I'm a pro gun leftist and I think where the caller went wrong is trying to compare a constitutional right (with a political justification) to an inviolable human right to bodily autonomy. They are just not on the same level and if this is your opening argument things are going to descend quickly.

@runrafarunthebestintheworld

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah Guns are only a constitutional right an anyone can take your gun away. That is NOT a violation of Human Rights or anything written as an International Law

@banehelsing7541

2 жыл бұрын

He sounded like a pure capitalist to me because he mentioned regulation of the government towards the end in such a way that contradicts his stance that the government shouldn’t take away our 2nd amendment. It’s the same argument that conservatives make with the whole “small government nonsense”. Basically they want to just pick and choose what “a person’s right” is for “everyone” without realizing that it can infringe on another person’s right. Actually this is the exact argument we as a society are having with many things.

@slambrew3849

2 жыл бұрын

Rights are barely even real, they're immaterial. The constitution wouldn't protect you if the powers that be, or society in general, just decided to stop following it.

@andrewgreen5574

2 жыл бұрын

@@slambrew3849 exactly. Rights are an abstraction, a condition created by people that often uses state violence to justify their existence. In other words it often gives the state the sole ability to violate the rights they are meant to "protect", lol. Pretty sure the Black Panther Party brought out this contradiction in the seventies.

@uncletom356

2 жыл бұрын

"Pro gun leftist" is an oxymoron. Pick a side. Hopefully, the correct one.

This conversation could've ended in five minutes. That abortion comparison derailed it

@SBRS47

2 жыл бұрын

People just can't admit that they just legally want the power to kill someone with a gun and have it be legally defended in certain situations. That's all it comes down to. Comparing that to women who want full control over their own bodies is batshit insane.

@AndyG1995

2 жыл бұрын

@@SBRS47 I feel like this is an issue that will never be agreed upon. One side believes that the baby in a woman’s body isn’t a human being and the other side believes that it is a human being. When people say things like “my body my choice” it’s hard for the other side to understand, because they see that as not only the woman’s body, but also the baby inside of her. Second amendment however - I think it’s something that absolutely needs to stay. Bad guys are always going to find a way to get bad weapons. So if we don’t have anything to defend ourselves, what happens when the bad guy with a weapon comes knocking? What do I do?

@aaronsande

2 жыл бұрын

That was 50 seconds in!

@in_ur_moms_house

2 жыл бұрын

@@AndyG1995 the 2nd amendment shouldn't be twisted to support the narrative of anti government militias and extremists, its not applied as intended by the writers of the constitution. Gun ownership should be treated as a privilege not a right.

@AndyG1995

2 жыл бұрын

@@in_ur_moms_house I absolutely think each person should have a right to DEFEND themselves. But nobody should exploit their rights in an attempt to harm without cause.

The Supreme Court needs term limits.

@2TrillSenna

2 жыл бұрын

@Ruthless Minion same reason Presidents need them.

@darkdan3379

2 жыл бұрын

@@2TrillSenna I fully agree...

@ThePanMan11

2 жыл бұрын

Needs some stricter protocols on how to appoint justices too. Clearly congress and the white house are not to be trusted with the authority.

@andregordon2599

2 жыл бұрын

Agreed. We have had literally 60 years of a vaguely balanced court, so people have been sleeping on how horribly undemocratic it is. As the guest said earlier in the show, the Supreme Court now is fully set on passing legislation with their power the GOP couldn’t pass with democracy

@darkdan3379

2 жыл бұрын

@Ruthless Minion nope but the fact that Mitch the turtle neck and American heritage hand picked the new majority does...

This guy seemed reasonable on every topic except for guns. Then he became a strict “constitutionalist.”

@ashkebora7262

2 жыл бұрын

Except for the profound lack of principles he's using to justify his beliefs. Or rather, using two incompatible frames of reference to justify hypocritical positions. This country has an extreme lack of critical thinking skills.

@joehuiras4955

2 жыл бұрын

People like guns, they make exceptions for things they like, perhaps

@mr.dirtydan3338

Жыл бұрын

​@@joehuiras4955 that's exactly what it is

@ihsahnakerfeldt9280

4 ай бұрын

I doubt it. I bet if he got pushed enough he would have revealed the same stupid libertarian brain worms like "gubment bad, freedom always gud". He already thinks regulation on an individual level is bad in principle.

Yeah, I mean I'm a pro gun leftist, I think? I'm a leftist and I own guns, so I guess that qualifies. I don't wear them on my hip or anything. I don't go to gun shows. I go to the shooting range sometimes but I don't like flashing my guns around. I don't want people to know I own them because that's my personal property. It's my decision to own them, and it really isn't anyone else's business what type, or how many guns I own. I don't get off on people knowing that I'm a gun owner. But I will say: I think leftists NEED to own guns. Just my opinion, I'm not asking you to do anything you don't want to do, but I think it's important. Maybe it'll never happen, and maybe I sound like a wild conspiracy hack, and maybe I sound no better than the types of people on the right-wing who have been screaming "OBAMA COMING FER MUH GUNZ" for years - - but when a fascist takeover happens in this country, who do you think will be targeted first? Leftists, and atheists, and gays, and minorities, and students, and all the types of people who've thumbed their noses at gun ownership for decades. And guess who we'll be targeted by? Cops, and ex cops, and military and ex military, and people who have fervently owned guns for decades. Well, if that time ever comes, this leftist is going to be able to defend himself and his family, and I just hope that you will too... and if it never happens? Well, I'm still a helluva shot and I've never hurt anyone.

@furiousapplesack

2 жыл бұрын

I agree completely, with every word of that.

@lookbovine

2 жыл бұрын

That is VERY hypothetical. If it’s the government coming “after you” it will be by info from your IP address (uh-oh, that post won’t go away) and with drones that you can’t shoot down or see coming. Civilian guns won’t help you in an all-out civil war, and they weren’t meant to. The Second Amendment was to ensure a civilian militia as opposed to a standing army would be used for national defense, so it failed a long time ago. Cheers.

@davidtangitau3771

2 жыл бұрын

@@lookbovine Vietnam, Taliban, Al qaeda have entered the chat.

@jonstrickland4848

2 жыл бұрын

You hope too. Not saying you shouldn’t you certainly should but real life isn’t Rambo. There’s better weapons than guns for such situations arise as well.

@AnaTorres-os8wt

2 жыл бұрын

I have nothing against guns in the hands of sane, responsible owners, except that they scare me and I don't want to own one. But even if I were brave and very skilled with firearms, I can't imagine being any match for a bunch of ex-cops and military should they decide to come after me.

We need a to to take a class and pass a written and practical test to drive a car. I don't see why its too much to ask the same for a gun. Also, towns in the old west made you check your guns before coming into town or keep them at home.

@coldcoffee1506

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah Sam wasn’t advocating total gun bans. He’s just saying open-carry is dangerous. At least I think that’s what he meant.

@yahwehvii6059

2 жыл бұрын

@@coldcoffee1506 Hell, I’d love to make it difficult for someone with a VPO against them to obtain one. But rather talk about those kinds of regulations, asshats want to divert your attention to romanticize a revolutionary war against the government. They’re smoking crack I swear.

@samuelmerkel2888

2 жыл бұрын

Difference is that cars aren't a constitutional right

@andredunbar3773

2 жыл бұрын

@@yahwehvii6059 VPO?

@chadalpha7983

2 жыл бұрын

@@samuelmerkel2888 but we need a license to hold a parade which is the constitional right to assembly,

The conclusion is "I get to keep my guns." I don't know what the argument is.

@smaakjeks

2 жыл бұрын

For a non-thinking person

I could probably be convinced that the Second Amendment means you're allowed to have a gun in your home. I don't think I can be convinced that the Second Amendment wants you to have military weaponry in the grocery store.

@bryanice3313

2 жыл бұрын

i dont think the 1A allows to tear down statues then, lets regulate it

@user-uy6uc5ey5q

2 жыл бұрын

@@bryanice3313Statues put up in the public arena are subject to the rules, and acceptance of variously levels of government, which in a democracy is representative of what the voters want. The some voters have influenced various levels of government to remove certain statues as they disagree with reasons why they were put up in the first place.

@wvu05

2 жыл бұрын

@@bryanice3313 The First Amendment doesn't give people the right to have the government pay to upkeep the tribute to their traitor heroes.

@chubbubdreamer6904

2 жыл бұрын

@@bryanice3313 Don't put up statues of traitors fighting to defend slavery. Especially when they're made long after the fact and specifically to intimidate an entire group of people.

@andyrihn1

2 жыл бұрын

“Military weapon” is arbitrary and subjective. It’s a nonsense term created by liberals who don’t know anything about guns to disarm mostly leftists and people of color

This is what I find funny about American's conception of freedom. They are so obsessed with it. So many Americans cannot even conceive of an instance where the government limits freedom 'in the interest of society.' I think it's helpful to remember that we live in a world with finite resources and have a finite time to live. We come across so many instances of the Tragedy of the Commons in our daily lives and it's important to remember "What's good for all of us, is good for each of us"

@TheJohnnyonthespot1

2 жыл бұрын

But that's cOmMuNiSm!

@arnabiarnab3037

2 жыл бұрын

The issue is the definition of freedom to the average conservative is synonymous with selfishness…. freedom for me none for thee, do what makes me comfortable This why they go crazy about people wearing masks, even though me wearing a mask does nothing to curb their freedom of not wearing a mask

@rajashashankgutta4334

2 жыл бұрын

"For the greater good" argument was used by many big governments in the past to commit atrocities.

@nosuchthing8

Жыл бұрын

Of course, but that view is anathema to hard-core capitalism.

I'm a far leftwing gun owner, rural Oregon cattle rancher and SRA member. I don't advocate for open carry in city limits AT ALL, but I do in US Forests. There's a big difference. I was literally being stalked by a massive 200lb cougar while listening to the MR coverage on the finale presidential 2020 debate, while open carrying my rifle in the woods at night! And fuck am I glad I was! (Only had to fire an overhead warning shot).

@HKim0072

2 ай бұрын

Very reasonable. It would be interesting to hear your opinion of "assault" weapons.

If you go far enough left you get to keep your guns

@Khalkara

2 жыл бұрын

Nah plenty of far leftists are anti-gun.

@jon7911

2 жыл бұрын

@@Khalkara the smartest people on the left generally are pro-gun.

@Khalkara

2 жыл бұрын

@@jon7911 Why

@pizzamanbella

2 жыл бұрын

@@Khalkara if you believe in revolution as the means to liberation for the working class then its pretty important. if the ruling class has access to literal nukes and every weapon known to humanity, and the working classes have nothing, we're a bit more than fucked

@jon7911

2 жыл бұрын

@@Khalkara 1. It’s impossible to end gun violence with laws in *America*, the right wing is actually correct on this. Too many guns. 2. It’s unpopular; if the democrats stopped arguing against guns they’d probably never lose again. 3. What he said^

The United States obsession with firearms is bizarre.

@susim4503

2 жыл бұрын

I really struggle to understand it.

@chrisbarnett5303

2 жыл бұрын

@@susim4503 it has everything to do with racism. The Second Amendment was put in place to arm slave patrols to put down slave uprisings so the federal military wouldn’t have to. Gun ownership has always been tied into keeping the Natives and black and brown people down and so much of gun culture is based around the fear of black or brown people breaking into homes or mugging people.

@louistracy6964

2 жыл бұрын

Me too. Interesting to learn here that the 2nd has only been interpreted this way for 13 years. The left in the US has been drawn into the reality that a heavily armed right-wing population can only be met with by a heavily armed left. See Vaush. Scary stuff.

@williamjameslehy1341

2 жыл бұрын

@@mjchakos1 and yet the conservatives obsessed with "personal freedom" are the ones *most* likely to *still* support the war on drugs, support draconian immigration crackdowns like Alabama and Arizona have implemented, approve of mass incarceration, and to cheer when an unarmed black person is killed by police over some trivial suspicion.

@PR--un4ub

2 жыл бұрын

@@mjchakos1 I've heard that before. It doesn't add up. You see, if Conservatives truly did believe in "fighting back against a tyrannical government", they would have done something long ago. Many freedoms ( *legitimate* freedoms, not whatever cockamamie concern they have with pink haired college students ) have been steadily eroded away without a single shot having been fired. So...when are they *actually* going to rise up? Are they waiting for aerial squadrons of black helicopters? Perhaps they're looking to the oceans for large battleships with the acronym "U.N." stenciled across their bows? Do they draw the line at "hobbit homes" being constructed in their home towns? When? No. More likely, it's their form of a security blanket. Unfortunately for the rest of us, their security blanket is much more dangerous than wool and polyester.

I’m a communist who supports the working class arming itself but this guy did not argue very well for his point of view. The title is correct that he sounds like a libertarian in the sense that he focuses exclusively on the idea of individual rights but doesn’t seem to make any mention of the rights of a class or the responsibility of an individual to that class (with respect to guns or whatever else).

@robinsss

2 жыл бұрын

that wasn't the subject he wanted to talk about and responsibility to society doesn't remove his right to have a gun

@JohnLemieux

2 жыл бұрын

@@robinsss right…..which is why I said he didn’t do a good job arguing for his point.

@robinsss

2 жыл бұрын

@@JohnLemieux why?

Because some people can’t use guns responsibly means I can’t use guns at all? Nah, that ain’t it fam. Make it difficult to own a gun, sure fine. A lot of tests and mental evaluations, sure great. But None? Nah.

@lookbovine

2 жыл бұрын

People wanting regulation DOES NOT MEAN YOUR GUN IS TAKEN AWAY. That’s never mentioned, yet it’s always the first place gun owners go. It’s most likely a rhetorical tactic to put the interlocutor on the defensive, and and really really annoying.

@Rainmaker88

2 жыл бұрын

Sam says he doesn’t accept the second amendment as a reason why citizens should own guns. I’m not against regulations at all as I stated in my post. Make it difficult to own them yes, make it so you have to pass multiple mental health tests perfect but none for anyone is unacceptable.

@bryanice3313

2 жыл бұрын

@@lookbovine let’s have some regulations for the 1A, like blm protests for example , u agree right ?

The reasoning of ‘don’t go to the grocery store when you’re hungry’ is that you might buy more than you need, not that you might rob the store or assault fellow shoppers.

The moment I heard him mention 1st Amendment auditor I thought "ok i know everything i need to know about how your brain works sir!"

@Laker24772

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah, the way he brought it up says everything about what sort of content he consumes. He was also likely subtexting another gesture at hypocrisy of 'you care about police brutality but not first ammendment auditors'. Almost the entire conversation he isn't even making any direct arguments for the current understanding of gun rights and ownership; Everything came down to either fear-mongering and repeating "it's a slippery slope" or him gesturing hypocrisy's in Sam/Emma's position. Very sad how political discourse has gotten reduced to that for so many people. Human's were not ready for the information bomb that was the internet, lol.

@empanada223

2 жыл бұрын

@@Laker24772 So true! The information bombardment of the modern digital age has literally _broken_ so many peoples' minds. It's insane. There is so much information, yet so _little_ way to make sense of it.

@everythingforeveryone7654

2 жыл бұрын

Not a big fan of 1st amendment auditors. They go into public libraries and harass the staff and clients. Wtf the library do to you? Libraries are one of the best public services we have.

I just quote Chomsky on this he said an armed revolution will never happen inside American empire, they have tanks they have drones and jets. So if an armed revolution is never going to happen what's the point of open carrying. Absolutely nothing except aesthetics. I don't mind someone having a gun in their home for self defense but anything else is pointless and actually more dangerous.

@yahwehvii6059

2 жыл бұрын

You’re just putting a tag on your growing movement saying “Hey! Drop a fucking bomb on my family and I.” It’ll be over before you know it when you’re deemed a terrorist threat.

@chrisbarnett5303

2 жыл бұрын

@@yahwehvii6059 MOVE bombing shows what they will do to armed leftists

@bryanice3313

2 жыл бұрын

i think the right to protest is pointless and dangerous then

@yahwehvii6059

2 жыл бұрын

@@bryanice3313 Protesting isn’t giving someone the license to kill you. However, some freaks are adamant about their gun rights in order to be able to shoot protestors.

@sub-harmonik

2 жыл бұрын

if the u.s. has to fight a war, whether civil or foreign, the combatants will be much more effective if they have guns they know how to use. At some point people have to get out of their tanks and planes. Plus, tanks and planes can sometimes be captured with guns.

Dutchie here, I'm hoping some Americans can help me out on this one. Because I totally agree with Emma's "I don't care what the constitution says". What baffles me is why this is the first time I've heard an American say this. Why isn't this more prevalent? Other countries change their constitution all the time. And I don't just mean adding amendments, I mean getting rid of some very old ones. I know it's politically hard to achieve, but you don't even seem to have the desire to do it in the first place!

@londonoverground

2 жыл бұрын

The Dutch have legalised drugs and prostitution. Many people, including Americans, would consider that unfathomable. I think it's cool but a lot of people wouldn't.

@StuntpilootStef

2 жыл бұрын

@@londonoverground That has nothing to do with what I asked.

@andrewgreen5574

2 жыл бұрын

We are indoctrinated and taught that the Constitution is infallible. It's rarely been amended, and only in extreme situations like during the Civil War, lol. In saying this I actually take Max Stirner's position on the fact that it is a spook, lol. It only functions in so far as people accept it's legitimacy, and in how the state sees use for it or enforces it. Beyond that, "Constitutional Rights" are violated all the time, lol.

@londonoverground

2 жыл бұрын

@@StuntpilootStef I know but you're scratching head trying to figure out other people's rationale when others would think the same or you. America has a written constitution and they're not going to abandon any of it, ever. It's just the way it is.

@StuntpilootStef

2 жыл бұрын

@@londonoverground I'm perfectly capable of explaining why we have legalized drugs, abortion and prostitution. To put it in simple terms, legalization gives you control over the way the right is used. Banning something doesn't take away the demand. I understand that different viewpoints exist about what is moral, but even from the perspective of the average American it makes sense to legalize these things.

"Solidified my position as to where I stand." Trump? Is that you?

Protect yourself by improving your community, so you don't have to have guns for protection. Making your environment more tense & dangerous ain't gonna make it more secure.

@Jasonhoods

2 жыл бұрын

That's a nice world you're painting. Maybe they can use it on the Disney Channel. There are always going to be people that would rather rob than work. Some people are just bad and want to see the world burn. Mental health issues exist and lead people to be violent. We are a huge country with a lot of different opinions and morals. What you see as improvement someone else sees as fundamental changes to the way they live. I'm not pro second amendment but I do live in the real world.

@bryanice3313

2 жыл бұрын

Irrelevant , the constitutions doesn’t say , u don’t have the right to own a gun bc ur neighborhood is safe

@friedlemons5201

2 жыл бұрын

tell that to white supremacists toting around literal military grade weapons. I'm sure they'll see the error in their ways and we'll all live happily ever after

@jonstrickland4848

2 жыл бұрын

@@Jasonhoods other nations have mental health issues. Dude - you’re saying the OP isn’t living in the real world? Almost everyone of your sentences are fallacious.

@jonstrickland4848

2 жыл бұрын

@@bryanice3313 that’s why amendments are changes.

2nd Amendment Good. I do not trust the federal government and police. We have seen how they behave with citizens. I'm pretty sure Australia would be different if the citizens were armed to the teeth.

@brittb645

2 жыл бұрын

Huh? What are you suggesting that Australia would be doing if citizens had lots of guns?

@pluginleah

2 жыл бұрын

Counterpoint: second amendment bad. Government and cops bad. Leftists who are armed at least as much as those who want us dead is good because it's necessary. 2A is bad for the reasons given by Carl T Bogus and Noam Chomsky. Armed leftists good for reasons given by Marx.

@bryanice3313

2 жыл бұрын

@@brittb645 nothing of what they done for sure

Ultimately though, if an armed revolution were to occur within the United States, it would need financial and armament support from outside nations to succeed. Gun laws really don't stop or facilitate that enough to matter.

@Czeckie

2 жыл бұрын

please president Xi, liberate us

@wvu05

2 жыл бұрын

And these idiots also missed the fact that Article I, Section 8 defines the militia (the thing that the Second Amendment actually talks about, and as someone who was in an actual well-regulated militia for six years, I am sick of these LARPers trying to take that name) as having purpose that include _preventing_ an armed rebellion.

@andrewgreen5574

2 жыл бұрын

@@wvu05 almost like Shay's Rebellion had an impact on the development of the Constitution, huh? The ruling class really wanted to protect their interests.

@TheKrossRoads

2 жыл бұрын

I would disagree with that. Ask the Vietcong, who were fighting with secondhand WW2 equipment, bicycles, and the lowest of tech how they feel about forcing the "modern" (1960's) US military into a losing position. Same thing over in the Middle East; we spent twenty years playing whack-a-mole in caves and tunnels, and accomplished nothing but a banner on an aircraft carrier. Guerilla warfare is not only effective, it's also tried and tested against the army of the United States. Any kind of armed revolution in the US would undoubtably take that position, and very well have a chance of winning over an extended period of time. You don't even need financial backing, as long as you have the support of the people. The people will feed, hide, and equip your soldiers on a budget. Now imagine a Vietnam, but it's literally in our backyards. As long as the majority of the people support the armed revolution, it would have ample resources and opportunities to bleed the federal army dry of money and manpower. Drone strikes are scary, but so is the bad PR from dropping bombs on citizen and civilian targets, empowering the revolution even further.

@wvu05

2 жыл бұрын

@@TheKrossRoads Rebellions are different than invasions.

The callers argument was "if abortion, then guns". There wasn't a single pro gun argument made. I can say "If abortion, then public nudity" why not

@cdw2468

2 жыл бұрын

yes public nudity to an extent actually, breasts shouldn’t be sexualized

@Kuriketto

2 жыл бұрын

@@cdw2468 That's really up to the individual person, but it shouldn't be a rationale lawmakers use to prevent women from going topless in public. That's part of a larger discussion involving the legitimacy and legalization of sex work, though.

@Markd315

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah I noticed this too I honestly can't imagine being prepared worse. I think Sam is mean to a lot of the callers but I don't even know what you're supposed to do with one like this.

@robinsss

2 жыл бұрын

@@Kuriketto being topless in public is not sex work

@robinsss

2 жыл бұрын

@@Markd315 he screamed that doesn't mean he won the debate Sam scores some points and the caller cores some points the caller scored the most the caller brought up things like abortion and blacks being able to freely walk around and compared those to gun rights he said they are all civil liberties how was he wrong?

Sam, abridging gun rights is really not popular among quite a lot of liberals, leftists and independents. I'm fairly confident beto's stance on guns is why he was ultimnately unable to overcome the gerrymandering in texas. When you abridge the right to bear arms, you are permitting only the worst in society to be armed. I want body cams on cops, I want surveillance in the streets, and I want the ability to defend myself with lethal force should some racist, antisocial piece of shit decide to play games with my life. There are too many in this country who openly flirt with facism for me to ever give up my arms.

If you're on the left (past liberal) and you're against civilians having guns, it's sort of a contradictory position. Why would you only want the military or police to be armed? Historically gun control has disproportionately impacted POC

@devinmaycry6843

2 жыл бұрын

Well this is why I'm against taking the guns from everyone but the cops first.

@GH3MAN2

2 жыл бұрын

@@devinmaycry6843 I'd be behind that

@in_ur_moms_house

2 жыл бұрын

For me at least its about limiting the weapons available to the public, and having people pass testing and background checks before being able to purchase any firearm.

@rajashashankgutta4334

2 жыл бұрын

@@in_ur_moms_house the mass shooter in Russia passed mental checks.

Citizens and the government should be on the same level, as far as firepower. Sam is right, I shouldn't be carrying around a weapon everywhere and neither should the state. Disarm the police if you want to disarm the people.

This dude is a LOT less leftist than he likes to tell himself he is.

@ihatepolice5459

2 жыл бұрын

gun rights are an essential part of leftism

@aprilk141

Жыл бұрын

Holier than thou type bullshit right there!

I hear a lot of my less leftist friends saying two contradictory things: that the government should not have a monopoly on the use of violence (aka vigilaniism is good), but in the same breath they'll say that the rule of law is important to society. I can easily imagine a society where this is the case, but it's not a society I want to live in. Basically if some rando sees me breaking a law they feel is important, they can just break down my door and prosecute me themselves. This feels like a huge infringement on people's personal freedom.

@slambrew3849

2 жыл бұрын

Self defense isn't vigilantism.

Don’t agree with how Sam handled this

@coldcoffee1506

2 жыл бұрын

Why? The guys argument on individual vs structural is non sense. Gun control would be a structural effort… the comparisons he was making between abortions and gun ownerships is nonsensical.

@apolloforabetterfuture4814

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah he was a bit unnecessarily aggressive lol

@zekleinhammer

2 жыл бұрын

Be more specific

@wvu05

2 жыл бұрын

You mean you don't like that he had no patience with someone unable to make a coherent argument who kept trying to change the subject every time he asked a question?

@robinsss

2 жыл бұрын

@@coldcoffee1506 the caller brought up things like abortion and blacks being able to freely walk around and compared those to gun rights he said they are all civil liberties how was he wrong?

Always ask, "who benefits?" If you no longer have a right to carry a gun, do you gain power, or lose power? If you no longer have a right to carry a gun, does the Government gain power, or lose power? I hope these comments stay up long enough for someone to see. I give it less than 15min and they'll be pulled down.

@smaakjeks

2 жыл бұрын

"I hope these comments stay up long enough for someone to see. I give it less than 15min and they'll be pulled down." Dude, nobody cares that you wrote a comment. "Always ask, "who benefits?" If you no longer have a right to carry a gun, do you gain power, or lose power?" Almost nobody is talking about taking away the right to carry a gun. Such countries almost don't exist. What most people are talking about is some common sense regulation so that responsible people can own and use guns where appropriate. This reduces the chances of: -homicide -suicide -accidental shootings All the people who would be alive rather than dead have just gained power. "If you no longer have a right to carry a gun, does the Government gain power, or lose power?" The government (no capitalisation necessary) doesn't lose power with a heavily armed people. If that were the case, there would never be a Patriot Act, for example. The government just legislates your actual rights away, and nobody cares. When was the last time an armed militia took up arms against the government?

@controltherandomness9105

2 жыл бұрын

Mask hello thanks for your time. First off someone does care because they pulled it down! Not the first time

@controltherandomness9105

2 жыл бұрын

Smaak countries don't exist? You ignore history. And I told you look at what is happening in Australia! You should care.

@controltherandomness9105

2 жыл бұрын

"some common sense regulation so that responsible people can own and use guns where appropriate" What a perfect world. Take about things that don't exist. Where responsible people can use guns where appropriate?!?!? What about the irresponsible people(criminals/lawbreakers) who don't give a shit what laws you put in place. I want to be able to defend myself against a criminal and most importantly a tyrannical government. I didn't mean to upset you by capitalizing Government. It is just how my autocorrect laid it out there.

@smaakjeks

2 жыл бұрын

@@controltherandomness9105 "First off someone does care because they pulled it down! Not the first time" Comments are not moderated on this channel. KZread's algorithm does, if you write certain stuff. E.g. posts with links, or posts with lots of insults/racial epithets. So, don't do that and you're almost certainly fine. However, I have had posts removed for unknown reasons. My remedy is to copy my posts onto a text file on my computer. That way I can make changes and re-post as necessary. It's flawed algorithm. Nothing more. Before malice, always suspect incompetence. "countries don't exist? You ignore history." I never said countries don't exist. I said there are few countries where civilians can't legally acquire guns. This is the case. "And I told you look at what is happening in Australia!" No, you didn't. This is the first time you have mentioned Australia to me. So, Australia is living under totalitarian dictatorship now ever since Port Arthur? "You should care." I care about society, and what policies make for a successful and thriving one.

To not care what the constitution says while using it to flex is so interesting to see.

He doesn't sound like a libertarian c'mon. That being said, having guns is not an inalienable right, Sam is right where he says we as leftists should defend rights on their merits not just because they are rights. I do think Sam incorrectly dismisses the slippery slope argument and his analogy asking where is the slippery slope on abortions is pretty bad, like you don't think conservative Christians will oppress women more?

@robinsss

2 жыл бұрын

life is a inalienable right the right to own a gun is the right to protect your life they are connected

how am i supposed to protect myself when i don’t want to call the police for fear they’ll kill me

@Khalkara

2 жыл бұрын

By running away, as most self defense teachers will tell you. A gun doesn't protect you from most crimes.

@pizzamanbella

2 жыл бұрын

@@Khalkara ah yes, the police never shoot people running away, excellent idea

@Khalkara

2 жыл бұрын

@@pizzamanbella Man that is the saddest attempt at a dunk I've seen in years. OP asks about an alternative to cops to protect yourself, and you bring up how cops shoot people. Neither responding to what I said about running away nor OP's question.

@walexander8378

2 жыл бұрын

Protect yourself from what? Another gun? You know this idea of having to keep your eyes open 24/7 for armed assailants doesn't really exist in other countries. I think your anxiety is understandable but you have a bad answer.

@burningmisery

2 жыл бұрын

Protect yourself by improving your community, so you don't have to have guns for protection.

I’m a proud liberal gun owner

@londonoverground

2 жыл бұрын

Gun ownership is liberal

@seanjohnson9401

2 жыл бұрын

@@londonoverground tell all these progressives who want to take my guns

@londonoverground

2 жыл бұрын

@@seanjohnson9401 they don't. That's a lie republicans tell each other in order to dismiss any hint of gun control reform. No one wants to take yuuur guuurn.

@seanjohnson9401

2 жыл бұрын

@@londonoverground lol yes they do. Ole Beto said so. It caused me to vote republican which I hate doing

@jewsco

2 жыл бұрын

@@seanjohnson9401 there is a difference between taking and regulating . Do try to figure that out snowflake

Yes there is a constitutional right to carry weapons! It's called a second amendment.

@mikew6060

2 жыл бұрын

@Frank McGovern you don't even know what the founding fathers meant by well-regulated militia.

I'm interested in feedback on this statement. I've been debating somebody fairly regularly who considers themselves a liberal. But every now and then he goes into full American mode and doesn't recognize it. I.E. speaking in absolutes. Especially on the constitution as an infallible document. Mainly on the first amendment that essentially anyone can say anything they want and that there should be no protection to the subject of the speaker, with the caveat that existing libel and slander laws and social backlash are enough. My premise is that the first amendment has been used mostly by the establishment to allow speech they like and then is ignored when unpopular speech (like communism) is suppressed.

@Priestofgoddess

2 жыл бұрын

Being a Hypocrit is kind of the most american thing ever, just like when Biden said and maybe really believes, that the USA had never and would never interfere into other countries politics (like russia is trying to do in the USA). So of course the free speech only gets enforced, if it fits their narrative, while they try their best to suppress everything that contradicts their narrative. That is why the press should be fully independant and not as it mostly is currently: a megaphone for their owners

@cde.zhaletscou9421

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah for a lot of US history it was basically conditional on the ground. but since the early 20th century it’s been getting a lot stronger. I’m kind of unsure how I feel about it, so I go back-and-forth. Yeah a lot of people kind of raise the document to like quasi-religious status because it’s just so it’s very conservative permanency, due to the sheer Herculean amount of effort it takes to change it plays a part in that, imo

@in_ur_moms_house

2 жыл бұрын

That sounds like a liberal. Maybe you should research the meaning of the word. Leftists and liberals are not the same thing.

@GrahamNickerson

2 жыл бұрын

@@in_ur_moms_house he describes himself as a liberal. Way to miss the point.

@in_ur_moms_house

2 жыл бұрын

@@GrahamNickerson I was just saying that's a liberal position, unfettered free speech, free markets etc.. I do agree it has been, and is currently being used to manipulate and suppress certain groups and narratives. Its been that way since the founding of the country. Not sure why I brought leftist vs liberal into the conversation.

He can keep his guns & still be a liberal. He just has to keep 'em at his house & not wave 'em around at everybody in public.

@uncomfortabletruth5915

2 жыл бұрын

If the shit ever hits the fan, people like Seder will be the first ones to fall victim to the barbarians at the gates of the republic.

@Discojericho

2 жыл бұрын

@@uncomfortabletruth5915 Sir this is a politics channel, if you insist on LARPing please do it in the designeted areas with consenting partners, thank you.

@bertthompson4748

2 жыл бұрын

@@uncomfortabletruth5915 no. Hell be the one behind the military barricades instead of wading into a firefight with reightous justice and dying.

@uncomfortabletruth5915

2 жыл бұрын

@@Discojericho It’s the internet, everyone here is roleplaying, including the content creators espousing opinions. “ *Where must we go, we who wander this wasteland, in search of our better selves?* “ ~first history man~

@Discojericho

2 жыл бұрын

@@uncomfortabletruth5915 Sam's not being 100% genuine in that he has a camera on him and an audience, sure. You are straight up playing DnD in the comment section with your barbarians at the gates fantasy.

"laughs in Kalashnikov"

I too am a progressive who also owns handguns. I enjoy shooting and practice often to keep my marksmanship skills *sharp*. I don’t hunt or kill anything, I’m just a US Army vet who has always enjoyed target shooting since my very first “Turkey Shoot” in Boy Scouts at 10 yo. BTW, the only turkey harmed in our Turkey Shoots was the frozen turkey offered as the Grand Prize, no live turkeys are involved with Boy Scout“Turkey Shoots” (I’ve been asked before). Regarding the 2nd amendment: When even Prof Lawrence Tribe capitulates and accepts that gun rights are enshrined in the Second Amendment, it’s most likely the end of the discussion. That said, I DO fully support restrictions on gun ownership with regards to age, legal history, etc. I’m even more supportive of restricting carry regulations, as I disagree with many 2A advocates who think _anyone_ should be able to open carry any where. I was dumbstruck _when I heard Emma say “I don’t really give a shit what the Constitution says.”_ WTF Emma?! Why are even discussing this? Unless we can get 2/3 of BOTH chambers of Congress to pass another amendment to restrict ownership & carry laws outright, this issue will remain unresolved. What is needed is some creativity with crafting regulations that softly restrict carry laws w/o violating the Constitution. So few (federal lawmakers) the have even tried to regulate carry, whether concealed or open. States do regulate carry, though. Lastly, don’t shoot the messenger! (Pun intended). WE are still _very progressive!_ I also follow all state & local laws regarding firearms. I only shoot at a specified range with an active Range Officer. WE aren’t the folks to be worried about. We are the folks who can help with messaging on gun control to folks on the Right. The reason the GOP *owns* 2A voters is bc they’ve pinned this gun control issue DEEPLY into the image the Right has of the Left. I shoot with MAGA folks just a few lanes down. Neither party has done a damn thing about gun control (Trump DID outlaw bump stocks, one of which I owned 😏), BUT the Right has scared the bejesus out their base that the Left is gonna TAKE ‘EM! The Left & Right must come together to pass anything meaningful. Any talk of passing meaningful gun reform is about as likely as an immigration bill in this political climate.

@martthesling

2 жыл бұрын

Emma proves she doesn't care about the Constitution and would be for a government tyranny removing the peoples weapons with a law enforcement like Gestapo. Just be honest leftists. You want to kill American gun owners so you can have a progressive tyranny dictatorship. Emma is just honest about it.

Sam says that having a portion of the public weaponized is coercive and anti-democratic? I agree. Which is why Matt is naive AF thinking we need an armed police force disarming the public.

Regulating gun ownership is not regulating the indidual. It's regulating guns. Why shouldn't the "individual" be allowed to own nuclear weapons? I would use them for hunting.

@miguelpereira9859

2 жыл бұрын

We need to own nukes to protect ourselves from tyrannical government bro

@seanpatrick1243

2 жыл бұрын

@@miguelpereira9859 Always at least one person just waiting to prove themselves stupid beyond comprehension. Congrats! You're the winner!

@miguelpereira9859

2 жыл бұрын

@@seanpatrick1243 I was being sarcastic

@seanpatrick1243

2 жыл бұрын

@@miguelpereira9859 Then you got me. 👍

@seanpatrick1243

2 жыл бұрын

@@miguelpereira9859 I mistook you for a Hungarian troll who follows me around in the comments section. 🤦🏼‍♂️ My bad.

oh hey, a caller video with a good chunk of downvotes, this gotta be a good one.

@rileywebb4178

2 жыл бұрын

I mean the title is trying to sound like libertarian leftists can't exist...

@slambrew3849

2 жыл бұрын

@@rileywebb4178 to be fair, I'm auth left as hell and pro-gun.

@SuperSintas

2 жыл бұрын

@@rileywebb4178 That's not what it's saying at all.

@SuperSintas

2 жыл бұрын

@@slambrew3849 Cringe. Stop being auth left. Dictatorship only brings suffering.

@rileywebb4178

2 жыл бұрын

@@SuperSintas "ends up sounding like a libertarian" wut are you talking about? Most leftists are libertarians...

2nd amendment was for a national militia

"I don't really give a shit what the Constitution says."

@ArielHal9000

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah, because that document can very easily be changed. So citing it as a moral guide is dumb.

@martthesling

2 жыл бұрын

@@ArielHal9000 It's actually really hard to change The U.S Constitution. 2/3 House. 2/3 The States. Not Done. Then the change as to be ratified by 3/4s of the states. GOOD luck.

@ArielHal9000

2 жыл бұрын

@@martthesling All you're proving is that the constitution is something that can be changed. It used to outlaw drinking, it used to allow for slavery, it used to justify a lot of horrible things, things that were horrible even at the time. So why should anyone care what it says? It was written 300 years ago, the compromises they made no longer apply to the modern world. It builds out a feature for electors to override their original vote for president because it used to take 4 months to travel across the country.

@martthesling

2 жыл бұрын

@@ArielHal9000 300 years ago? Ok bro

@ArielHal9000

2 жыл бұрын

@@martthesling Oh no, I exaggerated how old a document that counted black people as 3/5 of a person was.

It's important to note that the slippery slope is a fallacy. It is literally called the slippery slope fallacy. The only reason anyone is aware of the term 'slippery slope' is due to its invalidity, not its validity

@jonstrickland4848

2 жыл бұрын

Yup

Well, I am not Libertarian, nor left of Bernie, but I strongly support the Bill of Rights which includes the 2a and strongly support checks and balances on power. I am against concentration of power. The 2a is part of that.

@jewsco

2 жыл бұрын

So you are against amendments? Because otherwise we would still have slavery, woman couldn’t vote and alcohol would be illegal . Amendments can be amended.

@belkyhernandez8281

2 жыл бұрын

@@jewsco That is a silly thing for you to say since I said I am in favor of the Bill of Rights which are amendments.

@jewsco

2 жыл бұрын

@@belkyhernandez8281 is it because it doesn’t seem you understand how amendments work

@belkyhernandez8281

2 жыл бұрын

@@jewsco This is nothing except your stereotyping. I challenge you to point out where I said anything incorrect about how amendments work. I will save you time. I didn't say anything incorrect. You simply don't want the second amendment is more likely.

@jewsco

2 жыл бұрын

@@belkyhernandez8281 no sweetie it’s an amendment which means it can be amended do try to keep up. Heck, I am more for a national set gun regulations versus all guns gone. But regulations don’t work unless every state has the same regulations as it is way to just go over to a neighboring state and the perfect example for that are fireworks they are illegal in my state yet every year because the neighboring states it is legal

Our economy is in the worst condition I’ve ever seen it Because something is bad doesn’t mean you can take peoples rights. This is insane. This is not a normal way of thinking

Part of the reason we don’t have Tank violence on the streets is because it is REALLY HARD almost impossible for a civilian to get a tank. If we just made military grade guns equally as hard to get, MORE Than Likely, we would see a drop in violence with those guns.

You can be a left leaning libertarian

@f_youtubecensorshipf_nazis

2 жыл бұрын

Not in the US.

@Byokku2013

2 жыл бұрын

@@f_youtubecensorshipf_nazis absolutely you can

"Don't cite the Supreme Court as some sort of arbiter..." Isn't that literally what they are?

@coolbreeze2.0-mortemadfasc13

2 жыл бұрын

That's a power that they claim but it's not in the Constitution. Nothing gives them the power that they exert.

@09BiGDylan

2 жыл бұрын

@@coolbreeze2.0-mortemadfasc13 what are you talking about? Our constitution clearly has 3 branches of government. The Supreme Court arbitrate whether laws are justified or legal according to their interpretation of the constitution. It's literally written in the document. What am I missing?

@coolbreeze2.0-mortemadfasc13

2 жыл бұрын

@@09BiGDylan The Constitution gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over certain matters including disputes between the states. For example, California sues Wyoming. Otherwise, the Congress controls what types of cases the Supreme Court is permitted to hear. The concept of judicial review was a power the court gave itself in a case called Marbury v. Madison. Nowhere does the Constitution say that the court has the power to review the laws passed by Congress.

@09BiGDylan

2 жыл бұрын

@@coolbreeze2.0-mortemadfasc13 thank you for bringing that to my attention, ill have to review that case and see what was decided and what the justification was for deciding it. That being said, I'd argue that if they used the constitution to legitimately interpret it in a way that comes up with "judicial review" without the constitution explicitly saying "judicial review", I think it could still be said to be of the constitution. Being of the constitution in of itself isn't a good argument for or against the concept of judicial review thougj.

@coolbreeze2.0-mortemadfasc13

2 жыл бұрын

@@09BiGDylan The issue is that conservatives who claim to be strict constructionists aren't that way when it comes to the courts.

I do think all people should be open carrying. And black and Latino ppl should have those guns provided for free via govt subsidy.

Playing the identity game... I only moved to the left within the last couple of years. I'm 37 now, but grew up a self-denying right winger who thought he was a realist or moderate. Conservatism is insidious that way. Looking back on some of the things I thought and did, I'm pretty appalled, both with myself and the fact that I wasn't really called out on any of it, except for maybe one comment while deployed in Iraq. ID out of the way, I'm torn on the issue of guns. On the one hand, I see all of the harm they do in the hands of desperate and messed-up people. On the other hand, I understand that (far) right wingers are stoking themselves and more moderate conservatives up for civil war due to all of the fear/hate mongering coming from far right media and the Republican party, so having people able to resist them is really important. The problem we have isn't that guns exist in this space, but the material conditions and culture of the place that they exist in. This is a hardcore capitalist society. Low wages, poor working conditions, high stress stemming from a variety of things including the fear of eviction and economic stability, the lack of accountability for the economic elite, the fact that the government has been bought by that economic elite, and any number of other things make people desperate. Desperate to survive, desperate to get ahead, etc. Desperate people will do desperate things, including gun crime...and suicide. All of that desperation, in turn, is used to stoke fear among an already stressed people, which makes associating guns with masculinity (first as a measure of your worth in defending those you love, and then it becomes more and more about the gun itself being a symbol of masculinity) a strategy of gun manufacturers, who do all they can (in media, advertising, and through special interest groups that heavily influence the government) to create a culture that idolizes guns and gun ownership to boost gun sales. In short, I recognize that guns aren't the problem, but the gun culture is. It pushes "personal responsibility" as part of the conservative culture, as opposed to the social responsibility which it replaced. The "personal responsibility" trope that was started by the tobacco to take legal responsibility away from the industry's advertising/media campaigns and put it entirely on the consumer for using their product as intended. Before that, the common belief was that individuals were "personally responsible" to society, not just to themselves, meaning that the actions of the individual could help or harm others. It's what parents tell their children when teaching them to be respectful, not steal, share their toys, try to help those in need, stand up to bullies, be honest at all times, have the integrity to hold yourself accountable when you do wrong, etc, but those kinds of behavior, because of the incentivization of the worst human behaviors by capitalism (greed being chief among them), are disincentivized rather than reinforced. A society that is socially responsible (the people hold themselves and each other accountable to the harm AND GOOD they contribute to society) should have fewer issues with gun violence (including suicide) by default. But the U.S. is not such a society. So on the one hand, it's a cultural problem largely stemming from the desperation and toxicity induced by capitalism, and on the other it's a problem of having access to the things that are used to cause harm because of that desperation and toxicity induced by capitalism. Obviously, getting rid of capitalism is necessary for a better future overall, but before that can really happen and stick, the culture needs to be addressed. I'm torn because I know guns may be necessary in the fight against the counter-revolution or even civil war pushed by the far right, and so guns are important to have access to for lefties to defend themselves, but more immediately, guns are being used by a culturally toxic and desperate society for horrible outcomes. So gun regulations are a must...but so is holding the industries that have done this to us accountable. Above all, though, addressing the desperation of the people should always be at the top of the agenda; desperate people will do desperate things, with or without guns, so address what makes them desperate to begin with: capitalism, and the bigotry that it foments for the purpose of keeping worker solidarity to a minimum. Beyond that, I just don't know.

*It's telling that this particular video has a higher dislike than like ratio than all the videos from TMR. The fetish mixed with rampant capitalism of Americans towards guns is so primitive and barbaric.*

@democrazy69

2 жыл бұрын

Quiet. Don't make me stand my ground.

"I don't give a shit what the Constitution says" - most sensible thing you will hear today.

@timbredan3476

Жыл бұрын

That’s the SCARIEST thing I’ve heard

The comparison with female reproductive rights killed his argument and Sam hung onto that. The caller isn’t very smart but I believe in a perfect society we wouldn’t need firearms, but we don’t live in a perfect society and with this much current distrust in our law enforcement, it’s more pivotal that our ability to defend ourselves is not hindered. I don’t see how that at all is libertarianism. Sam took the main point and made it something else. Anyone with any brain cells can see that. It’s not at all complicated. This was all cringeworthy.

"We don't want guns on our streets" Tell that to the criminals after you pass your gun laws. And why don't you call up Australia and offer the people that advice. "We don't want you guns in our streets" Dingbat🤓

@vinceschryver5676

2 жыл бұрын

What does Australia have to do with this?

@controltherandomness9105

2 жыл бұрын

Hi Vince Sure enough they delayed my comment earlier on what is happening in Australia. The Government has the strictest lockdowns in the world. The police are beating people and arresting them for being outside, or without a mask. Last week there was a protest-when the government announced not to go. The police were beating the people with their batons and pepper spaying them. Not just young men. They are beating old women and even throwing down children and arresting them. All I ask is go look it up. It's not mentioned here. It's not mentioned on the mainstream. Can't find it on KZread. Why is that Vince? Why hasn't these "news" organizations covered the millions that took to the streets in England protesting the lockdowns? The 2nd amendment is in place in case the government becomes tyrannical and an enemy of the people. We have a modern day example in Australia as week speak.

@controltherandomness9105

2 жыл бұрын

Hi find it amazing that Sam is pushing an anti 2nd amendment position, while what I explained is going on in Australia. The people of Australia participated in the Government gun buy back program that I have heard many leftists claim it was a huge success. Now most people are defenseless.

I’m a pro gun leftist and I try to open up my position to criticism but here it is… I don’t get bogged down with the constitutional stuff but I think we should focus gun control on background checks and training; and competence demonstrating; especially if people are going to carry weapons in public. Imo as an experienced shooter, banning an AR15 isn’t going to stop gun violence in this country… for a couple of reasons: 1) Everyday crimes are committed with handguns not rifles. 2) if someone wants to use a rifle to commit a mass shooting it doesn’t really matter which rifle it is.. Someone where I live cannot buy a normal AR15 but they can easily just buy an sks instead… against a mall or grocery store of normal people that makes literally no difference. So basically, as far as I can tell safety training and weapons handling training on an individual basis goes a loooong way. Also, some people live in fucked up areas, folks and having a gun can mean the difference between being robbed or raped or not… for real. I don’t even live in a bad area and I’ve been nearly stabbed to death so fuck that I would feel much better if I was allowed to carry concealed, not openly (in my area we are not allowed). I’d be willing to complete any required training whatsoever but bottom line a gun can save your ass against everyday crime. I’d love to hear counter arguments though, please. Not for the sake of counter arguments, but if you have a serious issue against this position.

@reesf743

2 жыл бұрын

I happen to be one of those people who lived in a messed up neighborhood. I heard "casual" gun shots and collected enough local offender cards in the mail to make a game out of em. Naturally I wanted a gun. My epic fantasy was if three or four guys brake in I'd fire a warning shot upstairs and adrenaline would make everyone leave. I never even thought about what would happen if I were to end up in the same room with Intruders, I would probably freeze and get taken out, but at least with better odds. The only counter argument I ever heard was a guy claiming he fought off armed intruders with martial arts in the past. Idk what to call that, is it male privilege, young people privilege or what? Obviously not everyone can beat up multiple armed men who surprise them out if their sleep 🤦

@hillside21

2 жыл бұрын

Sorry, 2nd Amendment absolutists always ignore the word "regulated". So full-auto and drum magazines and teflon loads are their God-given right (along with Claymore mines and frag grenades). NO. There are real limits to what a rational society can allow, but the NRA pushes past every possible limit.

@WhyPhi

2 жыл бұрын

@@hillside21 Yeah I agree with there being limits. The current limits are just fine IMO; there aren't any serious efforts being made to allow people to own rocket launchers, tanks, etc.. My argument is that I think us on the left, we should abandon the magazine capacity limits, and stop going after AR15 and AK47 style rifles and turn our focus to requiring training and safety certifications since virtually all rifles (besides maybe a .22lr caliber one) have comparable lethality and effectiveness. I think that part of the issue with getting these things passed is that we always try to couple them with "assault weapons bans".

@WhyPhi

2 жыл бұрын

@@reesf743 Exactly, I believe in leveling the playing field for folks who live in such areas. And I think required training would actually give you the upper hand, as well as the confidence to not freeze up. Truth is, criminals are HORRIBLE marksmen, and are easily outgunned from what I have seen.

@hillside21

2 жыл бұрын

@@WhyPhi Sorry, I see no rational defense of military automatic rifles and large capacity magazines. Make California standards national (including 10-round magazines) as a baseline, and fewer civilians, and even cops, may die from bullets. If you are worried about wild boars, get therapy.

the "well regulated militia" argument is so tired, especially when people try to make "well regulated" apply to a modern usage of "regulation," which it didn't. Obviously that's an issue of originalism vs living document interpretation, but people bring it up to try to trump originalism when it just doesn't. Contemporaneous statements explicitly stated that "militia" applied to all military aged free men at the time, not only some government organization, and even if it didn't, the amendment says "...the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms..." and to argue that the usage of "People" only refers to militia is to argue that in only that case, and no other case in the entire Bill of Rights or Constitution, "People" does not refer to all citizens. Leftists need to support gun rights. Not an entire absence of regulation, but a recognition of the right to self-defense and a recognition that in a country with more guns than people, self-defense requires people be allowed to arm themselves. Not to mention a recognition that a significant portion of gun violence is perpetrated by the state against citizens. Any discussion of firearm regulation that does not include police and military disarmament is incomplete.

@emmanuelssonko

2 жыл бұрын

this needs more likes Pump it up

@user-uy6uc5ey5q

2 жыл бұрын

Militia were official government organised and regulated bodies which government could block people belonging to, inspect their weapons, tell them they couldn't use a particular weapon , tell them how to store the weapons. Look up any historical documents on Militia in the pre, during and post Revolutionary periods and they have extensive rules, laws and instructions on what members Militia can and can't do , or who even can belong and people were excluded both collectively and individually. The late 18th century Militia weren't a free for all which anybody did what they liked without reference to colonial or later State authority. That's what well regulated means and why the phrase is included at the beginning of amendment. Remember the history of the Revolutionary war is replete with examples of State Militia behaving incredibly badly and not uncommon for Militia members to be punished, including executed, for actions not sanctioned by official orders. This ahistorical and complete fictitious idea that the term 'Militia' is the same as a synonym for citizen is just bizarre. Combining it with the term 'People' is even worse, as its very obvious the framers of the constitution had a very limited idea of what constituted under these labels - as the bulk of the population living in the jurisdiction of the US at time of the constitution weren't counted as citizens - ie Women, slaves, Indians weren't allowed to be members of the Militia were they? As I hope you now have a different non-originalist definition of what a citizen is, arguing about other concepts in the document should be not be reinterpreted by modern democratic decided governance is self serving nonsense. As the last libertarian point about the police and military . Any reasonable survey of various advanced countries which have extensive gun control laws and regulations, are closely aligned with much more professional, highly trained and more lightly armed national policing plus vastly less military spending use of military in affairs outside their borders.

@DirkDjently

2 жыл бұрын

@@user-uy6uc5ey5q that's fair, I should have said "not ONLY government organizations," I should have been clearer there. But such statements as "What is the militia? It is the whole of the People, except for a few public officers" (George Mason, 1788) clearly show that "the militia" applied to people outside of their role in the government organization, so any regulations as to what weapons they could use did not apply at all times, only while serving in the organized militia. Not to mention that there were hardly so many different styles of musket, and a greater worry that militiamen be armed with something, anything, that they weren't exactly refusing any serviceable musket. Also, I wasn't "combining" the term militia with "People," the 2nd amendment plainly says "People." It's already there, no combination necessary. I am in no way defending the founders in their limited scope of citizen, hopefully nothing I said implied that. But as those restrictions do not apply now, I see no reason that a citizen now should not have the same right to own a firearm as they did back then. Again, the use of "regulated" you are bringing up is not the same as "gun regulation," which was my main point. People who say "the 2nd amendment says 'well regulated'" as an argument for a modern style system of laws, especially when trying to argue on originalists' own terms, are simply misusing that term. I wasn't defending originalist interpretation, I was saying that when arguing on their terms, the "well regulated" point falls flat. That may be another thing I should have been clearer about. I agree that our police and military should be less armed and less interventionist, respectively, that was the point I was trying to make. I'm not sure if you were saying that to argue against me, but I don't think we disagree there. Another of my main points, in reference to your bringing up "advanced countries which have extensive gun control laws and regulations," is that since the US has so many more firearms already than most, if not all, of those countries, and, for better or worse, an arrogant independent streak, any gun regulations that require either surrendering, confiscation, or limitation of those guns already owned is simply not feasible, in that it would be largely ignored both by citizens and local law enforcement, or would result in massive civil unrest, making the benefits of questionable value.

@rtjames

2 жыл бұрын

With an argument such as this you have the problem of language. "We the People" in the preamble to the constitution vs "the people" in the second amendment. In any other English sentence would you be able to ignore the seeming limiting effects of the first phrase? e.g. A well regulated KZread...the people. How do "the people" of dailymotion affect what's happening with KZread? If a militia was men of army age, does "the people" exclude women etc., and if that is the case, is this where we get back into "the People" vs "the people"?

You can't compare bodily autonomy with the right to own a gun. Does he not see the flaw in this comparison.

This is why it's important to be able to extend thinking and explain your thinking. It seems the caller meant to use 'implication' instead of 'slippery slope' because he used a slippery slope fallacy to try to make a point for which he couldn't present causality, a warrant for, define or qualify. Outside of the peripheral references to "2nd Amendment" and "carry guns" and "right", there's no material proposition.

Sam got really confused on this call. He was really misunderstanding a lot.

@frost1183

Жыл бұрын

Ya I thought it was hilarious when he goes, “what about the slippery Slope with abortion rights being taken away?” And the caller is sitting there confused like….. uh ya I agree with you kn that bud. Sam seems to think that if he acts condescending then he wins.

Caller's first mistake was calling in lmao. He should've known that Sam doesn't take disagreement well

@DireAvenger001

2 жыл бұрын

For real. I mean Sam can outdebate most, but at least show something other than disdain for those disagreeing

@DireAvenger001

2 жыл бұрын

@ksfhhnfan you don’t think he acted, Idk, rude toward the guy? He practically cut the guy off at the end. Sam’s frustration is noticed by many of us, yet he could have been less of a dick. Many callers also aren’t good with public speaking and can get nerves. I know I’m not immune

@FMagl

2 жыл бұрын

The guy's just somebody who likes guns and justifies it with tired right-wing talking points. He was incoherent. And I've interacted with gun nuts dozens of times: they all sound the same, and they're _boring._ They don't have a basic grasp of the subject, but they expect you to treat their hot takes like pearls. This guy probably isn't even a leftist, he probably just thought he'd figured out a novel angle ala saying "my body, my choice" to mask mandates. Because that's his actual opening statement to the call. So in short, no. I do not think Sam was particularly rude. Michael probably would have called the caller a moron, and Sam'd have to shush him.

@303TAG303

2 жыл бұрын

@@FMagl false

@wvu05

2 жыл бұрын

@@DireAvenger001 Or, just maybe, try to figure out a coherent argument instead of trying to change the subject every single time someone asks a question.

Male insecurity is the most dangerous force in the world

UNDER NO PRETEXT

I’m a lefty from way back

@gainsmurdoch6987

2 жыл бұрын

I’m a small government Marxist.

@BothTeamsPlayedHard

2 жыл бұрын

@@gainsmurdoch6987 you had me for a sec , I can dig it…

@TheGreenProspective

2 жыл бұрын

Hahaha. From waay wayyy waaaayyyyyy back. Before time itself. 😆

@BothTeamsPlayedHard

2 жыл бұрын

RIP Mike Brooks. St is Hu, Left is Best, David Feldman has a pod where you been!??

@BothTeamsPlayedHard

2 жыл бұрын

@@TheGreenProspective ‼️

Sam is correct, just argue for the things you want. If you support gun rights, just argue for them on the societal merits, not on what’s in the constitution

@DirkDjently

2 жыл бұрын

@Ruthless Minion the point is that "well it's in the constitution" is a cop out, not an argument on the actual issue.

@andrewgreen5574

2 жыл бұрын

@Ruthless Minion constitutional rights are violated all the time, and states regularly undermine them. Not to mention the Fed doesn't mind disregarding them as they see fit, lol.

@devinmaycry6843

2 жыл бұрын

@Ruthless Minion the constitution is literally revised multiple times and is not in fact perfect or what created your rights

@belkyhernandez8281

2 жыл бұрын

@@andrewgreen5574 And because you are authoritarian you are perfectly fine with that I suppose.

@robinsss

2 жыл бұрын

why would i do that when it's in the constitution

I think most pro gun people just have guns as their hobby and are scared that heavier regulation will stop them from participating in their hobby

As a socialist I don’t want this government shaping any laws that have to do with my rights.. Including gun laws. Currently you can’t have a carry license and medical cannabis card but you can consume as much alcohol as you want. These are the decisions they make when they write laws. If you live in Philadelphia and you forget about the fact that New Jersey is a draconian soprano state and you have your firearm with you you will definitely go to jail if pulled over…. just for crossing a bridge. Years in jail for crossing an imaginary line drawn by the rich bc of gun laws written by our corrupt government.. The overwhelming majority of violent crime in america is tied to gangs and gangs get their money from illegal drug sales. Police are among the biggest lobbyists to keep prohibition. The drug war, war on terrorism and capitalism(addiction, disease for profit etc) causing poverty… these are larger factors contributing to gun deaths. OF COURSE WE NEED BETTER GUN RESTRICTIONS.. but don’t let THESE idiots write them.. remember when they wrote the crime bill? Lol

If we had a democracy, I would be all for giving up any arms but at this point it’s just prudent to be armed. But only if you take the proper precautions against your weapons being stolen or misused. This means gun safes and trigger locks. Be safe all.

@dillonsmith3633

2 жыл бұрын

I agree that weapons should definitely be safely stored with trigger locks like you said. Unfortunately, more than HALF of gun owners do not store their guns properly, so I don't think that leftists should own guns really. That's just my opinion, I think people should still have the right to buy a gun but a federal law pushing for safer storage would be great

@uncomfortabletruth5915

2 жыл бұрын

@@dillonsmith3633 Well there is nothing we can do for the cognitively challenged but for the more rational liberals, in this day and age, with Anything possible around the corner, people may want to have some self determination nearby. At least something to think about.

@louistracy6964

2 жыл бұрын

@@uncomfortabletruth5915 Have you given up on any hope for a largely gunless society, where gun deaths are rare, like the rest of the world's wealthy places? Because the logical conclusion to where the US is going is a massively expanded dystopia where most arguments are fought with bullets, armed guards in every classroom and an arms race between political factions. Guns in the home is not evidenced as an effective route to greater safety. Statistically, having a gun in your home is more dangerous for you and your family, especially if you have young children or teens. A 2014 review in the Annals of Internal Medicine concluded having a firearm in the home, even when it’s properly stored, doubles your risk of becoming a victim of homicide and triples the risk of suicide.

@xoxonaotchan_7902

2 жыл бұрын

100% they should stop being manufactured and all that shit. But im not gonna get ethnically cleansed by the incumbent Republicans sorry not a part of my life plan

@xoxonaotchan_7902

2 жыл бұрын

@@louistracy6964 maybe one day but with possible civil war on the horizons people me and truth arent giving it up sorry. Maybe in a better world but I live in the real world where theirs more guns than people and most of those guns are owned by psychos

This guy has several people talking next to him in his podcast and half the time doesn't let them finish their sentences.

The constitution was written by individuals who agreed to what individuals (society- a group of individuals) could and couldn’t do. The constitution regulates individual behavior. Doesn’t it?

@robinsss

2 жыл бұрын

yes you point?

@Tms559

2 жыл бұрын

@@robinsss so it seems ridiculous to use the constitution as some indomitable truth against regulating individual behavior like owning AK -47s or anything for that matter. It was difficult for me to stay engaged in the ensuing conversation.

This just shows the utter selfishness of 2nd amendment nuts. To compare their ability to own a clip loaded semi-auto rifle with women's right to choose. As though carrying firearms is as compulsive as the human need for sex and the complications that can arise with an unwanted pregnancy.

12:24 eight hour work weeks would be soooo great!! :-)

I’m with Emma @14:30 I don’t give a shit what the constitution says either lol it’s a dumb talking point to site the constitution when it’s as imperfect as the people who wrote it.

@Habeebea

2 жыл бұрын

Yah it technically should matter but class power determines enforcement of laws.

@xoxonaotchan_7902

2 жыл бұрын

I agree its why i say f you i like my guns and dont wanna get killed in a neo nazi fascist uprising. Constitution means nothing. Doesn't means Republicans wont kill us when they get the chance.

@AndyG1995

2 жыл бұрын

@@xoxonaotchan_7902 this doesn’t make sense. Think about it. The republicans want to keep guns and the second amendment… I don’t think the people WANTING you to have the right to own guns is the side that wants to fight you… maybe, just MAYBE… the people wanting to take your guns away want to come against you…. Hmmmm.

@xoxonaotchan_7902

2 жыл бұрын

@@AndyG1995 naw im not falling for the bait i am forever a leftist not even a socialist just a baby soc dem but Im not giving up my guns cause people like you trying to stoke a second civil war. Your side litterly is anti freedom in almost every metric I can imagine

@banehelsing7541

2 жыл бұрын

@@xoxonaotchan_7902 If there’s ever a fascist uprising we can join leftist militias or get out of the country, your gun won’t save you. Don’t fall prey or get indoctrinated by gun culture..

He tried to talk down to the Call Today this Caller sounds like a genius

This right wingers didn't do a good job of pretending to be a leftist. It really fell apart at the end.

West Coast blues ain't feeling this bullshit Sam, trust me it's a slippery slope ..reward the dudes that abide and don't fuck with our gun rights

Regulation is part of the second amendment and further supported in the Federalist papers 29 by Hamilton.

@kylem2560

2 жыл бұрын

Really? Where in "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed," is there a hint of regulation?

@JRP3

2 жыл бұрын

@@kylem2560 Maybe in the word "REGULATED"? Do you understand English? Read Federalist 29 as I said in case there is any question of the meaning and context.

@kylem2560

2 жыл бұрын

@@JRP3 Na boiii, *shall not be infringed.*

@kylem2560

2 жыл бұрын

@@JRP3 i will check out the federalist paper info, thanks for the rec!

@JRP3

2 жыл бұрын

@@kylem2560 It's conditional relating to a "Well regulated Militia". If you aren't in a well regulated militia, (which is controlled by the government), which we no longer consider "necessary for the security of a free State" since we have a professional military, it doesn't apply.

Like every other libertarian, this caller suffers from a brain worm convincing him that the entirety of society can be run by blindly adhering to an arbitrary principle he declared is good (in this case it's "regulation on a systemic level good, regulation on an individual level bad") without actually thinking of the outcome on a case-by-case basis.

Only Mike Dukakis should be permitted to drive a tank down the street.

@comedyloverism

2 жыл бұрын

Nah. Only John McClane should

@seanpatrick1243

2 жыл бұрын

@@comedyloverism I think it went over your head. 🤔

He couldn't even come up with a coherent leftist defense of gun rights.

@DirkDjently

2 жыл бұрын

under no pretext

@bryanice3313

2 жыл бұрын

Irrelevant bc since Emma doesn’t care about the constitutions , BLM right to protests should be crush right ?

I feel like there isnt anything wrong with libertarianism. I can sympathize with the idea. I also want the government to stay out of people's lives as much as possible. I just have a very different list of things that i deem a necessity. There are also a buuunch of things i would cut from the government where they clearly over reached. Examples being the military, policing and women's reproductive rights. Small government yaaay.

@robi6317

2 жыл бұрын

over reaching with the military in what way? too big?

@ThePanMan11

2 жыл бұрын

@@robi6317 i cant think of a way the military isn't over reacting

@robi6317

2 жыл бұрын

@@ThePanMan11 i wouldnt disagree, i think we spend way too much on it, and its mostly a waste of money needed elsewhere in our country

These people consistently use the 2nd Amendment as a weapon. And they never seem to have read Section 8.

@robinsss

2 жыл бұрын

section b?

@aspektx

2 жыл бұрын

@@robinsss sorry, its 8.

Dude has no clue wtf he’s talking about. Def a libertarian.

Sam Seder: Breaking down Libertarians since 200-something.

@moodycxnt

2 жыл бұрын

1,800 years of owning the lib(ertarian)s

@robinsss

2 жыл бұрын

he mostly debated ancaps and got many things wrong debating them like we need a government to have a currency

Hard disagree. It’s vital the working class , POC, and other marginalized people can defend themselves against the state. There’s a reason Reagan was pro-gun control in the era when the Black Panthers posed a serious threat to the status quo.

@ThePanMan11

2 жыл бұрын

* amused predator drone noises *

@robi6317

2 жыл бұрын

the idea you can defend yourself against the state is hilarious. there are unlimited forces the state can throw at you, you think a few pellet guns will matter?

@slambrew3849

2 жыл бұрын

@@robi6317 I love how you libs forget about Afghanistan when it's needed to push a narrative.

@82Jaster

2 жыл бұрын

What you posted really highlights why the constitution needs to be updated. This isn't the 1,700's when people were riding around on horseback with muskets. If the "state" wants you or a militia, then no amount of modern weaponry is going to allow you to stand a chance against what they're going to have. So weapons of civilians need to be dialed back as well as dialing back what weaponry police have. They shouldn't be rolling around looking like a military unit.

@StoveToTheFace

2 жыл бұрын

Defending yourself against the state is just a fantasy. No matter how many guns you have you won't be successful. The 2nd amendment at this point only defends you against other citizens.

I think this guy has a belief and got lost in the sauce justifying it with broad statements. If he started from his belief, and then justified that belief, there would be a lot clearer I'd a discussion. Dude likes guns, thinks perhaps there is utility in the left being armed, is okay with local/municipal laws, believes the right to own a gun is a right, and wants any punitive measures resulting from gun laws to be directed towards the system that provides the guns. Once that is laid out, we can see the issues: how can municipal laws address something which is effectively a global problem? How can you keep an armed left while also demilitarizing society overall? How do you draw the line where the right to "keep and bear arms" stops? (does the second amendment just mean own, own and carry, or own, carry, and use?)

Guns are fine as long as you are willing to deal with the massive death toll and social costs. Other then that they are awesome

"I don't think there is a constitutional right for people to carry a weapon in this country." - Sam Yikes.

@robinsss

2 жыл бұрын

even many democrats acknowledge the right to have a gun since court decisions

@DrMattHH

10 ай бұрын

As Sam correctly points out, the 2008 Heller decision completely reversed ALL precedent on the matter. They completely reinterpreted the 2A (and literally changed the wording of it) by interpreting it totally differently from how they interpret the rest of the constitution. The historical records, and ALL legal decisions before 2008, are clear. The 2A never had anything to do with private gun ownership.

He sounds like an anarcho-capitalist. They argue this point.

If this guy's worried abour slippery slopes wait until he hears about ski hills.

I love Sam and am in agreement with on majority issues. But imma call ya out bruddah. You're always the very first to call someone out when they enter into a conversation and don't know understand the topic. It's obvious that there is not a fundamental understanding of firearms on the majority report's end here. Fine to have the opinion that one has about citizens not owning firearms fine, but there should be more to it than i don't want people having them especially with a lack of understanding of such. The biggest misunderstanding that i heard in the clip is in regards to "categorizing". Majority of firearms today are semiautomatic like it or not. The majority of casaulties from firearmes is not from rifles (aka AR-15), rather it would be handguns (pistols) yet we don't hear anyone complaining about this. In fact, the guy in the background states I'd be on board for people having shotguns and six-shooters. On top of that, the rifle I use to hunt deer has more stopping power than the terrible EBR. Again, I love the show Sam et al but when entering into a conversation please at the very least have a basic understanding of what's being spoken to.

@timtebone1843

2 жыл бұрын

. he did say carry... Concealable weapons kill more people of course...

Why didn't he just point out that the right to bear arms is an actual amendment, where as the"right"to an abortion is just a judges politically motivated interpretation of the Constitution from the seventies

@badatheist9948

2 жыл бұрын

Funny, the whole gun rights is just a constitutional interpretation. Most idiots ignore the first words, well regulated.

From Australia, we had the worst mass shooting 30 years ago & banned semi automatic rifles in 3 weeks, no mass shooting since

@user-uy6uc5ey5q

2 жыл бұрын

American gun right nutter basically just ignore the utility of sensible gun regulation in other countries, despite often trying to influence those decisions by providing funding for domestic opposition to other countries weapons laws. The NRA et al threw a ton of money at their fellow travelers in Australia and did the same here in New Zealand for many years till our own tragic case. The NZ Police had the laws the NZ Parliament ended passing unanimously bar 1 on the books for a decade but centre right had consistently blocked them due to US funded pro gun NZ groups.

@DirkDjently

2 жыл бұрын

US culture and the sheer number of firearms in the country make it unlikely that such legislation would be successfully implemented here

@user-uy6uc5ey5q

2 жыл бұрын

@@DirkDjently Switzerland which has high gun ownership rate similar to the US has spent the last 10 years tightening and improving it laws and regs - The idea the US can't have sensible laws or has some cultural issues always get brought up with every proposed effort to improve things in the country. Then the US changes it laws, culture. You haven't got an actual argument with the point you are making.

@PR--un4ub

2 жыл бұрын

@@user-uy6uc5ey5q Our obsession over firearms is insane.

@DirkDjently

2 жыл бұрын

​@@user-uy6uc5ey5q As I said, I am not against all regulation, but the type mentioned by Sam and them in the video (disallowing semi-automatics, which besides being the least likely type of law to pass, let alone enforce, is not an aspect of Swiss law. Switzerland actually makes it easier for people to get fully automatic firearms than the US) are untenable. Also, as I said, my main point was that bringing up "well regulated" to an originalist in an attempt to beat their point does not work. I have no idea what you mean that I "haven't got an actual argument." I get the impression that you think I am some sort of "no laws" absolutist.

The Constitution shouldn't be the benchmark for whether something should be allowed or not

@AdamSmith-gs2dv

2 жыл бұрын

Then what should be? The constitution lays out what the government can and more importantly CAN NOT do

Did the 2nd A say that you have the right to own a gun to hunt? Maybe I need to go back and read it.

Idk about this one man sam was being ridiculously pedantic the guy had a decent point

Too many leftists I hear sound like this with silly rightwing sounding guns rights talking points

Should have Robert Evans on to discuss this

You sound very emotional, and you, have this at least partially wrong. Marx and Orwell were, I think, right about an armed proletariat. Have you forgotten ALL labor history? Sure. Regs on transport and carry in populated areas might be prudent- but we absolutely know that any such regs will be enforced along racist and party lines.