Colin's Last Stand, Episode 49: The Second Amendment is Worth Protecting

Yeah, I think the call for questions was uploaded a couple hours after I posted this. Thanks!

Drew Packard

Thank you! That video got pushed back, so look for it after I get back from vacation (which is after I post Episode 50 tomorrow).

Colin Moriarty

As I said, the symbolism is more powerful than anything. That said, ask Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq how it did in asymmetric warfare with the most powerful military in human history.

Colin Moriarty

Hey Drew, you should have seen that post go up a couple of days ago. I'm looking to record and post either on Thursday or Friday, once I get Episode 50 of CLS off of my plate.

Colin Moriarty

Ill help alot more than no guns

jtrev492

Excellent video as usual. Can't wait to hear your thoughts about whats going on in Spain

James Little

Agreed

Christopher Lee

I understand the sentiment but I think there is still a bit more nuance to be had here. The argument that's it's antiquated is a piece of the puzzle not the entire argument. In my mind gun control looks like this: no handguns, smaller mags (I'd prefer bolt and pump action only but I'm trying to be realistic), no bump stocks, 60 days waiting period, mental health evaluations, licensing (we need it for a car, why not a gun). If your main concern is hunting or shooting for sport or protecting your family a rifle or pump-action shotgun will do the trick.

Thanks for the reply. I will try my best and try to keep a cool head. I am struggling with the idea of "enough talk, its time to do something" but ultimately both sides butt heads and we still end up with nothing. Any suggestions what you think we the people should do to help make change? How do we get the compromise started?

I enjoyed some of the points you made in this video, but you definitely misrepresented some of the sound arguments for gun control. America is far more dangerous to live in compared with most (perhaps any) first world country. And for what benefit? Do you really think that hunting rifles and pistols (however numerous) are going to stop a tyrannical government with drones, tanks, planes, nuclear bombs and a professional army to back them up?

Daniel Ryan

Colin- Good video, but did you already call for questions for the Q&A video? I haven't seen anything so I'm concerned there's something wrong with my Patreon subscription. Thanks- Drew

Drew Packard

We can absolutely do more. We absolutely should do more. But there's only so much we can do. It's the sad reality, and someone needs to say it.

Colin Moriarty

I don't agree that there was a false equivalency, though it is absolutely your right to draw that conclusion. The point is, every major Bill of Rights right deals with things that have materially and radically changed from their original intention. Due process, searches and seizures, and even free speech... these are all rights that, when written, had far different meanings in terms of the reality of the time than now. I fear that if we successfully argue the "antiquation" argument, then it could easily be turned on other rights.

Colin Moriarty

I'm with you in the sense that you ultimately cannot stop the crazy, but you could certainly mitigate the crazy. The sad reality, which I tried to let shine through in my video, is that anyone who thinks you could eliminate these rogue actors from doing insane shit are is lying to himself or herself.

Colin Moriarty

What you're arguing seems to come down to personal responsibility. Mistakes happen, but you rarely hear about mistakes with guns happening with people who know how to handle and respect a gun. I have no problem with state-level licensing for guns, so long as no firearm registry exists. I'd also contend that the American people do have a chance in a dystopian situation, not only because I don't think "the entire military" would turn on the people, but asymmetric warfare has given the US military fits since 1950. Remember: We haven't won a war of any consequence since 1945.

Colin Moriarty

A part of your first paragraph really gets at the heart of the matter for me: We simply don't know what's around the historical bend. We just don't. In 1925, or even in 1930 or 1932, it was literally unfathomable to most Germans that a man who tried to conduct a coup and was thrown in prison would lead the country by 1933, bring them to the brink of destruction, and do all of it dictatorially. People who think that any level of tyranny and despotism aren't possible in the US need to take a careful look at what history has taught us. We have the right to protect ourselves, and I would venture that no one has ever attempted to pull anything in the US -- particularly in the 20th century -- because of how well-armed we are.

Colin Moriarty

What you said is very thoughtful and well-put. I, for one, don't put guns on a pedestal, nor do I put gun owners on one. I think it's lost on some folks (not necesarily you) that I don't even own a firearm (though that's going to change soon). I don't argue my pro-Second Amendment stance from the perspective of a gun owner, which I actually think maybe gives me some credibility on the issue. As I said in the video, we have a violence fetish in this country, and that's at the heart of our issues. The guns will only shoot someone if someone picks it up and shoots. We have deeper and more glaring problems than tools of war. We are a decaying and unwell people, in many ways.

Colin Moriarty

I think it's important to remain calm, rational, and understanding of other's viewpoints. But ultimately, you need to hold your ground and remain true to your convictions. This is a tough, loaded (pardon the pun) topic with no easy answers, and, as usual, "the right thing to do" will be somewhere in the middle. Guns will not be banned; it will never happen. Nor should it. But we shouldn't have unbridled access to whatever weaponry we want. As usual, compromise is key.

Colin Moriarty

To me, the idea of a database -- of government knowing who has all of the guns and where they are -- is antithetical to the spirit of the Second Amendment, so I'd be totally against that. If there was a way for state governments to track it, that would be up to them, per the 10th Amendment. But even then, I think a registry of any kind would probably be challenged by SCOTUS.

Colin Moriarty

As usual, I appreciate your framing of this corner of the debate, focusing solely on the necessity of maintaining the 2nd Amendment. I agree, even though I feel your allusion to Australia’s gun restrictions is over simplified by both you and the press at large (i.e. the gun buyback was not absolute, just assault weapons, and it’s most effective measures were the gun registration that followed). I did appreciate you dismantling the argument that the 2nd Amendment is outdated, even though I consider the “defense against tyranny” argument equally specious from the right. Where my general frustration comes in is that the broader arguments aren't even arguments any more, just knee-jerk reactions on both sides. I demand this issue be given a serious look by our legislators, but I doubt it will, short of loosening the restrictions that already exist: <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/more-killings-more-guns/541905/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/more-killings-more-guns/541905/</a> Full disclosure: this event hits much closer to home for me. My employer and I had the privilege of working with the Jason Aldean Tour since 2011, providing their video system and LED screens. I have a great many friends out there, and I love our video crew of six like my family. I am beyond thankful that they are all okay, but I cannot unseat the profound sadness I feel from thinking about the horror and carnage they witnessed and experienced and the absolute fear that must have governed their actions in those moments. And of course that’s just them: people that I can see, and speak to, and hug, and bereave with, and attempt empathy, and coax back to a sense of normalcy, however tinged with grief, perhaps guilt. This says nothing for the thousands of people who also experienced this horrific event, for those who need to recover from injuries, and for those who lost their lives and whose pain endures for their friends and family. My heart goes out to them, as does the nation’s, but, despite how firmly this hits home for me, their lives are still an abstraction. I suspect this is the same for most of us, who while lost in a nationwide miasma of grief, anger, and exasperation, look for the nearest anchors, typically God or partisan silos walled in with talking points, both to help interpret the madness and weather it. In one way, I suppose I am fortunate. My anchor gets to be my friends, my family, for whom I can help, in whatever way possible, weather the worst of this. In this regard, I now have an enviable clarity of purpose, despite the initial hours in maddening limbo, where we were drip fed status updates from my guys on the crew while consuming the developing stories of over a dozen different news organizations, looking for parity and micro-developments, as if attempting to drink from a fire hose. I’ve been saddened to see the state of the news and commentary has taken the usually predictable turns: who did it and why, could it have been prevented (likely not), moments of silence, then partisan bickering, then, more than likely, nothing. This shouldn’t surprise me, of course, it’s just that now, this event is uniquely real to me. Being in both places, I think, puts me in a decent position to ask these questions, though admittedly, probably not as justifiably as those who were actually there (and they frankly have bigger concerns). Those that know me best know that I yaw to the left of the political spectrum, but I consider myself a centrist, and I try to be relentlessly (and probably obnoxiously) fair-minded, so I always seek out as many well-argued perspectives as possible. I don’t envy any pro-gun or in most cases, conservative, commentator in the wake of a mass shooting; no one but the perpetrator wanted this to happen, but you are begrudgingly obliged to defend a policy position that inadvertently enables this sort of event to happen. In the same way honest liberals must accept some of the market failures created by the ACA or admit that poorly structure social programs can create dependencies that reinforce poverty for some, rather than elevate them from it, honest conservatives must grant that in a society that allows and has enshrined in law a near universal access to firearms leads to a disproportionate number of events like this, as well as, a disproportionate number of deaths and suicides by firearm per capita relative to other developed nations. Being pro-gun doesn’t make you a bad person or irresponsible, but it does imply that you have to bear this on your back this inconvenient weight when these headlines appear, the burden of unintended consequences, especially if you are an absolutist. It stinks, and opponents on the other side don’t make this easy, certainly, but the arguments never make any headway in addressing the issue, only the environment. This is the crux of an op-ed in Commentary, which was the straw that broke the camel’s back and encouraged me to post this, the first words I’ve put on Facebook in months. I encourage you to read it: <a href="https://www.commentarymagazine.com/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">https://www.commentarymagazine.com/</a>…/the-definition-of-ins…/ In the article, it maps the knee-jerk arc of the liberal response and how implicitly counterproductive it is to the over-arching goal of achieving legislative victories in gun control (although it’s easy to peg this on any issue). While I agree with the core arguments, i.e. pointing fingers at Republicans and shouting is not an effective way to engage in an issue you’d like to advance, it fails in the same way the other conservative commentators’ arguments have failed since it largely avoids the core issue, i.e. what, if anything, to do about gun violence. Those I’ve read in the National Review: “gun laws would not have changed this”, true, but disingenuous, and the Federalist: “don’t politicize this”, convenient given the context, and “don’t diminish calls for prayer as a valid response”, agreed but also don’t let it stop at prayer. Wisely, I haven’t seen a ton of the “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” argument, which is a feeble as it is insulting, but I suspect it’s coming. The liberal op-eds are replete with familiar non-sequiturs and straw man arguments also, but they don’t run from this issue (because they aren’t defending anything intuitively problematic at the moment). All that said, I’ve avoided policy prescriptions in the post above, because I actually think there’s a lot of solid middle ground on this issue (despite the fact that it’s been used effectively as a wedge issue), and I’d like to hear ideas from both sides of the political spectrum, minus the invective language that typically comes from this type of discussion. Some questions: - What would an actual bipartisan attempt at gun legislation look like? - What would you be willing to give on to achieve balance? - If you see no compromise, why? - Where does infringement on the 2nd Amendment become too great? - What do you feel you know or understand about the issue, that your opposition doesn’t? On the notion of healing, I have a unique opportunity to be there for my friends that will struggle with this from their first hand experiences. I guess, after all this, I’d like to offer the opportunity for a conversation that might in some small measure help heal the other divide that continues to make these problems unsolvable.

Timothy Monnig

I feel the gun represents, symbolically but maybe also literally, the American idea of the potent individual, who can chart his own course in life and, as Colin mentioned historically, not allow themselves to be hindered in that regard by a government that is not acting in that individual's self-interest. The problem is, the other side of that mindset is "might makes right". So it's not just about having the right &amp; the means to defend your own interests, it's also about demonstrating as forcefully as possible that you have the will to end the existence of anyone who threatens either your person OR your interests. In this context, a gun and one's willingness to use it become a way to gain advantage in any discourse. If the other guy thinks you'll take things to that level, he's more likely to agree to whatever you want him to do. Our right wing militia groups often make a big show about how eager they are to put down a "tyrannical" government should the need arise, but their idea of "tyrannical" is any government (or really any other person or group), that stands in the way of creating the economic &amp; social order that benefits them the most. Such groups often advise us to never trust the government...but do they honestly think I should trust their unfettered power over me any more?

Stephen J Seidler

I agree with most of this video. I feel there is more we can do as a whole on this. Like many have said before to address the mass shooting problem we need to address many issues. I feel that all sides could do a better job in bringing these issues up separate from mass shooting incidents. That if we try to address some of these issues that neither extreme of take them all or remove all regulation will happen.

NuFlash

You’re using a bit of a false equivalence regarding the antiquity argument. Guns have become much more deadly. Nothing has changed regarding illegal search and seizure just because we own smartphones.

After 9/11 why didn’t everyone demand “plane control” and demand laws be passed to make planes illegal to own or fly? Instead, we made security check ins more thorough. Perhaps we should require hotels near large gatherings to have the same level of security for their check in. This man of means could have killed even more people if he had purchased a small aircraft and flown it into this large crowd. You can’t use laws to stop crazy people, but you can use security checks to help, that’s my point. But now that I’ve used that analogy I mean really ask yourself... if guns were illegal, what other ways could this crazy man of means still have managed to kill just as many if not more people? It’s a scary thought, because guns aren’t the only way to create mass destruction and loss of life.

Christopher Lee

I was going to write a response to the video but you covered a lot of what I felt. The video went into depth about the problem and I can see both sides of the argument. I know they are not going away in America. But still, this gun fetishization we see in culture simply shows a very immature society. Australians giving up their guns was a positive step, not a negative one. This need for guns in the culture, and their constant abuse leading to many innocent people being affected, isn't being treated the same way drugs are, another very destructive element in society but that one is criminalized (way too hard in many cases) rather than elevated. America has a cultural addiction to guns.

Peter Campbell

I don't support gun control because of mass shootings. You'll never stop the true nut jobs. I support gun control so I don't have to read the daily stories of a four year old shooting his little sister on accident... so I don't read about a spouse being shot because someone thought they heard someone breaking in. To clarify I support gun control, not getting rid of the guns. At a minimum I need a license to drive a car, should need the same for a firearm. That said, I find it insanely delusional to think that armed citizens hold even a snowball's chance against the US military if the government decides to go rogue.

David Ouillette

Ok so Morality is the problem. The issue is there was nothing to stop this morally corrupt person from killing. There should be someone to just ask "why are you buying soo many guns sir". It does not infringe upon your freedom and it can keep the rest of the public safe.

Joey Finelli

I am not worried about Trump wasn’t worried about Obama, I’m not really even worried about isis or some psycho on SSRI’s. They are statistically insignificant cold as that sounds... I’m more worried about the gang banger down the street breaking in my home or carjacking me, I am worried for our children and our children’s children, the next Stalin, the next Mao, the next Hitler, the next Kim; it is the epitome of ignorance to think that the next tyrannical totalitarian or authoritarian monster or despot could not possibly come from the United States. Give me liberty or give me death, because a life without liberty isn’t a life of full potential. Show me a way to stop the psychopath from doing what he did, tools be damned and we can talk. Like colin I have no problem strengthening background checks but that wouldn’t have stopped this guy, bump stocks wouldn’t have stopped this guy, if no semi autos existed he would have used something else, a bomb like the Manchester or Boston marathon terrorists a truck, whatever will yield the greatest casualties the easiest; the tool used doesn’t really change anything in the end except what you yourself lost to pretend it makes you safer...

Christopher Hopkins

Why do we focus on the quantity of guns? You can only shoot one at a time, and it's easier to reload, then swap. Your focused in the wrong area. Morality is the problem, not a tool. The most lethal weapons in the hands of good people are no threat at all. The least lethal weapons in the hands of evil, are still extremely dangerous.

Chris Holtzer

I would never suggest infringing on the Second Amendment right to bear arms, much in the same way I wouldn't force anyone not to fly the Confederate flag out of respect for the First Amendment. But in the case of a single individual owning dozens of military grade weaponry, I must ask, just I would ask about someone who chose to fly the Stars and Bars knowing what it represents to their fellow Americans...WHY? Why must some people, frankly, fetishize an object that has but one purpose; to end the life of another person? Guns, at least as I've been taught, are for hunting and self-defense. They are not to be admired. Those that carry or collect them should not be admired, nor seek admiration, just *because* they carry them. What's interesting is that we often DO make this choice not to glorify the glorification of violence...but not all the time and not for everyone. As a black man, on social media and, sometimes, in person, I often have debates wherein I'm expected to explain, justify and, very often, apologize for the elements in Black Culture that are perceived of as "Thug Culture": things like "gansta-rap" and hip-hop music in general, which often really do glorify, among other things, confronting opponents of any kind with violence including gun-play. I surely don't condone such things and have never embraced hip hop culture for these reason and I am, admittedly, hard pressed to defend these elements of my own culture or to be able to argue that it's not right to hold all black people personally responsible for creating this in our own communities. My question is...why is "Gun Culture", which engages in the glorification of violence &amp; in fantasies about being willing and able to shoot one's opposition as a solution to disputes, any different; any better, than the worst aspects of hip-hop culture? And if it's not any better, why isn't it also called out as counterproductive to a safe and free society? I find the rhetoric and provocative display of weaponry favored by some militia groups no less disgraceful in their intent than the most vulgar such displays from any rap video. Perhaps "guns don't kill people", but our society as a whole does seem to glorify violence and, more recently, covets the idea of being able to inflict it with fewer personal consequences. Until that fundamentally changes, I see more tragedies like this to come.

Stephen J Seidler

They have the database already. What I want to know is why a couple handguns get a high risk look l, but 30+ high powered rifles is normal??? As a hunter once you have about 5 guns you can hunt most the game in this country. Also why did the Obama ATF Dept say a bump stock is legal? Only reason for one is to “simulate” automatic fire on a semi auto weapon. Lots of questions we will likely never get a real answer from the government about

James Galos

Hey Colin, These events a terrible and often lead to discussions among my friends and I. Our discussions often mirror those I see online or just with everyone else, where opinions are not respected and the conversation is polarizing. Often the result is a shouting match where everyone takes a side and no one budges. Obviously no solutions can ever come from such a situation. Its just so frustrating to want to discuss something, even with those that don't share the same opinion as you, only to know the outcome will be everyone getting angry with each other. I want to discuss this and compromise, I want to feel like I help find a solution. How do you discuss these divisive topics with others and not have a group end up just fighting?

Colin, I just do not understand why we allow people to stockpile weapons with no checks. I understand the needs and wants to protect themselves with firearm and I believe people should be allow to own guns for hunting and sport but i do not understand why we can't at the very least have a database that lets the proper people know something is not right. perhaps we could have stopped this guy and figured out his state of mind before he went all in on his plan.

Joey Finelli