วีดีโอ

nice try, lib boy. legalize the fuckin grenades.

I would like to mention the penetrating ability, and in cases like a double barrel shotgun, can fire two shells at once (usually).

A super simple cheap FIX ! has any one seen the movie Judge Dread wear he picks up his gun and asked it for a double whammy and the gun will repeat double whammy , a simple thumb or finger redear on the handle tuned for you only and no one ells Babby , Radio Shack sold a thumb reader for doors why not on guns plus ther very smal and can fit in the handles > Problem solved

"the second amendment was meant for black powder and muzzle loaders, not weapons of war" like back when bp rifles were weapons of war? Weird

Heres the thing about 40mm grenade launchers they are basically really big shotguns there are even actual 40mm buckshot rounds you can buy

as a muslim making fun of islam and our beloved prophet was unnecessary you couldve just showed disrespect to the taliban without disrespecting the religion of 2 billion people cus you hate that your sissy goverment lost to a bunch of extremist that dont even make up 1 percent of the muslim population just sayin

i love your reasoning behind why we should have these guns and why the regulations don't make any sense. any person that opposes our 2nd amendment i will show them this video as my reasonings. your logic just makes sense.

I think I’m just angry and depressed and have rejected bargaining altogether

Wouldn’t some of these weapons still be nearly unobtainable anyway? Tanks and nukes are both outside even the top 5%’s (in terms of income) budget to even produce. Also, one could make the argument that some grenades should be legal, like smoke grenades from standalone grenade launchers and throwable ones, because they are used to help a fighting force change position under fire or to escape a fight.

I agree with this video, although I think that tanks that are deactivated are fine for most civilians and I would like a deactivated tank, APC and IFV.

The only logical and reasonable restriction to the 2nd amendment is the restriction of access to explosives due to its indifference to injury to others other than those intended as a target. Shaped charges are a gray area. Fully automatic firearms do not fall in the indifference premise since it's no different from a user who doesn't know how to properly handle a semi and ends up with the finger on the trigger as the weapon moves all over the place, there are fully automatic .22lr with way less recoil than semis with even slightly bigger calibers. The liberal in me absolutely hates to think the 2nd amendment can or should have a restriction.

I like this video but is there any reason for having a full auto weapon (other than it is fucking cool) for self defense? Isn't it kind of a overboard to have a mg42 for self defense when a semi auto weapon works for self defense just the same? I think machine guns should be available to purchase but there has to be a permit for it.

Aww fuck, I think I'm in stage 3 fellas

There isn't supposed to be a standing army outside of a declared war to own a bunch of aircraft carriers and nukes. Citizens are supposed to own that shit and bring it with them when they get drafted.

Despite what you might think, the majority of actual leftists believe it gun rights. Karl Marx literally wrote "under no pretext should arms or ammunition be surrendered". The "Leftists" that want more gun control are liberals, huge difference.

I've reached Stage 5. Dealing with tweakers, I've come to realize that statistically the most tacticool and effective gear you can have and wear in a real life situation is: 1. Underwear (if Briefs, 50/50 chance of +3 or -3 to Intimidation). 2. Flip flops (or Crocs, or Moses Sandals if you're into that). 3. Some kind of gun with a white light mounted to it. Can substitute a headlamp if desperate (holding a flashlight and gun at the same time sucks). 4. For investigating, bring a regular flashlight if you're using a weapon-mounted light. (So you're not flagging everything and everyone you're trying to see.) 5. Try to bring a cell phone, stuck down the front or back of your tighty-whities. +0.02 to crotch armor if in the front. Chance of enemy thinking you're an acolyte of GG Alin if in the back (+25 to Intimidation).

First of all, I thoroughly enjoyed this video-liked and commented (as you can see). I might be missing something of your video here, but I have to ask: By your same logic, wouldn’t handheld machine guns and other automatic small arms be too dangerous to be legal without restrictions? Even if used ‘properly,’ it’s nearly impossible for someone to predict where the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc., bullets will land, thereby risking the violation of others’ rights and property. If we’re considering stationary machine guns as a separate case, maybe there should be a minimum weight threshold and cannot be used with a stock/shoulder-support to ensure they can’t be used from a handheld position. Even gun experts have a hard time keeping all bullets on target when shooting full-auto from a off-hand position. This seems less a matter of skill or misuse and more about the inherent design of the weapon system. Of course, with enough proficiency (training time & ammo resources to obtain it + training time & ammo resources to maintain it), the risks of full-auto small arms fire can be mitigated. But without a way to collect and track the accountability from the owners and everyone else with access to the firearms (for example, by a N?tional Reg?stry), this cannot be guaranteed. So, with that in mind, it seems reasonable that handheld machine guns (and even bump stock configurations) should remain restricted. But hey, if we’re talking about 50-cal belt-fed machine guns or even helicopter mounted miniguns, God bless America!

damn dude, you just threw out some hardcore assumptions in order to validate a cringe ass point that is absolutely incorrect. Dude this video is so inmature about such a sensitive topic, how can you make me cringe this much.

As my JROTC Sgt. has said. "Common sense ain't Common."

Stage 3 before he gets binoculars? Sad

Gen4, you coming at me ALLLLL wrong. Gen3

I think this is what’s ultimately scary about this lifestyle, there’s a fine line to walk between the paranoid and the reasonable. Everything requires balance, I don’t think being self sufficient and living more with nature is a bad idea and even getting some emergency plan in place for a natural disaster or temporary situations. Then there is the opposite end, you can’t function and go overboard with stockpiling and prepping yourself for the absolute worse that may never even happen, you start to buy into baseless conspiracies and become a absolute paranoid mess that can’t function without thinking of society’s collapse to where it makes you think everything and anything is out to kill you and thus pushes those around you away. I’ve been on the side of that at a younger age of listening to crackpot conspiracies that hold no actual weight, that stuff can drive you absolutely mad literally. Not everything is so black and white but it’s important to have balance and know when things are not enough and are too much. Just my two sense anyway.

Stage 3 is best

Military hardware should be legal to own but only allowed to deploy against countries we are at war with.

Maybe I misunderstood your video but you seemed to say that the 2nd amendment was not to prevent tyranny. I don't understand how anyone could come to that conclusion. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. They didn't say security of the state, they said security of a FREE state. Why else would they say that unless they were concerned about the government dominating and ruling the people. Especially considering this had just happened to them which is why they were seeking independence. I think people should be able to have whatever the government has, and when it comes to nukes, I don't think the government should have them either.

Personally, I don't believe machine guns should be legal simply due to their average recoil. But, I certainly respect your video and found it entertaining.

This really feels like a fairly useless point to discuss. If tanks and artillery are illegal to own, then that's quite a bit of military history just gone. And on the other hand countries like Australia, where you practically don't have the right to defend yourself, still seem to function despite your conjectures. I think tiers of restricted access is a better way of going about it. More rights to law abiding citizens, restricted rights to unstable or violent persons. Getting less discriminate weapons requires progressively more checks and proof of responsible weapons ownership. That way known crim actually has to put effort into getting a weapon, and I get to keep the nifty bomb I fished out of the Philippine Sea in 1966

A co-worker made a fantastic suggestion. Once a citizen becomes of age, they get a government issued sword and scabbard. It is mandatory to open carry a bladed weapon in public. Every citizen has an effective weapon for self defence against the most common weapon in society, a sword. It would be hella dope if everyone just walked around with a sword.

They forgot the fact criminals will dont give a shit about laws. or even improvising anything

Im in the 4 stage... I don't have any moneeeeeeyyyyy

7:45 What do you mean "false prophet?" As in Muhammed? or have they made some other shit up? If your talking about Muhammed, then what the fuck? Just because your not muslim doesn't mean you can call him a false prophet. Its as if i called Jesus a false prophet. If you meant something else then carry on, i don't mean to insult you as i do not understand what you mean by that.

I graduated to stage 5 when I realized that the Army's new XM7 weapon system fires a 6.8x51mm round that defeats level IV ceramic plates in a single hit. They didn't do this to defeat our enemies. Our enemies aren't wearing Level IV armor. They did this to defeat us. When I realized and accepted this, I sold off everything I don't need. Let death come, I'll make the coffee and we can have a conversation.

Just hitting Stage 3. Stage 3 is very deep. Will be here for a bit.

I’m so happy my roommate went through all these stages without me having to spending pointless amounts of money :)

Man the hell. The 2nd amendment *is* first and for most for the citizens to indeed rival the government. And the is no logical errors within this cause. The reason for it is because the gun laws are there not for the citizens to revault against the very same government that wrote them or some stupid bs like that. The gun laws are there for the citizens to rival the government that tries to *change* these said laws. And the government who established them can not be one with the government who tries to cancel the same rules out. The moment, let's say, a democratic party tries to cancel the 2nd amendment is the moment it fully proclaims that it has nothing to do with the government at the time of which the 1st and 2nd amendments were established nor it has nothing to do with it's herritage. Basically you are right, the second amendment is not there to protect people during a civil war, it is there to be the very last border and the very main thing, after the cancelation of which the civil war *starts.*

I like guns, though for me it’s more visual appeal, how it functions, recreational shooting. Love bolt action rifles especially old ww2 types. Look wonderful imo and working a bolt action is enjoyable. Like pump action shotguns and break action ones to for similar reasons. Favorite handgun type is revolvers, would love owning some black powder ones especially. I don’t do any competitive shooting nor hunting. Also regardless of circumstances or who might be put in danger, I would never defend myself or anyone else. Not worth being arrested and charged, too poor to afford missing work or paying lawyers. Thus I really don’t have have any right to life. Do like going camping and such occasionally, there of course its far more permissible to use guns for defense against dangerous animals you might encounter. I support ppls rights to own the weapons they like, but im not really in the same category as most people into firearms.

Wow! This video sucked!

Sorry dog but this is such a statist line of thinking

I want a tank though

12:25 - 12:40 It's worth noting that the vast majority of "machine guns" have semi-auto fire modes, rendering the "can you safely use it with that fire rate and recoil" point completely moot. 13:40 Deterrent weapons CAN be used defensively and safely. IE, home invader breaks in and point a gun at you. You hold up a grenade with the pin pulled, and now he would have to leave the home in order to kill you from a safe distance. He knows it, you know it, and this forces the criminal to back off with no offensive action taken due to the deterrent aspect of the weapon. This can and should be legal, as the "IF the weapon is used properly for the situation" aspect allows for a safe, practical, and effective use. Misusing the grenade (blowing yourself and neighbors up) would fall under negligent use, and not apply. Additionally, if the criminal tries to "call the bluff" when you're not bluffing, that's the criminal's actions which should be prosecuted (in the EXTREMELY unlikely event he survives) for detonating the explosive in the first place (the home owner simply primed it and in a safe and intended manner which could be defused if it weren't for the criminal's interference with/misuse of the weapon.

Im handing out gear to friends lol. One can only carry limited stuff

4:00 You're wrong. You "need" guns only to solve problems that guns have created for you. In the US any random thug on the street can hold you at gunpoint. In Poland, unless you mess with mafia (that has been pretty much dismantled by Polish police during the 2000s) all they can do is pull out a knife. And that makes a difference, you know? Yo can run from a guy with a knife much more easily than from a guy with a gun. You may think - oh burglaries are much less common though! Yeah. I'd be happy to have a burglar take anything from my home if the alternative is to have them take my life as well you know? I happily live in a European country where gun ownership is not treated like a "human right" and to get a gun you need to be checked for mental and physical health and be an active participant in a licensed sports club. In US all you need is your mom's credit card. Read some statistical data. A citizen has ~2 orders of magnitude (that means ~100x) higher chance of getting shot and killed in US than in EU. This is normalized for population, so it's not a matter of "US is big, so the numbers are big too". In US 8% of all child deaths are related to gun violence. In Europe it's about or lower than 1% (depends on the country). When a kid dies in the US 1 out of 12 times they have been killed with a gun. That's your freedom right there. If I were a parent in US, my biggest fear would be getting a call from school that there's been a shooting. Living in Poland a chance of something like that happening is about the same as winning a lottery. Practically impossible. In US having a gun is your fundamental right, but getting your broken leg fixed or your child sent to college is gonna put you in debt for life. The gun ownership gives US citizens a false sense of security and freedom, while it really only gets people killed. Your democracy is a joke just like every other one, and gun ownership is not going to help that any. You're suffering from a mental illness? Being a war veteran? Being poor? Homeless? Good luck getting medical help. Here's your gun, hope that helps.

Im currently transitioning into stage 5

citizens DID have the right to maintain weapons equal to that of the state, there was an explicit exchange on paper about whether or not a person could own a frigate, which they were. I, for one, would be prepared to compromise on some points like biological weaponry, nuclear weaponry, etc. but to say the 2nd amendment didn't intent for the people to be armed in equal terms to the state is inaccurate. The 2nd amendment is explicit that the militia, which is the people, is responsible for the safety of american society and the american nation, be it from a foreign or an internal threat. The militia was supposed to more or less be a replacement replacement for a standing army. The constitution was not written with a clause that the people ought to be armed, except with explosives because its for self defense. it isnt written for self defense, its written for both personal and national defense. your arbitrary metric is not supported by any of the comments of the founders nor any written law created at the time. They werent ignorant to how mines were used during sieges, practical examples of repeater firearms have existed since the 16th century and the navy dominated international war and trade and come with massive batteries of cannons, these were all legal.

blatant racism @ 4:06 for what you’re so weird

we should go back to muskets and flintlocks just like the founding fathers intended

Great video! Lots of good info, and while you are biased, it was given in an unbiased fashion. Stating facts and not falling into the trap of using personal feelings or opinions. To a point I would disagree with the ideology of the 2nd Amendment not being used for defense against a tyrannical government, mainly due to different sources claiming that the founding fathers put it there for that exact reason. However you make an excellent point about how if it came down to that, they wouldn't care anymore about ruling us fairly and as such we shouldn't care about their opinions on how we should live our lives. One of the greatest arguments against gun control I ever heard was; "So you want only the government to have that gun/those guns." Which if anyone knows much about our government, honestly we should seek to disarm them and separate their ability to command the military due to the number and severity of both crimes as well as generally horrible things that it's done throughout the time we've been a nation. Unrealistic and virtually impossible, but if commanders were voted in place for the military and checks were put in place to make sure they didn't fall into the same corruption it could theoretically work. Only issue is the old "Too many chiefs not enough indians" or "too many chefs" situation that would happen. Shame we can't un-coitus our government, but it would likely take some form of purge of the festering wound that is all of it. Kick em all out, try those that did crimes, and generally put more checks in place to keep them from becoming corrupt again.

The push to ban all weapons by one side has pushed me to respond with, "Yes, I do think people should be able to own canons."

Funny how you pretend that leftists don't own guns 💀

Me from germany, where knives lomger than 6cm are soon to be banned in public after a terrorist attack with an already illegal knife: 😢