The idea that the second amendment applies only to personal defense firearms implies that the other amendments were written with similar scope ( lol pun) in mind: if that's the case then the first amendment doesn't support someones right to use social media to talk to millions of people at one time. Maybe this wasn't the writer's motive when writing the constitution but to restrict the scope of the bill of rights is about 1000 steps closer to totalitarianism.
@@kf338 some do. Most don't. I know tons of people with guns whether it's the average hunter who literally only shoots when/if they see a deer the one week they go out or the average homeowner with a glock. I know two people who train regularly out of the many gunowners that I know..... well three including me Most people buy a pistol or shotgun for home defense and then it goes in the closet.
(Correction)Jeremi got it wrong. Militia was intended to defend against tyranny. The US had just shed tyranny from King George. They barely trusted the new government they installed themselves. It was intended as a reserve option of last resort so the people had options if the new government went the way of tyranny.
Mike Duncan in the revolutions podcast talks about the influence of the English Civil War. The founding fathers studied it carefully and tried to learn a lot from it. Let's not forget when it came to executing Charles I, Parliament struggled to come up with a legal precedent or grounds. Also, many objections to the King's tyranny came from him trying to rule without a mandate and extract money by force. He then raised an army, and Parliament used the new Model army to seize power after his deposition. In this instance you have two mighty forces who lacked a balancing point, the people to hold them in check. The constitution attempts to address this and also the declaration of independence communicate their grievances to the world.
The gun conversation was interesting. Firstly, why did this gentleman pick lynchings and police killings to describe the cost of gun ownership. Lynchings have not been common place for a long time and police killings are insignificant in the broader scope of gun violence. Just strange that's the first place his mind went. Maybe he means "lynchings" in a more clinical sense, meaning just group retribution. That could entail gang violence I suppose but that generally isn't the term used in the US for those type of crimes, lynching is generally a racially charged term. So I don't believe that is what he is referring to. Second, I think there may be some confusion as to what makes a good home defense weapon. Pistols are awful, they are hard to handle, hard to shoot, massively under powered, and over penetrate barriers. Rifles and shotguns with the right ammo choice are a far safer and more effective choice as home defense tool. It is very clear this gentleman wants to discuss 2nd amendment openly but he needs to do some basic research on firearms themselves and defensive use of those firearms first. He could come to the same conclusion and that's fine but actually get informed first. Lastly, I believe that the second amendment grants military capacity to individual private citizens. As was the underlying presupposition of US vs Miller. Arms as defined in the 1812 edition of Noah Webster's dictionary is as follows. Weapons for offense and armor of defense.
Does something being “insignificant in the broader scope” of a bigger group, definitionally mean that it’s not important? I’m sure you get very upset about trans kids, but I have good news: the number of kids who are trans is “insignificant in the broader scope” or all kids, so by your logic, it shouldn’t matter, right?
Not sure how he gets ‘murder’, which is illegal, out of the right to bear arms. Furthermore, to think that any country will forever be impervious to tyranny is non-sensical.
It’s not only for self protection from other individuals. It’s also for protecting ourselves from our government by for,in local militias. Why do people conveniently leave this out of the conversation?
Pretty much disagree with everything Jeremi is saying here. He seems to have a naive understanding of collectivism and the fragility of individualism / capitalism. Also, even we all agreed that government spending won the cold war, that doesn't mean government spending is good at increasing prosperity. Hardly a "feather in the cap" for taxation. The record is quite clear that increased government spending correlates to democide.
@@aries8910 No we don’t understand first hand. But we’ve heard many many stories of the horrors of those who have survived communist countries and managed to flee to US.
When he was asking about defining what self-defense is, he asks "should I have a boozooka, or should I have weapons designed for a military battlefield?" I could'nt help but think about depends on one's intrepetation of the 2A. For example, many would answer YES to those questions, because many think that's what the 2A is all about. Inpart, "being necessary to the security of a free State" a literal intrepetation would suggest the public should have every weapon its government has, because who's to say that government won't turn its weapons on its public. Now, do I believe that? I don't know man, I just don't know, I get it though.
I appreciate that you are looking at the text and its meaning as it was intended at the time of ratification, even if you are not sure you agree with the concept, instead of using possible disagreement as a motive to argue it isn't what it actually says, which of course would be objectively false. Nice job looking at the actual meaning, honestly, despite unsure agreement or disagreement with it.
Communism is self contradicting in terms of its leaders being individualistic while at the same time asking from everybody else to be part of a group. It's what Bernard Russell would class as a paradox.
He's completely wrong.....the founders intent was not to have personal protection but to be able to resist government tyranny. Also 5.56 is considered "small" arms. Exactly what mass incident were military grade arms used?
Guy is really off about “the deficit spending pre cold war vs post cold war” Keynesian introduced deficit depending in the 30’s. His entire bit, is mostly based off the fallacious notion that anyone paid the 90% taxes during the 50-60’s.
Americans: do not let communism take over. Capitalism is what makes America great. Capitalism incentivises innovation which drives wealth creation. You cannot tax your way to prosperity.
I don't understand why Mr. Suri says "government money" instead of "taxpayer money". It may seem like a small thing, but it is exactly this kind of cognitive dissonance from liberals which has gotten us into this $32 trillion national debt fiasco
The whole reason the 2nd amendment was included, with much dispute might I add, was so that the people will have the means to overthrow an oppressive government. The country itself was founded based on rebellion after all. Now it's 2021 and Americans are placated with the "feeling" of freedom, by owning semiauto weapons which are ultimately useless against an Army equipped with armored vehicles, squadrons of bombers filled with anit-personnel munitions, machineguns, etc. The second amendment is dead, we should have reasonable gun registrations laws, and regular licensing, just like we do with vehicles.
You’re wrong on basic rifles being useless against modern military. The best military couldn’t beat basic Vietnamese or Afghans or any other war in post ww2 history. It would be ugly but we have more power than you think.
Imagine that logic on any other right. Like, for example, sorry, we know your vote means nothing anymore due to x,y and z reasons, so instead of correcting the infringement, we'll just say the right is dead. All of that hardware is covered by the 2nd Amendment. It was death by a thousand cuts over a long time, so no one really noticed the gap widening between the citizens and the standing army, which was itself feared by the Founding Fathers. Bottom line is if a right is being suppressed, the goal is not to bury the right, but rectify the things infringing on it.
I honestly can't believe this "intellectual" is going to toe such an ignorant position regarding the second amendment. I was hoping for a sliver of actual thought on that not regurgitated mindless "the second amendment covers muskets" tripe.
The right to bear arms is also about checking government tyranny, not only in 1776 but in 2023. This means citizens should have access to the same firearms the governement does, ie. AR-15s and the like.
"There is no communism in the US and never has been" "The atrocities committed in the USSR couldn't happen in the US" Two highly intelligent people who could not be more wrong on their respective points.
Communism is literally what WM said. No government, no money, no class. Like living on a "commune" on a much larger scale. If you think there's a communist movement in America, you need to reconsider where you get your news.
@@deepseadarew6012 that’s just a silly way to frame it. 1. The US had a number of communist parties in early 20th century and was very influential at its peak 2. To say that communism doesn’t exist because it hasn’t materialised in its FINAL form is a ridiculous standard
Every gun is a mass killing gun, just depends on how fast to either pull the trigger or pull and send the bolt. This logic would lead to all guns removed. Also the guest doesn’t speak to the reason we have them.
No. Stop the false equivalence. An AR15 with a 30 round magazine is a better tool for killing a lot of people quickly than a revolver or shotgun is. That's a pure fact.
@@sleazypolar I was pointing out that all guns are meant to kill, that is their purpose. The logic I was speaking to is that the way the guest was speaking could be used for any gun. A pistol or shotgun can mass kill just like an AR.
@@mancestark6527 No, they can't mass kill just like an AR. That's my point. You CAN kill people with shotguns and revolvers. You can't dealt out death en masse with the same speed as a AR15 or AR10 with high capacity magazines though. You are making a false equivalency.
Ask yourself- is there any conversation about guns that you could listen to that attempts to bring up some of the problems that guns present and how we might limit gun ownership in certain cases, and not thump your chest over 2nd amendment? That is, can you at least listen to the discussion in good faith, even if you disagree with? Or does your brain turn to oatmeal if someone says average Americans probably shouldn’t own bazookas?
The kinds of weapons used in mass shootings are not "mass killing" weapons. An ak47 or ar15, civilian models, are no different than a hunting rifle in function. Sad to see he buys the Kool-Aid on "the scary gun" types.
This guy is off on a lot of his statistics. For anyone interested, the majority of mass shootings are committed with a handguns and other concealable, small firearms. This is the point behind SBR laws in the NFA, but they have proven to not work. Second, the US does have alot of mass shootings but it is not the most. Its not even in the upper half of a list of all countries. If you want to compare us to just "similar" nations as in, cultural, economic and "civility level" the US has an equal number of DEATH PER CAPITA to the EU. You really have to compare us to the entire EU and not cherry picked counties due to how vast and wide culture range the US is. I can cherry pick a US state and compare it to a cherry picked EU country that has the same number of people and show that guns are not an issue. I'd like to add that his idea of what is considered a "self defense" weapon VS what I consider one are vastly different and, no offense to Jeremi but I would suggest his experience of firearms is probably very limited. a handgun is a difficult weapon to use without proper and constant training. Difficulty increases exponentially under stress. He is correct in the idea of the 2A being about defense. As stated in the 2A its about defense of a free country, not defense from a deer. A home intruder, car-jacker ect. It is citizenry capable of defending themselves from anyone capable of corrupting government and the power structure. This is what is meant by "well regulated" meaning well equipped, trained and capable of defense of a free state thus, An AR15 is a defensive weapon.
This guy's making the very opposite point at 8:20 as the founders were talking about. They just ended a war with their own tyrannical government. They didn't make it the second amendment to the constitution because hone invasions were an issue, because liquor stores were being robbed. It's because the government needs to fear the people. And our expert here is saying people need to defend themselves with what? 5 shot handguns? Defend themselves from who? The greatest threat they face is government. To make them stay in line you're gonna need the same weapons of war they have. Literally the test by which we lost short barreled shotguns. They were deemed not useful for warfare as the second amendment implies. Only criminals would saw the barrel down to hide it under a coat etc.
It's amazing how Americans mindset is still stuck in the cold war era. Soviet style communism is dead, the biggest communist state (China) knows that and probably like the Americans will avoid that system at all cost. We shouldn't be stuck in this mindset of one or the other. How about taking best out of both?
hey Lex, from reading the comments, I would propose you bringing someone on who can elaborate about the period 1900-'50. that's the period communism won because it did free a lot if people from abysmal lives in kaste-/class-society, alphabetized hundreds of millions of people, build them shelter, gave them social and health-insurance. only very few north-americans seem aware of the significant progress communist/Socialist systems reached for large swaths of people around the world which made the ideas back then so attractive for many that the US went literally 'balistic' about it.
"People don't even know what Communism is..." *Makhnovists have entered the chat* *Paris Communard fans have entered the chat* *Libertarian Communists have entered the chat* *Kronstadt rebels have entered the chat*
I really dislike this dude and how much he lies besides how biased he is 1.handguns are the guns that are used in the majority of school related incidents not mass ending of life weapons 😑 2.the 2A not only says hold and bear arms but form a militia as well and you can own a tank today if you wanted too just got to go threw a lot of redtape to do so 😉
Lex gun control does not work just look at Chicago also as Americans we need to preserve our second amendment rights we are the only country on the planet with a right to own a fire arm and we have to second amendment for a good reason too which is to keep fascist regimes out of control
Fairly well. Over 400 million guns, 330 million people. About 32,000 gun deaths per year, more than half of them suicides. About a third of them homicides. So, about 0.0036% of the population dies because of gun homicides in a given year. For comparison, deaths involving cars for the past 10 years or so averages out to about the same... somewhere between 32,000 and 38,000 deaths per year. Both devices are regulated. In many places they both have legal restrictions on who can own them. And both devices are plentiful and have widespread ownership. So... yeah. Turns out individuals tend to be fairly responsible and law-abiding, even when they're allowed to pilot 4,000 lbs death missiles while drinking coffee and looking at their phones.
@@TheStupidestBitch US gun-crime is literally up there with the worst in the world. Americans love explaining how their violence isn't that bad, but meanwhile gun crime statistics is staggering and I'll continue living without fear of gun violence. Not my loss. www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/08/05/743579605/how-the-u-s-compares-to-other-countries-in-deaths-from-gun-violence
Super fans should send u small trinkets to lay in the background less than 6 inch stuffed animals or something. Your lucky I’m not pycho or I would send u so many as to make u no longer like them.
Jeremi is very naive on the topic of communism and socialism. Also when he said “government spent its money on different programs”? Lol. You mean our money
![[Live] : ONE 169 วันนี้!! "อนาโตลี vs อูมาร์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IK3YZVWuFJg/mqdefault.jpg)
“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.”
-karl marx
2nd amendment had no restrictions. You could own a cannon.
You can buy pretty crazy weapons
I do own a cannon.
Your comment is based on an assumption, just like his statement, on what the 2nd amendment means or what the founding father actually meant by it.
Who says you can’t own a canon?
The idea that the second amendment applies only to personal defense firearms implies that the other amendments were written with similar scope ( lol pun) in mind: if that's the case then the first amendment doesn't support someones right to use social media to talk to millions of people at one time. Maybe this wasn't the writer's motive when writing the constitution but to restrict the scope of the bill of rights is about 1000 steps closer to totalitarianism.
The second amendment is pretty straightforward don’t get how you interpret it
Shall not be infringed
Well... regulated
@@Big_Wamu that didn’t mean regulation how we mean it today. It didn’t mean arbitrary rules
@@kf338 did it mean training? Because we don't do that either
@@Big_Wamu what are you talking about? People with guns train all of the time.
@@kf338 some do. Most don't. I know tons of people with guns whether it's the average hunter who literally only shoots when/if they see a deer the one week they go out or the average homeowner with a glock. I know two people who train regularly out of the many gunowners that I know..... well three including me
Most people buy a pistol or shotgun for home defense and then it goes in the closet.
(Correction)Jeremi got it wrong. Militia was intended to defend against tyranny. The US had just shed tyranny from King George. They barely trusted the new government they installed themselves. It was intended as a reserve option of last resort so the people had options if the new government went the way of tyranny.
Libertarian myth
US already living under tyranny bro lol guns or not
Exactly my thinking as I watched this. He didn’t even mention tyranny or who we are defending ourselves against. It’s not just individuals.
Mike Duncan in the revolutions podcast talks about the influence of the English Civil War. The founding fathers studied it carefully and tried to learn a lot from it. Let's not forget when it came to executing Charles I, Parliament struggled to come up with a legal precedent or grounds. Also, many objections to the King's tyranny came from him trying to rule without a mandate and extract money by force. He then raised an army, and Parliament used the new Model army to seize power after his deposition. In this instance you have two mighty forces who lacked a balancing point, the people to hold them in check. The constitution attempts to address this and also the declaration of independence communicate their grievances to the world.
But what if you need to defend yourself against a lot of people or the government?
If the government wants to kill you, it’ll be a drone. Your rifle won’t help Jim Bob.
The gun conversation was interesting. Firstly, why did this gentleman pick lynchings and police killings to describe the cost of gun ownership. Lynchings have not been common place for a long time and police killings are insignificant in the broader scope of gun violence. Just strange that's the first place his mind went. Maybe he means "lynchings" in a more clinical sense, meaning just group retribution. That could entail gang violence I suppose but that generally isn't the term used in the US for those type of crimes, lynching is generally a racially charged term. So I don't believe that is what he is referring to. Second, I think there may be some confusion as to what makes a good home defense weapon. Pistols are awful, they are hard to handle, hard to shoot, massively under powered, and over penetrate barriers. Rifles and shotguns with the right ammo choice are a far safer and more effective choice as home defense tool. It is very clear this gentleman wants to discuss 2nd amendment openly but he needs to do some basic research on firearms themselves and defensive use of those firearms first. He could come to the same conclusion and that's fine but actually get informed first. Lastly, I believe that the second amendment grants military capacity to individual private citizens. As was the underlying presupposition of US vs Miller. Arms as defined in the 1812 edition of Noah Webster's dictionary is as follows. Weapons for offense and armor of defense.
Does something being “insignificant in the broader scope” of a bigger group, definitionally mean that it’s not important? I’m sure you get very upset about trans kids, but I have good news: the number of kids who are trans is “insignificant in the broader scope” or all kids, so by your logic, it shouldn’t matter, right?
Not sure how he gets ‘murder’, which is illegal, out of the right to bear arms. Furthermore, to think that any country will forever be impervious to tyranny is non-sensical.
I'll disagree with the guest's opinion on the right to bear arms. We should have the same level of armament as say the mass shooter does.
The presupposition of US vs Miller was that the 2nd amendment grants individual private citizens military capacity, I firmly believe that it does.
@@doctorwarpspeed8779 Agreed the idea that it was meant to fend of a mugger was funny.
After this podcast I decided to buy one of Siri’s books. He’s very intelligent and a good thinker in general.
It’s not only for self protection from other individuals. It’s also for protecting ourselves from our government by for,in local militias. Why do people conveniently leave this out of the conversation?
Correct. It is to defend the republic from foreign armies or our own. To do that, we need the same weapons as them.
Pretty much disagree with everything Jeremi is saying here. He seems to have a naive understanding of collectivism and the fragility of individualism / capitalism. Also, even we all agreed that government spending won the cold war, that doesn't mean government spending is good at increasing prosperity. Hardly a "feather in the cap" for taxation. The record is quite clear that increased government spending correlates to democide.
Yeah, and who said the New Deal, of all things, was an unalloyed good? It _prolonged_ the Depression.
“Nobody understands communism but me” says the self described academic with his arms crossed.
So you think Americans actually understand what communism is? That’s a wild take.
@@aries8910 No we don’t understand first hand. But we’ve heard many many stories of the horrors of those who have survived communist countries and managed to flee to US.
Who the hell said Lex was too much of a libertarian. How is it possible to be too much of a libertarian?
Sophistry: when you want to gaslight but you're an academic!
You don't know what sophistry is. Kind of embarrassing for you here.
When he was asking about defining what self-defense is, he asks "should I have a boozooka, or should I have weapons designed for a military battlefield?" I could'nt help but think about depends on one's intrepetation of the 2A.
For example, many would answer YES to those questions, because many think that's what the 2A is all about. Inpart, "being necessary to the security of a free State" a literal intrepetation would suggest the public should have every weapon its government has, because who's to say that government won't turn its weapons on its public.
Now, do I believe that? I don't know man, I just don't know, I get it though.
I appreciate that you are looking at the text and its meaning as it was intended at the time of ratification, even if you are not sure you agree with the concept, instead of using possible disagreement as a motive to argue it isn't what it actually says, which of course would be objectively false.
Nice job looking at the actual meaning, honestly, despite unsure agreement or disagreement with it.
Anyway, this is one hell of a "glass half full" discussion about dictators and mass murderers.
Sort of a “the mass grave is half full” conversation.
Communism is self contradicting in terms of its leaders being individualistic while at the same time asking from everybody else to be part of a group. It's what Bernard Russell would class as a paradox.
Why would the leadership be individualistic?
@@venicec3310because they have the power to be
He's completely wrong.....the founders intent was not to have personal protection but to be able to resist government tyranny. Also 5.56 is considered "small" arms. Exactly what mass incident were military grade arms used?
Guy is really off about “the deficit spending pre cold war vs post cold war”
Keynesian introduced deficit depending in the 30’s.
His entire bit, is mostly based off the fallacious notion that anyone paid the 90% taxes during the 50-60’s.
Well it's fair to say that the tax rate was much higher , the fine art of tax evasion enshrining the likes of trump
@@bobbinicosia8017 legal tax evasion is crested by politicians for the people that own them. Great to know you still cant get over Trump tho.
Americans: do not let communism take over. Capitalism is what makes America great. Capitalism incentivises innovation which drives wealth creation. You cannot tax your way to prosperity.
lex should have an american flag pin and cia hat
You can only kill everyone you want to kill when they are completely defenseless.
I don't understand why Mr. Suri says "government money" instead of "taxpayer money". It may seem like a small thing, but it is exactly this kind of cognitive dissonance from liberals which has gotten us into this $32 trillion national debt fiasco
8 trillion of that was added by Trump in just 1 term.
@@AlexG-tp2ik You're right. He was a disaster on many levels, and I am a conservative-leaning moderate
Pretty sure the last president to balance the budget was Clinton
The whole reason the 2nd amendment was included, with much dispute might I add, was so that the people will have the means to overthrow an oppressive government. The country itself was founded based on rebellion after all. Now it's 2021 and Americans are placated with the "feeling" of freedom, by owning semiauto weapons which are ultimately useless against an Army equipped with armored vehicles, squadrons of bombers filled with anit-personnel munitions, machineguns, etc. The second amendment is dead, we should have reasonable gun registrations laws, and regular licensing, just like we do with vehicles.
You’re wrong on basic rifles being useless against modern military. The best military couldn’t beat basic Vietnamese or Afghans or any other war in post ww2 history. It would be ugly but we have more power than you think.
Imagine that logic on any other right. Like, for example, sorry, we know your vote means nothing anymore due to x,y and z reasons, so instead of correcting the infringement,
we'll just say the right is dead.
All of that hardware is covered by the 2nd Amendment. It was death by a thousand cuts over a long time, so no one really noticed the gap widening between the citizens and the standing army, which was itself feared by the Founding Fathers.
Bottom line is if a right is being suppressed, the goal is not to bury the right, but rectify the things infringing on it.
A gun > a nanny state
I honestly can't believe this "intellectual" is going to toe such an ignorant position regarding the second amendment. I was hoping for a sliver of actual thought on that not regurgitated mindless "the second amendment covers muskets" tripe.
The right to bear arms is also about checking government tyranny, not only in 1776 but in 2023. This means citizens should have access to the same firearms the governement does, ie. AR-15s and the like.
"There is no communism in the US and never has been"
"The atrocities committed in the USSR couldn't happen in the US"
Two highly intelligent people who could not be more wrong on their respective points.
i didnt know that US is state less, money less & class less society. I have to check up on news
Communism is literally what WM said. No government, no money, no class. Like living on a "commune" on a much larger scale. If you think there's a communist movement in America, you need to reconsider where you get your news.
@@deepseadarew6012 i feel sad for these people. They are projecting themselves onto the enemy that doesnt even exist.
@@WM-gf8zm Sadly there will always be people to stuck in the ways that shaped them to consider new perspectives and ideas
@@deepseadarew6012 that’s just a silly way to frame it.
1. The US had a number of communist parties in early 20th century and was very influential at its peak
2. To say that communism doesn’t exist because it hasn’t materialised in its FINAL form is a ridiculous standard
Every gun is a mass killing gun, just depends on how fast to either pull the trigger or pull and send the bolt.
This logic would lead to all guns removed. Also the guest doesn’t speak to the reason we have them.
No. Stop the false equivalence.
An AR15 with a 30 round magazine is a better tool for killing a lot of people quickly than a revolver or shotgun is. That's a pure fact.
@@sleazypolar I was pointing out that all guns are meant to kill, that is their purpose. The logic I was speaking to is that the way the guest was speaking could be used for any gun. A pistol or shotgun can mass kill just like an AR.
@@mancestark6527 No, they can't mass kill just like an AR. That's my point. You CAN kill people with shotguns and revolvers. You can't dealt out death en masse with the same speed as a AR15 or AR10 with high capacity magazines though. You are making a false equivalency.
This guy is spot on.
A lot of triggered conservatives in the comments that think everything is communist 😂
I don’t think the guest understand the constitution at all. I thought that man was an intellectual 🤔
Intellectuals dont understand the constitution
Ask yourself- is there any conversation about guns that you could listen to that attempts to bring up some of the problems that guns present and how we might limit gun ownership in certain cases, and not thump your chest over 2nd amendment?
That is, can you at least listen to the discussion in good faith, even if you disagree with? Or does your brain turn to oatmeal if someone says average Americans probably shouldn’t own bazookas?
From the majority of the comments in this section.... I would say that's a no LOL Everybody in the comment section is cry their eyes out.😂
This is a superb conversation.
The kinds of weapons used in mass shootings are not "mass killing" weapons. An ak47 or ar15, civilian models, are no different than a hunting rifle in function.
Sad to see he buys the Kool-Aid on "the scary gun" types.
This guy needs to get out and meet more young people because there are a growing number I talk to who are against private property.
This guy is off on a lot of his statistics. For anyone interested, the majority of mass shootings are committed with a handguns and other concealable, small firearms. This is the point behind SBR laws in the NFA, but they have proven to not work.
Second, the US does have alot of mass shootings but it is not the most. Its not even in the upper half of a list of all countries. If you want to compare us to just "similar" nations as in, cultural, economic and "civility level" the US has an equal number of DEATH PER CAPITA to the EU. You really have to compare us to the entire EU and not cherry picked counties due to how vast and wide culture range the US is. I can cherry pick a US state and compare it to a cherry picked EU country that has the same number of people and show that guns are not an issue.
I'd like to add that his idea of what is considered a "self defense" weapon VS what I consider one are vastly different and, no offense to Jeremi but I would suggest his experience of firearms is probably very limited. a handgun is a difficult weapon to use without proper and constant training. Difficulty increases exponentially under stress. He is correct in the idea of the 2A being about defense. As stated in the 2A its about defense of a free country, not defense from a deer. A home intruder, car-jacker ect. It is citizenry capable of defending themselves from anyone capable of corrupting government and the power structure. This is what is meant by "well regulated" meaning well equipped, trained and capable of defense of a free state thus, An AR15 is a defensive weapon.
This guy's making the very opposite point at 8:20 as the founders were talking about. They just ended a war with their own tyrannical government. They didn't make it the second amendment to the constitution because hone invasions were an issue, because liquor stores were being robbed. It's because the government needs to fear the people. And our expert here is saying people need to defend themselves with what? 5 shot handguns? Defend themselves from who? The greatest threat they face is government. To make them stay in line you're gonna need the same weapons of war they have. Literally the test by which we lost short barreled shotguns. They were deemed not useful for warfare as the second amendment implies. Only criminals would saw the barrel down to hide it under a coat etc.
I love this podcast. If only I had thr chance to meet Lex, what a guy.
It's amazing how Americans mindset is still stuck in the cold war era. Soviet style communism is dead, the biggest communist state (China) knows that and probably like the Americans will avoid that system at all cost.
We shouldn't be stuck in this mindset of one or the other. How about taking best out of both?
hey Lex, from reading the comments, I would propose you bringing someone on who can elaborate about the period 1900-'50. that's the period communism won because it did free a lot if people from abysmal lives in kaste-/class-society, alphabetized hundreds of millions of people, build them shelter, gave them social and health-insurance. only very few north-americans seem aware of the significant progress communist/Socialist systems reached for large swaths of people around the world which made the ideas back then so attractive for many that the US went literally 'balistic' about it.
"People don't even know what Communism is..."
*Makhnovists have entered the chat*
*Paris Communard fans have entered the chat*
*Libertarian Communists have entered the chat*
*Kronstadt rebels have entered the chat*
I really dislike this dude and how much he lies besides how biased he is
1.handguns are the guns that are used in the majority of school related incidents not mass ending of life weapons 😑
2.the 2A not only says hold and bear arms but form a militia as well and you can own a tank today if you wanted too just got to go threw a lot of redtape to do so 😉
Cars are far more dangerous than guns should we outlaw cars? Fake gasp!
Has Jeremi Suri been advising the AOC Plan for America committee? (name for committee is made up)
Very thankful for this breakdown 😊
No communism? Lmfao
Still not convinced lex went to college
Lex gun control does not work just look at Chicago also as Americans we need to preserve our second amendment rights we are the only country on the planet with a right to own a fire arm and we have to second amendment for a good reason too which is to keep fascist regimes out of control
lol
And how’s Lex’s freedom as an individual to own a gun working for American society as a whole?
Fairly well. Over 400 million guns, 330 million people. About 32,000 gun deaths per year, more than half of them suicides. About a third of them homicides. So, about 0.0036% of the population dies because of gun homicides in a given year. For comparison, deaths involving cars for the past 10 years or so averages out to about the same... somewhere between 32,000 and 38,000 deaths per year. Both devices are regulated. In many places they both have legal restrictions on who can own them. And both devices are plentiful and have widespread ownership. So... yeah. Turns out individuals tend to be fairly responsible and law-abiding, even when they're allowed to pilot 4,000 lbs death missiles while drinking coffee and looking at their phones.
Well. People are trying to come to this country not leave it. So looks like people want lex’s freedoms. Including the right to own an equalizer.
@@TheStupidestBitch US gun-crime is literally up there with the worst in the world. Americans love explaining how their violence isn't that bad, but meanwhile gun crime statistics is staggering and I'll continue living without fear of gun violence. Not my loss.
www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/08/05/743579605/how-the-u-s-compares-to-other-countries-in-deaths-from-gun-violence
I have to disagree with most of what this guy says. Very inaccurate.
Super fans should send u small trinkets to lay in the background less than 6 inch stuffed animals or something. Your lucky I’m not pycho or I would send u so many as to make u no longer like them.
@Lex Clips stop trying to scam people man. Do something with your life other than trying to take from others. It will benefit you greatly.
Thi guy lies a lot and with ease.
Jeremi is very naive on the topic of communism and socialism.
Also when he said “government spent its money on different programs”? Lol. You mean our money
love your stuff Lex! I would love to see some more women represented on your podcasts :)
What about when people talk about equity
Yafunnyco I don’t understand