Going Back in Time to Stop the Second Amendment - Key & Peele

2020 3 سپتامبر
1 545 539 بازدید

During the Constitutional Convention, one of the delegates raises some uncannily forward-thinking concerns about the right to bear arms.

About Key & Peele:
Key & Peele showcases the fearless wit of stars Keegan-Michael Key and Jordan Peele as the duo takes on everything from "Gremlins 2" to systemic racism. With an array of sketches as wide-reaching as they are cringingly accurate, the pair has created a bevy of classic characters, including Wendell, the players of the East/West Bowl and President Obama's Anger Translator.

Subscribe to Comedy Central: irworld.info/lost/UsN5ZwHx2kILm84-jPDeXw
Watch more Comedy Central: irworld.info

Follow Key & Peele:
Facebook: facebook.com/KeyAndPeele/
Twitter: twitter.com/keyandpeele
Watch full episodes of Key & Peele: www.cc.com/shows/key-and-peele
Follow Comedy Central:
Twitter: twitter.com/ComedyCentral
Facebook: facebook.com/ComedyCentral/
Instagram: instagram.com/comedycentral/
#KeyandPeele

نظر
  • 50 people in 30 seconds... Damn i mean i wish normal people could get this kind of military hardware...

    Lone survivalist314Lone survivalist314پیش 10 ثانیه
  • Yeah, that's what would happen. The founding fathers had their own private collection of firearms and would have wanted the firearms we have today to add to their collections. Well done

    patrick emerypatrick emeryپیش 27 دقیقه
  • Wait ?? Wouldn't the founding fathers have guns at the conference and killed the assassin who illegally brought guns to overtake the government by force? Sounds like a legal gun would have fix the situation.

    Esteban BREsteban BRپیش 23 ساعت
  • When machine guns are technically a thing and you and your boys own a few and future man comes in with a mag-fed, full-auto, 9milly 'Course if you show some gun loving drunk-stoners even doper guns they're gonna want more XD

    Antonio GonzalezAntonio Gonzalezپیش روز
  • But. Ever heard of the puckle gun? To the contrary to this old silly argument. The idea behind a repeating gun has been done over and over again even in the early early 1700s. The reason they weren't as common is because the world didnt have an assembly line like we do today. Therefore, an old musket would've been worth something like 5000 dollars in today's world while a rapidly repeating firearm would've been work in the 10,000 dollar range, and even still if something broke on it, it would still have to be taken to a gunsmith and repaired for a considerable price

    hammer jockeyhammer jockeyپیش روز
  • If they don't sign it he doesn't get the guns in the future

    Kareem FareedKareem Fareedپیش روز
  • It’s funny because the guns he is using are illegal

    Carter HylenCarter Hylenپیش 2 روز
    • Fully automatic weapons are illegal for a unpermitted civilians

      Carter HylenCarter Hylenپیش 17 ساعت
    • They aren't tho sooooo

      THE/SMOKIN/SUBTHE/SMOKIN/SUBپیش 17 ساعت
  • It’s crazy how mainstream Hollywood will push there agenda from anything and everything you watch

    Jacob JudiceJacob Judiceپیش 2 روز
    • lol ok dude

      aPerfectaPerfectپیش 13 ساعت
  • If guns never existed at all, I can only imagine how crossbow technology might have evolved. Auto-repeating crossbows?

    TheSanFrancisco SeaHorseTheSanFrancisco SeaHorseپیش 4 روز
  • Incorrect ending. If they'd not passed 2nd amendment then he wouldn't exsit. He'd have disappeared, not the guns. Because only bad people would have weapons and America never would have lasted more than a couple years before being taken over. Silly propeganda.

    Stop CommunismStop Communismپیش 4 روز
  • Stick to Comedy!!

    Jason SouzaJason Souzaپیش 4 روز
  • Ok American founding fathers said well regulated militia not a bunch people who likes shooting

    Bala RajuBala Rajuپیش 5 روز
  • I love Key and Peele, but um, there's a moment you realize that citizens owned entire artillery pieces (and still do), the puckle gun existed, had their own warships, etc. Hell, one fight of the revolutionary war "Old Hickory" was massively outgunned by the British, so he literally asked a fellow patriot if he could borrow his cannons. Not one cannon. The private citizens stockpile of cannons.

    Ralph EllisRalph Ellisپیش 5 روز
  • that face he made while pulling the trigger

    richard cutlerrichard cutlerپیش 6 روز
  • What kind of people want to stop the 2nd Amendment? Those who already carry guns.. illegally.

    Buddha BellyBuddha Bellyپیش 6 روز
  • There were rifles that shot 25 shots quickly The air rifle that Lewis and Clarke took on their Expedition was such a rifle, at 100 yards could shatter wood boards with accuracy and not lose air pressure for a significant amount of shots. Oh and BTW, Jordan Peele started with Israeli UZIs and ended with FN2000s in case you wanted to further your firearm education

    J.D. MatthiasJ.D. Matthiasپیش 6 روز
  • Best one ever.

    So CoreSo Coreپیش 7 روز
  • Can we just take a moment and appreciate the costumes☺️.

    ThatAlaskaGuyThatAlaskaGuyپیش 7 روز
  • Sounds like the founding fathers to me. Hell, Americans used to be outfitted with cannons and whatnot, the equivalent of owning a missile cruiser in today's terms. You bet your ass they would've responded that way.

    Ryan WoodRyan Woodپیش 8 روز
  • Pretty sure they actually believe this way. Yes this was funny, but in all seriousness, if we didn't have the Second Amendment, more people would die, and this isn't really anything to joke about, especially if your not actually joking.

    Jason UnbourneJason Unbourneپیش 8 روز
  • I want to find a gun that could shoot 50 rounds in thirty seconds lol

    Fish ManFish Manپیش 8 روز
  • Plot twist, that is how we have full auto guns right now. Before the time travel we only had semi auto.

    Hieu DinhHieu Dinhپیش 8 روز
  • lol all these comments saying the 2nd amendment was to fight against the "tyrannical" federal gov't... clearly out of touch with the reality who spewed that "interpretation" of the 2nd amendment. if you dont know, it was racist klansmen in the south who believed the federal gov't was overstepping their boundaries by enforcing human rights when states refused to (because they were all racist klansmen politicians who were systemically suppressing the black voters). history is easily forgotten apparently, but thanks to the internet, easy to verify. 2nd amendment was for national defense against BRITISH authoritarianism or other foreign entities. after 1776, there was no question of the American people's loyalty... it was for a well regulated militia to protect our borders, not insane davidian church/ruby ridge justification NONSENSE.

    Anon ymousAnon ymousپیش 8 روز
    • the most ironic part is how the whole sketch ends with the conundrum of "human nature is violent" via him just getting bigger guns... and the takeaway for most people is to comment on how the 2nd amendment JUSTIFIES VIOLENCE. oh the hilarity.

      Anon ymousAnon ymousپیش 8 روز
  • Was everyone's hair that long?

    Nana AddoNana Addoپیش 8 روز
  • Historical illiteracy is amusing.

    Forever Country1776Forever Country1776پیش 9 روز
  • What? People like guns...

    JonesJonesپیش 9 روز
  • This is basically a big middle finger up to the NRA.

    Pink AlienPink Alienپیش 9 روز
  • I hate when famous people fall for leftist lies. Look up the puckle gun. The founding fathers knew of this (and many other prototype machine guns).

    JociahJociahپیش 9 روز
  • Did he get those guns illegally?

    Top NotchTop Notchپیش 9 روز
  • He said 1 wrong thing. “ before anyone would have a chance to stop him” most mass shootings are committed in gun free zones. Obviously a person who wanted to commit a shooting wouldn’t go somewhere where he knew there would be people with guns. So in my opinion there should be no gun free zones .

    Tyler TalksTyler Talksپیش 10 روز
  • Idiots

    Michael DavisMichael Davisپیش 10 روز
  • Quick, give me the Quail pin so I can draw it before I forget. LMAO

    free00to00ryhmefree00to00ryhmeپیش 10 روز
  • The founding fathers were actually fond of firearms that shot more than one shot. Different prototypes were made back then. However they were very impractical. So this video is actually accurate to how they'd react

    Anti 1 TrainingAnti 1 Trainingپیش 10 روز
  • Hits different. Watching this after the insurrection at Capitol Hill was inspired by Trump & made possible by their level of arms & IUDs

    2010Bangie2010Bangieپیش 10 روز
  • *Leftist Propaganda*

    Elias De LeoneElias De Leoneپیش 10 روز
  • TASK: shoot with UZI to unlock FN F2000

    Md. Rakib UddinMd. Rakib Uddinپیش 11 روز
  • Fuck this shit. I get you're trying to be funny, but you just coming off this and genius and painfully "progressive." Profound father is one of us to have the ability to combat the government, he also weren't morons and they knew technology improved.

    GorlliaGroddGorlliaGroddپیش 11 روز
  • I used the guns to get rid of the guns

    Ashlesh MangrulkarAshlesh Mangrulkarپیش 11 روز
  • Just skipped years of gun development

    glitch gamerglitch gamerپیش 11 روز
  • Automatic firearms existed long before the US constitution was ratified... the more you know.

    dibatermandibatermanپیش 11 روز
  • Guns don't kill people, people kill people. We have to try harder to solve this issue. But this was hilarious, I watched it several times.

    Chef MikeChef Mikeپیش 12 روز
    • @Schwarzvogel1 I think you misunderstood my statement. I'm a responsible gun owner and an advocate for self defense and the second ammendment. Don't get all crazy on me man. I don't want lunatics to have access to firearms. We should do whatever it takes, without infringement on our rights, in order to save the lives of innocent people including you. After all firearms are for protection but if you or your loved ones are caught off guard and gunned down, you're gonna wish that lunatic never had a chance to access a firearm. I know it's practically impossible to prevent at the moment, but that's why I said we should keep trying.

      Chef MikeChef Mikeپیش 7 روز
    • @glitch gamer Except that adults are not babies, and that there is no way you can make a very common tool unavailable. "Making tools unavailable" won't do a damn thing because there are many, many other ways for murderous individuals to kill innocent people than firearms. The only way to prevent this danger is to pre-emptively amputate the dominant hand of every man once he reaches the age of 15. For those you consider to have more of a "dark side" (to use your cringey phrasing), cut off both hands. A man with only one hand and no access to firearms will have a much harder time killing anyone than one with two hands under any circumstances. Even you can recognize that such a ridiculous and barbarous solution won't work. However, I'd like to hear you come up with a way to... A. Peacefully confiscate all of the illegally owned firearms in the U.S.--the ones that are responsible for 99% of the non-suicide gun deaths. B. Peacefully confiscate all of the legally owned firearms in the U.S. If you can come up with a workable solution for both A&B that could be implemented without public resistance and in the span of 2 years, you deserve a Nobel Peace Prize, to have your name in the history books, and to be dictator for life of the U.S., and potentially even king (or queen) of the whole damn world. I'd argue that we should even build 300m tall statues of you in every nation, because you clearly are a divine being. Because gun control as imbeciles like you propose would only work if you can somehow work miracles.

      Schwarzvogel1Schwarzvogel1پیش 8 روز
    • We know there will always be people who eants to kill people but we dont know their dark side so its better to make tools unavailable. Its like giving knife to a baby saying it plucked its own eye out with knife.yes it would u should've known that

      glitch gamerglitch gamerپیش 11 روز
  • Imagine hip hop if there was no first amendment!

    Ryan PolakRyan Polakپیش 12 روز
  • This happened at our capitol two days ago...

    Jordan BryantJordan Bryantپیش 12 روز
  • LMAO!!! You know what, let's just ban swimming pools while were at it! 3,500 children die each year from drowing in pools but you don't see congress or the people speaking up about that! But of course, no one wants to ban a swimming pool because it cannot be used to fend off TYRANNY like firearms can! So you see, IT'S NOT ABOUT OUR CHILDREN OR THEIR SAFETY... it's about control and a monopoly on power so tyranny can reign free!

    Kawika HKawika Hپیش 12 روز
  • I would low-key watch a whole action movie about this lol

    kohl cookekohl cookeپیش 13 روز
  • What if I told you automatic guns already existed during the signing?

    Jimmy JoeJimmy Joeپیش 13 روز
  • 50 people in 30 seconds is impossible.

    Liberty or DeathLiberty or Deathپیش 13 روز
  • I don’t know of any gun that can kill scores upon scores of people. That can be carried by a person.

    Tank Kill2020Tank Kill2020پیش 13 روز
  • I mean it should be harder to get guns but not all should be taken away lol

    Brayden LancasterBrayden Lancasterپیش 13 روز
    • It is already harder to *legally* acquire firearms nowadays than it was at any point in American history. The firearms we have nowadays have no significant advancements in lethality over those available 70 years ago. The AR15 was commercially available from the 1960s onward. And yet, it was not until the 1980s that mass shootings became a noticeable phenomenon. Somehow, I don't think that the ease with which people can acquire firearms has any bearing on the rates of violence in the U.S.

      Schwarzvogel1Schwarzvogel1پیش 8 روز
    • @Magnus Chase no

      CursedChadCursedChadپیش 12 روز
    • @CursedChad yes

      Magnus ChaseMagnus Chaseپیش 12 روز
    • No

      CursedChadCursedChadپیش 13 روز
  • Cannons, bombs, and high capacity muskets existed back then.

    DARK the nobleDARK the nobleپیش 13 روز
  • When you realize this is Tenet in a nutshell

    Mike ParkMike Parkپیش 14 روز
  • They already had guns that could do that

    Ronnie HopperRonnie Hopperپیش 14 روز
  • It’s funny releasing this when Americans need the 2nd ammendment more than ever with the riots and China

    Sharko ChannelSharko Channelپیش 14 روز
    • What does China have to do with the 2nd Amendment?

      Schwarzvogel1Schwarzvogel1پیش 8 روز
  • Is funny that people mention things like ""I used the second amendment to destroy the second amendment" or "“I used the guns to destroy the guns” ...because that is what is happening nowadays: with the excuse that a "bad guy" can get guns (thanks to the second amendment) people will use the second amendment to justify them having guns.

    David GDavid Gپیش 14 روز
  • Viacom corporation has turned into fascist propaganda. Why would I want te rely on the government to protect me and my family?

    Barry SorentoBarry Sorentoپیش 14 روز
  • 2nd amendment saves a lot more people than you think

    Daevin DilbeckDaevin Dilbeckپیش 14 روز
  • Lol, amazing. Fun fact, some of the founding fathers were huge gun buffs and owned many prototypes of different exotic firearms.

    That_one_nubThat_one_nubپیش 15 روز
  • Imagine getting a gun that can shoot 3,900 rounds per minute, and we also built a plane around it, and it shoots 30 mil bullets

    ライアンライアンپیش 16 روز
    • Brrrrrrrrrttt

      谷郷ですRandomEastAsian谷郷ですRandomEastAsianپیش 15 روز
  • This is not a good argument against gun rights. Mass shooting deaths make up less than 1% of gun homicides. Even then, most gun deaths are suicides. www.vox.com/2015/10/1/18000524/mass-shootings-rare More importantly, the homicide rate in New England did not rise appreciably after the 2nd amendment was ratified. Rather, it continued trending downwards from the end of the revolution. The overall homicide rate in the U.S. was still lower in 2006 than in 1900, despite all the advances in firearms technology over the course of the 20th century. "The History of Homicide in the U.S." nationalacademies.org. The case against guns is most fruitfully made through suicides. Those are the actual majority of gun deaths. health.ucdavis.edu/what-you-can-do/facts.html

    Gregory BogosianGregory Bogosianپیش 16 روز
    • @Schwarzvogel1 Advancements in fire arms technology haven't caused a commensurate increase in lethality in the military either. King Philip's war is the most lethal war per-capita in U.S. history, (if you count colonial times as part of U.S. history). www.history.com/topics/native-american-history/king-philips-war If you don't count colonial times, then it was more lethal per-capita than any war in U.S. history.

      Gregory BogosianGregory Bogosianپیش 8 روز
    • Very true. Ironically, most of the advancements in firearms technology over the course of the 20th century have *not* been significant leaps in lethality or firepower--at least with civilian weapons. One of the most popular pistols in the U.S., the M1911, is a _109 year old design._ Most semiautomatic pistols nowadays also use the same recoil-operated, tilted barrel action as the 1911, so many semi-auto handguns nowadays are again operating based on 100-year old technology! Even the AR15 (which to ignorant liberals is deadlier than VX gas, the bubonic plague, and Tomahawk cruise missiles) uses a design that is nearly 70 years old. Indeed, our problems with violence in the U.S. have nothing to do with firearms; we have deep-seated social issues that won't be improved at all even if we could magically make all legally owned civilian weapons disappear overnight.

      Schwarzvogel1Schwarzvogel1پیش 8 روز
  • the ending lmfao!

    starving studentstarving studentپیش 16 روز
  • Guns for no guns

    king Slayer Savageking Slayer Savageپیش 17 روز
  • Okay but the real question is why would they be trying to stop the 2nd amendment? Did a tyrannical government send them back in time?

    Jack TravoltaJack Travoltaپیش 17 روز
  • Yesss! This is totally what should have happened. Then the only people that would have access to weapons like that, would be the government. The very people the 2A was designed to protect you from, ensuring you stay free of tyranny. Or become ya know, nazi Germany etc.

    Twin Turbo LSXTwin Turbo LSXپیش 17 روز
  • One day I travel to the past. And then!... and then some super duper futuristic automatic machine guns appeared in my hands. Consequences!

    Adrian BustosAdrian Bustosپیش 18 روز
  • Y’all don’t know that machine guns already existed in the 18th century do ya?

    Dan GoodeDan Goodeپیش 18 روز
    • wryheat.wordpress.com/2013/02/16/assault-weapons-a-machine-gun-from-1718/amp/

      Dan GoodeDan Goodeپیش 11 روز
    • Proof?

      Dell Belphine2.0Dell Belphine2.0پیش 14 روز
  • how the questions would have actually been answered. Q"what if someone made a gun that could shoot say 50 people in 30 seconds" A" of course somebody will eventually make a gun like that. we already have guns that can shoot multiple rounds without needing to be reloaded so thats the way the technology is progressing. if and most certainly when such a fire arm exists however we want the people to have access to it so they can hold their government to account should their government ever try to take away their freedoms. this is why we put well regulated which we all know in current year 1776 means supplied and maintained in the constitution. we not only want the people to have right to keep and bear arms we want them to have the right to keep and bear modern arms so the millitia will be well supplied and maintained should the security of the free state we are creating ever be threatened by tyranny foreign or domestic. Q"then one man would be able to walk into a crowded area and kill scores of scores of people before anyone would have a chance to stop him" A"except the scores apon scores of innocent law abiding people that we hope would be armed as well as he is" then he would have pulled out the ouzis and the founders would have each pulled out their 1776 guns that were useless at long-range but would have been perfectly suitable considering the close quarters they were in shooting him before he could finish his sentence let alone pulled the trigger.

    You cant handle my name!You cant handle my name!پیش 18 روز
  • This was brilliant. This is soo good.

    Eeshan KhanEeshan Khanپیش 19 روز
  • still waiting for this to be funny @ 2:08

    Alaina BilowAlaina Bilowپیش 19 روز
  • ???waiting for this to be funny @ 1:19

    Alaina BilowAlaina Bilowپیش 19 روز
  • The 2nd already included really deadly weapons that could kill dozens. The 2nd amendment included cannons and gunpowder.

    David BurnettDavid Burnettپیش 20 روز
  • You know that there existed blackpovdear guns wef 50 round's right.........?

    semi Animationssemi Animationsپیش 20 روز
  • I thought the founding fathers knew of the latest technology of guns, like the early minigun, and were fans

    Emre John NebiogluEmre John Nebiogluپیش 21 روز
  • In a parallel universe they go back in time to make sure the amendment is created to stop tyrannical governments from murdering and oppressing millions.

    GentleGingerGentleGingerپیش 22 روز
  • The problem with this clip is that Peele is addressing a fully automatic type of gun, and those ARE indeed illegal in most of the US...

    Manly StuffsManly Stuffsپیش 22 روز
    • @Schwarzvogel1 True, thanks for specifying

      Manly StuffsManly Stuffsپیش 8 روز
    • Not quite illegal, but heavily regulated and all but unaffordable for 99.5% of Americans.

      Schwarzvogel1Schwarzvogel1پیش 8 روز
  • More a political statement than comedy sketch. Usually love their work but this fell flat.

    John MalloyJohn Malloyپیش 22 روز
  • Why are they taking in British accent

    Hasnain SattarHasnain Sattarپیش 22 روز
  • Perfect example of idiots supporting 2nd amendment

    WilsonWilsonپیش 22 روز
  • so woke, so funny

    J GJ Gپیش 22 روز
  • Looks like a liberal to me

    Big_Dawg3081's PS4 Gaming ChannelBig_Dawg3081's PS4 Gaming Channelپیش 22 روز
  • Lol their skin just the right tone that they could’ve gotten away with being white back then

    SPORTSNOWTVSPORTSNOWTVپیش 22 روز
    • @sowhat their light skinned

      SPORTSNOWTVSPORTSNOWTVپیش 22 روز
    • What are you talking about? That they look white "back then"? Huh?

      sowhatsowhatپیش 22 روز
  • Almost perfect. Except the founding fathers would have obviously known and predicted technology would advance to this degree. Perfect? Obviously not, but they we're highly educated.

    Tetra SphereTetra Sphereپیش 23 روز
  • I guess they aren’t aware that there were semiautomatic weapons when they wrote the constitution lol

    Austin SchusterAustin Schusterپیش 23 روز
  • I think the second amendment was done for two main reasons: the US did not have a standing army at the time the Constitution and bill of rights were drafted. Armed, state-regulated militias were seen as necessary if the new nation had to raise another army to defend itself. The second big reason was fear in the southern colonies of slave rebellions; they needed militias (patterollers) to maintain slavery; and to be able to call on other states for their militias in case things got out of hand. I don’t think the founding fathers imagined that the government they were in the act of forming needed to be kept in check by its own armed citizens.

    tubeyhamstertubeyhamsterپیش 24 روز
  • so the gun manufacturers were behind the signing of the second amendment

    Recker ProductionRecker Productionپیش 24 روز
  • If you build it they will come ! So watch out Switzerland CERN gonna bring some real evil to the top soon

    Never MindNever Mindپیش 25 روز
  • But if you go back in time and destroy it so they can’t sign it, then in the future, you don’t end up going back to stop them from signing it because you think you already have... well I guess that depends on what kind of time travel this is. If it is the kind where if you kill your grandfather, you are never born, then this video is inaccurate but if it’s more like Avengers Endgame time travel where you sort of go to a different timeline where you aren’t the same you, then it will be fine, but won’t change anything. So this just wouldn’t work.

    Thierno DialloThierno Dialloپیش 25 روز
  • Lmfao.....

    Mario MoralesMario Moralesپیش 26 روز
  • The real question is why the constitution isn't periodically reviewd and modified to suit the times...

    ARX 351ARX 351پیش 26 روز
  • I have no problem with the second amendment. I just feel it should work differently. You should be entitled to a single shot 22 caliber rifle as your right under the second amendment. If you want anything more than that, then you have to obtain special licensing and testing at your own expense. Similar to someone having a driver’s license to operate a car versus a truck driver who has endorsements to carry hazardous materials. If you want a higher level of licensing then you should need to pay for regular psychological testing, pay for regular qualification on a more advanced weapon (pistol, semi automatic pistol, semi automatic rifle) and continued regular safety training. If you’re not willing to pay for those things and spend the time satisfying the requirements then you’re back to your single shot 22 caliber rifle.

    G RosaG Rosaپیش 26 روز
    • @Schwarzvogel1 hey you got your opinions I’ve got mine. After what I saw last week if you wear a maga hat or support a deranged orangutan you probably shouldn’t even have a gun. No single shot 22 for you!

      G RosaG Rosaپیش 8 روز
    • @ G Rosa That's one of the stupidest arguments I have seen in years. First of all, what do you have against the poor and minorities... the types of people who are more likely to need firearms for personal protection and home defense? Your idiotic scheme would place the ability to legally own firearms that are actually useful for self-defense behind a paywall, and would also place that right at the whims of potentially corrupt and bigoted local governments and law enforcement. Second, how do you plan to get all the _other_ firearms away from those who own them legally? Or from criminals who *don't* own them legally and yet have no trouble acquiring weapons through the black market, smuggling, or theft? What good will that single shot .22 LR rifle do against three criminals armed with stolen Glock 19s? Your argument boils down to, "Only rich people who possess the right skin color, religion, sexual orientation, or political views should be allowed to own firearms." If this sounds hyperbolic, then you know nothing about American history, because the same sort of "licensing" system was once used to determine a citizen's right to vote, and was unsurprisingly used in the Jim Crow South to disenfranchise minorities and the poor. You would have fit in very well in Hitler's Germany with your ways of thinking. You make me sick. Also, a driver's license is not needed to operate a car, much less to buy one. Your driver's license is only required to operate a car on public roads. If you only care about driving on a racetrack, or doing donuts in your backyard, you don't need any license. Your driver's license also does not contain any stipulations about the type, engine displacement, or top speed of any automobile that you wish to purchase.Using your logic--and since cars kill far, far more people than firearms do and are also far more damaging to our natural environment--you should need a more expensive license and "training" to legally purchase a sports car versus what you'd need to own a minivan, etc.

      Schwarzvogel1Schwarzvogel1پیش 8 روز
    • G Rosa, and of course you would want these same restrictions to apply to the police and United States military correct? There was not a similar balance between German military and police and German citizens ... that just happened to be Jewish once upon a time ...

      Dune XapaDune Xapaپیش 26 روز
  • get rid of the electoral college too, bullshit, our vote doesn't count, especially since i expect scumbag trump to have a coup in january

    Rich VanneRich Vanneپیش 27 روز
  • Alright I really like your guns Sense of humor but leave politics out of it and and the highest mass shooting ever was 58 people and that shooting took 15 minutes and the mags that he was shooting was 30 round magazines and if you think that you could kill 50 people in 30 seconds that would be ten bullets extra and you would have to be in full auto and you would have to be deadly accurate witch is illegal unless you have a certain clearance from the and government and if you can’t hear a gun go off and not have time to hide or act you are deaf and all of the people that comment the mass shootings are mentally unstable so how is it far that every law abiding citizens that is mentally stable has to suffer because of actions of another

    Lane LecknessLane Lecknessپیش 27 روز
    • Your comment is more political than the video

      BeamPunkBeamPunkپیش 23 روز
  • Ain’t no one gonnastop the 2nd amendment

    BigChickNBoiBigChickNBoiپیش 28 روز
  • I am confused This is anti 2A or pro 2A?

    Richard. SchmelzRichard. Schmelzپیش 28 روز
  • well good thing those full autos are banned so you don't have to go back in time for that. Wait you telling me that bad guys don't care about rules? Well I'd be damned!

    Phuk In-YomamPhuk In-Yomamپیش 28 روز
  • I got a freedom boner when he got the two new guns lol

    marshall Kennedymarshall Kennedyپیش 29 روز
  • That's a big thumbs down. Real funny as the coming government seeks to destroy not just the 2nd Amendment, but all the amazing freedoms that make up America.

    dontwaste 2nd chancedontwaste 2nd chanceپیش 29 روز
  • A "well equipped" militia DID NOT and DOES NOT mean 1 shot powder loads. It was meant, at the time, to be able to defend againest a tyranical government with the same firepower. Obviously the public isnt allowed to arm itself with nukes or weapons of mass destruction for good reasons but they sure as hell are constitutionally allowed to possess small arms fire of any caliber they wish to defend againest a unconstitutional governance. Js

    JJ MacJJ Macپیش ماه
    • @RibusPQR Because nuclear weapons (and most explosive munitions) violate the principle of self defense due to their indiscriminate effects. It isn't self defense anymore when you kill your assailant, your neighbors, their dogs, yourself, and turn the entire block into a smoking, radioactive crater.

      Schwarzvogel1Schwarzvogel1پیش 8 روز
    • Why not nukes though?

      RibusPQRRibusPQRپیش 25 روز
    • And yet the only time in the last 200 years when unconstitutional governance was going on was when they used those arms to force the ballot counting to stop in Florida and Al Gore had the US election stolen from him by George W Bush.

      Hague1970Hague1970پیش 26 روز
    • Hell people back then were allowed to own naval cannons.

      Jeramy SteveJeramy Steveپیش 27 روز
    • Not only that but the other obvious use for self defense in other terrible events, granted it’s rare for it to occur, but it is very good at saving lives

      Kingof GrimKingof Grimپیش 27 روز
  • One of the earliest mass killings in the United States was done by one man with a knife who killed an entire family of about 6 or 7 people. Unfortunately the musket the family had was not enough to stop the mad killer.

    Jacob SmithJacob Smithپیش ماه
  • magnificent hhh

    RoMo 17DZRoMo 17DZپیش ماه
  • The people voting this down are progunners and anti gunners whom don't 'get it' Progunners: "Ackshually... we need a militia/we had rapid fire in 1789, if he stopped it we'd be conquered, etc" Anti-gunners : "Noooo!!!!! He should have stopped it!" But the founders were immediately thinking : "Why...10 men could destroy an entire English regiment! And think of the Spanish and French....by Jove Florida and Louisiana will be ours in a month!" We probably would wind up with a new Amendment demanding a national science academy to research 'weapons of war and tools of peace' , and Congress would have funded an industrial revolution ten times larger than the historic one.

    Michael McLaughlinMichael McLaughlinپیش ماه
IRworld