Gun Control | The Complete Moderate's Guide
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 12 май 2018
- Because of recent events, many people have become serious about wanting to have a conversation about gun control. Let's discuss the history of laws, Supreme Court decisions, and vocabulary so that we can all engage in that conversation on equal footing.
Website ► knowingbetter.tv
Store ► standard.tv/knowingbetter
Patreon ► / knowingbetter
Paypal ► paypal.me/knowingbetter
Twitter ► / knowingbetteryt
Twitch ► / knowingbetteryt
Facebook ► / knowingbetteryt
Instagram ► / knowingbetteryt
Reddit ► / knowingbetter
---
Thanks to Cynical Historian for lending his voice:
/ cynicalhistorian
/ cynical_history
---
D.C. v. Heller - Mr. Beat - • Strengthening the Seco...
Guns in the Third Reich - A Response to Ben Shapiro and Others - Three Arrows - • Guns in the Third Reic...
Would Australian gun control work in the USA? - Cynical Historian - • Would Australian gun c...
What's the 2nd Amendment mean? (according to the US Supreme Court) - Cynical Historian - • What's the 2nd Amendme...
Gun Control in America (the actual laws and history) - Cynical Historian - • Gun Control in America...
jeffsachs.org/wp-content/uploa...
[Australian Gun Control Facts]
www.npr.org/2018/03/27/597259...
[John Paul Stevens on Repeal]
pressroom.dicks.com/press-info...
[DICK'S Sporting Goods Statement]
www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html
[Federalist Papers on 2nd Amendment]
www.politifact.com/truth-o-met...
[Gun Show Loophole]
www.washingtonpost.com/news/w...
[Assault Weapons Ban]
www.firearmtutorials.com/index...
[Machine Gun Ban]
---
Video Credits -
The Devastating Mk 19 Grenade Launcher In Action / Shooting [ Mark 19, 40 mm ] - Military Archive - • Mk 19 Grenade Launcher...
DAVID HOGG: The Unfiltered, Unpopular Truth! | Louder With Crowder - StevenCrowder - • DAVID HOGG: The Unfilt...
How to Make Your AR-15 "FULLY AUTOMATIC" (Sorta) (100% Legal) - UpNorthOutdoors - • Video
How does a Machine Gun Work, Full Auto AR15 Explained M4, M16 - modernpawn - • How does a Machine Gun...
DC: BEN CARSON ON NAZI GUN CONTROL, HOLOCAUST - CNN - • DC: BEN CARSON ON NAZI...
Photo Credits can be found at -
docs.google.com/document/d/1S...
Music Credits -
"Furious Freak" and "Inspired" by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License
creativecommons.org/licenses/b...
Intro Art and Channel Avatar by PoetheWonderCat
/ thatcatnamedpoe
---
Hashtags: #politics #government #2A #guns #gun #guncontrol #guncontrolnow #gunviolence #laws #gunlaws #ar15 #firearms #rifle #parkland #NRA
-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
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?
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?
@@user-xs4mu8xm7d 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.
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
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
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.
"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 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
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
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 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.
You almost got me with the m60 240B bit. I just bit my lips and tried to not have a stroke.
Yeah, he talked about his MOS and then said m60, i was like wtf
nice double entendre lol
Same lol
Yeah wtf? Edit: ah yeah.. lol
I almost was going to write a sarcastic comment about this like “ItS nOt A m60 ItS a 240B” just as a joke
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.
"Australia has just a little more [gun control] and they are not living under a tryrannical government." Which country had mandatory covid internment camps again?
"Tyranny is not being able to spread my illness to other people, and people doing reasonable measures to protect themselves from that."
@@PrincessEev so your idea of reasonable measures is armed men forcibly relocating you to a camp for an indeterminate amount of time. You would have fit in great in 1938 Germany. Out of curiosity, what's your favorite shoe polish flavor?
@@PrincessEev are you saying people who cough need to be sent to prison?
Owning a weapon, any weapon, is not an inherently violent act. Confiscating one at gunpoint is
As my early gun instructor said, and gun is NOT a weapon until a bad guy makes the bad decision that causes the need for me to use it as one!
@Turquoise Cheetah Didn't say harmed, said murdered. Bit of a difference
@Turquoise Cheetah Exactly. Someone should have told the Dodo bird it had a right to not be assaulted or murdered and maybe it wouldn't have gone extinct. But it never had that "right", it had the right to defend itself from predators but it didn't have the means or ability to and that's why humans are still around and the Dodo is no more.
Good point
100%
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 almost called you out on the M-60 comment. I'm glad I waited
thats not an m60
edit: oh
He put you on his Twitter lol
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
@@user-uk2tv1bz9r
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 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.
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.
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.
@@user-hj8rn5wp8z 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.
@@user-hj8rn5wp8z 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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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 *. . .*
"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...
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.
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?
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.
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.
Hah! You got me with that 60/240 "trap", haha! Well played, sir.
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!
"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.
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.
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
@@user-lv1il4wl9k 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.
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
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 (!)
>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.
Interestingly the military DOES have SBRs and SBSs which conflicts with that ruling.
I really like the term "juice box" for an electronic weapon's battery.
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
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.
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
@@KelgorothTheFinalShape 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
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.
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
"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.
@@---675 "dont listen to one of the founding fathers of the united states of america, when it comes to interpreting their laws" lol wut?
@@---675 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.
@@---675 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
@@---675 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?
@@---675 i stopped at, "its ambiguous". "shall not infringe",simple.
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.
Man, watching this and the Quartering Troops video about creating crime really hits different with the brace bans being considered. You weren’t a felon yesterday, but now that piece of plastic is getting you thrown in prison.
iT hIt DiFfErEnT… you aren’t under attack because specific types of attachments and weapon systems are regulated
@@BlackOpMercyGaming didn’t say that, only that the law and being a criminal is a very flexible thing - we’re all taught that law is something you should obey, and many are taught that the law is connected deeply with morality in some way, but it really is ultimately just the current opinion of the state. I’m not claiming to be victimized by it, I’m not an anarchist, and a lot of time the state’s opinion runs parallel to my own, but when it doesn’t… well, it really puts into perspective just how massive a bludgeon the law can be in the hands of the government. Especially when wielded by a group that is significantly less accountable than elected officials, if they’re even accountable to anyone at all.
@@BlackOpMercyGaming ATF unequivocally admitted arm braces are not stocks and then contradicted themselves just to felonize people. The "regulation means that bans or confiscations are OK" argument is idiotic at best
@@TheSundayShooterlol, what the fuck are you even talking about? Come back when you have enough brain cells to comment something even tangentially related to what I actually said, thanks
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
Great vid, man! Would recommend this to anyone unfamiliar with gun laws or even just guns in general. I thought I understood the definitions but I had no idea "assault weapon" and "assault rifle" were different things.
Damn TZ, didn't expect to see you here
Anyone calling this a great video doesn't understand the basic concepts of liberty, America's founding, or America's founding documents. But he does get credit for exposing people's knowledge on this issue from anyone who thinks it's a great video.
The creator did not mention that Australia banned a reason for owning a gun to be self defense.
that distinction was blurred intentionally
Teir zoo I love you I’m a huge fan
A collab of two great people: KB and Cypher from Cynical Historian. Nicely done. 😀
Meanwhile some of my countrymen are using the higher rate of gun crime in the USA compared to my country to argue that we're ungrateful for our safety & security if we ask for more civil liberty
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.
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
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
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 :)
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?
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.
lol ngl I had to delete my “tHatS nOt a m60” comment😂😂😂
I go back and watch these and now that my RUclips algorithm has been skewing to more educational videos I recognized a lot more the voices
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%.
That's not an M60, that's a bow with fast charge, power 5 and a texture pack
Very informative! I learned a lot, thank you.
Damn! Now I know what a 'Bump' stock is. That is a work of genius (From an engineering point of view)
Yup! Marvelous, ain't it! :D
you can do the same thing with inertia and your thumb
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.
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.
"Ohhh, I'd kill you if I had my gun!!"
"Yeah, well ya don't."
"Oh... I'm going to kill you for your valuables!" "Not if I shoot you first. Better you find an unarmed person who wants to take away my right to defend myself." Why do some people value the life of a junkie, thief, murderer, rapist, etc., more than the life of a law abiding citizen?
When you get a license for scuba diving, it's not a lifetime stamp where you can just do whatever you want. If you haven't done any diving for more than a year you must do a refresh before going down. Operating scuba gear is very much like managing a gun. You need care and responsibility in order to stay alive under pressure. And if you won't treat it right, your gear will be the death of you.
Gun ownership should be similar to scuba diving, and maybe we can reach the death roll for scuba.
But most crimes with firearms are committed by illegal obtained firearms? This would only effect those who actually follow the law.
@@pizzagamers2245 you live in a very sad reality.
@@shlomgarYou arent giving a proper rebuttal to their arguement, you are attacking them because they are mentioning a fact that contradicts your statement.
@@SilverState99 my aim is not to attack anyone.
I'm living in a country where most citizens are proficient in gun operation, but also where most people live without owning a gun, unless they live in a dangerous part of the country.
Lately my country was under attack by terrorists who killed hundreds of people, now more and more people are buying firearms. It is sad, as people owning guns did not block attackers that day, but in several cases, a well trained designated force with access to a gunnery did.
I'm not against guns, or use of force, I am against the carefree arming of an entire population.
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
Because a vast majority of shootings happen with handguns, and even half of all mass shootings and half of all mass shooting deaths happen with handguns. See the data provided for Mother Jones which supports this assertion.
Those features do not make the guns more dangerous in the context of civilian shootings nor civilian mass shootings. A civilian mass shooter does not use a bayonet. A collapsible stock is a sideshow when the real killer is handguns. Any focus on semiauto rifles of any kind is misplaced because handguns are as dangerous or more dangerous in practically every single civilian mass shooting. For example, Virginia Tech was handguns only, and only 10 round magazines, with a few 15 round magazines.
Reloading speed also doesn't really matter. Specifically, magazine capacity really doesn't matter. Mass shootings happen over many minutes, not seconds, which means that the shooter has all the time in the world to reload. It takes only a few seconds to replace a box magazine. It does not substantially change the rate of fire. Practically no mass shooters are ever stopped by being tackled during a reload. The poster child of this happening was the Gabby Giffords shooter, but what happened there was that his gun broke - he successfully loaded a new box magazine, but the spring in the new box magazine broke, and then he started to run away, and only then was he tackled. Most liberal-leaning news sites do not report this correctly, and it pisses me off. From what I can tell, only one mass shooter ever was stopped during reloading, and it was a shooting on a train or subway car, e.g. a very enclosed space.
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
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
A few more things.
Miller v US, Miller’s lawyer never showed up for final arguments…worth noting.
Also worth noting, the decision of Miller v US, actually supports removing SBRs and SBSes from the NFA list, because in the modern military both are used. The shotguns we had on my ship Al had barrels shorter than what’s legal without a tax stamp. MP5s and M4 variants with 12” barrels or even less have all been used by the military for decades now.
Also as for Australia’s gun laws ‘eliminating’ mass shootings, there aren’t remotely enough mass shooting data points in that country to support such a claim since they were so rare before the bans.
Also ‘military style rifle’ is an extremely dangerous term. Modern military style? Historically military style? What portion of the military? By any honest metric my grandpa’s deer rifle would fall under that classification because the military has used the same model of bolt action rifle as a sniper rifle and I believe still does.
Also Thomas Jefferson owned a semi-automatic rifle. It operated off of compressed air and had a 10 rd magazine. He loaned it the Lewis and Clark expedition.
I will accept further restrictions on guns when there’s further restrictions on cars and who can have children.
To this day cars still kill roughly as many people as guns in the US, yet no background check into mental stability or driving record is required to buy a car, and anyone can sell anyone a car. unfit parents ruin the lives of more children every year than guns do.
there's also one more thing i wish you would have mentioned, because at the very end you are 100% right, claiming a god given right, or any other deflection is just that a deflection. by the same token gun control advocates love to whine about why 2A advocates won't compromise.
well its simple, because gun control advocates won't compromise either. the debate boils down to 2 simple sides. more gun restrictions, vs no more gun restrictions. if you're demanding gun restrictions, no matter how minor, you're not demanding a compromise, you're demanding a capitulation.
so here's my compromise, over turn the NFA, and machine gun ban, and i will happily register every weapon I own and submit 20 hours of training for every type of weapon i want to buy and own. military service and training would count just like it does now for carry permits. this would mean i would be able to go out and purchase a 25mm chaingun if i had the money and space. unfortunately i never got qualified on GFCS so i would have to submit to 20 hours of training to own a 5" gun if i had the money...or space...or method of transport for it...so like it or not, this is what compromise looks like. it might be a bit extreme, but it makes my point. if you're advocating for more restrictions don't ask for compromise if you're not willing to give us anything back in return, because keeping what we already have is not a bargaining chip, when you can't realistically get what you call 'compromise' without our support.
if you want to reduce gun violence, i have 3 ways of doing so that will work better than any gun laws.
increase the DoE's budget to improve education.
provide free healthcare including mental healthcare.
provide universal basic income to everyone.
do these 3 things and gun violence will decrease, along with knife violence, blunt object violence, unarmed violence, and automobile violence and what ever other sub category of violence you can think of.
the things that cause most of the violence in the world are poverty, poor education, and mental instability. better pay, education, and healthcare are the reasons why other 'developed' countries have less violence over all per capita than the US.
see, i told you i'm a moderate at the very least.
Bro that australia isnt living under a tyrannical government line aged like milk
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.
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.
shall not be infringed fans vs average under no pretext enjoyers
comrade :D
Funny how cringe commies are the ones supporting gun bans, and think nobody has a right to own firearms to defend themselves from the hoards of useful idiots. You people are the most delusional folk in existence.
You are misrepresenting the Australian situation on a few of key points.
1> Semi-Automatic rifles are banned. The only rifles you can own are bolt action or lever action.
2> Pump action shotguns are banned. Like Britain. Shotguns are limited to single and double barrel versions. There has been a loophole for lever action, and straight draw shotguns, though this will probably be closed soon.
3> Pistols are extremely hard to get. The process to get a pistol licence, including mandatory training and background checks takes about a year and a significant time and financial commitment.
4> Your guns may be sized by the police at any time, without cause. However, if you are the subject of a domestic valence complaint or apprehensive violence order (someone has a fear of you), of if you have ever sought help for a mental health issue (even 15 years later) your guns may be seized.
I hope that adds some context.
“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...
@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
Again, just to clarify this briefly as opposed to my earlier comment.
The Constitution granted government rights, not the people. The people have all rights not specifically granted to the government. The Bill of Rights highlighted things the government specifically can't do.
Where has this channel been all my life
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.
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?
Man him saying the Australian government wasn't tyrannical didn't age well.
Based on what?
@@aces92E Ask them yourself
@@Malthanos I’m an Aussie, I’m asking you because I’m not sure what you’re on about.
@@aces92E it'll come to you bud, give it time.
@@Malthanos Don’t care to give an example? Based on my experience your comment is utter nonsense.
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.
"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
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.
Actually, the Declaration of Independence says we are endowed by our creator with an unstated number of inalienable rights, and that “…AMONG these are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Note that phrase; “among these”. It does NOT say, as was implied in the video, that these are the only inalienable rights.
Still does not include guns, it's just that the remainder rights were not listed and guns are not a right granted by the creator, and therefore is a right granted by the government. Guns do not come with a blessing from God.
@TheTheotherfoot because tools for defending your life changes. Swords, bows, baseball bat. Why would the word gun be used specifically when like I said tools change but the intent of those tools remain the same. Arms mean literally any weapon. To protect our liberty and life we must be able to own the tools to do so.
I think your presentation was pretty fairly balanced. One thing I'm a bit hung up on though is the 2nd amendment in the Bill of Rights where all other rights seem universal - which is to say for all people, not just a subset. I think you may have been implying that the 2nd amendment was just for militia members, which when thinking of rights as universal doesn't add up. Thank you.
Yep. I’ve yet to hear any constitutional scholars, let alone some RUclips video, present evidence to explain how the 2A and the phrase “the right of the people” is actually supposed to be interpreted as "the right of the state/militia" and how unlike the other amendments, it does not actually guarantee any individual right, despite the fact that “the people” or "the right of the people" in the same bill of rights is interpreted to positively guarantee individual rights in all amendments in which it appears. I have not heard coherent arguments to clarify why the "the people" and "the militia/states", can be used interchangeably in the 2A, while use of "the people" to refer to a governmental entity, does not happen anywhere else in the bill of rights.
Their arguments basically boil down to, “it wasn’t an individual right because it was for state regulated militias, which aren’t even around anymore”. That argument entirely ignores the phrase "the right of the people". We are supposed to just accept that "the right of the people" means "the right of the state/militia/government" without any specific quotes, laws or evidence that reinforces the idea that the founders did not intend for individuals to keep and bear arms, but rather, it was only for the states and their well-regulated militias. The first court case mentioned that restricts individual rights was almost 100 years AFTER the bill of rights was written. Knowing Better just states it as fact that the second amendment was a right for the state militias, and not the people. And to support that fact, Federalist Papers 28, 29, and 46 are referenced in their discussion of militias - but notice how no direct quotes or excerpts from those papers were used. The papers discuss why having an armed populace, that can form militias, is important for a free state. Those papers do not debunk or invalidate the individual right to arms, nor do they infer that the state should regulate or control individual ownership, nor do they explain how "the right of the people" actually means "the right of the state".
It’s also an outright lie that the founding fathers never commented on individuals owning arms. There are many quotes from them that flesh-out their thoughts and reasoning over individuals keeping and bearing arms, and who they thought the militia was/should be. Per gun control advocates, apparently, the founding fathers discussed every other right and its importance in detail, except for the 2A, and never thought to address how “the right of the people” phrase meant something else entirely in contrast to the other amendments, while they literally just fought a war with individually-owned arms, against a government that tried to seize their weapons. To say that they intended for the government to regulate the peoples’ right to keep and bear arms is just an absurd and dishonest statement.
If they didn’t want individuals to own arms, they would have specifically given congress the right to regulate it or they would have specified "the states" instead of "the people" in the 2A. And if the argument is that they just didn't care about individual ownership, they just wouldn’t have enumerated the right at all, and it would’ve been left up to the states anyway to decide for themselves, via the 9A and 10A.
@@rw0037 "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." is the full amendment, keeping in mind that they were against a standing army when it was written and only wanted militias, so that there would not be a military coup. Soldiers also just had a bad reputation in the 1700s, at least in English speaking parts of the world. In the state regulated militias you commonly had to provide your own firearm, some states would reimburse you however. The reading that you are arguing against is the reading that was understood until recently. Even former Chief Justice of the SCOTUS ('69-'86) Warren Burger called the modern interpretation "fraud" perpetrated by special interest groups (referring to the NRA), and that it should be regulated the same as automobiles, which has had said in interviews and written opinion pieces about.
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
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.
When I went through the Ranger Indoctrination Program at 2/75 INF ABN RGR at Ft Lewis Wa in 1982 my instructor, Sgt Sweeney I think, defined assault rifle as, "A shoulder fired, gas operated, magazine fed, SELECT FIRE, rifle of intermediate caliber." Any semi-automatic rifle does NOT qualify as an assault rifle.
I see you didn’t watch the video
I would like to see Firearm safety taught in High School along with Drivers Ed, and it should include a trip to the firing range to actually fire a gun, so of course I am all for a License to own and use guns as well as titles for the guns. I would also like to see an INTRAstate exchange program for students, where inner city kids can spend a year with a rural family and visa versa, to see into each others worlds, walk a mile in each others shoes. I think if we open the eyes and minds of young people, we get more understanding and compassion for both sides of the issue as adults.
Used to happen...right up until the 1970's. And then it still the mid 90's. As far as I know, only one school shooting was attempted during that time and it was quickly dealt with, with zero casualties.
Whether or not you will drive a car, you are expected to know how tp safely use the roads...same should go for guns. They exist, so people shoupd know how to safely handle them.
Firearm safety should definitely be taught in schools, even if just because of the prevalence of guns in the country. It is part of the curriculum that disappeared as no longer needed or old fashioned along with driver's education (in a large majority of schools around the country), basic household accounting and tax preparation, home economics, and other "life skills". These are all highly likely to be useful to everyone in daily life, but now tend to be handled outside of school. The issue I have with requiring firearms licensure is that unlike driving, ownership of firearms is a constitutional right. Everything codified within the Bill of Rights are guaranteed essential rights and civil liberties. You do not need a license to have free speech, or privacy, or trial by a jury of your peers, or protection of unreasonable searches and seizures, so why would you have to for the keeping and bearing of arms? Regardless of where you fall on the gun control debate, without a Constitutional Amendment gun licenses would not reliably hold up in the Supreme Court. Titles for guns is another matter, with both pros and cons depending on which side of the argument you land on. There is a lot of open gray area in how much restriction can be placed on guaranteed essential rights and civil liberties still to work out, and judging by the many restrictions and rollbacks of restrictions for even things like the First Amendment over the years (one's ability to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, defamation, fake news, what and where can constitute free assembly, etc.), it will not be set in stone any time soon.
Terrible idea. The only guns children should ever be using are paintball, water, and video game related.
I can't agree more on firearm safety being taught in High School
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
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?
Crazy that five years later the mass shooting issue in America has only gotten worse 😢
I disagree with your reading of the second amendment's intent. It's important to realize that weapons were a part of daily life for rural farmers within that community, and ensuring that they had weapons. Specific founding fathers, such as Madison and Jefferson, also made references to the ownership of these weapons by 'the people' as opposed to 'militia'. Militia in these days also simply could be used to refer to minutemen and other types of fast reacting forces that were more or less civilians of a specific community.
'He contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he described as "afraid to trust the people with arms"'
Now a lot of this was written in the federalist papers, but I think it's worth noting. Furthermore, the entire amendment itself differentiates between the people and the 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.'
This should be read as (for our modern understanding) 'For the sake of a well regulated militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'.
None of this to take away from the points made in your video. Strict constitutionalism isn't necessarily the correct choice (The fact that the supreme court even reviews laws against the constitution, for example, didn't come until 1803).