When he was talking about restrictions on fully automatic guns and tanks.... I'd think you'd have to overlook the "infringe" part. Infringe: to encroach upon or break. My definition of infringe: to cross the outermost boundary line in any way. To cross the fringe of something.
24:08 Viewer from 2023 here, I'm in no way disagreeing with your analysis at the time of recording but Bruen is a thing now. The future MIGHT be brighter than we ever thought.
Clark Neily was awesome, great video! At 23:27, those arms should not be restricted. Tench Coxe wrote in 1788 "Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans." The people have the right to own, at the very least, the same equipment that the infantry or government police officer are issued, and this should be the case especially as technology evolves. This was and should be the understanding. Limiting arms technology for the people to a certain time era or technology (semi-auto for example) while not implementing the same limitation for the government IS infringement. What time period or advancement of a weapons technology would Congress choose that is acceptable for the people? Would it change as the years pass or would it stay stagnant in that era? Can the people possess arms technologies 100 years behind the government owned arms? These questions are utterly absurd, and unfortunately reflect the exact situation we find ourselves in today.
As noted in the video, the Second Amendment was primarily part of a widespread sentiment at the time against standing armies. Curiously, guns rights activists often tend to be the biggest supporters of the military establishment. The notion that people ought to own "the same equipment as a police officer" is arbitrary -- especially as modern police forces did not arise until the mid-19th century -- long after the colonial era. One might say that people should be allowed to possess the arms as the military, but that leads to the absurdity of Hellfire missiles. The purpose of the Second Amendment was to promote the "necessary security of a free State." Many of these issues regarding the powers of states was resolved by the Re-Founders via the Civil War and the 14th Amendment.
Militia: A voluntary, structured, assembly of citizens for the purpose of civil protection via combat. Be it organically citizen formed, or formed by a level of government. Commonly thought of to be formed for the purpose of defense against tyrannical government, foreign enemies, or domestic protection when a governmental professional force is not available (ie. police, national guard or army.) That's just a definition I made now based off of my own opinions and the history of the world. The "people" need the have "arms" at all times so that they can form a militia at any moment. True, currently it's not likely we would need to challenge the US government today. But if guns are "infringed" on or "controlled" dramatically over the next 100 years, the government can change dramatically in that time. Or if local government were to collapse, the "people" need to be able to form their own protection until help or stability returns. If a localized natural disaster happen, the "people" need to be able to form a protective militia to defend society, if needed, until stability occurred.
Excellent comment, thank you! I'm thinking of Katrina 2005, and how if the residents of the Greater New Orleans Area had organically composed several militias for covering areas prior to that disaster, they could've staved off the firearms confiscation. They could've attempted to reason with the NO chief, the several parish sheriffs, that "we're armed, we're on an 'observe-n-report' footing but will immediately respond to life-threatening criminal situations." Then if the armed-powers-that-be still balked, the militias could then stand pat, shielded by our 2nd Amendment. I think, or at least I would like to believe, that a rational police chief would've nodded and then got back to his job of public safety via patrol-n-response, rather than "public safety" via disarmament.
I largely agree with him, but I got a couple disagreements with his argument. In particular, the argument that there are limits on the second Amendment. The text Arms, it does not specify what kind of Arms at all, he lightly touched about Cannons. But the founders talked in detail the ability to own cannons and naval vessels of war. Like he said about letters of Mark. So because their is no specific limit in the term Arms, like the 2nd Amendment does not say the right to keep muskets ect.. it uses Arms instead. I agree with what he said earlier that Arms are basically whatever weapon that would improve your ability to fight. And here's the caveat, why unlike his example of the first Amendment. Is unlike the First Amendment or any other Amendment, the Second Amendment specifically states " Shall not be infringed". Its the only place in the Constitution that says that specifically. Which implies the second Amendment cannot be violated, Anything that impedes your ability to keep and bear Arms a generalized term I will add. Means it there can't be any limits on that right. So Constitutionally I'd argue, that there is no limit on what kind of weapon you can own and operate and yes Constitutionally speaking even Missiles and Nukes which are a form of Armament. Also means that the government can't place any limits of any kind, due to the Shall not be infringed part of the Amendment. The reason why it was written like this, is a couple fold but largely it was a general fear of the founders that the government might become Tyrannical and usurp liberty, and the Second Amendment was designed as that last safe guard to protect all of our rights and they placed the part Shall not be infringed to prevent the government from making attempts to limit that final safeguard we have. I will add, does anyone know why the first two battles of the Revolutionary War happened. It was because of gun control, the British Regulars literally marched out of Boston in order to confiscate the Colonists arms, powder and Ammunition at Lexington and Concord. So the Founding Father's were well aware of a government coming to curtail our essential right. Now with all that said, does that mean the court would ever support that position, or I would like for their be unfettered access to any weapon under the sun, like nukes for example of course not. Our courts are pragmatic, so they would never allow no limit on the Second Amendment, despite what the text says. In the eyes of the court the second amendment will likely always be treated as a second class Amendment, Like he said. I just wanted to point out that technically if you read the second amendment and you don't just ignore the inconvenient part specifically the Shall not be infringed part, then you should come to the same conclusion. Most Democrats only read up to A Well Regulated Milita part. And some Republicans only read up to the Right of the people to keep and bear arms part. Missing the important last part Shall not be infringed.
A few things: First with regards to cannons, how practical would it be for the average citizen to own one? Sure if you were the owner of a merchant vessel, that may be your right to protect your shipping and business interest, but what of the average farmer living on the frontier as he mentioned most Americans were? And think of the costs... casting a cast iron barrel alone would cost the equivalent of $21,614. That is not including the cost of the gun carriage and the implements needed to operate a field piece. Second, the language in both the 1st and 2nd Amendment are very much alike. While the 1st Amendment does not use the word "infringed" the word that is used means essentially the same.... "nor prohibiting" the exercise of religion, or "abridging" --- meaning to curtail or limit -- the other rights listed. Yet those rights are prohibited and limited all the time. I can not legally practice a religion that requires human or animal sacrifices, I can not assemble in public for purposes that are not peaceful and may insight violence (do not curfew laws abridge that right?). I can not use speech that insights violence or hate. Most Republicans tend to skip over the first part of the 2nd Amendment, and go straight to "shall not be infringed". Why then did they find it important to state before everything else "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"? I must contend that he was incorrect by saying the National Guard is under Federal control. That is only if there is a national emergency and the President activities them. Otherwise, the Guard is under complete control of the states, as were the militia. And of course there is the fact it says a "well regulated" militia. This means they meant for citizen soldiers to be well trained and drilled in military tactics and discipline. I must also disagree with his, and other conservatives, contention that the main idea behind this was to guard against tyranny within our own government. The belief of a standing army being a danger goes back far beyond the Revolution, and the main concern at the time was defending each colony/state against outside aggression. The real threats were from foreign powers like Spain or France, not to mention Native American tribes. That is why so many living on the frontier had fire arms..... even if there was a standing army, it would take weeks for it to arrive in the Ohio Valley from the Chesapeake Bay cost.
You're incorrect. With regard to the Second Amendment to the Constitution the term "arms" is specifically, according to text, history, and tradition meant arms that a single person can employ. You can physically carry your arms and ammunition. A cannon, while legal to own in that time requires more than one man to operate effectively. Knives, hatchets, rifles, and handguns. Not bazookas. Not missiles, et al.
@@warlord8954 You know that what you said is a contradiction right. If you like to consider the term Arms only meant weapons that a individual could carry, then you have to contend with cannons. This was a question the Founders answered when one was asked if a merchant could own a cannon. Which they could, a cannon is not a individual weapon. Not only that, citizens could even own ships of war. During the Revolutionary period, the majority of the navy was consisted of merchant vessels, not true ships of the line. In fact not to mention letters of Marque. But even one of our founders John Hancock he personally owned a fleet of about 15 ships for blockade running. This disputes the claim, that the term Arms only meant for weapons a individual could carry.
@@noticedruid4985 In the context of the Second Amendment, the debates between Federalists, and Anti-Federalists at the national, state, and local debates what I said was wholly accurate.
Thought: Speech should be 100% free. It's not that there are limits on speech, but rather the "mens rea" or intent of your action of speaking that makes an illegal action. ex: You can yell fire in a theater that's actually on fire. Or you can defame someone if you, in good faith/evidence, believe what you are saying is factual and true, when it is not. Speaking words is 100% free, but what you do with those words makes the difference.
This is an easy argument. In fact it isn’t even an argument if you know the facts. In 2013 by executive order the cdc studied defensive gun use in america. They found that between 500k and 3 million lives are saved yearly in america with a firearm. Done. Argument over. Guns save lives.
@@jowo8862he did, it's a 2013 CDC study. Theres even an FBI study that under reports the dgu's yearly. In point of fact the majority of "defensive gun uses" do not include firing the gun.
At 33:58 reminds me of what Thomas Jefferson said... “The ground of liberty is to be gained by inches. We must be contented to secure what we can get from time to time and eternally press forward for what is yet to get. It takes time to persuade men to do even what is for their own good.” These are wins, but we must keep pressing forward with more cases and with persuasive conversations in our daily lives.
At 42:48 Important distinction: Driving a car is a privilege and we should have little issue with a government testing/licensing scheme, or requiring insurance, etc.. Keeping and bearing arms is a right that should not be infringed in the same way obtaining a drivers license can be. Comparing them should never be entertained in a 2A debate. We hear this come up often, but there is a very clear distinction and is NOT comparing apples to apples.
Indeed. Often compared frivilously ,imo, we do have a right to travel freely. That mode of travel is not guaranteed. Driving a car is not a right on taxpayer funded roadways where some order and rules are needed to prevent chaos.
If carried to its logical conclusion this would mean that convicted felons are being denied their natural rights. Indeed, even people who are currently incarcerated have been denied the "natural right" to arm themselves.
The National Guard is NOT under the federal government. It is under the control of the individual States. The ONLY time they can be used for the national government is when Title 10 is enacted.
The 2nd Amendment FOR DUMMIES: “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.” 1. “Well Regulated” = Well Equipped/ Proper working order. 2. The Militia = You 3. The People = Militia = You 4. to Keep = in possession 5. To keep and bear arms = in possession and hold your firearms. 6. Shall not be Infringed = Don’t touch my gun rights. FUN FACT: The definition of “Well Regulated” in the context 1700s meant that the people (Militia) needed to be not only armed but well supplied and trained with their personal firearms in case of any threat of a tyrannical government. You can’t be well equipped and well trained if Democrats and RINOs infringe on your rights to own.
It wasn’t the courts duty to apply meaning to these words the meaning was written down quite clearly and the second amendment is the only amendment that says shall not be infringed which means you can put no limits on it constitutionally
I generally agree with his view on school shootings. If kids started driving cars into schools to run people over, you wouldn't first think "we need to band cars." You'd think maybe we need to increase security by adding barriers around the school. At minimum, every new gun control law that's suggested after a school shooting should be asking, "how exactly would this law have actually stopped the shooting?" As a second note: To create a law that restricts hundreds of millions of citizens not county the billions to come later, just to theoretically stop a hand full of people from doing something that is already illegal in the first place.
Laws are created because of a tiny minority of bad actors. Why should people be subjected to a search on an airplane when the vast majority will do nothing wrong? It's a shame that gun control laws are linked to mass shootings when mass shootings make up the smallest fraction (by far) of gun violence. Americans have become anesthetized to the usual grind of homicides and suicides.
In Bruen SCOTUS established that text and history is the standard for 2nd Amendment cases. Since, as he alluded to, Article 1, section 8, clause 11 provides that the federal government can issue letters of marque and reprisal private ownership of cannon, i.e. military grade weapons, was common. That standard should apply today.
@@martthesling Well, it's sort of implied. You don't send merchant ships to capture other ships without them. I guess you could if you intended to capture the ship because the crew was laughing their asses off
I agree with you, but as time marches on and the msm and its propagandizing culture continues its repeated messages, access to full-autos might be accepted only as part of the "organized militia", and us unorganized-militiamen will just waste some political capital if we insist on it too when we #RepealTheNFA But, we can still come to the table with it in hand, negotiate hard for it, and settle for "just" SBRs, SBSs, AOW, suppressors. And just like an Aunty Anti, we can release our press statement that, "This is a great day for freedom, and a great first step..." while preparing our plans and moves to eventually get our new-and-improved machineguns back.
Regulate in this text means well supplied the word state in this text means sovereign nation, but this man will not put this in context, because the context goes against his beliefs
No, now what.. that's what you ultimately face. You'll have to force it. And that wont end well for the enforcers considering they are outnumbered millions to one. Neither Congress nor the courts can legally do that without the support of the people. Even then, the scotus itself has given ruling that unconstitutional laws do not have any import and can be ignored. What you are really asking is to remove the restrictions placed on government by the 2A that keeps them from being tyrants like stalin etc.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 82 วันนี้!! คู่เอก | ยอดไอคิว vs อับดัลลาห์](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hSsyTl_9bqs/mqdefault.jpg)
When he was talking about restrictions on fully automatic guns and tanks.... I'd think you'd have to overlook the "infringe" part. Infringe: to encroach upon or break. My definition of infringe: to cross the outermost boundary line in any way. To cross the fringe of something.
24:08 Viewer from 2023 here, I'm in no way disagreeing with your analysis at the time of recording but Bruen is a thing now. The future MIGHT be brighter than we ever thought.
Clark Neily was awesome, great video! At 23:27, those arms should not be restricted. Tench Coxe wrote in 1788 "Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans." The people have the right to own, at the very least, the same equipment that the infantry or government police officer are issued, and this should be the case especially as technology evolves. This was and should be the understanding. Limiting arms technology for the people to a certain time era or technology (semi-auto for example) while not implementing the same limitation for the government IS infringement. What time period or advancement of a weapons technology would Congress choose that is acceptable for the people? Would it change as the years pass or would it stay stagnant in that era? Can the people possess arms technologies 100 years behind the government owned arms? These questions are utterly absurd, and unfortunately reflect the exact situation we find ourselves in today.
As noted in the video, the Second Amendment was primarily part of a widespread sentiment at the time against standing armies. Curiously, guns rights activists often tend to be the biggest supporters of the military establishment. The notion that people ought to own "the same equipment as a police officer" is arbitrary -- especially as modern police forces did not arise until the mid-19th century -- long after the colonial era. One might say that people should be allowed to possess the arms as the military, but that leads to the absurdity of Hellfire missiles. The purpose of the Second Amendment was to promote the "necessary security of a free State." Many of these issues regarding the powers of states was resolved by the Re-Founders via the Civil War and the 14th Amendment.
the limits should be uniform and equal under the law. For example, you have to commit an act, to be held to account for an act committed.
Militia: A voluntary, structured, assembly of citizens for the purpose of civil protection via combat. Be it organically citizen formed, or formed by a level of government. Commonly thought of to be formed for the purpose of defense against tyrannical government, foreign enemies, or domestic protection when a governmental professional force is not available (ie. police, national guard or army.)
That's just a definition I made now based off of my own opinions and the history of the world. The "people" need the have "arms" at all times so that they can form a militia at any moment. True, currently it's not likely we would need to challenge the US government today. But if guns are "infringed" on or "controlled" dramatically over the next 100 years, the government can change dramatically in that time. Or if local government were to collapse, the "people" need to be able to form their own protection until help or stability returns. If a localized natural disaster happen, the "people" need to be able to form a protective militia to defend society, if needed, until stability occurred.
Excellent comment, thank you! I'm thinking of Katrina 2005, and how if the residents of the Greater New Orleans Area had organically composed several militias for covering areas prior to that disaster, they could've staved off the firearms confiscation.
They could've attempted to reason with the NO chief, the several parish sheriffs, that "we're armed, we're on an 'observe-n-report' footing but will immediately respond to life-threatening criminal situations."
Then if the armed-powers-that-be still balked, the militias could then stand pat, shielded by our 2nd Amendment.
I think, or at least I would like to believe, that a rational police chief would've nodded and then got back to his job of public safety via patrol-n-response, rather than "public safety" via disarmament.
@@DomoArigatoRobot0 Thank you!
I largely agree with him, but I got a couple disagreements with his argument.
In particular, the argument that there are limits on the second Amendment.
The text Arms, it does not specify what kind of Arms at all, he lightly touched about Cannons. But the founders talked in detail the ability to own cannons and naval vessels of war. Like he said about letters of Mark.
So because their is no specific limit in the term Arms, like the 2nd Amendment does not say the right to keep muskets ect.. it uses Arms instead. I agree with what he said earlier that Arms are basically whatever weapon that would improve your ability to fight.
And here's the caveat, why unlike his example of the first Amendment. Is unlike the First Amendment or any other Amendment, the Second Amendment specifically states " Shall not be infringed". Its the only place in the Constitution that says that specifically. Which implies the second Amendment cannot be violated, Anything that impedes your ability to keep and bear Arms a generalized term I will add. Means it there can't be any limits on that right.
So Constitutionally I'd argue, that there is no limit on what kind of weapon you can own and operate and yes Constitutionally speaking even Missiles and Nukes which are a form of Armament. Also means that the government can't place any limits of any kind, due to the Shall not be infringed part of the Amendment.
The reason why it was written like this, is a couple fold but largely it was a general fear of the founders that the government might become Tyrannical and usurp liberty, and the Second Amendment was designed as that last safe guard to protect all of our rights and they placed the part Shall not be infringed to prevent the government from making attempts to limit that final safeguard we have.
I will add, does anyone know why the first two battles of the Revolutionary War happened. It was because of gun control, the British Regulars literally marched out of Boston in order to confiscate the Colonists arms, powder and Ammunition at Lexington and Concord.
So the Founding Father's were well aware of a government coming to curtail our essential right.
Now with all that said, does that mean the court would ever support that position, or I would like for their be unfettered access to any weapon under the sun, like nukes for example of course not.
Our courts are pragmatic, so they would never allow no limit on the Second Amendment, despite what the text says.
In the eyes of the court the second amendment will likely always be treated as a second class Amendment, Like he said.
I just wanted to point out that technically if you read the second amendment and you don't just ignore the inconvenient part specifically the Shall not be infringed part, then you should come to the same conclusion.
Most Democrats only read up to A Well Regulated Milita part.
And some Republicans only read up to the Right of the people to keep and bear arms part. Missing the important last part Shall not be infringed.
A few things: First with regards to cannons, how practical would it be for the average citizen to own one? Sure if you were the owner of a merchant vessel, that may be your right to protect your shipping and business interest, but what of the average farmer living on the frontier as he mentioned most Americans were? And think of the costs... casting a cast iron barrel alone would cost the equivalent of $21,614. That is not including the cost of the gun carriage and the implements needed to operate a field piece.
Second, the language in both the 1st and 2nd Amendment are very much alike. While the 1st Amendment does not use the word "infringed" the word that is used means essentially the same.... "nor prohibiting" the exercise of religion, or "abridging" --- meaning to curtail or limit -- the other rights listed. Yet those rights are prohibited and limited all the time. I can not legally practice a religion that requires human or animal sacrifices, I can not assemble in public for purposes that are not peaceful and may insight violence (do not curfew laws abridge that right?). I can not use speech that insights violence or hate.
Most Republicans tend to skip over the first part of the 2nd Amendment, and go straight to "shall not be infringed". Why then did they find it important to state before everything else "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"? I must contend that he was incorrect by saying the National Guard is under Federal control. That is only if there is a national emergency and the President activities them. Otherwise, the Guard is under complete control of the states, as were the militia. And of course there is the fact it says a "well regulated" militia. This means they meant for citizen soldiers to be well trained and drilled in military tactics and discipline.
I must also disagree with his, and other conservatives, contention that the main idea behind this was to guard against tyranny within our own government. The belief of a standing army being a danger goes back far beyond the Revolution, and the main concern at the time was defending each colony/state against outside aggression. The real threats were from foreign powers like Spain or France, not to mention Native American tribes. That is why so many living on the frontier had fire arms..... even if there was a standing army, it would take weeks for it to arrive in the Ohio Valley from the Chesapeake Bay cost.
I'm not trying to be a grammar tyrant, but the phrase is, Letter of Marque.
You're incorrect. With regard to the Second Amendment to the Constitution the term "arms" is specifically, according to text, history, and tradition meant arms that a single person can employ. You can physically carry your arms and ammunition.
A cannon, while legal to own in that time requires more than one man to operate effectively.
Knives, hatchets, rifles, and handguns.
Not bazookas. Not missiles, et al.
@@warlord8954 You know that what you said is a contradiction right.
If you like to consider the term Arms only meant weapons that a individual could carry, then you have to contend with cannons.
This was a question the Founders answered when one was asked if a merchant could own a cannon. Which they could, a cannon is not a individual weapon. Not only that, citizens could even own ships of war.
During the Revolutionary period, the majority of the navy was consisted of merchant vessels, not true ships of the line. In fact not to mention letters of Marque. But even one of our founders John Hancock he personally owned a fleet of about 15 ships for blockade running.
This disputes the claim, that the term Arms only meant for weapons a individual could carry.
@@noticedruid4985 In the context of the Second Amendment, the debates between Federalists, and Anti-Federalists at the national, state, and local debates what I said was wholly accurate.
Thought: Speech should be 100% free. It's not that there are limits on speech, but rather the "mens rea" or intent of your action of speaking that makes an illegal action. ex: You can yell fire in a theater that's actually on fire. Or you can defame someone if you, in good faith/evidence, believe what you are saying is factual and true, when it is not. Speaking words is 100% free, but what you do with those words makes the difference.
This is an easy argument. In fact it isn’t even an argument if you know the facts.
In 2013 by executive order the cdc studied defensive gun use in america. They found that between 500k and 3 million lives are saved yearly in america with a firearm. Done. Argument over. Guns save lives.
yo can u send a source? i need this
@@jowo8862 US center for disease control,..CDC
@@jowo8862he did, it's a 2013 CDC study. Theres even an FBI study that under reports the dgu's yearly. In point of fact the majority of "defensive gun uses" do not include firing the gun.
@@melgillham462 thanks! I actually found it a while ago haha
At 33:58 reminds me of what Thomas Jefferson said... “The ground of liberty is to be gained by inches. We must be contented to secure what we can get from time to time and eternally press forward for what is yet to get. It takes time to persuade men to do even what is for their own good.” These are wins, but we must keep pressing forward with more cases and with persuasive conversations in our daily lives.
The ppl created a gov to uphold our rights and liberties, not to create laws abridgeing them to suit the whims of political agendas.
At 42:48 Important distinction: Driving a car is a privilege and we should have little issue with a government testing/licensing scheme, or requiring insurance, etc.. Keeping and bearing arms is a right that should not be infringed in the same way obtaining a drivers license can be. Comparing them should never be entertained in a 2A debate. We hear this come up often, but there is a very clear distinction and is NOT comparing apples to apples.
Indeed. Often compared frivilously ,imo, we do have a right to travel freely. That mode of travel is not guaranteed. Driving a car is not a right on taxpayer funded roadways where some order and rules are needed to prevent chaos.
She did not like his statement about parents having the right to control their children look at her face when he says that
The second amendment is a natural right of all living creatures to defend their lives
If carried to its logical conclusion this would mean that convicted felons are being denied their natural rights. Indeed, even people who are currently incarcerated have been denied the "natural right" to arm themselves.
The National Guard is NOT under the federal government. It is under the control of the individual States. The ONLY time they can be used for the national government is when Title 10 is enacted.
With it says the peoples rights everywhere in the constitution that means The individual why would it be different in the Second Amendment
So what good is the 2a ? If the government, both state, and federal keep scratching it away.
17:00 his inner patriot really came out there for a minute lol
The 2nd Amendment FOR DUMMIES:
“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.”
1. “Well Regulated” = Well Equipped/ Proper working order.
2. The Militia = You
3. The People = Militia = You
4. to Keep = in possession
5. To keep and bear arms = in possession and hold your firearms.
6. Shall not be Infringed = Don’t touch my gun rights.
FUN FACT: The definition of “Well Regulated” in the context 1700s meant that the people (Militia) needed to be not only armed but well supplied and trained with their personal firearms in case of any threat of a tyrannical government. You can’t be well equipped and well trained if Democrats and RINOs infringe on your rights to own.
It wasn’t the courts duty to apply meaning to these words the meaning was written down quite clearly and the second amendment is the only amendment that says shall not be infringed which means you can put no limits on it constitutionally
I feel tricked somehow.... Why am I in class?
But Shazam was qualified...
"That's racist. I asked The Flash."
I generally agree with his view on school shootings. If kids started driving cars into schools to run people over, you wouldn't first think "we need to band cars." You'd think maybe we need to increase security by adding barriers around the school. At minimum, every new gun control law that's suggested after a school shooting should be asking, "how exactly would this law have actually stopped the shooting?"
As a second note: To create a law that restricts hundreds of millions of citizens not county the billions to come later, just to theoretically stop a hand full of people from doing something that is already illegal in the first place.
Yes. Almost like thinking a nuclear explosion to stave off a hurricane's potential devastation #BanGunFreeZones #ArmTheVolunteerTeachersAndAdmins
Laws are created because of a tiny minority of bad actors. Why should people be subjected to a search on an airplane when the vast majority will do nothing wrong?
It's a shame that gun control laws are linked to mass shootings when mass shootings make up the smallest fraction (by far) of gun violence. Americans have become anesthetized to the usual grind of homicides and suicides.
In Bruen SCOTUS established that text and history is the standard for 2nd Amendment cases. Since, as he alluded to, Article 1, section 8, clause 11 provides that the federal government can issue letters of marque and reprisal private ownership of cannon, i.e. military grade weapons, was common. That standard should apply today.
Where does it mention cannons in article 1, section 8?
@@martthesling read previous post
@@rogerclark9285 I read where you metioned. I didn't see anything about cannons.
@@martthesling Well, it's sort of implied. You don't send merchant ships to capture other ships without them. I guess you could if you intended to capture the ship because the crew was laughing their asses off
@@rogerclark9285 "Implied" It isn't written. You just made shit up.
I think he's 100% wrong about the automatic weapons I think when the abolished NFA that will open up the door
Great thought, but don't forget about the Hughes Ammendment of '86. Without that, full autos would be as prevalent today as SBR's or suppressors.
I agree with you, but as time marches on and the msm and its propagandizing culture continues its repeated messages, access to full-autos might be accepted only as part of the "organized militia", and us unorganized-militiamen will just waste some political capital if we insist on it too when we #RepealTheNFA
But, we can still come to the table with it in hand, negotiate hard for it, and settle for "just" SBRs, SBSs, AOW, suppressors.
And just like an Aunty Anti, we can release our press statement that, "This is a great day for freedom, and a great first step..." while preparing our plans and moves to eventually get our new-and-improved machineguns back.
Regulate in this text means well supplied the word state in this text means sovereign nation, but this man will not put this in context, because the context goes against his beliefs
re:DC v Heller... Scalia on historical significance of 2nd Amendment: th-cam.com/video/DaoLMW5AF4Y/w-d-xo.html
Thank you for sharing this.
The second amendment needs to be scrapped.
I'm🙂 going to buy a firearm.
No, now what.. that's what you ultimately face. You'll have to force it. And that wont end well for the enforcers considering they are outnumbered millions to one. Neither Congress nor the courts can legally do that without the support of the people. Even then, the scotus itself has given ruling that unconstitutional laws do not have any import and can be ignored. What you are really asking is to remove the restrictions placed on government by the 2A that keeps them from being tyrants like stalin etc.
Not the best defense of the 2nd Amendment... would be better to have a higher level more intelligent discussion around it. I'll have to do it myself.
Scalia on historical significance of 2nd Amendment th-cam.com/video/DaoLMW5AF4Y/w-d-xo.html
AGMI/delta/jet'Boeinj'aqui[pa][a]//nd.D
k-12 student acheivement in mathematics avmdvaa.md //nd.D va.charter/ippa.va.xz
AGMI/delta/jet'Boeinj'aqui[pa][a]//nd.D/ii/nxt.Laam.PolisADFSDA.alaskia.defp