The Complete Moderate's Guide to Gun Control

Video Statistics and Information

Video
Captions Word Cloud
Captions
If you’ve been following my channel for a while, you know that every once in a while, I like to put out a video that completely destroys my subscriber count or ruins my like to dislike ratio. So in keeping with that spirit, let’s take a few minutes to talk about guns. I’ve learned that it’s become strangely important to give your credentials before anyone takes you seriously regarding this issue. It’s a lot like gaming, this is the new having your rig specs down in your forum signature. So firstly, I am a political moderate. Look, even facebook, which knows all my secrets, labelled me as one! As a result I’ve been called both a libtard and a nazi, sometimes on the same video. Being in the middle is a lot of fun, trust me. So my goal with this video is not to sway you one direction or another. What I hope to accomplish is to serve as somewhat of a bridge between the two sides. I want you to understand where we were, where we are, and where some people want us to go, and at least be able to use the same vocabulary moving forward. So, I am going to talk about some of the proposals for gun control in the future, and I know that just addressing them instead of dismissing them right out of hand must mean that I want to destroy America or something. I don’t, in fact, the eagle-eyed among you probably noticed that facebook also seems to know that I am a veteran. Here I am holding an M60… this is definitely my favorite picture, I look like a total bamf. I was in the army for 7 years – yes seven, I was stop-lossed during my deployment… Thanks Obama. My first MOS was as a Field Artillery Cannon Crewmember, which also means I was a crew served weapons specialist. I fired everything from the 155mm Howitzer to the 9mm Pistol to the Mark19 Automatic Grenade launcher – yes that is a thing and yes it is just as ridiculous as you imagine. Later, I changed over to the Signal Corps, but then I was deployed. I was in Iraq from 2009 to 2010 where I served as a convoy security gunner, running back and forth between Nasiriyah, Iraq and the Kuwaiti border – where this picture was taken. Yes, I’m well aware of the fact that that’s not an M60, it’s a 240B. So if you see any comments below mentioning how that’s not an M60 and I have no idea what I’m talking about, it means they barely made it past the first minute. It’s a trap! So where does your right to own a gun come from? And the policies that you’re proposing, which by the way strip other people of their fundamental human rights. Fundamental human right… You keep using that word, I do not think that means what you think it means. A fundamental human right is something that explicitly isn’t written like the right to privacy or the right to have a name. If it’s written down as part of a law somewhere, it’s not a fundamental human right. Now I know what he’s stretching that to mean – the right to self-defense and self-preservation. And he is kind of right when it comes to that, but there’s no guarantee of what tools can be used, that part has to be written. Even the right to not be owned by another person had to be written down, that’s how vague and abstract fundamental human rights are. But in the gun debate, many people will assert that it’s a god-given right. Now, I’ve read this book once or twice and I’ve even skimmed through other translations of the same book… and … guns and firearms are never mentioned… I am allowed to own people in these though so, that’s… weird. I’ve even read the sequel which was written well after guns were invented and they’re not in here either, so maybe I’m missing something. God is never mentioned in the Constitution either. Your “creator” is in the Declaration of Independence, but that’s not law, it was written over a decade before the Constitution. And you’re only endowed by your creator with three inalienable rights: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What’s interesting about that last one is that in the original draft, it was the pursuit of property, so… it’s a little strange that god-given rights are up to human revision. But that’s not the point, I’m not trying to bash on religion or anything. Your right to own a gun comes from the government, not some supreme being or some inherent human-ness, but the Constitution, specifically the Second Amendment. A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Now here’s where I’m going to start losing people – as if I didn’t already. The Second Amendment is not some “in case of tyranny, break glass” clause in the Constitution. That whole “in the course of human events it becomes necessary to dissolve” blah blah comes from the Declaration of Independence. Which again, is not law. It’s not for the security of the people from a free state, but rather for the security of a free state – but from who? From foreign invaders, Native Americans, and yes, the federal government. When the Constitution was adopted in 1789, the United States didn’t at all look like the United States of today. And I don’t just mean geographically. It was more like the European Union; a collection of states that were loosely banded together, mostly for economic benefit. People didn’t really identify as American yet, they were Virginian or Pennsylvanian. The standing federal, US Army was very small, so the majority of military power came from state militias. The Second Amendment guaranteed the right of the states to form a state militia – it was not an individual right to own guns. None of the founding fathers, whether it be during the constitutional convention or the federalist papers ever talked about individual gun ownership. It was always in reference to state militias. Which by the way, aren’t even really a thing anymore. They do exist in like, Texas – because of course they do in Texas – but they aren’t the National Guard. I was in the National Guard, you swear to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States and the state. Which would kinda put you at odds during a civil war. So many vows, they make you swear and swear. Speaking of the Civil War, while there were federally organized “US” troops, most of the forces were state units or militias, like the 54th Massachusetts. It wasn’t until after the Civil War that people really identified themselves as American. Which brings us to the first Supreme Court case that I want to talk about, Presser v. Illinois. Presser was part of a local worker’s militia, not assembled by any government… and the state weirdly didn’t allow that. The court’s decision was that the Second Amendment did not apply to the individual, except as part of a government militia, for the good of the United States. So basically, they kind of rewrote the amendment from this to this. Which isn’t that much of a change, we were now a united country after all. It’s important to note that at this point, that the only practical firearms that really existed were muzzle-loaded rifles, pistols, and shotguns. Lever-action and repeating rifles were still fairly new and the only machine gun in existence still needed to be carted around by a horse. The founding fathers were smart, but they couldn’t see into the future. They didn’t even know what was on the other side of the Mississippi. Which is why several ways to change the Constitution were built into it, like amendments. But more often, Supreme Court cases change the interpretation rather than the actual language. As we’ve just seen. So as new weapons came out, the government had to figure out how to handle them. In 1934, the first real gun control law was passed – the National Firearms Act. This law mandated a special tax stamp and registry of all sorts of weapons, like machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, anything larger than a .50 caliber, explosives, and even poison gas. Things I hope we can all agree shouldn’t be in the hands of civilians. But this is what also allows people on the Discovery Channel to get their hands on them – it’s not impossible, it’s just very difficult. Five years after that law, we have our next Supreme Court case, US v. Miller (1939). Miller was in possession of a sawed-off shotgun and argued that the Second Amendment allowed him to do so. The Supreme Court disagreed, saying that it had no military utility. In fact it’s only real purpose was to hide under your coat to shoot people. They decided that the Second Amendment only applied to weapons that could be used as part of a well-regulated militia as “ordinary military equipment.” So basically, only pistols, rifles, or long-barreled shotguns, reaffirming the constitutionality of the NFA. Then basically nothing happened until the Gun Control Act of 1968, which mostly regulated interstate commerce when it comes to guns. If you want to sell or transfer a gun across state lines, you have to have a Federal Firearms License, or FFL. This basically means any store, since you likely get the majority of your stock from other states. Individual people can sell to other individuals without a license as long as it’s within their own state – do you see a problem with this yet? We’re going to jump ahead to 1993, when the Brady Bill was passed which created a whole new list of criteria that would disqualify someone from owning a gun. This is the list which is currently enforced which prohibits felons, fugitives, illegal aliens, and dishonorably discharged veterans from owning guns. How can the government possibly enforce these rules? By requiring every federally licensed gun retailer to run a background check on potential buyers. So if I want to buy a gun from a store, they have an FFL, so there’s a background check. But if I want to buy a gun from a private individual, say at a gun show… no license, no background check. This is the gun show loophole, the thing that many people think should be closed… including this guy actually. I believe in background checks at gun shows or anywhere to make sure that guns don’t get in the hands of people who shouldn’t have them. GW Bush In 1986, then-president Ronald Reagan passed the Firearm Owner’s Protection Act, also known as the machine gun ban. A few years later, in 1989, someone walked onto an elementary school playground in Stockton, California with a legally-purchased AK-47 and killed several children and injured several dozen others. In response to this, only three weeks later, Reagan said this… I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon. Here’s the problem though… that shooting wasn’t perpetrated with a machine gun. Reagan seems to have fallen victim to the same thing that gun right’s advocates often chastise the left for: a lack of understanding of the vocabulary. So let’s fix that now. The 1986 machine gun ban eliminated the sale and manufacture of new machine guns. If you owned a machine gun prior to 1986, you could keep it. You could even sell it to someone else under the National Firearms Act. It requires months of paperwork and costs a fortune though, a pre-ban machine gun can cost you $20,000 or more. So, I suppose the question of the hour is – what is a machine gun? Any weapon that when you pull and hold the trigger, fires more than one bullet, also known as an automatic rifle… or more popularly an assault rifle. Yes, assault rifles are already banned. But, the AK-47 used in that particular school shooting was a semi-automatic. Pull the trigger, one bullet. Pull the trigger, one bullet. So in 1994, Reagan, along with former presidents Ford and Carter, wrote a joint letter to congress saying… We are writing to urge your support for a ban on the domestic manufacture of military-style assault weapons. Every major law enforcement organization in America and dozens of leading labor, medical, religious, civil rights and civic groups support such a ban. Most importantly, poll after poll shows that the American public overwhelmingly support a ban on assault weapons. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons. Congress and President Clinton listened, which led to the Assault Weapons Ban in 1994. So what is an assault weapon? To answer that, we need to look at the AR15. Just to get a few things out of the way, the official name of the original patent-holding name-brand is the Colt ArmaLite AR15. The AR stands for ArmaLite Rifle, so rather redundantly, the entire name of the original rifle is the Colt ArmaLite ArmaLite Rifle 15. The patent has expired and now everyone has their own versions of the AR15, but they’re all basically the same design, so I’m going to refer to all of them collectively as the AR15. Is the AR15 an assault rifle? No. It was prior to 1986, but since then they’ve all been semi-automatic. Is the AR15 an assault weapon? That is when things get tricky. An assault weapon is a semi-automatic rifle with two or more of the following. A pistol grip – yes, all AR15s have that… So as long as it doesn’t have anymore, it was completely legal. A folding or telescoping stock. A grenade launcher? Well nobody can own grenades anyway. A bayonet mount - why would, okay, next. A flash suppressor or a barrel capable of supporting one. Which is not a silencer, it’s this bit. Which is a pretty important piece for not blinding the shooter and depending on the design, reduces recoil. So the AR15 was legal during the assault weapons ban as long as it was modified to not have certain features. So a fully automatic machine gun is an assault rifle. A semi-automatic rifle with a pistol grip and a flash suppressor is an assault weapon. Get rid of just one of those, and it’s not, it’s a “modern sporting rifle.” But all of these can fall under the umbrella term “assault-style rifles.” So when stores like Dick’s Sporting Goods decided they would no longer sell these, everyone knew what they meant. The ban also prohibited the transfer or possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices – which is anything that holds more than ten rounds. Pay attention, because this is something gamers do that annoys everyone that knows anything about guns. This is a clip, this is a magazine, this is a high-capacity magazine, this is a drum, and this is a juicebox. Hey, I gotta future-proof this video somehow. High capacity magazines and drums were illegal until the assault weapons ban was lifted in 2004. I made my intentions- made my views clear. I did think we oughta extend the assault weapons ban, and was told of the fact that the bill was never gonna move. GW Bush Although, it wasn’t actually lifted, it had an expiration date built in which is something I’ve never really liked. It’s a way for Congress to blame the current administration for raising taxes or making something legal when in reality, it was the Congress from 10 years ago that did that, but that’s beside the point. The AR15 wasn’t really popular until the assault weapons ban was lifted, because now they could have all the fun cosmetic attachments they wanted. As long as it wasn’t full-auto. Again, being fully automatic means that if you pull and hold the trigger, it continuously fires multiple bullets until you let go of the trigger. That was a bump stock. Which makes the trigger move back and forth, so your stationary finger is pulling it every time, making it technically not automatic and therefore technically legal. But you’re firing rate is like 90% that of full-auto, so… close enough. After the Vegas shooting, many people mistakenly thought that the shooter had illegally modified his weapons to be fully automatic. He didn’t, he used a bump stock. How difficult is it to modify your weapon to be full auto anyway? Turns out, not that difficult. There are a number of videos on youtube showing you how to do it. But you don’t really have to since there a number of legal “increased rate-of-fire devices” on the market, like bump stocks, that get you close enough. As of recording this video, bump stocks are still legal, but are in the process of becoming illegal. Unlike the grandfather clause of the machine gun ban, if they are made illegal, you will have to surrender or destroy any existing bump stocks. So there we go, all the vocabulary should be cleared up… I hope. In 2008, the Supreme Court heard DC v Heller, its first Second Amendment case since before World War 2. I won’t get into the particulars of this case since Mr. Beat has already done that. But in short Heller sued the city for the ability to keep a gun in his home, which was illegal at the time. The Supreme Court agreed with Heller and for the first time ever, affirmed the individual right to keep and bear arms regardless of military service. They effectively changed the interpretation of the Second Amendment from this, to just this by saying that anyone can technically be part of the militia. Which is why a certain influential gun lobby only has that part posted in their headquarters lobby. In 2016, they heard Caetano v Massachusetts, which extended the Second Amendment to all weapons, regardless of military utility, unless otherwise made illegal. So stun guns okay, machine guns and rocket launchers, not okay. So that’s where we are now. It doesn’t really matter what the original intent of the founding fathers was, what matters is how it is interpreted today. There was no guaranteed individual right to own guns under the founding fathers, there is today. There were no machine guns or even semi-automatics when the founding fathers were around, there are today. As I’ve tried to make abundantly clear, the framers of the Constitution were intelligent and forward-thinking, but the United States was a completely different place 230 years ago. That was a time when you were basically born, lived, and died in the same town – they didn’t even have railroads yet. So they couldn’t even imagine sitting in a metal tube and essentially teleporting from one side of the country to the other and back again, all within the same day. State laws were far more important and effective back then… they aren’t so much today. So using California’s state gun control as an example of why gun control doesn’t work is ridiculous. State borders look like this, not like this. And don’t even talk to me about cities like Chicago, you accidentally walk across city limits all the time without even realizing it. California does have fairly strict gun control, but some people want to see it expanded nationally, perhaps look something more like what Australia has – so let’s clear up what Australia actually has. After the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, they enacted sweeping gun control that essentially eliminated mass shootings – but it didn’t eliminate all gun violence. Because there are still guns in Australia. They didn’t completely ban them. Here’s what they actually did. Completely ban all automatic and military style weapons. Just like we did for machine guns and temporarily for assault weapons. With the addition of having to sell back any currently owned ones. Set up a national registry for all firearms. Restrict interstate purchase and transfer to licensed dealers. Just like we do. Require secure storage of all firearms. And require anyone seeking to own a firearm to obtain a license. Who can get a license? They basically have the same restrictions that we do under the Brady Bill, with the additional requirement of being mentally sound. You also have to have a genuine reason for wanting to possess a firearm. Hunting and even target shooting at a gun club, count. You just can’t have one to hang on your wall I guess. You also have to demonstrate appropriate training in the safe use of firearms. Kind of like what we do for driver’s licenses. That’s it, it wasn’t a complete ban. Plenty of people still own rifles, pistols, and shotguns. Nobody in the United States is talking about a complete ba- oh for f… okay, very few people are actually talking about that. By the way, repealing the Second Amendment is not unconstitutional. You would have to pass an amendment to repeal that amendment – which is something we’ve totally done before. Please drink responsibly. It’s a long, complicated process outlined in the Constitution, it’s just about the most constitutional thing you can do. It’s not impossible, but it’s very unlikely. So let’s talk about some of the reforms people are seriously suggesting. Again, I am not pushing for any of these ideas, but I am going to talk about them – some of them I agree with, some of them I don’t. Australian style gun control is probably the most extreme. It would expand on laws we already have, reinstate the assault weapons ban, and ban semi-automatic rifles for many people. The Supreme Court has already decided that machine guns and sawed-off shotguns are not civilian weapons, and some people would like to see the AR15 and other semi-automatic rifles treated the same way. But the biggest change would be making guns look more like cars. You have to have a license to drive a car and in the process of getting a license you had to demonstrate the ability to drive and have a basic knowledge of traffic laws. Having a gun license could also take the place of needing a background check every time you buy a gun. Some people also suggest having a title attached to every firearm, much like there is with your car. This could also create a national firearms registry much like Australia, but more importantly: This is the only way to close the gun show loophole while still allowing private sales. Any other method would just nibble at the edges and you’d be playing whack-a-mole with loopholes for another decade. As it is right now, you only need a background check if you buy from a store with a federal firearms license. Buying from a person whether it be at a gun show or anywhere else doesn’t require anything. So a title transfer where you have to go to a courthouse, just like you do for a car, would serve the purpose of making sure you have a license and background check – and could serve the additional purpose of acting as a waiting period. Some states have mandatory waiting periods, but not all of them, and even if they do, it’s only when purchasing from a dealer with an FFL, not private sales. Mandatory waiting periods mostly serve the purpose of stopping you from making an impulsive, rash decision. Many of the recent high-profile mass shootings were perpetrated by someone who bought the weapon only a few days earlier specifically for that purpose. But mostly, it would stop suicides – and yes, states with mandatory waiting periods have lower rates of suicide. Mandatory waiting periods won’t stop all mass shootings or even gun violence as a whole, in fact: No single solution will stop all gun violence. Even during the federal assault weapons ban, while there was a reduction in mass shootings – there were still mass shootings. Because of recent events, people have become quite serious about having a conversation regarding gun control and gun owners are going to have to be part of that conversation. Simply shutting it down by saying it’s a god-given right or that any gun control leads to tyranny isn’t going to cut it anymore. As I’ve shown you, we already have quite a bit of gun control. Australia has just a little more and they aren’t living under a tyrannical government. Likewise, the common talking point that gun control led to the holocaust is just as ridiculous. I think the likelihood of Hitler being able to accomplish his goals would have been greatly diminished if the people been armed. Ugh… I’m not going to address this because Three Arrows, an actual German person talking about actual Nazi gun control, already did. Go check that out if you have the time. There are other talking points and common sayings that gun owners use to stop the conversation, like “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Which, yes, but guns are specifically designed for killing, whether you’re talking about animals or people. Knives and cars have other primary purposes – it’s the gun that makes it so easy. “An Armed Society is a Polite Society.” I don’t really want to live in a society where people are nice to each other only because they’re afraid of getting shot. “It’s not a gun problem, it’s a mental health problem.” As if the United States is the only country in the world with mental health issues… we are the only country in the world with more guns than actual people though so… maybe… It doesn’t matter, all of these are just ways to avoid having the conversation about gun control by shifting it to something else.. You’re going to have to participate in the conversation eventually. When one kid eats a Tide Pod, we lock up all the Tide Pods. When one person tries to sneak a bomb on a plane in their shoe, we all have to take off our shoes, forever. So when thousands of people are being killed by the same product every year, it’s not hard to understand why some people think it’s time we do something about it. Simply dismissing the conversation or ignoring someone because they used the wrong terminology will either result in extreme legislation or just more of the same. Neither of which will be helpful to anyone. At least now, you’ll be able to approach that conversation with a greater depth of knowledge, and the next time someone says “we need to ban all assault rifles” or “you might as well just burn the Constitution,” hopefully now, you’ll know better. So what do you think about this issue - as if you weren't already going to tell me... What topic should I moderately explain next? Let me know down below and don't forget to trigger that subscribe button. Sorry for taking so long to get this video out, if you've been following me on twitter, you know why. And why Wheatley isn't in this outro card. Also make sure to follow me on facebook and join us on the subreddit.
Info
Channel: Knowing Better
Views: 517,191
Rating: 4.2353683 out of 5
Keywords: moderate guide, moderate gun, moderate gun control, ar 15, national rifle association, gun control debate, united states, gun control, gun ban, gun debate, assault rifle, assault weapon, gun laws, supreme court, bump stock, 2nd amendment, nra, second amendment, gun, guns, gun violence, right to bear arms, politics, government, shooting, background checks, gun regulation, assault weapons ban, gun registration, gun license, machine gun, gun rights, knowing better, universal
Id: vggYGQyVaCo
Channel Id: undefined
Length: 23min 27sec (1407 seconds)
Published: Sun May 13 2018
Reddit Comments

Very informative, I subscribed.

👍︎︎ 39 👤︎︎ u/Moronoo 📅︎︎ May 14 2018 🗫︎ replies

I'm sure these comments will be completely civil and fact based.

👍︎︎ 27 👤︎︎ u/fritzbitz 📅︎︎ May 14 2018 🗫︎ replies

Very detailed, very encompassing. I think what is sorely missing is a discussion about the lethality of types of ballistics, rather than their launching mechanisms. I.E What is an ER team faced with after a mass shooting?

👍︎︎ 20 👤︎︎ u/hugelkult 📅︎︎ May 14 2018 🗫︎ replies

I like this

👍︎︎ 6 👤︎︎ u/Intellectual1998 📅︎︎ May 14 2018 🗫︎ replies

You don't have a fundamental human right to have a gun

Look, Crowder is a fucking tool but if you are disputing the connection between firearms and self defense, you are de facto arguing to abridge a person's right to defend themselves.

Firearms are, among other things, tools of self defense and if you are in favor of allowing people to defend themselves but are also in favor of restricting the tools by which they can do that then you are de facto restricting people's right to defend themselves.

History

I'm not going to get into this because there's...a lot of wrong in this and I do not have the patience to part it out.

Assault weapon definition

"Assault weapon" does not have a consistent definition. It's a term that applies to whatever the person using it wants to apply it to and has generally different legal definition in different jurisdictions.

The criteria for being an "assault weapon" are generally ludicrous and nonsensical.

Any points the video gains from hinting at how ridiculous the standards are it immediately looses with its "high capacity magazine" garbage.

Bump stocks

They do increase your fire rate "close to 90% of full auto" but they also decrease your accuracy by about that much. Because of the loose grip you need to adopt when using them the gun bounces around in your hands and your ability to actually hit what you're aiming at tanks.

It's also worth pointing out that you don't actually need a bump stock to do this. You can do it with any firearm and a hair tie or rubber band or even just a sufficiently loose grip.

The militia

The video skirts around the difference between "organized" and "unorganized" militia. The "organized" militia generally consists of the National Guard for each state. The "unorganized" militia, as spelled out by the Militia Act of 1903, is made up of all able-bodied men between the ages of 17 and 45.

So if you're able-bodied, a man, between the ages of 17 and 45, and a US citizen then you are technically a part of the unorganized militia.

The US was a different place and modern semi-automatic weapons couldn't have been conceived of back then.

By that logic we shouldn't bother with freedom of speech as it relates to phones, the internet, or radio because they couldn't have conceived of these things back then.

Australia's gun control laws eliminated mass shootings.

Except no, it didn't. There were several that happened after that legislation and one recently. Furthermore the university of Melbourne concluded that the buyback and subsequent legislation has had no measurable impact on gun violence or mass shootings.

Nobody is calling for a ban on all guns

Outright, no they're not. What people are doing however is pushing bans and restrictions that gradually choke off a legitimate person's right to own firearms and use them in legal ways. It's a ban by a thousand regulations rather than a sweeping bill.

Make guns regulated like cars

People who say this don't understand what it means.

I can buy any car I want, own as many cars as I want, do whatever I want to them on my property, sell them to whoever I want, buy them from whoever I want, I don't have to register them unless I want to drive on public roads, and the license to drive them is absurdly easy to get.

If that's gun control, I can live with that.

States with waiting periods have lower rates of suicide.

No, no they do not. They have lower rates of suicide by firearm. Their overall suicide rate is generally unaffected by the presence or absence of wait times to purchase firearms.

Australia has "just a little bit more" gun control than the US and they aren't living under a tyrannical government.

You don't put on your seatbelt as the accident happens or stop wearing it because you haven't gotten into an accident recently. You put your seatbelt on because in the unlikely event you get into an accident you are protected.

When one person eats a Tide pod we lock up all the Tide pods.

No, the Tide pods are locked up because they're frequently stolen and used as currency. Tide pods have been locked up for years, long before the whole "tide pod challenge" nonsense came up. People who say this do not live in poor neighborhoods.


Overall the video is less hysterical than other videos on the topic but it's still lacking in a lot of areas. The whole "I'm a vet" doesn't buy him much space either, if anything it makes corner cutting more egregious.

👍︎︎ 45 👤︎︎ u/HeloRising 📅︎︎ May 14 2018 🗫︎ replies
Related Videos
Note
Please note that this website is currently a work in progress! Lots of interesting data and statistics to come.