Articles, Blog

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 thoughts on “The Complete Moderate’s Guide to Gun Control

  1. ….So when did the "right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms," become, "the right of the STATE to keep and bear arms"? Apparently, you're saying they were clarifying that the well-regulated militias are allowed to be ARMED? Pretty clever trick there, though, where you start off with a long line of true or non-false statements and details, to separate your bogus conclusion from the line of the constitution.

    Political Moderate: 1. A Leftist with some reason. 2. An unpopular Leftist. 3. A leftist which does research, but still can't read simple English when it is presented in the constitution. 4. A Leftist who is embarrassed about their own Leftism, as they argue exclusively for Leftist polices.

  2. Not even 5 mins in and you are already wrong. The Bill of Rights to the Constitution are NOT the Federal Government giving you rights, they are rights you are BORN with and the amendments are there to tell the government that they CAN NOT legislate against those rights! This is literally US government and politics 101 yet you couldn't even understand that?! Jesus Christ no wonder we have moron politicians like AOC in Congress when people like you are voting…

  3. did the chinese man in hong kong with the sign "we need the 2nd amendment" change your mind? probably not. tyrants will come for you and fully automatic guns are completely justified for possession. youre a naive coward to believe otherwise

  4. there should be no gun laws as far as im concerned. we have over 20,000 federal gun regulations with no evidence that they reduce gun violence. also i dont see how it makes sense that we cant have machineguns but the govt gets to have fighter jets.

  5. If you could get everybody that's ever said "guns don't kill people, people kill people" to eat tide pods, you could actually have a reasonable discussion about guns. Sometimes I want to call a magazine a clip just to hear them try to sound brilliant for knowing the difference.

  6. Thank you. Marine Corps veteran. OEF 2010. Agree with you on this one. If you can druve a vehicle up to 35k lbs, on a standard license, and drive it down the street at 80mph, then guns can be registered the same way. Could do a buy back. Also food for thought. What about an enhanced license, such as a CDL, but for firearms, that allows military style assault weapons, and keep the current NFA process. Enhanced license be for police, military, active, veteran and retired, and citizens who go through the needed training. Maybe.

  7. By 1886 repeating cartridge weapons had been the norm for about a decade & a half. While some folks DID still use muzzle loading arms they were outliers and seen as either too poor to update or a little odd.
    As for the "machine gun mistake" in the case of those pushing gun control at the top this is a deliberate confusing of terms, like the labeling of many guns as "assault weapons". It is a very common dishonest tactic used repeatedly by the antigun movement, as well as other activist groups (left & right) to help sway the undecided to their side of the debate. Unfortunately too many fall for this as it is usually intended to get the ignorant scared and jumping for a solution. Just look at the current congressional bill on "assault weapons" which would effectively excuse the outright banning of MOST semi automatic firearms as "assault weapons", even many originally designed for the civilian market.

  8. Making a TSA comparison is a terrible sales pitch given how unpopular and demonstrably ineffective it is. Nothing says "don't worry about a slippery slope to tyranny" like government agents groping your grandmother. Nevermind that the sordid history of the FBI, COINTELPRO being a prominent example, doesn't engender much trust.

  9. This guy did not really research very well. "The History of the Second Amendment" by "Political Juice" really goes in depth and disproves much of what this guy is saying about the founding fathers intent.

  10. I disagree with many of your assertions. But you presented yourself in a clear and concise manner. I do believe you got a number of your points wrong though. But others have stated them here (See AKEddie AKEddie 's reply), so I'm not going to re-hash them. Still, I like hearing from the other side. And you did slightly weaken one of my anti-gun control arguments. I now know of 1 country, that wasn't immediately repressed by its gov. when issuing mandatory registration.

    Hearing from the other side challenges me, and keeps me on my toes. Its far too easy to get comfortable in our arguments, and create echo chambers for ourselves.

  11. I like how he skipped the part where all men age 18-45 were the militia by federal law, and as such were lawfully obligated to purchase current military weapons and kit and know how to use them.

  12. so great, in Australia you had to prove to the gov why you need a firearm, among all of the other restrictions you listed. and it was a MANDATORY buyback. Otherwise known as CONFISCATION! And you want that here? You are no moderate. Please keep your lies and propaganda to yourself.

  13. Kinda skipped the part where the NFA was written to have such an outrageous cost to the average individual in '34 that it would be a de facto ban.

  14. I don't agree with the shoe rule or locking up tide pods. Ok toddlers I get but older children. We can't save any one that dumb.

  15. There's more guns in America than citizens in America. Many people tell us the only assigned purpose for a gun is to kill.
    There's millions of guns in America today which failed to accomplish that assigned purpose. Why did those guns fail today?

  16. Guns increase security in America also we have plenty of restrictions rules and laws you make points to justify limits to the right to self preservation I disagree with these limits. Further you take a moderate stance yet you seem to have the spirit of the sheep bootlicker which is surprising because I have never in my life witnessed a military person that seemed this way. Point number 3 if our CIA was selling dope in Afghanistan which there is evidence of, among many other crimes to many to list then we need the protection in our Homeland. I disagree with much of the language you used and I would argue that people do have the right to protect themselves with any means needed for that protection.. I sat through the entire video and it was indeed uncomfortable especially coming from a veteran. You do not seem to have the kick ass spirit that Americans should have, rather more of a milk toast pussy sort of attitude.

  17. Wait but if the government has automatic grenade launchers then we are screwed. Unless everyone gets one. Bet then we are screwed again. it would be so expansive to own and manage. and not to mention the crazies. Imagine if one crazy dude got their hands on that thing.

    Also, it sounds like we aren't to behind from Australia. A few pieces of legislation and it wouldn't be that different.

  18. 22:16 "It doesn't matter, all of these are just ways to stop the conversation about gun control by shifting it to something else. You're going to have to participate in the conversation eventually."

    Why so quick to dismiss the importance of mental health as it correlates to gun control? Doesn't sound like you actually want to talk about these issues if that's going to be your tactic. You even made sure to mention how being "mentally sound" was part of the required process to get licensed to purchase a firearm in Australia… I guess mental health only applies when it's helping you make your arguments then?

    Of the roughly 40,000 gun deaths in America that occur each year, about 25,000 of those are suicide by gun. Sounds like mental health is playing a massive role to me. I think we can all agree that mentally stable people don't want to kill themselves, right? Would you also agree that mentally stable people don't want to commit mass murder either?

    So then how exactly does mental health not apply to gun control? Just because you don't want to talk about it?

  19. How do you overthrow a tyrannical government? "Principles of improvised warfare and home defense"
    Take that artillery boy.

  20. Shall not be infringed is pretty straight forward. There shouldn't even be a debate about guns. If you don't like them, you are free to vote with your wallet and choose not to buy one, but leave my right to own them and protect my loved ones alone!

  21. So locking up Tide pods and forcing everyone to take off their shoes in airport security is a smart and/or good thing? People who are stupid enough to eat Tide pods get their Darwinian Karma.

  22. Reopening the insane asylums and getting the crazies off the streets and getting them the help they need would be a HUGE help. Right now we just throw them in jail or let them roam the streets and their problems fester until they reach a breaking point. Also, STOP GIVING PSYCHOTROPIC DRUGS TO 5 YEAR OLDS!!!! 😧

  23. The argument that its a god given right is better explained as a birthright. There are a few minor mistakes that are small but really make a difference. Claiming you know terminology then saying a 'flash suppressor' no its a flash eliminator. I also noticed that while you laim to be moderate you only seemed to critisize the righ like it was biased sort of but sort of not objection reaserch

  24. "[…t]he right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" =/= "[…t]he right of aforementioned well regulated militias to possess firearms in accordance with local and federal regulations shall be infringed only by common sense gun laws." Precise language is apparently hard, and James Madison, along with other statesmen, philosophers, and lawyers, were evidently incapable of it. The Supreme Court, for its part, evidently believes that this passage refers to the right of people to own semi-automatic magazine fed pistols to defend your home against thieves. I'm not sure I believe the common sense part of "common sense" gun laws. T-Rex Arms frankly has a thoroughly effective rebuttal to this "militia only" canard. The militias were composed of citizens, citizens who were responsible for their own military arms and equipment. Next question.

  25. I wouldn’t say the government gave the US the 2A,
    I would say that the people demanded it and formed it into the government.
    Additionally you say that like the government could take that right away. Which would be a catastrophe.
    (Also ya the gun show loophole doesn’t exist to my knowledge and if it does no one cares.

  26. We don’t all agree that civilians shouldn’t have those weapons. The 2A was designed to allow the people the fight off a tehranical government.

  27. “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactures as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.”

    ― George Washington

    “The constitution shall never be construed…to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”

    ― Alexander Hamilton

  28. I love all the conservatives flocking to the comment section and spouting the same Strawman bullshit arguments, clearly ignoring or not watching the video. You can't argue the video, so instead they say some quote, strawman or some other jargon they heard from their favorite Conservative Youtube Forum and just leave it at that.

    Conservatives always make me laugh at just how dumb they are.

  29. I try to keep an open mind so that I'm not a 2A defender (or insert any other position) because I always have been so when I saw this video from a "moderate", I was interested. Without doing any research, it became clear that you have a bias for some form of gun control. After watching your video, I'm frankly sick of individuals calling themselves "moderates". It goes under the premise of this whole left-right political model that incorrectly leads people to believe being on either end makes you an extremist and therefore being in the middle is morally ideal. Political thought is too complex for such a simple model. Individuals, like yourself, need to stop using the term so that they can get mass appeal (or hate) and instead just be open about your bias. I get it. For a lot of "moderates", taking on the label Democrat or Republican doesn't fit, and Libertarian isn't any better for these individuals at least when you look at who is in charge of these parties at this time. But these parties hold varying philosophies within them (like peleoconservative, conservative Democrat, or green libertarian just to name a few examples), and you will likey find yourself falling into one of these titles. Be honest about your beliefs instead of pandering to the simplistic narrative of being morally righteous for being a "moderate".

  30. We honestly need a new amendment that forces all laws, rules, regulations, amendments, etc to be written in layman's terms and to have the wording updated every few years. That way, lawyers with the most verbose dictionaries don't have all the power and we can actually interpret the amendments properly.

  31. The true problem is, in fact, the people who use guns explicitly to harm innocent people. In a perfect world, civilians wouldn't even consider buying a gun for self defense, but too many wack jobs exist for people to have that kind of peace-of-mind.
    The only reason people should want to own a gun is for aesthetics and as a confidence booster. Shooting a gun makes people feel powerful, knowing that they are wielding something explicitly designed to kill. It puts hair on the chest, and that's a high that people love and that I see no reason to take away from them.

    The true issue is figuring out how to separate the wack jobs from the sane. A sane person doesn't murder a dozen people because they see something they disagree with. A sane person can make a mistake, so keeping excessively dangerous guns out of those situations is ideal, but banning guns based on their grip is like banning a car based on its steering wheel.

  32. I guess you missed Luke 22:36…

    Or the Militia Act of 1903: Unorganized militia – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.

    Or that there were already weapons that could fire multiple rounds at once when the Second Amendment was written.

    Or that in letters from some of the founding fathers they explained that the Second Amendment was also for individuals to protect their property…

  33. I’m sorry but this is Misleading I may be very late to this but he’s wrong completely there were many cases of multi shot weapons only as big as pistols in now day standards in the time the Founding fathers wrote the second amendment they new about the Advancement in firearm production Proto types weapons

  34. I'm not a moderate. I oppose the Warfare State Party & the Welfare State Party who agree on a Police State. I'm of the few who support a Free State.

  35. lol what gun show loop hole? you still need an ffl person to be present for the purchase and have to wait 10 days.

  36. Have to have a licence. Yeah no thanks. A national registry is a poor idea. Also I don't like the government being the one to decide who does and doesn't get firearms.

  37. If the right wasn't for the people and for the state then it would have read being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the state to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Because we know that they referred each state of the 13 colonies as a state. So tell me why does it say the right of the people when we know government is the state and people are people?

  38. You're telling me, some of the smartest people to ever live in this entire nation didn't fucking think firearms technology would advance. You fucking bafoon.

  39. This might be viewed as extreme, but what I want is basically the following:
    1a. Government-subsidized firearm safety courses for all high-school-age kids. Opt-out by parent request. Same as sex-ed. So many kids come out of high school with zero knowledge about these immensely-powerful devices; it will help them, even if they do not plan to own one.
    1b. One or two armed law enforcement officers on all school campuses, both for the safety of the kids, and also to help foster positive relationships between the youth and police presence — which has been significantly degraded over recent decades. These officers should only be armed with smart guns set to fire only when held by the officer it is issued to (said weapons already exist, by the way).

    2. Guaranteed private ownership of a reasonable weapon for the defense of one's home, aside from the certifiably mentally ill. State-to-state definitions of what constitutes a "reasonable weapon," but a lethal weapon nonetheless. A one-time government-subsidized purchase of one's first aforementioned weapon (perhaps limited to newer, safer, "smart guns") to spread out gun ownership amongst more people. I want the herd immunity argument to decrease violent crime and home invasions.

    3. Guaranteed right to own assault weapons, but stored when not in use inside civilian armories in all towns and cities, operated solely by the local government — absolutely zero federal involvement beyond oversight of safety standards. Pay attention, tyranny-fearers; this makes militarizing a civlian populace much easier in the case of an invasion or tyrannical government. Likewise, pay attention, gun control advocates. The relationship one would have to the operator of their local armory would be akin to your relationship with your pharmacist, who knows you somewhat personally and acts as a line of defense against criminal intent.

    4. Private ownership of assault weapons for enthusiasts by a modestly-expensive, extensively-background-checked permit with extra training only. Renewed on a 4-year basis, but once given, eliminates all waiting periods and the vast majority of restrictions on what can be owned.

    5. All states become "shall issue" states in regards to CCW permits. A local sheriff should not be able to deny your request for said permit without a given reason, if you meet all requirements to own a concealed-carry permit.

  40. Some of the earlier supreme court interpretations line up pretty well I'd imagine with many modern pro-gun people: if the government can use it then we can too.

  41. I find that the majority of Americans do support a system similar to owning a car rather than the ban of certain weapons. This keeps everyone happy, because "in case of tyranny" there is still a glass case to be broken. Perhaps owning different types of firearms will require more training/regulations, in the same way that your driver's license does not grant you permission to operate a semi truck.

  42. The second amendment does protect the right to bear arms… but there’s nothing on it regarding ammunition 🤣

  43. I appreciated the video. I have no strong opinion on guns either way. I live in the rural Midwest and do not believe any laws could be enforced. Guns are an ordinary part of culture here and shootings are rare. I do not own a gun. Presenter has a moderate view that will upset both sides.

  44. What you miss is the wording "the right" which means it already prexists the writing. The writing of it isnt the establishment of that right, it's an acknowledgment of the prexistance of the right. And those at gun shows must be FFL's to participate these days. The internet has made it possible to process the background checks in minutes.

  45. An assault weapon is anything I can use to assault someone with regardless of what it is. And a 30 round magazine for the AR is NOT high capacity. It is quite literally the STANDARD capacity. Not remotely high capacity. And as a veteran you should know this.

  46. I Think a person can own about anything (Machine guns,Destructive devices,etc…)
    IF they are qualified,what i mean is, if you are qualified to own a car you should be able to own about any gun you want, because a car is as dangerous as a gun or even more in some situations.
    The problem isn`t what guns people can get their hands on, but which people can get their hands on any gun

  47. 17:51
    Australian here.
    Self-defense or home protection are NOT considered valid reasons for wanting to own a firearm and if this is the reason you list, you won't be granted a licence. Kind of a big point, I feel.

  48. There is no moderate's guide on anything. Laws will ALWAYS be expanded and freedoms/rights restricted. You start with ''Ok lets introduce a gun license with some checks and then people can own guns'' and end up with ''Carrying a metal object counts as a weapon and you're a felon, even if it's just a screw driver''

    You just have to look at Europe 40 years ago where it all started with ''common sense gun laws'' and ''common sense laws'' in general vs now where nearly everything is illegal or highly regulated so only the rich can afford it. Even though gun crime or crime in general was never an issue compared to north and south amerca. I can understand people's need for safety but it will never stop at YOUR perfect version of safety vs freedom but will always end in more and more draconian laws.

    If they're finished with guns like in Europe, they will turn their eyes to free speech and even property rights. Banning ''hate speech'' and introducing an inheritance tax of 100% for amounts over 250.000$ like they want to, has nothing to do with safety, progress or anything else ''good''. It's just tyranny based on previous laws which restricted freedoms because people wanted safety.

    Now everyone is disarmed, brainwashed, safety-focused and freedoms diminish even quicker. There is no moderates guide to ANYTHING. No matter if guns, drugs, property rights, freedom of speech, freedom of movement (all those climate activists who want to ban cars and flights). People need to realize that the amount of laws in general will always increase, and with that, freedoms will diminish.

  49. “Things I hope we can all agree should not be in the hands of civilians”… nope.. we can not agree on that.

  50. I don't think the "assault weapons ban" would be effective or worthwhile, as we're in a unique position in the western world to study their impact on society, and they are simply used in too few homicides to have any meaningful impact if removed from society. It should also be noted that semi-automatic rifles remain legal in Canada, France, and Germany, and these countries do not report issues with frequent mass shootings, further putting into doubt the effectiveness of such a ban. Instead, a person who is interested in reducing the violence should be most concerned with who has access. The fortunate thing here is that the vast majority of the public should be trustworthy enough to keep a firearm safely and responsibly, the biggest issue being that we do not have the infrastructure in place, or even the research culminated, to accurately predict which individuals are too high of a risk to possess firearms. What this tells me is that background checks should be expanded to all sales, however, I can't tell you how many times I went shooting with my shipmates and someone jumped out of the car at a convenience store to grab snacks for everyone. Under the current universal background checks laws some states have passed, that would be considered a transfer, and we would be guilty of not running a background check to transfer a firearm. I think it's very understandable that I take issue with the law being written that poorly. I'm personally okay with access controls, however I want a seat at the table and to be taken seriously when I have issues with how the law is being written. I think that's fair, and that being said, states like California and New York have serious representation issues on the subject. Only one side of the argument is being represented, and because of that, we see laws that do infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms without regard. I would argue that a militia is an army of the people, if it were of the state it would be an army, and the Constitution is pretty clear on standing armies, hence why we're in a perpetual state of war, if we were not the army would have to be disbanded at some point. So the 2A has always protected an individual right, and the fact that it was decided that a weapon had to be useful for military purposes to be protected actually indicates that the machine gun ban of 1986 is unconstitutional, as it bans the rifles carried by the infantry of every modern state around the globe, which defeats the purpose of the 2A. I think I'm going to support Crenshaw on his new bill, let's study why people commit acts of mass violence, how to detect them, and how to prevent them from acting on whatever the cause is. That'll go much further than anything else being proposed, as with that information we'd be able to have an intelligible debate on what to do next.

  51. If the government treated guns like cars, you wouldn't need any license or background check to buy or own one, or to shoot on private property. You could take a simple test to get a carry permit recognized in all states and municipalities. Carry laws would be mostly uniform across all jurisdictions. The only restrictions on guns would be over what you're allowed to carry in public, not what you're allowed to own and shoot in private.

  52. You're absolutely right "guns" weren't mentioned in the Bible. Neither were personal computers and air conditioners. However self defense and defense of others "are" mentioned – several times if anyone cares to google the topic. Maybe Bible scholars will remember armed guards in the Old Testament Temple and maybe they'll remember that when Jesus and his disciples were headed to a prayer meeting in a garden Jesus told them to get a sword, and then told them if you don't already have one to sell some of your clothes to get one. And after Peter cut off a soldier's ear Jesus told Peter to put away his sword while Jesus repaired the ear. That tells me – among other things – that just because I carry it (sword / gun) every day that doesn't mean I should use it every day.

  53. Well — we don't actually ALL agree that there's any weapons we citizens shouldn't own. Your own words tell us we should be able to protect ourselves from governments – both foreign and domestic – who attack us. Any weapon owned by those governments should be available to citizens so we citizens will have equal footing with those attacking governments.

  54. Australia has gun control and no tyrannical government. Maybe.
    However many Americans believe there are many inside the American government who behave tyrannically.

  55. If you go by Facebook standards, I'm listed as a Liberal, despite being rabidly pro gun, and economically conservative. The only things I am "liberal" on are some social issues like gay rights and abortions, but thats more of a libertarian (ie; leave people alone) stance than a liberal (women are all powerful and gays are special) stance. Eveyrone is equals, end of story, basically. And I am not even outspoken on those issues, i have tons of pro gun posts.

    So if Facebook has you listed as a moderate, that makes me wonder what the hell facebook is smoking.

  56. in 1886 there were many breach loaders in circulation. Also colt's Single Action Army had been out since 1873. Yes, Reagan wasn't as pro-gun as the Right likes to remember him as. Also, the 1989 Bush Assault weapons ban was a thing. It banned the IMPORT of "Assault Weapons", which is why Reagan and crew wrote to Congress asking them to ban DOMESTIC production. If the firearm is a title 2 firearm as defined in the GCA of 1968 then the sale of it to another private individual requires a background check. What about the Bielski Brigade? What if they didn't need to capture all of their arms to begin with, how many others could have put up a fight like them then? Pretty complete video other than that. Good job!

  57. I can guarantee you, I do NOT know the date, but the MSM, Politicians, and voter apathy will result in the confiscation of all fireams in the USA. I do not know when, but it will happen. I can see it coming. I cannot predict what will happen after that but it will happen. Since most gun owners are law abiding people, they will hand them in because they are not criminals by nature. I am a gun owner, but I can see it coming. Of course, as George Will said, "There are two good things about being a pessimist. One you are nearly always right, and two when you are wrong you are pleasantly surprised". I hope it never happens, the confiscation of firearms that is, but I see it coming. BB

  58. "Your right to own a gun comes from the government." Aaaaand you lost me…
    The constitution did not bestow a right. You like to play the role of the pedant(which is fine, I do too), so I'm a bit shocked that you missed the excruciatingly important "the" just before the word "right" in the wording of the amendment. The phrase is "the right", not "a right", not "this right granted to you", but "THE right". That reveals, in no uncertain terms, that the founders considered the right in question to PREDATE the constitution, and their writing of the 2nd Amendment. The amendment was only written as a codification of the protection from infringement that the right deserved. The government was not allowed to infringe upon the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms. Why? See the prefatory clause of the amendment… Should the people need to band together as a militia, they would be expected to use their own arms. This dates back centuries before the constitution to British common law, and was so common a thing in early America that it wasn't even considered that it would need to be explicitly spelled out in any official form. I'm often stunned by the amount of research that goes into videos such as this when they ignore centuries of history that refutes their view. Either that, or your research is incomplete. I can tell why you're a "moderate". You put forth some effort, but you stop thinking and researching once your pre-determined view is validated in the slightest way.

    The constitution as a whole, and the Bill of Rights specifically, were not written to let you and I know what we could do. They were written to confine the government to what IT was allowed to do, and what it was NOT allowed to do. The rights indicated in the first 10 amendments were not bestowed by those amendments, but rather protected by them. They did not inform the people of their rights. They restricted the government from affecting them as described.

    Do you really believe that the founders, having fought a war that was sparked by gun confiscation, would actually agree that a government possesses the power to strip away the right to own a gun?'
    Does your right to speak freely come from the government too?

  59. "Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary" – Karl Marx. The left does not want to ban guns only liberals

  60. You're kind of missing the point when you take "God-given right" literally like that. The substance of what they're saying is that the government doesn't give you your rights, you have rights you're born with regardless of what a government might want, and that guns are one of those rights.

  61. Please stop making videos. Yes. Civilians should have them! All things being equal the government behaves. Oh my. Homey needs to read the federalist papers and stop assuming government gives us our rights including self defense. This video is way over spoken and far too misleadingly assumptive.There is such a thing and misguided charity or rather the road to hell is paved with good intentions—keeping us all safe by Turing in our guns. Then the government that you served turns on you. 100 years of blood over socialism should be your guide point. 120 million dead in the name of equality=communism.

  62. I think the citizens should have the same guns the US military has. You are arrogant and stupid to think a government collapse and dictatorship like there was in Egypt and Venezuela cant happen here. The gov. can collapse and the military can be taken over by a strong charismatic asshole and I want the tools to defend myself and my family.

  63. 90% of guns used in crimes are illegally bought and most shootings are in gun free zones. More knives and hard objects are used in homicides than guns are.
    If anyone says gun homicide in america is more than 5/1000, that's because they also count suicides which is 3/4 of gun homicide rate. Without suicide, gun homicide in America would be the same as most of Europe and Australia.

    I don't think guns are the problem. I think enforcement agencies should go after second hand sellers and such.

    Sorry for grammar, I'm French.

  64. The only meaningful reform is controlling high capacity semiautomatic weapons, magazine capacity and semi automatic actions

  65. Libtard and Nazi makes total sense… Most liberals have Socialist leanings. Nazi stands literally for: National Socialist German Workers’ Party.
    That is the truthful connection that liberals and Democrats would like to re-write in world history!
    Don't let this gun grabbing, libtard Nazi convince you otherwise!

  66. I cant help but say there is quite a difference in cultural thinking between Australia and the USA as well which is also important. We in Scotland can still have certain style guns for sports,hunting and vermin control for farms but one of the most important things I genuinely believe is cultural. But like you say NOTHING will stop all guns, of course not, but a difference in thinking is so important. I genuinely hope America can have a cultural shift as well-unfortunatly money is so effective in stifling proper debate. Another great and thought out video though 👍

  67. The 2nd amendment is an individual right, there are many quotes from our founding fathers that support this. the sole purpose of the 2nd amendment is to have a safeguard against tyranny, and the declaration of independence is a good source for what the founding fathers meant when they wrote the 2nd amendment. plus the 2nd amendment is in the bill of "rights", and a right cannot be taken away from a law abiding citizen. Later in the video around 16:59 are you basically saying that the founding fathers couldn't predict that guns would advance rapidly and be able to fire faster than anything thought possible at the time, so the 2nd amendment only applies to certain guns and not all guns? The musket was the common military rifle at the time of the of writing the declaration of independence and later on down the road in the writing of the constitution so any type of gun that is commonly used by the military should be able to be purchased by any law abiding citizen who passes a background check and it should be treated just like any other gun and you shouldhave to jump througha bunch of hoops like you have to do now. I would be against any national firearms registry because it would lead to gun confiscations but I would auctually support a firearms license as long as you only have to do a day class and take a test on gun safety but nithing over the top that makes it outrageous to get one but this is a slippery slope because you shouldn't need a license to exercise a right and this would reinforce the idea that rights are given to you by the government when that is not the case so im not completely sure on where I would stand on that issue.

  68. It's mad that videos like that have to even exist… Puts lots of people off from even visiting US as they think it's a land of armed murderers. Nobody needs a gun in their house (unless it's a hunting rifle for the said hunting). A hand gun or an assault rifle is not something anyone needs unless they want to kill people. And if you feel like you need it for protection?? Then maybe a reform of policing is in order or something because most of the world do not feel it necessary (aside from war torn places), and people do not get murdered in their houses or schools on mass, probably because we have no rifles or handguns at home.

  69. I'm sure you won't be reading this, but

    While I rather enjoyed the way you present some of your arguments in this video as well as how you choose to preface yourself, the fact that you pick and choose which arguments you want to make while blanket ignoring or dismissing other arguments hurts your message.

    Thanks for the video, nonetheless.

Leave a Reply

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