Many believe portions of the 94 AWB actually made handguns MORE lethal, despite ham-handedly attempting otherwise. Most 9mm pistols of the era were high-capacity, 17+1 rounds in many cases, to compensate for the 9mm's lack of stopping power. When mags were restricted to 10 rounds, many companies began producing 45acp pistols which held 10 rounds and gave much better stopping power. People realized that if they can only have 10, then they want the most powerful 10 they can get. Self-defeating law
You have to laugh that Biden completely set himself up for ridicule by gun lovers by saying the line "mentally imbalanced people or those with a criminal record are not capable of knowing what to do with a gun".
This line makes a funny suggestion: if you aren't capable of using a firearm, you must be mentally imbalanced or prevented from doing so by your record. I can agree with that.
Since Joe doesn't use/own/condone guns, is that because of his record, or his mental imbalances?
'Assault rifle' isn't even the term for it. An assault rifle would be a fully automatic rifle used for combat. A semi automatic rifle can be used for hunting, target shooting, and defending yourself if necessary. Just because it looks military does not mean it is the same thing.
@henik9 Hunting? Who the f*** is killing DEER with a goddamn "semi automatic rifle"??? TARGET PRACTICE? Yeah you better blow the living sh** out of your target. You wouldn't want to risk shooting it with an ordinary hunting rifle.
How about using some common sense. Keep your hunting rifles, but no one needs one of those "babies" to do anything but defend themselves against other crazy motherf-ers with the same guns that should be banned anyway.
@caligula11 "Who the f*** is killing DEER with a goddamn "semi automatic rifle"???"
About a dozen of my friends did last year, and that's just in one small town. People follow advances in technology, in guns or any other industry. In the 1800s hunters used lever-action semi-auto firearms, then repeating bolt rifles in the 1900s, now it's gas operated semi-auto rifles in the 'modern' era.
@ramv36 Large groups adopting the latest, superior tech is a deeply-established and widely known paradigm of all consumer markets. Based on your denigration of modern weapons such as gas-operated semi-automatic firearms, I'd bet you still drive a car with tail-fins that gets 5mpg, use a cellphone the size of a backpack, watch black & white tv, and wonder what that 'internets' thing is...to believe one way and live another is often called the dreaded 'H' word: Hypocrisy
The part I find the most ironic is that all these smug corrupt politicians hate guns with such a passion, even to go as far as calling someone mentally incapable of owning a firearm *throws up in mouth*, but the only thing thing that has gotten them were they are now is GUNS. All the guns that had to be used to fight for there disgusting world oppression, yet these people shun them most. Its like a crack-head who preaches against drug use, and then goes home and takes a few puffs.Makes no sense.
Not mentally qualified? Is Biden mentally qualified to be on that podium speaking to the people? In our own military our soldiers are taught to treat their weapon as their woman and in some cases even name them accordingly. How is this gun owner any different? You call your car baby and he calls his gun baby, who gives a hoot? Now if he called his gun baby and ignored his real baby then sure you have an argument but all I see was grasping at straws making a joke of something that is not funny.
Quote fron Ben Franklin: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner. Liberty has the lamb armed to the teeth and contesting the vote".
As a person who owns guns and qualified for a concealed carry permit I can say with passion that I really wish people were required to take training in how to use and care for guns before they were permitted to observe their right to own them.
Some of the people in my concealed carry range course testing were making me nervous to be on the line next to them.
There's nothing wrong with making sure, in addition to background checks, that people aren't ignorant of the threat they pose to others.
Problem with that reasoning is that the constitution never mentions any required firearms training or permits. And why do you feel the need to have a permit to express your right? Do people have to have a permit to express their first ammendment freedom of speech? No they don't. Likewise under our constitution, a permit is not needed to bear arms per the second ammendment. It is a right, not a priveledge.
You don't have to be trained how to not kill people with your words. Words aren't a weapon.
Are you a member of a militia? Why do you remember the "right of the people to bear arms" part but ignore the "a well-regulated militia being necessary" part? Well regulated means trained and ordered and disciplined, not some dude with a credit card; training is simply necessary and that's all there is to it. If you can't show yourself to be trustworthy with a weapon then you're not militia material.
Our founding fathers intended for us to be able to rapidly form a "well regulated militia". Your right to bear arms, just like your right to free speech, is an INDIVIDUAL right. Each and every person on this side of our borders has the individual right to free speech, as well as an individual right to bear arms.And as far as my training, yes, I have lots of it. Straight from the US Marine Corps. Is that trustworthy enough?
Congratulations YOU are qualified to bear a weapon. Virtually every man in colonial times was qualified to bear a weapon.
You didn't confront the point because the point is true; guns are dangerous and people who don't know how to use them should not have them. You have platitudes but they don't change the fact that INDIVIDUALS must be trained to competently use (and not use), clean, secure and maintain a weapon before they can be trusted with one.
Being "well-regulated" is a responsibility for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. But that responsibility is solely the people's.
In other words, it is *not* the responsibility of government to ensure you are responsible enough through training to be able to observe your right under the 2nd Amendment safely. Any mistakes that happen as a result of your inadequate training is solely *your* fault and one for which *you* must take responsibility for.
Under the United States Code (title 10, subtitle A, part I, chapter 13, subsection 311) and backed by the Federalist Papers, the People are the militia. Of particular note is paragraph b2.
The 2nd Amendment refers to an unorganized militia that is well-trained and well-equipped to serve the defense of the free state from tyranny in all forms and any size, foreign and domestic. Ergo, for the People to serve the unorganized militia role, their Right to Keep and Bear Arms cannot be infringed.
"refers to an unorganized militia that is well-trained and well-equipped to serve the defense of the free state"
It is the people's responsibility that they ensure those who wish to bear arms are well trained. How do the people do that? Through government, because government is of the people and for the people.
Do you believe violent felons retain the right to bear arms? Neither the Constitution nor the Federalist Papers forbid it. Why don't they? Because we the people decided they shouldn't.
Government is "of the people and for the people," yet you must remember that government is supposed to be limited in what it can do so as to inhibit its ability to increase in power beyond the spirit of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
As for being well-trained, there are private services available for that, such as Blackwater or the Gunsite Training Center.
As for violent felons retaining rights; only after they have paid their *full debt* to society. But that is a different topic.
As for why government must be limited, it was recognized that government is not, and never has nor will it ever be, a power of good.
However, government is a necessary evil to help the People defend their preexisting freedoms in an orderly fashion.
But the People are supposed to keep a "tight leash" on government to ensure that it serves its purpose without amassing too much power and becoming corrupt: to uphold the law by upholding and defending the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The Constitution is not and was never supposed to be a perfect document.
In order to form a "more perfect" union, right?
The Constitution had to be amended for sovereign immunity, abolition of slavery, suffrage not based on race, womens suffrage, no restriction of voting due to poll taxes, and even basic electoral representation for residents of Wash. D.C.
It should be required for people to be trained before bearing arms. This is common sense and simply indisputable when one isn't dogmatic.
The problem with requiring is determining who sets the requirements. Since it would be government, that's terrifying.
You could underhandedly cripple the intent and spirit of the 2nd Amendment by, say, requiring military service before a citizen has a right to keep and bear arms.
The problem is that not everyone may be able to join the military for whatever reason, such elderly people who did not serve, homosexuals, conscientious objectors, and so on. So, they're right would be non-existent.
The government created the concealed carry law in my state. It requires a fee of 125 dollars (because it is completely unfunded) and an 8 hour safety class + range testing.
This law was completely written by the government and it's well made because it was made by the people who stayed active in the process.
Why would a training requirement law to simply own a weapon be any stricter than one that makes you legally able to carry one on your hip under a vest?
But also keep in mind the State of Vermont, which does not require their citizens to have a permit to carry concealed. It is interesting to note that, as an entire state, they don't have much of a "gun violence" problem.
As for the CCW law being made by your state's government, I would say that it may have been well-made because of active people who kept on top of the law-makers to be sure that it would be equitable (otherwise, "vote the bums out").
As for my contention of government, I was referring to *federal government* making up a requirement that you must satisfy before you can observe your 2nd Amendment rights.
For the federal government to do it that way would reduce the right to a privilege (no-no). In addition, allowing the federal government to institute such a requirement would exceed their limits as prescribed in the Bill of Rights.
Whether or not "common sense" dictates it, they're bound by constitutional law not to do it!
"Why would a training requirement law to simply own a weapon by any stricter than one that makes you legally able to carry one on your hip under a vest?"
Because instating a requirement for training in order to be able to merely own the gun would reduce the Right to Keep and Bear arms to a privilege; you must satisfy a training requirement before you are *granted* a legal standing to own a gun.
This is contrary to the notion that the right is pre-existing and not subject to qualification.
According to Jefferson's Declaration of Independence the natural rights of man are "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
The preamble reads: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, etc."
When this was written, all American men could competently wield a rifle. That time has long passed.
It's necessary, for common defense and tranquility, to train modern men and women.
"Free government is founded in jealousy, not confidence. It is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind those we are obliged to trust with power.... In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." -- Thomas Jefferson
"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."-- Thomas Jefferson
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson
"[Oppose] with manly firmness [any] invasions on the rights of the people." -- Thomas Jefferson
"A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on Earth... and what no just government should refuse." -- Thomas Jefferson
"The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society." -- Thomas Jefferson
And then there's this one:
"NO FREEMAN SHALL BE DEBARRED THE USE OF ARMS..." Thomas Jefferson
While I agree that, if you own guns, it is to your benefit and is also your responsibility to attain the training and discipline to use it properly when needed.
But, again, it is the individual's decision as to what training to receive, how to receive it, and for how long. And he decides at either his own peril or for his own benefit.
It is not the government's decision, and it would be unconstitutional to instate a competence requirement to merely allow ownership.
A reason why it's the individual's responsibility and not the government's is simple: since the 2nd was meant to allow the People to be armed in defense against even their own government, it'd be an interesting conflict of interest if it were the government that would train their constituents *and* also make it mandatory to have the training if you wanted to legally own a gun.
There are many "greater evils' that are opened up, such as the possibility of invasive registration and confiscation.
The contention that "all American men could competently wield a rifle" back when the 2nd Amendment was composed is, ultimately, irrelevant.
One of the primary motivations for the 2nd was because the People should distrust the government, but that distrust means nothing unless the government has something to fear from the People. There's no reason for a government to fear and respect the rights and wishes of unarmed people.
With that in mind, the 2nd is still as valid today as it was back then.
The second amendment was vital at the time because before April, 1865 there was a great need for militias due to the fact that there was actually in-fighting between some of the "sovereign" lands. This was back when the states had much grander power than we have now. Militias were vital to keep states secure and this is also why George Washington thought militias did more harm than good (George Washington, To The President of Congress on the Heights of Harlem, September 24, 1776).
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." - George Washington, Jan 7, 1790.
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that his people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson, 1787
The 2nd amendment had more to do with ensuring the security of a State than it did securing the people against their own State.
The founders of the nation designed a government that was supposed to be operated by the people. Fearing the government and despising it and refusing to get involved in it will self-fulfill the prophecy of tyranny.
It's the responsibility of the government to protect the citizens and that includes protecting us from irresponsible, untrained, dangerous gun owners.
If a government becomes despotic, it's no longer a free state.
Ergo, to ensure that the free state is either kept secure or can be restored back to that condition, the People have to be able to maintain an unorganized militia role, therefore their right to keep and bear arms must not be infringed.
And, since the People refers to individuals instead of being a collective group, the 2nd refers to an individual right; it has to in order to maintain consistency with the other Amendments.
In addition, ***GOVERNMENT HAS NO RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT PEOPLE***.
If they did, then representatives of government, such as law enforcement, would not have judicial protections rendering them immune from criminal and civil punishment due to failure to protect the public, which the Supreme Court has stated over and again.
Re-read this quote:
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson
As for training and discipline for citizens, it is the responsibility of gun owners to get that training if they are not enlisted/commissioned, and/or not active duty or reserved.
The government becomes responsible for the training only if an individual elects to serve the organized Armed Forces and/or law enforcement.
Alright, I can't reason with you I guess. Quote-mining Jefferson who believed blacks were property and offered them no rights or consideration (rights which they eventually got through "tyrannical" government action.) isn't a substitute for thinking.
It blows my mind that people have to prove themselves competent to operate any vehicle but when it comes to something specifically designed to kill you figure we should leave it up to the guy with the credit card.
Great way to insinuate an insult. We disagree, but it's because *I* can't listen to reason.
And, great ad hominem. Discredit Thomas Jefferson on the basis that he owned slaves, despite the fact that the *POINTS* he made about individual liberty and your willingness to fight for them were very true.
As for operating a vehicle, you're not thinking about this too thoroughly.
A license allows you to drive on public roadways owned and managed by the government. If you drove on your own private property, you do not need a license to drive.
As for people who become elected and serve office in government, they can become corrupted by the power that is afforded to them in that office.
Therefore, they need to be reminded that their civic duty is in service of the People by defending their rights as identified as pre-existing in the Bill of Rights and abiding by the rules and limits imposed upon them by the Constitution.
One effective reminder: remembering that the People can vote first with the ballot or, failing that, the bullet.
What luck for rulers that men do not think. - Hitler
boy he would love to be in power in america right now! spendulous package gonna ensure our children live in squaller their whole lives! and we all sit and wait like idiot's for the empending doom
great video i loved Biden is crazy who does he think he is judding other peoples mental state of mind anyway i watched your video response to bidens comments and those where great to keep up the good work and as they say dont blame me i voted for ron paul ps there is a gun shoe in monroe on saturday but you propably no that
haha, a candidate telling an american citezin and the many others who think like him that because of his ABSOLUTELY ALL AMERICAN views on weapons, he's mentally ill, and then in the same breath asking for his and other American's votes. No wonder he teamed up with Obama, they're both equally arogant ignorant scumbags.
i dont kno about making assualt rifles like that guy has legal. it looked like that monster had a grenade launcher on it! why the fuck would any normal american need that?
The "grenade launcher" you saw was a flashlight mounted on the rifle. Interesting that somebody with the name "sniper" in his profile wonders why others would want a gun.
To protect their business during mass riots, like the most recent LA riots where several businessmen were able to hold off entire crowds with a single assault weapon. It's about defense.
I'm so glad that my potential vice President is questioning my mental sanity simply because I own a rifle. What a slimy, low down, awful person. Obama should dump this fool and pick someone else.
understood. i strongly, strongly support the second amendment. obamas' comment is funny to me only because he is supposed to be the "uniter." i truly don't care about things like race or religion unless it is taken to an extreme. cheers!
i'm a typical white person(you know, bitter and clinging to her guns). got eight words for obama bin biden-second amendment. out of my cold, dead hands.
hey Joe if you want to stop crime stop the criminals. don't take firearms away from law abiding citizens. you said your self that law enforcement cannot be every where to protect every one. and you must realize that even if you took all the guns and knifes and tazers off the street the criminals the murderers would use baseball bats golf clubs and rocks and fire! if you want to stop sick acts of violence then you must stop and help the sick individuals that are at the cause!!!
I think Obama is gonna win, but the federal government has no business messing around with gun control. That is incredibly unconstitutional, and therefore unamerican. State decides issues like these, the federal goverment is supposed to protect our rights. Not take them away
If Obama were to win, he'd give not one shit about the Constitution, the Amendments, or the Declaration of Independence, as far as that goes. We'd be under U.N. charter, and in the hands of the world court, for simply typing posts such as these.
This country needs MORE "undesirable" gun/Bible clingers between now and election day.
The Bible and religion has nothing to do with it. And fools like that guy who go on national tv and make the rest of us gun owners look like lunatics is not what we needed. Would have been nicer if we had someone that was a little more mature ask that question to a fascist in disguise like Biden
I was being sarcastic. That line by Obama should never be forgotten.
You can find Jered's channel by searching jeredt here on youtube. That was his first youtube vid. He admits in his 2nd, that he was new to it, and the one he submitted may have come off a bit raw. He's blunt and to the point, and that's what they were asking for in the debates.
I recommend watching all three of his current video's, before judging his maturity. He's well thought out and spoken, imo.
Cause far as I know there have been no reported cases of guns getting up and going on killing sprees...And his gun ban he wrote in the 90's didnt do a fucken thing...It was 1% before and it was 1% after...
Many believe portions of the 94 AWB actually made handguns MORE lethal, despite ham-handedly attempting otherwise. Most 9mm pistols of the era were high-capacity, 17+1 rounds in many cases, to compensate for the 9mm's lack of stopping power. When mags were restricted to 10 rounds, many companies began producing 45acp pistols which held 10 rounds and gave much better stopping power. People realized that if they can only have 10, then they want the most powerful 10 they can get. Self-defeating law
ramv36 2 days ago
You have to laugh that Biden completely set himself up for ridicule by gun lovers by saying the line "mentally imbalanced people or those with a criminal record are not capable of knowing what to do with a gun".
This line makes a funny suggestion: if you aren't capable of using a firearm, you must be mentally imbalanced or prevented from doing so by your record. I can agree with that.
Since Joe doesn't use/own/condone guns, is that because of his record, or his mental imbalances?
ramv36 2 days ago
what.. the ... fuck?
Progressives are evil.
therandman1 1 year ago
Oh they get it alright. They want to disarm EVERYONE.
henik9 2 years ago
@henik9 What use do you have for an assault rifle?
caligula11 1 year ago
'Assault rifle' isn't even the term for it. An assault rifle would be a fully automatic rifle used for combat. A semi automatic rifle can be used for hunting, target shooting, and defending yourself if necessary. Just because it looks military does not mean it is the same thing.
henik9 1 year ago
@henik9 Hunting? Who the f*** is killing DEER with a goddamn "semi automatic rifle"??? TARGET PRACTICE? Yeah you better blow the living sh** out of your target. You wouldn't want to risk shooting it with an ordinary hunting rifle.
How about using some common sense. Keep your hunting rifles, but no one needs one of those "babies" to do anything but defend themselves against other crazy motherf-ers with the same guns that should be banned anyway.
caligula11 1 year ago
@caligula11 "Who the f*** is killing DEER with a goddamn "semi automatic rifle"???"
About a dozen of my friends did last year, and that's just in one small town. People follow advances in technology, in guns or any other industry. In the 1800s hunters used lever-action semi-auto firearms, then repeating bolt rifles in the 1900s, now it's gas operated semi-auto rifles in the 'modern' era.
ramv36 2 days ago
@ramv36 Large groups adopting the latest, superior tech is a deeply-established and widely known paradigm of all consumer markets. Based on your denigration of modern weapons such as gas-operated semi-automatic firearms, I'd bet you still drive a car with tail-fins that gets 5mpg, use a cellphone the size of a backpack, watch black & white tv, and wonder what that 'internets' thing is...to believe one way and live another is often called the dreaded 'H' word: Hypocrisy
ramv36 2 days ago
what a fukin prick. they just dont get it do they, gun bans DO NOT hurt the criminals...how hard is that to understand?
CPLBSS88 2 years ago 2
The part I find the most ironic is that all these smug corrupt politicians hate guns with such a passion, even to go as far as calling someone mentally incapable of owning a firearm *throws up in mouth*, but the only thing thing that has gotten them were they are now is GUNS. All the guns that had to be used to fight for there disgusting world oppression, yet these people shun them most. Its like a crack-head who preaches against drug use, and then goes home and takes a few puffs.Makes no sense.
Letsmakeasamich 2 years ago
Huh...So if a person owns a 1970's corvette and they call it their "baby" they need help?
I own an AK, that's my "baby". I also own a truck with a very powerful V8 under the hood, and that's my other "baby".
So do I need help?
WTF1920 2 years ago 2
Good point man, I agree with you 100 percent. Biden is uncapable of his job.
landgrader6 2 years ago
Not mentally qualified? Is Biden mentally qualified to be on that podium speaking to the people? In our own military our soldiers are taught to treat their weapon as their woman and in some cases even name them accordingly. How is this gun owner any different? You call your car baby and he calls his gun baby, who gives a hoot? Now if he called his gun baby and ignored his real baby then sure you have an argument but all I see was grasping at straws making a joke of something that is not funny.
AsylumET 2 years ago
Quote fron Ben Franklin: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner. Liberty has the lamb armed to the teeth and contesting the vote".
wavernr 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the obamessiah is trying to get the assault weapons bill passed again. check the news
jenestig 3 years ago
As a person who owns guns and qualified for a concealed carry permit I can say with passion that I really wish people were required to take training in how to use and care for guns before they were permitted to observe their right to own them.
Some of the people in my concealed carry range course testing were making me nervous to be on the line next to them.
There's nothing wrong with making sure, in addition to background checks, that people aren't ignorant of the threat they pose to others.
andymcgaha 3 years ago
Problem with that reasoning is that the constitution never mentions any required firearms training or permits. And why do you feel the need to have a permit to express your right? Do people have to have a permit to express their first ammendment freedom of speech? No they don't. Likewise under our constitution, a permit is not needed to bear arms per the second ammendment. It is a right, not a priveledge.
wavernr 2 years ago
You don't have to be trained how to not kill people with your words. Words aren't a weapon.
Are you a member of a militia? Why do you remember the "right of the people to bear arms" part but ignore the "a well-regulated militia being necessary" part? Well regulated means trained and ordered and disciplined, not some dude with a credit card; training is simply necessary and that's all there is to it. If you can't show yourself to be trustworthy with a weapon then you're not militia material.
andymcgaha 2 years ago
Our founding fathers intended for us to be able to rapidly form a "well regulated militia". Your right to bear arms, just like your right to free speech, is an INDIVIDUAL right. Each and every person on this side of our borders has the individual right to free speech, as well as an individual right to bear arms.And as far as my training, yes, I have lots of it. Straight from the US Marine Corps. Is that trustworthy enough?
wavernr 2 years ago
Congratulations YOU are qualified to bear a weapon. Virtually every man in colonial times was qualified to bear a weapon.
You didn't confront the point because the point is true; guns are dangerous and people who don't know how to use them should not have them. You have platitudes but they don't change the fact that INDIVIDUALS must be trained to competently use (and not use), clean, secure and maintain a weapon before they can be trusted with one.
Do you think felons should have the right?
andymcgaha 2 years ago
Here's the problem with your argument.
Being "well-regulated" is a responsibility for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. But that responsibility is solely the people's.
In other words, it is *not* the responsibility of government to ensure you are responsible enough through training to be able to observe your right under the 2nd Amendment safely. Any mistakes that happen as a result of your inadequate training is solely *your* fault and one for which *you* must take responsibility for.
Watcher3223 2 years ago
Liberty is a double-edged sword; it gives you the opportunity to be responsible, but it's also an obligation to be responsible.
Watcher3223 2 years ago
Under the United States Code (title 10, subtitle A, part I, chapter 13, subsection 311) and backed by the Federalist Papers, the People are the militia. Of particular note is paragraph b2.
The 2nd Amendment refers to an unorganized militia that is well-trained and well-equipped to serve the defense of the free state from tyranny in all forms and any size, foreign and domestic. Ergo, for the People to serve the unorganized militia role, their Right to Keep and Bear Arms cannot be infringed.
Watcher3223 2 years ago
"refers to an unorganized militia that is well-trained and well-equipped to serve the defense of the free state"
It is the people's responsibility that they ensure those who wish to bear arms are well trained. How do the people do that? Through government, because government is of the people and for the people.
Do you believe violent felons retain the right to bear arms? Neither the Constitution nor the Federalist Papers forbid it. Why don't they? Because we the people decided they shouldn't.
andymcgaha 2 years ago
Government is "of the people and for the people," yet you must remember that government is supposed to be limited in what it can do so as to inhibit its ability to increase in power beyond the spirit of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
As for being well-trained, there are private services available for that, such as Blackwater or the Gunsite Training Center.
As for violent felons retaining rights; only after they have paid their *full debt* to society. But that is a different topic.
Watcher3223 2 years ago
As for why government must be limited, it was recognized that government is not, and never has nor will it ever be, a power of good.
However, government is a necessary evil to help the People defend their preexisting freedoms in an orderly fashion.
But the People are supposed to keep a "tight leash" on government to ensure that it serves its purpose without amassing too much power and becoming corrupt: to uphold the law by upholding and defending the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Watcher3223 2 years ago
The Constitution is not and was never supposed to be a perfect document.
In order to form a "more perfect" union, right?
The Constitution had to be amended for sovereign immunity, abolition of slavery, suffrage not based on race, womens suffrage, no restriction of voting due to poll taxes, and even basic electoral representation for residents of Wash. D.C.
It should be required for people to be trained before bearing arms. This is common sense and simply indisputable when one isn't dogmatic.
andymcgaha 2 years ago
The problem with requiring is determining who sets the requirements. Since it would be government, that's terrifying.
You could underhandedly cripple the intent and spirit of the 2nd Amendment by, say, requiring military service before a citizen has a right to keep and bear arms.
The problem is that not everyone may be able to join the military for whatever reason, such elderly people who did not serve, homosexuals, conscientious objectors, and so on. So, they're right would be non-existent.
Watcher3223 2 years ago
The government created the concealed carry law in my state. It requires a fee of 125 dollars (because it is completely unfunded) and an 8 hour safety class + range testing.
This law was completely written by the government and it's well made because it was made by the people who stayed active in the process.
Why would a training requirement law to simply own a weapon be any stricter than one that makes you legally able to carry one on your hip under a vest?
Active people make good laws.
andymcgaha 2 years ago
But also keep in mind the State of Vermont, which does not require their citizens to have a permit to carry concealed. It is interesting to note that, as an entire state, they don't have much of a "gun violence" problem.
As for the CCW law being made by your state's government, I would say that it may have been well-made because of active people who kept on top of the law-makers to be sure that it would be equitable (otherwise, "vote the bums out").
Watcher3223 2 years ago
As for my contention of government, I was referring to *federal government* making up a requirement that you must satisfy before you can observe your 2nd Amendment rights.
For the federal government to do it that way would reduce the right to a privilege (no-no). In addition, allowing the federal government to institute such a requirement would exceed their limits as prescribed in the Bill of Rights.
Whether or not "common sense" dictates it, they're bound by constitutional law not to do it!
Watcher3223 2 years ago
"Why would a training requirement law to simply own a weapon by any stricter than one that makes you legally able to carry one on your hip under a vest?"
Because instating a requirement for training in order to be able to merely own the gun would reduce the Right to Keep and Bear arms to a privilege; you must satisfy a training requirement before you are *granted* a legal standing to own a gun.
This is contrary to the notion that the right is pre-existing and not subject to qualification.
Watcher3223 2 years ago
According to Jefferson's Declaration of Independence the natural rights of man are "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
The preamble reads: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, etc."
When this was written, all American men could competently wield a rifle. That time has long passed.
It's necessary, for common defense and tranquility, to train modern men and women.
andymcgaha 2 years ago
"Free government is founded in jealousy, not confidence. It is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind those we are obliged to trust with power.... In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." -- Thomas Jefferson
Watcher3223 2 years ago
"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."-- Thomas Jefferson
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson
"[Oppose] with manly firmness [any] invasions on the rights of the people." -- Thomas Jefferson
Watcher3223 2 years ago
"A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on Earth... and what no just government should refuse." -- Thomas Jefferson
"The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society." -- Thomas Jefferson
And then there's this one:
"NO FREEMAN SHALL BE DEBARRED THE USE OF ARMS..." Thomas Jefferson
Watcher3223 2 years ago
While I agree that, if you own guns, it is to your benefit and is also your responsibility to attain the training and discipline to use it properly when needed.
But, again, it is the individual's decision as to what training to receive, how to receive it, and for how long. And he decides at either his own peril or for his own benefit.
It is not the government's decision, and it would be unconstitutional to instate a competence requirement to merely allow ownership.
Watcher3223 2 years ago
A reason why it's the individual's responsibility and not the government's is simple: since the 2nd was meant to allow the People to be armed in defense against even their own government, it'd be an interesting conflict of interest if it were the government that would train their constituents *and* also make it mandatory to have the training if you wanted to legally own a gun.
There are many "greater evils' that are opened up, such as the possibility of invasive registration and confiscation.
Watcher3223 2 years ago
The contention that "all American men could competently wield a rifle" back when the 2nd Amendment was composed is, ultimately, irrelevant.
One of the primary motivations for the 2nd was because the People should distrust the government, but that distrust means nothing unless the government has something to fear from the People. There's no reason for a government to fear and respect the rights and wishes of unarmed people.
With that in mind, the 2nd is still as valid today as it was back then.
Watcher3223 2 years ago
The second amendment was vital at the time because before April, 1865 there was a great need for militias due to the fact that there was actually in-fighting between some of the "sovereign" lands. This was back when the states had much grander power than we have now. Militias were vital to keep states secure and this is also why George Washington thought militias did more harm than good (George Washington, To The President of Congress on the Heights of Harlem, September 24, 1776).
andymcgaha 2 years ago
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." - George Washington, Jan 7, 1790.
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that his people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson, 1787
Watcher3223 2 years ago
The 2nd amendment had more to do with ensuring the security of a State than it did securing the people against their own State.
The founders of the nation designed a government that was supposed to be operated by the people. Fearing the government and despising it and refusing to get involved in it will self-fulfill the prophecy of tyranny.
It's the responsibility of the government to protect the citizens and that includes protecting us from irresponsible, untrained, dangerous gun owners.
andymcgaha 2 years ago
If a government becomes despotic, it's no longer a free state.
Ergo, to ensure that the free state is either kept secure or can be restored back to that condition, the People have to be able to maintain an unorganized militia role, therefore their right to keep and bear arms must not be infringed.
And, since the People refers to individuals instead of being a collective group, the 2nd refers to an individual right; it has to in order to maintain consistency with the other Amendments.
Watcher3223 2 years ago
Comment removed
Watcher3223 2 years ago
In addition, ***GOVERNMENT HAS NO RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT PEOPLE***.
If they did, then representatives of government, such as law enforcement, would not have judicial protections rendering them immune from criminal and civil punishment due to failure to protect the public, which the Supreme Court has stated over and again.
Re-read this quote:
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson
Watcher3223 2 years ago
As for training and discipline for citizens, it is the responsibility of gun owners to get that training if they are not enlisted/commissioned, and/or not active duty or reserved.
The government becomes responsible for the training only if an individual elects to serve the organized Armed Forces and/or law enforcement.
Watcher3223 2 years ago
And, not trusting the government should *not* be confused with refusing to be involved.
On the contrary, not trusting the government is impetus to get involved to be sure they don't screw it up!
Don't put up another straw man.
Watcher3223 2 years ago
Alright, I can't reason with you I guess. Quote-mining Jefferson who believed blacks were property and offered them no rights or consideration (rights which they eventually got through "tyrannical" government action.) isn't a substitute for thinking.
It blows my mind that people have to prove themselves competent to operate any vehicle but when it comes to something specifically designed to kill you figure we should leave it up to the guy with the credit card.
This sort of dogma amazes me.
andymcgaha 2 years ago
"I can't reason with you I guess."
Great way to insinuate an insult. We disagree, but it's because *I* can't listen to reason.
And, great ad hominem. Discredit Thomas Jefferson on the basis that he owned slaves, despite the fact that the *POINTS* he made about individual liberty and your willingness to fight for them were very true.
Watcher3223 2 years ago
As for operating a vehicle, you're not thinking about this too thoroughly.
A license allows you to drive on public roadways owned and managed by the government. If you drove on your own private property, you do not need a license to drive.
Watcher3223 2 years ago
As for proving competency, the question is proving it to whom? The government?
How can you be certain that they would be doing it right and how can you be certain that they won't abuse their position?
*YOUR* dogma disgusts me. You trust the government. You likely may not even trust *yourself!*
Watcher3223 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
As for people who become elected and serve office in government, they can become corrupted by the power that is afforded to them in that office.
Therefore, they need to be reminded that their civic duty is in service of the People by defending their rights as identified as pre-existing in the Bill of Rights and abiding by the rules and limits imposed upon them by the Constitution.
One effective reminder: remembering that the People can vote first with the ballot or, failing that, the bullet.
Watcher3223 2 years ago
I wonder if any of these "leaders"
have even read the Constitution?? These are not my leaders,
and they will get no quarter from me..
Peace
realnewsdm 3 years ago
What luck for rulers that men do not think. - Hitler
boy he would love to be in power in america right now! spendulous package gonna ensure our children live in squaller their whole lives! and we all sit and wait like idiot's for the empending doom
ebilgreby 3 years ago
great video i loved Biden is crazy who does he think he is judding other peoples mental state of mind anyway i watched your video response to bidens comments and those where great to keep up the good work and as they say dont blame me i voted for ron paul ps there is a gun shoe in monroe on saturday but you propably no that
kevin st.clair shores michigan
khitch586 3 years ago
haha, a candidate telling an american citezin and the many others who think like him that because of his ABSOLUTELY ALL AMERICAN views on weapons, he's mentally ill, and then in the same breath asking for his and other American's votes. No wonder he teamed up with Obama, they're both equally arogant ignorant scumbags.
Nightmare365wj 3 years ago
biden you r clueless without a background check anywhere including a gun show your not buying one, seems like you want 2 take AMERICAS guns away
mrbill672 3 years ago 2
I wonder if Biden has a gun...
scilonthreat 3 years ago
He has 3 of them. Beretta shotguns.
txngasnguns 3 years ago
Guns don't kill people People kill People!!!!!! It's not the legal guns either it's the illegal ones!
The second amendment protects us from enemies within our own borders as well including an out of control governing body!
1lady4freedom 3 years ago
i dont kno about making assualt rifles like that guy has legal. it looked like that monster had a grenade launcher on it! why the fuck would any normal american need that?
SniperZaku 3 years ago
Who are you to dictate what American's should and shouldn't have?
scilonthreat 3 years ago
The "grenade launcher" you saw was a flashlight mounted on the rifle. Interesting that somebody with the name "sniper" in his profile wonders why others would want a gun.
Theflyndutchman 3 years ago
To protect their business during mass riots, like the most recent LA riots where several businessmen were able to hold off entire crowds with a single assault weapon. It's about defense.
yotoyoto1245 3 years ago 3
Sorry but that gun did not have an assault rifle. He had an assault-style rifle.
ClassicFIHD 3 years ago
Obama and Biden share the same philosophy, disarm the populace. That way they can more easily control the populace.
Moezilla2k 3 years ago 3
It worked for Hitler, who was also a Socialist ! Why wouldn't these two scum try it?
theunknownknows 3 years ago 4
I'm so glad that my potential vice President is questioning my mental sanity simply because I own a rifle. What a slimy, low down, awful person. Obama should dump this fool and pick someone else.
johnbeauchemin 3 years ago 2
they're all crazy, some are tolerable, though i personally would prefer if there were none.
truindep 3 years ago
understood. i strongly, strongly support the second amendment. obamas' comment is funny to me only because he is supposed to be the "uniter." i truly don't care about things like race or religion unless it is taken to an extreme. cheers!
truindep 3 years ago
you certainly have no sense of humor, do you?
truindep 3 years ago
i'm a typical white person(you know, bitter and clinging to her guns). got eight words for obama bin biden-second amendment. out of my cold, dead hands.
truindep 3 years ago 6
hey Joe if you want to stop crime stop the criminals. don't take firearms away from law abiding citizens. you said your self that law enforcement cannot be every where to protect every one. and you must realize that even if you took all the guns and knifes and tazers off the street the criminals the murderers would use baseball bats golf clubs and rocks and fire! if you want to stop sick acts of violence then you must stop and help the sick individuals that are at the cause!!!
1watchdog 3 years ago 3
I think Obama is gonna win, but the federal government has no business messing around with gun control. That is incredibly unconstitutional, and therefore unamerican. State decides issues like these, the federal goverment is supposed to protect our rights. Not take them away
drunkenboxer1985 3 years ago
If Obama were to win, he'd give not one shit about the Constitution, the Amendments, or the Declaration of Independence, as far as that goes. We'd be under U.N. charter, and in the hands of the world court, for simply typing posts such as these.
This country needs MORE "undesirable" gun/Bible clingers between now and election day.
jettercat 3 years ago
The Bible and religion has nothing to do with it. And fools like that guy who go on national tv and make the rest of us gun owners look like lunatics is not what we needed. Would have been nicer if we had someone that was a little more mature ask that question to a fascist in disguise like Biden
drunkenboxer1985 3 years ago
I was being sarcastic. That line by Obama should never be forgotten.
You can find Jered's channel by searching jeredt here on youtube. That was his first youtube vid. He admits in his 2nd, that he was new to it, and the one he submitted may have come off a bit raw. He's blunt and to the point, and that's what they were asking for in the debates.
I recommend watching all three of his current video's, before judging his maturity. He's well thought out and spoken, imo.
Check him out.
jettercat 3 years ago
@jettercat Thanks for the comment!
jeredt 11 months ago
Biden wrote the AWB? I get a little suspicious when Biden claims to be the author of something. Has anyone tried to verify this claim?
temporary4me2001 3 years ago
Yes, it's a fact. More than likely why Cooper went straight to Biden with the question first.
jettercat 3 years ago
See how the first thing a polotician will do is degrade you as a person before dealing with the fact at hand.....
Dmac11a666 3 years ago
Joe Is right the guy was a RETARD. People should not have a right to have a killer gun. Obama & Joe 08!
gayproundatheist 3 years ago
Eeeew.
Buh-bye.
jettercat 3 years ago
A Killer Gun???As in awesome???
Cause far as I know there have been no reported cases of guns getting up and going on killing sprees...And his gun ban he wrote in the 90's didnt do a fucken thing...It was 1% before and it was 1% after...
SuicideKing187 3 years ago 6