Colion Noir
@MrColionNoir • 590,897 subscribers
2A Advocate | Attorney | 🎥 YouTube 2.9M | Guns ARE Common Sense Click Here ⬇️⬇️⬇️
Shorts
Videos
I carry appendix almost every day. But let’s be honest: Appendix carry is tolerable. Not safe. You’re carrying a loaded gun pointed at your femoral artery and everything else you really don’t want to lose. A man with 15 years of firearms experience had an accidental discharge while drawing from appendix. Beep to bang was less than half a second. The round went through his holster and through his body. A few degrees different, and he might not be here to tell the story. That’s why I don’t draw at 100% on the range. That’s why I hyperextend my trigger finger. That’s why I look the gun back into the holster every single time. And that’s why reholstering fast is stupid. Nobody wins a gunfight by holstering fast. So I want to know: Do you carry appendix, or is that risk not worth it to you? Drop your answer below.
Colion Noir527,474 views • 12 days ago
Why You Don’t Shoot For The Head In Self-Defense: There’s a clip going around of a guy at the range drawing from concealment and putting fast rounds on target. Then a cop standing behind him says, “Yeah… but mine were all headshots.” And that comment exposes one of the biggest misunderstandings people have about self-defense shooting. Headshots are not the flex people think they are. Anybody can hit a head if you give them enough time. But self-defense is not about taking your time and stacking perfect holes on a paper target. It’s about stopping a threat as fast as humanly possible. So I put it on a timer. Headshots vs. center mass. At close distance, the headshots were slower and messier. At ten yards, pushing for the head caused rounds to come completely off target. And in real life, a miss is not just a miss. It’s a wall. A car. A house. Or an innocent person who had nothing to do with the fight. That’s why responsible self-defense training focuses on acceptable accuracy, combat accuracy, and putting fast, effective hits into the area most likely to stop the threat. The goal is not to kill. The goal is to stop the threat and go home. Full Video:
Colion Noir2,694,157 views • 2 months ago
A man in Utah got denied alcohol because he didn’t have ID. Two bystanders tried to de-escalate. He left the store. He got in his car. The whole thing could’ve been over. Then he drove around the parking lot, grabbed a shotgun, and walked back inside. That’s not heat of the moment. That’s a decision. And once you walk into a store full of people with a shotgun, nobody owes you the benefit of the doubt. People are already saying: “But he didn’t fire it.” So what? Are citizens supposed to wait for the first shot before they believe the threat? Because the first shot is usually somebody’s body getting opened up. Two armed bystanders stopped it. So let’s be honest: Did they do the right thing, or should they have waited? Drop your answer below.
Colion Noir142,969 views • 11 days ago
I asked Jack Carr how Hollywood actually fakes shootouts. His answer was way crazier than I expected. In The Terminal List, he has a shootout with Chris Pratt. And when I say shootout, I mean Chris Pratt kills him on screen. So I asked him: How did they do the bullet holes? The glass? The blood? The car getting shot up? Turns out, they had little charges hidden under the dash, ball bearings, and a guy off to the side triggering everything with an iPad. The bullet holes looked like they were coming from outside the car. But they were actually happening from inside. That’s the wild part about movie magic. Everything looks one way on screen while something completely different is happening underneath. Jack also broke down the stunt work, why they wouldn’t let him do his own car crash, and what’s coming next for The Terminal List. Do you like knowing how Hollywood pulls this stuff off, or does it ruin the scene for you? Drop your answer below.
Colion Noir67,589 views • 6 days ago
For years, gun owners pointed people to the CDC’s own website when talking about defensive gun use. Then the number disappeared. Now it’s back. The CDC’s firearm injury page once again lists a defensive gun use range of 60,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year. Same range. No changes. And the reason it ever came down is the part that tells you everything. Emails showed gun control activists pressured the CDC over the 2.5 million figure, with one email saying that number needed to be “killed, buried, dug up, killed again and buried again.” Not disproven. Not beaten with better research. Deleted. And here’s the part they hate: I don’t even need the high number. Even the low-end estimate still changes the whole argument. The page is live again. The range is back. Screenshot it, save it, and send it the next time somebody says defensive gun use is made up.
Colion Noir54,498 views • 6 days ago
He Got Pulled Over With Multiple Guns In The Car… Watch What Happens A young guy gets pulled over with three guns in the car. A rifle in the passenger seat. A handgun on him. A second handgun down by his legs. And the traffic stop still goes exactly how it should. The officer sees the rifle, stays calm, gives clear instructions, and tells him what he’s about to do before he does it. The driver announces what he’s reaching for, tells the officer he’s a concealed carrier, and answers clearly when asked where the other gun is. Two strangers. Three guns. No escalation. That is not luck. That is what happens when both sides understand the stakes and decide this does not have to become the other kind of video. In this video, I break down what this stop shows about armed citizens, police, disclosure, mutual respect, Philando Castile, and how I personally handle traffic stops when I’m carrying. Know your rights. Defend your rights. But be smart enough not to turn a disagreement into a war.
Colion Noir45,348 views • 8 days ago
I used to believe that if you were a felon, you should never get a gun again. No exceptions. Then somebody asked me a question I couldn’t answer: If a person has paid their debt, served their time, returned to society, and proven they are not violent or dangerous, why shouldn’t they be able to defend themselves? Now the DOJ has finalized a rule creating a pathway for some people to restore their federal gun rights. This is not a rubber stamp. Applicants still have to prove they are not likely to be dangerous and that restoring their rights would not be contrary to the public interest. But the bigger question matters: If you’re free enough to walk around in society, are you free enough to protect yourself in it? For nonviolent felons who served their time and rebuilt their lives, I’m at the point where the answer is yes. Violent felonies are more complicated. Sex predators and people who prey on children? That’s where my own logic breaks, and I’m not going to pretend otherwise. But this is the conversation gun owners need to have honestly. Because a right you have to petition for is still a right somebody else is holding.
Colion Noir44,800 views • 8 days ago
I thought the Benelli M2-G1 was just a new version of the M2. I was wrong. The M2 is still the M2 — still inertia-driven, still selling, still doing what it has always done. The M2-G1 is something else entirely. It’s gas operated, rear piston operated, with dual pistons collecting gas near the chamber and the recoil spring protected behind the receiver. In other words, Benelli built a new lane and parked it right between the M2 and the M4. And that’s where my problem starts. The M4 is still the M4. It has ARGO, auto-regulation, self-cleaning pistons, decades of reputation, and a war record behind it. But after shooting the M2-G1, I keep waiting for the moment where it reminds me I picked the cheaper gun. I haven’t found it yet. For duty use and extreme round counts, the M4 still wins. But for home defense, a truck gun, a range gun, or the shotgun that needs to work at three in the morning? Benelli may have made the M2-G1 a little too good.
Colion Noir68,081 views • 14 days ago
Gun control support just hit its lowest point in years. And the timing could not be worse for anti-gun politicians. New Rasmussen numbers show support for stricter gun control fell to 48 percent among likely voters. 43 percent now oppose it outright. Think about that. Years of media pressure. Years of red flag laws. Years of magazine restrictions. Years of politicians demanding assault weapons bans. And support went down. Not up. But here’s where the trick comes in. The poll also asked if people would support a candidate who promised to ban semi-automatic “assault-type” weapons. 46 percent said yes. Sounds scary. Until you look at the wording. “Assault weapon” is not a real firearms category. It’s a political marketing term. People hear it and picture machine guns. But the question is really about semi-automatic firearms. One trigger pull. One round. The same way most rifles, shotguns, and handguns already work. That’s the game. Scary term. Ordinary gun. Do you think most voters actually understand what “semi-automatic” means? Drop your answer below.
Colion Noir19,176 views • 4 days ago
Last week, a federal judge put a seven-day hold on the NFA ruling so the Justice Department could run to the Fifth Circuit and stop it before it took effect. That clock ran out. DOJ did not stop it. So now we have a legally bizarre situation: two people can walk into the same gun store, reach for the same suppressor, and one may be covered by the ruling while the other may still be committing a federal felony. The judge did not turn off the NFA for all of America. The relief applies to the plaintiffs, their members, their customers, and the covered entities in the case. Living in one of the plaintiff states does not automatically cover you personally. That means dealers are stuck in the middle, customers are confused, and everyone is waiting to see whether DOJ appeals within the larger window it still has left. So yes, this is a real win. But no, don’t get stupid. If your suppressor or SBR is sitting in eForms, talk to your dealer, figure out whether you are actually covered, and do not take legal advice from a comment section. The tax went to zero, and the government still wanted the paperwork. That tells you what the paperwork was really for.
Colion Noir47,339 views • 12 days ago
“Just give them your stuff and you’ll be fine.” That’s the lie people repeat until a case like this exposes it. A man in London was targeted over what the robbers believed was a £300,000 watch. The watch was fake. He was outnumbered. He had every incentive to hand it over and survive. They stabbed him anyway. That is the problem with the compliance argument. It only counts the people who handed over their property and lived to tell the story. It ignores the people who complied and still got hurt, because they are not around to explain what went wrong. This man was not in a negotiation. He was marked before he ever left the restaurant. A security guard allegedly filmed him, sent the information out, and four men followed him to his car. So where was the compliance supposed to happen? Gun control did not stop the violence. Disarming normal people did not remove evil from the street. It just left the victim with fewer options when evil showed up. If you choose to comply in that moment, that is your call. But do not legislate the rest of us into your victim mentality.
Colion Noir47,249 views • 14 days ago
A delivery driver in Miami Gardens was allegedly dropping off banana pudding. Two men allegedly tried to rob him. One reportedly got into the back seat of his car and put a gun to his head. They weren’t just after the food. They weren’t even just after the cash in his pocket. They allegedly wanted into his Cash App. Every dollar he worked for that week. And I already know somebody is going to say: “They were just trying to take money.” Miss me with that. I am not handing my life to a man willing to put a gun to my head and letting him decide whether I go home based on how satisfied he is with what’s in my wallet. Delivery drivers, rideshare drivers, everybody working out of a car: Carry. I don’t care what the app policy says. That company is not riding with you into a random address you’ve never seen before. Would you carry if you delivered food or drove rideshare? Drop your answer below.
Colion Noir40,688 views • 13 days ago
She read the Second Amendment like a normal person. “Shall not be infringed.” Then she looked at America and asked: What happened? Because everywhere you turn, it’s restriction after restriction. Permit. Waiting period. Background check. Registration. Ban! And every time gun owners point that out, somebody says: “Well, the First Amendment says Congress shall make no law, but speech still has limits.” Fine. Speech has limits. But nobody makes you get a license before you open your mouth. There’s no waiting period before you can have an opinion. There’s no background check between you and a printing press. Speech law usually punishes abuse after the fact. Gun law blocks access before you ever touch the gun. That’s the difference. And after thousands of gun laws, they still say it’s not enough. So let’s be honest: Does “shall not be infringed” mean anything anymore, or did they turn it into a suggestion? Drop your answer below.
Colion Noir46,000 views • 15 days ago
“Why do you need an AR-15?” Ask the police. Because they have them. They have the rifles. They have the 30-round magazines. They have the gear politicians keep saying is too dangerous for you. And nobody asks them why they need it. Why? Because the answer is obvious: They carry it to confront violent people. But here’s the part everyone skips… Who meets that violent person first? You do. The cop shows up after the threat starts. You’re the one already there. No badge. No backup. No radio. No team. And the Supreme Court has already said police do not have a constitutional duty to protect you as an individual. So if the state keeps these tools for the people who arrive second… Why does it want to take them from the person who has to survive first? That’s the question. Drop your answer below — and send this to the person who still asks, “Why do you need that?”
Colion Noir147,673 views • 2 months ago
Canada has almost every gun law American anti-gunners keep begging for. Magazine limits. Registration. Strict licensing. Regular citizens basically can’t carry. And when a gunman opened fire in Montreal, what was the government’s plan for everybody else? Lock your doors. Stay inside. Hide and hope. That’s it. The criminal still had a gun. The cops still had guns. The law-abiding people got a text alert telling them to wait and pray the door held. That’s the part nobody wants to admit. Gun control doesn’t make evil disappear. It just decides who’s allowed to fight back when evil shows up. So be honest: If a gunman is outside your home, your grocery store, or your kid’s park… Do you want a text alert? Or do you want the ability to defend yourself? Drop your answer below — and send this to the friend who still thinks Canada is the model America should copy. Extended Father's Day Sale: Code 2ADAD
Colion Noir139,393 views • 2 months ago
Caught on Camera: Trackhawk Thieves Roll Up, AR Pistol Rolls Them Out They came to steal a Trackhawk — one of the most targeted Mopars in America. They thought it’d be another easy hit. Then the homeowner stepped outside with an AR pistol… and everything changed instantly. No shots fired. No fight. No hero fantasy. Just a law-abiding homeowner using the presence of force to stop a crime in seconds. This is one of the most common forms of defensive gun use in America — and the one anti-gunners refuse to acknowledge. When criminals hunt from a position of strength, good people must defend from a position of strength. 🔥 BLACK FRIDAY Extended — FAFO COLLECTION IS LIVE FAFO isn’t about looking dangerous — it’s about not being chosen as a victim. The entire FAFO drop + AKT1 Blackout in-ear Bluetooth ear pro is 20% OFF with code FAFO. 👉
Colion Noir489,320 views • 9 months ago
A man emptied most of a magazine into the dirt trying to scare a moose off his property. The moose did not care. That is why warning shots are not a plan. A gunshot only means something if the thing hearing it understands what it means. To a moose, a gunshot might be a car door, a firework, or just a loud sound with nothing attached to it. The best result you might buy is confusion. But confused and leaving are two very different things. And if warning shots do not move a moose with no clear agenda, why would they move a cougar sizing you up, a bear with cubs, or a bull in the rut? Meanwhile, every warning shot is one less round in your gun when the animal decides to close distance. That is why I keep coming back to volume of fire. When something the size of a refrigerator with legs decides today is the day, I would rather have more rounds going fast than one confident round going slow. So tell me: Warning shots on animals — total waste of ammo, or is there a version where they actually work?
Colion Noir27,671 views • 13 days ago
A woman said the whole point of government is to trust the government to protect you. Then she said her safety plan is an app on her phone that can alert police when she feels threatened. That sounds comforting until you follow the plan past the button. She presses it. The signal goes out. A dispatcher has to receive it, triage it, route it, and send whatever unit is available from wherever that unit happens to be. Every step takes time. A violent encounter can be over in seconds. That is the gap the Second Amendment exists for. She does not object to the gun. She wants the gun to show up. She just wants it carried by a man with a badge after the fact. But police do not have a constitutional duty to protect you as an individual, and no app turns a notification into a force field. You can call 911 and carry a firearm. Both can be true. The firearm is what carries you through the minutes before help arrives.
Colion Noir26,435 views • 13 days ago
A judge told him to stay away. He came anyway. That’s the part people don’t want to deal with. A court order does not stand in your driveway. It does not lock the door. It does not put a hand on somebody’s chest and say, “not today.” It takes a person who has already shown that boundaries are optional, hands him a document explaining that this boundary is very important, and then it hopes. In Fort Worth, police say one man was not supposed to be on the property because of a court order. He showed up anyway. Then gunfire erupted. I’m not pretending I know who drew first or who was legally right in every second of that fight. But I do know this: Paperwork did not stop him. So stop letting people convince you that a court order is a self-defense plan. It may help legally. It may create a record. It may matter after the fact. But when the person shows up anyway, the only thing standing there is you and whatever you built your safety around. Would you trust the paper, or would you want options? Drop your answer below.
Colion Noir19,587 views • 13 days ago