This is the same guy who didn't know the difference between Infection Fatality Rate and Infection Fatality Ratio, then compared the The IF Ratio of Covid to the IF Rate of the Flu and proclaimed the Flu was deadlier because math, and straight faced didn't realize he had two orders of magnitude error.
Then he post a video making fun of his video getting removed due to misinformation that he never retracted or corrected.
I am claiming this guy puts huge amounts of one sided misinformation out there including this video.
1. Mass shootings are committed by those brainwashed by government psy-ops programs to motivate the masses to outlaw guns so they can become tyrannical.
2. Only tyrannical governments enact gun control
3. Gun control leads to extermination of a population.
4. The USA is following this pattern and I guess the left is essentially compared to Hitler or Stalin rising to power to perform genocide after they successfully disarm the right.
He never mentions once all the countries with successful strict gun control and free societies such as most of Europe, Canada, Japan, and Australia. As though by enacting more strict gun control will lead to genocide always with complete surety.
His whole channel is an exercise in Brandolini's law and he's is most definitely a huge part of the problem.
The funny thing I am a gun owner and support the second amendment, but everyone seems to forget the "well regulated" part of that amendment and the fact that currently there are many "arms" we are not allowed to own, the same ones the military uses. Do you think everyone should own a machine gun if they want? How about a rocket launcher? What about a nuke? We already draw a line at certain arms moving that line or adjusting the regulations around it would not be without precedent.
Would it shock you to learn that mass shootings aren't the results of guns, but actually the result of mind-altering medications by pharmaceutical industry that are legal - but 1) in the clinical trials showed an actual increase in suicide [e.g. you're less likely to kill yourself if you didn't take the medication], and 2) that homicide (and homicidal ideation) are also increased due to these medications?
But we don't hear about that? Why? Because pharma, at least in the US, is something like 80% of the advertising revenues of all mainstream-mass media channels - so it's one of the big elephants in the room that they prevent from society being alerted to; health and education institutions have also been corrupted by pharma and their profits.
Otherwise, your arguments are still only at the shallow level - and don't address or even acknowledge that gun control, or gun rights being enacted, may in fact be an authoritarian effort - and most always implemented through the guise of "doing what's good for society."
So is it possible that in Canada, where the Trudeau government is planning to implement a mandatory gun buyback program [for certain guns to begin, but illogically, and that does practically nothing to reduce crime] - using fear mongering and opportunities of US atrocities or Canadian atrocities that the vast majority of weapons used were illegally obtained firearms] is aiming for tyrannical control - or you can't even open your mind to that possibility? If not, it makes me wonder what relatively shallow and skewed information/propaganda/perspective you've been exposed to?
The “well regulated” means “proficient, properly equipped, well trained, functioning as expected” or similar. You have to assess that phrase in the context of 18th century English.
It has no relation whatsoever to what “regulation” means nowadays.
> Do you think everyone should own a machine gun if they want? How about a rocket launcher?
But almost everyone can own a machine gun or a rocket launcher, where not forbidden by state law. Just pay a $200 transfer tax and wait 3-12 months for the ATF to process your transfer form.
>It has no relation whatsoever to what “regulation” means nowadays.
So it doesn't mean background checks or proper record keeping? The meaning of the word has not changed since the 18th century and certainly doesn't mean no rules whatsoever.
>But almost everyone can own a machine gun or a rocket launcher, where not forbidden by state law. Just pay a $200 transfer tax and wait 3-12 months for the ATF to process your transfer form.
So no nuclear arms or chemical / biological arms correct? The right to bear one is infringed.
Machine guns only if made before 1986, no new machine guns due to FOPA. So extremely limited supply and high cost along with the 3-12 month wait is due to more extensive background checks along with a high tax. The right to bear one is infringed.
Missile launchers are approved and taxed not only for the launcher but each round and you also must get a federal explosives permit for the rounds. The right to bear one is infringed.
State are also allowed to regulate them even more so, kind of like state level assault weapons bans and handgun laws? The right to bear one is infringed.
If you are ok with that kind of heavy regulation then doing that for semi-auto assault rifles or hand guns should not be an issue correct? That was my point, the second amendment does not mean you can own any arm you want and the heavy regulation on title 2 weapons, explosives and WMD's seems to work well in preventing their use in crimes without leading to tyranny and genocide.
>That was my point, the second amendment does not mean you can own any arm you want and the heavy regulation on title 2 weapons, explosives and WMD's seems to work well in preventing their use in crimes without leading to tyranny and genocide.
my argument would be that it does mean you can own that things.
Bans on nukes, etc should be added as amendment to constitution if they're not allowed. They are arms. Should be easy to pass the amendment if the overwhelming majority agree.
The fact you can't buy a nuke isn't some gotcha on legitimacy of restrictions. Clearly nukes should be legal until the constitution is amended to exclude classes of arms and the hughes amendment for post-86 machine guns is blatantly unconstitutional.
No right is unlimited and this has been upheld many times. From the decision Columbia v. Heller [1] which was delivered by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito all conservative and and actually struct down some restrictions:
(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
I mean if we're just deferring to whatever the supreme court interpretation is today (which by the way, changes all the time), why even have a debate? Just spend your time reading court proceedings. We're both aware the supreme court has upheld infringements.
I am simply pointing to extensive case law affirmed by the Supreme Court that the right to bears arms in almost universally held to not be unlimited, which I agree with as do most even staunch conservatives.
There may be a disagreement on how limited the right is but your extreme viewpoint the even nuclear arms should not be regulated due to them not being called out explicitly in an amendment is obviously held by a very small extremist minority.
In my experience the nuclear arms argument is almost exclusively used to try and get the counterparty to admit somehow infringements are legitimate. It's an attempt to paint the counterparty as extremist, when perhaps you mean more directly to accuse the writers of the 2nd amendment as extremists (and they were).
> your extreme viewpoint the even nuclear arms should not be regulated due to them not being called out explicitly in an amendment is obviously held by a very small extremist minority.
I'm not asserting nuclear arms shouldn't be "regulated." I'm asserting the method by which their regulation is legitimate, in my opinion, would be a constitutional amendment. You're attempt to paint me as an "extremist" is predicated on the false assumption that I've argued nuclear arms should not be regulated at all, when in fact my only assertion is that any regulation should be done in a way that makes it evident to the reader of the amendment that they are not protected.
The reason the nuclear arms argument is used is because its a logical argument and breaks through the ridiculous assumption that the second amendment in an unlimited right.
Do you or do you not believe the right to bear a nuclear arm should be infringed?
Its sounds like (I think) yes you do believe it should be infringed but disagree with the current laws technical implementation. You are an extremist in that most people agree with the current law and do not think a new constitutional amendment is needed to regulate nuclear arms.
2) IF it is to be done, how can it be done legally.
I think we can answer (2) without the prejudice of opinion of (1). My opinion on (2) would be the right to bear arms should not be infringed until the constitution is amended to state the right to bear <whatever words have the effect of excluding nuclear arms> shall not be infringed. I believe there would be little political difficulty in passing an amendment excluding nuclear arms, and if it helps us depend much less on implicit interpretation then it's good for everyone. Hopefully it would shut down some of these gotchas that try to drive a wedge in towards legitimizing other infringements by trying to get the counterparty to relent banning of nukes is constitutional under the currently written constitution (not saying that's your argument precisely, but I've seen it a lot).
You did not answer #1, do you believe the right to bear nuclear arms should be infringed? Can you answer?
Yes this is a gotcha question, which is the point, the strict reading of the second amendment says "Arms" the whole point is a logical exercise in whether that literally means all arms or if it is in fact not an unlimited right to all arms.
Making an amendment for every new form of arm would be a colossal waste of time if we can just agree that the second amendment is not an unlimited right as almost everyone understands it to be including conservative Supreme Court justices. This is actually settled case law and is "legal" your assertion that it is not legal is a farce so #2 is a non-issue except in an extremists mind.
Here we observe the devolving into ad-hominem calling the counterparty an extremist. If painting your counterparty as an "extremist" is how you want to make your point, that's your prerogative, and I'll give the you the benefit of the last word and never having to deal with me ever again. So after replying to my statement below (or not) rest assured you can feel well knowing you have the last word to an "extremist", which is of course whoever disagrees with you. You can walk away feeling proud and strong your name calling was necessary to make your point.
>You did not answer #1, do you believe the right to bear nuclear arms should be infringed? Can you answer?
No. I believe as the constitution is currently written they cannot be infringed. I believe if the 2nd amendment is amended they could be. Of course, if the constitution says arms aren't protected it would be a lot harder to call it an infringement. I also completely reject this notion of you holding the second amendment hostage which suggests our options are accepting legitimacy of implicitly banning nukes (and by extension, perhaps other unnamed things), or accept all arms. Clearly an amendment excluding nukes is an alternative.
>Making an amendment for every new form of arm would be a colossal waste of time if we can just agree that the second amendment is not an unlimited right as almost everyone understands it to be including conservative Supreme Court justices.
I don't agree with this interpretation. Again if you just want to defer to the courts that is fine, but I don't see the point in debating. You can simply say "my argument is whatever the latest interpretation of the supreme court is" and we both understand it's not really up to debate that the supreme court agrees with you that nuclear arms are bannable.
>Making an amendment for every new form of arms
I mean you don't even have to do that, you can change the second amendment to say "firearms .50 cal or smaller and knives" or say "excludes anything that a reasonable person would presume would be used to be killed 10+ people in a single activation of the munition." We can debate the wording aforementioned, maybe you don't like the exact phrases I used, but if we can word laws against these things then we can certainly make an amendment.
>would be a colossal waste
You might be the first person in history who simultaneously wants restrictions on nukes but thinks it's just too much work to solidify the framework banning them from people you don't want to have them. If the belief is banning nukes saves humanity or whatever I don't see putting pen to paper as a waste of time (and if universally agreed, not even that politically difficult.) Amending the constitution to exclude nukes would make this a lot more clear and less of a precarious position of being dependent on implicit interpretation by the courts, so I don't see a downside.
>the strict reading of the second amendment says "Arms" the whole point is a logical exercise in whether that literally means all arms or if it is in fact not an unlimited right to all arms
Yes my position is that it literally means all arms. If someone says something I think is absurd (I do not think the literal interpretation of the second is absurd at the time of its writing, but many would), I don't simply choose to re-interpret what they wrote to convince myself they implicitly did not mean what they said.
>assertion that it is not legal is a farce
Of course what's currently considered by most to be "legal" is whatever the supreme court says it is, I'm growing tired and bored of you suggesting any other opinion is a farce. It's pointless to debate, just go read the court proceedings if that's your position. It's worth noting at various times the supreme court changes its mind on what is legal, what is considered legal (or illegal) today could be considered different tomorrow upon appeal to the supreme court. I don't think it's inconceivable at some point the courts may take on more literal interpretation of the constitution, which could result in a constitutional convention (which some may argue we are due for).
And a second note on this point: supreme court justices themselves disagree on what's "legal" so even the majority opinion could be considered legal by one justice and illegal by the other. But of course a minority opinion justice is allowed to have these opinions of dissent and I am not... because that would make me a farce unlike the dissenting judges.
Your position is an extreme, therefore you are extremist, this is simply a fact, very few people believe the second amendment gives citizens the right to bear nuclear arms. I am sorry if using the word extremist correctly hurts your feelings.
>You might be the first person in history who simultaneously wants restrictions on nukes but thinks it's just too much work to solidify the framework banning them from people you don't want to have them.
The framework is already solidified under 18 U.S. Code § 831 and 832 there is no need to waste time trying to get an amendment passed. There are many more statutes than amendments to handle more specific issues such as this. The point of having statutes is so that a the constitution need not be amended for every new legal situation.
>I don't simply choose to re-interpret what they wrote to convince myself they implicitly did not mean what they said.
All amendments must be interpreted, they are far too short and vague to not be. In the case of the second it has been interpreted like all rights spelled out in the constitution, they are not unlimited. This has long historical precedent and the interpretation does change with the times as can be seen with obscenity laws with the first amendment and most recently abortion laws and the fourteenth, right to privacy is not unlimited, even Roe vs Wade made this point.
>Of course what's currently considered by most to be "legal" is whatever the supreme court says it is, I'm growing tired and bored of you suggesting any other opinion is a farce.
Suggesting that the supreme courts decision is not legal is again an extremist point of view to the point being farcical, you may disagree with the law as it stands, but its currently the law of the land in the legal sense and its the supreme courts job to interpret whether the regulation of arms is constitutional and thus far it has. The vast majority of people seem to agree that arms can be regulated under the second amendment it's just matter of specifics, which is where statutes come in and the debate over the specifics.
Enjoy the hocus pocus hand waving below of your counterparty trying to explain the why the framers' writing of the 2nd amendment implicitly meant to to allow the kind of logic that machine guns from 1985 are ok but not ones from 1987.
And that the founders had zero foresight to assume weapons technology would advance significantly beyond muskets. I mean really, do people think they were actual idiots?
To be fair, I doubt that they expected that nuclear weapons would be developed, and I'm sure they wouldn't be okay with chemical weapons either. But that's the strawman argument.
After all, the 2nd amendment was written at a time when civilian ownership of warships was okay, so I don't see how it shouldn't extend to all arms—past, present, and future.
I'll bite: Turkey — true (Armenian genocide). USSR — false (genocide against who? there were famines (btw in US too). all people suffered).
Though I know that the opposite is claimed by propaganda (at least, Obama failed to recognize Armenian genocide, and anything bad is easily believed without questions about USSR).
Then he post a video making fun of his video getting removed due to misinformation that he never retracted or corrected.