The Complete Moderate’s Guide to Gun Control
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.


  • Leonis Grygoruk

    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.

  • Anonymity

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

  • Hangfire-13

    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!

  • Teethgrinder 83

    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 👍

  • owen ward

    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 shouldn't have to jump through a 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 nothing 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.

  • M R

    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.

  • Kazeshrike

    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.

  • John Duston

    Expiration dates used to be built in to most bills so that congress would be kept busy and so that laws could easily change over time as the political landscape changed.

  • james Wiebe

    “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.”

  • stephen melton

    In the state militia of the 1700's militiamen were required to report for duty with their own powder, their own shot and you guessed it, their own musket. Without private ownership there was no militia. This fact did not escape the founders.

  • Jon E

    The National Guard IS the militia. I'm from NY (you know… the state with some of the strictest gun laws & one of the original 13 colonies) and our state laws explicitly state that the NY army, air, and naval Guard are the "organized" militia. The "unorganized" militia is defined too. It is all able bodied citizens from the age of 17-45. There's a reason why the National Guard's symbol is the Minuteman.

  • D

    The right to own a firearm in the time of the founding fathers was just assumed. It would be about equal to saying "the right to go to the grocery store" being written into a law now. If you had no firearms, you had little chance of getting any fresh meat. And you most likely you were malnourished and then died from sickness, or starvation come winter.

  • reddevilparatrooper

    Remember the British have disarmed themselves since 1900. The British in 1940 after the fall of France needed firearms because the Germans were only 20 miles from them over the English Channel. The only people that had firearms were the nobility, privileged classes, and farmers who owned only shotguns and .22 rifles. Their crime rate was no better than the US at that time during the 1920s till the beginning of WWII in their bigger cities. The British were still violent since the Victorian Era. Yet the British Government needed firearms to defend themselves from the pending German Invasion during 1940-41. The US Government sent surplus military rifles to the British. The very same ones like the M1917 in 30-06 sold to US civilians in the 1920s. Handguns like .38 revolvers from Colt and S&W which US civilians have bought and owned for personal protection and weekend shooting. Even US civilians donated personal firearms with ammunition to the British people for use in their Home Guard organizations without ever having them returned. After the war many of those donated US civilian firearms were destroyed and the Lend Lease ones were sold back to the US as surplus firearms. Today the British are like what NAZI Germany wanted their society to be. Totally disarmed from firearms. Only their police and military are the only ones to be armed with a privileged few and totally controlled. Yet they have gone back in time to using edged weapons of the Middle Ages for the criminals and personal defense. Now they have gone back in time and imposed "Knife Control". Criminality can't be controlled by legislation. Honestly I will not be disarmed by idiots who first want me to be disarmed and to control me. Personal protection is my personal responsibility. The ones who legislate to disarm us have people protecting them armed with firearms 24/7. Why should they be better protected than we??

  • TheRezitinas

    The supreme court didn't reinterpret the 2nd amendment in dc v Heller. They merely incorporated it according to the 14th amendment.

  • John Lee

    As usual, the 'moderates' fail to understand what a right is. A right is inherent (government doesn't bestow rights) and can be exercised without let or hindrance, you don't need permission or a license to do so.

    At the same time, no right obtains at all times, under all circumstances. There have always been some restrictions, under very specific and well defined circumstances or bounds, on the 2A. However, note the language: '…shall not be infringed.'

    IOW, any lawful restriction or regulation of the right to keep and bear arms has to be for the most compelling reasons and is to be applied in the most judicious manner.

    Gun registration is unconstitutional. I don't need permission to own a firearm. The Act of 1934 is most certainly questionable under the Constitution. I haven't read it, nor am I a lawyer or expert on the law.

    Nor am I an 'originalist': that judicial viewpoint is useful, but not determinative, IMO. I think statutes should be construed on the rational meaning of the language in which they are expressed.

    And "shall not be infringed" is very, very, very clear.

  • snowmanii

    Thank you for this. I have had many a conversation with people trying go get them to understand all of what you've depicted; especially your last point at the end about not disregarding what someone has to say because they used the wrong terminology.

    Many people need to hear this

  • aBraM

    Steven Crowder also said that the 2nd amendment is an acknowledgement by the government..
    Also gartling gun was a founding father's machine gun.
    I don't agree with you but I appreciate your effort nice video!
    Edit: Lol I'm from Israel I didn't know America doesn't have a gun license I agree with that.

  • Mr. Veridical

    6:56 –Why do you trust the US gov't more than American civilians? Democide has killed more people that a lot of other things combined.

  • David Oganesyan

    These is absolutely no reason to restrict people from owning any firearms, any more than it already is. This is my opinion and I am holding by it firmly.
    I live in a country where terrorists kill 17 year old girls with bombs, just for religion. Guns are restricted,yet they make their own guns in their settlements. The society is vasty unarmed and mostly of the time has no way to react to even a knife threat.

    This is why you should not restrict law abiding citizens from owning any firearms. Even Select fire firearms.

  • kaiCast

    My belief is that, should a tyrannical government pop up, the people should be armed. Look at Hong Kong for an example, or really many of the dictatorships from the 20th century. Before they committed genocide and other crimes, the people were stripped of their right to self preservation. Self defense and hunting is good and all, but if people truly believe Trump and his supporters are bad people, shouldn't they want to be armed against them? Peaceful protest only works if public opinion sways your way, and the government isn't overly corrupt. Guns are for the protection of the people, from all sources. How do we ensure bad people looking to do bad things don't get a hold of weapons? Who's to say? A registry where the government knows who has guns isn't the answer though. Criminals wouldn't sign up for it, only law abiding citizens. Similarly, Reg Flag Laws are also not the way. Reg Flag Laws are dangerous, because, although in theory they would require an intensive investigation to determine a person's threat, in practice they could just as easily be used to strip people of their arms because their ex-wives/husbands feel any ill will towards the owner. Something needs to be done about all these shootings, and I think better policing (better training, potentially more methods of non-lethal force) and a stronger emphasis on mental health would go a long way.

  • Mean Green

    In 2016 2% of murders were committed with rifles. Seems like rifles aren’t really the problem. Maybe they are just the low hanging fruit.

  • Everett Vinzant

    You make the argument (when talking about an AK-47) that a machine gun is an assault weapon. This comes after the machine gun ban Reagan was responsible for. A machine gun is clearly defined. “Assault Weapon” is not. In fact, name a weapon that can not be used for assault. Having been in the Army myself, it’s easy for me to spot weasel words like “assault weapon.” The point I’m making is, machine gun is specific, “assault weapon,” means whatever the person using it wants it to mean.

  • Spooky Ghost

    I'm on the left but I own guns myself an believe if you have the ability an credentials to posses them then more power to you, however, I feel assault rifles need to be dealt with, an I don't exactly feel we should have those, guns yes but we as citizens don't need assault rifles.

  • Spooky Ghost

    I found you're channel a few months back, I love you're down to earth views on things like this, I always learn so much. So thanks 😊

  • Trevak D'hal

    I wonder how many of the guns (100 per person) are shitty though? Like they fire some weird/stupid round (.32, .25, .45 GAP) or are poorly made pieces of metal and polymer?

    I'd like a scout rifle to go along with my pistol and revolver and 870. If I got into skeet shooting I'd probably get (or rent) a double barrel.

  • Anthony Heffron

    Because should we not need to use a gun in a certain moment in time, they are sinful and must be banned the fuck out of this country. Yeah, and you apparently don't like the fact that we wrote the Constitution to protect rights, not give them. I hope not all moderates are like this.


    I call BS. There is no gun show loophole. you are combining private sale with gun show. That is intentional and weakens your argument.

  • Dude Noone

    Its interesting how we pick and choose what the “the people” means as we go from clause to clause through the constitution and it amendments. 4:50.

    Sometimes it means the individual sometimes it means the state. Imagine if we applied “the people”, meaning the state, to the first amendment.


    What other right do you need a license for?

    Who pays for this financial burden?

    How is this not de-facto registration?

    Who says I'm not responsible enough to own a semi-automatic rifle with a pistol grip and a 30 round magazine? You?

    Why do you think you have a clue or any say as to what my security needs are?

    So if you restrict my mag size and my choice of self defense weapon how are you going to enforce the same restrictions for the criminals that we would be defending ourselves against? If you can't answer this to our satisfaction then what you are for is giving the law abiding legal gun owning citizen the disadvantage in any life threatening situation because the criminal will not care about mag limits as they, by definition do not follow the law and as such will most definitely have nags that hold more than 10 rounds and therefore the advantage over the potential victim.

    If the previous assault weapons ban had no measurable effect on crime according to the FBI then why would it work this time?

    If AR-15's are used in less than 1% of gun crime then how will banning tens of millions of them lower crime stats in any meaningful way?

    Why do you think so little of the majority of your fellow citizens that you think they can't be responsible law abiding AR-15 owning citizens ?

    Why do you seek to punish 110,000,000 million gun owners over the actions of a careless or criminal few?

    Do you restrict everyone's access to cars because some people drive drunk?
    No, that diesn't seem fair now does it?


    You say guns are designed for only one purpose and that is !!!TO KILL!!!
    Like all the other libtarded drama queens. How about the guns used in defense of life which is an estimated 300,000 – 2 5 million times a year?
    So used in defense of life doesn't count?

    **You expose your liberalism with this common misinfo tactic.

  • Jailbot Mark 1

    You’re clearly a smart dude and I appreciate you trying, but you didn’t change my mind. Repeal the NFA. Remove the “well regulated militia” clause from 2A. Even if the amendment’s original intent didn’t concern it, the need for the de-monopolization of force and the deterrent of popular insurrection should be self evident for anyone with marginal knowledge of how most foreign governments operate in the absence of these things. If that makes me an “extremist”, then an extremist I shall be. I’ve heard the “But the government has droooones and taaaanks!!!!” Argument a thousand times, and my only advice to the proponents of that argument is to take a good hard look at how successful the asymmetrical conflicts we typically use those things in have been.

  • littlesmoke992

    the complete guide to lunacy, I wonder why all the mass shootings are happening? so mysterious… and this is coming from safe IRAland lol
    great video! 🙂

  • bav

    I don't agree with amending the second amendment. My opinion on it is kind of irrelevant anyway, since it's extremely unlikely that it will happen.

    The founding fathers were a bit hypocritical, seeing as they "guaranteed" that all men are created equal…yet they owned slaves, denied women the right to vote, and believed that if you didn't own property, you couldn't vote.

    But I interpret liberty as the freedom to do what you desire to do, as long as you do not infringe on the rights of other people. I believe that, as long as you obey the law and do not harm anyone, you should be able to own a firearm. With the right training and certification, you should be able to brandish a firearm publicly. The problem with this interpretation, is that if one nut-job messes it up, everyone thinks that they should get rid of firearms.
    In my support of the second amendment I also question who should be able to own a firearm. Law abiding citizens should be able to, mentally ill and criminals shouldn't. A right IS something that can be taken away, if you commit crimes. Criminals should not EVER have rights(Human rights, yes, but not the rights expressed in the Bill of Rights).

    I don't think that the government should take away "military style assault weapons", I think that you should be able to own semi-automatics, bolt-actions, lever-actions, etc.
    The line, for me at least, is blurred when it comes to fully-automatic weapons. I believe that, as long as you are on PRIVATE PROPERTY, you should be able to use a fully-automatic rifle. No person has any reason to own a tank, a cannon, or an artillery piece. If you believe that you should have the right to own one, you probably plan to defend your property against a small army, which suggests you pissed the government off.

  • Mauricio Vargas

    Damn man you should be a federal judge considering that you know more than the supreme court who deconstructed 90% of your talking points

  • Jay Crew

    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 is nothing to debate here. Never was, never will be.

    It specifically says the right to bear arms belongs to the PEOPLE, the people, as in “we the people”, clearly referring to citizens.

  • Jay Crew

    If you think this is moderate just because you use that word you are either lying or very delusional. Your gun control views are liberal. Period.

  • matt

    i'd like to see people that use the phrase "gun show loophole" actually go to a gun show and find a private sale going on, or try to buy a gun through a private sale. every gun show i've been to you've had people selling guns to vendors that have ffl's, or vendors with ffl's selling guns to people. in fact all of the ones i've been to have actually banned private sales at the gun shows.

  • Alex Gilkison

    The government doesn't give rights, it affirms their existence and protects them. If it was the case that they gave us those rights, what is stopping them from taking them all away?

  • Desert Ranger

    The fact you don’t really understand that the ‘gun show loophole’ really impacts the ability of lawful citizens to give guns to their own family and friends shows you are not really moderate on this issue.

  • WolfvineGaming

    All I can say is you haven’t considered other evidence from the past. As others have stated in the comments. Though ya kudos, and #ferretgang

  • banderfargoyl

    I think it's remarkable that you'd use the tide pod and shoe bomb examples in support of similarly irrational responses to gun violence.

  • Niklas Molén

    It works so that when someone abuses something, it is withdrawn for everyone even for those who can handle it. That is why I can no longer carry my rifle on the airplane when I am transporting dynamite.

  • I think gay furries are hot

    I take issue with your point: banning guns outright isn't unconstitutional. I would argue it is unless they repeal the amendment. If you want to frame it as such, censoring people isn't unconstitutional, its just against the first amendment which can be repealed.

  • Spartan Life

    2:33 the right to privacy is written in the bill of rights their is almost no “fundamental human right” that is not documented somewhere and the reason the founders wrote them down was to clarify their philosophical on human rights.

  • Spartan Life

    3:00 in the book of Luke it’s says that if you do not own a sword you should sell your clothing to buy one. Given that a sword was the gold standard in personal defense weapons at the period that would translate to a god given right to own guns today. Also if your a Mormon Joseph smith preached that it was literally a commandment from god to own guns.

  • Spartan Life

    3:42 so in a world of total anarchy with no government no laws and no social order would guns vanish? Because the walking dead and fallout seem to a shit load of guns and no government granting you the right to have them.

  • tbone martinez

    How much research did you do into the founding fathers before you made this video? One specific law completely negates your statement that the founding fathers thought of the right to bare arms in the context of the militia and not an individual right. The Militia Act of 1791 which was in place until its replacement in the early 1900s. This law set the precedent on who is apart of the militia and who isn't. Obviously it was the usual, 18-45, male etc. However if the founding fathers insisted that ONLY MEMBERS OF THE MILITIA retain the right to keep and bare arms, then you would have seen the forcible disarmament or at least you would have seen the law prosecute individuals who carry out crime with the possession of a firearm, with the additional charge of possessing a weapon while not being qualified for militia service. This did not happen and so far as I have researched I have never seen a serious charge of possession of a weapon while not being party to the militia.

    I also believe it is disingenuous for you to bring up the good ol "muh Muskets" argument, that the founding fathers didn't know what was on the other side of the Mississippi, so therefore they couldn't possibly have perceived a massive change in firearm technology over the years. This is completely and wholly insulting to anyone with a inch of intelligence. They weren't stupid and while yes, single shot firearms were the norm but rapid fire weaponry was right around the corner and many of them were big fans of these new weapons. Not once has a serious leader of this nation, mentioned the possibility of danger to the populace from rapid fire weaponry until modern gun control/ control fanatics brought the idea up. This is because it was common sense that no matter how dangerous a weapon is, there still has to be a human to pick it up and use it for evil. In which case you have law enforcement and the people to deal with this person. The founders may not have seen specifics, but they knew what was around the corner and most importantly of all, they knew the hearts of man. This is why they wrote the constitution in such a way that they could keep government in check, not the people. Remember the constitution is a limit on government, not the people.

  • David Schaftenaar

    6:52 WOAAAaahh hold up there Ethan, you libuhruhl fruitcake pothead you! Mah trusty mason-jar of Sarin keeps me and my daughter S A F E when I go to pick her up from daycare! It's what being an AMERICAN is all about!

  • 46336 34

    I have to say that much with the rest of your videos i still hold the that you are at best center left. The second assault style came out of your mouth as a valid description of anything you lost my faith in your argument. And your country does have a mental health problem the only difference is the rest of us in the world deal with ours.
    Guns are the symptom not the problem curing symptoms just kicks the problem down the road

  • Mr Lucky

    The Constitution does not grant any rights. It restricts the Federal Government from violating certain rights which the founders considered important enough to enumerate. The government could not give the people something it did not have to begin with. All rights originate with the people, not the government. Repeal of the Second Amendment (or any other one) will not remove that right but merely enable the government to violate it more easily.

  • Vade Nummela

    Less restriction on what you can get, but make it more difficult to get. Also closed-off spaces like ranges or private property, no restrictions.

  • Ivan Ivanovic

    I knew how to make an AR-15 full auto when I was fifteen or sixteen, although I'm a bit of a gun nerd so I'm wasn't your standard teenager.

  • Pearl Mas

    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.

  • LibertyShip MGTOW

    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.

  • Simon Dennis

    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


    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.

  • tamer ozkum

    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.

  • Eh Whatever

    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.

  • SSP

    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

  • NocturnalSniper

    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.

  • Rick Haworth

    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.

  • Gary Sweeney

    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

  • Gary Weber

    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.

  • Mr random stuff

    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

  • Tony Howell

    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

Leave a Reply

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