The Complete Moderate’s Guide to Gun Control

The Complete Moderate’s Guide to Gun Control


If you’ve been following my channel for
a while, you know that every once in a while, I like to put out a video that completely
destroys my subscriber count or ruins my like to dislike ratio. So in keeping with that spirit, let’s take
a few minutes to talk about guns. I’ve learned that it’s become strangely
important to give your credentials before anyone takes you seriously regarding this
issue. It’s a lot like gaming, this is the new
having your rig specs down in your forum signature. So firstly, I am a political moderate. Look, even facebook, which knows all my secrets,
labelled me as one! As a result I’ve been called both a libtard
and a nazi, sometimes on the same video. Being in the middle is a lot of fun, trust
me. So my goal with this video is not to sway
you one direction or another. What I hope to accomplish is to serve as somewhat
of a bridge between the two sides. I want you to understand where we were, where
we are, and where some people want us to go, and at least be able to use the same vocabulary
moving forward. So, I am going to talk about some of the proposals
for gun control in the future, and I know that just addressing them instead of dismissing
them right out of hand must mean that I want to destroy America or something. I don’t, in fact, the eagle-eyed among you
probably noticed that facebook also seems to know that I am a veteran. Here I am holding an M60… this is definitely
my favorite picture, I look like a total bamf. I was in the army for 7 years – yes seven,
I was stop-lossed during my deployment… Thanks Obama. My first MOS was as a Field Artillery Cannon
Crewmember, which also means I was a crew served weapons specialist. I fired everything from the 155mm Howitzer
to the 9mm Pistol to the Mark19 Automatic Grenade launcher – yes that is a thing and
yes it is just as ridiculous as you imagine. Later, I changed over to the Signal Corps,
but then I was deployed. I was in Iraq from 2009 to 2010 where I served
as a convoy security gunner, running back and forth between Nasiriyah, Iraq and the
Kuwaiti border – where this picture was taken. 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. It’s a trap! So where does your right to own a gun come
from? And the policies that you’re proposing,
which by the way strip other people of their fundamental human rights. Fundamental human right… You keep using that word, I do not think that
means what you think it means. A fundamental human right is something that
explicitly isn’t written like the right to privacy or the right to have a name. If it’s written down as part of a law somewhere,
it’s not a fundamental human right. Now I know what he’s stretching that to
mean – the right to self-defense and self-preservation. And he is kind of right when it comes to that,
but there’s no guarantee of what tools can be used, that part has to be written. Even the right to not be owned by another
person had to be written down, that’s how vague and abstract fundamental human rights
are. But in the gun debate, many people will assert
that it’s a god-given right. Now, I’ve read this book once or twice and
I’ve even skimmed through other translations of the same book… and … guns and firearms
are never mentioned… I am allowed to own people in these though
so, that’s… weird. I’ve even read the sequel which was written
well after guns were invented and they’re not in here either, so maybe I’m missing
something. God is never mentioned in the Constitution
either. Your “creator” is in the Declaration of
Independence, but that’s not law, it was written over a decade before the Constitution. And you’re only endowed by your creator
with three inalienable rights: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What’s interesting about that last one is
that in the original draft, it was the pursuit of property, so… it’s a little strange
that god-given rights are up to human revision. But that’s not the point, I’m not trying
to bash on religion or anything. Your right to own a gun comes from the government,
not some supreme being or some inherent human-ness, but the Constitution, specifically the Second
Amendment. 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. Now here’s where I’m going to start losing
people – as if I didn’t already. The Second Amendment is not some “in case
of tyranny, break glass” clause in the Constitution. That whole “in the course of human events
it becomes necessary to dissolve” blah blah comes from the Declaration of Independence. Which again, is not law. It’s not for the security of the people
from a free state, but rather for the security of a free state – but from who? From foreign invaders, Native Americans, and
yes, the federal government. When the Constitution was adopted in 1789,
the United States didn’t at all look like the United States of today. And I don’t just mean geographically. It was more like the European Union; a collection
of states that were loosely banded together, mostly for economic benefit. People didn’t really identify as American
yet, they were Virginian or Pennsylvanian. The standing federal, US Army was very small,
so the majority of military power came from state militias. The Second Amendment guaranteed the right
of the states to form a state militia – it was not an individual right to own guns. None of the founding fathers, whether it be
during the constitutional convention or the federalist papers ever talked about individual
gun ownership. It was always in reference to state militias. Which by the way, aren’t even really a thing
anymore. They do exist in like, Texas – because of
course they do in Texas – but they aren’t the National Guard. I was in the National Guard, you swear to
uphold and defend the constitution of the United States and the state. Which would kinda put you at odds during a
civil war. So many vows, they make you swear and swear. Speaking of the Civil War, while there were
federally organized “US” troops, most of the forces were state units or militias,
like the 54th Massachusetts. It wasn’t until after the Civil War that
people really identified themselves as American. Which brings us to the first Supreme Court
case that I want to talk about, Presser v. Illinois. Presser was part of a local worker’s militia,
not assembled by any government… and the state weirdly didn’t allow that. The court’s decision was that the Second
Amendment did not apply to the individual, except as part of a government militia, for
the good of the United States. So basically, they kind of rewrote the amendment
from this to this. Which isn’t that much of a change, we were
now a united country after all. It’s important to note that at this point,
that the only practical firearms that really existed were muzzle-loaded rifles, pistols,
and shotguns. Lever-action and repeating rifles were still
fairly new and the only machine gun in existence still needed to be carted around by a horse. The founding fathers were smart, but they
couldn’t see into the future. They didn’t even know what was on the other
side of the Mississippi. Which is why several ways to change the Constitution
were built into it, like amendments. But more often, Supreme Court cases change
the interpretation rather than the actual language. As we’ve just seen. So as new weapons came out, the government
had to figure out how to handle them. In 1934, the first real gun control law was
passed – the National Firearms Act. This law mandated a special tax stamp and
registry of all sorts of weapons, like machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns,
anything larger than a .50 caliber, explosives, and even poison gas. Things I hope we can all agree shouldn’t
be in the hands of civilians. But this is what also allows people on the
Discovery Channel to get their hands on them – it’s not impossible, it’s just very
difficult. Five years after that law, we have our next
Supreme Court case, US v. Miller (1939). Miller was in possession of a sawed-off shotgun
and argued that the Second Amendment allowed him to do so. The Supreme Court disagreed, saying that it
had no military utility. In fact it’s only real purpose was to hide
under your coat to shoot people. They decided that the Second Amendment only
applied to weapons that could be used as part of a well-regulated militia as “ordinary
military equipment.” So basically, only pistols, rifles, or long-barreled
shotguns, reaffirming the constitutionality of the NFA. Then basically nothing happened until the
Gun Control Act of 1968, which mostly regulated interstate commerce when it comes to guns. If you want to sell or transfer a gun across
state lines, you have to have a Federal Firearms License, or FFL. This basically means any store, since you
likely get the majority of your stock from other states. Individual people can sell to other individuals
without a license as long as it’s within their own state – do you see a problem with
this yet? We’re going to jump ahead to 1993, when
the Brady Bill was passed which created a whole new list of criteria that would disqualify
someone from owning a gun. This is the list which is currently enforced
which prohibits felons, fugitives, illegal aliens, and dishonorably discharged veterans
from owning guns. How can the government possibly enforce these
rules? By requiring every federally licensed gun
retailer to run a background check on potential buyers. So if I want to buy a gun from a store, they
have an FFL, so there’s a background check. But if I want to buy a gun from a private
individual, say at a gun show… no license, no background check. This is the gun show loophole, the thing that
many people think should be closed… including this guy actually. I believe in background checks at gun shows
or anywhere to make sure that guns don’t get in the hands of people who shouldn’t
have them. GW Bush
In 1986, then-president Ronald Reagan passed the Firearm Owner’s Protection Act, also
known as the machine gun ban. A few years later, in 1989, someone walked
onto an elementary school playground in Stockton, California with a legally-purchased AK-47
and killed several children and injured several dozen others. In response to this, only three weeks later,
Reagan said this… I do not believe in taking away the right
of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine
gun, is not a sporting weapon. Here’s the problem though… that shooting
wasn’t perpetrated with a machine gun. Reagan seems to have fallen victim to the
same thing that gun right’s advocates often chastise the left for: a lack of understanding
of the vocabulary. So let’s fix that now. The 1986 machine gun ban eliminated the sale
and manufacture of new machine guns. If you owned a machine gun prior to 1986,
you could keep it. You could even sell it to someone else under
the National Firearms Act. It requires months of paperwork and costs
a fortune though, a pre-ban machine gun can cost you $20,000 or more. So, I suppose the question of the hour is
– what is a machine gun? Any weapon that when you pull and hold the
trigger, fires more than one bullet, also known as an automatic rifle… or more popularly
an assault rifle. Yes, assault rifles are already banned. But, the AK-47 used in that particular school
shooting was a semi-automatic. Pull the trigger, one bullet. Pull the trigger, one bullet. So in 1994, Reagan, along with former presidents
Ford and Carter, wrote a joint letter to congress saying… We are writing to urge your support for a
ban on the domestic manufacture of military-style assault weapons. Every major law enforcement organization in
America and dozens of leading labor, medical, religious, civil rights and civic groups support
such a ban. Most importantly, poll after poll shows that
the American public overwhelmingly support a ban on assault weapons. We urge you to listen to the American public
and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these
weapons. Congress and President Clinton listened, which
led to the Assault Weapons Ban in 1994. So what is an assault weapon? To answer that, we need to look at the AR15. Just to get a few things out of the way, the
official name of the original patent-holding name-brand is the Colt ArmaLite AR15. The AR stands for ArmaLite Rifle, so rather
redundantly, the entire name of the original rifle is the Colt ArmaLite ArmaLite Rifle
15. The patent has expired and now everyone has
their own versions of the AR15, but they’re all basically the same design, so I’m going
to refer to all of them collectively as the AR15. Is the AR15 an assault rifle? No. It was prior to 1986, but since then they’ve
all been semi-automatic. Is the AR15 an assault weapon? That is when things get tricky. An assault weapon is a semi-automatic rifle
with two or more of the following. A pistol grip – yes, all AR15s have that… So as long as it doesn’t have anymore, it
was completely legal. A folding or telescoping stock. A grenade launcher? Well nobody can own grenades anyway. A bayonet mount – why would, okay, next. A flash suppressor or a barrel capable of
supporting one. Which is not a silencer, it’s this bit. Which is a pretty important piece for not
blinding the shooter and depending on the design, reduces recoil. So the AR15 was legal during the assault weapons
ban as long as it was modified to not have certain features. So a fully automatic machine gun is an assault
rifle. A semi-automatic rifle with a pistol grip
and a flash suppressor is an assault weapon. Get rid of just one of those, and it’s not,
it’s a “modern sporting rifle.” But all of these can fall under the umbrella
term “assault-style rifles.” So when stores like Dick’s Sporting Goods
decided they would no longer sell these, everyone knew what they meant. The ban also prohibited the transfer or possession
of large capacity ammunition feeding devices – which is anything that holds more than
ten rounds. Pay attention, because this is something gamers
do that annoys everyone that knows anything about guns. This is a clip, this is a magazine, this is
a high-capacity magazine, this is a drum, and this is a juicebox. Hey, I gotta future-proof this video somehow. High capacity magazines and drums were illegal
until the assault weapons ban was lifted in 2004. I made my intentions- made my views clear. I did think we oughta extend the assault weapons
ban, and was told of the fact that the bill was never gonna move. GW Bush
Although, it wasn’t actually lifted, it had an expiration date built in which is something
I’ve never really liked. It’s a way for Congress to blame the current
administration for raising taxes or making something legal when in reality, it was the
Congress from 10 years ago that did that, but that’s beside the point. The AR15 wasn’t really popular until the
assault weapons ban was lifted, because now they could have all the fun cosmetic attachments
they wanted. As long as it wasn’t full-auto. Again, being fully automatic means that if
you pull and hold the trigger, it continuously fires multiple bullets until you let go of
the trigger. That was a bump stock. Which makes the trigger move back and forth,
so your stationary finger is pulling it every time, making it technically not automatic
and therefore technically legal. But you’re firing rate is like 90% that
of full-auto, so… close enough. After the Vegas shooting, many people mistakenly
thought that the shooter had illegally modified his weapons to be fully automatic. He didn’t, he used a bump stock. How difficult is it to modify your weapon
to be full auto anyway? Turns out, not that difficult. There are a number of videos on youtube showing
you how to do it. But you don’t really have to since there
a number of legal “increased rate-of-fire devices” on the market, like bump stocks,
that get you close enough. As of recording this video, bump stocks are
still legal, but are in the process of becoming illegal. Unlike the grandfather clause of the machine
gun ban, if they are made illegal, you will have to surrender or destroy any existing
bump stocks. So there we go, all the vocabulary should
be cleared up… I hope. In 2008, the Supreme Court heard DC v Heller,
its first Second Amendment case since before World War 2. I won’t get into the particulars of this
case since Mr. Beat has already done that. But in short Heller sued the city for the
ability to keep a gun in his home, which was illegal at the time. The Supreme Court agreed with Heller and for
the first time ever, affirmed the individual right to keep and bear arms regardless of
military service. They effectively changed the interpretation
of the Second Amendment from this, to just this by saying that anyone can technically
be part of the militia. Which is why a certain influential gun lobby
only has that part posted in their headquarters lobby. In 2016, they heard Caetano v Massachusetts,
which extended the Second Amendment to all weapons, regardless of military utility, unless
otherwise made illegal. So stun guns okay, machine guns and rocket
launchers, not okay. So that’s where we are now. It doesn’t really matter what the original
intent of the founding fathers was, what matters is how it is interpreted today. There was no guaranteed individual right to
own guns under the founding fathers, there is today. There were no machine guns or even semi-automatics
when the founding fathers were around, there are today. As I’ve tried to make abundantly clear,
the framers of the Constitution were intelligent and forward-thinking, but the United States
was a completely different place 230 years ago. That was a time when you were basically born,
lived, and died in the same town – they didn’t even have railroads yet. So they couldn’t even imagine sitting in
a metal tube and essentially teleporting from one side of the country to the other and back
again, all within the same day. State laws were far more important and effective
back then… they aren’t so much today. So using California’s state gun control
as an example of why gun control doesn’t work is ridiculous. State borders look like this, not like this. And don’t even talk to me about cities like
Chicago, you accidentally walk across city limits all the time without even realizing
it. California does have fairly strict gun control,
but some people want to see it expanded nationally, perhaps look something more like what Australia
has – so let’s clear up what Australia actually has. After the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, they
enacted sweeping gun control that essentially eliminated mass shootings – but it didn’t
eliminate all gun violence. Because there are still guns in Australia. They didn’t completely ban them. Here’s what they actually did. Completely ban all automatic and military
style weapons. Just like we did for machine guns and temporarily
for assault weapons. With the addition of having to sell back any
currently owned ones. Set up a national registry for all firearms. Restrict interstate purchase and transfer
to licensed dealers. Just like we do. Require secure storage of all firearms. And require anyone seeking to own a firearm
to obtain a license. Who can get a license? They basically have the same restrictions
that we do under the Brady Bill, with the additional requirement of being mentally sound. You also have to have a genuine reason for
wanting to possess a firearm. Hunting and even target shooting at a gun
club, count. You just can’t have one to hang on your
wall I guess. You also have to demonstrate appropriate training
in the safe use of firearms. Kind of like what we do for driver’s licenses. That’s it, it wasn’t a complete ban. Plenty of people still own rifles, pistols,
and shotguns. Nobody in the United States is talking about
a complete ba- oh for f… okay, very few people are actually talking about that. By the way, repealing the Second Amendment
is not unconstitutional. You would have to pass an amendment to repeal
that amendment – which is something we’ve totally done before. Please drink responsibly. It’s a long, complicated process outlined
in the Constitution, it’s just about the most constitutional thing you can do. It’s not impossible, but it’s very unlikely. So let’s talk about some of the reforms
people are seriously suggesting. Again, I am not pushing for any of these ideas,
but I am going to talk about them – some of them I agree with, some of them I don’t. Australian style gun control is probably the
most extreme. It would expand on laws we already have, reinstate
the assault weapons ban, and ban semi-automatic rifles for many people. The Supreme Court has already decided that
machine guns and sawed-off shotguns are not civilian weapons, and some people would like
to see the AR15 and other semi-automatic rifles treated the same way. But the biggest change would be making guns
look more like cars. You have to have a license to drive a car
and in the process of getting a license you had to demonstrate the ability to drive and
have a basic knowledge of traffic laws. Having a gun license could also take the place
of needing a background check every time you buy a gun. Some people also suggest having a title attached
to every firearm, much like there is with your car. This could also create a national firearms
registry much like Australia, but more importantly: This is the only way to close the gun show
loophole while still allowing private sales. Any other method would just nibble at the
edges and you’d be playing whack-a-mole with loopholes for another decade. As it is right now, you only need a background
check if you buy from a store with a federal firearms license. Buying from a person whether it be at a gun
show or anywhere else doesn’t require anything. So a title transfer where you have to go to
a courthouse, just like you do for a car, would serve the purpose of making sure you
have a license and background check – and could serve the additional purpose of acting
as a waiting period. Some states have mandatory waiting periods,
but not all of them, and even if they do, it’s only when purchasing from a dealer
with an FFL, not private sales. Mandatory waiting periods mostly serve the
purpose of stopping you from making an impulsive, rash decision. Many of the recent high-profile mass shootings
were perpetrated by someone who bought the weapon only a few days earlier specifically
for that purpose. But mostly, it would stop suicides – and
yes, states with mandatory waiting periods have lower rates of suicide. Mandatory waiting periods won’t stop all
mass shootings or even gun violence as a whole, in fact: No single solution will stop all
gun violence. Even during the federal assault weapons ban,
while there was a reduction in mass shootings – there were still mass shootings. Because of recent events, people have become
quite serious about having a conversation regarding gun control and gun owners are going
to have to be part of that conversation. Simply shutting it down by saying it’s a
god-given right or that any gun control leads to tyranny isn’t going to cut it anymore. As I’ve shown you, we already have quite
a bit of gun control. Australia has just a little more and they
aren’t living under a tyrannical government. Likewise, the common talking point that gun
control led to the holocaust is just as ridiculous. I think the likelihood of Hitler being able
to accomplish his goals would have been greatly diminished if the people been armed. Ugh… I’m not going to address this because Three
Arrows, an actual German person talking about actual Nazi gun control, already did. Go check that out if you have the time. There are other talking points and common
sayings that gun owners use to stop the conversation, like “Guns don’t kill people, people kill
people.” Which, yes, but guns are specifically designed
for killing, whether you’re talking about animals or people. Knives and cars have other primary purposes
– it’s the gun that makes it so easy. “An Armed Society is a Polite Society.” I don’t really want to live in a society
where people are nice to each other only because they’re afraid of getting shot. “It’s not a gun problem, it’s a mental
health problem.” As if the United States is the only country
in the world with mental health issues… we are the only country in the world with
more guns than actual people though so… maybe… It doesn’t matter, all of these are just
ways to avoid having the conversation about gun control by shifting it to something else.. You’re going to have to participate in the
conversation eventually. When one kid eats a Tide Pod, we lock up all
the Tide Pods. When one person tries to sneak a bomb on a
plane in their shoe, we all have to take off our shoes, forever. So when thousands of people are being killed
by the same product every year, it’s not hard to understand why some people think it’s
time we do something about it. Simply dismissing the conversation or ignoring
someone because they used the wrong terminology will either result in extreme legislation
or just more of the same. Neither of which will be helpful to anyone. At least now, you’ll be able to approach
that conversation with a greater depth of knowledge, and the next time someone says
“we need to ban all assault rifles” or “you might as well just burn the Constitution,”
hopefully now, you’ll know better. So what do you think about this issue – as
if you weren’t already going to tell me… What topic should I moderately explain next? Let me know down below and don’t forget to
trigger that subscribe button. Sorry for taking so long to get this video
out, if you’ve been following me on twitter, you know why. And why Wheatley isn’t in this outro card. Also make sure to follow me on facebook and
join us on the subreddit.

100 comments

  1. Umm… This has probably been covered but to reiterate, you're terribly wrong about the US Constitution giving you your rights. Your rights are inalienable. That means the government can not take a lien out on them. Because they are yours, not the governments… They exist because you exist, even in the absence of or in opposition to the state.

    "…sell back any currently owned ones"

    Interesting. I never realized we buy guns from the government. I can't believe I never knew the federal, state, or city governments in this country are arms dealers other than to other countries that do not necessarily have US interests in mind when they buy them.

    Wow, and then you draw a logical conclusion that gun control laws are the correct response by showing how ridiculous it is to have knee jerk reactions by locking up Tide Pods and forcing everyone to take their shoes off at the airport… BTW, TSA is a great pickup line. "Hey there, sweet cheeks. I wanna TSA your body." It works, just like prohibition does for alcohol, drugs, or guns…

  2. And would you agree that we need all the security for airlines etc. More 'Patriot Act' (unless your not Patriot); or more 'National Defense Act' (Unless you believe in no National Defense). Nothing bad 'ever' happened when these laws, like secret trials then droning American Citizens w/ the NDA enacted after the fact to you know… close that 'loophole' in the Patriot Act that didn't express the ability to kill an American Citizen without due process.

  3. Im a hardcore Libertarian, and I believe in ZERO gun control. I believe that fighting tyranny is more important than safety

  4. I love how he brings up the firearms act from the 40s (I get it, he's just going through the history.)….It was passed in response to gangs using Tommy guns in Chi-raq. They passed it to keep machine guns out of the gangs' hands…..but they had stolen the guns from the Chicago PD, so it wouldn't have done anything to stop them even if the law was passed 100 years prior! 🤣🤣🤣😂😂

  5. >says is moderate
    >recommends radical leftist channel for further information.

    One of these things is not like the other. One of these things does not belong….

  6. “Fundamental human rights cannot use/ include the use of tools” 😂🤦🏼‍♂️ 😂 🤦🏼‍♀️ 😂 🤦🏼‍♂️

    Care to cite… something on that? Anything? 😂 jeeezuz

  7. While I’m proud of you for mentioning the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act, isn’t it misleading to say “also known as the machine gun ban,” when machine guns were a minor point in that law, and it was actually written to make it *easier * for private individuals to sell their guns? (@8:55)

  8. 5:05
    Did I sense a hint of jealousy and irrational hatred for militias? Why would a government slave shill for stronger military and no defense for the people? Gee…

  9. I know this is similar to other comments here, but I just realized your reasoning could be applied to any amendment. And once we do that, it becomes clear that the government does not grant us the right to do anything. Observe:

    If the second amendment “grants” the right to bear arms, then by your logic the thirteenth amendment grants slaves the right to be humans instead of property.

    Hope you’re happy with a government authorized to declare me property.

    I’m personally not.

  10. >Claims to be moderate
    >First point immediately attacks pro 2A argument
    >The government gave us our rights

    Listing out your time in the military does not mean you have any increased authority in a political argument.

  11. Jesus Christ this comment section just makes me never want to go to America, like ever. What the fuck? You all sound so brainwashed.. Plenty other countries have it more than fine with ”gun control” or whatever, and even when there is none many dont have a problem with guns.

    Some of these comments are so crazy that I’m marveling at the mental gymnastics you’re doing to rationalise your points. It all reads as a bitter, indocrinated hivemind

  12. So something that is new now means that they either don't exist or there is no way of knowing about them… such logic.. Man Those also weren't the only guns of that nature at that time. If you're going to do such a controversial topic you would think you would especially make sure to do your homework. for example the Mondragon the first automatic rifle came out 4 years prior to your case and was patented a year later and there are numerous other guns especially lever and repeaters…

  13. The Bill of Rights was written as a group of fundamental human rights which is most often historically been abused by governments in the past.

    It is an inalienable right like speech.

  14. I think something should be done about guns. But not taking them no bans no license and not a title on my gun. If you want to do that then take the previous bans back full auto guns and sawed off's then you'd have a dog in the fight. Yeah I have a million miles ofloops hoops and paperwork to deal with but I get access to weapons previously illegal

  15. "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.

  16. You called a mark nineteen insane wtfish bro. Should have known you'd be full of smart ass comments and sarcasm packed bs I'm a veteran too combat vet ya non cabbed sawed off turd I am a well regulated there are more of us and it is written to in fact to protect us from the govt and if the nasty girls fall under the the state controlled govt then they are govt pawns thus we rebuild the militia if it is absorbed too we build another. They will come here you to a camp once guns gone within five years if you're a real wait nope nasty girls national guardsmen are the ones whom will implement martial law hes a propagandist with a chip on his shoulder this dude is more dangerous than a snake in the grass because he most likely never shot at or got shot at when he was stop lossed. I wasn't paid thanks Obama cause he shut the govt down. So fk off hippie. As well no Reagan got his facts wrong not that he misunderstood the vernacular of the gun world. That's not what you ass holes are fun up what your fkn up is the fkn fact that my penis is an assault weapon if I go on an assault assaulting people with it so nope ya fkn cannot take mine mines never been used on an assault wait my m16 never Got used as an assault weapon either only shot back when shot at remember there cowboy your roe remember jackasrse. Wtffish you turd.

  17. You're a dumb fuck. The second amendment doesn't give you the right to bear arms. The right to bear arms to protect yourself is a natural right that the constitution was written to protect. All the second amendment does is keep the government from infringing on that right. Damn, you are DUMB!

  18. I’d rather not live in a society were we all pay the price for a small percentage of stupid and the minimal minority of Americans. I want the kids that eat tide pods to eat tide pod, so we as a human race can evolve away from that stupid gene they possess. In Darwin We Trust!

  19. 8:33 What loophole do you speak of? Any legitimate seller of firearms will not sell one without a background check. Watch Steven Crowder’s “Change my Mind” on the 2nd amendment. You know, the one where he takes two liberals to a gun show and every time they try to buy a gun without a background check, they get shut down?

  20. The right to life gives my the right to meet any threat to my life with any force necessary to preserve it. If that requires a firearm then yes it's a fundamental human right.

  21. God-given doesn't explicitly mean it's written in the Bible. It means that it's something we're born with, given by The Creator, that we have the right to defend ourselves from anyone and everything, including the govt, which is why we have the right to anything that can be used for defense.

    inb4 "dOeS tHaT mEaN tAnKs, JeTs, BoMbS, aNd NuKeS tOo?"

    Yes.

  22. I'm at 5:55, and you've already moved passed the founding fathers to talk about Supreme Court challenges. If you want to know what the 2nd Amendment covered, the founding fathers wrote extensively about their intentions for each amendment. In general, they despised centralized power. They wanted to guarantee that the government would serve the people. They spent years contemplating and developing the limitations of government. In their own words, they wrote in length about the importance of a well armed population and a government of, by, and for the people.

  23. So back before govt people didn’t have the right to own weapons to defend themselves, they just had to wait until govt gave it to them.

  24. I hate how he says "Its time for gun owners to have the conversation".

    We've tried. The other side doesn't want to listen to us. Look at that CNN Town Hall. This guy clearly hasn't looked at any of the valid counterpoints to his arguments, either.

  25. dear god when someone talk about gun control on youtube that doesnt have extensive knowledge on fire arms i instantly knows…this is going to be a
    1.shit video who have no fucking idea on what it actually talking about(see the…cat and gun garbage video made by a guy who knows nothing)
    2.comment section war

  26. In CT all firearms sold between two private citizens must use a FFL holder as a middle man with background checks on both the buyer and seller. It's kind of annoying but in the end it costs like twenty bucks and it keeps the seller legally innocent if it turns out the buyer isn't allowed to own guns for whatever reason. As far as the law is concerned the "gunshow loophole" doesn't work here.

  27. I don't think you know as much about the constitution as you think. The 10th amendment is in direct opposition with your assertion that federal government 'grants' you rights. You may want to check on what your definition of militia is as well as contextually as you are so adamant in your previous content. You should know better.

  28. you know being a moderate on this is kinda pointless when you ignore the fact that far leftists are the ones beating the drum hardest on gun control so it's a massive moot point

  29. The government is flaw. Your significant other just needs to claim you rape them and they will be approved for a restraining order against you which bans you from possession of a firearm. No proof or credibility needed.

  30. You are not moderate, you are anti-gun and lack the understanding of the US constitution. The right to keep and bear arms was never granted by the US government but the Bill of Rights reaffirmed it.

  31. this dumbass hasn't even read the name of the Bill of Rights. It says RIGHTS right there in the title, those are unalienable rights, not GIVEN to us by the government, but they are written down as a restriction for the government

  32. The Rights do NOT come from the GOVERNMENT. The Constitution tells the Government what Right's the people have that they can not change. And the right of the people to have firearms they knew was a way to make sure the PEOPLE had firearms.

  33. There IS NO GUN SHOW LOOPHOLES. When you buy a firearm they still have a background check done on you. And Reagan said MACHINE GUN. MACHINE GUNS are illegal to have without a license.

  34. All firearms that are NOT revolvers. Are SEMI AUTOMATIC. And where the HELL do u all get these polls from that ALL AMERICANS or 90% of ALL Americans want this.
    You on the left just ask do you believe in background checks. Background checks yes! Not UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS.

  35. I like your videos and you're a cool guy but this video as many have already mentioned is very left leaning and very inaccurate and we are very much in the conversation you shall not take one more personal GOD given right from us the right to protect our selves not to just own a gun but to equal the playing field the 2nd wasn't given to us as a privilege it was given to us to keep big brother in check but anyway do some more research and keep up the good work

  36. you are engaging in verbal sleight of hand. fundamental rights are those that have been recognized by SCOTUS and apply to treatment others can legally expect. the founders wrote of 'inalienable rights' those not given to man by other men. for the record the second amendment doesn't mention guns either, nor does it confer a right. it specifically restricts gubment from making laws to deny citizens access to arms. as a percentage all violence where guns are used, both legally and not, fall well under 1% of the population. the hysteria surrounding sporting rifles has nothing to do with safety or saving lives.

  37. Australia's gun laws never eliminated mass shootings, it was only in decline and their banning only caused knife crime to take it's place

  38. Wrong. Jesus man, really? A right to own guns comes from the government? The hell it does. The right, which was an existing right, is not granted in the 2nd Amendment. The 2A is there to tell the government that they are not to touch the existing right of the people to own guns. The militia did not mean then what it means today and besides, that's the prefatory clause. It doesn't totally encompass and govern the operative clause. Did the founders that wrote the Bill of Rights collect guns from citizens after the war? Well if they believed guns were only for militia service, they would have. Jesus, the people were armed well enough to overthrow the new government if they wanted to and the founders knew it. There were no police, no phones, no electricity at the time of the founding. A gun was a necessary tool for people to have in those days. But you think they didn't believe a farmer should have a gun? How was he expected to defend himself from wild animals, defend his crops or chickens? How would he defend himself from bad people? Call the cops on the phone that did not exist? You are completely biased out of your mind on this one. A historian that's never read the federalist papers? Or you just twist the meaning after having read them to fit your political views?

  39. You make the mistake of focusing on the people killed with guns and ignoring, just flat out ignoring all of the people who save themselves with a gun. And don't lie by saying the number of people killed in self defense is dwarfed by the number of people murdered by a gun. You don't have to always fire the gun to save yourself. In fact, most of the time you don't. The attacker, rapist, robber, violent degenerate usually has enough brains to break off his attack when he sees a gun pointed at him. Even when the criminal has a gun, they usually break off the attack. They don't want a prolonged gunfight like we see in the movies. They want an easy mark. Sometimes they just want to kill someone for fun. When they see it's a fair fight, that they have just as much chance of dying as their intended victim, the cowards run away. WHY must you people lie about this?

  40. How come u didn't mention The dick act of 1902 was a law that made firearms laws of any kind illegal and a violation of the constitution and it was an irrevocable law so that gets u an un-sub

  41. The puckle gun and 13 other guns that shot multiple rounds existed before the 2nd amendment was signed just not produced in number

  42. I am unabashedly anti-gun, but I also know that most of the angry pro-gun commenters in here are probably well educated good citizens who you could trust to handle a weapon responsibly. The one part about gun control I don't like is that unfortunately you have to take away guns from 9 good citizens to get the 1 bad citizen. Ideally you'd come up with a system that at least partially weed out the bad while keeping the good owners. Background checks are a start but I'd like to believe there are other intelligent steps in that direction. It really is the people, not the guns, and a full ban is really just the nuclear option. And while I like the tidepod and shoebomber analogies, they also serve as examples of countermeasures taken too far.

  43. The founding fathers had no idea the spoken word would evolve into a lot of offensive speech. With email, Social media, Mass media shit talk can be dispensed like a machine gun! Let modify the 1st amendment so no more tears will be spilled! So if your a young lady it is more virtuous to be found raped and found strangled with her under wear then to have a AR 15 to protect her self! Good thing she had to wait to get her rifle not like a right delayed is a right denied. You can have my 30 round Clipazine after you pry it form my over taxed hands. Seeing that you were in the Army for seven years will you be the one to protect me? Will you be there for me when I need help the most? No you will not. Oh our rights are granted by our creator not the government you are a citizen not a subject.

  44. 9:13 yes because Ronald Reagan is my god and I shall bow down unto him and also really George bush?? ANY GUN CONTROL LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL! No matter who proposes it, weather it be Teddy Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan, or Ron/Rand Paul it’s still unconstitutional and should be endlessly fought.

  45. I was disappointed with the first half of the video dealing with the early historical side, but impressed with the later parts- especially the dedication to defining terminology and the Reagan Gun control related stuff. I’d bet you will never hear a Republican mention that ever.

    To respond to the founding eta related stuff-
    Repeating weapons other than the pickle gun existed at the time of the founding (girandoni air rifle, pepper box revolvers)

    There are numerous quotes from the founders (even left leaning ones like Hamilton) saying that the militia is every able bodied person who can handle a gun, and what’s more that the reason stand armies are no threat to liberty is because the militia (the people) would be better armed.

    Furthermore, the constitution and bill of rights are not the government decreeing your rights- it’s the government recognizing rights that you have by virtue of being a person

  46. We should just avoid this guy's political videos. His history content is really good, but he's extremely biased and disingenuous when it comes to politics.

  47. @Knowing Better Luke 22:36 “Now, however,” He told them, “the one with a purse should take it, and likewise a bag; and the one without a sword should sell his cloak and buy one.

  48. “THE SECOND AMENDMENT of the BILL OF RIGHTS, ISNT A HUMAN RIGHT, BECAUSE SOMEONE WROTE IT DOWN”

    “The Right to Privacy is a Human Right, because our government doesnt recognize it as one in law”

    Goddamn You are Just Plain Retarded.

    Literally the whole point of the bill of rights is to clearly express, to the government, what THE PEOPLES rights are, and the limitations of government power.

    It’s not about the government GIVING you rights.

  49. Your take on militias is sooooo flawed. The state, doesn’t form the militia.

    The PEOPLE (able bodied 17-45) elect a commander, and they fight under that commander, for a common purpose. Like protecting the state from tyranny or invasion. In the most literal sense, THE MILITIAS during revolutionary times were THE PEOPLE.

    We didn’t have an army until AFTER 1812.

    But we did have militias. Solely Made up of civilians who were able to fight.

    If you’re a civilian, and you can fight, YOU ARE a piece of the militia. In being necessary for the security of the free state, your right to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

  50. You think being able to own a gun is a “fundamental” or “basic human” right that isn’t granted by government? WRONG. Anyone who believes that owning a firearm is equal to being able to defend yourself is skipping some simple critical thinking. Can every person in every country legally own a firearm? NO. Therefore the ability to own a firearm is determined by the government you answer to. Sorry i wish that wasn’t the case but the reality of the world is clear. The second amendment presents a unique protection against government action that is not a universal thing celebrated by all humans.

  51. Guns bought from GUN SHOWS, are used for less than 1% of gun crime.

    It’s no loophole, and it’s definitely not exploited.

    A criminal would rather just steal one

  52. I listened to your entire video but one thing you did not cover sir is how do you legislate evil out of the hearts of menin the answer to that is you cannot but you argue we must take away a potential instrument to be used in such an evil Manor so you served in the military so you have your opinion and you are entitled to that we are so polarized why are political differences that your argument makes no sense to me whatsoever I will keep my AR-15 I will keep all of my guns I do value your opinion but it means nothing to me we have given up enough ground with all of the gun laws in this countryI regard myself to be a reasonable person and I do not think that the average American should have a rocket launcher and Abrams tank a Moab bomb or a nuclear weapon and I do agree with background I do not want sick or crazy or felons to get ahold of firearmsbut one thing I do want liberals in any other gun-grabbing person to realize is I do not want you thinking that you were going to be taken away anybody's lawfully own firearms get it out of your mind and they're divided in this country grows cuz I think you are out of your mind America was founded by violence maintained through violence from people that commit violence on its own people and a government that has grown increasingly out of hand unfortunately most of us do see it who are lookingbut the Constitution was written in a very clear manner so that all from varying degrees of educational levels could understand what it meant the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringedand I don't need supreme Court judges to explain to me what shall not infringe means I can read and I'm reasonably intelligent so just stop with all the gerrymandering stop with all the crap that's why I'm saying that divided in this country justwithout the second amendment that guarantees all the other rights from our government I believe the framers understood this and let us make no mistake it will be our first amendment write that will lay the groundwork inevitably having to use our second amendment right and hopefullythat day will never come but we must be ever vigilant and always keep our eyes on the horizon and not what's just right in front of usI have never seen two people so eager to legislate their own rights away people are saying that we are becoming more enlightened as a society but the average citizen could not recite to youat least five of The 10 amendments listed are schools are pumping out illiterate uneducated students ill equipped for the world in frontif you want to do good educational video sir I would suggest you go around asking people if they can name at least five of the amendments in the Bill of Rights

  53. If you need to own a firearm for "home defense", you need to reconsider your life choices that led you to living such a dangerous existence.

  54. Was with him for the first half of the video. After that he started getting many facts wrong. One of these was him implying that the crime rate went down during the assault weapons ban in 1994, because of the ban. However there was already a steady decline in crime before the ban, and studies concluded that the ban did not contriubute to the drop in crime, so it was not renewed. Keep in mind that AR15 style rifles make up only roughly 1% of gun related deaths, and very few suicides.

  55. I'd rather get syphilis than listen to this low-level fraud split hairs about what a "right" is or the definition of militia is. Talk about botching up fundamental premises and just rolling with it from there.

  56. I have watched a few of your videos. While many are not political, the ones that are, would honestly put you center left. Which these days may mean moderate, but your views are more like what mainstream liberal views were 10-15 years ago. In other words, moderate ideas moved further left and liberalism became more extreme. I consider myself a moderate, but on the other side of the center. While your views(in your videos) don't "insult" me like many people in the comments that may want an echo chamber, they are definitely left leaning in most areas. Just an observation.

  57. You are wrong on the definition of "Assault Weapon". If you have any ONE, or MORE of those features, it is considered an "assault weapon". Saying "if you take away any one of these feature, then it is not considered an assault weapon" is wrong.

  58. As potential to form an orgonized state militia being nessessary to ensure individual state freedom from foreign or federal or other cohersion of threat, the right of its citizens own and carry arms suitable for conflicts of time shall not be infringed through legislations or other means.

  59. being a moderate is a lot like wearing grey pants and a blue shirt during the American civil war. you get shot at from both sides. what you said pretty much states my opinion about the subject of gun control. I hope you always recognize when it's time to duck. :^)

  60. While I enjoy the perspective, the cars and guns license angle is irrelevant in that defense of family,self and property is fundamental as well as protected by the bill of rights, while operating a motor vehicle is a pivledge not a right.

  61. The Bible doesn’t mention spaceships either. This is a ridiculous statement that guns were never mentioned in the Bible. You are right. Although it mentions bow and arrow, spears, swords, knives, daggers, darts, chariots, horses, engines of war, slings, stones…please….

  62. Yeah well I'd considered subscribing until I saw this. Nah, no thanks. I can get this kind of crap watching MSNBC or CNN.

  63. The wording of the Constitution does not seem difficult and is pretty straightforward. The right of the people is pretty Direct. Shall not be infringed is pretty Direct. Being necessary to the security of a free state seems pretty Direct. The founding fathers weren't young children and were watching quick advancement around them , I'm sure they took in consideration that they didn't know what time would bring. They knew evil existed and all shape size and form, from a single individual, to a large country, possibly even your own country. Necessary to a free state means any weapon of war that could be used against you, right of the people to bare arms means you have the right to the equivalent. Shall not be infringed, we watch politicians chip away at this right over the years , that's infringement. Also if a giant wooden horse can be militarized, why can't a sawn-off shotgun? That must be a little bit of the infringement.

  64. "I was called a libtard and a Nazi in the same video" – uh, yeah, because you repeated yourself… libtards are the modern Nazis.
    Bless your heart, but you really need some understanding about how the left is exceedingly far left in this regard, and the middle as you see it is actually on the left – not in the real middle.

    Your "middle" is the same as claiming that any speech against anyone being offended is enough for them to be thrown in jail. That is absolutely against 1A. But you can't tell that from the libs out there these days.
    Racist speech is protected speech. Repellant and repugnant, but protected.

    Just like the government has overinfringed (20,000 gun laws on the books already) on "Shall not be infringed". What part of that Constitution you swore to uphold?

    2:40 – you just answered the question "he's kinda right" but then say there is no guarantee of what tools to use – again, what part of that "Shall not be infringed" do you not understand – or, to borrow from your clip (and h/t Princess Bride) that word, I do not think it means what you think it means. Dude, that's part of what the right and pro-2A people keep saying – they've overstepped the Constitution already, and it needs to be brought back – not further infringed.

    3:00 See Luke 22:36-38 – granted not "guns" (and using that argument that guns aren't mentioned in the Bible is about as bulls**t an argument as you could attempt to make) but even Jesus says to get weapons to defend yourself…

    4:05 – the entire Bill of Rights treat the same way then??? Really. Then the government tells you you have "free speech" but only when and where they say you do??? Yeah, thought not.
    How about the 14th Amendment? It's ok to not own slaves unless a state says it is? Yeah… so you want to try to keep having it both ways, then?

    4:50 you read that completely incorrectly. You really need to go back and read the Federalist Papers on this – you are spouting the modern leftist view that 2A applies to the states, not to the people, when NO OTHER amendment in the Bill of Rights does so. Not one. The Bill of Rights was to limit GOVERNMENT, not the PEOPLE… (sigh)

    15:30 The first part (again) goes back to the Federalist Papers – you pointed out (correctly) that the Federalist Papers didn't specifically mention firearm ownership, however – they did discuss very clearly what the definition of the "militia" was – all able bodied men of the community…

    16:44 – why? You can't argue how it shows how disarming the law abiding keeps it so they can't defend against the thugs? Seriously, you copped out on this, and have no defense, so I get why you don't want to talk about it. But get over it. Sorry you don't like it, but the reality is, all gun laws do is disarm the law abiding – it does nothing to stop the law breakers – and yes, I do realize that those lawbreakers run the guns in from places where it's easier to buy/steal guns into Chicago. So why NOT give the law abiding a chance to defend? Bluntly, not allowing them to do so is itself criminal, to my mind.

    17:45 uh, mental adjudication is already a block to owning firearms – if you have been found by a judge to be mentally unfit, no firearms for you legally in the USA already, dude. So, again a half-truth spin> also, the "automatic" in Australia isn't fully automatic, that includes semi-automatics – your blurb claiming "ranchers and varmit hunters" extra special licenses and not given out to anyone or even barely anyone who applies. SEVERELY limited, and not at all as easy as you are trying to portray.

    20:20 cite your sources – in doing a bunch of digging, the least amount of time before a "mass shooting" I could find was 3 months… that's longer than any waiting period. Waiting periods are yet another red herring – kind of like your "gun show loophole" – the reality is, very few people at gun shows are not FFLs – most gun shows require a business license and sales tax collection – which means it's a commercial business, which means that they must have an FFL to sell a firearm. Please understand, I do wish the Feds would open up on background checks so that private owners can simply call them in the same as an FFL – but the LEFT prevented that, not the right, and NOT the NRA (who you seem to want to demonize without naming (see 15:30, above)

    20:41 how about talking about the mass shootings versus firearms deaths as a whole (or murders as a whole) – they have been on a downward trend for a lot of years, even as gun ownership has gone up. And what about the 500,000-2.5Mil annual crimes prevented by responsible gun ownership? Why not talk about that? Or how about that assault style rifles are responsible for less than 500 murders a year? That more people are killed by hammers and other blunt objects each year than assault style rifles, or that NO mass killings have happened with fully-automatic firearms since the early 1930s? These are all things that the right gets ignored on in the steamroll to take away gun rights by the left.

    Finally, going on and on about how the right is wrong about gun control and how you want them to engage, and then make stupid voices over what you strawman up as discussion is disgusting, and you should be ashamed of yourself. Not amusing, and disingenuous.

  65. More people are killed by motor vehicles per day than by firearms. Since we apparently can't keep drunks,criminals,accident prone, or otherwise mentally non-focused folks out of vehicles, maybe we should further restrict vehicle ownership,possession&use. It's like that.

  66. You are a leftist apologist, that's clear.
    Leftists totalitarian agenda never wanted people owning guns
    (having a way to defend their life and property).
    Same thing is true for right-wing totalitarians.
    He who gives away his freedom for security,
    will end up having no freedom and no security.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *