This is a very unusual argument, I have never heard that gun ownership is in anyway directly related towards adhering to American sovereignty, this is basically a sophisticated reinvention to the old argument of individuals being 'Un-American' if they want to restrict gun laws, or guns themselves. The main pro-gun argument has always been A) to stop tyrannical governmental power or B) self-protection, never "It is just cultural, therefore you must respect our ways". which the Chinese do not even adhere to.

Furthermore, China had a decade-long ban on fireworks which was lifted in many major Chinese cities in 2005 and 2006 & is currently being considered for re-installment this year due to this practice adding to China's extreme air pollution which has far reaching consequences on the entirety of the population (remember China & other Eastern cultures are collectivist and hold the benefit of the many in high regard). So even though fireworks usage IS indeed cultural for the Chinese, it is still open to higher regulatory oversight or even outright bans if needed, which is not the case when compared to the U.S. due to the cultural significance & power garnered towards the infallibility of the Constitution regardless of its numerous amendments.

Well, sure... everyone is trying to decide whether upholding the second amendment is worth the amount of gun violence we accept. For inputs to that risk-benefit analysis though, we are necessarily looking outside our borders... seeing how the balance works in other countries.

I'm not sure what he's trying to say here. Of course the guns issue is partly a cultural one... but there are a whole lot of statistics and pragmatics to look at too...

The flaw in this argument is that he is arguing from a non-existent present.

He argues that we can't curtail the second amendment until we reach cultural consensus, but depending on your interpretation, we either already have curtailed it, or never have.

There are basically two reasonable interpretations of the 2nd, either
A) it guarantees the rights as they were at the time: white landowning men can have muzzle-loaded un-rifled scatter guns.
or B) it guarantees weapon parity with foreign and domestic militaries: civilian nuke-ICBMs etc

Functionally nobody has a problem with A, and nobody endorses B. We are already on the continuum, it's pretty late to demand that we never get there. We are not having a debate of quality, only one of quantity.

Moving this video to chingalera's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.