You mean other Countries that I FORCE THEIR LAWS !!!! Unlike DEMON-CRAT STATES. HOGG needs to try the HOTEL SUITS at a Mexican prison or RUSSIAN work camp.
You forgot the epic part at the end where Lily Tang Williams asked davey if he can guarantee the government can never be tyrannical and he said no and she says well the gun debate is over im keeping my guns
Yea, I've heard several people mention that to me now. I'm not sure why that exchange didn't really register with me when I was making my notes as I watched. My brain might have been fried by then.
@@GearyGundersonif the founding fathers were only interested in the right of the individual then they would not have written the first part you muppet.
There is NO RIGHT to be “safe”. This idea is delusional. If he is worried about being safe, he has to do things to be safe, actions like putting on a seatbelt or carry a gun. Its NO ONE ELSES responsibility to make sure you are safe.
You'd think being a helpless victim in a situation like that would make him take steps to not ever be a victim again instead of promoting the creation of more victims like he is... Kid's not too wise.
You got it backwards. It’s delusional to think we don’t have a right to be safe. Anything that endangers your life violates your right to life. That is a big part of why we have a right to own guns. That is why we have laws detailing when it is acceptable to deprive someone of their right to life (self defense laws.) The delusional part is when liberals say “Americans have a right to be safe. So give up your guns.” You, as an American, absolutely have the right to be safe. You are correct though by saying that it’s not anyone else’s responsibility to keep you safe, just as it’s no one’s responsibility to keep you happy or free. It’s up to you.
Well its worse than that.. the laws were made to stop the Communists and the Nazis by previous Gov. 1928 the Law on Firearms and Ammunition was enacted. It relaxed gun restrictions as to ownership (but not as to their use and instruction on their use, as these were still illegal according to the Versailles Treaty) and put into effect a strict firearm licensing scheme. Under this scheme, Germans could possess firearms, but were required to have separate permits to do the following: own or sell firearms, carry firearms (including handguns), manufacture firearms, and professionally deal in firearms and ammunition. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to "... people whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit The Nazis "improved" it in 1938.. the basis for modern German gun laws now, note that is the same year as Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons.
One of the biggest misconceptions that EVERYONE against guns seems to make is the “right to safety”. YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO SAFETY. Your safety is your own responsibility.
Not only is there no “right to safety” in the Constitution, Benjamin Franklin said Americans who would give up their liberty for safety don’t deserve to live in a free country. --- “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Bejamin Franklin
Thank you. He talks about it like he was there, Matrixing bullets and dragging the wounded to safety on his sparrow- thin shoulders. If he didn't get the text about it, he wouldn't have even KNOWN it was going on. No one calls him on that bullshit. Why?
@@Phil-ey6yh What I want to know is why a young person was sick enough to stay home, but when there was a shooting at his school he was well enough to ride his bike to school. Almost like he knew to stay home that day. Couldn't have anything to do with his father being an FBI agent...
@@Phil-ey6yhnot to mention, it was scrubbed from the internet that he admitted he wasn’t there. He’s a piece of shit capitalizing off of his classmates suffering who had actually been there when it happened
Let's not forget the leaked footage of him getting coached by interviewers on what to say when on camera which got repeatedly taken down on youtube for "Bullying"
When Hogg brought up the Australian “gun buyback,” you pointed out that it was a forced confiscation of the type that Hogg had already admitted wouldn’t work-but you should have pointed out that _it was enabled to be forcible specifically by the fact that they’d previously been required to REGISTER THEIR GUNS!_ And Hogg had already said that he wants gun registration and claimed that it’s “common sense.” They didn’t press him about what practical reason necessitates gun registration. Does the lack of gun registration typically hinder the apprehension of violent criminals who use guns criminally? Of course not.
Registered guns can kill or maim as well as unregistered guns; let's face it, Cain killed Abel with a rock. Does this mean that we should register all rocks?
The Nazis required Jewish population to register their guns. Then, Taking advantage of a prewar 1935 French gun registration law, the Nazis used registration records kept by the French police to easily locate jewish gun owners to enforce their demand that firearms be surrendered. Countless French citizens faced firing squads for refusing to comply
@@stephenbrecht1696I personally would like all rocks, hammers, ladders, low ceiling beams, mailboxes, pebbles, spoons, and hair dryers registered. Oh and bathtubs because the hairdryer is a weapon near a 🛁 tub.
“Rights to safety” is an independent choice. You either protect yourself or you don’t. That’s the beauty of the 2nd Amendment, if you want an easy answer.
"Right to safety" is also completely arbitrary. Who decides the level of safety? Trying to pit a set in stone right up against an arbitrary argument posing as a "right" is just mental gymnastics. One that a lot of people fall for unfortunately.
I agree with him, the militia should be well-regulated and well-trained. Bring back gun safety courses in schools and encourage safety classes for adults.
It's hilarious how out of all the amendments within the Bill of Rights, liberals think the "well-regulated" part in Amendment Two gives the federal or state government the power to regulate.
I'm a big fan of the israeli conscription policy ,get everyone to a base level of understanding military requirements and policy. And being capable of defense .
I went to school in southern England, which is famous for not allowing gun ownership. The school owned 300 rifles, 12 Bren machine guns, about 10-15 Sterling submachine guns and sundry other weapons. Nobody felt unsafe, nobody got shot, because we were trained to respect the firearms and handle them correctly.
@@GreatBigRanz ...as a state-level solution, never intended to go national. Why else do you think Republicans were so opposed to it as federal solution? Oh, and what's that? They were RIGHT! It was unconstitutional, an aspect that Trump amended by taking away the penalties for choosing not to be insured, not that it mattered because it was already buckling under its own bloated weight thanks to the MILLIONS they expected to join the exchange...but didn't. It's as if offering people free healthcare - but requiring that they get off their asses to apply - STILL wasn't enough to incentivize folks to go that route. So whistle along as I say "we told you so!"
The token health insurance salesman needed a self serving misinformation campaign called Covid-19. The media continuously reinforced the phony epidemic, healthcare professionals questioned and resisted the proposed epidemic. Nancy Pelosi strongly reinforced 8th grade health care lessons such as wash your hands, avoid exposure and cover your nose and mouth. Health care class lessons.
His argument that you'd be required to own an M16 and the fact that he thinks he's providing intellectual substance with it is incredibly concerning for his alma mater.
The “right to safety,” isn’t a ‘made up right.’ The way rights work is that government can make no laws limiting your ability to any conduct which serves to keep you safe. The 2nd amendment is the “right to safety.”
2:32 The whole "can't falsely yell fire in a crowded theater" bs was never a law, had nothing to do with fires, theaters, or even false statements, and was overturned over 50 years ago. Yet without fail, someone will still cite this phrase as proof that there are limits to the Constitution, despite the fact that there is NO legal relevance to it whatsoever. This quote has been the crutch for extremists who want to destroy or severely limit the Constitution.
My favorite part is when David Hogg said that, "There is a libertarian case to be made" for not having teachers in schools armed so that kids don't think that the government can't protect them. How is that a libertarian argument???
One thing I would add is that Indiana is constantly blamed for Chicago’s gun violence . However if Indiana is the source of the guns in Chicago than the gun violence would be just as bad even worse but it’s not.
I hate when they enact laws like the “assault weapon” ban and say fire arms have to be made a specific way and then firearm manufacturers follow those laws and then people say the firearm manufacturers found a “loop hole”… no they are just following the laws you asked for…
@@PrimericanIdol plenty of examples of gun ownership w low crime and high. Same with gun restrictions with low and high crime. Proves its the people/culture not the inanimate objects
The organizations that aren’t held liable…. Did he mention the MLB as in baseball or am I missing something? Also, almost every company in the US has that protection if product was used illegally or not for its intended use. Gun manufacturers are not held liable because believe it or not David, murder is illegal.
Heard him say MLB and my first thought was Barry Bonds hitting a juiced home run, for some reason. I think he only knows talking points because when he tries to argue his point, he starts studdering and speaks terribly and makes no sense so I think he forgot the acronym and just said "MLB" cause it was close to whatever talking point he was supposed to remember
David Hogg x Spike Cohen Gun Control Debate Highlights No one has a Constitutional right to safety. There is no Constitutional provision or amendment for safety. We are responsible for our own safety and our own lives, no one else. “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759 “You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream -- the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order --or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path.” ― Ronald Reagan "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson on British gun laws, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776 "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783
This is the correct line of questioning for the type of people who say "I respect the second amendment but we need reasonable restrictions" (as defined by some arbitrary ill informed talking point): 1) What firearm and magazine capacity combination is acceptable to you? 2) Should a mass shooting occur with a firearm that complies with what you just said was reasonable, would you maintain your position and suggest no reforms in the wake of it, or would you want additional restrictions? 3) If you maintain your position, what do you say to the families of the victims, and if you instead want additional restrictions, do you accept any culpability for trying to compromise rather than just going directly to your more restricted position? This tends to get them to drop the facade of being "reasonable" and go direct to "ban all guns"
The “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater” is the dumbest argument gun grabbers use. You 100% can yell fire in the theater, it’s the call to action with intent to cause a panic, that’s frowned upon.
You can’t use speech to incite an immediate breach of peace, or if you “yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater,” you cause an immediate reaction of people rushing to the exit to save their lives. If you say something that gives people time to think about it isn’t the same as an immediate call to action with no time to think (as time spent evaluating may cost you the time it needs to exit for safety.) But this is the same as you can’t fire your gun at people, because it causes a breach of the peace and potentially death/great bodily harm to another…
Hey Hogg, do you want to FEEL safe or ACTUALLY BE SAFE? And you should not be arguing with teachers so there is that. I have never argued with teachers
Of course he wants to BE safe. That’s why the little hypocrite douche has armed security escorting him to all of his farcical appearances. He knows that guns are used to defend-he just won’t ever admit it.
I have argued with teachers somewhat about a citation on a report. Even if it got super heated (never did, because school is actually pointless), the fact he thinks it would get to PULLING OUT GLOCKS if we had had them shows how immature or disingenuous he is. Maybe we can compromise and just say Democrats can't own arms?
This is mostly true, there AR 15 actually was intended to be full auto from the beginning, there were not as many restrictions on automatic guns at the time.
We don't have a gun problem, however that does not negate the fact that some people have a behavior problem. A perfect example if we outlaw owning gold, will it protect other people from poverty? The solution therefore would be to go after the behavior. If going after behavior is not the solution, then why are so many people locked up
In most places threatening to shoot up a school is a felony. Just making the threat is a felony. If as Mr. Hogg claims, he was aware of a credible threat that was made repeatedly prior to the shooting. Why did he not report that? And if it was reported, why did the police not do anything about a clear and valid crime? If we are not holding law enforcement and the justice system accountable for the failure to enforce existing laws, then how exactly is passing more restrictive laws going to prevent violence? It seems to me that your anger and activism should be directed towards the Justice system or specific people who failed in their duties.
Yeah, Davy, you know, i don't feal safe about people carrying clevers, Carving knives, pipes, baseball bats and stelletos...and walking down the stairs in an awkward way.
I love how there is always this argument that no Amendment (enumerated Right) is unlimited. This argument is ALWAYS bolstered by the "fire in a movie theater" analogy. Fact: The second Amendment is the ONLY amendment which specifically states within the text of the amendment itself that the Right mentioned is unlimited. The definition of "infringe" has not changed since 1791. It means to limit, restrict, prevent, prohibit, obstruct, or otherwise curtail or prevent. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE - limited, restricted, prevented, prohibited, obstructed, or otherwise curtailed." It is the most unambiguous statement. The text of the second amendment specifically mandates prohibition of its own limitation. This was not an accident. The inclusion of this text was intentionally meant to immediately close the door on any attempt to restrict a person's right to possess and carry weapons. the whole point of adding that portion of text was to avoid the debates like we are seeing here.
Not too mention, what kind of person goes around looking for "limits" in our Constitution? A tyrant, that's who! By this line of logic, NONE of the governments laws are "absolute", right?
Those people don't realize that in claiming that "nothing in the Constitution is absolute" (in pedo Joe's words), they're saying that things like private slavery, government torture, and poll taxes are sometimes acceptable.
My roommate's girlfriend was in the shooting club, I thought it would be something we could bond over... Nope, turns out she didn't know shit about guns, didn't own a gun, didn't care about the 2nd amendment. She couldn't even tell me what caliber the rifle she used at the club was. Saying "I was in the shooting club" doesn't make me think "this guy gets us, we can relate".
Can’t have a beer so you can’t own an ar15, but you can be drafted to war and potentially have to use an actual assault weapon in combat while also risking your life against your will. Genius logic 😂
The " You can't yell fire in a crowded theater" So called imitation Imposed on our 1st amendment right is a crap argument. You absolutely can lawfully yell Fire in a crowded theater assuming there is a fire. What you can't do is yell fire in a crowded theater for the sake of creating a panic or a public disturbance Where no fire exists. I don't think the anti gun individual Realize that this is not the slam dunk they think it is. Also there is no document saying that Limiting or infringing on free speach. There should be but different video.
The explanation of Live Free or Die by a local citizen was perfect and really is one of the best historical quotes as to why our rights must be taken to be inalienable.
1:00 The Federal government does exactly what Hogg is suggesting and makes military weapons available to civilians. Details: ruclips.net/video/MiKtIt_F65M/видео.html
Gun control is about racism and slavery This Patriotic Veteran approves this mesg Gun deaths There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. The U.S. population is 324,059,091 as of June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.00925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death: • 65% of those deaths are by suicide, which would never be prevented by gun laws. • 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified. • 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons - better known as gun violence. • 3% are accidental discharge deaths. So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Now lets look at how those deaths spanned across the nation. • 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago • 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore • 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit • 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years) So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause. This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1. Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equal, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths. Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault are all done by criminals. It is ludicrous to think that criminals will obey laws. That is why they are called criminals. But what about other deaths each year? • 40,000+ die from a drug overdose-THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT! • 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths. • 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide). Now it gets good: • 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer walking in the worst areas of Chicago than you are when you are in a hospital! • 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If the liberal loons and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total number of gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides ................ Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions! So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It's pretty simple: Taking away guns gives control to governments. The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace. Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs. So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed." What ever happen to up hold the Oath of office to protect and up hold the CONSTITUTION of the USA....NOT MAKE YOUR OWN RULES/LAWS... please stand for America
Thank you for saving me the time for writing that. Argument -by-facts…gotta love it. The city I live in (in Texas) was incorporated in 1958 (not sure which month), so about 65-66 years old. We’ve had ONE shooting in its history. We have open-carry and Constitutional Carry (no license required). EVERY friend I have carries, my wife carries, one grandson is old enough and he carries. CONCLUSION: It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure out guns aren’t the problem.
All weapons bans are unconstitutional therefore illegal in violation of the supremacy clause, article 4 section 2 paragraph 1, second amendment,10th amendment,14th amendment section 1.
The quote attributed to Ben Franklin is this “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety". Safety is a broad concept that also includes knowing your neighbors and your neighborhood; neighborhood watch is part of this. Ultimately, you as an adult are responsible for your own safety. I taught my wife and children that it is up to you to NOT be a victim. I am fully behind the right to own and bear arms. But I also preach situational awareness, your best weapon is the one between you ears.
I love when people bust out the good ol' "can't yell fire in a crowded theater" thing. It's so easy to shut down..."of course you can. When there's a fire."
You also CAN yell fire in a movie theater, even when there isn't a fire. That entire argument is misinformation used by the gun grabbers, and is a straight up lie. It was based on a racist court decision that was later found unconstitutional, and still is unconstitutional.
Plus they never know where that phrase came from. It's from a 1919 Supreme Court case where the government took away the 1st Amendment rights of citizens, arresting them for speaking out against the draft. Their go-to line is from a blatant infringement of our rights... and they think they're making a winning point.
these people dont even know what "Infringe" means..... its means TO LIMIT.... so YES, any gun law that LIMITS our ability to keep and bear arms, is in fact AN INFRINGEMENT....
Was he keeping society safe when he blocked traffic, got out of his car to film/shame someone, and then tried to act like the victim when the driver point a gun at him? "I'm allowed to do whatever I want and I hate when people have guns to defend themselves from it" is a great position for someone who doesn't care about anyone but himself.
You have no right to safety. You have the right to fight for your life, unless you live in California, New York, and New Jersey. In those places the criminals are allowed to do what they want.
As someone who was born and raised in East Flatbush Brooklyn, I can attest to the factual nature of that statement. Now that I live in the suburban south I laugh at everytime I hear people talk about safety. There is no such thing. Never was, never will be and none of us have that as a "right".
“For most of us history you had a duty to retreat even on your own property” I’ll have whatever this guys on. He couldn’t be more wrong if he wanted to. What a wild thing to say.
The development date for the AR-15 is 1956. The Development date for the M16 is 1959. As is often the case, civilian models for firearms exist many years before the military adopts them. The Sig P320 came out in 2014. The military just recently adopted it.
For some perspective, outside of the USA only the Czech Republic has a right to bear arms, and this also comes with the right to use said gun to protect yourself and, in some cases, your property. However, the limit for guns is two per person.
Banning and restricting guns has the same result that banning and restricting drugs has. Anyone willing to break the law can get all they want in a few hours or less. Anyone unwilling to break the law has none. With drugs that may be what you want but with guns it is a disaster of epic proportions.
An unconstitutional law is void and is as no law. An offense created by it is not a crime. A conviction under it is not merely erroneous but is illegal and void and cannot be used as a legal cause of imprisonment. Ex Parte Siebold,100 US-371(1879).
He's not a school shooting survivor. He. Wasn't. Even. There.
almost like his fbi dada had some knowledge of an event beforehand
It would be a lot cooler if he were though
@@jima611 lol
Citation needed.
@GreatBigRanz you don't need a piece of paper to know this. Just look it up. You don't need people to do your work for you
A child of an FBI agent. Arguing against guns 🤦
Well hoggs are Pigs!
yeah, sure interesting that was the day he wasn't there......
David Hogg says he feels safer when he is in other countries. Please move there David and feel safe.
The fact that he is using his scam.to travel over seas.and all over the US.while enjoying nice hotels dinner's etc.
You mean other Countries that I FORCE THEIR LAWS !!!! Unlike DEMON-CRAT STATES. HOGG needs to try the HOTEL SUITS at a Mexican prison or RUSSIAN work camp.
Why should he? He perceives a massive problem in his home country and wants to correct it.
I agree there is a problem they're called liberals.
@@GreatBigRanz through false solutions that wouldn't fix the problem.
You forgot the epic part at the end where Lily Tang Williams asked davey if he can guarantee the government can never be tyrannical and he said no and she says well the gun debate is over im keeping my guns
Yea, I've heard several people mention that to me now. I'm not sure why that exchange didn't really register with me when I was making my notes as I watched. My brain might have been fried by then.
@@GearyGunderson yeah my brain was pretty fried too listeing to this guy spew his bullshit
That part made me cheer, hog just did a nervous laugh, she said go visit China and see what's sup, like damn owned and rekt
@@Scoobawoo he only does it for the money he steals
@@GearyGundersonif the founding fathers were only interested in the right of the individual then they would not have written the first part you muppet.
There is NO RIGHT to be “safe”. This idea is delusional. If he is worried about being safe, he has to do things to be safe, actions like putting on a seatbelt or carry a gun. Its NO ONE ELSES responsibility to make sure you are safe.
If he has a right to be safe, then so do I, and my safety includes the right to have a firearm if I so choose.
You'd think being a helpless victim in a situation like that would make him take steps to not ever be a victim again instead of promoting the creation of more victims like he is... Kid's not too wise.
I am safest when I have every mean to protect myself with whatever tool I choose including firearms.
@@NielNunya
Wasn't there evidence that he wasn't even at the shooting that made him famous for 15 seconds?
You got it backwards. It’s delusional to think we don’t have a right to be safe. Anything that endangers your life violates your right to life. That is a big part of why we have a right to own guns. That is why we have laws detailing when it is acceptable to deprive someone of their right to life (self defense laws.) The delusional part is when liberals say “Americans have a right to be safe. So give up your guns.” You, as an American, absolutely have the right to be safe. You are correct though by saying that it’s not anyone else’s responsibility to keep you safe, just as it’s no one’s responsibility to keep you happy or free. It’s up to you.
The Nazis thought registration was common sense too
Where did maga originate again? Talk about Nazis
Don’t believe everything your joo-ish written textbooks say
We have to register firearms within the UK, I'm most certain as such if the shit was to hit the fan we would be the first group they would come for
Well its worse than that.. the laws were made to stop the Communists and the Nazis by previous Gov.
1928 the Law on Firearms and Ammunition was enacted. It relaxed gun restrictions as to ownership (but not as to their use and instruction on their use, as these were still illegal according to the Versailles Treaty) and put into effect a strict firearm licensing scheme. Under this scheme, Germans could possess firearms, but were required to have separate permits to do the following: own or sell firearms, carry firearms (including handguns), manufacture firearms, and professionally deal in firearms and ammunition. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to "... people whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit
The Nazis "improved" it in 1938.. the basis for modern German gun laws now, note that is the same year as Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons.
Ignoring the fact that they EXPANDED guns to ethnic Germans.
My right to be safe beats your right to feel safe.
Lol
You have no right to be safe; only the right to ensure your own safety.
One of the biggest misconceptions that EVERYONE against guns seems to make is the “right to safety”. YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO SAFETY. Your safety is your own responsibility.
The right to bear arms IS the right to safety. You should be able to keep yourself safe.
💯. They forget that their safety is on them.
@@jjkrayenhagenright to self defense in an unsafe world.
Not only is there no “right to safety” in the Constitution, Benjamin Franklin said Americans who would give up their liberty for safety don’t deserve to live in a free country.
---
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Bejamin Franklin
The Constitution does state that all persons have a right to life, but it is on you individually to protect that right.
"The shooter at my highschool" You mean the tragedy you weren't involved in but pretended you were to use for publicity?
Thank you. He talks about it like he was there, Matrixing bullets and dragging the wounded to safety on his sparrow- thin shoulders. If he didn't get the text about it, he wouldn't have even KNOWN it was going on. No one calls him on that bullshit. Why?
@@Phil-ey6yh What I want to know is why a young person was sick enough to stay home, but when there was a shooting at his school he was well enough to ride his bike to school. Almost like he knew to stay home that day. Couldn't have anything to do with his father being an FBI agent...
@@Phil-ey6yhnot to mention, it was scrubbed from the internet that he admitted he wasn’t there. He’s a piece of shit capitalizing off of his classmates suffering who had actually been there when it happened
Let's not forget the leaked footage of him getting coached by interviewers on what to say when on camera which got repeatedly taken down on youtube for "Bullying"
That's b.s. and has debunked. He was there. He went home. He returned.
“Shall not be infringed.”
Anyone who talks about a "right to safety" is obviously ignorant of how rights work.
When Hogg brought up the Australian “gun buyback,” you pointed out that it was a forced confiscation of the type that Hogg had already admitted wouldn’t work-but you should have pointed out that _it was enabled to be forcible specifically by the fact that they’d previously been required to REGISTER THEIR GUNS!_ And Hogg had already said that he wants gun registration and claimed that it’s “common sense.”
They didn’t press him about what practical reason necessitates gun registration. Does the lack of gun registration typically hinder the apprehension of violent criminals who use guns criminally? Of course not.
The 30 second time limit made it impossible to go down tangents like that. It should have been 1 minute responses not 30 seconds.
They have a registration, it's called ATF Form 4473 .
Registered guns can kill or maim as well as unregistered guns; let's face it, Cain killed Abel with a rock. Does this mean that we should register all rocks?
The Nazis required Jewish population to register their guns. Then, Taking advantage of a prewar 1935 French gun registration law, the Nazis used registration records kept by the French police to easily locate jewish gun owners to enforce their demand that firearms be surrendered. Countless French citizens faced firing squads for refusing to comply
@@stephenbrecht1696I personally would like all rocks, hammers, ladders, low ceiling beams, mailboxes, pebbles, spoons, and hair dryers registered. Oh and bathtubs because the hairdryer is a weapon near a 🛁 tub.
This video just made me want to buy another. Thanks Hogg.
“Rights to safety” is an independent choice. You either protect yourself or you don’t. That’s the beauty of the 2nd Amendment, if you want an easy answer.
"Right to safety" is also completely arbitrary. Who decides the level of safety? Trying to pit a set in stone right up against an arbitrary argument posing as a "right" is just mental gymnastics. One that a lot of people fall for unfortunately.
@@hardlylivin6602 they easily fall for it because it’s convenient and wishful thinking. A utopian mindset away from reality.
I have 3 daughters and I don't want to have a firearm in my house.
.
.
.
.
.
....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.I wan't to have 47
Easy then dont have one in your house have a 100
Plus two extra shower guns.
lol hell yea
Sounds like personal problem from someone who will be gone soon enuf! How you gonna protect yourself! I'll tell you ! YOU'RE NOT!
I wouldn’t be comfortable going to your house… knowing you’d have more guns than me
I agree with him, the militia should be well-regulated and well-trained. Bring back gun safety courses in schools and encourage safety classes for adults.
I was nodding like, “Hell yeah, that’s what I’m talking ‘bout!” while he’s trying to shock the audience 😂
@@MalachiGuarnierigovernment supplied m16...David you genius
It's hilarious how out of all the amendments within the Bill of Rights, liberals think the "well-regulated" part in Amendment Two gives the federal or state government the power to regulate.
and conscription.
I'm a big fan of the israeli conscription policy ,get everyone to a base level of understanding military requirements and policy.
And being capable of defense .
"I 'studied abroad' and I'm still and I base my 'reasoning' on FEEEEEEEEELINGS"
I went to school in southern England, which is famous for not allowing gun ownership. The school owned 300 rifles, 12 Bren machine guns, about 10-15 Sterling submachine guns and sundry other weapons. Nobody felt unsafe, nobody got shot, because we were trained to respect the firearms and handle them correctly.
He meant to say he based his "treasoning"
My self defense is not up for debate.
"Obamacare" threw the American Healthcare system off a cliff!
Something that was written by a Republican Think Tank.
@@GreatBigRanz cool story bro
@@GreatBigRanz
Except it wasn't
@@GreatBigRanz ...as a state-level solution, never intended to go national. Why else do you think Republicans were so opposed to it as federal solution? Oh, and what's that? They were RIGHT! It was unconstitutional, an aspect that Trump amended by taking away the penalties for choosing not to be insured, not that it mattered because it was already buckling under its own bloated weight thanks to the MILLIONS they expected to join the exchange...but didn't. It's as if offering people free healthcare - but requiring that they get off their asses to apply - STILL wasn't enough to incentivize folks to go that route. So whistle along as I say "we told you so!"
The token health insurance salesman needed a self serving misinformation campaign called Covid-19. The media continuously reinforced the phony epidemic, healthcare professionals questioned and resisted the proposed epidemic. Nancy Pelosi strongly reinforced 8th grade health care lessons such as wash your hands, avoid exposure and cover your nose and mouth. Health care class lessons.
Right to safety sounds terrifying. Imagine how the government deeming what is “safe” could affect your life…
1940s Germany. "Only the govt can have guns to keep you safe"
The constitution doesn't say the right to safety, the 2nd amendment is the way to try to be safe.
Right to self defense in an unsafe world
His argument that you'd be required to own an M16 and the fact that he thinks he's providing intellectual substance with it is incredibly concerning for his alma mater.
The “right to safety,” isn’t a ‘made up right.’
The way rights work is that government can make no laws limiting your ability to any conduct which serves to keep you safe. The 2nd amendment is the “right to safety.”
2:32 The whole "can't falsely yell fire in a crowded theater" bs was never a law, had nothing to do with fires, theaters, or even false statements, and was overturned over 50 years ago. Yet without fail, someone will still cite this phrase as proof that there are limits to the Constitution, despite the fact that there is NO legal relevance to it whatsoever. This quote has been the crutch for extremists who want to destroy or severely limit the Constitution.
Nor do they point out that the government can't prevent me from yelling out "fire" in a crowded theater...
My favorite part is when David Hogg said that, "There is a libertarian case to be made" for not having teachers in schools armed so that kids don't think that the government can't protect them. How is that a libertarian argument???
Not sure he understands what libertarians believe. No wait..he doesn’t.
Im gonna buy a new gun today just because of this dude.
Hoggs a fool!!!!
One thing I would add is that Indiana is constantly blamed for Chicago’s gun violence . However if Indiana is the source of the guns in Chicago than the gun violence would be just as bad even worse but it’s not.
I hate when they enact laws like the “assault weapon” ban and say fire arms have to be made a specific way and then firearm manufacturers follow those laws and then people say the firearm manufacturers found a “loop hole”… no they are just following the laws you asked for…
It's funny how he doesn't mention Brazil as an example of how gun control fails miserably.
Mexico is one of the strictest countries on earth for gun control
@@Indian_Kamala Them too.
@@PrimericanIdol plenty of examples of gun ownership w low crime and high. Same with gun restrictions with low and high crime. Proves its the people/culture not the inanimate objects
@@Indian_Kamala Is it though? A gun-free US would become another Brazil, not another Australia.
@@PrimericanIdol yes wouldn't work here. Only Island countries w certain demographic majority works
The organizations that aren’t held liable…. Did he mention the MLB as in baseball or am I missing something? Also, almost every company in the US has that protection if product was used illegally or not for its intended use. Gun manufacturers are not held liable because believe it or not David, murder is illegal.
Heard him say MLB and my first thought was Barry Bonds hitting a juiced home run, for some reason. I think he only knows talking points because when he tries to argue his point, he starts studdering and speaks terribly and makes no sense so I think he forgot the acronym and just said "MLB" cause it was close to whatever talking point he was supposed to remember
I live in mass. There are misdemeanors that will disqualify you from getting a permit.
Hey David Hogg debate Colion Noir!
little davy pulled out of the debate. After he realized it would go badly for him
David Hogg x Spike Cohen Gun Control Debate Highlights
No one has a Constitutional right to safety. There is no Constitutional provision or amendment for safety. We are responsible for our own safety and our own lives, no one else.
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
“You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream -- the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order --or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path.”
― Ronald Reagan
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson on British gun laws, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
- William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783
lmao you quoted reagan, mulford act and the firearm ownersprotection act (didnt protect)
@@bussiboibrian6058 His statement is still valid whether you see it or not.
@@rbm6184 no doubt. Just don't throw that Reagan trash in it and you'd be more credible.
@@rbm6184Ronald Reagan along with Gerald Ford wrote letters in support of The Federal Assault Weapons Ban.
@@a.c.2499 His statement is still valid whether you see it or not.
Guns violate your right to safety? Please show me *ANYTHING* that even IMPLIES, let alone grants, any such "right"? I'll wait...
This is the correct line of questioning for the type of people who say "I respect the second amendment but we need reasonable restrictions" (as defined by some arbitrary ill informed talking point): 1) What firearm and magazine capacity combination is acceptable to you? 2) Should a mass shooting occur with a firearm that complies with what you just said was reasonable, would you maintain your position and suggest no reforms in the wake of it, or would you want additional restrictions? 3) If you maintain your position, what do you say to the families of the victims, and if you instead want additional restrictions, do you accept any culpability for trying to compromise rather than just going directly to your more restricted position? This tends to get them to drop the facade of being "reasonable" and go direct to "ban all guns"
We could have had Spike as VP, but Republicans wanted Trumpstock ban and Pence, instead.
"Way more damaging to human tissue"
Clearly you have no idea what a sword can do.
TRUTH
I have a deep dark and wide scar to attest to it
So sick of the fire in a crowded theatre analogy.. it’s like the default for these clowns.
All firearm laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The government has no authority to make any laws or regulations against arms!
Criminals don't buy guns at a Gun Store. They either steal them...or buy them from other criminals who steal them (Black Market).
The “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater” is the dumbest argument gun grabbers use. You 100% can yell fire in the theater, it’s the call to action with intent to cause a panic, that’s frowned upon.
You can’t use speech to incite an immediate breach of peace, or if you “yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater,” you cause an immediate reaction of people rushing to the exit to save their lives. If you say something that gives people time to think about it isn’t the same as an immediate call to action with no time to think (as time spent evaluating may cost you the time it needs to exit for safety.)
But this is the same as you can’t fire your gun at people, because it causes a breach of the peace and potentially death/great bodily harm to another…
Hey Hogg, do you want to FEEL safe or ACTUALLY BE SAFE?
And you should not be arguing with teachers so there is that. I have never argued with teachers
Of course he wants to BE safe. That’s why the little hypocrite douche has armed security escorting him to all of his farcical appearances. He knows that guns are used to defend-he just won’t ever admit it.
I have argued with teachers somewhat about a citation on a report. Even if it got super heated (never did, because school is actually pointless), the fact he thinks it would get to PULLING OUT GLOCKS if we had had them shows how immature or disingenuous he is. Maybe we can compromise and just say Democrats can't own arms?
But he didn't show up to debate Colion Noir
No gun owners in Australia willingly gave up their guns, they were forced with threat of imprisonment.
Kid needs a real trip overseas, a tour in a uniform……
Did he say ar 15 was made variant of the m16 because the ar 15 was made before the m16 and the m16 is the full auto version the government made .
This is mostly true, there AR 15 actually was intended to be full auto from the beginning, there were not as many restrictions on automatic guns at the time.
“How would you feel if your teacher had a Glock 19?”
Me: I’d ask if it has stock sights or if they use a red dot.
'How would I feel if David Hogg had a Glock?'
David Hoggs dad was an FBI agent... this makes so much god damn sense.
Sick of this.
If you look closely at 8:01, you can see him counting his braincells.
Does he stomp his foot once?
"two plus two... Ohhh nooo... 😰"
What amendment grants us safety I'll wait.
"Amendment grants" dangerous thought
We don't have a gun problem, however that does not negate the fact that some people have a behavior problem. A perfect example if we outlaw owning gold, will it protect other people from poverty? The solution therefore would be to go after the behavior. If going after behavior is not the solution, then why are so many people locked up
In most places threatening to shoot up a school is a felony. Just making the threat is a felony. If as Mr. Hogg claims, he was aware of a credible threat that was made repeatedly prior to the shooting. Why did he not report that? And if it was reported, why did the police not do anything about a clear and valid crime? If we are not holding law enforcement and the justice system accountable for the failure to enforce existing laws, then how exactly is passing more restrictive laws going to prevent violence? It seems to me that your anger and activism should be directed towards the Justice system or specific people who failed in their duties.
Absolutely
...it makes David feel good?
No such thing as an "assault weapon". Also 30 round mags are standard not high capacity.
Yeah, Davy, you know, i don't feal safe about people carrying clevers, Carving knives, pipes, baseball bats and stelletos...and walking down the stairs in an awkward way.
Glad to see its not a debate... just ignorance vs rationality.
I love how there is always this argument that no Amendment (enumerated Right) is unlimited. This argument is ALWAYS bolstered by the "fire in a movie theater" analogy. Fact: The second Amendment is the ONLY amendment which specifically states within the text of the amendment itself that the Right mentioned is unlimited. The definition of "infringe" has not changed since 1791. It means to limit, restrict, prevent, prohibit, obstruct, or otherwise curtail or prevent. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE - limited, restricted, prevented, prohibited, obstructed, or otherwise curtailed." It is the most unambiguous statement. The text of the second amendment specifically mandates prohibition of its own limitation. This was not an accident. The inclusion of this text was intentionally meant to immediately close the door on any attempt to restrict a person's right to possess and carry weapons. the whole point of adding that portion of text was to avoid the debates like we are seeing here.
Not too mention, what kind of person goes around looking for "limits" in our Constitution? A tyrant, that's who! By this line of logic, NONE of the governments laws are "absolute", right?
Those people don't realize that in claiming that "nothing in the Constitution is absolute" (in pedo Joe's words), they're saying that things like private slavery, government torture, and poll taxes are sometimes acceptable.
My roommate's girlfriend was in the shooting club, I thought it would be something we could bond over... Nope, turns out she didn't know shit about guns, didn't own a gun, didn't care about the 2nd amendment. She couldn't even tell me what caliber the rifle she used at the club was. Saying "I was in the shooting club" doesn't make me think "this guy gets us, we can relate".
Can’t have a beer so you can’t own an ar15, but you can be drafted to war and potentially have to use an actual assault weapon in combat while also risking your life against your will. Genius logic 😂
All constitutionally protected rights are inalienable rights.
Inalienable
Cannot be taken away from or given away by the possessor.
The " You can't yell fire in a crowded theater" So called imitation Imposed on our 1st amendment right is a crap argument. You absolutely can lawfully yell Fire in a crowded theater assuming there is a fire. What you can't do is yell fire in a crowded theater for the sake of creating a panic or a public disturbance Where no fire exists. I don't think the anti gun individual Realize that this is not the slam dunk they think it is. Also there is no document saying that Limiting or infringing on free speach. There should be but different video.
The explanation of Live Free or Die by a local citizen was perfect and really is one of the best historical quotes as to why our rights must be taken to be inalienable.
1:00
The Federal government does exactly what Hogg is suggesting and makes military weapons available to civilians. Details: ruclips.net/video/MiKtIt_F65M/видео.html
6:14 semi auto rifles make up 25% of all guns purchased, yet only account for 3% of all murders. Interesting fact that I'm sure Davey won"t admit.
Gun control is about racism and slavery
This Patriotic Veteran approves this mesg
Gun deaths
There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. The U.S. population is 324,059,091 as of June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.00925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:
• 65% of those deaths are by suicide, which would never be prevented by gun laws.
• 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified.
• 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons - better known as gun violence.
• 3% are accidental discharge deaths.
So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Now lets look at how those deaths spanned across the nation.
• 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
• 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
• 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
• 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)
So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.
This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.
Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equal, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.
Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault are all done by criminals. It is ludicrous to think that criminals will obey laws. That is why they are called criminals.
But what about other deaths each year?
• 40,000+ die from a drug overdose-THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!
• 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths.
• 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide).
Now it gets good:
• 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer walking in the worst areas of Chicago than you are when you are in a hospital!
• 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If the liberal loons and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total number of gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides ................ Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions! So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It's pretty simple:
Taking away guns gives control to governments. The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.
Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs. So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed."
What ever happen to up hold the Oath of office to protect and up hold the CONSTITUTION of the USA....NOT MAKE YOUR OWN RULES/LAWS... please stand for America
Thank you for saving me the time for writing that. Argument -by-facts…gotta love it.
The city I live in (in Texas) was incorporated in 1958 (not sure which month), so about 65-66 years old. We’ve had ONE shooting in its history. We have open-carry and Constitutional Carry (no license required). EVERY friend I have carries, my wife carries, one grandson is old enough and he carries. CONCLUSION: It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure out guns aren’t the problem.
10:08 this is a great lesson we *should* be teaching our kids - they should be comfortable with dangerous freedom vs "safe" tyranny.
We don’t have to go as far as the cartel, in fact we don’t have to go any further than the “criminals will be criminals” argument.
All weapons bans are unconstitutional therefore illegal in violation of the supremacy clause, article 4 section 2 paragraph 1, second amendment,10th amendment,14th amendment section 1.
I love how David shakes his head in disagreement when Spike properly summarizes public court cases 😂
This was a great example of master debating.
Just how did Nicholas Cruz obtain his AR-15? And what was his motive?
Those who are willing to trade freedom for safety deserve neither
Regulated meant "in good working order."
When you begin a phrase, “I mean just anecdotally, the fact of the matter is…” you should be removed from a debate panel. Dude is a clown.
What percentage of the Militia/Minuteman at Lexington and Concord had military training? Oh wait, practically none of them.
The quote attributed to Ben Franklin is this “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety". Safety is a broad concept that also includes knowing your neighbors and your neighborhood; neighborhood watch is part of this. Ultimately, you as an adult are responsible for your own safety. I taught my wife and children that it is up to you to NOT be a victim. I am fully behind the right to own and bear arms. But I also preach situational awareness, your best weapon is the one between you ears.
Spike is Savage. And was the LP VP candidate in 2020
Our country is very different these days but law abiding citizens should not be affected by the actions of criminals.
I love when people bust out the good ol' "can't yell fire in a crowded theater" thing. It's so easy to shut down..."of course you can. When there's a fire."
You also CAN yell fire in a movie theater, even when there isn't a fire. That entire argument is misinformation used by the gun grabbers, and is a straight up lie. It was based on a racist court decision that was later found unconstitutional, and still is unconstitutional.
Plus they never know where that phrase came from. It's from a 1919 Supreme Court case where the government took away the 1st Amendment rights of citizens, arresting them for speaking out against the draft. Their go-to line is from a blatant infringement of our rights... and they think they're making a winning point.
Congratulations David Hogg, you have won The Publisher`s Clearing House Sweepsrakes ! What a DWEEB !
The safety razor they gave me at work has detachable blades, a trigger mechanism, and can hold many blades within its "magazine"
Spike Cohen is great. Looking forward to seeing him around some more
these people dont even know what "Infringe" means..... its means TO LIMIT.... so YES, any gun law that LIMITS our ability to keep and bear arms, is in fact AN INFRINGEMENT....
I wanted to watch your video but at 4 min in I decided to go watch the original... I'll come back if I remember.
Was he keeping society safe when he blocked traffic, got out of his car to film/shame someone, and then tried to act like the victim when the driver point a gun at him?
"I'm allowed to do whatever I want and I hate when people have guns to defend themselves from it" is a great position for someone who doesn't care about anyone but himself.
You don’t have a right to feel safe especially at the expense of others actual rights.
Well regulated did not mean well trained. It meant well armed.
I wish they would have been more descriptive in the 2A.
"Well-regulated" means properly functioning or in good working order. A well-regulated militia is well trained and well equipped.
You have no right to safety. You have the right to fight for your life, unless you live in California, New York, and New Jersey. In those places the criminals are allowed to do what they want.
As someone who was born and raised in East Flatbush Brooklyn, I can attest to the factual nature of that statement. Now that I live in the suburban south I laugh at everytime I hear people talk about safety. There is no such thing. Never was, never will be and none of us have that as a "right".
He’s dad is a Fed of course it makes sense now.
“For most of us history you had a duty to retreat even on your own property” I’ll have whatever this guys on. He couldn’t be more wrong if he wanted to. What a wild thing to say.
The law/no change cycle at the end was my favorite point. Great job, I feel like shit now thank you. 😂
If he feels so relieved outside the US, why is he still here?
He can't get paid $15k a pop to wail for gun control in countries that already have strict gun control.
The development date for the AR-15 is 1956. The Development date for the M16 is 1959. As is often the case, civilian models for firearms exist many years before the military adopts them. The Sig P320 came out in 2014. The military just recently adopted it.
Anecdotally, the fact of the matter, over seas. Got it.
For some perspective, outside of the USA only the Czech Republic has a right to bear arms, and this also comes with the right to use said gun to protect yourself and, in some cases, your property.
However, the limit for guns is two per person.
10:00 No, that is not a “libertarian argument” that quite possibly could be the literal exact opposite of a libertarian argument.
Banning and restricting guns has the same result that banning and restricting drugs has. Anyone willing to break the law can get all they want in a few hours or less. Anyone unwilling to break the law has none. With drugs that may be what you want but with guns it is a disaster of epic proportions.
An unconstitutional law is void and is as no law. An offense created by it is not a crime. A conviction under it is not merely erroneous but is illegal and void and cannot be used as a legal cause of imprisonment.
Ex Parte Siebold,100 US-371(1879).