-Be me. -Own a musket for home defense since that's what the founding fathers intended. -Four ruffians break into my house. -"What the devil?" as I grab my powdered wig and kentucky rifle. -Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first man, he's dead on the spot. -Draw my pistol on the second man, misses him entirely because it's smoothbore and nails the neighbor's dog. -I have to resort to the cannon loaded with grapeshot mounted at top of the stairs. -"TALLY HO LADS!" the grape shot shreds two men in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel setting off car alarms. -Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscalion -Bleeds out waiting for the police to arrive since triangle bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up. -Just as the founding fathers intended.
What absolutely pisses me off about the mental health talking point is that it's only a talking point for the four days after the actual shooting. If the problem is mental health, how about some actual . . . mental health care reform?
I'll tell ya what we need: Anger management classes added to every high school in the country. Teach kids how to control their emotions so they don't become adults who kill their neighbor or another driver in a fit of rage. It's those emotion based murders, the rage crimes, that make up the bulk of the non-suicide gun deaths. We see it every damn day. Guy gets cut off in traffic, gets pissed, runs the driver off the road and beats, stabs, or shoots them to death. Or guy kills someone for talking trash, or sleeping with his girl, or blah blah blah. This whole damn country has an anger management problem, and social media is only making that worse.
The issue with the militia argument is that when states used militia's for security it wasn't the state giving the people guns. The militiamen were expected to bring their own weapons, which would be individual owned. This is actually important to a new supreme court case about the age someone can own a handgun under federal law.
Also a lot of countries had similar requirements like Germany that used to require men to own and carry arms in the 15th century and england requiring men to own and train with the longbow
Pardon me, but given that the united states have a Federal Armed Forces and the National Guard for each state, wouldn't the latter count as a militia? Hence, civilians shouldn't be required or allowed to own assault weapons, as each State's National Guard already provides it, and the point of the militia / National Guard is to provide each state the means for basic self-defence and autonomy right? Also, a properly trained and organised militia force like the National Guard would be would be much more effective than a bunch of random civilians with guns right?
@@Randi-h5q A Militia is when normal civilians take up arms to act as a paramilitary to supplement actual armed forces. National guard is a state controlled military not a militia. But even if what you say was true that is still not what is in the 2nd amendment which instills the right for any person to have the ability to arm themselves. Whether that be for national defense or internal tyranny.
@Ben Ghazi So your saying that someone who has a lot of guns is suspicious or a reason to not allow them to get more? Also what states do not ask someone if they are a convicted felon?
I like how he gets rid of the extremists in the first few minutes by saying “thanks Obama” and incorrectly saying M60 on purpose. Maybe I’m just overestimating him
Gun Control is being able to hit your target. Gun Control is focusing on the front sight. Gun Control is good trigger press. Gun Control is a steady sight picture. Gun Control is using both hands. Gun Control is good shot placement. Happiness, is a warm gun. This guy doesn't know better he's a gun grabber.
I was surprised that you didn't mention the fact that the 1994 assault rifle ban was not reinstated because it was showed to have no affect on gun violence
@@emilyscloset2648 even though it is more difficult to pass through if it was shown to have significant decrease in gun violence it would have still been passed through, however it didn't, it was shown to have little to no affect which is why the nra contributed to it not being reinstated
I'd also like to point out that Columbine happened _during_ the Bad-and-Scary-Army-Guns ban. Y'know, the shooting that gave every other little bastard the idea?
I fundamentally disagreed with the premise of those video before watching it. Now I understand far more points of view other than simply my own or the polar opposite of my own. This is why I absolutely love KB. Thank you for making the internet more intelligent and less ignorantly furious about things we don’t really know.
Except ... the "God given" right to being armed *IS* actually in the sequel. And now the design of the Nephites was to support their lands, and their houses, and their wives, and their children, that they might preserve them from the hands of their enemies; and also that they might preserve their rights and their privileges, yea, and also their liberty, that they might worship God according to their desires. For they knew that if they should fall into the hands of the Lamanites, that whosoever should worship God in spirit and in truth, the true and the living God, the Lamanites would destroy. Yea, and they also knew the extreme hatred of the Lamanites towards their brethren, who were the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi, who were called the people of Ammon-and they would not take up arms, yea, they had entered into a covenant and they would not break it-therefore, if they should fall into the hands of the Lamanites they would be destroyed. Alma 43: 9-11 Love the channel, btw. Keep up the good work.
I mean, he didn't invent the en bloc clip system, it was in fact invented before he was born (although just) and saw wideuse in almost every country to produce firearms. Hell, many parts of the Garand are based on the French RSC 1917, which used en bloc clips. Mannlicher invented them (which is why they also get called Mannlicher clips occasionally), in 1885. He was Austrian.
When talking about Australian Firearm Law, you missed one critical thing. Self-Defence is not counted by our government as a "Legitimate Reason" to own a firearm. It is a bad joke that our elected politicians take away our best self-defence tool whilst saying "oh no but you can still keep your guns! Just for every use other than the one you'll really really need" Don't let people with armed security take away your ability to have your own security.
@@Aseutester Irrelevant. If you don't see the application of a firearm for personal protection, you are anti-gun. I'd sooner advocate the banning of hunting, rather than a person's right to self-defence.
@PhillipMargrave some might.... Those that I know both active and the veteran would not, goes against the oath we took when we inlisted. Only and the ONLY way would be to amend the constitution.
Maybe, but It's probably more a symptom of looking at the problem from both sides. When not clearly agreeing with one side, in the gun debate, you alienate both sides.
@Gary Winthorp Didn't your mother teach you that answering with a counterquestion is considered as pretty discourteous ? Anyway, yes, at least me, inter alia I did study laws, and no, my alma mater doesn't have any reputation to be left, and my professor of constitutional law [R.I.P.] was a rather conservative Catholic *. . .*
22:42 Exactly. If you don’t open yourself to conversation, you embolden those who disagree with you to exclude you when they make decisions. You end up undermining yourself.
Hold on wait "Your right to own a gun comes from the government" You realize the bill of rights and amendments are to tell the governt what they can't do, not what the people can do, right?
There isn't a "middle" for this one. Either, a person is aware that we lose 2.6 million Americans a year, 1.3 million to cancer and heart disease and -8.5k- 10.5k to homicides after 2015, because the gov. (the same one these "moderates" want to "regulate the guns") poured Afghani heroin onto the streets, fueling yet another wave of gang wars... Either you are aware, or you aren't aware. Pro-gun is educated. Anti-gun is ignorant. There is no middle.
@@manictiger There is a middle. You are basically just saying that you are right and the other side is stupid. Guns save lives. Brandishing a gun can keep people from doing something just like policemen in public do.
@@obscuritystunt it has everything to do with it. But how about Cassius Marcellus Clay owning 6lb cannons(most advanced weapon of its day) and having them on the roof of his abolitionist newspapers building and when an angry mob came to burn the headquarters of "The True American" to the ground for daring to say black people shouldn't be property and should be allowed to vote he opened fire with a warning shot to disperse the crowd thereby using his second amendment right to defend his first amendment right? In 1860 to be anti 2A was to be anti 1A and pro slavery. In 1760 to be anti 2A was to be pro taxation without representation and pro military being allowed to just come into your home and take your things and stay there as long as they liked. In 1960 to be anti 2A was to be pro Jim Crow Laws.
jacob combs p6 lb cannons were not really new, they were just small caliber guns that were significantly less bank-destroying and more manageable than their full-size artillery counterparts.
@@MacCoalieCoalson hardly the point now is it? Yes he had the more manageable smaller guns that were often put on the quarter deck and forecastle and not the larger 18 lbs or 32lbs guns that were placed in lower decks for broadsides(only a fifth rate ship would completely lack 6lb guns), because he needed a canon he could aim and operate alone and which he could reasonably expect to effectively mount and use on the roof of his printing press the 6lb gun was 1000lbs the 12lb gun was easily 2000 and the 18lb gun was near enough 3000lbs. He still had a canon, like was actually on ships, as a private citizen and used it to defend his first amendment right and personal property from an angry mob that came to torch the place because he didn't approve of slavery. And merchant ships were owned and operated by private citizens in that. So the point remains it had everything to do with the individual right to possess arms for defense of self and property from threats of violence and tyranny.
well its a Fabrique Nationale de Herstal Mitrailleuse d'Appui Général,or the short version FN MAG.just like any other forren guns they jest re label them and American think it a American gun.
Interesting point, I've recently heard that the Wild West which most people would claim was a place where everyone had a gun, actually had forms of Gun control. Specifically, Tombstone made it that everyone had to surrender their gun when they are coming into town. I'm hoping to learn more from a paper written the Smithsonian, but it is kind of an interesting point about how inaccurately popular perceptions can be in relation to reality.
Yeah, the "Wild West" had lots of gun control, not just Tombstone. Also knife control laws, as there was a problem with Bowie knives and Arkansas toothpicks. Some of the knife laws have lasted into modern day, Texas notably only overturned theirs in the last few years. Also worth noting that something like 75% of "cowboys" (although that term tends to get misused a lot, cowboys drove cattle, they didn't get in gun fights, generally) were foreigners, and at least 25% were people of colour. A lot of the things we think about are actually Spanish originally, like the saddle type and lassos. Wild West tends to be incredibly white washed. It was a low status job, like being a lumberjack. Dangerous, and isolated with low pay, but almost anyone could do it, and in a racist society where you could get lynched for most anything, the isolation might actually have been a bit of a bonus.
the Old West had some of the strictest gun control laws, AND some of the harshest penalties, even for small infractions. these people today wish they could live in the Old West? shit. they wouldn't last a week. if the law didn't get them, the crazy outlaws would. the past belongs way back there where it belongs.
I went to a gun show in Texas and purchased a gun from a private seller. No background check. No ID check. Nothing. I showed my ID to get in the building, but that was it.
@@en5788 a private seller AKA a normal person who wants to sell their gun. not an arms dealer. no need to wait for a show. you can go do that just about anywhere
@@stephenpawlik2286 It's illegal to sell a gun to a resident of another state. (Without going through a licensed dealer) And even if you're from Indiana, what is legal and what people are willing to do are very different. If you try to buy the gun off somebody who just bought it they'll say no. (They bought it to use it damn it!) And if you offer much more than the guns worth they'll still say no. You also can't sell handguns or "assault weapons" to anyone under 18 you aren't closely related to. In fact, you can be convicted for selling a gun to someone you had reasonable cause to believe is mentally incompetent.
Ok so there shouldn't be an issue enforcing a law that's already enacted in your area to ensure everywhere across the US follows those same procedures. I mean if it isnt going to do any harm and only do more protection then why is they're still a negative stigma about it. Btw I'm talking about federal mandatory background checks for gun stores and gun shows.
Here's an idea - Let's end the stupid drug war and actually do something to help impoverished people and see where that takes us as far as gun violence is concerned. If it's still a 'huge' problem, then we'll go from there.
That's actually a pretty good point. What causes mass shootings is much more than just "guns". There's a ton of other factors that lead to mass shootings.
That in conjuncture with better family education, helping to lower divorce rates, and getting fathers back to their children and I think a great deal of our social issues would be on the way to being solved.
Something I never understood about the drug war in the US, is how everything was aimed to stop cocaine from going through the border, yet they talk very little about stopping addictions in the country. If there's no buyers, there's no product to sell. Yes, I know that it's an utopia, but I keep reading about some celebs/politicians/athletes who use and go to detox, rehab (or they have ODs) and they don't get charged for using. That's a big failure.
I have so many of your videos in my watchlist but I have only managed to watch a handful. Why, you may ask? Because I have to watch each video several times in order to absorb all the info you somehow manage to pack into each one. Absolutely excellent.
...>i even read the sequel Shows the Book of Mormon... Now you know why he wants gun control. The book of Mormon demands that if you take a life that you have to shed blood to pay the blood debt. Back in the 1976, Gary Mark Gilmore committed several senseless murders in Utah, was convicted of them and sentenced to death. In Utah at the time, one of the forms of capital punishment available by the condemned's choice was death by firing squad to satisfy the Mormon church's need to settle blood debts by the state if sentenced to death. He demanded this form of death and got his wish. I forget how many were on the squad but the way it was set up, all of the Winchester 30-06 rifles were loaded by a prison official, the squad were all volunteers and all rifles were loaded with blanks except for one which had a live round in it. This was so if anyone had second thoughts after the fact, they could take solace in the possibility that they had one of the blanks. He was taken to a building which had a dirt berm in it. He was strapped to a chair placed in front of the berm and a target was placed over his heart. The order was given by the warden to fire and he was declared dead 2 minutes later. I read this account in the St. Petersburg, (Florida), times 42 years ago as it was 1977 when his time came due. He refused to appeal. While I personally believe in the death penalty, I'll never forget that article.
@UNIDEN2211 ...was he on death row for 20 yrs?... Ironically no. Against his family's and the ACLU's wishes, he waived all of his rights to his appeals and wanted to just "Get on with it." Several other anti death penalty advocates filed appeals on his behalf but, and this was his right, he instructed the court to ignore them all. I don't think that it was but a few months between his guilty plea and the day of his demise.
@Oliver Cheney pretty sure you can own even bigger caliber guns if you have a licence for it... in most of europe you can own semi automatic firearms, but even people living there go like "oh nah we cant own guns its impossible" because most of them simply havent even researched their own gun laws apart from "we have it more restrictive than america"...
@@domaxltv you're right but the thing is, in most of the European countries those guns can only be used for hunting and stuff like that. Its very hard legally to defend yourself should you have to shoot a trespasser
I like how he skipped the part where all men age 18-45 were the militia by federal law, and as such were lawfully obligated to purchase current military weapons and kit and know how to use them.
5504berry I’m saying that almost nobody understands what militia means. It’s not a professional military by definition. You can’t waive the militia part away and cite our federal military forces, because a militia has nothing to do with them. And it still does apply today at least to some extent because it’s still in the constitution right now.
@@GunTheory ok so where was the NRA when the government tried to break up the Black Panthers? Where were you when Castil A law abiding gun carrying citizen was murdered by police in Minnesota? So you guys wanna pick and choose when this constitutional amendment applies but you only stand in protests if someone who looks like you gets killed or have their rights taken away. Get the buck outta here with that Nonsense.
5504berry That’s a lot of assumptions and a lot of not actually using your eyeballs to read what I said. Where did the NRA come into this? They are not a government entity, and they’re not relevant to what I said. And what part of what I said made you think I believe in conditional application of an absolute freedom? You’ve constructed some opponent of yours that clearly isn’t me. Perhaps ask to hear what I think before attacking me for holding some opinion when you don’t even know if I hold that opinion.
@@GunTheory the NRA is the largest political organization that trumpets 2nd Amendment rights, so yes they enter the conversation anytime a conversation about the subject comes up. Their membership defines and frames all conversations concerning gun laws.Two let's be honest, 2nd amendment advocates only see freedom to bear arms as a white man's right that is why there is no outrage when a minority is shot in a Walmart playing with a toy guy in an open carry state. Silence speaks volumes and I am betting you have never been worried about any minority's right to bear arms being violated. Nothing wrong with your point of view but be honest with yourself about the history. Americans can have a conversation about a difficult topic without degrading into ignorance as long as the full motives and histories are included. Enjoy you night, and I hope you really think about this ongoing conversation in a honest way.
That 240 bravo trick was so clever, I wouldn't have known any better, but that's a great way to catch people who do, but don't watch further than to catch slip ups
I give the legal definitions as defined by the various laws - in this case, the Assault Weapons Ban. It defined a large capacity ammunition feeding device as anything over 10 rounds. If the factory is selling 30 round magazines, that's obviously legal now. That doesn't make it standard capacity though.
I understand that you are using a legal definition per the 1994 AWB, but ask any 11X and they will not call it a high capacity mag. The folly of allowing the legislature to define what X is results in states like New York, where a loaded 10 round magazine is considered high capacity or California where they want to classify ANY semi auto rifle that can accept a magazine as an assault weapon.
For a MILITARY SETTING, 30 rounds of ammunition in one magazine might be appropriate, but you don't exactly tend to need 30 rounds of high-velocity armor-piercing rounds to protect yourself from muggers. Or shoot a pig.
@@oswaltedmund6257 and well regulated translates more towards well oiled/well working. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it. Practically all modern references to the term “well-regulated” refer to activities that are regulated by law, such as the airline industry, the fur industry, or the gambling “industry”. fun facts: the common british soldiers of old were also referred to as "regulars". arms can be defined as anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands, or uses to cast at or strike at another.
@@MrMartibobs use a dictionary, instead of making derogatory claims against another. It is actually common knowledge that "regulated" has changed over the past 200 years. Billy the Kid's group of men that defended John Tunstill's property and land in New Mexico were called Regulators.
The founding fathers did intend for the 2nd to include private ownership. A owner of a trading ship wrote to Adams asking is the 2nd extended to him outfitting his ships with cannon in order to defend against pirates. He was told that absolutely he could own cannons.
@@crackingbreznuts3343 It was and still is, although more defined. The UN convention on international waters has answered this question by stating that vessels would abide the laws of the country of origin in international waters unless they are In the waters of a member nation. So an American ship in international waters can still keep firearms on board unless they want to sail to a non-American port where in most countries they have to provide legal documentation and declare the firearms the same way you declare firearms at an airport.
@@bindipig1225 when a right has to be earned in order to exercise it, that is no longer a right. that is a privilege. and the right to bear arms should not be considered a privilege.
@@bindipig1225 when you make it a privilege you deprive the of people of self-preservation. You simply turn the right to bear arms into a commodity of the 1%.
Have you *ever* even talked to someone from Hong Kong? Why do you somehow feel informed enough to speak for them? No one in Hong Kong wants guns. You're way down your rural rugged individualist rabbithole if you think the people of Hong Kong can, or would even *want*, to fight a civil war with the PRC. They're expressly trying to avoid violence because it would give the much better armed government forces free reign to respond in kind and just massacre them.
@@niclas9990 peaceful protest should always be the first step but freedom sometimes comes at force of arms. I'm grateful not everyone is as naive as you are.
@@niclas9990 I've actually talked to people from HK and even went to HK recently. Trust me, with the things they've done for self defense, they are WISHING that they have a second ammendment. They had to tape magazines to their bodies, use sticks and stones, etc etc to defend themselves from the Chinese tyrants.
@@adityaali3147 They're not. They've actually got a sane strategy to achieve their goals; they *do not* have some gun-nut's deluded fantasy of outslinging government troops, as (being smarter than you give them credit for) they know what the state would immediately bring against them. *Guns or no guns, they can never hold their own against PRC forces.* So, in short, what you're saying is BS and if you'd been in HK, you would know that. There is *zero* talk about sourcing guns or even wishing they had them. It's you who want to frame it that way to fit your ideology and, frankly, it shows you have a very poor understanding of the situation there. It also does them a disservice: they're pragmatic and very savvy and are not political allies nor some kind of cheap moral tool that you can use to bolster your insane rhetoric.
To say that the founding father's knew nothing of advancements in firearms is false. They were almost sold what was basically a gatling gun in the late 18th centure. Still muzzle loaded, but was more like a rapid fire revolver. They knew warfare tactics and tech advanced, many of these men faught in wars and studied the past.
Yeah, but trick question. Did civilians own gatling guns and cannons? No, the government did. Why do you the Confederates had to raid military bases to get cannons and arms. Imagine if the Hatfields and McCoys had access to cannons and gatling guns.
@@M4421-Oyes the absolutely could. You know at the time there was a musket that had the ammo and powder completely self contained in the gun. If I recall they wanted to outfit the continental army with it. That never happened due to issues with the gun, manufacturing large scale was non existent and they were expensive. But anyone with a brain could see that in the future such tech would eventually evolve.
I have owned and carried firearms for more than 20 years now. I am carrying a pistol right now. But I nearly completely agree with you. It is difficult to be a moderate with an issue as polarizing as this one. And for what it's worth, I will subscribe to you. Good job on this and the video on Christopher Colombus.
Knowing better is wrong on so many levels, look for my comment on in the most recent category, I disprove most of what he builds his basis off of, such as the 2nd amendment not being for individuals (it was), if you want me to paste it here let me know
As soon as someone starts with "I own...(insert firearm variation here)" then we know it is a Mother Demanding Action. And no, we do not care what is in your hand right now.
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" got changed from John Locke's "Life, liberty, and property" because Jefferson didn't want to plagiarize, and some of the New England framers had some troubles with the two-legged "property" he kept at Monticello.
"what is the militia? Is the militia not the whole body of the citizenry? There for the musket (military issued firearm) the bayonet, the sword and every terrible impliment of the soldier is the birthright of the American citizen" - Benjamin Franklin.
@@HerewardWake ok, the people who made the law had the wrong interpretation of it. so the assault weapons ban really means i can buy a full auto at walmart, with barrel shroud and all. the supreme-court just has the wrong interpretation. i really hope youre not this willfully ignorant.
@@HerewardWake ok, my bad. let me read to you this little part of the second amendment written by some nobodies. "shall not infringe" can you please use that yuge brain to figure out what that means for me? k thanks
@@HerewardWake also, why would they write a constitution if they thought that nobody would care after they passed? why did they set up the bill of rights, to have the right to bear arms as the second most important one? right after free speech?
On the gunshow thing it depends on the state and the particular show. There are the same two gun shows at The Pasadeana Convention Center in Pasadena TX Two weekends every month two different shows on different days but at the same venue. Some of the sellers there are licensed dealers and are trying to clear out inventory from their shop as a licensed dealer they have to do paperwork and a check. A whole bunch of others are just private sellers who are not licensed they rent a table and sell their stuff just like a flea market and no they dont do any paperwork or checks. My friend I went with brought a cart and sold off 4 of his guns didnt do any paperwork what so ever he sold at least two to an off duty cop who was running his own booth but happened to collect older rifles my friend had a Mosen Nagant. So again really depends wether or not the seller is a licensed dealer or not. There were plenty their that day and most of the stuff that was new that people wanted to buy was sold by dealers.
I know right! It’s honestly kind of arrogant of him to me that he automatically thinks his opinions are moderate because he’s shot guns and has been in the military. Every other point he made leaned pretty far left.
Do you not care about single moms living in dangerous neighborhoods, getting jumped, and having to rely upon a police officer whose average response time is fourteen minutes, because you people have made it as difficult as possible for her to buy a gun for personal safety? I mean you’ve already explained what an amazing alternative the police system in this country is.
@@dabutchaistoxic i made a joke, i haven't stated any opinion on the subject matter of the video. I never said that i cared or didn't care about single moms living in dangerous places. Calm down.
Well its kinda expected to have kmowledge in firearms and how they work if you want to talk about them. Kind of why the whole "assault rifle" thing is around. Uninformed politicians and citizems wanting to ban something because it looks scary, not on how it actually functions
@Knowing Better 01:58 "Yes, I’m well aware of the fact that that’s not an M60, it’s a 240B. So if you see any comments below mentioning how that’s not an M60 and I have no idea what I’m talking about, it means they barely made it past the first minute." *Nice b8, m8!* Approve that sneaky move to call out smartarses which are judging videos without even watching them. :-)
I have to say that it's not unusual for me to post something before finishing a video. If I wait with writing, I forget. If I wait with posting, the comment grows to giant proportions when I add stuff I think about over the course of the video. And we're all only human, sometimes one will forget to edit a rash post, especially if the video is appealing or aggravating.
@Gary Winthorp Don't forget to mention that those educated people will still have posted an aggressive comment rashly. Trolling is all about baiting, you can't troll someone who isn't stepping in it himself.
@Gary Winthorp You certainly have a weird definition of "stepping in it" and of aggressive and rash. But I get it, you felt like you had to win and thought twisting my words would be the way to do it.
I just have to say that I applaud your integrity and neutral perspective when you make these videos. I have literally been on a binge watching all of your videos the past couple of days and I think your humorous teaching style is awesome! I have laughed out loud to myself so many times! I also come away from your videos feeling informed which is after all your mission “knowing better”. In short, THANK YOU! In a world where everything online is so damned political it’s refreshing to come across your unbiased take. GREAT WORK!
This is FAR from neutral. Many of his statements regarding the history of the 2A, the history of arms, who the militia was, and what the founding fathers intended as individual vs states' rights were outright wrong or disingenuous. He makes sweeping claims with no/improper supporting evidence. He presents only the positives of gun control, while mischaracterizing and dismissing any criticisms as being ridiculous, paranoid or moronic. He entirely dismisses the claim that tyrannical governments do implement gun control. He entirely downplays how restrictive the gun control in Australia is (i.e. can't own a gun for self defense). He entirely ignores any right to self-defense, self-preservation, or the statistics around defensive gun uses. He conflates all shootings and firearm deaths with the prevalence of assault weapons and ignores that most shootings are done with handguns, not long guns. You won't find any gun rights advocate who agrees that this was an unbiased video.
My sks went from a hunting rifle to a assault weapon with a flash hider, high capacity mag, pistol grip, adjustable stock, and a forward grip in a hour
I've used AKs to hunt deer for years - effective to 300yds, works well, and I don't have to worry about banging it up in the field. I never understood the idea that a rifle like that wouldn't be effective for hunting - and frankly, it's the same idea as the militias and minutemen in the Revolution - they carried better firearms than the Brits - and why shouldn't we have better firearms than the government... oh, wait, I know why ...
...prohibit the federal government, including the U.S. military, from infringing upon or interfering with people’s... According to some "wishful thinking" proposed gun laws and at least one that the sun has set on, My 16 year old Marlin .22 cal. rifle was / could become illegal. it has a 15 shot tube fed magazine under the barrel. Some want to make more than a 10 shot magazine illegal. HYPOTHETICALLY SPEAKING, I could wade into a crowd and kill 16 people without reloading. That's starting with 15 rounds in the tube and one in the chamber. There are more than enough gun laws and regulations on the books for the criminals to ignore now and to hobble the law abiding citizen from defending him or herself and homes now. Adding more will accomplish 3 things. 1) It will waste legislative time. 2) It will waste tax money. and 3) It will give criminals more laws to ignore and more worthless paper for them to wipe their collective asses with. I live in one of 18 states where if we can qualify for a concealed carry permit, we don't need one to conceal a handgun on our person within our state borders. Some other "constitutional carry" states as we are called, even accept our drivers license as proof to legally conceal carry in their state. Speaking only for West Virginia, my state, it has not turned us into the old west either. Even most of our drug busts go off without firing a shot. This is not to say that people don't get shot in anger here but then by the same token, we don't have mass shootings here either. I believe it is because any potential shooter has to factor in the possibility that every one of his victims could actually be shooting back. Call it a form of forced mutual respect if you will but over all, we keep our rights and generally, everyone is safer for it as a side benefit.
@@jeffmccrea9347 Constitutional carry statistically leads to more violent gun deaths than open carry. Open carry is the way to go. Constitutional carry is for morons who masturbate to the letter and not the spirit of the constitution. Guns are necessary. Hiding them on your person is for criminals.
Which of the features in the ban have no function? Flash hiders allow better shooting at night because they deflect muzzle flash from the shooters eye, bayonet lugs... hold bayonets, fixed stocks...can't be a bump stock, pistol grips improve the ergonomics of a weapon to support one handed carry and improve reloading speed. Please clarify
K Dillon would you care to provide statistics on the number of crimes that have been committed in the last 50 years using bayonets that were mounted on a rifle? Because I'm pretty sure drive-by bayonetings have never been a thing. Also, bump stocks did not exist in 1994 when the AWB was passed, and would be considered "fixed stocks" under that law. Pistol grips are mostly to make the rifle more controllable in full auto fire, but none of the weapons covered by the AWB were capable of full auto fire.
'bump stocks did not exist in 1994 when the AWB was passed, and would be considered "fixed stocks" under that law" this is not clear, a federal regulatory agency would evaluate the new device and through the rule-making process evaluate if a bump stock is fixed or not. As for statistics, I don't have them, however, as you pointed out your own belief of the functional purpose of the pistol grip... you cannot then argue like the OP does that these features have no fictional affect.
this dillon guy is an idiot, since his argument is falling apart, he wants you to keep defining things for him... go look it up and learn something yourself
A retractable stock is just so short and big people can fire the same gun. If you are a short person, you want to push in the stock. A big person would want to extend the stock so he's not uncomfortable. A folding stock on a long arm doesn't give it much concealability since by law, a rifle/shotgun needs to have ATLEAST a 16 inch barrel and be 26 inches in length EVEN WITH THE STOCK FOLDED. If a folding stock were allow a longarm to be shorter than 26 inches, that gun becomes a SBR. A pistol grip doesn't even matter. I know people who actually prefer the traditional stock grip than the pistol grip. No one uses a bayonet to kill another person these days. If you have a gun why the fuck would you stab someone when you can shoot them. If you're biggest concern is hiding muzzle flashes in the dark, just put lights everywhere instead of taking our guns
I don't think this is a guide to moderates. This is a guide to what liberals think moderate views are. Now that's not an issue, but labeling this as an objective critique of gun control is misled at best and disingenuous at worst.
@@k4496 I was labeled as an extremist but im a moderate. His views are left leaning for the most part. For example the bible part. It doesnt say you can own people. It says people owned people and it was bad. It also doesnt say anything about guns due to them not existing. Doesnt take much cognitive thought to realise this is mostly spewing what he thinks a moderate is.
CrazyCoffee I hate when lefties claim to be moderates. Like, why bullshit yourself or why try to bullshit others? Unless you’re trying to disguise your leftist views as moderate so that any views coming from the right can be labeled as “far right” or “fringe right” beliefs
@@Kil23Joy He's on the left side of the Overton window for sure. America ranges from literal communes to literal nazis, the middle ground is a fairly significant piece of real estate and, compared to some on the left I've seen declare their hate for moderates, he's pretty moderate.
As a staunch leftist I love your stuff. Your concessions and expressions of where you were ideologically vs where you are. You came from a perspective that I absolutely did not and you bring things to the table most leftists like me are afraid to. Guns are totally one of those topics.
There are a few problems with this. First, by contemporary definition, that is, the definition at the time, a militia was organized by the military, comprised of civilians, using their own weapons. Weapons were not issued to militias, they were only issued to Regulars, the regular soldiers of the army. Second, the term "the people" is used to refer to ordinary citizens of the US several other places in the Constitution, and even the Bill of Rights. Therefor, to claim that, in only one Amendment, that term means something else, is a logical and legal falacy. The authors chose their words carefully, the justification clause that preceeds it states the reason for the right, and therefor its potential scope. Indeed, the author of the Second Amendment and much of the Bill of Rights, James Madison, set a rather interesting precedent for this as President, in a Letter of Marque he issued to a Civilian vessel armed with field artillery, apparently considering artillery among the weapons permissible for ownership by civilians. Third, to my knowledge, evidence was never put forward that the Vegas shooter had used a bumpstock to conduct the shooting; such assertions were anecdotal. Indeed, bumpstocks, in allowing the entire weapon to move forward and back far enough to release the trigger, reduce accuracy such that it would seem impossible for him to do what he was doing. He was managing groupings tight enough to hit individual people with multiple rounds from a single burst, all from a high floor of a motel down the street from the event. Generally speaking, if the range is high enough that you need a scope, you're not going to hit the target very well with a bumpstock. Fourth, at the time when the Constitution was written, guns had already advanced from hand cannons, to wheel lock muskets, to flintlock muskets, and had recently become deadlier than ever before, with the advent of long, rifled barrels, which allowed General Washington to do something that had never been possible before: Position sharpshooters away from the battlefield, and shoot enemy commanders specifically. Yes, we basically invented snipers during the Revolution. In the early 1700s, the Puckle Gun was invented, essentially a small caliber artillery piece, with a revolver-like rotating cylinder for fast reloading. The Founding Fathers were more than aware that weapons would advance, they had been advancing, and had even advanced during the course of the Revolution. Yet nevertheless, they did not make the Second Amendment conditional on lethality. Instead, they outlined the nature of its guarantee, which the Supreme Court actually reaffirmed in US v. Miller of 1939 (as mentioned), though ironically, sawed off shotguns are actually used by the military and police, just in a fairly limited range of applications. Fifth, the "gun show loophole" is something of a myth. If you purchase a gun from a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) they are required by Federal law to run a background check, or to check your CCP, to verify that you can legally purchase a firearm. There are no exceptions, whether the sale is at a store counter, or the trunk of the seller's car. In addition, if someone purchases a gun from someone else from a different state, FFL or not, the buyer must undergo a background check, and the purchase must be processed by an FFL in the buyer's home state. The only case in which a background check doesn't need to be run is private sales, from one non-FFL owner to another, who both reside in the same state. Sixth, the reason tide pods get locked up is because someone sued. We live in a litigious society. However, there's a vast difference in the gravity of these two incidents. Locking up the Tide pods doesn't have severe negative ramifications for the security, function, and even survival of our country and society. That's the same reason that, despite the fact that cars kill faaaaaar more people than guns do per year (according to the CDC), you can still buy and sell them, and anyone can own one (even if not everyone can legally drive one), and of course, why nobody is talking about banning them. The gravity of the prospect of banning cars far outweighs those killed by them. Some interesting notes: First, I do find it interesting how the Supreme Court always makes decisions on whether the 2nd Amendment applies to military-use weapons or civilian-use weapons, to favor the less capable of the two, having changed at least twice as stated. Second, It should also be noted that wooden dowels, belt loops, and even just pulling forward with your left arm can accomplish the same effect as a bumpstock, bumpstocks are just a way to package that back yard rifle trick and charge money for it. Third, when the Nazis began clearing the Jewish ghettos, they had no trouble doing that, except for one. Having stolen German military weapons, one ghetto managed to hold off the Nazis for a whole six months before running out of ammunition. Fourth, the reason for "assault weapon" bans is that the term "assault weapons" can be far more easily redefined than new regulations/bans can be enacted, and the effects far more broad, thus more easily facilitating the increased thinning of legal firearms. This is demonstrated by the point you made about the redefinition of bumpstocks as machine guns allowing ALL bumpstocks to be made illegal, seemingly, but not technically, violating the Constitutional provision forbidding the enactment of ex post facto laws. Fifth, on April 27, 2018, a man killed 7 children and wounded 12 more at a school in China, using a knife. Just because a gun is what you think of when pertaining to mass killing, and an "assault-style rifle" is what you think of when pertaining to a mass shooting, doesn't mean either of those are necessary. A mass shooting can be carried out with a wood-furnished deer rifle just as easily as an AR-15, and a knife can be just as deadly. The only constant is that any mass killing takes place where the killer can be most assured that his potential victims will not be armed, or protected by people who are armed. I hope this was the kind of discourse you were hoping for, I tried to keep it brief because it's in comments, but... It seems I have failed.
This is factually incorrect. The militia centralized weapons stores for provision to militia members. So, at the start of the American revolution we have examples of colonists seizing arms from there depositories ala Lexington and Concord. Post-revolution we have examples such as the raid on Harpers Ferry by John Brown which targeted a local state militia armory.
"That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack." Second Militia Act of 1792 (www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm) I mean, with this and all the quotes by founding fathers about the people needing to be armed at all times it clearly shows that they knew that armories and powder stores could be attacked and cripple the militia, so it makes sense that the people should at least be able to BYOG when they show up to fight.
Depositories of spare muskets, muskets for those unable to afford them, or without a place to keep them, and small cannons, all purchased by other members of the militia who could do so, for those who couldn't. It was expected that the vast majority of the militia members would be bringing their own, it would have been logistically impossible otherwise, and of course if those civilian benefactors hadn't been able to purchase those weapons either...
Also Lexo we could mention that in many regular state units during the Civil War many soldiers in 1860 and 1861 brought their own weapons with them. That's why early combat was with muzzle loading flintlock muskets from grandad. Or later during 1864 why many soldiers privately purchased the new Henry Rifle because of it's use. Militia and even volunteer units (That gray area between regulars and militia) used their own privatly purchased weapons. This is a wonderful response. Applause all around.
>A mass shooting can be carried out with a wood-furnished deer rifle just as easily as an AR-15, and a knife can be just as deadly Am I the only one who finds that sentence as deluded as can be? A knife is much less deadly. We had a "mass killer" in Belgium who used knives and only managed to kill 1 person while harming a few others. Killing with a knife is actually fairly difficult. We also had a mass killer in Belgium who used hunting rifles and only managed to kill 3. Hunting rifles are bulky and have much fewer shots. An AR-15 can kill dozens in a span of minutes this routinely happens in the United States. This never happens anywhere else because we don't allow people to own military grade weapons. The rest of your comment was interesting. I disagree with your opinions on the matter but that one sentence I singled out was just laughably wrong.
Don't forget the federalist papers written by people like Hamilton after the Constitution was created that re-affirm that all citizens have the right to carry guns.
That the second amendment is under attack is a red herring. The argument has never been about revoking the 2nd amendment, it has always been about what level and type of armament constitutes "arms". Obviously, there are limits to what ordinances should be in the hands of civilians, but with "arms" potentially meaning anything from a bb gun to a nuclear tipped ICBM this is a difficult debate.
We have perfectly fine laws in place for what guns are legal and which aren't. If you want to ban accessories like bump stocks, fancy grips, etc, then go right ahead, that doesn't affect the right of citizens to own guns. However, what I'm not okay with is banning anymore guns, whether it be the 22mm Hunting Rifle (which I've shot before) or the AR 15. It's a slippery slope, and that cannot be in any way denied.
“I am increasingly persuaded that the earth belongs exclusively to the living and that one generation has no more right to bind another to it's laws and judgments than one independent nation has the right to command another.” Thomas Jefferson
@Mystical Reviewer It would be hilarious if they tried to ban angled foregrips. Pretty sure they'd lose that. Also, bump stocks can literally be home-made if you understand how spring poundage works. These legislators need to go after the actual social causes of these problems and stop going after pieces of metal and plastic. Unless they plan on banning metal work and plastic-casting, they're never going to disarm the people. Nor should they ever be allowed to.
@@andrewmckenna00 "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Where in there does it say the right of the Militia, the right of the Army, or the right of the Government? It does not. The 2nd amendment simple affirms the right of the American people to be able to create their own Militia as well as keep and own their own firearms without infringement.
@@usam-zf6gc so they didn't mean the word like today's usage? Did they want to change infringed too? You can't pick and choose which word you want to keep and use
Regarding Australia, you missed one very important point. We do NOT have a Second Amendment. Hell, we don't even have a 1st Amendment! We have NO legal right to the ownership or use of ANY firearm. We only have permission from the government of the day to own and use them and they proscribe the situations under which we can use them. ANY government here in Australia can totally remove the individuals right to own any firearm. I surrendered an M1 carbine, a "full wood" .303, a jungle carbine .303 and a Winchester Defender 12 gauge shotgun and I was well paid for doing so. I mainly turned them in because I had not fired them in years. But note the "well paid" bit. Under Australian law, government cannot seize or outlaw something without the payment of compensation. I believe that this mechanism does NOT exist in the US otherwise the machine gun ban would have allowed the government to seize the weapon (or have the owner surrender it) in exchange for compensation. If this is so, it would be interesting to see how effective the bump stock removal will be. And no, I don't like bump stocks and the ATF made a huge error in approving it because it goes against the spirit of converting the weapon to fire in an automatic-like manner. Finally, the Founding Fathers may not have known about high capacity magazines, semi-automatic weapons or machine guns but they knew weapons always evolved. There is an argument that, since there were no "modern" firearms then, the 2nd Amendment should not cover anything past December 15 1791 (the date of its adoption). Using that logic, the 1st Amendment should only cover "the press" - newspapers. And even those must be the old printing press, not TV, digital, internet, podcast or high volume computer printing, just the single plate and hand crank.
>government cannot seize or outlaw something without payment of conpensation Sounds Orwellian. In the US, the government usually can't seize or outlaw anything, only register (which is still bad). Even in California, a magazine ban was ruled unconstitutional.
Personally I don't think a reasonable compensation would resonate a lot with firearm owners. Firearms are already fairly expensive. If they've paid it so far why give up the gun for a bit of money. I think between making a bit of money or holding onto their firearm or accessory they would choose the firearm. I could be wrong. I've been wrong before. But at least in Texas where I'm from I know there are plenty of people that are very very passionate about their firearms.
Replying to Christian - Not "Orwellian" at all. Compensation must be paid if they take your property. Replying to Parafaragaramus - all up, it cost me about $200 to buy the rifles and shotgun. Australian government paid me $800 to turn them in.
Its the argument that keeps getting touted... "but... but... modern firearmzzzzz " . My response is to quote the 1st back to them and use the same logic. Funny, they don't see the connection.
A 4 times profit increase is great and all but I don't think America being where we're at can possibly pay that for every single gun in America considering there are about 1.2x as many guns as people, it just doesn't sound feasible. I think I paid around $3100-3500 for all the guns that I have. $12,000 would be great but personally I would never give up all my guns. I would probably sell a few but never all of them. and I think a lot of people share that same thought.
Exactly. This guys says that the state gives you rights? No one can give you rights. Rights can only be taken away. The default is anarchy. No laws, everyone does what they want. Laws get implemented to stop anarchy, a bunch of rights are taken away by the government. That's how it works.
@@denisl2760 Some of them are necessary and good - for example, taking away the right to murder another or steal their property. Not that you argued that isn't the case, just felt I'd clarify for others reading.
@@wickedhenderson4497 If the government doesn't make murder illegal then yes it is a right. For example in some muslim countries you have the right to murder "infidels". In the USA a mother has the right to murder an unborn baby.
When the US govt recovers all the billions of dollars of military grade weaponry it handed the Taliban. Maybe I'll listen. Or it recovers all the weapons the US govt provided the Mexican cartels maybe I'll consider taking them seriously.
As a non-native speaker of English, I could be wrong, but isn't "God-given right" just a metaphor for a fundamental right? We use "God" a lot in my native language to describe things that don't necessarily have to do much with religion and this seems like something that could also be used in that way if it were Dutch (my native language). Maybe it's different in English though! Just wanted to point this out, because I feel like, other than that, Steven Crowder seems to be quite spot on most of the time and if he literally meant "Right given to you by God"... That'd be pretty weird. Nice video, btw!
I did watch the entire video and it seems to be almost entirely factual, with the exception of one or two things that other comments have already pointed out. It seemed very nuanced and not biased to one side at all. Why would you call me a troll? That's a pretty easy way to kill a discussion right away.
Ghipoli I’m not sure fundamental is the right word there. It’s not a right upon which other elements of the American constitution rely. It’s not an essential element, it’s just a small detail.
And dying a painful death, depending how the state of things are, it could either be metaphorical (as in social life), or literal (as in a long drop and barely any rope at all).
As a military history buff, I feel obligated to push up my metaphorical nerd glasses and correct you. At 6:04 you said "It's important to note that at this point the only practical firearms that existed were muzzleloaded rifles, pistols, and shotguns. Lever actions and repeating rifles were still fairly new and the only machine gun in existence still needed to be carted around by a horse." You were talking about a case that was settled in 1886. By that time... - Winchester was coming out with it's 4th model of the lever action (5th if you count the 1860 Henry). The 1860 Henry had seen combat in the Civil War and was at least somewhat successful. They had also released the Model 1866 "Yellowboy" and the Model 1873 AKA "The Gun that Won the West". Both were very well known and had an excellent reputation. - Colt had released 4 models of cartridge revolvers including the Model 1873 "Peacemaker" as seen in every western ever. This includes the double-action Models 1877 and 1878. - The US main service rifle had been a cartridge loading rifle for well over a decade. The British main service rifle had been a cartridge rifle for two decades. - Hiram Maxim had patents for his machinegun for at least 3 years, and had already started to receive genuine interest from militaries. The design would go on to redefine modern war in WWI, and see extensive service through WWII and beyond. - The French had just shocked the world with their debut of the Lebel 1886. It was an 8-shot bolt action repeating rifle using modern smokeless powder. That rifle would continue to serve until modern assault rifles began to show up in WWII. In summary, muzzleloaders were already obsolete by that time. In fact, we were already seeing the beginnings of weapons that would serve on well into the 20th century.
Not to mention the Puckle gun, the Girandoni rifle, the Belton repeating flintlock and the pepperbox revolver, all of which were in existence by ratification.
From what I'm reading about the Kalthoff, it doesn't sound entirely likely that any of these would be particularly "known" to those in North America at the time the constitution was written. I'm not sure anyone really fathomed the capabilities of modern firearms on a broad scale until well into WW1.
+Simon Lévesque The first lever action didn't appear until over 50 years after the ratification of the Constitution. The Gatling Gun he referred to as "the only machine gun" didn't appear until 60 years after ratification. It wouldn't make any sense if he were referring to the Constitution.
+EnlightenmentLiberal While I appreciate and acknowledge the existence of early designs such as the Kalthoff and the Girandoni, I stand by my previous statement. Firstly, the Girandoni is irrelevant to the topic as it is neither a lever action nor a firearm. Next, the Kalthoff could only be considered a lever action in the sense that it has a lever. Like you said: "The Kalthoff repeater was SIMILAR to a lever-action in function". Similar to one, but not one. In my comment, I was referring to the Volcanic. I was also using what I consider to be the most common and most correct definition: A rifle that uses a lever to load cartridges from a magazine into the chamber. If we cannot agree on that definition, we have reached an impasse. Even if you consider my first point incorrect, you still have not addressed the Gatling Gun. I was arguing that he could not have been referencing the Constitution when he made the statement I addressed in my original comment.
There was a semi-automatic when the founding fathers were around, the Giradoni Air rifle was created in 1779, it was a semi automatic air rifle which was later used in the Lewis and Clark expedition and saw military service in the Austrian Army.
whether or not there were semi autos during the time of the founding is irrelevant. does that mean you have no 1a right to speak online as there was no internet then either?
To be fair - this was a pretty obscure product even at that time. Next you mention the existence of that one black powder 'machine gun' (multiple interconnected barrels, bored balls... a bit like a "roman light" firework but more deadly)... Just because it was mentioned on Forgotten Weapons doesn't mean it was something wide-spread (as... the name of the show suggests anyways)
@@jeffreygao3956 I would risk a wild guess and say - maybe that's one of the reasons why it's a 'forgotten weapon' :D Oh - jamming by the way didn't seem the problem. The real issue was, that it took half a day to load (that's not an exaggeration) and couldn't be stopped once it went off. So you had to wait until the 220 bored bullets fired. They told, when the enemy gave up the fight before the gun ran its course, they had to aim it on the sea surface to empty the rest out :D. Also - powder fouling surely was an issue aboard ships in the age of sail - but that didn't stop any naval power from using gunpowder weapons anyways.
Most gun show sellers are dealers, have an FFL, and still require a background check. Yes there are private sellers at gun shows but they are the minority. AND you would have to be a resident of that state in order to legally buy from a private seller since anything else would be interstate commerce regulated by the US governent and again would require an FFL.
Sorry bub, I live right here in Nevada and you can waltz in and out of gun shows with a militias worth of arms and no background check. Your assessment is wrong.
@@DuoXCity I went to a gun show in Nevada. I live in Maryland so couldn't purchase from private sellers and they had a booth where you could get a background check b4 purchasing from an FFL. Most vendors were FFL'S; I couldn't do business with them b4 stopping at the background check table and the private sellers wouldn't give me the time of day. You might live in NV, but you don't know what you're talking about.
Justin Barnes, there have been plenty of videos debunking this, even guys on Armslist won't sell to someone who doesn't have a CWP because we don't want the liability of possibly being charged for selling to a felon. If I sell any of my guns to anyone I don't personally know that person must have a CWP. I check to make sure it is current and take a picture of it. Gun owners know the laws and I would presume non-gun owners probably don't know the laws surrounding guns since they don't take the time to do the research themselves.
BTW some of those FFL holders are also local LE, so if you are not legal to buy one and try any way you may just find yourself getting a free pair of bracelets and a free tour of the local Jail. This happened when a reporter who was not legal was trying to demonstrate exactly what you're talking about. The charges were later dropped of course.
@F .A Just like it was yesterday... so should it be today. If you own it and use it responsibly, what's the problem? The instant you use a cannon on something that isn't responsible, you get locked up - just like any other criminal destruction of property...
@@CaptainSeamus Yes but you see the problem is that you can't simply sit back and be reactive to problems like this. There are reasons why crazy things are illegal thus people have to strain and press in order to cause massive damage. Could you imagine if any pissed off person could stroll on down to the store and just pick up some c4? The issue is that some weapons have such killing potential that the mere risk of what they can do is simply not conductive to a society.
@@maxor669" Could you imagine if any pissed off person could stroll on down to the store and just pick up some c4? " Anyone who has knowledge about chemistry can make explosive right ??? "There are reasons why crazy things are illegal" those things are "crazy" becuz power hungry politicians said so.
The fact that you collabed with The Cynical Historian gives me more reason to love your content. I love this small group of moderate historian and political youtubers that both give good answers to complex problems and create ethical and thoughtful debates based on historical precedent and logic instead of just memes and ideology.
I enjoy the content, but let's not pretend he's a moderate. He's not in general (he, at least now, openly identifies as a leftist), and he wasn't really a moderate in this video either. He clearly paints the pro gun side as being unreasonable, whereas he paints gun control activists as being right other than a few fringe or uninformed ones. He is wrong about the history and purpose of the 2nd Amendment. As well as the heavy implication of rifles being to blame for most gun deaths, which is the gun equivalent to looking at transportation deaths, and then deciding that commercial planes are dangerous. He covers his ass by acknowledging that gun control wouldn't completely prevent gun violence in order to preempt any counterexamples or pointing out where he could be wrong.
I bought a gun from a private party online and we went to get a ffl transfer at the local gun shop, less than 1% of criminal weapons come from gun show loop holes, it's just a way to justify there laws, this video was disappointing and not moderate, it presented no counter arguments only facts he liked
@@WillBilly. Okay so where to begin. Your first statement is an anecdote that is not gonna help in a discussion as this is the united states and saying that "I did this here" means nothing. Laws are so varied between all of our jurisdictions so yeah. Your second statement doesn't have a citation so you're gonna have to show your source for that one. That is all.
Most of the time when they say “gun show loophole” they mean an individual citizen selling it to another individual citizen. Like if you buy a gun from your parent or inheritance.
Jon Ryann Erickson I know that’s why this term is terrible. Gun control groups utilized it to trick people into thinking Gun shows are some way to get guns to criminals.
In Mexico (where I have lived all my life) it takes about a year to buy one gun, there's a limit on how many guns a man can have, you're not allowed to have "military use" (9 mm, 45 .acp, 556, .50 ) semi-auto rifles unless it was a .22 It's illegal to "overharm" a criminal let alone shoot a home invader under "human rights" and the legitimate defense law which implies that the reaction of an inocent man defending himself, loved ones or/and property should never be of such force that it would incapacitate temporarily or permanently the criminal in either case you will be charged with either assault and batterie or murder, your are forced to pay compensation to the criminal or it's family and you will still go to prison. There's only one store on the whole country located on the capital. And we are the 15th country on violence 6 citys are on the top 10 most violent citys in the world as of this year 2019. So if you want to know how your regulations will result just look South and prepare to become a criminal when you're carrying a Pocket knive longer than 6 cm. Edit: there has been an update on the time of purchase: it has been reduced to 6 months. Yet all the other limitations are still the same
So you have no problem with Americans selling tons of guns to the cartels? We fund the cartels by buying up their drugs, we sell them tons of guns used to kill civilians and government officials, and then we turn around and try to say Mexico is a problem for the US. Mexico should beg Trump to build his wall and then shoot any American on the spot that's running guns.
Thats not true, we have very different climates, we have a very stable government and economy so crime isnt gonna skyrocket there wont suddenly be more criminals
@@RoastedLocust The weaponry that has been confiscated is from either Europe or the middle East I've never found a single American made weapon unless your talking about 100 year old - gold plated 1911's Americans don't sell guns to the cartels it's foreign mafias who make deals with the cartels on American ground and the moment you give up the second and decriminalize criminals like the Democrats want you're going to become a 3 front warzone between those who didn't have up theire weapons (former law abiding citizens), actual criminals, and the government
I’m very much not an expert, but was he talking about legally vs the factory terminology? As in, that is the standard that comes with the weapon, but it’s legally considered high capacity? That would be my guess as to the discrepancy.
@@21Trainman most definitely he was using the legal term. In actual design speak, standard capacity is whatever the firearm was designed around. Huge discrepancy there since pro gunners are most likely to look at guns from a design standpoint, while anti gunners see it from a completely legal point of view.
@@TheSundayShooter A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the founding fathers thought it was important to add the first part, you ought not exclude it.
As a Ukrainian in 2022: people with guns (including/especially private military grade) play huge part in saving lives, democracy and freedom. Only thing is I agree - licence and (at least) every-year training.
2nd amendment argument works against “just owners”. People who don’t know how to use guns leach precious time of people who do know. And “know” not only about hitting target, but supporting gun shape and performance, and many more. If you building your own cars, you still need licence. This licence shouldn’t require enterprise-level. This will be undemocratic. But licence newerless.
@@КирилоХацько I don't need a license to build my own car. That's only for driving on public roads. There is no gun equivalent to that. Plus the government tracking where guns are is relatively tyrannical. I'm a leftist, and I think that all weapons except nukes should be legal.
@@ChrisJones-rd4wb there is equivalent, maybe not in US. Gun is forbidden for movement in collected state or only with lock attached. Only at workshop and “licenced” range it could be fully operational. Government tracking is super dependent on country, I can’t comment US here. Agree on legality. But I thought discussion about what licence should be like.
@@КирилоХацько In the US, you can shoot anywhere you have permission. I think there should be no licensing. I am in full force for freedom over security. I also think all drugs should be legalized, and that if you really want to help gun deaths go down, try actually helping impoverished communities instead of spending money on the military fighting pointless wars.
I'd just like to point out that by law "militia" refers to all males in the US age 17 to 45. Only halfway through the video but Madison wrote that state militias "would be able to repel the danger" of a federal army, "It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops." He confidently contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he contemptuously described as "afraid to trust the people with arms." He assured his fellow citizens that they need never fear their government because "besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition." The important distinction here is Madison's use of "besides," which denotes that state militias coexist with an armed public as guarantors against tyranny, not that militias stand alone as the mechanism by which tyranny is prevented. Addressing the bill of rights, Samuel Adams proposed that the Constitution "Be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defence of the United States, or of some one or more of them..." It is important to note that early militias were not dependent on standardized, state-issued weaponry like conventional forces, but brought weaponry from home or were supplied by a wealthy benefactor. I believe this is where the individual right to own firearms arose.
Ummm, the terminology "militia" they were using was referring to official militias, not just the general populace eligible to take part in military service on a state level.
Since 1956: (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are- (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. Before that, Madison makes a distinction between armed public and militia that you can see if you go back and read the post, but it is important to note that, as I said, the "official" militias, as you called them used weapons from a private source, e.g. their own homes or that of a wealthy benefactor's. By 1776 the majority of privately-owned arms in the country were already committed on one side or the other and in fact it was not until the latter half of that year that states themselves began shouldering the majority of the burden of ordering new arms, superseding the committees of private citizens that had done so for the early years of the revolution. It was not until 1777 that the continental congress itself began purchasing large numbers arms for the revolution, largely from foreign governments, arms that did not materialize in any significant fashion until 1778 when French Charleville muskets became the favoured weapon of the Continental army. Madison was speaking from experience, as the revolution he fought would never have succeeded without an armed populace to sustain it through the first two years of open military hostilities. If the Patriots had been wholly reliant on arms provided by the government, it is not at all unreasonable to project that the Revolution would never have taken place, and that if it had, would have been unsuccessful.
@aleph @Samuel The intention of the Second Amendment was to persist the allowance of state militias to exist because they were paranoid about a coup d'état by the federal army. Even so, what bearing does this have on anything?
He's a moderate. To be moderate in a polarized political environment requires compromise. The problem I have with moderates is that they are willing to compromise with my rights. "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue." Karl Hess
Yeah, I watch Crowder. His stance on the 2A is what I like best about him. Any compromise of our Constitutional rights will eventually erode all of our freedoms.
Exactly. People don’t seem to understand how the English language works. As well as the fact that there was a pretty decent historical context provided for the Second Amendment and what they intended to do with it. That they absolutely intended for it to be an individual right. The reason the first half is left off is because the first half is inconsequential. Here watch: “Bears, being a difficult thing for a person to kill with their bare hands, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” “space travel, Being something that hasn’t been invented yet, The right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” You see? It works no matter what goes in front of it. The right belongs to “the people” You want to argue that that’s them explaining why they were extending this right to “the people?” Fine. If I give you a journal to write things down in. And you decide to use your iPad. Does that mean you relinquish ownership of the journal? Does that mean I can just take it back from you since you know you don’t use it anymore? No. I gave it to you. It now belongs to you. It’s the same with “the right of the people.” Now let’s get really crazy. “A well regulated reproducing class, being essential to the continuation of a society, The right of women to consensual sex, shall not be infringed.” So does the right to consensual sex belong to the reproducing class or does it belong to women? That’d be women. Does it belong to men? No. They gave it to women. Is this activity confined by marriage? No. It simply states consensual. Does this limit sex to attempted reproduction? No. Once again only consensual. So one more time. We leave the sentence structure in tact and simply change the parameters. And we arrive at the same conclusion. The right to keep and bear arms was given to “the people.“ not “the militia.“ Finally. “The militia” and “the people” are terms distinctly Applied in the constitution. Much the same as there is a distinction between “the citizens” and “the people“ made in the 14th amendment. If they had intended the right to keep and bear arms to belong to “the militia” then they would have said “the militia!” If they had intended the right to keep and bear arms to belong to “the militia“ then they would have said “the militia!“ They didn’t. They said “the people” and if you look up people like George Mason and where the origins of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights came from you’ll understand. Speaking of which. The bill of rights? Belongs to “the people” not “the citizens.” Anyone in the United States who is a resident? Constitutes “the people“ and is subject to the full benefit of the Bill of Rights. Citizen or no. Also. Do not sow disingenuously and dishonestly sit there and pretend like our forefathers had no concept of the advancement of technology. Firearms had advanced multiple times in their generation alone. And semi automatic was already something that was being whispered about. Relatively speaking the invention of the Gatling gun was not far away. I mean my God the Greeks had essentially conceived of lasers. And Quite possibly had even crudely created them. Albeit focusing beams of light from the sun And using them to take down a navy fleet. Saying that they didn’t know what was on the other side of the Mississippi does not mean that they were incapable of understanding that certain things might be over there. Or could be over there. Just like certain firearms could exist in the future. It made no never mind to how they wrote the second.
The Heretic Many of the founders were scientists and inventors. Thinking that they couldn't foresee advancements in technology is about as ridiculous as thinking Tesla couldn't foresee advancements in technology. The Puckle gun was patented in 1718. It was a rapid fire crew served weapon with a revolving cylinder magazine. Anytime someone states that the founders couldn't foresee rapid fire weapons, tell them they already existed.
Jacques Strapp Absolutely. But I don’t consider that argument disingenuous. I simply consider it arrogant. That we were so much smarter than they are I mean... I was trying to focus more on the absolute disingenuous interpretation
Militias had ARTILLEY CANNONS in their millitia. So they definitely intended unrestricted acces to all sorts of arms that armies would use. So your argument about the founding fathers not knowing about the advancements of weapon technology would be invalid because they wanted millitias to be armed with the SAME weapons that armies would use, without a doubt. States were supposed to be treated as actual states with their own functional armies(Millitia) so that the FED wont just treat them as a province like they do today.
jliller I mean... who hasn't wished they could just drive a fuckin tank down the road during rush hour. Don't even need ammo, because I'd wager most people would see the tank and get hell out of the way just on the off chance they DID have ammo. Lol
Repeating weapons existed decades before the US Constitution. See the Puckle gun, from 1718. How about the 1400s Korean weapon, the Hwacha, which fires hundreds of flaming rocket arrows in a single go? Oooohhhhhh, scary, imagine firing that thing in a crowded city. The liberal definition of "assault weapon" is always changing; you can find 1800s newspapers in which ye olde progressives are in shock over the mass murder potential of the 6 shot revolver. Here's what doesn't change: The right of the people to keep and bear arms. The term "regulated" in the time of the Constitution basically meant to be well equipped and ready for war. More government regulation was actually the opposite of what the Bill of Rights was about. Think about it, why would the militia, the means to overthrow tyrannical government, be "regulated" (in modern terms) by the tyrannical government itself? That kind of defeats the purpose, does it not? Secondly, the militia is not the main focus of the second amendment. The militia clause is merely a statement, which by itself isn't a right, it's a preface to the actual right which is the right to keep and bear arms. Had they meant that only the militia can have weapons, I think they would have wrote that, don't you think? And another thing, you can buy a cannon or even a fully functional tank right now if you want. They're subject to government overreach of course, but you can do it if you want to pay exorbitant amounts of money to the government to exercise your rights. Or not, it's not like the Patriots cared about breaking the law. At the end of the day, liberty trumps any perceived or otherwise propagandized notion of safety. All rifles including AR15s account for less than 3% of murders. I have no doubt that civilian owners of machine guns, cannons, and tanks have an even better track record than that.
I went back to the Federalist papers on the purpose of the 2A. The 2A was written in order to prevent a national standing army. It's purpose was to decentralize military forces across the states. States had control including appointment of officers and training. I refer you to Federalist #29. There is quite a bit about making the case for militias as a practical defense of the state and from a tyrannical federal government.
So far you're the only one on here that's correct. Plus funding a large standing Army is expensive. We always downsized the Army considerably until post WWII.
Would that also mean that a militiaman had to procure, secure, maintain and train with his own arms without relying on a centralized body? I feel like I’m getting spun around honestly.
@@manupontheprecipice6254 Not necessarily. The state was to maintain armories with both guns (mostly muskets), powder, and ball ammo. That meant they were not reliant on only gun owners and could mobilize those who didn't own rifles. Much like today's National Guard. They would muster, issue necessary arms and munitions, and drill. There is an assumption that everyone in the day had a rifle or musket. A baker, printer, store clerk, or carpenter in town or city might not own a rifle or musket. So the states would provide.
Let's start one. They shouldn't even know what property you have. It's that simple. They should just go mind their own fucking business face down in a ditch somewhere.
When that property is illegally held and you refuse to proffer it, to the endangerment of those around you. Done, answered. Though, and maybe this will make you feel better, they'd rather just take it away and then never have to deal with you again.
@@niclas9990 How is it endangerment of those around you if you have something you aren't going to commit a violent act with and the government arbitrarily decides you can't have it?
@@niclas9990 so all those people locked up for possessing marijuana "with intent to distribute" should totally be put in jail or killed if they won't go? Because that's what you're suggesting. Weed is illegal and can endanger those around you. THINK OF THE CHILDRENNNN!N@NN@#" nah but for real, think about it
You completely misrepresented Presser V. Illinois. The case ruled on the assembly of the militia, not on individuals rights to own firearms. Also the majority opinion completely ignores the Supremacy Clause. You also ignored US V. Cruikshank which states that while the Federal Government recognizes the individuals right to keep and bear arms, it will not interfere with a state violating that right, or first amendment rights for that matter- also ignoring the Supremacy Clause.
@John Lee exactly, the tenth amendment defines what POWERS the states have, which are those not delegated to Congress, nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution. The problem though, is the way the tenth amendment is written. It says ...The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it (the Constitution) to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The problem for the states is, the second amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, as a right of the people, that shall not be infringed. The way the second ament is written, it talks about the right to keep and bear arms, as though it exists separate from the Constitution, and the second amendment merely acts as a prohibition of power to infringe upon that right of the people. No where in the Constitution, does it create the right of the people to keep and bear arms. That means it's a right that exist in nature as a natural state of being. The first amendment, is a prohibition on Congress establishing a religion, or interference with the practice thereof. Speech, which everyone likes to use as an example of the limits of rights, is not refered to as a right, neither is the press. Those are addressed as "freedoms", separate from the RIGHT to peaceably assembly. So right there, your right to peaceably assemble is protected. The limitation, is built into the protection. Again, the right isn't created anywhere in the Constitution, it's just protected by it. If the words "shall not be infringed" didn't mean what they do, then why not just throw keeping and bearing arms in, along with everything else in the first amendment? Instead, it's narrowly written, to specifically protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
@@dannyburke1098 In their decision, the Supreme Court acknowledged that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, but stopped short of acting on behalf of the individual if the state stepped violated that right.
While I steadfastly disagree with banning semi automatic AR15 style weapons I do respect his well thought out and articulate presentation so I liked the video.
My personal issue with the idea of banning "assault weapons" is that it's not clearly defined. If there's one thing that's universal of all governments, it's that they will always push past where they said they would. As it is right now, most who are calling for it define it as anything that is semi-automatic. My issue with the overall idea of gun control laws is that the ones who perpetrate the crimes don't listen to the 20,000 state and federal laws already on the books, so how is one more going to be different?
Banning assault weapons is stupid because there is no such thing as an "assault weapon," barring things like the AT-4 and perhaps flamethrowers. Moreover, rifles and shotguns kill fewer Americans each year than knives, fists, feet, or hammers. So banning so-called assault weapons does nothing to reduce violent crime or make anyone safer.
@@Schwarzvogel1 I can't remember who it was, but there was one RUclipsr who broke it down as "assault" being a verb and not an adjective. "When you use a rifle to assault someone, *shoots a paper target* it becomes an assault rifle." He then proceeded to pull out a golf club, run down the range (he was alone at the range) and hit the target, tearing it in half. "This is now an assault golf club."
@@grifballa Exactly. Assault is a verb (or a noun) rather than an adjective, and any weapon used to attack or assail another person can be considered an "assault weapon." As for the statistic I referred to, a brief correction: Rifles and shotguns kill less than knives, fists, feet, or hammers combined. Is it disingenuous to combine these melee weapons and appendages? Not really, when you consider that a rifle or a shotgun is generally a much more effective means of killing something that hitting it over the head with $3.99 hammer from the Home Depot, stabbing said animal or person with a steak knife, or trying to perform Street Fighter combos on the target. @Spectre 017 You are 100% correct. The AT-4 is heavily regulated, and may as well be banned for 99% of people in the U.S. I mentioned that, and flamethrowers because those types of weapons have been referred to as "assault weapons" in military parlance as they are (or in the case of flamethrowers, were) used to assault fortified positions. Flamethrowers aren't banned in most states, either... and in the U.S., the number flamethrower homicides is probably equivalent to the number of people fatally bayonetted on American soil after 1865.
The people who don't listen to the law have to come up with inventive ways of bypassing it. When you implement effective gun controls you reduce the number of weapons in circulation, meaning it's much harder for black markets to supply themselves. Even if a criminal gang still wants to get guns, it'll be so much harder for them to do so that a significant proportion are simply not going to bother. We know this is true because it's what happens everywhere else that tries it. There's a host of other reasons why gun control, if done right, will reduce criminal access to firearms, but you get the gist. Not to mention the fact that the quantity of laws (20,000 you said) has no bearing on the efficacy of those laws. You can have a million regulations with glaring flaws and they won't be as effective as one regulation that's secure in its design.
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the *people* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." If they wanted to specifically say all that crap about how "only organized militias can own guns", they would've said it. They said that the *people* could own guns to be *part* of a militia.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The wording of the documents from The Founding Fathers usually referred to the government as 'the government', and the citizens as 'the people'. And the militia was seen as part of the government, only when it was actively called up, even tho it was made up of primarily citizen volunteers. Meaning that citizens had to be armed in the first place. So of course the right to bear arms was intended to allow citizens to have firearms, and military grade firearms at that. And when the militia was not needed it was a civilian organization, or completely allowed to disband as the voluteers saw fit.
A man who owned a trading company wrote one of the founding fathers asking if they could arm their ships with cannons. The answer was a resolute yes, the cannons were protected by the Constitution. There was no military technology more devestating than cannons at the time. You can assume then that the right to own weapons equal to that of the military is protected.
might i ask why the goverment would give it self the right to have a army in a document about the rights of its people and not the one about how the govemrnt should be run might that be the better place not the bill of right of its people
Congress, already had the power, or duty, to arm the militia within the Constitution. Therefore, it makes zero sense, to argue, debate, and ratify an amendment to allow for the arming of a militia. In the Federalist Papers, Madison was clear, in the need for individuals to have arms, because training the militia was seen as being a futile endeavor, when expecting people to leave their homes and occupations for regular training. There was also, the concern of the communities, when either their own militia would be called up, for the defense of another state, and/or the militia of near by states being used against another state, after calling up their militia. So, yeah, there is an anti tyranny reasoning, behind the intent of the second amendment. Anyone who says, or believes the second amendment is tied to membership in any militia, is mistaken. It's more like militias are necessary, but not always reliable, not always home, and not always going to be used appropriately, so individuals need to be able to be armed themselves, to remain free. Again, why would they need to argue over an amendment, to do, what they already gave Congress the power to do?
I mean the New Testament is the sequel to the Torah, and other people think Islam is the sequel to the Bible. I just don't know why the creators can't just come out and say what's cannon...
pretty much... The Qur'an: The New Testament got it wrong, because Jesus wasn't the son of God or the savior of mankind, but he was an important prophet and will be at the right hand of God on the Day of Judgment. The Book of Mormon: The New Testament got it wrong, because Jesus will return in Missouri, not Palestine.
"Sporting weapons" include firearms used in competition. In 1994, magazines with a capacity greater than 10 were not made "illegal to own," they were made illegal to transfer and purchase. Many pistols and rifle owners maintained standard capacity magazine for those platforms, magazines with sometimes 11, 12, 15, 17, 20, 30, 42, or 50 round capacity, in a perfectly legal manner, until tha ban, thankfully, sunsetted in 2004.
I like your videos, I often find myself disagreeing and agreeing with it in a span of minutes which is really cool, actually. However, in the beginning of this video you made a mistake that I just couldn’t get past, “your right to own a gun comes from the government”. That’s inaccurate, the constitution of the US isn’t about describing what citizens can do but about describing what government cannot do. It may seem like a triviality but it really isn’t, the Founding Fathers sought to protect what they thought was basic rights for every citizen and bearing arms was one of them. Following the logic you described one would have to conclude that the right of free-expression also comes from the government since it’s written in the 1st amendment, but that’s not how it works. Anything that’s given can be taken away and the Founding Fathers knew that, that’s why they didn’t write “you’re allowed to have guns” but instead “the government is prohibited from taking your guns”, or “you’re allowed to say whatever you want” but “the government can’t prohibit you form saying what you want”. That constitutional understanding has shaped American jurisprudence ever since its inception and it’s the reason why you Americans have such a solid justice system. Trust me, coming from a country that’s had over 4 Constitutions last century alone all of which have had over 2000 articles trying to list everything citizens can and cannot do, this distinction matters A LOT.
Mentor WELL STATED!! You are absolutely correct. I was startled when he said the gov gives the right to own firearms. And yes, Jesus said to take up your sword when going out into the world
Damn you kicked that one perfectly centered between the goal posts. If only all of the people in our legislative, judicial, and executive branches understood that concept and abided by it unerringly.
TheMentor 13 THANK YOU! “God given rights” isn’t reciting any Christian bible but the right of being alive, existing and being present. Since god created us. It’s our “god given right” to protect ourself regardless of what you use. That’s what our founding fathers meant and intended. It’s ludicrous to think if some one is seriously try to inflict bodily harm to me, I just can’t protect myself. “Oh no, I I’m getting attacked! I can’t do anything about it because I’m afraid of the consequences I’ll suffer if I live” 😂😂
TheMentor this argument is stupid on multiple levels. By the very fact of being a individual, you are a being who should be able to do whatever they want to themselves. Why are drugs illegal? Why was homosexuality illegal for decades? Why can't a men/women have multiple spouses? World does not work by that retarded ideology that you preach, government grants permission.
I'm from the UK, all the times I've visited the US I have never been aware of anyone having a gun. However when I have visited Isreal guns were very visible among civilians (Jews not Arabs). The weapons were mostly automatic rifles or machine guns. Also they had more than one magazine for their weapon. I saw teachers with machine guns escorting students. When UK police carry weapons they have automatic rifles, not pistols.
I don't understand what are you even trying to say. And also a place that is 22 072 km^2 and with up to 1 500 000 people who are fit and trained for military service it would make sense that you would see so many. Along with that, you may have heard of a small little conflict between Israel and its neighbors, in response to terrorists they have more people around with guns as security. I highly doubt that you saw a school teacher with a machine gun escorting kids unless you were in a dangerous area or it was at a high-risk time, why would they risk their children. I was in Israel for a month and did a complete tour on a bus with 60 others, pretty nice target, the only security we had was a security guard with a 9mm and that was only when we had to go through the west bank. What city did you see the teacher in at what was the situation??
Yea. Israel is a fascist apartheid state. Makes sense the enslaving class has guns. I studied in the US for 5 years. Called the cops on anyone i saw with a gun (i lived in a college town). Was so much fun seeing them get thrown off campus
hey man long time fan and I just want to say, rewatching your videos as an adult with completely different opinions is wild, I really appreciate you linking other videos to expand on the subject, you're recent content has been great too.
Its so funny how the book of Mormon never makes an appearance in any debate that could include religion so seeing him just mention it as a sequel and hold it up had me laughing to tears. just so out of left field for me- but i prefer not to think of it like a fanfic- more like the toy story series. one is good, two is great but three just blows everything out of the water (we dont talk about the fourth to be seen- RIP dead sea scrolls)
I really liked this part, because I refer to it as "the sequel" pretty commonly, and see it all the time cause I live in SLC. In reality, most major world religions are sequels (fanfic) to the Old Testament (which is a nice polished anthology of stories that predate Judiasm and Christianity)
They did say individuals could own guns. A merchant asked mailed a founding father if he could own cannons on his ships to protect from piracy and they referred to the 2nd and said yes.
I think what KB's context is that at the time, the legal documents of the nation were not in favor of Private Arms, or could be interpreted as such. The personal opinion of a founding father would be valuable but not a source for a legal argument.
Harry Evans however if majority opposed private owner ship than it would have been written to say that. It wasn’t and a merchant was allowed a military grade weapon for the time by the founding fathers. Pretty cut and dry
@@ethanbazinet5099 It is only cut and dry if you ignore the context of WHY he was allowed those cannons. He was only allowed those arms due to Jefferson's barbary war. There's a clear difference between having such cannons on a trade ship rather than in your house.
Camron Yearout why?. Protecting life is far more important than goods. And you could argue the ship was his house and many others at least for periods of times. Also that was his business. They let him have them to protect his business and temporary home so everybody should be allowed to.
@@ethanbazinet5099 Life is worth protecting so that's why arms are necessary. If you remove firearms from the situation, you leave yourself open to be "ruled" by the healthy, the strong, and the mob. No minority party should have to fear for their life simply because they are the minority. No wheelchair bound person should need the protection of other, healthy individuals.
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self defense. -Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers, 28
Ellimist000 umm the trump administration has been going in for almost two years now. His entire time in office has been spent fulfilling campaign promises that his constituents voted for. He is far from being hostile to his constituents.
@@hummerskickassLol they were saying the same thing two years into the Bush administration. It is less true now, give it time. Also, considering he lost the popular vote by a margin unusual for our politics and he has been rivaling Bush's popularity in the latter years of his office, it is even less relevant. If you mean "constituents" in the sense of "the specific (minority of) people that voted for one leader", then your statement could be said to be true of a certain 20th-century German ruler as well. Say what you will about that guy, but he kept HIS promises too. The questionable relevance of the Hamilton quote to the gun control issue aside, this is not what Hamilton meant by the words "*representatives* betray *their* constituents" and you know it.
If there comes a need for the citizens of the USA to overthrow the government then it's gonna be rather difficult without tanks, rocket launchers, bunker piercing bombs, aircraft to deliver those, fighter aircraft to defend those and possibly a few thermonuclear bombs.
16:02 The exception to this might be the Kalthoff Repeater. Sure, you had to manually use the reloading mechanism, but you could, if you were a good-enough user, fire up to 60 rounds inside a minute. Which is certainly something.
To point out that during the founder's time, gunsmiths were trying to create guns to rapidly fire and instantly reload themselves. They were not successful as in terms of recreating something that we have today but for the most part they had the idea. Saying that people couldn't fathom what guns would be like today is like me having a hard time trying to see what heath-care would be like in the future. I don't know what it would be like exactly, but I know it should be better from what we've already accomplished health wise.
They had several different repeating guns at the time, just nothing that worked smoothly like today. Or if it did, the gun was either to expensive for most, or so hard to maintain it was more a novity item. And as a goverement, you go for tried and true, over experimental when equipping an army.
Exactly. Even in a militaristic sense there is star wars. There are laser guns, laser swords, huge capital ships, light weight and effective armor, health regenerative tanks, 100% effective robot arms, hyper drives, etc. I can conceptualize all of this, yet we are 100's if not 1000's of years away from this.
![Twenty One Pilots - “The Line” (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/E2Rj2gQAyPA/mqdefault.jpg)
-Be me.
-Own a musket for home defense since that's what the founding fathers intended.
-Four ruffians break into my house.
-"What the devil?" as I grab my powdered wig and kentucky rifle.
-Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first man, he's dead on the spot.
-Draw my pistol on the second man, misses him entirely because it's smoothbore and nails the neighbor's dog.
-I have to resort to the cannon loaded with grapeshot mounted at top of the stairs.
-"TALLY HO LADS!" the grape shot shreds two men in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel setting off car alarms.
-Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscalion
-Bleeds out waiting for the police to arrive since triangle bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up.
-Just as the founding fathers intended.
this shit made me laugh
I got mad respect for anyone willing to defend their home with a bayonet.
You do realize that there were repeating rifles at the time of the US Constitution's ratification, right?
@@publiccomment2053
You, uh... Do realize this is a joke, right?
My new favorite comment on youtube. Thank you. LMAO
Fun fact the founders were actually huge fans of taxidermy so the second amendment actually refers to actual bear arms.
I thought they liked sleeveless shirts.
Finally... I no longer need to hide
Another twisted gross perversion by this kid....
He should have renamed the clip "Complete Moderate DEMOCRAT'S Guide on Gun Control".
jesus
What absolutely pisses me off about the mental health talking point is that it's only a talking point for the four days after the actual shooting. If the problem is mental health, how about some actual . . . mental health care reform?
Well, you are asking politicians to do their job
yeah and how would we do that? put all su*cidal people back into asylums?
we did have mental health care, (the loony bin) but it didn't work out so well so instead of fixing it they decided to do nothing instead.
I'll tell ya what we need: Anger management classes added to every high school in the country. Teach kids how to control their emotions so they don't become adults who kill their neighbor or another driver in a fit of rage.
It's those emotion based murders, the rage crimes, that make up the bulk of the non-suicide gun deaths. We see it every damn day. Guy gets cut off in traffic, gets pissed, runs the driver off the road and beats, stabs, or shoots them to death. Or guy kills someone for talking trash, or sleeping with his girl, or blah blah blah.
This whole damn country has an anger management problem, and social media is only making that worse.
Nope. That would be communism.
The issue with the militia argument is that when states used militia's for security it wasn't the state giving the people guns. The militiamen were expected to bring their own weapons, which would be individual owned. This is actually important to a new supreme court case about the age someone can own a handgun under federal law.
militia act not only is everyone part of the militia by law they are required to own a gun by federal law not simply allowed too .
Also a lot of countries had similar requirements like Germany that used to require men to own and carry arms in the 15th century and england requiring men to own and train with the longbow
Federal law identifies any male 17 or older as a member of the militia.
Pardon me, but given that the united states have a Federal Armed Forces and the National Guard for each state, wouldn't the latter count as a militia? Hence, civilians shouldn't be required or allowed to own assault weapons, as each State's National Guard already provides it, and the point of the militia / National Guard is to provide each state the means for basic self-defence and autonomy right? Also, a properly trained and organised militia force like the National Guard would be would be much more effective than a bunch of random civilians with guns right?
@@Randi-h5q A Militia is when normal civilians take up arms to act as a paramilitary to supplement actual armed forces. National guard is a state controlled military not a militia.
But even if what you say was true that is still not what is in the 2nd amendment which instills the right for any person to have the ability to arm themselves. Whether that be for national defense or internal tyranny.
My views on gun control: don’t give it to idiots
The hard part: finding out who the idiots are
simply the people who take it too far.
Wo! buddy I'm not that kind of guy, I was just saying that some people have extreme ideals.
people with a big criminal record
@Ben Ghazi how do you vet them? Its easy to say well just figure out if they are gonna use it for bad purposes till you realize you cant.
@Ben Ghazi So your saying that someone who has a lot of guns is suspicious or a reason to not allow them to get more? Also what states do not ask someone if they are a convicted felon?
I like how he gets rid of the extremists in the first few minutes by saying “thanks Obama” and incorrectly saying M60 on purpose. Maybe I’m just overestimating him
You din't watch far enough :)
@@tehnoob19 and you misunderstood his comment
@@themadkraken1912 cant tell if the comment I was replying was a poorly timed joke or if you misunderstand this whole comment section
Obama is in no way an extremist. I say this as a far left extremist. (most of the far left thinks people should be allowed to own guns btw)
Heh, he fucking called you out if you made it past the first couple of minutes
That's not an M60, that's a shooty shooty bang bang!
Pew pew pew
@@PandemoniumMeltDown WHOA MAN... Be careful... You nearly got me with that last pew.
And me just 1 day from retirement ;-)
@@agnosticdeity4687 are you enjoying your first day of retirement?
No, that is quite clearly a brrt brrt
@@raptorcell6633 Nahhh, its like a duhgaduhgaduhgauughDUUUGHA
That m60 twist was great
"what's your opinion on gun control" my friend asked passing me my AK as I climbed into my panzer omw to a cashier job.
Gun Control is being able to hit your target.
Gun Control is focusing on the front sight.
Gun Control is good trigger press.
Gun Control is a steady sight picture.
Gun Control is using both hands.
Gun Control is good shot placement.
Happiness, is a warm gun.
This guy doesn't know better he's a gun grabber.
@@joseyar9356 you are insane
@@averagejoe6031 probably is
@@averagejoe6031 Hee hoo gun bad
@@averagejoe6031 lol for using a tool...... do you even have nuts?
I was surprised that you didn't mention the fact that the 1994 assault rifle ban was not reinstated because it was showed to have no affect on gun violence
As he mentioned in the video, it was more passing through congress was increasingly difficult. Also *cough* nra *cough* campaign contributions
@@emilyscloset2648 even though it is more difficult to pass through if it was shown to have significant decrease in gun violence it would have still been passed through, however it didn't, it was shown to have little to no affect which is why the nra contributed to it not being reinstated
@@emilyscloset2648 It was more difficult to pass through congress? So what? It had zero effect on gun crime.
@@koleyo9072 Tfg
I'd also like to point out that Columbine happened _during_ the Bad-and-Scary-Army-Guns ban. Y'know, the shooting that gave every other little bastard the idea?
I always control my guns. I use both hands. Helps my aim a lot.
never mind the only law we need don’t grip a gun like an idiot😂
Wow I do the same think with my wiener
never mind Better gun control is being proficient with both hands and (in a real emergency) your right foot
$10 says you didn't even watch the video before commenting.
You fucked up the actual joke: I'm very pro gun control. I use both hands at all time.
I fundamentally disagreed with the premise of those video before watching it. Now I understand far more points of view other than simply my own or the polar opposite of my own. This is why I absolutely love KB. Thank you for making the internet more intelligent and less ignorantly furious about things we don’t really know.
michaelle Super chad comment
"I even read the sequel. " bloody killed me, man.
Speaking of guns...
to this day people still argue whether it is a "real" sequel or simply fan-fiction that became (ahem) a cult classic
@@alexroselle Well played sir, my favorite comment I've read in quite some time!
Perfect delivery too, had me rolling.
Except ... the "God given" right to being armed *IS* actually in the sequel.
And now the design of the Nephites was to support their lands, and their houses, and their wives, and their children, that they might preserve them from the hands of their enemies; and also that they might preserve their rights and their privileges, yea, and also their liberty, that they might worship God according to their desires.
For they knew that if they should fall into the hands of the Lamanites, that whosoever should worship God in spirit and in truth, the true and the living God, the Lamanites would destroy.
Yea, and they also knew the extreme hatred of the Lamanites towards their brethren, who were the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi, who were called the people of Ammon-and they would not take up arms, yea, they had entered into a covenant and they would not break it-therefore, if they should fall into the hands of the Lamanites they would be destroyed.
Alma 43: 9-11
Love the channel, btw. Keep up the good work.
I blame the magazine clip confusion on WWII movies and John Garand.
The M1 rifle dropping the entire clip into the magazine messed it up for everyone.
Yeah........
Which is kinda ironic since the en bloc clip was invented before Mauser came up with his stripper clip design.
I’m pretty sure the Mauser line did it first, but I could be mistaken
Yeah...you can blame Ferdinand Mannlicher for the enbloc clip.
I mean, he didn't invent the en bloc clip system, it was in fact invented before he was born (although just) and saw wideuse in almost every country to produce firearms. Hell, many parts of the Garand are based on the French RSC 1917, which used en bloc clips. Mannlicher invented them (which is why they also get called Mannlicher clips occasionally), in 1885. He was Austrian.
Except you know when James Maddison let people privately own cannons for their ships.
Not only let them but practically said “ Of course, why wouldn’t you be able to defend yourself and your property effectively “
To defend SHIPS it wasn't for self defense it was for SHIPS
@@A.G-p6u
Yeah because defending your ship isn't also defending yourself.
A cannon is less dangerous in the modern day than even a handgun.
@@adomaster123
Pfffttt you gotta be joking
I almost called you out on the M-60 comment. I'm glad I waited
When talking about Australian Firearm Law, you missed one critical thing. Self-Defence is not counted by our government as a "Legitimate Reason" to own a firearm. It is a bad joke that our elected politicians take away our best self-defence tool whilst saying "oh no but you can still keep your guns! Just for every use other than the one you'll really really need"
Don't let people with armed security take away your ability to have your own security.
Amen.
But he's a "moderate" .
@@Aseutester Irrelevant. If you don't see the application of a firearm for personal protection, you are anti-gun. I'd sooner advocate the banning of hunting, rather than a person's right to self-defence.
@@Kesslerification "" means I'm being sarcastic ya Muppet, we agree!
@@Aseutester "Quotation Marks" are used to quote something, like the title. An exclaimation point in parentheses is used for sarcasm (!)
"You can't just omit several key talking points," omits several key taking points to serve his purpose.
Turd Ferguson very....
PhillipMargrave oh I’d really like to see them on the other side of the barrel 😂
@PhillipMargrave some might.... Those that I know both active and the veteran would not, goes against the oath we took when we inlisted. Only and the ONLY way would be to amend the constitution.
Other videos he goes into analysis of what the people ment. But for some reason he never acknowledges what the fathers ment at the time.
To be fair, it's impossible to touch on EVERY point of gun control from a moderate perspective and keep the video under 6 hours...
That “thanks Obama” single handley ruined the like/dislike ratio
lol, true
Wasn’t that a joke?
Maybe, but It's probably more a symptom of looking at the problem from both sides. When not clearly agreeing with one side, in the gun debate, you alienate both sides.
@Gary Winthorp Look at, a profound constitutional expert! Say, where did you study laws?
@Gary Winthorp Didn't your mother teach you that answering with a counterquestion is considered as pretty discourteous ? Anyway, yes, at least me, inter alia I did study laws, and no, my alma mater doesn't have any reputation to be left, and my professor of constitutional law [R.I.P.] was a rather conservative Catholic *. . .*
22:42
Exactly. If you don’t open yourself to conversation, you embolden those who disagree with you to exclude you when they make decisions. You end up undermining yourself.
Funny how this is always a right wing talking point. Just asking questions, bro! So much for free speech.
@Wehdeo funfact- you were already excluded when they made their decision.
Hold on wait
"Your right to own a gun comes from the government"
You realize the bill of rights and amendments are to tell the governt what they can't do, not what the people can do, right?
Bill of Rights?
@@flynnshea4989 Shit youre right, my bad
He claimed to have sworn to protect the constitution, but he didn’t seem to understand the document at all.
There isn't a "middle" for this one. Either, a person is aware that we lose 2.6 million Americans a year, 1.3 million to cancer and heart disease and -8.5k- 10.5k to homicides after 2015, because the gov. (the same one these "moderates" want to "regulate the guns") poured Afghani heroin onto the streets, fueling yet another wave of gang wars...
Either you are aware, or you aren't aware. Pro-gun is educated. Anti-gun is ignorant. There is no middle.
@@manictiger There is a middle. You are basically just saying that you are right and the other side is stupid. Guns save lives. Brandishing a gun can keep people from doing something just like policemen in public do.
Yo you missed the court case where ya boi, Thomas Jefferson, ruled in the favor of merchant vessels being allowed to arm their ships with cannons.
And my name is tj too
Arming merchant ships in international waters during the Barbary War has zero to do with 2A.
@@obscuritystunt it has everything to do with it. But how about Cassius Marcellus Clay owning 6lb cannons(most advanced weapon of its day) and having them on the roof of his abolitionist newspapers building and when an angry mob came to burn the headquarters of "The True American" to the ground for daring to say black people shouldn't be property and should be allowed to vote he opened fire with a warning shot to disperse the crowd thereby using his second amendment right to defend his first amendment right? In 1860 to be anti 2A was to be anti 1A and pro slavery. In 1760 to be anti 2A was to be pro taxation without representation and pro military being allowed to just come into your home and take your things and stay there as long as they liked. In 1960 to be anti 2A was to be pro Jim Crow Laws.
jacob combs p6 lb cannons were not really new, they were just small caliber guns that were significantly less bank-destroying and more manageable than their full-size artillery counterparts.
@@MacCoalieCoalson hardly the point now is it? Yes he had the more manageable smaller guns that were often put on the quarter deck and forecastle and not the larger 18 lbs or 32lbs guns that were placed in lower decks for broadsides(only a fifth rate ship would completely lack 6lb guns), because he needed a canon he could aim and operate alone and which he could reasonably expect to effectively mount and use on the roof of his printing press the 6lb gun was 1000lbs the 12lb gun was easily 2000 and the 18lb gun was near enough 3000lbs. He still had a canon, like was actually on ships, as a private citizen and used it to defend his first amendment right and personal property from an angry mob that came to torch the place because he didn't approve of slavery. And merchant ships were owned and operated by private citizens in that. So the point remains it had everything to do with the individual right to possess arms for defense of self and property from threats of violence and tyranny.
That's a M240 tho
Aha, good pit trap my guy
But that's not an M60!!
He must not know what he's talking about.
This is such a smart tactic
lastcrusade101
*I T S A T R A P*
well its a Fabrique Nationale de Herstal Mitrailleuse d'Appui Général,or the short version FN MAG.just like any other forren guns they jest re label them and American think it a American gun.
Interesting point, I've recently heard that the Wild West which most people would claim was a place where everyone had a gun, actually had forms of Gun control. Specifically, Tombstone made it that everyone had to surrender their gun when they are coming into town. I'm hoping to learn more from a paper written the Smithsonian, but it is kind of an interesting point about how inaccurately popular perceptions can be in relation to reality.
Yeah, the "Wild West" had lots of gun control, not just Tombstone. Also knife control laws, as there was a problem with Bowie knives and Arkansas toothpicks. Some of the knife laws have lasted into modern day, Texas notably only overturned theirs in the last few years.
Also worth noting that something like 75% of "cowboys" (although that term tends to get misused a lot, cowboys drove cattle, they didn't get in gun fights, generally) were foreigners, and at least 25% were people of colour. A lot of the things we think about are actually Spanish originally, like the saddle type and lassos. Wild West tends to be incredibly white washed. It was a low status job, like being a lumberjack. Dangerous, and isolated with low pay, but almost anyone could do it, and in a racist society where you could get lynched for most anything, the isolation might actually have been a bit of a bonus.
the Old West had some of the strictest gun control laws, AND some of the harshest penalties, even for small infractions.
these people today wish they could live in the Old West? shit. they wouldn't last a week. if the law didn't get them, the crazy outlaws would.
the past belongs way back there where it belongs.
Yeah, I read that too. I also came to understand it wasn't even remotely as "Wild" as often believed.
@@Lowlandlord you forgot gay. The Wild West was also super gay. Not many women about anyways 😅
Gun/cowboy mythology.
I can’t believe people still think “the gun show loophole” is actually a thing
Seth Gettys apartently they’ve never been to a gun show
Tre' Roney apparently not, dumb sods
I went to a gun show in Texas and purchased a gun from a private seller. No background check. No ID check. Nothing. I showed my ID to get in the building, but that was it.
jj bug Perfectly legal and always should be. Criminals but in large don’t go to gun shows
@@en5788 a private seller AKA a normal person who wants to sell their gun. not an arms dealer. no need to wait for a show. you can go do that just about anywhere
every gun show I've been too you have had to fill out a background check
Yeah most venders at gun shows are FFLs these days anyway. I was at one on Saturday, only the knife dealers weren't.
try crown point Indiana. walk right in. buy a gun from another "visitor" not a vendor super easy
Truth
@@stephenpawlik2286 It's illegal to sell a gun to a resident of another state. (Without going through a licensed dealer) And even if you're from Indiana, what is legal and what people are willing to do are very different. If you try to buy the gun off somebody who just bought it they'll say no. (They bought it to use it damn it!) And if you offer much more than the guns worth they'll still say no. You also can't sell handguns or "assault weapons" to anyone under 18 you aren't closely related to. In fact, you can be convicted for selling a gun to someone you had reasonable cause to believe is mentally incompetent.
Ok so there shouldn't be an issue enforcing a law that's already enacted in your area to ensure everywhere across the US follows those same procedures. I mean if it isnt going to do any harm and only do more protection then why is they're still a negative stigma about it.
Btw I'm talking about federal mandatory background checks for gun stores and gun shows.
Here's an idea -
Let's end the stupid drug war and actually do something to help impoverished people and see where that takes us as far as gun violence is concerned.
If it's still a 'huge' problem, then we'll go from there.
Very very well said but as we all know what seems like an obvious step forward falls on deaf ears to a blind and out of touch Congress.
That's actually a pretty good point. What causes mass shootings is much more than just "guns". There's a ton of other factors that lead to mass shootings.
That in conjuncture with better family education, helping to lower divorce rates, and getting fathers back to their children and I think a great deal of our social issues would be on the way to being solved.
BASED
Something I never understood about the drug war in the US, is how everything was aimed to stop cocaine from going through the border, yet they talk very little about stopping addictions in the country. If there's no buyers, there's no product to sell.
Yes, I know that it's an utopia, but I keep reading about some celebs/politicians/athletes who use and go to detox, rehab (or they have ODs) and they don't get charged for using. That's a big failure.
I have so many of your videos in my watchlist but I have only managed to watch a handful. Why, you may ask? Because I have to watch each video several times in order to absorb all the info you somehow manage to pack into each one. Absolutely excellent.
>i even read the sequel
*Shows the Book of Mormon*
I can't stop laughing
Liam IKR
...>i even read the sequel
Shows the Book of Mormon...
Now you know why he wants gun control. The book of Mormon demands that if you take a life that you have to shed blood to pay the blood debt. Back in the 1976, Gary Mark Gilmore committed several senseless murders in Utah, was convicted of them and sentenced to death. In Utah at the time, one of the forms of capital punishment available by the condemned's choice was death by firing squad to satisfy the Mormon church's need to settle blood debts by the state if sentenced to death. He demanded this form of death and got his wish. I forget how many were on the squad but the way it was set up, all of the Winchester 30-06 rifles were loaded by a prison official, the squad were all volunteers and all rifles were loaded with blanks except for one which had a live round in it. This was so if anyone had second thoughts after the fact, they could take solace in the possibility that they had one of the blanks. He was taken to a building which had a dirt berm in it. He was strapped to a chair placed in front of the berm and a target was placed over his heart. The order was given by the warden to fire and he was declared dead 2 minutes later. I read this account in the St. Petersburg, (Florida), times 42 years ago as it was 1977 when his time came due. He refused to appeal. While I personally believe in the death penalty, I'll never forget that article.
Saying the Qu'ran is a sequel is more accurate than that...
@UNIDEN2211 ...was he on death row for 20 yrs?...
Ironically no. Against his family's and the ACLU's wishes, he waived all of his rights to his appeals and wanted to just "Get on with it." Several other anti death penalty advocates filed appeals on his behalf but, and this was his right, he instructed the court to ignore them all. I don't think that it was but a few months between his guilty plea and the day of his demise.
@UNIDEN2211 No. He refused all appeals and went to the death house within a month or two.
Australian Gun control is the most extreme,
*Laughs in British*
@Oliver Cheney pretty sure you can own even bigger caliber guns if you have a licence for it... in most of europe you can own semi automatic firearms, but even people living there go like "oh nah we cant own guns its impossible" because most of them simply havent even researched their own gun laws apart from "we have it more restrictive than america"...
@@domaxltv you're right but the thing is, in most of the European countries those guns can only be used for hunting and stuff like that. Its very hard legally to defend yourself should you have to shoot a trespasser
but i think britain still allows airsoft guns which are banned in the land down under. they have to use "gel-soft" guns
Oh Boi don't get me started, in Italy is a pain when a relative dies and he had a gun.
hahahah in chile you need the pope
I like how he skipped the part where all men age 18-45 were the militia by federal law, and as such were lawfully obligated to purchase current military weapons and kit and know how to use them.
And you're saying that applies to today?
5504berry I’m saying that almost nobody understands what militia means. It’s not a professional military by definition. You can’t waive the militia part away and cite our federal military forces, because a militia has nothing to do with them. And it still does apply today at least to some extent because it’s still in the constitution right now.
@@GunTheory ok so where was the NRA when the government tried to break up the Black Panthers? Where were you when Castil A law abiding gun carrying citizen was murdered by police in Minnesota? So you guys wanna pick and choose when this constitutional amendment applies but you only stand in protests if someone who looks like you gets killed or have their rights taken away. Get the buck outta here with that Nonsense.
5504berry That’s a lot of assumptions and a lot of not actually using your eyeballs to read what I said. Where did the NRA come into this? They are not a government entity, and they’re not relevant to what I said. And what part of what I said made you think I believe in conditional application of an absolute freedom? You’ve constructed some opponent of yours that clearly isn’t me. Perhaps ask to hear what I think before attacking me for holding some opinion when you don’t even know if I hold that opinion.
@@GunTheory the NRA is the largest political organization that trumpets 2nd Amendment rights, so yes they enter the conversation anytime a conversation about the subject comes up. Their membership defines and frames all conversations concerning gun laws.Two let's be honest, 2nd amendment advocates only see freedom to bear arms as a white man's right that is why there is no outrage when a minority is shot in a Walmart playing with a toy guy in an open carry state. Silence speaks volumes and I am betting you have never been worried about any minority's right to bear arms being violated. Nothing wrong with your point of view but be honest with yourself about the history. Americans can have a conversation about a difficult topic without degrading into ignorance as long as the full motives and histories are included. Enjoy you night, and I hope you really think about this ongoing conversation in a honest way.
That 240 bravo trick was so clever, I wouldn't have known any better, but that's a great way to catch people who do, but don't watch further than to catch slip ups
Sorry. The 30 round magazine is a STANDARD CAPACITY magazine.
These magazines are the factory standard when the rifle is sold.
I give the legal definitions as defined by the various laws - in this case, the Assault Weapons Ban. It defined a large capacity ammunition feeding device as anything over 10 rounds. If the factory is selling 30 round magazines, that's obviously legal now. That doesn't make it standard capacity though.
I understand that you are using a legal definition per the 1994 AWB, but ask any 11X and they will not call it a high capacity mag. The folly of allowing the legislature to define what X is results in states like New York, where a loaded 10 round magazine is considered high capacity or California where they want to classify ANY semi auto rifle that can accept a magazine as an assault weapon.
Knowing Better
Genetic Fallacy...
For a MILITARY SETTING, 30 rounds of ammunition in one magazine might be appropriate, but you don't exactly tend to need 30 rounds of high-velocity armor-piercing rounds to protect yourself from muggers.
Or shoot a pig.
@shingshongshamalama
No, you need a fully semi automatic bolt action rifled assault musket with chainsaw bayonet and iron dildo accessory.
Just me? Or does the like/dislike ratio seem inaccurate when you read the comments?
People, more often comment when they disagree rather than when they agree
Generally rule, if the dislike ratio is more than a quarter dislike the comments are going to be pissed.
When people get super angry they comment. This happens on basically all his videos.
When your ideology doesn’t provide you with a coherent argument-there’s always the dislike button.
Not sure, but he just "talked" about guns, so the dislikes are people against talking?
Sorry dude but Maddison did think that the people had a right to keep arms
Arms means any arms. Thanks for disregarding all the federalist paper and all the discussions that matter.
@@oswaltedmund6257 and well regulated translates more towards well oiled/well working.
It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
Practically all modern references to the term “well-regulated” refer to activities that are
regulated by law, such as the airline industry, the fur industry, or the gambling “industry”.
fun facts: the common british soldiers of old were also referred to as "regulars". arms can be defined as anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands, or uses to cast at or strike at another.
@@paintzemute6364 sez who?
You need to prove an assertion like this. A quote would be good. Otherwise (unless you are a spiritualist medium) your assertion is worthless.
@@MrMartibobs use a dictionary, instead of making derogatory claims against another.
It is actually common knowledge that "regulated" has changed over the past 200 years.
Billy the Kid's group of men that defended John Tunstill's property and land in New Mexico were called Regulators.
Interestingly the military DOES have SBRs and SBSs which conflicts with that ruling.
The founding fathers did intend for the 2nd to include private ownership. A owner of a trading ship wrote to Adams asking is the 2nd extended to him outfitting his ships with cannon in order to defend against pirates. He was told that absolutely he could own cannons.
Ivan while you're right about the story I think you have the wrong man. Wasn't is Madison he wrote to?
Does American law even apply in international waters? I haven't read the letter myself.
@@crackingbreznuts3343 It was and still is, although more defined. The UN convention on international waters has answered this question by stating that vessels would abide the laws of the country of origin in international waters unless they are In the waters of a member nation. So an American ship in international waters can still keep firearms on board unless they want to sail to a non-American port where in most countries they have to provide legal documentation and declare the firearms the same way you declare firearms at an airport.
@@bindipig1225 when a right has to be earned in order to exercise it, that is no longer a right. that is a privilege. and the right to bear arms should not be considered a privilege.
@@bindipig1225 when you make it a privilege you deprive the of people of self-preservation. You simply turn the right to bear arms into a commodity of the 1%.
Your views don’t align with mine! You must support [party I don’t like]!
Yeah you commie, fascist, Zionist antisemite!
@@MrRooibos123 you forget nazi
The left"YOUR SO WRONG YOU ALT RIGHT NAZI
the right: YOU KNOW NOTHING LIBTARD!!!
Your views don’t align with mine! You must want to destroy everything that is good in the world!
Ben Shitpiro, is that you?
The people of Hong Kong would disagree with what you think they need.
Got em.
Have you *ever* even talked to someone from Hong Kong? Why do you somehow feel informed enough to speak for them? No one in Hong Kong wants guns. You're way down your rural rugged individualist rabbithole if you think the people of Hong Kong can, or would even *want*, to fight a civil war with the PRC. They're expressly trying to avoid violence because it would give the much better armed government forces free reign to respond in kind and just massacre them.
@@niclas9990 peaceful protest should always be the first step but freedom sometimes comes at force of arms. I'm grateful not everyone is as naive as you are.
@@niclas9990 I've actually talked to people from HK and even went to HK recently. Trust me, with the things they've done for self defense, they are WISHING that they have a second ammendment. They had to tape magazines to their bodies, use sticks and stones, etc etc to defend themselves from the Chinese tyrants.
@@adityaali3147 They're not. They've actually got a sane strategy to achieve their goals; they *do not* have some gun-nut's deluded fantasy of outslinging government troops, as (being smarter than you give them credit for) they know what the state would immediately bring against them. *Guns or no guns, they can never hold their own against PRC forces.* So, in short, what you're saying is BS and if you'd been in HK, you would know that. There is *zero* talk about sourcing guns or even wishing they had them. It's you who want to frame it that way to fit your ideology and, frankly, it shows you have a very poor understanding of the situation there. It also does them a disservice: they're pragmatic and very savvy and are not political allies nor some kind of cheap moral tool that you can use to bolster your insane rhetoric.
To say that the founding father's knew nothing of advancements in firearms is false. They were almost sold what was basically a gatling gun in the late 18th centure. Still muzzle loaded, but was more like a rapid fire revolver. They knew warfare tactics and tech advanced, many of these men faught in wars and studied the past.
That’s one of the many myths you’d hear the Anti 2A community use.
“You couldn’t own a cannon”
Yup, you absolutely could.
ok but they could not predict that a gatling gun would be put into a frame smaller than a musket while still proving far more lethal
Yeah, but trick question. Did civilians own gatling guns and cannons? No, the government did. Why do you the Confederates had to raid military bases to get cannons and arms. Imagine if the Hatfields and McCoys had access to cannons and gatling guns.
@@tylersmith3139probably the wealthier confederates owned cannons.
@@M4421-Oyes the absolutely could. You know at the time there was a musket that had the ammo and powder completely self contained in the gun. If I recall they wanted to outfit the continental army with it. That never happened due to issues with the gun, manufacturing large scale was non existent and they were expensive. But anyone with a brain could see that in the future such tech would eventually evolve.
I have owned and carried firearms for more than 20 years now. I am carrying a pistol right now.
But I nearly completely agree with you. It is difficult to be a moderate with an issue as polarizing as this one. And for what it's worth, I will subscribe to you. Good job on this and the video on Christopher Colombus.
Fudd.
Knowing better is wrong on so many levels, look for my comment on in the most recent category, I disprove most of what he builds his basis off of, such as the 2nd amendment not being for individuals (it was), if you want me to paste it here let me know
@@jimmyvonvitti5204 do it boi
Jimmy Vonvitti how is it for individuals?
As soon as someone starts with "I own...(insert firearm variation here)" then we know it is a Mother Demanding Action. And no, we do not care what is in your hand right now.
"I've even read the sequel" 😂😂😂 top tier video right here. That earned a like from me
Ahh, Utah :)
Dangerz OwnJust going to point out that Zoroastrianism has it’s own holy book and is older than Judaism.
tanakh, torah is a part of tanakh and is the part with the rules in judaism.
As another crew served weapon specialist I was half way through a screee about calling that an M60...carry on good sir, carry on lol
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" got changed from John Locke's "Life, liberty, and property" because Jefferson didn't want to plagiarize, and some of the New England framers had some troubles with the two-legged "property" he kept at Monticello.
"what is the militia? Is the militia not the whole body of the citizenry? There for the musket (military issued firearm) the bayonet, the sword and every terrible impliment of the soldier is the birthright of the American citizen" - Benjamin Franklin.
@@HerewardWake "dont listen to one of the founding fathers of the united states of america, when it comes to interpreting their laws" lol wut?
@@HerewardWake ok, the people who made the law had the wrong interpretation of it. so the assault weapons ban really means i can buy a full auto at walmart, with barrel shroud and all. the supreme-court just has the wrong interpretation.
i really hope youre not this willfully ignorant.
@@HerewardWake ok, my bad. let me read to you this little part of the second amendment written by some nobodies. "shall not infringe" can you please use that yuge brain to figure out what that means for me? k thanks
@@HerewardWake also, why would they write a constitution if they thought that nobody would care after they passed? why did they set up the bill of rights, to have the right to bear arms as the second most important one? right after free speech?
@@HerewardWake i stopped at, "its ambiguous". "shall not infringe",simple.
This didn't change my mind on gun control (I'm very pro-gun) but I very much appreciated it and it helped me to see the other side in a new light.
I feel the same way from the other side of the Isle. Have a cuppa'
as a UK citizen, both sides seem hundreds of years in the past.
@@samwise_productions "I even don't understand this colonial problem" *proceeds to drown oneself in tea
@@samwise_productions
I guess knife attacks, acid attacks and mass rapes are the future
@@mikhailasimov3285 school shootings are soooooo yesterday amiright
That's not an M60, that's a bow with fast charge, power 5 and a texture pack
I really like the term "juice box" for an electronic weapon's battery.
This didn’t sound like a guy who sits in the middle to me. Oh and btw every gun show I went to had background checks if you wanted to buy a gun.
On the gunshow thing it depends on the state and the particular show. There are the same two gun shows at The Pasadeana Convention Center in Pasadena TX Two weekends every month two different shows on different days but at the same venue. Some of the sellers there are licensed dealers and are trying to clear out inventory from their shop as a licensed dealer they have to do paperwork and a check. A whole bunch of others are just private sellers who are not licensed they rent a table and sell their stuff just like a flea market and no they dont do any paperwork or checks. My friend I went with brought a cart and sold off 4 of his guns didnt do any paperwork what so ever he sold at least two to an off duty cop who was running his own booth but happened to collect older rifles my friend had a Mosen Nagant. So again really depends wether or not the seller is a licensed dealer or not. There were plenty their that day and most of the stuff that was new that people wanted to buy was sold by dealers.
It depends. I bought from a private seller, I had no background check (at the time), but this has been closed in the state of NV.
Most of the time they're referring too 70s - 90s gun shows and not soo much present day which is still outdated info to support their cause
I know right! It’s honestly kind of arrogant of him to me that he automatically thinks his opinions are moderate because he’s shot guns and has been in the military. Every other point he made leaned pretty far left.
No, he was pretty moderate. I'm about taking all guns away from all you gun people, so this guy was probably right down the middle.
I'm just here looking for the people yelling:
"ThAt IsNt A M60!!! He KnOwS nOtHiNg AbOuT gUnS!!!!"
Do you not care about single moms living in dangerous neighborhoods, getting jumped, and having to rely upon a police officer whose average response time is fourteen minutes, because you people have made it as difficult as possible for her to buy a gun for personal safety? I mean you’ve already explained what an amazing alternative the police system in this country is.
@@dabutchaistoxic i made a joke, i haven't stated any opinion on the subject matter of the video. I never said that i cared or didn't care about single moms living in dangerous places. Calm down.
@@ivanthehunter3530 I guess, his name is ".. Is Toxic". So, of course you had it coming!!!
@@shimantohassan1414 fair point, i should have known....
Atleast he's living up to his name!
Well its kinda expected to have kmowledge in firearms and how they work if you want to talk about them. Kind of why the whole "assault rifle" thing is around. Uninformed politicians and citizems wanting to ban something because it looks scary, not on how it actually functions
@Knowing Better
01:58 "Yes, I’m well aware of the fact that that’s not an M60, it’s a 240B. So if you see any comments below mentioning how that’s not an M60 and I have no idea what I’m talking about, it means they barely made it past the first minute."
*Nice b8, m8!* Approve that sneaky move to call out smartarses which are judging videos without even watching them. :-)
I have to say that it's not unusual for me to post something before finishing a video. If I wait with writing, I forget. If I wait with posting, the comment grows to giant proportions when I add stuff I think about over the course of the video. And we're all only human, sometimes one will forget to edit a rash post, especially if the video is appealing or aggravating.
@Gary Winthorp Don't forget to mention that those educated people will still have posted an aggressive comment rashly. Trolling is all about baiting, you can't troll someone who isn't stepping in it himself.
@Gary Winthorp You certainly have a weird definition of "stepping in it" and of aggressive and rash. But I get it, you felt like you had to win and thought twisting my words would be the way to do it.
@Gary Winthorp Oh, you're willfully dense. I guess ignorance is bliss. But for me life's too short for this.
@Gary Winthorp The goal is to see who didn't finish the video and only watched to that point
I just have to say that I applaud your integrity and neutral perspective when you make these videos. I have literally been on a binge watching all of your videos the past couple of days and I think your humorous teaching style is awesome! I have laughed out loud to myself so many times! I also come away from your videos feeling informed which is after all your mission “knowing better”. In short, THANK YOU! In a world where everything online is so damned political it’s refreshing to come across your unbiased take. GREAT WORK!
Neutral except for presenting prima facia reasonable statements in goofy voices. Cheers.
When you insult one side and not the other, that's not neutral.
This is FAR from neutral. Many of his statements regarding the history of the 2A, the history of arms, who the militia was, and what the founding fathers intended as individual vs states' rights were outright wrong or disingenuous. He makes sweeping claims with no/improper supporting evidence. He presents only the positives of gun control, while mischaracterizing and dismissing any criticisms as being ridiculous, paranoid or moronic. He entirely dismisses the claim that tyrannical governments do implement gun control. He entirely downplays how restrictive the gun control in Australia is (i.e. can't own a gun for self defense). He entirely ignores any right to self-defense, self-preservation, or the statistics around defensive gun uses. He conflates all shootings and firearm deaths with the prevalence of assault weapons and ignores that most shootings are done with handguns, not long guns. You won't find any gun rights advocate who agrees that this was an unbiased video.
@@rw0037 I was mocking him sir.
@@zapazap yeah, ik, that wasn't @ you
An assault weapon is any gun that looks scary smh
My sks went from a hunting rifle to a assault weapon with a flash hider, high capacity mag, pistol grip, adjustable stock, and a forward grip in a hour
I've used AKs to hunt deer for years - effective to 300yds, works well, and I don't have to worry about banging it up in the field. I never understood the idea that a rifle like that wouldn't be effective for hunting - and frankly, it's the same idea as the militias and minutemen in the Revolution - they carried better firearms than the Brits - and why shouldn't we have better firearms than the government... oh, wait, I know why ...
...prohibit the federal government, including the U.S. military, from infringing upon or interfering with people’s...
According to some "wishful thinking" proposed gun laws and at least one that the sun has set on, My 16 year old Marlin .22 cal. rifle was / could become illegal. it has a 15 shot tube fed magazine under the barrel. Some want to make more than a 10 shot magazine illegal. HYPOTHETICALLY SPEAKING, I could wade into a crowd and kill 16 people without reloading. That's starting with 15 rounds in the tube and one in the chamber. There are more than enough gun laws and regulations on the books for the criminals to ignore now and to hobble the law abiding citizen from defending him or herself and homes now. Adding more will accomplish 3 things. 1) It will waste legislative time. 2) It will waste tax money. and 3) It will give criminals more laws to ignore and more worthless paper for them to wipe their collective asses with.
I live in one of 18 states where if we can qualify for a concealed carry permit, we don't need one to conceal a handgun on our person within our state borders. Some other "constitutional carry" states as we are called, even accept our drivers license as proof to legally conceal carry in their state. Speaking only for West Virginia, my state, it has not turned us into the old west either. Even most of our drug busts go off without firing a shot. This is not to say that people don't get shot in anger here but then by the same token, we don't have mass shootings here either. I believe it is because any potential shooter has to factor in the possibility that every one of his victims could actually be shooting back.
Call it a form of forced mutual respect if you will but over all, we keep our rights and generally, everyone is safer for it as a side benefit.
Democrats: um... Um... It kills things ban it
@@jeffmccrea9347 Constitutional carry statistically leads to more violent gun deaths than open carry.
Open carry is the way to go. Constitutional carry is for morons who masturbate to the letter and not the spirit of the constitution. Guns are necessary. Hiding them on your person is for criminals.
the assault weapon ban was idiotic because most of those features have no affect on function.
Which of the features in the ban have no function? Flash hiders allow better shooting at night because they deflect muzzle flash from the shooters eye, bayonet lugs... hold bayonets, fixed stocks...can't be a bump stock, pistol grips improve the ergonomics of a weapon to support one handed carry and improve reloading speed. Please clarify
K Dillon would you care to provide statistics on the number of crimes that have been committed in the last 50 years using bayonets that were mounted on a rifle? Because I'm pretty sure drive-by bayonetings have never been a thing. Also, bump stocks did not exist in 1994 when the AWB was passed, and would be considered "fixed stocks" under that law. Pistol grips are mostly to make the rifle more controllable in full auto fire, but none of the weapons covered by the AWB were capable of full auto fire.
'bump stocks did not exist in 1994 when the AWB was passed, and would be considered "fixed stocks" under that law" this is not clear, a federal regulatory agency would evaluate the new device and through the rule-making process evaluate if a bump stock is fixed or not. As for statistics, I don't have them, however, as you pointed out your own belief of the functional purpose of the pistol grip... you cannot then argue like the OP does that these features have no fictional affect.
this dillon guy is an idiot, since his argument is falling apart, he wants you to keep defining things for him...
go look it up and learn something yourself
A retractable stock is just so short and big people can fire the same gun. If you are a short person, you want to push in the stock. A big person would want to extend the stock so he's not uncomfortable. A folding stock on a long arm doesn't give it much concealability since by law, a rifle/shotgun needs to have ATLEAST a 16 inch barrel and be 26 inches in length EVEN WITH THE STOCK FOLDED. If a folding stock were allow a longarm to be shorter than 26 inches, that gun becomes a SBR. A pistol grip doesn't even matter. I know people who actually prefer the traditional stock grip than the pistol grip. No one uses a bayonet to kill another person these days. If you have a gun why the fuck would you stab someone when you can shoot them. If you're biggest concern is hiding muzzle flashes in the dark, just put lights everywhere instead of taking our guns
I don't think this is a guide to moderates. This is a guide to what liberals think moderate views are. Now that's not an issue, but labeling this as an objective critique of gun control is misled at best and disingenuous at worst.
Di... didn't you see the part of the video like 10 seconds in where it shows an automatic system classified him as a moderate
@@k4496 oh so I should completley dismiss everything he says because an "automatic system" says so? Gotcha. Don't I feel foolish.
@@k4496 I was labeled as an extremist but im a moderate. His views are left leaning for the most part. For example the bible part. It doesnt say you can own people. It says people owned people and it was bad. It also doesnt say anything about guns due to them not existing. Doesnt take much cognitive thought to realise this is mostly spewing what he thinks a moderate is.
CrazyCoffee
I hate when lefties claim to be moderates.
Like, why bullshit yourself or why try to bullshit others?
Unless you’re trying to disguise your leftist views as moderate so that any views coming from the right can be labeled as “far right” or “fringe right” beliefs
@@Kil23Joy He's on the left side of the Overton window for sure. America ranges from literal communes to literal nazis, the middle ground is a fairly significant piece of real estate and, compared to some on the left I've seen declare their hate for moderates, he's pretty moderate.
As a staunch leftist I love your stuff. Your concessions and expressions of where you were ideologically vs where you are. You came from a perspective that I absolutely did not and you bring things to the table most leftists like me are afraid to. Guns are totally one of those topics.
Harsh gun regulations from stupid Liberal capitalistic politicians will be used to oppress the working class
@@ՆոլանՊետրոսյան ok
Fake leftist. True liberal. Gun control is a way of keeping the most at-risk members of society defenseless. No gods no masters dawg.
This is why he is in no way a moderate. This dude is clearly a progressive.
There are a few problems with this. First, by contemporary definition, that is, the definition at the time, a militia was organized by the military, comprised of civilians, using their own weapons. Weapons were not issued to militias, they were only issued to Regulars, the regular soldiers of the army.
Second, the term "the people" is used to refer to ordinary citizens of the US several other places in the Constitution, and even the Bill of Rights. Therefor, to claim that, in only one Amendment, that term means something else, is a logical and legal falacy. The authors chose their words carefully, the justification clause that preceeds it states the reason for the right, and therefor its potential scope. Indeed, the author of the Second Amendment and much of the Bill of Rights, James Madison, set a rather interesting precedent for this as President, in a Letter of Marque he issued to a Civilian vessel armed with field artillery, apparently considering artillery among the weapons permissible for ownership by civilians.
Third, to my knowledge, evidence was never put forward that the Vegas shooter had used a bumpstock to conduct the shooting; such assertions were anecdotal. Indeed, bumpstocks, in allowing the entire weapon to move forward and back far enough to release the trigger, reduce accuracy such that it would seem impossible for him to do what he was doing. He was managing groupings tight enough to hit individual people with multiple rounds from a single burst, all from a high floor of a motel down the street from the event. Generally speaking, if the range is high enough that you need a scope, you're not going to hit the target very well with a bumpstock.
Fourth, at the time when the Constitution was written, guns had already advanced from hand cannons, to wheel lock muskets, to flintlock muskets, and had recently become deadlier than ever before, with the advent of long, rifled barrels, which allowed General Washington to do something that had never been possible before: Position sharpshooters away from the battlefield, and shoot enemy commanders specifically. Yes, we basically invented snipers during the Revolution. In the early 1700s, the Puckle Gun was invented, essentially a small caliber artillery piece, with a revolver-like rotating cylinder for fast reloading. The Founding Fathers were more than aware that weapons would advance, they had been advancing, and had even advanced during the course of the Revolution. Yet nevertheless, they did not make the Second Amendment conditional on lethality. Instead, they outlined the nature of its guarantee, which the Supreme Court actually reaffirmed in US v. Miller of 1939 (as mentioned), though ironically, sawed off shotguns are actually used by the military and police, just in a fairly limited range of applications.
Fifth, the "gun show loophole" is something of a myth. If you purchase a gun from a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) they are required by Federal law to run a background check, or to check your CCP, to verify that you can legally purchase a firearm. There are no exceptions, whether the sale is at a store counter, or the trunk of the seller's car. In addition, if someone purchases a gun from someone else from a different state, FFL or not, the buyer must undergo a background check, and the purchase must be processed by an FFL in the buyer's home state. The only case in which a background check doesn't need to be run is private sales, from one non-FFL owner to another, who both reside in the same state.
Sixth, the reason tide pods get locked up is because someone sued. We live in a litigious society. However, there's a vast difference in the gravity of these two incidents. Locking up the Tide pods doesn't have severe negative ramifications for the security, function, and even survival of our country and society. That's the same reason that, despite the fact that cars kill faaaaaar more people than guns do per year (according to the CDC), you can still buy and sell them, and anyone can own one (even if not everyone can legally drive one), and of course, why nobody is talking about banning them. The gravity of the prospect of banning cars far outweighs those killed by them.
Some interesting notes: First, I do find it interesting how the Supreme Court always makes decisions on whether the 2nd Amendment applies to military-use weapons or civilian-use weapons, to favor the less capable of the two, having changed at least twice as stated. Second, It should also be noted that wooden dowels, belt loops, and even just pulling forward with your left arm can accomplish the same effect as a bumpstock, bumpstocks are just a way to package that back yard rifle trick and charge money for it. Third, when the Nazis began clearing the Jewish ghettos, they had no trouble doing that, except for one. Having stolen German military weapons, one ghetto managed to hold off the Nazis for a whole six months before running out of ammunition. Fourth, the reason for "assault weapon" bans is that the term "assault weapons" can be far more easily redefined than new regulations/bans can be enacted, and the effects far more broad, thus more easily facilitating the increased thinning of legal firearms. This is demonstrated by the point you made about the redefinition of bumpstocks as machine guns allowing ALL bumpstocks to be made illegal, seemingly, but not technically, violating the Constitutional provision forbidding the enactment of ex post facto laws. Fifth, on April 27, 2018, a man killed 7 children and wounded 12 more at a school in China, using a knife. Just because a gun is what you think of when pertaining to mass killing, and an "assault-style rifle" is what you think of when pertaining to a mass shooting, doesn't mean either of those are necessary. A mass shooting can be carried out with a wood-furnished deer rifle just as easily as an AR-15, and a knife can be just as deadly. The only constant is that any mass killing takes place where the killer can be most assured that his potential victims will not be armed, or protected by people who are armed.
I hope this was the kind of discourse you were hoping for, I tried to keep it brief because it's in comments, but... It seems I have failed.
This is factually incorrect. The militia centralized weapons stores for provision to militia members. So, at the start of the American revolution we have examples of colonists seizing arms from there depositories ala Lexington and Concord. Post-revolution we have examples such as the raid on Harpers Ferry by John Brown which targeted a local state militia armory.
"That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack."
Second Militia Act of 1792 (www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm)
I mean, with this and all the quotes by founding fathers about the people needing to be armed at all times it clearly shows that they knew that armories and powder stores could be attacked and cripple the militia, so it makes sense that the people should at least be able to BYOG when they show up to fight.
Depositories of spare muskets, muskets for those unable to afford them, or without a place to keep them, and small cannons, all purchased by other members of the militia who could do so, for those who couldn't. It was expected that the vast majority of the militia members would be bringing their own, it would have been logistically impossible otherwise, and of course if those civilian benefactors hadn't been able to purchase those weapons either...
Also Lexo we could mention that in many regular state units during the Civil War many soldiers in 1860 and 1861 brought their own weapons with them. That's why early combat was with muzzle loading flintlock muskets from grandad. Or later during 1864 why many soldiers privately purchased the new Henry Rifle because of it's use. Militia and even volunteer units (That gray area between regulars and militia) used their own privatly purchased weapons. This is a wonderful response. Applause all around.
>A mass shooting can be carried out with a wood-furnished deer rifle just as easily as an AR-15, and a knife can be just as deadly
Am I the only one who finds that sentence as deluded as can be?
A knife is much less deadly. We had a "mass killer" in Belgium who used knives and only managed to kill 1 person while harming a few others. Killing with a knife is actually fairly difficult.
We also had a mass killer in Belgium who used hunting rifles and only managed to kill 3. Hunting rifles are bulky and have much fewer shots.
An AR-15 can kill dozens in a span of minutes this routinely happens in the United States. This never happens anywhere else because we don't allow people to own military grade weapons.
The rest of your comment was interesting. I disagree with your opinions on the matter but that one sentence I singled out was just laughably wrong.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
Don't forget the federalist papers written by people like Hamilton after the Constitution was created that re-affirm that all citizens have the right to carry guns.
That the second amendment is under attack is a red herring. The argument has never been about revoking the 2nd amendment, it has always been about what level and type of armament constitutes "arms". Obviously, there are limits to what ordinances should be in the hands of civilians, but with "arms" potentially meaning anything from a bb gun to a nuclear tipped ICBM this is a difficult debate.
We have perfectly fine laws in place for what guns are legal and which aren't. If you want to ban accessories like bump stocks, fancy grips, etc, then go right ahead, that doesn't affect the right of citizens to own guns. However, what I'm not okay with is banning anymore guns, whether it be the 22mm Hunting Rifle (which I've shot before) or the AR 15. It's a slippery slope, and that cannot be in any way denied.
“I am increasingly persuaded that the earth belongs exclusively to the living and that one generation has no more right to bind another to it's laws and judgments than one independent nation has the right to command another.”
Thomas Jefferson
@Mystical Reviewer
It would be hilarious if they tried to ban angled foregrips. Pretty sure they'd lose that. Also, bump stocks can literally be home-made if you understand how spring poundage works.
These legislators need to go after the actual social causes of these problems and stop going after pieces of metal and plastic. Unless they plan on banning metal work and plastic-casting, they're never going to disarm the people. Nor should they ever be allowed to.
I'm still amazed how many people still misinterpret "shall not be infringed".
which regulated militia are you part of
@@andrewmckenna00 The american people, who are the militia. They didn't mean regulated like you mean today.
@@andrewmckenna00 "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Where in there does it say the right of the Militia, the right of the Army, or the right of the Government? It does not. The 2nd amendment simple affirms the right of the American people to be able to create their own Militia as well as keep and own their own firearms without infringement.
@@bulldog71ss33 Commas are hard for these people. To be fair, they can't figure out what a "Period" is either.
@@usam-zf6gc so they didn't mean the word like today's usage?
Did they want to change infringed too?
You can't pick and choose which word you want to keep and use
Hah! You got me with that 60/240 "trap", haha! Well played, sir.
Regarding Australia, you missed one very important point. We do NOT have a Second Amendment. Hell, we don't even have a 1st Amendment! We have NO legal right to the ownership or use of ANY firearm. We only have permission from the government of the day to own and use them and they proscribe the situations under which we can use them. ANY government here in Australia can totally remove the individuals right to own any firearm.
I surrendered an M1 carbine, a "full wood" .303, a jungle carbine .303 and a Winchester Defender 12 gauge shotgun and I was well paid for doing so. I mainly turned them in because I had not fired them in years. But note the "well paid" bit. Under Australian law, government cannot seize or outlaw something without the payment of compensation. I believe that this mechanism does NOT exist in the US otherwise the machine gun ban would have allowed the government to seize the weapon (or have the owner surrender it) in exchange for compensation. If this is so, it would be interesting to see how effective the bump stock removal will be. And no, I don't like bump stocks and the ATF made a huge error in approving it because it goes against the spirit of converting the weapon to fire in an automatic-like manner.
Finally, the Founding Fathers may not have known about high capacity magazines, semi-automatic weapons or machine guns but they knew weapons always evolved. There is an argument that, since there were no "modern" firearms then, the 2nd Amendment should not cover anything past December 15 1791 (the date of its adoption). Using that logic, the 1st Amendment should only cover "the press" - newspapers. And even those must be the old printing press, not TV, digital, internet, podcast or high volume computer printing, just the single plate and hand crank.
>government cannot seize or outlaw something without payment of conpensation
Sounds Orwellian. In the US, the government usually can't seize or outlaw anything, only register (which is still bad). Even in California, a magazine ban was ruled unconstitutional.
Personally I don't think a reasonable compensation would resonate a lot with firearm owners. Firearms are already fairly expensive. If they've paid it so far why give up the gun for a bit of money. I think between making a bit of money or holding onto their firearm or accessory they would choose the firearm. I could be wrong. I've been wrong before. But at least in Texas where I'm from I know there are plenty of people that are very very passionate about their firearms.
Replying to Christian - Not "Orwellian" at all. Compensation must be paid if they take your property.
Replying to Parafaragaramus - all up, it cost me about $200 to buy the rifles and shotgun. Australian government paid me $800 to turn them in.
Its the argument that keeps getting touted... "but... but... modern firearmzzzzz " . My response is to quote the 1st back to them and use the same logic. Funny, they don't see the connection.
A 4 times profit increase is great and all but I don't think America being where we're at can possibly pay that for every single gun in America considering there are about 1.2x as many guns as people, it just doesn't sound feasible. I think I paid around $3100-3500 for all the guns that I have. $12,000 would be great but personally I would never give up all my guns. I would probably sell a few but never all of them. and I think a lot of people share that same thought.
Heller didn’t give the individual the right, it verified what was always there
Exactly. This guys says that the state gives you rights? No one can give you rights. Rights can only be taken away. The default is anarchy. No laws, everyone does what they want. Laws get implemented to stop anarchy, a bunch of rights are taken away by the government. That's how it works.
@@denisl2760 Some of them are necessary and good - for example, taking away the right to murder another or steal their property.
Not that you argued that isn't the case, just felt I'd clarify for others reading.
@@CodyRockLee13 is 'murder' a right? I think a 'right' usually has a moral component to it, according to the definitions I've seen. just sayin.....
@@wickedhenderson4497 If the government doesn't make murder illegal then yes it is a right. For example in some muslim countries you have the right to murder "infidels". In the USA a mother has the right to murder an unborn baby.
@@denisl2760 no, that doesn't hold. and your examples don't back up your premise.
The founding father didn’t imagine the internet....so should free speech be limited to scrolls and town criers?
Exactly
Great point
NO. WE SHOULD MAKE OUR OWN DECISIONS BASED ON SITUATIONS AS THEY ARE TODAY, 250 YEAR OLD DEAD PEOPLE ARE OUT OF TOUCH WITH OUR NEEDS.
@@nhannguyen-sr9vh you are an idiot
@lelennyfox34 Great IDEA! wOW DID NOT KNOW hOW SmART yOU ARE!
This was 4 years ago?!? This has aged incredibly well... What people don't realize it's that ALL illegal guns were legal at some point...
As god and the 2nd amendment intended
@@betwandet41 God didn’t write the constitution. The constitution was made by a bunch of secularist humans
Well, not all, since many started manufacture after various laws that would prohibit them
When the US govt recovers all the billions of dollars of military grade weaponry it handed the Taliban. Maybe I'll listen. Or it recovers all the weapons the US govt provided the Mexican cartels maybe I'll consider taking them seriously.
So legalize them!
As a non-native speaker of English, I could be wrong, but isn't "God-given right" just a metaphor for a fundamental right?
We use "God" a lot in my native language to describe things that don't necessarily have to do much with religion and this seems like something that could also be used in that way if it were Dutch (my native language). Maybe it's different in English though!
Just wanted to point this out, because I feel like, other than that, Steven Crowder seems to be quite spot on most of the time and if he literally meant "Right given to you by God"... That'd be pretty weird.
Nice video, btw!
Both the literal and the metaphoric definitions are wrong, as explained in the video
Well being able to own a gun is actually a fundamental right in the United States as it's literally the second amendment.
Did you watch the video at all? Or only here to troll in the comments?
I did watch the entire video and it seems to be almost entirely factual, with the exception of one or two things that other comments have already pointed out. It seemed very nuanced and not biased to one side at all. Why would you call me a troll? That's a pretty easy way to kill a discussion right away.
Ghipoli I’m not sure fundamental is the right word there. It’s not a right upon which other elements of the American constitution rely. It’s not an essential element, it’s just a small detail.
“You keep jumping from one side of the fence to the other, you might just get impaled on it.”
-Landon Ricketts
Gavin Cleckler getting caught saying things contradictory to things you’re saying now and generally being seen as a flip floppier
You illiterate farmer!
"Impaled" meaning you would become permanently indecisive and become objectively unproductive to any kind of situation or discourse.
And dying a painful death, depending how the state of things are, it could either be metaphorical (as in social life), or literal (as in a long drop and barely any rope at all).
Actually pretty deep...
As a military history buff, I feel obligated to push up my metaphorical nerd glasses and correct you.
At 6:04 you said "It's important to note that at this point the only practical firearms that existed were muzzleloaded rifles, pistols, and shotguns. Lever actions and repeating rifles were still fairly new and the only machine gun in existence still needed to be carted around by a horse."
You were talking about a case that was settled in 1886. By that time...
- Winchester was coming out with it's 4th model of the lever action (5th if you count the 1860 Henry). The 1860 Henry had seen combat in the Civil War and was at least somewhat successful. They had also released the Model 1866 "Yellowboy" and the Model 1873 AKA "The Gun that Won the West". Both were very well known and had an excellent reputation.
- Colt had released 4 models of cartridge revolvers including the Model 1873 "Peacemaker" as seen in every western ever. This includes the double-action Models 1877 and 1878.
- The US main service rifle had been a cartridge loading rifle for well over a decade. The British main service rifle had been a cartridge rifle for two decades.
- Hiram Maxim had patents for his machinegun for at least 3 years, and had already started to receive genuine interest from militaries. The design would go on to redefine modern war in WWI, and see extensive service through WWII and beyond.
- The French had just shocked the world with their debut of the Lebel 1886. It was an 8-shot bolt action repeating rifle using modern smokeless powder. That rifle would continue to serve until modern assault rifles began to show up in WWII.
In summary, muzzleloaders were already obsolete by that time. In fact, we were already seeing the beginnings of weapons that would serve on well into the 20th century.
Not to mention the Puckle gun, the Girandoni rifle, the Belton repeating flintlock and the pepperbox revolver, all of which were in existence by ratification.
From what I'm reading about the Kalthoff, it doesn't sound entirely likely that any of these would be particularly "known" to those in North America at the time the constitution was written.
I'm not sure anyone really fathomed the capabilities of modern firearms on a broad scale until well into WW1.
I think he ment at the time the constitution was written and not the bill.
+Simon Lévesque The first lever action didn't appear until over 50 years after the ratification of the Constitution. The Gatling Gun he referred to as "the only machine gun" didn't appear until 60 years after ratification. It wouldn't make any sense if he were referring to the Constitution.
+EnlightenmentLiberal While I appreciate and acknowledge the existence of early designs such as the Kalthoff and the Girandoni, I stand by my previous statement.
Firstly, the Girandoni is irrelevant to the topic as it is neither a lever action nor a firearm.
Next, the Kalthoff could only be considered a lever action in the sense that it has a lever. Like you said: "The Kalthoff repeater was SIMILAR to a lever-action in function". Similar to one, but not one.
In my comment, I was referring to the Volcanic. I was also using what I consider to be the most common and most correct definition: A rifle that uses a lever to load cartridges from a magazine into the chamber.
If we cannot agree on that definition, we have reached an impasse.
Even if you consider my first point incorrect, you still have not addressed the Gatling Gun. I was arguing that he could not have been referencing the Constitution when he made the statement I addressed in my original comment.
There was a semi-automatic when the founding fathers were around, the Giradoni Air rifle was created in 1779, it was a semi automatic air rifle which was later used in the Lewis and Clark expedition and saw military service in the Austrian Army.
whether or not there were semi autos during the time of the founding is irrelevant. does that mean you have no 1a right to speak online as there was no internet then either?
But it was nowhere near as reliable as conventional flintlocks.
To be fair - this was a pretty obscure product even at that time.
Next you mention the existence of that one black powder 'machine gun' (multiple interconnected barrels, bored balls... a bit like a "roman light" firework but more deadly)...
Just because it was mentioned on Forgotten Weapons doesn't mean it was something wide-spread (as... the name of the show suggests anyways)
@@robertnett9793 Puckle gun? That thing's such a terrible weapon! How would it even avoid powder fouling and jamming?
@@jeffreygao3956 I would risk a wild guess and say - maybe that's one of the reasons why it's a 'forgotten weapon' :D
Oh - jamming by the way didn't seem the problem. The real issue was, that it took half a day to load (that's not an exaggeration) and couldn't be stopped once it went off. So you had to wait until the 220 bored bullets fired.
They told, when the enemy gave up the fight before the gun ran its course, they had to aim it on the sea surface to empty the rest out :D.
Also - powder fouling surely was an issue aboard ships in the age of sail - but that didn't stop any naval power from using gunpowder weapons anyways.
Most gun show sellers are dealers, have an FFL, and still require a background check. Yes there are private sellers at gun shows but they are the minority. AND you would have to be a resident of that state in order to legally buy from a private seller since anything else would be interstate commerce regulated by the US governent and again would require an FFL.
Sorry bub, I live right here in Nevada and you can waltz in and out of gun shows with a militias worth of arms and no background check. Your assessment is wrong.
@@DuoXCity I went to a gun show in Nevada. I live in Maryland so couldn't purchase from private sellers and they had a booth where you could get a background check b4 purchasing from an FFL. Most vendors were FFL'S; I couldn't do business with them b4 stopping at the background check table and the private sellers wouldn't give me the time of day. You might live in NV, but you don't know what you're talking about.
Justin Barnes, there have been plenty of videos debunking this, even guys on Armslist won't sell to someone who doesn't have a CWP because we don't want the liability of possibly being charged for selling to a felon. If I sell any of my guns to anyone I don't personally know that person must have a CWP. I check to make sure it is current and take a picture of it. Gun owners know the laws and I would presume non-gun owners probably don't know the laws surrounding guns since they don't take the time to do the research themselves.
BTW some of those FFL holders are also local LE, so if you are not legal to buy one and try any way you may just find yourself getting a free pair of bracelets and a free tour of the local Jail. This happened when a reporter who was not legal was trying to demonstrate exactly what you're talking about. The charges were later dropped of course.
Thomas Jefferson wrote often of the individual's right to own a firearm.
Madison also supported people owning cannons and warships.
@@jeffslote9671 hell i would love to buy a cannon. probably couldn't afford a warship though.
@F .A Just like it was yesterday... so should it be today. If you own it and use it responsibly, what's the problem? The instant you use a cannon on something that isn't responsible, you get locked up - just like any other criminal destruction of property...
@@CaptainSeamus Yes but you see the problem is that you can't simply sit back and be reactive to problems like this. There are reasons why crazy things are illegal thus people have to strain and press in order to cause massive damage. Could you imagine if any pissed off person could stroll on down to the store and just pick up some c4? The issue is that some weapons have such killing potential that the mere risk of what they can do is simply not conductive to a society.
@@maxor669" Could you imagine if any pissed off person could stroll on down to the store and just pick up some c4? " Anyone who has knowledge about chemistry can make explosive right ??? "There are reasons why crazy things are illegal" those things are "crazy" becuz power hungry politicians said so.
The fact that you collabed with The Cynical Historian gives me more reason to love your content. I love this small group of moderate historian and political youtubers that both give good answers to complex problems and create ethical and thoughtful debates based on historical precedent and logic instead of just memes and ideology.
Yeah unfortunately he’s less of a moderate in his newer content
@@Lady_Amelia-Eloise left is best ;)
This dude is 1000% a lefty
I enjoy the content, but let's not pretend he's a moderate. He's not in general (he, at least now, openly identifies as a leftist), and he wasn't really a moderate in this video either. He clearly paints the pro gun side as being unreasonable, whereas he paints gun control activists as being right other than a few fringe or uninformed ones. He is wrong about the history and purpose of the 2nd Amendment. As well as the heavy implication of rifles being to blame for most gun deaths, which is the gun equivalent to looking at transportation deaths, and then deciding that commercial planes are dangerous. He covers his ass by acknowledging that gun control wouldn't completely prevent gun violence in order to preempt any counterexamples or pointing out where he could be wrong.
@@frb5237 100% well said
I went to the nations gun show, I bought a handgun, from a private dealer, I had to take a background check.
I bought a gun from a private party online and we went to get a ffl transfer at the local gun shop, less than 1% of criminal weapons come from gun show loop holes, it's just a way to justify there laws, this video was disappointing and not moderate, it presented no counter arguments only facts he liked
@@WillBilly. Okay so where to begin. Your first statement is an anecdote that is not gonna help in a discussion as this is the united states and saying that "I did this here" means nothing. Laws are so varied between all of our jurisdictions so yeah. Your second statement doesn't have a citation so you're gonna have to show your source for that one. That is all.
Most of the time when they say “gun show loophole” they mean an individual citizen selling it to another individual citizen. Like if you buy a gun from your parent or inheritance.
@@theshrimp1657 gun shows have nothing to do with parents or inheriting firearms
Jon Ryann Erickson I know that’s why this term is terrible. Gun control groups utilized it to trick people into thinking Gun shows are some way to get guns to criminals.
In Mexico (where I have lived all my life) it takes about a year to buy one gun, there's a limit on how many guns a man can have, you're not allowed to have "military use" (9 mm, 45 .acp, 556, .50 ) semi-auto rifles unless it was a .22
It's illegal to "overharm" a criminal let alone shoot a home invader under "human rights" and the legitimate defense law which implies that the reaction of an inocent man defending himself, loved ones or/and property should never be of such force that it would incapacitate temporarily or permanently the criminal in either case you will be charged with either assault and batterie or murder, your are forced to pay compensation to the criminal or it's family and you will still go to prison. There's only one store on the whole country located on the capital. And we are the 15th country on violence 6 citys are on the top 10 most violent citys in the world as of this year 2019. So if you want to know how your regulations will result just look South and prepare to become a criminal when you're carrying a Pocket knive longer than 6 cm.
Edit: there has been an update on the time of purchase: it has been reduced to 6 months. Yet all the other limitations are still the same
Wow, now that was an informative post. Good luck to you and your family sir.
So you have no problem with Americans selling tons of guns to the cartels? We fund the cartels by buying up their drugs, we sell them tons of guns used to kill civilians and government officials, and then we turn around and try to say Mexico is a problem for the US. Mexico should beg Trump to build his wall and then shoot any American on the spot that's running guns.
Thats not true, we have very different climates, we have a very stable government and economy so crime isnt gonna skyrocket there wont suddenly be more criminals
@@dannyburke1098 yet you're giving up on your rights like we did
@@RoastedLocust The weaponry that has been confiscated is from either Europe or the middle East I've never found a single American made weapon unless your talking about 100 year old - gold plated 1911's Americans don't sell guns to the cartels it's foreign mafias who make deals with the cartels on American ground and the moment you give up the second and decriminalize criminals like the Democrats want you're going to become a 3 front warzone between those who didn't have up theire weapons (former law abiding citizens), actual criminals, and the government
12:59 Those are standard capacity just as a note, but as a pro-gun person, this is a pretty good explanation video.
I said the same thing too
I’m very much not an expert, but was he talking about legally vs the factory terminology? As in, that is the standard that comes with the weapon, but it’s legally considered high capacity? That would be my guess as to the discrepancy.
@@21Trainman most definitely he was using the legal term. In actual design speak, standard capacity is whatever the firearm was designed around. Huge discrepancy there since pro gunners are most likely to look at guns from a design standpoint, while anti gunners see it from a completely legal point of view.
@@hypnoticmoai6509 Completely _illegal_ point of view, _shall not be infringed_ is the law
@@TheSundayShooter
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
If the founding fathers thought it was important to add the first part, you ought not exclude it.
As a Ukrainian in 2022: people with guns (including/especially private military grade) play huge part in saving lives, democracy and freedom. Only thing is I agree - licence and (at least) every-year training.
I build my own guns, leave me alone.
2nd amendment argument works against “just owners”. People who don’t know how to use guns leach precious time of people who do know. And “know” not only about hitting target, but supporting gun shape and performance, and many more.
If you building your own cars, you still need licence. This licence shouldn’t require enterprise-level. This will be undemocratic. But licence newerless.
@@КирилоХацько I don't need a license to build my own car. That's only for driving on public roads. There is no gun equivalent to that.
Plus the government tracking where guns are is relatively tyrannical. I'm a leftist, and I think that all weapons except nukes should be legal.
@@ChrisJones-rd4wb there is equivalent, maybe not in US. Gun is forbidden for movement in collected state or only with lock attached. Only at workshop and “licenced” range it could be fully operational.
Government tracking is super dependent on country, I can’t comment US here.
Agree on legality. But I thought discussion about what licence should be like.
@@КирилоХацько In the US, you can shoot anywhere you have permission.
I think there should be no licensing. I am in full force for freedom over security. I also think all drugs should be legalized, and that if you really want to help gun deaths go down, try actually helping impoverished communities instead of spending money on the military fighting pointless wars.
I'd just like to point out that by law "militia" refers to all males in the US age 17 to 45. Only halfway through the video but Madison wrote that state militias "would be able to repel the danger" of a federal army, "It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops." He confidently contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he contemptuously described as "afraid to trust the people with arms." He assured his fellow citizens that they need never fear their government because "besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition." The important distinction here is Madison's use of "besides," which denotes that state militias coexist with an armed public as guarantors against tyranny, not that militias stand alone as the mechanism by which tyranny is prevented.
Addressing the bill of rights, Samuel Adams proposed that the Constitution "Be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defence of the United States, or of some one or more of them..."
It is important to note that early militias were not dependent on standardized, state-issued weaponry like conventional forces, but brought weaponry from home or were supplied by a wealthy benefactor. I believe this is where the individual right to own firearms arose.
It's also how we were able to win the revolutionary war, despite having severe mismanagement and mixed priorities from the continental congress
Ummm, the terminology "militia" they were using was referring to official militias, not just the general populace eligible to take part in military service on a state level.
Since 1956:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are-
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Before that, Madison makes a distinction between armed public and militia that you can see if you go back and read the post, but it is important to note that, as I said, the "official" militias, as you called them used weapons from a private source, e.g. their own homes or that of a wealthy benefactor's.
By 1776 the majority of privately-owned arms in the country were already committed on one side or the other and in fact it was not until the latter half of that year that states themselves began shouldering the majority of the burden of ordering new arms, superseding the committees of private citizens that had done so for the early years of the revolution. It was not until 1777 that the continental congress itself began purchasing large numbers arms for the revolution, largely from foreign governments, arms that did not materialize in any significant fashion until 1778 when French Charleville muskets became the favoured weapon of the Continental army. Madison was speaking from experience, as the revolution he fought would never have succeeded without an armed populace to sustain it through the first two years of open military hostilities. If the Patriots had been wholly reliant on arms provided by the government, it is not at all unreasonable to project that the Revolution would never have taken place, and that if it had, would have been unsuccessful.
This is what I like to see.
Actual documented evidence in Federalist 46 that shows the founders' intent. Great work.
@aleph @Samuel
The intention of the Second Amendment was to persist the allowance of state militias to exist because they were paranoid about a coup d'état by the federal army. Even so, what bearing does this have on anything?
As an Army veteran you ought to "Know Better". Your understanding of the 2nd amendment is seriously flawed.
He's a moderate. To be moderate in a polarized political environment requires compromise. The problem I have with moderates is that they are willing to compromise with my rights. "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue." Karl Hess
Yeah, I watch Crowder. His stance on the 2A is what I like best about him. Any compromise of our Constitutional rights will eventually erode all of our freedoms.
Exactly. People don’t seem to understand how the English language works. As well as the fact that there was a pretty decent historical context provided for the Second Amendment and what they intended to do with it. That they absolutely intended for it to be an individual right.
The reason the first half is left off is because the first half is inconsequential.
Here watch:
“Bears, being a difficult thing for a person to kill with their bare hands, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”
“space travel, Being something that hasn’t been invented yet, The right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”
You see? It works no matter what goes in front of it. The right belongs to “the people”
You want to argue that that’s them explaining why they were extending this right to “the people?”
Fine.
If I give you a journal to write things down in. And you decide to use your iPad. Does that mean you relinquish ownership of the journal? Does that mean I can just take it back from you since you know you don’t use it anymore? No. I gave it to you. It now belongs to you. It’s the same with “the right of the people.”
Now let’s get really crazy.
“A well regulated reproducing class, being essential to the continuation of a society, The right of women to consensual sex, shall not be infringed.”
So does the right to consensual sex belong to the reproducing class or does it belong to women? That’d be women.
Does it belong to men? No. They gave it to women.
Is this activity confined by marriage? No. It simply states consensual.
Does this limit sex to attempted reproduction? No. Once again only consensual.
So one more time. We leave the sentence structure in tact and simply change the parameters. And we arrive at the same conclusion. The right to keep and bear arms was given to “the people.“ not “the militia.“
Finally. “The militia” and “the people” are terms distinctly Applied in the constitution. Much the same as there is a distinction between “the citizens” and “the people“ made in the 14th amendment. If they had intended the right to keep and bear arms to belong to “the militia” then they would have said “the militia!” If they had intended the right to keep and bear arms to belong to “the militia“ then they would have said “the militia!“
They didn’t. They said “the people” and if you look up people like George Mason and where the origins of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights came from you’ll understand.
Speaking of which. The bill of rights? Belongs to “the people” not “the citizens.”
Anyone in the United States who is a resident? Constitutes “the people“ and is subject to the full benefit of the Bill of Rights.
Citizen or no.
Also. Do not sow disingenuously and dishonestly sit there and pretend like our forefathers had no concept of the advancement of technology. Firearms had advanced multiple times in their generation alone. And semi automatic was already something that was being whispered about. Relatively speaking the invention of the Gatling gun was not far away. I mean my God the Greeks had essentially conceived of lasers. And Quite possibly had even crudely created them. Albeit focusing beams of light from the sun And using them to take down a navy fleet. Saying that they didn’t know what was on the other side of the Mississippi does not mean that they were incapable of understanding that certain things might be over there. Or could be over there. Just like certain firearms could exist in the future.
It made no never mind to how they wrote the second.
The Heretic Many of the founders were scientists and inventors. Thinking that they couldn't foresee advancements in technology is about as ridiculous as thinking Tesla couldn't foresee advancements in technology. The Puckle gun was patented in 1718. It was a rapid fire crew served weapon with a revolving cylinder magazine. Anytime someone states that the founders couldn't foresee rapid fire weapons, tell them they already existed.
Jacques Strapp Absolutely. But I don’t consider that argument disingenuous. I simply consider it arrogant. That we were so much smarter than they are I mean...
I was trying to focus more on the absolute disingenuous interpretation
Militias had ARTILLEY CANNONS in their millitia. So they definitely intended unrestricted acces to all sorts of arms that armies would use.
So your argument about the founding fathers not knowing about the advancements of weapon technology would be invalid because they wanted millitias to be armed with the SAME weapons that armies would use, without a doubt.
States were supposed to be treated as actual states with their own functional armies(Millitia) so that the FED wont just treat them as a province like they do today.
Chlorox Bleach They also had multi-barrel mounted guns similar to the Gatling gun that had a high rate of fire.
So what you're saying is individuals have the right under the Constitution to own fully-functional tanks?
jliller yes. Your want of safety does not impede my rights
jliller I mean... who hasn't wished they could just drive a fuckin tank down the road during rush hour. Don't even need ammo, because I'd wager most people would see the tank and get hell out of the way just on the off chance they DID have ammo. Lol
Repeating weapons existed decades before the US Constitution. See the Puckle gun, from 1718. How about the 1400s Korean weapon, the Hwacha, which fires hundreds of flaming rocket arrows in a single go? Oooohhhhhh, scary, imagine firing that thing in a crowded city. The liberal definition of "assault weapon" is always changing; you can find 1800s newspapers in which ye olde progressives are in shock over the mass murder potential of the 6 shot revolver. Here's what doesn't change: The right of the people to keep and bear arms.
The term "regulated" in the time of the Constitution basically meant to be well equipped and ready for war. More government regulation was actually the opposite of what the Bill of Rights was about. Think about it, why would the militia, the means to overthrow tyrannical government, be "regulated" (in modern terms) by the tyrannical government itself? That kind of defeats the purpose, does it not? Secondly, the militia is not the main focus of the second amendment. The militia clause is merely a statement, which by itself isn't a right, it's a preface to the actual right which is the right to keep and bear arms. Had they meant that only the militia can have weapons, I think they would have wrote that, don't you think? And another thing, you can buy a cannon or even a fully functional tank right now if you want. They're subject to government overreach of course, but you can do it if you want to pay exorbitant amounts of money to the government to exercise your rights. Or not, it's not like the Patriots cared about breaking the law. At the end of the day, liberty trumps any perceived or otherwise propagandized notion of safety. All rifles including AR15s account for less than 3% of murders. I have no doubt that civilian owners of machine guns, cannons, and tanks have an even better track record than that.
I went back to the Federalist papers on the purpose of the 2A. The 2A was written in order to prevent a national standing army. It's purpose was to decentralize military forces across the states. States had control including appointment of officers and training. I refer you to Federalist #29. There is quite a bit about making the case for militias as a practical defense of the state and from a tyrannical federal government.
So far you're the only one on here that's correct.
Plus funding a large standing Army is expensive. We always downsized the Army considerably until post WWII.
@@scoot4348 instead of being a force to protect the homeland , it is now a tool of corrupt business interests abroad.
Would that also mean that a militiaman had to procure, secure, maintain and train with his own arms without relying on a centralized body?
I feel like I’m getting spun around honestly.
@@manupontheprecipice6254 Not necessarily. The state was to maintain armories with both guns (mostly muskets), powder, and ball ammo. That meant they were not reliant on only gun owners and could mobilize those who didn't own rifles.
Much like today's National Guard. They would muster, issue necessary arms and munitions, and drill. There is an assumption that everyone in the day had a rifle or musket. A baker, printer, store clerk, or carpenter in town or city might not own a rifle or musket. So the states would provide.
And god said, let there be m60's for everyone
except its a 240 bravo its a trap
Amen
There is no conversation on how and when the government should kill me for my property
Let's start one. They shouldn't even know what property you have. It's that simple. They should just go mind their own fucking business face down in a ditch somewhere.
@UNIDEN2211 She won't live long enough either don't you worry.
When that property is illegally held and you refuse to proffer it, to the endangerment of those around you. Done, answered. Though, and maybe this will make you feel better, they'd rather just take it away and then never have to deal with you again.
@@niclas9990 How is it endangerment of those around you if you have something you aren't going to commit a violent act with and the government arbitrarily decides you can't have it?
@@niclas9990 so all those people locked up for possessing marijuana "with intent to distribute" should totally be put in jail or killed if they won't go? Because that's what you're suggesting. Weed is illegal and can endanger those around you. THINK OF THE CHILDRENNNN!N@NN@#" nah but for real, think about it
You completely misrepresented Presser V. Illinois. The case ruled on the assembly of the militia, not on individuals rights to own firearms. Also the majority opinion completely ignores the Supremacy Clause.
You also ignored US V. Cruikshank which states that while the Federal Government recognizes the individuals right to keep and bear arms, it will not interfere with a state violating that right, or first amendment rights for that matter- also ignoring the Supremacy Clause.
@John Lee exactly, the tenth amendment defines what POWERS the states have, which are those not delegated to Congress, nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution. The problem though, is the way the tenth amendment is written. It says ...The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it (the Constitution) to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The problem for the states is, the second amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, as a right of the people, that shall not be infringed. The way the second ament is written, it talks about the right to keep and bear arms, as though it exists separate from the Constitution, and the second amendment merely acts as a prohibition of power to infringe upon that right of the people. No where in the Constitution, does it create the right of the people to keep and bear arms. That means it's a right that exist in nature as a natural state of being.
The first amendment, is a prohibition on Congress establishing a religion, or interference with the practice thereof. Speech, which everyone likes to use as an example of the limits of rights, is not refered to as a right, neither is the press. Those are addressed as "freedoms", separate from the RIGHT to peaceably assembly. So right there, your right to peaceably assemble is protected. The limitation, is built into the protection. Again, the right isn't created anywhere in the Constitution, it's just protected by it. If the words "shall not be infringed" didn't mean what they do, then why not just throw keeping and bearing arms in, along with everything else in the first amendment? Instead, it's narrowly written, to specifically protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
What does US v Cruikshank have to do with gun rights? Wasnt that about the Colfax Massacre?
@@dannyburke1098 In their decision, the Supreme Court acknowledged that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, but stopped short of acting on behalf of the individual if the state stepped violated that right.
While I steadfastly disagree with banning semi automatic AR15 style weapons I do respect his well thought out and articulate presentation so I liked the video.
I love how Crowder says "fundamental human rights" so fast you can barely process it. Also, loved the M60 segment.
@Bighead Tylenol what do you mean?
@@ananapanana3680 all that argument was was to piss people off
@@hellishcyberdemon7112 what argument
Healthcare is a human right but being able to have a gun isn't?
@@user-dt3kf2iw8i the beginning segment where he stated incorrect information on purpose.... doing that was on purpose
That Book of Mormon joke ensures my subscription.
My personal issue with the idea of banning "assault weapons" is that it's not clearly defined. If there's one thing that's universal of all governments, it's that they will always push past where they said they would. As it is right now, most who are calling for it define it as anything that is semi-automatic.
My issue with the overall idea of gun control laws is that the ones who perpetrate the crimes don't listen to the 20,000 state and federal laws already on the books, so how is one more going to be different?
Banning assault weapons is stupid because there is no such thing as an "assault weapon," barring things like the AT-4 and perhaps flamethrowers. Moreover, rifles and shotguns kill fewer Americans each year than knives, fists, feet, or hammers. So banning so-called assault weapons does nothing to reduce violent crime or make anyone safer.
@@Schwarzvogel1 I can't remember who it was, but there was one RUclipsr who broke it down as "assault" being a verb and not an adjective. "When you use a rifle to assault someone, *shoots a paper target* it becomes an assault rifle." He then proceeded to pull out a golf club, run down the range (he was alone at the range) and hit the target, tearing it in half. "This is now an assault golf club."
@@grifballa Exactly. Assault is a verb (or a noun) rather than an adjective, and any weapon used to attack or assail another person can be considered an "assault weapon." As for the statistic I referred to, a brief correction: Rifles and shotguns kill less than knives, fists, feet, or hammers combined. Is it disingenuous to combine these melee weapons and appendages? Not really, when you consider that a rifle or a shotgun is generally a much more effective means of killing something that hitting it over the head with $3.99 hammer from the Home Depot, stabbing said animal or person with a steak knife, or trying to perform Street Fighter combos on the target.
@Spectre 017 You are 100% correct. The AT-4 is heavily regulated, and may as well be banned for 99% of people in the U.S. I mentioned that, and flamethrowers because those types of weapons have been referred to as "assault weapons" in military parlance as they are (or in the case of flamethrowers, were) used to assault fortified positions. Flamethrowers aren't banned in most states, either... and in the U.S., the number flamethrower homicides is probably equivalent to the number of people fatally bayonetted on American soil after 1865.
The people who don't listen to the law have to come up with inventive ways of bypassing it. When you implement effective gun controls you reduce the number of weapons in circulation, meaning it's much harder for black markets to supply themselves. Even if a criminal gang still wants to get guns, it'll be so much harder for them to do so that a significant proportion are simply not going to bother. We know this is true because it's what happens everywhere else that tries it. There's a host of other reasons why gun control, if done right, will reduce criminal access to firearms, but you get the gist.
Not to mention the fact that the quantity of laws (20,000 you said) has no bearing on the efficacy of those laws. You can have a million regulations with glaring flaws and they won't be as effective as one regulation that's secure in its design.
@@SuperSupermanX1999 sure this has worked very well in the americas, just look at brazil, they outlawed guns and now there's no gun violence
Revisiting this after the school shooting yesterday in Uvalde, Texas that left 19 students and two teachers dead.
And the police did nothing
@@kittykittybangbang9367 Police arrested the parents trying to go in and save their kids, while also doing nothing.
@@kittykittybangbang9367 seems a bit suspicious
@@benwyness148 why?
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the *people* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
If they wanted to specifically say all that crap about how "only organized militias can own guns", they would've said it. They said that the *people* could own guns to be *part* of a militia.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The wording of the documents from The Founding Fathers usually referred to the government as 'the government', and the citizens as 'the people'. And the militia was seen as part of the government, only when it was actively called up, even tho it was made up of primarily citizen volunteers.
Meaning that citizens had to be armed in the first place. So of course the right to bear arms was intended to allow citizens to have firearms, and military grade firearms at that. And when the militia was not needed it was a civilian organization, or completely allowed to disband as the voluteers saw fit.
A man who owned a trading company wrote one of the founding fathers asking if they could arm their ships with cannons. The answer was a resolute yes, the cannons were protected by the Constitution. There was no military technology more devestating than cannons at the time. You can assume then that the right to own weapons equal to that of the military is protected.
might i ask why the goverment would give it self the right to have a army in a document about the rights of its people and not the one about how the govemrnt should be run might that be the better place not the bill of right of its people
Congress, already had the power, or duty, to arm the militia within the Constitution. Therefore, it makes zero sense, to argue, debate, and ratify an amendment to allow for the arming of a militia.
In the Federalist Papers, Madison was clear, in the need for individuals to have arms, because training the militia was seen as being a futile endeavor, when expecting people to leave their homes and occupations for regular training. There was also, the concern of the communities, when either their own militia would be called up, for the defense of another state, and/or the militia of near by states being used against another state, after calling up their militia. So, yeah, there is an anti tyranny reasoning, behind the intent of the second amendment.
Anyone who says, or believes the second amendment is tied to membership in any militia, is mistaken. It's more like militias are necessary, but not always reliable, not always home, and not always going to be used appropriately, so individuals need to be able to be armed themselves, to remain free. Again, why would they need to argue over an amendment, to do, what they already gave Congress the power to do?
@@judahboyd2107 Absolutly
I personally lost it after he mentioned the book of mormon as the sequel to the bible, I can't stop laughing.
I mean the New Testament is the sequel to the Torah, and other people think Islam is the sequel to the Bible. I just don't know why the creators can't just come out and say what's cannon...
I've just been looking for your comment, thank you
Yeah, that was awesome.
@@Daniel-pl1vh so is the Book of Mormon like an alternate canon to the Quran?
pretty much...
The Qur'an: The New Testament got it wrong, because Jesus wasn't the son of God or the savior of mankind, but he was an important prophet and will be at the right hand of God on the Day of Judgment.
The Book of Mormon: The New Testament got it wrong, because Jesus will return in Missouri, not Palestine.
"Sporting weapons" include firearms used in competition. In 1994, magazines with a capacity greater than 10 were not made "illegal to own," they were made illegal to transfer and purchase. Many pistols and rifle owners maintained standard capacity magazine for those platforms, magazines with sometimes 11, 12, 15, 17, 20, 30, 42, or 50 round capacity, in a perfectly legal manner, until tha ban, thankfully, sunsetted in 2004.
The good old days when there was a like to dislike ratio...
There are Chrome extentions allowing you to still see and use dislike knobs and ratio's :)
I’m an Australian firearm license holder, self defense is NOT a ‘genuine reason’ to own a firearm in the eyes of our government.
bruh
That's terrible
I am sorry that your government has no respect for your people. Good luck to you over there
@@appamanplan8933 but it is a show of respect. their govt doesnt want another Port Arthur to happen, so they decided to do something about it.
Lucky you for getting to live there. I wish America was like that.
I like your videos, I often find myself disagreeing and agreeing with it in a span of minutes which is really cool, actually. However, in the beginning of this video you made a mistake that I just couldn’t get past, “your right to own a gun comes from the government”. That’s inaccurate, the constitution of the US isn’t about describing what citizens can do but about describing what government cannot do. It may seem like a triviality but it really isn’t, the Founding Fathers sought to protect what they thought was basic rights for every citizen and bearing arms was one of them. Following the logic you described one would have to conclude that the right of free-expression also comes from the government since it’s written in the 1st amendment, but that’s not how it works.
Anything that’s given can be taken away and the Founding Fathers knew that, that’s why they didn’t write “you’re allowed to have guns” but instead “the government is prohibited from taking your guns”, or “you’re allowed to say whatever you want” but “the government can’t prohibit you form saying what you want”. That constitutional understanding has shaped American jurisprudence ever since its inception and it’s the reason why you Americans have such a solid justice system. Trust me, coming from a country that’s had over 4 Constitutions last century alone all of which have had over 2000 articles trying to list everything citizens can and cannot do, this distinction matters A LOT.
Mentor WELL STATED!! You are absolutely correct. I was startled when he said the gov gives the right to own firearms. And yes, Jesus said to take up your sword when going out into the world
Damn you kicked that one perfectly centered between the goal posts.
If only all of the people in our legislative, judicial, and executive branches understood that concept and abided by it unerringly.
TheMentor 13 THANK YOU! “God given rights” isn’t reciting any Christian bible but the right of being alive, existing and being present. Since god created us. It’s our “god given right” to protect ourself regardless of what you use. That’s what our founding fathers meant and intended. It’s ludicrous to think if some one is seriously try to inflict bodily harm to me, I just can’t protect myself. “Oh no, I I’m getting attacked! I can’t do anything about it because I’m afraid of the consequences I’ll suffer if I live” 😂😂
TheMentor this argument is stupid on multiple levels. By the very fact of being a individual, you are a being who should be able to do whatever they want to themselves. Why are drugs illegal? Why was homosexuality illegal for decades? Why can't a men/women have multiple spouses? World does not work by that retarded ideology that you preach, government grants permission.
@@aratosm t. Illiterate moron
I'm from the UK, all the times I've visited the US I have never been aware of anyone having a gun.
However when I have visited Isreal guns were very visible among civilians (Jews not Arabs). The weapons were mostly automatic rifles or machine guns. Also they had more than one magazine for their weapon. I saw teachers with machine guns escorting students.
When UK police carry weapons they have automatic rifles, not pistols.
I don't understand what are you even trying to say.
And also a place that is 22 072 km^2 and with up to 1 500 000 people who are fit and trained for military service it would make sense that you would see so many. Along with that, you may have heard of a small little conflict between Israel and its neighbors, in response to terrorists they have more people around with guns as security.
I highly doubt that you saw a school teacher with a machine gun escorting kids unless you were in a dangerous area or it was at a high-risk time, why would they risk their children.
I was in Israel for a month and did a complete tour on a bus with 60 others, pretty nice target, the only security we had was a security guard with a 9mm and that was only when we had to go through the west bank.
What city did you see the teacher in at what was the situation??
Considering Israel is in a permanent state of war...
Yea. Israel is a fascist apartheid state. Makes sense the enslaving class has guns. I studied in the US for 5 years. Called the cops on anyone i saw with a gun (i lived in a college town). Was so much fun seeing them get thrown off campus
@@Froggeh92 tattling to the authorities for your own narcissistic pleasure is fascistic in its own right, don’t come back ✌️
@@j.a.b.nijenhuis8124 I used a lot of words in that comment, which one in particular and how wasn’t it properly applied?
hey man long time fan and I just want to say, rewatching your videos as an adult with completely different opinions is wild, I really appreciate you linking other videos to expand on the subject, you're recent content has been great too.
Also, The Book of Mormon is not a sequel. More like fan fiction.
Tbh the New Testament is already a fanfic. Which makes the BoM a fanfic of a fanfic. Rip Mormons.
Its so funny how the book of Mormon never makes an appearance in any debate that could include religion so seeing him just mention it as a sequel and hold it up had me laughing to tears. just so out of left field for me- but i prefer not to think of it like a fanfic- more like the toy story series. one is good, two is great but three just blows everything out of the water (we dont talk about the fourth to be seen- RIP dead sea scrolls)
I really liked this part, because I refer to it as "the sequel" pretty commonly, and see it all the time cause I live in SLC. In reality, most major world religions are sequels (fanfic) to the Old Testament (which is a nice polished anthology of stories that predate Judiasm and Christianity)
And the Bible is fiction 💁🏼♂️
You mean like the Ars Goetia?
They did say individuals could own guns. A merchant asked mailed a founding father if he could own cannons on his ships to protect from piracy and they referred to the 2nd and said yes.
I think what KB's context is that at the time, the legal documents of the nation were not in favor of Private Arms, or could be interpreted as such. The personal opinion of a founding father would be valuable but not a source for a legal argument.
Harry Evans however if majority opposed private owner ship than it would have been written to say that. It wasn’t and a merchant was allowed a military grade weapon for the time by the founding fathers. Pretty cut and dry
@@ethanbazinet5099 It is only cut and dry if you ignore the context of WHY he was allowed those cannons. He was only allowed those arms due to Jefferson's barbary war.
There's a clear difference between having such cannons on a trade ship rather than in your house.
Camron Yearout why?. Protecting life is far more important than goods. And you could argue the ship was his house and many others at least for periods of times. Also that was his business. They let him have them to protect his business and temporary home so everybody should be allowed to.
@@ethanbazinet5099 Life is worth protecting so that's why arms are necessary. If you remove firearms from the situation, you leave yourself open to be "ruled" by the healthy, the strong, and the mob. No minority party should have to fear for their life simply because they are the minority. No wheelchair bound person should need the protection of other, healthy individuals.
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self defense.
-Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers, 28
They do constantly and I've rarely seen anyone do anything about it. Endlessly corrupt politicians are a meme at this point.
Thanks, we shall all keep this in mind as the Trump administration commences...
Ellimist000 umm the trump administration has been going in for almost two years now. His entire time in office has been spent fulfilling campaign promises that his constituents voted for. He is far from being hostile to his constituents.
@@hummerskickassLol they were saying the same thing two years into the Bush administration. It is less true now, give it time. Also, considering he lost the popular vote by a margin unusual for our politics and he has been rivaling Bush's popularity in the latter years of his office, it is even less relevant. If you mean "constituents" in the sense of "the specific (minority of) people that voted for one leader", then your statement could be said to be true of a certain 20th-century German ruler as well. Say what you will about that guy, but he kept HIS promises too. The questionable relevance of the Hamilton quote to the gun control issue aside, this is not what Hamilton meant by the words "*representatives* betray *their* constituents" and you know it.
If there comes a need for the citizens of the USA to overthrow the government then it's gonna be rather difficult without tanks, rocket launchers, bunker piercing bombs, aircraft to deliver those, fighter aircraft to defend those and possibly a few thermonuclear bombs.
16:02 The exception to this might be the Kalthoff Repeater. Sure, you had to manually use the reloading mechanism, but you could, if you were a good-enough user, fire up to 60 rounds inside a minute. Which is certainly something.
To point out that during the founder's time, gunsmiths were trying to create guns to rapidly fire and instantly reload themselves. They were not successful as in terms of recreating something that we have today but for the most part they had the idea. Saying that people couldn't fathom what guns would be like today is like me having a hard time trying to see what heath-care would be like in the future. I don't know what it would be like exactly, but I know it should be better from what we've already accomplished health wise.
Thomas Jefferson actually owned a gun that could hold multiple shots. Machine gun technology was barely 100 years later.
They had several different repeating guns at the time, just nothing that worked smoothly like today. Or if it did, the gun was either to expensive for most, or so hard to maintain it was more a novity item.
And as a goverement, you go for tried and true, over experimental when equipping an army.
Congress actually looked at purchasing some "assault style weapons", but they were deemed to expensive.
Exactly. Even in a militaristic sense there is star wars. There are laser guns, laser swords, huge capital ships, light weight and effective armor, health regenerative tanks, 100% effective robot arms, hyper drives, etc. I can conceptualize all of this, yet we are 100's if not 1000's of years away from this.