Examining the History of the Second Amendment (June 4, 2014)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 ต.ค. 2024
- Attorney Alan Gura and Michael Waldman of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law sat down with National Constitution Center President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen for a smart and informed discussion about the history of the Second Amendment and the constitutionality of gun control- from the time of our Founding Fathers through present day. The conversation drew from Waldman's new book, "The Second Amendment: A Biography."
The discussions surrounding the right to keep and bear arms during the ratification debates make it clear the primary reason for an amendment specifically prohibiting the federal government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms was to keep it from being able to control the state militias and effectively disarm the people. With this in mind, it logically follows that the founding generation intended for the people to have access to weapons capable of matching military firepower, and they would in no way be shocked at the idea of the general population owning so-called “assault weapons.”
In fact, that was the point. They wanted the populace to both possess military equipment and the have the ability to use it. They wanted to ensure the people could resist the government - by force if necessary.
When you bring up this truth today, a lot of people laugh it off, claiming a bunch of rednecks with AR-15s could never face down the U.S. military. Well, tell that to Afghani nomads and Vietnamese peasants.
One does not have to be an advocate of violent revolution to recognize the danger of allowing the government to have a monopoly on guns. It’s a matter of balancing power with power. The government will be far less likely to become tyrannical or oppressive when the people maintain the ability to resist. When you remove the option of self-defense, it tips the scales of power toward the government. That opens the door to tyranny.
Technology has certainly changed over the last 250 years. Human nature hasn’t. Government is still prone to abuse the people when it can get away with it. Power still corrupts. Absolute power still corrupts absolutely.
i open carry every day here in vegas ...SUBSCRIBE
I agree
“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788.
Case closed?
This is the difference between us and all the nations touted to have a more civilized society than ours but nearly every single one of them, has called upon the U.S. for their freedom
@Corno di Bassetto
"The Constitution of most of our states, and of the United States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
Tench Coxe
"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason
When you mute someone who shares the truth, means you know that you lost.
Ive already watched this Colin Noir never talks about the founding fathers or their quotes. He works for the nra. The nra is a fake pro gun association. Try the goa who actually is pro constitution.
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
- William Pitt
The Founders lived thru a tyrannical government and feared that above all things... to even imagine that they would suggest that the government had the rights to have weapons/guns and not the people is laughable.
They were equally afraid of a central banking system.
No doubt about it thank you for bringing that to our attention.
Federal militia law from the time of the Second Amendment actually required people to own military weapons and enroll in the state militia where they liked it or not.
They feared tyranny might develop under a Republic as happened to the Roman Republic. All gentlemen in those days had a classical education and were very familiar with the history of ancient Greece and Rome.
In Rome, the Republic was destroyed by generals like Cornelius Sulla,.Julius Caesar, Marius, Pompey, and others. These generals commended armies that were loyal to them personally, not necessarily to the Republic. They used their armies to advance their personal ambitions, which might or might not be aligned with the policies of the Republic's government.
The Founders saw this as a potential danger to the American Republic. They had gone through the Revolutionary War and had seen some generals, especially Washington, become powerful. Luckily Washington did not harbour ambitions dangerous to the Republic -- this is a major aspect of his greatness.
To defuse this danger, the Founders avoided creating a standing army, and relied instead on volunteer militias to defend the country. In order to make such militias part of the regime they were creating, they adopted the 2nd Amendment, which says that in order to ensure that well regulated militias (not gangs) every male white citizen (implied) had the right to "keep and bear arms".
Standing armies are given guns and uniforms and training by the government. The soldiers agree to serve full time for some period, for which they will be paid. British soldiers were said to "take the King's shilling" when they enlisted and were promptly paid a shilling as a sign that they were now soldiers of the King.
Volunteer militias do not receive weapons, uniforms, or payment from the government. They provide their own, and volunteer their time. The Founders hoped that including the words "well regulated" would have the effect of disciplining the militias to some extent so that their activities would fulfill their goal of protecting the "security of the State". It did not specify what such regulations were or who would impose them, but trusted the citizenry to adopt sensible, patriotic rules for themselves.
To facilitate recruitment, a large pool of men who owned firearms was useful, so that the best men could be chosen. If the only men who owned guns in a community were too old or infirm to participate in a militia, it would be impossible to form a militia. So, to ensure that there would be enough men available to form a serviceable militia, the Amendment recognized that white men (implied) had the right to keep and bear arms.
Did the Founders envisage a country without well regulated militias, in which millions of people would "bear arms" into theaters, supermarkets, churches, schools and county court? Certainly not. They themselves did not carry arms with them as they went about their daily activities. They did not debate the Constitution with guns in their hands.
When they fought duels, like Hamilton and Burr, did both men arrive at the site with guns in their holsters? Certainly not. Did ordinary citizens carry guns all the time -- while they plowed their fields, slaughtered pigs, drove to the crossroads store, walked to church? We don't see much mention of that in the literature they produced. Why didn't somebody blow the Headless Horseman away when he started scaring everybody? Did Rip Van Winkle make to sure get a new gun when he woke up?
It might have been more common for people on the "frontier" to carry guns, since they feared the Indigenous people whose land they were stealing. But most Americans didn't live on the frontier. They lived in places like New York or Charleston or Philadelphia, or, a majority of them, in settled agricultural regions.
One group that carried guns was the Slave Patrols. And here we come to the kind of thinking that motivates much of the gun culture today.
The nightmare of a slave holding society is a slave revolt. In Haiti, there had been a slave revolution at around the same time as the American republic was taking shape. Slave owners were well aware of the Haitian Revolution, and the harsh treatment meted out by the former slaves to their former "masters". Sugar production is one of the most arduous forms of labour, and that's what the Haitian slaves had been forced to do for centuries. When they had not performed up to the standards of their overseers, they were punished ruthlessly "as an example". All this oppression, when finally overthrown by the Haitian people, led to atrocities against the "masters" by the newly free slaves.
All this was current news to American slave "owners", and they were afraid the same thing would happen to them some day. So they set up Slave Patrols made up of armed white men who would ride around at night looking for slaves who had wandered away from their master's plantation. When found, such a slave would be whipped and returned to his "owner".
The Slave Patrols were especially on the lookout for groups of slaves, meeting together in the backwoods and socializing or -- horrors! -- planning a revolt. These meetings were dealt with very harshly. White people spread rumors about black men sneaking off to meet slaves from other plantations to organize a revolt, in which they would kill their "masters", rape white women, burn the house and the outbuildings and then go one to the next plantation and do the same. Just like Haiti!
Nowadays, the gun culture is saturated with similar fantasies, of "ghetto dwellers" breaking out of their slums and descending on the white suburbs with their illegally obtained guns, looking to shoot the suburban men and rape their women. They would "intrude" into the homes of white people and stand there with guns, with their strange hair styles and headscarves, their tasteless jewelry or even gold "grills" on their teeth, listening to rap and hip hop on their stolen cell phones as they manhandle the nice things the white people have gone into debt to buy.
The "rioter", the "intruder", the "criminal", the "ghetto N--" arouse the same fears that used to torment white people during the times of slavery. And for some white people the response is the same: militarize the cops and have them clamp down on the ghetto dwellers. But you can't always rely on the cops! So you need to arm yourself to defend your loved ones and your property.
Like that couple in Missouri who saw a group of black people marching with banners and chanting slogans outside their luxury townhouse and rushed to grab their guns and go outside to "defend" their property from these "intruders". In reality, the group of marchers were totally peaceful and caused no disruption whatsoever, aside from making some noise with their chants. But, driven by the ancient fear of a slave revolt as it has been updated to the 21st century, this wealthy couple saw "N-- in the neighbourhood" and assumed the Evil Day had come and rushed out to confront them, guns in hand.
That white couple became instant heroes to the millions of Americans who have kept alive in their hearts the fear of slave revolt, and who were awestruck by the heroism of these two gun toting rich folks.
That fear underlies much of the gun culture that is so prevalent in the US. It explains the profound emotional attachment felt by many Americans to their guns; it explains their endless threats of insurrection to overthrow "tyranny" (rule by non whites), and their panic over the demographic changes that have made it inevitable that America will be majority non-white in a few decades.
the second amendment easily defined, THE RIGHT TO PROTECT YOURSELF, FAMILY AND YOUR PERESONAL PROPERTY WITH DEADLY FORCE USING FIREARMS
It was fantastic to see an actual debate. Too often debates devolve into shouting matches where both parties depart from facts. Its deeply troubling that so few people can have respect for anothers opinion while disagreeing with it. I dont have to like your views to respect you as a person. If you are a person who cares deeply about this country or your fellow man who am I to call out your beliefs as unintelligent or stupid? If a person is incorrect on facts I can only offer factual evidence. If that person is rejects those facts, I have no more reason to debate. Either way it is no cause to treat another with disrespect or hatered.
From my own study of oposing sides i believe that owning and carrying a firearm is my individual right and I do so. However I believe that right also puts a serious responsibility on any individual that chooses to exercise that right. Laws that address criminals, mentally ill, firearm storage, and the responcibility of the individual are necessary. This works to ensure that ownership and bearing of firearms does not interfere with others rights so spelled out in our Constitution. If an individual, by exercising a right, fails to live up to the responcibility inharent to that right, they should and must be made to answer for the suffering caused by their individual choices. It's a tough issue that is more often argued with feelings rather than facts. This is true on both sides of the issue. I do believe that a more honest and humble conversation about the concerns and causes of the problems of today's society would do much more good for those we seek to protect. Those being both the individual and their rights, and those who have had their own lives and rights violated.
+Chad Kamerad Well put,
Karen Garcia Thank you.
WE TODAY IN AMERICA HAVE A TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT RIGHT NOW. AS THE CENTRAL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND WITH MEDIA CONTROL OVER FAKE NEWS AND FALSE NARRITIVE NEWS HAS CREATED A SELECTIVE PEOSECUTING LAW ENFORCEMENT THAT IS NOW HAPPENING TO THE BLACK PEOPLE THROUGH RACIAL PROFILEING AND WHAT ROBERT MEULLER IS DOING TO PRESIDENT TRUMP WHEN THERE HAS NOT BEEN ONE NOT, ONE CRIME THAT INVOLVES PRESIDENT TRUMP . THE OTHERS THAT HAVE BEEN CHARGED AND THE FEW THAT HAVE BEEN CONVICTED MOST OF THEM WERE ALREADY UNDER FBI INVESTIGATION FOR SOME OVER 10 PLUS YEARS.. PRESIDENT TRUMP IS BEING SELECTED BY A TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT WITH THE FBI AS A GOVERNMENT MILITANT TRAINED GROUP. THIS CAN AND DOES HAPPEN TO MANY MANY NORMAL CITIZENS WHO EVEN HAVE NOT COMMITTED A CRIME BUT YET GET THIER LOIVES RUINED BY THE GOVERNMENT. THIS IS THE DEMOCRATS AND THE DEMOCRATES ARE NOT LIKE THE DEOMOCRATS OF YESTERYEAR. THEY ARE NOW A SOCIALIST ANTIFA VIOLENT GROUP THAT USES THE MEDIA TO LIE AND SPIN THE TRUTH IN THE NEWS. FOR EXAMPLE JUST LOOK UP TH-cam AND FAKE NEWS. CNN WILL POP UP ALL OVER. AND HERE IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE . NOW CHRIS CUOMO ONCE SAID ON T.V. THAT IT IS ILLEGAL FOR ANY CITIZEN TO OWN HILLARY CLINTONS WIKILEAKS EMALIS THAT TELL THE TRUTH AND EXPOSE HER LIES AND TELL THE REAL TRUTH ABPOUT HER. AND IF THE CITIZENS HAD A COPY OF THE WIKILEAKS EMAILS THEN IT IS ILLEGAL AND THEY THE CITIZENS ARE CRIMINALS. AND ONLY THE MEDIA LIKE HIMSELF CHRIS CUOMO AND THE MEDIA ARE THE ONLY LEGAL ONES WHO CAN LEGALLY POSSESS THE HILLARYS WIKILEAKS. NOW THAT IS A REAL LIE. AND WHEN THE MEDIA WHICH IS A CORPORATION LIE TO THE MASSESS AND CITIZENS WHO DO NOT KNOW THE TRUTH IS FRAUDULENT NEWS. THAT IS VERY INFLUENTIAL TO THE ELECTION PROCESS . SO FORGET RUSSIA THAT TOOK OUT ADDS IN FACE BOOK . BUT WE HAVE THE LIBERAL MEDIA THAT ON PURPOSELY LIE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO INFLUENCE TO LIKE OR DISLIKE A POTENTIAL CANDIATE. THAT I BELIEVE SHOULD BE ACTIONABLE BY TRUMP AND CONGRESS SHOULD PASS MANY LAWS THAT IF A REPORTER SPINS OR LIES OR DISTORTS THE TRUTH FOR THIER CORPORATIONS WHICH ARE NEWS MEDIAS SHOULD GO TO PRISON. PERIOD. NOW HOW THIS HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE GUN AND THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS IS BECAUSE OF PROBLEMS LIKE THIS. SO FELLOW CITIZENS YOU BETTER KEEP ALL YOUR GUNS ALL BIG AND SMALL.BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT HAS PUSHED IT ALREADY WITH RACIAL PROFILING AND WE ALL KNOW THAT OBAMA USEDA EXECUTIVE ORDER TO STOP ANY INVESTIOGATION INTO THE FAST AND FURIOUS DEAD IN ITS TRACKS. OUR GOD GIVEN RIGHTS ARE NON NEGOTIABLE. ALL LAWYERS DO IS COMPLICATE THE ISSUES BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO AND TRAINED TO DO. SO YOU CAN LISTEN TO A FAT CROOKED CAREER POLITICIAN TELL YOU THAT YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS OR YOU CAN SAY WHAT BEN FRANKLIN SAID. GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH.
So basically a Marxist and a Communist arguing over what constitutes "sensible" Infringement.
Not one of these "scholars" addressed the phrase "Shall not be infringed" aside from reading it. One of them even ridiculed the notion of examining each word for its separate meaning.
This, ladies and gentleman is WHY we need the second amendment. This is HOW tyranny relentlessly and insidiously creeps and forces its way into the world. This is WHAT the founders were talking about when they described tyranny. It is Evil itself. It is anything that seeks to limit Freedom and the Infinite Potential of Man.
Talking as someone who's a conservative on the gun issue, it wasn't mentioned because it's irrelevant to the discussion. The question is how far the right goes not whether you can infringe on it.
@@HistoryNerd808 It goes up to the level of civilians owning tanks and fighter jets which they do own.
@@vidyanandbapat8032 Not armed ones. It's illegal to drive a tank on the streets for example, nor can you own a tank on private property that is armed, same goes with jet fighters. Also, there are some weapons which are outright banned to be owned by private citizens, like nuclear bombs, nuclear-powered submarines, etc...
What's sad is that this has been posted since 2014 and the number of comments and views is really low. Pretty damn important topic!
Sadly, this is not the format that works for the 24/7 media machine. Short, one-line insults work much better in capturing the attention of the average, on-the-go citizen. This debate was fantastic. I learned much and now feel like I better understand the history that led us to DC v Heller.
The 2nd amendment doesn't give citizens the right to keep and bear arms!
It just acknowledges that fact.
As a free man I have the right to protect myself and my possessions from all that wish to deprive me of my life or my possessions.
There is no debate : The 2nd Amendment states very clearly - the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
And NO...…….the founding fathers would NOT be in favor of gun control.
Considering what's going on right now in Virginia - with the new Communist Governor trying to seize the peoples firearms - the founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing when they wrote the 2nd Amendment. We have the right to defend ourselves from the time we are born . That right comes from God. Government, Federal or State - has no right to limit or take away that right.
Should children be able to buy a .50 caliber machine gun?
@@stevemiller7429 Yeah. They should.
@@vidyanandbapat8032 You're insane, seek professional psychiatric help ASAP.
@@rsr789 Why?
what Attorney Michael Waldman ignore is the 2nd amendment was a principle UNDERSTOOD long BEFORE the American Revolution. IT was the PRIMARY tools for INDIVIDUALS to PROTECT and DEFEND THEIR PERSON FAMILY AND COMMUNITY on the FRONTIER. Battle of Saratoga was primarily won due to the Individual taking their PERSONAL ARMS to stand and fight the British.
I love how neither one spoke of the last part of the 2nd amendment, shall not be infringed was read but totally ignored in this discussion and to say nothing of the other parts of the Constitution that speak of the militia and the most awesome part of the Constitution "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." People need to understand what liberty means and stop letting people decide for you
Thats from the Declaration.
If only political debates were this calm the country might be in a better place right now
Hot heads are needed at times. If the colonists had sat with the King of England and discussed cordially their differences, they would be in the river Thames.
JEFFERSON SAID THAT WHEN WE READ THE CONSTITUTION, LET US ALWAYS COME BACK TO THE ORIGINAL INTENT. THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Indeed!
Indeed!
Indeed!
“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
― James Madison
“The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.” - Massachusetts` U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788 William Grayson, of Virginia:
Corno di Bassetto The 14th amendment prevents the states from "doing whatever they want with Guns" . States cannot violate your civil rights such as the Second Amendment under the 14th amendment to the constitution. (including turning them all into scrap metal).
Ok, for many Americans the subtleties of the debate will be lost. It would be important to remind those on the left of the issue that The Constitution was written so it could be understood by the average joe of the time, not those holding a Phd in linguistics. Additionally, politicians write laws everyday knowing they're un-constitutional and also knowing their courts will uphold them and the case will either never make it to SCOTUS, or will never get to see the case as 8,ooo or so cases are requested review and only 75-80 actually get heard (About 1%). So as a politician there is a very good chance your un-constitutional law will remain the law for many years.
Common with intellectuals like Waldman to always have the answers with government always being the solution. It is convenient how intellectuals are immune from the ramifications of their own ideology. I think it is best demonstrated at the end when he claims:
1. Vehicles have been made safer by government regulations. This is not true, as evidenced in risk analysis by John Adams in 'Managing Transport Risks: What Works?' (2010)
2. Microstamping: no technology currently exists to make this economically feasible (California has a law for this even though it doesn't exist) and there is no evidence to show it works or that it would change homicide rates.
3. Smart guns might be a good idea but there is a high technology cost for this and some deep questions about the guns functioning when needed that have caused them to not be feasible as of yet. And if they are that great, why is the market not supplying them? Why would you need laws to force your purchase of one?
4. Why does he care if someone is openly carrying? How much distrust does he have in everyone?
5. Even if it were a collective right, people will just join a militia and continue to own and use guns.
6. After his ideology settles, Waldman needs to prove that any government intervention has ever worked with guns, then figure out why it worked, and finally make more policies based off of these facts assuming they do not violate the constitution.
If you wanted to have an honest debate, like Waldman is claiming to have, about effecting the homicide rate, you have to start by looking at where and why the homicides are actually being created. For this you would need to start with the failed drug war, the failed welfare state, and a whole host of other topics. Waldman needs to read Thomas Sowell's 'The Quest for Cosmic Justice' (2002) and then revisit his ideology.
Waldman at 58:30 attempt the classic Liberal argument that since Muskets were the main stay is it muskets that we have a right to? This is a MUTE arguement since ARMS is understood as a CONCEPT of DEFENSES just as ALL THE RIGHTS are a CONDEPT and IDEOLOGY and NOT SPECIFIC to a PARTICULAR CLASS OF TOOL OR METHOD
Sounds like the argument, 'common use' has been already decided by the Federal Supreme court and the gun grabbers need to piss off (including politicians grandstanding for re-election). with approximately 40 million AR-15's bought and owned, legally, the question is who and why they want us to abandon the right to bear arms. That was tried before and this was the result: withoutsanctuary.org
What is it about leftist that there always trying to take peoples rights away ?
chris wilder because they’re communists. And like a scorpion or viper. It’s their nature.
Because they are NOT Right! Well there may be a few, but I rarely ever see them.
The fact that the citizen militia may be dormant, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
THE SILENT MAJORITY?!
In fact, citizen militia and paramilitary groups are outlawed and prohibited in all 50 States. Dormant or active they are unlawful.
@@deppsterdeppe725 So they are outlawed and prohibited in all 50 states by what authority? The same state and federal governments which were put on notice by the Second Amendment of the US Constitution that the state and federal governments are prohibited from outlawing and prohibiting Citizen Militias? George III and Thomas Gage agreed with your position. If fact, they tried to enforce your position at Lexington and Concord with somewhat questionable results. By the way, Hitler was a big fan also.
@@generalbarry They are outlawed and explicitly prohibited by Laws put in place by each state legislatures of course, as that is how laws are enacted as most people know.. The far right NRA myth and twisted perversion of the original intent of the 2nd amendment is their 40+ year fairytale. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...The fundamental reference and entire point lies therein.
The Second Amendment was the anti-standing army amendment. It failed spectacularly in that respect. If it was intended to curb state violence against citizens, it has also failed, as the US has the rates of violence by police.
The guy on the right acknowledges that the right to bear arms was intended to prevent a tyrannical government. Who is going to prevent a tyrannical government if it's not the people who are not part of the government controlled military? He tosses out the statements that are not logical. There are so many instances where it's made obvious that the founding fathers intended for individuals to have the right to bear arms that it's amusing that we are still debating it.
And btw, I see selective service as the best example of the modern militia.
the second amendment easily defined, THE RIGHT TO PROTECT YOURSELF, FAMILY AND YOUR PERESONAL PROPERTY WITH DEADLY FORCE USING FIREARMS
no definition can be be clearer of its meaning
We do not have a free state, ask any divorced father whose had his children taken and extorted just to not be put in a cage. If there are ANY laws requiring a human to actively DO and/or maintain something, i.e. Income, is tyrannical.
Slavery in all of its forms
2 bad arguments. And one misstated argument The musket argument. And the car argument. The micro stamping misstatement.
Muskets were the most technologically advanced of their time. Just like we didn’t have TH-cam and other modern methods for speech. We didn’t have the firearms tech that we have now. So as we evolve. We will always have to remember to not forfeit our rights in that process.
No one has a constitutional right to own a car. So that entire argument has no merit.
Micro stamping does not print anything on a bullet. Even if it could the bullet traveling down the barrel would scrape it right of in a millisecond So he fails to understand that which he wishes to argue.
It is unusual to see a debate on this issue conducted so civilly and rationally. Typically, both sides just interrupt each-other and blurt out self serving statistics. This forum is the only non-partisan discussion I've ever seen on the RKBA.
once YTube stumbles across this video it will disappear
The majority of Americans understand why they want to take our guns, and it’s not going to happen.
Hening's Statutes of the laws of Virginia state that in 1623 that each man had to carry a loaded firearm with them on their way to and from work in the field and post a sentry over them as they worked. In 1625 a law was passed that men on their way to and from church had to carry a loaded firearm on their way to and from church. Not the militia, but each individual man was mandated by law to do so.
Absolutely right. Even nowadays, we see such provisions in laws at some places wherein individual citizen has not just a right, but a duty, of not just owning, but always carrying a firearm, which, in today's times of magazines, is always loaded.
The first Right of Natural Law is the Right of Self Defense of life and limb and his or her family.
Really? Where are these rights listed, and by whom? Or are you just making that up?
@@leezaslofsky4438 So you are out for your morning jog. Suppose someone attacks you. Do you have to ask anyone for permission to defend yourself? No? Well, then it is a right.
And since self defense is a right so is a tool for self defense, and a gun is a great tool for self defense.
@@Anon54387 This is a typcal "argument" from a gun nut. Suppose you are not armed/ Suppose you are not able to get hold of your weapon? Suppose you are disabled, or frail elderly, or a teenager nt yet old enough to be armed?
MOST people NEVER get attacked. Of those who get attacked, a large proportion are not able to get hold of a gun, ar not famliar with the use of a gun , do not believe in using lethal force in an inident they may have misinterpreted, or where it is easier to use a cell phone tocall for help, or where the "attacker" can be dealt with other than by using lethal force against her or him.
Americans pay enormous amunts of money for their 18,000 police agencies, and more huge sums for private security agencies, and many security devices that can prevent an attacker from getting anywhere near the you.
You seem to dismiss all this spending, training, and day to day activity, and single out the rare instances where a person may find herself or himself under attack with no access to any kind of security aside from the possession of a lethal weapon.
Once you have st up that rare situation, yu base your whole attitude to firearms on it, as if it were a typical everyday occurrence.
That is the wrong way to approach this issue. In a society where massive efforts are going on every minute of every day to preserve personal security, the real uestion is how can people faced with a difficult situation access the help that society provides?
Ignoring all that, you pretend that "we" are lone cowboys riding around in unpopulated areas, where the only possible response to "attack" is a lightning fast resort to firearms, with the intention of either killing the attacker or wounding her or him so badly that she or he loses the capacity to threaten you.
Such rare incidents are NOT the best baiss for approaching the question of firearms in modern society. And indeed in most modern countries, there are regulations that constrain the possession and use of firearms, thereby reducing the incidence of "attacks" and increasing the safety of the public.
Only in the US, and certain corners of the world's gangster community, is the issue approached as if society has completely failed to provide any security for its members. In this fantasy world, the question of "gun rights" sddenly becomes urgent, as the complete failure of society to protect its members from lethal threats forces individual citizens and residents to resort to lethal self defense, based on their own rapid apprecitation of what is happening at the moment of "attack".
This kind of idiotic fantasizing accounts for many of the deaths and injuries suffered by ordinary Americans because they happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time; or react in ignorance of the actual situation (like the cop who murdered a 10 year old kid who was playing around with a toy gun, or the cop who murdered a man who had just informed him that he was in legal possession of a firearm and reached to get the documents requested by the cop).
In fact, yu do NOT have a "right" to kill or injure someone because you imagine that he is a dnger to you. You are bound by law -- and not a new law -- to respond to threats with proportionate force, or, better, to try to prevent any use of force at all.
That used ot be called "Keeping the King's Peace". The KIng has commended his subkects not to kill each other, and whoever kills someone breaches that command and is therefore liable to be punished.
The King's Peace was imposed in order to get rid of the custom of revenge killing or injuring relatives of a person thought to have killed or injured someone. If a man kills your cousin, you go and kill one of his cousins, thus exacting revenge and resolving the crime.
That was the wy things were until kings gained enough power to suppress that kind of tit for tat, almost random murder and injury. That kind of thing makes it difficult to society to gain prosperity, because3 you might be targeted by someone's cousin for something your cousin did without you knowledge some years ago.
Now it's not called the King's Peace in the US, but the idea remains the same: we are required, as members of society, to do our best to keep the peace. Gun nuts think that means that they have th right to kill anyone who "attacks" them. That is the wrong interpretation, and in most cases it is against the law to do so.
Gun nuts, in their foolish indifference to Reason, think society would be more "polite" if everyone knew he was risking death of wounding if he dared to be impolite. Such ruthless contempt for the lives and personal safety of others is typical of a gangster or psychopathic mentality.
A society of armed psychopaths wold perhaps benefit if every psychopath had the "right" to kill other psychopaths when they get rowdy.
But only a small number f people are psychopaths or gangsters, and it is a big mistake to base social customs on their behaviour -- in fact, on letting them set the standards for society in general.
If we're going to let a small minority set the standards for society as a whole, wouldn't it be better to choose peace loving, constructive, caring people as that minority, rather than ruthless killers?
Or was Jesus an impractical dreamer who got what such people usually get from the more realistic members of society: torture and death, public humiliation, and a reputation as a Loser?
the second amendment easily defined, THE RIGHT TO PROTECT YOURSELF, FAMILY AND YOUR PERESONAL PROPERTY WITH DEADLY FORCE USING FIREARMS
You guys are having this show about the constitution second amendment the right of every individual to have a firearm then my damn question is why are these states curtailing the Second Amendment restricting our purchases of certain firearms and you guys are sitting there like it’s all fine and well!🕶
Not once in all of US History and juris prudence was the idea that gun ownership was ever not considered as an individual Right until the 1970s when the Democrat party first began that purporting that as a legal basis for gun control.
Absolutely right. It was even there in the older British Bill of rights(1689) and the Magna Carta from which the Amer8can Bill of rights(1791) is emerged.
I think it’s quite simple here’s why:
1. What were the events that brought forth this document? What was the driving principle of the revolution? What was the mindset of these revolutionaries, turned framers?
A. They had just fought the greatest military power on earth at the time with a group of farmers, lawyers, politicians, clerks, store owners, tradesmen etc. who provided their own weapons, that were equal if not better, than those of the Tyrannical British. The #1 motivation Liberty
2. What does the very first line of the constitution say?
A. “ We the people”
Who are the people?
Each Individual Citizen
3. What is the type of government that they formed?
A. A republic, that represents the rights of the individual.
These people feared an oppressive government. They wanted the people to have the ability to protect against threats foreign or domestic. The Bill of Rights were added due to the concerns of the anti-federalists. According to the framers the Militia was the whole of the people themselves, and each individual to keep his own arms.
These rights are not granted by the second amendment, only protected by it. The Constitution limits the powers of government not the people. Our rights are pre-ordained, “precede” the government does not grant them therefore has no authority to take them. We are not subjects, therefore “by and for the people.” . “Can not be infringed” are clear and powerful, when you consider the above.
As well as the framers own words:
Thomas Jefferson
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776
“ Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” - Jefferson`s “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764
George Mason
“[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually.”. . . I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” - Virginia`s U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788
“That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free state.” - Within Mason`s declaration of “the essential and unalienable Rights of the People,” - later adopted by the Virginia ratification convention, 1788
Samuel Adams
“The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.” - Massachusetts` U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788
William Grayson
“[A] string of amendments were presented to the lower House; these altogether respected personal liberty.” - Letter to Patrick Henry, June 12, 1789, referring to the introduction of what became the Bill of Rights
Richard Henry Lee
“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms… The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.” - Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788
James Madison
The Constitution preserves “the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” - The Federalist, No. 46
Tench Coxe
“The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them.” - An American Citizen, Oct. 21, 1787
“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” - The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788
“As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” - Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
Noah Webster
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power.” - An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787
Alexander Hamilton
“[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens.” - The Federalist, No. 29
Thomas Paine
“[ A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.” - Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775
Fisher Ames
“The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people.” - Letter to F.R. Minoe, June 12, 1789
Elbridge Gerry
“What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise a standing army upon its ruins.” - Debate, U.S. House of Representatives, August 17, 1789
Patrick Henry
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.” - Virginia`s U.S. Constitution ratification convention
The right to keep and bare arms ??for European immigrant citizens only, because,why was Native Americans disarmed during the colonial westward manifest destiny GENOCIDE movement and put on Resevations at gun point and it wasnt until 1924 We INDIGENOUS people became US citizens ???.(Indigenous History)
Debate the Native American disarment issue!
The guy on the right, though i don't agree with him, was very astute until the very end, when he mentioned people running around with military weapons. He was of course referencing ARs. He stated an absolute falshood. What majes a military weapon a military weapon is simply wheather a military uses it or not. Nobody is running the streats with military weapons. ARs Have never been used by a standing army, in battle. ARs are not remotely similar to miliary weapons. A rifles function is soley responsible for a military's decision to employ it. That function is select or automatic fire. ARs DO NOT HAVE SELECT OR AUTOMATIC ABILITY. 1911S, AK47, SKS, MOSIN NAGANT, M1 GARAND, 30 CARBINE, and mant more are guns actually used in war, mant still today. If you are going to be among the most brilliant minds, debating guns, learn something about the ones you do not like, and offer a factual argument, for the control of that gun. Thank you.
Waldman starting at 49:48 does a double speak stating the courts have upheld decisions against individual rights in support gov and public interest which is the CORE OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS that the ANTI FEDERALIST ORIGINALLY FOUGHT TO STAY OFF A CENTRALIZED CONTROLLING GOV which now Waldman said is the reason judges have ignored individual gun rights case. This is CONTRARY TO THE PURPOSE of the VERY RIGHTS IN THE BILL OF THE RIGHTS
That because Congress doesent want to under stand 1 amendment freedoms of the constitution .2 amendment to keep all the freedoms and god given rights and rest of the amendment safe .it is closer to that time again the country is so divided
No one seems to understand the militia of the time. The militia of the time was not State controlled. They certainly were not the *Kings Militia.* In fact, the militia that began the Revolution, the militia to which many of the Framers belonged, was the Sons of Liberty, an ad hoc militia, made up of individuals, who eventually pushed the British, into Boston Harbor. The Sons of Liberty were very like the Irish Republican Army, with political and militant wings.
Also, the Phrase "well Regulated" did not carry the same meaning as today. The phrase "Well regulated" indicated "in proper working order". This meaning was demonstrated by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 29, _"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would _*_entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia,_*_ would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss."_
From this quote we can deduce two things:
1. If the Founders meant for government to control the militia, they would have used the verb “to discipline”, as in “a well disciplined militia” (an objective Hamilton described as “futile” and “injurious”)
2. As Hamilton observes, well regulated meant the people were responsible for training themselves to arms, as well as supplying and equipping themselves. "Well Regulated" was a superlative of the _character_ desired in a militia. Though Hamilton thought this onerous, by demanding the Second Amendment, the States devolved this responsibility to the People.
One final word regarding the 14th Amendment : The phrase, "Shall not be infringed" *guarantees a constitutional immunity* from infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. Therefore, as Justice Thomas suggests in his McDonald Concurring Opinion, the 2nd Amendment would be better incorporated under the "privileges & immunities" clause of the 14th.
That is absolute nonsense: there was no militia during the 18th century that didn’t serve without government authority and organization.
You simply have no idea what you’re talking about and I can prove it.
@@walterbailey2950, your ignorance of history is astounding. Research *"The Sons of Liberty"*
@@rainsilversplash4376 it’s astounding because you’re the one who’s really ignorant. You just don’t know it. The sons of liberty were a terrorist organization. They acted with encouragement of some rebel leaders but not as a Militia.
Massachusetts colony did use its militia against the British and formed some of them into a select corps called Minutemen that were given special training.
The liberal's argument at the 58ish mark is misplaced. He's basically making a "living Constitution" argument. "It doens't matter what the original intent was, the country evolves, so the Constitution evolves. What was legal then doesn't need to be legal now, blah blah blah." And even if he's right, he's wrong as it applies to guns. The majority of Americans favor gun rights. Doesn't mater if you are a gun owner or not. The vast majority of Americans (around 73% the last time surveyed) believe that individuals should have the right to own a gun. Every state but 4 or 5 have the individual right to own guns enshrined in their state constitutions. And of those few that didn't, even fewer didn't grant the right by statute. That's why D.C. stood out so much, it was this extreme example that America didn't agree with. So if he wants to argue original intent, that's fine. But there is no "living Constitution" argument against the individual right. Whatever the Second Amendment was originally intended to be, it's clear that Americans want it to be an individual right.
The origianl wording from Madison clearly outlines the reason for citizens to have arms, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person,”
Patrick Henry objected to elements of the draft because he thought a future abolitionist President could activate the militia and send it out of state and expose the slave states to a slave uprising because the militia primarily served as the slave patrol.
Thus, the version in the Constitution was produced, 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.
You need look no further than Switzerland to see a modern example of Madison's intention. Every man 18 to 30 is a member of the reserves and keeps his issued weapon at home.
I agree. We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.
@@danielpalos I agree, we shouldn't have security problems. But 314 mass shootings in 186 days in 2022 is a scurity problem.
Since 2020, firearms are the leading cause of death in those ages 1 to 19. That is a security problme.
So, what is the solution to those security problems?
@@elviejodelmar2795 - A few points about Switzerland:
*conscientious objectors are exempted both from military service and from keeping a rifle at home;
*to keep a long gun at home, a person must be at least 18 years of age, may not have been placed under guardianship, may not give cause for suspicion that he would endanger themselves or others with the weapon, and may not have a criminal record with a conviction for a violent crime or of several convictions for nonviolent crimes;
*gun sellers are required to scrupulously check that background, and a national record exists;
*a person who kept a gun but then winds up landing outside of the above restrictions will have their gun confiscated;
*purchasing a handgun, as opposed to a hunting gun, requires a permit, and these are valid only for between 6 and 9 months and a separate permit is required per handgun;
*there’s no right to open carry; to concealed carry requires a license, and to obtain the license you must provide proof you really need to concealed carry … like you’re a bodyguard to a high-profile person, basically;
*open carry of long guns is absolutely forbidden, you are only allowed to transport your long gun to the shooting range or hunting ground in a case with the ammunition kept separately from the long gun;
*a long gun kept at home must be kept under lock and key, with the ammunition stored separately.
I in general agree with what you write, and you may already know all the above, but for other readers’ sakes I felt I ought to outline how guns and gun ownership are really quite tightly regulated even in Switzerland, as opposed to in our current, quite broken, USA.
The mad dash by conservatives in the USA, beginning in the 1980s, to warp the 2nd Amendment from its original intent-of allowing for the organizing of a federal militia in the event of a hostile foreign invasion-to, instead, our bizarre present-day shoot-‘em-up free-for-all is, in a word, insane. I’ve watched it over the decades in disbelief. And of course it’s led to today’s predictable results.
It’s about time we, the sensible majority, took back control of our country, away from the insane conservative minority who today undemocratically rule it.
@@danopticon Well said.
@@danopticon 19th century jurisprudence and commentary unfortunately disabuse your position. Your view collapsed because of extensive scholarship on the subject that was too irrefutable to ignore, not that your opinion is correct.
FYI, do you know roughly per polling what percent of the population actually agrees with your interpretation of the Second? It's around 25%. That puts you in the extreme minority, not the "sensible majority." You're entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts about the numbers that actually support your position.
sorry I will carry my gun when and were I want when I feel I need to. there should be no gun laws but maybe gun rules. because gun laws infringe and gun rules do not.
Michael Waldman makes a HUGE ERROR of the LIBERALS @ 32:50 he states thing started to CHANGE 100 yrs later arguing that urban cities with more population became the norm thus things REGARDING GUNS HAD TO CHANGE-THIS IS THE ERROR THOUGH SOCIAL CONSTRUCTS CHANGE AS their INTEREST of RESIDENCE THE RIGHTS GOVERNING THE PEOPLE DO NOT CHANGE BUT THAT HAS BEEN THE LIBERAL TAKE...That we need to Change the CONSTITUTION to REFLECT a DIFFERENCE OF SOCIETY THAT IS FLAT OUT FALSE!!!!
Your group got together and work it out you would it shoud take much more that a simple majority to change amements
And what they feared was to come to pass has happened, our government is becoming tyrannical!!!!!!!! Bearing weaponry, armaments is as much of a right as breathing air!!!
This guy points toward Madison while at the same time that we shouldn't look back at the construction and intent ... seems an odd position, since Madison states that examining the construction and intent is the only way to see its faithful execution:
"The Constitution itself, whether written or prescriptive, influenced as its exposition and administration will be, by those causes, must be an unfailing source of party distinctions. And the very peculiarity which gives pre-eminent value to that of the United States, the partition of power between different governments, opens a new door for controversies and parties. There is nevertheless sufficient scope for combating the spirit of party, as far as it may not be necessary to fan the flame of liberty, in efforts to divert it from the more noxious channels; to moderate its violence, especially in the ascendant party; to elucidate the policy which harmonizes jealous interests; and particularly to give to the Constitution that just construction, which, with the aid of time and habit, may put an end to the more dangerous schisms otherwise growing out of it.
With a view to this last object, I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that be not the guide in expounding it, there can be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful exercise of its powers. If the meaning of the text be sought in the changeable meaning of the words composing it, it is evident that the shape and attributes of the Government must partake of the changes to which the words and phrases of all living languages are constantly subject. What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense And that the language of our Constitution is already undergoing interpretations unknown to its founders, will I believe appear to all unbiased Enquirers into the history of its origin and adoption. Not to look farther for an example, take the word "consolidate" in the Address of the Convention prefixed to the Constitution. It there and then meant to give strength and solidity to the Union of the States. In its current & controversial application it means a destruction of the States, by transfusing their powers into the government of the Union." - James Madison
Also, the Second Amendment was included because of the fears that Congress would neglect its obligation under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 to organize, arm, and discipline the militias. The fear was that Congress wouldn't provide for the arming of the militia, since that power had been placed within the purview of the federal government. It would, as Patrick Henry stated, render the best defense of our liberty nugatory by leaving the states without any arms. While as Mason put it, Congress would then use the excuse to create a permanent standing army.
I have this thing about the elites belief as to what the 2nd amendment was intended to do. The elite rarely want to allow the commoners to be on an equal footing.
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself" - George Washington
the second amendment easily defined, THE RIGHT TO PROTECT YOURSELF, FAMILY AND YOUR PERESONAL PROPERTY WITH DEADLY FORCE USING FIREARMS
A rephrasing of the amendment is because of the need of a militia as a first line of our defense the right those who legally required to bear arms shall not be infringed by the National government under the military clauses.
"Common Sense gun laws, or any gun laws for that matter, are designed to stop the very people who are most likely to disobey them, while effectively legislating the law-abiding citizens out of their right to defend themselves. You then have a situation where only the criminals have guns and the the law abiders are disarmed. A perfect storm.
Where do these people keep appearing from?
Why is WalDman given double the time to speak? he talks of NRA supporting military grade guns being carried in TEXAS FALSE- the long rifles legally carried are semi auto rifles that LIBs FREAK OUT mentioned by GURA that are MERELY DESIGN TO LOOK LIKE MILITARY AGRADE RIFLE BUT ARE IN FACT LAWFUL SEMI AUTOMATICS!
Don’t ban AR-15 geez
Discuss analyze and argue all you wish. But the fact remains that the forefathers knew that the nature of government is to move toward tyranny. And the peoples right to bare arms would be an understood prerequisite to free men.
Try to understand "Shall not be infringed" simple and concise. Theres nothing to analyze or debate..
Right to keep and bear arms"...meant whatever you chose o be armed with!!! That could be a rock; a bowie knife, a base ball bat...it meant ARMED.PERIOD. The right to keep and bear arms! Or weapons of YOUR choice!
shall be infringed
The anti-gun guy keeps saying states were making gun laws, all 2 of them, then just plain omits some of the words in the Constitution and twists other words. Most of the anti-gun people don't know a damn thing about guns themselves, Military Type Looking is not the same as Military Weapons. They may look the same to some but they don't function the same, "just because they look scary doesn't mean there Military Weapons". Fully Automatic," Military" and Semi-Automatic, "CIVILIAN" are NOT the same thing! Semi-Automatic, "CIVILIAN", The trigger must be pulled once per round of fire, in other words, so you ANTI-GUN THINKERS UNDERSTAND, THE TRIGGER MUST BE PULLED EVERY TIME THE GUN GOES BANG OR IT WON'T GO BANG AGAIN. The framers knew damn well what TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENTS were and will always be capable of! Thank goodness they had the foresight to implement our RIGHTS so no-one would ever have to go through what they did. It's so simple, if you don't like our CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS that have been the same since they were drafted, MOVE OUT OF OUR COUNTRY AND DON'T LIVE HERE. Sheep-dog or Sheep, GRRRR - RUFF RUFF AND/OR BOW-WOW!
they did not have military guns . they had their hunting guns. and they were not forced to join it was an honor and a love for their fellow man!!!!!!!!!!!!! and to secure our lives from tyranny. WE STILL NEED OUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS as our government dose not honor the CONSTITUTION AS IT IS WRITTEN!!!!!
I really appreciated the stuttering at 32:00
Of course it’s a right. If you can read and have any common sense. You would know that ....THE PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS . IF YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND THAT YOU NEED TO GO BACK TO SCHOOL.
When the TYRANNICAL government comes the NATIONAL GUARD comes with them. They are the SAME side of the coin. WE the ppl in EACH STATE need our OWN MILITIA.
Commerce in gunpowder/explosives as firearms propellants were not controlled by the monarch? Manufacture was not controlled by the Crown? The elements of gunpowder was unregulated, and freely available and not centrally administrated?
Arms were crafted throughout the colonies and states. We can see that gunsmithing was widely available as an offshoot of metal fabrication, of course. Gunpowder, however, was strictly controlled.
I’m waiting for the day that SCOTUS speaks of the Infringement Clause of 2a. 2a is the only “right” that has such a clause. Therefore, it has the most protection of any “right”. In the end, it doesn’t matter what a judges “opinion” is on anything. The second amendment, created in 1791, was signed the very same year the first Supreme Court of the United States was created.
The first Chief Justice of the United States was John Jay; the Court's first docketed case was Van Staphorst v. Maryland (1791), and its first recorded decision was West v. Barnes (1791). 2a predates the entire government.
These "expert" commentators fail to look at history extensively enough, instead primarily arguing Supreme Court commentary. Throughout most of history rulers controlled the masses by threat of force, namely armed militia. Warrior classes amongst which royalty belonged were the trained bearers of arms, arms only they could afford the time and money to own and learn how to properly use. Very often in history the right to bear (and be trained in) arms was limited to the ruling classes. Feudalism known persisting for eons reflected different variations of this theme, that was not without exceptions in various times and places, but by and large was the case--UNTIL THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION AND THE ABOLITION OF MONARCHY. The right to free speech and right to bear arms go hand in hand as means to at least fight if not prevent tyranny.
Contextually speaking, as the technological advancement of armaments has evolved over centuries, so has the right of the people to bear more technologically advanced arms to fit the context in which people live now. If the founders so happened to only have bow and arrows and bronze swords at their disposal, would it make sense to limit people to bow and arrows and bronze swords now?
Well regulated militia is a subjective term, and the formation of such would take time, arms, and proper training. This would mean common people with common training would need the right to bear arms before they can become considered a well regulated militia. Many of our greatest soldiers were hunters and firearms enthusiasts before volunteering to serve. Moreover, it's obvious to the most novice historian that "Militia" in the context of the 2nd Amendment refers to militia outside of government control, a militia of the people; as they knew from enduring the tyranny of the British, monarchy and feudalism generally, and as scholars of Greek history, that keeping tyrants in check was essential to Freedom and was only possible when the people were empowered to do so through political processes but also arms when necessary. This has been a fact throughout history. In fact, there are tyrants from above and from below; all tyrants must be kept in check. Tyrannical mobs also must be kept in check. The many mechanisms of our Constitution create a naturally adversarial and conversant political society not based on tyranny or monarchy of any kind but rather on dialogue (free speech), reliable voting systems, a degree of chaos, and inalienable rights as described in our Declaration of "Independence," (read it) independence from monarchy, tyranny, those who would topple our legal God given rights, and so on--including free speech and the right to bear arms. The 2nd Amendment and other amendments are written short and clear. It is tyrants who wish to topple our rights who try to squeeze out new meaning, as if speaking another language.
Since stone age times, violence has been present. Taking away one person's right to bear arms invites those who bear arms to exercise tyranny against those whose arms were taken away. Millions of firearms are owned illegally and smuggled into the country illegally. Arming law-abiding citizens is the smartest way to keep the peace, ensure provision of individual rights, and provide the nation with a large well-trained militia ready to defend at a moment's notice.
If you are unarmed you live at the mercy of those who are not....Need proof, give up your right and ability to defend yourself......Then claim you are free....Tyrants and criminals throughout history will insist otherwise....Its for your own safety, Of course.
"Shall not be infringed".
Where is the HiStorical context. The citizens of Venezuela were disarmed before they ended up where they are today. There are many in various countries around the globe that no longer permit private ownership of firearms and they have a growing crime problem, particularly for the elderly at home.
As for the assertion that gun ownership was written for 'white men' fail to recognize the cross section of racial diversity that existed at the time. One of the first casualties in the engagement that resulted in the "Shot heard around the world" was a black man with his musket on the country green. More recently, with the Democrats acting like a dictatorial governing body that violates their oath, and does not adhere to the Individual Rights of a Citizen as guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States have illustrated for FAR TOO MANY . . . EXACTLY why the 2nd Amendment exist.
The leftists who would disarm the individual citizen constantly claims that our 2nd amendment only applies to the militia and by today's definition being the State's National Guard.....
One of the primary if not the prime purpose of the 2nd amendment is to prevent the federal government imposing tyranny on the individual states.....
However, the fact that the POTUS has the power to take command of the National Guard from the Governor of the state as the defacto "Commander an Chief" of the military.
Just as the Governor of a state cannot stop his state's national guard from being called up by POTUS in the event of war or other actions where our military is deployed, the national guard cannot be expected to stand against a federal incursion of the state in a lawful manner.....
Therefore the 2nd amendment is the individual right of the citizen and not just the right of the militia.....
I am curious as to WHERE, in the Constitution, is the power to regulate a right given to the Federal government? "Those power's not given to the Federal government belong to the States and to the people respectively"
Well, this is what makes some of the pro gun rights people look so ridiculous. The Bill of Rights are largely a set of restrictions on the federal government, but now gun rights activists look to the feds to overturn state and municipal laws.
the second amendment easily defined, THE RIGHT TO PROTECT YOURSELF, FAMILY AND YOUR PERESONAL PROPERTY WITH DEADLY FORCE USING FIREARMS
Michael Walden claims its not a individual right but uses the national guard as a example yet he admits that the militias at that time was all white males over 18 bringing their own weapons. the national guard today is only volunteer and is NOT all males and DON'T have to bring their own gun .. so that would lead to believe that Scalia was correct! that all males over 18 would be the individual rights. plus all the rights are individual so we can feel confident the 2nd was also. car deaths in 2014 STILL exceeded gun deaths... alot of gun deaths are criminals! not law biding citizens .
Oh so tired of these people with hidden agendas.
The question is why does this guy so badly want the people's guns? Why does he really care from Manhattan, NY that people he jokes about in "rural PA" so much cling to their guns. Really. Think about why people want to take others rights away that are a thousand miles away.
This guy keeps bringing up the context of "the times" back when the constitution was written. No, liberals change their minds and bow to pressure from man or fashion with "the times" but God's word does not change. Relevance? The constitution is Bible based so that it remains relevant forever. Liberals want to change laws and country to who ever is the best salesman at the time trying this law trying that law, taking this freedom...well that is NOT how to run a country that is doing pretty darn good until liberals meddle with the status quo.
If liberals look back to the days of the drafting of the constitution Godless shit stirring guys like him would likely have been hanged. The forefathers were not athiests as he is and he can not even imagine what would go through the mind and heart of men that prayed before writing the constitution, asking that they performed God's will in their leadership.
Why does he want the population's guns so badly? I will not even mention this guy's name.
It is not because he cares so much about any person's safety as he is clearly one of the most Godless, selfish and boastful people on the planet.
The argument to take away any God given right is fruitless. There is no justification.
I am betting it is because he and others who do not believe in God want to rule over the earth in a Godless way, thinking that they know right from wrong better than the average the person. Their concept of right from wrong " changing with the times"
The constitution mentions God.
The forefathers knew very well that only God is the true leader, not people, not government and that when people such as this liberal turd want to control the population with Godless views and intentions then the only way for sick, evil oppressive rulers and their sheep is to take the population's means of defense.
I do not need to explain why this turd and people such as him want to take away guns. Imagine wanting to control the people so badly that you spend your life trying to pursuade others to give up God given rights of owning the one true means of equalization of strength.
There is no interpretation. No hidden meaning. The constitution is written for free educated men to understand clearly, not debate the meaning of each phrase.
The "rights" discussed in the
constitution are God given rights just as every man is created equal. Created. By God.
Every "right" in the constitution means "God Given" Rights are not like a drivers license or something. We are born with rights that cannot be taken away justly.
If the constitution is not Bible based then "oops" my mistake but then where did the forefathers find their direction from?
If the constitution is Bible based then please do not leave God or Bible out of the conversation.
God does not owe you or anyone else an explanation! What was meant at the time? Idiot.
The right to keep and bear Arms, shall NOT be infringed....what don’t these idiots understand, the 2nd A was given to protect us against govt tyranny, from what the govt is trying to do now. The govt is overstepping their authority.
Although, the recent increase in deaths caused by guns is attributed to people suffering from mental illness, we seem to overlook the fact some people are evil. At some point in the evildoers life, they make a conscious decision to kill. The reasons may vary but the senseless deaths affect us all and in ways that we may never comprehend.
dan jones
1 second ago
WE TODAY IN AMERICA HAVE A TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT RIGHT NOW. AS THE CENTRAL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND WITH MEDIA CONTROL OVER FAKE NEWS AND FALSE NARRITIVE NEWS HAS CREATED A SELECTIVE PEOSECUTING LAW ENFORCEMENT THAT IS NOW HAPPENING TO THE BLACK PEOPLE THROUGH RACIAL PROFILEING AND WHAT ROBERT MEULLER IS DOING TO PRESIDENT TRUMP WHEN THERE HAS NOT BEEN ONE NOT, ONE CRIME THAT INVOLVES PRESIDENT TRUMP . THE OTHERS THAT HAVE BEEN CHARGED AND THE FEW THAT HAVE BEEN CONVICTED MOST OF THEM WERE ALREADY UNDER FBI INVESTIGATION FOR SOME OVER 10 PLUS YEARS.. PRESIDENT TRUMP IS BEING SELECTED BY A TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT WITH THE FBI AS A GOVERNMENT MILITANT TRAINED GROUP. THIS CAN AND DOES HAPPEN TO MANY MANY NORMAL CITIZENS WHO EVEN HAVE NOT COMMITTED A CRIME BUT YET GET THIER LOIVES RUINED BY THE GOVERNMENT. THIS IS THE DEMOCRATS AND THE DEMOCRATES ARE NOT LIKE THE DEOMOCRATS OF YESTERYEAR. THEY ARE NOW A SOCIALIST ANTIFA VIOLENT GROUP THAT USES THE MEDIA TO LIE AND SPIN THE TRUTH IN THE NEWS. FOR EXAMPLE JUST LOOK UP TH-cam AND FAKE NEWS. CNN WILL POP UP ALL OVER. AND HERE IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE . NOW CHRIS CUOMO ONCE SAID ON T.V. THAT IT IS ILLEGAL FOR ANY CITIZEN TO OWN HILLARY CLINTONS WIKILEAKS EMALIS THAT TELL THE TRUTH AND EXPOSE HER LIES AND TELL THE REAL TRUTH ABPOUT HER. AND IF THE CITIZENS HAD A COPY OF THE WIKILEAKS EMAILS THEN IT IS ILLEGAL AND THEY THE CITIZENS ARE CRIMINALS. AND ONLY THE MEDIA LIKE HIMSELF CHRIS CUOMO AND THE MEDIA ARE THE ONLY LEGAL ONES WHO CAN LEGALLY POSSESS THE HILLARYS WIKILEAKS. NOW THAT IS A REAL LIE. AND WHEN THE MEDIA WHICH IS A CORPORATION LIE TO THE MASSESS AND CITIZENS WHO DO NOT KNOW THE TRUTH IS FRAUDULENT NEWS. THAT IS VERY INFLUENTIAL TO THE ELECTION PROCESS . SO FORGET RUSSIA THAT TOOK OUT ADDS IN FACE BOOK . BUT WE HAVE THE LIBERAL MEDIA THAT ON PURPOSELY LIE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO INFLUENCE TO LIKE OR DISLIKE A POTENTIAL CANDIATE. THAT I BELIEVE SHOULD BE ACTIONABLE BY TRUMP AND CONGRESS SHOULD PASS MANY LAWS THAT IF A REPORTER SPINS OR LIES OR DISTORTS THE TRUTH FOR THIER CORPORATIONS WHICH ARE NEWS MEDIAS SHOULD GO TO PRISON. PERIOD. NOW HOW THIS HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE GUN AND THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS IS BECAUSE OF PROBLEMS LIKE THIS. SO FELLOW CITIZENS YOU BETTER KEEP ALL YOUR GUNS ALL BIG AND SMALL.BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT HAS PUSHED IT ALREADY WITH RACIAL PROFILING AND WE ALL KNOW THAT OBAMA USEDA EXECUTIVE ORDER TO STOP ANY INVESTIOGATION INTO THE FAST AND FURIOUS DEAD IN ITS TRACKS. OUR GOD GIVEN RIGHTS ARE NON NEGOTIABLE. ALL LAWYERS DO IS COMPLICATE THE ISSUES BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO AND TRAINED TO DO. SO YOU CAN LISTEN TO A FAT CROOKED CAREER POLITICIAN TELL YOU THAT YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS OR YOU CAN SAY WHAT BEN FRANKLIN SAID. GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH.
This is the very best of America; sober considered debate about the Constitution. I learned more about the complexities of the Second Amendment by listening to both sides of this respectful debate than i have by listening to the shouting, tumult and abuse that does on in the so called public discourse. Those that want to reduce the idea of of discussion and debate by using violent and abusive language could do well to just stop and think about how these two men conduct themselves in this sensitive discussion.
Constitution is the supreme law of the United States there is no debate there's no discussion you follow the letter of the law all there is to it stop this b******* stop discussing and trying to Wrangle your way you follow the Constitution or you don't and pay the consequences for violating Constitution
The Democrats are the bad guys and you three guys sitting there talking like it’s all fine and well out here in America well it ain’t so fine and well take a look around there stealing our freedom by way of our firearms do you get it. The Democrats are the bad guys and you three guys sitting there talking like it’s all fine and well out here in America well it ain’t so fine and well take a look around there stealing our freedom by way of our firearms do you get it🕶
i have two questions for the dude on the right. why is a semi auto getting termed as a assault rifle and what does shall not be infringed mean ????????????????????????????
Hard to be a human trafficker and run a forced labor camps without firearms to terrorize your kidnapped prisoners
Plain and simple English , known by most Americans common shall not be infringed.
Had the farmers and people not had the right to bear arms we would still be part of the United Kingdom
so I should be fully familiar with full auto since that is standard issue!!! follow the law!!
42:20 - Joseph Story is an "obscure" source? First time I've heard a supposedly informed scholar make that ridiculous claim in an effort to dodge the issue.
He hopes to the people in the audience it is.
Fascinating discussion. Thanks for posting!
I love the second amendment Subscribe
Good debate except that no one even danced close to the original and primary intent for the 2nd. It was to allow common people, all people in the US to maintain a free nation of free individuals. That allowing an armed society would help protect it from foreign and domestic tyrannical governments. So why even argue gov control of arms even being a good idea? Maybe a collection of citizens?
The original and primary intent of the 2nd was not to allow all people the right to protect themselves. The 2nd amendment was never intended the accessed by africans brought to this land as slaves. Neither of these men address the idea that southern colonies like virginia maintained militias to control slave then later free population of africans.(Many of these southern militias developed into their modern police departments, which explains why they still have issues policing poc). Black codes made it illegal for blacks to have guns. States changed their state constitutions like TN to reflect their purpose of keeping weapons out of the hands of blacks and the NRA backed gun control as late as the 60s in an effort to keep groups like the black panthers from having guns.
There may be room for the arguement that every generation has a right to make their destiny. That is where leadership and education need to balance it. Let's not make change to quickly as has happened in New York State with Andrew Cuomo ' ramming the safe act down the throats of its citizens without debate and due process. Vote him out and repeal this unconstitutional law.
The problem with your "argument" is that one generation does not have the right to remove the foundation of Liberty from another. Since we are always half a generation away from tyranny who are we to make the decision for future generations what tools they may use to fight for their freedom?
An important observation by Waldman, was that 30,000 people are killed by cars now.
And at the time of the Founding zero people were killed by cars.
So, can't we say, that had the Founders known that technology would bring about something called a car, and that 30,000 people would be killed a year, they surely didn't mean to allow for cars in our Constitution? Right? And so cars are not Constitutional?
I mean if some reason that the Founders had no idea that modern arms would come to be, and so surely the 2A doesn't apply to them? Is not this identical to the above reasoning?
And in both cases, the reasoning is flawed.
Another thing Walden implies is we have not made guns "safer". Well, that couldn't be more false. In all levels of technology we've made them safer, to a tremendous degree:
Smokeless powder that is not explosive
Metallurgy that prevents them from blowing up.
Incredibly better trigger designs reducing negligent discharges.
The adding of "safety" switches, which was unimagined for centuries.
And I could go on.
To suggest that a modern firearm is not immensely safer than an arm at the Founding is ludicrous.
Black powder is EXTREMELY dangerous, for it is an explosive. Modern powder is not an explosive. Side note, another manipulative point Walden made was noting there was a law in Boston, suggesting this condones "regulation", that one had to keep gunpowder outside away from inhabited dwellings. Duh, it was an explosive. Though he failed to mention why?
I enjoyed the gentlemanly nature of the debate. But, quite frankly, Waldman was not convincing that he was not pushing an agenda. And I'm not suggesting that agenda doesn't have valid points. But when you manipulate facts and cherry pick history to push the agenda, then things go south for me, and I can't take you seriously any longer.
Gura never comes off to me as pushing an agenda.
The militia is to be regulated, not the ownership of weapons.
"A well regulated Militia" NOT "A regulated ownership of arms."
Lame sauce.
Except, if you read "The Federalist Papers" that was written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay. all written by them before the Constitution was ratified
WE THE PEOPLE decided that having the ability and the means to defend our person and our dignity is a fundamental right. All the gimmicks by the gun control side OF THE PEOPLE can not and will not take that right away. It is unamerican to suggest that a PEOPLE will not be allowed to defend his or her person with a weapon of at least equal, if not greater power/utility to the one an opponent may use against them. The historical record is clear. Overwhelmingly more Law abiding Americans have owned and used arms for their own defense than the number of lawbreakers have used them. This very fact shows the utility of the Bill of Rights, which merely confirms the right os a citizen to self defense, and limits the federal and the state government from infringing on the inaliable right of the PEOPLE to bear (own, maintain, train in and use) arms for their individual defense and the defense of their state ( See Second amendment)
Very good conversation
Gura is a class act
May not see it in my life time but there's going to be another civil war and I'd be willing to bet so keep pushing socialists!
@7:15 If it's a civic duty, it's not a right. It makes no logical sense that a person has a "right" to perform a civic duty. At no time has the individual had a duty under the law to perform military service in this country. If that were so, the draft would be redundant. Government does NOT have rights, government has power. People do not have power, they have rights. A right, by the way, is a freedom that the government is prohibited from violating. People have a "right" to supply a firearm and ammunition when called up for military duty? I want some of what you're smoking. In the immortal words of Joe Biden, "Come on, man!". (By the way, the Founding Father's answer makes perfect sense to those of us with the ability to reason without prejudice.)
Does a gay man have a right to join the US Army? Does a black man have a right to be a volunteer firefighter? Does a Catholic have the right to help make sandbags in a flood disaster?
The "right to keep and bear arms" meant that every white male citizen had the right to participate in the local militia. To do so, he needed to own a firearm, since the government did not provide weapons. So every white male citizen was eligible to be a militiaman, as long as he could provide himself with a firearm.
Black men, women, Indigenous people, and various other categories did NOT have this right at the time the 2nd Amendment was adopted. Over the years, as those groups gained more rights, they too were eligible to join a militia (in practice, the National Guard).
@@leezaslofsky4438 The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! I'm James Madison, and I approve this message.
the second amendment easily defined, THE RIGHT TO PROTECT YOURSELF, FAMILY AND YOUR PERESONAL PROPERTY WITH DEADLY FORCE USING FIREARMS
@@civiljeff There is no such right under the law. The response to a threat or attack or an attack must be proportional to the nature of the threat or attack. We do not blow up entire buildings because one of its residents said he would kill us if we didn't stop making noise.
Society demands of its members that they keep the peace. That means that each member of society must do her or his part in that, using common sense and restraint so as not to disrupt social peace (in old times called The King's Peace).
The idea that any country governed by laws would release residents from their obligation to uphold civic peace and order, on the excuse that there is some inherent right to use lethal force in protection of one's life or property is FALSE and DESTRUCTIVE.
No society can long maintain peace and order if its members are using lethal force whenever they feel like it, on the excuse that they were "protecting themselves or their property" by doing so.
A society which tolerates such wild and unregulated use of lethal force is condemning itself to a kind of suicide, in which the very people who claim to uphold social peace are the ones who are hacking away at it with deadly weapons.
Such situations sometimes arise in places where government has collapsed and gangs or "warlords" compete for power using deadly force against each other or against people generally.
Those who, like the fascists and nazis of the 1930s, have the goal of ending constitutional government and legality consciously seek to create situations in which government is reduced to impotence by creating such disorder and violence that the people begin to long for a Leader, or a Boss, or a Dictator, or a Duce or a Caudillo or Fuehrer or a Conducator or a Khozyain (depending on the prevailing language and traditions) who will use unlimited brutal force to suppress the disorder that is ruining their lives.
And this seems to be the goal of the writer of the comment I am replying to: the brutal destruction of public peace and order so as to make possible the unbridled rule of those who are prepared to use firearms against their fellow residents, offering some limp excuse to justify their savagery.
I know many of those who take the position that shooting off firearms if you feel threatened is a "human right" see themselves as the pillars of peace and order in society, and blame others, for "causing the problem" they propose to "solve" by shooting off their firearms.
In fact it is the DESERTION by these people of their duty to uphold law and order that is the problem, not the ongoing "crime problem" which has never been solved in any country at any time except by the deliberate and radical upgrading of social justice and the resolute enforcement of laws against the abuse of lethal weapons.
The DESERTION of law and order by certain sections of the American middle class is born from panic over the threat to white supremacy caused by the demographic changes now occurring in America, i.e. the relative growth of the non white population.
The only way forward for the American Republic is to take vigorous action to prevent and, when necessary, to punish such behaviour, and a resolute response from members of the public against those who, for reasons of racist fear, desire for enrichment, or a love of violence, promote the ideology of "America as Free Fire Zone for White Gun Owners".
If the American Republic cannot muster the energy and resolve to overcome the promoters and enactors of "Free Fire Zone America", it will surely die, and be replaced by a dictatorship of the gun owners and their stooges in public office, and their hidden supporters in the police and the armed forces.
If that happens, then America will have renounced its bold experiment in freedom and democracy, and subsided into a more northerly version of what used to be called "banana republics" because they were fully owned by the banana companies and held down by the bullies and criminals those companies paid to do their dirty work.
In contrast there will be the nations of East Asia: united, well organized, economically advanced, and, in some cases, pretty free and democratic. For the fact is that even now, Japan and South Korea are as or more democratic than the US; and in many ways are far ahead of the US economically and technologically. And China, with its gigantic economic and demographic weight, keeps moving ahead while the US quarrels over its constant obsession: race.
There are whole hosts of "laws" passed by Congress and state legislatures that the Supreme Court never grants certiorari and resolves their constitutionality or unconstitutionality.
It's clearly an unsuccessful l individual right when we are supposed to be free people.
The safety of vehicles is in the operation of those vehicles. Not in adding systems that make a crash more survivable. No system can compensate for unsafe operation of the vehicle such as driving it into a crowd, building or other vehicle on purpose. Firearms are the same the safety is in the responsible carry and use of the firearm. Modern firearms are very safe no need to put additional systems into them. Safe use is the responsibility of the owner.
I thought it was a poor analogy as well..
I agree we should take out all the seat belts, air bags, and drivers license requirements to make sure people can operate vehicles safely.
Michael Waldman - "Pennsylvania was the one state that did not have a militia."
-----------------------------------
Not true.
SECT. 7. The house of representatives of the freemen of this commonwealth shall consist of persons most noted for wisdom and virtue, to be chosen by the freemen of every city and county of this commonwealth respectively. And no person shall be elected unless he has resided in the city or county for which he shall be chosen two years immediately before the said election; nor shall any member, while he continues such, hold any other office, except in the militia.
Here is the militia provision
XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
And to prove that the militia provision doesn't address self defence
VIII. That *every member of society* hath a right *to be protected* in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property, and therefore is bound to contribute his proportion towards the expence of that protection (the militia), and yield his personal service (in the militia) when necessary, or an equivalent thereto:.. Nor can any man who is conscientiously scrupulous of *bearing arms*, be justly compelled thereto, if he will pay such equivalent,...
And there can be NO doubt that bearing arms meant military service.
Exactly. WE ARE THE MILITIA
People didn't serve in the militia because they got lazy and fearful.
At the 8:00 mark he tries to argue it was written to codify the militia's right to bear arms . Why would that need to be enshrined ? Why would it say THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS ?
Somehow it is assumed that the Militia would show up empty handed unless told otherwise???
give me full auto
No debate needed nor authorized!
The Right to Keep & Bear Arms is a GOD given Right.
Please demonstrably explain and then prove this 'god'; then deomntrartbly prove that it was in any way responsible for the compromise that was the US Constitution.
Very interesting
TRUMP/NRA 2020!
Gura frequently uses "reasonable" and "common sense" with respect to gun regulation. I get the feeling that he and many modern 2nd Amendment scholars look at the amendment through a lens that assumes it absurd that our government would become tyrannical. Proponents of gun regulations are too quick to use those terms and so also assume that things like banning assault style weapons are reasonable and common sense. But there are many of us who do not share that faith in our government and, regardless of the lack of feasibility in taking up arms against it, want ready access to at least semi-automatic rifles in the event that tyranny rears its head. And we want the ergonomic features that make those rifles easier to carry and shoot.
And let's not take too lightly the many maneuvers in the last couple of years that leftists are including in bills introduced to congress and in presidential platforms, all of which are designed to cement power in the Democratic party:
- "Hell yes we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47..."
- Bill to lower the voting age to 16
- Amnesty for illegal aliens
- Allowing illegal aliens and non-citizens to vote in local elections
- Calls to abolish the electoral college
Regardless of whether these things come to fruition, they expose what is in the hearts of leftists and they ARE steps on a path toward tyranny of the majority.
Please demonstrate how your semi-automatic rifle is going to stop a tank, or a bunker buster, or even a nuclear bomb.
Mr. Waldman severely damaged his argument when he was talking about the Penn. State protection, because, had he been forthcoming, and complete, he wouldn't have said the world "people" was used, without noting that Penn immediately changed the wording to "Citizens" from "people", around time of ratification. If the intention of the change is not absolutely clear, then I don't know what is. Citizen is an individual.
Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. Art. 1, § 21 (enacted 1790, art. IX, § 21).
1776: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power.
Declaration of Rights, cl. XIII.