reSee.it - Related Video Feed

We specialize in making low visibility rigs for Seal Team 6. The speaker mentions that the ATF recently classified the FRTs (Force Reset Triggers) as machine guns, and they are aware that some of these triggers may have been purchased. Speaker 1 refuses to answer any questions or comment on the subject. Speaker 2 asks if they are refusing to give up the triggers, and Speaker 1 expresses frustration with the ATF's rules without a proper vote or congressional hearing. The speaker concludes by saying that one must decide which side they are on.

Discussion centers on crime in California and state leadership's enforcement actions. Speaker 0 asks if crime is a problem in California given a surge in state law enforcement. Speaker 1 replies that "crime is an issue and we want to tackle it, and we continue to do more in that space." "And we announced and highlighted some of the expansion." He adds that the efforts are "in partnership with our local communities" and "We did it in partnership with the Biden administration prior." He reiterates opposition to "the nationalization, the militarization of the guard in militarizing United States cities" and says "So quite the contrary." The exchange ends with a sign-off and a tease for CSPAN coverage, "First, at 4PM."

I'm in Baytown, Texas, and this officer is checking my trailer. He just told me what I need to know about protecting my property here in Texas. According to the police here, you should carry a gun. If anyone tries to steal from your truck or trailer, you're within your rights to shoot them. In Texas, your truck is considered your home, and you're allowed to protect it and your belongings. If someone presents themselves as a threat, you can shoot them. Wish I had my gun with me right now.

The committee asked for information on how many of these so‑called police stations are operating currently in Canada, and whether any have been shut down. Response: There is deep concern about allegations and reports of foreign interference, including public reports of these so‑called police stations. The details of the investigation are the subject of ongoing initiatives by the RCMP, and questions about those details should be directed to the commissioner. The subsequent question specifically asked the commissioner to provide information to Canadians on how many of these alleged stations are operating in Canada, have operated previously, and if any have been shut down. Answer: Currently, we’re looking at three of the police stations in Toronto and one in Vancouver. We’re working with our police jurisdictions as well as with other Government of Canada national security agencies. An investigation has been initiated and is led by the Greater Toronto Integrated National Security Enforcement Team (INSET). So far, elements of the investigation have been very overt—there have been marked police cars and uniformed members to cause disruption to the allegations. We’ve released that visible presence, and that’s mostly so that people will see the actions, for two reasons: first, because we need more information, and second, so that when police are in the area dealing with the allegations, people will come forward. The investigation is ongoing, and while the details can’t be discussed publicly, a statement in October/November indicated that an investigation was underway into reports of possible activities at those locations. The committee member then asked for clarification: Can you confirm that you know the locations of these supposed police stations, and that RCMP in uniform have been at those locations causing disruption? Response: No. In the initial instances, instead of disruption by going in uniform with marked police cars, the approach was to speak with the people involved at those police stations or locations because those locations are a legitimate business in the front. The committee then asked for a timeline on when the investigation would conclude and whether the allegations are true. The conversation moved to indicate the inquiry would continue, but no specific conclusion timeline was provided in the exchanged statements.

We are introducing legislation to freeze handgun ownership in Canada, meaning no more buying, selling, transferring, or importing handguns. We will also combat gun smuggling and trafficking by increasing penalties and providing more tools for law enforcement. Additionally, long gun magazines will be permanently altered to hold a maximum of 5 rounds. These actions are based on the advice of doctors, experts, and police chiefs. We thank the advocates present for their tireless efforts, acknowledging that their work stems from grief and loss. On behalf of all Canadians, we express gratitude for their strength.

I'm Kate Vantanel, also known as Laney Liberty, discussing the Western Australian Firearms Act Voluntary Buyback Scheme. The WA State Labour Party government is offering $64.3 million to encourage firearm owners to surrender their guns, with valuations based on registration age, not manufacturing age. Many firearm values are significantly lower than market prices, as seen with a 1963 Winchester offered only $525. The government claims public support for fewer guns, but many are unaware of current laws and restrictions. There are concerns about the government's consultation process and transparency. I urge firearm owners not to participate in this buyback scheme. Instead, consider alternative options for your firearms. Now is the time to stand firm and resist these measures. I'm here to support and listen to your stories as we fight against this initiative.

I own a Glock, which I've had for quite some time, and my background is in law enforcement. Yes, I've fired it at a shooting range. Regarding assault weapons, I support a mandatory buyback program and a ban on their importation. We need to address the over 2 million assault weapons already in circulation. If Congress doesn’t act within 100 days, I will implement comprehensive background checks and an assault weapons ban through executive action. We will also work to pass universal background checks and red flag laws. It's important to ensure responsible gun ownership in the community, and we will check for safety in homes where guns are legally possessed.

Speaker urges RCMP officers to pull their force and go to their commander. He tells them: "Go to your commander. You're not putting your job at risk, but if enough of you go to your commander, what happens if 50 officers go to the commander and said, we don't wanna be here. This is wrong. This is against our moral code." He warns that "The target that's been put on the backs of the RCMP because of this, good people don't like the cops anymore." He adds, "Normally, it's the bad people that don't like the cops that make your life difficult." He notes, "Now the good people are gonna be looking in the eye when they when you pull them over." He concludes, "Think about that." "Go to your commander and say you wanna leave."

Speaker 0 notes that the declaration period for firearm owners is scheduled to end next week. So far, only 2.5% of the estimated 2,000,000 affected firearms have been declared, leaving 98% of firearm owners without a declaration. The question posed is: if these owners do not declare by the deadline, what is the plan? Speaker 1 responds that the RCMP and other agencies will be available throughout the spring and summer to carry out the collection. Speaker 0 presses the point, asking whether Speaker 1’s plan involves deploying RCMP officers to go door to door to firearms owners to seize their firearms. The question emphasizes concern about using officers who are off duty or retired, and notes that many police forces across the country are refusing to participate in the program. The question expresses worry about sending former RCMP officers to knock on doors and collect firearms, and asks if Speaker 1 is not concerned about this approach. Speaker 1 clarifies that the program is not a door-to-door operation. He states that it is a mobile collection program and describes the program as voluntary. He adds that the participation is strictly voluntary, while compliance with the law is not voluntary. He also references the amnesty that was extended and notes that it expires on October 30 or 31 of this year. Speaker 0 asks what the government’s plan will be for firearms owners who may still possess firearms after the amnesty expires. Speaker 1 concludes by stating that every police jurisdiction will need to enforce the law.

Sending police to enforce vaccination can backfire in some communities. It's a difficult task that is not taken lightly. It can be done, but it's not an easy process.

I have a 20-gauge shotgun for hunting. You're not allowed to own any weapons, but I'm not taking your gun away. You need 100 rounds, and we’re discussing a veto. There’s misinformation circulating; I never said I would take your gun. That’s a viral video spreading lies. You just claimed I said I would take your AR. Let’s clarify what was actually said.

The government announced the establishment of a national gun buyback scheme to purchase surplus, newly banned, and illegal firearms, describing it as the largest buyback since the Howard Government initiated one in 1996. The proposal follows reforms made after the Port Arthur tragedy and references the Bondi incident as evidence of the need to remove more guns from the streets. It is stated that one of the terrorists held a firearm licence and had six guns while living in Sydney’s suburbs at Bonnyrigg, indicating that someone in that situation did not need that many firearms. There are now more than 4,000,000 firearms in Australia, which is higher than the number at the time of the Port Arthur massacre nearly thirty years ago. The government will introduce legislation to support funding for the buyback scheme, with costs to be shared on a fifty-fifty basis with states and territories. It is expected that hundreds of thousands of firearms will be collected and destroyed through the scheme. Consistent with the approach taken in 1996, the states and territories will be responsible for collection, processing, and payment to individuals for surrendered firearms, while the Australian Federal Police will be responsible for the destruction of the firearms. Australians are described as rightly proud of their gun laws, and, until five years ago, proud that there had not been a repeat of Port Arthur, nor constant carnage seen in other countries. The statement acknowledges that there have been incidents in Queensland and Victoria involving so-called sovereign citizens who murdered police officers. The National Buyback Scheme is presented as a measure to get guns off the streets and to help make all Australians safe.

Speaker 0 guarantees that the person they are speaking to will help solve the gun problem. Speaker 1 confirms their support for gun confiscation and explains that if people refuse to give up their weapons, law enforcement will take them away and there will be consequences. Speaker 1 acknowledges that some gun owners believe a Biden administration will come for their guns, and they confirm that this is true.

The gun buyback program is set to begin in the next month to month and a half, following the recent expenditures of $67 million. Concrete steps for retrieving and disposing of military-style assault weapons will be announced soon. There is a commitment to meet the timeline promised to Canadians, and preparations are well underway. The first phase of the program will launch this fall, while the second phase, which involves individual buybacks from Canadian gun owners, is scheduled for 2025. Overall, the program is on track, and there is optimism about its successful delivery.

We need a buyback program for the millions of assault weapons already out there. I support a mandatory buyback, but it has to be done smartly and correctly.

The government of Western Australia is facing criticism for its confusing firearms policy. A text was sent to gun owners stating that a buyback scheme for banned guns would end in August 2024. However, it was later revealed that the guns had not been banned, leading the government to advise gun owners to disregard the text. New laws will take effect in March 2025, and taxpayers may need to fund the buyback of up to 100,000 guns from approximately 95,000 gun owners. Additionally, recent regulations announced on December 23 included new firearms that will become obsolete, leaving owners without the opportunity to participate in the buyback.

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.

Speaker 0 calls Speaker 1 to confirm that three excavators were disabled to prevent illegal activity. Speaker 0 asks about the expectation of how the excavators would be used, but Speaker 1 doesn't have an answer. Speaker 0 thanks Speaker 1 and ends the call. Speaker 0 then calls Corporal Southern Cobb to confirm the damage caused by the RCMP. Speaker 1 doesn't know the specific steps taken to disable the vehicles. Speaker 0 thanks Speaker 1 and ends the call.

To enforce mandatory vaccination, it's simple. We call all 626,000 individuals one by one, and if they don't comply with the summons, we suspend their retirement payments. Trust me, those 626,000 people will get vaccinated very quickly. I agree, it's harsh, but if you think about it, why hasn't the government done it already?

Right now, in Canada, there are some people with bad intentions who have in their house prohibited or restricted weapons without fair licensing. But the policeman is not knocking at every door to check what is in the end of each Canadian. They are seized when they are moved, when there's an event. So it will be the same. But all of the people in possession of one of the weapon that has been banned since 2020 and will not participate in the compensation program will have an illegal gun in its position. And that's a criminal act. All right. Thank you very much, everyone.

You agree that using deadly force to protect property is not allowed. However, you mentioned wanting your AR 15 to protect someone's property in the past. Let's revisit this topic briefly.

Congress did not pass a law giving the ATF authority to criminalize 10 million Americans. The ATF's rule, not a law, is being questioned for overreach. The ATF's regulation of gun accessories and the Biden administration's involvement are criticized for potentially turning law-abiding citizens into felons. The discussion also touches on the ATF's regulation of short-barreled rifles and the perceived attack on the Second Amendment. The focus is on the perceived inconsistency in addressing gun control versus disarmament.

If I'm in danger, who will protect me? If the situation is so chaotic, someone needs to take action. I'm doing what I can, but do you honestly believe that criminals will listen and not carry guns in Albuquerque for a month? I doubt it. However, there is one thing I believe: this message is loud and clear.

The speaker asks if the Australian Federal Police (AFP) had long range acoustic devices at parliament house during the protest. The AFP representative responds that they would need to consider a public interest immunity claim and would have to seek advice before confirming. The speaker agrees to wait for the response and also asks for information on the type of devices and whether they were used. The speaker thanks the representative and the chair.

The government is prohibiting an additional 324 unique makes and models of assault-style firearms in Canada, effective immediately. These firearms can no longer be legally used, sold, or imported, and their transfer or transport is allowed only under very limited conditions. Additionally, the Canadian government has committed to exploring the possibility of donating some of these firearms to support Ukraine in its fight for democracy.