Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

"Conventional hearing protection alone does not always offer adequate protection from noise exposure from firearms." "How on earth can suppressors not be protected by the 2nd Amendment? To assert otherwise would be to claim that while the right to keep and bear arms may exist, the right to do... show more

National Association for Gun Rights

132,813 subscribers

48,750 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Autos & Fahrzeuge Nachrichten & Politik

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

2 Kommentare

Profilbild von PEW Science, LLC

PEW Science, LLCvor 2 Monaten

You can use PEW Science research to support your arguments.

Profilbild von Theseus 😈

Theseus 😈vor 2 Monaten

Just make them dick shaped and sell them as dildos

Ähnliche Videos

Knox Williams, NRA board member and president of American Suppressor Association to Congress on why suppressors should fall under the Second Amendment: "While the right to bear arms may exist, the right to do so safely does not!" 🔥

Knox Williams, NRA board member and president of American Suppressor Association to Congress on why suppressors should fall under the Second Amendment: "While the right to bear arms may exist, the right to do so safely does not!" 🔥

NRA

20,506 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

.Rep. Jim Jordan goes off on the importance of protecting the 2nd Amendment: "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Plain and simple. It doesn't say the right to keep and bear muskets shall not be infringed."

.Rep. Jim Jordan goes off on the importance of protecting the 2nd Amendment: "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Plain and simple. It doesn't say the right to keep and bear muskets shall not be infringed."

YAF

277,046 Aufrufe • vor 3 Jahren

'Israel does not have the right to exist. No nation state does....People have the right not to be oppressed, for their children not to be bombed, to not be subject to a genocide' Intro Make It Plain podcast #FreePalestine. Full vid

'Israel does not have the right to exist. No nation state does....People have the right not to be oppressed, for their children not to be bombed, to not be subject to a genocide' Intro Make It Plain podcast #FreePalestine. Full vid

Kehinde Andrews

28,595 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Libertarian Party

100,727 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth

538,942 Aufrufe • vor 15 Tagen

“Under the law, silencers are protected by the Second Amendment of our Constitution, enacted in 1791. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, nor shall it be taxed.” - Rep. Andrew Clyde 🔥🔥🔥

“Under the law, silencers are protected by the Second Amendment of our Constitution, enacted in 1791. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, nor shall it be taxed.” - Rep. Andrew Clyde 🔥🔥🔥

Gun Owners of America

95,037 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Clarence Thomas explained the Second Amendment in one sentence. And every politician who talks about what gun rights they are willing to “let” you keep should hear it. The Second Amendment does not grant the right. It assumes the right already exists. That means the government does not give you the right to keep and bear arms. The amendment tells the government what it cannot do to a right you already had. Rights first. Government second. That is the order. And once you understand that, every gun law looks different. Because now the government is the one that has to explain itself. Not you. Then Thomas tells a story about Justice Breyer asking what he would do if a man with a machete walked up on his porch demanding money. Thomas’s answer? He would be cleaning his guns. That is why this clip hits different. He does not just rule on the Second Amendment. He understands it. He lives it. And he connects it to the history most gun control speeches leave out: The 14th Amendment. Freed slaves. The right to defend yourself from people trying to kill you. Because a citizen who cannot protect his own life does not stay a citizen for very long. Do you think most politicians understand the Second Amendment, or do they just talk around it? Shop the America Hat here:

Clarence Thomas explained the Second Amendment in one sentence. And every politician who talks about what gun rights they are willing to “let” you keep should hear it. The Second Amendment does not grant the right. It assumes the right already exists. That means the government does not give you the right to keep and bear arms. The amendment tells the government what it cannot do to a right you already had. Rights first. Government second. That is the order. And once you understand that, every gun law looks different. Because now the government is the one that has to explain itself. Not you. Then Thomas tells a story about Justice Breyer asking what he would do if a man with a machete walked up on his porch demanding money. Thomas’s answer? He would be cleaning his guns. That is why this clip hits different. He does not just rule on the Second Amendment. He understands it. He lives it. And he connects it to the history most gun control speeches leave out: The 14th Amendment. Freed slaves. The right to defend yourself from people trying to kill you. Because a citizen who cannot protect his own life does not stay a citizen for very long. Do you think most politicians understand the Second Amendment, or do they just talk around it? Shop the America Hat here:

Colion Noir

110,864 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

The Supreme Court is already decided this… SCOTUS and 1st Amendment Press • Houchins v. KQED (1978): The First Amendment does not require the government to give the press access to information or places under government control. It “is neither a Freedom of Information Act nor an Official Secrets Act.” The press’s core protection is the right to communicate information once obtained, not a right to collect it from the government. • Pell v. Procunier (1974) and related cases: The press has no constitutional right to information or locations not available to the public generally. • Zemel v. Rusk (1965): “Entry into the White House [is not] a First Amendment right. The right to speak and publish does not carry with it the unrestrained right to gather information.”

The Supreme Court is already decided this… SCOTUS and 1st Amendment Press • Houchins v. KQED (1978): The First Amendment does not require the government to give the press access to information or places under government control. It “is neither a Freedom of Information Act nor an Official Secrets Act.” The press’s core protection is the right to communicate information once obtained, not a right to collect it from the government. • Pell v. Procunier (1974) and related cases: The press has no constitutional right to information or locations not available to the public generally. • Zemel v. Rusk (1965): “Entry into the White House [is not] a First Amendment right. The right to speak and publish does not carry with it the unrestrained right to gather information.”

GRANDPA’s FREE ADVICE

46,295 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

The first amendment does not exist to protect polite speech that everyone agrees with. It exists to protect speech that people - or the government - find “offensive.” That’s the whole point. And that protection extends to Shiloh Hendrix.

The first amendment does not exist to protect polite speech that everyone agrees with. It exists to protect speech that people - or the government - find “offensive.” That’s the whole point. And that protection extends to Shiloh Hendrix.

Brittany Hughes

25,280 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Democrats are now pro-2A Chuck Schumer: “The president seems to have forgotten the words of the Second Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Democrats are now pro-2A Chuck Schumer: “The president seems to have forgotten the words of the Second Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

The Post Millennial

227,969 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Not taxed. Not regulated. Not registered. We are one step closer to ending the NFA.

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Not taxed. Not regulated. Not registered. We are one step closer to ending the NFA.

Gun Owners of America

101,089 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

No, it absolutely does NOT have the right to exist !

No, it absolutely does NOT have the right to exist !

Rania

69,623 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

As a firearms educator and a 2A absolutist, I believe the 2nd Amendment is both a human right and a civil right. The 2nd Amendment does not grant permission—it affirms a pre-existing, natural right of all people to keep and bear arms. The U.S. Supreme Court made this clear in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and reaffirmed in McDonald v. Chicago (2010): the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, fundamental to our system of ordered liberty, and incorporated against the states. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), the Court further held that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to carry firearms in public for lawful purposes, especially self-defense. But lawful purpose is the key distinction. I teach my students a foundational principle: the mind is the weapon; the gun is the tool. Firearms are carried to defend and protect life, not to impose our will on others—but to ensure that others cannot force their will upon us. We are peaceful, not harmless. We are at a dangerous point in our society where radical leftists are openly taking up arms and encouraging others to do the same, not for self-defense, but to seek out violence against their fellow countrymen. That conduct is not protected by the 2nd Amendment, because the Constitution does not protect violent intent, criminal conspiracy, or political terror. The Supreme Court has been clear across constitutional law that rights do not extend to violent misuse. The 2nd Amendment protects keeping and bearing arms for lawful purposes—it does not protect threats, incitement, or plans to harm others. Just as the First Amendment does not protect true threats or incitement to violence, the Second Amendment does not shield those who seek to abuse it. As a firearms instructor, I am not the government. I am not issuing permits; I am certifying training and competency. Instructors have long-recognized professional discretion and duty of care—especially when credible threats or statements of violent intent are expressed. Is refusing to certify someone who demonstrates dangerous intent gun control, disarmament, and a constitutional violation? Or, is it a private professional judgment, grounded in safety, ethics, and responsibility? When credible threats of violence are made, is alerting law enforcement a betrayal of liberty? The Supreme Court has never held that the 2nd Amendment creates a right to anonymity in violent plotting or shields criminal intent from lawful investigation. So here’s the question I’m wrestling with—and I want your thoughts: As a firearms instructor, should I be able—or obligated—to deny concealed carry certification to individuals who express violent or extremist intent? Should instructors alert law enforcement when credible threats are made? Am I violating my principles by refusing to arm those who seek chaos—or am I upholding the true purpose of the 2nd Amendment? Let me know in the comments.

As a firearms educator and a 2A absolutist, I believe the 2nd Amendment is both a human right and a civil right. The 2nd Amendment does not grant permission—it affirms a pre-existing, natural right of all people to keep and bear arms. The U.S. Supreme Court made this clear in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and reaffirmed in McDonald v. Chicago (2010): the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, fundamental to our system of ordered liberty, and incorporated against the states. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), the Court further held that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to carry firearms in public for lawful purposes, especially self-defense. But lawful purpose is the key distinction. I teach my students a foundational principle: the mind is the weapon; the gun is the tool. Firearms are carried to defend and protect life, not to impose our will on others—but to ensure that others cannot force their will upon us. We are peaceful, not harmless. We are at a dangerous point in our society where radical leftists are openly taking up arms and encouraging others to do the same, not for self-defense, but to seek out violence against their fellow countrymen. That conduct is not protected by the 2nd Amendment, because the Constitution does not protect violent intent, criminal conspiracy, or political terror. The Supreme Court has been clear across constitutional law that rights do not extend to violent misuse. The 2nd Amendment protects keeping and bearing arms for lawful purposes—it does not protect threats, incitement, or plans to harm others. Just as the First Amendment does not protect true threats or incitement to violence, the Second Amendment does not shield those who seek to abuse it. As a firearms instructor, I am not the government. I am not issuing permits; I am certifying training and competency. Instructors have long-recognized professional discretion and duty of care—especially when credible threats or statements of violent intent are expressed. Is refusing to certify someone who demonstrates dangerous intent gun control, disarmament, and a constitutional violation? Or, is it a private professional judgment, grounded in safety, ethics, and responsibility? When credible threats of violence are made, is alerting law enforcement a betrayal of liberty? The Supreme Court has never held that the 2nd Amendment creates a right to anonymity in violent plotting or shields criminal intent from lawful investigation. So here’s the question I’m wrestling with—and I want your thoughts: As a firearms instructor, should I be able—or obligated—to deny concealed carry certification to individuals who express violent or extremist intent? Should instructors alert law enforcement when credible threats are made? Am I violating my principles by refusing to arm those who seek chaos—or am I upholding the true purpose of the 2nd Amendment? Let me know in the comments.

Alicia Garcia

34,069 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

"Twenty-nine states recognize the right to keep AND BEAR arms should not require permission from your government to bear those arms." Thomas Massie and Mike Lee's bill would extend that to all 50 states. 🔥

"Twenty-nine states recognize the right to keep AND BEAR arms should not require permission from your government to bear those arms." Thomas Massie and Mike Lee's bill would extend that to all 50 states. 🔥

National Association for Gun Rights

16,097 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Justice Thomas: “Why do we keep saying there is a Second Amendment right?” “[The Constitution] assumes the right, it doesn’t grant a right.” “The right to bear arms shall not be infringed.” This is what Constitution Day is all about. 🇺🇸

Justice Thomas: “Why do we keep saying there is a Second Amendment right?” “[The Constitution] assumes the right, it doesn’t grant a right.” “The right to bear arms shall not be infringed.” This is what Constitution Day is all about. 🇺🇸

Gun Owners of America

112,964 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

E.D. Hill: “The First Amendment guarantees your right to assemble and your right to speak. It does not guarantee your right to physically obstruct a law enforcement officer. It does not guarantee your right to destroy government property.”

E.D. Hill: “The First Amendment guarantees your right to assemble and your right to speak. It does not guarantee your right to physically obstruct a law enforcement officer. It does not guarantee your right to destroy government property.”

NEWSMAX

59,429 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

Clarence Thomas dismantled the gun-control lobby’s entire premise: “The Second Amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. It assumes a right. It doesn’t grant a right.” "You have the rights, and the government receives its authority from you." Government never gave us this right. The Constitution commands government not to infringe it. Read the full report:

Clarence Thomas dismantled the gun-control lobby’s entire premise: “The Second Amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. It assumes a right. It doesn’t grant a right.” "You have the rights, and the government receives its authority from you." Government never gave us this right. The Constitution commands government not to infringe it. Read the full report:

AmmoLand News

51,611 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

"No matter where you were born, the First Amendment right gives you the ability again to protest peacefully, but it does not give you the right to be violent, to create chaos, or to vandalize property. And that will not be tolerated." - Mayor Karen Bass Karen Bass

"No matter where you were born, the First Amendment right gives you the ability again to protest peacefully, but it does not give you the right to be violent, to create chaos, or to vandalize property. And that will not be tolerated." - Mayor Karen Bass Karen Bass

Fox News

90,942 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

I'm so happy to see the Democrat Party has become 2nd Amendment protectors! Of course what it took was a Leftists fighting ICE to cause this. The 2nd Amendment gives us the right to bear arms, not the right to attack law enforcement. Try again, Democrats.

I'm so happy to see the Democrat Party has become 2nd Amendment protectors! Of course what it took was a Leftists fighting ICE to cause this. The 2nd Amendment gives us the right to bear arms, not the right to attack law enforcement. Try again, Democrats.

Brilyn Hollyhand

20,832 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

WATCH: Alberta Premier Danielle Smith announces the Alberta Bill of Rights will be amended to include the right to make decisions regarding vaccinations and all medical procedures, the right to not be deprived of property, and the right of individuals to “acquire, keep, and safely use firearms.”

WATCH: Alberta Premier Danielle Smith announces the Alberta Bill of Rights will be amended to include the right to make decisions regarding vaccinations and all medical procedures, the right to not be deprived of property, and the right of individuals to “acquire, keep, and safely use firearms.”

The Canadian Independent

43,031 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren