 And I'm Dylan. Today we're here to talk to you about guns. Sight rifles, shotguns, handguns, really any issue or controversy regarding weapons in the United States of America. We pick people that have opinions about guns and want to share them. Let's take a look. Here you go. I thought I was supposed to have the last word. I think I've been shooting guns. Since I was seven. Why do you like guns? Guns are fun and they're one of the safest sports to do. He's going to take apart a gun. And we're going to get to watch him while he takes apart this gun. I need a table. So how often do you take apart a gun? Normally every time I shoot them I won't clean them. So pretty often. Because when you shoot them, you might be able to do this one. I don't know if I cleaned it. Okay, look through the barrel right there. You see all the little particles inside there? That's all basically just solid carbon. Yeah, there's just little pieces of that. It's basically carbon from when you shoot. And once the gun powder goes off, it gets all this carbon all over. And if you don't clean it, your gun won't function properly. So do you think people should have assault rifles? Because do you use them for hunting, like the rapid fire guns? They're basically just a target gun, have fun with, go out and enjoy it. It's not really used for any particular function. So really just for a gun control method, they can find assault rifles to target. I'd be just fine with that. Because I don't know anybody who uses an assault rifle for anything besides shooting targets just for fun. That makes sense. I just solved the crisis. Done. Would you like to introduce yourselves? My name is Antonio de Loera-Brust. I am a senior at DHS and I support gun rights. I'm Kai Myers. I'm a junior at Sacramento Waldorf School. And I feel that guns are bad and a world without guns, except in the hands of the government, is a world in which I would like to live. And I'm Connor de Angelis. I am a high school student, a junior at Davis High, and I'm also for pro-gun. Let's start with the first question. Number one, Antonio, why don't you begin? How do you define the Second Amendment? I think the Second Amendment speaks for itself. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And I think the important qualifier is necessary for the protection of a free state. So I think that very clearly sets on that restrictions on gun rights are unconstitutional and that the reason we have it is to protect our rights from government itself. Okay. Well, the Second Amendment says something about a well-regulated militia. And we have the California National Guard and that's a well-regulated militia. It's not a federal army. It's the state's specific army. So individual citizens don't need guns to protect us. It does say the people, though. Yes, but they represent the people of the state. So there's a comma in between there. There's a comma in between the militia part and the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. There's a comma separating it. And the punctuation is different in the version that the state's ratified and the version that was signed by all those old dead people. Well, with that golden start, what would you change about gun restrictions? I think the current laws should be enforced. And I think that one of the key points that changes that I would like to see is more cooperation between the states. As Nevada has very different gun laws from California, I think that the states need to talk more to each other to regulate interstate commerce and the flow of guns. I think a very worrisome aspect is also the way guns travel across the U.S.-Mexican border. I think that I would like to see more cooperation between local authorities, state authorities, and Mexican and American authorities over the flow of guns between the different regions. But I think that if the current laws were enforced, then you would banish to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals while still allowing the people who have constitutional rights to exercise their gun rights, the ability to exercise their rights. So, just to check, do you think we should enforce the California-Nevada border, just as an example? Well, I think that, I think very much depends on what you mean by enforce. I would not like to see U.S.-Mexico border-style checkpoints in what's a free country. I think that it's just, I think California, more than anything, is actually the one that has to recognize that seeing as other states do not share as strict gun laws, Californian citizens can and will and do get guns from Nevada. I think California then should recognize that it's never going to be able to stop the flow of guns. Criminals from South Central can get guns in Nevada. It would be reasonable then for California to let its own citizens prick your guns from Nevada or ideally from California. All right, thank you for that. Can I just say that this isn't really fair, like two-on-one? I should get some bonus points, right? This is a discussion, not a formal debate. What would you say, what would you change about gun restrictions, Kai? No guns, absolutely no guns. Maybe, maybe some like hunting weapons like crossbows, bows and arrows, stuff like that. But for private citizens, we just don't need them. I have friends who hunt with guns and bows and meat tastes just as good if it's killed with an arrow. I'm a bow hunter, just to let you know, and crossbow is not really a hunting weapon. It's more like a gun than it is a bow. So you can have the crossbow for self-defense or what you will. No, no, not exactly. You believe in self-defense weapons, but not weapons. Oh, and you eat meat. I do eat meat. I'm off gluten, dairy, nuts, and all GMOs, actually. I have a question. Do you drive a car? No, I bike. This is Davis. You bike, okay. This is Davis. Do you go to the Sacramento Law School? Yeah, how does that happen? Sometimes I break my own rules. Rules are made to be broken except when it comes to public safety and guns. What kind of car do you usually take? I usually take a Humvee, actually. Humvee. Do you need a Humvee? Well, you're saying the same thing with our guns. Do you need guns? The thing is, to the security of a free state, you do need guns, but you don't need a Humvee. And people don't need to own weapons, but if they want to, they should be able to own them. And also, I mean, there are, sorry, if I could, it is a little bit unfair to be one, but I think that the fact that, I mean, I think you do need them to some extent. I think for, there's obviously documented cases of crimes being committed with guns, massacres being committed with guns. There's also plenty of cases where lives have been saved with guns. I was reading a story, and I don't have it with me, which seems silly, but there was a Marine veteran who was concealed carry and it was his drawing of the gun. He didn't have to use it, but it was his drawing of the gun that prevented a rape and a rape that could have led to a murder. So I think that one thing I hear a lot from people campaigning against gun rights is that, well, if the bands can save just one life, then it's worth it. And I think by that logic, if the guns can save just one life, then isn't that worth it? Aren't they necessary? There's so much more crime that leads to death with guns than guns prevent. That's not true. It is so, so very true. It's not true. If you go on to the FBI statistics for uniform crime, go to violent crime. You can look up the statistics. Also, I think that you are almost suggesting as if the guns were taken away, then the crime would disappear. And I think that if you look at almost any crime, there's obviously tons of external factors. If it's broader kind of social crimes such as theft or gang violence or stuff like that, a lot of that has to do with economic factors, the history of segregation. I think there's so many other things you can look at. I really think that if you somehow manage to take every single gun, I think they would be out there with machetes. I think they would be out there with steak knives. I think that once you start down this road of we must give an outside authority, a government, more and more and more power over our own lives for our own good. I think that once you start down that road, there is no end to that road except complete and total tyranny. If you take away guns and you have people committing all the crimes that they would commit with guns with steak knives, there will be a lot less casualties. That's true, much fewer people will die. That's true, but also around the same week that Sandy Hook happened, a man in China went on a stabbing spree with a knife and killed 22 children. So obviously it's not the weapon or the tool that's being used, it's the person behind it. We should be going after the person, not the weapon. For sure, but the weapon when it's a gun. Why a gun? What makes a gun evil? Nothing makes a gun evil. It's the person that makes a gun evil. The person is evil, but if they have a gun, it's so much easier for them to kill people. It's very clear that violence has existed throughout history. The largest massacres in history have not been committed in recent times. People will always fight, they will always be theft. Well, how recent? Last 100 years? Holocaust. I was going to say, I mean... Holocaust is massive, but look back, there have been greater. I don't know, percentage-wise maybe. But I think that in terms of just sheer death toll, if you look at Mao, Stalin, Hitler, and if you look at one of the things that those regimes have had in common, is they all, using the language of public safety, have taken... Yeah, but those guys were all... All of those people were assholes, so we can't really... But they've taken the same steps. I always thought that was a very racist, borderline racist argument, actually. The idea that, oh, okay, it happened in Germany, it happened in Russia, it happened in China, but it won't happen here because Americans are better. Not better than anyone. I think all men are created equal. I think if the Germans can fall for it, the Americans can fall for it, I think that we are a freer people based on our constitution for the rights we have, not because we are naturally freer. I think the moment we lose track of our traditions and the moment we give up our rights, then we will see that we are equally capable of being oppressed and oppressing as other groups and countries in history. Yeah, but we can learn from history. Exactly. And not make the same mistakes. Exactly. And not fall for the same lies. Regulation, confiscation, annihilation. It's been the same steps with Mao, Hitler, Stalin. What you're doing here is you're naming names. You're not naming gun models. There's a key point in there. Okay. I agree that all regimes, all countries change, and all governments come doing it. And America, at some point in the future, will fall. If every single person in America has a gun, it will be a bloody, bloody war, and millions of people will die. If we don't have guns, then it will be a fairly peaceful transition and a full start anew. Actually, what would happen is if everyone was disarmed, then the military, our government, would come in and slaughter us all. See, now if we had firearms, we had to be able to protect ourselves. Why would our government slaughter us? If we didn't have guns. We wouldn't have anything to fight back with. Yeah. So they wouldn't need to slaughter us if we didn't have a way of fighting them. People would definitely disagree with the policies the government is enacting. And I think that once the government has the option of ruling through force instead of through consent, they would take the option of force. I think, and this is speaking as an indigenous American, I think that we've already seen our government take the land of people, slaughter people based on where they live or what language they speak or what ethnic group they belong to. I think that it's foolish to say that that could never happen again. I think that as you were saying, we need to learn from the past. And as you were saying also, we need to learn from the past. And I think that means we can't let that situation be possible again. I think that, you know, you could theoretically say, well, it might become possible, but we'll just keep our fingers crossed and trust in the judgment of our leaders. But I think that if you look at who our leaders are, it's really hard to believe, and I'm talking about both parties, that either of them have our best interests at heart. So I think it would be very foolish to give them all the power because also you were talking about the complete disarmament of everyone. And I think that that would never happen because some group is always going to have government, is always going to have guns, and that would be government. That would be the army. So if you're going to talk about gun control, I would vote that start with government. Okay, but we can't point to hypothetical events in the future and say this is why we're doing what we're doing because we don't know that that's how it's going to happen. We don't know what we're going to happen unless there's some technology that I would love to get my hands on. Well, you can look at what happened in the past and you can... But the past isn't the future. No, but I think that... But history tends to repeat itself, but differently. It's always different. It was different with Hitler. It was different with Stalin. It was different with Mao. It was slightly different, yes. Genghis Khan, even. Go back to the invention of the recurve bow. He conquered all of Asia. I mean, I think that... I mean, yeah, it's always going to be different, but I think that... It's similar. That doesn't mean you don't learn from it. I think it's almost a cliche, but I think it's true. People who do not know history are condemned to repeat it. And I think that the framers of the Constitution learning from a couple thousand years of settled human activity learned that the sad truth, and Mao himself actually said political power comes out of the barrel of a gun. I think the founding fathers understood that and that's why they diffused guns among the population the same way they diffused political power. Unfortunately, Mao also understood that as he sought to concentrate political power in the hands of his own party, the Communist Party. I think that's also where the guns are concentrated. And this isn't necessarily a left versus right issue. It totally is. It's not. It is not. There are many people on the left who own firearms. Of course, like I said before, there are exceptions to every rule. But it's basically a left versus right issue. It's not a left versus right at all. I don't think that's true, I personally am very left. And on this issue, I am very, I guess, well, I'm right. But I'm not right-wing. You're not very left-wing either, though. Well, I think that he's moderate. He's someone we need. It's almost, I mean, not so much left and right. Well, he's a gun, and we don't need gun nuts. Oh, thank you. Oh, that's kind. I think we've gotten very uptight throughout this. We can agree that it is not an issue based on political affiliation. Right, but I guess if I could just make the point, I was saying Hitler was a dictatorship from the right-wing. Stalin was a dictatorship from the left-wing. And I think that guns are almost, at the end of the day, are the ultimate insurance for your rights when all else fails. That's what they're there for. I think hunting is fun. I think that target practice is fun. But at the end of the day, the reason you are allowed to and a little bit from the writings of people like Thomas Jefferson implied or required to have one is to defend your liberties from those on the left or the right who would take them from you. Okay, the Founding Fathers thought that... Let's double-check this. This is a closing statement. We are running out of time. Okay. The Founding Fathers thought that we should have a revolution, if you will, every four years. That's why we elect a new president every four years. The reason for that was so one person or one party couldn't become the dictatorship that you guys are talking about. And with that, I'm out. Any closing statements, sir? Just ignorant and inconvenient. Go America. I think that, you know... When they are gonna bait. When they tell you that you don't need them, that's when you need them. And that's scramble, depending on guns. Thanks for watching. Hi. Today I'll be reviewing Oz the Great and Powerful, the latest installment in the widely expanding Oz Universe, which includes the classic movie, which I don't like that much, the Broadway musical, Wicked, which apparently is critically acclaimed, and now this movie. Now this movie, really shown in the special effects department, just amazing visual design as good as... I guess we can compare it to Avatar, which is another movie completely carried on visual effects and had no plot whatsoever, which is like Oz the Great and Powerful. Now Oz the Great and Powerful, let's think of the plot problems. Well, they kept referring to a prophecy, which was never explained, which apparently Oz or James Franco was supposed to fall into. But that seemed to advance the plot in some ways, but it was since it was never explained, we never understood why it advanced the plot. Oh, and as well, they used magic to solve little problems and nice little cute... Oh, look at this visual effect. We can make a bubble. We can float around, but no. No, if the magic could be used to actually solve real problems, they did not like to use it at all. And that was just incredibly frustrating. I hate it in movies when they have the ability to solve all their problems in the first 10 minutes, but they just can't. So, I guess my version would be... You can see it if you want, but don't, because it's a bad movie. It's Dylan. I think you really like that movie. That's funny, because I didn't. So, Dylan and I, in our spare time, we hit the streets of Davis, and we got the truth from the people. The hard streets, learning the rough truths, quite an afternoon. So here's what people in Davis have to say about guns. Oh, let's see. Why do you think there should be stricter gun restrictions? The Newtown-Connecticut thing was pretty bad, and I don't think that should happen again. Right. Should mental health play a role in gun permits, and why? Yeah, I think so. I don't know if the guy in Newtown-Connecticut was mentally ill, but I think he was, and again, that probably shouldn't happen again. Do you think people should be able to get assault rifles? If they're going to use them, I think they should sign a waiver and tell them what they're going to use them for. If they're going to use them for hunting, I think they should be able to use them, but if they're going to go out and kill a bunch of people, that's probably not the best idea. Do you believe there should be stricter gun restrictions? I think there should be, because there's been a lot of incidents with school shootings and stuff, and I think that because of that, they should tighten gun restrictions. Should mental health play a role in gun permits? I think so, because most of the school shootings have occurred with people who are mentally ill, and just people who are mentally ill aren't really stable and they're really unpredictable, so I feel like since they can't really control their behavior all the time, they probably shouldn't have guns. And finally, what are your feelings towards assault rifles? I think that assault rifles should just be given to the military. I don't think that citizens really need assault rifles, because you can't really use them to go hunting. I mean, they're just basically used to assault other people, obviously, so I don't think that people should have them. So thanks for joining us here on Scramble on our gun episode. You know, Nora, I really had a lot of fun making this one. Yeah, we got to go to a shooting range and talk with a bunch of cool people in Davis. The whole debate vis-à-vis weapons and restrictions in the United States, Well, thanks for joining us and we'll see you next time. And if they're talking about Atlanta streets, we're talking about it here on Scramble.