@@craigmusa2254 there are already laws banning those convicted of felonies or violent misdemeanor's from possessing firearms. The problem is getting DAs to press those charges and lock them away for longer periods of time.
@@craigmusa2254 the laws exist, but on a widespread basis they aren't upheld or discussed. Again, the criminals don't care when they get one out of a trunk from their black market dealer that also doesn't care. The laws only stop law abiding citizens.
@@hockey582004 laws don't just stop law abiding citizens they stop actual criminals. 🙄 Everything single illegal fire arm on the street was once legal. Make laws more comprehensive and follow through with it. But then u get gun freaks yelling Fascism when really thry want guns because they think thry can out fire the FBI or the military. News flash the US military has better weaponry than citizens.
As a gunsmith, I cannot say that I agree with all of your conclusions (most notably with respect to red flag laws) but I greatly appreciate your willingness to be intellectually honest and search for real solutions not only through legislation but personal engagement in your own community.
"If violent crime is to be curbed, it is only the intended victim who can do it. The felon does not fear the police, and he fears neither judge nor jury. Therefore what he must be taught to fear is his victim." ~ Jeff Cooper
I think there are politicians that are interested in legislation that would address social problems. The problem is other politicians that do not want to spend $$ on that.
I don’t entirely agree with you (mostly because red flag laws can be abused so easily) but thank you for being willing to look at things through the lenses of truth rather than bias.
You think armed teachers will make classes safer? You obviously have never been in the military or you don’t think things through. The shooter has the initiative, you can create a perimeter with one person. Do you know anything about stats? actuarial tables? If you did chances are you would say something smart rather than repeating some version of a populist slogan.
@@khworker1322There's been multiple times that an armed school administrator has stopped a school shooter. Even at columbine those two maniacs were forced to change their plans and were held to one part of the school because armed school resource officers returned fire and pinned them down. Their original plan was to go to school media center where about 200 students were gathered in one room. Those two armed officers saved over 200 lives that day.
Look into red flag laws, the issue is that it is a Constitutional violation, on multifacets. If a person has not had their rights removed through a Lawfully Constitutional process, then they cannot lose their rights. I took an oath to uphold and defend it as a young man, I will never relent upholding my oath, even if just making people aware of what laws are being pushed that are Unconstitutional. And I absolutely agree with the overview of this video. Thank You For helping to make people aware.
@@uhclem Step 1: terroristic threat is made and reported. Step 2: Claim brought before a Judge and Grand Jury to decide whether the prosecutor's evidence provides probable cause to issue an indictment. It is investigated. If there is, an indictment and warrant is issued. Step 3: The Sixth Amendment guarantees an accused's right to be confronted with the witnesses against him. Step 4: If found guilty or Mentally Defective, then the weapons are able to be removed as it had at the time of the Founding of the Second Amendment. Step 5: The presumption of innocence is recognized as a due process right under the Fifth Amendment. The prosecutor has the burden of proof to show you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Step 6: to According to the Fourth Amendment, the people have a right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” This right limits the power of the police to seize and search people, their property, and their homes. This should be the Lawfully Constitutional process, Bruen shows the necessity of the lawmakers to find a similar or parallel type of law at the time of the creation of the Second Amendment, I that the text, history, and tradition , if I am missing something or mistaken, please enlightened me. I'm not the sharpest tool in the drawer, so I am perfectly happy to see where I am messing up, after all, I can't be more informed if I'm not corrected. And thank you again
This is one of the weakest arguments that gun lovers use. First of all, the 2nd amendment supports regulation. More importantly, it's an amendment. Which literally means that it can be amended. Just like the 18th and 21st amendments. So, saying that the laws violate the constitution is a very weak argument when we could change the constitution itself instead of the laws.
@uhclem If you believe that any right is "God given", then you are a fool who is easily manipulated. Our rights have to be fought for and protected. A right is something that man made up and that governments oversee. God has given us no rights. Mostly because gods aren't real.
What do you do about those of us that have chosen to forgo intervention and have decided to take tyrannical politicians to account? If laws worked, no one would be murdered. Morals and "God given" rights keep us in line, laws don't. I can only hope people watching this understand that it's our "beliefs and conscience " that make a safe society, NOT THE BANNING OF THINGS. I love your sentiment brother. When you're ready, I'm here.
And in schools, it's often the case that some students are bullying others and the school's administrators look the other way as kids are being hurt and tormented.
@@Fetherkoclearly ur a Mainstream Marxist Media watcher. They have infected you with the TDS mind virus. There is not one case against Trump that holds any water. You need to start looking at independent media.
The thug that murdered the woman at the Chiefs rally threatened people with a gun and given unsupervised probation. Had he been put in prison the woman would be alive today. Put violent people in jail.
I'm with you up to the Red Flag laws. That violates the Constitutional guarantee to due process. You get to go to court to face your accuser BEFORE your rights are suspended or revoked, not afterwards. How about giving the threatened partner an exemption on waiting periods to get themselves a gun for protection instead of "cooling off" for a week or more so they can be killed by the abusive partner?
Easy to stand behind an impractical solution isn't it. Due process is fine but are you literally going to tell me that if you saw potential harm coming to someone you love like a person ready to beat up your brother with a ball bat that you would not do EVERYTHING in your power to prevent that action INCLUDING DISARMING the man? And how would you feel if I was on the sidelines screaming at you about how that man has every right to own and use a ball bat and in spite of his sketchy past and questionable behavior including threatening people with it, he has a constitutional right to still have it. Please. If you want to argue against something at least make your argument make sense. Arming everyone is no solution and in fact why we are the only nation in the developed world with this particular problem.
What?! So it unconstitutional for the law to prevent felons from having firearms? No it's not. So why would it be unconstitutional if the government ban individuals who they deem a physical threat to themselves or others, including their significant other?
@@birchsongsltd.6831Being convicted of domestic violence already disqualifies a person from buying a gun. A red flag law takes away a right for being accused of something, no proof required. If someone accused you of drunk driving, would you be ok with having your driver's license taken away, until you can prove that you don't drive drunk. There would be no requirement for the person that accused you to be known and if you could somehow prove that you never drove under the influence, the person that accused you, could in no way be held accountable. The victim of domestic violence can get a no contact order. If you take away their ability to posses a bat, and they violate a no contact order, what's to stop the use of a 2x4, knife or fists?
For those saying we need to be like other countries who have banned guns, take a look at this video about the knife problem in Britain. The presenter offers a solution based on making the risk outweigh the reward. True. The thug that murdered the woman in the KC Chiefs parade threatened people with a gun before and only received unsupervised probation.
And what if a person lies and you actually possess no firearms? Can government actors tear the sheetrock off your home searching for something that's not there?
@@uhclem you better believe they can, and with little recompense. The government in any form does not have to pay for destruction of your life or property.
Because for the sole reason to disarm us for the global agenda to go through. Armed Americans will uphold the constitution if the federal government tries to abolish it and surrender to global governance
It’s no turning back. Other weapons there’s a chance. Suicide is close to guaranteed with a gun, quick and no second thoughts. Others weapons take more effort and higher chance of survival. Why do you choose to protect your home with guns and not knives, etc. ?
because the intruder might have a gun, and there might be more than one intruder, and the intruders might be bigger, stronger and younger than you. I can't even believe that's a serious question. 🙄 Suicide by gun isn't always 100% either. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_von_Bargen
@@ImNotThatGuythey still have gun violence.... not to mention other violence that ends with death. You haven't made anything safer, you've just made a bunch of defenseless victims that can be attacked by criminals and a corrupt govt.
I’m glad that they posted this video. It’s about time that we start acknowledging that the problem is not the guns. It’s the people and we need to change. People hearts hurts and minds to help guide them to a better tomorrow. Instead of pointing at the second amendment as the problem I definitely agree that the younger male generation definitely needs some better guidance more now than ever
Laws don’t stop criminals from using guns…that’s what mages them criminals. There are many more good guys with guns that have stopped bad guys with guns
Gun control has never been about saving lives, public safety, or "the children." Gun control is about power. The citizens have it; the government wants it. Honesty about that won't get desired laws passed, so "gaslighting" with "feel-good" legislation marketed to relative non-thinking voters is the primary strategy.
@michaelmelville7994 if you stop using Google and look up FBI statistics, you would be better informed, but I'll do the work for you. There are 4 times saved lives by firearms than taken, including suicide. You have yourself a nice informative day! 🤣
Almost every major study has found that Americans use their firearms in self-defense between 500,000 and 3 million times annually, as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has acknowledged.Sep 12, 2023. That could just be exposure of a weapon or actually firing it. Let's compare that to the CDC Gun-related deaths from preventable, intentional, and undetermined causes totaled 48,830 in 2021, an increase of 8% from 45,222 deaths in 2020. Suicides account for 54% of deaths related to firearms, while 43% were homicides, and about 1% were preventable/accidental.
That's a hard figure to get an actual number on, many go unaccounted, someone just drawing a gun and the suspect fleeing is a successful self defense. But if no one calls the cops then it doesn't get reported anywhere. Hell, most of those even reported to the police go no where.
Giving ur video a like even tho I think red flag laws are a mistake. I appreciate you researching and presenting a real objective look at facts. Also, Banning things won’t stop people from getting them. Take drugs as an example. Someone willing to commit murder won’t respect a gun law.
@@craigmusa2254How about we lock criminals up instead of letting them out with no cash bail after having a rap sheet that’s longer than the constitution? Also, how about stop voting Democrat?
@@craigmusa2254How about we lock criminals up instead of letting them out with no cash bail after having a rap sheet that’s longer than the constitution? Also, how about stop voting Democrat?
@@craigmusa2254any suggestions? We have over 20K laws on the books now regarding guns. More laws won't help. Criminals either steal guns or buy them from other criminals. What do you suggest as a remedy?
I'd like to point out "assault weapons" have been illegal for like 80 years and you can't buy one. They don't sell assault weapons anymore, haven't for decades.
👍 it's a complete Propaganda term. The whole ban in the 90s studies found resulted in ... drum roll please ... No Reductions in Violence. It made no difference. 🇺🇸
Nah she's still harping about red flag laws that are some of the worst overreach than can be fathomed. We're gonna take your car because you posted a bunch of pictures while drinking and we think you might be a dui risk.
Im a retired LEO and Republicans tried to pass a bill that would have hardened schools and put resource officers in every school in the United States and billions towards mental health in schools but democrats voted it down. WHY? Uvalde was an outlier and those leo's are 100% responsible. As retired Deputy the inaction of the cops at Uvalde was completely uncalled for.
If there was no such thing as guns, what else would take their place in terms of someone wanting to do harm to others? I for one would like to see more attention directed at mental health.
Well gun supporters only talk about doing something about mental health as a distraction. They are not serious. Reagan closed a lot of mental institutions and there is no going back.
Thank you. Just one clarification, "assault rifles" are "select fire" being they can be fired fully automatic. Practically all firearms available to the general public are semi-automatic. The use of the word "assault" is to create a negative emotional reaction and not accurate to the actual definition/function of the class of firearm.
The problem with your red flag laws is already being seen in our country now. Hospitals working with the government to label anyone with any form of depression as being suicidal or homicidal and taking their rights away. Do you think in colonial America, the founders didn’t deal with homicide? The founders clearly stated that each able bodied male was to supply their own firearms and be part of the state militia. Your gun laws and red flag laws are driving the gun violence, along with the failure to prosecute if a person fits into certain intersectional camps. The founding fathers said, no laws are to be made to infringe on our rights, so we the people would be the final check in the checks and balances of the government.
Colonial America's guns were far less accurate and could only fire about once a minute under good conditions. Comparing those guns to today's guns is like comparing a knight in armour to a fully loaded M1 tank. Not the same.
@@mick776gold that does not matter. By your logic I demand you get off the internet as it wasn’t around then either. So your free speech is limited to parchment and stylus ink pens.
@@krakoosh1 Hey friend, Where in my comment did I make a demand? Please don't pretend that I said something I did not say. And you seem to leave out that they had books, newspapers, and the printing press in colonial America, which are much more like the internet than 'parchment and stylus ink pens.' And you may have forgotten, that back then, if you said something someone didn't like they could challenge you to a duel, and you could be shot dead for it. So there actually was a limit to free speech, just enforced in an old way. What I was implying was that, it is fair to consider revising our laws since tech has changed the realities of what is possible. And to your point, there is plenty of debate about free speech and it's limits on the internet currently. Folks argue over who gets to control and what is allowed to be posted, and is that right or fair. That actually is a present debate and discussion for many. The truth is the 2nd A, has been, within the last few decades, reinterpreted to mean something that the founding fathers did not intend. Pro-gun advocates completely ignore the clause 'A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' part of the sentence like it is nothing at all. And unfortunately a recent supreme court ruling, chose an interpretation that also ignores that phrase as well. But that was not what the founders intended. What they intended was for states to have un-infringed militias. They did not even conceive of one crazy nut, not in the military, killing 60 people and wounding 413 people in less than an hour. (Las Vegas Oct 1, 2017) It is fair to reconsider America's access to guns. And it is fair, to understand that the voters for the second amendment were only making a rule about militias, not individuals.
@@mick776gold you’re confusing colonial America with centuries later in the wild west. I never claimed you were making demands. You misunderstood my entire comment
They need to go after the illegal gun trafficers. Criminals dont walk into the local gunshop and make a legal purchase, unless they put someone up to it with a clean name. In chicago I've seen 8th grader on social media showing of their glock with a switch on it. How dose a teen get one?
A large portion of criminal firearms are redirected to gangs from legal sales. Bg checks could help stop gangs from getting guns. The illegal gun sellers don’t make guns - at some point the legit guns become illegal guns. Mexico contends that the gun industry not only knows about this but actually targets this market. Mexico actually filed a lawsuit against major gun manufacturers. Organized, crime rings, have people to go buy guns, the same way that meth rings had people to go buy Sudafed. And they always need new ones because once you’ve killed somebody with a gun, you have to dispose of it so they need a steady stream of new weapons. if we put policies in place to disrupt that steady stream, we could completely change the deadliness of the drug war.
I'm very much with you until you hit the red flag laws. Anyone can make a accusation and strip you of your rights without due process, even if it's NOT TRUE. But yes, a restraining order is just a piece of paper, doesn't mean they will obey.
Ban gun free zones, single points of entry in schools, guards, metal detectors. Solved. Red flag laws are no good! The government would be making that decision which is just as bad as a ban.
Who in their right mind actually thinks that a bad person who wants to do others harm with a gun actually pays any attention to a gun free zone sign?? Using that kind of logic let's require every store owner to put up a sign that says no shoplifting. See problem solved 😵💫🤪
You left one thing out of this whole conversation what about your Constitution is written the Second Amendment is written in the Constitution and you not supposed to make laws against it
If you think gun control doesn't work, all you have to do is look at the amount of guns that people in the US have compared to other developed countries. We have the most guns and also have murder rates off the charts. Countries that have stiffer gun laws have the lowest murder rates. Keep in mind the second amendment was written in the times of muzzleloaders and single shot guns. The general public should not have access to high capacity military style weapons. It is to late to do anything about because its so out of control. It should have been done decades ago.
She doesn't like gun control - definition of gun control, policies and practices to reduce gun violence - and then gives a long list of gun control measures that she wants ... Although what she want is a lot more sensible than most suggestions.
She makes so excellent points. But red-flag gun laws are ripe for being abused in this politically-polarized country of ours. There has to be a better way.
You should thank a gun for your freedom lady. I suggest you go buy one, learn how to use it properly, and you’ll understand a gun is a tool, and like any tool, (a car, screwdriver, knife), doubles as a weapon if you need it to. I’m glad you’re starting to see the light, but you remain miles off the target (pun intended).
The minute she started talking 1 thing crossed my mind: mental illness. Back in the 80s, in college, I learned just how horribly we have failed the mentally ill. One of the ways we measure mental illness is "are they a danger to themselves or others." Sounds good, until you realize people who are a threat are not always classified as a threat. Example: people who want to live on the streets are not recognized as a threat to themselves even though living on the streets is extremely dangerous. A lot of mentally ill people like this would have been institutionalized back in the 50s. But many asylums were horrible places so we've closed a lot of them. Today medicines can make commitment for many people unnecessary but the law does not force most people to take meds. What if the Sandy Hook shooter was forced to take meds and see a doctor? Who knows? I don't have a specific plan but clearly some changes should be made.
@Outtatime-gf3fk I think we are having a communication problem. My main point was dealing with mental illness. I thought you were agreeing and proving my point.
No piece mill state by state gun laws won't work but universal common sense gun laws will do a lot to help. It does no good if your state has the best gun laws if you can just go to the state next door with loser gun laws and buy a gun and bring it home.
Pay attention, you've almost got it. If, for instance, Chicago or L.A.'s gun laws aren't working "because you can go to the next state over"... Why doesn't the next state over have the same violence problems, when they clearly have all the guns?
Listen here young lady. Let me debunk most of ur theory on democratic gun control legislation. Democrats has proposed different versions of all these regulations that you have suggested, including redflag laws. And the republican party has rejected most of the most important ones that will actually make a significant difference. And for mass shootings, a good 80% of the the shooters wouldn't be able to get their guns legally through background checks. Furthermore, that percentage would be even higher if gun redflag laws were implemented. As for the suicide rate by guns isn't really a factor in this case. It's a strawman defense. If these suicide victims didn't have access to firearms, at least 90% or higher would still find other ways to commit suicide. Then you the social programs to help with mental health which republicans claims that is what they want to help the gun problems. But, they refuse to pass any of those bills either. So with all of that said, our truest and biggest obstacles in gun control is these crooked and corrupt Republicans who refuses to fix these problems because it would slow down their bottom line for power and money
Every country that implemented gun control has a lowering of gun deaths and suicides. The reasons why many chose to use a gun to end lives but one thing is often missed in the US, people who are marginalized,are without hope, are desperate, live in poverty and are disadvantaged often see life as less valued. The US has the most unequal health, social support, education in the Western World, we in Europe are social democracies, we put much more of our GDP into Heath, mental health, education and thoroughly assessed financial support for the sick, poor, and those unable to support them selves, it’s not perfect, but it means the volume of desperate people turning to violent crime, suicide are but a 1/10th of the US figures. I just don’t understand the US
Everything said is true. So, do nothing to reduce gun deaths. Because anything you do with not address all gun deaths. You see, that’s the one size fits all approach, Not what they are attempting to do when the want to restrict or ban assault weapons. When the want try to restrict assault weapons or the side of a magazine, they are trying to limit the amount of carnage one person can commit with the weapon in question. Sure, a trained or proficient person can change a magazine in quick order. However, most mass shooters are not trained and all that proficient. Look, suicides and acquaintance murders are a different issues. As are crimes like robbery or assault that result in a gun death. Those require different measures if those are to be reduced. And different measures are being attempted. Like Red Flag Laws and Universal Background Checks. But something has to be done to start to reduce all gun deaths. That something won’t be just one thing.
Wonder who paid for this BS? Maybe for NRA or Gun Manufacturers? This is the same as thoughts and prayers. We could require more stringent background checks, require gun registration, require licenses and annual certifications to own and operate firearms, hold gun owners accountable for any crime committed with their firearm, tax ammo at much higher rate, require serial numbers on ammunition that is traceable to person who made purchase. Will it solve all the issues no, but it will reduce the number of deaths and make law enforcement easier.
Those are good points. It also seems true that, although banning assault weapons would not prevent most gun deaths, it would prevent some mass shootings.
Did you watch the video? Semiautomatic rifles are not assault weapons and the ban that was in place on certain rifles with a list of characteristics, pistol grip, bayonet lug, etc., and has expired, did nothing to prevent mass shootings.
“Assault weapon” is a media term. No one else uses it except politicians trying to score points. Most mass shootings? “Gun free” zones, about 92% of the time.
@@dennisharrell2236 In 2004, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired. It was not renewed. The AWB had failed to have an impact on gun crime in the United States. A 2004 Department of Justice report concluded: "Should it be renewed, the ban's effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. [Assault weapons] were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban."
Two things, and I’m sure at least one is very unpopular. 1. I understand that most gun deaths are not affected by current attempts at controlling gun availability. The root cause of violence is much harder to define and affect with legislation. Violence occurs for many reasons, and changing the cycle of violence is only partially understood but very difficult to implement, meaning time-consuming and expensive. We almost certainly don’t have enough resources, in terms of counselors or other trained professionals. 2. I think that the basic premise of the existence of guns in our world is questionable. I believe that guns were invented to improve hunting in order to feed our families. That is no longer a concern. The fact that guns were also used for assault and then self-defense was a by-product of their availability. Te escalation of weapons of conflict should be obvious. The second amendment, in my opinion, was aimed at having resources available (trained combatants) in the event of either attack from upside or the abuse of power by our own leaders. I don’t think that having a pistol is reasonable in either case. I’m totally in favor of any reduction in the number of available handguns, specifically, and I have no issue with banning firearms completely, even by police except in unusual circumstances. I said that it would be unpopular.
The only people who have that interpretation of the 2nd Amendment are those that don't own firearms...those of us that choose to own firearms don't feel that way & we don't want ppl taking that right from us
@@alg6339 actually there genius, I own firearms and that’s exactly how I feel. The difference is why I own them as opposed to why you probably own them. The 2nd amendment authority was never meant to extend to an individual, it was written to ensure that states could call up their “armed” militias in a moment of need. There wasn’t a standing federal army at the time, or at least not a full-time army. None of this was that much of a talking point or “a line in the sand” until the NRA went full cult status back in the 90’s. Education and facts actually matter!!!
@@dronedude5150 Do you understand what a militia is? By definition, it is a volunteer military force, drawn from the civilian population that is self armed and armored. How can you call up a self armed and armored force without the individual right to keep and bear arms?
@@dronedude5150of course you’re entitled to your opinion but the SCOTUS trumps it and they ruled in DC v Heller: Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.
If you have a gun to potentially kill or injure a "bad guy", you should know that that gun is far more likely to kill or injure someone you never intended it to. Keep that in mind when you make your choice as to whether or not you should have a gun.
Luckily it's the bill of rights, not the bill of needs. You don't even know what type of firearm you're talking about, you're using scare tactic terms.
The common sense here is that criminals don't care about laws.
That’s why they should go to prison for 50 years!
But laws help curve gun violence so let's have good gun laws that keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people.
@@craigmusa2254 there are already laws banning those convicted of felonies or violent misdemeanor's from possessing firearms. The problem is getting DAs to press those charges and lock them away for longer periods of time.
@@craigmusa2254 the laws exist, but on a widespread basis they aren't upheld or discussed. Again, the criminals don't care when they get one out of a trunk from their black market dealer that also doesn't care. The laws only stop law abiding citizens.
@@hockey582004 laws don't just stop law abiding citizens they stop actual criminals. 🙄
Everything single illegal fire arm on the street was once legal. Make laws more comprehensive and follow through with it. But then u get gun freaks yelling Fascism when really thry want guns because they think thry can out fire the FBI or the military. News flash the US military has better weaponry than citizens.
As a gunsmith, I cannot say that I agree with all of your conclusions (most notably with respect to red flag laws) but I greatly appreciate your willingness to be intellectually honest and search for real solutions not only through legislation but personal engagement in your own community.
Well said! I couldn't agree more.
"If violent crime is to be curbed, it is only the intended victim who can do it. The felon does not fear the police, and he fears neither judge nor jury. Therefore what he must be taught to fear is his victim." ~ Jeff Cooper
When guns are outlawed,
Only outlaws will have guns
BINGO!!!!!
Not sure this will work with pedophiles
I’ve never seen thought about the felon/victim dynamic this way. Good insight!
Lol no
Remember bad people will find bad ways to do bad things.
You're so right
🎯💯
Exactly
But for good people to do bad things, that takes religion.
so should we let bad things occur? should we let bad people win?
Too bad politicians aren't interested in legislation that would address social problems
I think there are politicians that are interested in legislation that would address social problems. The problem is other politicians that do not want to spend $$ on that.
Too bad politicians are in the pockets of gun lobbyists and the nra
They are it’s called social Justice. It encourages people with mental illness to adopt the title of victim and commit crimes of supposed rage.
It’s not their job.
The issue is that politicians are in the pocket of the nra and gun lobbyists
I don’t entirely agree with you (mostly because red flag laws can be abused so easily) but thank you for being willing to look at things through the lenses of truth rather than bias.
Gun free zones only enable mass shootings. In Utah, teachers can carry concealed in their classroom. How many school shootings have occurred in Utah?
You think armed teachers will make classes safer? You obviously have never been in the military or you don’t think things through.
The shooter has the initiative, you can create a perimeter with one person. Do you know anything about stats? actuarial tables?
If you did chances are you would say something smart rather than repeating some version of a populist slogan.
@@khworker1322pretty sure you are the pot calling the kettle black
@@khworker1322Biden voter, right? Because those “security guards” are doing such a great job.
@@khworker1322There's been multiple times that an armed school administrator has stopped a school shooter. Even at columbine those two maniacs were forced to change their plans and were held to one part of the school because armed school resource officers returned fire and pinned them down. Their original plan was to go to school media center where about 200 students were gathered in one room. Those two armed officers saved over 200 lives that day.
@@khworker1322 You probably think cops would be better off not carrying guns. Just tell the bad guys please don't harm the law-abiding citizens.
Look into red flag laws, the issue is that it is a Constitutional violation, on multifacets. If a person has not had their rights removed through a Lawfully Constitutional process, then they cannot lose their rights. I took an oath to uphold and defend it as a young man, I will never relent upholding my oath, even if just making people aware of what laws are being pushed that are Unconstitutional. And I absolutely agree with the overview of this video. Thank You For helping to make people aware.
Bruen v NY showed that there is actually no "Lawfully Constitutional process" to take this God-given right away from any person not incarcerated.
@@uhclem Step 1: terroristic threat is made and reported.
Step 2: Claim brought before a Judge and Grand Jury to decide whether the prosecutor's evidence provides probable cause to issue an indictment. It is investigated. If there is, an indictment and warrant is issued.
Step 3: The Sixth Amendment guarantees an accused's right to be confronted with the witnesses against him.
Step 4: If found guilty or Mentally Defective, then the weapons are able to be removed as it had at the time of the Founding of the Second Amendment.
Step 5: The presumption of innocence is recognized as a due process right under the Fifth Amendment. The prosecutor has the burden of proof to show you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Step 6: to According to the Fourth Amendment, the people have a right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” This right limits the power of the police to seize and search people, their property, and their homes.
This should be the Lawfully Constitutional process, Bruen shows the necessity of the lawmakers to find a similar or parallel type of law at the time of the creation of the Second Amendment, I that the text, history, and tradition , if I am missing something or mistaken, please enlightened me. I'm not the sharpest tool in the drawer, so I am perfectly happy to see where I am messing up, after all, I can't be more informed if I'm not corrected. And thank you again
@@shannonstone5021Except so much of our court system is corrupt.
This is one of the weakest arguments that gun lovers use. First of all, the 2nd amendment supports regulation. More importantly, it's an amendment. Which literally means that it can be amended. Just like the 18th and 21st amendments. So, saying that the laws violate the constitution is a very weak argument when we could change the constitution itself instead of the laws.
@uhclem If you believe that any right is "God given", then you are a fool who is easily manipulated. Our rights have to be fought for and protected. A right is something that man made up and that governments oversee. God has given us no rights. Mostly because gods aren't real.
"assault rifle" = if you have one
"Patrol rifle" = if government has one
What do you do about those of us that have chosen to forgo intervention and have decided to take tyrannical politicians to account?
If laws worked, no one would be murdered. Morals and "God given" rights keep us in line, laws don't.
I can only hope people watching this understand that it's our "beliefs and conscience " that make a safe society, NOT THE BANNING OF THINGS.
I love your sentiment brother.
When you're ready, I'm here.
Couldn’t agree more. Gun laws only help thieves, rapists, murderers & tyrannical governments, by taking your protection away. Ty
Mental health is the problem!
Amen
An inanimate object is not the problem. The problem is the coordinated destruction of our society morals and values starting in our schools.
Starting with parrents.
And in schools, it's often the case that some students are bullying others and the school's administrators look the other way as kids are being hurt and tormented.
Headline from Minneapolis Star Tribune from Tuesday: “Lives Lost Despite Ban”. Start putting people in jail where they belong!
...Starting with Trump
@@Fetherko and Biden!
@@Fetherkoclearly ur a Mainstream Marxist Media watcher. They have infected you with the TDS mind virus. There is not one case against Trump that holds any water. You need to start looking at independent media.
The thug that murdered the woman at the Chiefs rally threatened people with a gun and given unsupervised probation. Had he been put in prison the woman would be alive today. Put violent people in jail.
@@Fetherko For what? Nothing! Dems mutilate children & celebrate murdering babies! Dems hate America & our Constitution!
I'm with you up to the Red Flag laws. That violates the Constitutional guarantee to due process. You get to go to court to face your accuser BEFORE your rights are suspended or revoked, not afterwards. How about giving the threatened partner an exemption on waiting periods to get themselves a gun for protection instead of "cooling off" for a week or more so they can be killed by the abusive partner?
🎯Well said!
Ammosexual solutions
Easy to stand behind an impractical solution isn't it. Due process is fine but are you literally going to tell me that if you saw potential harm coming to someone you love like a person ready to beat up your brother with a ball bat that you would not do EVERYTHING in your power to prevent that action INCLUDING DISARMING the man?
And how would you feel if I was on the sidelines screaming at you about how that man has every right to own and use a ball bat and in spite of his sketchy past and questionable behavior including threatening people with it, he has a constitutional right to still have it.
Please.
If you want to argue against something at least make your argument make sense.
Arming everyone is no solution and in fact why we are the only nation in the developed world with this particular problem.
What?! So it unconstitutional for the law to prevent felons from having firearms? No it's not. So why would it be unconstitutional if the government ban individuals who they deem a physical threat to themselves or others, including their significant other?
@@birchsongsltd.6831Being convicted of domestic violence already disqualifies a person from buying a gun. A red flag law takes away a right for being accused of something, no proof required.
If someone accused you of drunk driving, would you be ok with having your driver's license taken away, until you can prove that you don't drive drunk. There would be no requirement for the person that accused you to be known and if you could somehow prove that you never drove under the influence, the person that accused you, could in no way be held accountable.
The victim of domestic violence can get a no contact order. If you take away their ability to posses a bat, and they violate a no contact order, what's to stop the use of a 2x4, knife or fists?
Don't forget, criminals don't obey laws.
Not true. According to the DOJ, the criminal 👽 storming through our border have obeyed all laws.
For those saying we need to be like other countries who have banned guns, take a look at this video about the knife problem in Britain. The presenter offers a solution based on making the risk outweigh the reward. True. The thug that murdered the woman in the KC Chiefs parade threatened people with a gun before and only received unsupervised probation.
Guns are illegal in Mexico how are people still getting shot and killed.
It's good to hear it isn't the gun but the mentality of its operator. That's what needs addressing.
Red flag laws are a big no no. All it takes is one person to lie and then your constitutional right to bear arms is then violated.
And what if a person lies and you actually possess no firearms? Can government actors tear the sheetrock off your home searching for something that's not there?
Yes they can
@@uhclem you better believe they can, and with little recompense. The government in any form does not have to pay for destruction of your life or property.
I'll never understand why "gun" violence is so much worse than violence in general to these folks.
Because for the sole reason to disarm us for the global agenda to go through. Armed Americans will uphold the constitution if the federal government tries to abolish it and surrender to global governance
its al about CONTROL
It’s real hard to overthrow an armed population!
It’s no turning back. Other weapons there’s a chance. Suicide is close to guaranteed with a gun, quick and no second thoughts. Others weapons take more effort and higher chance of survival. Why do you choose to protect your home with guns and not knives, etc. ?
because the intruder might have a gun, and there might be more than one intruder, and the intruders might be bigger, stronger and younger than you.
I can't even believe that's a serious question. 🙄
Suicide by gun isn't always 100% either.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_von_Bargen
An armed person is a citizen, an unarmed person is a subject . Enough said !
But some armed people are suspects.
Gun control works! It takes a lot of practice. Gun control means hitting your target.
Excellent. Thank you for the clarity and the work you're doing around this issue.
I’m glad that you finally realize that gun banning never works.
Tell that to Australia.
@@ImNotThatGuythey still have gun violence.... not to mention other violence that ends with death. You haven't made anything safer, you've just made a bunch of defenseless victims that can be attacked by criminals and a corrupt govt.
I’m glad that they posted this video. It’s about time that we start acknowledging that the problem is not the guns.
It’s the people and we need to change. People hearts hurts and minds to help guide them to a better tomorrow.
Instead of pointing at the second amendment as the problem
I definitely agree that the younger male generation definitely needs some better guidance more now than ever
Laws don’t stop criminals from using guns…that’s what mages them criminals. There are many more good guys with guns that have stopped bad guys with guns
We need no bans. EVEN FULL Auto needs to be available to law abiding citizens
Even with a pistol grip, folding stock, optics, laser, lights, and nespeesso machine on the rails? 🦪 clutch
Why follow the Gun Laws when Criminals are ignoring them?
I’m sorry but I refuse to be the Victim
Gun control has never been about saving lives, public safety, or "the children."
Gun control is about power. The citizens have it; the government wants it.
Honesty about that won't get desired laws passed, so "gaslighting" with "feel-good" legislation marketed to relative non-thinking voters is the primary strategy.
I would like to know how many lives a saved by fire arms
If you google defensive gun use, or use key words like “uses a gun to protect” dozens of news articles will come up.
@michaelmelville7994 if you stop using Google and look up FBI statistics, you would be better informed, but I'll do the work for you. There are 4 times saved lives by firearms than taken, including suicide. You have yourself a nice informative day! 🤣
Almost every major study has found that Americans use their firearms in self-defense between 500,000 and 3 million times annually, as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has acknowledged.Sep 12, 2023. That could just be exposure of a weapon or actually firing it. Let's compare that to the CDC Gun-related deaths from preventable, intentional, and undetermined causes totaled 48,830 in 2021, an increase of 8% from 45,222 deaths in 2020. Suicides account for 54% of deaths related to firearms, while 43% were homicides, and about 1% were preventable/accidental.
That's a hard figure to get an actual number on, many go unaccounted, someone just drawing a gun and the suspect fleeing is a successful self defense. But if no one calls the cops then it doesn't get reported anywhere. Hell, most of those even reported to the police go no where.
@theakj84 I thought I read something to the effect of, at the minimum 70,000 to the highest being 2.5 million yearly.
Giving ur video a like even tho I think red flag laws are a mistake. I appreciate you researching and presenting a real objective look at facts. Also, Banning things won’t stop people from getting them. Take drugs as an example. Someone willing to commit murder won’t respect a gun law.
So we should just let dangerous ppl hsve guns. Good to know
How bout we make it harder for criminals to get guns
@@craigmusa2254How about we lock criminals up instead of letting them out with no cash bail after having a rap sheet that’s longer than the constitution? Also, how about stop voting Democrat?
@@craigmusa2254How about we lock criminals up instead of letting them out with no cash bail after having a rap sheet that’s longer than the constitution? Also, how about stop voting Democrat?
@@craigmusa2254any suggestions? We have over 20K laws on the books now regarding guns. More laws won't help. Criminals either steal guns or buy them from other criminals. What do you suggest as a remedy?
I'd like to point out "assault weapons" have been illegal for like 80 years and you can't buy one. They don't sell assault weapons anymore, haven't for decades.
👍 it's a complete Propaganda term. The whole ban in the 90s studies found resulted in ... drum roll please ... No Reductions in Violence. It made no difference. 🇺🇸
Laughs in Class III.
Who is going to decide which people get a red flag????????
This video is an attempt to "reasonably" front load red flag laws.
Finally woke up to reality? Good for you! Hope you can wake others up to reality!
Nah she's still harping about red flag laws that are some of the worst overreach than can be fathomed.
We're gonna take your car because you posted a bunch of pictures while drinking and we think you might be a dui risk.
Im a retired LEO and Republicans tried to pass a bill that would have hardened schools and put resource officers in every school in the United States and billions towards mental health in schools but democrats voted it down. WHY?
Uvalde was an outlier and those leo's are 100% responsible. As retired Deputy the inaction of the cops at Uvalde was completely uncalled for.
Without school shootings dems really have no leg to stand on when it comes to taking law abiding guns away.
If there was no such thing as guns, what else would take their place in terms of someone wanting to do harm to others? I for one would like to see more attention directed at mental health.
Well gun supporters only talk about doing something about mental health as a distraction. They are not serious. Reagan closed a lot of mental institutions and there is no going back.
Call the mental health hotline, Joe.
To your point, today more people are murdered with fists than rifles.
Eric Harris, of Columbine infamy, used only 10 round magazines. How did that work out?
Weren't the kids at Columbine the victims of bullying? Just saying.
You’re almost there. The goal of gun control advocate is not to prevent gun violence; the goal is to prevent your ability to defend yourself.
You must be one of the "suckers and losers" in the military that your Orange Jesus talks about.
Straw man argument. No other country has this issue
@@tomcoop9750other countries have other mass death events, such as knives, bombs, chemicals, etc. a simple Google search will illustrate this.
And the elephant in the room are SSRIs (antidepressants).
SSRIs make you emotionally blunted- but they don’t cause this at all.
Anyone who is anti gun needs to just leave the country, same goes with free speech.
The last thing that goes through a criminals mind while pursuing his victim is the hope that their victim doesn't have a gun.
Gun controll does not work. But a good guy or gal can change the outcome of a bad situation.
She had me until red flag laws. Way too easy to abuse and you can't take away a constitutionally protected right without juris prudence.
Thank you. Just one clarification, "assault rifles" are "select fire" being they can be fired fully automatic. Practically all firearms available to the general public are semi-automatic. The use of the word "assault" is to create a negative emotional reaction and not accurate to the actual definition/function of the class of firearm.
The problem with your red flag laws is already being seen in our country now. Hospitals working with the government to label anyone with any form of depression as being suicidal or homicidal and taking their rights away. Do you think in colonial America, the founders didn’t deal with homicide? The founders clearly stated that each able bodied male was to supply their own firearms and be part of the state militia. Your gun laws and red flag laws are driving the gun violence, along with the failure to prosecute if a person fits into certain intersectional camps. The founding fathers said, no laws are to be made to infringe on our rights, so we the people would be the final check in the checks and balances of the government.
Colonial America's guns were far less accurate and could only fire about once a minute under good conditions. Comparing those guns to today's guns is like comparing a knight in armour to a fully loaded M1 tank. Not the same.
@@mick776gold that does not matter. By your logic I demand you get off the internet as it wasn’t around then either. So your free speech is limited to parchment and stylus ink pens.
@@krakoosh1 Hey friend, Where in my comment did I make a demand? Please don't pretend that I said something I did not say.
And you seem to leave out that they had books, newspapers, and the printing press in colonial America, which are much more like the internet than 'parchment and stylus ink pens.' And you may have forgotten, that back then, if you said something someone didn't like they could challenge you to a duel, and you could be shot dead for it. So there actually was a limit to free speech, just enforced in an old way.
What I was implying was that, it is fair to consider revising our laws since tech has changed the realities of what is possible. And to your point, there is plenty of debate about free speech and it's limits on the internet currently. Folks argue over who gets to control and what is allowed to be posted, and is that right or fair. That actually is a present debate and discussion for many.
The truth is the 2nd A, has been, within the last few decades, reinterpreted to mean something that the founding fathers did not intend. Pro-gun advocates completely ignore the clause 'A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' part of the sentence like it is nothing at all. And unfortunately a recent supreme court ruling, chose an interpretation that also ignores that phrase as well. But that was not what the founders intended. What they intended was for states to have un-infringed militias. They did not even conceive of one crazy nut, not in the military, killing 60 people and wounding 413 people in less than an hour. (Las Vegas Oct 1, 2017)
It is fair to reconsider America's access to guns. And it is fair, to understand that the voters for the second amendment were only making a rule about militias, not individuals.
@@mick776gold you’re confusing colonial America with centuries later in the wild west. I never claimed you were making demands. You misunderstood my entire comment
@@mick776goldyou need to look up the history of firearms.
An assault weapons ban was in place for ten years after Columbine shooting, it had no effect on gun crime. In fact it increased
Get thee behind me Satan
They need to go after the illegal gun trafficers. Criminals dont walk into the local gunshop and make a legal purchase, unless they put someone up to it with a clean name. In chicago I've seen 8th grader on social media showing of their glock with a switch on it. How dose a teen get one?
A large portion of criminal firearms are redirected to gangs from legal sales. Bg checks could help stop gangs from getting guns. The illegal gun sellers don’t make guns - at some point the legit guns become illegal guns. Mexico contends that the gun industry not only knows about this but actually targets this market. Mexico actually filed a lawsuit against major gun manufacturers. Organized, crime rings, have people to go buy guns, the same way that meth rings had people to go buy Sudafed. And they always need new ones because once you’ve killed somebody with a gun, you have to dispose of it so they need a steady stream of new weapons. if we put policies in place to disrupt that steady stream, we could completely change the deadliness of the drug war.
I'm very much with you until you hit the red flag laws. Anyone can make a accusation and strip you of your rights without due process, even if it's NOT TRUE. But yes, a restraining order is just a piece of paper, doesn't mean they will obey.
Ban gun free zones, single points of entry in schools, guards, metal detectors. Solved. Red flag laws are no good! The government would be making that decision which is just as bad as a ban.
Room temperature IQ
Who in their right mind actually thinks that a bad person who wants to do others harm with a gun actually pays any attention to a gun free zone sign?? Using that kind of logic let's require every store owner to put up a sign that says no shoplifting. See problem solved 😵💫🤪
@BeachBum53 okay, you enjoy being a victim 🤣
They give the mass shooters too much air time . Remember the streakers of the 70s ? Don't see them much once not shown on the air.
Gun control has little to do with guns and everything to do with control.
I have seen a bumper sticker say " If guns were outlawed then only Outlaws would have guns "
If someone has mental issue you are not allowed to tell anyone.
You left one thing out of this whole conversation what about your Constitution is written the Second Amendment is written in the Constitution and you not supposed to make laws against it
Yea I don’t think that feeling is a thing anymore.
If you think gun control doesn't work, all you have to do is look at the amount of guns that people in the US have compared to other developed countries. We have the most guns and also have murder rates off the charts. Countries that have stiffer gun laws have the lowest murder rates. Keep in mind the second amendment was written in the times of muzzleloaders and single shot guns. The general public should not have access to high capacity military style weapons. It is to late to do anything about because its so out of control. It should have been done decades ago.
These problems are people problems. Solutions need to be people based. Not object based.
She doesn't like gun control - definition of gun control, policies and practices to reduce gun violence - and then gives a long list of gun control measures that she wants ... Although what she want is a lot more sensible than most suggestions.
"A lot more sensible" is a low bar compared against a hoplophobe. It's a long way from "a lot more sensible" to *actually* sensible.
Doing nothing never works.
Return fire sure does.
She makes so excellent points. But red-flag gun laws are ripe for being abused in this politically-polarized country of ours. There has to be a better way.
It works in every other country.
LMAO
Gun control is hitting the target every time
You should thank a gun for your freedom lady. I suggest you go buy one, learn how to use it properly, and you’ll understand a gun is a tool, and like any tool, (a car, screwdriver, knife), doubles as a weapon if you need it to. I’m glad you’re starting to see the light, but you remain miles off the target (pun intended).
What about self-defense you forgot about that
The badguy does not know who is carrying and who is not
Gun control does work ask Hitler or .Stalin
Thank you for your time and effort. I found your post informative and useful. 🎉
This should have been realized in about 5 seconds
The minute she started talking 1 thing crossed my mind: mental illness.
Back in the 80s, in college, I learned just how horribly we have failed the mentally ill.
One of the ways we measure mental illness is "are they a danger to themselves or others." Sounds good, until you realize people who are a threat are not always classified as a threat. Example: people who want to live on the streets are not recognized as a threat to themselves even though living on the streets is extremely dangerous.
A lot of mentally ill people like this would have been institutionalized back in the 50s. But many asylums were horrible places so we've closed a lot of them.
Today medicines can make commitment for many people unnecessary but the law does not force most people to take meds.
What if the Sandy Hook shooter was forced to take meds and see a doctor? Who knows?
I don't have a specific plan but clearly some changes should be made.
@Outtatime-gf3fk BINGO! Proves my point.
@Outtatime-gf3fk Tell that to states that require handgun licenses. Or forbid people from owning machineguns.
@Outtatime-gf3fk I think we are having a communication problem. My main point was dealing with mental illness. I thought you were agreeing and proving my point.
No piece mill state by state gun laws won't work but universal common sense gun laws will do a lot to help.
It does no good if your state has the best gun laws if you can just go to the state next door with loser gun laws and buy a gun and bring it home.
Your first sentence caused me to have a brain bleed....
Pay attention, you've almost got it.
If, for instance, Chicago or L.A.'s gun laws aren't working "because you can go to the next state over"... Why doesn't the next state over have the same violence problems, when they clearly have all the guns?
“Without emotion there cannot be any motivate for violence” Spock
Thank you for sharing this truthful and educational piece with us! 😃👍
Gun control does work. Just remember to breathe and squeeze, don't pull the trigger.
Stay MASCULINE MEN 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🔥🥩🔥🍻
Neither does drug control
Read flagged laws required no evidence and do not give anybody the chance to defend. They're foolish to begin with
Listen here young lady. Let me debunk most of ur theory on democratic gun control legislation. Democrats has proposed different versions of all these regulations that you have suggested, including redflag laws. And the republican party has rejected most of the most important ones that will actually make a significant difference. And for mass shootings, a good 80% of the the shooters wouldn't be able to get their guns legally through background checks. Furthermore, that percentage would be even higher if gun redflag laws were implemented.
As for the suicide rate by guns isn't really a factor in this case. It's a strawman defense. If these suicide victims didn't have access to firearms, at least 90% or higher would still find other ways to commit suicide.
Then you the social programs to help with mental health which republicans claims that is what they want to help the gun problems. But, they refuse to pass any of those bills either.
So with all of that said, our truest and biggest obstacles in gun control is these crooked and corrupt Republicans who refuses to fix these problems because it would slow down their bottom line for power and money
All good except who gets to decide whose gun is taken with rad flag laws? That is always the problem with taking away our rights. Who gets to decide.
Every country that implemented gun control has a lowering of gun deaths and suicides. The reasons why many chose to use a gun to end lives but one thing is often missed in the US, people who are marginalized,are without hope, are desperate, live in poverty and are disadvantaged often see life as less valued. The US has the most unequal health, social support, education in the Western World, we in Europe are social democracies, we put much more of our GDP into Heath, mental health, education and thoroughly assessed financial support for the sick, poor, and those unable to support them selves, it’s not perfect, but it means the volume of desperate people turning to violent crime, suicide are but a 1/10th of the US figures. I just don’t understand the US
You should look at those stats..... you'd see you're wrong, violence is on the rise in Europe.
Gun control means hitting the target. These bozos are talking Gun PROHIBITION.
Why is it that when people put their faces next to this statement they look like one of those pictures of humans from the cavemen days?
Absolutely right about gun violence
Everything said is true. So, do nothing to reduce gun deaths. Because anything you do with not address all gun deaths. You see, that’s the one size fits all approach, Not what they are attempting to do when the want to restrict or ban assault weapons. When the want try to restrict assault weapons or the side of a magazine, they are trying to limit the amount of carnage one person can commit with the weapon in question. Sure, a trained or proficient person can change a magazine in quick order. However, most mass shooters are not trained and all that proficient. Look, suicides and acquaintance murders are a different issues. As are crimes like robbery or assault that result in a gun death. Those require different measures if those are to be reduced. And different measures are being attempted. Like Red Flag Laws and Universal Background Checks. But something has to be done to start to reduce all gun deaths. That something won’t be just one thing.
Wow a well reasoned, non histrionic, treatise on gun control...! I have to sit down.😊
Guns don’t kill people……People do.
Ask Australia. It works
LMAO
Wonder who paid for this BS? Maybe for NRA or Gun Manufacturers? This is the same as thoughts and prayers. We could require more stringent background checks, require gun registration, require licenses and annual certifications to own and operate firearms, hold gun owners accountable for any crime committed with their firearm, tax ammo at much higher rate, require serial numbers on ammunition that is traceable to person who made purchase. Will it solve all the issues no, but it will reduce the number of deaths and make law enforcement easier.
Those are good points. It also seems true that, although banning assault weapons would not prevent most gun deaths, it would prevent some mass shootings.
Did you watch the video? Semiautomatic rifles are not assault weapons and the ban that was in place on certain rifles with a list of characteristics, pistol grip, bayonet lug, etc., and has expired, did nothing to prevent mass shootings.
“Assault weapon” is a media term. No one else uses it except politicians trying to score points. Most mass shootings? “Gun free” zones, about 92% of the time.
Most gun deaths are not from assault weapons
@@haricotvert6207No, mass shootings didn't skyrocket until after the assault rifle ban expired.
@@dennisharrell2236
In 2004, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired. It was not renewed. The AWB had failed to have an impact on gun crime in the United States. A 2004 Department of Justice report concluded:
"Should it be renewed, the ban's effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. [Assault weapons] were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban."
Shall not means shall not.
More people should see this video it makes sense.
Fantastic presentation
Thanks
Thank you for your video. Was good to see a gun control video that was based on facts. Not warm fuzzy feel good BS. Thank you again for.
Sin Is The Problem 😢😮Follow The 10 Commandments (GOD'S LAW)
Well done.
All very good points.
Two things, and I’m sure at least one is very unpopular.
1. I understand that most gun deaths are not affected by current attempts at controlling gun availability. The root cause of violence is much harder to define and affect with legislation. Violence occurs for many reasons, and changing the cycle of violence is only partially understood but very difficult to implement, meaning time-consuming and expensive. We almost certainly don’t have enough resources, in terms of counselors or other trained professionals.
2. I think that the basic premise of the existence of guns in our world is questionable. I believe that guns were invented to improve hunting in order to feed our families. That is no longer a concern. The fact that guns were also used for assault and then self-defense was a by-product of their availability. Te escalation of weapons of conflict should be obvious.
The second amendment, in my opinion, was aimed at having resources available (trained combatants) in the event of either attack from upside or the abuse of power by our own leaders. I don’t think that having a pistol is reasonable in either case.
I’m totally in favor of any reduction in the number of available handguns, specifically, and I have no issue with banning firearms completely, even by police except in unusual circumstances.
I said that it would be unpopular.
Well stated, completely agree with your view of the original intent of the second amendment!!
The only people who have that interpretation of the 2nd Amendment are those that don't own firearms...those of us that choose to own firearms don't feel that way & we don't want ppl taking that right from us
@@alg6339 actually there genius, I own firearms and that’s exactly how I feel. The difference is why I own them as opposed to why you probably own them. The 2nd amendment authority was never meant to extend to an individual, it was written to ensure that states could call up their “armed” militias in a moment of need. There wasn’t a standing federal army at the time, or at least not a full-time army. None of this was that much of a talking point or “a line in the sand” until the NRA went full cult status back in the 90’s. Education and facts actually matter!!!
@@dronedude5150 Do you understand what a militia is? By definition, it is a volunteer military force, drawn from the civilian population that is self armed and armored. How can you call up a self armed and armored force without the individual right to keep and bear arms?
@@dronedude5150of course you’re entitled to your opinion but the SCOTUS trumps it and they ruled in DC v Heller: Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.
If you have a gun to potentially kill or injure a "bad guy", you should know that that gun is far more likely to kill or injure someone you never intended it to. Keep that in mind when you make your choice as to whether or not you should have a gun.
Your right what I said was wrong. But what you allowed to be said was worse
No one needs an assault rifle.
Assault weapons are already banned except for some older ones that require expensive permits to own.
Luckily it's the bill of rights, not the bill of needs. You don't even know what type of firearm you're talking about, you're using scare tactic terms.
@@USFirst1776 if your scared go to church.I know your frightened of your own shadow.I was born and raised in Las Vegas ,and I never needed a gun.
@@Drive4show bet you still don't live in Vegas...
Your title is misspelled the word changed because of this I pay no attention to your video