TikTok: a Question and Brief Observation on Gun Control

[@Biologist19681]

At the time of the founding, every weapon of war was privately owned. Cannons, warships, etc were often privately owned.

[@jada719]

It's not about public safety it is about uncontested control.

[@Firedrake1313]

Hello? Can marxism come out to play? FKH

[@MikeSmothers]

@@Firedrake1313 No! Marxism needs to stay in the basement where it belongs

[@michaelpcoffee]

Any restriction of the individual right to self defense is complicity with the attacker.

[@rocketdog5310]

A well regulated militia means: Prepared, up to date equipment, well trained, etc It does NOT mean regulated as in restrictions. Because whats the point of a militia (people's army) if the government can control it?? They were warning against what the government has already done.

[@dvig3261]

A tank is an arm… ”..keep and bear arms” Refers to anything the government can have, the people have the right to have, as well. The point is to keep the people in power over the government that serves those people.

[@jimwjohnq.public]

A restriction on an inalienable God given right makes it into a government granted privilege.

[@Ron-d2s]

Back in the 70s A radio station played George Carlin's Seven Dirty Words bit, someone complained that they were unable to change the station or shut the radio off in their own personal vehicle, the FCC stepped in I think it made it to the Supreme Court, and the fine was upheld. 1977 Carlin went onto HBO and did the 7 Dirty Words with the full backing of HBO's lawyers. Now Pods and Platforms continue to fight the good fight. Always remember it's Second for a reason.

[@morganpirate9127]

She POUNDED that nail right on its head!!!

[@bobconnor1210]

Not just the “tyrannical” angle but it boils down to the fundamental and very natural right of the individual for self-preservation in any case that Spinoza wrote about. At one time, virtually all merchant ships had cannons on board in case of piracy. The owners did not ask their government for permission.

[@seanwattles9264]

Fact followed by fact.

[@MichaelGarcia001]

arms, including cannons and tanks if you can afford them.

[@rickgrimes931]

The 2nd was used at one point justify ships and privateers.

[@ardentwolf_4288]

Exactly. As far as law-abiding citizens are concerned, the only restriction for weapons should be your budget.

[@TheMVShooter]

"Arms", is any weapon or tool equal to what the Military has/uses.

[@JCTaylor21]

Hundreds of thousands of ordinary citizens own functioning/firing tanks, artillery, mortars, heavy machineguns, flame throwers, helicopter gunships, even fighter jets.

[@johnnytyler5685]

Um...WHAT?! No they don't. Where on Earth are you getting that "hundreds of thousands" number from? I know where. From your three-letter word that starts with "a" and ends with an "s". There are privately owned tanks in this country, but not even "thousands" of them, let alone "hundreds of thousands". Same goes for functional artillery pieces. While there are privately owned military aircraft and helicopters, most, if not ALL, of them are UNARMED. I don't want to talk about a subject that I don't know much about, but I know that I've never seen or heard of a privately owned military airplane or helicopter that still had its functioning military armament on it. So I'm certain that there are probably many laws prohibiting it...I just don't know what those specific laws are because you obviously have to be a multi-millionaire to be able to afford a retired military aircraft in the first place...armed or unarmed. There are no federal laws on the ownership of flamethrowers, but I would bet that the number of people who actually own one is probably in the thousands, if that. Not even "tens of thousands", let alone "hundreds of thousands". The only items you listed that are actually owned by "hundreds of thousands" of "ordinary citizens" are machine guns. And even that number is in the LOW "hundreds of thousands" because the 1986 ban signed into law by American traitor Ronald Reagan has turned them into firearms that can only be owned by the wealthy. Even the cheapest, lowest-quality transferable machine gun is more than $10,000 these days. That's ten grand for ONE firearm. Something like a transferable M16/AR-15-type firearm is close to fifty grand today. MP5s are $50,000+. A full auto AK probably starts around the $30,000 range. The "heavy machine guns" that you mentioned are near or above six figures. That's $100,000 a piece. And there aren't many "heavy" machine guns on the registry. That's why they are so expensive.

[@weeblordgaming6062]

Source?

[@moronicvideos]

But they are neutered or outdated.

[@floutdoors3916]

​@@weeblordgaming6062 While tanks, fighter aircraft, etc, may not be as common, people can privately own them. There's also many machine guns out there, though modern ones are owned under a SOT.

[@bbaff8622]

​@@weeblordgaming6062 look up FPS Russia on youtube for a start. The there was MVTF. That was the Littlefield collection. He had not 1 but 2 SCUD launchers along with over 100 tanks, artillery pieces, armored vehicles etc. FPS Russia they have videos with 40mm AA guns (fully functional) etc.

[@swheel007]

The American Girl Has Spoken!

[@frauditorsubslickboots]

...and managed to say NOTHING.

[@nathangergen7546]

​@@frauditorsubslickbootsah yes the person with out a brain

[@stephencooper5040]

Noooo it says “arms” that is not “literally just firearms.” At the time of the founding, the word “arms” included basically anything that would be useful to a person for making war. So guns, knives, swords, armor, weapon mounted lights, sound suppressors, laser range finders…. Hell, a lightsaber when some weeb finally invents it… ALL of these things are “arms,” and even things we can’t even imagine yet.

[@Ron-d2s]

Like Koala bear nun chucks?

[@nathangergen7546]

​@@Ron-d2sno not nunchucks but stuff that is involved around war and firearms

[@MrChubbyHubby.]

Well said and thank you Heather Overstreet-Yoder.

[@smokebreak6904]

I agree, but also would like to add stop vilifying firearms, and start teaching use and responsibility with them again. There were much less shootings when everyone was taught, had rifelry classes in schools, and people used to have gun racks in their cars during hunting season and even drove them to school like that. The educational side is where respect for firearms comes from and when it was disallowed, the problems began in the following decades

[@frauditorsubslickboots]

Here in the UK we don't have guns - oh - and guess what - we have a tiny proportion of the deaths you lot have - weird that. But hey 'mah rights - mah guns'.

[@smokebreak6904]

@@frauditorsubslickboots and you have people who want to do harm using knives and vehicles to do it...... The tool isn't the problem, it's the people. Me, I will take my right and responsibility and be my own defender if needed. It's great to have rights and freedom and free speech which is definitely eroded and your under your governments boot (have anything to say about the riots or immigrants?) lol

[@boardtodeath46]

This is the most accurate Video on the internet.

[@Ron-d2s]

There is that one with the cat that burps and farts at the same time.

[@Lyze]

'Arms' are not just firearms. They are weapons of any sort. People back when the constitution was written also owned cannons, explosives, mortars and all manner of swords, axes, knives, polearms,etc. Private citizens owned fully armed warships which they could operate as they see fit. These were the mightest weapons of the day.

[@richardwright8845]

Well said.

[@skyblockjake]

Take the word gun out of the title, that’s what it’s all is, just control. Control of the people.

[@jimfowler3206]

Very well spoken young lady!

[@keithcanfield3251]

Just imagine a country where only the criminals have guns. Do you think the crime rate would go up? Do you think the government wouldn't be more emboldened to take our other rights?

[@frauditorsubslickboots]

Well - in the UK we don't have the problems you lot have due to your obsession with guns.

[@keithcanfield3251]

@@frauditorsubslickboots Ironic! If it wasn't for the British Monarchy we wouldn't have the right to own guns.

[@savvycivvy5644]

Well regulated does not mean government “regulation”. People literally had warships with cannons during the Founding Era. People need to stop conflating the 2A with criminal acts. The moment someone commits a crime with a weapon it no longer has any connection to the 2A. Rather simple.

[@Ron-d2s]

FJB: "You can't own a cannon" EVERY Prop-master on EVERY Civil war recreation movie: "We could not have done it without the re-enactors, they have their own uniforms, black-powder muskets and cannons, if we weren't here filming they would still be blowing off the cannons all day just for the fun of it."💥

[@ChristyReeseNoJohnyNonsense]

FACTS!!!!! So much common sense under 2 minutes

[@marklowe1312]

Idk how old this young women is but she I way wiser than most of her elders. Good on you.

[@HeatherOverstreet-Yoder]

24 🫡

[@blindsquirrel7802]

Politicians pass useless gun control laws so they can stand in front of a TV camera and say, "Look what I did!"

[@kenhaworth7722]

100/ percent true an correct!

[@yuriabmxr]

The NFA is totally unconditional, just like GCA 68 and FOPA 86. We'll fix that eventually

[@SweetPappyJones]

Preach that! If only this video would get to the unconverted. Big tech cens or shi p is crazy.

[@jeffarp7409]

Don't forget about the shall not be INFRINGED part, this means that there should be no laws passed that keeps people from owning any type of firearms.

[@codyashelton9634]

Arms cover everything. It's an all encompassing language for a broad range of arms for a reason. They didn't want to use specific language because they knew it would used against the people and restrict their rights.

[@HansZarkovPhD]

You may own a tank, legally. Most people cant afford one.

[@odietamo9376]

It’s not the guns, it’s the people. I’m an old guy now, but when I was young guns were far easier to get than they are now, yet we didn’t have anything like the kind of gun violence we have now. Why? Because it’s not the availability of guns that causes the crimes, it’s the cultural rot that has set in, a society in decline, the refusal to enforce laws, the glorification of thuggery, the decline of religion, the romanticizing of crime and criminals, the dumbing down of schools, the abandonment of standards, the decline of religion, etcetera, etcetera. IT’S NOT THE GUNS, IT’S THE PEOPLE!

[@frauditorsubslickboots]

In the UK we have the same 'rot' - but NO guns - and hey - guess what - we don't have the crime you lot have. Kinda ruins your argument.

[@HavalinaSSUSMC]

You can own one. It is regulated just like speech is.

[@bbaff8622]

Actually with proper license yiu can own a tank. Heck the Littlefield collection (now sold off after his passing) had 2 SCUD launchers and well over 100 tanks and armored vehicles.

[@xray606]

I always laugh when people are like… “Pff!You think you’re going to fight off a tyrannical US military with your little guns? Lol” Well, why don’t you go ask the Taliban about that. They’re a bunch of illiterate goofballs with some AKs and Toyota trucks, and they just took back a country from the world’s most powerful military.

[@Dalik1000]

The Constitution IMO are absolute rights that cannot be restricted or legislated away. The issue is people over time have decided to put the interests of the state or public before the Constitution. So now they've set precedence to indirectly delete the Constitution. You can't have free speech because some people will be offended or consider certain kinds of speech as an attack. Can't have guns because it's a public safety concern. It's a public safety issue if we have to wait to get a warrant, so now we can just enter your hope without one.

[@paulprenzlow2920]

Very well said. God bless

[@pacifickaihomesllc3605]

If the government has it we can have it.

[@owlwoman911]

It's NOT limited to firearms. It says "Arms," which is a MUCH broader category. Yes, I CAN own a tank, or a fully-staffed B-52, if I have the means and the interest. Joe said I'd need an F-15. Was that a hint that they'll be on clearance soon?🤔

[@ssb907]

Very well stated.

[@owenandapril9707]

Nice job.

[@timd5343]

it will be easier to control the public if they cannot protect themselves shall not be infringed

[@JimEagle5.56]

Amen

[@kevinkalivoda3442]

"Arms" as stated in the 2nd ammendment does not mean just firearms. "Arms" means anything we the people choose to use to defend ourselves and family. I like to think the 2nd ammendment allows the people to own and use any weapon that our tyrannical government would use against us.

[@kevingubernatis3324]

The way to something control is very simple. Don't regulate guns themselves, regulate people. The whole concept behind bearing and keeping firearms is to establish a well-organized militia. We don't have that, because the national guard took that over, or at least it was supposed to. We need local malicious. We need to REQUIRE citizens to be trained of rifle pistol, and shotgun. The more familiar people are with firearms, the less they're going to be fearful of them, which is the biggest reason why people who don't want guns don't want them.

[@theokrueger6286]

A rock in the hands of a bad person killed Able and a rock in the hands of a good person killed Goliath. It’s never about the rock.

[@HeatherOverstreet-Yoder]

This comment is perfect. I’m gonna make a TikTok off of it

[@crazycooterMN]

Noone wants to admit we're just unstable.

[@nathangergen7546]

@@crazycooterMN you might be but leave the banjos out of it and keep paddling city clicker

[@dragonf1092]

Jesus said sell your cloak and buy a sword.

[@mikerey7210]

She nails it!

[@catapultedwizard4810]

You are so right. And the only chance we would have against our own military, is to own tanks, artillery, dragons/AT-4s, machine guns, mini-guns, etc. Sure, US gun owners far outnumber the US soldiers willing to turn against their fellow countrymen. But, outnumbering will only get you so far. If gun owners only had muzzle loaders, one crew on a Vulcan cannon (sorry, forgot the ground mounted name) could cut down a million people in 30-60 minutes, before anyone could get their muzzle-loader close enough to shoot back.

[@stormlakebobcat9058]

Bears have a right to arms. 😅🐻🐻

[@TroyTurner-pz3nd]

Good job young woman you understand

[@coach-]

she had me right until she brought god into it

[@rtbeerzi]

Short Essay Disclaimer: All of the following is not legal advice, nor am I responsible for anyone who interprets the following as such. Summary: A license for any weapon is illegal. A prohibition on any weapon is illegal. Preventing some from owning a weapon is illegal; even if they are felons **Introduction** Any State or municipality that bans, prevents, delays, or abridges a non-incarcerated, and free, United States Citizen from protecting themselves; in a manner that is adequate and equal in effectiveness to that which is current and present on Earth: May be in direct violation of the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments, respectively. Any State or municipality that requires a free citizen give up their right to keep & bear arms, by transmuting such right into a privilege, by means of testing, permitting, and licensing, ignores the fundamental definitions of "Rights", "Freedoms" and "Liberty" that have remained unchanged for hundreds of years, and in parallel, may violate the aforementioned amendments. **Proof:** **2nd Amendment:** "...the right of The People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." **Violation:** Prohibiting or limiting an individual's ability to possess arms violates this amendment. Any weapon that can be kept or carried qualifies. A Test, Quiz, Course, Permit, or License, if required, transmute the individual right into a state earned privilege; also violating this amendment **4th Amendment:** “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...." **Violation:** Seizing a firearm without suspicion that a crime has been, is about to be, or is being committed, and without confidence that the nature of this crime requires apprehension of a weapon, is unreasonable and illegal. The 2nd Amendment necessitates the right to bear arms, making such seizures unrelated or unreasonable; unnecessary. **5th Amendment:** "No person....nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." **Violation:** For a citizen who has been incarcerated and released, taking away their right to self-defense after serving their sentence violates the "Double Jeopardy" clause, as their punishment for their crime was the time served. **8th Amendment:** "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." **Violation:** Seizing a firearm simply for possession is cruel and unusual, leaving a person defenseless. It is inhumane to deny someone the right to defend themselves. A Test, Quiz, Course, Permit, or License, if required, transmute the individual right into a state earned privilege; and the concept that any free person in society earn the privilege to adequately defend themselves is cruel, and unusual to say the least. **9th Amendment:** "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." **Violation:** The right to defend ones self, in a manner that is adequate to succeed against the common dangers of a given time, and place, and within the borders of one's nation; is a common-sense human right that does not need to be explicitly stated in the Constitution to be protected. **10th Amendment:** "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution...are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." **Violation:** States nor other cannot challenge the federal Constitution's clear rights, including the right to bear arms, or any of the other amendments or law expressed in that document. **14th Amendment:** "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens...nor deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...." **Violation:** Even if the 2nd Amendment were considered a privilege rather than a right, the 14th Amendment prohibits any state from abridging (shortening or minimizing) any immunities (shall not be infringed) or privileges (the "rights" our governments have transmuted). It also prohibits depriving life or property (self-defense, owned or carried weapons) without due process. Given that the rights of citizens have been ignored in the instances of the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th, and 10th Amendments regarding weapons and self defense, it can be reasonably said that due process wasn't even attempted, if not the entire Constitution considered. Therefore, all State and Federal laws that abridge the right to bear arms in regards to a lack of due process violate the 14th Amendment (As was the case in the Bruen decision). **Other Considerations:** The 13th Amendment implies that those "unfree" are those actively incarcerated. The Supreme Court has ruled that "The People" refers to individual citizens. We the People, in order to form a more perfect Union, must provide for the common defense. Any Supreme Court rulings, state laws, federal rulings, or municipal rulings that have not considered the entire Constitution when making these laws violate due process, and therefore are unconstitutional. **Rights Exceptions:** - Actively in prison or jail - Actively apprehended based on reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime has, is, or is about to be committed by the individual in question **Crime Statistics:** - There are approximately 16,000 murders annually in the United States. - Firearms are used for self-defense up to 2.5 million times per year. - Defensive gun use (DGU) occurs in about 70,040 instances per year, including both violent and property crimes. - States with higher rates of gun ownership tend to have lower rates of violent crime. In Thomas Jeffersons letter to Peter Car In 1785, quote "As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun." Although, many people carried swords, and knives, as guns were expensive. The Thompson (Sub)Machine gun, invented in 1918 (After WW1 and after the 1903 Militia Act) was avaliable to purchase by the general public all the way until 1934 under the unconstitutional NFA act, signed into law by 3 term president FDR, in his first term. Many machine guns other than this had already existed in civilian hands for years, including the Maxim Gun which was almost 20 years old by then, and could be legally owned by US citizens. This also applied to silencers, which apparently could be shipped through the USPS at $5 USD 1928 ($91.97 circa 2024) At the time of the founding, "Arms" generally included body armor (like that of a soldiers helmet, to deflect Muskets, or chest plates) and before the New World was discovered, "Arms" usually referred to any item related to fighting, whether that be a shield or ammunition, as may be necessary in self defense. Supreme Court Support: Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016) ☆The U.S. Supreme Court vacated Jaime Caetano's conviction in regards to owning a stun gun, ruling that the Second Amendment protects the right to own more than just firearms☆ McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) ☆The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments, striking down Chicago's handgun ban☆ District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) ☆The U.S. Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess firearms for self-defense within the home, and is an individual right of each, free citizen☆ New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022) ☆The U.S. Supreme Court held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home. The Court struck down New York's "proper cause" requirement for obtaining a concealed carry license, ruling it unconstitutional as it prevented law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms☆ **Conclusion** In regards to the security of We People in the face of such prevalent weapon ownership: One might feel exposed if a journalist peers into their buisness or home from a public way; and they merely must shut their blinds as the onus is on them to do so. And in the same manner: One might feel un-prepared, under-equipped, and overwhelmed in a downtown where all citizens have rifles; And they merely match the situation via the same or greater means, by obtaining, bearing, carrying, keeping, and presumably training with arms the same or more powerful, efficient, and capable for the situation at hand. We must do all we can to ensure our right to defend ourselves no matter our ideas or opinions, type, or past, as without this, we may not defend our speech, or property, or our freedom. This Constitution protects the Republican, the Democrat, the Independent, and even the neerdowells and the ignorant. We must all do our duty to protect it, or we have nothing.

[@BryantWalker-m6e]

I have the right to keep and arm bears.

[@db5202]

Actually, that right wa@ to allow "we the people " to own whatever weapons the government have to fight against us. Obviously, most people can't afford the high tech weaponry but if they could, they should have that right.

[@slayerdude18]

people who mean harm will not obey rules, restrictions ect. they will get a gun and use it anyways. don't punish the good people who own guns the right way

[@armageddonready4071]

Let’s just admit, our kids are stupid because the school’s stopped teaching. Those are the ones that grow up and act the fool with a firearms. Zero training or even common sense.

[@Firedrake1313]

'Bearing arms' means any weapon you can bring to bear. That's EVERYTHING... So yes tanks would be 2A protected. But religion/cult isn't needed to fix this. We just need to stand as free men and insist that we be left as such, by force if neccessary.

[@billyscott7769]

Since when did we let kids have opinions and rules

[@richspillman4191]

Same argument can be made for the first amendment also.

[@dragonf1092]

It's all about control,the government cannot control a armed society. What most Americans don't comprehend and realize no government official in the united states of America even has any legal lawful constitutional authority or jurisdiction to pass or enforce any form of gun laws under the constitution of the united states of America supreme law of the land,as well as the passing and enforcing of any gun laws are felony crimes in violation of the actual legal law.

[@Rev11CIB]

Any law is infringement

[@nickd2458]

All arms..yes..all arms..the word fire arms is not in the constitution..or guns..this is how they change the words..to change the “laws”

[@markbuettner6953]

Th!nk you! Another person with a brain. Come on people just a couple million more.

[@jacobhosler1982]

You can buy a cannon online.😂

[@crinner73]

Learn... u can, but they tax the hell out oof u

[@breezybmetal8646]

Yep that about covers it- but there is only 1 problem We live in clown planet

[@HansZarkovPhD]

Humans are pretty smart, take away one tol of vio,en e and it will be quickly replaced.

[@ShaneZettelmier]

Well, the reality is it’s armament so it’s not just Firearms. It would cover knives and if you wanted to carry a stick or something. The whole point is that the government has an army and they adjust declared independence and fought a war against an army who tried to take their guns and oppress the people. The whole point is that because the government has a military to defend our borders And deal with military stuff that that constitutes a serious threat to the people because then the government has supreme power and can do whatever they want so the people need to be able to defend themselves from any and all aggressors, including even their own government should become tyrannical and turn against them. If you read the federalist papers, they also said things like tyranny is defined by that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry. When they’re talking about Firearms, they literally mean as people should be just as powerful as the government military, they should be able to and carry armament, which would include guns, fighting stick, or whatever else they chose to defend themselves with including shields or armor or anything else in the whole point to the Bill of Rights in the constitution is to layout the things that are outside of the government authority to infringe upon or regulate. I get the safety concerns, but there’s a saying “where there are guns there will be tragedies, but where there are no guns there will be genocides” throughout history when governments had unarmed citizens they ended up killing huge amounts of those citizens. We see it most recently in Venezuela, where they confiscated the guns and put through very liberal socialist laws people and now they’ve killed over half 1 million of them, the Soviet union killed millions in Germany in Cuba, this is always the story when they take the guns and the people protest about something. The government doesn’t like the government starts killing people throughout history, killed their governments, disarmed them. Our founders created it so that could never happen to the American people that if the government in the military and all the police decided that they were just gonna take over and start wiping the people out of the people would be stronger than the government outnumber them and be Equally armed. of course they need to be some regulations against something like a nuclear missile or you have radiation and it could be problems like that and of course laws on how you use that you can’t sit in your front yard and shoot at your neighbors house, but owning the gun is not an option for government regulation is outside of the authority granted to government office by the constitution which gives government office it’s authority in the bill of right is a limit on that which is why America is not a democracy because democracy get to agree on it then the government can do whatever they want, our constitution protects individual rights and civil liberties for every single person so even if every single person in the country wants to violate your constitutionally protected rights, it is the duty of the government to defend that individual no matter what and it is the right morally and legally according to the constitution for that person to defend those rights. so the reality is the government business what kind of armament you choose to have as long as you’re not using it illegally against other people committing crimes with it. If you rob a liquor store, you should go to jail for robbing the liquor store if you did it with a gun maybe they add some time to your sentence because you use a weapon but whether it’s a stick or a rock or a gun or a knife or a machete or a bomb or a can of gas and a lighter doesn’t matter you’re still allowed to have those things you’re just not allowed to use them to commit crimes. And the government making having them a crime or using them in a non-criminal matter and trying to turn that into a crime is what we call tyranny. The second amendment says because the government gets to have an army. The people get to be a militia so they can defend themselves if their government decides to attack them. She’s exactly right. A school shooting is a horrible thing, but every school shooter already broke a dozen laws proving that the laws don’t work laws only stop people who obey the law, criminals don’t obey the law. We have wide-open borders so the idea they are going to take everybody’s guns that they won’t be millions of guns in the United States across their open borders anyway is ridiculous. The idea that they could take everybody’s guns is ridiculous , you think and criminals are gonna hide them and bury them in their backyard or cave somewhere? The criminals don’t care about the laws unfreeze zone sign is gonna save a kid at a school what’s going to save a kid at the school is to have the teachers and resource officers and security, trained, armed, and ready to stop the criminals when they come. The fact that New York City and other Democrat areas have gone and removed armed resource officers from schools is ludicrous, those are the people that stop the murders. For every school shooting that is successful or somebody goes in and shoot a bunch of people there are five or six attempted school shootings that are stopped by legally owned firearm, resource officer, sometimes a teacher or staff member in some cases even an armed parent who just happened to be at the school, dropping off their kids. The median never talks about those because the media is pushing a political agenda, which is to take your guns. The reality is legally and morally in the United States according to our constitution, the government has not have that authority for them to do so is a crime and they cannot make you owning or bearing armament a crime or regulate it. When it says a well regulated militia what it means is that the people should be armed the people are the militia they should be armed and regulated means the train and proficient in the use of the armament, read the federalist papers and the writings of the founders who created the constitution and this is clear and honestly the fact that it’s up for debate is a huge problem, that is government officials discussing committing tyranny against the people they are supposed to be serving The reality is you have the legal right to own armament and carry it around with you and it’s the government job to protect that right not to take it away from you, and doing so is an act of tyranny should never be tolerated. Politicians who discuss infringing upon your rights whether it be first amendment second third fourth or the rest of themare colliding to commit tyranny against you. That alone should be enough to have them removed from Office.

[@dragonf1092]

Under the supremacy clause, article 4 section 2 paragraph 1, second amendment shall not be Infringed clause,9th amendment enumeration clause,10th amendment nor prohibited by it to the states clause,14th amendment section 1 no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states clause combined no senator, Congressmen, governor, president has any legal lawful constitutional authority or jurisdiction to pass any form of gun laws whatsoever anywhere in the united states of America,no judge anywhere in the united states of America has any legal lawful constitutional authority or jurisdiction to enforce any form of gun laws whatsoever anywhere in the united states of America period. They are all state officials elected or appointed to a specific state and therefore prohibited under the constitution of the united states of America supreme law of the land from doing so. Most Americans don't comprehend and realize passing and enforcing gun laws are illegal felony crimes in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. section §241 felony conspiracy against rights and Title 18 U.S.C. section §242 felony deprivation of rights under color of law. Any government official working with or on behalf of any anti second amendment gun control organizations, associations, movements, groups are committing crimes in violation of Title 5 U.S.C. section §7311 Ex. ORD. No. 10450 subsection (5),but no government corporate owned news channel, lawyer, attorney, judge will tell or admit that fact to any American slave.

[@DAMIENSCOTT-z9m]

Your right most people are uneducated.

[@JimEagle5.56]

*You’re 😂 but yes I agree

[@rmac8878]

😍😍😍

[@rtbeerzi]

Here is how this works for any less than intelligent people: Common sense, and M.A.D. 1: It's common sense that if you have no choice; and are surrounded by evil people with Arms more powerful than yours... or at the very least.. if you fear such a reality: *you should take up greater arms, and be better at using them* If everybody around you is a bully, and knows Karate, all white belts: you should become a karate black belt, obviously? Or some better martial art "But if everybody has a really powerful gun, then, if it's a 1v1 the good guy could possibly lose" Hence, "A Well regulated Militia" Where many good men and women can get together against common evil. It's common sense, and instinct to do all of these things: Which is why they are a RIGHT... it's a Human Right 2: Mutually Assured Deterance. The citizens were the law enforcement along side the militias and armies: No police. Everybody who could afford something was armed in some way, and this didn't change for 150 years or so And it wasn't until the National Firearms act of 1934 that changed everything, as in 1933, anybody could order a machine gun through the US Postal, and that was less than 100 years ago Once the militia act of 1903 (Circa) was passed, the people could no longer legally congregate with arms without good cause, and the Police existed in cities by this time, but most departments were crooked... leading to Gangs, and in parallel with prohibition and the great depression: The government passed a Firearms law to prevent an uprising, also changing the way money works (see Rothschilds and Gold Standard, hypothetical Central Banking System, 13th Amendment loophole etc). This pushed the depression back and then the 2nd world war hit, and literally ever since, we've been riding the ghost of a war economies last breath in the form of a tsunami of debt and strongarming In short: We must weaponize again. The Constitution was written for we the People, not the government, and one day, when it's too late, The best among us will see the truth We are peaceful, good, citizens until you violate our human rights given to us by God, and written for us in the Republics Ultimate Document

[@aryanbrossman604]

You say that good people obey the law, and bad people don't. If a law is immoral, than how can disobeying that law, be bad? Also, you say that the second amendment, is so we can resist a tyrannical government. The problem is that the people who claim to love the second amendment, also believe that to harm a cop, is the ultimate sin. So how do you resist a tyrannical government, when you are completely unwilling to do harm to the government enforcement arm? The founding fathers didn't vote the British soldiers out, they blasted them out. As long as you worship the police, than you can never have freedom.

[@HuckleBerry476]

I think I’m in love 😍

[@DanielKelly-iu3dz]

Nobody 'worships' the police. Why would you be willing to harm law enforcement? That's an awfully strange take.

[@JustAnotherSeeker]

Speaking of tyranny… We need to go back to Christianity? 🤣🤣🤣 That is the most un-American and tyrannical thing you could possibly say; far more so than anything you could say about gun rights. The founders would be appalled.

[@williamsaldanah3554]

Simple = Democrats

[@richardw.crocker2725]

The right is to maintain a well ordered militia. Says nothing about standing up to our government. Try reading the constitution

[@morganpirate9127]

Try reading what THE FOUNDING FATHERS wrote about the Constitution!! ALL of it, no cherry picking!

[@Nomad83_]

The Constitution isn't a document that grants rights, nor is it a document that places restrictions on the rights of citizens. It is a document that places limits on government. Try reading the Constitution yourself.

[@floutdoors3916]

You clearly don't understand the purpose of it then. There's also founding documents that speak about abolishing a corrupt government.

[@DanielKelly-iu3dz]

'... necessary for the security of a free state...'

[@FatGuyEngineer]

I disagree with the Christianity part, yeah have morals but no need to push a religion. Otherwise, great video.

[@Spritefound]

Amen