Heated Gun Debate Between Colion Noir & Co-Founder of Gun Control Organization

i've been saying for years that the biggest issue with the gun debate in this country is we never actually really have a debate it's each side has their own platforms and they talk to their people and the other side has their platforms and they talk to their people we never actually come together to actually have a conversation so i was a little surprised when newsweek reached out to me and said hey we have a podcast called the debate and they wanted me to come on there and have a debate with another person who was on the opposite side of the issue this is the co-founder of an organization called stop handgun violence i call him anti-gun but to be fair co-founder of an organization that's designed to stop handgun violence so what you're about to watch is the debate between he and i on the issue of guns in america we are so thrilled to be joined by john e rosenthal co-founder of stop handgun violence and colin noir a gun rights activist a lawyer and the host of the web series noir john kohlian welcome to the debate thank you thanks for having me yeah so thanks so much to both of you so um look before we kind of get into some more nuts and bolts here some specifics and all that let's kind of give you both just an opportunity to just kind of frame your overall approach to all this basically kind of just get out your you know 60 to 90 second elevator pitch if you will as to why gun rights are good or bad so uh call young let's start with you oh well for me you know i started off not being pro gun or pro second him and i was largely kind of apathetic kind of leaning towards anti um for me as i got further into it for me kind of was just a thing that i became a fascination from a uh from a physics and just enthusiast enthusiasm standpoint um from there i started getting to the more political aspects of it the more i learned i started to realize that my ability to protect myself with a firearm um to me is probably one of the most important aspects of things that i do in my life largely because the most important thing i have is my life and i can't depend on anyone else not because no one wants to help me or will be willing to help me in the event that i need to but it's just like it just is what it is sometimes and so that ability to depend on myself to protect myself and the people that i love to me is one of the most important things you could possibly have in this world and john yeah i too am a gun owner and a business person and i've been the lead advocate for gun violence prevention here in massachusetts uh and i did that starting uh back in 1994 when i realized you know 19 kids under uh you know 20 years old were dying every day 106 americans dying every day from firearms and um that it was largely due to bad public policy leading to bad public health outcomes and so i i built a big billboard again i'm a gun owner i support the second amendment um put built the 250-foot billboard on the massachusetts turnpike near fenway park put up messages around gun safety and since that point here in massachusetts urban massachusetts we've reduced gun deaths by the rate of gun deaths by 40 percent we're an urban state with the lowest gun death rate in the nation the lowest cost of gun violence and um we've done it without banning most guns so i believe that there is a way to work within the second amendment and also save lives without infringing on law-abiding gun owners so it sounds like actually there's a lot of agreement here you both support the second amendment believe it should exist i'm sure colin that you oppose gun violence so let's try to drill down a little bit more into where exactly um the disagreement lies and john i wonder if you to do that if you could tell us how you accomplished that feat and then we can ask colin if he agrees with the methods that you used sure so what we did is simply look at the gun constituent groups and like with automobiles put in place laws and regulations that require accountability and responsibility on the part of gun owners gun dealers gun manufacturers and law enforcement so here in massachusetts we have renewable gun licensing just like automobiles we require safe storage and safety training like automobiles we became the first state in the nation to require that gun manufacturers put minimum safety features into their guns like trigger locks and uh you know magazine disconnects if the magazine is not uh in the handle of the gun um and basically we regulate real guns like you know the national consumer product safety commission regulates toy guns but prohibits the regulation of real guns and then um we we created a opportunity like with automobiles where it's it's discretionary licensing based on your history and law enforcement literally can police officers who issue the licenses here in the state like a car license they they have discretion if they know that that you've had a history of violence but say there hasn't been a restraining order taken out against you uh and that led to red flag laws but all of this is to say the only thing we ban are military style assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines because law enforcement are given 13 to 17 rounds and their service weapons where's the logic in giving the general public 35 to 100 round magazines to outgun police without even an id or a background check so it's accountability and responsibility without banning most guns we've proven that gun laws work without banning most guns and if every state we have the lowest gun death rate in the nation here in massachusetts if every state had the same 3.5 per hundred thousand firearm fatality rate 27 000 of the annual 40 000 gun deaths could be saved nationwide simply by having uniform national laws like we have proven to work in massachusetts so colleen a lot to respond to there uh anything you disagree with um yeah so i can start off at the top of the main thing would be that the whole notion of banning military style assault weapons um they're ar-15s um a number of them are right here behind me um those are military weapons um they're semi-automatic um what they ban are these weapons but when you call them military-style assault weapons generally speaking they present this idea that we're talking about the same guns that the military is using they're not these are specifically civilian weapons designed to be owned by civilians and not only that they account for such a fraction of the gun violence in this country the fact that there is such a specific focus on them especially when they tried to justify it by using by saying well this is the gun of choice by mass shooters that's not the case either vast majority of mass shootings are actually committed with handguns so from that perspective it begs the question so go ahead no i i just want to follow up with that i mean you're you're getting at this point i think already but um look i i i'm a proud owner of a uh uh daniel defense 556. i own thousands of rounds of ammunition uh less than two months ago i visited the warsaw ghetto in warsaw poland went to treblinka i view that weapon as my last defense against a situation such as that so clean when you kind of build that case out for me when you kind of go to like the full kind of like gun rights when you kind of just explain the broad stance as to why folks like you and i view these weapons as an actual bulwark against true government tyranny so i think the funny thing about that's the last point you state is really important because people overlook or gloss over the biggest aspect of why we have the second amendment in the first place and and the reason we have the second amendment is to keep our government in check and a lot of people don't want to say that because it's like oh my god you want to talk about taking over the government that's not what it's saying we're talking about a country that was established by people who had to deal with the tyrannical government and they had to collectively come together with their own arms to fight that government and so as a result of that whenever they put together the constitution and bill of rights they enshrined that ability within that constitution so that going forward in the event that we had to deal with a government whether it be foreign or domestic and the people needed to protect themselves and protect protect protect the property protect their lives particular families protect the country they could do that readily so you can't do that if the domestic government has control of all the guns and then say well yeah you have a right to own a gun but the the domestic government is going to have control of all the guns therefore you have to go and ask them for the guns to stop them from being tyrannical that just doesn't make any sense and so that's why that's why we defend the ability to own the ar-15 so vehemently because back then when it was established yes the government they had muskets and so did the people they had muskets as well and so you fast forward to today our government doesn't have muskets they have machine guns and we're only we're not saying we're only asking but we can barely hold on to our ar-15s as is so from that perspective it says well if it's if the second amendment was designed to keep the government in check why can't we have the arms necessary to do that and john i guess my my follow would be i find this whole kind of mini debate about so-called uh military-style assault weapons from my perspective otherwise known as technically undefinable and cosmetically amorphous subset of uh semi-automatic weapons that certain people think look particularly scary i find this whole mini debate just completely intellectually dishonest because something as kalyan is saying something like 95 plus percent of gun murders in this country are about or with handguns right so why are we why are we avoiding the actual discussion here why are we talking about something that's not handguns should we just be debating whether to ban handguns or like strictly very very very tightly regulate them at least the second amendment says a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state the right to keep in their arms shall not be infringed and until 2008 with the heller decision the dc versus heller decision that meant you had the right to a militia which is a national guard in every court including the supreme court decided that way until 2008 with the heller decision that's number one in the hell in the heller decision let me hold on let me finish i let you speak i let you speak let me point just one point the only reason i'm pausing you is because sometimes what tends to happen is multiple multiple points get made and we don't break them down i just want to adjust that aspect of it point for point if if possible if not if you just want to get spit it out that's fine let's let john finish and then we'll we'll give you the last part of the segment so scalia wrote for the majority in 2008 that you can't ban guns in the common use of the time of the founders those were single-shot black powder he also said i am not talking about military-style assault weapons like ar-15s they were not protected and the there is and you can look at his decision that he wrote for the five four from five four majority so and i actually had this conversation with justice scalia before that decision at a dinner and he absolutely thought it was rational to regulate military weapons and that they shouldn't be in the hands of civilians you don't use them for hunting in fact i hunt and when i hunt i have to get a license and when i hunt deer i'm limited to five rounds and when i hunt duck i'm limited to three rounds to protect the duck and deer population why is it where's the logic that when you hunt humans no limit and by the way and by the way if you really think you're gonna fight a tyrannical government who has nuclear weapons tanks b52s what is your a ar-15 gonna do for you i can tell you one thing it's gonna do which is there have been 374 mass shootings or four or more people this year alone and without an ar-15 and a large capacity ammunition magazine you're gonna have a very hard time killing a lot of people quickly and outgunning police who only have 13 to 17 rounds don't you remember las vegas with ar-15s 558 people shot in minutes you're not going to do that with a handgun and a 10 round clip you're going to do it with military style assault weapons they are made to outgun police and you know we've heard he wants his ar-15 in order to outgun police that can't be trusted because they're like could be a renegade renegade government that's just a false choice and a ridiculous argument when you're going up against a sophisticated military i find it ironic that you talk about how lethal the ar-15 is in one respect with respect to mass shootings and and outgunning police officers but then in the same breath says it will do nothing to fight back against a tyrannical government nuclear weapons and airplanes correct so you're saying that our government would nuke the american people you're saying that you're going to open fire on the american military i'm just saying that the government has those weapons your ar-15 isn't going to do john his argument is that if the government were to hypothetically go full tyrannical they wouldn't go in carpet bombing cities they would it would be gestapo style door-to-door kind of uh stripping of the weapons but let's put the country you think we live in josh we literally live in a country that was founded and established on them literally fighting back well i personally don't think we live in a country where the government would consider carpet bombing whole cities as opposed to going door-to-door confiscating weapons but let's pick this up on the other side of a break this is the debate a newsweek podcast so our guests are john e rosenthal and colin noire we are discussing gun control gun violence mass shootings have come up so let's start there so colin i'm interested whether and to what extent do you think mass shootings should be part of this conversation at all like to what extent should we be addressing our gun laws to those events um i think they should be part of the conversation because people are dying as a result of people using firearms to kill people but if we're going to talk about it from a statistical standpoint vast majority of deaths in this country by way of firearms or suicides and i mean an overwhelming number we're talking 65 and then after that when we talk with respect to homicides the vast majority of the homicides that take place in this country are happening in very specific targeted areas in this country that have the same socioeconomic problems and then when we get to mass shootings there's such a such a statistical anomaly compared to everything else with respect to gun violence i have to beg the question why are we overly focused on them and i get it there is a fear component there the idea that you could be anywhere we generally speaking you don't expect to engage in that type of violence but at the same time the same reason why i carry a firearm so if i have a certain um fear of going to a movie theater because of a potential mass shooter that's why i want the ability to carry a firearm when i go to a movie theater or any other place that i go to because you every one of these individuals every one of these not everyone but the vast majority of them they've attained their firearms legally with respect to mass shootings so there is no law that you're going to create that's going to prevent that it's just not going to happen so from that standpoint we need to go beyond the idea of legislation and deal with the problem in the moment i i want to pick up on that kollian and john the the points colin makes are really important you know of the annual gun deaths in the u.s two-thirds of suicides one in five are young men 15 to 34 killed in homicides a half of them are black you know a lot of women are killed in domestic violence situations and it seems to me that so if that is the vast majority of gun deaths in america and each of those sort of requires its own attention its own focus its own kind of a law how do you respond to something like that i mean ar-15s are not really being used in in any of those situations which account for the majority of the violence there have been 374 mass shootings more than days of the year this year and that's of four or more people um it's it's we've made it so easy with large capacity ammunition magazines uh that are again greater than police carry um you know people die and police die when when they have to reload and to provide these large capacity ammunition magazines and military style weapons to the general public without a background check including handguns without background checks handguns will amount to 90 percent of the gun violence today now here in massachusetts where we ban these military style assault weapons we ban the large capacity ammunition magazines and we require criminal background checks for every gun sale we have had less gun violence and in fact every state that has criminal background check requirements for all gun sales have lower gun death rates than every single state with lax gun laws so how you address it and by the way we have reduced suicides because we've made it harder for people to get guns who have a history of mental health problems and after every mass shooting what we hear it's not the gun it's mental illness we have more gun violence in america than the 26 industrialized nations combined in the big differences easy access to firearms without id or background checks at in 32 states and at thousands of gun shows every country has mentally ill people we happen to arm them undetected with high-powered weapons that's why we have an epidemic of gun violence i don't want to ban guns in this country i just want to require accountability and responsibility and how do you know if somebody's a criminal or how do you know if they have a mental health record unless you do a background check i i need to hop in here so um we talked about the heller case earlier um i happen to be a constitutional attorney by training i literally own a cult single action army revolver that i got engraved scalia on the grip to name after him because he wrote the heller decision i've read that decision probably dozens of times um i think the narrative that was presented earlier that the incoming use phraseology the majority opinion only refers to single sean muskets it's just straight up wrong that's just not how original as constitutional theory works um and in fact that's why any number of lower courts across the country have used that exact majority opinion to say that because so-called assault weapons that are actually income and use cannot be banned obviously they can be regulated to certain extents but specifically taking this because we can't seem to get off of the so-called assault weapons topic i have a very simple question for you john can you define what an assault weapon is yeah uh an assault weapon like the ar-15 uh that was used in sandy hook um where my friends had to identify their children by their clothing because after getting three to 11 rounds each with a 223 round made them indistinguishable now that is not a weapon you use for hunting and it is for killing people it is designed for that round it is designed to stop an infantry it is designed to tumble not penetrate your body i would say that is a military style weapon call young you could go ahead there was a lot of fallacy in a lot of that actually 22 round is is actually used quite often hot i've i've hunted many times with with the 223 yes yes i did that's that it's what i used to hunt did you mean because you eat that that meat after it it's received a 23 round yeah why wouldn't i well the way it's destroyed like human tissue is destroyed with a 223 right all rounds of ammo destroy human tissue that's that's what it's designed to do it's designed to do that explicitly so i'm a little confused so you're advocating using 223 rounds people do it all the time 223 556. for stopping humans do you advocate for that too i use nine millimeter as a self-defense round that i carry to protect myself if another human tries to kill me and sometimes do you think it's fine for people to have without an idea or background check and to use in mass shooting background check for all of these guns here vast majority i don't know where this notion is so you support background check is that what you're saying you support background checks before i don't forget everybody i don't support universal background checks so colleen walk us through that argument talk talk to us about you know the whole gun loophole quote unquote how you see that and then i would also like you to address another point john has brought up a few times i want to understand your position is your position that um there are problems with some of these laws and and thus we have to accept that even though some of these laws would prevent gun violence we can't implement them because they are unconstitutional or as you position that actually they don't prevent violence in the way that john is proposing so talk to us about those issues largely whenever we had this conversation about background checks it's always prop propped up as we don't have background checks we do have background checks in this country if you go and you buy a gun from a gun dealer whether it be at a gun show or at a gun store you're required to get a background check that's by law however in a lot of states in many states vast majority of states you can sell a gun privately i can in texas right now if i had a friend if i'm if i'm aware that he is not a felon and he's not prohibited from owning a firearm i can sell my personal gun like i can sell all of my other personal items to him without a background check i don't have to require him to get a background check but the universal background checks he's to do is to require me if i wanted to sell a gun to my friend or a family member like for instance i gave my i gave a gun to my mom of sort of giving kind of my mom years ago it would require that they would first have to go get a background check before i could sell them that gun and so the idea is that by doing this we would be able to prevent criminals from buying guns privately and then utilizing them in crimes my argument is how do you enforce such a system it is inherently going to be on an honor system unless you have a national database with every single gun that records every single transaction that would be a national registry which we do not have i am against a national registry because by and large they do not stop crime so even if you had a criminal who went out bought a gun even got a background check for that gun and let's say the gun's registered if he's going to commit a crime at the gun he's going to still commit the crime of the gun the registry does not prevent him from doing that however what it does do is give a database to the government informing them of exactly all the guns that i have where they are and so in the event further down the line that they decide that they do want to ban guns completely and confiscate them they don't have to go door-to-door they can just threaten me with sending me to jail hey call me on noir you have these five guns according to our national registry we have a mandatory buyback which has been proposed by a number of our politicians and and currently our president we have a mandatory buyback you have to sell back your gun at a fraction of the price and if you don't you go to jail and guess what we'll know if you don't because we have them here on this registry they don't even have to come to my house except for when they come to arrest me for not doing that and so then i want to i want to touch on something that uh john pointed out with respect to magazine capacity he talks about the idea that lives are saved whenever somebody's forced to reload okay now what happens then if we have a magazine limitation capacity of 10 rounds and then we have another mass shooting we'll be sitting here again having the same conversation you'll be saying why does anybody need ten rounds we need five rounds and then we'll do that and then later on down the line there'll be another mass shooting and then you'll say well why does anybody need five rounds we need to we need to limit it to three rounds and we'll be having that conversation up until the point where i no longer have the ability to put any rounds in my firearm so i colleen i just want to put i it's so interesting i do want to make sure you get a chance to answer this point john has made though which is that are you arguing that these laws for example a registry are you arguing that well maybe it would save lives but at what cost at the cost of our civil liberties or are you arguing that it actually wouldn't save lives at all and that a lot of these sort of laws actually don't work to prevent gun violence in the way john has suggested both actually i don't think a gun registry would do anything to mitigate any of these crimes because like i said before vast majorities are suicides and then the remaining are gang and drug violence that happens in our inner cities in very specific areas these kids are getting these guns illegally gun registration is going to do anything to stop that not to mention red flag laws are inherently unconstitutional john a lot for you to respond to here where do you want me to start where is the logic now if you're a criminal and you can't pass a background check you don't have to go to a federally licensed dealer who's the only one that has to run a background check so private dealers can operate selling guns without background checks to anyone cash and carry with no id now every single state you know that has a background check requirement makes it a little harder for law by for for uh criminals to get guns has lower crime rates lower gun death rates lower suicide rates because we just make it a little harder so wait but john can i can i just appreciate you john can i just push on that a minute how do you know if it's like correlation or causation right like you know when you take an inner city where there are so many problems contributing to gun violence right and you compare that to you know rural massachusetts right i mean i mean how can you tell that it's causation and not that there's another you know that this is a correlation because we're looking at gun related injuries and deaths so it's not that difficult to compare states the national center for disease control and prevention does an annual report every year of firearm fatality rates for every state and every so massachusetts happens to have the lowest gun death rate we're an urban state by the way we're not a rural state we're an urban state and we happen to be next to maine new hampshire and vermont that don't have background checks for private gun sales but massachusetts has and new york and new jersey and states that are urban states but have effective gun laws have lower gun death rates than texas wyoming you name it you name the rural states and you know we're all experiencing you know mental illness in our states but we just make it a little harder in these states that have gun laws and you have less suicides too so um you know it just makes no sense to have this bifurcated system if you can pass a background check you go to a federally licensed gun dealer if you can't pass a background check no problem go to one of 32 states and private dealers now i don't buy you know this argument that it's you know it's just to protect family and friend sales that's not the problem the problem is that you know domestic terrorists and even international terrorists come to states and to us gun shows where there are no background check require requirements buy their weapons and then bring them to states where in countries where it's harder to get guns so if we want to reduce injuries and deaths from guns it's it's a simple thing to have background checks for all gun sales through your local police department how would you enforce it without a national registry unless you're saying here we would need a national registry in order to enforce it effectively because otherwise you just create a law that is literally ineffective no i mean if background check laws are very effective and you have it you have it all go through the fbi national instant check system and they look at at histories criminal histories you know you're prohibited from buying a gun if you have a felony you're you're you're prohibited from buying a gun if you have restraining order let's say that stuff is in the system that is in the system so law enforcement knows let's say i'm a felon and i have a firearm right let's say i get arrested and and and i have a [ __ ] i'm sorry not a family let's just say yeah let's say i'm a felon and i have a firearm and a cop walks up to me is like hey did you get a background check for that gun and i said yeah i did how would he know what system does a cop have to check it against to say you know what you didn't get a background check because this particular gun was sold to this person on this date and it hasn't moved since so that means that you either stole that gun or you didn't get a background check and they sold it to you how would you enforce that without a national registry all right so john respond to that and then let's take it into another quick break here look there are records i mean we are a country of people and laws and if you don't like laws and you want to try to outgun police you know go to texas no no no no no no no no don't do that there is a way there is clearly a way that law enforcement because if you have a felony conviction they know what i'm not going to let you do is paint the picture that i'm sitting here on this podcast saying that i want to go and shoot government officials with my firearms yeah as a foreign that's that's that's intellectually dishonest and disingenuous don't you said a renegade government right i never even said the word renegade i said a possible tyrannical government like was spelled out in our constitution it was it was designed to protect against possible tyrannical governments foreign or domestic i've never talked about going out on on on offensive to shoot government officials to take over the government you said if they have military weapons you need military weapons i do wasn't that what the constitution says exactly what it was intended for no it's not what the constitution all right we are backing outside this is newsweek's the debate we will be right back this week we are debating uh a fairly explosive form i might add uh the second amendment gun rights gun control all that juicy stuff um so john let's start with you here's my here's my question um i think the kind of gun rights versus kind of stricter gun control or straight up just no gun debate makes a lot of sense in kind of an academic setting it makes a lot of sense it's kind of like an intellectual matter we can talk about kind of philosophy and first principles and all of that the reality is that when the american constitution was written over 200 years ago they made a deliberate decision um and for better or for worse again holding his icon this abstract uh classroom philosophizing for better or for worse in the year 2021 in america there are more weapons in circulation than human beings so given that that choice was made a long time ago working with what we have what exactly is the argument working within the confines of the second member you call yourself a second amendment supporter you're not supporting an australia-style door-to-door gun buyback system i understand so what exactly is the argument then for not kind of arming people like kalyan and i who carry our handguns concealed in movie theaters to protect ourselves from shooters what exactly is the argument given that there are more guns in circulation than human beings in this country for further restricting law-abiding gun rights owners if you have inherently dangerous products like a firearm there needs to be accountability and responsibility on the part of gun owners gun dealers gun manufacturers and law enforcement to enforce laws i support the second amendment i have a firearm we happened i live in a may versus shall issue state with concealed carry um there are some standards um for concealed carry in massachusetts that don't exist in other states um but i support the right to keep and bear arms i just don't support it for people that can't pass a background check or who are you terrorists so their only way to know if if they're prohibited is to have a universal background check in every state like you have a universal driver's license in every state so i just think accountability and responsibility yes there are a lot of guns around we also know that a lot of folks that that perpetrate crimes with guns like the new most powerful high-powered weapons um at least we should know that there that they can pass a background check and don't have a history of violence before they buy a very and use a very powerful weapon here's why i don't believe you when you say you support the second amendment because you talk about this idea this notion that we just want background checks so that we can keep people responsible and keep them out of the hands of criminals but chet you are in favor of banning one of the most popular semi-automatic rifles owned by civilians in this country i just don't you can't say you don't want to ban guns but then say you're okay with banning the most popular rifle in the country that's just that that's intellectually inconsistent well i don't agree i don't agree because that's not a weapon that law enforcement carries and if you want to create an army's race no they their service weapons are service handguns with 13 to 17 i'm not swapped to you for being specific what's that well i i mean your standard cop you see on the street in like boston or new york city is obviously going to be carrying a nine millimeter or something like that but i mean like swat teams and like tons of like federal and local law enforcement carry rifles of course they do for swat are there major events do you think it you might know what do you think it's not a major event to me when i go to a baseball game or a football game i i i or any kind of high-profile sporting event concert anything like that i more often not see some people in uniform carrying rifles but um that's just that's i i don't i don't want to disrupt what's going on here call you i'm going to happen you mentioned something about the idea of of treating the firearms the same way that we treat cars with respect to have a national driver's license would you be okay with the national reciprocity where my license to carry a firearm would let me carry it would allow me to carry my my firearm in every state that i go to no i wouldn't they're the intellectual because we will respect to this conversation it's all it's it's all nonsense it really is you can't say in one breath you support the second amendment but then tell me that i can't protect my life in new york the same way that i can in texas is my life somehow no no if you need to comply with the laws of the state that you're in you don't believe in then treating firearms the same way we treat cars with respect to having universal license no look you in texas you have a i don't know it's probably a 12 15 per 100 000 firearm fatality rate i happen to live in a state with a 3.5 firearm fatality rate i would rather have the laws of massachusetts apply to the whole country than to have virtually no gun laws like you have in texas now do the same thing with vehicle fatalities compare one state that has a higher vehicle fatality death to another that has a lower one and then you tell me that you're okay still with having and by the way that changing the design of cars and having regulations on car manufacturers have reduced car death rates 10 20 fold so the car you know design licensing renewable licensing safety training all the things that are required for cars have dramatically reduced injuries and deaths while by deregulating firearms have dramatically increased gun related injuries and yes i am a car guy of the highest order and i i love all of the safety standards that are in place that allow my car to be more safe now if you with all due respect please answer my question are you still okay with the idea of having a universal driver's license in even though there's one state that has a higher vehicle vitality rate than another state the same way that you just absolutely yes if every state were required to have a license for a firearm and there was a background check before you got the license and there was safety training before you got the license and you were held accountable for storing your gun if it's not in your direct control yeah i would like to see that nationally and now as we talk about where there may be common ground i think we need uniform national laws starting with a background check and a licensing requirement just want to move along for your local law enforcement i just want to make sure i understood you clearly so you do agree with having a universal license that would allow me to carry a firearm basically my license in texas would allow me to carry a firearm in any state that i go to if the standards were the same across the country yes okay fair enough all right coleon i want to ask you a question um i i saw you on bill maher and you made a really important point that i think does not get brought up enough in this context which was that it's very easy to live in a very safe neighborhood and to be calling for gun control um you know but it's it's a lot harder when you live in a neighborhood where there is a lot of violence um to think well i don't need some way to protect myself and i've heard you sort of bring this up in different contexts as well uh throughout this conversation talk us through that conversation like the socioeconomic question here that may not be playing out in the way that people tend to think about it yeah i i i have a plethora of friends from different backgrounds and different aspects of life and so where i currently live now in dallas for instance it's generally safe for the most part um there are some i live downtown so there's that kind of weird spillover effect that tends to happen sometimes by surrounding communities but in other places and of the world in in this country you have people living in situations like where gun violence and violence in general and crime is the daily occurrence and they have to make a living so they still have to go out into the world and exist and subject themselves to possibly becoming victims of these things and the background checks and and gun registration none of that's going to stop these criminals from doing that i i'd even i'd even say it would be more dangerous if you banned all of the guns because now what you start what you see start with just what you'll see start happening is a disparity of force because now there is no concern or fear from these from these criminals that the victims that they may encounter may have something that equalizes the two of them to protect them and so this idea and this notion that no one needs these things for protection you know in a country that is diverse from an economic from a racial in a living stand living standard standpoint i i think i i think it's kind of naive honestly if not i'm not going to be so unaffairable go so far as to say that it's disingenuous but i could make that argument too because because otherwise what are you saying to the people who live in these places that are dangerous you're telling them well i live in a place that's safe so either make more money and move to a place that's safe or deal with the consequences of living in a bad neighborhood john do you want to respond sure i mean i'm not interested in banning guns yes you are everyone banning ar-15s right because that's a military-style weapon no it's not which literally well let me just let me just finish i let you finish i mean i haven't i agree with you that you know there are ought to be equal rights for gun ownership in this country there just needs to be uniform rights i mean here in this country you know we prohibit the national consumer product safety commission from regulating real guns but they have to regulate toy guns and teddy bears that's insane so let's have uniform laws across the country so that everyone gets to play by the rules and not allow people who can't pass background checks to skirt the rules by not having a background check requirement now if you want to get into the type of weapons we can have those conversations whether they're separate licenses for separate kinds of weapons but right now federal gun policy is to have unrestricted access to easily concealed handguns and military-style weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines cash and carry without any knowledge whatsoever of anybody's background or intent or history in 32 states and that is why we have an epidemic of gun violence i think if we had uniform gun laws we would have less gun injuries and deaths and we would not infringe on the second amendment as described by scalia in the in the in the decision um in 2008 i mean i know i know dick heller dick keller actually said to me in a debate situation you know i i actually think that maybe i'm partly responsible for what happened at sandy hook i don't need an ar-15 i have one he says i don't need an ar-15 and and nor you know do the general public yes and it just makes it easier to kill a lot of people quickly without reloading it's not your position to tell people how to defend the most important thing that they have which is their lives i'm sorry especially when you retort are laws that are literally so you should you have a tank are you are you should you be able to buy a tank you can't own a tank in america so you should you think the public should have tanks you can own tanks in america so that's okay to have tanks i don't have a problem with it do you think it's a good idea to give anybody the right to have a tank and blow up the city we're in the closet we're in the closing minutes here guys let's not get too bogged down in the tank discussion think about that he thinks it's okay to have a tank all right all right all right we got open we have to bring this amazing debate to a close but i we want to end on common ground so i wonder if you could each take a minute and think of something that you are 100 sure that the other guy agrees about um let's start with you john what is something that you are totally sure that you that colin agrees with you about and that we can take that out of this debate i think i hope anyway that he agrees that it would be smart and good public policy to require everyone to have a background check so you know they are not a felon when they are purchasing okay i'm sorry that doesn't count because he already said he doesn't support that i want you to say something that you're sure he agrees with you no one's being able to buy guns i want you to think of something that he agrees with you about can you can you can you can you i can't think of one you don't really you can't you can't commit to the position that koleon is against mass shootings you can't commit to that you can't say i am 100 sure that he doesn't want people to die uh i am sure he doesn't want people to die amazing thank you colin tell us something that you're totally sure is insane to me like i'm literally on here talking as an individual who's protect who wants to protect the right in order so that people can defend their lives i don't want guns so that people can just go kill people randomly i think that's insane but i will say this the one thing i will agree with you on is we do need to do what we need to do as far as finding out ways to solve the issue with respect to violence in this country i don't want people dying i don't want people being killed in mass shootings i don't want i don't want kids in the inner cities that look just like me shooting each other up i don't want any of that i also don't want people who as a result of knee-jerk reactions with respect to policy being stripped of their ability to protect themselves from said criminals i i we i completely agree with you wholeheartedly with respect to that we just agree in terms of how we go about doing it you know how frightening it is to think about what happens in the moments before during and even days after having to use your gun in self-defense when you first start carrying a gun for protection it can be a very scary and nerve-wracking experience especially if you haven't got any education and training you need to feel confident i've been there myself hoping i never have to go through a self-defense shooting which is why i'm a member of the uscca as a uscca member you can eliminate some of the stress of carrying a gun for protection by accessing the amazing wealth of firearm education training and current state-specific gun laws of your state or states you may travel to this can help you be prepared for or hopefully even avoid a self-defense incident as a bonus members automatically become insured on the self-defense liability insurance policy purchased by and issued to the uscca click below to learn more and don't forget to subscribe to the channel and most importantly make sure you hit that bell symbol

Channel: Colion Noir

Views: 1,711,521

Keywords: Colion Noir, MrColion Noir, Concealed Carry, 2nd amendment, second amendment, 2a advocate, the right to keep and bear arms

Id: fXigSXbwGLo

Length: 46min 57sec (2817 seconds)

Published: Thu Jul 29 2021

Reddit Comments

[u/Topiary_Tiger]

20 minutes in an Rosenthal is extremely disingenuous and straight up spouting fallacies and Bloomberg talking points.

At least Colion attempted to go into this honestly.

This is why there can be no debate. Antis are dishonest liars with no intention of listening.

[u/rgm23]

Rosenthal actually doesn’t have an original thought to present. He doesn’t answer questions, offering a list of irrelevant and demonstrably false talking points each time he speaks. Colion isn’t the most eloquent at times but you can tell he’s trying to actually explain his side honestly.

A good watch if you want to up your blood pressure a bit

[u/dabiggestb]

I listened to the whole thing despite how cringy Rosenthals arguments were. The big takeaway is that Rosenthal has no idea why the second amendment was written. His blind trust in his government is actually disgusting and he can't even imagine a world where his government would screw him over, and yet it happens all the time to other people. Out of sight, out of mind I guess. He contradicted himself so many times, and he's a straight up liar. The sad part is uneducated and fearful people will believe him on his points even though they have no logic or rationality behind them.

[u/Grom92708]

I stopped watching when he said nuclear weapons. Hypothetically, let's say a rebel group took over ocean port terminals in Texas as well as two refineries. Does this guy really believe that the government would use an ICBM against a logistics and fuel hub?

[u/[deleted]]

I don't know how Colion was even able to continue with the way that guy was being. Jesus that was bad.

[u/waltduncan]

I’m really glad the Newsweek moderators called Rosenthal out at least a few of the times that he ventured into insane non-sense. But still, the number of times he just blindly spouted his tired talking points instead of answering the question was disappointing.

What is your definition of an assault weapon? — It’s the weapons that made all those blood stains on children’s clothes.

Some straight up Bill O’Reilly emotionalism, right there.

[u/ShinjiTakeyama]

"I want you to address something John brought up a few times"

Motherfucker couldn't even answer the question of "can you define an assault weapon?" "Yes,..." goes on making completely inaccurate non sequitur bullshit commentary while NOT defining anything.

I do appreciate the arbitration going on here at least, and that before he gets TOO heavy on the bullshit one of the other people there chime in.

[u/Gardener_Of_Eden]

Rosenthal is attempting to use the Heller decision to support his arguments.

Did anyone notice Rosenthal misquoted the 2nd Amendment. He not so subtly left out the "of the people" portion.

It was obvious he had no answer for some pretty important questions and a WEAK answer to the correlation to causation question.

This guy is supposedly one of the thought leaders on debating gun control? That is good news for us.

[u/HeemeyerDidNoWrong]

I skimmed earlier, just finished the whole thing.

That was one of the cringiest things I've listened to in awhile. I can't even begin to refute anything because I can't count all the false information.

Who are the hosts? Usually debate hosts would show their bias especially Newsweek, the guy clearly was on Colion's side from the beginning, while the woman didn't say but was clearly getting frustrated with John.