Guns have been an important and instrumental part of American culture since before the United States existed. But in the last few decades, our affection for firearms has grown out of control. Gun sales have spiked - especially for military-style assault weapons. And so have gun deaths. So why are we so crazy about guns today? Well, to answer that question you have to understand how a little gun club, born out of the Civil War, became one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the United States - and beyond. Enjoy!

@jefflee1189

4 жыл бұрын

thanks for labeling me a lunatic because i own a gun. since im sure i have saved more children from starving to death last year than you did. is it ok if i label you a ghoul that likes to see children starve to death? or is that a bit out of line? also, one time two men broke into my home and probably would have killed me had i not owned a gun is it ok that i label you a selfish, uncaring little prick? or do you consider that a bit out of line as well? sincerely, lunatic gun owner

@charlesbrightman4237

4 жыл бұрын

Consider the following: The US Government and it's Constitution get ALL their powers and authorities from 'We The People'. Anything at all the the US Government can do, so too can every single American citizen with the American citizen's inherent powers and authorities. The US Government is here for 'We The People', not 'We The People' here for the US Government. Per the Declaration Of Independence of this great nation, basically 'We The People' not only have the right, but the duty, to alter and if necessary abolish, ANY government that 'We The People' and 'We The People' alone deem is not keeping us 'safe and happy', and to set up another government that 'We The People' and 'We The People' alone deem would keep us 'safe and happy'. And note also: Per President Donald J. Trump, who believes he can pardon himself, 'if' he ever does so, 'then' I pardon myself with my inherent powers being a member of 'We The People' from all rules, regulations, laws, etc, that ever were, are and/or will be. I do hereby declare this pardon on this public forum. So be it. But now also, with the above being said, any weapon that the government can have, so too can every single American citizen with our inherent powers and authorities. Now sure, one might have to have sufficient land to operate such weapons. And one might have to have special ways to get those weapons to and from the training grounds. And one couldn't point their weapons in a threatening manner at their neighbors. But if one had sufficient land to operate such weapons, then one should be allowed with their inherent powers and authorities to have and operate those weapons. ANY weapon that the US Government can have, so too can every single American citizen, and the American citizen could probably even have more weapons than even the US Government has due to the American citizen's inherent powers and authorities.

@charlesbrightman4237

4 жыл бұрын

And while I am here: a. The current singular answer to ALL questions in existence, including questions never asked is: "It Does Not Ultimately Matter", or in today's vernacular "IDNUM". b. (Reusable code from my files): Consider the following: * There are 3 basic options for life itself, which reduce down to 2, which reduce down to only 1: a. We truly have some sort of actual conscious existence throughout all of future eternity. b. We die trying to truly have some sort of actual conscious existence throughout all of future eternity. c. We die not trying to truly have some sort of actual conscious existence throughout all of future eternity. * 3 reduced down to 2: a. We truly have some sort of actual conscious existence throughout all of future eternity. b. We don't. And note, two out of the three options above, we die. * 2 reduced down to 1: a. We truly have some sort of actual conscious existence throughout all of future eternity. b. We truly don't have any conscious existence throughout all of future eternity. (And note, these two appear to be mutually exclusive. Only one way would be really true.) And then ask yourself the following questions: 1. Ask yourself: How exactly do galaxies form? The current narrative is that matter, via gravity, attracts other matter. The electric universe model also includes universal plasma currents. 2. Ask yourself: How exactly do galaxies become spiral shaped in a cause and effect state of existence? At least one way would be orbital velocity of matter with at least gravity acting upon that matter, would cause a spiral shaped effect. The electric universe model also includes energy input into the galaxy, which spiral towards the galactic center, which then gets thrust out from the center, at about 90 degrees from the input. 3. Ask yourself: What does that mean for a solar system that exists in a spiral shaped galaxy? Most probably that solar system would be getting pulled toward the galactic gravitational center. 4. Ask yourself: What does that mean for species that exist on a planet, that exists in a solar system, that exists in a spiral shaped galaxy, in an apparent cause and effect state of existence? Most probably that if those species don't get off of that planet, and out of that solar system, and probably out of that galaxy too, (if it's even actually possible to do for various reasons), then they are all going to die one day from something and go extinct with probably no conscious entities left from that planet to care that they even ever existed at all in the first place, much less whatever they did and or didn't do with their time of existence. 5. Ask yourself: For those who might make it out of this galaxy, (here again, assuming it could actually be done for various reasons), where to go to next, how long to get there, how to safely land, and then, what's next? Hopefully they didn't land in another spiral shaped galaxy or a galaxy that would become spiral shaped one day, otherwise, they would have to galaxy hop through the universe to stay alive, otherwise, they still die one day from something with no conscious entities being left from the original planet to care they even ever existed at all in the first place, much less that they made it out of their own galaxy. They failed to consciously survive throughout all of future eternity. 6. Ask yourself: What exactly matters throughout all of future eternity and to whom does it exactly and eternally matter to? Either at least one species truly consciously survives throughout all of future eternity somehow, someway, somewhere, in some state of existence, even if only by a continuous succession of ever evolving species, for life itself to have continued meaning and purpose to, OR none do and life itself is all ultimately meaningless in the grandest scheme of things. Our true destiny currently appears to be: 1. We are ALL going to die one day from something. 2. We are ALL going to forget everything we ever knew and experienced. 3. We are ALL going to be forgotten one day in future eternity as if we never ever existed at all in the first place. Currently: Nature is our greatest ally in so far as Nature gives us life and a place to live it, AND Nature is also our greatest enemy that is going to take it all away. (OSICA) * (Note: This includes the rich, powerful, and those who believe in the right to life and the sanctity of human life. God does not actually exist and Nature is not biased other than as Nature. Nature does what Nature does in a cause and effect kind of way. Truth is still truth and reality is still reality, regardless of whatever we believe that reality to be. And denying future reality will not make future reality any less real in a cause and effect state of existence.) ** Hence also though, legalizing suicide so as to let people leave this life on their own terms if they wish to do so. Many people and species are going to die in the 6th mass extinction event that has already started, at least some, horrible deaths. Many will wish they could die, and all will, eventually. And the 6th mass extinction event will not be the last mass extinction event for this Earth. But if suicide were legal, at least some people would not have the added guilt of breaking societies' law before doing so. Just trying to plan ahead here. Giving people an 'out' if they wish to take it. Note: All this stuff is just more of "The Good Stuff".

@eenis1281

4 жыл бұрын

The Good Stuff unsubbed after this biased garbage, your anti gun language is so apparent from “I shot hunting rifles but other guns are OUTRAGEOUS “

@TheUglyGnome

4 жыл бұрын

@@jefflee1189 Don't be a snowflake! Nobody is saying that everyone who has a gun is a lunatic.

The 2nd amendment was never about hunting.

@WarNoob755

4 жыл бұрын

@Tad Cooper it was about small arms equal to what is available to the government.

@gavindagawd

4 жыл бұрын

@Tad Cooper there were semi auto equivalents at the time of the revolution that the founding fathers approved of. They also approved of the private ownership of artillery. The idea was that if the government can have it, so should the people.

@franktwocheese7058

4 жыл бұрын

The 2nd amendment is about muskets the same way the 1st amendment is about the printing press. Should we redefine the 1st amendment because of the Internet? Of course not. We also shouldn't redefine the 2nd amendment because of better rifles.

@petercarioscia9189

4 жыл бұрын

Hunting a.corrupt government

@petercarioscia9189

4 жыл бұрын

@Tad Cooper except it was. Repeating rifles existed during the revolution. Hell, when John Madison was President he permitted merchant vessels to have CANNONS under the second amendment.

Funny how the founding fathers talked a lot about tyrannical governments but not so much about hobbies.

@nonegiven2830

4 жыл бұрын

Don't you guys have a healthcare system based on ability to pay rather than need? Tyranny "cruel and oppressive government or rule" Pushing the sick into debt seems pretty cruel to me

@KaiserTom

4 жыл бұрын

@@nonegiven2830 lol classic whataboutism. Meanwhile where do the funds for said healthcare system in other countries come from? It's mostly not created out of thin air. It comes from a government taking the money earned by the citizens away from it's citizens to pay for it. Ultimately by force; by oppression if you do not comply. That sounds pretty tyrannical to me. Liberty is not about doing whatever you want with absolutely no consequences; it's about being free from a violent and oppressive power who can extract infinite value out of you through the threat of your life. Last I checked it's not private debt collectors going to houses with guns extracting payments out of people.

@sacta

4 жыл бұрын

@@KaiserTom I hadn't seen that "Zap muthafucka!" comic in ages, damn, the nostalgia. Anyway, if the government is tyrannical for extracting value from you (certainly not infinite value.... that's impossible), so is any employer (if an employer paid their worker the full value of their work they wouldn't be making a profit off of them). And if you don't want to give your time/value to a boss, you can just starve. Also pretty tyrannical, innit? "But you can create your own business!" Uhuh... with what money? Not everyone has a rich daddy to fund their entrepreneurial adventures Also, the taxes you pay, lest you suffer violence, are you paying back to the system, for the value YOU extracted from the government. Like the education you or your workers went through (else you should be paying for the education of every single worker in your company), the water that you drink (that, ideally, if you don't like in Flynt, should be treated and monitored by government agencies to not have dangerous substances or bacterials), the roads you drive on, the city's infrastructure... If you want to get out of the system, sure, go ahead, but 1) pay back all the value you have extracted 2) you never get to benefit from any of the country's infrastructure again. Also, are you really advocating AGAINST a Western European-style healthcare system when it's proven it is much better for everyone? Keep in mind also that USA pays A LOT for healthcare. More than most European countries as far as I know. The problem isn't lack of funding, but crooked medical and insurance companies, who have come up with what amounts to a scheme to make money out of thin air by inflating the price of hospital and medicine bills for profit, since there aren't enough regulations to keep them in check.

@nonegiven2830

4 жыл бұрын

@@KaiserTom My point is, you have guns to stop tyranny but you're not stopping tyranny, that in it's self invalidates that argument for needing guns. In the UK we voted to create a national health service and agreed we should all pay into it as we understood that a healthy nation would be more productive and trying to extort money from the sick is a shitty thing to do. That's not "the government", that's the people. Your whole argument sounds like someone who refuses to pay at the end of a meal.

@fuzinonzlot

4 жыл бұрын

​@@nonegiven2830 "My point is, you have guns to stop tyranny but you're not stopping tyranny, that in it's self invalidates that argument for needing guns." This _still_ doesn't invalidate it if the people are not aware that it's a form of tyranny, just as people aren't aware of the tyranny from the banking cartels (who are in bed with the gov't) - the Federal Reserve - and how badly they are screwing over our country with its _unconstitutional,_ fraudulent monetary system, which is a Ponzi scheme, and how they have put us in to *_debt slavery._* If the people found out they would be outraged & rebel by tomorrow, but most people aren't aware of it. You can't hit a target if you don't see it. And firearms is not a "need" it's a *_right_* hence the _Bill of RIGHTS._ And killing tyrants isn't the only thing guns are good for, but self-preservation as well.

Next video: Why are Americans so crazy about free speech?

@catfishcave379

4 жыл бұрын

They are not. The ones that scream the loudest about it are the ones trying to take it away; both in the govt and on the street. Anyone notice how the world has changed in the last 250 years?

@russetwolf13

4 жыл бұрын

@@catfishcave379 True, but also not the point.

@Schwarzvogel1

4 жыл бұрын

We are crazy about free speech because it is fundamental to a functioning republic. Free speech is vital to free political discourse, but freedom of speech does not mean freedom from social consequences. In the USA, you are free to call me whatever ethnic slur you think appropriate and you will not be arrested for it. To me, this is well and good--because when the government starts arresting people for hate speech, it is pretty easy for them to arrest people for criticizing the government itself.

@noncomplier5385

3 жыл бұрын

@@russetwolf13 Actaully, that is the point.

I always hate it when Fudds try to speak for gun owners. No, you inheriting your dads old .22 varmint rifle that you never shot doesn’t make you informed on the matter.

Did this dude just try to imply that the AR-15 isn't a rifle? Does he know what a rifle even is?

Guns were just for fun - a hobby!

@andi8p569

4 жыл бұрын

Very true

I'm 15 and I will defend the 2nd amendment

"I have a black friend"

I'm so sick of people talking about semi automatic weapons. People don't understand the vast majority of all guns are semi auto... almost every pistol is semi auto. You can't understand why anyone would need a pistol? All the ignorant people on the news and social media is talking like semi auto is the same as full auto.

@MSTRCMDR

4 жыл бұрын

I honestly can not understand why anyone would need a pistol. But I am living in a country that has stricter gun laws - and we are doing pretty well over here. So what do you need a killing device for?

@Brody961

4 жыл бұрын

@@MSTRCMDR Because it has numerous other functions and purposes besides killing. Responsible firearm owners treat them as tools, primarily for recreational purposes but most importantly for personal protection. It can even the playing field for someone like a smaller woman or if someone is outnumbered. 99.9% are responsible owners who have never been and will never be a threat to others therefore it shouldnt matter what they own. I understand you're from another country so I respect your opinion, I just wanted to give some insight

@OrganicGreens

4 жыл бұрын

@@MSTRCMDR There are places in the states that have so many bears that if you want to go hunting fishing or hiking you would be stupid to go without a high powered handgun or a rifle. Carrying a rifle isn't always ideal as they are large. If an officer or ranger found you in these places without a gun he would probably ask you where your guns at for your own good. Also I live in St.Louis literally like everyone in the city has unlicensed firearms so I would be pretty pist if I cant register a handgun to protect my home or myself when going to seedy parts of town.

@Saltpork305

4 жыл бұрын

@@MSTRCMDR "So what do you need a killing device for?" To kill living things that pose risk of serious injury or death. It really doesn't matter if it's animal or human. The point to carrying a pistol is to stop deadly violent threats. Yesterday there was a knife attack in London. Some folks died before the police responded. There's the answer. A firearm isn't a magical death beam, but it does give people the ability to defend themselves, their lives, the lives of others when police are minutes or possibly hours away, which *is* a thing in the United States. The other part to this is that the Supreme Court ruled back around 1981 that police have no duty to protect you. None. They don't legally have to, particularly if it puts them at risk. This has come up a few times when people get assaulted or seriously injured in places like the NYC subway where guns are heavily restricted and regulated. It all comes back to that case back in 81. Police don't have a duty to protect you. You are your own first responder. Period. A firearm does make it so that an elderly person or a small woman or someone in a wheelchair or a trans person can be just as deadly as a 220lb wall-of-muscle male. It helps stop people who tend to be victimized from being victims. This is a reason we have and keep guns. These are the reasons I went training yesterday morning and why I carry a gun with me everytime I leave the house and will until I'm cold and on a slab somewhere. It's also the reason I keep a first aid kit in my car and have and keep up with emergency first aid training. Life is precious. Take threats against it seriously, be it accident or predator.

@RealUlrichLeland

4 жыл бұрын

Pistols are banned in the UK. Basically all you can legally own are shotguns and bolt action rifles. Shotguns work fine for farmers defending their property and bolt action works fine for hunting deer in the cairngorms. I don't see why you'd need any semi auto weapons myself.

Anyone ever notice how videos like this always preface with “I’m a gun owner, but”, and then they rattle off with extremely idiotic talking points? If you can’t understand specifics, or be bothered with thorough research, then don’t step into the debate circle. Better yet, don’t vote if you haven’t gotten a clue.

@commando6261

4 жыл бұрын

It's almost like he's a FUD.

"..., the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

SHALL

@TheGeneral75746

4 жыл бұрын

BE

@pattyboy0748

4 жыл бұрын

INFRINGED

@Zergking100

4 жыл бұрын

Maybe you should stop coming after our god given rights to defend ourselves

@pattyboy0748

4 жыл бұрын

@Q.E. D depends what God we're talking about.

@sgtsnyder88

4 жыл бұрын

@Q.E. D To be fair, pretty sure that was Jesus, not GOD. The same Jesus who said "let he who hath no sword, sell his cloak and buy one"

I'm guessing the check from Michael Bloomberg just cleared?

I need to buy more guns 💪

This wasn't about Good Stuff at all

I love how you admit the overwhelming majority of gun deaths are due to suicide and call that "us literally killing ourselves over our love for guns" as if that's the cause behind the suicide epidemic. Just one of many misrepresentations and outright falsehoods presented

6:15 This is absolutely false. Look up the battle of Athens TN. Ousting a corrupt sheriff due to things like brutality and voter intimidation/suppression have NOTHING to do with recreation. You're inserting your opinion here and it's simply not true. You can't pin the ideology of individual gun ownership on the NRA's political battle interally in the 1970s. Sorry, it existed well before that and you even say so. The 2nd amendment isn't about sport shooting or recreation or hunting. It's about, bluntly, killing government employees foreign or domestic when the time comes for it. It's about the will of the people ultimately coming down to the people themselves if need be, not outsourcing our ability to deal with the powers that be by asking nicely, because if the 1900s taught us anything it's that the powers that be do not give a single fuck when you ask nicely.

@SUPREMEdiver33

4 жыл бұрын

But me guns

The militia is formed of the people, and the members of the militia provide their own weapons, therefor, the people must be able to own the weapons of the militia, well regulated means keeping pace with competing military forces, NOT that it is under the eye of the established government. Furthermore the 2nd amendment doesn't give you the right, you already HAVE the right, it is a god given right, and the 2nd amendment is merely the laws to restrict the government from infringing upon the rights of it's citizens that they already have.

@EspremeaAndCO

4 жыл бұрын

Did you see god recently telling you that? 🤣

@therealquade

4 жыл бұрын

@@EspremeaAndCO It's literally in the bill of rights, the term "god given rights" is explicitly used. I'm an atheist, I prefer the term "natural right" because a right is an action that you take, and a natural right is something you can do without it being externally provided for you. given an infinite timeline, and no external action, if it is possible for you to do something, That is a right. That's what rights are, and so it is a right to own a gun, because it is possible for a person to obtain materials, refine them, forge them, create a gun, and physically possess it on their person. THAT is what the declaration of independence, and the bill of rights state. they use the term "god given rights" because they where using it to argue against THE MONARCHY, which was Theocratic insofar as the justification for being a monarch. Literally every person who argues against this, either has not actually read the constitution, the bill of rights, or anything the framers and founding fathers had to say on the subject, OR they have less than an 11th grade reading comprehension.

“Military style assault rifles” are only available for the military, not civilians.

@tudoraragornofgreyscot8482

4 жыл бұрын

RedLeader327 Unfortunately

@ZedrikVonKatmahl

4 жыл бұрын

Tudor Aragorn of Greyscot And illegally

@japorah

4 жыл бұрын

I think you missed the important part "style"

@ZedrikVonKatmahl

4 жыл бұрын

Japorah In some states assault rifles are illegal In most or all of the rest they are heavily restricted Their style is irrelevant

@Eric_D_6

4 жыл бұрын

That comment is another example of how the NRA has changed things, they changed the meaning of those words to make what you said technically close to the truth, even still it's not just the military but also private defense contractors and other permits can be obtained as well, just look at Richard Ryan, he is a civilian and he legally has a lot of weapons usually restricted to the military.

As arguments go this was absolutely terrible. Course I’m not American so it’s easier for me to see how silly this was. You rally the you the anti-gun supporters and promote the pro-gun people all in the same video. Examples; 1:16. “You can lay most of the blame on”… anti-gun supports say “Blame” Yes. Pro-gun people say … See these ant-gun nuts can’t even get that right. It’s not “Blame” it’s “Credit”. Throughout the video you keep “blaming” the organization like it’s some kind of evil mastermind. It’s NOT the organization, It’s your fellow Americans. The organization would have zero power without it’s human members. Your not going to change there minds by proving to the pro-gun people that you don’t know what your talking about.

@Schwarzvogel1

4 жыл бұрын

@Mr. Morningstar Your analogy is equally amusing and apt. I wish I could give your comment more than one thumbs up.

@Wohodix

3 жыл бұрын

look no problem if you think you deserve credits for allowing your people to massacre each others. there you have it.

Perfect example of pseudointellectual shut-ins falsely trying to educate (propagandize) others. I'd be glad to take you shooting and actually explain the position of someone who supports basic human rights, and hopefully you'd leave a little less daft by the end.

Not 30 seconds in and you're already showing your bias.

@redheron4321

4 жыл бұрын

And I'm sure you're not biased yourself. Have a good day, sir.

@DoctorMcKay1

4 жыл бұрын

Everyone is biased. Not everyone posts KZread videos completely devoid of fact to promote their own biases.

I’ve enjoyed your non political videos and have largely ignored the subtle jabs at conservatives. This was just an outright political statement. Unsubscribe...

@Dragonwing16

4 жыл бұрын

cool

@Wohodix

3 жыл бұрын

time to wake up, everything is political. People having powers want political discution to be taboo and chaotic. This way their powers is never questioned. and also you know "divide to conquer"

So many Americans believe fervently that the constitution gives them the right to say whatever they want no matter how ignorant.

Some notes while watching: "Gun extremism" apparently equals not letting the govt ban any gun they want to ban The collective right interpretation is clearly a legalese trick for the gov't to increase control over people. "A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.” Does this read like private ownership of books should be restricted, and they should be relegated to libraries only? CDC was caught red handed falsifying evidence, thats why they were stopped from researching guns. Funny you didnt mention the passing, or the end, or the assault weapons ban resulted in no noticeable difference in crime. A gun as a tool of self defense is a vestige of a by gone era? Really? Where do you live, inside Ft Knox? You talk about how the loosening of gun laws is a bad thing, yet acknowledge that crime rates have been falling for decades. Perhaps there's a relationship between those two things? And now we're at "gun deaths" being high, but not murders. Someone purposefully killing themselves with a gun is their own fault. And if guns result in crime, shouldn't the US being awash in guns make it have the highest murder rate in the world? My fathers generation had hunting rifles in the back of their trucks at high school. You can dig up pics from the 50s and 60s of school shooting clubs. If theres a problem now its the people, and not the guns.

@WhaleTPK

4 жыл бұрын

Not to mention that the states with the lowest rate of firearm deaths just so happen to be constitutional carry states... not the states with the strictest gun control laws.

@TK-AM

4 жыл бұрын

This comment is pretty far off mark. I know that might not spark a lot of discussion but your information is misleading. The CDC was accused of bias against guns by the NRA. I'd like to see your evidence of tampering because the NRA obviously has a conflict of interest in that situation. A change in crime from the assault weapons ban is a moot point. Are you referring to general crime rates? Gun-related crime rates? Assault-gun-related crime rates? Regardless I'm not sure how you could be confident nothing else could've counter-acted the affects of the ban, such as an increase in gun manufacturing or whatever. Talking about the necessity of a firearm as a self defense tool is in my opinion kinda pointless, at least in a comment section. To be brief I guess: we can talk about how it increases people's chances of gun-related violence or risk of suicide etc. but I don't expect to move anybody over a quick comment on youtube. It's weird to me to see people get upset about whether or not they *should* have something, it's enough reason in my opinion to just want to have it. Shoot guns cuz they're fun I'm not against that. In general they don't keep you safer, the numbers do not support you on this. There's quite a few theories on why crime rate has fallen over the last twenty five years, and to suggest it's because of lax gun laws seriously undermines the very tangible generational changes over the last fifty years and is dangerously zoomed in on a much larger and nuanced picture. There is way more to support the advent of modern technology and hyper-connectivity of individuals leading to steep cultural changes and thus lifestyle changes *and thus* a change in crime rate. I don't see how your question has anything to stand on but I am open to criticism. A suicide is a gun death. I am (actually) happy that you are emotionally sound enough to not have an issue with suicide, but your individual case is not enough to dismiss the real problem of gun suicides. In some instances a change needs to be made to benefit the majority, even at the inconvenience of some individuals. Those changes should be well-informed of course, and there is plenty of data to show these proposed changes will be for the positive. Nobody is going house to house and taking everybody's guns either, the more popular criticisms are generally that it should be harder to obtain a gun. We even have the ability to change or reverse laws should they go farther than the people would like. The changes should favor the opinions of its citizens as well, and not the opinions of lobbyists/companies (and there is an impossibly long paper trail of the RNA doing this). The problem has always been the people, the voters opposite to you even agree with this. Times change and it's important to make sure we adjust to take care of ourselves and our people when necessary. That being said, people can be influenced en masse and governments can be persuaded, people aren't magically changing and this video tries to actually address why today's culture is the way it is. Being afraid to even approach the idea of gun culture let alone regulation is a problem, and leads to your exact half-assed attempt at critically approaching the subject, filled with fallacies and faux "gotcha" phrases....

@pete3011

4 жыл бұрын

@@TK-AM No, its right on the mark, I go to the range The CDC didnt tamper, they were openly anti gun. There are quotes from individuals in the CDC from that period saying this. Funny, the vid talks about "crime", yet suddenly I have an exacting standard to meet. Fortunately, it doesnt matter, you can dig up a chart of any gun related crime from that period, overlay the beginning and end of the ban, and there is no change. It had no effect. The numbers dont support me if suicides are factored into the equation, and if you ignore that other similar countries with gun bans-such as the UK-have a significantly higher rate of occupied home invasion, and also if you ignore data from the 90s CDC- which they purposefully suppressed and has recently emerged, along with supporting data from John Lott- that there are a huge number of unreported defensive gun uses every day. As long as you ignore all that data, then yeah, sure. In a video full of bad logic and specious reasoning I'm perfectly comfortable replying with my own specious reasoning. If you don't like it, tell people like the guy who made the vid to stop. No, we arent giving up rights b/c people use guns to kill themselves, thats just a mealy mouthed, concern trolling reason to try to ban them, and it has no legs. There is no reputable data showing that gun laws will decrease crime or make things better, Mexico and South America have restrictive gun laws, and they're sh*tholes. And the NRA isnt an extremist organization, the complaints of most gun owners is that they arent extreme enough. I'm I'm not sure what you're getting at besides some silly rainbow and ponies stuff in your last paragraph, but I've typed enough refuting your half- assed attempt to critically refute my points with feels and bubblegum. Go buy a gun, eat a steak, and man up.

@TK-AM

4 жыл бұрын

@@pete3011 Well you basically walked in circles and addressed next to nothing I said despite typing a lot. Good amount of pointing at other problems though but I expected straw men from you. Have a good day.

@pete3011

4 жыл бұрын

@@TK-AM So I guess that means you wont be taking my advice. You just can't help some people.

0:33 a flamethrower is not a firearm

Hello, the Good Stuff. The AR-15 and the like are not assault weapons. You have harmed your credibility by buying into the lie of "assault style" hysteria inspired by cosmetics. You have now lost my support on Patreon.

He does realize that most rifles and pistols are semiautomatic, right?

How do you have a collective right for a nation to form a millitia which is made up of citizens who supply their own firearms without those individuals having the right to possess them?

I have seen videos that are non biased and discuss both sides of the gun debate..... this video is NOT one of those.

@MSTRCMDR

4 жыл бұрын

Sounds like balance fallacy to me - but imho the both sides of the argument do not have equal value.

@tymandude1510

4 жыл бұрын

That's mostly because there's no good argument for it besides "but meh second amendment!

@sonofrobin73

4 жыл бұрын

@@tymandude1510 There are countless better arguments. The arguments presented in this video are not only factually incorrect, but also make no sense.

Wow... I don't know whether it's ignorance or purposeful, but you don't give an accurate representation of both sides. But, the intent of the 2nd is about personal gun ownership. It always was, since the militias were made up of citizens and they were required to provide their own weapons. I thought about pointing out each mistake made in this video, but there's no way I have that much free time... Do better research.

The second amendment is to keep our government in check the government has better and better weapons all the time so the citizens have the right to keep up with the military equipment

@neeneko

4 жыл бұрын

That is a very modern interpretation, mostly dating back to the civil rights era. The myth that it was for keeping the government in check came out of people (with local police help) trying to stop federally mandated integration.

@tymandude1510

4 жыл бұрын

Yep the government is what you should be worried about! Don't look over here at all these corporations pulling your strings like a puppet master, keep yelling about the governnent and guns!

@sonofrobin73

4 жыл бұрын

@@neeneko What other reason would the founders include the right to keep and bear arms after having just won the revolution against tyrannical Britain who tried to disarm the populace before they could revolt? Read the second amendment supporting documents written by the founders. Their reasoning is very clear. It is not a modern interpretation.

@neeneko

4 жыл бұрын

Having read the original debates, and the history behind the revolution, kinda sounds like you have gotten a bit of modern retelling under your belt. Given that not soon after the revolution the government put down multiple revolts for the same things they claimed they were revolting for (like paying taxes), the idea that the founders wanted people to be able to fight them is laughable. They wanted to ensure that their own factions could not be stopped from using private arms to enforce their will on others. There is a reason a lot of this retelling popped up in the 1960s when the federal government was pushing integration. The second amendment has always been about the right to punch down without government interference, never about keeping the government in check.

@mybackhurts7020

4 жыл бұрын

tymandude 1 good point same thing

Obligatory non-insane comment.

@AK-jy5xx

4 жыл бұрын

"Any comment expressing an opinion other than my own is insane." Outstanding mate, well done.

@Pruncible

4 жыл бұрын

+

“I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” ~ Patrick Henry

This comment section is amazing lol😂

@Rupi1234ful

4 жыл бұрын

It's kinda horrifying tbh

@TerrySteiner

4 жыл бұрын

It's like the NRA post somewhere that someone said something bad about it. "Attack my minions". Hope did they all find this?

@russetwolf13

4 жыл бұрын

@@TerrySteiner I got the link from r/liberalgunowners, I don't even know what the NRA's social media outreach looks like these days. Aside from all the people at the range telling me to get a membership and me saying "when they nut up and start fighting California's anti-gun legislation maybe I'll think about it." The joke is they never will.

@TerrySteiner

4 жыл бұрын

@ModestMagician Pro tip:. Starting with a comment work you must be profoundly ignorant is not a good way to start a conversation. If you want to have a grown up conversation I would have been all for it. I am a gun owner btw. Just not an NRA member.

@sweetdaddy9275

4 жыл бұрын

@@TerrySteiner lol you don't know how to respond to lol

this video didnt aged well so fast

and.. .. unsubscribe..

I want back 10 minutes of my life.

Congrats. This video was so badly researched its inspired me to start making videos about issues like this.

aren't you supposed to leave your biased opinions out of an informative video?

What tends to happen with crime rates in countries where gun control gets tougher, what tends to happen in those where it gets more flexible?

@jonathanmetzger3092

4 жыл бұрын

They go down. This is why America’s is significantly higher than most of Europe’s. Do a basic fact check.

@PorterRockwell500

2 жыл бұрын

@@jonathanmetzger3092 Chicago: am I a joke to you?

Wow, that was pretty cringe.

Everyone watching this in their free country is able to do so because of the second amendment.

This guy has no clue, lmao.

@chrismoore3295

3 жыл бұрын

the reason we like guns because if we didn't we would be watching bbc right now

I usually consider myself a strong advocate for gun control, but this video came off more as the pendulum swinging right out the damn door. Definitely not one I bring up to anyone I was hoping to pitch better control laws to.

Well done, comment section. Well done.

Hunting rifles are definitely more deadly than an AR-15 also SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

The [sic] Assault Weapons Ban was largely meaningless as manufacturers just made guns with the same capabilities but without the cosmetic features that were banned.

Yeah the NRA told me that I need a gun to protect myself. haha what a joke. I own a firearm to ACTUALLY protect me and the people around me. I really liked your channel, had some great videos. This is disappointing coming from you guys...

@hopemoore

4 жыл бұрын

The question is then, who told you that a firearm would protect you and if you did not have a firearm, have you learned other protection techniques and feel secure? If you don't feel like you could protect yourself and others without a gun, someone along the way made you feel that way and someone else (probably influenced by the NRA) that made them feel that way. It's fine to own a firearm and practice shooting, I'm worried about the message that a firearm needs to be relied on for a feeling of security and the ability to protect.

@noby5711

4 жыл бұрын

@@hopemoore Boy boy here we go lol. What else would you like me to use to protect myself, a bow and arrow? A firearm can be used as a tool at a distance. You want to be as far away from a treat as you possibly can. I'm not going to go hand to hand combat with a person wielding a knife. That's called suicide. And who even cares about the NRA?? The reality is guns will never go away, nor will the criminals that commit the heinous crimes. Its apart of human existence all over the world. So why not be equal to the tools they use and or even have an edge over them. "Hope" means you have no control over the outcome. That you're wishing things go your way. Be a survivor instead of a victim. If you would like I can link tons of videos of people lives being saved by a good samaritan with a gun.

@hopemoore

4 жыл бұрын

@@noby5711 I hope you don't assume I'm anti-gun, I've just always have been confused - especially over the last decade or so - why once I bring up hand-to-hand combat as an addition to learning how to use guns, there's often an aggressive (and fearful) response as if it's one or the other. You won't always have a gun and sometimes won't have the distance needed to use it, so why not learn and practice both? It makes you feel more secure all the time and less dependant on a specific weapon - because the right training makes you realize everything can be one when needed. I think it's those who profit from guns that try to get people to believe guns are the only "real" way to defend and protect so anything else suggested is somehow a threat to your right to gun ownership.

@noby5711

4 жыл бұрын

@@hopemoore I think you're also assuming that people don't know when to use lethal force. I completely agree that having some hand to hand skills is very important, but against a DEADLY threat, a firearm is your best bet.

@Schwarzvogel1

4 жыл бұрын

@@hopemoore Hand to hand combat won't help you against someone with a knife, or against someone who has 4" and 50 lbs of muscle over you. And if you are a woman, it won't help you much against the average man. If it seems that people who advocate firearms for protection have disdain for hand-to-hand combat skills, it's because there is a very strong movement funded by billionaires which intends to deprive us of any effective means of self-defense except for hand-to-hand combat. We _are_ in danger of being forced to choose between one or the other. The firearms industry really is not all that profitable at all except for manufacturers that have military contracts. It isn't Remington, Winchester, Colt, or FN that are pushing the message that you need a firearm to protect yourself. It *is simple common sense* that a firearm is the most effective defensive implement currently known to man. It is also one the easiest to use and most versatile--many crimes are prevented simply when the victim presented a firearm. And unlike your vaunted "hand-to-hand combat," firearms are useful against multiple assailants and are equally effective regardless of the defender's body size, disabilities, age, or physical fitness. I do agree with you though that maintaining a general level of fitness _and_ practicing marksmanship are equally important. But no martial arts can truly replace a firearm as an effective defensive measure. This is even more so for two reasons: 1. Most martial arts techniques you can learn are almost useless in an actual fight. They are solely for show. 2. Practicing effective hand-to-hand defensive techniques is neither safe nor easy. By contrast, practicing marksmanship with your firearm _is_ safe and easy. If anything, hand-to-hand combat techniques should be your last, not your first resort, just as your pistol is a secondary option to your rifle or shotgun. You rely on hand-to-hand combat techniques to fight your way to your pistol or longarm, or to give you enough space to use a more effective weapon.

Great ad, I am going to join the NRA. thanks.

@Al77343

4 жыл бұрын

Oh God please don't. Gun Owners of America is much more serious about protecting gun rights.

Guns are part of my religion - that one mandalorian

@CraigMag143

4 жыл бұрын

Gabriel R It is the way

OK I’ve only watched half of this and this is really a one-sided speech. I am a Canadian and I even know the Second Amendment (included at the conclusion of my comments). Why doesn’t this person right from the beginning actually READ the second amendment? It is very suspicious that they do not. It is not that long. Perhaps it would not bode well for the argument and the spin they would like to put on this. An armed citizenry is important to protect freedom. Check your history books, there have been many rogue governments who have taken over their own people and the first thing they do is take their guns away. How we prepare to defend ourselves from burglars or from a rogue government was enshrined in the Second Amendment. “A well regulated militia” was to protect you from enemies foreign and domestic.. Even the founders said if a government begins to go against the republic and the constitution there will be shedding of blood, so you need to have enough firepower to be able to defend yourself against your own government. I am not a radical person nor do I own a gun but I see the logic in this. Has there been a good case made for that? Maybe in the part I didn’t watch. If they don’t however you might ask yourself why some random Canadian guy seems to know the spirit and intention of the Second Amendment more than the presenters of this video. Anyone who pushes one side without presenting a cogent counter view is not educating but indoctrinating. Did anyone ever think the NRA had to shift their focus simply because politicians began trying to take away the guns and circumnavigate an enshrined right given by the founders? The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

@sonofrobin73

4 жыл бұрын

@kingdmculture They don't even mention the intention of the Second to allow citizens to abolish a tyrannical government. I watched the whole thing, and it is so unbelievably wrong. The only thing they get even sort of right is that the NRA is corrupt.

the "research" for this video seems to have been cherry picked with a left(ist) hand. and i am a liberal.

My fear is not an armed citizenry. Rather, my concern is a government with too much power over the people who constructed it. In my eyes "military style" firearms are essential for maintaining balance between the people and their government.

@MarcoPollo77

4 жыл бұрын

In a battle between you, a well armed citizen, and the United States military, you think your AK-47 or AR-15 is going to give you any advantage? Try playing that scenario out in your mind and let us know who won.

@nosferathu258

4 жыл бұрын

Yeah... No. This is just a long way to say you're in denial.

@Fireclaws10

4 жыл бұрын

In a war you’re going to get taken out by a drone. You aren’t going to get to shoot your gun.

@biogeniclife

4 жыл бұрын

@@MarcoPollo77 Dude don't you understand it's not one person with a gun against the government? It's every single American citizen with a gun that prevents them from doing anything. Which is why the NRA is so important.

@jefflee1189

4 жыл бұрын

@@Fireclaws10 we can own an armed drone. you seem like a super duper smart person. so let me ask you. are YOU going to attack a person who has a knife? or are you going to attack a person who has a gun. i'll await your reply

so wanting to have your rights is extreme now

Interesting how this timely "marketing" opportunity popped up around and during the Vietnam war when mass media started spinning news and over inflating stories more than ever. I see more to this story but definitely something to think about in terms of the NRA. I'm pro-gun but I'm also an advocate to eradicate unnecessary fear (primarily due to Media influences). There is more than a legal pro or against gun laws, this is about the influence of fear - just look at the toilet paper today as a great, and simplified, example.

It's a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Needs. The NRA is this nations oldest and greatest civil rights organization. God Bless the Second Amendment.

You don't know the definition of an "Assault rifle"

"fringe" - no u

You forgot the usefulness and portability of pistols when going into dicey situations

In my country, no allowed own gun, but for age 12, must join Young Pioneers and learn shoot, and with blindfold, take apart clean put back together Kalashnikov

This video is embarrassing. We all thought the Good Stuff understood the importance of ALL the individuals right.

I believe that we should be able to have the same equipment as the military as long as it's reasonable such as no explosive devices and no tanks but we need the same equipment so if the government becomes out of control so the people can take over and make a better union

@rick7424

3 жыл бұрын

Why? Barely any of you use it responsible. Your fear mongering about the government is unrealistic.

@robertmarlow6674

3 жыл бұрын

@@rick7424 bro you got a mgs4 snake avatar and you are trying to shame people for being distrustful of the government. That is next level irony.

@Nickxxx85

8 ай бұрын

How naive someone must be to think that normal citizens will ever able to win with army and take out gov. The only way to win this kind of battle is to have army on your side, end of story.

1:50 "We have a huge military today the third largest in the world" This only tells you the number of people the military employs. But we also spend the most on the military. We have drones and aircraft carriers etc, ignoring that may give a false impression. I rather face 100 people with muskets, than 10 with drones.

@artistsometimes2729

4 жыл бұрын

America spends more than the next 7 countries combined, most of them allies... yeah it's crazy. And if someone replies 'actually it's only the next 5' you are just missing the point entirely XD

@GroyperHands

4 жыл бұрын

xbob Driesestig not to mention the Founding Fathers were against a standing army anyway

Truthfully expected a lot more neutral and unbiased perspective from this channel and less of a partisan piece spreading misinformation less than 30 seconds in. Craig would be sad

America has high gun violence. Ok, what about Uk, and France with their high knife violence, bombings, and acid attacks. The average shooting here kills less than 50 people. Still bad, but a bombing kills from 80 people up. You also have cars that you can drive into crowds with, but nobody talks about that. If you ban guns, only the criminals will have them. Guns are fairly easy to make. You don’t need to be an engineer to know how a gun mechanism works. Are you going to ban home depot for selling pipes, wood, and metal? If you ban guns, you’ll see more bombings here in the US, more acid attacks, and more stabbings. Isn’t it interesting how there is still gun violence in the Uk, even tho guns are banned? You can kill anyone in masses if you are a piece of crap. You can have chemical attacks, or planes going through buildings. How many people died in 911? Almost 3000. Are we going to ban airplanes because of that? Liberals never took in consideration that taking guns away from schools will cause more shootings. Have you ever heard of a shooting in a school before they were banned from them? Imagine thin. The students from the high school from florida. They are having a normal day in class, and out of nowhere the gunman comes in with a rifle. What happened? He opened fire and killed more than 20 students. What could have happened? There could have been a guard at the door with a gun, and when he saw the gunman come in, he could have shot him down, and end of story. Let’s say that the guard wasn’t paying attention and was shot down by the gunman. Now he’s going for a classroom. Upon entering the classroom, mr Johnson, who is a veteran, and a firearm enthusiast is already in the position with his firearm ready since he heard the gunshots from the hallway. What happens next? The probability is that the gunman is shot down, and the 27 students were not harmed. When people say that the only good way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun, people laugh, and start saying that it is not the teachers job to shoot them, and that we shouldn’t require them to be heroes. Alright, then why don’t we allow the teachers that already have firearms, and are training weekly to carry in school? I know teachers that have to leave their firearms in their car because they can’t bring it into school, even tho they are carrying everywhere else. People also say, that what if the teacher has a meltdown and starts shooting the students. Alright. I never said that you can’t require them to have regular mental checks, and training if they want ti carry in school. Look at universities. Some of them allow teachers and students to conceal carry, and you don’t see many school shootings there. You only see them in places that have signs that say no gun zone. I know this is long, but I think I hit most of the points.

@VulcanLogic

10 ай бұрын

We can actually measure that, though. France and the UK have similar non-gun homicide rates as the US (slightly lower, but not by that much). They have gun homicide rates that are orders of magnitude smaller. For the current year for England and Wales, 2022, there were a total of 68 gun homicides (not deaths, homicides). TOTAL. IN THE WHOLE COUNTRY. We had more than that TODAY. In France for the latest year I could get, 2019, they had 215 gun homicides. A bit more than the UK, as more French own guns. But it's still an order of magnitude lower. France and the UK have fractional gun homicide rates while ours reach double digits in some states. So why do we have similar non-gun homicide rates but much higher with guns? Because the #1 cause of homicides is "arguments", and a gun makes death exceedingly more likely, doesn't it?

I wonder why he didn't mention what demographic is committing most of the gun crimes in America and how most of those guns were illegally obtained, so criminalizing guns wouldn't have stopped those crimes anyway.

@ZedrikVonKatmahl

4 жыл бұрын

Shhhh Those are hate facts We mustn’t upset the Narrative

It’s apart of The culture. 🤷🏾‍♀️

Every time someone uses the word military style or assault weapon there point is 100% mute. You have no idea what you’re talking about

@harlow743

2 жыл бұрын

They splatter blood JUST THE SAME

@landonboomsma2594

2 жыл бұрын

@@harlow743 nope both are emotion terms made up by the media. AR15s aren’t military style and they are not assault weapons. Definitions matter

The problem with "well regulated milita" is we take that to mean what we'd say in modern terms. The truth is what they considered a well regulated militia at the time was everyday people like me and you, we are supposed to be able to pick up our rifle and run outside and join our neighbors. Anti 2A people like to misuse the term and think it's the police or military, it's not and was never intended to be.

@lordmasterization

4 жыл бұрын

Then they tell us the police enforce systemic racism. Of the police are so bad, should we be empowering them?

@Artak091

4 жыл бұрын

@@lordmasterization agreed. The 2A was literally designed as a last resort to stop an oppressive regime when the people decide they can't take it anymore. The problem pro 2A groups have is that they try to hide that. People say it's for "hunting" or "protection " and those are great side effects but the original idea is we can push back on foreign and domestic tyrants and abusers.

@Sammie_Sorrelly

4 жыл бұрын

@@lordmasterization It's the contradiction at the heart of Democrat centrism - they hand out crumbs of "progressive" policy as an appeal to distract the left-leaning from ideologies that actually question the status quo. So while many of their policies might draw from anti-establishment ideas, the Democrats routinely push for policies like gun control that contradict those ideas because it's not feasible for a Democrat politician, representing the existing system, to question it to the point that people being allowed to use the same force against the police that the police can use against them could be seen as acceptable. That's why the right tends to win out in America, their only opposition in government is a spineless centre.

Imagine wanting to have less rights...

@redheron4321

4 жыл бұрын

Soon enough, it'll be the only one you have. Have fun with that.

@neeneko

4 жыл бұрын

Most people want more rights for themselves and less rights for other, even the 2nd amendment crowd.

@sonofrobin73

4 жыл бұрын

@@redheron4321 It is the right that protects every other right. Your argument makes no sense.

@sonofrobin73

4 жыл бұрын

@@neeneko Citation needed.

[THE FOLLOWING IS A CRITIQUE OF YOUR WRITING. NOT YOUR OPINION] People here are talking lib this, and that. And accusations of bad data. I’ve done some research. Looked at who released what numbers, and when. What the numbers omit. But personally, I was just hoping for a less sanctimonious perspective. You are entitled to your opinion. And I even value hearing it. But the influence of your opinion has allowed you to start to try and invalidate opinion with opinion. You state numbers, and accounts of motivations of events, and instead of using them to counter the other sides numbers, and claims, you just state your opinion on your numbers. On your accounts of events. And let that stand as your argument against their opinions What is actual, valuable conversation, is to find their claims. Their accounts. Their reasoning, and to explain why your numbers are correct and theirs are not. Instead this is just “These are numbers, they’re wrong.” And don’t you dare give me some bull about “I never said they’re wrong.” You’re opposition is written in the bones of this piece. If you’d like an example of good execution of something like this, check out the channel Knowing Better. I believe he shares your political beliefs, but he really thinks about it.

@WhaleTPK

4 жыл бұрын

If you're looking for data to reinforce your opinion, you'll find it.

@chickenmonger123

4 жыл бұрын

Aaron Which is why customarily your educated folks debate the data. With eachother. And you could trust that they at least wanted to pick the winning side.

The Good Stuff circa 2013: How to fold a good paper airplane. All about Mini Golf. The Good Stuff circa now: Here's a super controversial topic and Matt is going to tell you what he thinks about it and it's going to make you feel upset whatever way you feel about it. Yeah, sorry, I think this is it for me. I subscribed because the videos made me think "Wow, that's cool!" I don't get that here anymore.

The comments section is truly polarised

@russetwolf13

4 жыл бұрын

No it's not!

@Rupi1234ful

4 жыл бұрын

@@russetwolf13 Well, if you mean that the vast majority of comments is pro-gun, then I agree, but there are still some anti-gun comments too

@russetwolf13

4 жыл бұрын

@@Rupi1234ful Well it was supposed to be a joke but yeah, it's mostly progun. That's what happens when you make a gun video full of BS, gun nuts go out of their way to watch these videos just to dunk on their fact checking.

@Rupi1234ful

4 жыл бұрын

@@russetwolf13 Oh, I apologize for that... Totally missed the joke

The influence of gun manufacturers in NRA?

@russetwolf13

4 жыл бұрын

I've seen a couple interviews where they say it's the reverse, and it makes sense. Of course a gun manufacturer would feel obligated to support the NRA, it's their livelihood at stake if the NRA fails. That most gun owners I talk to, the NRA says crazy shit but hey, who else is there who will stand up for us? Now those options are starting to show up and that's the real reason the NRA is losing support, it's losing it to groups like Black Guns Matter and the Pink Pistols.

Hey everyone! check out Reid Henrichs channel,also the nra is spineless.

seeing as how you based a complex social issue on one single group. I fear what your definition of a better trajectory is.

Why are we "crazy" for guns? Are we also Bonkers for freedom of speech? Nutty for political representation? Or do we just care about defending our rights against the people who are actively trying to deny us our rights?

America was a nation founded through armed revolution. When the constitution was written, you could own a gunboat and cannons. They're not just for hunting or home protection. I'm British, an outsider on this, and our firearm laws are draconian. Don't give them up.

@DaxRaider

4 жыл бұрын

it was also founded on slavery and war

@nils7888

4 жыл бұрын

So because guns were necessary 200 years ago they are necessary now? Do you really want thousands of people to die every year to cling to some totally outdated and useless ideas?

@scoe5908

4 жыл бұрын

@@nils7888 Most of those deaths are suicides and of the homicides, most are carried out with illegal guns. We have plenty of homicides in British cities, only they're mostly stabbings. Criminals still find a way to kill.

@scoe5908

4 жыл бұрын

@@DaxRaider Comparing a citizen's ability to protect themselves by any means neccessary to Slavery? Odd mental gymnastics there mate.

@OrganicGreens

4 жыл бұрын

@@DaxRaider Obviously horrible and has nothing to do with the point at hand....

Matt, Craig.. I'm disappointed. Been subscribed on here and on Patreon since 2014-ish. Your videos for the most part were informative and seemingly impartial, but this really is a step too far into opinion/bias articles. Whether through misinformation or ignorance, your prejudice is painfully obvious, and it's a shame that you couldn't continue with the neutral, informative videos that you used to make. Oh and before you jump down my neck - I'm British, so I've no dog in this fight.

Hmmm. So what i got from this vid is that in need to get myself and assoult rifle to defend myself. Nice.

the beat is distracting

Just lost a subscriber

@Ninterd2

4 жыл бұрын

Do what you want, but be careful about deciding not to listen to the other side. You may lose a perspective that's important.

@Schwarzvogel1

4 жыл бұрын

@@Ninterd2 There really isn't any perspective that is unique or important in this video.

@Ninterd2

4 жыл бұрын

@@Schwarzvogel1 I doubt that was philanthea80's justification in this case.

Thanks for this video unsubscribed

So blame the NRA

No one is gonna be like: "I'd kill myself or someone else if I had a gun. But I don't. So I guess I won't. Using a rope or a knife is just too hard, man."

@sacta

4 жыл бұрын

I mean, it's certainly harder than using a gun, tho

Generationally, it's going to change back to what it was in the 1930s. NRA has a negative approval now, but it's exceedingly negative for everyone under 40 regardless of race or even the rural/urban divide (under 40). All you old timers running out the clock are being replaced by kids who've had to do active drills in school and live though it in some cases, and most of them live in cities and aren't sportsmen. You'll still be able to own guns, and they'll grandfather everything, but maybe you won't be able to buy every kind you want from there. I'm ok with that.

This is the best video that pushed me over the top to join the NRA! Thanks!

Military Style Assault Weapons- a meaningless term, literally created just to create fear and pass gun control. Pretty much the same thing for "assault rifle" Assault is a verb. Literally anything is an assault weapon if it is used to assault people. Military style doesnt meant jack shit either. Almost all weapons used by the military are modified variants of civilian firearms, or ARE civilian firearms. Honestly I think the M1 Garand, the 1911, and the gatling gun are the only weapons actually designed for the military and war, and not an adaptation/modification of a civilian firearm. You wouldn't go into war with an AR-15 if you could avoid it. A musket is a "military style" weapon technically. A winchester shotgun is technically a "military style" weapon. A Beretta 9mm, a Colt 1911 and a Glock 17 are technically "military style" weapons. They are all also technically "weapons of war". An AR-15 I guess is technically a "military style" weapon. However it is not a "weapon of war". It is a semi auto center fire rifle, developed for civilian use in the 1950s, and was modified for military purpose, and thus the M4 was born and first widely used by the military in the 1960s in Vietnam. And the 2nd Amendment was never and is not about hunting or recreation. It is literally about war and self defense. "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" Regulated at the time meant well armed and trained, or in good working order. To some degree it still does. Militia is any able bodied person, especially male, at least 17 years of age, and the maximum age varies from 45 to 80. Free state can mean two different things. It can mean a free state, as in a governmental and societal entity. Or it can mean a state of being, such as living in liberty or freedom. I would go to venture it means both. Not be infringed is very obvious, it means no taxes, no fees, no regulations which impede on a nonincarcerated people's ability to own and carry any firearm, or other weapon or technology which could be used to defend ones nation or themselves from any force threatening our nation or our individual liberty, from government, invaders, or common criminal. How far this goes, whether it would be able to include missiles and such, is debatable, but small arms and weapons that can only be used to defend domestic territory are obviously completely covered by shall not be infringed. Since you obviously got your firearms history from the MSM kool aid man, let me give you some information. 1. The first gun control organization in the United States, also the first Domestic Terrorist organization, was the Klu Klux Klan. 2. The Klu Klux Klan developed out of Confederate soldiers and people in the Democrat party post civil war. 3. The Democrats were the Confederacy during the Civil War. 4. Gun controls sole purpose, and it was not really hidden from the public, was to disarm political opposition and nonwhites, in order to maintain a monopoly on force. 5. The NRA is a hunting organization that has only delved slightly into self defense, and has worked to help write and pass many gun control laws throughout the years, but this history has been burried by both the media and the NRA. 6. Firearms ownership has gone up over 50% since the 90s. Crime has dropped over 50% since the 90s. 7. Firearms related homicides 80% of the time are criminals killing each other. 8. Less than 1,500 innocent people are actually murdered with a firearm every year. If you obey the law and aren't stupid you stand less than 0.001% chance of being shot. 9. Over 60%, roughly 70%, of firearm related deaths are suicides. 10. Homicides include self defense, accidents, negligence, and murder. It is not exclusively murder. 11. Firearms are used 500,000-3 million times every year for self defense. 12. The Democrat Party has never stopped advocating for extensive gun control.

NRA♡

I don't think a government should be able to to tell me what I can and cannot own. Excluding humans or anything causing human rights violations to occur

@gavindagawd

4 жыл бұрын

Same. If you want guns, go nuts. If you want cocaine, go nuts. The only problem for me is when you want both.

All I have to say is that in my country most guns are banned, civilians can't have them, only drug dealers and corrupted cops are allowed to have them

@kingdmculture

4 жыл бұрын

BENDROWNED33 That is excellent, I think we should model that. All the law-abiding citizens will hand in all the guns so only the criminals will be left with them. What could possibly go wrong with that?

@luisperez5462

4 жыл бұрын

Drug dealers are ALLOWED to carry guns?

@MSTRCMDR

4 жыл бұрын

@@kingdmculture Less people are being killed in accidents? And mass shootings? Also: people with guns are put in jail for illegal gun ownership? OMG, that would be awful

we're crazy about guns because so many of us are just crazy.

@noncomplier5385

3 жыл бұрын

thats like saying we're drunk drivers because so many of us like cars and alcohol.

I would have never guessed an effeminate sounding guy would be against guns. 🤷‍♂️

Why haven’t this dude read what the 2nd A says he just completely ignores it

Was a good video but down voted it because you put so much of your own opinion and bias in the video. But loved the topic and learning about the history! You have a great video format!

@sonofrobin73

4 жыл бұрын

@MyWasteOfTime The history is incorrect, do your own research. The second was never intended for hobbies and hunting. Read the second amendment supporting documents written by the founders and it is very clear why they included it in the Bill of Rights.

Just like dude said it’ll be slow at first but then after time the gun ban will be in. Thanks for making this video I’m going to show my kids at school how anti gunners thinks and how evil they truly are ,

Unsubscribed.

@shadogiant

4 жыл бұрын

bye!

i would not call the military the "3rd largest" its by far the largest, you cant count it by numbers ofc china has more men but the weapons against each other usa is clearly 1st against all opthre together xD