The Second Amendment | The National Constitution Center | US government and civics | Khan Academy
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 เม.ย. 2018
- Courses on Khan Academy are always 100% free. Start practicing-and saving your progress-now: www.khanacademy.org/humanitie...
A deep dive into the Second Amendment, which states that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." In this video, Kim Kutz Elliott discusses the Second Amendment with scholars Alan Gura and Adam Winkler.
To read more about the Second Amendment, visit the National Constitution Center’s Interactive Constitution. On this site, leading scholars interact and explore the Constitution and its history. For each provision of the Constitution, experts from different political perspectives coauthor interpretive explanations when they agree and write separately when their opinions diverge.
View more lessons or practice this subject at www.khanacademy.org/humanitie...
Khan Academy is a nonprofit organization with the mission of providing a free, world-class education for anyone, anywhere. We offer quizzes, questions, instructional videos, and articles on a range of academic subjects, including math, biology, chemistry, physics, history, economics, finance, grammar, preschool learning, and more. We provide teachers with tools and data so they can help their students develop the skills, habits, and mindsets for success in school and beyond. Khan Academy has been translated into dozens of languages, and 15 million people around the globe learn on Khan Academy every month. As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, we would love your help! Donate or volunteer today!
Donate here: www.khanacademy.org/donate?ut...
Volunteer here: www.khanacademy.org/contribut...
The 2nd ammendment neither establishes any state militia, nor authorizes its armament. It presumes a militia to exist, and recognizes that the people are its members.
Winkler, the 2nd amendment is not about " The Wild Wild West ", it is about FREEDOM from Tyranny.
and is over 200 years old and needs updating
@@sexydudeuk2172 do you need an update on the 1st amendment?
@@VeryProPlayerYesSir1122 They want to start with the 2nd amendment first, little by little.
@@sexydudeuk2172 People like you are the reason why the 2nd amendment is just as important today as it was 200 years ago, if not more so with technology and using propaganda as a tool to fool people. We have a right to not be infringed upon by anyone's ideology just because they think it is for the better good and start telling us how we should live, what we should say, what we should believe and stay within the confines of the narrative being espoused as "the greater good", thus disenfranchising many who do not agree with what is "the greater good".
You mean freedoom?
Where in the constitution does it dictate what "reasonably traditional" weapons are?
It is has to do with practically as stated in the video: "You wouldn't use a tank to defend yourself against a mugger".
@@OmarDelawar speak for yourself.
Yet founding fathers supported private ownership of cannons, war ships, and the puckle gun under 2a.
Unless mistaken they also expressed interest in a repeating rifle designed in france at the time
Good job Khan Academy for talking to Alan Gura! Most MSM would rather get opinion on the 2nd Amendment from David Hogg or Dianne Feinstein than someone who actually knows what they are talking about.
You're aware that FOX News is a part of the media... right?
That's why I said, "most".
Thank God for a pretty objective and reasonable look at the amendment. I don't care what side you're on, this is a bit of a breath of fresh air.
Rodrigo Teresa Indeed!
This is what I wish we could be able to do now adays. Sit down and talk like good people using common sense and education to discuss serious issues and not having each side screaming at each other.
Rodrigo Teresa couldn't have said it better myself, I breathed a sigh of relief finishing the video.
mostly but they made a few glaring errors/ for instance the 1st scotus case was nunn v georgia that decided; "Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!"
and if you understand their decision any gun control is unconstitutional.
They did put quite a bit of effort to remain neutral and refer to expert opinion.
At 13:30, the argument he makes is wrong. The second amendment is the ONLY Right where intentional wording is used that specifically prohibits infringement or restrictions . Yes limitations can be placed on free speech and certain modifications can be made to the other rights, but the right that is protected by the second amendment is specifically designed to prevent infringement. And the definition of infringement has not changed since 1791. Infringement means encroachment, limitation, restriction, revocation, or prohibition. The right to possess and carry firearms was intended to not have any restrictions placed on it. Because the founders knew that every restriction would be followed by more and more restriction. But since politicians and legislators are hell-bent on ignoring the 10th amendment and the second amendment, we have weapons restrictions of every kind.
AV8R Tom - love the thoroughness with which you used to comment! Thanks
Corno di Bassetto Funny though how there are so many mentions of “The People” in these rights. The second amendment LITERALLY says “the right of the people” but they’re not talking about the citizens? Jesus. Where the states rights are being discussed, “the states” is used specifically. Literally the first three words of the Constitution are “WE THE PEOPLE”
I’m a 2A all the way sort of guy. Lately I’m genuinely trying to understand the “regulated” part. Your comment seems sensible and educated, so I figured I’d pick your brain. If the “regulated” part doesn’t mean an organized, controlled-by-the-state militia, what could “regulated” be referring to?
@@taylortisaac I believe you can look to the federalist papers as well as some letters that were written back and forth between Mason, Madison, and Jefferson for the context regarding the “militia” and the meaning of “well regulated” it was VERY clear from several statements that the “militia” was to be comprised of the people. Regular citizens. And the meaning of “well regulated” was “uniformly or similarly armed and trained”. In this context, the founders wanted the people to retain arms so that they could form militia or band together to fight enemies of the people, be they foreign or domestic, and that the people forming these groups all be trained and familiar with similar weapons and tactics so as to be an effective and formidable force. They need to be similarly armed, so that if one person was killed in a battle another person could pick up their weapon and immediately know what it was and how to use it. It’s the same reason our military all use the same small arms. At the time, these things were actually required by law, and men were actually expected to show that they were knowledgeable about, and could effectively use their firearms, and they were required by law to teach these skills to their young boys as well. Children (mostly boys, because that was how it was back then) as young as 10 were expected to learn from their fathers. “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…” - George Washington, First Annual Address, to both Houses of Congress, January 8, 1790
"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies." ~ George Washington
First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
The only problem that I have with Mr. Winkler's stance is that it's completely based on flawed logic from the Supreme Court. Defining "arms" as something common and used for 'legal' purposes is completely asinine and arbitrary. Arms are literally any weapon and it's ammunition. Just because we've allowed the government to trample and pervert words does not invalidate the origional intent. And yes, contrary to the typical ignorant rhetoric; an individual with enough cash and a clean background CAN purchase a fully functioning tank...
do you think individuals should be able to possess nukes then too
@@patrickross4875 the second amended protects rights of people to bear arms to defend against the state. WMD are illegal to use in war so are not protected
@@jackmeyer4822 but you said defining “arms as something common and used for legal purposes” was and I quote “asinine and arbitrary. Arms are literally any weapon and it’s ammunition.” Seems like you’re confused
"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823
Nukes are generally agreed upon to be, indiscriminate, hence a mutual understanding of their destructive and consequential effects and as such are not agreed upon to be effective in desired targeting and are more of a deterrent. Yet the nations do stockpile them, regardless.
The second amendment says: “well regulated” look up regular, the root word of regulated, and you will find it is defined as uniform, etc.
So the militia is supposed to function as individual(s) with his individual weapons sharing commonality with his community and sharing resemblance to the common military arms. So as to be prepared for any event in which it may be required. Automatic weapons, including; Mauser Schnellfauer and stocked pistols like the luger carbine are/were common enough to argue the NFA and GCA unconstitutional. Hence: “shall not be infringed”
Automatic weapons are capable of being accurate and effective, hence a monopoly on government forces being equipped with said weapons.
If the militia is a civilian mirror image of the arms of the military then what argument can be made against the constitutionality?
She does know she can, in fact, own a tank though right?
and a bazooka. apparently not.
DO WE NEED TO REVISIT THIS VIDEO?!
@Lisa Mathis well yes, most are owned by the military, but civilians can own tanks.
@Lisa Mathis then the government can use tanks and drone strikes to oppress it's own people. It makes the government more powerful than people. The people should hold the power. Not the government. They should be serving us.
Now, it would make america more unsafe if everyone had these type of weapons. So, it is something worth considering.
@Lisa Mathis umm. Yes yes one can. I know several that do.
By all means though show me the law you're referring to
The professor circles out the word "the"
me: great, middle school poetry interpretation class all over again
Miller case it was found that the sawed off shotgun was illegal because it was a gun under the 1934 NFA act it was not a commonly used gun by the government. It had a two fold ruling, he needed a tax stamp to own that rifle, but the court found that whatever weapons the government possessed the people can own. To me that was a good thing. Funny he left that out.
Gun control advocates love using the farce that was the Miller ruling to argue their agenda despite never reading about the case. According to US vs Miller the government banning automatic guns is UNCONSTITUTIONAL because automatic guns are used by the military.
The meaning of well regulated in the late 1700s was fine tuned, or well trained like a well regulated watch. Not the same as say our use of the term federal regulation today.
👍
The spirit of the entire constitution is very simple and basic. Its all about balance. Balance in every way. Without balance you get tyranny and oppression
I was pleased to see that the Kahn Academy web site would post a video on the reasons for and the importance of our second amendment. Unfortunately, many educational institutions would argue against the meaning and/or the continuing need for it.
I wish the current debate surrounding gun control was being argued from reason on both sides.
Peanutbudda It is mostly from a certain side and emotion from another.
its hard to have a "debate" when one side (the anti gun lobby) has know idea what theyre talking about.
We have the right to bear arms, by the constitution, so lets call out our congress and senators, why are they infringing on our constitution rights, no state should regulate our rights also, there is no clause in the constitution that a state has the right to infringing on our rights
The Constitution and Bill of Rights shows not one single place in the list of enumerated powers to the Federal Government that they have any authority to control our weapons . Nada , Zilch !!! Their authority is usurped !
the right by an outdated 18th century lawless society. this is the 21st century now update it
@@sexydudeuk2172 awful bold of you to be expressing your opinion not using a quill
States can pass laws that don't go against the constitution. Sadly, I forget which amendment that is
@@sexydudeuk2172 75% of the Senate can make any changes to the constitution that they want.
There were gun control laws imposed in the "Wild West" which was in some towns rather than a state or area. That in no way means it was a legal law. Governments and powerful people have always imposed weapon bans on common people they wanted to control.
Look at todays laws against weapons in states like California, NY and others. Many of those laws are clearly infringements on peoples rights to arm themselves and the lawmakers who passed those laws knew they were conflicting with the Constitution, but they don't care. They pass them anyway.
Yep a perfect example of this is the current lawsuit against NYC for restricting where people could bring their arms. Clearly a violation of the right to bear arms (bear means carry) but NYC didn't care until NYSPRA sued and brought the case to SCOTUS. Now NYC is quickly trying to run with their tails between theirs legs to avoid another major pro gun ruling.
The reason they were able to do it was because the "states" were actually territories and not subject to the U.S. Constitution. That was how the fight at the O.K. Corral happened. Tombstone had established a local ordinance aganist wearing firearms in town, and the Cowboys wore them anyway. The Earps and Holiday went to disarm them and the rest they say is history.
Can infact become like the wild west again with people packing on their side. While I am not in favor of even a fist fight. When packing guns,if it might have been a fist fight someone would get shot and God forbid 🚫 killed. We have to be sure everyone has rights and not to infringe on other's rights we have to think about our liberties each and everyone. While I don't own a gun for my own reasons,I don't wish to trample on your rights one being your right to bear arms.
13:46 you can buy a tank
"...the right of the PEOPLE o keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
No sir there is not "ample room to regulate firearms"
Did well right up until the militia being only the preview of only the state government. Any group of regular citizens may form one (unorganized militia). (It does not protect armed gangs and criminals.)
Whats the difference between an "unorganized militia" and an "armed gang"? One is white and the other non-white? STFU!
@@OmarDelawar lol, posting nonsense at 2 in the morning on a year old post. You must be extremely bored and by your response not very educated on the 2A. Go look it up (you can easily read all about it) and have a nice day.
You’re missing a comma after “arm” and before “shall”.
It is interesting to me that so many people go to the tank argument when discussing limits of the 2A as if there were not tanks in the hands of civilians. Not all have the guns disabled either. Also, bazooka? You can own those too.
I think we should be able to own any high powered gun ..We should have to prove not only background , but training as well. Easy as that. People’s fear that the media feeds off..is a tamper on what is our personal protection. Our Gov is very much out of control.
Hell,.there's even a privately owned Harrier jump jet
The 2nd amendment is just in case the 1st one doesn’t work out.
-Dave Chappelle
Oof 9:28 did NOT age well.
Overall very informative video! Thanks Khan Academy!
The concerns of the founders are arguably more relevant than ever.
Every man and woman are a member of a Militia. What or who were the Minutemen? What do the words " Shall not be infringed" mean?
Fun fact, you CAN own a tank. You can also own a bazooka, they're not particularly expensive.
You do not understand Federal NFA laws, clearly.
@@nicknack8459 if you think nfa means you cant own either, neither do you.
@@thurin84 you have no idea what you're talking about, do you? I'm a FFL
@@nicknack8459 you can own both tanks and bazookas. so you must be a very good ffl lol.
The 2nd Amendment Is We The People's Right To Defend Ourselves! And No Government Can Infringe On This Right! Pure And Simple!
WELL REGULATED
@@phedisolatakgomo6964 Yes, because we're all in the militia we should keep ourselves well regulated . I worked out today and watched some firearms training videos. What have you done?
@@floridaman7178
Correct...
If you own firearms and are knowledgeable and proficient with those arms then you are, as part of the collective, the " American militia at large".
If the standard grunt in the military and police have the ability to use types of weapons so can civilians.
@Lisa Mathis That's some serious word salad. Want to try revising it for clarity and reposting it?
Now as far as gun violence is concerned. There are already laws against those behaviors. Robbery is a crime, murder is a crime. Its just that the gun is just the tool to commit those crimes. We have become exclusively focused on the tools used than the actual crime, which is already illegal.
I don't understand why people think they can't own a tank... You can own a tank, if you can afford a tank... and find an entity to sell it to you. The proper licensing and or permits and ammo might be harder to acquire...
When the constitution was written, well regulate was defined as “properly operating” or “in its ideal state” Not regulated as in ruled over. What sense would it make to have a Militia regulated by the law of the government is was to protect against?
I’m hearing this argument often. I agree with it. Do you know where I can read this explanation of “regulated”?
@@taylortisaac The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.
@@taylortisaac
>1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
> 1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
> 1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
> 1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
> 1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
> 1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
There needs to be a balance of power. Neither criminals nor a federalist military force should have an unfair advantage in the possession of weapons and arms as the disparity leads to the inability for individuals to protect themselves and communities against violence activities performed against them leading to ease of organizations of ill intent to become more tyrannical..
NOTE: Folks the 2nd Amendment is a TWO-PART Statement i.e; The first part "A well regulated Militia..etc.." Has Nothing to do with the Individual (who ONLY seeks to own Firearms). Check the MEANING of "Militia". It's used to Denote a Number of people greater than 2 or 3? Who organize together. So a "Well Regulated Militia" is Pulura (i.e, Organized Citizens'). But the second part says; "The Right of the "PEOPLE (which is "Singular or of an INDIVIDUAL) to keep and bear Arms...etc"
THUS, "I" the Individual Citizen, by choice can have No Involvement With the Statement "A Well Regulated Militia" When it's just me and my gun.for self defense.
We’re here in 2023 Colorado bumped the age limit to purchase a long gun from 18 to 21
Would article 1 section 8 not provide the reasoning for the first clause and it’s conclusion in the second?
“Well regulated “. Actually meant well equipped also at the time. In the militia act men 18-45 where expected to be armed and have sufficient shot and powder.
They lost me with the thinking that the Constitution is a "Living". The right to bear arms is to take on the government.
How is that hard to understand? without the right to bear arms, governments can slaughter their own citizens. Like what happened in Tiananmen Square. The worst mass shooting in human history when the Communist government open fires on their own unarmed citizens. many more like this had happened. (Nazi, Khmer Rouge etc you name it) without the right to self protection, "Living" is impossible.
Title 10, Section 311 of the US Code defines the militia as all males between 17 and 45 years of age. With a few exceptions for arsenal workers, pilots for ships in port, religious objectors. Many States have similar laws encoded. The US Law was updated to former active-duty military being militia till age 65.
LOL, I love the fact that the City of Seattle is in the picture, talk about a place you need self defense!
Where do we sign up?? How refreshing!
At 7:30 he is wrong about the difference
Meaning a group of people must be regulated by the state not an individual
The only thing they got wrong is that you can in fact own a tank. AND, just because there have been gun control laws (ala the gunfight at the OK corral) does not automatically mean those laws were constitutional.
Yep. That there were gun laws in the past being used to justify gun laws now is circular logic. One even saw this in arguments being made in the Bruen case. The lawyer for Bruen was saying we've been infringing gun rights for decades and we want to continue doing that.
Why have you not covered the last four words of thr second amendment?
In reading Locke & Rousseau, the philosophies of the nation codified into the formation of its governments comes into focus. Jefferson sums this philosophy up perfectly in his first inaugural address:
"Still one thing more, fellow-citizens -- a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities."
The important part here is establishing why government exists: "Restrain men from injuring one another." In short, we lived in absolute liberty in anarchy, but we were easily overcome and have our rights infringed upon as individuals. Civilization and government was established to better protect everything we as individuals could do which did not injure another person in their liberties. Why would anyone agree to be under government to make their situation worse? This is the system in which imperfect people can do their best to ensure that no one may argue they would have been better off under anarchy.
This is what establishes the objective rationale for what the governments of the United States are established to accomplish: to regulate (that is to ensure smooth functioning) the full exercise of all liberties, and establish clear boundaries for when the individual exercise of a liberty infringes on the rights of another (e.g. speech individually exercised which unjustly and measurably injures another in their ability to find a job--which would be infringement of their pursuit of happiness, also known as eudaimonia).
Jefferson also writes, "Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
In that, only when an individual uses gun ownership to infringe on the liberty of another is a criminal created. For instance, killing another unjustly--that is without the victim first infringing on his own liberty, as well as only during the fact as the state restricts the right to seek justice after the fact so as to best regulate equality of rights.
Imagine If US Civillians Have Tanks in their homes,That would be Big
Some people do. Go to WW2 reenactment. Those are all privately owned..
It's time to give the voteing power to the people
So they don't try to take them away that's why it's written the way it is
They misinterpret Shays rebellion. The founders weren’t worried about further attacks on the confederation from militia. Shays rebellion inspired rebellions in almost every state and is one of the main reasons delegates met in Philadelphia to fix the articles of confederation. The founders met to address the issues that caused the rebellions. The “experts” here seem to think the “well regulated” clause of the 2nd amendment is in response to the rebellions. I went to battle in 2012 in Afghanistan we’re not all that well regulated now either lol
Doesn't anyone find it weird how the Bill of Rights were all about an individual's right and for states away from the federal government but somehow that is the exception with the second??
I have a stalker and i have the right to bear arms to protect myself.
Many of these responses are speculative. Historical context and the wording of the 2nd Amendment suggests that there are no regulations on what arms one can bear (what guns a person can own), nor who's allowed to to bear arms. The underlying understanding of the 2nd Amendment is that each individual has the right to protect themselves and to gather together to protect the overall freedoms of the state and/or union.
THANK GOD AND that is why WE are A FREE NATION!!!
Thanks for trying and not abandoning reality. Unfortunately, TH-cam will never let this stay up
TH-cam supports this video because its full of disinformation
Please watch the tenhatreach second amendment video to see how
It kinda did.... Lol
Balance on a micro and macro level. The issues as i see them now is that the will of the people has become so weak it raises to question whether the people themselves have the willpower to exercise their right to fight a tyrannical domestic government . Since the prevailling sentiment has become not only to allow the federal government to be the sole provider but that it has become almost mandatory. And as we all know noone does anythimg out of the kindness of their heart. Whether its a benign reason or a malicious one. There are always strings attached.
This is true not only on an individual level but national and international level as well. Thats why having a country like the Soviet Union and now China can be beneficial to peace internationally. Because the is a balance of authority. Not one nation will be able to forcefully instill their ideology on someone else. Keeping a stability of sorts, a balance.
No but you'd use a tank to defend yourself from a tyrannical government. 14:47
You can also throw in the 9th amendment into the right to bear arms
We don’t have a national constitution, we have a federal one and 50 state constitutions as well. The word national was heavily debated and vehemently opposed and consequently defeated and the use of the word federal was correctly adopted because of the implication of the words. I’m no lawyer but I’m guessing word choice and proper definition are pretty important, especially in law.
We do have a national constitution because the 14th amendment applies the national constitution to the states
@@AdamSmith-gs2dv I’m talking about the difference between the word national compared to the word federal. This was a huge debate at the Constitutional convention. There’s a big difference in the meaning of the two words and, they settled on federal because they had an appreciation for true definitions and the implications.
the existence of armed state militias means the people must be armed to balance power
You can have a tank
The entire gun rights argument is based on -the belief that Madison fieared an authoritarian government. No, he believed the government he had designed would prevent that. He feared a standing army and felt a militia was the only way to protect the country from external enemies. His original draft shows that clearly!
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, a well-armed and well-regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”
It was Patrick Henry, the largest slave holder in Virginia who forced the change. Henry feared that a future abolitionist President could call the militia out of state and endanger the slave states from a slave uprising because the militias in the slave states were also the slave patrols.
Thus the wording that was finally approved and included in the Constitution.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I'd use a tank to defend myself on the street. I wouldn't need to fire the gun. Who the hell would mess with a guy in a tank?
A guy with an A-10 Warthog.
a guy with a grenade, and you would lose
I'm Canadian, we don't have that exact provision in our constitution. When PM Trudeau froze the bank accounts of people supporting the freedom convoy truckers, US 2nd amendment came to mind. What if the Canadian federal gov't over-reach stretched further, as it did with federal mounted police trampling on citizens? People think the right to bear arms to protect against the tyrrany of gov't is a historical artifact. But it's like buying insurance ... you don't know you need it until you need it. Respect to the US brothers & ssiters who protect that right.
Hahaha!! When I heard "we've been blessed with peaceful transfers of power and a vibrant democracy" I knew this video was before 2020. Yup! 2018. So sad
What made this country the greatest in the world was there was always less oppression here than anywhere else on the planet because people could be whatever they were willing to work to become. There is always going to be an obstacle, that is nature to overcome but by overcoming it people and nations develop stronger character. If there is not trial then there is no growth. Its all natural law. Its shocking that there are so many people that dont realize this. Its not a complex issue, its extremely simple.
Something compelling about the 2nd amendment that I do not hear mentioned. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." IT DOES NOT SAY FOR PERSONAL PROTECTION... but Liberals say we do not need 30 round "assault rifles" personal protection, which may be true. But that is not the point of the 2nd amendment. Liberals also want us to think a "militia" is the government military. A "militia" is clearly civilians and distinctly different from the military. Look it up in the dictionary. It is clear that the 2nd amendment was meant to protect the US citizens from an internal threat of a tyrannical government from within.
If that's the case why would there be a district of Columbia vs heller case then if you claim you already had that right begin with?
But you can own a tank. So you should own a tank.
You left out two commas.
yeah, i thought this video was going to be even less objective when i saw that. at least they didnt stoop to the "only people in the military are allowed to own guns" "argument".
Franklin clearly states in the declaration of Independence that the nation is acting under the framework of lockes social contract. Adams Madison Gerry and so on make this clear as well . Adams the government architecture of Montesquieu. Montesquieu designs his government with a social contract philosophy.
The most important part of the social contract is the ability of the state also known as the citizens not the government . To finally overflow a government that fails its end of the contract.
f The Federalist papers and make it clear as well. . the second amendment is to make sure the citizens can overthrow the government
Honestly I don't understand how this became a self-defense issue unless you're including defense from the federal government or state government.
Reason we managed to keep the government somewhat check is because of any moment 50 million arm citizens can March on Washington.
The 3rd is an amazingly written amendment btw. In a few words it helps limit government overreach and it helps establish property rights
Just because someone is Convicted of a Felony (Even if it involved a Firearm) doesn't mean they are Dangerous or not a Law-Abiding Citizen now. I was Convicted of a Felony in Massachusetts in 1985 because I fired Warning Shots in the Sky at the young age of 19. I had a bad Lawyer that never explained the full ramifications of becoming a convicted felon to me and I did to avoid the possibility of up to 2 years in Prison. I shot my big mouth off when I fired 2 Warning Shots strait up in to the sky with a .22cal Rifle. The Chief of Police had a Hard on for me because I beat up his so in a Hockey Game (As kids do) about 3 or 4 years Earlier. The Chief over Charged me with 3 Counts of Attempted Murder and wanted to get me 30 Years In Prison and I was Terrified. Evidently I was Such a Threat to Society that the Police Called me and told me to Bring my rifle to the Police Station and that my bail would be $10,000 Cash I complied. I walked through the Front Door with Rifle in Hand and Waited Patiently with Firearm in Hand for 10 Minutes before anyone took the Firearm from me which they didn't know is it was loaded or not. The Police Charged me and They Never Read me my Rights. I Was Released the next morning after my arraignment before a Judge and was release with NO BAIL. My mom got me an attorney that the Medical Firm she worked for Represented (A Business Attorney). When I informed the Lawyer that I was no Mirandized, He said, "Were not going to bring that up to the judge because you'll look like a Punk". I was Nieve and had no idea that I should have had a Criminal Attorney to defend me. The Lawyer convinced me to take a Plea deal for 180 days in Jail - 10 Days to serve and the Remainder suspended with 2 years probation and a loss of my gun permit for 5 years which I did. I did not get in to any trouble after that - Got my Gun Permit back in 1991. Went Hunting until November 1999 when Ma. Changed the law Denying me a permit. Since 1985 I have been Law Abiding Productive Member of Society, Never been accused of a Violent Crime or any kind of Domestic Assault- Not even Stalking - Never in my life have I dealt Drugs - Committed Theft or Robbery - I did get an OUI/DWI in 1987 the limit to Charge or not Charge was .10%BAC at the time and I blew a .10 % BAC and the Police could have Released me but Decided to Charge me (Most likely because of my previous conviction)- I built a Landscape / Construction Company that employed Dozens of People as Independant Subs from 1988 - 2010 - I Started a Seafood Company in 2011 until COPD/Emphysema Forced me to Retire from working indefinitely in 2022 - Bought a House in 1997 which I still own and Occupy - from 1985 - 1992 I was in College for 3 different Major or Natural Resources (Was going to become an Enviornmental Police Officer but became a Felon) - then went for Business Management - Then took Civil Service exams scoring a 99.99% which is the highest score Possible for Fire Fighting - Went to North Shore for Fire Science - took the Civil Service exam again 3 years after the 1st time and again Scored a 99.99% - Then was Denied a Job that I was the Most Qualified for out of all applicants in the City of Newburyport mass because the Fire Chief and the Former Chief of Police were Buddies and even though the Felony Conviction was not a Disqualifier, It was used against me and the Fire Chief appointed his own son who only scored in the 80's% on the Civil Service Exam. Now I am Physically Unable to defend myself or my home because Unconstitutional Laws Both on the Federal and on the State Make it the Law that I Can not have own possess or use a Firearm as a Convicted Felon - I must be Grievously Injured or Killed by Law. But that is not what the Supreme Law of The Land says, No free man shall be debarred their rights even under color of Law. These are Inalienable Rights Given and Taken by our creator and the Government Does Not Give American Citizens Freedom and they are not entitled to Take our Freedom Either and especially as a Class of Citizen. If An American Citizen can not be trusted to have a Gun in Public - Their Home or their Business...They should not be allowed to walk among Society as anything can be made in to a deadly weapon whether it be a Rock, stick, hammer, Bat, Automobile ,rat poison, household Chemicals, antifreeze, windshield washer fluid and even bare hands for example - every day items in reach of everyone with no special Permit or License needed. Furthermore Nothing will stop anyone from Being a Dangerous Criminal That Chooses to be except for Morals, ongoing incarceration or Institutionalization in an asylum. Any Criminal that Chooses to get a Gun - Knife - Automobile etc. that want's to do harm to other can and will no-matter what the law is. All Gun Laws from Restrictions to Limitations of any kind only affect Law Abiding Citizens - The Rest of us are nothing more than Potential Victims. The Police are not there to "Protect" anyone unless they happen to be there, The Job of the Police in Such matters are there to Investigate and File Charges and effect an arrest - All people are responsible for their own defense. I have never felt so vulnerable and defenselessness my life since I am disabled and Struggle simply to Breath. I have never been a Threat to Society - If I ever was, The police would no have ever reissued me another Gun Permit - And they would have never allowed me to walk in to a Police Station with a Rifle in my hand...They would have came to my Residence with Overwhelming Force and Taken Me and The Gun, Not Called and said, "Come to the police station with your Gun to be Charged with 3 Counts of Attempted Murder." Even the Victim's Statements said, "He fired 2 Shots strait up in the sky". And Yet that's what the Vindictive Chief charged me with. I am safe with and have Proven Since 1991 that I am able to be trusted with Firearms. All Felons are not the same but they are all treated the same and it is easier to become a felon than you think. Unfortunately being Disabled with no resources People like me cant get a Lawyer for Fight for Complete Restoration of All Constitutional Rights and Massachusetts offers no Relief of Disability except through Full Governors Pardon which not even Mark Wahlberg was able to get and I am pretty sure he's not a Threat to Society. The Supreme Court needs to Fix The Broken Constitution especially the 2nd Amendment which should be no more restricted that Freedom of Religion. By who knows - We may need permits to Pray Someday.
What the people who wrote this "interesting piece" are missing is the fact that this country won its independence from a standing army through the use of militias.
Let's not forget that America was founded as the direct result of a civil insurrection against a lawful government.
America exist only due to an act of rebellion.
I have always said and I will continue to hold to the ideal that the second amendment exists for the sole purpose of ensuring that the government of the United States of America is sufficiently afraid of the people of the United States of America to dissuade said government from acting in a tyrannical way.
The declaration of Independence itself states that it is not only the right but the duty of men to rebel against a government that no longer serves the purpose of upholding Liberty and freedom.
By that argument even The possession and ownership of tanks and bazookas is fair game under the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
It is that "we may be sufficiently armed to defend our Liberty from all those who would seek to oppress us."
Not just including, but especially our own government.
(Just to be clear. I'm actually a liberal. 🤨)
I’d say you’re actually more like an independent or libertarian, right??
Nice video I love khan academy they help me in my school
To bad this video was full of so much disinformation
Please go to the tenhatreach TH-cam channel and watch his video on the second amendment
You will not regret it
Our representatives are not representing us THE PEOPLE ...THEY ARE REPRESENTING & VOTING FOR BIG CORPORATIONS..
But there is people who owns tanks jet fighters artillery and many other devices NR legal in the United States to own with the proper license but cord into your Constitution you have the right to bear arms does not say what type of arms you legally have the right to own any type of arm or weapon that you want by the Constitution how else would you defend yourself against foreign or domestic tyranny
2A says the central Federal Government can’t disarm the State Governments by disarming the people who serve in the State militias. The States have every right to set their own rules for how people keep and bear arms.
No it means every American has the right to bear arms.
Please go to the tenhatreach TH-cam channel. He has a great video on the second amendment
A guarantee of a right is no good if a state government can infringe it. Rights can be exercised of one's own free will; that is the difference between a right and a privilege. Whose permission do you ask to exercise your right to free speech?
So, since the States are no longer naming the officers for their State militias, or regulating a now non existent organization....
How could the citizens of a State legally form a militia today?
It's the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms NOT the Militia. Read the amendment and DC vs Heller, the descent in that case where morons who don't understand how a coma works
by forming one.
Please watch the tenhatreach second amendment video to see how much disinformation is in this video
Well regulated ‼‼‼
The right of the people shall not be infringed. If one had to be in a militia that'd make it a privilege. They'd not have put a privilege in the Bill of Rights.
Consider this example sentence on the same pattern as the 2nd Amendment: A well informed Congress, being necessary to the wise operation of government, the right of the people to own and read books, shall not be infringed. This does not mean one has to be in Congress to be able to own and read books, it states one reason why the right is important.
Or this example: A well informed President, being necessary to the wise operation of the executive branch, the right of the people to own and read books, shall not be infringed. This does not mean only the President has the right to books. It's still all of the people.
Our Bill of Rights is based on the English Bill of Rights of 1689. There is a lot of familiar language about due process, property, trial by jury, free speech and the right to arms. England, though, only recognizes free speech rights (and this is also true of Australia to this day) of those currently serving in Parliament and not anyone out of government. It's why speech is restricted for people, including journalists, in Australia and England in a way we Americans can't easily imagine. Our founders had a broader conception of human freedom. It's why ALL Americans have free speech rights not just those in the legislature. The English Bill of Rights of 1689 also says that there is a right to such arms as allowed by law. The Americans saw this was wide open for abuse of the right by government (simply outlaw all arms, effectively making it a privilege) so they replaced as allowed by law with shall not be infringed.
@@Anon54387 you sound like you know what you are talking about but you don't. Comparing and replacing apples with bananas doesn't make your point valid. You make a week argument and I'm not buying your BS. You are giving only have the information.. but you are trying.. I'll give you that. Its hard to get everything into a response. 🙈🤷♀️
To be fair you can actually own a tank
Please watch the tenhatreach second amendment video on TH-cam to see how wrong this video was
@@underworld7148 link? I can’t find it
@@MrThewetsheep this channel want
Let me link it
@@MrThewetsheep I just made a playlist on my channel labeled Second Amendment it's the only video
Yes.
The US Military has never been used to suppress civilians? What? Are we playing word games about what counts as suppression of civilians?
Just because it hasn't doesn't mean it won't ever.
Also the defense from animals who can eat you
And Indians.
This video seems a little anti guna biased. The idea isn’t for the right to have a state militia. It’s the right of a citizen to bear arms. The founders were pretty direct here.
It’s almost like the digging is trying to make the second amendment not about what it is about.
Dig into philosophy and you will realize why the first and second amendment is there and is not meant to be debated or interperated differently than what it is. Yes, america has problems, but the founders really were legends of philosophy.
Read article 1 section 8 clause 15 and 16 that clearly says otherwise
@@nathandennis8078 idk, I’m not an intellectual like you. Does it say “Just kidding, no right to bear arms.”
@@futurereflections4097 no but it does say that Congress that the authority to call forth a militia and raise and train one, also 10 us code 246 specifically talks what kinds of militias there are and based off of what that says it points towards a state run militia not a private one
You’re doing a lot of mental gymnastics to subvert the second. Try and take my gun and you’ll get shot in the head
@@futurereflections4097 I'm not subverting anything ill telling you what the constitution says. You can try to shoot them in head but you'll be put down
Complete over-reach on the meaning of "well regulated." This doesn't mean groups that pre-exist. Well-regulated doesn't mean practiced and commanded, it means capable, functional etc. Can't believe this channel allows this rewriting and reinterpretation. Read the Federalist papers, early revisions of the amendment etc. Arms does not solely mean handguns and rifles. An armed resistance would utilize any tools available; yes, cannons, explosives, tanks etc. Limitations on arms have arisen via ignorance not traditional common lawful use. When the need arises all manner of weapons will be used, including absconded weapons from military facilities. There are many more armorers, snipers, artillerymen, tank operators etc. in the civilian population than are in the military. No government would use nukes on its homeland so don't go down that 'what about' rabbit hole.
Oh my god..you are soooo right..back then..anything you had available considered you armed..pitch forks spades..you name it..everyone couldn't afford a gun..thanks for your comment..
How do you know they wouldn't nuke their homeland?
So you can defend your state against the fed in a well regulated militia, all day everyday if need be, but against each other is a grey area.
Self defense is a right. If someone attacks you you've the right to defend yourself, no grey area here at all.
@@Anon54387 unless it's law enforcement then you don't
@@nathandennis8078 Nope, if a cop attacks someone they've STILL a right to self defense. I, nor anyone I know, have ever been attacked by a cop.
@Anon54387 there's states that have laws against resisting arrest and and practically every state has laws on assault on police officers.
There's no mention of automatic weapons black powder that is all bring this back before The supreme Court. The original list can't be original on everything except guns
Yeah, you should've proof read your post before clicking comment. It really is unclear
I disagree with part of this because there is growing concern about the government and its over Growing Power of today it's obvious if you listen to the news I'm not trying to sight nothing anything but if you listen to the news and what's happening people are very concerned
Bullets go through walls. So you DON'T HAVE A RIGHT to shoot in the direction of someone's apartment or house or car etc...
And no one says one has a right to shoot in the direction of someone's house. Murder is also against the law because that infringes someone's right to life. But merely owning a gun infringes the rights of no one else so the government has no right to tell people they cannot own guns.
The battles of Lexington and Concord. Not the battle of. And Lexington was not about armories, nor even much of a battle. But it was at Lexington was fired The Shot.... And the idea that English individuals had a right to own, have, and carry guns as protection against tyranny is just ignorant blather. Who, for example, would be the tyrant?
The very great problem in understanding the 2A is that the Constitution was for, about, and concerned with a federal government and possibilities of abuse - against the states! Hence the first clause, "A well regulated militia." Clearly they did not suppose that a single farmer with a musket or even a rifle was a "well-regulated" anything. Nor were they concerned here with individuals. In the constitution it is always "the people." If they had meant individuals, they'd have said so.
And it is the right of the people to keep and bear arms, not of individuals to have, own, or carry them.
At that time, a rifle in responsible hands was no more remarkable than a hammer in a carpenter's or an axe in a woodsman's. In irresponsible hands, an object of horror.
And those who argue from the 2A ought to understand that nothing in the 2A, or in the Constitution itself then, constrained in any way whatsoever a state's authority/right to control as to weapons and pretty much everything else that was not delegated to the new federal government.
The idea that a person would/could take an assault-style rifle to Burger King when getting a hamburger, for protection, would have shocked and disgusted the people of the 1780s and 90s.
It seems pretty clear. Guns can be an addiction, and the addicts are fully invested in parts of the 2A, even when they do not understand it. And like true addicts, they are not interested in understanding it.
The problem I have is not that people have guns and I personally don't want to take any of the rights we have as US CITIZENS BUT alot of gun owners don't think that other citizens who don't own guns have rights too. I have a right to feel safe. And I 🇺🇸 don't feel safe with a bunch of people who are walking around with guns on their sides. So we have to weigh how to protect all Americans rights not just some ALL.
I feel perfectly safe with people walking around with guns.
Our rights are not dependent on your feelings.
At this point, you are safer with civilians that carry guns than the government.
"the meaning of the ammendment changed over time." False, dude. It hasnt changed nor can it. People like you are trying to change interpretation.
Back then everyone had guns
These goons have no clue what they are talking about. Using words like hunting and self defense. It's about defense against a tyrannical government.
You can legally own a tank a fully functional tank you can legally own Maricopa County jet fighters helicopters share of Liz Cheney was changed and many other devices you can even legally own a fully automatic and by the Constitution that does not limit you on what you can own it says you have the right to bear arms
Sure the words, shall not be INFRINGED means it's okay to set limitations. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
A lot of talk and no one mentions a word about "A WELL REGULATED MILITIA"
Because "Right of People" is talk about "We the People"
@@garrettguerra7616 That's totally unrelated. I am pointing to the how, not the who. Everyone is so obsessed with the who and the very first words are totally ignored.
That's convenient. In many ways, not having strong gun regulations is anticonstitutional.
@@ramireznoy "Well Regulated Militia" doesn't equal "Well Regulated Firearms"
Well Regulated doesn't mean like Regulation,how about you look up the term(Well Regulated"used in the early 1800s
@@garrettguerra7616 Man... Don't go down the rabbit hole of "back then" :-) It may not be good for you to realize they were thinking about muskets and State security. The resemblance to nowadays is overwhelming hehehe.
In any case, a militia is and always has been a military force raised from the civilians to complement the regular army. And mostly for emergency or special situations.
If you want to believe a "well regulated militia" does not includes regulation to what makes them a military force, it is your choice. But it doesn't implies you are correct.
@@ramireznoy ignorant rhetoric for thr Anti gun rhetoric
Supreme Court already ruled that isn't the case,there literally no possibility way you can misinterpretar to your narrative that would change the 2nd Amendment meaning
"Right of the People to Keep & Bear Arms,shall not be infringed"
The Bill of Right limits government Authority,not individuals Rights
And actaully we havent had gun control throughout our history but there as been trying to and people just letting them take it
Hello comrades we have been making many games we never thought we would make, comrade Bloomberg is shaving us main main divisions of soldiers, he has basically disarmed the Northeast part of the country, the western part of the country has basically surrendered already and are learning how to bow correctly they seem eager to join the people's republic of America, but we must move forward we must take arms away from the citizens of the South, Dollar general say it will take many many divisions and many many years to bring the southern part of the country to obedience, we must disarm them Conrad Bloomberg is doing very well with the money allotted we will final as much money as necessary we already own some of the voting machines, if we can take the weapons from the citizens of the South, then America will fall from a tree like ripe fruit, we must arrest these so-called Patriots try them and execute them, we will use their women in our party brothels and we will re-educate their children, they will learn obedience true the peoples Democratic social America, chairman Mao would be very proud of Bloomberg and his social Democrats
Okay I am getting the gist of the videos creator. Guns are only for a State militia. Couple of points. 1st in 1791 the was NO standing Federal Army. And 2nd a tyrant can be a State government or a Federal government. These 2 simple point make moot the milita being the only holders of guns. Then factor in the Founding Fathers notions of individual rights and the rest of the weak anti individual gun rights idea.
It doesn't seem to be logical if the Writers of the Constitution intended to tell the States the Fed's wouldn't limit the States. It would make more sense if the Federal government would tell the States what to be armed with. They just finished a war and had a hodgepodge of equipment. Individual used their own weapons after all. And to those thinking "not everyone owned a gun," true. Those were supplied by other more wealthy citizens, not any government body. And finally the 10th Amendment destroys the concept that the 2nd applies to the States and not individual citizen. They used a lot of words to express a simple point, but that (if correct) would be redundant.
This is indicator for me to never use Khan "Academy" in learning anything in anyway. Goodbye
Care to elaborate?