Gun Control: US and Global II

[Fishbone Jones]

I did not mean actually breaking the 2nd, but that'll be interpretation of owners. In their eyes the government would be wrong. It doesnt matter. You're bothing missing the point. It is not the legal interpretation that's in question. The 2nd will be argued back and forth. It will make no difference. Forget it. It's not part of the equation.

If they come for the guns legalities won't matter. People will not give up their freedom, 2nd amendment or not. And millions will see gun confiscation as the first step to the loss of that. 'Don't Tread on Me' isn't a cheap slogan down there. For millions in the US, it has deep meaning

Like I say, even if by some miracle of epic proportions, they do get them all, it would only be a very temporary situation. I would hazard a guess and say they would be built even while being confiscated.

And we're not talking a few crackpots like Bundy. The delta isnt as far apart as you think. An AK-47 is arguably one of the best assault rifles ever made. Read what I wrote above about making those. Heck, in a pinch an expediant smg can be made out of 2 feet of square or round tubing and basic hand tools in a few hours. Lots of stuff can be done with 3d printers and table top CNC mills which are everywhere. The programs are already out there with the knowledge and lots and lots that know how to use it. You can't confiscate everything.

 

[FJAG]

I did not mean actually breaking the 2nd, but that'll be interpretation of owners. In their eyes the government would be wrong. It doesnt matter. You're bothing missing the point. It is not the legal interpretation that's in question. The 2nd will be argued back and forth. It will make no difference. Forget it. It's not part of the equation.

Actually FJ we're not missing the point at all. We get the point exactly and you are hitting the nail on the head. That's why I thought I'd throw out this topic to see what the wider aspect of these phenomena are. Is the US reaching a point where people will only obey those laws that they want to, and even more critical, will police forces enforce only those laws that they want to or think that their constituents want them to enforce?

Both of these issues (immigration and Second Amendment) are ones that are based largely (but not exclusively) on an urban/rural split. Considering that 2/3 of the US population favors some forms of gun control or stricter gun laws, its probable that the urban population of Atlanta favors it the same as their brothers in New York City while their respective state's rural communities are less disposed that way. That brings about an interesting problem for probably most states in how to balance the expectations of their respective urban/rural populations/voters.

I don't ever see any US state government wanting to "confiscate" all their citizens' firearms (that's just an NRA fairy tale scenario) so I doubt that there will ever be that mass uprising. There will, however, be continuing conflicts over such things as background checks, felon possession, open carries, protective orders, Sovereign Citizens etc., where case by case enforcement will be necessary. It's these more limited cases which will test the system.

:cheers:

 

[daftandbarmy]

I don't ever see any US state government wanting to "confiscate" all their citizens' firearms

Because every homesteader might need to mobilize at a 'Minute's Notice' to defend themselves against the rapacious legions of George III, right?

It's comforting to know that Northern Ireland isn't the only part of the English speaking world that is lost in the 80s.... the 1780s....

 

[brihard]

The delta between "civilian" and "military" armament has spread somewhat since their last nasty internal debate, and the facilities and expertise for producing purely military armament have grown more complex, and, I think, fewer. The only reason the militia movement, Bundy, and similar belligerent, well-armed (for civvies) individuals are still alive is that the US federal government has treated them as a kid-gloves law-enforcement problem, rather than as e.g. an armed insurgency.

I'm not sure "civil war" is a reasonable description for what would happen if the gloves ever properly came off.

You’re wrong, and FJ is right.

Pushback against widespread gun confiscation would not be on the order of the sorts of armed insurgencies we see overseas where real belligerents number in maybe the tens of thousands. Hundreds of thousands, probably millions of Americans would actively resist efforts to confiscate firearms, and there would not be a clear division where the police and military play ball and the citizenry do not. Many police and military would have nothing to do with participating in gun confiscations and would be part of actively resisting.

Sending police or soldiers in to confiscate firearms on a wide scale would be committing many, many of them to their deaths. Every single home could potentially develop into an armed standoff. Normally police have the benefit in such cases of containment and minimal external threats, but you can bet that if widespread gun confiscation were attempted, guys on perimeter would sometimes find themselves attacked from outside the perimeter.

Some resistance would be organized; much more would be spontaneous and impromptu, and there are enough heavily armed and bat-crap crazy anti government types that the death toll would be huge. A lot of them are good shots. How many Waco standoffs - or for that matter Dallas shootings - are you ready for every single day? How willing are you to have the already strained relationship between police and the public totally shattered, and for no police to be available to do regular duties?

Widespread gun confiscation in the US is a total non-starter. The genie is way too out of the bottle.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Is the US reaching a point where people will only obey those laws that they want to, and even more critical, will police forces enforce only those laws that they want to or think that their constituents want them to enforce?

Both problems already exist, there and here, just not highlighted by issues as incendiary as illegal immigration and firearm control.  People disobey (ignore) unjust laws (their perception), particularly laws that infringe on such fundamental rights as life/security, freedom of expression, property, and in general "pursuit of happiness".  Police are intelligent and discreet enough to avoid enforcing laws in places where it is unreasonable or impractical to do so.

These two sides of the coin have a long history; what is new is the publicity each incident receives, which stokes the fires of indignation among whoever objects (whether to a law, or the law's enforcement).

 

[Kirkhill]

>Is the US reaching a point where people will only obey those laws that they want to, and even more critical, will police forces enforce only those laws that they want to or think that their constituents want them to enforce?

....  Police are intelligent and discreet enough to avoid enforcing laws in places where it is unreasonable or impractical to do so.

...

Caledonia?

Funny that.  Caledonia is an alternate name for Scotland. And much of the US antipathy to standing armies and confiscation of weapons finds, in my opinion, its origins among Anglo-Scots Borderers, Huguenots and Palatines that were disarmed by their governments, violently suppressed by standing armies, often dragoons, used as police, and evicted from their lands. 

The exiles found themselves forced into foreign military service or into plantations amid hostile populations for the benefit of the governments that suppressed them.

It is suggested that people find themselves stuck in the past.  I suggest consideration of this from Colin P on his Facebook page.

My comment to him still stands.

"And we're still here."

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Caledonia?
Funny that.  Caledonia is an alternate name for Scotland.

That Caledonia. I thought you may have been talking about the one in Ontario. People forcefully thrown off their legally acquired and paid for land for government expediency and to suppress rebellion.

 

[Kirkhill]

I was.

It reminded me of the other Caledonia and its role in creating a 2nd Amendment culture.

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=Brihard]


Sending police or soldiers in to confiscate firearms on a wide scale would be committing many, many of them to their deaths. Every single home could potentially develop into an armed standoff. Normally police have the benefit in such cases of containment and minimal external threats, but you can bet that if widespread gun confiscation were attempted, guys on perimeter would sometimes find themselves attacked from outside the perimeter.

Some resistance would be organized; much more would be spontaneous and impromptu, and there are enough heavily armed and bat-crap crazy anti government types that the death toll would be huge. A lot of them are good shots. How many Waco standoffs - or for that matter Dallas shootings - are you ready for every single day? How willing are you to have the already strained relationship between police and the public totally shattered, and for no police to be available to do regular duties?

[/quote]

Great post.

I think it's important when looking at this issue to keep ego out of the equation.  One side thinks the police and military would roll up on American citizens and kick everyone's ass. The other side thinks these militia groups would send the law enforcement running with their tail between their legs.

The truth is exactly what Brihard says, the genie is way too out of the bottle. There's an estimated 400 million guns in the US, an estimated 120 guns per 100 people. A lot of them are willing to die for their right to own them. Law enforcement AND civilians would fill up body bags.

Another great point, when all the police are tied up in shootouts confiscating 400 million guns who's dealing with traffic accidents, stolen bikes, domestic assaults, Facebook threats? 
What happens when the military gets called in and a charismatic battalion commander says he didn't sign up to fight Americans, and his soldiers agree,then decide to support "the people"?

Widespread gun confiscation in the US is a total non-starter for sure.

 

[FJAG]

For a few examples of how such actions can develop and end up see the following:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_incident

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_Freemen

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge

:cheers:

 

[quadrapiper]

And we're not talking a few crackpots like Bundy. The delta isnt as far apart as you think. An AK-47 is arguably one of the best assault rifles ever made. Read what I wrote above about making those. Heck, in a pinch an expediant smg can be made out of 2 feet of square or round tubing and basic hand tools in a few hours. Lots of stuff can be done with 3d printers and table top CNC mills which are everywhere. The programs are already out there with the knowledge and lots and lots that know how to use it. You can't confiscate everything.

Rather doubt there'll ever be a hard push from the US government; however, compared to Afghanistan and Iraq, the sort of armament floating around in private US hands is rather limited: pervasive and numerous, but without a national army's worth of heavier weapons in the mix. "Taking everyone's guns" isn't feasible for various reasons - that said, any notion the specifically belligerent groups and movements have of actually standing up to "the Feds" should the latter apply their full capabilities is delusional.

What is likely needed at this point is something akin to a constitutional convention, affecting both state and federal regulation, to determine a single national framework binding both levels of government, as the routine application of the second amendment varies overmuch state to state.

I cannot understand the tolerance of people like Bundy: that he and his publicity stunts haven't ended up in dead law enforcement is incredible; equally, he represents a sort of defiance-as-the-goal sneering at government authority that's hard to justify.

I've no objection to private firearms ownership, including large and varied collections in support of historical, competition, or hunting activities: it's the group of US firearms owners who have made (generally military-style) armament a political expression, and who variously:
[list type=decimal]
[*]make much noise about being armed specifically to enable fantastical notions of shooting Feds or "others,"
[*]show up (in the more extreme expression) in public heavily armed at political events/demonstrations, including demonstrations by "the other side," and
[*]overlap significantly with the more violent and loathsome portions of the US right (Klan, Nazis, etc.).
[/list]
This sort http://www.thedonovan.com/categories.html don't bother me, though I disagree with some of their politics. The sort of person who wakes up and decides to tool up as if going on patrol in Iraq to scull about Anytown USA for political points? Deeply concerning, and cancerous. That sort of thing encourages arms races between political ideologies, represents a massive hazard as far as NDs, let alone intentional violence, and cultivates a paranoid and fearful atmosphere not conducive to effective governance.

And that's without addressing the groups and thus ideologies these individuals share space with, none of which are of value to society.

FJAG points out, far more eloquently than I might, the broader conceptual issues in the current US situation. I am more concerned by the sheriffs than the municipalities: a city council making a certain decision at least has a collaborative process and represents multiple inputs, while the sheriff is appointed specifically to enforce laws*, is operating in isolation, and of course has far more direct access to coercive options (e.g. Arpaio).

*With all the usual policing-by-consent notions of intelligent enforcement, which this sort of behaviour far exceeds.

 

[Kirkhill]

Just a point, quadrapiper:

Sheriffs are elected in the US generally and Colorado in particular.  They are not appointed.

Colorado sheriffs
Sheriff is an elected position in the state of Colorado according to the state's constitution.

Election
A sheriff is elected for a four year term in each county. Before he or she enters office he will create a bond, with at least three sufficient sureties, between $5,000 and $20,000, that the board of county commissioners specifies and approves. No person will be considered a surety who is not worth at least $2,000 over and above his or her debts.[1]

Government roles
Every person elected or appointed to the office of sheriff for the first time will attend a minimum of 80 hours of a training course the first time a training course is given after the person's election or appointment.

Every sheriff must possess basic peace officer certification and shall undergo at least 20 hours of in-service training provided by the county sheriffs of Colorado every year during such sheriff's term.

The county only pays all reasonable costs and expenses of these training sessions.[2]

Only U.S. citizens, Colorado citizens and residents of the county in which they are appointed or elected may serve as sheriff. He or she must possess a high school diploma or its equivalent or a college degree and must have a complete set of fingerprints taken.[3]

The sheriff has charge and custody of the county jails and of the prisoners in the jails. The sheriff will supervise them personally or a deputy or jailer will supervise them.[4]

The sheriff is also fire warden of his or her county in case of prairie or forest fires.[5]

The sheriff is in charge of transporting prisoners to a correctional facility or other place of confinement who may have been convicted and sentenced and who are ready for such transportation. If any sheriff fails or neglects to do this, the boards of county commissioners can take away this responsibility. This does not apply to the transportation of the insane.[6]

The sheriffs, undersheriffs, and deputies must keep and preserve the peace in their counties quiet and suppress all frays, riots, and unlawful assemblies and insurrections. They can command anyone to their aid that they see necessary to do their duties.[7]

https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_sheriffs

In short, Sheriffs draw their authority directly from the consent of the governed, and not from the "government" at large.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Rather doubt there'll ever be a hard push from the US government; however, compared to Afghanistan and Iraq, the sort of armament floating around in private US hands is rather limited: pervasive and numerous, but without a national army's worth of heavier weapons in the mix. "Taking everyone's guns" isn't feasible for various reasons - that said, any notion the specifically belligerent groups and movements have of actually standing up to "the Feds" should the latter apply their full capabilities is delusional.

What is likely needed at this point is something akin to a constitutional convention, affecting both state and federal regulation, to determine a single national framework binding both levels of government, as the routine application of the second amendment varies overmuch state to state.

I cannot understand the tolerance of people like Bundy: that he and his publicity stunts haven't ended up in dead law enforcement is incredible; equally, he represents a sort of defiance-as-the-goal sneering at government authority that's hard to justify.

I've no objection to private firearms ownership, including large and varied collections in support of historical, competition, or hunting activities: it's the group of US firearms owners who have made (generally military-style) armament a political expression, and who variously:
[list type=decimal]
[*]make much noise about being armed specifically to enable fantastical notions of shooting Feds or "others,"
[*]show up (in the more extreme expression) in public heavily armed at political events/demonstrations, including demonstrations by "the other side," and
[*]overlap significantly with the more violent and loathsome portions of the US right (Klan, Nazis, etc.).
[/list]
This sort http://www.thedonovan.com/categories.html don't bother me, though I disagree with some of their politics. The sort of person who wakes up and decides to tool up as if going on patrol in Iraq to scull about Anytown USA for political points? Deeply concerning, and cancerous. That sort of thing encourages arms races between political ideologies, represents a massive hazard as far as NDs, let alone intentional violence, and cultivates a paranoid and fearful atmosphere not conducive to effective governance.

And that's without addressing the groups and thus ideologies these individuals share space with, none of which are of value to society.

FJAG points out, far more eloquently than I might, the broader conceptual issues in the current US situation. I am more concerned by the sheriffs than the municipalities: a city council making a certain decision at least has a collaborative process and represents multiple inputs, while the sheriff is appointed specifically to enforce laws*, is operating in isolation, and of course has far more direct access to coercive options (e.g. Arpaio).

*With all the usual policing-by-consent notions of intelligent enforcement, which this sort of behaviour far exceeds.

I'm glad you have so much faith in human behaviour. I'm not diametrically opposed to your opinion, I just don't agree with the cut and dry. There is no black or white at all. It's all grey.

Any government that uses it's full military potential against it's citizens is already too far gone to save.

If walking around geared up isn't against the law. Who says they can't? You may not like it, but really, that's just too bad isn't it?  Trying to equate Canadian feelings and righteousness about US law is a mugs game. The look like us, but thought wise, patriot wise, engagement wise and freedom wise, they are a much more staunch breed than Canadians. They put it all out there, they are not afraid, nor will they be cowed, they wear it proudly and loudly.

Canadians sit home, watch CBC and complain to the cat.

 

[FJAG]

Just a point, quadrapiper:

Sheriffs are elected in the US generally and Colorado in particular.  They are not appointed.

https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_sheriffs

In short, Sheriffs draw their authority directly from the consent of the governed, and not from the "government" at large.

I disagree with your conclusion.

While Sheriffs are elected by their constituents, their authority comes from the state's constitution. The same constitution, in each case, provides for an elected assembly to make laws and a judiciary (whether appointed or elected) to adjudicate cases under the law. Sheriffs are sworn to uphold the constitution and thereby the powers of the other elected officials including the statutory/regulatory laws made by the legislature and the case law that has been decided by the state judiciary.

In the broadest sense possible (as for all public officials in the US) they derive their powers from the people but such powers are in fact created through statutory enactments made by what you call the "government" at large.

What sheriff's cannot do is act on their own authority or some local ordnance created by their county government which is in conflict with the laws of their state or the federal government. The powers of the states and the federal government is divided by the US constitution and neither a state (nor it's counties) can legislate within a federal field. Secondly, counties are creatures of the state constitution and other state laws and only have as much power as the state delegates to the counties. Again, a county is a very low level legal entity and it and it's officials and employees (including sheriffs) are bound to work within the framework of the state laws.

If county electors don't like a state law, their recourse is to elect a new state legislature. It is not to elect a sheriff who won't enforce state laws. There is a common law concept (which exists in both the US and Canada) called mandamus which is a writ or order issued from a court which requires a public official to perform a public or statutory duty (whether state or federal) that is imposed on him/her. Failure to obey the order can lead to contempt of court actions including imprisonment. This is what happened to Arizona's Maricopa County Sheriff Arapaio who failed to cease racial profiling practices within his force as ordered by a US District Court.

:cheers:

 

[Brad Sallows]

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-met-john-kass-chicago-policing-20190321-story.html

"Authorities confirmed that two police officers — TAC cops, not rookies — were making a drug arrest shortly after 2 p.m. on Sunday.

A mob appeared, threatening the officers, surrounding them, threatening to reach for their own weapons to shoot them dead, and the cops let the suspect go.

What is learned here? The street is officially no longer afraid of the Chicago police."

So: perhaps the way to avoid armed stand-off tragedies is for police to defuse the situation by standing down.  Or, perhaps all people who think they should be able to stand apart from the law should all receive the maximum force of the law. 

What inflames people and promotes the gradual unwinding of society is the certain knowledge - provided by the internet as current events and archives of past events - that some groups receive the full force of the law while others go unimpeded and unpunished.

 

[Kirkhill]

I disagree with your conclusion.

While Sheriffs are elected by their constituents, their authority comes from the state's constitution. The same constitution, in each case, provides for an elected assembly to make laws and a judiciary (whether appointed or elected) to adjudicate cases under the law. Sheriffs are sworn to uphold the constitution and thereby the powers of the other elected officials including the statutory/regulatory laws made by the legislature and the case law that has been decided by the state judiciary.

In the broadest sense possible (as for all public officials in the US) they derive their powers from the people but such powers are in fact created through statutory enactments made by what you call the "government" at large.

What sheriff's cannot do is act on their own authority or some local ordnance created by their county government which is in conflict with the laws of their state or the federal government. The powers of the states and the federal government is divided by the US constitution and neither a state (nor it's counties) can legislate within a federal field. Secondly, counties are creatures of the state constitution and other state laws and only have as much power as the state delegates to the counties. Again, a county is a very low level legal entity and it and it's officials and employees (including sheriffs) are bound to work within the framework of the state laws.

If county electors don't like a state law, their recourse is to elect a new state legislature. It is not to elect a sheriff who won't enforce state laws. There is a common law concept (which exists in both the US and Canada) called mandamus which is a writ or order issued from a court which requires a public official to perform a public or statutory duty (whether state or federal) that is imposed on him/her. Failure to obey the order can lead to contempt of court actions including imprisonment. This is what happened to Arizona's Maricopa County Sheriff Arapaio who failed to cease racial profiling practices within his force as ordered by a US District Court.

:cheers:

I agree that the powers of the sheriff (the Shire Reeve) are circumscribed by the constitution(s) of the United (and several) States.  Constitutions created and amended and interpreted by representatives of the governed.  One of the interpreters is the Shire Reeve, given his powers by hand.

Having spent a fair amount of time trying to understand rules, only to have my interpretation, and those of others, overturned by local inspectors with similar mandates to interpret those rules on behalf of the local community, I would suggest that the best we can come to is that the outcome is moot (as in debatable by the Shire Moot).

Otherwise what is the need for lawyers and courts?

;D :cheers:

 

[observor 69]

"I am anti-gun violence, not anti-gun, by Chris Balch

I am not anti-gun. I own guns that I use for target shooting and a handgun that is primarily designed for personal defense.

I grew up in 1950s rural Connecticut, where everybody owned guns. I spent autumn weekends on our family’s 150-acre farm with my dad, learning safety, responsibility and hunting. More than once I proudly brought home a Thanksgiving supper.

I have a clean legal record. I pass a firearms background check on state and federal levels.
But today, between 22 percent and 40 percent of firearms transfers (NRA numbers vs. the CDC’s) are between private parties and don’t require a background check.

Today, young people whose only experience with firearms is a virtual one from video games, will turn 18 and be eligible to purchase a high capacity military-style-sport-rifle. Or turn 21 and be eligible to buy a handgun. No other qualifications.

I’m not anti-gun, but I am pro-common sense:

All firearms sales and transfers should go through federal dealers with 100 percent background checks.

First-time buyers should complete a safety/responsibility training course.

We need a mandatory 48-hour waiting period. (Research shows this prevents crimes of passion and suicides.)

These simple changes will reduce the chances of guns ending up in hands of those that should not own them. These changes will improve the understanding of the responsibility that comes with the ownership of firearms, and will reduce crimes of passion/suicides, while having little impact on law-abiding owners."
https://www.sentinelsource.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/i-am-anti-gun-violence-not-anti-gun-by-chris/article_b8aa97e3-0bc7-570d-b0bc-3351378956eb.html

Just an article chosen from many. Obviously thee are differences in this country. But I am also sure that most of us can extrapolate the general sentiment.
"I am anti-gun violence, not anti-gun."

 

[NavyShooter]

Regarding the confiscation of firearms in the US, here is a somewhat sobering perspective that I came across a while back.

https://survivalblog.com/mathematics-countering-tyranny/?fbclid=IwAR3cxXuNeWh9bEhda5KhI9tuOwOycLaMIgYRziIsoktCGnfRZt_aswI3EZQ

I'm not sure that the confiscation of guns would be done solely by "SWAT/ERT" type officers - the rumbles out of New Zealand are such that normal 'beat cops' are showing up at doors (in small groups of 2-4) already.  (Anecdotal - saw something on Facebook - as reliable as Wikipedia...)

So, the question of who/how many raids may not be the 82K, officers, it may be the 900K officers - but in looking at the overall - that'd make the number of potential raids drop by an order of magnitude - but would still be probably about 100 raids/visits to seize guns PER OFFICER.

Not a good statistic to have to stare down...especially if the precipice is tipped and some damn fool starts to shoot back instead of handing over their guns.

Which, in the US, I firmly believe would happen at some point.

In Canada?  The historical references indicate that civil compliance will occur when a gun ban comes. 

The likelihood of armed resistance to a gun ban in Canada is, honestly, minuscule. However, looking at Quebec and their recent foray into registration again, the passive inaction and likelihood of civil disobedience is extremely high.

What are my thoughts?  Enforce the laws we already have, and punish the guilty effectively. 

I truly hope never to see the scenario in the link above play out - unfortunately, I think we are on a slippery slope...and the US is far more likely to see that cliff than Canada.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Posted without comment.

https://video.fymy1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t42.9040-2/10000000_2282429485308463_6076659621760598016_n.mp4?_nc_cat=106&efg=eyJ2ZW5jb2RlX3RhZyI6InN2ZV9zZCJ9&_nc_ht=video.fymy1-2.fna&oh=e105494af3f2bb364f682f02bb3aa039&oe=5CAA6299

 

[The Bread Guy]

... In the broadest sense possible (as for all public officials in the US) they derive their powers from the people but such powers are in fact created through statutory enactments made by what you call the "government" at large.

What sheriff's cannot do is act on their own authority or some local ordnance created by their county government which is in conflict with the laws of their state or the federal government ...

I agree with you they they have to enforce the laws they're given.

That said, like any peace officer, there's an element of discretion that can be used in enforcement (to a point, anyway).  In a situation where an official is elected, I suspect the "direction" of discretion will be affected by the electorate/desire to be re-elected.  Again, there are limits re: laws being ignored, but I think the political element would "flavour" any breaks given.

Posted without comment.

https://video.fymy1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t42.9040-2/10000000_2282429485308463_6076659621760598016_n.mp4?_nc_cat=106&efg=eyJ2ZW5jb2RlX3RhZyI6InN2ZV9zZCJ9&_nc_ht=video.fymy1-2.fna&oh=e105494af3f2bb364f682f02bb3aa039&oe=5CAA6299

Interesting video - who put this together?