When the constitution was written, there were citizens who literally had BATTLESHIPS and ARTILLERY to fight during the war Then in 1790 a case went to court about a citizen with a warship that set the precedent for what the difference of civilian arms vs government arms were
@@marchaldillon3184 I feel we have the right to own and use anything the military would realistically use against us. Which would exclude nukes. Unless the regime completely lost their minds and would rather destroy America then lose control, they won’t nuke American soil. But beyond that, I’m not sure if they would have back. They probably wouldn’t use anything that would be considered a horrendous war crime like bio weapons. But they do kind of poison us with the food already so maybe that’s not off the table lol. All I know is, I don’t trust people with wmds. Not even my fellow Americans
And the GCA, as well. All three of those things need to be abolished (amongst other anti-Constitutional legislative acts), in order to prevent the FBI, DOJ, or any other agency to take up the slack, after the abolition of the ATF.
If nfa is a tax law, then not having 200$ stamp is tax evasion. Is the punishment for possessing of an untaxed nfa item inline with others punishments for not paying taxes?
@@douglasclark1894 They cannot tax a Constitutional right, the issue is null and void. If this nation had a backbone, we wouldn't have any infringements, period.
You are reading this situation wrong. He is pro 2A but is just trying to avoid saying anything controversial that the demonrats would use to oppose his nomination. This is not the time to be having that kind of debate. By saying the courts decide he is taking a noncommittal neutral stance that does not require him to speak against 2A and leaves room for allowing the courts to overturn the NFA.
@@Valhalla_Heathen The only reason they’re categorized is due to the government infringing on our 2A right. Had we never had any infringement no one would call a short barreled rifle an SBR. They’d just call it a rifle because that’s what it is.
Exactly. My ball hitch has hurt more human beings, namely me, than any of the super scary firearms I have owned over the years. In fact, in my experience, with the exception of armalite rifles, the more the media hypes up something as a god tier murder machine, the more it's really just a liability or direct threat to the operator themselves... Humans murder people. No chunk of metal, no matter how intricate, has ever murdered a man.
As has been said, there is no such thing as a 'dangerous weapon'. There are only dangerous people. And if you possess arms, you become a dangerous person. You're also less likely to be a crime victim and more likely to be able to protect yourself and others.
If you are a threat to society, you will be locked up for crimes. That is your background check. Yes, civilians are entitled to machine gun ownership because the phrase is "...SHALL NOT be infringed.."
That's a bar. "If you are a threat to society, you will be locked up for crimes. That is your background check" Put that on a shirt. So much common sense
@@tommynobaka But Democrats want to release the violent dangerous people who will carry guns illegally while locking up compliant people who are not violent.
What kills me is that no background check stops a criminal or anyone from owning a firearm period. They will get it if they want it bad enough. Do they think that every person on the street in a gang, cartel And so on all of their guns are purchased through the background check system ? Sadly these people know this , so it's just about regulating " we the People " Stay free EDIT: There is no such thing as gun violence, it is people violence. Someone can do the same damage with a knife, baseball bat, tire iron, Automobile and the list goes on and on Do we regulate all of these things?
Knives, blades weapons are regulated. Cars are regulated. What the hell are talking about 😂 Come at me with a tire iron and see what happens if I have an AR15 😂
@ you’re absolutely missing the point that went right over your head. violence is acted out in many ways, it’s not always about a firearm. There are many places, countries were guns are not allowed yet people kill people without guns. Government doesn’t just try to take away those items. How many people get run over by a car and killed, Does government try to take away your car? How about a kitchen knife? Do they take those away because someone decided to pull the knife out of the block and use it? Lot of examples, but you may not understand it because he reacted without thinking
Cars, yes. Bladed objects? State by state and you can predict which by how they handle firearms. My state for instance is a CC AND "stand your ground" state. I can own and carry anything I want as long as I don't use it on someone out of malice. Had a kid stab a mugger with a frikken sword here when he was accosted on his way home from martial arts class. No charges and everyone still makes fun of the mugger. Nobody makes fun of the kid with the sword. He's already made his point.
Cars, yes. Bladed objects? State by state and you can predict which by how they handle firearms. My state for instance is a CC AND "stand your ground" state. I can own and carry anything I want as long as I don't use it on someone out of malice. Had a kid stab a mugger with a frikken sword here when he was accosted on his way home from martial arts class. No charges and everyone still makes fun of the mugger. Nobody makes fun of the kid with the sword. He's already made his point.
The SCOTUS' job is not to be the final arbiter of what is Constitutional. It's to settle disputes among people and the states. What is Constitutional remains with the people and the states.
Slavery was in place and considered constitutional. Is he really going to make the morally and mentally bankrupt argument that a law can't be unlawful?
The law against slavery was wrong, but it was not unlawful until the 13th Amendment barred slavery and involuntary servitude except as punishment on conviction of a crime.
try gay marriage or polyamory-marriage aka Edmonds act to my knowledge is still enforced but 1963-act should have ended that and or the 14th/other right's should have stopped it from passing and or staying in placement ect or the jimmy's-crow law's and or homelessness/sundown entrapment enforcement's ect
The second amendment says, 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. Any infringement is against the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
Don't forget that Article 1 Section 8 does not authorize Congress to regulate firearms. The sneaky bastards have justified it through their taxing authority. NFA is a tax.
@@steveunknown8407 The word (state) in the 2nd government restriction clause (amendment) is NOT to be capitalized. That word is a purpose to see how (free) are you from government tyranny. The 2nd (amendment) government restriction clause's sole purpose is for defending your library (freedom) from government tyranny NOT in defense of the state in which you reside.
@@deborahhargrove3710 The 2nd amendment is a restriction on what the government can do, it doesn't grant us anything that we already have, it just protects it.
@@git_gud556 Yes you are right and every gun control law enacted after November 15 1791 is unlawful. Bruen Decision. Progressives and the ignorant haven't figured that out yet.
Guns are themselves not violent. People are violent. The constitution CLEARLY states that the government DOES NOT choose what citizens can and can not have.
the extreme position is on Mr Welch because the last time i check the constitution does not say anything about getting permission from the government to bear arms. I then check the states constitution and to my surprise none of those had anything about the government permission either
ya but all the gun clubs are ok with the licensing of a fundamental right and have said that on the record...look at the wilson v hawaii no license case. not one gun club helped him out, so he relied on a public defender who said hawaii can require a license, but it can't be a criminal charge for not having one..RIDICULOUS. This case should have been, I don't need a license to exercise a fundamental right protected under the bill of rights.PERIOD
@@MrDLRubecause they have a financial incentive…the owner of my gun shop agrees with licensing and training requirements due to the fact it makes him money…Now, I disagree with him. Nothing should be “mandatory”. However, people should train and acquire any and all information regarding the firearms they own in order to be “well regulated”.
Kash Patel: Do You Have a Right to a Machine Gun? Yes. The 2A does not exclude them. Arms are all inclusive so the public will have parity of arms with government forces that could be used against the public. "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." - Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
Literally always have been... so are howitzers and AT4's.... the word "arms" refers to ALL arms before, during, and after ratification... from rocks to rockets, everything in between, and beyond. If they just wanted it to apply to firearms, they would have specified.
even further than that, if i pick up a chair or throw a stapler, they are arms, people think too narrowly what the definition covers, and necessity is often the mother of invention
The government telling us what arms we are allowed to own completely undermines the entire point of the US constitution and bill of rights...😂 it's like children dictating to their parents what the rules are...
No, they are not dumb, they know what they are doing. They want to take our rights away and if we do not resist to the fullest of our ability they will win
In my opinion, if I could afford a fully armed battle tank or an attack helicopter, (I couldn't even afford the ammo for such) it would be my right to own such gear; even without the second amendment.
He needed to be blunt. "No, background checks are Unconstitutional" and "Yes, US civilans have a Guarenteed, Absolute, Natural, Basic Human Right to own machine guns" edit test for sensor ships
Unfortunately Kash can’t be that direct. No nominee can for that matter. Once in the position they can then steer their department towards what the president wants and what the party wants. We have to be smart about this.
In _Caetano v. Massachusetts_ 577 US 411, the US Supreme Court overturned a conviction for possessing a stun gun, deciding the law unconstitutional because more than 200,000 are owned by Americans, (typically for less-lethal means of defense), that means they are in common use and thus can't be banned. As there are about 700,000 ATF-registered machine guns in private hands, I'd say that probably means Full-Auto machine guns are protected by the Second Amendment. If someone wants to challenge this, go after the 'low-hanging fruit' fruit. There has never been a law before 1986 that banned new weapons (no historical tradition), then argue machine guns are in common use.
The 700K figure isn't a good position to fight from. The 700K includes all manufacturers inventory and non federal government (state/local) weapons. The number in possession of private citizens is somewhere around 200K. The position to fight from (at least initially) is to attack the tax stamps for suppressors, select fire weapons, and SBRs.
It has always been federally legal to own a machine gun in the USA! After the 1930’s you had to pay a 200 dollar tax to the ATF. Now some states do not allow it but federally ok. By the way No crime had been committed with a legal machine gun owner since the lad was passed .
@josephpadula2283 ive always found it funny, that the government tells you machine guns are so deadly and no one should be able to own one. But if you pay a $200 extortion fee and pass a background check then it's ok.
NFA wasn't passed illegally unconstitutionally until 1934, before 1934 there was no such thing as gun laws/gun control in the united states of America period. There was no such thing as gun free zones until around 1965 when a guy shot some criminal in a court house.
Illegal unconstitutional gun licenses/permits didn't legally exist until the 1980s early 90s. Illegal unconstitutional background checks didn't exist until the late 80s early 90s.
One of the biggest issues with these questions...they are asking his opinion. You see, his opinion shouldn't really matter. There are some who like to be in leadership positions and push their opinions/agendas (coughdiddlebackcough). That is not how it's supposed to work, genius Welchie. The law is supposed to be followed regardless of one's personal beliefs. When you consider this, Kash answered exactly as he should have.
He should have stated that the FBI does not make the law, they enforce it. Congress makes the law and the Court determines if it is Constitutional or not. Per the Miller, Heller and Bruen decisions, the Supreme Court of the United States has determined that machine guns are protected by the 2A of the US Constitution. Neither my personal opinion, or yours, determine Constitutional law or its enforcement.
I think Kash Patel is avoiding clear answers, because he wants to be approved. And he doesn’t want to be pigeonholed. He should have reminded the congress that the FBI law enforcement and is mot responsible for writing or interpreting laws.
Exactly! You hit the nail on the head. Democrats are used to the enforcement branch of governments ignoring laws they don’t like - like sanctuary cities and the Biden administration in general. So, it’s a strange concept to them when Republicans say - we actually enforce the laws - whether we like them or not.
Mr Welch exposed his own prejudices by not accepting the answers as given by Kash Patel... It's the DOJ's job to respect the Constitution as interpreted by SCOTUS.
He did as well as you can expect him to. Confirmation hearing is not the place to speak freely. A successful hearing is one in which the appointee gets enough votes to be confirmed. Really it’s playing politicians at their own game. Say whatever it takes to get confirmed (elected)then do what you want.
And you can't lie because you're under oath. All you have to do is give nonanswers and speak very deliberately. If they ask "do you like chocolate ice cream", you don't respond with "yes", you respond with "Chocolate is a very popular and well liked flavor." Personally, I'd rather have had him snap back and say "would you prefer if i was for violating our citizens 2nd Amendment rights?"
The confirmation hearing is essentially an interview. If you want to get the job, sometimes you have to tell them what they want to hear. But as you said he "walked the line", or in my opinion he "dodged the question" by giving a politically neutral answer.
Everything was passed and created for a reason… Concentration camps were also created “FOR-A-REASON” (claps hands per syllable) but that does not mean they were a good thing.
The alleged congressman questioning Mr KP is also unaware that many "laws" passed are declared Unconstitutional by the SC. Nothing prevents Congress from passing an unconstitutional law; it is the prevue of the SC to make that determination, and that is because there is zero penalty for Congress to pass unconstitutional laws, to date...
Background checks are a form of presumptive guilt. Government presumes you have malign motives for purchasing an item, and requires you to navigate a permitting system designed and implemented by the very people who presume you to have malign motives in order to persuade that government that you do not have malign motives for purchasing that item. This is expressly prohibited by the 5t Amendment: "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." Government preemptively deprives a person of liberty and or exercising the right to possess a given item of property first, then requires that person to overcome legal obstacles to exercise that right to property/liberty. This is government depriving people of liberty and property without due process of law when *government* having to navigate a legal process in order to deprive that person of liberty and property is what the 5th Amendment requires. Just as government does not get to imprison a person first, then require him to prove his innocence, government cannot deprive a person of liberty first then require that person to prove he is entitled to liberty.
I usually cancel a channel that requires “ GOT IT “ communistic control but, aside from the communist requirement , you just put on the absolute best presentation that I ever witnessed concerning the Constitution and every citizens gun rights. Thank you for sharing this information, especially for those who are somewhat clueless !
Kash Patel's job will be to enforce the law irrespective of his personal beliefe. These "gotcha questions" are put forth to infer that he won't. He did a very good job being political on that issue. I think he will do a good job of keeping the FBI out of enforcing political issues
He is not doing the job. He is trying to get the job… It is about vote management, he can’t say anything that senators have told him would lose their vote.
i agree with you, however if Kash was honest and said that background checks and machine gun bans were Unconstitutional, he would lose a lot of Republican support. His confirmation would go down in flames.
I think Kash Patel is a fantastic nomination, I also think because of the aforementioned, he should do the necessary evils in order to get confirmed. But maybe you’re right, maybe it wouldn’t make a damn bit of difference for those turncoats.
the second amendment says the we the people are allowed to own any and all weapons equal to that of the united states government . so any thing they own in there army we can own as well . back ground checks and permits as well are unconstitutional . that is why legal constitutional own buy and carry should be law of the land .
He simply could have said "In my opinion all arms are protected under the Second Amendment, and until you you show me in the Second Amendment where it says otherwise my opinion will remain yes".
I’d like for someone who gets asked these types of questions to ask their senator to explain how “shall not be infringed” is often misinterpreted as “we’ll continue to create laws that infringe on people’s God given rights”.
If machine guns were illegal, how are there machine guns that have been grandfathered in? Obviously, they aren’t illegal if owned in the governments “approved” way.
He should have walked through Bruen, if the regulation has to be consistent with a regulation of the founding era, then no, registration (is an arms ban) and tax stamp is not consistent with any founding era regulation. Same with background checks.
Here is a thought: It amazes me how many of our elected officials have no concept of not only the 2nd Amendment but all the rights guaranteed the American People under our Constitution in this our Constitutional Republic. The directional language "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is enumerated in many of the Amendments.
The only reason the rules exist is to infringe on the constitutional rights of citizens under the 2A were these rules passed by Congress or the Supreme Court or just the ATF?
3:38 "Yes it's Constitutional; it's in place for a reason." This guy says that like nothing unconstitutional is ever put in place. Imagine him in the 60s, "Jim Crow laws are constitutional; they're in place for a reason." What a joke trying to invoke the Constitution like that.
Fact is that the second amendment doesn't make any distinctions between the different firing modes or magazine capacity or look of the guns, all of this is later interpretetion and policies adopted which has nothing to do with the second amendment, therefore all guns are protected by the second amendment!!! If you was able to own the most advanced military rifle then you should be able to own it now..... the second amendment hasn't changed, the technology did!!! ⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️👁️
The Supreme Court knows that we have an absolute Right to possess all types of military WEAPONRY, and yes background checks are Unconstitutional as well, and just because these restrictions are in place does NOT MEAN THAT THEY ARE CONSTITUTIONAL, it only means that the Supreme Court has not determined the unconstitutionality of the background checks, or determine that the people actually do have a Right to possess machine guns and much more than just machine guns, but I don't have alot of faith in the findings of the Supreme Court, because of several reasons. One is that they arbitrarily came up with this thing about having to be "in common use" to be considered to be Constitutional. They also came up with the saying dangerous and unusual, which seemingly gives them some right to restrict or ban certain things that the Second Amendment NEVER mentioned in the Directives or the wording of the Second Amendment. Then there is also the issue of machine guns, and all guns being completely unregulated for well over 130 years plus, until a politician decided that since a dozen or more criminals used all kinds of guns, including machine guns to rob and murder people, that they would ignore their oaths of office and pass Unconstitutional legislation to regulate,and tax NFA items, I during completely innoculous items like suppressors, as if they were dangerous some how, but luckily one thing that the Supreme Court finally did get right was the Bruen decision, which prevents laws like all of the federal and State gun laws on the books.
The real question that needs to be asked is," If confirmed as the New Director of the FBI, would you use your Authority as Director of the FBI to influence the direction of the FBI to your own personal convictions or Lead the FBI by the Law of the Land?" In my opinion, the best responsive answer to a gun question would be," If the Supreme Court says its either constitutional or unconstitutional I will follow the law as ruled.".
His answers to all three questions were excellent and correct. The SCOTUS, as most here know, has given us guidelines to determine if a gun law is unconstitutional. By those guidelines...yes, almost all federal gun laws are unconstitutional. But he couldn't say that or risk losing some soft RINO votes for confirmation.
Should have started quoting the Miller v. U.S. case that said that "any arm that is NOT useful for militia service is NOT protected under the Second Amendment." Therefore, any arm that IS useful for militia service IS protected. Then throw Heller at him and reference the "common use" standard. Then Caetano setting the bar for common use at 200k units in circulation. Then reference how we can verify that there's likely significantly more than 200k registered machine guns in circulation already and thus, they MUST be protected by the Second Amendment. Just sayin
Freedom is extreme. All of this nation's founders would be considered extremists by this senator's standards. In fact, I seriously doubt that any of our founders, after hearing his questions, would consider this man fit for the Senate seat he currently holds.
I'm wondering why in the world there a liberal ATF Director just resigned while committing a felony never prosecuted any Glock switch cases. Or at least extremely few compared to how many they found.
I like Patel's answer in the context of his appointment. He's going to be the director of the FBI, and his answer was essentially he looks to the Supreme Court to rule on what is the law of the land. Thats his (will be) job in the FBI to uphold the law of the land as set by the supreme court. We dont need rogue offices (ATF) just making up whatever shit they want, they need to be adhereing to the letter of the law. As to whether or not something is constitutional is our job to challenge in the supreme court and get it changed. Its the FBI and the Directors job to stick to what the supreme court decides, and in that I think he gave the best answer.
I believe he gave the best answer he could. It would be great to see someone throw those points in a Senators face. However, an FBI director has to uphold the law of the land without personal bias. We just hope the person can live up to those ideals. It’s up to the courts to decide what laws are constitutional and until they do we are stuck with them. Did make me feel good about my GOA membership.
Yes we have the right to own anything that the military has.
When the constitution was written, there were citizens who literally had BATTLESHIPS and ARTILLERY to fight during the war
Then in 1790 a case went to court about a citizen with a warship that set the precedent for what the difference of civilian arms vs government arms were
Or any Arms the military doesn't have. We are the People and our rights to Keep AND Bear Arms shall not be infringed.
@@marchaldillon3184 I feel we have the right to own and use anything the military would realistically use against us. Which would exclude nukes. Unless the regime completely lost their minds and would rather destroy America then lose control, they won’t nuke American soil. But beyond that, I’m not sure if they would have back. They probably wouldn’t use anything that would be considered a horrendous war crime like bio weapons. But they do kind of poison us with the food already so maybe that’s not off the table lol. All I know is, I don’t trust people with wmds. Not even my fellow Americans
💯 if you have the 💰
@@BigTomInTheBasementCame here to say the same. 👍
You know GOA is winning when they start getting brought up more.
I follow GOA here on YT and on IG! 🇺🇸
How about the N R who?
God I love the GOA!
@@LGB-FJB Yeah, they don't even come up in conversations anymore.
They’re over the target!
On machine guns, it’s not just the Hughes amendment, which is absolutely unconstitutional, it’s the NFA as well.
And the GCA, as well. All three of those things need to be abolished (amongst other anti-Constitutional legislative acts), in order to prevent the FBI, DOJ, or any other agency to take up the slack, after the abolition of the ATF.
If nfa is a tax law, then not having 200$ stamp is tax evasion. Is the punishment for possessing of an untaxed nfa item inline with others punishments for not paying taxes?
@@douglasclark1894 What if I give them $400 to fuck off?
All tht toilet paper
@@douglasclark1894 They cannot tax a Constitutional right, the issue is null and void.
If this nation had a backbone, we wouldn't have any infringements, period.
Just because a law is in place does not make it constitutional. Many laws that were in place have been found to be unconstitutional.
Yeah, I just saw this part and found it quite appalling. What a clown.
Never underestimate the ability for a slimy politician to twist words
You are reading this situation wrong. He is pro 2A but is just trying to avoid saying anything controversial that the demonrats would use to oppose his nomination. This is not the time to be having that kind of debate.
By saying the courts decide he is taking a noncommittal neutral stance that does not require him to speak against 2A and leaves room for allowing the courts to overturn the NFA.
Like the nfa and the gca!
@@AAA-qr8yy Tf does this have to do with what rock said (which you're replying to)?
Per the 2A as written... We have the right to own ANY weapon!
Full-autos, SBRs, SBSs, etc 🇺🇸
@@Valhalla_Heathen also knives, swords, crossbows, clubs with nails in, trebuchets, cannon of various sizes, etc.
@@Valhalla_Heathen The only reason they’re categorized is due to the government infringing on our 2A right. Had we never had any infringement no one would call a short barreled rifle an SBR. They’d just call it a rifle because that’s what it is.
legalize recreational mcnukes!
whatever can be used to win the war by the American people
No such thing as "Gun violence"
Exactly. My ball hitch has hurt more human beings, namely me, than any of the super scary firearms I have owned over the years. In fact, in my experience, with the exception of armalite rifles, the more the media hypes up something as a god tier murder machine, the more it's really just a liability or direct threat to the operator themselves... Humans murder people. No chunk of metal, no matter how intricate, has ever murdered a man.
As has been said, there is no such thing as a 'dangerous weapon'. There are only dangerous people. And if you possess arms, you become a dangerous person. You're also less likely to be a crime victim and more likely to be able to protect yourself and others.
That is a semantic argument that's the equivalent of clip/magazine that accomplishes absolutely nothing
@@goose103 if definition accomplishes nothing, then you should put a plumber in charge of your heart surgery. After all, it's just a pump, right?
@@goose103Words have meaning.
If you are a threat to society, you will be locked up for crimes. That is your background check.
Yes, civilians are entitled to machine gun ownership because the phrase is "...SHALL NOT be infringed.."
That's a bar. "If you are a threat to society, you will be locked up for crimes. That is your background check"
Put that on a shirt. So much common sense
@@tommynobakaoh heck yeah! Id buy it
@@tommynobaka But Democrats want to release the violent dangerous people who will carry guns illegally while locking up compliant people who are not violent.
If you are a threat, you will be locked up or put on probation. Not a lifetime ban.
@@tommynobaka Gun owners are a threat to the society they are trying to achieve and they want to pass laws to lock us up.
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
Period !
@@7t2z28 keep repeating this truth!
Shall Not Be Infringed has been Infringed from A to Z !!!
Time to stop !!!
" A well regulated militia, ..."
" the right of the people, shall not be infringed."
@@59jm24what do you believe the definition of a “well regulated militia” to be?
@@59jm24that doesn’t mean regulated by the government. It means they were prepared to do their job.
@@59jm24 I really wish anti-2A dipshits would learn the difference between a prefatory clause, and an operative clause.
What kills me is that no background check stops a criminal or anyone from owning a firearm period. They will get it if they want it bad enough.
Do they think that every person on the street in a gang, cartel And so on all of their guns are purchased through the background check system ?
Sadly these people know this , so it's just about regulating " we the People "
Stay free
EDIT: There is no such thing as gun violence, it is people violence. Someone can do the same damage with a knife, baseball bat, tire iron, Automobile and the list goes on and on
Do we regulate all of these things?
You are correct. It's all about controlling the people.
Knives, blades weapons are regulated. Cars are regulated.
What the hell are talking about 😂
Come at me with a tire iron and see what happens if I have an AR15 😂
@ you’re absolutely missing the point that went right over your head.
violence is acted out in many ways, it’s not always about a firearm. There are many places, countries were guns are not allowed yet people kill people without guns. Government doesn’t just try to take away those items.
How many people get run over by a car and killed, Does government try to take away your car?
How about a kitchen knife? Do they take those away because someone decided to pull the knife out of the block and use it?
Lot of examples, but you may not understand it because he reacted without thinking
Cars, yes.
Bladed objects? State by state and you can predict which by how they handle firearms.
My state for instance is a CC AND "stand your ground" state. I can own and carry anything I want as long as I don't use it on someone out of malice.
Had a kid stab a mugger with a frikken sword here when he was accosted on his way home from martial arts class. No charges and everyone still makes fun of the mugger.
Nobody makes fun of the kid with the sword. He's already made his point.
Cars, yes.
Bladed objects? State by state and you can predict which by how they handle firearms.
My state for instance is a CC AND "stand your ground" state. I can own and carry anything I want as long as I don't use it on someone out of malice.
Had a kid stab a mugger with a frikken sword here when he was accosted on his way home from martial arts class. No charges and everyone still makes fun of the mugger.
Nobody makes fun of the kid with the sword. He's already made his point.
No more infringements on our 2A rights! We should be able to freely own suppressors, SBRs, SBSs and other Class 3 firearms like free citizens 🇺🇸
3:34 all gun control is unconstitutional 2nd 4th 5th .. shall not be infringed right to privacy in person and affect and right to remain silent.
As FBI director his job isn’t to interpret the Constitution. It is to enforce the law.
His job is to enforce the constitution supreme law of the land as it is written.
The SCOTUS' job is not to be the final arbiter of what is Constitutional. It's to settle disputes among people and the states. What is Constitutional remains with the people and the states.
Speaking of FBI and machine guns,didn't the FBI just gift a Thompson Sub Machine Gun to someone publicly? 🤔
@
Are you thinking about the head of ATF that just retired receiving a gift (unlawful transfer) of a “ghost gun”?
Wasn't that just an 80% receiver?
Slavery was in place and considered constitutional. Is he really going to make the morally and mentally bankrupt argument that a law can't be unlawful?
The law against slavery was wrong, but it was not unlawful until the 13th Amendment barred slavery and involuntary servitude except as punishment on conviction of a crime.
As the head of a law enforcement agency, his job is not to pick and choose which laws he will enforce.
Anti slavery laws are unconstitutional.
try gay marriage or polyamory-marriage aka Edmonds act to my knowledge is still enforced but 1963-act should have ended that and or the 14th/other right's should have stopped it from passing and or staying in placement ect or the jimmy's-crow law's and or homelessness/sundown entrapment enforcement's ect
@Bob-cx4ze Bob dude I really like your wording on the point lol but u are correct in your meaning bro
The second amendment says, 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. Any infringement is against the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
Don't forget that Article 1 Section 8 does not authorize Congress to regulate firearms. The sneaky bastards have justified it through their taxing authority. NFA is a tax.
@@steveunknown8407
The word (state) in the 2nd government restriction clause (amendment) is NOT to be capitalized.
That word is a purpose to see how (free) are you from government tyranny.
The 2nd (amendment) government restriction clause's sole purpose is for defending your library (freedom) from government tyranny NOT in defense of the state in which you reside.
Every gun law is an infringement.
@@deborahhargrove3710 The 2nd amendment is a restriction on what the government can do, it doesn't grant us anything that we already have, it just protects it.
@@git_gud556
Yes you are right and every gun control law enacted after November 15 1791 is unlawful.
Bruen Decision.
Progressives and the ignorant haven't figured that out yet.
Who are they to say who's hands are the wrong ones to hold machine guns?
Guns are themselves not violent. People are violent. The constitution CLEARLY states that the government DOES NOT choose what citizens can and can not have.
the extreme position is on Mr Welch because the last time i check the constitution does not say anything about getting permission from the government to bear arms. I then check the states constitution and to my surprise none of those had anything about the government permission either
ya but all the gun clubs are ok with the licensing of a fundamental right and have said that on the record...look at the wilson v hawaii no license case. not one gun club helped him out, so he relied on a public defender who said hawaii can require a license, but it can't be a criminal charge for not having one..RIDICULOUS. This case should have been, I don't need a license to exercise a fundamental right protected under the bill of rights.PERIOD
That's not Mr Welch, that's Padilla, a communist dem from California...
The name plate is Padilla not Welch
@@Fudgieguys thanks for the correction, was not sure since i see Mr.Welch name plate, i stand corrected. my statement is still true for mr padilla
@@MrDLRubecause they have a financial incentive…the owner of my gun shop agrees with licensing and training requirements due to the fact it makes him money…Now, I disagree with him. Nothing should be “mandatory”. However, people should train and acquire any and all information regarding the firearms they own in order to be “well regulated”.
Kash Patel: Do You Have a Right to a Machine Gun?
Yes. The 2A does not exclude them. Arms are all inclusive so the public will have parity of arms with government forces that could be used against the public.
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
Yes
The constitution is the law of the land! The USSC doesn't always get it right!
Dredd Scott, imminent domain, govt "sovereign" immunity...
The list is endless.
If anyone doubts this, ask then if the _Dred Scott v. Sanford_ case was decided correctly.
Literally always have been... so are howitzers and AT4's.... the word "arms" refers to ALL arms before, during, and after ratification... from rocks to rockets, everything in between, and beyond. If they just wanted it to apply to firearms, they would have specified.
Hawa'ii found out knives (like butterfly knives and switchblades) are also 'arms' potected by the Second Amendment.
even further than that, if i pick up a chair or throw a stapler, they are arms, people think too narrowly what the definition covers, and necessity is often the mother of invention
@TDarcos that is correct
"arms" also incudes ammunition and armor, regardless of what any State might say.
@@ralphm6901 yes, that's also correct
The government telling us what arms we are allowed to own completely undermines the entire point of the US constitution and bill of rights...😂 it's like children dictating to their parents what the rules are...
slavery was the law of the land..... doesn't make it correct, or right.
and would have faded sooner if the Africans did not practice it like a religion or the Muslims incorporating it into their countries laws
Slavery is still law of the land everyone incarcerated can be used as slaves.
Doesn't matter what laws they have on guns the criminals don't care they get a gun regardless of laws. These Politician are dumb as hell.
No, they are not dumb, they know what they are doing. They want to take our rights away and if we do not resist to the fullest of our ability they will win
They're worse than dumb. They're fools, blinded by their own lust for power over us, regardless of the cost---to them, or us.
All weapons are protected by the second. Period
The Senator is an extremist who was attempting to paint Kash Patel as an extremist.
Remember: the 2nd amendment was wrote at a time that the nation rented privately owned warships.
In my opinion, if I could afford a fully armed battle tank or an attack helicopter, (I couldn't even afford the ammo for such) it would be my right to own such gear; even without the second amendment.
He needed to be blunt. "No, background checks are Unconstitutional" and "Yes, US civilans have a Guarenteed, Absolute, Natural, Basic Human Right to own machine guns"
edit test for sensor ships
Unfortunately Kash can’t be that direct. No nominee can for that matter. Once in the position they can then steer their department towards what the president wants and what the party wants. We have to be smart about this.
Yes, policies and programs. Not the Law. So those policies and programs are unconstitutional.
In _Caetano v. Massachusetts_ 577 US 411, the US Supreme Court overturned a conviction for possessing a stun gun, deciding the law unconstitutional because more than 200,000 are owned by Americans, (typically for less-lethal means of defense), that means they are in common use and thus can't be banned. As there are about 700,000 ATF-registered machine guns in private hands, I'd say that probably means Full-Auto machine guns are protected by the Second Amendment. If someone wants to challenge this, go after the 'low-hanging fruit' fruit. There has never been a law before 1986 that banned new weapons (no historical tradition), then argue machine guns are in common use.
The 700K figure isn't a good position to fight from. The 700K includes all manufacturers inventory and non federal government (state/local) weapons. The number in possession of private citizens is somewhere around 200K. The position to fight from (at least initially) is to attack the tax stamps for suppressors, select fire weapons, and SBRs.
It has always been federally legal to own a machine gun in the USA!
After the 1930’s you had to pay a 200 dollar tax to the ATF.
Now some states do not allow it but federally ok.
By the way No crime had been committed with a legal machine gun owner since the lad was passed .
@josephpadula2283 ive always found it funny, that the government tells you machine guns are so deadly and no one should be able to own one. But if you pay a $200 extortion fee and pass a background check then it's ok.
Ummm ATF didn't exist until 1974 it was thought up in 1972.
NFA wasn't passed illegally unconstitutionally until 1934, before 1934 there was no such thing as gun laws/gun control in the united states of America period. There was no such thing as gun free zones until around 1965 when a guy shot some criminal in a court house.
@
Ok the treasury then, they had to give jobs to the guys laid off from arresting bootleggers after they repealed prohibition !
Illegal unconstitutional gun licenses/permits didn't legally exist until the 1980s early 90s. Illegal unconstitutional background checks didn't exist until the late 80s early 90s.
Mr Welch can you show us where in the constitution it mentions background checks? Where does ANY weapon be ban or limited ?
Due to the camera angle, hes not Mr Welch. The senator speaking is Mr Padilla.
Loved ordering out of the Sears and Wards catalogs shotguns and deer rifles 60's and 70's.
That would be until the gun control act of 1968.
You could buy a Chicago typewriter (Thompson submachine gun) out of magazines and catalogs back then.
One of the biggest issues with these questions...they are asking his opinion. You see, his opinion shouldn't really matter. There are some who like to be in leadership positions and push their opinions/agendas (coughdiddlebackcough). That is not how it's supposed to work, genius Welchie. The law is supposed to be followed regardless of one's personal beliefs. When you consider this, Kash answered exactly as he should have.
He needs to say what he has to to be confirmed....then the show begins.
He should have stated that the FBI does not make the law, they enforce it. Congress makes the law and the Court determines if it is Constitutional or not. Per the Miller, Heller and Bruen decisions, the Supreme Court of the United States has determined that machine guns are protected by the 2A of the US Constitution. Neither my personal opinion, or yours, determine Constitutional law or its enforcement.
You can get an FFL and own a "machine gun" as a civilian, so YES!...
I think Kash Patel is avoiding clear answers, because he wants to be approved. And he doesn’t want to be pigeonholed. He should have reminded the congress that the FBI law enforcement and is mot responsible for writing or interpreting laws.
Exactly! You hit the nail on the head. Democrats are used to the enforcement branch of governments ignoring laws they don’t like - like sanctuary cities and the Biden administration in general. So, it’s a strange concept to them when Republicans say - we actually enforce the laws - whether we like them or not.
He kinda did say that.
Yes! The government has no authority to make any laws or regulations against arms per the Constitution of the United States.
Welch is a new, "I'm unable to comprehend the US CONSTITUTION" creep that I hadn't been aware of before.
I have a right to own machine guns, but they were lost in an unfortunate boating accident.
Yes, sadly I had a similar boating accident in which all my firearms were lost. It's a real tragedy such accidents are so common.
The questions posed by many of the US Senators is elementary school playground shlitz. What an utter joke and what a$$es they make of themselves.
Mr Welch exposed his own prejudices by not accepting the answers as given by Kash Patel...
It's the DOJ's job to respect the Constitution as interpreted by SCOTUS.
That's Padilla(D) from California, not Welch....
Yeah, this is what I was thinking.
He only exposed his own agenda, and how he would use the FBI as a way to enforce his agenda, not the law.
These inquisitors are so unbelievably nasty they waste the opportunity to address things that matter.
He did as well as you can expect him to. Confirmation hearing is not the place to speak freely. A successful hearing is one in which the appointee gets enough votes to be confirmed. Really it’s playing politicians at their own game. Say whatever it takes to get confirmed (elected)then do what you want.
And you can't lie because you're under oath. All you have to do is give nonanswers and speak very deliberately. If they ask "do you like chocolate ice cream", you don't respond with "yes", you respond with "Chocolate is a very popular and well liked flavor." Personally, I'd rather have had him snap back and say "would you prefer if i was for violating our citizens 2nd Amendment rights?"
At $0.40/cartridge a M16 costs $240.00/minute to operate on fully-automatic fire.
All infringement is a felony.
Did the antigun hack expect Patel should say he’d forbid ownership of firearms in contravention of law and SCOTUS jurisprudence?
Do people have to have a universal background checks to get a vehicle, to prevent vehicular violence.🤔
The confirmation hearing is essentially an interview. If you want to get the job, sometimes you have to tell them what they want to hear. But as you said he "walked the line", or in my opinion he "dodged the question" by giving a politically neutral answer.
Everything was passed and created for a reason… Concentration camps were also created “FOR-A-REASON” (claps hands per syllable) but that does not mean they were a good thing.
Claps per syllable like a psychotic Karen thinking she has something to say.😂
I wish instead of Pam Bondi it was Mark Levin. Who's your choice?
The alleged congressman questioning Mr KP is also unaware that many "laws" passed are declared Unconstitutional by the SC. Nothing prevents Congress from passing an unconstitutional law; it is the prevue of the SC to make that determination, and that is because there is zero penalty for Congress to pass unconstitutional laws, to date...
Any rule/law involving guns is an infringement.
Thats Sen Padilla(D) from Commifornia...not Welch, his mic must've been down.
Background checks are a form of presumptive guilt. Government presumes you have malign motives for purchasing an item, and requires you to navigate a permitting system designed and implemented by the very people who presume you to have malign motives in order to persuade that government that you do not have malign motives for purchasing that item.
This is expressly prohibited by the 5t Amendment: "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."
Government preemptively deprives a person of liberty and or exercising the right to possess a given item of property first, then requires that person to overcome legal obstacles to exercise that right to property/liberty. This is government depriving people of liberty and property without due process of law when *government* having to navigate a legal process in order to deprive that person of liberty and property is what the 5th Amendment requires. Just as government does not get to imprison a person first, then require him to prove his innocence, government cannot deprive a person of liberty first then require that person to prove he is entitled to liberty.
I usually cancel a channel that requires “ GOT IT “ communistic control but, aside from the communist requirement , you just put on the absolute best presentation that I ever witnessed concerning the Constitution and every citizens gun rights. Thank you for sharing this information, especially for those who are somewhat clueless !
Why don't you drop the USCCA
anything the government owns is what americans can own, costitutionally,that is.
Padilla has no footing to speak on the 2A
Both of his feet are in his open mouth.
Just because a law is passed and is in-place does not mean it is constitutional. That Senator is hopefully voted out, sooner the better.
Of course we have the right to full auto.
I enjoy it here in Michigan and have been to local machine gun shoots
@@fettpunkrcrocketryshananag6681 what do you mean “in Michigan” the NFA is federal.
Right, but what is the cost ?
Getting permission from the government makes it a privilege not a right.
@@chachis-censored Yep. The guv. has turned it into a privilege until we force them to honor our rights
Kash Patel's job will be to enforce the law irrespective of his personal beliefe. These "gotcha questions" are put forth to infer that he won't. He did a very good job being political on that issue. I think he will do a good job of keeping the FBI out of enforcing political issues
He is not doing the job. He is trying to get the job… It is about vote management, he can’t say anything that senators have told him would lose their vote.
i agree with you, however if Kash was honest and said that background checks and machine gun bans were Unconstitutional, he would lose a lot of Republican support. His confirmation would go down in flames.
People own machine guns legally, they have been made to be cost prohibitive unconstitutionally.
I think Kash Patel is a fantastic nomination, I also think because of the aforementioned, he should do the necessary evils in order to get confirmed. But maybe you’re right, maybe it wouldn’t make a damn bit of difference for those turncoats.
the second amendment says the we the people are allowed to own any and all weapons equal to that of the united states government . so any thing they own in there army we can own as well . back ground checks and permits as well are unconstitutional . that is why legal constitutional own buy and carry should be law of the land .
Is it a "bearable arm"?
I'd say the constitution is pretty clear about it
Simple questions. All background checks are unconstitutional. Machines gun bans are unconstitutional. Next question Mr. Welch
He simply could have said "In my opinion all arms are protected under the Second Amendment, and until you you show me in the Second Amendment where it says otherwise my opinion will remain yes".
And while there is a restriction on full auto's made after 1986, ones that were made prior to 1986 are perfectly legal to own and sell.
It's not what the courts ruled, its what was written in the Bill of Rights. Arms meams any firearm.
Arms means anything from a rock and sharp stick, to Lightsabers and laser guns, and everything in-between.
I’d like for someone who gets asked these types of questions to ask their senator to explain how “shall not be infringed” is often misinterpreted as “we’ll continue to create laws that infringe on people’s God given rights”.
Implicated? I own a number of firearms - 7 pistols, 4 long guns. Should there be any limits? Grenade launchers? Land mines?
If machine guns were illegal, how are there machine guns that have been grandfathered in? Obviously, they aren’t illegal if owned in the governments “approved” way.
Mr. Padilla stepped in shit by acting like Patel didn't know the law, then revealing that he himself doesn't know the law.
He should have walked through Bruen, if the regulation has to be consistent with a regulation of the founding era, then no, registration (is an arms ban) and tax stamp is not consistent with any founding era regulation. Same with background checks.
Here is a thought: It amazes me how many of our elected officials have no concept of not only the 2nd Amendment but all the rights guaranteed the American People under our Constitution in this our Constitutional Republic. The directional language "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is enumerated in many of the Amendments.
The only reason the rules exist is to infringe on the constitutional rights of citizens under the 2A were these rules passed by Congress or the Supreme Court or just the ATF?
3:38 "Yes it's Constitutional; it's in place for a reason." This guy says that like nothing unconstitutional is ever put in place. Imagine him in the 60s, "Jim Crow laws are constitutional; they're in place for a reason." What a joke trying to invoke the Constitution like that.
Yep, you should have whatever the gov has to suppress you. Balance of power.
Fact is that the second amendment doesn't make any distinctions between the different firing modes or magazine capacity or look of the guns, all of this is later interpretetion and policies adopted which has nothing to do with the second amendment, therefore all guns are protected by the second amendment!!! If you was able to own the most advanced military rifle then you should be able to own it now..... the second amendment hasn't changed, the technology did!!! ⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️👁️
The Supreme Court knows that we have an absolute Right to possess all types of military WEAPONRY, and yes background checks are Unconstitutional as well, and just because these restrictions are in place does NOT MEAN THAT THEY ARE CONSTITUTIONAL, it only means that the Supreme Court has not determined the unconstitutionality of the background checks, or determine that the people actually do have a Right to possess machine guns and much more than just machine guns, but I don't have alot of faith in the findings of the Supreme Court, because of several reasons.
One is that they arbitrarily came up with this thing about having to be "in common use" to be considered to be Constitutional.
They also came up with the saying dangerous and unusual, which seemingly gives them some right to restrict or ban certain things that the Second Amendment NEVER mentioned in the Directives or the wording of the Second Amendment.
Then there is also the issue of machine guns, and all guns being completely unregulated for well over 130 years plus, until a politician decided that since a dozen or more criminals used all kinds of guns, including machine guns to rob and murder people, that they would ignore their oaths of office and pass Unconstitutional legislation to regulate,and tax NFA items, I during completely innoculous items like suppressors, as if they were dangerous some how, but luckily one thing that the Supreme Court finally did get right was the Bruen decision, which prevents laws like all of the federal and State gun laws on the books.
Someone should tell Mr. Welch that it doesn't MATTER what Patel thinks.
It matters what SCOTUS thinks.
Toolbag.
😂😂😂
The real question that needs to be asked is," If confirmed as the New Director of the FBI, would you use your Authority as Director of the FBI to influence the direction of the FBI to your own personal convictions or Lead the FBI by the Law of the Land?" In my opinion, the best responsive answer to a gun question would be," If the Supreme Court says its either constitutional or unconstitutional I will follow the law as ruled.".
His answers to all three questions were excellent and correct. The SCOTUS, as most here know, has given us guidelines to determine if a gun law is unconstitutional. By those guidelines...yes, almost all federal gun laws are unconstitutional. But he couldn't say that or risk losing some soft RINO votes for confirmation.
He walked the line perfectly. His is nominated for an executive branch position. He differed to the courts. That is exactly what he should do.
The 2A is pretty clear to me.
And it's been all sorts of infringed.
Should have started quoting the Miller v. U.S. case that said that "any arm that is NOT useful for militia service is NOT protected under the Second Amendment." Therefore, any arm that IS useful for militia service IS protected.
Then throw Heller at him and reference the "common use" standard.
Then Caetano setting the bar for common use at 200k units in circulation.
Then reference how we can verify that there's likely significantly more than 200k registered machine guns in circulation already and thus, they MUST be protected by the Second Amendment.
Just sayin
Yes, "the right of the people to keep and bear arm, shall not be infringed."
Yes , no infringements .
The antigun hack is from California. Think of him as Barbara Boxer with a male member.
For the record... "We" the citizens are supposed to have the right for the government to leave us the hell alone if we are "Well Regulated"!
Freedom is extreme. All of this nation's founders would be considered extremists by this senator's standards. In fact, I seriously doubt that any of our founders, after hearing his questions, would consider this man fit for the Senate seat he currently holds.
I'm wondering why in the world there a liberal ATF Director just resigned while committing a felony never prosecuted any Glock switch cases. Or at least extremely few compared to how many they found.
I like Patel's answer in the context of his appointment. He's going to be the director of the FBI, and his answer was essentially he looks to the Supreme Court to rule on what is the law of the land. Thats his (will be) job in the FBI to uphold the law of the land as set by the supreme court.
We dont need rogue offices (ATF) just making up whatever shit they want, they need to be adhereing to the letter of the law.
As to whether or not something is constitutional is our job to challenge in the supreme court and get it changed. Its the FBI and the Directors job to stick to what the supreme court decides, and in that I think he gave the best answer.
I believe he gave the best answer he could. It would be great to see someone throw those points in a Senators face. However, an FBI director has to uphold the law of the land without personal bias. We just hope the person can live up to those ideals. It’s up to the courts to decide what laws are constitutional and until they do we are stuck with them. Did make me feel good about my GOA membership.
God bless the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment. I love my USA and what it stands for!!!
The Reps and Senate that passed the NFA could not believe it passed.