After-video ad was for the Sandy Hook Promise organization.
Ugh, that Sandy Hook Promise ad comes up so much. Ambulance chaser disgustingness.
RUclips plays all sides, what can I say?
It’s about the duality of man.
Show me your war face
@@rockstarofredondo that AJ lawsuit money putting in work
We certainly deserve the right to privately own fully armed battle tanks. A tank crew, being more than one person and working in tandem with each other, is quite literally a well-regulated militia.
The urbanite will tremble at this realization
Yeah but only the rich will afford tanks. This is how you get corporate death squads, not community run militias armed by average citizens.
He was right by saying that grammar was different in 1789 than it is now. Words have different meanings. In the 1890's a gay person was a happy person but now he or she if gay is a homosexual. We need to update the meaning of our Constitution. I grew up learning gun safety and target shooting. I wasn't ever really into hunting as I don't like killing an animal. From my reading the book, "On Combat", I can see that very few people can actually kill another human being, but the NRA and the GOA don't care. They just want kickbacks from firearms manufacturers as more and more guns are sold. I think we need universal background checks plus checks on person to person gun sales. I don't have much in the way of guns compared to what online SHTF guns sites recommend, and most of my handguns are single action, meaning not made for a civilian civil war.
I live in a suburb and want a tank in my front lawn tyvm @terminator572
@@PatrickThreewit Boy, you sure did spend a lot of time typing this when you could've just said "I know nothing about guns and am scared of them." Your line about "single action handguns" alone proves that. You understand the M1911 and Browning Hi Power are SAO, _right?_ Even if you hadn't broadcast your ignorance that way, you hold up the NRA as if the average gun owner doesn't hate that organization more than the ATF.
We don't have much time in this world, and we weren't meant to spend it this way.
$12 in 1850 had the buying power of $465.26 in todays value. 18 cents in 1900 had the buying of $6.55 in todays value
also, there are way more people than back then... waaay more technologies and hunger and stuff like that... its not "everything is expensive now"
Everything else about money has changed, too. If I need to come up with $500 by the end of the week, I have a lot of options. I can sell something on FB Marketplace, or take out a loan, or put it on credit, and so on. If I’m living in 1850, coming up with $13 could be an impossible task.
_I’d buy _*_that_*_ for a dollar!_
Also don’t forget that a big part of a guns cost, is all the costs of the red tape needed in the production. Such as lawyers, federal permits, auditing, unreadable taxes and further costs.
The other thing he did was compare apples to oranges. 22LR firearms are almost always less expensive than firearms that shoot a heavier load, this is because less pressure is involved. A walker colt revolver needs to be much stronger thing than a 22lr anything. Also, if you look at all of the earlier colts, he was tooling up to produce them, which costs money. New tech is more expensive than old tech, we all know that. He was producing cutting edge firearms and demanded cutting edge prices.
Guns are a huge part of american culture. Like they are integral to the national character. Firearm possession is literally enshrined in their founding documents, their nation was built on rebellion and revolution, which would not have been possible without guns. So asking them to give up guns is like asking them to give up everything that makes them American. In Europe, firearms arent a significant part of their culture. Barely a part of it at all. Thats why its so difficult for non-Americans to understand the fascination. Thats my interpretation as a British person anyway. Its the fundamental aspect of their identity, the American way of life, maybe the most important part.
Idk, wasn't the UK "saved" (built) on weapons during the two world wars? Built on violence and force with colonialism? Why isn't your society's identity based on them? What perpetuates the idea that America needs weapons but the UK doesn't?
This was said perfectly and is likely the only sane comment here. My boyfriend (Who is also from the UK) said pretty much the same thing many times. Freedom of Speech and Expression as well as the RIGHT to own Firearms is what makes the United States what it is and it is a complete and total fluke that we are still able to practice such individual freedoms in our modern age of government over reach and control. I hope we still are able to do so long into the distant future.
~ A Pro-Gun LGBT person
The nation was also built on genocide. Very important omission there.
hyperconsumism culture... thats the problem, usa has no real culture, but capitalism and consumerism
Yes sir, but it is the right that all other rights are built on. The second amendment was written to protect us against government oppression, which is a reason we can have funny memes on our phones and yall can’t.
Oh boy , I cant wait to read all the wonderful and civil comments this video will bring...
just wait for the completely sane person to argue that having assault rifles at home does in fact not raise risk for kids "you just have to educate them early enough" 😂😂😂 delusional
@@MichaelBecker93 unsafe because they are out in the open all of my firearms are in a attic in a gun safe all with barrel and trigger locks and empty mags in another location and ammo in another locked location.
@@MichaelBecker93youre actually wrong tho 😂. Youre so arrogant.
@@wtice4632and so it begins 😂
@@wtice4632 elaborate
"Do Americans really love guns?" while showing a MP5. Yes, yes we do. Give me a MP5.
real af 🍻 u a real one
Your not a real American if you don’t enjoy your guns period point blank
Ww love our guns
❤
Why America loves German supermodels.... I mean mp5s😂
18:17 The passage talking about gun violence increases between 1958 and 1968 mention Glock being introduced the the civilian market. Glock didn't start manufacturing firearms until 1982 and they didn't hit the American market until 1986.
Yep
Horse is a Left winger, its no suprise he uses bad data
It’s sad the politics are clearly getting to him
Rofl, two facts not necessarily the same fact. Lol reading.
@@sunnohh pills. Now
Horses fails to note that there is a widespread belief that there are many more gun owners than is recorded by pollsters since owners have become increasingly wary of discussing such matters with random callers.
Also, many of those "viol3nt" stats are from good people stopping bad guys.. Yet it shows up on the statistics as if it was a bad thing, when it's not.
@calholli Absolutely correct. Also, if you take the liberal cities with the strictest gun control measures out of the equation, then the violent crime rate is miniscule. Horses made himself an extremely biased, manipulation of the facts here. It just goes to show that even someone intelligent like this creator, can be badly brainwashed in leftwing colleges
Very much correct. Also if you take away the blue cities with the strictest gc measures, the crime stats are actually extremely low
@@calhollithat is completely false. There are been countless studies that show a very small percentage of total gun deaths are in self defense.
@@patricknowak7509 PoI^ce shoot^ngz aren't considered self def3nse-- yet it's nearly always taking out bad peopl3 and saving lives.. granted, they make plenty of mistakes also.
As a Georgian, many people here have a similar attitude towards gun ownership. Even though we have pretty strict (and frankly, foolish) concealed carry laws, many civilians still have guns, often more than one. Gun ownership, as well as the right to bear arms of any sort, have a history that dates back centuries here. Ironically enough, the only time in its history when Georgians were made to give up their arms was in 1917 (we all know how that fairytale went lol). Even that happened after a brief war against the Red Army. There's a street named after the young Junkers who fought the Russians in the capital Tbilisi.
Nowadays, the legality of gun ownership has become a much more politicizes issue, even in Georgia, with most opposition parties trying to revert the current government's gun laws and allow concealed carry after passing a psych evaluation. If it does materialize, Georgia will be the first post-Soviet country to legalize cannabis AND civilian gun ownership. Funny how things can change in a realtively short period of time
Idk why but i thought you meant Georgia The state at first and became confused when you started talking about The red army 😂
You are on the right path. Communists and fascists alike, are both very pro gun control. I'll stick with the opposite
@@gurgel1746 lol
"Georgia. Sweet sweet Georgia on my mind"
@@gurgel1746 We really should rename Georgia the country to Sakartvelo in English.
But when the Black Panther Party wanted black communities to be self-policed with guns, Reagan took the right to open carry firearms illegal.
Lol self policed? Just like in Seattle where they had their own police and ended up killing a black kid 😂???
@@MORE_BEANS_PLZ No. Not like a disorganized mess.
I'd rather not support any kind of racial nationalists.
@@connerkelley6906 They weren't. Consider this, the terms "white power", "all lives matter", and others came after the existence of terms "black power" and "black lives matter" but in both of the latter's cases, they did not mean what white supremacists twisted them mockingly into being. Do search this up yourself if you don't believe me, because in both of the black's instances they were meant as empowering slogans for freedom and recognition, black power because they had no power so it was a movement to gain their rights and lose their oppressions. Black Lives Matter became the name to emphasize the blacks who feel injustice and have not been feeling mattered.
But with that aside I don't even know what is wrong with large black communities having their own type of representation after all we brought them here, we failed to treat them decently for 200+ years (slavery, segregation, private schools to loophole around desegregation, racial profiling etc) to this day.
If you ain't afraid of white-majority countries having power then what is wrong with black-majority countries having power? Afraid they'll shoot you for being racist? Settlers afraid they'll be deported or have vengeance brought upon them for all their ancestors have done? There are for sure ultranationalist and reactionary groups of color but they do not represent the majority in the same way the Taliban does not represent the majority of Islamic people.
womp womp
A well balanced breakfast, being necessary to the productivity of a healthy person, the right of the people to cook and eat bacon, shall not be infringed.
Finally, some said what needed to be said
I don't know if this is satirical or not, but I unironically agree.
Oy vay goy, it's not kosher
2 delicious slices of the bacon
Is the due of every human on the earth (on the earth!)
2 delicious slices of the bacon
Is what we get instead of social justice (justice!)...
NOBODY NEEDS A DOZEN EGGS
The term "Well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment means "sighted-in and regularly trained" not "regulated" in the modern sense of being controlled by the government. Old shooting manuals will talk about the "regulation of the sights" which means getting the sights zeroed in. Now, in old England, it was standard to require every Englishman to regularly practice with the long bow, as it was crucial in times of war to have plenty of well-trained archers. In the US, while no lesser a personage than Ben Franklin Himself said that training in the bow might be best, it was generally recognized (and more and more so as gun technology advanced) that it was a good thing to have plenty of trained shooters on tap in case of war. So when the US became a country, the founders made it very clear that everyone (may not apply if female or POC) who wants one may have a gun because this way there would be lots of trained shooters. I personally may or may not agree with this, but this is how we got here.
@@S1ipperyJim Wrong!
@@S1ipperyJim wrong. in 18th century vernacular "well regulated" means "functioning properly" and has nothing, what so ever, to do with government oversight. my favortie example is a man writing to his brother celebrating his watch being "returned to a well regulated state.".
not to mention supporting clauses in no way limit or restrict subject clauses.
According to George Mason, "well regulated" meant of sound mind and body. If you don't know who George was, might want to learn.........
@@ErikHammack-p8c Able bodied, yeah. Basically, let's not have a militia that's kneecapped by restriction and red tape.
This is exactly right. It was originally the intention of the founding fathers that the US exist with a militia alone and no standing army. For the miniscule federal budget of the time a militia was much cheaper, and they feared the possibility of a military takeover. They eventually realized that a standing army was necessary to secure American interests.
In Mexico Article 10 of the constitution allows any civilian to own firearms that are deemed "acceptable" by the government (Hint, none of them are), but even with that restriction already in place, more draconian laws were implemented in 1972, 4 years after the government had massacred students in Tlatelolco for the crime of assembling (They weren't even protesting at the time). No one spoke against gun control and now we live in a country where organized crime is free to kidnap and rape our families while corrupt military and police institutions look away and also engage in crimes against their own citizenship. If you give away your gun rights you are condemning your people to live in a dystopian anarcho tyranny.
Drugs flow north into the US, guns flow south into Mexico. Been like that for decades but I do wish some of those guns would find their way into the hands of the citizens instead of the cartels.
@@StainsStainsStains only because of the atf lol. cartels dont need american guns, they manufacture and import their own just fine.
"This thing happened. Then this thing happened. Thing 1 made Thing 2 happen. I proveded it."
@@BrorealeK If you seriously don't think Tlatelolco + El Halconazo + the subsequent guerrilla movements that formed inside the country aren't what moved the government to pass that law then you suffer from a mental disability.
pinning all that on just “they took guns away” is so reductive it’s actually stupid
Love it or hate it, guns aren’t going anywhere. Your best bet is to take a firearms safety course and move to a county where the police don’t play games.
that m4 with a scope in the thumbnail is absolutely foul
Thought the same thing
I didn't notice that one, i was looking at the tec pointed at their arm...
@@dynomitejec#metoo
It's not an M4.. It has an A2 stock and looks like an 18" barrel... That, plus the fact that it has a long range scope says that it's most likely an SPR. That picture was taken before the M4 even existed.
@@thinkharder9332 It's not a carbine stock.. it's fixed M16 style stock.. and that barrel looks quite long.. It sticks way out past the FSB. If you look close-- it actually looks like it's an 18" heavy barrel with nothing on the end of it. You can see the threads at the end of the barrel. My point was, it is more of a SPR/ DMR "setup"-- for long range. The longer barrel/ the heavy barrel/ the fixed stock/ the variable optic. It's not a "foul" setup. It's just not an Mforgery; but instead: it's setup for longer range shooting. It's fairly common for the time; especially how companies would only sell them for "sporting" back then.. So the fact that it's fixed stock, no bayonet lug, no muzzle device, etc.... It's probably around the "assault weapons ban" time frame.. Anyway, it's just funny how people think it's "foul" lol.. It's just a sign of the times, back then. You can thank Bill Clinton for that loadout. lol.. It doesn't look like an M4 because the concept wasn't even a thing yet.. At least they were showing innovation and deviation away from the M16.. It just wasn't perfected yet.. It's on an A4 flat top upper receiver.. But that mount is made to mimic the carry handle and float high so that you can still use the iron sights below it. It's a pretty sick retro setup if you ask me. ;)
11:25 The Spanish conquistadors considered firearms “extremely advanced” weapons, just like their swords. They were armed to the teeth with them when they conquered the Aztec and Inca empires. So saying that early Americans didn’t look at a gun as a weapon is ridiculous. They were “not efficient” weapons, sure. But they were weapons.
They were much more efficient when it came to production and training though. Also the conquistadors armed their allies, who were rival kingdoms and tribes to the Aztec Empire with firearms. They were really advanced to almost all of Europe during the times of the Spanish conquests of the Americas and were used to full effect in every battle.
It was efficient as part of a weapon system. Bayonets and other melee weapons were often used in conjunction with a musket
@@burtbiggum499it was used for individual self defense on a daily basis on the American frontier. So that argument is completely baseless
@@Iwantjewstodie Did you even read my comment?
@@burtbiggum499 I’m referring to the video creator’s argument that it wasn’t used in self defense by individuals during colonial America
Kind of feels odd at 2:58 when gun homicides are compared to countries where they are illegal and not just all homicides committed
all of europe, north africa, much of the middle east and south asia rate better than the US using that metric also
@@stiofanmacamhalghaidhau765you might want to rethink the middle east aspect, they have a massive firearm culture there, and much more loose on safety than American gun culture. I've seen some videos.
@@a-dolphin do you really think the average person in the Middle East can buy a gun?
Yeah that's intentional.
Yes its quite easy and cheap
2:03 "The majority of America believe gun ownership is a Right"
It IS protected under the Right to bear arms so maybe a better sentence would have been "The majority of Americans support gun ownership as it's historically been protected under the 2nd amendment"
Maybe he should have included the rapid change in guns from way back then to now. They weren’t necessarily granting them the right to a firearm that could load and fire in seconds lol
@@stuffystuffsityas6302 the second ammendment protects ARMS, not firearms, but ARMS in their entirety. It's clear that the principle behind it was to ensure americans could be armed, own and bear weapons. And for context, many americans owned war-ships and cannons at the time of the founding, which were used to fight the revolutionary war. You also need to keep in mind that even though muskets are slow, the military had the same slow obsolete weapons that the people did. Allowing the people to be armed with muskets at the time of the founding would be no different than allowing modern citizens to be armed with M249s and M16s
@@mccad00 "many"
Which many, dude.
@@BrorealeK what do you mean which “many”? What I’m trying to say here is that private citizens owned war-ships and cannons which were used in the revolutionary war
@@stuffystuffsityas6302 The puckle gun, averaging 9 shots per minute (3x faster than conventional muskets) and with an 11 round magazine , was created in 1718 and used as ship guns by the British. This was included in "arms"
The Ferguson rifle was a breech loading rifle the British used literally during the revolutionary war against them, was also way faster than a musket and "light infantry troops could continue loading and firing without breaking cover, even when lying prone". Like a modern gun, able to be quickly loaded and held prone while remaining concealed.
The Belton Flintlock was a repeating flintlock rifle presented directly to the Continental Congress in 1777 and could fire 8 shots before reloading. Literally a repeating rifle in 1777.
A century or more even before this they had guns with multiple barrels that could fire as many times as there were barrels, or could fire a devastating 8 .50 caliber rounds at once.
And within the founding fathers' lifetime percussion cap repeating weapons more similar to what we have today, and are in fact still used today, were born (1820s, ~40yrs after 1776).
Yes. They. Did. Know.
I love guns because I think the history behind them and the way they work is incredible.
Same
So does a painting.
@@greenvelvetyep, I like paintings and I like guns.
thank you for convincing me to pursue a career in gunsmithing
That’s awesome dude, wish you the best of luck
@@dannydanumbayea he going to need it I would personally wait until Bidens out and see if a gun friendly president comes because a man who did literally nothing but buy gun parts is resting in a cell right now in New York FJB but this is a free country just be careful of the crazy uncle in Washington he found the mushrooms again😂
Sonoran Desert Institute. Sorry, I watch too much Garand Thumb.
@@petermurphyismylordNsaviour Ha, I'm in that boat, saw this and my mind was immediately thinking SDI
@@amhuman5138 it’s funny how Mike crops up in your brain when you least expect him to. lol
When youre settling the apalachian mountains a gun is in fact needed for defence against wild animals and such. You cant use a hatched as the law guy said
Yep, Greetings from WNC, a couple years ago we had a really bad bear problem. Bears are usually a lot more scared of you than you are of them, but imagine waking up with a mad or sick one on your porch or getting trapped inside your fenced in yard with 3 cubs and a protective mom. Guns are a must, my nephew has hit two dear and had to humanly put them outta their misery. Everyone in my family carrys a rifle and a pistol with them at all times. Shall Not and Will not be infringed.
True, everyone who makes anti-gun arguments, i have noticed at least, are not real outdoors people who LIVE there. They might visit or go hiking or something, btu they've never had to build their own cabin or hunt for their food or survey their own land. If they were, they'd know how important a firearm can be for your survival in these situations. City people think that they're so protected from these scenarios, but society is very delicate, and someone might not always be there to sell you food, you might have to grow or obtain it yourself 1 day. Plus, there is no reality where I'm gonna walk through say, the Smokey Mountain wilderness, without being armed. Bears and Mountain Lions are common.
Also, self defense against highwaymen and fending off attacks by Native Americans was ABSOLUTELY what was in mind for those colonists. Not just "warmaking". Ridiculous.
@@thekamotodragonI sincerely doubt you, either, have "built your own cabin" or live off the grid. Lol
@thekamotodragon Also how often do bears and mountain lions kill people in the Smokey Mountains? Not even one a year.
One statistic that I think would have been interesting to include is violent crime with any weapon across countries. My intuition would say that we’re not much more violent than other countries, we just use guns as the weapon instead of a knife or a club or something
Oddly enough, developed countries like England and Australia have significantly higher rates of violent crime than the US.
I mean, we do have a violence issue, but yeah, anytime I hear someone say "gun violence," I stop caring about what they have to say, because it's such a blatant manipulation of data. Knife attacks are just as horrific as gun attacks. Dying is dying. I think the other problem is how many people don't realize just how dangerous knives are.
And the section of this video where Horses talks about how you had to think about it, and there was a barrier of entry to violence is so dumb. Many of the worst atrocities in history predate guns. People have willingly and gleefully murdered with knives, axes, clubs, etc for all of human history. The difference was that a handful of psychopaths who were strong enough could keep getting away with it, and everyone else had to live at their mercy. Guns simply allowed the less strong to have the ability to kill as well. Now, any psycho can kill, but additionally, any normal person can protect themselves.
But yeah, another note regarding your thought on "gun violence" stats is well founded, because it also includes self defense cases, self inflicted deaths (which alone account for two thirds of gun deaths), and police shootings. It's disingenuous to say the least.
Your intuition isn't really correct at least on a quick comparison to European homicide rates (ignoring method of homicide). US is >5x higher than UK, Germany, France, Spain, etc
@@Tmanownshe literally put homocides per 1000 in the video and USA still ranks fairly far above other well developed countries, theres no blatant misinterpretation of data here, your just deafening yourself to the facts that guns are dangerous.
@mortalakira I literally said we have a violence issue in general. All I was saying was the phrase "gun violence" is a litmus test on whether someone is just interested in the guns, or interested in the root causes.
As a “gunlovin American” I boil it down to this. I believe people will always have guns, whether or not they are illegal. Therefore I want guns to defend myself.
At this point it's pretty much impossible to keep hands out of ther american public like i mean i could go down the hardware store and buy the stuff to build shotgun.
as an Australian who was abducted at gunpoint from my own home, I can confirm you're 100% correct.
@@alyssarichardson2544 sorry that y’all’s government did that to a beautiful country
@@jdbearden8435 Thanks mate, means a lot...
@@alyssarichardson2544 i pray for your people down there. your government is full of tyrannical goobers.
Allowing private pwnership of guns was something that was uniquely British before it was uniquely American. The French, Spanish, Portuguese, Danes, etc did not allow it, preferring instead for their colonist to depend on their militaries for protection. Britain however incentivized colonists to protect their own land to have a firmer foothold on said land particularly in the frontier. So the idea that American see guns as a way of protecting "you and your own" us okder than the country itself
Re your text @18:13 Winchester did not make handguns, and Glock wouldn't sell handguns for another 15 years.
...as a non US citizen, the US is scary
Good. Stay away.
Only in the cities.
Just stay out of major cities and you'll be fine/have fun.
what the ACTUAL FUCK is on top of that AR-15 in the thumbnail they damn near put the whole hubble telescope on it
That’s what I’m saying it looks like shite and no sane man would have that
The very large objective lens scope was popular as a tactical item In the 80s and 90s due to the large field of view it provides. Sunlight tubes were similarly popular, and is just a plain tube 2 or 3 inches deep that threads on the front of the scope to act as a visor.
They're actually pretty nice to use, weight and bulk aside.
Yeah my uncle used to have a 20x magnification optic on his fixed carry handle AR. After he gave it to me I replaced it with a 3x magnification prism. It’s so much easier to use now lol.
@@Recreationaltrespasser I don’t think it would be very useful though. 5.56 only has an effective range up to about 600 yards.
The Girl in the Tumbnail is Gabriella whited, you can see her talking about it briefly in her 3 minute arm workout video.
Lost all my guns and ammo in a tragic canoe accident.
I live on a rural area in America and from my experience it's not a love of guns that perpetuates their sale, its a mistrust of the federal government, the dissolution of law and order in metropolitan areas and the desire to defend one's self. When you look at what's going on in this country and elsewhere, it seems pretty sane to me my friend.
Wouldn´t it be better to do something against that dissolution of order and your quality of life?
@@tefky7964 Why would you make the assumption they dont? They're usually the most civic minded people who are involved in their communities and vote in every election. Real talk, what do YOU do?
Damn u should move sounds like it’s rubbish there
"perceived" dissolution of law and order in metropolitan areas. Actual crime and murder rates have been falling for decades - what you might be referring to is internet and cable news fearmongering.
I love this take on gun violence because it’s based on literally nothing but personal experience. Rural southern areas have the highest gun death per capita rates anywhere in the country. You live in a rural area of America, why would crime that takes place in cities influence your decision at all? Do you think that the reason there is more crime in cities than there is in rural areas is because of your way of life? The true disillusionment is with the core of the issue and the contributing factors; poverty and mental health. In reality then, we’re kind of attacking the same points from different angles, the federal government and self defense. I want the federal government to provide more resources to mental health institutions and better infrastructure in impoverished communities. You want the federal government to remove all taxes and “send the inner-city folk back to where they came from”. There’s probably some compromise here.
You can tell the scope of this video, in an effort to appear unbiased and based in historical context, has been narrowed and framed to the extent that it accomplishes neither.
He displays the text of the 2nd Amendment, declares it to be confusing, and moves immediately into vivisecting definitions in context of the era. For someone who seemed keen on providing context to the topic, he completely ignored the State Constitutions that have duplicate articles with alternate formatting.
For example, in Pennsylvania's Constitution from 1776: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." And again, it specifically mentions self-defense before anything else.
In Delaware's Constitution "person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use." Notice the same order of importance there?
Google is your friend, and I promise you that the English language has not changed all that much in 200+ years
He cites two clashing expert opinions as a way to frame the Gun Control Debate as an equally-matched logical debate, yet the anti-gun point is hilariously unfounded. "Cornell has indicated that the right to bear arms had almost nothing to do with personal self defense" Which had nothing to do with the header-text "Bear Arms" as those two words has intentionally wide scope. It's meant to cover *every* use-case of a firearm: armed combat, hunting, sport, self-defense, etc. as described in those original constitutions.
This is also founded upon Supreme Court Judge Scalia's official opinion, as mentioned later in the video.
Pistols were common and popular far before Samuel Colt. Blackbeard was famous for carrying 6 pistols, Colt simply gave people the same capability in the size of one.
Samuel Colt did what every modern company's marketing department does. It was not new at the time, and it's not going out of style anytime soon. Colt was successful because his designs were revolutionary in the industry. You also forgot to mention how popular firearms became with women of the era, as goes the phrase "God created man. Samuel Colt made them equal"
Gun Rights are Women's rights.
The video mentions that firearms were used to control the slave population, but fails to mention that non-whites were prohibited from owning firearms, which could be used to fight for their freedom. Another point against gun control, because it's also racist.
The framing on the phrase: "...Guns are used to 'settle disputes'..." is very belittling their importance. The lack of firearms historically leads to oppression, enslavement, and genocide, in that order, with every democidal Authoritarian government of the last century, be it the Nazis, Soviets, CCP (even today with the Uygher Muslisms), Cambodia, Iran, etc.
also the logical place to look at what the founding fathers meant would be the federalist papers in which it clearly says the militia is the people
Insurmountably based my good man well said
Well said
I find it extraordinary that I had to scroll so far to finally read a comment like this. I believe horses made an attempt to be unbiased in the making of this video but the framing in the script lets his biases bleed through.
Thank you, I thought it was preposterous when he stated that for DECADES the court did not view the 2A as an individual right. The courts always thought of it as an individual right. It was only after activist constitutional scholars and judges tried to subvert the 2A with their ridiculous "collectivist" interpretation that the Supreme Court felt the need to put that to rest with Heller.
Canada loves guns too. The province I live in has a 1/3 household gun ownership per capita.
Your anti-gun views and hoplophobia are showing.
Those 3 kids in the thumbnail have better trigger discipline than 95% of adults.
Going to have to agree with you on that one
The Girl in the Tumbnail is Gabriella Whited, she talked about it briefly in her 3 minute arm workout video
“By the mid 19 century guns were clunky and unreliable” my hawken from the 1830’s is one of if not the best rifle I’ve ever owned
yep, you can tell this video was made by someone with little firearms knowledge.
@@thurin84 Its a common trend among the types of folks who make videos like this, lol
@@bro918 yet they feel qualified to tell other people what guns they can have and how to use them lol.
@@thurin84i swear i’ve heard that exact phrasing from an uneducated politician during a conference
"It was you, it was me, it was every man,
We've all got the blood on our hands
We only receive what we demand,
If we want hell, then hell's what we'll have"
Cookie Jar by Jack Johnson
“Shall not”
Shallots! Yumo.
@@farqueueman*crickets*
"Well regulated"
@@shadowpriest3359 regulate these nuts fedboy
@@mightymayo121 Aww poor Clay somehow thinks he's more powerful than the united states government. Showing off your room temp IQ there buddy hahahahahaha
I think we should also realize that many other countries don’t allow guns. It’s hard to say Americans love guns and compare it to the rest of the world when other populations are banned from owning them.
For your reference about the increase in gun violence between 1900-30 I feel like it’s disingenuous to not bring up the Great Depression
@6:32 It's interesting that US founding fathers can change their mind so drastically on the issue of not having a standing Army (calling it 'antithetical to American Liberty') yet people still cling to the belief that the 'right to bear arms' originating from the same period (which was due to not having a standing army) is so set in stone in the constitution that it can't be changed in the modern day. Yet today US has gone from not having a standing army to having the largest most powerful military in the world by a LONG way. I think this is purely due to the extreme capitalist mindset in the US which has led to US economy and weapons industry simply making too much money to allow a change for the better for their society.
Another example of a non-capitalist knowing nothing about economics. The firearms industry is quite small. No defense contractor even breaks the top 50 biggest companies in the U.S. Money that goes into weapons lobbying is miniscule compared to other issues that lobbyists get involved in.
@@POCKET-SAND Its fascinating that you view the firearm and ammunition industries US$90B as 'miniscule' 🤣
@@S1ipperyJim Yeah because it is by national standards. Like I said, not one single defense contractor or gun company breaks the top 50 largest US companies. Many US individual companies are larger than the entire gun industry.
Nobody is going to admit to owning guns in a survey.
We, the Turks, built our country with our weapons, just like the Americans. But then we were disarmed. Many times in my country, the soldiers dismissed the government elected by the people, that is, staged a coup, and many dictators in Europe tortured the people. In America, none of these happened, soldiers could not stage a coup against the government elected by the people, a dictator could not take away people's freedoms, as in Germany and Italy. Know this well, folks, the reason why governments and leftists are against guns is to restrict the freedoms of the people as they wish. An armed nation cannot be enslaved.

2 reasons:
1.) Guns are cool.
2.) Self defense is a human right
Self defense is a human right but not every human can express that right freely without a mountain of ridicule and disdain from the public/lawmakers anywhere on earth, in some cases it has the potential be classified as assault to fight back against an attacker during a robbery or physical attack on a person (this often happens in places where firearms are explicitly illegal anyways so you're mostly dealing with knife, car, improvised weapon attacks) which is a leap in logic in and of itself, this world we all live in is truly mad when you see it for what it is
If crazy people didnt get guns you would cut the rate of needing self defense while still keeping that right (aint no way gun control is based????)
Self-defense against fucking what? Everyone in America claims it for self-defense, but no one ever talks about the time having a gun on them saved their life. It’s always this future all seeing evil coming for their families lives. If some stranger pulls a gun on you in an alley, I doubt they’ll wait patiently for you to get your gun out for a fair duel. They’ll shoot you the moment you reach for it. Just be fucking honest with yourself. You like guns and you fetishize the potential violence you could “save yourself” from
Let me Guess, u dream with a situation in which u get to use ur gun, so violent
He didnt speak on how the first and second world wars, or even korea and nam, changed firearms form factor and braought on a new age of semi and fully automatic firearms. This was a big change to the culture, similar to the change from muskets and flintlocks to revolvers and lever guns. I appreciate not talking in length on the wars, though something may be said about americas veiws towards guns and violence in general during vietnam.
I fully advocate gun ownership, but i comes down to the individual to be smart, aware, safe and ready. No one derserves to die for someone else, dont put yourself on either side of a gun in a violent or stupid mindset, but be the good guy with the gun, get training, and i cant stress it enough, dont be stupid.
Ps. Remember, violent felons "arent allowed" to own guns!!👍
The "don't be stupid" part is certainly the hardest.
@psterud but the most necessary.
The National Firearms Act was enacted in June of 1934 in response to the perceived threat of the mob's use of Thompson submachine guns. Before this act, you could buy a Thompson through mail order and have it delivered to your home...that being said, most of the people buying Thompson submachine guns were homesteaders who needed it to protect livestock and property from vermin and predators....not the Chicago mob.
Spot on. Common sense and individual smarts are hard these days
How is all that being said by a furry
if guns were prohibitively expensive in the 1700s then why were there laws saying every house had to have one
Soldiers for most of history were expected to purchase their own equipment. It’s simple: the government mandated that people spend a ton of money on a thing.
That part was funny to me for a few reasons
"You're going to jail!"
"Why?"
"For not having a gun!"
"I shouldn't be in trouble for that!"
"What the fuck are you going to do about it without a gun? Bitch."
@@captainjules6033 Now that's not Prohibitively expensive then is it
@@universome511 what? No something being very expensive does not mean that people can’t be forced to buy it anyway. Health insurance is prohibitively expensive and it’s illegal not to have it
hey, how dare you notice a contradiction in this "unbiased" video!!! just drink the koolaid!
I think you were a little misleading on some points. Suggesting that Southerners, Prospecters and Xenophobic Urbanites are the only people who would have a gun seems to put people in a box. And suggesting the gun ownership primarily is a way to "settle dsiputes" is a little narrow minded. Guns are definitely used in that manner but that's not really the core of American Gun Culture. The best way to describe it would be more in line with romanticism around the revolutionary war. The more modern POV is more associated with Cold War survivalism, Anti-government sentiments, Distrust of the government, and popular culture. The idea that gun owner ship is more linked to racism, is a bit divorced from reality. As for the NRA, they have all but disintegrated. The real thing you should have addressed should have been the intent behind the creation of felonies as a way to disenfranchise minorities and strip them of voting and gun rights. The proliferation of Firearms is more or less linked in increased central federal power, and the subsequent incompetence to deal with the consequences of removing local powers over the subject. It is at this point though, and uncontrollable power as the equipent to manufacture firearms is readily and freely available without necessitating federal overwatch as making a gun is relatively easy. The path forward is likely a stalemate.
He's misleading on a bunch. This is their first shitty video I've seen. This is one of the worst videos about guns I've ever seen
Yeah had to stop watching when he said that early European colonists brought with them a new technology, rifles. The colonists had muskets. Rifles were extremely rare and were used only in sport hunting, not warfare.
🤓 erm ackshully
I myself have a fondness of guns not because of what people with them have done, but because of what has been done to people without them.
3:36
There is no need for a justification.
There is nothing wrong with people wanting to own guns just for the sake of it.
Comes naturally with the hobby. You're gonna get curious how different platforms work. It's just not always wallet friendly though...
@@frug5629 I mean, do people ever do anything for the sake of it?
@@frederiksrensen6116 Yes some people out there most likely do. as to the validity of that claim that i do not know. but it wouldn't surprise me at all to say the least.
The rest of the world looks at you and laughs, poor Americans, how funny. Once the power of the world flails and tears.
@@k__k___ i'm german you bozo
I'm going to honest it's justified to carry a gun and own one these days because most of the time law enforcement won't help you but the sad thing is if you defend yourself then you're going to get arrested
The mythology of firearms is so prevalent that my firend who literally said "no one will steal from me becuase i have guns" and yet within a month of buying a gun the gun was stolen still was unshaken by his belief that guns inherently made his house more safe
How does a man get his gun stolen…
@@atenthunderbolt4215 contrary to gun owners beleifs theifs dont announce when they're on the way
Was it kept in a vehicle?..
@@BillyTheKidderthat’s my thought too
@@RockStock6that $100% happened, I was the thief
A well regulated Militia, not to forget every fighting aged male was expected to be part of this militia, hence “minutemen”
"If I didn't have this gun, the King of England could just walk in here any time he wants and start shoving you around, you want that? Huh? Do you?"
This, but unironically.
The biggest problem with guns is the inherent constant responsibility that we as a society must maintain to keep them; all contingent on mental health, laws, the economy, and etc... Something with such potential destructive capabilities must take a lot of discipline that many are not capable of. This is why countries with the least amount of gun deaths either have very strict laws or complete bans.
Gun owners will taunt education, but they don't know if they will always be of sound mind to responsibly own them. People will always face adversity and struggle; and every gun owner is not going to triumph. Sadly, it will seem like an easy answer to problems...
Countries with the least amount of gun deaths were historically and otherwise generally peaceful anyway (mass immigration has changed this to some degree).
The United States, for all of its virtues and faults, has never been exceptionally peaceful compared with First World peers.
“only 32%”
uhm…
Its simple to me really, if someone wants to disarm you, its probably cause the armament is whats stopping them from doing something to you.
What a weird jungle logic.
Every man for himself is the law of the jungle. Cooperation is how civilization in society is supposed to work
@@greenvelvet people cooperated in the past and they had weapons the whole time why would now be any different.
@@greenvelvet And how exactly is demanding people render themselves defenseless "cooperative?"
Your logic is baseless.
@@greenvelvet lol gay opinion disregarded
Your videos are something I would save for later as a treat and get excited about to watch because they make me think. I like how long they are without being inflated for, good videos to watch while eating, You bring topics and ideas that I wouldn’t have really given much thought other wise, and I thank you for that. I like learning.
It is safe to say America will always have an affinity to guns. What better way can the government convince its people to endorse mass weaponry and wars than to convince them they need protection .
What country do you live in and how much does America protect you?
What a dumb thing to say
Our government hates that people can own guns, what?
Well they make millions off of it so makes sense no?
It's interesting how a lot of modern American political topics have been historically used to justify violence in the past (immigrants bringing the "violence", etc.) and just how ingrained guns are in American culture.
Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun
No, it grows out of unflinching unrelenting will grow out of organization of communities if you believe change achieve for the barrel of a gun, you got a really f***ed up mentality
As always you create a thoughtful discussion, worthy of hearing out. I'm glad you did this video and I think the like to dislike ratio itself says quite a lot about the subject
its disliked because its insanely biased and full of obvious lies
I really like the 4:3 aspect ratio the video took. It’s an interesting form that just has a different tone to it. Keep up the work and thanks for an informative video and not misleading information
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" has never been hard to understand
In contrast, Brazil seems to hate guns and we have more gun related deaths per year than some countries fighting wars. People who want to use firearms in a tyrannical manner will find a way to acquire them anyway, gun control only serves the purpose of keeping law abiding citizens as sheep. I'd be a proud gun owner if I had the chance.
I'm from Ireland and live in Florida, never had a gun, shot one once back home. I got an ad for a holster during the video but then I get them everyday lately
You should get a gun. They're fun.
I think firearms related content only has a certain number of advertisers that want to run ads over it, and it would make sense that firearms adjacent companies would be ok with advertising on something tagged as firearms content.
I also think that geolocation plays a big role in what ads are served. I get all kinds of ads that seem targeted but for someone else. 😂
Sounds like you need a gun my man haha
That's a sign to buy one ;)
Friend you live in Florida just walk up to a random car in traffic and ask for a gun everyone has one or two. ...😅
Pretty much every country fought their wars and civil wars in the history with firearms. Only the US of A has this lingering issue. Figure it out guys.
It's not an "issue," it is an explicit right.
@@payleryder45 The murder of Jews was a right of the state in Nazi Germany. I would call that an issue, also.
One of the 1st lesson I was taught as a child was rich people are not your friends and the government is just rich people in power.
0:33 the graph says selected european countries as in hand picked to make the usa look alot worse. also mexico has 3 times the murder rate so this stat is bias and all around wrong
Base on what?
Mexico isn't a European country...
The vast majority of gun violence is a particular section of the population in particular places. Not from the vast vast majority of legal gun owners.
Exactly.. many of those "violent" stats are from good people stopping bad guys.. Yet it shows up on the statistics as if it was a bad thing, when it's not... All the rest are from poIice, bIack gangz and mexlcan carteIz all fight^ng each other.
If pretentious was a channel
America is one of the only contries that includes suicide in gun violence statistics (because guns and gun violence are politisized here). So those stats are a little misleading.
7:12 if you can't understand old English Then you won't understand British people the Bible and cowboy movies jus saying
Most nations start off violently that’s a moot point.
Most peoples throughout history settled disputes with violence, that’s a moot point.
If guns kill people, why don’t we put the gun on trial?
Dude it's the availability that's the problem, if someone in your country has a psychotic episode they can get a gun within the hour. In other countries they have to wait at least a couple of weeks, at which point they usually calm down and get help.
@@angrybopper do you think ted kazcynski calmed down and got help
....because they are fun and functional. That's why I love them still. I enjoy the "power I feel when I fire them" ...and when I say that, I mean that actual energy released from the round when I fire it. I *_do not_* feel like it gives me power over anyone or anything. Instead, if I'm carrying (just my personal opinion), I have to be the best citizen I can be. I can't be getting into ego battles, road rage nonsense, anything like that....nor can I be dumb enough to act like I'm some cop or authority figure.
If I had the money, I'd have a private armed security force to protect my family and myself. I can't afford that, so I do the job myself.
I'm not a sheepdog type. If there is a shooting, I'm getting my family to safety. I'm not running from them towards the gunfire, hoping to play hero. Sure, if I feel I am in a position to stop something like that, there is a moral obligation to do so....but the safety of my family comes first.
Values and ideas are the things that matter.
That's what makes an "American".
A gun is not a value, it's not an ideology.
. A gun is a weapon, a tool, a product. nothing more.
And like all products companies need to emotionally manipulate people into purchasing them.
By tying guns to nationalism. The same way the cigarette industry tied cigarettes into freedom, individuality self-empowerment and sex appeal.
These are just objects, they only have the power and the mythology that WE project onto them.
Believe me, us gun owners need no such encouragement from companies. They are tools, and important ones. It not so much the physical gun itself but the purpose it fulfills that fits in with the "mythology" (I use quotes because there's nothing mythic about this purpose).
The idea that this "gun culture" only emerged since the 70s or 80s is just laughably false. The militia, being a force to protect against all threats foreign and domestic, has been well understood in much of America since the 1600s, long before the Revolution even happened. The people should posses the ability to defend the nation and themselves, and of course will need weapons to be able to do so. As such, there has always been interest surrounding guns and their availability.
Pretty much all throughout American history up to the 1960s and 70s, civilians had access to the same kind of guns the military was using, sometimes even better ones since the military almost always just contracted gun makers to make their base model in bulk while civilians had options for accessories and additional features for those same models.
@@POCKET-SAND I would be much more comfortable with well-regulated local militias as a counter to governmental power than individual gun owners shooting black folks because they got the wrong address. The fact remains though that guns in the American context are not used for militia purposes.
@@alphajackal6648 I suggest you study up on the 18th century definitions for both "regulated" and "militia."
In the 18th century, the word "regulated" meant something akin to well-equipped, well-prepared. It did not yet take on the modern meaning of being associated with limits and oversight. Therefore, the actual meaning of the phrase is that a well-equipped militia is necessary, so hampering the ability of people to obtain guns violates this.
Next, the terms "militia" and people are interchangeable. The Founding Fathers used these terms interchangeable because they were one in the same. Laws from pre-Revolution Colonial times define the militia as all able-bodied men between a certain age range, though it may have differed slightly from colony to colony. In many areas, these "militia" (meaning all able-bodied men in a given area) were required to provide their own guns. This view is still in effect to this day, as the Militia Act of 1903 defines all able-bodied men not already in the military or National Guard as part of the unorganized militia of the country, the National Guard being the organized militia. Your "local militia" already exists, it's comprised of all your local able-bodied men. You may even be one of them.
@@POCKET-SAND To be honest, I don't really care about the 'intended' meanings behind the words. The men who wrote them are long dead and gone, and didn't live in the same world we do. When I say I'd be more comfortable with a well-regulated militia, I mean in the sense of a local, disciplined force of people prepared to defend local autonomy against hierarchical overreach as a counterbalance to a crushing and unaccountable bureaucracy. What I see in practice are guns being used for oppressive, not liberatory purposes. Everyone I know who is a gun nut doesn't care at all about government overreach as long as it leans in their favor at the time, and allows them to act upon their most unneighborly impulses with systemic protection.
@@alphajackal6648 It is said that the smallest minority in the world is the individual. Anyone who denies the rights of individuals cannot be considered a friend to any kind of liberty. There can be no "local disciplines force" without the right for the individual to bear arms, otherwise it'd just be another armed band of statist tyrants, but ones who serve a different state.
And to be honest, your interpretation and opinions are of little value. What matters is what is written in the Constitution, and we must go by the meaning as it was at the time the document was written, otherwise there would be no point in having laws if they could just arbitrarily change as the language changes.
"unneighborly impulses with systematic protection"
I suggest you read news sources that aren't skewed to the far left, the "system" does not support gun owners. On the contrary, it goes out of its way to violate its own laws to oppress gun owners by giving systemic protection to criminals while making it as hard as possible for the gun owner to defend himself, leading to the need for gun owners' insurance and legal services to come to the aid of these gun owners should they ever use their 2nd Amendment rights to defend their homes.
"The French have wine, the Americans have guns"
"The second amendment is hard to understand"
Not you too, Horses. Not you..
A armed society is a polite society America has a culture problem not a gun problem the UK has almost the strictest gun laws in the world yet London has a shooting almost daily you just don't hear about it
define 'a shooting'
109 homicides in london last year by ANY cause
334 gun murders in london over the last TWENTY years
that's a city area with a population just under 10 million
define 'a shooting'
and you could also while you are at it point at the source you are using for 'almost daily'
or you could just do what people usually do in this situation and either get verbally violent (fight response - high odds) or ignore me/ delete (flight response - low odds). you are now a sociology experiment. congrats.
A armed society can indeed be a polite society if you look at Switzerland as an example. But Swiss people own Semi Automatic rifles to defend their nation. Americans own Automatic guns to defend themselves against their own nation
@@maurodebaets....those are different people. We're not all the same, believe it or not.
@@maurodebaetsautos have been banned in the US for decades lol
@@cheegus4160 not if you pay the government there extortion money
If you really read the Second Amendment carefully, it's obvious to anyone that the phrase "well regulated" refers to the militia, but "shall not be infringed" refers to the right of all people to bear arms.
The Militia and The People are one in the same.
Why weren't Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, El Salvador, or any cartel controlled country in the list? You're picking and choosing what stats to use to make it fit what you want it to say. Guns are our rights and that will never change.
i mean, it makes sense to just pick countries with working governments/societies when talking about firearm bans. Taking cartel controlled countries into account would be like taking WWII into account when talking about infant mortality*, the results would just be meaningless
*(in my example, infant mortality was analyzed to look at medical progress)
You prolly should have talked to someone that actively participates in gun culture as it is now, unless this was just your own personal thoughts on how gun culture is the way it is now. History is great, but the present is important too. most people aren't historians, and you'll find an overwhelming majority of legal gun owners do treat their gun as tools, but tools that need to be respected, where an owner needs to be disciplined in their maintenance and upkeep. Their time shooting with friends and family as another opportunity to be with loved ones. The freedom you are so unaware of can range from many interpretations, but as just some black dude living in philly, its protecting personal freedom. My right to defend myself from people that wish to harm me, and it isn't really any deeper than that.
I think this was a weak one and while I'm not faulting you for putting your thoughts out there, that takes a lot of vulnerability most people this day and age can't do, but coming out swinging with objective or unbiased when it doesn't seem like you really understand why Americans (still) love guns, yet not just reaching out and asking why... It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. still love your stuff though!
An overwhelming number of gun owners YOU HAVE INTERACTED WITH. Your personal anecdotes are not statistically relevant
@@CarrotConsumer this is a deeply disingenuous comment. He refers to Legal gun owners, as in people who don't commit violent crimes with firearms. By excluding those people from the analysis, all you see is the negative, violent, criminal aspect. YOU are the one with blinders on, not him.
The point is this. If the cops and robbers have guns. Then so shall common man. Especially when the “cops” or government, are the biggest robbers there are 😂
It's not hard to understand😂😂
A poll requiring someone to answer honestly isn't exactly an accurate way to judge something being polled. Some people would rather the pollster would simply leave them alone and simply answer no.
seems like america is becoming more and more dystopian every year
I love my RUclips , consume content constantly , but yours is the only channel I support through Patreon because I don’t ever want you to stop .
Thanks for what you do Micheal , i hope you are very proud of what you’ve created here ✌️🇮🇪
I really appreciate this guys narrative perspective on these videos. He always seems to be able to keep a fairly unbiased perspective.
How tf was the channel name horses not taken before you got it. Also I love that this shit ain't got nothing to do with horses.
I watched 26 minutes into the video waiting for a horse to come out :(
All the gun violence is in major cities. With illegally obtained firearms
Coming from Red gun rights States.
That's why gun control needs to be federally mandated and not some loose patchwork of states rights
@@greenvelvet no
I don’t see ANY teenagers running around with glocks with auto switches in my neck of the woods 😂😉
love the graph at the start listing other countries while leaving out crime rates as factor, truly amazingly helpful information...
9:25 how would you come to that conclusion? self defense is not the only reason for gun ownership after all.
Especially considering that the US government is regularly murdering it's citizens.
The 2nd amendment is really *quite* clear and I don't see how there is any room for interpretation.
The NRA is not exactly well liked in the firearm community.
I personally don't believe in giving up rights for perceived security.
America has a crime problem and a lack of empathy, without addressing the underlying issues even 'Thanos snapping' all firearms will not stop the violence.
@NathanHigger Poverty is a neverending cycle, but race hasn't got all that much to do with it.
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
-Madison, Fed 46
Do America's love guns? Yes! When you compare gun deaths in areas of highest gun control are deaths higher or lower?
What Americans don't understand is that other countries, with "strict" laws have guns too
I live in Austria and like, 30-40% of the population are gun owners. And there's no huge industrial complex and ridiculous lobby behind it, no cultural inclination towards guns, so that percentage is quite high
And we have laws that, by the view of most Texans, would appear draconic, but end up being some paperwork and an evaluation. It's all in all around 2 hours of administrative work to get yourself a gun. And that's if you want to go the legal route
Because whilst there are laws, they aren't enforced. You can buy guns "illegally" and no one will ever care in any way
I think American perspective is skewed because the other English speaking countries have quite limiting laws on guns. But these really are the exception. And a lot of psychological Manipulation from the gun lobbies too obviously
Australia doesn’t have have a 2nd amendment, and Americans do t give a F what Australia think.
That's certainly a fun bit of info to know concerning firearms possession and purchase in Austria. As a Texan, I can at least personally say that the paperwork for buying a legal firearm in the United States can take two hours as well (or even a weekend, depending on the time you sent your paperwork and criminal background check to the FBI). I've experienced surprise by many non-Americans that we have any paperwork at all, and I assure them that we've had background checks for decades at this point, to which the typical response is "but I heard that I could buy a gun at Wal-Mart without any ID". I'm afraid the issue of American philosophy, in general, and when it comes to guns, specifically, is clouded by disinformation and demagogic appeals made by different interest groups.
Its good to hear from another country's perspective on the same subject. But I think from your end, you do not see just how insanely different every place in the US is. Most of the violence comes from the few huge cities we have where gun laws are strict and they are suffering from different problems.
Americans love to believe that the talking points manufactured by gun manufacturers, it's not for your freedom, it's to make a profit.
I don't know how Americans get conflated to
A big fundamental difference between the united states and the multiple European countries that allow gun ownership is the framing of the relationship between citizens and the state. France for example, actually allows for ownership of 'cooler' guns, but the context in which you may use one is extremely limited. A gun is more like a book checked out of a library, useful for practical learning and even just for enjoyment, but ultimately not owned by the reader and to be returned to its real owner, the depository. This is because self defense is more or less illegal (of course it varies) in Europe. You do not have the explicit right to defend yourself from real or perceived threats, therefore there is no valid reason for the ownership of a weapon by the average citizen in the eyes of the state. The United States is predicated on individual sovereignty, no reason is required to pursue it beyond the inevitable existence of threats in the world..
Think about socialized medicine. When the state provides healthcare, it reasonably follows that it will want to get some return on the investment and not see it wasted. It is public money, and the government is arbiter of public well-being. Sometimes, this leads to unfortunate outcomes like the UK NHS' controversial removal of life support, "Baby Alfie", etc. Weapons of all kinds are antithetical to this, because even the most clear cut self defense I creases expenditures. Not to be derogatory, but what happens if you vandalize a police vehicle? You will be pursued by a monopoly of force for damaging government property. Application of force by cirizens in all cases threatens that monopoly and similarly "damages government property". America is much more willing to let its citizens go without care, but also allows for a hypothetical defense situation to be primarily between the citizens that the government simply arbitrates.
I hope this helps
Its a specific demographic responsible for 90% of the gun violence in the USA.
14:19 You forget to mention that, for just as many slavers, an equal amount of abolitionists and slaves took up arms against the institution, much of it in Bleeding Kansas. If individuals didn't own firearms, you'd still see hired or government armed guards at plantations, just like any other slave nation in history. At the time, there were many states that banned freedmen from possessing firearms, in fear that they'd foment a slave revolt, like John Brown almost achieved.
Earlier in the video, you also forgot to mention that the first gun law in history was that of punishing any colonist who knowingly provided muskets, powder, or musketballs to Native Americans. This is because, if Europeans were "proficient" at firearm usage, Natives were "advanced". Often they had better equipment, training, and tactics than European militia. Within a generation, the primary tool for resisting colonialism was the musket, and the tool the colonizers used to stop this was gun control.
Ultimately, any gun control is based around and achieves one vision. "Rich, mostly white, pro-government, pro-capitalist men as the only ones who can be trusted to enact violence." Guns will always be used to settle disputes; Government is nothing but the threat of violence written down on fancy paper. The only question is, who gets a seat at that negotiating table?
Beautiful
It’s extremely simple. It’s the same reason we love cars, planes and computers. Freedom and independence.
but guns dont take you anywhere or does anything, except kill..
@@noreaeron Guns save hundreds of thousands of people from death or harm, mostly without killing anyone. Car deaths are far more likely.
@@noreaeron They defend hundreds of thousands of lives a year according to the CDC.
You just named three things that weren't designed to kill other people.
But nice try
@@greenvelvet So what? What are cigarettes, trans fats or poison designed to do? You people just don’t have a point.
Without the 2A, there wouldn't be a 1st amendment
An armed society doesn't mean a free society
@@bobafett_8922 It does.
@@otte385 yet in saddams iraq, people had open access to firearms, yet the people couldn't free themselves from saddam. In fact, some of the gun owning civilians join the massacres of the iraqi state themselves
@@bobafett_8922 Take meds
@@bobafett_8922 It's the opposite: free society means an armed society.
As a reenactor that regularly uses flintlocks they are not as "clunky and inaccurate" as you say they are. They are slow yes, but they are reliable. Granted you know how to use one.
The love of guns is a lot to do with land ownership, most European countries it’s hard to own land so the need to defend it is less needed historically
Like most average american boys I have had experience with guns growing that started with nerf guns and rifle shaped sticks that led to airsoft guns and eventually being allowed to shoot the real thing under supervision as a teenager and the line "never point it towards anything you don't want to kill" really stuck with me and made me question every piece of pro gun propaganda I've ever heard growing up. Why is there such a serious dedication and obsession to a tool that is really only used to kill? Why are so many civilians today just ready and willing to murder another person at any time?
Guns are attractive for the very same reason that oversized trucks have recently attracted the attention of the American consumer: They appeal to the fragile ego.
@@Enlightened2371you could play an imax with this much projection
@@jb76489 i don't prefer going to the movie theaters. They make my ears sore
@@jb76489 im confused by your comment
@@Enlightened2371 I’m sure you are confused by many simple things
So are we not going to talk about the main reason? To rebel against a tyrannical government should our social conventions and constitutional protections fail us and it comes into the hands of the wrong people?
Because that isn't a reason, it's a slogan
i mean, a tyrannical government could just drone strike people into subservience. And I think at least authoritarian governments are most likely going to come from the people, as they did in most other places. These people would then be armed...
@@truly_infinite in the navy's real life wargames based on the US where strategists plan out hypothetical situations where the country goes into chaos i dont recall why in this specific case but the game was deadlocked for a while when a single guy managed to cut off one of the interstate highways and the army was unable to effectively supply their positions.
Im saying this because youre leaving out a lot of things by saying they'll just drone strike people. Making the drones means finding a factory where you can make them, people who will help you, and people who will supply you with the technical knowledge and physical materials that will make up said drones, then transporting them to the places you need them, finding your target and choosing a place and time to strike is not as easy as you make it sound, why do you think Israel bombs entire buildings? it's hard to drone strike a guy when he's A) surrounded by innocent, uninvolved people including children. B) indoors or underground for the majority of the day.
@@truly_infinite Also idc how many people are armed, that argument you made is pro-russia propaganda, Ukraine shouldn't surrender just because the enemy is greater in numbers.
@@Jetiix i'm sorry, where did I imply Ukraine should surrender? If you took that from my comment, then I'm sorry, I'm quite anti-Russian and pro-Ukranian, including pro-Ukraine-Help stuff