Louder with Crowder - December 23, 2015


The Young Turks Rebuttal: Second Amendment Lies


Episode Stats


Length

17 minutes

Words per minute

188.8

Word count

3,304

Sentence count

222

Harmful content

Misogyny

6

sentences flagged

Hate speech

10

sentences flagged


Summary

Summaries generated with gmurro/bart-large-finetuned-filtered-spotify-podcast-summ .

Comedian Cenk argues that gun control advocates are not educated enough to understand the Constitution, and that a ban on guns should be implemented in order to protect the public. I'm here to defend the Constitution and the rights of the Founding Fathers.

Transcript

Transcripts from "Louder with Crowder" are sourced from the Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool. Explore them interactively here.
Misogyny classifications generated with MilaNLProc/bert-base-uncased-ear-misogyny .
Hate speech classifications generated with facebook/roberta-hate-speech-dynabench-r4-target .
00:00:00.000 How does Cenk justify his argument?
00:00:01.000 That's the history.
00:00:02.000 It's the history.
00:00:03.000 It's absolutely right.
00:00:04.000 What I say is it's exactly right.
00:00:06.000 Look at the history.
00:00:07.000 Well, you're a journalist, Cenk.
00:00:09.000 How about showing us the history?
00:00:11.000 Documents, written accounts, legal precedent.
00:00:13.000 I'm an entertainer, and I do it.
00:00:13.000 I'm a comedian.
00:00:15.000 Why can't you?
00:00:18.000 Because oftentimes in the press, and certainly online, you'll only see half the Constitution.
00:00:24.000 In fact, I've had this tweeted to me several times this week.
00:00:27.000 They say, look, man, the Second Amendment is so clear.
00:00:30.000 It says right there, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
00:00:36.000 That is, wow, man, I didn't think about that.
00:00:40.000 That is really clear.
00:00:42.000 Oh, wait a minute.
00:00:43.000 How about the other part of the amendment, the first half of the amendment?
00:00:48.000 Oh, let's read the whole amendment for a second.
00:00:51.000 A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
00:01:01.000 Okay, straw man alert.
00:01:02.000 Listen, I understand that liberals try and paint conservatives as stupid and conservatives try and paint liberals as stupid.
00:01:08.000 I also understand there are low information voters on both sides, okay?
00:01:11.000 In this situation, Cenk is trying to point to the Second Amendment activists as the least educated among the gun control debate, people who wouldn't have ever even picked up a constitution or read the Second Amendment.
00:01:25.000 Let me ask you this.
00:01:26.000 Would it stand to reason that in this debate, the people more likely to understand the Second Amendment would be people who've gone through the process of purchasing a firearm, maybe becoming licensed since concealed carry and are by law required as they go through this course to understand their Second Amendment rights as it relates maybe becoming licensed since concealed carry and are by law required as they go through this course Wouldn't it stand to reason, Your Honor, that?
00:01:51.000 That they might be more likely or required to have read the Second Amendment as opposed to Cenk's audience who there's no necessity to read the Constitution at all to simply hold the opinion that we should ban guns.
00:02:05.000 Go check out the pro-gun sites, whether it's the NRA, go to a concealed carry course.
00:02:09.000 When I've gone to firearm safety courses, they've given us pocket constitutions.
00:02:13.000 Again, look at the groups and make your own inferences.
00:02:16.000 Now let's get to the facts of which he provides very little, but I promise you I'll do my due diligence.
00:02:21.000 The Founding Fathers debated these to no end.
00:02:24.000 They debated literally every comma of the Second Amendment.
00:02:27.000 The very last edit they did was to take out a comma.
00:02:30.000 This is true.
00:02:31.000 Absolutely.
00:02:31.000 And this very point soundly makes Cenk's strongest argument against him.
00:02:37.000 More on that later on.
00:02:38.000 They had the first part, the right to keep and bear arms, in the first half of the sentence, in the first copy of this amendment, and then they switched it after debating it.
00:02:51.000 So if they just wanted to write the second half of the amendment, the right to keep and bear arms for the people, they could have just written that.
00:02:58.000 It's not like they didn't think about it.
00:02:59.000 They thought about it.
00:03:00.000 They debated it.
00:03:02.000 And they decided, no, no, no, no, no.
00:03:04.000 It's very important.
00:03:05.000 In order for us to have militias, we need to have arms.
00:03:09.000 This is for the point of a militia.
00:03:11.000 See, that's a very important qualifier.
00:03:14.000 That was the whole point of the amendment.
00:03:16.000 See, this is where Schenck's argument starts to fall apart.
00:03:18.000 Like he said, the Founding Fathers were incredibly careful in their wording with the Constitution, and they did!
00:03:22.000 They chose to leave all of this in.
00:03:24.000 So every word, the fact that both clauses are in their matters, they consciously, the Founding Fathers, chose to include both militia, comma, the right of the people shall not be infringed.
00:03:37.000 See, it says militia, as Cenk said, very careful, comma, separation, the right of the people shall not be infringed.
00:03:47.000 Why were they so hell-bent on not just the militia, not just soldiers with guns, but the people having the right to bear arms?
00:03:54.000 Cenk explains this with his very next sentence.
00:03:57.000 In the north, they had militias.
00:03:59.000 And they were there to protect the community, and sometimes they rose up against the federal government, and George Washington had to go fight those militias on behalf of the United States of America.
00:04:08.000 Aha! 0.94
00:04:09.000 Okay, so this is very important.
00:04:10.000 If George Washington had to fight militias, meaning people with guns, not necessarily soldiers with guns, what would have been the easiest way for George Washington to ensure that these battles didn't happen again maybe elsewhere in the country?
00:04:23.000 It's an easy answer.
00:04:24.000 Ban guns.
00:04:26.000 Confiscate them from the people. 0.99
00:04:27.000 But George Washington didn't.
00:04:28.000 Why?
00:04:28.000 For the very same reason that, as Cenk said, they expressly allowed the people.
00:04:34.000 To bear arms in the first place.
00:04:36.000 Because the people with weapons became a militia and had just finished fighting off a tyrannical government for two years.
00:04:43.000 The biggest empire the world had ever seen up until that point.
00:04:46.000 And to avoid said tyranny in the future, even with Washington knowing full well that he could become a tyrant himself, they put the Second Amendment in for the people as a failsafe.
00:04:56.000 In the South, they were largely slave patrols.
00:04:58.000 They wanted to have everybody be able to carry arms so that if there was a slave insurrection, they would be armed and be able to shoot the slaves.
00:05:06.000 Look into the history of it.
00:05:07.000 That's exactly right.
00:05:09.000 Okay, this is the big difference between someone like Schenk and myself.
00:05:12.000 I'm an entertainer, a comedian.
00:05:14.000 I don't claim to be a journalist.
00:05:15.000 But when we make factual statements at Latter with Crowder, like the Bernie video or the Detroit video, each had over 30 to 40 sources.
00:05:24.000 Young Turks claims to be a news network, and of course, Cenk's not funny, but they don't provide sources. 0.85
00:05:29.000 How does Cenk justify his argument?
00:05:31.000 That's the history.
00:05:32.000 It's up.
00:05:33.000 It's absolutely right.
00:05:34.000 What I say is it's exactly right.
00:05:36.000 Look at the history.
00:05:37.000 Well, you're a journalist, Cenk.
00:05:39.000 How about showing us the history?
00:05:41.000 Documents, written accounts, legal precedent.
00:05:43.000 I'm a comedian, I'm an entertainer, and I do it.
00:05:45.000 Why can't you?
00:05:46.000 In order to protect those communities, the militias had to be armed.
00:05:49.000 That's why the sentence is structured very clearly that way.
00:05:53.000 If you're a strict constructionist, you can't ignore an enormously important part of the sentence.
00:05:58.000 You're being wildly disingenuous if you do.
00:06:01.000 The fact that the Supreme Court read the first half of the sentence out of its interpretation is insane.
00:06:09.000 That's just basically saying, I don't really care what the Constitution says.
00:06:13.000 I'm just going to ignore parts of it I don't like.
00:06:15.000 That's what the right-wingers, who are the judicial activists on the court, did in the case of the Second Amendment.
00:06:21.000 Okay, again, no sources, no facts.
00:06:23.000 Cenk just describes motive and lack of intelligence to his opponent here.
00:06:27.000 Now, considering that gun control is the single biggest losing issue for Democrats, and one in which even far-left Democrats are willing to give, as seen with someone like Bernie Sanders in Vermont, what's more plausible?
00:06:39.000 That, as Cenk argues here...
00:06:41.000 The Supreme Court ruling to which he's referring to, we'll bring up on screen as I know he didn't, were just stupid right-wingers or that they too had access to the information I just provided and Cenk withheld from you.
00:06:54.000 Again, make your own inference.
00:06:56.000 Looking at the case specifically, something Cenk won't tell you.
00:06:59.000 Is that even though the ruling was in favor of the current interpretation of the Second Amendment, the dissenting arguments are just as important.
00:07:05.000 Dissenting Justice Stevens argued that the Second Amendment only protects the rights of individuals to bear arms as part of a well-regulated state militia, not for other purposes, even if they are lawful.
00:07:16.000 Now why doesn't Cenk tell you this?
00:07:17.000 Maybe because even among Cenk's leftist pro-gun control audience, this argument, the one that needs to be made legally, would be wildly unpopular.
00:07:26.000 The only way to have ruled against a Supreme Court ruling allowing for private citizens to have guns would not be incremental gun control, would not be some kind of a tiered assault weapons ban, but a total...
00:07:38.000 Again, we're talking legal here.
00:07:41.000 Justice Breyer agreed with Stevens, but added that even if possession were to be allowed for other reasons, any law regulating elusive firearms would have to be unreasonable or inappropriate to violate the Second Amendment.
00:07:50.000 The dissenting judges acknowledged that to legally rule in the other direction would require no rights for private citizens to own guns, for hunting, for protection, for target shooting, nothing.
00:08:00.000 They argue that maybe the government could subjectively grant the privilege to own firearms to some, but the right to To bear arms would be all but non-existent, period.
00:08:09.000 And that's why people like Schenk and leftists have to lie to their constituency about gun control.
00:08:14.000 Because legally, we're talking legally now, when it comes down to it, the only leg they have to stand on would be wildly unpopular even within their own party.
00:08:22.000 The other interesting part here is what do they mean by the people?
00:08:25.000 It says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
00:08:31.000 The people could mean two different things.
00:08:32.000 It could mean every person.
00:08:34.000 Now, if it means every person, then you think, okay, good, then I've got the right to bear arms.
00:08:38.000 That means me.
00:08:39.000 Or it could mean the people of the United States.
00:08:42.000 So, for example, they're referring to the security of a free state, and the state is trying to protect itself against the federal government in the context of the founding fathers.
00:08:51.000 So it could mean the people of that state.
00:08:54.000 Okay, I'll address it, but this last part is...
00:08:57.000 Let's move on.
00:08:57.000 Erroneous.
00:09:01.000 No one would interpret that as meaning that every single person gets to have nuclear arms.
00:09:18.000 They would interpret that to mean, well, since we need a strong military, and that's essential for a free state, You cannot ban nuclear arms from the people of the United States.
00:09:28.000 Ah, okay, and there it is.
00:09:29.000 Nukes! 0.89
00:09:29.000 Oh no! 0.89
00:09:30.000 Here's the thing, it doesn't.
00:09:32.000 It doesn't say that.
00:09:33.000 Now, can we address that in a future video?
00:09:35.000 Sure, but this video is getting long, so how about we stick to what actually exists instead of getting into silly hypotheticals that act only as a vehicle for chink to do as really bad, stupid conservative voice. 0.93
00:09:46.000 If you think about arms, What does arms mean?
00:09:49.000 Back then it meant muskets. 0.99
00:09:50.000 Are there reasonable regulations on what arms means?
00:09:53.000 Of course.
00:09:54.000 Does anybody think we should have nuclear arms?
00:09:55.000 No.
00:09:56.000 Does anybody think we should all have a right to RPGs?
00:09:58.000 I hope not.
00:10:00.000 Look, you know what else is arms?
00:10:01.000 Landmines.
00:10:02.000 You think we all have a right to have landmines and plant them?
00:10:05.000 Even in our own yard?
00:10:07.000 No, what if Fluffy, your next door neighbor's dog comes by, or your next door neighbor's kid comes by as he's walking the street?
00:10:13.000 You don't have the right to have landmines? 0.96
00:10:16.000 Okay, Cenk is either lying or a very uninformed person here.
00:10:19.000 Firstly, why would they need to specify that the military had the right to weapons?
00:10:22.000 Has any military not had the right to weapons?
00:10:24.000 Oh my gosh, what a whole second!
00:10:25.000 Our military's going out there with sparks!
00:10:27.000 We need a right into law! 0.90
00:10:29.000 Is that to have guns?
00:10:30.000 What are we thinking?
00:10:31.000 We've been doing it wrong since the beginning of ever!
00:10:34.000 We've addressed this argument before in depth.
00:10:36.000 Click this video.
00:10:37.000 Muskets were not the only weapons around at that time.
00:10:40.000 There were high-capacity, rapid-fire assault weapons like the Girondoni air rifle, the Puckle Gun, the Belt and Flintlock, the Pepperbox Revolver, And yes, the Founding Fathers were completely aware of it.
00:10:51.000 They had the chance to ban those or expressly outline an exclusion in the Second Amendment, but they didn't.
00:10:58.000 It's for that same reason that James Madison wrote a letter of mark and reprisal to a private ship asking if they had the right to own cannons to protect themselves from piracy.
00:11:05.000 Again, real, factual, observable history here.
00:11:08.000 We'll provide the links because they don't.
00:11:09.000 What was Madison's response?
00:11:10.000 Well, let's use the Chang technique in some modern language.
00:11:13.000 It was...
00:11:13.000 Dude, of course you have the right to cannons to protect yourself from pirates.
00:11:17.000 Bitches, that's why I wrote the Second Amendment. 1.00
00:11:19.000 So, let's follow Cenk's logic here.
00:11:21.000 If a million dollars hundreds of years ago adjusted for inflation would, let's say, be over a billion dollars today, I'm not good at math, let's just assume, a cannon expressly protected under the Second Amendment hundreds of years ago when adjusted for inflation, But at least be a high-capacity rifle, if not a drone with high-capacity magazines hanging from its webcams.
00:11:44.000 Not talking feelings or opinions here, pure history and law.
00:11:49.000 Can we have any regulation of any of our rights?
00:11:52.000 Well, of course we get a reasonable regulation of any of our rights.
00:11:55.000 Freedom of speech is perhaps the most important right we have as Americans, but I can't go into a crowded theater and yell fire because that poses a danger to people.
00:12:02.000 You'd think Chink would be better equipped. 1.00
00:12:05.000 The yelling fire in a crowded theater to try and regulate speech argument, that's the kind of argument you'd skim past in a high school debate club so you could get to the arguments that were more compelling.
00:12:14.000 Well, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, so speech is like freedom of speech is regulated, right?
00:12:18.000 You can't yell fire in a crowded theater.
00:12:19.000 That wasn't a stupid liberal voice, just chinks. 1.00
00:12:21.000 No, no, not right.
00:12:22.000 Okay.
00:12:23.000 The problem with yelling fire, chink is not the speech. 1.00
00:12:27.000 It's a call to action.
00:12:29.000 So let me use an extreme example to make a point, and then even a less extreme example than yours to make a point.
00:12:34.000 Let's say a racist walks into a Black Lives Matter bar.
00:12:38.000 Now it's never actually happened, but let's assume for the sake of argument.
00:12:41.000 And he yells in front of all people, hey, I am actually a racist.
00:12:46.000 I'm a white supremacist.
00:12:48.000 I hate all black people. 1.00
00:12:50.000 And I believe that you are not equal to white people. 0.97
00:12:54.000 Is that protected?
00:12:56.000 Yeah, as horrible as it sounds, it is protected.
00:12:59.000 Now, let's change that situation to less extreme example than yelling fire in a crowded theater.
00:13:03.000 But that same white supremacist, oh brother, where art thou, KKK member, walks into the Black Lives Matter club and he says, hey, I don't know if you saw, but that black guy just robbed a liquor store.
00:13:14.000 You should go beat him up.
00:13:15.000 Get him.
00:13:16.000 And it's not true.
00:13:17.000 That's not legal.
00:13:18.000 It's not the speech.
00:13:19.000 It's the call to action.
00:13:21.000 That's why you can be an accessory to murder.
00:13:25.000 Without stabbing somebody.
00:13:26.000 Cenk seems like a bright enough guy.
00:13:28.000 I don't know why he'd make this argument.
00:13:29.000 I don't know why he would act like he doesn't even have a basic understanding of freedom of speech here.
00:13:34.000 Being wildly disingenuous.
00:13:36.000 Oh, well, I guess that makes sense.
00:13:38.000 Let's focus on that for one more second, too.
00:13:41.000 Yes, it's well regulated.
00:13:43.000 But if a militia was there to protect their community for whatever purpose back in the day, depending on where you lived, the north or the south, and they needed the arms to protect the community, what would be the modern-day equivalent of that?
00:13:56.000 Now, today we don't have muskets anymore.
00:13:58.000 I'm not sure Washington and Jefferson meant AR-17s or AK-47s.
00:14:05.000 Things that fire 13 bullets in a second is what they would have considered reasonable arms.
00:14:11.000 He just said AR-17 in case there were any doubt left as to how little Shank knows about firearms.
00:14:17.000 He literally just said AR-17.
00:14:19.000 Or maybe he's a genius.
00:14:21.000 Maybe he's talking about the AR-17 shotgun that was made in 1964, and they only produced, I think, about 1,200 worth, and he just knows a ton.
00:14:29.000 He's like the hipster of guns.
00:14:30.000 Or maybe he's just really f***ing stupid and knows as much about firearms as he does the Second Amendment.
00:14:37.000 Again, make your own inferences.
00:14:38.000 Again, watch my previous video of You Have Time.
00:14:41.000 We went into this in a bit more depth.
00:14:43.000 A perfect counterargument here would be the Belton Flintlock, a high-capacity rifle.
00:14:47.000 About which the Founding Fathers not only knew, but they were fanboys as seen between the correspondence of Belton and Congress.
00:14:54.000 Belton described the gun as capable of firing up to 16 or 20 balls in 16, 10, or 5 seconds of time.
00:15:00.000 Matter of fact, Congress actually commissioned Belton to build or modify 100 muskets for the military on May 3rd, 1777.
00:15:05.000 The only reason the order was dismissed on May 15th...
00:15:09.000 Was because when Congress received Belton's bid, they considered it to be an extraordinary allowance.
00:15:13.000 Basically, the gun was really cool, but it was too expensive.
00:15:17.000 Did the Founding Fathers outlaw it?
00:15:18.000 No.
00:15:19.000 Did they expressly outline that the people couldn't have a right to it?
00:15:23.000 Nope.
00:15:24.000 Could they have?
00:15:24.000 Sure, but they never did.
00:15:25.000 They never did.
00:15:26.000 And unlike Shank, who just says, look it up, read the history, it's exactly right.
00:15:29.000 I will provide all of these sources at the original post of this video at louderwithcrowder.com for you to view at your reading.
00:15:35.000 As a matter of fact, every single point of his conjecture can be refuted with historical evidence, documents and legal precedent at the link below.
00:15:45.000 But what's the crux of his argument?
00:15:47.000 How does he close it out?
00:15:49.000 Oh, what protects our community today?
00:15:52.000 Police forces.
00:15:54.000 So if I just take out the ancient language and putting modern language, it reads like this.
00:15:59.000 A well-regulated police force being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
00:16:07.000 When you read it like that, does that sound like every single person gets to have a gun?
00:16:12.000 No, it sounds like, yeah, you get to have a gun if you're part of the police force that is protecting the security of a free state.
00:16:20.000 And you're well-regulated.
00:16:23.000 It's not that complicated.
00:16:24.000 Ah, and how's that working out for you, this awkward moment where you've argued for years that a systemically corrupt, racist American judicial institution now becomes the one to whom you demand we willingly give over our rights to autonomy, self-protection, and now, for some reason, our unwavering trust.
00:16:41.000 And guess what?
00:16:42.000 Police forces are nothing new.
00:16:43.000 They existed back then, too.
00:16:45.000 That's why the Second Amendment wasn't written for the police force or the militia.
00:16:50.000 It was the reason that, comma, the right of the people was expressly written to keep everything else in check.
00:16:57.000 The Founding Fathers asserted that.
00:16:59.000 The overwhelming amount of historical documentation proves that.
00:17:02.000 And the Supreme Court ruled that.
00:17:05.000 And no amount of unsubstantiated, unsourced YouTube videos will change that.
00:17:11.000 Hey, Angry Young Turk audience, be sure to hit the dislike button below.
00:17:15.000 But if for some reason you like a video with historical documentation and references, click one of these next to me.
00:17:21.000 They're also more entertaining because not only links, I provide jokes, and you might just be offended enough to be entertained.
00:17:28.000 I don't know.