Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Stephen Colbert Takes The Gloves Off: Gun Control
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 июн 2016
- You'd think the government might do its job and make some laws to protect us. Well, think again.
"Subscribe To ""The Late Show"" Channel HERE: bit.ly/ColbertY...
For more content from ""The Late Show with Stephen Colbert"", click HERE: bit.ly/1AKISnR
Watch full episodes of ""The Late Show"" HERE: bit.ly/1Puei40
Download the Colbert App HERE: apple.co/1Qqgwk4
Like ""The Late Show"" on Facebook HERE: on. 1df139Y
Follow ""The Late Show"" on Twitter HERE: bit.ly/1dMzZzG
Follow ""The Late Show"" on Google+ HERE: bit.ly/1JlGgzw
Watch The Late Show with Stephen Colbert weeknights at 11:35 PM ET/10:35 PM CT. Only on CBS.
Get the CBS app for iPhone & iPad! Click HERE: bit.ly/12rLxge
Get new episodes of shows you love across devices the next day, stream live TV, and watch full seasons of CBS fan favorites anytime, anywhere with CBS All Access. Try it free! bit.ly/1OQA29B
---
Stephen Colbert took over as host of The Late Show on Tuesday, Sept. 8, 2015. Colbert is best known for his work as a television host, writer, actor, and producer, and best known for his charity work teaching English as a second language on Tunisian date farms. Prior to joining the CBS family -- and being officially adopted by network president Les Moonves -- Colbert helmed “The Colbert Report,” which aired nearly 1,500 episodes and required Stephen to wear nearly 1,500 different neckties. The program received two Peabody Awards, two Grammy Awards, and several unwelcome shoulder massages. It won two Emmys for Outstanding Variety Series in 2013 and 2014, both of which appear to have been lost in the move. Colbert is pronounced koʊlˈbɛər, according to Wikipedia. His understudy is William Cavanaugh, who will be hosting The Late Show approximately one third of the time. Good luck, Bill!"
not restricting people on Terrorist Watch list from buy guns is like permitting a guy on the Sex Offender registry to drive a school's handicapped short bus.
The sex offender has already broken the law. The problem here is that people on the terrorist watch list have not broken any laws yet.
But who decides who goes on the Terror Watch List? Who gets to define what terrorism is?
It's called due process. The sex offender had due process and was found guilty. People on a terror watch list had zero due process.
They also didn't pass mandatory background checks... and no one in their right mind is against that.
The Orlando, San Bernadino, Ft. Hood, and most other incidents have occurred after the perpetrators passed background checks. In Orlando, the guy had been investigated by the FBI and cleared 3 years ago. The question in when the gun shops are reporting him as acting strange and requesting ammo in amounts larger than usual, the authorities did nothing. The gun shops did everything they should, including not selling him the amount of ammunition he wanted. Every law that was proposed would have done nothing for any of these instances other than the proposal to ban specific firearms.
I'd love to see a bill proposal that restricts anyone convicted of a previous mass-shooting from purchasing a gun.. just to see it get denied. lol
That's already law. You cannot buy a gun, if you have a felony.
***** Do you think that would stop congress? lol
How do you think it became a law in the first place? The laws introduced in congress would not have stopped the shooting. The left are just using this tragedy to further their agenda.
That's what the BGCs are for, you moron.
You really don't really understand the laws of america in place today.
come and take it
I’ll fight you
In my country we have one of the most severe gun control legislation of this planet for about 15 years now and it didn't change a damn thing in terms of violence and crime so far.
God Luck with that USA.
The club in Orlando is a gun-free zone, as is the theater in Aurora and the school in Sandy Hook. This isn't a coincidence. This isn't an error in the data. The shooters chose the path of least resistance. If your answer to these shootings in gun-free zones is more gun control, then you meet the criteria for Einstein's definition of "insanity." You're doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. Clamoring for more gun control after every shooting in a gun-free zone is, by our friend Mr. Einstein's account, insane.
It would be, if additional gun control laws were actually enacted, which they weren't; not after any of the incidents you listed. Legislation gets proposed and then struck down by the gun lobby, maintaining the status quo until another shooter comes along. If anything, it's the pro-gun folks who are are doing the same thing over and over and expecting things to change when they perpetually reject common-sense safety regulation by saying the latest tragedy was "an isolated incident."
we don't want gun free zones. we want the guns.
THe incident in Oregon was not a gun free zone
+GAMIX JR. Just out of curiosity, how do you propose to get them? And I don't mean how are you going to confiscate them from an armed populace disinclined to comply. I mean logistically, how do you get them all? Having all of the guns taken didn't stop the shooter in England last week, or the shooters in Paris last year, simply because taking all of the guns logistically will never actually mean all of the guns,because it isn't feasible. Pot has been illegal for decades and yet it's in nearly every home in America. How, literally, do you propose to take all of the guns, and actually take them all? Do the police keep theirs? Police have their guns stolen. What about our neigh or to the South? If we can't keep something as large as a person from crossing a border, how to you stop something as small as a Gun?
We wouldn't need gun free zones if people couldn't buy guns without even a fucking proof of id
Ever heard of due process, Steven? Its probably the most precious thing in our existence as Americans.
Due process is available for people excluded to purchase a gun in those bills.
No its not. Its denying people all of their rights without scheduling a hearing or charging them with a crime. It takes 3.5 years for the government to even hear an appeal if you are put on the no fly list and then there is no guarantee you will be taken off. You will probably need millions to fight it too. Have we gotten that way? Begging the government for the rights that they have no authority to interfere with?
Due process sure is taking it's sweet fucking time.
No. Its government being incompetent, like it always is. Laws cant protect anyone from anything. Either charge these people with the crimes or leave em alone.
I bet your the same bitch that cries about "revoking the 14th amendment (birth right citizenship)" and fails to see that "due process" is also listed in the 14th amendment...
"High powered assault rifles"
Lol, yeah that be called battle rifle.
Says a guy with full-time ARMED security... Get bent!
It's adorable that people believe these talking heads about AR15s being "high powered assault rifles." There's nothing high powered about a .223 round. You'll notice that nobody uses them for hunting anything larger than a pig. There's a reason for that. They're weak. The military doesn't use them because they're especially good at killing. They use them because they're smaller and lighter than the .308 rounds they used to use and they're good enough to put someone out of the fight. Oh, you didn't know that? That's right. War isn't about killing the other people on the battlefield, it's about stopping them. Deadly force is completely acceptable and often used but it's not the primary goal. A badly injured soldier is just as useless as a dead one, so our troops carry the guns that let them carry extra ammo instead of more lethal ammo. It's the same reason that they carry 9mm handguns instead of .45. The fact that the military uses 9mm doesn't magically turn it into a more lethal round than a .45.
All I ask is for a little bit of critical thinking instead of FUD. Is that really too difficult?
Exactly
weak enough to kill 50 people
if it had been .308 those who were shot and survived would more likely die
Do you know what the fuck you're talking about? The reason the military used .223 rounds because it doesn't take any particular skill to mass manufacture them. They are cheap! The rounds tumble end over end because they are to destroy it's targed. You clearly are very uneducated about the subject. Do some research, get off google and learn about the topics you proclaim to know about.
+Spoo o Um, no. They are low powered compared to the majority of rifle rounds. Assault, hunting, target...it doesn't matter what category they're used in and you'll notice that my initial involved using them for hunting. Apparently you need some reading comprehension along with critical thinking.
...meanwhile Kinder Surprise is banned in the US.
ciam ryan Yes because apparently when it comes to little toys inside chocolate it's the object that is at fault.
Not just that.
9/11 → ridiculously tight airport security.
Several mass shootings in one year → prayers.
They should make it a gun inside and it would all be good.
Are you serious?
+Scorp308 it's true.
who's watching in 2018? its honestly scary how we are still talking about this after another mass shooting. (parkland feb 2018)
right? it's so sad and infuriating
I finished the whole clip before I realized it wasn't a parkland-related monologue.
It wasn't? What the fuck was it in response to? Oh wait, sorry, I just realized it was from 2016. Holy shit.
And who will be watching this clip in 2020 is the sad reality. I also thought it was Parkland related till I read the comments.
I didn't realize this wasn't in response to Parkland until I read this comment.
Saying "there's no point in gun laws because criminals won't listen to them" is like saying "there's no point in traffic lights because people jaywalk."
Well Said
Golden Boy That is such a stupid thing to say...total false equivalency.
How is gun control anything like traffic lights/jaywalking? nobody gives a fuck about Jaywalking & it's not a constitutional right to have traffic lights/the lack thereof.
How does regulating/infringing law abiding citizens rights keep anyone safer? The law abiding citizens who own the guns don't intend to go murder people (that would be unlawful)...on the other hand anyone who is intending on murdering people...they sure as fuck aren't going to be worried about using an illegally bought gun (which most crimes are committed by).
If any actual "common sense" gun control proposals that didn't infringe on our rights existed...that'd be great...but I haven't heard any, got any?
Golden Boy a J walk all the time
Roy Munson
Gun laws may not "stop" shootings, but it will "reduce" it. do not let perfection be the enemy of good. Just because something can't be stopped 100%, doesn't mean you shouldnt take measures to prevent possible hard.
I agree, gun control laws do restrict law abiding citizens more, b/c criminals would still be able to find a gun if they want, but it we make it hard for them, then they may give up their plans to do harm. Plus, every criminal started at one point as a law abiding citizens. plus there are many "criminals" who havent been caught. you don't want alcoholics, whether or not they been sited, driving, nor do you want pedophiles, whether or not they been charged, living next to your children. how is this any different?
no... that's a terrible comparison. It would be more accurate to say there's no point in traffic lights because criminals will still run the red.
"High powered assault rifles" is a meaningless title. They are all the same semi-automatic setting. 'High powered' means nothing. 'Assault' implies military gear, when they are no such thing.
Some Democrat Congressmen and Congresswomen even said that they were "automatic", a total lie.
I'd just like to say from someone living in a country where the right to self defence doesn't exist and in some cases is illegal, the 2nd amendment of your constitution is so brilliant, I'm amazed there's even an argument against it.
Thank you
Lies again? Control oil
WEEE Needd F TANK IN HOMEE
There has never been made any sensible argument against the 2nd Amendment.
The 2nd amendment is outdated , and only applied to muskets
"...would pass any kind of law..." this is the mind set of a gun controller. It doesn't have to work, we just "need to do something".
I would ask you Mr. Colbert, how does one end up on a terror watch list? If your on there by mistake, how does one get off the list? I await your answer....
I remember when these show were to entertain, not preach political Ideologies.
its Me you don’t mind when you agree the ideology though
I got super pissed when I heard about this but them a family member pointed out something worth noting. We have no idea what was in this bill. Even Bernie has mentioned how sometimes a bill will be titled with one thing and be filled with totally different topics. For all we know, the title said "no suspected terrorist buy guns" but could have literally tried to ban guns in whole. That's an extreme example but there could have been ridiculous things that would have passed in the depth of that bill that none of us are aware of.
In this case you don't even need an extreme example--the issue is that "suspected terrorist" is a nebulous concept far removed from law. You can be a "suspected terrorist" without a trial and without even being aware of it and for reasons that are not committed to clear law. All three of those points make it bad as a barometer for restricting freedoms.
Get out of here with your logic and reason, people's emotions are all that matter! /sarcasm
Good for you for being a critical thinker.
Well, if you look at it by the standing of the constitution they have no right to ban any gun, deny you the right of owning a gun, or stop the manufacture and distribution of any firearm by the constitution. So if you look at it that way, what they are doing is infringing on you second amendment right.
That's called a bill rider but I doubt they did that.
I would love to hear an explanation from one of the senators that voted agaist the 4 bills. But I doubt there's a good reason. Read the 2nd amendment before claiming it gives all Americans rights to all guns
suspicion is not proof of a crime, you can not take peoples rights away because they did nothing.
To get into guantanamo, you must have something necessary to the government like information. Yes there are innocent people there, but not americans (doesn't make it right, but they were never promised due process or rights). From what I have read, they are afghans and etc.
Math time!
The US has a little under 319,000,000 people living inside it's borders.
In 2014, 8,124 people were murdered by guns. (This includes Guam, Virgin Islands, and Washington DC)
That means, 0.0000254% of our population was murdered by a gun!
Now, the interesting part.
If you take out just California and Illinois, two states with the
strictest gun laws in the country, you get 6,584 people murdered by a
gun. That is a difference of 1,540 or 19% of ALL gun murders in the US
was done in the two states with the highest gun control laws of the US.
And California just passed 5 new laws making it almost impossible to own
a gun anymore.
So, tell me why we should implement stricter gun laws?
Hey Steve, you cant remove the rights of an individual with out due process. Terror watch lists are not due process.
so why do people think that these laws will take away their guns? as long as you are qualified to use one you shouldn't have any problems.
i don't understand it at all. they force the narrative of anyone can have any gun or you're taking them all away. if you force this narrative then the odds are probably better that you will loose them. they focuse on the "shall not be infringed" but ignore the "well regulated militia"
Because the terror watch list does not include any due process and people are added to it in an unknown way. So, the measure he's talking about here is clearly unconstitutional, because it removes a right without due process. Of course you never know what the courts will do these days, but that's really beside the point. We have to believe that the courts would continue to protect our right to due process. And that is why none of the measures were actually serious. But, I bet you feel like your party was trying to do something, anything to help, lol, and that the other side is the spawn of Satan... So, you know, it worked, and a lot of people in the media had to fudge their personal ethics for that to happen. Bravo, America, you've earned it!
And you know what, they COULD propose something that might actually work. I've been looking at this for quite some time, and we could move toward educational methods moving the rest of the country toward a more Swiss and rural US model for responsible gun ownership. I've written people and proposed this for YEARS and others on the right have been mentioning the same statistics and model for YEARS... we have pretty much decided that the government does not want to solve this problem, they refuse to even propose or discuss these solutions with the electorate.
I've heard its probably expensive, well, hell yeah, one would expect that Switzerland's legendarily low long term violent crime and homicide rate would be fairly pricey, but does that mean we shouldn't even look into it? Their pensions are pretty pricey too and they never question those.
And then, at least we'd have a serious proposal on the table from somebody and a valid reason for not implementing it.
I know the progressives would lose their shit if they knew the idea was to introduce people to firearms and teach them how to use them even if it didn't include firearm as compensation also for volunteer work of post high school persons, or however they work it out... but, shit, not all liberals are progressives and I think a lot of them could handle an actual fucking solution rather than this reheated Marxist bullshit the liberals are trying to feed us today. And AGAIN to the Marxists you can have fucking socialism and firearms at the same time, it's totally been done, although it also eventually failed, but not because of the guns, because of the economics.
I hope you found this useful.
In the 1920's the government made laws to protect us from alcohol. The federal government still has laws to protect us from marijuana. How have those worked out?
@@tadhgkearney5077 Yes, and most of those countries are totalitarian shitholes.
2 years later and nothing has been done. So many have died because we live in a world where guns are valued more then human lives.
Your emotional get over your feelings.
Loving how all the pro-gun people here forget other countries exist.
LET'S SEE HOW LONG THIS TAKES TO GET DELETED. COLBERT STAFF, I CHALLENGE YOU TO LET AN OPEN DISCUSSION TAKE PLACE.
The Orlando shooter had no criminal convictions, was not on a terror watch list at the time of purchasing his firearms, had hundreds of hours of training, had passed numerous background checks, had a security license that requires months of scrutiny to obtain and must be renewed periodically. He was literally the poster boy for passing every gun control measure that has been proposed. Not a single one of the four measures proposed in Congress would have prevented Orlando or any other mass shooting of the last 30 years.
So called "high power assault weapons" are responsible for killing about 0.00008% of the nation's population. It's microscopic and nowhere near anything that we would credibly consider an epidemic. It literally rounds to zero. According to FBI crime stats, you are over 20x more likely to die by drowning than from an AR-15. Shall we ban water now? More people die from tripping and falling every year than by all guns. Shall we now ban walking?
The terror watch list is so flawed that former DHS employees themselves have come out against it. Even the most left leaning organizations such as the ACLU, Vox, and Huffington Post have come out against using it to restrict rights because it is so flawed. Countless innocent people have been placed on the list, there is no way of knowing you're on the list until it is too late, and there is no due process to appeal the decision once it has been made. That is ridiculous.
If you let the government remove due process for 2nd Amendment rights now, you're helping set precedence for removing due process for ALL rights later. If one can fall, all can fall. Sit down for a second and think about that just for a second.
People are afraid Trump will remove 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendment rights, yet here they are foolishly supporting the measures that could easily make that a reality. Don't be stupid here, people.
enjoy your paranoia hole!
You know, you had a bit of coherence to your argument until it came down to the last bit where your point hinges on the use of a slippery slope fallacy. While I dont believe the government would be "removing due process for 2nd Amendment rights", the idea that if that were true then all the rest would be in the same crosshairs is illogical. Try resting your case on something that is logically valid next time.
@tyresw11
There is no such thing as a slippery slope fallacy when it comes to law. All law is built upon whatever laws came before. To invoke the slippery slope fallacy in this case is to argue against what the law is. People aren't just concerned with current legislature, but also what the current legislature will enable, in terms of the future legislature. In other words, people are worried about what impact our legislative decisions NOW will have on legislative decisions LATER. That's not a slippery slope. It's common sense.
tyresw11 In this day of The Patriot Act, TSA, NSA, NDAA, CIPA, and on and on, you're really going to argue that the notion of the government wanting to set precedence for limiting rights is irrational?
Futhermore, since we are bringing up fallacies, it should be noted here that you used The Fallacy Fallacy, also known as Argument To Logic or Argumentum Ad Logicam.
Analyzing an argument and inferring that simply because it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false.
Apparently critical thinking skills are now classified at paranoia. Interesting.
The anti gun protests have caused a Huge spike in gun sales.Good job!
I hate every anti-gunner. They just do not feel the need to look up facts about what they are arguing about.
I personally think that it should be easier for law abiding citizens to obtain guns. It would most likely cut down on crime due to the fear of the criminal's own life, it would stop or shorten mass shootings, and (through natural selection) stop our populace from becoming ignorant hip-hop cancer. I don't usually condone giving the NRA money, but maybe it will pull us out of the Middle East.
It can't really be easier than it already is
+Carlos Rubio yes it could. People who have a concealed carry permit don't require a background check when buying a firearm, yet they still get them, May I add it takes upwards of 20 minutes of this while a person who has no permit can have it done in a few minutes. The people who have permits should be able to just walk in and buy one as if you were buying a gallon of milk. The others should have to wait a day or so to do a extremely intuitive background check.
+hillbilly king I have to be honest man, this seems pretty damn easy
Carlos Rubio all I'm saying is people who have the permit should just to buy a firearm as easy as a gallon of milk instead of waiting for the background check that is not necessary for them.
yes, let's have a bunch of egotistical, mentally unstable people legally get guns. it's not like that's what the Orlando shooter did or anything.
My parents decided to leave Ireland for a better future in 1958. Their choices were America, Canada, Britain, New Zealand or Australia. I'm so glad they chose Australia. We don't have to put up with the stupid gun crap that many Americans obsess about. A Texan colleague at work bragged that massacres don't happen in Texas because everyone would pull out their guns and shoot the perpetrator. I asked him what went wrong in the diner where a man burst in with an automatic rifle and shot everyone. His response was that he wondered about why they didn't return fire. The truth is, most people go to water under stress - even soldiers and police. Get rid of your weapons. The original constitutional right to bear arms was when people only had blunderbuss and flintlock rifles and pistols, not automatic assault weapons.
Blunderbusses, flintlocks, etc. were the cutting edge, contemporary weapons of the time when the 2nd Amendment was written. The Founders wanted the populace to be armed with the same weaponry that the worlds militaries were armed with. By merely having so-called "assault rifles" we the citizens are at a dis-advantage that the Founders feared the most. Stop trying to be clever or stupid with that "blunderbuss" bullshit. Like it or not those guns are here to stay.
To build on steves comment, look at the civil war. Civillians were able to own henry and winchester repeaters while the Military were still using muzzleloaders. The henry and winchester rifles back then are like what lazers are today. Also, in order to own an automatic assault rifle in america, you need a class 3 license and about 20,000 dollars.
correctly stated .. and as you wrote, the provision is to equip and maintain an armed public was a matter of checks and balances to prevent the tyranny of what had just been experienced under rule of GB . there is no mention of "types of weapons or restrictions of types of weapons ' ..any one to argue or think what was written , as if it only applied to weapons of the day " which were the current advancements in weapons tech " dose not understand the mentality of our fore fathers who wrote the document , their experiences of war and more importantly the reasons why this was written as the 2nd Amendment .
well armed means just that 'i.e. current arms tech '
Ye gods!
Australia and the US cannot be compared. You live on a desolate island with 23 million people. We live in the greatest land on earth with 320 million people. Nobody would care to try and create a coup in Australia because it's undesirable. But when you have a beacon of freedom, progression, tech advancement, enlightenment, and individual rights you best believe we all have AR15s because we know the value our society offers the poor weak and downtrodden citizens of the world. Come try to take our freedoms #molonlabe
Assault weapons are already banned good job on "reporting" though
really? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban Try they once were and the ban expired 12 years ago.
The two thoughtless NRA talking points I hate the most are:
1. Gun’s don’t kill people, people kill people
2. Even if there was more strict guns laws that doesn’t mean people will follow them. There are plenty of ways to get guns and just weapons in general illegally.
They are just bone headedly wrong.
1. Guns don't kill people, people kill people particularly efficiently with guns. Guns are indeed tools, ones designed for killing with the mere pull of a single finger. We require a license to operate dangerous equipment like cranes and even cars. And those tools are NOT specifically designed to kill.
2. The reason people CAN get around gun laws in the USA is that there is a nice black market of guns available because guns are so prevalent and numerous in your society, because there is a patchwork of contradictory state laws, and because there is a very low standard for ownership and sale in the first place.
National gun laws tend to work because if it is strict across the board, there isn't this issue of gun-easy states bordering gun-strict states that can result in a black market flow. Where national gun laws are enacted you don't end up with very strict cities surrounded by less strict areas (such that only the criminals in the cities have the guns that flowed in from elsewhere).
I have been on both sides of this. I used to argue the NRA points. I now argue against them because the arguments are BETTER against them. I have studied many countries' gun laws and concluded the following are common denominators and do actually make sense. That is, of COURSE liberals come up with some utterly stupid metrics and laws. But here are the ones that seem to make sense and have a difference (as demonstrated by low gun homicide numbers compared to the USA):
1. Mandatory mental health screening in conjunction with a comprehensive background check system that takes days, not minutes to complete.
2. Membership in a sport shooting or hunting club that has to sign off on you after a 6 month probationary period to confirm THEY think you are competent enough to own a firearm.
3. Final qualification and safety class required by law to be licensed.
4. Licensing very similar to how our DMV manages cars.
5. Registration, so your gun is traceable to YOU so that if you DO illegally sell your gun and it is used in a crime, YOU get charged with criminal negligence.
6. NO private party sales - all sales processed through a dealer that can run the background check and arrange the mental health screening. THIS combined with the registration (and subsequent traceability) depletes the black market of firearms over time.
7. Mandatory wait period for buying firearms and a LIMIT on how many you can buy at a time and total.
8. Gun ownership is a earned privilege, not a fundamental right you are born with because some people are maniacal idiots that manage to keep their background clean until they do their first heinous offense.
9. Mandatory state verification (home inspection) to ensure the owner has a way to store firearms safely (because kids shoot kids with their parent's guns).
10. Mere possession of a firearm with a destroyed serial number or no serial number is sufficient to be convicted of conspiracy to commit murder.
This is a cultural shift that not ALL of America is ready for. But the good news is that the majority of Americans, ones that keep our penises out of our magazine wells, won't mind some strict rules in place regarding firearms.
"Assault rifle"..you're killing me.
hey Stephen it's called a Republic, and thank goodness for it! We don't need more laws, we need to enforce the laws we already have.
Senate, you accomplish so little Kylie Jenner wants to know what you do for a living. Classic.
"high powered assault rifles" when those are already illegal for individual gun ownership. Well technically they are legal but hard to buy or even find.
GUN RESTRICTIONS DO NOT APPLY TO TERRORIST, DO YOU REALLY THINK THESE CRAZY MURDERERS GIVE A DAMN ABOUT LAWS?!?!?!
"Just pass anything. Don't even read the bill. This is a time of panic. Desperate measures must be taken in a time of fear and confusion - no matter how nonsensical the law is."
Colbert logic in a nutshell.
I love how people quote the second amendment and say it can never be changed or tweaked to go with the times because it really shows that they don't know what "amendment" means. Its already a change, you can change the change.
It was adopted in 1791 along with the other amendments in the Bill of Rights. That is over 200 years that it has been there and is enshrined as any of the other first 10 amendments. So no, it probably won't be changed. It doesn't mean it can't be changed, but it won't be.
If they can change the 2nd Amendment, then I think they should change the 1st Amendment and restrict your ability to talk.
The 2nd amendment was never intended to apply to weapons for personal self defense.
*Militias were organised to provide defense for the state or the nation.*
As for defence AGAINST the state or the nation, that's crazy talk, and anyone paranoid (or dishonest) enough to make that argument is manifestly unfit to own any weapon, let alone a gun.
No need to change the 2nd Amendment, just repeal it. It stopped serving a purpose when the standing army, navy and airforce, and the various National Guards, took over the responsibilities for defense. They do not own their own weapons, so the amendment is irrelevant.
Gottenhimfella - Right, governments are never tyrannical. They always look out for the best interests of the people.
Yes, the 2nd amendment could be changed. But good luck with that.
Prohibition was removed from the constitution in 1933. But only after 13 years of organized crime, murder, corruption, bootlegging, and the justice system being overburdened.
During prohibition the murder rate went up 78%, and another 10,000 people died because the govenment poisoned industrial alchohols in order to "dissuade" drinking.
So then, regarding gun control, do you think a few nightclub and school shootings are going to make the same difference? Is there enough Prohibition era mayhem to enact another constitutional reform?
No one has any right to tell me how many or what kind of guns I can or cannot own. So long as I cause no harm to anyone else with them, I'm free to do as I please, same as anyone else. Government didn't give me the right to self-preservation, and it cannot away take my right to self-preservation using whatever tools I choose to exercise that right. Very simple.
Than why not extent that right to military drones, cruise missiles, fighter jets, nuclear submarines, cannons, tanks etc. and all the other weapons that your government buys thanks to the money that generously come out of your pockets but you have no right to access for shit? Try that and see how simple things are for you, than come back lecturing about your bullshit 'rights'.
It isn't about 'you' as an individual though is it? It's about society! Stop thinking that it's all about you. Sure YOU might not harm anyone, but SOMEONE will (as proven by all the mass shootings over the past few years). That's why gun control is needed! By your logic, no laws would be in place at all! We can't simply take the 'honest word' of all gun owners, because it is clear that not all gun owners wouldn't harm there fellow citizens! Tbh I'm not at all surprised as you know guns are designed to kill?
Not until the law's been appropriately (re)drafted. Then they do.
By the way... who's trying to kill you? And why?
so all you people completely want to ban guns?
No.
No, they just want to prevent the "wrong" people from buying guns. Of course, "the wrong" people is a group that changes depending on who you ask. "the terrorists" or "the muslims" or "the atheists" or "the democrats" etc.
thewanderandhiscomp That's like "We don't want to BAN abortions, we're just adding regulations for people's safety, like ones that require a ten month waiting period for an abortion. They're not banned!"
u might think we do, but we dont
I think we need to ban murder as well.
I'm having an extreme amount trouble understanding why they won't even pass a bill to simply make it harder to prevent people on the terrorist watch list from buying guns. I really cant understand
"No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
Let me know when people on the No-Fly list get trials.
+月食 what I'm saying is that our government is doing nothing. Not a damn thing. And I can't take it anymore. That's all.
+月食 Yeah, they should revise that list so that it's actually legal, and THEN make it so none of those people can buy weapons. Right now it's just something that news hosts can point to to get everyone on their side without anyone having any context.
+Last of the Shadows this is no longer a matter of American government.. It's a matter of Morales and human decency. Some things are just common sense and not giving guns to people who are suspected terrorists is one of them.. I'm sorry, but to hell with a trial in cases with giving potentially dangerous people guns. I don't want anyone to have guns but This is only my opinion. I don't care about the God damn Constitution right now because this has gotten out of hand and something needs to change
Ah using the Republican "Due process" argument I see...funny, I don't remember hearing a single word of protest from a single Republican about lack of due process after 9/11 when thousands of people were barred from flying, nor when drone strikes on Americans overseas occurred. Not even when terrorist detainees were tortured...so stop pretending to suddenly care about it now. The people on the No Fly list are on there for a reason and it's not even comparable to the stuff the Republican party has endorsed completely ignoring due process in the past. The commonsense proposals should become legislation and the dumb "due process" argument is simply clutching at straws, only now being used by Republicans bc it suits their political agenda. Give me a freaking break.
I'm really sad to have this video recommended to me in 2018..
why
Why indeed
Same here... Because nothing has fucking changed!!!
Same, can't believe people still buy into gun control like it'll do shit
I would like to see every teacher in America discuss with the senior students how the youth of the country started a movement that took on the powerful and ended a war.
Discuss the tactics they used, the time it took etc...and discuss how it would have been more effective if they had have had social media.
Call it modern history and the effects social media would have had ending the Vietnam 🇻🇳 war.
The young of today have to know they have power to make change.
make it so the public can't own a gun that way only the criminals can get guns from the black market. flawless logic
break out of the right wing talking points almost every other country in the world does not allow assault rifles or handguns and the gun deaths % is soooooooooooooooo much lower than u.s.
@@chrismantle2883 “gun deaths” .-. What about stabbing, acid attacks, and running people over? Wow, it’s almost like you make them worse.
Meanwhile, none of the proposed laws that were voted on (and defeated) would've prevented any one of the recent shootings. I'll just quote the great TX governor Rick Perry here: "Oops".
Figures you like Rick Perry because you are an idiot. The purpose of the bills was to help prevent the next mass shooting.
+J C hey if it seems you are anti gun base on the fact that you reply.against every pro-gun comment, answer me this, are illegal drugs legal, no they are not legal but yet there are illegal drugs all around the US. Why would it be any different with guns?
You can't be serious. Your argument for defending loose background checks is "due process"? Why even HAVE the frigging no-fly list (which already violates the 4th and 15th Amendments) if you can't use it to prevent suspects from arming themselves?
Grizabeebles We shouldn't have one. If they are bad enough to warrant being put on the no fly list, they should be properly investigated, and then have proper charges brought, or then cleared and removed from the list if charges can't be brought.
Wrong!!! The odds of the shootings go down 95% if they can't legally acquire assault weapons from the gun shows that sell them.
All right, what was bleeped at 3:56 (a re_____ from Sting)? This is the best comedy routine I've ever seen, period. This guy outdoes himself when times get tough. Kudos, Stephen, you are hands down the best right now.
The federal government shouldn't be allowed to prohibit someone from buying a gun without due process.
That would be in violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments.
It is easier to sing "Amazing Grace" than it is to do anything about ownership of deadly killing machines.
So I take you don't own a car, have kitchen utensils, basic tools? Because these things can kill too.
And what about instances where lethal force is justified, where a person is being assaulted?
The only purpose of a gun is to kill something, whether it's an animal or a person.
Kitchen utensils and basic tools have purposes other than killing. For example, the preparation of vegetables, digging a hole, or sanding the edge of a wooden cabinet. Cars also have a purpose other than killing, namely to ferry people from one spot to another.
If you're going to make comparisons, you should be sure to make accurate ones.
crazypants88, you're a fucking nutjob. Crazy is right.
+Dragonmaw One could also argue it's a means of defense rather than just killing. Ever heard of warning shots?
How fucking dense gun nuts are.
i dont think some idiots realise the difference between banning guns and gun control
Steven Colbert doesn't.
Was there a reason for the huge corn in a pink bikini? I feel like I missed the joke.
"Senate, Senate, you accomplish so little that Kylie Jenner wants to know what the hell you do for a living." That ones my favorite. 😂🤣
Colbert is back in full force people! YASSSS
Well, I've got my Bill of Rights and you can pound sand.
Yes he is taking that democrat 3 ft enema with full force
+TheGuerillapatriot you're the reason America is fucked pal
Standing up for your rights is what makes a country fucked? What kind of ridiculous logic is this?
+TheRevenantRising the fact that having those rights can end lives.. how can a whole country be so unbelievably stupid as to not see that guns are weapons of war not peace.. how can one man have the power to walk into a shop buy a gun and then murder 50 people, I'll tell you because over a hundred years ago they wrote on a fucking piece of paper he was allowed.. I thought it was meant to be a living document
I cry for the USA. It's such a shame both parties can't seem to get their heads out of their ***es, even when they could save lives. Facts and moral seem to matter less and less in the USA. You were such an amazing country... once :'(
They passed the amazing face 100 years ago. They're now going trough their, "what the hell is this" phase.
Well, it's time for a new revolution or a civil war!!!!
Where'd this 92% figure come from? Since when was the AR-15 ever considered a "high-powered assault rifle?"
Of course he ignores how countries like Australia have a thriving black market for guns.
Lol no. Illegal guns are harder to get and expensive. Meanwhile, Australia has less than a fifth the US homicide rate...
Are you human? Negative I am a meat popsicle.
One of the best movies ever!
I'm a politician.
+Downhaven what movie?
+Watch The World Burn Fifth Element
Multipass.
Can we all just admit that buying a gun nowadays is way too easy. Whether you want to ban guns or not, if guns are allowed lets make it harder to obtain one. I say this as a republican, and I do believe we should have the right to bear arms. However, when someone on an FBI watch list is able to easily obtain a gun, that's how you know we need to make the process of obtaining a gun more strict. I'm not here to argue like everyone else in these comments. I mean for fucks sake it is truly way too easy.
What's required to get on that watch list? Do you have any idea at all?For all you know all it requires is someone to post, say, "I
+Terianna E I'm not here to argue with you, if you want an argument fish one with the people ready to mindlessly argue.
What list was he on. the F.B.I. cleared him after 2 investigations. How would any of the bills proposed have stopped this or any of the other shootings? It is easy to get your hands on a lot of destructive things without checks or red tape. Even in countries where guns are heavily restricted if nit outlawed.
I totally agree
Depends on where you live. Do you know anything about buying a gun?
Don't talk about gun control when you don't understand the topic
Idiot lmao
Lets look at Colbert's argument:
He says "You have to be 21" Well you have to be 21 to buy a handgun, but you only need to be 16 to drive a car.
He says "You have to pass a test" But this only applies to driving on public streets, you have to take a course and pass a test for concealed carry, so there is no difference.
You have to have a form of ID, usually a driver's license, to buy a gun PLUS you have to pass a background check to buy a gun.
There reason that there is insurance on driving, you are 100 more times to die in a car accident than a firearms accident. Not to mention property damage, which is what the liability car insurance is actually for. Seven times more people drown every year than die in firearms accidents, but no one is wanting swimming pool insurance.
I am pretty sure you aren't around to walk around in public drunk either, so that point makes no sense!
What if we flip the argument and say that all of these regulations, which are already in place for guns, were applied to voting? You have to have an ID, you can't be a felon and you have to be a U.S. citizen. I'm sure that Colbert would cry "voter suppression", but the only votes that would be suppressed would be those who aren't legally eligible to vote.
Let's look at your mistakes;
"you have to take a course and pass a test for concealed carry, so there is no difference."
Concealed carry isn't the only way to carry a gun...
"You have to have a form of ID, usually a driver's license, to buy a gun PLUS you have to pass a background check to buy a gun"
Private sales in most states have ZERO requirement for ANY check of ANY sort.
"you are 100 more times to die in a car accident than a firearms!"
Nope, it's about 1:1. You are 100 times wrong.
"all of these regulations, which are already in place for guns"
Not for every gun sale, not even close.
@@ratofvengence Now lets look at your mistakes:
I said "you are 100 more times to die in a car accident than a firearms accident!"
You said "Nope, it's about 1:1. You are 100 times wrong."
Obviously you were looking at ALL gun deaths, whereas I was looking at accidental deaths. There are roughly 40,000 deaths from automobile accident every year compared to 500 deaths from firearms accidents every year, so it's 80 to one, so I am FAR closer than you are! But when looking at all gun deaths, which are STILL lower at 30,000 per year, 60% are from suicide and of the remaining 40%, the vast majority are drug and gang related. In fact 80% of all non-suicide gun deaths are either drug related or gang related. So if you really wanted to fix the issue of gun deaths, you'd be looking into suicide prevention, anti-drug laws and anti-gang laws, as that covers 92% of all gun deaths!
The reason for liability insurance for automobiles is because of the monetary damage done in car accidents. Insurance companies don't cover damage caused intentionally with cars. So for insurance, we are looking at the 80 to 1 death number plus the monetary damage, which is significant for automobiles! In fact, in the United States automobile accidents account for:
4.4 million people are injured seriously enough to require medical attention.
Road crashes are the leading cause of death in the U.S. for people aged 1-54.
The economic and societal impact of road crashes costs U.S. citizens $871 billion.
Road crashes cost the U.S. more than $380 million in direct medical costs.
As you can see, there is a good reason for liability insurance on automobiles, but there really isn't to cover firearms related accidents. The only reason that they are calling for this "gun insurance" is to make it more prohibitive for law abiding citizens to own a gun.
I said "you have to take a course and pass a test for concealed carry, so there is no difference."
You said "Concealed carry isn't the only way to carry a gun..."
A big reason why you have to pass a test to drive is because of all the damage cause in Auto accidents, which is significantly higher than the damage cause in firearms accidents!
You are of course talking about open carry, but there are several states they don't allow open carry of any kind and several more states that only allow it with a license and yet more states that have some other type of restrictions on open carry. Add to that many cities and municipalities ban open carry and it is largely restricted, even in states that allow conceal carry. Most places of business won't allow you to walk into their business while toting a gun either. Don't believe me, try going to the bank, grocery store or a restaurant with a hand gun visibly strapped to you hip. I have only one time in my life personally saw someone open carry, and he did it to make a point that he could open carry, and it wasn't in any type of city limits either. If you happen to live in a place with open carry, I am sure that law enforcement keeps a closer eye on those people that are engaging in open carry. It should be noted that the places with the strictest gun laws tend to have the most gun violence.
"You have to have a form of ID, usually a driver's license, to buy a gun PLUS you have to pass a background check to buy a gun"
Private sales in most states have ZERO requirement for ANY check of ANY sort.
This is all a big part of the liberal disinformation campaign. If you buy a gun online through a brokering website, even if it is from a private seller, or at a gun show, you STILL have to get the background check. It is possible to sale a gun on the street without a background check, but few people will sell guns to people that they don't know because they don't want a gun they bought to end up being used in a crime. Most private non background checks are either between friends and family or they are straw purchases, and straw purchases are already illegal, so no new law will stop them. In fact most guns used in crimes in the United States, around 93%, come through straw purchases. So you are basically pointing out why gun control laws don't work with this comment!
I said: "all of these regulations, which are already in place for guns"
You said "Not for every gun sale, not even close."
Once again, straw purchases are illegal and are how the criminals are acquiring their guns. Gun control laws only restrict law abiding citizens.
@@kingrex1931 "I said "you are 100 more times to die in a car accident than a firearms accident!""
That's cool, you realised you'd missed the word 'accident' after firearms, and then edited it in. The uncool thing is you're pretending that it was there all along. I quoted exactly what you DID have. That's why I quote such things, as well as making it easy to see what I'm responding too. Don't be uncool.
"In fact 80% of all non-suicide gun deaths are either drug related or gang related."
Every time I see that claim, I challenge them to substantiate it. You know what, no-one ever has. Are you going to be different? In any case, it's a meaningless stat. They are still gun deaths.
"The reason for liability insurance for automobiles..."
I didn't even mention this.
"It should be noted that the places with the strictest gun laws tend to have the most gun violence."
Firstly, the strict laws are usually BECAUSE of the terrible gun violence, you seem to have cause and effect confused. Secondly, the US city with by far the worst homicide rate is St Louis, and they have no effective gun restrictions.
"Most private non background checks are either between friends and family or they are straw purchases"
Evidence of this claim?
"So you are basically pointing out why gun control laws don't work with this comment!"
Lol no. The US failure to have effective and uniform laws doesn't mean it can't be done right. Many other nations are doing this far better.
"Gun control laws only restrict law abiding citizens."
If that's the case, why does EVERY other 1st world nation have stricter gun laws, and EVERY other 1st world nation has a lower homicide rate...
Ratman You cut and pasted throughout my post, I can't help what parts you decided to leave out.
I said: "In fact 80% of all non-suicide gun deaths are either drug related or gang related."
You said: Every time I see that claim, I challenge them to substantiate it. You know what, no-one ever has. Are you going to be different? In any case, it's a meaningless stat. They are still gun deaths.
These statistics are easily researchable, it is not my fault if you are incapable of doing a simple web search!
If you are discussing creating new gun control laws, it is meaningful how the deaths actually occur.
60% suicide
32% gang related and drug related.
93% of guns used in crimes are either through straw purchases or they are stolen, which is ALREADY illegal
Anyone with any common sense knows that if someone is willing to commit murder, they aren't going to care if they break a few other laws along the way!
I said: "The reason for liability insurance for automobiles..."
You said: I didn't even mention this.
but you did mention needed to pass a test to drive, and the reason for this is the liability from car accidents. It goes to my argument.
I said: "It should be noted that the places with the strictest gun laws tend to have the most gun violence."
You said: Firstly, the strict laws are usually BECAUSE of the terrible gun violence, you seem to have cause and effect confused. Secondly, the US city with by far the worst homicide rate is St Louis, and they have no effective gun restrictions.
ST Louis does have extra gun restrictions above and beyond the rest of Missouri, but there are three times as many gun deaths in Chicago every year as there are in St Louis. The real issue is gangs, drug dealers and other violent criminals, which is why the statistics behind gun deaths matter!
Most mass shootings happen in "gun free zones" for a reason.
I said: "Most private non background checks are either between friends and family or they are straw purchases"
You said: Evidence of this claim?
Once again, google! The majority of crimes where guns are used are committed with guns gotten through straw purchases.
What evidence is there that ANY of the proposed gun legislation would actually curb any gun violence? There isn't any!
"So you are basically pointing out why gun control laws don't work with this comment!"
Lol no. The US failure to have effective and uniform laws doesn't mean it can't be done right. Many other nations are doing this far better.
Most of the world has higher violent crime rates and higher homicide rates than the United States, even many that have far stricter gun laws!
I also wonder how these laws are to be "done right" when you don't care about the stats behind gun deaths, you know the number of suicides, gang related and drug related, you know all those things you said were meaningless!
@@kingrex1931 "You cut and pasted throughout my post, I can't help what parts you decided to leave out."
Clearly honesty isn't a strong point with you; I pasted it as it WAS.
"These statistics are easily researchable, it is not my fault if you are incapable of doing a simple web search! "
The usual weasel words of someone who can't back a claim after they've been called out. As I expected to be honest.
"if someone is willing to commit murder, they aren't going to care if they break a few other laws along the way!"
Oh, the good ol' 'why bother having laws' argument lol.
"the reason for this is the liability from car accidents. It goes to my argument"
Lol no.
"ST Louis does have extra gun restrictions above and beyond the rest of Missouri"
Such as?
"there are three times as many gun deaths in Chicago every year as there are in St Louis."
St Louis has over DOUBLE the homicide rate of Chicago.
"Most mass shootings happen in "gun free zones" for a reason."
Most mass shootings don't happen in gun free zones.
"Once again, google!"
So once again, you got nothing.
"What evidence is there that ANY of the proposed gun legislation would actually curb any gun violence? There isn't any!"
Try looking at EVERY other 1st world nation, all of which have stronger gun laws, all of which have far lower homicide rates. Why can they do it, but the US fails?
"Most of the world has higher violent crime rates and higher homicide rates than the United States, even many that have far stricter gun laws!"
NONE of them are the US's peers; other 1st world nations. Heck, there's even developing nations doing this better.
"I also wonder how these laws are to be "done right" when you don't care about the stats behind gun deaths"
You assume too much, it makes you look silly.
Not as silly as making claims you can't substantiate though. Not as silly as editing your posts and pretending you didn't stuff up.
Try harder :)
D U E P R O C E S S
U
E
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
I don't like tomatoes on my sandwhiches.
Due process involves refusing the vote, going on summer vacation on the taxpayer's dime, coming back and doing nothing.
Due process has failed.
One republican senator offered a counter proposal which would give someone on the terror watchlist due process is they were caught trying to purchase any weapon.
Oh, hello 8%
They should have pass more guns laws!
+Sig Kimber fuck the constitution.
+Sig Kimber not really usurping anything. The second amendment was meant for muskets to prevent tyranny when it comes to the government forcing soldiers into your homes. Gun control doesn't ban anything; it limits access to make it hard for irresponsible people to get access to guns.
+LuminaryPrism75 it's to make the people more powerful than its government 😪
I know! They should pass MORE GUNS laws
+coz that's still funny I really hope that was bait
in the USA you cant buy a Kinder chocolate egg because they contain a small plastic toy, but automatic rifles are ok.
Why would you be on a watchlist for just owning a semiautomatic rifle
While I do certainly agree that the US should try to halt anyone suspected of terrorism from getting weapons, you guys have to realize that a terror watch list ban completely eliminates due process which is incredibly important. I think the best thing to do would be to reform the terror watch list in the same bill as a ban
Wait
Did someone finally comment something reasonable?!
Good lord, what has happened to the internet!?
It's America, whenever we go to war we throw away due process. We are now and will be continuing to be at war with the amorphous "forces of terror" until the American people wake up and force our politicians to only declare war on specific organizations, countries, nations etc.
+Joseph Teller It would be a first to declare war on an organization. that's never been done right? only countries? If they did that, army would be mobolized more and we could do the terror watch list, but then i wonder the negatives to our situation.
This would mean potentially risking freedom for security. Hypothetically the government could, as they see it, view you as a threat because you speak out against your government or president. Who knows what laws will be put into place in the future that could make this inevitable. I side with the potential scenario where a terrorist gets their hands on a semi-automatic rifle vs. citizens losing their 2nd amendment privilege because of free speech. Think long term when laws are passed not just knee jerk emotional solutions for the present.
Wait, they censored "reach around"?
Here we are, a year later, and nothing has changed (except the lives of almost 60 people and the hundreds of others wounded by the attack, both physically and emotionally).
STNeish and the number just keeps going up.
Right....You haven't seen it yet.....& I haven't seen the next Event.
More people die from eating McDonalds or driving to work.
Jimmy Rustler does mean this isn’t a problem and shouldn’t be talked about.
Guns scare people who aren't comfortable using them. Learn how to protect yourself with a firearm and your opinion will change. The tools aren't the problem, evil people are. It'll be easier for evil people to massacre law abiding citizens if the citizens no longer have a right to own mankinds most effective form of self-defence.
Since when does 8% of the country get to control an issue? Do you mean pretty much anything nowadays?
When dealing with foreign terrorists in Guantanamo Bay: "We need due process. The government is prone to mistakes, corruption and abuses of power."
When dealing with law-abiding US citizens: "Who needs due process? The government is perfect."
America has not A gun problem, it has many and man y related issues such as 1) the number of guns 2) the ease of getting hold of one 3) the lack of support for mentally unstable individuals who kill others or themselves 4) the lack of solved cases involving guns especially those within black communities 5) the spread of terrorism and the ease with which that message can now be spread.
It is not helpful to put all of these together, just like there is no one solution. But curbs around guns must be implemented to begin to address at least some of these problem
So basically what you're saying is that we have gun problems AND mental issues.
Well unless you want to spend money on identifying and looking after the mentally ill...
Q... "When does 8% of a population take full control of an issue"?
A... When an issue is protected in a Constitutional Republic.
Well that part is wrong and should be changed
@@SaGeOwL4891 fascist.
Banning guns isn't going to help. "Assault weapons" are already illegal. People wanting to do illegal things will get guns illegally. And it's also so easy to say people don't need guns when you always have armed security around you to do the dirty work.
Assault weapons are NOT illegal and NOBODY said ban all guns. Fucking idiot
After the vote on this Bill how could ANYONE think the GOP is looking out for the average American and NOT gun makers.
We told the Senate what we expect and they essentially shot us the finger.
When did they make you think they were looking out for you? The list none of the shooters thus far would have been on? The background checks that wouldn't have popoed a red flag on any of the shooters? The assault weapons ban that is the equivalent of banning racing stripes qnd tinted windows?
..... to stop speeders? (Sensitive touch screen)
we have guns for a reason... a right to bare arms means we have a right to fight if lets say, we are invaded or some kind of war breaks out or if aliems come or whatever... We have guns for a reason. we dnt have a gun problem we have an ignorance problem.
The average American more than likely owns atleast one gun.
I think we should outlaw assault vehicles (bus). More people die from assault vehicle accidents each year, than from assault weapons. More people die from automobiles each year than from guns of any kind. In the US at least, I suspect that is nearly worldwide, except where they have very few vehicles. Are you up for that? No? Why not?
thank god for the constituation..thank god for our founding fathers and making america great.. our constituation is made to protect the poeple from the goverment.. so im happy no gun laws were passed and pray nothing infriges on our rights to be an american.. god bless
Thou shall have automatic killing machines once said Jefferson.
... *constitution
I couldn't agree more.
What's a "constituation"?
zeppelingitis its a synonym for grammar and spelling police.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” -- Upton Sinclair
Time to shame _all_ politicians who take money from gun lobbyists.
The problem is they'll still get the money, it'll just be given to them in secret. Some Swiss bank account will have the senators name on it.
woah look at that so many antigun people here.hhmmm i wonder why?maybe because youtube "support" them by banning gun videos no no pure coincednece :)
Laser Samurai Of course. An armed population is a threat to the draconian style laws we see in the UK, which they would waste no time enacting in the US given the chance.
I talked with a 30 year veteran of the local police. He told me that if there is ever a national disaster like an earthquake, EMP from the sun or from an attack, or even mass riots like we've had here before in LA he and many of his fellow cops will stay home and protect their families. So if most of the cops are at home protecting their loved ones then who's protecting the rest of us?? Simple. It's up to families to protect themselves. And how do you do that? Not with harsh words and sticks. When roving bands of rioters, rapists, ect come to your neighborhood the only way to protect your loved ones is with a gun. Calling 911 will be a wasted of time. It's the responsibility of the adults in your family to protect your children and your elderly. Wake up people and stop thinking the gov't will protect you. 99% of the time in a normal situation they come after the damage has been done to write the reports.
the show really became a train wreck..
“Power does not corrupt men; fools, however, if they get into a position of power, corrupt power.”
(George Bernhard Shaw)
There are SOOOOOO many laws on guns and gun control...Too many. Let us reduce this number, and ENFORCE the laws of the land. The number of lives we have lost, too high...And the Senate and the Legislature are supposed to do OUR BIDDING.
You've got a better chance of being struck down by a bolt of lighting than shot by a lone wolf pyscho killer
perhaps so, but there are plenty of other people doing shooting besides "lone wolf psycho killers". Besides that though, we cant to anything to get rid of lightning, we can get rid of guns though. go search the video called #CrushTheGuns
Why do you need an semiautomatic for hunting? LEARN TO SHOOT!
Who said they're for hunting you dumbass.
Practically all guns are semi-automatic. You don't know what "semi-automatic" means.
About the same time you need the spare tire on your car or your medical insurance...right about then.
CHUCK CUTLER Why do you need is NOT a question! It is a statement where the person (YOU) has ALREADY TAKEN a position on an issue.
You can't defend yourself with a bolt action rifle dumbass
so sad, all these vids recommended are two years old, and nothings changed. more dead children. is that not a problem for americans?
madCRO > What "CIVILISED" country have you fled to?
The simple answer is no. Its currently a necessary thing to preserve the life and liberty of millions.
Scott Wilson mordichai Ben David
Scott Wilson nope
The Greenwood Park Mall mass murderer was killed by an armed citizen at the mall. We need a million more armed citizens.
The mass murderer was an armed citizen and he killed more.
How about Common sense Guns laws...and Common sense Immigration Laws Steven ?
Lol "high powered assault rifles". I assume he is referring to AR-15 style guns and they are neither high power, nor are they assault rifles
Guns that are designed to kill as many possible should not be able to be bought like cheez-its. I am an Australian, if you need a gun legitimately, you can get one and we haven't had a gun massacre since 1996
.
@@garethperkins6361 your understanding of what a civilian AR-15 is is not accurate. Also, we do have a legitimate reason to own them in American cuz we have idiots rioting in mobs and attacking people for stupid reasons. This year has more than proven why AR-15'S are a necessity for every American household.
@@garethperkins6361 your crime rate has been dropping before the gun ban.
@@garethperkins6361 All rifles combined... ALL. Semi auto, bolt action, lever action, full auto, semi auto, etc.
Probably 200 million of them and they are only used in about 200-400 deaths per year.
Take away suicide, police use, and self defense use and that numbers even smaller.
Go away.
Colbert throws down! Welcome back buddy, we've missed you
Roast their asses Stephen!! LOL!
Over here in England we don't have gun problems . Infact hand guns were banned a long time ago. The police here still go about with a whistle and stick. America needs to be educated by other countries.
Over here in England we have multiple knife attacks daily in London alone. Multiple acid attacks daily in London alone. Homemade bombs going off to replace guns with expressed purpose to inflict mass casualties. Don't act like we're any safer because we don't have guns.
I would just like to point out that literally anything can be used as a weapon. If a person has the intent to kill, they will use anything they can get their hands on to do it. Rocks, baseball bats, screwdrivers, kitchen knives, etc. are not supposed to be weapons, but they've been used as such by people anyway. Everyone knows it's wrong to break into someone's home and to rape, yet these things still happen. It doesn't matter what laws are in place, criminals will always break them. So that's why self defense is so important, in case those kinds of people ever come after you.
Yeah, I agree. But, the issues in this video aren't really controversial. It basically says lets to keep guns away from people who could commit these disgusting crimes. If you obey the law and you are responsible then have guns, and as you say self defense, isn't an issue. Of course there are people who want guns completely banned. But most of the people who want action taken only want restrictions, not bans. So the people using guns as self defense aren't at all affected.
when was the last time you heard one person killed fifty or a hundred plus people with a rock, baseball bat, or screwdriver. murderers will always exist but why make their job easier and farther reaching for them?
Marissa I almost mentioned that lol
@@rainkissme in China there was mass stabbing that killed either 120 or 144 I believe.
You say "terror watch list" like it's the litmus test for baddies, when in reality it has no due process, making it unconstitutional. So you are proposing expanding illegal practices.
If we alter that list to actually follows due process, *THEN* I will support denying rights based on that list, just as I support banning most felons from owning guns.
Thank god there are reasonable Americans like myself around here..
Okay sure it might be unconstitutional but what the fuck does that mean when someone can buy a huge ass gun and kill fifty people. You are saying that you would rather have that happen because putting someone on a terror watch list is "unconstitutional". Fuck off
Yeah. I support a watch list, so long as that watch list is updated -- since I recall reading in a non-partisan news source that approximately 30% of people on the FBI watch list are unfairly put on it, and that it also hurts law-abiding citizens who share the same name as suspected terrorists from going on things like airplanes.
I'm saying fix the watch list before you use it thusly.
That would make sense, if it weren't for the fact that the thing being deprived of those potentially denied due process is a fucking gun. We're not talking about locking these people up forever or torturing them without due process (as right-wingers have been advocating for forever). We're not talking about denying them lawyers or medical care. We're talking about NOT SELLING THEM WEAPONS. Too fucking bad. I think erring on the side of denying potential terrorists guns is a risk that we can take while their cases are being sorted out. Just because you have a right to something doesn't mean that it trumps all else, like the rights of others to go to a cafe without being mowed down by some nut pledged to ISIS. You gun worshipers are pathetic. And by the way, save your bullshit slippery slope argument comeback. We've all heard it a million times. You people are so blinded by your religious devotion to killing machines that you're advocating for the rights of terror suspects to arm themselves to the teeth. Sleep well.
If there is an 18 year old student who is still registered in a public school that can legally buy a gun should be put on a list that follows the student from school to school.
The solution to stopping gun violence is more guns, it's just common sense.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
The meaning for, "Shall not be infringed" is now "You're good unless I'm offended"
When I got this in my recommendations I thought it was a recent video, but no it's just deja vu in the world of Republicans.
Avatarblackwolf Its done by crazy people, but the actions or inactions of the people who are supposed to be running the country can make it worse or better.
Gun Control doesn't work.
Crazy almost 2 years later we’re still having the same conversation and nothing has been done...
That's because the Gun Control Law's you want affect the Average citizen that hasn't committed a crime in their whole life meanwhile those exact same bills do nothing to the Criminal's that don't follow the Law already. Maybe start focusing on the actual problem like the Criminal's with you Gun control bills then you'll get something done.
bans and laws! it IS how we got rid of all the drugs....
None of the guns I own personally have ever been used to harm or threaten anybody. I can't say the same about the ones issued to me by the government
one of mine saved my and my wife's lives.
you committed a crime with guns that the government gave you?
WEEE Needd F TANK IN HOMEE
I like guns, I own several of them, I am a responsible gun owner but I disagree with the Senate opposing some of these gun control laws, there should be no way a person on the "No Fly List" can get access to a gun, if you are a suspected terrorist, or a terrorist sympathizer you should have your rights revoked as an American for believing in something that goes against the beliefs as a nation.
even with all the "gun control" terrorist can still get guns on the black market
The underlying issue is due process. It would set a precedent for withholding rights without oversight or judicial review. Innocent until proven guilty.
without due process?
Ok this is for people who know a bit about trying to get off the No Fly list. How "easy" it is if you are put there in error...
First, forget guns and forget the second amendment.
Instead, hitch the 5th and 6th to it. Now, try to get off the fucking list. If they do it with one right,they can do it with any.The super ,awesome, best part is that a shit-ton of people in this country would go for it because they think its a list of terrorists or suspected terrorists when it's just people who have been ass raped with "predictive judgements". It's tea leaves,crystal balls, and tarot cards. If your name seems suspicious,welcome to the list.Visit the "wrong" country, on the list you go.If you ask why you are on it,they might tell you,but they don't have to.They can say it's a national security issue.
This isn't about guns.There isn't a single fucking right that we have in this country that should ever be tied to the clusterfuck known as the no fly list.
If you don't know much about it, I suggest you google the hell out of "predictive judgement no fly list" or something similar.
Monsta i will never support secret government lists. nor taking away anyones rights no matter what it is without due process. that is the definition of oppression.
Murder being illegal doesn't stop all murders.
Pedophilia being illegal doesn't stop all molestation.
So should we just legalize those while we're at it?
That logic is tragically flawed.
$800 billion for the military and I myself are scared to send my kids to any school.
Crush the NRA.
Those guys who crush stuff with a 10,000 ton hydraulic press on RUclips?? Find an NRA sign/logo, or merch. Crush away! Viral video, anyone?!?!