正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

"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

130,594 subscribers

45,122 次观看 • 16 天前 •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

2 条评论

PEW Science, LLC 的头像

PEW Science, LLC16 天前

You can use PEW Science research to support your arguments.

Theseus 😈 的头像

Theseus 😈16 天前

Just make them dick shaped and sell them as dildos

相关视频

.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 次观看 • 3 年前

“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 次观看 • 1 年前

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

107,007 次观看 • 5 天前

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

25,078 次观看 • 1 个月前

“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 次观看 • 4 个月前

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

227,928 次观看 • 7 个月前

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

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

Rania

69,623 次观看 • 1 年前

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

33,744 次观看 • 8 个月前

"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 次观看 • 5 个月前

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 次观看 • 7 个月前

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

106,594 次观看 • 1 天前

"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 次观看 • 1 年前

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

50,227 次观看 • 1 天前

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

20,815 次观看 • 7 个月前

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 次观看 • 2 年前

The First Amendment protects hateful speech. But that protection does not mean that others are absolved of the moral obligation to confront it with the truth.

The First Amendment protects hateful speech. But that protection does not mean that others are absolved of the moral obligation to confront it with the truth.

Ted Cruz

65,739 次观看 • 10 个月前

In England we do not have the right to keep and bear arms. We have an obligation to do so!

In England we do not have the right to keep and bear arms. We have an obligation to do so!

Fr Calvin Robinson ©️®️

22,168 次观看 • 1 个月前

VP HARRIS: "In America, freedom is not to be given. It is not to be bestowed. It is ours by right — by right — and that includes the freedom to make decisions about one's own body, not the government telling you what to do!"

VP HARRIS: "In America, freedom is not to be given. It is not to be bestowed. It is ours by right — by right — and that includes the freedom to make decisions about one's own body, not the government telling you what to do!"

Breaking911

220,947 次观看 • 2 年前