I do think he is being serious. From what I can tell and how these kinds of debates usually end up, he really meant what he said in this video. As an American, I can confirm this.
I'm a Canadian, and honestly I just can't understand the whole guns for self protection thing. I know very very few people that own a gun, and all of those that do own it for hunting purposes and usually live outside the big cities. I've never ever felt a need to have a gun in case of robbery or something...
@@sebnanchaster I, in spirit, agree with you, but you have to remember that you live in canada (and I do in russia); from what I hear, america can be very dangerous! especially considering that some bad people can have guns, so it's a catch 22 lol
I'm pretty sure all those guns have proprietary licenses, even the Vepr. I didn't see any ghost guns, possibly the AR, but even if you built it, likely it has some proprietary parts. You need open source guns. Mill your own parts, get a 3d printer and learn to be a gunsmith.
@@suburbanyute340 this. my son's 3 so still pretty young but in a few years I'm going to take him out one day with grandpa & teach him how to shoot with a 10/22 or something
I feel like a gun is just a tool id a poor analogy though, since it's a tool that is designed with the primary job of killing, whereas a hammer has uses like building and simply might be used to kill. Likewise, open software may be used unethically but it generally can't kill anyone regardless of the person behind the keyboard...
I'm supporting free software because it's an international topic and doesn't harm anyone. For guns, I simply stay away from this discussion because I'm not an american anyways. Edit: But one thing to mention if you really play with the idea to fight against the military and government today, have fun to fight against high tech autonomous drones and what else they have nowadays. If you use tech that's hundreds of years old against new tech, I don't know how big the human ego and hubris is. Maybe it's only the old romantic idea of self heroism to take it up with everyone, that drives this "argument" but I don't know and I don't care because that's not my stance anyways.
That’s why the second amendment is supposed to defend your right to own *any* weapon and form militias (which people commonly make the mistake of not differentiating from “military” when reading the second amendment). The air force owns autonomous drones, the Navy owns Carriers, and technically, you can too! If you have the money to pay for it that is. Of course, money will always be another issue.
@@RANDOMNAME-kj1zv Ok that's fine, but it doesn't make the argument for normal guns against the government stronger. And if my country is in a state where I myself must buy military weapons, there's something REALLY wrong. So you have the "self defense" argument left. Personally I choose professionals to protect me, instead of buying a gun and invest the time to learn to operate it. Only because someone buys a gun doesn't make em useful with that. Every knife or even a hit is faster, so you need to buy one, learn to use it and simulate some scenarios that you can react fast. And if I look at shooter simulation games (not ego shooters, but something like ARMA or similar), they're even easier because you don't must operate the weapon, most people are far away from to make a gun useful in a critical real life scenario. But anyways, as I said above luckily that's not my problem and if my country gets to this state that the justice system is that broken, I'm out. In a fight or flight scenario I'll always choose flight, I've better things to do in my life than to risk it. If I'm going through several scenarios, there will never be a situation where I would need a gun, even more so without regular training. I can understand both sides but before I would ask for guns I would ask for a working justice system. Of course most americans have another opinion about this, that's why I would never want to live there, the amount of shootings are insane if you look at it from another country.
In a scale of 1 to 10, that comment is an 11 on the funny scale. I got an ad the second he finished saying "this gun is great for children as well" at 6:46
I can agree on open source and free software, however I'm from Japan and moved to America almost 10 years ago. I do not feel safe in this country at times and don't believe I should have to carry a gun to do so. I've been held at gunpoint and this would have never happened in Japan. Not saying robberies don't happen, it's rare but there is surveillance everywhere as well and fear instilled regarding consequences. Guns are far too accessible in the US with very little required to be able to purchase one. Generally not even mental health screening! There is crime in Japan and its far from a perfect country but you shouldn't be scared to walk around at night in the cities fearing that having a gun pulled on you.. EVER. I generally have no idea how somebody can believe that in such an unregulated system that this could be a good idea. I mean this isn't a third world system but some things generally just don't make sense. I understand that yes, if you're a felon you cannot obtain a gun legally but with so much availability and little to no tracking not to mention reregistering not even being a thing, there's no way to know where many guns can end up. Ranting on this topic wasn't my intention I just can't understand the mindset. The country isn't an old American country western film anymore. To many guns are used towards violent hate crimes, murder and just plain acts of violence. I'm aware that since others have these weapons that we think its only right to have them as protection but that's where I think the system has failed us. I hate politics and even being involved in these conversations but I cant be the only one that thinks this way. humanityalleged
It's less of an issue in japan not because owning firearms is illegal in japan, but because japan is a homogeneous society. If you only account for caucasians in USA then USA has less gun problems than many european countries where owning a firearm is illegal.
I don't live in the US but the major difference between a hammer and a gun is that a gun is made specifically to injure living organisms. Nothing to be taken lightly. And I don't think that guns improve security. There are other ways to make sure you are heard by the government. Threatening someone with a gun to get off your lawn sounds medieval to be honest. At least there should be strict tests before one could buy a gun and buying one from the super market is definitely to be avoided.
Ok, I'm a communist because I live in Germany where gun possession is very restricted. But I don't want to be a communist so I will move to the US. But wait a minute, there are those strange speed limits on freeways, which is a violation of human rights as everybody knows here in Germany. Are we all communists? I will ask my wife. She is Russian and should know.
@@jac1011 Bullshit. Commies just want to arm the revolutionaries. After that, only the Party members can own guns. In Soviet Russia, first thing Lenin did was to confiscate all guns. In Bulgaria, the first thing the Commies did after the coup of 1944 was to confiscate guns. East Germany banned guns. In Hungary, the commie government dissolved all gun clubs and disarmed everyone that wasn't loyal to the Party.
First of all I want to clear out that I've never lived in the US so I don't know how that second amendment affects your everyday life. The way I see it, gun prohibition is similar to the traffic laws and the nuclear weapon agreement countries have, as in that it's a trade-off between freedoms and order, and in this case I'm willing to not have a gun if it means the others won't either, same as I'm willing to follow the traffic laws if it means that others will as well. Sure there will be people who won't, but it will be a minority. - A gun has a major difference from let's say knives, it just needs a trigger to be activated instead of needing you to active use it. Same reason why a lot of people who try to kill themselves with a knife give up while cutting, you have more margin to back down before committing the unforgivable. - A gun is a tool, yes. But what purpose does it serve besides protecting you from other people wearing that same tool? I'd also like to clear out that I don't think that getting rid of second amendment is conceivable in the present USA. No method to be sure everyone will give out without a long term change of mentality. But for the countries that have guns already prohibited they better stay that way.
There is an important difference between guns and knives which you did not mention: A knife is a tool which can be used as a weapon: It can be used to kill, but that is not its intent. It was made to whittle wood, cut vegetables, or spread butter. A gun is just a weapon: Killing is its primary purpose.
It's primarily about having the ability to overthrow a tyrannical govt. And by that logic, yes I do think we should have tanks, anti air missiles, and even recreational mini nukes but I think the people in the army with access to these will defect over to our side or at least that's my hope. Secondly it's about liberty and it's part of the american creed. We don't like being told what to do. If someone told you that everyone had to use windows and nothing else, would you go along with it because now everyone is using windows? This doesn't make sense. We generally don't trust our institutions and are fiercely independent. That means we want whatever the govt is currently using and even if the cops can teleport to you when there is trouble, we would still want to defend ourselves. This in your example would be a select few "trusted" people using GNU/Linux just in case Windows isn't enough. Our great nation was founded on the principle of god given rights and liberties and we came together to form a government to protect those liberties. It's very different from everyone else whose rights were granted to them by the govt as a privilege and who can take those privileges back whenever it wants. We will never hand over our primal right to self preservation to a government that's supposed to simply protect those rights, not encroach on them Now I want to address the differences between tools and guns you mentioned. We also have tasers and rubber bullets as well but these aren't as much of a deterrent as a live round being fired as a warning shot and then a non critical shot. I'd argue there is even more margin to back down because once someone pulls a gun out, you know to back up. And if they fire a warning shot, you know to run. The gun serves a purpose both as an equalizing tool to defend yourself against anyone with any weapon and as a deterrence tool. Imagine grandma being robbed by 3 young buff guys. She pulls out a handgun and it's a much fairer fight. She pulls out an AR and they better run. You're right about any attempt to take guns away met with harsh backlash (and war) here in the US. It's in our blood. We're not trusting like you Europeans (I'm guessing) and that's served us well at least these past 25 years with all these wars, govt spying, false flag events, more and more authoritarian politicians. The gun is insurance against a tyrant, a deterrent for a would be tyrant, a tool for hunting game and a defense tool to protect your loved ones, your property and yourself
Nukes, napalm, fighter jets, tanks, none of that will work to control urban center where the population is armed. Superior firepower couldn't defeat a bunch of rice farmers with inferior guns, it wouldn't work in US soil either. The 2A has explicit language about the government not being allowed to confiscate guns, even for its own self-preservation. Because that's the only thing the constitution can do, gun ownership is a Negative Right. The Constitution only has the power to control what the government can do. But the text, if you understand English, makes it clear, it's an intrinsic right that can't be violated. Go and read some shithole country's constitution, and it'll often say "we the government hereby allows you the right to ...", everything is stated as a positive right, an artificial right that the government gives you. The 2A has none of that. You have the right to own guns, for the obvious purposes of defending life, freedom and property.
@@Captainunsuccessful I have a pretty hard time understanding this argument. A piece of software designed for aiding in the development of security systems is in some sense equivalent to a weapon designed for killing? Huh?
I dont think you can compare software with guns, while the former is a tool that could be used for every purpose the latter has only one (intended) purpose, which is hurting, killing or threatening others. While owning a gun may seem fair in countries like Amerika, thats only because you have to fear other might own a gun too. Here in europe you dont have such fears, so you dont feel the need to own weapons in order to protect yourself. However I do agree that topics like this need more open discussion without political prejudice.
as an european i disagree look at all the grenades they keep finding or the gang liquidations happen in some countries it most definitly makes me want to have the capability to defend myself because as it stand in alot of places here in Europe the criminal has more rights the victim itself
Just want to preface this comment by saying I have actually watched this video a few times cause I really want to make sure I understand your point of view and where you are coming from before I make a comment. I also want to say that while my comment is mainly going to be anti guns I am not going to make any arguments on what could/should be done about guns cause I admit I'm not an expert. With that out of the way... In response to your "guns are tools" point. I 100% agree that guns are just tools and people are the ones who decide what to do with that tool. However when people make this point they choose to only focus on comparing guns to other similarly dangerous tools and either avoid or fail to even consider the intended reasons the tools exist or why they were created in the first place. A car is an extremely dangerous tool that costs a lot of people their lives every day but the primary purpose of a car is to transport you from point A to point B. A hammer (as you used as an example in the video) is a tool for hammering nails into wood, hammer things into shape, and other things that don't involve trying to harm or kill someone. Guns were originally designed to be a weapon to inflict harm on humans or animals. While target practice is a thing a gun is still primarily designs to harm or kill living creatures. You CAN make the argument that it does nothing unless a person does something with it. But most people that buy guns do it so that if they need to defend themselves, their home, or their family, they can shoot it at someone. The number of people who buy a car so they can drive it into someone instead of to get from point A to point B, or who buy a hammer so they can bash someone's skull in instead of use it for construction is massively small compared to the number of gun owners who bought to hunt or defend themselves. If you take into account the reasons these tools exist and the primary reason people buy them the whole "a gun is a tool" argument really means absolutely nothing. To relate this back to free software there are many different things someone can make free software for. You can make a calculator, an image editor, a desktop environment, a streaming program. You can also make ransomware or piracy software designed solely to steal from specific sites / services. While I fully support the idea that software should not have licenses that restrict who can use the software or how it can be used, modified, or distributed I would still argue that perhaps some software shouldn't exist and we should try to regulate the spread of software solely designed to harm people or steal from them.
I like to see comments like these because it showp people that you care for the topica at hand and you looked into it for a little bit of time, for that everyone thanks you. Believe it or not your relation of guns to cars is correct in many ways but incorrect in few. As for example you said that mkre people buy guns to kill people instead of hunting or defending themselves. That is actually incorrect. The CDC had run a study on gun violence to deduce what people are buying their guns for. Over 3 million people have defended themselves in 2018 alone, that being compared to I think it was 100k people using it to kill another human being. Cars have killed more people than guns on a massive scale believe it or not.
Ian Hower my point was less about numbers or what is more dangerous and more about intent. Cars may be more dangerous but you don’t buy a car so you can inflict harm on another. You do buy a gun for that reason. Even if everyone is the ideal gun owner and no one actually wants to actually use it on a person, a lot of gun owners out there buy a gun so that they can feel safe knowing they could use it on someone if they have to. Whether guns kill more people or cars kill more people it doesn’t change the fact that only one of those items is actually designed to kill.
@Peter Andrijeczko Guns can and are collectors items and they can be fun to shoot. In Switzerland they have the highest gun ownership in Europe but hardly any deaths. You get to keep the gun but the ammo stays at the range you can clean mount and shoot your gun but with the proper precautions in place.
It's unfortunate that the english language has the same word for free (meaning no pay), and free (meaning liberty). The free software movement is only about the latter. It's a rookie misconception, clarified very quickly once you look it up.
I'm Brazilian, we don't have constitutional rights to bear arms here in Brazil, getting auth to have and bear arms here are hard, expensive and you have to PROVE you need to have an handgun, you can't have militar grade stuff like rifles. Don't let this happens with you guys! Criminals can have all the guns and for the citizen whats remain is fear, fear from criminals, fear from police, fear from the state. Don't let the the state control you, politicians and the state should be afraind it's ppl, not the opositie , mantain you right to bear arms, don't let anyone take it from you, because this wouldn't be good for you, your nation and your family. When you lost a right it's hard to get it back, here not even the Brazilian President, Bolsonaro, could restore our right to bear arms!
I live in a country with no 2nd amendment or anything similar, I just like distro hopping and tinkering. I recently saw a guy going at another guys skull with a hammer, he missed and hit him on his back. If it were a gun in his hand I don't know if there would be any second chances, lives would have been ruined. They were brothers. Guns are scary, I say this humbly, the parts in my country where guns are widespread, people get shot, if the innocent people living there were armed, people would still get shot. People can get very crazy very quickly. That being said I appreciate the perspective you show with the examples that you give where a gun would be necessary. Thank you. Btw I use arch.
@@jeffherdzina6716 that feels counterintuitive. Wouldn't visible guns discourage violent stuff as compared to where people are hiding or concealing their guns? If you are hiding a gun and someone jumps you you shoot, if you have one on a holster hanging out wouldn't criminals be discouraged? What is concealed carry exactly?
@@ChitrakChattopadhyay The Beauty of concealed carry is that the person trying to rob you, has no clue as to how many people are carrying a weapon. And, You can carry more than one firearm. In large groups, this puts the "bad guy" in a bad situation. Trust me ...where I live a lot of people carry. And even now we have Open carry in my State.
@@ChitrakChattopadhyay Where I live a lot of Men ..and Women carry weapons for protection. In fact the last time I was in a gun store. half of the people that were looking and buying a firearm, were women.
Absolutely based. Although real communists would probably mostly agree with this. Liberal ≠ communist. The funny thing about liberals is they don't realize that both actual Marxists AND libertarians/individualists believe in the right to bear arms. Political ideology-wise, banning guns is in the minority.
I can see what you mean when talking about freedom of tools, but I can't really come up with a proper valid use case for owning several guns (compared to a wrench, a hammer or free pieces of software). If you're doing hunting, or setting off explosives used for some kind of construction or mining, sure, a gun is a nice tool to have. But for the average person, the main use case would be defense, right? How does owning a gun in a country where everyone else owns a gun make you any safer than not owning a gun in a place where almost no one has access to guns?
So... How does not owning a gun in a country where almost no one has access to guns, but almost everyone who has a gun is criminal makes you any safer?
@@norangico I live in a country with effective gun control and I have literally never been fearful that I may be threatened by anyone (criminal or police) with a gun. It does not even cross my mind as a possibility - it is something we see only in movies. Being struck by lightning is a more serious threat than someone pointing a gun at me. I often see pro-gun Americans talk about "but what if.." as if this were a hypothetical. It is not a hypothetical; we know exactly what happens when proper gun control laws exist because many countries have already done it. It does not turn the country into a criminal paradise where they can run around shooting everyone with nobody to shoot back.
@@Aethid Am I talking about something hypothetically? Likewise, being able to buy a gun for an ordinary citizen does not turn the country into a paradise for psychopaths who mashote every day. You are very lucky if, as you say, criminals do not exist in your country. I am not American. In my country, the police are very corrupt and ineffective. But I believe that even in countries where the police work effectively, people should have the right to defend themselves, to do more than call the police. The desire of people to transfer responsibility for their lives and property to someone else ( the police, the state ) is absolutely contrary to my moral intuition
@@odisdracul You need only into today, right now, to see the outcome of getting rid of guns. To all the countries which have done just that. You know, the ones which totally conincidentally have *zero* crazies murdering dozens of children in schools.
My observation on several issues. 1. Name which states can be called "communist"? 2. Which states can be called "free" 3 which states are the most "criminal" 4. which states with the highest pay for 1 working hour. 5! Now tell me which state you want to live in :)
Nice to see DT get comfortable enough to share what is dear to him. I hope that DT tries to keep politics to a minimum on the channel but once a blue moon is fine.
I'm not a gun person myself since I live in a country with next to no gun rights for civilians, but I get what you are saying. I don't want guns in circulation in Denmark where I live, but I get why you shouldn't give up your right to owning guns. When push comes to shove, America may very well end up being the last standing free country because the government have every reason to fear the people. Look at the madness going on in Australia - civil rights restricted or suspended, and the vast majority accepting it like it's only fair for a government to prohibit demonstrations. What the f.... hell.
jacob sparrow Who said the button presser not responsible? It is a very common argument from gun right defender that gun is just a tool, comparing it to something far less powerful like a knife or a baseball bat. Ignoring the impact factor would make that argument fallible.
Hey DT, I respect your right to wear guns, but disagree with the link you make with free software movement. I understand the freedom of speech and freedom to think, but don't think this video is good publicity for your movement and your channel. But this is only my opinion, as far as I have the right to express myself. Cheers
(30 year aussie linux vet here) DT, you said it yourself. It's not the tools that are the problem, it's the people and I would agree with you on that. But if you need guns 'just in case' to protect yourself from the people walking on your lawn, the problem is then society and people. Most societies around the world have recognized that for the better good of society 'in general' easy access to weapons introduces an easy way to obtain an outcome that would ultimately end in death and in some cases to innocent people. So you can either bare arms or eliminate them from society. The second option has less people dying that is why most countries haven't gone down the American way. So respectfully I disagree with you.
I am for free software. But I disagree. I don't want guns all around me here and am glad that I live in europe. I am honestly shocked when i see that you can buy ammo and guns in a GROCERY STORE in the usa.. I support drug-decriminalization tho. If you support gun-rights. Why not go and let people buy claymores? Why not just sell armed tanks at the car dealership? Some things should be limited.. weapons are made to kill (say what you want "guns dont kill people", no indeed, but they make it a hella lot easier.. and they are litteraly invented for the purpose of killing)
Yesterday I wrote here a longer comment on this, but let me put here a tl;dr reasoning using the example of driving a car. This is why I think people should be educated and assessed before licensing them for carrying and operating a gun: Everybody has to have the fundamental right to move and travel. Therefore everybody has to have the right to drive a vehicle without driving license, as a vehicle is less dangerous than a gun (my only argument to underpin this statement is that vehicles' first purpose is carrying a load or a person, and not causing damage or death). Why then we still insist to educate and asses people before we let them drive? Isn't that an offensive restriction on ones free right to move around? Why everybody just cant walk into a car dealership, buy a car and drive it? They would just simply promise not to kill anyone either accidentally or intentionally. They would just use it for their own concern. Why to make people pay for getting educated on how to use the car, practicing safe and sound usage, and why to expect them to pass any tests to prove their knowledge and capability of properly handling the vehicle?
I disagree with about 99% of what you said but I do agree that fighting to keep a right so you don’t lose it is right but there are better ways to do it
When you come from England it’s hard to swallow a lot of the gun related arguments the US seems to have all the time and from an outside perspective in a country where guns are so rare beyond illegal ones and you hear the umpteenth news report about yet another massacre in another school by a US child using a gun and so much more it’s difficult to personally agree or understand the logic behind any of it purely from a gun related side. So I appreciate what you’re saying, but you don’t change my mind by regurgitating a statement by a body that doesn’t affect me with a single example that I hate to say doesn’t change my mind on any level as it doesn’t stop them anymore than I’d sit here and say it encourages those acts
Ok let's try that "a tool is just a tool" argument with something like opioids. Heroin is just a tool right? "Heroin doesn't kill people, people kill themselves". I agree with the main point of the video but find that argument to be bizarre and arbitrary.
on the surface your argument seems strong however it is deeply flawed, I imagine on purpose. If you wish to look at opioids as tools then that would move them into the realm of medicine, when used properly in the management of pain they can prove quite beneficial, when they are misused then a problem comes in. That would be how to frame the argument of a tool is a tool in terms of opiods. Your framing would allow for the banning of knives, hammers, baseball bats, pretty much anything that has done something to harm someone. Oh let's not forget sugar. But I shouldn't worry the police state you dream of will keep you nice and safe I'm sure.
@@jimduchow1580 Sounds like you are changing the definition to fit your views. Opiods are tool which treat pain and guns are tools which kill people (or animals). Killing people is not a side effect or something. Also your strawman is ridicolous as I specifically stated that I agree with the point of the video: I thing having a gun should be a right. I just don't think that the "tool" argument really shows any hipocrisy, that's all I'm saying
LOL. What a perfectly terrible argument you make, Georgij. Are you advocating for getting rid of opioids? While opioids are misused, they are _incredibly_ useful in medical fields. Likewise firearms are misused, but they are _incredibly_ useful for personal protection and hunting.
To be honest, the fact that you need to carry a gun in order to feel safe wherever you live says more about that place rather than you and your values. If you've had to deal with looters, rioters, etc. throughout your life I can't even condemn your opinion.
It's the case in most places in the world, not all places are like japan with 99/100 of honnest people. And even like that you should have to blindly trust you government
I find it deliciously ironic how you describe the states with more gun control as communist states. Karl Marx famously said "Under no pretext should arms and ammunitions be surrendered, any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary". Most communists, including Marx, want to be able to arm the proletariat, so to say that banning civilian owned guns is communist is palpable and a complete strawman of what communists generally believe. Most communists agree with you.
hes probably doing what many right wing people do. calling most people to the left of them commies. come to think of it, the left call everyone fascists, so its kinda equal i suppose.
@@MirrorDimly I didn't mention soviet communism, I mentioned a quote from Karl Marx, who wrote the most influential material on communist theory. Most communists agree with Marx's analysis of society, regardless of where they are from.
@@aaaaaaaaabaaaaaaaaa Sure, sure. I won't contest that. The Bolshevik revolution could not have happened without violent uprising. I'm just saying that communism seems to have different perceived connotations from country to country (as we also see in other nations such as China and North Korea).
The primary purpose of a gun is to kill but the primary purpose of a hammer, knife, etc. is not to kill. Sure, you can use any object to kill someone but the purpose of a gun to kill. That is the difference.
If someone breaks into my house then my primary purpose is to wound/kill, so a gun is the tool i want. Plus, you can have a gun to participate primarily in sport. Its actually very fun and competitive.
Being pro gun control doesn't mean I'm anti-gun as I have family in law enforcement and military. It just means that I support **reasonable** disqualifiers from gun ownership like being a felon or having significant mental health issues. Also, U.S. politicians are hypocritical in saying the real issue isn''t guns, but mental health. Fair argument, but where is the funding for mental health? As a social worker all I can see are constant cuts to mental health services and funding.
I love how you blame things on those "freedom hating commies" yet you are still against proprietary software, which are one of the many consequences of capitalism
The difference between free software and 2A is while software being free means it has the potential to cause harm, the only thing that a firearm can do is cause harm. It’s the only function that object is capable of performing. If free software could only be used for harm I’d be against it, but unlike guns, it has the potential of being user for something other than harming another living being.
The words “Free” and “Freedom” can have many different meanings for people, depending on culture, ethics, historical conditions. I cannot disagree more with DT for his interpretation of the concept of Freedom expressed in this video, and the parallel between Free Software (free speech) and the freedom to own a gun. Our ethics are way far apart. I’m not saying one is better than the other, but please do not think this video is the “truth”, it’s just an opinion of the concept of “Freedom”. Many of us will disagree, even strongly.
The right to possess a tool meant for killing/severe hurting living beings should be a core value for the right of freedom ... Of course not! I absolute agree with you. The right to use a tool for killing should not be a right in regards of freedom.
@@Cyanwasserstoff The problem is mainly ethical and cultural. Of course everybody should be free to own a gun, but in many part of the world (including Europe, where I live), this particular "freedom" is condidered unecessary and unthetical, and nobody would be proud of that. Here we have a clever person like DT that is proud to show himself in front of the camera with guns and rifles, speaking about "freedom" in a way that many other cultures do consider fanatic and arrogant, if not worst (specially in this last years where you see videos of terrorists proudly showing guns and bombs before attacking the masses of people). For most of us, the word "freedom" has positive ethical values, all things that we hardly see in such an astonishing declaration by DT, but it's a matter of culture and ethical values, not of freedom.
@@stefanotenenti2997 Okay, if we take the freedom in its purest intent, then every restriction would be against freedom. That means every free person can do and have everything when, where and how they want. For a society it is catastrophic, because a free person can even kill without consequences. Freedom should be freedom as long as it does not harm the freedom or personal safety of other persons. Allowing to wear guns is a high risk of the safety of other living beings.
Niccolo Machiavelli: When you disarm the people, you commence to offend them and show that you distrust them either through cowardice or lack of confidence, and both of these opinions generate hatred.
I absolutely agree with gun rights but unfortunately almost everywhere except us is prohibited without a super hard to get license or just hunter guns only license But that thumbnail tho makes me think he is doing no scopes in real life 😂
Gentoo shootists smelt their own steel then cast/forge and mill all the parts before finally hand fitting and assembling them. :3 Reminds me of some of my high end muzzle loading hobbyist friends. :3
@@Lee_Adamson_OCF gentoo shooters mine their own raw materials, then they study metallurgy and composite materials, it's the first part of a 67 step process. At step 69 they die of old age holding a 40mm cannon chambered in 22lr.
I use Ak-47 btw. New ak distros are just bullshit although they use AK47 as base. Use ak-47 instead. It needs a bit more time to configure the rifle, but it worths every single second you spend.
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as guns, is in fact, GNU/guns, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus guns
Guns make killing a lot of people very easy. A WordPress website... Not as easy. If more gun owners were responsible we wouldn't need to have this conversation. I'll admit you make great points, sadly not all owners are deserving of that right. When they flip a switch it's not a website that goes down it could be people... A lot of people.
@@zzco or the US could act like all the other developed nations. where I live we have (compared to the US) much stricter gun restrictions, much lower crime rates, milder sentences and our police doesn't have to kill as many people (only 10 on average per year per 80 million citizens).
@@Jumptohistory talk about talking about being trapped in political partisanship and then call accuse anybody who is anticommunist of being partisanly
@@aemilianusmartinus5472 Yeah, I am not particularly bothered that he owns guns. I understand that in the US that is considered normal . . . In other places it would be considered pretty shocking, but whatever . . . I *am* bothered that he thinks I should own guns too. I am even more bothered that he thinks that they are somehow related to free software. This really is not the message free software advocates should be sending. I do not want to see free software associated with controversial politics or weaponry.
it really is just give it to them after their red ryder
4 ปีที่แล้ว +20
I got one and shot a lot with it until I got very profilic with that -- it is the near perfect rifle to practice with. The ammo is very affoedable as well. Allaemm
I guess some have never had a hunter's safety course. .22 is perfect due to low recoil, and inexpensive ammo. Then, when they are older, the children have knowledge and experience in handling a fire arm so they can graduate to lets say.... a .308 round.
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as guns, is in fact, ammo/guns, or as I've recently taken to calling it, ammo plus guns
Dt: "now, i don't like to talk politics" Me: "alright, nice" Dt *continues to talk about communistst and freedom hating states* Me: "alright, maybe Luke is more sane these days"
@Marco No, they are not. Lots of guns, lots of murders, lots of scared police officers shooting at sight. Shooting first, ask questions later. And yes, it isn't about democrats vs. Republicans. It is about reasonsble protection from guns or let any loon get access to many semi automatic guns (among the ones that actually knows how to use guns securily, locked in out of the way of People that should not use guns unsupervised). And then ask why there are so many murders and cop killings.
@@AndersJackson Just noting that when referencing "semi automatic" weapons, you are basically referring to the majority of guns. That just means one trigger pull = one bullet, which is most pistols and rifles.
The AR15 is the ultimate open source rifle, very few weapons except those based on the AR15 platform are open architechture. I love, love the Steyr AUG but the inability to hugely modify it is not in the FOSS spirit
The gen 3 glock platform is like FOSS for pistols, as I'm sure you know. P320 is coming along as well. Lots of options for people that want to roll their own.
@Joe Hobo Having more variants doesn't mean it has open architechture. Current production AR15's are far more open architechture focused, the HK variant the USMC are adopting is designed to further expand this multi role capacity by creating almost inuversal interchangability. The AK platform, though I am indeed an admirer of it, simply cannot match that.
You started off pretty OK with talking about disagreeing with your party, but then went full partisan when calling states Free vs Communist Not a very good video because of that.
Unfortunately I live in one of those states he would refer to as communist. It may be an exaggeration, but it is bad. It’s like the Constitution doesn’t exist. The only thing standing between us and the fate of countries like Venezuela is that document.
As a "black/mexican" person i find it odd this need to possess so many weapons. I say this because almost every "white" person I know has this "just in case" feeling/mentality/paranoia. as if everyone is out to get them. I myself have been shot. yes shot! my sister has also been shot. And even we do not possess this feeling/mentality/paranoia. Anyways, you do you "i guess" Keep up the good Linux work.
They aren’t pissed, they’re just sad and confused why Americans haven’t gotten a bit smarter about the gun issue. I live in Australia and just about everyone I’ve talked to can’t believe Americans haven’t gotten their shit together when it comes to firearm restrictions. I guess we’re still waiting for those thoughts and prayers to kick in! 😞
I am not pissed, I know that Every situation is caused by other things and situation and has its reasons, I simply think that these reasons shouldn't be there in the first place
It is a limited spectrum and definitely 1 dimensional! The paradigm is viewed as left/right but should really be viewed as Authoritarianism/Libertarianism.
Hey DT, it seems you like guns. Please make another channel for your guns hobby. Maybe doing some hunting adventure and cooking it outdoor or something, that will be fun to watch.
Guns are not tools - they're weapons. They're designed to kill. A hammer is a tool. It's designed to help build things. Can you improvise it as a weapon? Of course. You can also use a lamp, a stick, an IBM Model M keyboard, or a particularly ornery cat as an improvised weapon (with varying degrees of success). But none of those things was expressly designed to kill...except maybe the cat.
There is tool the using a nail as the bullet and a rimfire cartridge to fire the nail as it bullet. You use it to anchor nails your wall frames to concrete such as the foundation of you house. But when it come down to it the device is just a single fire gun. And that not a pneumatic nail gun that is use every day in construction has a suprisingly good range.
I laughed out loud when I pictured someone using a cat 🐈 to kill 😂😂😂 Though to small animals they are indeed that - killers. But then again, so are humans to so much life on this planet 🧐🤔
@@altermetax I live in Germany: I can walk on the street in the middle of the night and I don't have to fear someone with a gun lurking around the corner
@@pdote Let your sister try that trick. Oh wait, the Government told women they shouldn't get out of the home at night without a male handler, right? Must be wonderful living in Germany.
Derek, I'm in the UK. It's a popular misconception that you can't own guns. You can own firearms in the UK. But they are heavily controlled, the regulations are very tight and you need to state your reason. Gun ownership is not something that many people in the UK do. This seems to work for us. But I get a great deal of enjoyment from channels like Hickok45, where there are responsible enthusiastic owners.
DT would define this restricted gun policies as Communism hahaha. So ... UK, now, is a Communist country. What the macarthism did at the USA ... They see "commies" in every place.
and this is a honest inquiry, not an attempt of an offense to someone, but since when is /not being a fully free and liberal state/ is considered communism? i am not in any way politically affiliated in ANY sense, this question just comes to mind coming from a country in south america (Argentina) where guns were never an option and we always get called communists because we have a reasonably "democratic" government, not in any sense actual communism, just not extremely liberal.
Calling other countries communist (when they are in fact not) is a bad habit that American society can't seem to lose since the era of cold war propaganda.
@@iMarimbaFTW no and dont give me the it wasnt real comunism bullshit now in practise party members where allowed to have a single firearm but this was quickly dropped
It's tongue in cheek. I've read Marx and Hegel so I know what communism actually is but I still call California a commie shithole when joking around at work.
I am not a US citizen, I am European. I am not against but neither supporting the Second Amendment. I really support what DistroTube is doing, but this is video operates with several incomplete and false premises: - asks the rhetorical question "what exactly is ethical, or unethical?", then answers it: "well, it depends on who you ask. Its entirely subjective". --Now this is false. Fundamental ethics are not subjective - they are always deeply rooted in the historical and societal fabric of a nation/society. Mostly also deeply defined by religion. Ethics cannot vary by person. Even a lot of the US Constitution's amendments are based purely on ethical standpoints (e.g. 4th, 5th , 13th, 15th, etc). Ethics is not subjective, and in a society one simply cannot just come up with their own personal "subjective" ethical measures because without aligning that with the rest of the society it would risk the integrity of the society itself - The software analogy is also very misleading because of how it is introduced here as an argument: There are so many type of software and the MAJORITY is simply not capable of doing any harm, not to speak of fatal damage (Yes, there are indeed software that can directly cause fatal damage, but the Average Joes cannot simply walk into the "software store" and buy a "Freedom Software" and hack the life support system of a hospital and kill people - or hack communication systems and cause fatal aircraft crashes, etc). But guns are ONLY made for one thing - and that is doing life-threatening or fatal damage. Comparing open source software in general with guns sounds appealing but it is completely wrong - The hammer (and other tool) analogy was the worse: YES, there are a numerous tools that could be used for doing harm or killing someone: your hands, water, medication, a rope, a stone... There are so many, that I cannot even list the physical objects which because of their physical form or chemical attributes can be used for doing fatal damage to a living organism... but ALL THESE TOOLS and objects are created for a primary reason that is NOT doing harm or killing. In contrary, guns are ONLY made for this purpose. Why comparing these then? - he states: "I've noticed that many people in the free software community tend to identify as Liberals". I think I understand why this statement was made, but it is truly sad how intentionally vague the phrasing is and how it is too easy to project a false perception with this. The fact of thinking in silos "Liberals vs. Conservatives" is doing already too much of a harm not just in the US - I see the very same (and shameful) tendency in my home country Hungary where the major tone of the conversations are "Liberals vs. Right-wingers", and in which conversations too many of the participants do not even have a proper definition of what "liberalism" is or what "patriotism", "nationalism", or "conservatism" are... Antifa is a good (extreme) example: they are the same as fascists/neo-nazis, just with a different agenda. They use the same tool set, are totally ditching logical thinking and reasoning, etc. And finally - I am not discussing if gun rights are wrong, but I believe that we are so far away from a society that would be mature enough for bearing guns, that it is safer for the overall integrity of the society if people are first educated and assessed before having a licence to a gun. Free and open source software meant to make the world a better place through the free sharing of knowledge and inspiration of research and cooperation. Gun rights are not about building an open and free society - it is purely about that business in which the US is the first exporter in the world (then comes Russia, China, and France...). Here in Europe we have been through 2 World Wars, and people learned that it is NEVER the guns that solve the problems. I think (and this is my personal, subjective opinion) that the US needs much more of collective education, historical reflection, and a progressive approach to build a peaceful society - rather than let all civilians arm themselves and try to apply "eye for an eye" politics. It would be so much better to actually strive to achieve what open source software movement is meant for.
"Fundamental ethics are not subjective - they are always deeply rooted in the historical and societal fabric of a nation/society." What is considered "right" and "wrong" behavior is absolutely subjective - thus morals, and ethics, are also subjective. Here, let me help you out here: eth·ics /ˈeTHiks/ noun 1. moral principles that govern a person's behavior or the conducting of an activity. mor·al /ˈmôrəl/ adjective 1. concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character. "In contrary, guns are ONLY made for this purpose. " I, as well as _tens of millions_ of other Americans, must be using our guns improperly then.
@@Locke99GS @Locke99GS well, I guess you missed the point: copying the definition of ethics and moral without understanding the word "principles" in them was, I guess, a logical flaw. If "right" or "wrong" were subjective (which is true on an individual level but never on a societal level), mankind wouldn't ever created the institutions of law and jury. We couldn't ever make a court decision if people (societal groups) wouldn't agree on a MUTUAL definition of "right" and "wrong", which makes these agreements objective (to a certain extent, at least for a group of people that share the same legislation principles - usually a nation). Let ME help YOU out here: a samurai killing an other person of a lower class on the spot if that person made a big insult, was defined "right" by the commonly accepted definition of "kiri-sute gomen" in the feudal Japan. Now, this definition was outdated, and nobody is accepting such an act in the modern Japan, and such a killing (by anybody) is now defined "wrong". Not on a subjective level, but objectively by the society. And don't get me wrong: still, when it was right to kill this way, there might have been numerous individuals who probably defined it still as "wrong" on their subjective level, but the objective, society-wide definition was still "right", were not subjective, they were supported by an objective principle based on mutual agreement of the society of the given time and locus. I may assume you were trying (without actually doing it, because copying two definitions without adding your own arguments is hardly "doing") to discuss the universal philosophical question of "right" and "wrong", but in this case it is a bit weird to start discussing how subjective the two are by adding two objective definitions in which you simply ignore one part of the definition (I.e. "prinicple") and furthermore ignoring the context and meaning behind the definition. Speaking of what guns are made for: well, yes, although given the physical attributes of the objects you can use them as a hammer or paper weight, these are still only made for doing irreparable damage (in objects or organisms) by accelerating a projectile which collides with an other object. Of course, if you don't use it as intended (a.k.a. not operating it and not shooting) it can be used as a visual deterrence, but I would be really eager to see a real argument that explains the opposite - and please do not waste your time for an incomplete and false-premise-based attempt such as "using our guns in improperly then"... Maybe I misunderstood you, but I simply couldn't figure out what you were trying to suggest here. What are you using your gun for?
@@oumarh.gassama8063 Come on man. Now you're misunderstanding (or misrepresenting) "subjective" and "objective". Societal norms and mores don't make a thing objective. sub·jec·tive /səbˈjektiv/ adjective 1. based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. "his views are highly subjective" ob·jec·tive /əbˈjektiv/ adjective 1. (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. I use my guns primarily for target plinking and action pistol competition. Since you say guns are "ONLY made for one thing - and that is doing life-threatening or fatal damage" and I am not using them for that purpose, then I and so many of my peers must be using them incorrectly. The vast majority of guns in America have never shot a person or animal, and very few ever will. You've used and emphasized "ONLY" and "NEVER" in your original comment. It is hard to take seriously the ideas of somebody who fallaciously reduces things into monochotomies, then emphasizes that reduction. It is hard to take seriously the ideas of somebody who argues that the ideas if a society settles on an idea, that somehow that makes that idea an objective truth. You probably made other arguments from flawed premises, but I honestly stopped really reading your comment when I realized that you don't seem to care that words have definitions, or that those definitions aren't in line with your argument. Sorry man, but I can't take your arguments seriously.
@@Locke99GS so now you make some ad-hominem fallacies ("it's hard to take seriously the ideas of someone") and using it as an argument? You are right, I presented the two concepts incomplete and that was misleading. Objective is based on facts without the personal feelings - and that is where you misunderstood the concept: facts cannot be bent to match personal preferences. A rough example: The way a society works is a fact. Also, if the modus operandi of that society is unsustainable, is a fact. And the two facts can be simply controversial as they are facts of different layers of phenomena and processes: the given society works based on rules and the society flourishes, but for example destroys other societies. Both phenomena can be factual, and not enough to determine of any of those are "right" or "wrong" unless you inspect it from an ultimate holistic view. What if the "other" (destroyed) societies would have destroyed the habitat of the two? What if the society which destroyed the other would ultimately destroy the habitat?... which is wrong. My assumption: If you would indeed understand subjective and objective, right and wrong, you'd be advocating for resolving global energetical-, political- and overall societal issues, and not focus on changing gun laws... But please, try to prove me wrong with real logic if you wish. I agree with you that I was mistaken with saying that firearms are made for doing only damage to living things, that is why I was then adding that also objects are involved. Yes, there are shooting competitions, I am aware of that, but bringing it up as people are indeed advocate to carry firearms (even open carry) because they want to go to shooting competitions sounds....well... flawed. Current restrictive gun laws were never a burden of organising and carrying out shooting competitions, etc. Current restrictive gun laws never were a hindering cause for people who wanted to get into the shooting sport. It's like: the fact that you have to pass tests and exams to get a driving license to drive a car or motorbikes is for everyone else's safety so you can operate those objects in public, the same is for gun laws. Of course, if you use the guns in a safe and isolated location and environment (a.k.a. shooting/competition range) people won't care. But everyone would suddenly care if you bring your objects (that have inarguably primary lethal purposes) to public without any certifications. You also go with the ambiguity fallacy by saying "you probably made other fallacies but I stopped reading"... nice try, but an assumption is s not a fact or an argument. Anyway, enjoy your day, I was happy to exchange ideas, I learned from you and thank you for that! Stay safe and healthy!
@@oumarh.gassama8063 1) "so now you make some ad-hominem fallacies ("it's hard to take seriously the ideas of someone") and using it as an argument?" *sigh* That is not an ad hominem because it was not used as an argument, it was a statement. For instance, if I were to say "You're stupid", that is not an ad hominem because it is not arguing anything. It would be a simple statement. (Presumably an incorrect one - it is just an example) Now if I were to say "You're wrong because you're stupid", that would be an ad hominem because it is an argument. (Also just an example - I do _not_ think you're stupid). See here: ad ho·mi·nem /ˌad ˈhämənəm/ adjective (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. ar·gu·ment /ˈärɡyəmənt/ noun a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong. state·ment /ˈstātmənt/ noun a definite or clear expression of something in speech or writing. 2) "You also go with the ambiguity fallacy by saying "you probably made other fallacies but I stopped reading"... nice try, but an assumption is s not a fact or an argument. " It was not an argument, again it was a statement. See above definitions to see the difference between arguments and statements. Have a great day, sir.
DT really doesn't want people to steal his dotfiles
His github repo is now closed source archives.
@@MrRenanwill he uses gitlab now
Lmao i would not dare xD
"Stop right there, punk. That's MY xmonad config file!"
i did a quick ctrl+c ctrl+shift+v
I am not from the US, so I can't tell of he is being serious or not, please help
He is comparing guns to screwdrivers. This has to be satire.
@@extremespaghett1107I don't think it is. He really meant this.
I do think he is being serious. From what I can tell and how these kinds of debates usually end up, he really meant what he said in this video. As an American, I can confirm this.
I'm a Canadian, and honestly I just can't understand the whole guns for self protection thing. I know very very few people that own a gun, and all of those that do own it for hunting purposes and usually live outside the big cities. I've never ever felt a need to have a gun in case of robbery or something...
@@sebnanchaster I, in spirit, agree with you, but you have to remember that you live in canada (and I do in russia); from what I hear, america can be very dangerous! especially considering that some bad people can have guns, so it's a catch 22 lol
You really just wanted to show off your guns, didn't you?
I'm pretty sure all those guns have proprietary licenses, even the Vepr. I didn't see any ghost guns, possibly the AR, but even if you built it, likely it has some proprietary parts.
You need open source guns. Mill your own parts, get a 3d printer and learn to be a gunsmith.
Yes, and thank you Cody Wilson!
INDEED
Ghost guns aren’t made to be shown on camera lol
The patents for the AR-15 have expired a long time ago. There are plenty of gun designs that have never been patented, like the Luty SMG.
That's not necessarily open source.. He can mod his gun in any way or form if he chooses to do so.
'The great for children' really got me :D
Jesus (and I'm not even Christian).
@@minepro1206 Jesus (I'm Jewish)
its true though. very low recoil which makes it ideal for teaching children safe and responsible gun handling.
@@suburbanyute340 this. my son's 3 so still pretty young but in a few years I'm going to take him out one day with grandpa & teach him how to shoot with a 10/22 or something
@@jdally9872 thats exactly how i learned. same rifle and everything
I feel like a gun is just a tool id a poor analogy though, since it's a tool that is designed with the primary job of killing, whereas a hammer has uses like building and simply might be used to kill. Likewise, open software may be used unethically but it generally can't kill anyone regardless of the person behind the keyboard...
@Marco does protecting yourself necessitate the potential death of others?
I'm supporting free software because it's an international topic and doesn't harm anyone. For guns, I simply stay away from this discussion because I'm not an american anyways.
Edit: But one thing to mention if you really play with the idea to fight against the military and government today, have fun to fight against high tech autonomous drones and what else they have nowadays. If you use tech that's hundreds of years old against new tech, I don't know how big the human ego and hubris is.
Maybe it's only the old romantic idea of self heroism to take it up with everyone, that drives this "argument" but I don't know and I don't care because that's not my stance anyways.
That’s why the second amendment is supposed to defend your right to own *any* weapon and form militias (which people commonly make the mistake of not differentiating from “military” when reading the second amendment). The air force owns autonomous drones, the Navy owns Carriers, and technically, you can too! If you have the money to pay for it that is.
Of course, money will always be another issue.
@@RANDOMNAME-kj1zv Ok that's fine, but it doesn't make the argument for normal guns against the government stronger. And if my country is in a state where I myself must buy military weapons, there's something REALLY wrong.
So you have the "self defense" argument left. Personally I choose professionals to protect me, instead of buying a gun and invest the time to learn to operate it. Only because someone buys a gun doesn't make em useful with that. Every knife or even a hit is faster, so you need to buy one, learn to use it and simulate some scenarios that you can react fast. And if I look at shooter simulation games (not ego shooters, but something like ARMA or similar), they're even easier because you don't must operate the weapon, most people are far away from to make a gun useful in a critical real life scenario.
But anyways, as I said above luckily that's not my problem and if my country gets to this state that the justice system is that broken, I'm out. In a fight or flight scenario I'll always choose flight, I've better things to do in my life than to risk it. If I'm going through several scenarios, there will never be a situation where I would need a gun, even more so without regular training.
I can understand both sides but before I would ask for guns I would ask for a working justice system. Of course most americans have another opinion about this, that's why I would never want to live there, the amount of shootings are insane if you look at it from another country.
well, this isn't getting monetised *LOL*
LOL I just got 3 ads!
@@sigmundfreud4472 two ads for me
In a scale of 1 to 10, that comment is an 11 on the funny scale. I got an ad the second he finished saying "this gun is great for children as well" at 6:46
@@albynoson haha love it!
DT making a move for them 2A daddy bucks on Patreon
I can agree on open source and free software, however I'm from Japan and moved to America almost 10 years ago. I do not feel safe in this country at times and don't believe I should have to carry a gun to do so. I've been held at gunpoint and this would have never happened in Japan. Not saying robberies don't happen, it's rare but there is surveillance everywhere as well and fear instilled regarding consequences. Guns are far too accessible in the US with very little required to be able to purchase one. Generally not even mental health screening! There is crime in Japan and its far from a perfect country but you shouldn't be scared to walk around at night in the cities fearing that having a gun pulled on you.. EVER. I generally have no idea how somebody can believe that in such an unregulated system that this could be a good idea. I mean this isn't a third world system but some things generally just don't make sense. I understand that yes, if you're a felon you cannot obtain a gun legally but with so much availability and little to no tracking not to mention reregistering not even being a thing, there's no way to know where many guns can end up. Ranting on this topic wasn't my intention I just can't understand the mindset. The country isn't an old American country western film anymore. To many guns are used towards violent hate crimes, murder and just plain acts of violence. I'm aware that since others have these weapons that we think its only right to have them as protection but that's where I think the system has failed us. I hate politics and even being involved in these conversations but I cant be the only one that thinks this way. humanityalleged
It's less of an issue in japan not because owning firearms is illegal in japan, but because japan is a homogeneous society. If you only account for caucasians in USA then USA has less gun problems than many european countries where owning a firearm is illegal.
I don't live in the US but the major difference between a hammer and a gun is that a gun is made specifically to injure living organisms. Nothing to be taken lightly. And I don't think that guns improve security. There are other ways to make sure you are heard by the government. Threatening someone with a gun to get off your lawn sounds medieval to be honest. At least there should be strict tests before one could buy a gun and buying one from the super market is definitely to be avoided.
Ok, I'm a communist because I live in Germany where gun possession is very restricted. But I don't want to be a communist so I will move to the US.
But wait a minute, there are those strange speed limits on freeways, which is a violation of human rights as everybody knows here in Germany.
Are we all communists? I will ask my wife. She is Russian and should know.
communism (Marxism at least) is pro gun ownership
@@jac1011 Bullshit. Commies just want to arm the revolutionaries. After that, only the Party members can own guns.
In Soviet Russia, first thing Lenin did was to confiscate all guns. In Bulgaria, the first thing the Commies did after the coup of 1944 was to confiscate guns. East Germany banned guns. In Hungary, the commie government dissolved all gun clubs and disarmed everyone that wasn't loyal to the Party.
@Taurus Insult is the keyword. If we all disagreed without being disagreeable, the world would look a lot better nowadays.
First of all I want to clear out that I've never lived in the US so I don't know how that second amendment affects your everyday life.
The way I see it, gun prohibition is similar to the traffic laws and the nuclear weapon agreement countries have, as in that it's a trade-off between freedoms and order, and in this case I'm willing to not have a gun if it means the others won't either, same as I'm willing to follow the traffic laws if it means that others will as well. Sure there will be people who won't, but it will be a minority.
- A gun has a major difference from let's say knives, it just needs a trigger to be activated instead of needing you to active use it. Same reason why a lot of people who try to kill themselves with a knife give up while cutting, you have more margin to back down before committing the unforgivable.
- A gun is a tool, yes. But what purpose does it serve besides protecting you from other people wearing that same tool?
I'd also like to clear out that I don't think that getting rid of second amendment is conceivable in the present USA. No method to be sure everyone will give out without a long term change of mentality. But for the countries that have guns already prohibited they better stay that way.
There is an important difference between guns and knives which you did not mention:
A knife is a tool which can be used as a weapon: It can be used to kill, but that is not its intent. It was made to whittle wood, cut vegetables, or spread butter.
A gun is just a weapon: Killing is its primary purpose.
Kali Linux is also a tool, but it's purpose is for hacking. Does that mean we should ban Kali Linux?
It's primarily about having the ability to overthrow a tyrannical govt. And by that logic, yes I do think we should have tanks, anti air missiles, and even recreational mini nukes but I think the people in the army with access to these will defect over to our side or at least that's my hope. Secondly it's about liberty and it's part of the american creed. We don't like being told what to do. If someone told you that everyone had to use windows and nothing else, would you go along with it because now everyone is using windows? This doesn't make sense. We generally don't trust our institutions and are fiercely independent. That means we want whatever the govt is currently using and even if the cops can teleport to you when there is trouble, we would still want to defend ourselves. This in your example would be a select few "trusted" people using GNU/Linux just in case Windows isn't enough. Our great nation was founded on the principle of god given rights and liberties and we came together to form a government to protect those liberties. It's very different from everyone else whose rights were granted to them by the govt as a privilege and who can take those privileges back whenever it wants. We will never hand over our primal right to self preservation to a government that's supposed to simply protect those rights, not encroach on them
Now I want to address the differences between tools and guns you mentioned. We also have tasers and rubber bullets as well but these aren't as much of a deterrent as a live round being fired as a warning shot and then a non critical shot. I'd argue there is even more margin to back down because once someone pulls a gun out, you know to back up. And if they fire a warning shot, you know to run. The gun serves a purpose both as an equalizing tool to defend yourself against anyone with any weapon and as a deterrence tool. Imagine grandma being robbed by 3 young buff guys. She pulls out a handgun and it's a much fairer fight. She pulls out an AR and they better run.
You're right about any attempt to take guns away met with harsh backlash (and war) here in the US. It's in our blood. We're not trusting like you Europeans (I'm guessing) and that's served us well at least these past 25 years with all these wars, govt spying, false flag events, more and more authoritarian politicians. The gun is insurance against a tyrant, a deterrent for a would be tyrant, a tool for hunting game and a defense tool to protect your loved ones, your property and yourself
Nukes, napalm, fighter jets, tanks, none of that will work to control urban center where the population is armed. Superior firepower couldn't defeat a bunch of rice farmers with inferior guns, it wouldn't work in US soil either.
The 2A has explicit language about the government not being allowed to confiscate guns, even for its own self-preservation. Because that's the only thing the constitution can do, gun ownership is a Negative Right. The Constitution only has the power to control what the government can do. But the text, if you understand English, makes it clear, it's an intrinsic right that can't be violated. Go and read some shithole country's constitution, and it'll often say "we the government hereby allows you the right to ...", everything is stated as a positive right, an artificial right that the government gives you. The 2A has none of that. You have the right to own guns, for the obvious purposes of defending life, freedom and property.
@@Captainunsuccessful I have a pretty hard time understanding this argument. A piece of software designed for aiding in the development of security systems is in some sense equivalent to a weapon designed for killing? Huh?
I dont think you can compare software with guns,
while the former is a tool that could be used for every purpose the latter has only one (intended) purpose, which is hurting, killing or threatening others.
While owning a gun may seem fair in countries like Amerika, thats only because you have to fear other might own a gun too.
Here in europe you dont have such fears, so you dont feel the need to own weapons in order to protect yourself.
However I do agree that topics like this need more open discussion without political prejudice.
I agree with you so much
as an european i disagree look at all the grenades they keep finding or the gang liquidations happen in some countries it most definitly makes me want to have the capability to defend myself because as it stand in alot of places here in Europe the criminal has more rights the victim itself
Just want to preface this comment by saying I have actually watched this video a few times cause I really want to make sure I understand your point of view and where you are coming from before I make a comment. I also want to say that while my comment is mainly going to be anti guns I am not going to make any arguments on what could/should be done about guns cause I admit I'm not an expert. With that out of the way...
In response to your "guns are tools" point. I 100% agree that guns are just tools and people are the ones who decide what to do with that tool. However when people make this point they choose to only focus on comparing guns to other similarly dangerous tools and either avoid or fail to even consider the intended reasons the tools exist or why they were created in the first place.
A car is an extremely dangerous tool that costs a lot of people their lives every day but the primary purpose of a car is to transport you from point A to point B. A hammer (as you used as an example in the video) is a tool for hammering nails into wood, hammer things into shape, and other things that don't involve trying to harm or kill someone. Guns were originally designed to be a weapon to inflict harm on humans or animals. While target practice is a thing a gun is still primarily designs to harm or kill living creatures. You CAN make the argument that it does nothing unless a person does something with it. But most people that buy guns do it so that if they need to defend themselves, their home, or their family, they can shoot it at someone.
The number of people who buy a car so they can drive it into someone instead of to get from point A to point B, or who buy a hammer so they can bash someone's skull in instead of use it for construction is massively small compared to the number of gun owners who bought to hunt or defend themselves.
If you take into account the reasons these tools exist and the primary reason people buy them the whole "a gun is a tool" argument really means absolutely nothing.
To relate this back to free software there are many different things someone can make free software for. You can make a calculator, an image editor, a desktop environment, a streaming program. You can also make ransomware or piracy software designed solely to steal from specific sites / services.
While I fully support the idea that software should not have licenses that restrict who can use the software or how it can be used, modified, or distributed I would still argue that perhaps some software shouldn't exist and we should try to regulate the spread of software solely designed to harm people or steal from them.
I like to see comments like these because it showp people that you care for the topica at hand and you looked into it for a little bit of time, for that everyone thanks you.
Believe it or not your relation of guns to cars is correct in many ways but incorrect in few. As for example you said that mkre people buy guns to kill people instead of hunting or defending themselves. That is actually incorrect. The CDC had run a study on gun violence to deduce what people are buying their guns for. Over 3 million people have defended themselves in 2018 alone, that being compared to I think it was 100k people using it to kill another human being. Cars have killed more people than guns on a massive scale believe it or not.
It can't be said any better,.
Ian Hower my point was less about numbers or what is more dangerous and more about intent. Cars may be more dangerous but you don’t buy a car so you can inflict harm on another. You do buy a gun for that reason.
Even if everyone is the ideal gun owner and no one actually wants to actually use it on a person, a lot of gun owners out there buy a gun so that they can feel safe knowing they could use it on someone if they have to.
Whether guns kill more people or cars kill more people it doesn’t change the fact that only one of those items is actually designed to kill.
@Peter Andrijeczko Guns can and are collectors items and they can be fun to shoot. In Switzerland they have the highest gun ownership in Europe but hardly any deaths. You get to keep the gun but the ammo stays at the range you can clean mount and shoot your gun but with the proper precautions in place.
I agree with you really sensible thing you said there I hope DT understands it too
When you call states communist, but want software to be free....
It's unfortunate that the english language has the same word for free (meaning no pay), and free (meaning liberty). The free software movement is only about the latter. It's a rookie misconception, clarified very quickly once you look it up.
Our software
I'm Brazilian, we don't have constitutional rights to bear arms here in Brazil, getting auth to have and bear arms here are hard, expensive and you have to PROVE you need to have an handgun, you can't have militar grade stuff like rifles.
Don't let this happens with you guys! Criminals can have all the guns and for the citizen whats remain is fear, fear from criminals, fear from police, fear from the state.
Don't let the the state control you, politicians and the state should be afraind it's ppl, not the opositie , mantain you right to bear arms, don't let anyone take it from you, because this wouldn't be good for you, your nation and your family.
When you lost a right it's hard to get it back, here not even the Brazilian President, Bolsonaro, could restore our right to bear arms!
I live in a country with no 2nd amendment or anything similar, I just like distro hopping and tinkering.
I recently saw a guy going at another guys skull with a hammer, he missed and hit him on his back. If it were a gun in his hand I don't know if there would be any second chances, lives would have been ruined. They were brothers.
Guns are scary, I say this humbly, the parts in my country where guns are widespread, people get shot, if the innocent people living there were armed, people would still get shot. People can get very crazy very quickly.
That being said I appreciate the perspective you show with the examples that you give where a gun would be necessary. Thank you.
Btw I use arch.
It's a proven fact....That States that allow conceal carry, have lower criminal rates vs non concealed carry states.
@@jeffherdzina6716 that feels counterintuitive. Wouldn't visible guns discourage violent stuff as compared to where people are hiding or concealing their guns? If you are hiding a gun and someone jumps you you shoot, if you have one on a holster hanging out wouldn't criminals be discouraged? What is concealed carry exactly?
@@ChitrakChattopadhyay The Beauty of concealed carry is that the person trying to rob you, has no clue as to how many people are carrying a weapon. And, You can carry more than one firearm.
In large groups, this puts the "bad guy" in a bad situation. Trust me ...where I live a lot of people carry. And even now we have Open carry in my State.
@@jeffherdzina6716 I wos wondering about this, if enough good people have guns things become very different.
@@ChitrakChattopadhyay Where I live a lot of Men ..and Women carry weapons for protection. In fact the last time I was in a gun store. half of the people that were looking and buying a firearm, were women.
Absolutely based. Although real communists would probably mostly agree with this. Liberal ≠ communist. The funny thing about liberals is they don't realize that both actual Marxists AND libertarians/individualists believe in the right to bear arms. Political ideology-wise, banning guns is in the minority.
Has anyone noticed DT’s sub count has decreased from 80.1 to 79.9 since this video has been published? Very controversial
I can see what you mean when talking about freedom of tools, but I can't really come up with a proper valid use case for owning several guns (compared to a wrench, a hammer or free pieces of software). If you're doing hunting, or setting off explosives used for some kind of construction or mining, sure, a gun is a nice tool to have. But for the average person, the main use case would be defense, right? How does owning a gun in a country where everyone else owns a gun make you any safer than not owning a gun in a place where almost no one has access to guns?
So... How does not owning a gun in a country where almost no one has access to guns, but almost everyone who has a gun is criminal makes you any safer?
@@norangico I live in a country with effective gun control and I have literally never been fearful that I may be threatened by anyone (criminal or police) with a gun. It does not even cross my mind as a possibility - it is something we see only in movies. Being struck by lightning is a more serious threat than someone pointing a gun at me. I often see pro-gun Americans talk about "but what if.." as if this were a hypothetical. It is not a hypothetical; we know exactly what happens when proper gun control laws exist because many countries have already done it. It does not turn the country into a criminal paradise where they can run around shooting everyone with nobody to shoot back.
@@Aethid
Am I talking about something hypothetically? Likewise, being able to buy a gun for an ordinary citizen does not turn the country into a paradise for psychopaths who mashote every day. You are very lucky if, as you say, criminals do not exist in your country. I am not American. In my country, the police are very corrupt and ineffective. But I believe that even in countries where the police work effectively, people should have the right to defend themselves, to do more than call the police. The desire of people to transfer responsibility for their lives and property to someone else ( the police, the state ) is absolutely contrary to my moral intuition
One only need look into history, during the prohibition days, to see the outcome of getting rid of guns.
@@odisdracul You need only into today, right now, to see the outcome of getting rid of guns. To all the countries which have done just that. You know, the ones which totally conincidentally have *zero* crazies murdering dozens of children in schools.
That thumbnail, instead of being a clickbait, was not even a trailer of your arsenal.
My observation on several issues. 1. Name which states can be called "communist"? 2. Which states can be called "free" 3 which states are the most "criminal" 4. which states with the highest pay for 1 working hour. 5! Now tell me which state you want to live in :)
America is divided enough. We need to be the United States and not the divided states.
I didn't know guns are Arch based :)
But DT, the circuit board on most rifles run proprietary code.
Can't tell if you're joking or just an absolute brainlet, I'll assume the latter
>circuit bord
>ON A RIFLE
Free software save life's,guns end them...
Nice to see DT get comfortable enough to share what is dear to him. I hope that DT tries to keep politics to a minimum on the channel but once a blue moon is fine.
I'm not a gun person myself since I live in a country with next to no gun rights for civilians, but I get what you are saying. I don't want guns in circulation in Denmark where I live, but I get why you shouldn't give up your right to owning guns. When push comes to shove, America may very well end up being the last standing free country because the government have every reason to fear the people. Look at the madness going on in Australia - civil rights restricted or suspended, and the vast majority accepting it like it's only fair for a government to prohibit demonstrations. What the f.... hell.
USA has never been a free country
How about the freedom to own a nuclear missile? The missile is just a tool. It is somebody who presses the button. 🙄
jacob sparrow Who said the button presser not responsible? It is a very common argument from gun right defender that gun is just a tool, comparing it to something far less powerful like a knife or a baseball bat. Ignoring the impact factor would make that argument fallible.
I never thought I would see this on my recommendations page! 😂
the way you were holding that 22 rifle made me nervous
Hey DT, I respect your right to wear guns, but disagree with the link you make with free software movement. I understand the freedom of speech and freedom to think, but don't think this video is good publicity for your movement and your channel. But this is only my opinion, as far as I have the right to express myself. Cheers
(30 year aussie linux vet here) DT, you said it yourself. It's not the tools that are the problem, it's the people and I would agree with you on that.
But if you need guns 'just in case' to protect yourself from the people walking on your lawn, the problem is then society and people.
Most societies around the world have recognized that for the better good of society 'in general' easy access to weapons introduces an easy way to obtain an outcome that would ultimately end in death and in some cases to innocent people. So you can either bare arms or eliminate them from society. The second option has less people dying that is why most countries haven't gone down the American way.
So respectfully I disagree with you.
I am for free software. But I disagree. I don't want guns all around me here and am glad that I live in europe. I am honestly shocked when i see that you can buy ammo and guns in a GROCERY STORE in the usa.. I support drug-decriminalization tho. If you support gun-rights. Why not go and let people buy claymores? Why not just sell armed tanks at the car dealership? Some things should be limited.. weapons are made to kill (say what you want "guns dont kill people", no indeed, but they make it a hella lot easier.. and they are litteraly invented for the purpose of killing)
Yesterday I wrote here a longer comment on this, but let me put here a tl;dr reasoning using the example of driving a car.
This is why I think people should be educated and assessed before licensing them for carrying and operating a gun:
Everybody has to have the fundamental right to move and travel. Therefore everybody has to have the right to drive a vehicle without driving license, as a vehicle is less dangerous than a gun (my only argument to underpin this statement is that vehicles' first purpose is carrying a load or a person, and not causing damage or death). Why then we still insist to educate and asses people before we let them drive? Isn't that an offensive restriction on ones free right to move around? Why everybody just cant walk into a car dealership, buy a car and drive it? They would just simply promise not to kill anyone either accidentally or intentionally. They would just use it for their own concern. Why to make people pay for getting educated on how to use the car, practicing safe and sound usage, and why to expect them to pass any tests to prove their knowledge and capability of properly handling the vehicle?
I disagree with about 99% of what you said but I do agree that fighting to keep a right so you don’t lose it is right but there are better ways to do it
When you come from England it’s hard to swallow a lot of the gun related arguments the US seems to have all the time and from an outside perspective in a country where guns are so rare beyond illegal ones and you hear the umpteenth news report about yet another massacre in another school by a US child using a gun and so much more it’s difficult to personally agree or understand the logic behind any of it purely from a gun related side. So I appreciate what you’re saying, but you don’t change my mind by regurgitating a statement by a body that doesn’t affect me with a single example that I hate to say doesn’t change my mind on any level as it doesn’t stop them anymore than I’d sit here and say it encourages those acts
I agree there is some overlap, and even without a gun I support anyone's right to own one
I think this is the best video I have ever seen!
Linux , free software , guns
what the hell could be better
Ok let's try that "a tool is just a tool" argument with something like opioids. Heroin is just a tool right? "Heroin doesn't kill people, people kill themselves".
I agree with the main point of the video but find that argument to be bizarre and arbitrary.
on the surface your argument seems strong however it is deeply flawed, I imagine on purpose. If you wish to look at opioids as tools then that would move them into the realm of medicine, when used properly in the management of pain they can prove quite beneficial, when they are misused then a problem comes in. That would be how to frame the argument of a tool is a tool in terms of opiods. Your framing would allow for the banning of knives, hammers, baseball bats, pretty much anything that has done something to harm someone. Oh let's not forget sugar. But I shouldn't worry the police state you dream of will keep you nice and safe I'm sure.
Yah....I was about to say that!
Jim Duchow let’s ban water too, there were some instances of people dying from drinking water in excess
@@jimduchow1580 Sounds like you are changing the definition to fit your views. Opiods are tool which treat pain and guns are tools which kill people (or animals). Killing people is not a side effect or something.
Also your strawman is ridicolous as I specifically stated that I agree with the point of the video: I thing having a gun should be a right. I just don't think that the "tool" argument really shows any hipocrisy, that's all I'm saying
LOL. What a perfectly terrible argument you make, Georgij. Are you advocating for getting rid of opioids?
While opioids are misused, they are _incredibly_ useful in medical fields.
Likewise firearms are misused, but they are _incredibly_ useful for personal protection and hunting.
To be honest, the fact that you need to carry a gun in order to feel safe wherever you live says more about that place rather than you and your values. If you've had to deal with looters, rioters, etc. throughout your life I can't even condemn your opinion.
It's the case in most places in the world, not all places are like japan with 99/100 of honnest people. And even like that you should have to blindly trust you government
The main purpose of the second amendment is for protection against the government itself. Think about it.
In Belgium, we don't need guns to protect us from the government. The government is stupid enough we don't have to worry about that.
@@sanderd17 you don't need to worry about your local government anymore, start worrying about the global government instead.
@@sanderd17 “the government is stupid enough” so let’s give them a monopoly on force?
I find it deliciously ironic how you describe the states with more gun control as communist states. Karl Marx famously said "Under no pretext should arms and ammunitions be surrendered, any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary". Most communists, including Marx, want to be able to arm the proletariat, so to say that banning civilian owned guns is communist is palpable and a complete strawman of what communists generally believe. Most communists agree with you.
hes probably doing what many right wing people do. calling most people to the left of them commies.
come to think of it, the left call everyone fascists, so its kinda equal i suppose.
One might argue that American Communism =/= Soviet Communism.
How does the saying go? “True Communism has never been practiced before”?
@@MirrorDimly I didn't mention soviet communism, I mentioned a quote from Karl Marx, who wrote the most influential material on communist theory. Most communists agree with Marx's analysis of society, regardless of where they are from.
@@aaaaaaaaabaaaaaaaaa Sure, sure. I won't contest that. The Bolshevik revolution could not have happened without violent uprising. I'm just saying that communism seems to have different perceived connotations from country to country (as we also see in other nations such as China and North Korea).
The primary purpose of a gun is to kill but the primary purpose of a hammer, knife, etc. is not to kill. Sure, you can use any object to kill someone but the purpose of a gun to kill. That is the difference.
If someone breaks into my house then my primary purpose is to wound/kill, so a gun is the tool i want. Plus, you can have a gun to participate primarily in sport. Its actually very fun and competitive.
I can't imagine how someone could possibly be surprised by this. I mean, you've got the accent.
Looks like somebody got a call from the based department.
When you are too European to understand if this is bait or just crazy bullshit
How to deal with bullies:
Google: Search for help
Teachers: Ask them to stop
Parents: Just Ignore them
B I N G : 5:17
When i was a kid (90s) you could get a AK at any pawn shop in town for $200.
Being pro gun control doesn't mean I'm anti-gun as I have family in law enforcement and military. It just means that I support **reasonable** disqualifiers from gun ownership like being a felon or having significant mental health issues. Also, U.S. politicians are hypocritical in saying the real issue isn''t guns, but mental health. Fair argument, but where is the funding for mental health? As a social worker all I can see are constant cuts to mental health services and funding.
"Shall not be infringed" means "shall not be infringed." I have never fired a weapon in my life & even I understand that. ☕️👍🏻
leftist has left the chat
Since when leftists oppose guns? I myself am full on for arming the proletariat for self defense... Liberals are the ones that hates guns
@@daon23 The "liberals" aren't actually liberalists.
Also, most (as in #notall) American commies are okay with disarming people.
@@daon23 The Democrats buddy
@@alby1529 "american commies" that's funny.
@@aemilianusmartinus5472 democrats ain't leftist buddy.
I love how you blame things on those "freedom hating commies" yet you are still against proprietary software, which are one of the many consequences of capitalism
I don't subscribe to many channels that I don't watch regularly, but you've earned one today.
In the next episode, DT highlights the similarities between free software and slave owner rights.
In which way guns are "tools"? I prefer instead nuclear micro-bombs. everybody should have some ready to deploy if her/his rights are violated.
Nuclear, regardless of the specific platform used, is an ordnance, so it isn't covered by "arms"
The difference between free software and 2A is while software being free means it has the potential to cause harm, the only thing that a firearm can do is cause harm. It’s the only function that object is capable of performing. If free software could only be used for harm I’d be against it, but unlike guns, it has the potential of being user for something other than harming another living being.
The words “Free” and “Freedom” can have many different meanings for people, depending on culture, ethics, historical conditions. I cannot disagree more with DT for his interpretation of the concept of Freedom expressed in this video, and the parallel between Free Software (free speech) and the freedom to own a gun. Our ethics are way far apart. I’m not saying one is better than the other, but please do not think this video is the “truth”, it’s just an opinion of the concept of “Freedom”. Many of us will disagree, even strongly.
The right to possess a tool meant for killing/severe hurting living beings should be a core value for the right of freedom ... Of course not! I absolute agree with you. The right to use a tool for killing should not be a right in regards of freedom.
@@Cyanwasserstoff The problem is mainly ethical and cultural. Of course everybody should be free to own a gun, but in many part of the world (including Europe, where I live), this particular "freedom" is condidered unecessary and unthetical, and nobody would be proud of that. Here we have a clever person like DT that is proud to show himself in front of the camera with guns and rifles, speaking about "freedom" in a way that many other cultures do consider fanatic and arrogant, if not worst (specially in this last years where you see videos of terrorists proudly showing guns and bombs before attacking the masses of people). For most of us, the word "freedom" has positive ethical values, all things that we hardly see in such an astonishing declaration by DT, but it's a matter of culture and ethical values, not of freedom.
@@stefanotenenti2997 Okay, if we take the freedom in its purest intent, then every restriction would be against freedom. That means every free person can do and have everything when, where and how they want.
For a society it is catastrophic, because a free person can even kill without consequences.
Freedom should be freedom as long as it does not harm the freedom or personal safety of other persons. Allowing to wear guns is a high risk of the safety of other living beings.
Niccolo Machiavelli: When you disarm the people, you commence to offend them and show that you distrust them either through cowardice or lack of confidence, and both of these opinions generate hatred.
Btw what's you guy's counter argument to "if someone chooses to attack me he likely has a gun too"?
I think it's something like: if he chooses to attack me, he has a weapon anyway, so it's better to equal the chances.
Imagine playing an FPS and all the enemies are unarmed lol. I think that’s the idea.
Criminals often can find a lethal weapon or gun easily... It's just about you
The counter is objective reality.
Mr. DT! This is not a weapon, this is an Anti-Aircraft Gun!)))
I absolutely agree with gun rights but unfortunately almost everywhere except us is prohibited without a super hard to get license or just hunter guns only license
But that thumbnail tho makes me think he is doing no scopes in real life 😂
I build my own guns - arch users
i use AKrch47 btw.
More like gentoo users. Arch users just get readymade non-customizable guns
Gentoo shootists smelt their own steel then cast/forge and mill all the parts before finally hand fitting and assembling them. :3
Reminds me of some of my high end muzzle loading hobbyist friends. :3
No no LFS is true building
@@Lee_Adamson_OCF gentoo shooters mine their own raw materials, then they study metallurgy and composite materials, it's the first part of a 67 step process. At step 69 they die of old age holding a 40mm cannon chambered in 22lr.
I like my AK based distribution rifle.
Got three fifty seven and twelve gauge double, arch linux running, but I don't want trouble
Letting people own guns is like adding users to sudoers; only a good user with sudo can stop a bad one.
By the way I use AK
I use Ak-47 btw. New ak distros are just bullshit although they use AK47 as base. Use ak-47 instead. It needs a bit more time to configure the rifle, but it worths every single second you spend.
I use FAL btw
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as guns,
is in fact, GNU/guns, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus guns
GNU plus guns would be a pretty cool metal band.
Yankee Boogle. DEFINITELY DON'T GOOGLE IT! :3
The AR-15 is probably a GNU/gun because you can customize it and make any part you want for it and don't have to pay any royalties to use it.
I could go for an open source weapons platform.
What did you think the 'G' in GNU stood for?
I wonder what Luke Smith has in his garage...
intercontinental ballistic missile 🚀
a couple of Chad's that "puts the lotion on it's skin"
probably he have one, since he live in the woods
Bow and spear.
A white robe and a hood.
I compile my own guns from source
Yep i use the well known GUN or GNU compiler for my gun. My main distro is the Arch47
guntoo
@@ibrahimalgalaly456 nice man. I just got an Arch15. It’s more stable than the Arch47 but it’s less powerful.
rest in peace, Luty
FGC-9 or something more fancy? 😀
Next video: Building your own automatic assault rifle from scratch using open source gun designs
Next video: Building your own automatic assault rifle from scratch using GNU/EmacsOS.
Configuring your rifle to Vim key bindings
3d software to make your own gun, on arch linux
Video following that video: ATF showed up at my house... we gotta talk.
you can do that with a 3d printer
I knew that southern accent wasn't for nothing
he's slowly losing the plot
@@dtmt502 soon enough he'll be smoking pot XD
@Rep 101
> Christian
> From Iran
Choose one
Yup and the shaved head wasn't just for style.
@@AncientSocrates ok, that's it. There is only a word for all this. It starts with B and ends with D.
Remember to reject proprietary garbage, even with regards to your firearms.
Use only Free and Open Caliber Ammunition. ;)
But muh 16x16 over 8x57JR drilling is sooooo niiiceee... :(
So, like Cody Wilson style?!
*pull trigger*
*gun explodes*
"Yeah ,we are still working on that"
GNN's not NATO
*Laughs in FN FAL*
I'm sure this won't be controversial at all.
Guns make killing a lot of people very easy. A WordPress website... Not as easy. If more gun owners were responsible we wouldn't need to have this conversation.
I'll admit you make great points, sadly not all owners are deserving of that right. When they flip a switch it's not a website that goes down it could be people... A lot of people.
@@JosephDickson The answer is simple. Lock up those people for a long, long time.
@@zzco yes, but one person going to jail doesn't really fit the crime in extreme cases. A single act of gun violence can have multiple victims.
@@JosephDickson it isnt just stuff like wordpress tho
@@zzco or the US could act like all the other developed nations. where I live we have (compared to the US) much stricter gun restrictions, much lower crime rates, milder sentences and our police doesn't have to kill as many people (only 10 on average per year per 80 million citizens).
I'd say it escalated quickly...
Talk about being trapped in political partisanship and then start calling some states communist for their gun policy...
@@Jumptohistory Communists are the "enemy" yo...
this kind of ultra right maccarthism sounds hilarious and insane if you are outside of the USA absurd debates.
@@Jumptohistory talk about talking about being trapped in political partisanship and then call accuse anybody who is anticommunist of being partisanly
@@Felipe-gz9uy so any body who is anti comunist is right wing?
this is the funniest linux video ive ever seen, the comedic timing as you pull out bigger and bigger guns is gold
lmao, cant believe DT made this video. but behind him and agree 100%
In the end he should pull out a tactical nuke.
Slap it and say, this baby is detonated remotely via embedded Linux and openssh.
I thought it was funny at first too, but those look like real guns. I think he might actually be serious, which is kinda terrifying.
@@tuerda It is okay to own guns
@@aemilianusmartinus5472 Yeah, I am not particularly bothered that he owns guns. I understand that in the US that is considered normal . . . In other places it would be considered pretty shocking, but whatever . . .
I *am* bothered that he thinks I should own guns too. I am even more bothered that he thinks that they are somehow related to free software.
This really is not the message free software advocates should be sending.
I do not want to see free software associated with controversial politics or weaponry.
"Next thing i suggest buying you, its a rocket launcher AT4. Its a great and elegant tool to deal with big problems."
Next thing I suggest buying is an Apache attack helicopter
@@cjchico is the software that keeps the Apache attack helicopter in the air free and open source? That is the question...
@@AndySmith_the_first Hopefully not, national security stuff should have dedicated a RTOS or something like it.
@@AndySmith_the_first Obviously it's free under the Apache licence.
I mean government have tanks and helis. How you gonna defend against them?
Who woulda thought DT is a Libertarian?!
Everyone that listened to a couple of his non-tech videos.
I mean isn't it normal for someone who has "free software advocate" as ytb slogan to be libertarian ?
Yeah, i didn't even too.
@Green Road wtf man, it has nothing to do with socialism
@Green Road Bwaha... No.
Everyone knows a 22 rifle is the perfect gift for a child
it really is just give it to them after their red ryder
I got one and shot a lot with it until I got very profilic with that -- it is the near perfect rifle to practice with. The ammo is very affoedable as well. Allaemm
Unironically I think taking kids 22 shooting is a good fun activity.
I guess some have never had a hunter's safety course. .22 is perfect due to low recoil, and inexpensive ammo. Then, when they are older, the children have knowledge and experience in handling a fire arm so they can graduate to lets say.... a .308 round.
I came out of the womb with one
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as guns,
is in fact, ammo/guns, or as I've recently taken to calling it, ammo plus guns
I see DT has the unix approach even for his arsenal. A different one for different use cases.
But muh pipes!
@@sigmundfreud4472 A magazine sends their stdout to the stdin of the firearm. See they use pipes too.
Dt: "now, i don't like to talk politics"
Me: "alright, nice"
Dt *continues to talk about communistst and freedom hating states*
Me: "alright, maybe Luke is more sane these days"
Exactly. He seems to assume that the only thing that matters is gun rights. "Move out if your state does not allow free carry". Sad.
@@karolisr If a state is going to take away gun rights, they're probably on the cusp of taking a couple more away.
you should pay attention to right to repair movement as well as free software and gun rights
You don't need guns. Look at europe...
@Marco No, they are not.
Lots of guns, lots of murders, lots of scared police officers shooting at sight. Shooting first, ask questions later.
And yes, it isn't about democrats vs. Republicans.
It is about reasonsble protection from guns or let any loon get access to many semi automatic guns (among the ones that actually knows how to use guns securily, locked in out of the way of People that should not use guns unsupervised).
And then ask why there are so many murders and cop killings.
@@AndersJackson shutup lol you're probably an aussie .
This.
@@AndersJackson Just noting that when referencing "semi automatic" weapons, you are basically referring to the majority of guns. That just means one trigger pull = one bullet, which is most pistols and rifles.
The AR15 is the ultimate open source rifle, very few weapons except those based on the AR15 platform are open architechture. I love, love the Steyr AUG but the inability to hugely modify it is not in the FOSS spirit
The secondary market for the ar platform is limitless
The gen 3 glock platform is like FOSS for pistols, as I'm sure you know. P320 is coming along as well. Lots of options for people that want to roll their own.
@@jasontrauer Fair call. Certainly not there yet but absolutely hope it does.
@Joe Hobo Having more variants doesn't mean it has open architechture. Current production AR15's are far more open architechture focused, the HK variant the USMC are adopting is designed to further expand this multi role capacity by creating almost inuversal interchangability. The AK platform, though I am indeed an admirer of it, simply cannot match that.
@Joe Hobo I meant to say AR15, thought I editted that :p
You started off pretty OK with talking about disagreeing with your party, but then went full partisan when calling states Free vs Communist
Not a very good video because of that.
Unfortunately I live in one of those states he would refer to as communist. It may be an exaggeration, but it is bad. It’s like the Constitution doesn’t exist. The only thing standing between us and the fate of countries like Venezuela is that document.
I lost all my guns in a fishing accident
I lost all my fish in a gunning accident
try a fishing rod next time
@@gaweynor dynamite. Dynamite is more effective
As a "black/mexican" person i find it odd this need to possess so many weapons. I say this because almost every "white" person I know has this "just in case" feeling/mentality/paranoia. as if everyone is out to get them. I myself have been shot. yes shot! my sister has also been shot. And even we do not possess this feeling/mentality/paranoia. Anyways, you do you "i guess" Keep up the good Linux work.
It's because they assume everybody else are shitty people like them.
It's a cylindrical object emasculated thing.. only people like dt get it
Guns? pah.....everyone should own a tank.
*killdozer
I assume you never consider laser gun
Perfectly legal under NFA. But not all states allow NFA items.
It is a basic human right for everyone to own an RPG
Your profile picture makes it more funny hahahaahaha
This is tutorial how to "sudo su" irl :)
That 2.5k - 2.4k like-dislike ratio is looking spicy.
Now 2.6k - 2.5k
I'm 3yrs into the future. it's now 3.9k - 3.7k (I'm using the "Return TH-cam Dislike" extension).
How do I install Emacs on my AR-15?
Maybe it's the opposite:
(use-package ar-15)
to fight editors war with vim users
Plug 'm27'
Oddly, all with 'dracula' theme ...
Emacs might be hard but.. "Of course it runs NetBSD"
All the Europeans are pissed right now.
Cardale Goddard I'm pissed that I don't have the same gun rights as americans
@@thecrazyconspiracytheorist3938 Cmon over bro. The weather's nice over here in guntopia. :3
They aren’t pissed, they’re just sad and confused why Americans haven’t gotten a bit smarter about the gun issue. I live in Australia and just about everyone I’ve talked to can’t believe Americans haven’t gotten their shit together when it comes to firearm restrictions. I guess we’re still waiting for those thoughts and prayers to kick in! 😞
I am not pissed, I know that Every situation is caused by other things and situation and has its reasons, I simply think that these reasons shouldn't be there in the first place
But not being shot
The political spectrum is not 1 dimensional.
Politics is giving psychopaths the right to rule us, and that's all that matters. It's garbage and we don't need it.
DT's spectrum:
Not Freedom (garbage is here) (guns are here) Freedom
Hell god! Someone is reasonable here! I was triggered due to it. hahahaha
@@fabricatorzayac it's probably even non-euclidian
It is a limited spectrum and definitely 1 dimensional!
The paradigm is viewed as left/right but should really be viewed as Authoritarianism/Libertarianism.
Later, dt goes on to make a video "Keep Politics Out Of Free And Open Source Software"
This video is satire.
I guess DT decided he had too many subscribers...
good bye
Hey DT, it seems you like guns. Please make another channel for your guns hobby. Maybe doing some hunting adventure and cooking it outdoor or something, that will be fun to watch.
claims about "communists" are kinda funny if u're famillar with what Lenin, for example, thought on gun rights and etc
im impressed by both the size of your arsenal, and your taste in firearms.
Not here for this... Unsubscribing
sad
Same. I have like zero opinion on this, but I did not subscribe for this weird stuff.
@@pureheroin9902 Why is it sad?
@@TheBlueThird it's not
Guns are not tools - they're weapons. They're designed to kill. A hammer is a tool. It's designed to help build things. Can you improvise it as a weapon? Of course. You can also use a lamp, a stick, an IBM Model M keyboard, or a particularly ornery cat as an improvised weapon (with varying degrees of success). But none of those things was expressly designed to kill...except maybe the cat.
There is tool the using a nail as the bullet and a rimfire cartridge to fire the nail as it bullet. You use it to anchor nails your wall frames to concrete such as the foundation of you house. But when it come down to it the device is just a single fire gun. And that not a pneumatic nail gun that is use every day in construction has a suprisingly good range.
@@sexkrazedpanda try to use a mini-gun to build a house
@@mrcrackerist that legit sounds like fun.
I laughed out loud when I pictured someone using a cat 🐈 to kill 😂😂😂 Though to small animals they are indeed that - killers. But then again, so are humans to so much life on this planet 🧐🤔
Is this one of those sarcastic joke videos or is he being serious?
I really hope it is a joke and I tried to find anything that confirms that, but I just can't...
Yeah...Freedom is so satirical. Let's go to good ol' no-rights EU where the State is all and our best friend!
@@alby1529 At least you don't risk getting killed on the street by a mad guy with a firearm here in the EU
@@altermetax I live in Germany: I can walk on the street in the middle of the night and I don't have to fear someone with a gun lurking around the corner
@@pdote Let your sister try that trick. Oh wait, the Government told women they shouldn't get out of the home at night without a male handler, right? Must be wonderful living in Germany.
Hello? Based Department?
The difference between a gun and a hammer is that killing is all a gun is good for. A hammer at least is useful for other things as well.
yes but what do you kill with it humans, deer, rabbits, squirrels, ants maybe? that probably makes a difference
Do you need guns to protect you from guns? Time to unsub.
Derek, I'm in the UK. It's a popular misconception that you can't own guns. You can own firearms in the UK. But they are heavily controlled, the regulations are very tight and you need to state your reason. Gun ownership is not something that many people in the UK do. This seems to work for us. But I get a great deal of enjoyment from channels like Hickok45, where there are responsible enthusiastic owners.
DT would define this restricted gun policies as Communism hahaha.
So ... UK, now, is a Communist country.
What the macarthism did at the USA ... They see "commies" in every place.
and this is a honest inquiry, not an attempt of an offense to someone, but since when is /not being a fully free and liberal state/ is considered communism? i am not in any way politically affiliated in ANY sense, this question just comes to mind coming from a country in south america (Argentina) where guns were never an option and we always get called communists because we have a reasonably "democratic" government, not in any sense actual communism, just not extremely liberal.
Calling other countries communist (when they are in fact not) is a bad habit that American society can't seem to lose since the era of cold war propaganda.
@@112BALAGE112I'm really sorry to hear that since it sometimes discredits actual good arguments by following up with something commie related.
Gun ownership is something communists advocate for quite heavily, Marx has a famous quote about it
@@iMarimbaFTW no and dont give me the it wasnt real comunism bullshit now in practise party members where allowed to have a single firearm but this was quickly dropped
It's tongue in cheek. I've read Marx and Hegel so I know what communism actually is but I still call California a commie shithole when joking around at work.
I am not a US citizen, I am European. I am not against but neither supporting the Second Amendment. I really support what DistroTube is doing, but this is video operates with several incomplete and false premises:
- asks the rhetorical question "what exactly is ethical, or unethical?", then answers it: "well, it depends on who you ask. Its entirely subjective". --Now this is false. Fundamental ethics are not subjective - they are always deeply rooted in the historical and societal fabric of a nation/society. Mostly also deeply defined by religion. Ethics cannot vary by person. Even a lot of the US Constitution's amendments are based purely on ethical standpoints (e.g. 4th, 5th , 13th, 15th, etc). Ethics is not subjective, and in a society one simply cannot just come up with their own personal "subjective" ethical measures because without aligning that with the rest of the society it would risk the integrity of the society itself
- The software analogy is also very misleading because of how it is introduced here as an argument: There are so many type of software and the MAJORITY is simply not capable of doing any harm, not to speak of fatal damage (Yes, there are indeed software that can directly cause fatal damage, but the Average Joes cannot simply walk into the "software store" and buy a "Freedom Software" and hack the life support system of a hospital and kill people - or hack communication systems and cause fatal aircraft crashes, etc). But guns are ONLY made for one thing - and that is doing life-threatening or fatal damage. Comparing open source software in general with guns sounds appealing but it is completely wrong
- The hammer (and other tool) analogy was the worse: YES, there are a numerous tools that could be used for doing harm or killing someone: your hands, water, medication, a rope, a stone... There are so many, that I cannot even list the physical objects which because of their physical form or chemical attributes can be used for doing fatal damage to a living organism... but ALL THESE TOOLS and objects are created for a primary reason that is NOT doing harm or killing. In contrary, guns are ONLY made for this purpose. Why comparing these then?
- he states: "I've noticed that many people in the free software community tend to identify as Liberals". I think I understand why this statement was made, but it is truly sad how intentionally vague the phrasing is and how it is too easy to project a false perception with this. The fact of thinking in silos "Liberals vs. Conservatives" is doing already too much of a harm not just in the US - I see the very same (and shameful) tendency in my home country Hungary where the major tone of the conversations are "Liberals vs. Right-wingers", and in which conversations too many of the participants do not even have a proper definition of what "liberalism" is or what "patriotism", "nationalism", or "conservatism" are... Antifa is a good (extreme) example: they are the same as fascists/neo-nazis, just with a different agenda. They use the same tool set, are totally ditching logical thinking and reasoning, etc.
And finally - I am not discussing if gun rights are wrong, but I believe that we are so far away from a society that would be mature enough for bearing guns, that it is safer for the overall integrity of the society if people are first educated and assessed before having a licence to a gun.
Free and open source software meant to make the world a better place through the free sharing of knowledge and inspiration of research and cooperation. Gun rights are not about building an open and free society - it is purely about that business in which the US is the first exporter in the world (then comes Russia, China, and France...).
Here in Europe we have been through 2 World Wars, and people learned that it is NEVER the guns that solve the problems. I think (and this is my personal, subjective opinion) that the US needs much more of collective education, historical reflection, and a progressive approach to build a peaceful society - rather than let all civilians arm themselves and try to apply "eye for an eye" politics. It would be so much better to actually strive to achieve what open source software movement is meant for.
"Fundamental ethics are not subjective - they are always deeply rooted in the historical and societal fabric of a nation/society."
What is considered "right" and "wrong" behavior is absolutely subjective - thus morals, and ethics, are also subjective.
Here, let me help you out here:
eth·ics
/ˈeTHiks/
noun
1.
moral principles that govern a person's behavior or the conducting of an activity.
mor·al
/ˈmôrəl/
adjective
1.
concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.
"In contrary, guns are ONLY made for this purpose. "
I, as well as _tens of millions_ of other Americans, must be using our guns improperly then.
@@Locke99GS @Locke99GS well, I guess you missed the point: copying the definition of ethics and moral without understanding the word "principles" in them was, I guess, a logical flaw. If "right" or "wrong" were subjective (which is true on an individual level but never on a societal level), mankind wouldn't ever created the institutions of law and jury. We couldn't ever make a court decision if people (societal groups) wouldn't agree on a MUTUAL definition of "right" and "wrong", which makes these agreements objective (to a certain extent, at least for a group of people that share the same legislation principles - usually a nation).
Let ME help YOU out here: a samurai killing an other person of a lower class on the spot if that person made a big insult, was defined "right" by the commonly accepted definition of "kiri-sute gomen" in the feudal Japan. Now, this definition was outdated, and nobody is accepting such an act in the modern Japan, and such a killing (by anybody) is now defined "wrong". Not on a subjective level, but objectively by the society. And don't get me wrong: still, when it was right to kill this way, there might have been numerous individuals who probably defined it still as "wrong" on their subjective level, but the objective, society-wide definition was still "right", were not subjective, they were supported by an objective principle based on mutual agreement of the society of the given time and locus.
I may assume you were trying (without actually doing it, because copying two definitions without adding your own arguments is hardly "doing") to discuss the universal philosophical question of "right" and "wrong", but in this case it is a bit weird to start discussing how subjective the two are by adding two objective definitions in which you simply ignore one part of the definition (I.e. "prinicple") and furthermore ignoring the context and meaning behind the definition.
Speaking of what guns are made for: well, yes, although given the physical attributes of the objects you can use them as a hammer or paper weight, these are still only made for doing irreparable damage (in objects or organisms) by accelerating a projectile which collides with an other object. Of course, if you don't use it as intended (a.k.a. not operating it and not shooting) it can be used as a visual deterrence, but I would be really eager to see a real argument that explains the opposite - and please do not waste your time for an incomplete and false-premise-based attempt such as "using our guns in improperly then"... Maybe I misunderstood you, but I simply couldn't figure out what you were trying to suggest here. What are you using your gun for?
@@oumarh.gassama8063 Come on man. Now you're misunderstanding (or misrepresenting) "subjective" and "objective". Societal norms and mores don't make a thing objective.
sub·jec·tive
/səbˈjektiv/
adjective
1.
based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
"his views are highly subjective"
ob·jec·tive
/əbˈjektiv/
adjective
1.
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
I use my guns primarily for target plinking and action pistol competition. Since you say guns are "ONLY made for one thing - and that is doing life-threatening or fatal damage" and I am not using them for that purpose, then I and so many of my peers must be using them incorrectly. The vast majority of guns in America have never shot a person or animal, and very few ever will.
You've used and emphasized "ONLY" and "NEVER" in your original comment. It is hard to take seriously the ideas of somebody who fallaciously reduces things into monochotomies, then emphasizes that reduction. It is hard to take seriously the ideas of somebody who argues that the ideas if a society settles on an idea, that somehow that makes that idea an objective truth.
You probably made other arguments from flawed premises, but I honestly stopped really reading your comment when I realized that you don't seem to care that words have definitions, or that those definitions aren't in line with your argument. Sorry man, but I can't take your arguments seriously.
@@Locke99GS so now you make some ad-hominem fallacies ("it's hard to take seriously the ideas of someone") and using it as an argument?
You are right, I presented the two concepts incomplete and that was misleading. Objective is based on facts without the personal feelings - and that is where you misunderstood the concept: facts cannot be bent to match personal preferences. A rough example: The way a society works is a fact. Also, if the modus operandi of that society is unsustainable, is a fact. And the two facts can be simply controversial as they are facts of different layers of phenomena and processes: the given society works based on rules and the society flourishes, but for example destroys other societies. Both phenomena can be factual, and not enough to determine of any of those are "right" or "wrong" unless you inspect it from an ultimate holistic view. What if the "other" (destroyed) societies would have destroyed the habitat of the two? What if the society which destroyed the other would ultimately destroy the habitat?... which is wrong.
My assumption: If you would indeed understand subjective and objective, right and wrong, you'd be advocating for resolving global energetical-, political- and overall societal issues, and not focus on changing gun laws... But please, try to prove me wrong with real logic if you wish.
I agree with you that I was mistaken with saying that firearms are made for doing only damage to living things, that is why I was then adding that also objects are involved. Yes, there are shooting competitions, I am aware of that, but bringing it up as people are indeed advocate to carry firearms (even open carry) because they want to go to shooting competitions sounds....well... flawed. Current restrictive gun laws were never a burden of organising and carrying out shooting competitions, etc. Current restrictive gun laws never were a hindering cause for people who wanted to get into the shooting sport.
It's like: the fact that you have to pass tests and exams to get a driving license to drive a car or motorbikes is for everyone else's safety so you can operate those objects in public, the same is for gun laws.
Of course, if you use the guns in a safe and isolated location and environment (a.k.a. shooting/competition range) people won't care. But everyone would suddenly care if you bring your objects (that have inarguably primary lethal purposes) to public without any certifications.
You also go with the ambiguity fallacy by saying "you probably made other fallacies but I stopped reading"... nice try, but an assumption is s not a fact or an argument.
Anyway, enjoy your day, I was happy to exchange ideas, I learned from you and thank you for that!
Stay safe and healthy!
@@oumarh.gassama8063
1) "so now you make some ad-hominem fallacies ("it's hard to take seriously the ideas of someone") and using it as an argument?"
*sigh*
That is not an ad hominem because it was not used as an argument, it was a statement. For instance, if I were to say "You're stupid", that is not an ad hominem because it is not arguing anything. It would be a simple statement. (Presumably an incorrect one - it is just an example) Now if I were to say "You're wrong because you're stupid", that would be an ad hominem because it is an argument. (Also just an example - I do _not_ think you're stupid). See here:
ad ho·mi·nem
/ˌad ˈhämənəm/
adjective
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
ar·gu·ment
/ˈärɡyəmənt/
noun
a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.
state·ment
/ˈstātmənt/
noun
a definite or clear expression of something in speech or writing.
2) "You also go with the ambiguity fallacy by saying "you probably made other fallacies but I stopped reading"... nice try, but an assumption is s not a fact or an argument.
"
It was not an argument, again it was a statement. See above definitions to see the difference between arguments and statements.
Have a great day, sir.