I live in Australia. we had a gun buyback after a masacre (Port Arthur) and every time i hear "They banned guns and gun crime went down" i poit at the "Violent crime" and "Knive murder" statistics... overall more peeople die on a yearly basis after the gun ban than before the gun ban. Granted less mass killings in a single instance.
A few minutes in, and I am so relieved to see a young person who is capable of a respectful debate and willing to hear differing opinion! There's hope!
This is actually a really good conversation like nobody acting like a typical liberal. Yes the dude was a liberal but he wasn't screaming and using feelings in a way that doesn't matter to the conversation it was a bit refreshing to see a democrat defend a position for once in my life
Absolutely....every gun law on the book, especially the blatantly unconstitutional NFA, is an infringement. Whole point of 2A is to have access to the same weaponry the military does so they can't dominate us. And before someone says "well there were just muskets back then and it doesn't apply to automatic weapons" let me say that, applying that same logic to the 1A, your argument is invalid unless it's written upon parchment with quill and ink or printed on a period-correct press then delivered by horse-mounted messenger....cause that's all there was back then....sounds pretty stupid doesn't it.....cause it is!
If Charley ever decides to run for president one day, I wouldn't be surprised if he won a majority we haven't seen since Nixon. I think Charley could become even more popular than Trump one day. The guy is super chill, extremely smart, sharp wit, kind but firm with his political opponents, and go where he isn't welcome to spread the America first message. The guy is a warrior and true patriot.
That is slightly disingenuous. That's nit 50k people killed or injured by knives . That includes everyone who was caught with a bladed article on their person. A country of 60-70 million population couldn't sustain 50,000 knife attacks /deaths for any reasonable length of time. Also prior to Dunblane there was 1 previous (many years prior) school massacre. Gun ownership up until the mid 80s was very open. Hand guns , carbine, select fire weapons and shotguns were relatively easy to get. (Also some rather surprising items ). There was a shooting in a town called Hungerford where a fella called Micheal Ryan took his (I believe) AK into town on a Saturday after killing his family and took to killing shoppers. After this select fire weapons were legislated against and then banned. After Dunblane the majority of the populace pressed the government to ban fire arms . Now you can own many fire arms but you must prove you have a reason to have one. Belong to a registered club, if keeping at home you must have it broken down in a locked cabinet and tge ammunition must be stored separately. Hope that helps
346 school shooting in us, if the population of uk is taken into account to match the population of usa, there are around 1000 school knife stabbings per year. the uk argument is futile
5:56 for the people saying "the forefathers never meant for you to have an ar15 you don't need a gun like that!" If the purpose of 2A is to protect us from a tyrannical government, we have to match force with equal force! Are we supposed to hold off a tyrannical government who has machine guns but we have muskets?
they dont wanna bring up the uk knife crime statistics. it sucks you guys have no way to defend yourself. that and being able to get sent to prison if someone breaks into your home
Bro the govt is not stopping us with muskets 😂 They are coming with top grade military equipment. Do u want a musket or a m-4/ar? This lad seemed like he really cared but not too much critical thinking going on in his head
His argument about how many rounds in an AR is not important. If the point is to protect yourself from a tyrannical government or defend yourself from a home invader, they will have the same weapons or more powerful.
You know what kills more people than guns, cars, knifes, or accidents ??? Food… Heart disease is the number one cause of death in the United States. Unlike guns, cars, or knifes.. We all need food in order to survive.. Unlike guns or cars, every household has poisonous food.. Unlike guns and cars.. kids eat poisonous food.. The fact that every street and every store is filled with junk, but not every place has guns, should be more important in my personal opinion. Parents that give children junk food and the child becomes morbidly obese.. That should be child abuse…
I don't understand these types of channels. They profit off of Charlie Kirk's videos. We don't need to watch someone inserting their opinions and commentary. All we need is to watch Charlie's videos, which can be found on Charlie Kirk's channel.
@@pacificreefer4495 The 4b movement was doomed from the start because liberal women cannot go more than six months without having casual sex. The pandemic didn't stop them. Porn industry were essential workers.
No abortion enabler can argue against this. All they do is complain about how bad the adoption system is as a diversion. As if being adopted is somehow worse than death.
A few points 1. These people say that repeating arms did not exist when the second amendment was written. But the first repeating musket was invented in the 1630s. That was over a hundred years before the constitution was written. The repeating musket allowed a shooter to shoot 5 to 7 shots under a minute. So the founding fathers were quite aware of the capabilities of a repeating arm. 2. These people say that without guns the suicide rate would be much lower. As a suicide survivor I could tell you this is wrong. When someone is truly hellbent on committing suicide they will find a way. Guns just make it easier not make people commit it in the first place. 3 he talked about how the inflation has gone down? People like him don't realize that how it worked was inflation rose 200% then went down 10% then went up another 100% then went down another 10%. They then said see inflation went down 20% but they didn't mention that it was up 280% from when Biden took office.
The AR-15 IS a weapon of war. It was designed by Eugene Stoner for Armalite as a military weapon. To be an advanced, lightweight, accurate, and reliable weapon of war... and that's also exactly why I own one and why every freedom-loving American should own one.
I have a revolver that holds 30 .32cal rounds. It fires five at a time as fast as I can pull the trigger. Yet the AR 15 is soooo dangerous? Anti gunners have no idea what they are talking about.
BTW one argument usually left untouched - At the time the 2nd was written, the muskets were the technicaly best guns and the precieved adversaries would use the muskets too. Now, in 21 century there is new standard gun - AR (and/or AK) capable to empty its magazine in 5 secs, what is clearly superior weapon to musket. What guns would carry the homeinvaders or tyranical government agents today AGAINST the citizens? I deeply doubt it would be still musket. So if it is machinegun pointed on citizen from on the other side, the citizen have to have right to be armed by equaly modern gun - or even the best he can buy...
@paxluporum4447 it still is. Sorta. The navy will sell off decommissioned ships on an 'as is, where is' basis. As it's originally written, the second amendment was meant to protect a citizen's right to bear ANY arms. That included automatic guns (puckle gun) and canons. There was never meant to be any difference between what a civilian could own and what the military used.
Inflammation came down really bro i ran out of my foodstamps in the middle of January shop twice trust me we didnt get much and we got two incomes luckily were both getting promoted at our jobs hopefully that helps and we can get off it but bro even with it still tough man these young bucks dont get it
What’s up with people not being able to speak properly anymore?? It’s not “there is reasons”, it’s “there ARE reasons”! This goes way beyond these two talking, but it’s an error that I hear all day every day and it’s driving me crazy!
The government also had to use the same musket. Now the Government has more advanced weapons and there is a massive disparity between the civilians and a tyrannical government. I saw we need more quality weapons to protect ourselves from a government that could go bad.
People need to stop making the type of firearm a point of discussion when talking about the 2nd amendment. There was no specific firearm in mind. They would have written it the same if they had AR15s. As for the type how fast how much one can shot, do people realize that firearm evolved quite a lot before the founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment like firearms technology evolved in their life time were as it was easier to reload, more accurate and yes fire more rounds faster. And they knew to some extent that the tech would get better. It's stupid to think that all they knew was single shot muskets and didn't intend for firearm evolution.
Anyone insisting that the 2nd amendment was intended based on the muskets they had at the time and that they had no idea weapons would get to the way they are today... must also insist that they had no idea of the vast amount of weapon innovation that came before muskets. People knew about swords, knives, bows, crossbows. People knew about the differences between using stone for blades or etc and using copper, bronze, iron, or even steel. People knew about different arrowheads and what they could do to armor. People knew about siege weaponry, cannons, etc. Yes, they knew how vastly different weapons could be from one era to another.
As a single mother, stating that young mothers are “forced” into situations where they can’t support a child is a ludicrous thing to say. It’s beyond a disingenuous claim. I’m not sure whether this is blind or willfull ignorance but it doesn’t really matter. It’s such an ignorant thing to say it’s crazy.
Charlie should've asked this guy about mase,is mase meant as a deterant incase you need something to ward off a potential attack, or to go around spraying people in the face to inflict pain?
The use of a firearm depends on the person and the situation. Just like the guy said way more people are killed by automobile accidents than firearms deaths every year... Lets get honest. Let's ban vehicles and alchohol. More people will be saved hands down.
If I’m not mistaken, muskets were being evolved during the time of them writing the constitution. They knew eventually we were going to have better Guns just had no idea what they would become. Edit: we got revolvers right after that
You're only mistaken in the sense that there were ALREADY superior firearms at the time. The idea that our founding fathers believed that muskets were the end all be all of firearm technology is ridiculous. No thinking person then or now believes that the technology their generation has is the best its EVER going to get. Thats silly. Technology advances. Firearm tech advances. Our founding fathers were quite aware of that when the 2nd amendment was written. In any case muskets werent even peak firearm tech at the time. There WERE repeating firearms. Like the Jiordoni air rifle and the puckle gun. There were also cannons. Which Madison the man primarily responsible for the Bill or Rights, when he was president, wrote letters of marque approving cannons for merchant ships. His opinion was he shouldn't even have to because the 2nd amendment covered self defense weaponry. We actually have FEWER 2nd amendment rights today because you can't outift your car with cannons. So when anti 2A people try to "interpret" the 2nd amendment to say it only means muskets or only means a "regulated militia" should have arms... Well the man who WROTE the 2nd amendment disagrees.
Don’t come to Canada if you’re debating firearms because Trudeau has banned so many different types of hunting rifles while Canada has already got very strict laws regarding the type of hunting rifles a licensed/ trained person can use. How the rifles are stored and transported and extremely strict penalties if any single regulation or law have been violated. Along with daily background checks conducted by police on each licensed individual occurs. It’s next to impossible to get any permit for a handgun and semiautomatic weapons are banned
So his whole reason for voting for her is based on what she wants to to for on very small part of the population and on one of a first world luxury problem. 🤦🏻♂️
6:25 The idea that our founding fathers believed that muskets were the end all be all of firearm technology is ridiculous. No thinking person then or now believes that the technology their generation has is the best its EVER going to get. Thats silly. Technology advances. Firearm tech advances. Our founding fathers were quite aware of that when the 2nd amendment was written. In any case muskets werent even peak firearm tech at the time. There WERE repeating firearms. Like the Jiordoni air rifle and the puckle gun. There were also cannons. Which Madison the man primarily responsible for the Bill or Rights, when he was president, wrote letters of marque approving cannons for merchant ships. His opinion was he shouldn't even have to because the 2nd amendment covered self defense weaponry. We actually have FEWER 2nd amendment rights today because you can't outift your car with cannons. So when anti 2A people try to "interpret" the 2nd amendment to say it only means muskets or only means a "regulated militia" should have arms... Well the man who WROTE the 2nd amendment disagrees.
A lot of people say that the first amendment is the most important and that we lose everything if we lose that. I disagree. The erosion of our second amendment decades ago was the wound that will lead to our slow death here in the states. The entire premise was to keep the civilian population on par with the military and those in power so that if the worst came to pass, we at least stood a fighting chance and couldn't be easily walked right over. With that gone we have this illusion of power but in reality the government could choose to force us to do whatever it is they want us to do and there is absolutely nothing that we can do about it. Of course they keep us appeased, distracted and ultimately complacent so we just stay in line like good little livestock. We think we are free but we've been in a little glass jar with breather holes sitting on the windowsill for many many years now. Sometimes they give us a damp leaf and a little piece of fruit and we are grateful.
Americana has always had different gun laws, so speaking about what happened here in Scotland is wrong. Speak on what the person did before see fix it. We don't have the second amendment fact.
Comparing firearm stats across nations is pointless and a complete strawman due to differences in population, demographics, and laws/definitions. More people are killed every year by "bare hands and feet" than all long guns combined (this includes all rifles such as AR-15s, bolt-action hunting rifles, muzzle loaders/blackpowder, shotguns, etc.). Should we start amputating arms and legs? Repeating firearms did indeed exist during the time of the founding fathers and the drafting of the US Constitution, they just weren't super ubiquitous or comonly available. That being said, the founding fathers were indeed aware of this technology and they were in fact fanboys themselves, and most of them were gun collectors/enthusiasts. They were also more than conscious of the fact that technology changes and develops over time, and they were well aware that the single-shot musket or Kentucky long rifle wasn't going to remain the pinnacle of firearms technology forever. Like I said, they knew about many of the repeating firearms that were in development back in their day and some of them even commented in some of their writings that these creations were "the future of warfare" and firearms technology; and this is something they were specifically excited/enthusiastic about. They weren't morons and they knew very well that people would develop and have access to more powerful repeating small-arms in the near future. They weren't a bunch of Neanderthals who had barely managed to master fire. These were some of the best and brightest of their day... So what else ya got for me there, slick? Any other real brain busters you wanna lay on me? Didn't think so. Thanks anyway champ!
My argument with this is that the 2nd Amendment was written when a firearm was a flint lock musket which took most people almost 1 minute to reload before they could take their next shot. Todays modern firearms such as a Glock can empty a 20 shot magazine in under a minute when they are in Semi Automatic mode let alone if they have been modified to fully automatic. Even the basic bolt action rifle with a 10 shot magazine can be emptied in under a minute. I just think that the 2nd Amendment needs a major overhaul. Furthermore, I fully understand the concept that guns dont kill people, people kill people as a gun/firearm is an inanimate object.
This is something that is discussed by Mr. Kirk during the video. If you believe the 2nd amendment only applies to muskets, do you believe that the 1st amendment only applies to parchment and quil? Also, as you mentioned, civilians during those times were armed with muskets. What were the oppressors the settlers fought using? Muskets. The people, the militia, should have access to the same weaponry that the military uses in order to have a level playing field if the government ever became tyrannical. Lastly, modifications to make a firearm fully automatic (i.e. glock switch) are illegal. Gun laws make it more difficult on law abiding citizens to protect themselves and make it easier for criminals to commit crimes. A criminal doesn't care about laws.
@@japspec96I agree. People do not seem to apply history to our constitution or bill of rights. We had just fought to overthrow a bad government and the founding fathers wanted to ensure we could continue to be able to do this in the future by maintaining our ability to have firearms. The first amendment was because they had had no freedom of speech, if the powers that be didn't like what you said or wrote, they'd lock you up. The state not establishing a religion stemmed from the situation in England for something like 200 years of switching from catholic to protestant and the resulting persecution. They didn't ban religion or the expression of it, just banned the government from deciding what religion would be acceptable.
@@japspec96 Dont get me wrong regarding this issue and I am not even sure I have the right to comment not coming from the US. My point is that I believe that it needs to be reviewed. I fully agree that gun laws make it more difficult for law abiding citizens and not offenders.
First off - I am very much for the 2nd Amendment - but - The "protection against a government take over" is a very weak argument - When the 2nd Amendment was written, the only formed government military was mainly made up of "civilian militia" and the government wanted those civilians to have guns for any kind of "foreign" invasion - This isn't a Red Dawn movie and you can have all the guns you want but todays Military (government) has weapons you don't even know exist and you with your shotgun or even an AR-15 will not last long against a organized military take over.
My argument about firearms is: How many school mass stabbings are there per year? I understand there will be stabbings, but not mass stabbings. Also, how often do people drive cars into schools? As a right winger, I do not agree Americans need firearms.
Then you are not a right winger and your arguments are spurious at best. Go take a look at the uk knife crime stats. The issue is not the tool, it is the people.
@KellyPashade considering I'm not able to own a weapon to defend myself for being a non-violent felon. Yes, I just care about myself like every other American, and if anyone tells you otherwise, they are lying
Wrong. We use it to protect. If you have the mindset that’s all they are used for I suggest you look at Ukraine and isreal for examples on why they allow their people to be armed. We are not escapable to these threats. Canada is our closest ally and the most liberal country we know and have now been overwhelmed by rampant gangs, migrants and chaos they can’t defend because their people have no right to bear arms. We protect our first amendment with our second amendment. We can’t expect soldiers and police to do this job as they work solely for corrupted leaders and can be bought and paid for.
@@debbiehart9967 guns defend. Those who use them for harm are bad people. And the only way to fix that issue is to stop creating bad people. Bad people will use anything to harm others. Should we all get pads on our hands so we can’t grab or choke? Should we ride around with foam on our cars? To stop drunk driving we have to stop the under lying problem which is drinking.
New subscriber here and just wanted say I dig your vibe, you seem highly intelligent and objective. Just to let you know about me a little and who i am in correlation to these topics i guess I'd have to start by I'm a very young 48 yr old white dude, my ancestry is of German and Irish decent. Grew up very poor and battle poverty to this day. Agnostic. Never got into politics till early 2000s but only world politics. Quickly realized it was BS and just a TV series really. And stopped paying attention for 15 yrs then caught some Trump sht in 2016 and hated the guy. And i was in fact under double investigation by secret service and some other agency, let's just say red flagged. IDGAF about any of that. . I continue on my life, absorbing the data and witnessing events and all that. And it came full circle back to the fact that this guy is the guy and his staff. I was once the D word then became independent in my mind, then in the last decade I've been unknowingly shifting toward Republican. This trans thing is guano crazy and the border. Duh. Only thing i disagree with still is the abortion thing. That's for my own podcast lol. Abortion should be legal and I will trounce any argument debating that. Anyway, just wanted to introduce myself and wait for the lashback. To the first amendment 🎖️🎉✨🥂
Bro I love your content...ok? I do 💯 But I'd be lying if I said anything other than 🤔 "the worst part of your content is...when you speak" Love u as a person, h@te u as a narrator.
I appreciate how measured and polite this guy was. This is what a civil discourse should sound/look like.
Amen! It gives me hope to see a young person who is capable of true debate without hate!
I really appreciate how you let videos play and avoid getting on a soapbox. Well done sir! 👍🏻
I live in Australia. we had a gun buyback after a masacre (Port Arthur) and every time i hear "They banned guns and gun crime went down" i poit at the "Violent crime" and "Knive murder" statistics... overall more peeople die on a yearly basis after the gun ban than before the gun ban. Granted less mass killings in a single instance.
That convo is exactly what the first amendment is about 👏👏👏
A few minutes in, and I am so relieved to see a young person who is capable of a respectful debate and willing to hear differing opinion! There's hope!
This is actually a really good conversation like nobody acting like a typical liberal. Yes the dude was a liberal but he wasn't screaming and using feelings in a way that doesn't matter to the conversation it was a bit refreshing to see a democrat defend a position for once in my life
We need to STRENGTHEN the 2nd amendment ! Because. "Shall not be infringed " Means just that !
Every gun law is an infringement
@mikeedwards8802
💯
I want Peter Griffin's tank for my bday.
Absolutely....every gun law on the book, especially the blatantly unconstitutional NFA, is an infringement. Whole point of 2A is to have access to the same weaponry the military does so they can't dominate us. And before someone says "well there were just muskets back then and it doesn't apply to automatic weapons" let me say that, applying that same logic to the 1A, your argument is invalid unless it's written upon parchment with quill and ink or printed on a period-correct press then delivered by horse-mounted messenger....cause that's all there was back then....sounds pretty stupid doesn't it.....cause it is!
If Charley ever decides to run for president one day, I wouldn't be surprised if he won a majority we haven't seen since Nixon. I think Charley could become even more popular than Trump one day. The guy is super chill, extremely smart, sharp wit, kind but firm with his political opponents, and go where he isn't welcome to spread the America first message. The guy is a warrior and true patriot.
This dude is the best the liberals had at their disposal. He's an intellectual in liberal circles.
Finally a respectful young man whose willing to debate in a mature fashion. Give him time, I think he’ll see reason one day.
Of course the guy didn’t bring up the increase in acid attacks and knife attacks over that same period of time.
In the UK strangulation and fire have also increased assaults have increased.
Exactly. Mankind always finds a way.
@@KING_STRONGTH Most unfortunately true. It's why I demand to pack Nine to save mine.
50k instances of knife crime in the Uk through mid 2024. I wouldn't use the UK as a basis for gun control when they have so much violent crime.
That is slightly disingenuous. That's nit 50k people killed or injured by knives . That includes everyone who was caught with a bladed article on their person. A country of 60-70 million population couldn't sustain 50,000 knife attacks /deaths for any reasonable length of time. Also prior to Dunblane there was 1 previous (many years prior) school massacre. Gun ownership up until the mid 80s was very open. Hand guns , carbine, select fire weapons and shotguns were relatively easy to get. (Also some rather surprising items ). There was a shooting in a town called Hungerford where a fella called Micheal Ryan took his (I believe) AK into town on a Saturday after killing his family and took to killing shoppers. After this select fire weapons were legislated against and then banned. After Dunblane the majority of the populace pressed the government to ban fire arms . Now you can own many fire arms but you must prove you have a reason to have one. Belong to a registered club, if keeping at home you must have it broken down in a locked cabinet and tge ammunition must be stored separately. Hope that helps
I have yet to hear a democrat/ liberal give a decent answer for Biden/harris accomplishment in the last 4 years.
How is your grocery bill? lol😂
Can't answer for something that doesn't exist.
346 school shooting in us, if the population of uk is taken into account to match the population of usa, there are around 1000 school knife stabbings per year. the uk argument is futile
You can't go hard numbers with UK vs USA.. the UK is smaller than TEXAS lol
Exactly
Very true!
Now you're making me crave some UK barbeque, with a side of crisps and a nice glog of catenbury squill.
If they didn’t want the kids dude they should have kept their legs closed. They have a choice their just to ignorant to understand it.
5:56 for the people saying "the forefathers never meant for you to have an ar15 you don't need a gun like that!" If the purpose of 2A is to protect us from a tyrannical government, we have to match force with equal force! Are we supposed to hold off a tyrannical government who has machine guns but we have muskets?
The first 5 ammendments....you cant have one without the others. They are written a certain way for that reason.
Just wanted to hop in here to say, keep it up bro!!! Its good to have these conversations and to review conversations like this.
As someone from the uk we now have people running around with huge knives and u can’t do anything to stop them
they dont wanna bring up the uk knife crime statistics. it sucks you guys have no way to defend yourself. that and being able to get sent to prison if someone breaks into your home
Move to the UK if you like their their laws
2nd ammendment is very important to many Americans
Guns don't kill people...People kill people with many inanimate objects. Let's ban vehicles
In the US we have both knives and gun attacks.
He couldn't even say anything about an accomplishment No accomplishment as it stands she has No accomplishments
I'm really enjoying binge watching these videos. Thank you.
Bro the govt is not stopping us with muskets 😂
They are coming with top grade military equipment. Do u want a musket or a m-4/ar?
This lad seemed like he really cared but not too much critical thinking going on in his head
Those young mothers, in most cases chose to be single mothers.
His argument about how many rounds in an AR is not important. If the point is to protect yourself from a tyrannical government or defend yourself from a home invader, they will have the same weapons or more powerful.
If the 2nd amendment is taken away, I guess women and the eldery are just screwed if they have a home invader
You are correct
Like England.
Acting like most males aren't beta anymore is priceless
That’s nowhere near as important as a tyrannical government.
Good example
Great show my friend, Love your wisdom.
You know what kills more people than guns, cars, knifes, or accidents ??? Food… Heart disease is the number one cause of death in the United States. Unlike guns, cars, or knifes.. We all need food in order to survive.. Unlike guns or cars, every household has poisonous food.. Unlike guns and cars.. kids eat poisonous food.. The fact that every street and every store is filled with junk, but not every place has guns, should be more important in my personal opinion. Parents that give children junk food and the child becomes morbidly obese.. That should be child abuse…
I don't understand these types of channels. They profit off of Charlie Kirk's videos.
We don't need to watch someone inserting their opinions and commentary.
All we need is to watch Charlie's videos, which can be found on Charlie Kirk's channel.
If mothers give birth to children they can't support or don't want, give the child up for adoption! It's that simple!
Better yet, use protection or don’t have sex
@@pacificreefer4495 The 4b movement was doomed from the start because liberal women cannot go more than six months without having casual sex. The pandemic didn't stop them. Porn industry were essential workers.
No abortion enabler can argue against this. All they do is complain about how bad the adoption system is as a diversion. As if being adopted is somehow worse than death.
According to LEO stats, firearms in America are used to stop crimes 25 times for each time they are used to commit a crime.
A few points 1. These people say that repeating arms did not exist when the second amendment was written. But the first repeating musket was invented in the 1630s. That was over a hundred years before the constitution was written. The repeating musket allowed a shooter to shoot 5 to 7 shots under a minute. So the founding fathers were quite aware of the capabilities of a repeating arm. 2. These people say that without guns the suicide rate would be much lower. As a suicide survivor I could tell you this is wrong. When someone is truly hellbent on committing suicide they will find a way. Guns just make it easier not make people commit it in the first place. 3 he talked about how the inflation has gone down? People like him don't realize that how it worked was inflation rose 200% then went down 10% then went up another 100% then went down another 10%. They then said see inflation went down 20% but they didn't mention that it was up 280% from when Biden took office.
I don’t understand a word you say, but you have awesome Charle Kirk videos!!!
I bet he thinks a AR-15 is a weapon of war 😆 I'll give up my AR if you give up your right to speak..... NOT😂
As a good liberal... I only own AR-10s.
The AR-15 IS a weapon of war. It was designed by Eugene Stoner for Armalite as a military weapon. To be an advanced, lightweight, accurate, and reliable weapon of war... and that's also exactly why I own one and why every freedom-loving American should own one.
LOL "Charlie Kick................kicking ass". That's awesome, and true! I'm going to have to borrow that from you.
We have seen people run down many people with their car or truck, used as a weapon
Liberty is freedom PLUS morality.
Please keep the conversation and information coming to the light
Appreciate these videos!
I have a revolver that holds 30 .32cal rounds. It fires five at a time as fast as I can pull the trigger. Yet the AR 15 is soooo dangerous?
Anti gunners have no idea what they are talking about.
BTW one argument usually left untouched -
At the time the 2nd was written, the muskets were the technicaly best guns and the precieved adversaries would use the muskets too.
Now, in 21 century there is new standard gun - AR (and/or AK) capable to empty its magazine in 5 secs, what is clearly superior weapon to musket.
What guns would carry the homeinvaders or tyranical government agents today AGAINST the citizens? I deeply doubt it would be still musket. So if it is machinegun pointed on citizen from on the other side, the citizen have to have right to be armed by equaly modern gun - or even the best he can buy...
This is why the wording says "right to bare 'arms'".
If this so called “tyrannical” government wanted to turn on its citizens then it wouldn’t be nothing we can do to stop it. So that argument is done
It used to be legal to own a battleship.
@paxluporum4447 it still is. Sorta. The navy will sell off decommissioned ships on an 'as is, where is' basis. As it's originally written, the second amendment was meant to protect a citizen's right to bear ANY arms. That included automatic guns (puckle gun) and canons. There was never meant to be any difference between what a civilian could own and what the military used.
Inflammation came down really bro i ran out of my foodstamps in the middle of January shop twice trust me we didnt get much and we got two incomes luckily were both getting promoted at our jobs hopefully that helps and we can get off it but bro even with it still tough man these young bucks dont get it
Restrict Americans' access to guns and booze you're going to have a fight on your hands
I’m not giving up my weapons. 2nd amendment rights
What’s up with people not being able to speak properly anymore?? It’s not “there is reasons”, it’s “there ARE reasons”! This goes way beyond these two talking, but it’s an error that I hear all day every day and it’s driving me crazy!
The government also had to use the same musket. Now the Government has more advanced weapons and there is a massive disparity between the civilians and a tyrannical government. I saw we need more quality weapons to protect ourselves from a government that could go bad.
People need to stop making the type of firearm a point of discussion when talking about the 2nd amendment. There was no specific firearm in mind. They would have written it the same if they had AR15s.
As for the type how fast how much one can shot, do people realize that firearm evolved quite a lot before the founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment like firearms technology evolved in their life time were as it was easier to reload, more accurate and yes fire more rounds faster. And they knew to some extent that the tech would get better. It's stupid to think that all they knew was single shot muskets and didn't intend for firearm evolution.
The guy had some good points.
My ONLY reason for my firearms is for protection.
I believe the 2nd amendment should be in every state open carry wise.
That's our right not the states decision.
1st,2nd,3rd…. 10th, 30th
It’s all about the ending of the word haha! 😂
Excellent, Charlie!
It’s called the bill of rights not bill of privileges
When he has children, I believe in the fire on
Anyone insisting that the 2nd amendment was intended based on the muskets they had at the time and that they had no idea weapons would get to the way they are today... must also insist that they had no idea of the vast amount of weapon innovation that came before muskets.
People knew about swords, knives, bows, crossbows. People knew about the differences between using stone for blades or etc and using copper, bronze, iron, or even steel. People knew about different arrowheads and what they could do to armor. People knew about siege weaponry, cannons, etc. Yes, they knew how vastly different weapons could be from one era to another.
11:50 single mother here - we already have the child tax credit and it had NOTHING to do with Kamala 😂😂😂
I’ve always loved how you say his last name 🤷🏽♂️
Very well said
AR-15's are semi automatics. You cannot empty a thirty round magazine in 5 seconds.
I like your take brotha. Well done sir.
Like Alan Ladd said in the movie , Shane , "A gun is as good or as bad as the person wielding it".
The whole "modern" argument is old and played out. We beat the British by using the newest gun technology at the time.
4:40
I only have one contention for Charlie Kirk…
A knife is used to PREPARE a beautiful meal,… a Pot or Pan is used to cook it
😅
As a single mother, stating that young mothers are “forced” into situations where they can’t support a child is a ludicrous thing to say. It’s beyond a disingenuous claim. I’m not sure whether this is blind or willfull ignorance but it doesn’t really matter. It’s such an ignorant thing to say it’s crazy.
As usual charlie exposes stupidity 😂
Every administration inherits something from the former administration. That's a lousy excuse
Does this man know the uk isnthe size of Michigan. One state in our massive country. That comparison is not even close.
Charlie should've asked this guy about mase,is mase meant as a deterant incase you need something to ward off a potential attack, or to go around spraying people in the face to inflict pain?
You know someone has given up when they grow a beard ONLY ON THE NECK.
Fun fact: there were firearms back then that could shoot rounds very quickly - the pepperbox and puckle gun, for example.
The use of a firearm depends on the person and the situation. Just like the guy said way more people are killed by automobile accidents than firearms deaths every year... Lets get honest. Let's ban vehicles and alchohol. More people will be saved hands down.
People are aware and accept the risks that come with driving. Nobody accepts being massacred in their classrooms or at a concert.
Love it Brother!
If I’m not mistaken, muskets were being evolved during the time of them writing the constitution. They knew eventually we were going to have better Guns just had no idea what they would become.
Edit: we got revolvers right after that
You're only mistaken in the sense that there were ALREADY superior firearms at the time.
The idea that our founding fathers believed that muskets were the end all be all of firearm technology is ridiculous. No thinking person then or now believes that the technology their generation has is the best its EVER going to get. Thats silly. Technology advances. Firearm tech advances. Our founding fathers were quite aware of that when the 2nd amendment was written. In any case muskets werent even peak firearm tech at the time. There WERE repeating firearms. Like the Jiordoni air rifle and the puckle gun. There were also cannons. Which Madison the man primarily responsible for the Bill or Rights, when he was president, wrote letters of marque approving cannons for merchant ships. His opinion was he shouldn't even have to because the 2nd amendment covered self defense weaponry. We actually have FEWER 2nd amendment rights today because you can't outift your car with cannons.
So when anti 2A people try to "interpret" the 2nd amendment to say it only means muskets or only means a "regulated militia" should have arms... Well the man who WROTE the 2nd amendment disagrees.
@ I didn’t get to finish posting either. Thank you for reminding me I have to come back and finish it.
I hate this guys page, like how about instead of click baiting Charlie’s content you go out and do something like him 😂😂
Very smart man
Well that would require what 3/4th of the House and Senate? Good luck.
Don’t come to Canada if you’re debating firearms because Trudeau has banned so many different types of hunting rifles while Canada has already got very strict laws regarding the type of hunting rifles a licensed/ trained person can use. How the rifles are stored and transported and extremely strict penalties if any single regulation or law have been violated. Along with daily background checks conducted by police on each licensed individual occurs.
It’s next to impossible to get any permit for a handgun and semiautomatic weapons are banned
I don’t agree with overturning the 2nd, but comparing a gun to a car is weak. In most areas you need a car just to live your life.
I am so tired of always bringing up the ARs the schools tell the kids the AR means ault rifle and that can be farther from the truth
So his whole reason for voting for her is based on what she wants to to for on very small part of the population and on one of a first world luxury problem. 🤦🏻♂️
6:25
The idea that our founding fathers believed that muskets were the end all be all of firearm technology is ridiculous. No thinking person then or now believes that the technology their generation has is the best its EVER going to get. Thats silly. Technology advances. Firearm tech advances. Our founding fathers were quite aware of that when the 2nd amendment was written. In any case muskets werent even peak firearm tech at the time. There WERE repeating firearms. Like the Jiordoni air rifle and the puckle gun. There were also cannons. Which Madison the man primarily responsible for the Bill or Rights, when he was president, wrote letters of marque approving cannons for merchant ships. His opinion was he shouldn't even have to because the 2nd amendment covered self defense weaponry. We actually have FEWER 2nd amendment rights today because you can't outift your car with cannons.
So when anti 2A people try to "interpret" the 2nd amendment to say it only means muskets or only means a "regulated militia" should have arms... Well the man who WROTE the 2nd amendment disagrees.
A lot of people say that the first amendment is the most important and that we lose everything if we lose that. I disagree. The erosion of our second amendment decades ago was the wound that will lead to our slow death here in the states. The entire premise was to keep the civilian population on par with the military and those in power so that if the worst came to pass, we at least stood a fighting chance and couldn't be easily walked right over. With that gone we have this illusion of power but in reality the government could choose to force us to do whatever it is they want us to do and there is absolutely nothing that we can do about it. Of course they keep us appeased, distracted and ultimately complacent so we just stay in line like good little livestock. We think we are free but we've been in a little glass jar with breather holes sitting on the windowsill for many many years now. Sometimes they give us a damp leaf and a little piece of fruit and we are grateful.
This guys stance on guns tells me he has never eaten a delicious venison backstrap or sow shoulder roast!!
Americana has always had different gun laws, so speaking about what happened here in Scotland is wrong. Speak on what the person did before see fix it. We don't have the second amendment fact.
Comparing firearm stats across nations is pointless and a complete strawman due to differences in population, demographics, and laws/definitions.
More people are killed every year by "bare hands and feet" than all long guns combined (this includes all rifles such as AR-15s, bolt-action hunting rifles, muzzle loaders/blackpowder, shotguns, etc.). Should we start amputating arms and legs?
Repeating firearms did indeed exist during the time of the founding fathers and the drafting of the US Constitution, they just weren't super ubiquitous or comonly available. That being said, the founding fathers were indeed aware of this technology and they were in fact fanboys themselves, and most of them were gun collectors/enthusiasts. They were also more than conscious of the fact that technology changes and develops over time, and they were well aware that the single-shot musket or Kentucky long rifle wasn't going to remain the pinnacle of firearms technology forever. Like I said, they knew about many of the repeating firearms that were in development back in their day and some of them even commented in some of their writings that these creations were "the future of warfare" and firearms technology; and this is something they were specifically excited/enthusiastic about. They weren't morons and they knew very well that people would develop and have access to more powerful repeating small-arms in the near future. They weren't a bunch of Neanderthals who had barely managed to master fire. These were some of the best and brightest of their day...
So what else ya got for me there, slick? Any other real brain busters you wanna lay on me?
Didn't think so. Thanks anyway champ!
My argument with this is that the 2nd Amendment was written when a firearm was a flint lock musket which took most people almost 1 minute to reload before they could take their next shot. Todays modern firearms such as a Glock can empty a 20 shot magazine in under a minute when they are in Semi Automatic mode let alone if they have been modified to fully automatic. Even the basic bolt action rifle with a 10 shot magazine can be emptied in under a minute. I just think that the 2nd Amendment needs a major overhaul. Furthermore, I fully understand the concept that guns dont kill people, people kill people as a gun/firearm is an inanimate object.
This is something that is discussed by Mr. Kirk during the video. If you believe the 2nd amendment only applies to muskets, do you believe that the 1st amendment only applies to parchment and quil?
Also, as you mentioned, civilians during those times were armed with muskets. What were the oppressors the settlers fought using? Muskets. The people, the militia, should have access to the same weaponry that the military uses in order to have a level playing field if the government ever became tyrannical.
Lastly, modifications to make a firearm fully automatic (i.e. glock switch) are illegal.
Gun laws make it more difficult on law abiding citizens to protect themselves and make it easier for criminals to commit crimes. A criminal doesn't care about laws.
@@japspec96I agree. People do not seem to apply history to our constitution or bill of rights. We had just fought to overthrow a bad government and the founding fathers wanted to ensure we could continue to be able to do this in the future by maintaining our ability to have firearms. The first amendment was because they had had no freedom of speech, if the powers that be didn't like what you said or wrote, they'd lock you up. The state not establishing a religion stemmed from the situation in England for something like 200 years of switching from catholic to protestant and the resulting persecution. They didn't ban religion or the expression of it, just banned the government from deciding what religion would be acceptable.
@@japspec96 Dont get me wrong regarding this issue and I am not even sure I have the right to comment not coming from the US. My point is that I believe that it needs to be reviewed. I fully agree that gun laws make it more difficult for law abiding citizens and not offenders.
@kenwhite9223 why does it need to be reviewed?
Poor “Ed. Major”!
Eddie just took a major ‘L’.
He got trounced.
Go Charlie
Bro added nothing to the video😭
Just curious, what is your accent ??
First off - I am very much for the 2nd Amendment - but - The "protection against a government take over" is a very weak argument - When the 2nd Amendment was written, the only formed government military was mainly made up of "civilian militia" and the government wanted those civilians to have guns for any kind of "foreign" invasion - This isn't a Red Dawn movie and you can have all the guns you want but todays Military (government) has weapons you don't even know exist and you with your shotgun or even an AR-15 will not last long against a organized military take over.
Stop stealing views from Charlie. You saying Dang after 3 minutes does nothing other than give you clicks.
My argument about firearms is:
How many school mass stabbings are there per year? I understand there will be stabbings, but not mass stabbings.
Also, how often do people drive cars into schools? As a right winger, I do not agree Americans need firearms.
Then you are not a right winger and your arguments are spurious at best. Go take a look at the uk knife crime stats. The issue is not the tool, it is the people.
I'm not legally allowed to own a firearm for non-violent felonies . My 2nd amendment was already taken. Why should I care if everyone else's is taken!
So you just care about your self.? Allow me to indulge you a bit. The first 5 amendments...
You can't have one without the others.
@KellyPashade considering I'm not able to own a weapon to defend myself for being a non-violent felon. Yes, I just care about myself like every other American, and if anyone tells you otherwise, they are lying
Guns...knives have many uses, as do cars, hammers, etc., but guns have 1 purpose...to kill/harm. U can't use it for ANYTHING else...just my opinion...
Wrong. We use it to protect. If you have the mindset that’s all they are used for I suggest you look at Ukraine and isreal for examples on why they allow their people to be armed. We are not escapable to these threats. Canada is our closest ally and the most liberal country we know and have now been overwhelmed by rampant gangs, migrants and chaos they can’t defend because their people have no right to bear arms. We protect our first amendment with our second amendment. We can’t expect soldiers and police to do this job as they work solely for corrupted leaders and can be bought and paid for.
No other uses? You have clearly never been robbed at gunpoint before or have been threatened with a weapon. Be grateful for that.
AWWW youve never been exposed to real danger by another human, bless your heart lol
@@debbiehart9967 guns defend. Those who use them for harm are bad people. And the only way to fix that issue is to stop creating bad people. Bad people will use anything to harm others. Should we all get pads on our hands so we can’t grab or choke? Should we ride around with foam on our cars? To stop drunk driving we have to stop the under lying problem which is drinking.
Ahhhhhh shaddup
Great video again.
New subscriber here and just wanted say I dig your vibe, you seem highly intelligent and objective. Just to let you know about me a little and who i am in correlation to these topics i guess I'd have to start by I'm a very young 48 yr old white dude, my ancestry is of German and Irish decent. Grew up very poor and battle poverty to this day. Agnostic. Never got into politics till early 2000s but only world politics. Quickly realized it was BS and just a TV series really. And stopped paying attention for 15 yrs then caught some Trump sht in 2016 and hated the guy. And i was in fact under double investigation by secret service and some other agency, let's just say red flagged. IDGAF about any of that. . I continue on my life, absorbing the data and witnessing events and all that. And it came full circle back to the fact that this guy is the guy and his staff. I was once the D word then became independent in my mind, then in the last decade I've been unknowingly shifting toward Republican. This trans thing is guano crazy and the border. Duh. Only thing i disagree with still is the abortion thing. That's for my own podcast lol. Abortion should be legal and I will trounce any argument debating that. Anyway, just wanted to introduce myself and wait for the lashback. To the first amendment 🎖️🎉✨🥂
This chanel understands the 2 admendment
This video keeps repeating itself I'm out!!
Bro I love your content...ok? I do 💯
But I'd be lying if I said anything other than 🤔 "the worst part of your content is...when you speak"
Love u as a person, h@te u as a narrator.