Yes, what he says is correct. the wording "bear arm" is purposeful, to include any arms invented in the future.
One note though: when taping the _truth_ one shouldn't be high at the moment. This ruins the whole presentation, and does more harm to the whole idea than it does good. Get sober first, then make public presentation.
Muskets were the great equalizer specifically because they were one of the highest tech weapon, less powerful than cannons individually, but everyone had one. Muskets are no longer equalizers; they are outdated. Maybe one day I'll get an M4 or something.
Some people loose sight of why the 2nd Amendment was written. They spin it as home defense against the criminal element if they support it and spin it as an enemy of civil order if they oppose it. I do my homework. I know it is there as a safeguard against tyranny and it is not being properly supported in both word and spirit.
Welcome to Nazi Germany... the pregnancy years. For God's sake, let us abort this baby!
The purpose of the 2nd ammendment is for the populace to be able to revolt in the situation where it is truly necessary. Thus, the right to bear arms must be upheld to the extent that people can fight back if they eventually become oppressed.
But I don't know if that means we should be permitted to have, saaaaaaaay, nuclear weapons?
Yeah, but that kind of just pushes the question back-are the people who have enough money to actually afford one permited to buy one? I suppose there's nothing that prevents the government from raising the cost of owning a nuclear weapon arbitrarily high. Kind of like a 10 trillion dollar tax on nuclear weaponry...
well sure sounds good to me. To be honest its not getting the materials for a nuclear bomb thats hard. Its the weapons grade plutonium. Nukes are way to over rated anyways. I think the government should put a huge tax like that on it or something. But people should definitely be able to have their own tanks. You can technically build your own like killdozer. But then it would be up to the arms company to sell it to you.
The government could compete with the private sector and they wouldnt be street legal. But you should be able to own one. You can get those old sherman tanks but they dont have a functional main gun. You can also own automatic weapons you just have to have the papers for it. Which is reasonable. I will even concede that i wouldnt want to own a nuke. But technically it could be covered. But no one is bitching about nukes or tanks. We just want our guns. And yet people want them.
Well, I don't know, as a liberal hippy environmentalist douchebag, I think that people shouldn't be allowed to own gas guzzling vehicles like Tanks. C'mon man, it all plays right into the hands of big Oil!
I think it would be safe to say that our founding fathers did not have the foresight to see the creation of weapons of mass destruction. Those should probably continue to be excluded from civilian possession. And really, neither the people nor the government will use a nuclear weapon on the other.
But our founding fathers never expected the federal government to have more powerful weapons than the citizens. So to keep a government in check, The citizens need full auto weapons if the government owns them. The government dirives it rights from the people. not the other way around.
i am not opposed to gun ownership. i am, however opposed to the ownership of assault weapons. we used to have an assault weapons ban but i think bush let it expire. still, you cannot argue that in the 21st century gun ownership serves the same purpose expressed in the 2nd amendment--they should essentially be used for home protection, collection and or sport.
why cant i its the same thing. Do you think the rest of your rights dont apply because it was years ago? And assault weapons have to do with how they look. Same technology.
How can we keep the federal government from becoming tyranical if we are not allowed to have the same assault weapons as the government. Are we supposed to keep the federal government in check with bolt action hunting rifles?
i agree with you. i would like to say "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." — Thomas Jefferson
I agree with you in much of this but personally I think that a lot of people don't realize is that the 2nd amendment is not about you owning a gun for the sake of owning a gun but, as it says, for the purposes of a well armed militia. I don't personally know anyone in a militia. Many say that guns don't kill people but people kill people. Yep, with GUNS! Our culture of fear has made violence ok. I see your side of it too. If I were being attacked I wanna shoot the fucker.
A organized militia is an entity that's formed by ordinary *armed* citizens if and when there is a requirement for it. Protection against a foreign power is one thing, but there could be other situations, such as defense against large criminal groups during police strikes or actually opposing an illigitimate government.
I'm sure there are other reasons as well. In the end it's about ensuring people have the means to protect their own freedom
Not to mention, getting rid of guns is pointless anyways. What does a "gun-free zone" sign mean? "Beyond this point, the only people with guns are criminals - persons who do not obey laws, including those restricting possession of guns." Dee-dee-dee!
the way i undestand it is the militia protects the state but the people have guns so when the need ever should arise we use them against the government
The people are supposed to be the Militia, that is why it is necessary to the security of a Free State. If the people are the military force then government can't be very oppressive now can it?
@missdivinestalls The right to keep and bear arms is not dependent on whether or not you are in a militia. But the militia is dependent on the people as a whole maintaining the right to keep and bear arms. The first clause of the 2nd Amendment is dependent on the second. Not the other way around.
I'm going to blame this on immigration and the saturation of the 'American Way'. Now they will take advantage. That's just my take.
Americans are losing their patriotism due to saturations of other cultures. Just my take on it and most Americans are losing the sense of what it means to be American becuase they are focused on going to the Filipine's and calling it 'home' (Happyslip).
These people don't really care about personal libertay. They say it's something that only Americans underst
great video. some people just dont want to see the truth....you know somethin.....human nature is the same today as it was when hitler was alive. People will do anything in persute of power....including killing us.
Yes, what he says is correct. the wording "bear arm" is purposeful, to include any arms invented in the future.
One note though: when taping the _truth_ one shouldn't be high at the moment. This ruins the whole presentation, and does more harm to the whole idea than it does good. Get sober first, then make public presentation.
yuowatcher 7 months ago
Nobody cares if you smoke. I doubt if any employer is going to reprimand an employee for watching a YT video featuring the main character smoking.
FaganRoberts 8 months ago
AMEN BROTHER
bigrebnc1861 2 years ago
perfectly said
sturmgevvehr 3 years ago
America needs a New Amendment that reads "
Any elected or appointed public official that writes any bill that suggests any new gun controls on American citizens shall be removed from office"
Fockersnextdoor 3 years ago 4
he's right in every god damn way
ajk0258 3 years ago 5
Great job harddrive.
JaktheAtheist 3 years ago
and you do that by owning guns? lol
Mockni 4 years ago
Really good points!
MattieCooper 4 years ago
"all governments are wild beasts that need to be kept on a short leash"
The people really don't have power to do this with the current political system. I think it's time to re-work the rules.
TheAngryCanuck 4 years ago
Muskets were the great equalizer specifically because they were one of the highest tech weapon, less powerful than cannons individually, but everyone had one. Muskets are no longer equalizers; they are outdated. Maybe one day I'll get an M4 or something.
WOO-HOO, cussing videos!
BoozyBeggar 4 years ago
FUCK BUSH!!!!
KillOrBeKilled08 4 years ago
Every day!
BoozyBeggar 4 years ago
Great vid.
Some people loose sight of why the 2nd Amendment was written. They spin it as home defense against the criminal element if they support it and spin it as an enemy of civil order if they oppose it. I do my homework. I know it is there as a safeguard against tyranny and it is not being properly supported in both word and spirit.
Welcome to Nazi Germany... the pregnancy years. For God's sake, let us abort this baby!
That80sGuy1972 4 years ago
This is definitely one of my favorites you have done.
TheKidFrom13thStreet 4 years ago 2
The purpose of the 2nd ammendment is for the populace to be able to revolt in the situation where it is truly necessary. Thus, the right to bear arms must be upheld to the extent that people can fight back if they eventually become oppressed.
But I don't know if that means we should be permitted to have, saaaaaaaay, nuclear weapons?
Theycallmetomu 4 years ago
doubt you could afford one
VirtualHolocaust 4 years ago
Yeah, but that kind of just pushes the question back-are the people who have enough money to actually afford one permited to buy one? I suppose there's nothing that prevents the government from raising the cost of owning a nuclear weapon arbitrarily high. Kind of like a 10 trillion dollar tax on nuclear weaponry...
Theycallmetomu 4 years ago
well sure sounds good to me. To be honest its not getting the materials for a nuclear bomb thats hard. Its the weapons grade plutonium. Nukes are way to over rated anyways. I think the government should put a huge tax like that on it or something. But people should definitely be able to have their own tanks. You can technically build your own like killdozer. But then it would be up to the arms company to sell it to you.
VirtualHolocaust 4 years ago
The government could compete with the private sector and they wouldnt be street legal. But you should be able to own one. You can get those old sherman tanks but they dont have a functional main gun. You can also own automatic weapons you just have to have the papers for it. Which is reasonable. I will even concede that i wouldnt want to own a nuke. But technically it could be covered. But no one is bitching about nukes or tanks. We just want our guns. And yet people want them.
VirtualHolocaust 4 years ago
Well, I don't know, as a liberal hippy environmentalist douchebag, I think that people shouldn't be allowed to own gas guzzling vehicles like Tanks. C'mon man, it all plays right into the hands of big Oil!
Theycallmetomu 4 years ago
I think it would be safe to say that our founding fathers did not have the foresight to see the creation of weapons of mass destruction. Those should probably continue to be excluded from civilian possession. And really, neither the people nor the government will use a nuclear weapon on the other.
devikkyrn 4 years ago
Psychopaths withstanding.
In either sector.
Theycallmetomu 4 years ago
Ah, touche. xP
devikkyrn 4 years ago
But our founding fathers never expected the federal government to have more powerful weapons than the citizens. So to keep a government in check, The citizens need full auto weapons if the government owns them. The government dirives it rights from the people. not the other way around.
shadowsofnineveh 4 years ago
I think you could argue that nuclear weapons would fall under the catagory (from a comtempory 1790 point of veiw) of "ordnance" rather than "arms".
MrPloppy1 3 years ago 3
Great vid.
steelejk 4 years ago
i am not opposed to gun ownership. i am, however opposed to the ownership of assault weapons. we used to have an assault weapons ban but i think bush let it expire. still, you cannot argue that in the 21st century gun ownership serves the same purpose expressed in the 2nd amendment--they should essentially be used for home protection, collection and or sport.
jsaic 4 years ago
why cant i its the same thing. Do you think the rest of your rights dont apply because it was years ago? And assault weapons have to do with how they look. Same technology.
VirtualHolocaust 4 years ago
How can we keep the federal government from becoming tyranical if we are not allowed to have the same assault weapons as the government. Are we supposed to keep the federal government in check with bolt action hunting rifles?
shadowsofnineveh 4 years ago 5
i agree with you. i would like to say "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." — Thomas Jefferson
mcshamrock74 4 years ago
exactly
VirtualHolocaust 4 years ago
I agree with you in much of this but personally I think that a lot of people don't realize is that the 2nd amendment is not about you owning a gun for the sake of owning a gun but, as it says, for the purposes of a well armed militia. I don't personally know anyone in a militia. Many say that guns don't kill people but people kill people. Yep, with GUNS! Our culture of fear has made violence ok. I see your side of it too. If I were being attacked I wanna shoot the fucker.
missdivinestalls 4 years ago
we ARE the militia... the us population is supposed to be the last line of defence.
Dadalama 4 years ago
"I don't personally know anyone in a militia."
A organized militia is an entity that's formed by ordinary *armed* citizens if and when there is a requirement for it. Protection against a foreign power is one thing, but there could be other situations, such as defense against large criminal groups during police strikes or actually opposing an illigitimate government.
I'm sure there are other reasons as well. In the end it's about ensuring people have the means to protect their own freedom
FaithIsImaginary 4 years ago 2
would you prefer if the people were stabbed to death or threw out of a window? What about bows?
VirtualHolocaust 4 years ago
Not to mention, getting rid of guns is pointless anyways. What does a "gun-free zone" sign mean? "Beyond this point, the only people with guns are criminals - persons who do not obey laws, including those restricting possession of guns." Dee-dee-dee!
devikkyrn 4 years ago
The citizens are the militia. Read the federalist papers. A militia is just the citizens coming together under no government command.
shadowsofnineveh 4 years ago 5
the way i undestand it is the militia protects the state but the people have guns so when the need ever should arise we use them against the government
Janilenae2007 3 years ago
The people are supposed to be the Militia, that is why it is necessary to the security of a Free State. If the people are the military force then government can't be very oppressive now can it?
siradon2000 2 years ago
@siradon2000 is that in response to me because ur basically restating what i said in that the gov cant opress us when we have firearms
Janilenae2007 1 year ago
@Janilenae2007 Na' don't think so, must have been writing on the same wavelength, lol.
siradon2000 1 year ago
@missdivinestalls The right to keep and bear arms is not dependent on whether or not you are in a militia. But the militia is dependent on the people as a whole maintaining the right to keep and bear arms. The first clause of the 2nd Amendment is dependent on the second. Not the other way around.
FaganRoberts 8 months ago
I'm going to blame this on immigration and the saturation of the 'American Way'. Now they will take advantage. That's just my take.
Americans are losing their patriotism due to saturations of other cultures. Just my take on it and most Americans are losing the sense of what it means to be American becuase they are focused on going to the Filipine's and calling it 'home' (Happyslip).
These people don't really care about personal libertay. They say it's something that only Americans underst
TheRealistCanuck 4 years ago
Booya. I have the urge to go to the shooting range right now...
Muaguana 4 years ago
great video. some people just dont want to see the truth....you know somethin.....human nature is the same today as it was when hitler was alive. People will do anything in persute of power....including killing us.
josiahdallas 4 years ago
HUAH!
:)
VonHelton 4 years ago 2
Well explained.
archraw 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
But wait, bears have legs!
higgrobot 4 years ago
Fantastic video.
terminalpsychotic 4 years ago
Interesting Video...
5/5
MadBadVoodo 4 years ago