Man Wearing Defund Gun Control Shirt Confronted By Leftist Media & Exposes Their Ignorance
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 มิ.ย. 2023
- Defund Gun Control
bit.ly/33QJASD
A leftist media channel stumbled upon a gentleman sporting one of my Defund Gun Control Shirts. Little did they know, they were about to be schooled while trying to embarrass them.
Many mistakenly believe that the term "regulated" in the Second Amendment implies government control. But, that couldn't be further from the truth.
The interviewee had a valid point, though he would have been better off using "well-functioning" instead of "well-trained".
The video's social media title, "This 2nd Amendment enthusiast admits Americans with guns aren't 'well-trained'," attempted to twist his words.
Truth is, most Americans lack comprehensive firearms training, primarily due to its exorbitant costs and the government's failure to incentivize it. The interviewer was blindsided when the interviewee revealed his understanding of "Well Regulated," and attempted to shift the conversation towards gun control laws.
The comment section was equally astonishing. One commenter misunderstood the historical context of the Second Amendment, while another questioned whether "gun control" is government-funded. Let me set the record straight: gun laws are funded by taxpayers, and that's why I developed the Defund Gun Control Design.
Some commenters tried to argue that the Founding Fathers only intended muskets, not advanced firearms, with the term "arms." Their argument lacks foresight-the Founding Fathers understood the need to protect citizens' rights against potential tyranny. That's why they used the term "ARMS" instead of muskets.
While the interviewer thought he was knowledgeable, he was outmatched by our well-informed interviewee. The conversation stemmed from the intriguing shirt he wore, which is precisely the goal of ThePewPewLife brand: to pique curiosity and spark conversations that lead to education.
While not everyone may agree on the Second Amendment, at least they'll be more educated about it after watching our videos.
That's crucial because anti-Second Amendment groups and politicians prey on the uninformed to pass their unconstitutional gun laws.
So, The Pew Pew Life brand is not just about expressing a passion for the Second Amendment-it's also about educating the masses.
The more people understand their Second Amendment rights, the better protected those rights will be. While some may resist education, rest assured that there are more people open to learning than not. Watch the video and join the conversation today and get a Defund Gun Control Shirt
Defund Gun Control Merch
➡️ bit.ly/33QJASD
Join Our 2A Membership Club here on TH-cam and get these perks:
➡️ www.youtube.com/@colionnoir/join
Join MY Exclusive 2A Advocacy Text List while AUTOMATICALLY being entered in our monthly 2A Giveaways
➡️ bit.ly/3FFLHJi
Let's Go Brandon Merchandise
➡️ bit.ly/3EbcXP8
Get UnApologetically 2A Content In Short-Form On TH-cam & Help Protect The Second Amendment
➡️th-cam.com/users/colionnoirsho...
FREE BOOK - If I Only Had One Concealed Carry
➡️ www.mrcolionnoir.com/start-here/
PRO 2A Message Hats In Trucker, Dad, Snapback & More
➡️ shop.mrcolionnoir.com/collect...
Looking to help further our Pro Constitution, Pro 2A message, donate below:
www.MrColionNoir.com/donate/
UnApologetically 2A Content Content On Other Platforms:
Twitter - / mrcolionnoir
Instagram - / colionnoir
Facebook - / colionnoir
Gab - gab.com/ColionNoir
Truth Social- truthsocial.com/@ColionNoir
TH-cam Shorts - th-cam.com/users/colionnoirshorts?...
#2ANews #ColionNoir - บันเทิง
Defund Gun Control
➡ bit.ly/33QJASD
Hey buddy, when are you going to start making shirts that say H@ng treasonous and pedophile politicians? I'd buy a few.
2007 liberals: I don't trust the gov, I think the two towers was a ploy to get us into this war to enrich the military complex, they're attacking the middle class.
2023 neo-libs: I trust the gov, gimme the jab, take my rights, respect muh pronouns, I like soy, pthalates and ESG scores, stop being a conspiracy theorist, the authorities never lie, China is our ally.
Beyond what the word regulated means over 250 years ago is kind of irrelevant. If the militia is to ensure a method of preventing the government turning on your people, then regulated can never mean government oversight. Regulated can however still be true...well trained is still irrelevant then, but a form of self-regulation can be in play. If that form of regulation stated you have to be trained before using a gun, then you might have a discussion.
In short, this discussion can never be a government thing, but if regulation at some point means trained then you still need to deal with that part.
Can you post a link to the original video?
how you beat charges that violate protected rights? (including gun rights) heres how i would go about it.
The constitution is the law of the land and all laws are bound by it.
The 2nd amendment is very clear.
In order
(The constitution of the united states)
(Marbury v madison u.s. reports vol. 5 pg 137)
for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme law was illogical, for certainly the supreme law would prevail over all other laws and certainly our forfathers had intended that the supreme law would be the basis of all law, and for any law to come in conflict would be null in void of law, it would bear no power to enforce,it would bare no obligation to obey, it would purport the settle as if it never existed for unconstitutionality would date from any enactment of such a law. No courts are bound to uphold it and no citizens are bound to obey it. "
(Article 6 paragraph 2 of the supremacy clause) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the "supreme Law of the Land", and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws
Miranda v arizona "where rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no ruling or legislation which would abrogate them".
South carolina v united states " the constitution is a written instrument,as such its meaning does not alter. That which it ment when it was adopted,it means now".
D.C. v Heller "The right to keep and bear arms is infact an individual right, and no active militia participation is necessary to excercise that right."
Mcdonald v city of chicago 2010 "the 2nd amendment is fundamental for self defense and applies to the states under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment"
Nysrpa v bruen 2022 " the right to keep and bear arms includes bearing arms for personal protection outside of the home, current and future laws would be required to meet historical tradition"
(Murdock v Pennsylvania 1943 us reports vol 319. pg 105.) "no states shall convert a secured liberty into a privilege and or issue a licence and a fee for it"
(Shuttlesworth v Birmingham u.s. reports vol 373. Pg 262.) "If the state does convert a secured liberty into a privilege you can ignore it and proceed with impunity"
(U.s. v bishop 1973 us reports vol 412. Pg 346.) Covers willful intent meaning if their is no willful intent to break the law they lack grounds to proceed because you are basing your right to carry off..
The constitution
Marbury v madison
Article 6
Miranda v arizona
South carolina v united states
D.C. v Heller
Mcdonald v city of chicago
Nysrpa v bruen
Murdock v Pennsylvania
Shuttlesworth v Birmingham
u.s. v bishop.
You cant have willfulness if you are following laws on the books and the constitution is the law of the land everything else i stated verified that.
Its the perfect defense. They cant prove wilfulness because you are going off supreme court caselaw and the constitution.
You then sue even though they will claim good faith but they cant per (owen v city of independence 1982 supreme court reports vol 100. Pg 1398) and (main v Thibault 1979 supreme court reports vol 100. Pg 2502) leaves them with no judical or qualified immunity.
You then file (title 18 sec 241 and 242) "deprivation or rights under color of law"lawsuit and (title 42 1983,1985,and 1986 civil rights lawsuits.) Then file articles of treason under (title 18 sec 2381.)
The 2nd amendment is an inalienable right.
"Shall not be infringed".
Gun laws are an "infringement"
definition: the action of limiting or undermining something. "Limiting" who can have a firearm and where, and when by directly "undermining" the 2nd amendment.
1st part "a well regulated Militia" was described as "able bodied men willing and able to take up arms if they should need to in order to secure and maintain a free state of living".
The 2nd amendment was put in place to prevent (government) overreach from (infringing) on our (rights).
This means police,military or reserves do NOT classify as "militia" as some argue becuase they are a "government" entity.
Gun laws violate the constitution period and people need to stand up to this.
Absolutely every person in the United states has an equal right to keep and bear arms.
It does not matter what some state law says or city law says it does not matter your background.
your are a "person" and a "citizen."
All state and city laws are bound by the constitution and if they are not they do not have to be followed as they are tyranical in nature.
Every single gun law on the books is illegal. Nics background check is illegal,switch bans,magazine bans,bumpstock bans,assault weapons bans are all illegal.
Every gun law legally has to go.
If you have time
Read: (26th am jurisprudence sec 1-300.)
(Title 5 sec 556-d,557,and 706) = due process.
The Bill of Rights was written to limit THE GOVERNMENT not the people.
It should be 'keep gov out of the people's rights'
So simple, yet people have been beaten over the head so hard for years and years to "think" that these corrupt gobt crooks somehow are more important and smarter then US good American people..
That's the most important part!
how you beat charges that violate protected rights? (including gun rights)
The constitution is the law of the land and all laws are bound by it.
The 2nd amendment is very clear.
In order
(The constitution of the united states)
(Marbury v madison u.s. reports vol. 5 pg 137)
for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme law was illogical, for certainly the supreme law would prevail over all other laws and certainly our forfathers had intended that the supreme law would be the basis of all law, and for any law to come in conflict would be null in void of law, it would bear no power to enforce,it would bare no obligation to obey, it would purport the settle as if it never existed for unconstitutionality would date from any enactment of such a law. No courts are bound to uphold it and no citizens are bound to obey it. "
(Article 6 paragraph 2 of the supremacy clause) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the "supreme Law of the Land", and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws
Miranda v arizona "where rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no ruling or legislation which would abrogate them".
South carolina v united states " the constitution is a written instrument,as such its meaning does not alter. That which it ment when it was adopted,it means now".
D.C. v Heller "The right to keep and bear arms is infact an individual right, and no active militia participation is necessary to excercise that right."
Mcdonald v city of chicago 2010 "the 2nd amendment is fundamental for self defense and applies to the states under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment"
Nysrpa v bruen 2022 " the right to keep and bear arms includes bearing arms for personal protection outside of the home, current and future laws would be required to meet historical tradition"
(Murdock v Pennsylvania 1943 us reports vol 319. pg 105.) "no states shall convert a secured liberty into a privilege and or issue a licence and a fee for it"
(Shuttlesworth v Birmingham u.s. reports vol 373. Pg 262.) "If the state does convert a secured liberty into a privilege you can ignore it and proceed with impunity"
(U.s. v bishop 1973 us reports vol 412. Pg 346.) Covers willful intent meaning if their is no willful intent to break the law they lack grounds to proceed because you are basing your right to carry off..
The constitution
Marbury v madison
Article 6
Miranda v arizona
South carolina v united states
D.C. v Heller
Mcdonald v city of chicago
Nysrpa v bruen
Murdock v Pennsylvania
Shuttlesworth v Birmingham
u.s. v bishop.
You cant have willfulness if you are following laws on the books and the constitution is the law of the land everything else i stated verified that.
Its the perfect defense. They cant prove wilfulness because you are going off supreme court caselaw and the constitution.
You then sue even though they will claim good faith but they cant per (owen v city of independence 1982 supreme court reports vol 100. Pg 1398) and (main v Thibault 1979 supreme court reports vol 100. Pg 2502) leaves them with no judical or qualified immunity.
You then file (title 18 sec 241 and 242) "deprivation or rights under color of law"lawsuit and (title 42 1983,1985,and 1986 civil rights lawsuits.) Then file articles of treason under (title 18 sec 2381.)
The 2nd amendment is an inalienable right.
"Shall not be infringed".
Gun laws are an "infringement"
definition: the action of limiting or undermining something. "Limiting" who can have a firearm and where, and when by directly "undermining" the 2nd amendment.
1st part "a well regulated Militia" was described as "able bodied men willing and able to take up arms if they should need to in order to secure and maintain a free state of living".
The 2nd amendment was put in place to prevent (government) overreach from (infringing) on our (rights).
This means police,military or reserves do NOT classify as "militia" as some argue becuase they are a "government" entity.
Gun laws violate the constitution period and people need to stand up to this.
Absolutely every person in the United states has an equal right to keep and bear arms.
It does not matter what some state law says or city law says it does not matter your background.
your are a "person" and a "citizen."
All state and city laws are bound by the constitution and if they are not they do not have to be followed as they are tyranical in nature.
Every single gun law on the books is illegal. Nics background check is illegal,switch bans,magazine bans,bumpstock bans,assault weapons bans are all illegal.
Every gun law legally has to go.
If you have time
Read: (26th am jurisprudence sec 1-300.)
(Title 5 sec 556-d,557,and 706) = due process.
@@goated313
You definitely won the internet with this post
Disarming responsible citizens doesn't end violence, it only fuels the tyrants more.
And makes committing crimes safer for the criminals.
Exactly, just look at the cities that already have strict gun control laws like Chicago, I'd bet that there's more illegal guns on the streets there then anywhere else in the USA, criminals definitely don't register their firearms for some reason, I'm just saying, Veterans for America
That's how this dude interviewer keeps his job by spewing the same agenda of the biden polit bureau.
Making law abiding citizens helpless won't make criminals harmless!
Not to mention it also fuels more violence because people lose the ability to defend themselves.
A few years ago the US supreme court ruled that the 2nd amendment was to protect INDIVIDUAL rights. PERIOD.
2008 I think
The whole notion that "well regulated militia" is about it being regulated....is an ignorant argument when you consider it is the SECOND amendment because they wanted people to be armed against a possible TYRANT government....can't protect yourself from that...if that tyrannical government controls who can and can't have guns...now can we?
Government was established in part to protect our rights and the amendments were rights off limits to Government. If the second amendment is protecting our rights then the government is practically irrelevant.
The same Supreme Court also ruled that police have no duty to protect you so stay armed folks
Your all wrong, it was actually written in 1776. Stop thinking the government "allows" us to have our right.
Who here is old enough to remember the regulator washing machines and the regulator clocks. They weren’t called that because they were under government regulations they were called that because they were quality pieces of equipment, well-made and capable of getting the job done.
You will never convince me that a group of men who fought for their freedom from a regulatory government would then turn around and give the powers of regulation back to their own government. That just doesn’t make sense!
Gun control in America: Turning armed law abiding citizens defenceless for criminals
Gun control in Afghanistan: Leaving $85 billions of military equipment for the Taliban
Don’t forget we did the same in Iraq, just for much of it to end up in the hands of ISIS. We now have Taliban and ISIS terrorists rolling around in armored humvees and MRAP’s. They would rather arm foreign governments, terrorists and extremists than arm American citizens. That should tell you something about who they are really afraid of the most. And for good reason.
And that's why from here on out, I will refer to them as the "talibiden."
how you beat charges that violate protected rights? (including gun rights)
The constitution is the law of the land and all laws are bound by it.
The 2nd amendment is very clear.
(The constitution of the united states)
(Marbury v madison u.s. reports vol. 5 pg 137)
for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme law was illogical, for certainly the supreme law would prevail over all other laws and certainly our forfathers had intended that the supreme law would be the basis of all law, and for any law to come in conflict would be null in void of law, it would bear no power to enforce,it would bare no obligation to obey, it would purport the settle as if it never existed for unconstitutionality would date from any enactment of such a law. No courts are bound to uphold it and no citizens are bound to obey it. "
(Article 6 paragraph 2 of the supremacy clause) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the "supreme Law of the Land", and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws
Miranda v arizona "where rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no ruling or legislation which would abrogate them".
South carolina v united states " the constitution is a written instrument,as such its meaning does not alter. That which it ment when it was adopted,it means now".
D.C. v Heller "The right to keep and bear arms is infact an individual right, and no active militia participation is necessary to excercise that right."
Mcdonald v city of chicago 2010 "the 2nd amendment is fundamental for self defense and applies to the states under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment"
Nysrpa v bruen 2022 " the right to keep and bear arms includes bearing arms for personal protection outside of the home, current and future laws would be required to meet historical tradition"
(Murdock v Pennsylvania 1943 us reports vol 319. pg 105.) "no states shall convert a secured liberty into a privilege and or issue a licence and a fee for it"
(Shuttlesworth v Birmingham u.s. reports vol 373. Pg 262.) "If the state does convert a secured liberty into a privilege you can ignore it and proceed with impunity"
(U.s. v bishop 1973 us reports vol 412. Pg 346.) Covers willful intent meaning if their is no willful intent to break the law they lack grounds to proceed because you are basing your right to carry off..
You cant have willfulness if you are following laws on the books and the constitution is the law of the land everything else i stated verified that.
Its the perfect defense. They cant prove wilfulness because you are going off supreme court caselaw and the constitution.
The constitution
Marbury v madison
Article 6
Miranda v arizona
South carolina v united states
D.C. v Heller
Mcdonald v city of chicago
Nysrpa v bruen
Murdock v Pennsylvania
Shuttlesworth v Birmingham
u.s. v bishop.
You then sue even though they will claim good faith but they cant per (owen v city of independence 1982 supreme court reports vol 100. Pg 1398) and (main v Thibault 1979 supreme court reports vol 100. Pg 2502) leaves them with no judical or qualified immunity.
You then file (title 18 sec 241 and 242) "deprivation or rights under color of law"lawsuit and (title 42 1983,1985,and 1986 civil rights lawsuits.) Then file articles of treason under (title 18 sec 2381.)
Read: (26th am jurisprudence sec 1-300.)
(Title 5 sec 556-d,557,and 706) = due process.
The 2nd amendment is an inalienable right.
"Shall not be infringed".
Gun laws are an "infringement"
definition: the action of limiting or undermining something. "Limiting" who can have a firearm and where, and when by directly "undermining" the 2nd amendment.
1st part "a well regulated Militia" was described as "able bodied men willing and able to take up arms if they should need to in order to secure and maintain a free state of living".
The 2nd amendment was put in place to prevent (government) overreach from (infringing) on our (rights).
This means police,military or reserves do NOT classify as "militia" as some argue becuase they are a "government" entity.
All these gun laws violate the constitution period and people need to stand up to this.
Absolutely every person in the United states has an equal right to keep and bear arms.
It does not matter what some state law says or city law says it does not matter your background.
your are a "person" and a "citizen."
All state and city laws are bound by the constitution and if they are not they do not have to be followed as they are tyranical in nature.
Every single gun law on the books is illegal. Nics background check is illegal,switch bans,magazine bans,bumpstock bans,assault weapons bans are all illegal.
Every gun law legally has to go.
For the Chinese you mean
Proper Gun control is hitting what you are aiming at.
They keep focusing on "well regulated militia" but then when people form militias they call them domestic terrorists.
They hate it when we tell them we are the militia.
@nobodyatall7039 "They keep focusing on "well regulated militia" but then when people form militias they call them domestic terrorists."
ya' know, that is such an obvious, BUT EXCELLENT post. don't know why i never realized that before. thanks for the point out!
Ya , if you have more than 10 people training together out in the woods or desert area and anyone sees you ,you could get a visit from a ABC Agencie and put under a microscope .
They also ignore the part where the Constitution says the governors of the states are required to provide training for the militia. The reason people aren't well-trained is because the government is failing at its job.
And the part where a standing army is prohibited, so the U.S. Army can only fall under the Constitution's "navy" whose jurisdiction excludes U.S. soil.
Having the equivalent of a concealed carry license class should happen when kids are like 10. Then they should go through actual training on basic tactics for defending self and community with basic defense weapons like assault rifles and machine guns. (They should also be taught other vital life skills like how to cook, balance a bank account, how to drive, and basic first aid.) Then when they graduate high school, they're ready to defend themselves and their communities against basic threats.
Then the real training begins, with tanks and warships and anti-aircraft weaponry. Rockets and mines and artillery. Not a select couple of people who take orders from the governors at all times; any person or group of people who can afford the hardware.
And yes, the militias can be drafted into service if the state is under attack. That's their job. Our job. Your job. My job.
Well I contacted the Florida militia and they told me that the only thing they're allowed to do is to reinforce law enforcement if needed and two help FEMA if necessary if they were to place uniforms on themselves than they become a terrorist organization or paramilitary group that would be arrested by the federal government. I told them that basically they're just a bunch of children playing pew pew in the woods and were affecting no change or security to the freedom of any state. I said if you are the only thing standing between us and a tyrannical government and your bootlicking the government what are you doing except facilitating the demise of the Constitution and what it stands for. Well-regulated to me means that when you go into combat you know your brother standing next to you because he is wearing the same uniform as you and you don't have to fear his lack of muscle control because you have trained with this person. But unfortunately that makes too much sense for the US government to allow. Mainly Because the US government is formed by no offense to you colion lawyers. And if we look at the candidates that have been put forth by this administration for federal judgeship they're not even qualified attorneys not even being able to State what the first five articles are ,which is something any first-year law student should be able to recite. And are in fact part ofwhat gives the federal judges there power or jurisdiction.
Also and most important. The constitution is a list of restrictions on the government NOT the people.
We the People!!!
I think it's horrible that honest gun owners need insurance to keep them out of jail for protecting other people and themselves from criminals.
and now we know the insurance plans are scams. They can choose to not represent clients for any reason even if you are paid in full.
Defund Gun Control
And politicians!
And ATF, IRS, FBI.
It takes real brain power to confuse “Bill of RIGHTS” with “Government Regulated”. 🇺🇸
I've thought this since I was 10
one thing i learned.. they have tried to "edit the meaning" since 1776.....
It also says "The Right of the PEOPLE"!
Not the Right of the State
Not the Right of the Feds
Not the Right of the Gov't
@@BST-lm4po exactly. European subjects love trying to explain to us how backward and savage we are as they interpret the Bill of Rights to be some document the government graciously penned to grant us our rights, because that's the only kind of rule they understand. It's literally the opposite, explaining to the government what rights the _citizens_ inherently possess that the government can't touch.
@@BST-lm4po Then you better get the "10% for the big guy" out of office because he clearly stated, and I qoute;
"We, the people, that's us, the government."
"...people don't even have enough money to go to the range for fun."
Truer words have never been spoken...
Ammo gets expensive.
Ammo is expensive, I have a S&W shield 45 and just my regular rounds are Remington 230grain FMJs costs over .70 cents a round. My HPs are Hornady's Critical defense 185 grain and my Hornady FXT +Ps are almost $2.00 a round. 😧
That's intentional.
@@bulletsfordemocrats1 They might not be able to ban firearms (yet?), but they can sure try and limit your access to ammunition.
I use a lot of 22 as a training tool. It allows me to isolate my fundamentals from recoil control (also fundamental) and then I do recoil control with “larger” rounds. The skills transfer from small round to larger round.
It is my personal opinion that when someone doesn’t train with 22, they’re skipping a great tool.
As always, Colion is one of the most articulate people on the planet earth. Thank you for what you do!
The 2nd Amendment has NEVER been more important in this country than right now!!
YES!!
well better learn when to use it because so far the population has been docile. as you lose your rights little by little because you hallucinate government's imaginary "authority"
@Reichwing Extremist we will shut THEIR communication down and food supply
Your 2a is already pretty much gone. They've taken most of your guns
🇺🇸⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐🇺🇸
I love how the journalists asked "do you think all gun owners are well trained?" While ignoring the fact that the government makes it harder and harder everyday for those gun owners to be well trained.
Must a person be "well trained" to assert their 1A, or any other right?
@@stevehartwell1861 People should have to be "well trained" to assert any of their amendment rights. Just pointing out the ill intent of that bad faith question when he knows full well that the government makes it harder to train properly as an average citizen.
@sukamadik5983 They should be using a portion of our tax dollars to fund gun training programs for the average person to be able to, that's definitely part of their job when being our servants.
@@stevehartwell1861 yes, they should be. They should know how to use basic knowledge and reason.
And yes a person who owns a firearm should be well trained.
In fact you should be well trained on all of your constitutional rights.
@@dubjubs that's a no.
The musket argument is one of my favorites. By that logic, written speech is only protected when done by quill pen.
Remember the musket, was a weapon of war.
"Do you think all Americans that have guns are well-trained?"
"No, some of them are cops."
Mic drop🤜🏽🖐🏽 🎤 ⬇️
It amazes me that so many departments have the time and money for the touchy-feely b.s. training, but they can never seem to find the time and money for firearms training for their officers. Since so many department heads, which are nothing more than appointed politicians, don't seem to handle the press very well, I kind of wonder if the lack of training is intentional. When a police shooting occurs, they can always fall back on "We didn't train him to do that" regardless of whether or not the shooting was justified.
Our law enforcement in my area are very well trained.
To be fair that 12 pound NY police trigger pull is just making accuracy FAR worse.
careful. your host bows to those cowards of broward, nv, Uvad TX, colombine, VA tech. etc...
everyone forgets that the bill of rights is not written from the perspective of what the people CAN do, it's written in the perspective of what the government CANNOT do.
Exactly...thank you! The Founding Fathers knew that all people have certain inalienable rights just due to the fact that they exist as people. The Constitution establishes the government and then limits what it can and cannot do. Take the first amendment as an example. It does not say that people have the right to free speech because people already have that right. It says that Congress shall make no law abridging that right. In other words, the govt cannot take away a right that you are born with.
Exactly, there are dangerous people out there.
We should continue to sell millions of guns without regulation and just hope they don’t fall into criminal hands.
@@anonymous.anonymity. tell me you've never bought a gun without telling me you've never bought a gun. Tell me you've never actually looked at the breakdown of gun violence without telling me you've never actually looked at the breakdown of gun violence
@@timothywilliams4869 you have more guns than people and daily mass shootings.
It’s not rocket science, you donut
@@anonymous.anonymity. Without regulation? What? There are more gun regulations today than there ever have been at any point in time in history, ever. No guns are being sold without regulation at any time. Why do you believe this lie?
Samuel Adams said the constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms
Tell that to the governor of California.
But he was wrong
@residentboejiden5796, you shouldn't own guns because you're mentally ill. But we sane people should.
Adams did NOT say that criminals, lunatics, incompetents, and insurrectionists should be allowed to bear arms. That's the only goal of common sense gun control. BTW, I've owned, used and loved guns for 70 of my 75 years. Don't listen to the NRA's apocalyptic bullshit.
Why I will always drink his beer
I've heard politicians say that an AR-15 is useless against a government with F-16's. I guess nobody told Ho Chi Mihn.
It can and should be noted that any tax on weapons, ammunition or access to shooting ranges and training is in fact an infringement of our rights.
Every single word of the original constitution (plus the bill of rights) places restrictions on the government, not on the people.
🎯
"Negative liberties of the Government" is how Obama stated it. Tyrants gonna Tyrant.
Obama him self said the constitution was a bill of negative rights because it's say what the government can't do to you not what it can do to you .
Could you imagine having to go back and telling them they have to dumb it down even further?
“I’m sorry Ben but you’ve got to dumb it down to the point of “gun good! Everyone should have one! Even if they shoot more than one bullet!”
What is absolutely mind blowing to me is when someone says they do not trust the government yet they will want to ban guns cause they look scary.
These people have no concept of caliber or action. I've gotten the .22 vs AR-15 comparison while debating, without my opponent stating the caliber of the AR. These people will use their confirmation bias and expect you to receive it as factual.
But too them an M1A wouldn’t look scary but is actually more powerful than an ar chambered in .223/5.56mm 🙈
Those are NPC's.
People who want to ban guns AND doesn't own a single gun,
shouldn't be allowed to vote.
In a war, they will hide behind people who own and use gun.
Libtards 'assume 'they are doing the right thing. Their Democrat party icon is an ' Ass' and it is destroying you and me .
I love the "they only had muskets" argument from people expressing their opinion on social media.
When are people going to realize they are the militia!
Let's not forget that the government also removed firearm safety from public schools. The government doesn't want us well trained because that makes it harder to suppress us if something does happen.
largely at the behest of supposed "gun safety" organizations. so weird. its almost like they want people unsafe around guns instead of safe.
Remember 2020?
I believe firearms safety should be mandatory in 6th grade and up.
I wore my "I am the militia" T-SHiRT one day and went to a gas station... the clerk said "is that a Colion Noir shirt?!😃"
... I said "yup!😁"
We both said "he's the man!"😁🤝😀
Yahoo 😊
If being poorly trained was a reason to restrict firearms that would be like fighting obesity by making vegetables illegal
I hate when people bring up the musket argument like what did you think the government had at the time
If "Well regulated" meant what gun control advocates WANT it to mean, it would be contradictory to "The right of the people to keep and bears arms shall not be infringed". Our founders were lawyers. They worded everything VERY carefully. They would not contradict themselves.
Exactly!! And as we know, they did it for Very Good Reasons!!
🎯☕
Great point!
They were also very young and fresh off the battlefield
how you beat charges that violate protected rights? (including gun rights)
The constitution is the law of the land and all laws are bound by it.
The 2nd amendment is very clear.
In order
(The constitution of the united states)
(Marbury v madison u.s. reports vol. 5 pg 137)
for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme law was illogical, for certainly the supreme law would prevail over all other laws and certainly our forfathers had intended that the supreme law would be the basis of all law, and for any law to come in conflict would be null in void of law, it would bear no power to enforce,it would bare no obligation to obey, it would purport the settle as if it never existed for unconstitutionality would date from any enactment of such a law. No courts are bound to uphold it and no citizens are bound to obey it. "
(Article 6 paragraph 2 of the supremacy clause) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the "supreme Law of the Land", and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws
Miranda v arizona "where rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no ruling or legislation which would abrogate them".
South carolina v united states " the constitution is a written instrument,as such its meaning does not alter. That which it ment when it was adopted,it means now".
D.C. v Heller "The right to keep and bear arms is infact an individual right, and no active militia participation is necessary to excercise that right."
Mcdonald v city of chicago 2010 "the 2nd amendment is fundamental for self defense and applies to the states under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment"
Nysrpa v bruen 2022 " the right to keep and bear arms includes bearing arms for personal protection outside of the home, current and future laws would be required to meet historical tradition"
(Murdock v Pennsylvania 1943 us reports vol 319. pg 105.) "no states shall convert a secured liberty into a privilege and or issue a licence and a fee for it"
(Shuttlesworth v Birmingham u.s. reports vol 373. Pg 262.) "If the state does convert a secured liberty into a privilege you can ignore it and proceed with impunity"
(U.s. v bishop 1973 us reports vol 412. Pg 346.) Covers willful intent meaning if their is no willful intent to break the law they lack grounds to proceed because you are basing your right to carry off..
The constitution
Marbury v madison
Article 6
Miranda v arizona
South carolina v united states
D.C. v Heller
Mcdonald v city of chicago
Nysrpa v bruen
Murdock v Pennsylvania
Shuttlesworth v Birmingham
u.s. v bishop.
You cant have willfulness if you are following laws on the books and the constitution is the law of the land everything else i stated verified that.
Its the perfect defense. They cant prove wilfulness because you are going off supreme court caselaw and the constitution.
You then sue even though they will claim good faith but they cant per (owen v city of independence 1982 supreme court reports vol 100. Pg 1398) and (main v Thibault 1979 supreme court reports vol 100. Pg 2502) leaves them with no judical or qualified immunity.
You then file (title 18 sec 241 and 242) "deprivation or rights under color of law"lawsuit and (title 42 1983,1985,and 1986 civil rights lawsuits.) Then file articles of treason under (title 18 sec 2381.)
The 2nd amendment is an inalienable right.
"Shall not be infringed".
Gun laws are an "infringement"
definition: the action of limiting or undermining something. "Limiting" who can have a firearm and where, and when by directly "undermining" the 2nd amendment.
1st part "a well regulated Militia" was described as "able bodied men willing and able to take up arms if they should need to in order to secure and maintain a free state of living".
The 2nd amendment was put in place to prevent (government) overreach from (infringing) on our (rights).
This means police,military or reserves do NOT classify as "militia" as some argue becuase they are a "government" entity.
Gun laws violate the constitution period and people need to stand up to this.
Absolutely every person in the United states has an equal right to keep and bear arms.
It does not matter what some state law says or city law says it does not matter your background.
your are a "person" and a "citizen."
All state and city laws are bound by the constitution and if they are not they do not have to be followed as they are tyranical in nature.
Every single gun law on the books is illegal. Nics background check is illegal,switch bans,magazine bans,bumpstock bans,assault weapons bans are all illegal.
Every gun law legally has to go.
If you have time
Read: (26th am jurisprudence sec 1-300.)
(Title 5 sec 556-d,557,and 706) = due process.
the people saying 2A doesnt apply to modern rifles is like saying 4th amendment doesnt apply to skyscrapers and high rises because they werent thought of yet.
The 1st amendment doesn't apply to the internet. Right? 🤔
They're saying that muskets use by Militia are far more inferior,
compared to musket use by US soldiers,
at that time.
@@budisutanto5987 tell that to Roger's Rangers
Also, that means the First Amendmend does NOT apply to TV, magazines and the Internet since they didn't exist in the 18th century so by their logic, the TV stations don't need that amendment.
@@largol33t1 yeah, i dont get it, i mean i aint the brightest bulb on the christmas tree, ( if you met my X-wife youd understand that) but how can people be dumber than me??? they actually see something there to protect us from bad people. but they think its out dated? they think it's the reason Liberals shoot up the places liberals made easy to be shot up?
they dont understand WE should have the guns, the government should'nt.
they refuse to believe we protect ourselves more times a day than cops protect people?
part of me hopes there is a S H T F scenario just to let the nay sayers experience the horror we're trying to avoid!
I am glad to see more people like you stand up and speak out against these thugs that want to disarm this country, it is not going to happen!!
I have finally heard someone else use the argument "free state" not as the state as in government. But free state as in the status of the people. A doctor asks a nurse on the state of a patient and the nurse doesn't say "Oklahoma"
No, Steven is right. There is a deal to be made. At the time of the Bill of Rights meant to allow citizens to be just as armed as the government. So the deal is: We should be allowed to own machine guns and other NFA items.
Exactly
We can own those firearms, it's just expensive, cuz government got in the way of freedom.
WhistlinDiesel owns an M1 Abrams. I think that's a start. Too bad he is an absolute idiot of an internet celeb
Nfa items, yes. Full auto? No
@@iowa_lot_to_travel9471 coward!
A tyrannical government could very easily redefine what it means to be well-trained or fit for service … against itself…
They have.
Terrorism!
they are working on the same idea in current times, since Felons lose their 2A, the communists in control have been working hard to make anything and everything a felony.
You are a modern day hero!! Thank you for all you do to educate people on their God given rights!
I vote to amend the word regulated and make it absolutely clear what was meant, such as, "well organized or well trained militia by the people for the people" or something to that effect. So tired of these clowns trying to redefine shit
Fun fact, many founding fathers didn't think the second amendment was needed because they thought that gun rights were such common sense
I find that hard to believe since they not only put it in the constitution... they put it in the bill of rights.
how you beat charges that violate protected rights? (including gun rights)
The constitution is the law of the land and all laws are bound by it.
The 2nd amendment is very clear.
In order
(The constitution of the united states)
(Marbury v madison u.s. reports vol. 5 pg 137)
for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme law was illogical, for certainly the supreme law would prevail over all other laws and certainly our forfathers had intended that the supreme law would be the basis of all law, and for any law to come in conflict would be null in void of law, it would bear no power to enforce,it would bare no obligation to obey, it would purport the settle as if it never existed for unconstitutionality would date from any enactment of such a law. No courts are bound to uphold it and no citizens are bound to obey it. "
(Article 6 paragraph 2 of the supremacy clause) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the "supreme Law of the Land", and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws
Miranda v arizona "where rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no ruling or legislation which would abrogate them".
South carolina v united states " the constitution is a written instrument,as such its meaning does not alter. That which it ment when it was adopted,it means now".
D.C. v Heller "The right to keep and bear arms is infact an individual right, and no active militia participation is necessary to excercise that right."
Mcdonald v city of chicago 2010 "the 2nd amendment is fundamental for self defense and applies to the states under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment"
Nysrpa v bruen 2022 " the right to keep and bear arms includes bearing arms for personal protection outside of the home, current and future laws would be required to meet historical tradition"
(Murdock v Pennsylvania 1943 us reports vol 319. pg 105.) "no states shall convert a secured liberty into a privilege and or issue a licence and a fee for it"
(Shuttlesworth v Birmingham u.s. reports vol 373. Pg 262.) "If the state does convert a secured liberty into a privilege you can ignore it and proceed with impunity"
(U.s. v bishop 1973 us reports vol 412. Pg 346.) Covers willful intent meaning if their is no willful intent to break the law they lack grounds to proceed because you are basing your right to carry off..
The constitution
Marbury v madison
Article 6
Miranda v arizona
South carolina v united states
D.C. v Heller
Mcdonald v city of chicago
Nysrpa v bruen
Murdock v Pennsylvania
Shuttlesworth v Birmingham
u.s. v bishop.
You cant have willfulness if you are following laws on the books and the constitution is the law of the land everything else i stated verified that.
Its the perfect defense. They cant prove wilfulness because you are going off supreme court caselaw and the constitution.
You then sue even though they will claim good faith but they cant per (owen v city of independence 1982 supreme court reports vol 100. Pg 1398) and (main v Thibault 1979 supreme court reports vol 100. Pg 2502) leaves them with no judical or qualified immunity.
You then file (title 18 sec 241 and 242) "deprivation or rights under color of law"lawsuit and (title 42 1983,1985,and 1986 civil rights lawsuits.) Then file articles of treason under (title 18 sec 2381.)
The 2nd amendment is an inalienable right.
"Shall not be infringed".
Gun laws are an "infringement"
definition: the action of limiting or undermining something. "Limiting" who can have a firearm and where, and when by directly "undermining" the 2nd amendment.
1st part "a well regulated Militia" was described as "able bodied men willing and able to take up arms if they should need to in order to secure and maintain a free state of living".
The 2nd amendment was put in place to prevent (government) overreach from (infringing) on our (rights).
This means police,military or reserves do NOT classify as "militia" as some argue becuase they are a "government" entity.
Gun laws violate the constitution period and people need to stand up to this.
Absolutely every person in the United states has an equal right to keep and bear arms.
It does not matter what some state law says or city law says it does not matter your background.
your are a "person" and a "citizen."
All state and city laws are bound by the constitution and if they are not they do not have to be followed as they are tyranical in nature.
Every single gun law on the books is illegal. Nics background check is illegal,switch bans,magazine bans,bumpstock bans,assault weapons bans are all illegal.
Every gun law legally has to go.
If you have time
Read: (26th am jurisprudence sec 1-300.)
(Title 5 sec 556-d,557,and 706) = due process.
@@mr.kalash7555 It's an _amendment_ . By its very definition, it was not in the original constitution. The Bill of Rights, is simply a nickname for the first 10 amendments, which actually was not first stated as such until the 20th century.
@@ckmoore101buddy, I’m sorry to say this but you’re wrong. The 10 Amendments are very much original to the constitution. They are very much absolute and cannot be altered, changed, or removed by any means
@@ViperPain141 Amendments absolutely can be altered, changed, and removed. 18th Amendment started Prohibition. 21st Amendment ended Prohibition. Gavin Newsome just proposed the 28th Amendment specifically about gun control, which if passed by Congress and then ratified by the States as required could become the law of the land.
It doesn't say "the right of the well regulated militia to keep and bear arms." Having an armed populace gives you a large pool of people to build a well regulated militia.
Common sense is in short supply.
@@khatdubell With the public schools and colleges being turned into indoctrination centers it's an endangered species.
Well regulated militia simply means that the militia cannot operate outside the scope of the governments definition of militia
uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/subtitleA/part1/chapter12&edition=prelim
Good work Colion. Keep fighting the good fight.
The more people buy your shirt, the greater the victory for all of us.
Thank you for everything you're doing for the 2A community bro
I’m a Canadian who thought aversion to firearms was in my DNA. After the Trudeau years, and his systematic removal of Canadian rights and prosperity through authoritarian tactics. I have a new perspective on the second amendment and understand it’s necessity.
Trudeau is not done doing damage to your rights yet, is he?
Move to Alberta, make a stand.
Then vote and do something about it. Fight.
Propaganda in the news and in education can make people growing up believe the lies put out by the government.
Communists are at work in every place where democracy and free people live and they want to destroy our way of life for their tyrannical enslavement of the people.
In order to correct the problem, we need to rise up and remove the entire political group in the government as none of them can be trusted to be what they claim to be. If you were to leave any of them in control, they can corrupt the new group coming in to replace the exterminated group, and nothing will change!
The government has to be completely purged in order to make a clean start with uncorrupted holders of power. And they must be made aware that they too have to be true to the will of the people otherwise they too will be removed with force!
This is the problem with the current politicians, they believe they are above any laws, and they have the final say over the people, when in reality, it is the other way around.
I used to love Canada. Now I don't have any desire to visit. 😢
Every time someone says to me, "Muskets" I remind them that the 'Puckle Gun' was available in 1776. Then if they are still railing against me I ask, "So, the 1st Amendment doesn't work on Computers, Cell Phone Texting, calling someone, etc.?" That normally shuts them up.
Just for your info, the Puckle gun was patented in 1718, but also, don’t forget about the Belton flintlock and the Ferguson rifle ( I believe both 1776) as well as the Girandoni air rifle (1779).
*TOTALLY AWESOME!*
You might just remind them that a musket was the best readily available military grade weapon at the time.
The 2A doesn't specify what type of weapon you have the right to have, probably because they knew that weapons technology would change over time.
heres a few more;
volley gun
nock volley gun
puckle gun
cook volley gun
pepperbox pistol
chambers flintlock
kalthoff repeater
cookson volitional repeater
fergison rifle
belton flintlock
jennings rifle
girandoni air rifle
chambers machine gun
Of course nowadays the looney Lefties don’t think much about the 1st Amendment either.
I have been training for 15 years, i would still consider myself not "well trained". Always ways to improve and get better
They know the right meaning. They, like always are trying to spin it around and convince us otherwise.
Gun controller arguments are falling apart
They never had real weight. They only took off because 80% of the country is made up of NPC's
That implies they were cohesive, sensible, and legal to begin with.
They're using EMOTIONAL ROUNDS!!!😱
They want to control our guns but they can’t even control their emotions…
Yep
Yes gun controllers get real nasty when confronted with the true facts .
They can't control our national debt, but they want to control guns!
James Madison wrote the second amendment for the purpose of a militia. Thus why he began the amendment describing the importance of a militia. You can not have a militia without said militia owning and bearing firearms.
The right to keep and bear arms does not require a well regulated militia. A well regulated militia requires the right to keep and bear arms.
The second amendment was written for the purpose of allowing militias, but to have a militia it is essential that the citizenry have the right to keep and bear. In this instance, the second amendment protects both rights.
Huge support. Retired LEO here, support you 💯.
I need my defund gun control shirt.
💯
Well regulated, well organized or well managed immediately removes the federal government from any claim on controlling guns. Seems like everything they touch becomes a dumpster fire.
exactly, if well regulated meant that, there would need to be gov representatives in every militia to maintain the regulation certification, which they cannot feasibly do.
it makes zero sense logically. since militias were designed as a backup military should the gov military abuse citizens or fail to protect the nation.
basically non gov national guard.
exactly, if well regulated meant that, there would need to be gov representatives in every militia to maintain the regulation certification, which they cannot feasibly do.
it makes zero sense logically. since militias were designed as a backup military should the gov military abuse citizens or fail to protect the nation.
basically non gov national guard.
@@usern4metak3ns Correct. The militia is the backup for the IRR, Inactive Ready Reserve.
✌️😎
Actually, "well regulated" means that the federal government is required to supply citizens with the arms and training facilities needed to be an effective fighting force capable of securing a "free state". Basically we're all supposed to have HK 416's, plate carriers w/ lvl 4 plates, and several thousand rounds of 5.56 all supplied by the federal government.
I know my grandfather was not responsible for this phrase, but he was the first person I heard say it: "If you make guns illegal, only criminals will have guns". On the surface it seems like a throw-away statement by an old guy from the South, but it still rings true. We the people, need to keep our government in check; always, and if that means I will be a criminal because I have "several" firearms, then so be it. This is my hill, and I will die on it.
So, when he thought "regulated" mean government control, the government has a duty to control, but when it meant well trained... now the government has no duty to train.
Interesting how he thinks the government's only job is to restrict our rights not to support them.
If regulated meant controlled by the govt. they wouldn't have said we have the right to bear arms in a separate sentence. That would've been contradictory. Yes, yes???
How dare you go making sense and state the obvious. “REEEeeeeeeEEeeeee! DePLoRaBLe!”
yup also the part of threats both foreign and domestic. if we as a nation were alright with gov telling us if we could use or bear arms, we wouldn't care about domestic threats would we?
we wouldnt question the current form of gov, just say sure, they know what's best even though they're speaking foreign languages...
It's amazing how the gun grabbers suddenly forgot what a comma means.
Oh are you using those pesky commas?
@@nickloven6728 have you looked at public education? Most are functionally illiterate.
“,the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”
Well, good thing you weren't the proof-reader on the final document.
Auto correct is a bitch, isn’t it?
He is a cave man a logical one at that cut him some slack
@@khatdubell there fixed it
@@lost_pmc_3927 err
I am entering the "come and get them" stage of my life.
If you have to be trained to buy a gun than you should have to be well educated to vote.
Exactly! If you need to pass a test to exercise a right, then it's not a right. It's only a privilege to be revoked at the whim of well... there is that word again "regulators". A right is something you have regardless of regulations and regulators.
Up the voting age to 25 or property owners only those that pay taxes not just w2 workers
Who gets to decide what well educated means? Keep in mind the education system is dominated by marxists
Or at least provide ID.
@@kencleg7721 I am tired of the continual, you are no longer an adult, and you are not responsible for your stupidity this nation is taking.
I am okay with restricting voting to people that earn income and don't require an welfare assistance, but when a person is 18, they are an adult and up them should be conferred all the rights AND responsibilities of such!
Any side that says "give up your guns and let the government protect you from the evil doers" shouldn't be trust and should be publicly shamed.
Remember all the treaties that were broken by the US Government, that were supposedly written to protect Native Americans and provide them equal life.
The government is now trying to do the same with law abiding citizens.
I'd add that any side that says "give up your guns and let the government protect you from the evil doers" should no longer have the right to a trial by jury.... if the Government is so powerful and always correct then they should trust that if the Government arrests them they should go directly to sentencing and serve their time..... but of course they will scream that the justice system is corrupt, racist or whatever whining they do whenever it's their butt on the line.....
Especially when the government is not prosecuting criminals!
Yes, its quite shocking how so many leftists cannot understand just how similar their viewpoints and tactics are, to the Third Reich in the 1930's. Obviously talking about the policies and actions prior to the "Final Solution" times, and the concentration camps. Just insert conservative, for Jew.
The same Government that wants to defund police and release criminals. Total Insanity !
If it meant what they try to argue it means, then it wouldn't have needed to be written in the first place.
It's funny how words change meaning over centuries.
DEFUND EVERYTHING THAT VIOLATES CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
It's amazing people struggle understanding our Second Amendment.
Yet those same morons have no problem quoting the 1st Ammendment to justify cursing out cops, insulting those with differing views and opinions. Not to mention those vulgar and obscene displays of parading their filth and abominations. Yet they struggle with the idea of a law abiding citizen having the right and means to defend himself, his family, and the innocent?
*HORSE APPLES!*
well, many of them are struggling to subver 2as simple meaning. they have to try and get around it because they know their gun control is unconstitutional.
((( John Stewart ))) knows he's being dishonest about what "Well regulated" means. It's a propaganda tactic, just like how he uses a fake name. His real last name is Leibowitz.
The problem is not their understanding it, its their hatred of anything that allows us to be independent of government reliance and control.
They don't struggle. They are voluntarily ignorant
And who decides who is "well trained " and who isn't?
This is why I’m subscribed to you good sir your knowledge and experience is very valuable and I thank you for speaking what a lot of us are thinking
Americans used to be able to mailorder machineguns with no background checks, but that was when an Americans freedom was respected.
They will do anything possible to take Your rights as a gun owner away🤬
Awesome work! Appreciate you bringing truth to light.
They always bring up the type of weapons they had when the 2nd Amendment was written. They fail to mention that the average citizen had better weapons than the military was issued.
Never give a inch. It is our right to protect our families, fellow man & ourselves. Come & take it!
The Second Amendment was added to assure and protect the First Amendment !!
you can't talk common sense to those people. they couldn't care less if they are wrong as hell.
Thankyou Colion, knowledge is power!
This is what we get for 20 years of people graduating who don't even know when the country was founded, let alone anything about their rights as an American citizen.
they can barely read its pathetic.public schools should be banned way before they think about the guns.
And the dumbing down is being done by design on purpose. Ignorant people are much easier to control and make into sheep.
The second ammendment in todays words:
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon, as an armed citizenry that can be called upon by non-military organizations is necessary to maintain a free state.
The brainwashed kids graduating don't know:
Where CANADA is
How many genders there are
What an analog clock is (seriously, some can't read the time)
This is our fault for not getting rid of public "schools." DEFUND "teachers" NOW!! They are useless Democrapper party hacks.
Parents need to be more involved in their children's education.
They dont seem to understand the 2A is not a document from the government to the people telling us what we can and can not have but it is a document from we the people to the government telling them what they can not do!! Big difference.
CN,
you are so well informed, a great communicator, and passionate. I love your vids. You are a national treasure!
Regulated is for the militia, not for the arms.
Bring firearm safety / handling back to schools like they used to have and they will be well trained.
Absolutely
Yup! I trained with live ammo (22LR) in high school on an NRA approved range. No one was ever shot or hurt.
@@greenacres4518 Same here! This was a time and place where almost all pickups had a gun rack with at least one rifle in it!
@@MarilynStangl and a fishing rod
So true I remember my class in Jr.High, after being dropped off one morning by my father I walked through the school to the classroom with two rifles and a shooting case with three revolvers and a spotting scope. I left it all with the teacher until the time for the class when we boarded a bus to the police department's outdoor shooting range. P.S. at the time my father was on the police department and a retired WWII veteran. My father had started teaching me gun safety and shooting at age 6 so by the time I was in the class I already had my hunter safety card and had been hunting and shooting for a few years. The class was a mixture of several subjects and the safety class was just a small part of it, about 4 weeks or so. The class also included photography, leather crafting, and drafting/mechanical design.
And those who eventually get marched into a camp who thought the 2nd amendment was out dated will realize they were wrong the whole time.
Yep. They did a trial run in Australia during the plandemic.
Camps are already being built in CA
I doubt it. They will go to their mass graves believing they were right. There is nothing we can say or do to convince them otherwise. They are completely bought in at this point.
Yeah that's pathology that simply never going to happen.
It is a fact that we could get rid of all of the guns, and still nobody would be marched in the camps
People to think like you are small and are cowardly
The idea that the United States would sink into security simply because we don't have guns is the most ridiculous nonsense I have ever heard
Jon Stewart doesn’t think anything. He just says and does what he’s told by people who do his thinking for him, he just cashes their checks
Even if they specifically meant muskets, at that time, the civilians had access to the same weapons that the military carried.
Thank you Colion for clarifying what "regulated" really means. Too many aren't aware of the original intent. 🇺🇸
It doesn't matter a whole lot really. The preamble to the 2A is the "why" of the operative clause, which is the directive. It is like me saying, do you think we should be armed citizens and you saying yes. Then I ask you why and you say, a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state. You are telling me why the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, not the criteria for keeping and bearing arms. The founders told us why the people have that right, and it is a pretty massive reason for why.
The ability to defend oneself against a tyrannical government will never be "outdated", as tyrants always prove it necessary.
To say that is outdated is to say human history is outdated
Yeah accept that's not necessary to have a free nation. You can have both a free nation and a nation without guns and that is been proven multiple times around the world.
I'd like to think that United States is as good as those other nations but maybe the United States is just weaker, with less character.
Either way, the guns need to go because the lives of innocent people are worth more than the guns
Thank you. Super informative video. I've been hit with the "well regulated" argument before. This video and information was awesome.
It astounds me how few people understand what "well-regulated" means!
First sentence of the constitution, We the people. Last sentence of the second amendment.... The right of the people shall not be infringed.
how you beat charges that violate protected rights? (including gun rights)
The constitution is the law of the land and all laws are bound by it.
The 2nd amendment is very clear.
In order
(The constitution of the united states)
(Marbury v madison u.s. reports vol. 5 pg 137)
for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme law was illogical, for certainly the supreme law would prevail over all other laws and certainly our forfathers had intended that the supreme law would be the basis of all law, and for any law to come in conflict would be null in void of law, it would bear no power to enforce,it would bare no obligation to obey, it would purport the settle as if it never existed for unconstitutionality would date from any enactment of such a law. No courts are bound to uphold it and no citizens are bound to obey it. "
(Article 6 paragraph 2 of the supremacy clause) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the "supreme Law of the Land", and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws
Miranda v arizona "where rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no ruling or legislation which would abrogate them".
South carolina v united states " the constitution is a written instrument,as such its meaning does not alter. That which it ment when it was adopted,it means now".
D.C. v Heller "The right to keep and bear arms is infact an individual right, and no active militia participation is necessary to excercise that right."
Mcdonald v city of chicago 2010 "the 2nd amendment is fundamental for self defense and applies to the states under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment"
Nysrpa v bruen 2022 " the right to keep and bear arms includes bearing arms for personal protection outside of the home, current and future laws would be required to meet historical tradition"
(Murdock v Pennsylvania 1943 us reports vol 319. pg 105.) "no states shall convert a secured liberty into a privilege and or issue a licence and a fee for it"
(Shuttlesworth v Birmingham u.s. reports vol 373. Pg 262.) "If the state does convert a secured liberty into a privilege you can ignore it and proceed with impunity"
(U.s. v bishop 1973 us reports vol 412. Pg 346.) Covers willful intent meaning if their is no willful intent to break the law they lack grounds to proceed because you are basing your right to carry off..
The constitution
Marbury v madison
Article 6
Miranda v arizona
South carolina v united states
D.C. v Heller
Mcdonald v city of chicago
Nysrpa v bruen
Murdock v Pennsylvania
Shuttlesworth v Birmingham
u.s. v bishop.
You cant have willfulness if you are following laws on the books and the constitution is the law of the land everything else i stated verified that.
Its the perfect defense. They cant prove wilfulness because you are going off supreme court caselaw and the constitution.
You then sue even though they will claim good faith but they cant per (owen v city of independence 1982 supreme court reports vol 100. Pg 1398) and (main v Thibault 1979 supreme court reports vol 100. Pg 2502) leaves them with no judical or qualified immunity.
You then file (title 18 sec 241 and 242) "deprivation or rights under color of law"lawsuit and (title 42 1983,1985,and 1986 civil rights lawsuits.) Then file articles of treason under (title 18 sec 2381.)
The 2nd amendment is an inalienable right.
"Shall not be infringed".
Gun laws are an "infringement"
definition: the action of limiting or undermining something. "Limiting" who can have a firearm and where, and when by directly "undermining" the 2nd amendment.
1st part "a well regulated Militia" was described as "able bodied men willing and able to take up arms if they should need to in order to secure and maintain a free state of living".
The 2nd amendment was put in place to prevent (government) overreach from (infringing) on our (rights).
This means police,military or reserves do NOT classify as "militia" as some argue becuase they are a "government" entity.
Gun laws violate the constitution period and people need to stand up to this.
Absolutely every person in the United states has an equal right to keep and bear arms.
It does not matter what some state law says or city law says it does not matter your background.
your are a "person" and a "citizen."
All state and city laws are bound by the constitution and if they are not they do not have to be followed as they are tyranical in nature.
Every single gun law on the books is illegal. Nics background check is illegal,switch bans,magazine bans,bumpstock bans,assault weapons bans are all illegal.
Every gun law legally has to go.
If you have time
Read: (26th am jurisprudence sec 1-300.)
(Title 5 sec 556-d,557,and 706) = due process.
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”
-Benjamin Franklin
Not actually a Franklin quote but it IS a good analogy.
You got to love Benjamin
The thing is, we have a situation right now where one of the wolves is friends with the lamb, but then the lamb votes itself to be the meal along with the other wolf...
stay the course! Outstanding knowledge!
I feel like if guns were taught better in schools we'd avoid a lot of problems by having a public educated on their right to bear arms.
It’s not that they lack common sense, it’s that they’re purposely disingenuous…
Fantastic to see this! It's very important to expose the ignorance of the anti gunners as often as possible!
People also ignore the fact that "of the people" everywhere else in the Constitution, refers to individual rights, as explained by the late Justice Scalia.
In a well armed militia it also meant having your own ammunition and access to it.
They always want to take a constitutional right that actually says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON .
STILL MORE TRAINED THEN A GUY WITHOUT A GUN!
We couldn’t have a Worse regulator than the Government!
He should have asked the interviewer if he trust the government. When he says 'no', follow up asking why he would allow the state to be the only ones who can own guns.
It’s actually appalling the amount of gun control activists who say “iT SaYS WeLL rEgUlAteD mEAnIng CoNtRolLEd.” It’s not only this argument either, there are many more that give me the same amount of headache and can be easily debunked. 🤦♂️
"Formidable" is what it means.
People also get "freedom of the press" wrong too. It's not talking about journalists (as if they're some sacred people), but the PRINTING press. It's freedom to distribute info.
"Yeah but the 1700s had muskets and flintlocks. Modern day things don't apply to any rights made a billion years ago bro".
@@smallestgoober9399 How did "Rights" change?
regulated simply meant to be supplied, not its modern redefinition of to restrict. if anything it implies the government should GIVE us guns.
They fail to read that it says "shall not be infringed" right after it says "well regulated militia". So if well regulated actually means restricted, then why tf would it say "shall not be infringed" right after? Leftists can't read.
I’ve long said that this is an odd argument in the nation. On one side you have the pro 2A side who takes their time to learn the legal side and history of the 2nd amendment. They also tend to learn about firearms and tend to be ready to have a conversation on it. The anti 2A seem to be “guns are bad” and I am scared. They have no knowledge on guns, gun laws, and gun safety but are against them because the news says they’re bad.
I find the level of projection interesting. Gun owners see themselves as safe and responsible, so they project that onto general society while recognizing some will be dangerous. Which is no different than most of life. We trust everyone in cars but remain vigilant for dangers. But anti-gun people never think to arm themselves against all the crazy gun nuts. They'll say they don't need guns, so no one else does. If you can't trust yourself with a firearm, others shouldn't be punished for your lack of control.
I've also seen a video where the guy trips people up if they say the government should be in control of who has guns instead of the citizens. "Do you trust the government?". They assume their side will be in power, but they constantly fear the right forming a dictatorship. It's strangely ironic.
how you beat charges that violate protected rights? (including gun rights)
The constitution is the law of the land and all laws are bound by it.
The 2nd amendment is very clear.
In order
(The constitution of the united states)
(Marbury v madison u.s. reports vol. 5 pg 137)
for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme law was illogical, for certainly the supreme law would prevail over all other laws and certainly our forfathers had intended that the supreme law would be the basis of all law, and for any law to come in conflict would be null in void of law, it would bear no power to enforce,it would bare no obligation to obey, it would purport the settle as if it never existed for unconstitutionality would date from any enactment of such a law. No courts are bound to uphold it and no citizens are bound to obey it. "
(Article 6 paragraph 2 of the supremacy clause) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the "supreme Law of the Land", and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws
Miranda v arizona "where rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no ruling or legislation which would abrogate them".
South carolina v united states " the constitution is a written instrument,as such its meaning does not alter. That which it ment when it was adopted,it means now".
D.C. v Heller "The right to keep and bear arms is infact an individual right, and no active militia participation is necessary to excercise that right."
Mcdonald v city of chicago 2010 "the 2nd amendment is fundamental for self defense and applies to the states under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment"
Nysrpa v bruen 2022 " the right to keep and bear arms includes bearing arms for personal protection outside of the home, current and future laws would be required to meet historical tradition"
(Murdock v Pennsylvania 1943 us reports vol 319. pg 105.) "no states shall convert a secured liberty into a privilege and or issue a licence and a fee for it"
(Shuttlesworth v Birmingham u.s. reports vol 373. Pg 262.) "If the state does convert a secured liberty into a privilege you can ignore it and proceed with impunity"
(U.s. v bishop 1973 us reports vol 412. Pg 346.) Covers willful intent meaning if their is no willful intent to break the law they lack grounds to proceed because you are basing your right to carry off..
The constitution
Marbury v madison
Article 6
Miranda v arizona
South carolina v united states
D.C. v Heller
Mcdonald v city of chicago
Nysrpa v bruen
Murdock v Pennsylvania
Shuttlesworth v Birmingham
u.s. v bishop.
You cant have willfulness if you are following laws on the books and the constitution is the law of the land everything else i stated verified that.
Its the perfect defense. They cant prove wilfulness because you are going off supreme court caselaw and the constitution.
You then sue even though they will claim good faith but they cant per (owen v city of independence 1982 supreme court reports vol 100. Pg 1398) and (main v Thibault 1979 supreme court reports vol 100. Pg 2502) leaves them with no judical or qualified immunity.
You then file (title 18 sec 241 and 242) "deprivation or rights under color of law"lawsuit and (title 42 1983,1985,and 1986 civil rights lawsuits.) Then file articles of treason under (title 18 sec 2381.)
The 2nd amendment is an inalienable right.
"Shall not be infringed".
Gun laws are an "infringement"
definition: the action of limiting or undermining something. "Limiting" who can have a firearm and where, and when by directly "undermining" the 2nd amendment.
1st part "a well regulated Militia" was described as "able bodied men willing and able to take up arms if they should need to in order to secure and maintain a free state of living".
The 2nd amendment was put in place to prevent (government) overreach from (infringing) on our (rights).
This means police,military or reserves do NOT classify as "militia" as some argue becuase they are a "government" entity.
Gun laws violate the constitution period and people need to stand up to this.
Absolutely every person in the United states has an equal right to keep and bear arms.
It does not matter what some state law says or city law says it does not matter your background.
your are a "person" and a "citizen."
All state and city laws are bound by the constitution and if they are not they do not have to be followed as they are tyranical in nature.
Every single gun law on the books is illegal. Nics background check is illegal,switch bans,magazine bans,bumpstock bans,assault weapons bans are all illegal.
Every gun law legally has to go.
If you have time
Read: (26th am jurisprudence sec 1-300.)
(Title 5 sec 556-d,557,and 706) = due process.
They’re against guns for these reasons: They don’t have the education on firearms and think that they are the ones hurting people, I think criminals are gonna get them legally and getting rid of them prevents the criminals from getting them, or they themselves are criminals and they don’t want civilians fighting back against them.
Regulate: to make regular
Regular:
1. arranged in or constituting a constant or definite pattern, especially with the same space between individual instances.
"place the flags at regular intervals"
2. recurring at uniform intervals.
"a regular monthly check"
3. Conforming to or governed by an accepted standard of procedure or convention.
"policies carried on by his deputies through regular channels"
4. of or belonging to the permanent professional armed forces of a country.
"a regular soldier"
5. (of a person) properly trained or qualified and pursuing a full-time occupation.
"a strong distrust of regular doctors"
You are right on dig the show one of the best I've seen thanks