reSee.it - Related Video Feed

I will defend my home with my right to bear arms. If you dare break in again, only one of us will walk away.

I am an American citizen with the right to bear arms. I will carry my gun as I please, without needing a permit. I will disregard any law that violates my rights, even if it means going to prison. It is the duty of every American citizen to carry a gun everywhere they go. If you are not carrying a gun or have one within reach, you are wrong.

Okay. It's Saturday, and Marjorie and I decide to have fun: go shoot ghosts. We'll call it Saturday Shoot Saturday: Bullets and barbecue. We have our eyes, our ears on protection. Very important. We wrapped up shooting and were practicing for real-life scenarios. Yes, you always have to be ready. It's very important especially for a woman to be able to defend yourself and that's what the second amendment is all about. So ladies, don't be afraid to buy a gun, train with the gun and learn to defend yourself. I'm more familiar with the pistol than I am the AR. The AR is my favorite because you wanna know something? I don't wanna run out of bullets. If someone's coming in my house to kill me, I am definitely going to do some redecorating. We'll be right back.

If they want to challenge the government, they should have f fifteens instead of just a rifle.

I'm willing to collaborate with anyone serious about censoring Americans and pushing a progressive agenda, but the problem is they're just not serious enough. Try to violate our First Amendment rights, and we'll respond by exercising our Second Amendment rights.

Democrats claim AR-15s and 30-round magazines are unnecessary for self-defense, but in a situation where they are the only defense against a group of threatening individuals, they may be essential.

The First Amendment exists because in other countries, people were imprisoned or killed for speaking their minds. The Second Amendment is there to protect the First Amendment. If the government disarms the people, they can do anything they want. In Venezuela, Chavez took away everyone's guns, then Maduro lost an election but stayed in power. People protested, but they were facing soldiers with assault rifles. Maduro is still in power because the people were disarmed. This is the kind of risk we face.

I don't agree with the idea of changing gun culture through gun control. It's unrealistic. We need to focus on making potential threats worry about our actions instead. Outlawing everything isn't the solution. We should have controls to prevent the wrong people from getting guns. It's about defending ourselves, not taking away rights. Good luck. Translation: The speaker disagrees with using gun control to change gun culture and believes focusing on making potential threats worry about our actions is more effective. They argue against outlawing everything and emphasize the importance of controls to prevent the wrong people from accessing guns for self-defense.

Crime is a problem that we want to address in order to protect our families, friends, and communities. Americans are being stripped of their rights, but this is their land. The Apache people resisted, and we should remember Thomas Jefferson, who was a protester. Our rights come from God, while privileges come from the government.

Texas and the original 13 colonies would not have agreed to the treaty that established the U.S. Constitution without assurance of their right to self-defense and protection of their people. Joe Biden's actions are seen as a challenge to this foundational principle.

California Democrats are attempting to ban self-defense. A radical California lawmaker, Rick Zieber, proposed a bill that would ban fighting back during violent home invasions. First, they attacked our right to bear arms. Then, they cut police budgets and filled the courts with soft-on-crime judges. Now they are trying to remove our right to defend our families and ourselves in our own homes. California's war against law-abiding citizens needs to stop.

Speaker 0 describes a strategy for people having problems with law enforcement: file a Freedom of Information Act request with the county manager for any communique regarding your name, including emails or any entries in the NCIC system or state bureau of investigation records mentioning you. Send the request to the county manager or assistant county manager stating, under the Freedom of Information Act, you're requesting any communique regarding your name. The response should be a file dump showing what the FBI has entered, or what’s in the NCIC system about you. If you find false information, request its correction. If they ignore you, you sue them in federal court. The NCIC national database is governed by the FBI, and it’s a federal crime to use the NCIC system to submit false information. Lawyers may downplay it as casual talk, but it’s described as a very serious offense; most false NCIC-entry cases are settled quickly and quietly to avoid public scrutiny. Speaker 0 advises to file a FOIA request for any communication regarding your name, with the county, the state bureau of investigation, and NCIC systems. When you receive it, examine for false information and request corrections; if there’s no response within days (ten suggested), you sue. This is presented as a federal crime and a violation of federal law and state statutes. The speaker mentions ongoing litigation in Cherokee County, North Carolina against the sheriff and others for false NCIC entries, and urges people nationwide to pursue accountability, citing a personal grievance with Dustin Smith, a candidate for sheriff in Cherokee County, including an alleged incident where his wife faced an arrest warrant for second-degree trespass after being told there were civil papers to pick up, leading to property removal and stolen items, with the trespass charges later dropped and expunged. The discussion pivots to the founders: the last resort is emphasized, citing The Federalist Papers number 28 by Alexander Hamilton, about when representatives betray constituents and the people have no recourse other than self-defense. The Declaration of Independence is cited about abuses and usurpations, the right to alter or abolish a destructive government, and the right to revolution and to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment is described as not just about hunting or self-defense but about securing freedom; the government cannot tell people what guns to have to resist tyranny, and peaceful gun ownership includes machine guns in the context of a right to bear arms, with peaceful not equaling harmless. Speaker 0 concludes by urging viewers to use FOIA to obtain documentation, pursue lawsuits for false information, and notes that public servants’ communications are not private, including text messages and emails, and that defamation per se laws can apply. The goal is to hold public servants accountable; a 10% turnout of suing viewers could deter abuse, and the speaker emphasizes willingness to go to trial rather than settle, even at personal cost. Speaker 1 ends with the words “Spark. Spark. Spark. Spark.”

The speaker responds to Mr. Massey by discussing the Second Amendment, stating that it guarantees the right to bear arms in the context of a well-regulated militia. The founding fathers believed militias were necessary for a free state and opposed standing armies as tools of tyranny. They framed the Second Amendment as a safeguard for having a militia.

Weakness invites violence at both the personal and international levels. Personal violence arises from conflicts and crimes of passion, while criminal violence, such as muggings and home invasions, targets the weak. National violence occurs when governments or groups threaten individuals within a nation, and international violence, like war, can blur boundaries. Personal strength, both physical and mental, reduces the likelihood of violence. It is an individual's responsibility to protect themselves and their family. Firearms have limitations and cannot replace personal strength. The Second Amendment exists to keep the government in check, ensuring citizens have the means to resist tyranny. Strength is crucial in deterring criminals and foreign invaders. A strong national defense aligns with the protection of individual rights, but excessive government control and taxes should be avoided. Maintaining a balance between individuals, criminals, governments, and foreign powers is essential.

The conversation begins with the recitation of the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, of abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The facilitator declares it well and moves on to what should come next as the “second most important principle of our nation.” Speaker 1 prematurely proposes “Guns.” The facilitator, Speaker 0, and others react with disbelief; Speaker 2 (Matt) mutters “Guns,” which prompts a back-and-forth about whether the second right should be firearms. The debate touches the idea that while free speech was just established, allowing guns might balance or enable more extreme speech. Speaker 1 questions the logic, while Speaker 2 suggests it “would kind of balance that out.” The group contemplates whether possessing guns could embolden people to say outrageous things. The discussion pivots to how to phrase the second amendment. The speakers consider the word choice, with humor about whether the amendment should simply be “Have guns.” The idea evolves toward a more nuanced concept: the right to bear arms. The dialogue expresses skepticism about a simplistic “guns” amendment but grows toward the notion of “bear arms” as the core concept. Speaker 3 approves, calling the phrasing “smart as hell.” Speaker 0 remains open to discussing guns but asserts the need to move on to a more pressing concern, noting Matt’s intensity. The exchange includes brief, playful exchanges about Matt’s origin in America and in what state, and the group weighs whether the concept makes sense or seems absurd. Ultimately, the debate coalesces around the phrase “Commitment to the right to bear arms.” In closing, Speaker 1 announces, “My work here is done,” and Speaker 2 remarks, “Wait. Matt, will we ever see you again?” to which Speaker 1 replies, “Depends on where you look.” The conversation thus ends with agreement that the second amendment should reflect a commitment to the right to bear arms, reframing the discussion from a literal “guns” proposal to a more precise emphasis on bearing arms as the core principle.

British people struggle to understand the American perspective on the Second Amendment and gun ownership. Americans view their freedom as a fundamental right, including the right to defend themselves with firearms. In contrast, British people are influenced by media coverage of mass shootings and hold a negative view of guns. The Second Amendment sets America apart from other countries, as it allows Americans to protect their homes and property. Breaking into an American's home would have severe consequences, as they are likely to defend themselves. This is why the Second Amendment holds such importance in American society. The current political climate has led to a surge in gun purchases, serving as a reassurance to many Americans.

I have experience with firearms from hunting, military service, and trap shooting. Responsible gun ownership should not be defined by extremists. This is about protecting our children and communities, not the second amendment.

Each individual owns their own life, and therefore no one has the right to demand the life of another. The right to life means the right to one's own life, not the life of someone else.

I'm Lily Tang Williams, a Chinese immigrant who survived communism. Can you guarantee our government won't become tyrannical? If not, the gun control debate is over because I won't give up my guns. Visit China to see how gun control works for the CCP dictatorship.

Our democracy is powerful in protecting individual rights and freedoms, but it is also fragile. Its strength depends on our willingness to fight for it.

The only obstacle to the new world order is the right of Americans to bear arms. Efforts to take away guns are driven by the intent of the Second Amendment, which was not for hunting or protection against burglars. Our forefathers established this amendment so that as long as every American owned a weapon, the government could never oppress us. Bills to take away weapons are constantly introduced in Congress, but they are often defeated. The truth is, in a town where everyone owns a weapon, crime is almost non-existent.

Free speech is essential for democracy because people need the truth to make informed votes. The Second Amendment exists to ensure the First Amendment. President Trump must win to preserve the Constitution and democracy in America.

I have a shotgun and a 20 gauge for hunting, but I'm not taking away anyone's guns. The viral video claiming otherwise is a lie. I did not say I would take your AR.

"I'm a constitutionalist." "All I care about is my constitutionally protected rights and the future of my children." "we don't have a gun problem here in this nation. We have a problem with mental health and we have a problem with evil." "It doesn't matter if evil utilizes our gun, a car, a baseball bat, a machete, or a rock." "It's an operation to circumvent your constitutionally protected rights." "America, if you give up your guns, you're not gonna have any rights." "You need to stand up and you need to tell these corrupt career politicians to get fucked."

In the United States, we have hardworking factory workers, farmers, engineers, coal miners, and hunters. Many people in Wisconsin alone are registered deer hunters who wake up early and endure freezing temperatures to hunt. Americans strongly support their second amendment rights to protect their families and homes. If anyone comes to harm us, they will face the fury and rage of a nation that wants to be left alone. Those who mess with the God-fearing people in the Bible Belt will face consequences like those in Biblical times. This nation is tired of being stepped on and lied to. We stand on the foundations of the constitution and are ready to defend it, even if it means sacrificing our lives.