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.

Maurice Vega

100 Responses

  1. I've only watched three of your videos, and oh my god, I'm in love.

    This video particularly impressed me, not just for the depth of its research, and lack of weaving a narrative into the truth, but for your boldness, posting a video about gun control on an adpocalypse ridden YouTube and pseudo-intellectual internet population.

  2. You severely show your ignorance as to the Declaration and the 2nd Amendment. Pro tips coming there hero of only 7 years I got ya beat by double and then some. 1st off yes the Declaration was and is law. In fact it is pointing out how the King and Parliament were breaking said law and that in order to restore law things were to be done. Now on to the 2nd Amendment and its biggest proponent at the time it was being debated on it being amended to the Constitution. He had the following to say

    " Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
    " ~ Tench Coxe — William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

    An here is another quote from founder Mr Coxe. "Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

    So it seems you did a piss poor job of researching the intent purpose and the scope of the 2nd Amendment.

  3. Fork, I tried for a while to see how Facebook guessed my personality and then I realized E.U. Legislation is different from the USA legislation. And I lost 2 hours of sleep, now I don't know better

  4. I've watched this video 5 times now and everytime I do I see more and more half-truths and intentional misleading of the viewers.
    You are a moderate what exactly? Moderate liberal?
    Moderate progressive?
    Or are you really just another Bloomberg paid pied piper in disguise here to lead "we the people" down the wrong road?
    Almost everything you say has some left wingnut ideology attached to it and I don't know who you think you're fooling but it's hardly anyone here from the comments I've read. What you are doing is trying to subvert the supreme law of this land. If you were a soldier then you took an oath and are wandering dangerously close to treasonous acts against the United States.
    You fail to mention that AR-15's are used in less than 1% of all gun crime or that the previous assault weapons ban was allowed to expire because the FBI stats proved there was no measurable impact on crime. So what would be different this time around?
    Cherry picking stats to support your argument is a clear indication of its weakness. You should be ashamed of yourself.

  5. At the end you say you're going to explain both future regarding to gun control without any bias. everyone could here which side you were on just by the tone of your voice.

  6. TL:DR of all of what's below. He poses the theory that the only way to curb gun crime is to register guns. The problem with this is that with 300+ million guns and millions of gun owners who will vehemently oppose a registration. What is your solution once they don't comply?

    Here is my long block of text of the first things that come to ming of what is missing from this video.
    Doesn't talk about Jeffersons letters to ship captains about private rights to cannons. Doesn't talk about gang violence, doesn't talk about the reason suppressors, short barreled rifles or even full-auto guns were put in the NFA. Doesn't talk about how registering guns in states like California have lead to confiscation. Doesn't talk about how gun owner ship in Australia was and is extremely low and how now it takes an extremely long time to get them. I mean you want to compare it to licensing a car, it takes much longer to get a gun in Australia than it does a car. Doesn't talk at all about how mass shootings aren't on a rise but have gotten more deadly. Doesn't talk about how until 2015 the most deadly mass shooting in America was done with hand guns. Doesn't talk about how mass killings do happen at an almost similar rate in other countries, just not always with guns. I mean I can go on and on. Talks Again talks about Australia but doesn't talk about places like Brazil and Mexico (who have stricter laws than us). Doesn't talk about how all these terms like "high capacity" and "assault weapon" were made popular by politicians with an extremely small amount of knowledge on the matter. Flaunting military service to someone how act like you remain unbiased then to go on a like tirade of skipping information and watering your argument down to the only thing we can do is register weapons isn't really having a conversation.

    I mean a real moderate would talk about Swiss style background checks. Maybe talk about red flag laws. Would talk about how suppressors don't actually make your gun silent or even close. But no. This is absolutely not a moderate view of gun control, It is an authoritarian view.

  7. You had semi auto rifles back in the day and there are a lot of letters from the founding fathers to private citizens confirming that they ment A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State !comma! the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

  8. you are so poorly informed you even quote correctly the second amendment. The bill of rights don't give rights they limit the government from being able to take away the rights. it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. it does not say we grant the people the right to keep and bear arms. The right does not come from the government.

  9. Just a side note about changing the Constitution: if you try to change or add an amendment, it is not a single issue amendment. It is open to the addition of any number of changes, including health care, abortion, transgenderism, taxes, and immigration, as well as the gun control that is being changed. This means that any new amendment or change can include any changes anyone wants to make. Passing any amendment now would be practically impossible, since you would need such a large number of people to agree on any and all purposed changes.

  10. The bill of rights gives no rights read the 9th n 10th amendment. Fact is the constitution grants powers to thr gov not grants rights. And national guard started in 1903 . state guards are still here sn legal

  11. There are people ranging from "the radical left" all the way to "political moderates" (like Knowing Better) that try to say that the Second Amendment was originally only intended to empower our military and didn't necessarily (at the time) apply to the general population. This viewpoint is wrong. The founding fathers in fact did intend this right for all of the people to be protected:

    "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States or are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." – Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
    "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." – Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824.
    "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense.." – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers, No. 28
    "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." – Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book quoting Cesare Beccaria, 1774-1776.
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." – George Mason, Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788.
    "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." – Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776.

  12. Per capita the us is ranked 28 in gun violence overall yes we have the most but you have to remember we have a much higher population

  13. The 2A isnt "allowing" people to bear arms. Its states what the govt cant do to the people.

    "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." 
    There are 2 subjects in this excerpt. Commas are more important than you seem to notice.
    A well regulated militia,
    AND the rights of the "people" to keep and bear arms i.e. firearms shall not be infringed. So inact 32,000 gun laws and thatll fix it….Nope? Just pass more.
    Stop with your signal corp pog self

  14. You have real courage to open guns to discussion. You’re going to get some real abuse. Hope you can keep the discussion on the rails.

  15. C M
    Australia has enforced strict gun control laws since 1996. It works very well and has protected everyone on that piece of land. Effective gun control is essential for the safety of everyone no matter who you are and everyone’ s decedents on the land of USA.

  16. Being a moderate is literally only for people who have no principles, no ideology, and only care about the pragmatics, or sometimes feelings.
    Stop being a moderate.
    I'd rather people be Jucheist/Maoist than centrist because at least there's something there.
    That being said, those are the fundamentally worst ideologies as self-ownership determines that property rights are the only rights a man, or woman, is endowed upon birth. Hint: No one gets to decide what you may or may not do, since you are the sole owner of your body, and as such, it is unethical to attempt to take control of others via any means.

    TL;DR learn the meaning of freedom, or at least stop being a fucking fence-sitter. #EndTheCenter

  17. All the people in the comment section who mention "Pre-exsting rights" when describing the constitution really make me proud.
    You guys paid attention in school, and I congratulate you for it.
    Makes me happy to know there aren't only idiots out there who believe the paper gives you rights.

  18. You can own a grenade launcher in 37mm but not the more common 40mm. Usually only flares and non explosives are manufactured in 37mm

  19. Over all I would say this is very good.
    There are however a few things I disagree with you on. I intend to address only one here.
    You say that we have "only three inalienable rights life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
    That is not what the Declaration of Independence says. What is says is….
    "We are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights among these are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
    There are only three of our "creator given" rights listed. However, the operative word is "among."
    The definition then as now for the word "among" is: being a member or members of a larger set.
    It is true that there are only three rights listed, it is also true that by inserting the phrase "among these are" before listing three of those rights that Thomas Jefferson was saying, in essence, there is a long list of our rights but I am only listing three of them.
    When you examine the arguments between the federalists and the anti-federalists over the constitution it becomes pretty obvious that none of the founders believed we had only three rights as you stated.
    The federalists did not want a bill of rights in the constitution because 1. The only powers the federal government could take were those powers specifically given to it by the constitution (boy did they get that wrong).
    2. That by listing the rights in the constitution it would limit the people to only those rights list in the constitution. In essence instead of protecting our rights the constitution would limit our rights.
    The anti-federalists
    Were opposed to the signing of the constitution because they said that, as written (without a bill of rights in the constitution), it threatened our liberties and did not protect our rights.
    As a compromise James Madison promised the anti-federalists he would write amendments to the constitution to protect our rights after the constitution was approved by the states.
    Most of the anti-federalists delegates at the constitutional convention agreed (three were still holdouts)
    The constitution was approved by the states and signed.
    Afterwards James Madison submitted 12 amendments to the constitution.
    10 of these were approved and became our bill of rights. The first ten amendments to the constitution.
    One amendment was never approved.
    One amendment finally made its way into the constitution in 1992 becoming the 27th amendment to the constitution.

  20. You can only license privileges, not rights. Either amend the constitution or SCOTUS reinterprets the 2nd amendment. Fat chance for either one.

  21. The early laws mentioned militias because it was already assumed that you had the right to arm and defend yourself and your lands.

  22. So what would be the "anti-tyranny" button if guns are banned? Also I think your argument should mention the lives saved by guns…firing/presenting/brandishing. Criminals (who by definition don't follow laws) prefer easy targets.

  23. I haven't even watched this video, just by the title I think was done by a non-veteran pogueass civy anti-2A jackwagon.

  24. The assertion made at 3:19 plainly false the text reads as follows: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The three rights specifically listed serve as the bedrock that the rights left unenumerated are built upon.

  25. I would like to thank you for your service to our country, love your videos very knowledgeable on most subjects.. I also serve my country when It wasn’t popular I am a law-abiding citizens who enjoys going to the range with my son teaching him how to be responsible with firearms. The Armorlite rifle is not and assault rifle and I believe you do know that.. I live in the state of Maryland honorably discharged.. purchased a new handgun recently and was required to submit to fingerprinting the purchase my weapon a pistol with a 10 round magazine…. it is virtually impossible to concealed carry permit.. in my state to protect myself on the streets in Baltimore.. it is shameful The massacres that happen in our country today innocent children and people slobbered.. my question is do you think a lot of the people who commit these crimes robbing people on the streets every day New York Baltimore Washington purchase their weapons legally? There is a mental issue in this country that is not being addressed.. Young people who have no hopes of a better job, medical insurance, no hope for a future isolated but nobody mentions that..

  26. You neglect to mention that Australia does not allow home or self defense. You will go to prison for murder.
    The requirement to lock it and not have it prepared for home protection effectively does that but it's written into law as well.

  27. The only reason i advocate for guns (including assult weapons) is because any power at all comes from the end of a barrel. Id rather that power be distributed throughout a population than condenced into a minority. So in my mind, if you could get rid of power, Id be willing to give up my ability to oppose it.

  28. During the Assault Weapons Ban "High cap magazines" could be purchased and possessed if they where made before the ban. Also Grenades are legal if you pay a 200$ stamp for each one and its stored in the correct manner.

  29. I can safely say that you do skip over plenty of important facts on the debate and you clearly lean more on the side of people who want more gun control than not, without really seeming to address some of the finer points of already existing gun control, so saying you're a moderate or in the center is a little dishonest.

    I am surprised you didn't mention what the FBI classifies as a mass shooting, what the BATFE is and how they factor into the debate, the inane topic of suppressor and SBR laws and how Hollywood has helped create myths and misconceptions about them, the shocking way in which records of gun sales are handled and kept, as well as addressing misleading statistics such as the fact that suicides are being used to ramp up the numbers on gun violence in America.

    Being in the military also doesn't help your argument in any way, as soldiers are frequently known to be ignorant of firearms and firearms law, despite using them as often as they do. It's a typical misconception that you expect your viewers to also fall for, and one that is often used in arguments in favor of gun control ("I was in the military so I know all about guns and how dangerous they are!").

    You definitely aren't a moderate on the issue, or at least this video does not depict that. I feel as if you need to either learn a bit more about the topic or you simply didn't feel like stretching the video longer than 23 minutes, adding in what you could possibly know but didn't feel like sharing with the viewer.

  30. I respectfully disagree with your idea that the German people not owning firearms had nothing to do with the abuses of the Nazi regime. If the Jews and other undesirables owned firearms that would have greatly complicated the ability of the Nazi's to screw over people. AND undesirables included ethnic German's who disagreed with Hitler. People overlook that the Nazi's had concentration camps like Dauchuo for political dissidents AND they had State sanctioned guillotines and beheaded more people than the French in the French Revolution. Stalin couldn't have killed the millions he did if people were armed, Pol Pot either ….. OK you don't need an assault rifle but nothing wrong with a semi hand gun or rifle owned by sane law abiding citizens for both sport and self protection. By the way I agree with licensing firearms especially handguns. Thing is, some self righteous do gooders would take ALL weapons away, but they'll admit it, which includes never admitting it to themselves.

  31. The second amendment is not giving people the right to bare arms, it is stating it is a right that the government cannot infringe on. Basically, it is saying, "It is a right and we will not infringe on it" rather than, "We are giving you this right, so we will not infringe on". The first implies it is a right and rights are not written. I suspect it comes from the right of life and thus right to protect yourself.

  32. Uhhh rights are inherit in our humanity. Government is the individual giving up rights TO the collective, in order to maintain peace.

    How can individuals give rights that they dont have?

  33. Simple. Bring back the Clinton Crime Bill and limit magazine capacity to ten rounds and call it a day. The solution to violence is not more gun control. We need to control our borders and our criminals not take away the rights of law abiding gun owners.

  34. I personally would not have a problem at all of they banned guns, to keep it simple and straight, this would save lives. Are the cons to usage of guns being banned that major?

  35. If the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to modern weapons, why would the 1st Amendment apply to modern computers? Enforce the laws you have. The first part of the 2nd Amendment is a modifying clause. And yes there were automatic weapons in those days…Australia confiscated guns…You better not defend yourself with a gun in Australia, you will go to prison…repealing the 2nd Amendment would still not take away my right to own weapons for protection. In reality, why should I trust the government? So what is your lecture for the gun banners? I have a cousin who thinks I have no right to defend myself or my family with a gun, that I have to wait for the police…address those morons…

  36. The preamble to the bill of rights states that these rights are "inalienable rights" which are "self evident" and then goes on to list certain explicit limitations on government power. The bill of rights strictly speaking does not grant or create rights, it acknowledges rights and established controls on government overreach to ensure those rights are protected.

  37. The founders never referred to an individual right to keep and bear arms??? Are you stupid or a liar?

    "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
    – Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

    "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
    – Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

    "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
    – Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

    "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…"
    – George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

    "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
    – Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

    "A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

    "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
    – Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

  38. "Australia has just a little bit more and they're not living under a tyrannical government"
    Laughs in banning encryption technology

    Maybe they aren't outright enslaving people and doing G E N O C I D E, but that's because it's not how Tyrannical governments are run these days.

  39. As an Australian, I like the Australian laws. I like guns too, but I would rather give them all up to stop shootings. Australia is the greatest country 🇦🇺

  40. I can see the gangbangers in Chicago taking their weapons down to the courthouse and filling out paperwork. Just like they abide by the laws on drugs. Should work really well.

  41. "Virtually eliminated mass shootings (in Australia)"
    Sweetie, they've had 22 mass shootings before 1996.
    There have been 24 mass shootings and 4 school shootings since 1996. Their laws FAILED on EVERY level, and increased violent crime permanently.

  42. I don't need a license to buy or own a vehicle. Nor do I need one to operate one on my property.
    Again, you're ignorant. But sure! Lets treat firearms like vehicles. It'll loosen the laws.
    And maybe if police stations operated more like a DMV, we could actually legally conceal carry. Because, you know. A LOT of people drive without a license everyday. Only need a license to drive on public roads. Only need a license to conceal carry in public.

  43. You want to give up your liberty for security. Thus you deserve neither.
    "We" take off our shoes, and go through all this shit, yet someone easily still steals a fucking commercial airliner to kill himself in.
    "We" lock up our tidepods, but that isn't why kids stopped eating them.
    When "you" give up your rights to own firearms with "gun control", WE will not save you, have fun being a slave/serf. You little tyrant. =)

  44. "An armed society is a polite society"
    An armed society is a FREE society. We don't give a fuck if its dangerous or how YOU FEEL.

  45. Hello fellow moderate!

    I admit, I didn't have a broad understanding of the history or definitions of guns and gun control (I'm proud of myself for at least knowing the difference between a clip and magazine), and my feeling of gun control boiled down to "allow innocent citizens to purchase guns while putting a system in place to deny it to violent people."

    While I knew that the writers of the Constitution were thinking of the militia when they wrote the Second Amendment, I didn't realize that the interpretation that it applied to individual, non-military people was so recent.

    I think licensing would be a great solution for the same reason we license people to drive. Cars can be deadly if misused or if one doesn't know how to drive, so it's common sense that you want to make sure that a person knows how to handle a car before you let them drive. By licensing people and making them take courses, not only do they weed out the impulsive buyers, they give lessons of responsibility to anyone who wants a gun, and acts as a background check.
    While it won't eliminate the problem of guns, as even licensed drivers can drive irresponsibly, and murderous individuals can use cars to plow people down, I agree that licensing would be a good compromise.

    Of course, the real challenge now would be for the left and right to agree on such a compromise.

    Thanks for the video, and thank you for your service!

  46. When people like this, who swore to uphold, protect, and serve the Constitution become tyrants.
    We can revoke our consent to be governed by you tyrants.
    Government DOES NOT grant rights. You're clearly a mentally ill God-less heathen.

  47. I think something that you ignore that lots of people talk about in gun control is the last part of the second amendment:
    Guns kill loads of people, It's tragic but the issue is they'll just switch to another weapon or get it illegally. I appreciate you saying that there is no one step solution

  48. Flash Hiders protect you from going blind… seriously… wtf… 7 years in the Army… No-Go at this station, send back for retraining. On the non cherry picking argument side of things, you should go back and reread those Federalist papers bub, specifically Fed 29. Hamilton literally says we should have an armed citizenry.

  49. Amazing, you purposely deleted every comment of mine that outlines how you've never read the Constitution once in your life.
    See people, this is why Federal Soldiers and Police Officers should actually READ the Constitution for once in their life when they take an oath to protect it.

  50. yo the founding fathers literally debated on whether or not writing down the second amendment would limit gun rights or expand them. they saw it as a human right to have weapons (buy/keep/use them without government saying no) and that governments can recognize, but not grant or disallow. god given right is kind of a way of saying its inherent to humans, its a way of elevating it above other laws, you dont have to believe in god to recognize its elevated position.

    yo. the government doesn't need to assign a whole damn amendment, right next to the first amendment, just so they can give themselves the ability to assemble a militia, that's stupid. the second recognizes the right of all fit (white men at the time) people to make a militia of their OWN accord, to defend themselves against tyranny.

    the people didn't quite identify as american, but they certainly did identify as 'fuck the british.' which is close enough for the purposes of the second amendment

    Numerous non musket arms existed during the creation of the second amendment. a few examples:
    puckle gun
    giradoni air gun
    volley guns
    duck foot pistol
    pepperbox revolver
    belton flintlock – the guy who made it tried to sell it to some of the founding fathers (:

    The NFA is unconstitutional, if you wanted to ban these arbitrary weapons, then it should be done as a constitutional amendment. The NFA seems specifically designed to keep certain weapons out of the hands of poor people. fill out a ton of paperwork, pay 200$, wait upwards of a year. Automatic modifications are so easy that the only thing stopping people from doing it themselves is fear of being jailed. Which a criminal doesn't care about. SBRs are literally just 'make the barrel shorter.' It's even easier. Bullet size(?) doesn't even make sense. So many other factors have to be taken into account in ballistics, and the ability to pierce armor or whatever you'd get out of having a larger bullet would be necessary for armed resistance. I can make explosives and poison gas in my garage. All of this only affects law abiding citizens. I can tell you that I am unwilling to convert a 10/22 to automatic, no matter how much I want to, simply because I fear being jailed.

    The second amendment applies to all arms, and SBRs are useful in any close quarters situation (any civilian self defense situation ever) or simply walking through thick foliage.

    Brady Bill is certainly an infringement, and therefore should be done constitutionally. But it is a good bill, so I wouldn't focus on it.

    The gun show loophole fake. I'm paranoid so I'd use it if it was a thing. If you sell your gun to someone privately, then if they commit a crime using it, you'll be in big trouble. It's a self regulating system. Background checks are good, but could be improved with further anonymization, as well as better enforcement. Numerous school shooters should have been marked by the system, but weren't.

    The next parts of your video aren't an issue for me. Good video tho, easily digestable and VERY easy to critique. (I mean that positively, its easy to respond to you, not that your points are bad.)

  51. I personally think everyone should own a gun. This way we can be ready to violently overthrow the government if it becomes corrupt.


  53. The Second Amendment reads, “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.” . In the Constitution the "STATE" is the people and last I checked a militia was comprised of private citizens who intern have private FIRE ARMS…. No matter how you try to separate the two from each other the simple FACTS remain private citizens have a RIGHT to bear arms. And so far as the old MUSKET argument goes THE FIRE ARM OF THE MILITARY was a musket. Military weapons are necessary to protect ourselves. And the founding Fathers were and are still the WISEST are far seeing individuals i've ever researched. The petty slights you make at their intelligence just shows your own ineptitude and shallowness. And the machine gun comment also shows how ignorant you are. Divinci had designed one in the 16th century.

  54. I think semi-automatic rifles should have something like the special 1933 National Firearms Act, where they aren't illegal. Just more difficult and more expensive to obtain

  55. Thank you for this break down. I've tried to have meaningful conversations about this before but people will either assume I'm a gun nut or a far left liberal.

  56. Dude you should watch the bitch guys (try guys from buzzfeed) mainly the one about guns god i hate that video and also you should watch angry cops hes fucking funny.

  57. way I see it is everyone back when the second amendment was written owned what at the time were military grade assault rifles, and no one took em away so?

  58. You are missing a lot of writings by the founding fathers that are not in the federalist papers or government documents. They are typically in their letters and notes to others. Jefferson, Madison, Sam Adams, etc. You will find in those writings how they really felt and intended. Many of their ideas sound exactly like fighting tyranny. Also the research showed that the "assault weapons ban" did nothing to curb anything. It was worthless. The dropping rate of gun violence stayed the same. You are either missing info or you left it out.

    There were also rapid fire guns in the 1770's. George Washington loved them. The puckle gun was invented in 1718'ish. They were also not unknown concepts. They were very much interested and theorizing "machine guns" at that time. Nukes were the only thing they didn't really fathom. Planes and tanks were 1600's. They knew what was coming.

    The reason the NRA has the end half of the 2A is because the first part talks about what is necessary for a free state, not what is necessary to own guns. You do not have to be in a militia to own a firearm, but you have to own a firearm in order to form a militia. So that is poor reading comprehension. I can change it to hunting. Hunting, being necessary to feed my family, the right of the people to keep….etc. That means that I am telling you one important reason why there is a need for guns, then telling you that the keeping and bearing shall not be infringed, because people need to hunt, or because people need to be free. Militias, at that time, were not controlled by the state. It is nice saying "state militia" because there were state militias and militias from states. They were men that did not answer to the state, but they came from, a state. They were the "bring your own gun" byog crowd. Without their guns and cannons, the colonial army loses.

    Since your video, you know what the left is saying now. They are all getting ridiculous. Also, Australia. They collected 20% of guns total. It didn't work. They have had the same amount of shootings happen after as before the ban. New Zealand has collected about 500. That's it. There are 600,000 estimated.

    Licensing. There is a reason for licensing with cars. Cars are complex machines with complex rules in order for us to interact with them. Right of way. Traffic lights, traffic signs. One must show proficiency or people will die through ignorance. The collision rate for cars is in the millions per year, gun negligence is around 80,000 a year that don't end in death. That is drastically different. One reason is that more people have cars than have guns. Cars are used in public nonstop. Guns require a person to point and shoot to harm, cars require a person to stop paying attention to harm. They aren't remotely the same, but both can kill. Also, guns are not designed to murder people. So they are being used outside of their design.

    Knives also used to kill more people yearly than rifles, as you well know. I guess the idea is that a firearm can kill more at once? Japan, 18 murdered. China, 36 murdered. Both with knives. You don't even need to use knives. You can use a truck and kill 86, like in France. The other thing you aren't mentioning. People cannot protect themselves with cars, explosives, gasoline, and many other things, but murderers can murder with them. Even guns can't protect from everything. Law abiding citizens can pretty much only use a gun, because melee weapons can't protect you from guns, cars, explosives, gas, etc. You lack a lot of information. We need to find things that work. The other part you aren't covering is the "CDH" folks. As in cold dead hands. I don't really think it is a good idea to poke that bear.

  59. Firearm deaths by handguns is 20x the number of deaths by rifle. Homicide by use of knives, bare hands, feet, and blunt objects are all greater than by rifles. The number of deaths by rifle is roughly 300 a year nationally. Handgun deaths are roughly 6,000.

  60. Who sells guns at a gun show though?
    Not individual sellers.

    The second amendment is also two distinct clauses. That’s where this “new interpretation” argument comes from.

    The ‘militia’ at the time of writing was not talking about state militias, but every man and Arms refers to effective weapons of war.

    Still, it is the right of the people. Not the right of the militia. The founding fathers also envisioned a country that was going to end up with multiple revolutions.

    Also, more lives saved from having guns than not. I think we should start having a real conversation about gun control when our murder rate in the country is out of line with the murder rates of other countries.

    As it is, if we define mass shootings as 4 or more dead, a metric that most countries use, and look at the per capita rate of that, the USA ranks 66th.

    Far behind Norway, Finland, Switzerland, and Russia. So I don’t agree that we do need gun control.

Leave a Reply

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

Post comment