Dope Tech Episode 2

<<@kimocoloma4123 says : That's been the law for very long time. It's just hasn't been enforce by this Administration. Background checks also been the law.>> <<@renardleblanc5556 says : This sounds like a *great* way to target&disarm blacks. *Especially* BLM protesters, as they're out there doing the good work. How come they never resort to originalism when it comes to things the DMCA? Or pot, for that matter? (which wasn't made into an issue in the Americas until 200-some years after the founding, even though it was well known at the time. You'd think they would have said something, if it were important).>> <<@Scoripo81 says : F U Right back TYT https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeRv4IHoP70>> <<@roctraining5295 says : 100M drug users in the US and firearms is the issue? What? Political bias commentary at its finest. The ruling is what it is.>> <<@Nancyhuddy says : Who cares about your second amendement. No one should be aloud to carry guns except for policemen. We have no guns in Canada and are crimes are also less than Americans.>> <<@jf4872 says : The problem is the gun control act was written in 1968. The justices made clear that the fore fathers would never have allowed such an act to even exist. The act on it's own is unconstitutional which is why Thomas wrote such in his dissent. He is also 100 percent correct. there is no historical analogue allowing such an act/law to exist. He also wrote that if a subject is deemed a 'credible threat' then he/she should be jailed. The fore fathers did not include a provision that one right/s could be limited if safety became a concern. The rights of a few do not out way the rights of the majority. Frances is also a screaming mad nut job. So disregard anything she has to say because if up to her you'd have no rights at all.>> <<@18661873 says : 06:10: Cenk, in his twisted logic, is referring to the NYSRPA v. Bruen case. He is ridiculing the constitutional methodology established in that case by using the tired old argument that modern weapons did not exist at the time of the adoption of the 2nd amendment. His logic is utterly moronic as modern methods of mass communication (television, radio, internet, etc.) did not exist when the 1st amendment was established. Yet, we use the same judicial methodology to protect free speech. As I said before, where did this guy go to law school? Hamburger University?>> <<@4idhero798 says : They are way too extreme if they rescinded a Trump-era ban on bump stock. Scotus is rotten down to Clarence Thomas' resting bitch face.>> <<@Sport8721 says : The founding fathers were not gods. They were actually prettied flawed humans. They owned other humans.>> <<@adam17843 says : Cenk just wants to abolish the 2nd amendment. Let’s be real.>> <<@LincolnHawk87 says : Oh wow a law that’s actually not going to stop someone from getting a gun>> <<@peterlustig8778 says : the country becomes more and more unconstitutional. A restraining order is not due process... This whiney women stuff i hate...>> <<@danielberg7644 says : But you continue to cry about how awful and unfair a conservative Supreme Court is. Conservatives always believed criminals should not own gun.>> <<@OurHomeboyGoose says : So how will this help? If the person doesn’t have any abuse charges, how will help? I’m speaking about how she said that a lot of these abusers aren’t reported.>> <<@patrickreichert1442 says : I think Joe Biden is the worst President of my lifetime (Back to Carter). Hunter’s conviction should be overturned due to the unconstitutional 5th Amendment violating question on the federal backround check form.>> <<@patrickreichert1442 says : Cenk can’t possibly hear himself when he talks. Clearly.>> <<@SMunro says : Knives are also arms...>> <<@SMunro says : "...trying to get a jun." ;-)>> <<@SMunro says : So criminals dont have the right to defend themselves with guns?>> <<@JJdaymetoo says : This is absolutely the best, most fair supreme court EVER! I wonder who's responsible for picking their latest judges.>> <<@guinsey says : SCOTUS drops everything at once so to overwhelm us with information and rulings. But this time the people are ready and not so accepting anymore.>> <<@makellyjt says : Scotus is just protecting those chrged with harassment and their victim's become traumatized.>> <<@VerenicruzX says : yeah same day they ruled we done have a right to get our foreign fiance into this country. I really hope I get mine here before the election.>> <<@dianasasaki3289 says : Every video is a masterpiece. Keep doing what you're doing!>> <<@18661873 says : 05:25: Cenk is wrong. This case is not an "anti-crime" case. If you have a restraining order issued against you, that does not make you a criminal. The issue the court was exploring was can the government take away your constitutional right just because you have a restraining order issued against you. In other words: There is no due process. The Supreme Court reasoned that yes, this can be done TEMPORARILY. And in Rahimi's case, he admitted that he had committed violent crimes that he was accused of. So no wonder the court's determination was nearly unanimous. I can't believe Cenk has a law degree. Where did he go to school? Hamburger University?>> <<@18661873 says : 03:56: Sorry Francesca, NYSRPA v Bruen established the judicial methodology by which gun laws may be determined to be constitutional or unconstitutional. There would be no disarray if the lower courts followed this methodology.>> <<@DarthServo says : When the Constitution was written, mankind's understanding of electricity was "that lightning stuff seems to be attracted to metal." Going by original constitution standards, the country can only have an army and a navy. Yet here we are with five and a half branches of the armed forces instead of just two. Cenks' favorite issue; the Constitution explicitly cites bribery as an impeachable offense, yet this alledged Constitutional purist Supreme court proudly declares giving money to politicians is just free speech. Don't even get started about how they're complete hypocrites on states' rights. The founders intended for us to learn and grow as a country. Constantly make improvements. They absolutely did not want us to remain locked into the understanding of the late 1700s. In fact, staying locked in the understanding of a nation's origins, being unwilling or incapable of learning and adapting is what leads to the fall of empires.>> <<@paulsamarin4341 says : The adults are talking.>> <<@PeterParker-tu9id says : Just for comparison in my country we can ride around with machine guns and ak-47's without notifying any authorities and yet the difference in gun crime violence is 6730.77% greater in America, i wonder why? Is it at all viable to Americans to comprehend that their own government creates the conditions that exist?>> <<@Ithecoolest1 says : Clarence was right. If you are married or have a bm, the courts will give her a restraining order based on her fear of you will likely result in harm. No crime has to be committed. All she has to do his be afraid, be a bm, a wife or ex wife. My ex wife had a restraining order on me for years. The reason was she left the state with the child, she was found in contempt, but the court issued a restraining order against me because they thought it was likely i would hurt her after what she did. Thats why clarence thomas did not agree>> <<@bernie4268 says : Does the Supreme Court have to decide everything now? Who the hell wanted that ruling changed? Who even considered it as a possibility?>> <<@madisonoberg4513 says : I literally cannot wait to read his obituary>> <<@williethomas9953 says : In the 1700s Clearance Thomas was not considered a human being but as property.>> <<@williethomas9953 says : Considering that over 90% of gun deaths are either suicides and/or family annihilators. So this is a good but shocking ruling>> <<@WolfeBennalley says : Francesca!! I love you!>> <<@libertyordeath555 says : What a pathetic NRA, GOP, billionaire puppet clown.>> <<@jgbcreations9368 says : And of course the people bitching and moaning about this are the ones you'd expect. From the "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!" loons, people whining about unrelated crimes, people bringing up misandry and divorce rates, to people bringing up anecdotal stories that only happened in their heads. I'm proud of the Supreme Court this time. More rulings this this that protect people!>> <<@davidmeadows5627 says : Donald Trump, as a convicted felon, cannot own a gun, but if he wins the presidency, he can own the nuclear launch codes, so I have faith in his ability to cope.>> <<@atsylor5549 says : 99% of men who have had their souls crushed and turned into a shallow husk of a man has been caused and perpetrated by a present or former female partners. It’s fine taking the guns away from Domestic abusers but what will we do about these heartless women.>> <<@rafram4132 says : C. Thomas arguing when the 2nd amendment was created there was no laws protecting any person from domestic gun violence. by Thomas's logic then by law you should only be allow to own a musket or any gun available at that time in 1868 2nd amendment adoption. No one expected or anticipated deadlier weapons than what we have today, those should not be available today to the general public.>> <<@CharlesBeasley72 says : .. And your freedom could be taken if you owed a debt.>> <<@OmarHassan-w1j says : Why can't government buy the guns of the street???>> <<@OmarHassan-w1j says : It's selfish to think that is the problem.>> <<@OmarHassan-w1j says : This is not going to happen cus everyone has gun's and they know about it.>> <<@AaronBrockMountainman says : It's ridiculous that someone can do a worse crime but then get a gun. And it's absolutely the way the media tries to frame the term domestic abuse. Domestic abuse definition just means you know the person you were mad at, you are dating or spouse, a family member, or your roommates, or anyone else thats ever lived in the same house as you. If you read all the activities that are all listed under domestic violence, then 99% of people in this country are guiltily of it. So when we become a totalitarian survalence state in a few years, it will be super easy to make everyone guiltily, because privacy will be non existent soon. As much as people don't like gun deaths, something needs to be changed about the way people are raising their children. What happened to innocent until proven guilty, or do the crime do the time? The reason so many criminals stay criminals is because the justice system is designed to make them have to back to crime. The rule herebis do the crime guiltily until proven innocent and, do the crime you can't ever finish your time, because there will be all sorts of things you can't do because of your record and it affecting you the rest of your life whether you commit another crime or not. A couple more examples of DV, you were yelling is DV, you called a few times because someone isn't answering there phone and your drive by where they said they are at to see if they are really there is DV, if you ever touched bumped pushed pinched grabbed or hit someone roughly, roughly is at the discretion of person it happened to is dv, if you ever tell someone they are nothing without you is DV, if you blame someone for how you feel is DV, if you prevent someone from doing what they want like hanging out with friends you don't like is DV, or if you cause serious bodily damage with or without a weapon is DV. But if that same thing happens with someone you aren't dating or related to or have never lived with, then it's not DV. So it literally just means you know the person. Which is very dumb because are you more likely to get in a argument with someone you know over a stranger, OF COOOOURSE! But whenever DV is used in media it always frames it as a man that always beats his wife or girlfriend that she's to scared to tell anyone to the point where it progressos and they lose their life. So maybe they need another category. But until then the media needs to stop framing it that way, it's false and misleading. Because mostbof the people charged with DV bumped or pushed someone or they were yelling. They were not beating their wives. And schools and parents should be teaching kids if you commit a crime you are always guiltily forever and there's no way to redeem yourself, no matter how much timr you do in jail, unless you have a very very very large bank account then you can do what you want as you can just pay someone off and the rich just get a slap on tbe wrist and stay a country clubs instead of prisons.>> <<@Yung-223 says : Yea this is debatable when you have a justice system that would charge a ham sandwich with domestic abuse giving half the chance to gain off of it. Im all for keeping guns outta dangrous peoples hands but if its based on a two tear conviction happy justice system that traps people into pleading out to charges because they cant afford legal counsel for themselves or they dint want to sit in county ror two years to go through trail to prove theh habe been unlawfully imprisoned when they have lives on the outside>> <<@KeystoneInvestigations says : By that stupid logic, drunk drivers should not own cars!>> <<@thisismetoday says : I think for legal stuff Glenn Kirschner or Michael Popok might be the better people to turn to to unpick what actually happened. No offence>> <<@thevegun7706 says : 3 people who openly don't like guns without anyone to fact check you. I love tyt but please if you can have that monster ben on to talk about Israel then you can have a pro gun person (Ana). Not principle for principle's sake, hunter wrote a book and put videos on the internet incriminating himself which no one else does. I disagree with Thomas massie on a lot of things but he is consistent. Seriously vary the opinions when it comes to guns as much as you do every other subject.>> <<@Flamboyant8 says : It's sad how badly Cenk and TYT misunderstand the majority decision, the dissent, and the Bruen standard. A lot of points that they made in this video are refuted by the *majority* decision that they are agreeing with. This ruling is also not shocking. Many of us were predicting this exact outcome after listening to oral arguments. It is clear that Cenk and company either did not actually read any of the decisions, or did not understand what they were reading.>>