Unfortunately, people gave the govt authority to violate the 2A. All it would take is a huge group of people to refuse to comply with laws that go against the 2A, but too many people are compliant instead of defiant.
Have you ever fired an m16a1? I have. There is a reason the military doesn't use them and haven't since the 60s. The only people I know of that currently use them is rotc cadets because they were free and it makes no sense to spend the money to arm cadets for purely training purposes. FYI, the full auto setting sucks. You get a couple of seconds of sustained fire before the mag is empty and it's very inaccurate and unwieldy. So no, the founding fathers would not use them. Just as our military doesn't use them, despite what channels like this one say. We haven't used them for 60 years. There aren't many vets left that used the full auto version as a standard rifle.
@activemanishere ..I don't know where you get that! The original M-16 that they sent to Vietnam, was junk because it didn't have a chrome lined barrel, forward assist , cleaning kits and 20 round magazines. The M-16a1 had the upgrades and was a damn fine weapon after that, though the full auto was still tricky to master for a 3 round burst. The M-16a2 had the 3 round burst limiter which was very disliked by some . Because that reduced its effectiveness for fire suppression if no M-60, M-249's or M-240's where around. The entire time I was in the army I fired Expert using an M-16a1 with it's open sights . We had none of this scopes, red dots or other tricks stuff. Just a front post and peep sight. I'll admit the first time I saw the M-16a1 in basic training, I thought it looked like something, made the Mattel toy company . Then I shot it and fell in love with it. Accurate and light easy to shoot while wearing M17a1 protective mask, which was nearly impossible to do with the M14. US ARMY 1973 to 1986 ,last duty station 1st Infantry Division, Ft. Riley Ks.
@@patrickbodine1300 Correct. There was no way at all to manufacture a weapon before the invention of the 3d printer. Nope, never seen Sten guns machined out of hardware store pipes show up in police evidence pictures on the regular. Never heard of a Luty. Curse that 3d printer for inventing violence.
@@GusCraft460you know well regulated just means functional and trained, right? Look up the meaning of the words in the context of the time. Don't make stuff up based on your feelings.
@@GusCraft460 Tell me how government organization makes a regulated clock work. The “regulation” argument has been getting stomped in the ground for the past 40 years and only ignoramuses attempt to employ it.
Tactical Style Rifles (AR-Style) are so dominant that there are virtually NO Semi-Auto Rifles (centerfire) that are NOT Tactical Style. The only Hunter Style Semi-Auto that I found was the Browning which is actually a Civilian Version of the BAR _(Browning Automatic Rifle)_ which is a Military Rifle, and the Wooden Stock Springfield M1A which is a civilian clone of the Military M14 Rifle. In a sense, the Modern Sport Rifle has completely wiped out an entire class of Rifles. Today there are virtually NO Hunter Style Semi-Auto Rifles, they are all AR/Tactical Style.
@@davidellis7081 - - Off Topic but have you ever wonder if the lax Immigration Policy was not intentionally flooding the Labor Market with cheap Labor. When there is a surplus of labor, that devalues labor and drives down wages. As if the Working Class were not already screwed, this is a plan to screw us even more. If we can't ship Manufacturing to Mexico, we will just ship Mexico to the USA.
If the 1st Amendment applies to radio, tv, and the internet, and the 4th amendment covers electronic wiretapping and video surveillance, how can the 2nd amendment only apply to 18th-century firearms technology?
Analogies are a tricky matter. They exist when two situations are very similar in certain characteristics. An analogy between two situations is not necessarily invalid just because they differ in some aspects-in your analogy, it is mainly communication on one side and the risk of endangering and impairing health and life on the other side. Easier communication on one side, more effective endangerment and impairment of health and life on the other side-in summary: Being able to express one's opinion more easily versus being able to kill more easily and effectively. One is definitely more dangerous for people-at least immediately.
arms noun 1. weapons and ammunition; armaments. "arms exports" Similar: weapons (of war) weaponry firearms guns ordnance cannon artillery armaments munitions instruments of war war machines military supplies The Lawful language is defined!
@@luciustitius Hitler came into power with just his words. Id argue words have the potential to cause far more damage to people in the long run than modern weapons in the hands of the people.
Technically she only said they’re “commonly available”. But the most basic understanding of economics and the law of supply and demand would tell you that if they’re commonly available, that implies that they’re commonly demanded, which means they’re in common use.
Saying the AR-15 isn't protected by the 2nd Amendment is like Saying the internet, Facebook, X, news media (Fox News, CNN,) isn't protected by 1st Amendment or even computers. Do not forget the AR-15 was in civilian hand before the M-16 was in the military arsenal
@@brianfoster7064 they are protected the platform make no difference in it. You should go and read some the opinion on desent from Justice Thomson how morden day firearms are protected. if the stungun is protected then AR is also.
You are correct sir, it was designed and manufactured in the early to mid 1950s for the civilian market. It wasnt til nearly a decade an a half later that the gun was adopted by the US military.. this whole idea that "its a weapon of war" is complete bs.
Better than that, throughout American history civilians usually had access to much better equipment than was issued to the military. In 1873 when the military had just upgraded to a single shot trapdoor rifle, civilians already had access to the Spencer and Henry repeating rifles for 13 years, with them holding 8 and 15 rounds in their magazine respectively. Historically the default in the US was for civilians to be much better armed than the military.
Actually, the Spencer rifle had been standard military issue (cavalry) since the Civil War, but was replaced by the Trapdoor. Henrys were available, and some State Militia units did purchase them, but it was never an 'issue' rifle. You can thank the Ordnance board for the fact that between the Civil War and the Spanish American War, the troops were hamstring by a converted muzzleloader while all of Europe had issued bolt action rifles by 1898.
@@schaferhundschmidt1798 Thanks for the correction, I didn't realise they were standard issue for cavalry. I don't know if it changes my point, for the majority of the history of the US civilians had access to the same weapons as the military, and very frequently had access to better or more specialised weapons. The current state of affairs is unusual within the history of the USA. Would you say that's correct?
Custer wrote in his memoirs that his men were stuck with old-style rifled muskets left over from the Interstate War while Indians bought the latest repeating rifles from the Quaker traders after assuring them they were just for hunting.
" A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."-George Washington.
@@k-tz5jg exactly right... europeans often talk proudly of their sacred 'social contract' with their governements, saying that their governments trust them to do the right thing and that the people trust their governements to do the right thing. in the us, we have never believed in any such social contract. had the american people maintained the arms ammunition and discipline to maintain independence from our government, then we would be as free as the founders intended, and the governement would be as good as it was intended to be. the unfortunate devolvement of our government from being 'of the people, by the people, for the people' into a separated, self-serving, political-class, tyranical entity is analogous to the frog in the pot of boiling water. not enough of us have been feeling the water get hotter, and now it may indeed be too late. we are being cooked.
Yes, because “We the people” applies to them too. The military and the government are composed of those same people. You talk about them, like they’re separate entities.
@@O94538O No, I mean it in exactly _that_ way as that it apllies to _everybody_ the same way, as it should. It's the gun grabbers who speak of it as if it would only apply to governmental armed forces, even though the constitution clearly states otherwise.
@@O94538OYou aren't a "people" anymore if you join the military. You're literally U.S. government property. Secondly, members of the government aren't the "people" either. They're our servants, and we're their masters.
Whenever I hear someone say "the founding father's never envisioned us to have those types of weapons" I always reply with "yeah and the founding fathers never envisioned women and black people voting so tell me again how that's an argument?"
Not to mention by the time the second amendment was written they had 40 shot silenced repeating rifles, semiautomatic rifles, machine guns, grenade launchers, autocannons, airburst rocket artillery, and attack submarines.
@@Abdegalol when someone on the internet tells you the founding fathers never invisioned the AR-15, tell them to go get a quilt pen and ink, write their comment on some parchment, have a guy on a horse spend the next month delivering it to you, and then, and only then, can you explain to them why their argument is wrong.
You should reply that Article I gives Congress the power to issue letters of marque and reprisal. Thus, the Constitution implicitly recognizes the right of the people to own warships. It doesn’t say anything about authorizing people to build and equip them..that right is presumed. Only a fool would say they were ok with warships but not a hand-held semiautomatic firing a rather anemic intermediate cartridge.
It's like I've been saying, the fact that I can't order a M249 or a "Ma Duce" off Amazon and have it and a pallet of ammo shipped to my door, same day or next day, tells me the 2A is beyond infringed by our government. Imagine the number of folks who would get PRIME just for the convenience.
Ya I can get a computer, copy machine, law books and anything else we have the constitutional right to own but not firearms. When laws are made controlling any of your rights it's telling me that the right has been infringed against illegally.
Prime is free with my cellphone plan and I use it on the regular it would be nice if I could get what the government has from Amazon or at least some ammo
I think it's what comes before it... "A well-regulated militia being essential..." Since militias are something of a joke today and have fallen out of favor, a well-regulated militia is clearly not essential. So libs feel they can question gun ownership.
It's straight forward, no interpretation, anyone who days otherwise is the exact reason the amendment exists. We have the right to own and carry weapons, not guns, not knives, both, weapons, and the government lacks the right to do anything about it.
What Concerns me is that "Shall not be infringed" is being twisted to say everything except what it actually means YOU(the government or any of your gun grabbing cronies/CANNOT INFRINGE ON OUR RIGHTS TO KEEP AND BEAR WEAPONS (ARMS).
@@Kelgeron If we were to go off the Constitution, there is no gun I shouldn't be able to purchase. That includes assault weapons, but the left got their grubby hands on that. The Second Amendment is not to be infringed upon.
I would argue that full-auto rifles are MORE protected by the second amendment than any semi auto, lever action, bolt action, or any other non-military style of firearm.
@@SmokeNGunsBBQ There's a big difference between everyone having the right to purchase, own and use full auto firearms... and "let's give every hood in America full autos".
@@SmokeNGunsBBQ That's because the general public is grossly ignorant. Just watch 30 mins of police body/dash cam footage on TH-cam. Half of the suspects are already convicted felons and half of them are 14-17 but they still got glocks most of them with switches. The Cartels, "Hoods" and drug dealers clearly don't abide by the NFA so why do we have too??? The only people the NFA punishes are the upstanding citizens.
Legally, the second ammendment says we should be able to own every single military weapon and accessory, including modern warships, fighter jets, and artillery, let alone military small arms and explosives. Civilians during the revolution owned military grade(and better) warships, artillery, and small arms
Strictly speaking, anything and everything is covered if it's a weapon. I would agree to one - and only one - restriction on the second amendment, and that is the barring of the average person to possess WMDs.
The second amendment was made at a time when civilians had the same thing as the gov. the 2nd amendment gives civilians the right to own fully auto weapons as well.
Not “gives.” Guarantees. The Constitution doesn’t give us anything. It guarantees rights that we already possess. The Second Amendment guarantees our right-which we already had-to own and carry (keep and bear) “arms” free from government infringement. Notice it says “arms” and not “guns.” That’s because anything that can be used as arms is protected. The government doesn’t want you to be aware of that.
More importantly, and I think this is an error that alot of people make on both sides of the aisle. The 2nd amendment doesn't GIVE American citizens ANYTHING. It protects a right that was there all along. That is clearly stated in the last line. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms (already in place) shall not be infringed". It doesn't say "shall be granted". It is not the governments position to grant rights. It was intended to protect the citizens' ability to defend themselves primarily from a tyrannical government, from abroad or from within our own borders. You know? Kinda like what we dealt with for 12 of the last 16 years?
"My balls are swolen with freedom and Liberty!" I'm pretty certain that was the opening line in a dispatch sent by horse Messenger from Washington to Cornwallis on the eve of the crossing of the Delaware river.
The SCOTUS refused the challenge to our bullshit law in IL because it was a interlocutory appeal. Alito and Thomas want to rip a chunk out of Pritzker's fat ass.
Yes, I believe the cases remanded back to the lower courts were interlocutory, i.e., not final rulings from the circuit courts. The SCOTUS rarely rules on cases until they have run their course. They are presented with like 7000 cases a session and they are not likely to take cases for which the lower courts should do the leg work. I believe Thos basically wrote, see your sorry ass when you're done with your homework assignment.
The Puckle gun was the 30mm Bushmaster of their day and they had no issues with it, that cannon even had special square slugs specifically for use on non Christians because it would make nastier wounds that couldn't be sewn up. Right to bear arms means right to bear any you damn well please.
@@sandwich5344 Gaan ze de boel Koloniseren, en dan niet eens het fatsoen hebben om een broodje kroket mee te nemen? De VOC zou zich schamen voor deze karige bedoening...
The fact we’re even having a debate is the problem to begin with. Anyone willing to have their 2A right infringed upon can go ahead and surrender their 1A rights to save the rest of us the headache of having to govern this republic in the face the difficulties posed by their blatant jackassery.
Yeah...if we were the problem...they would know it. The fact that these rifles are such a slim minority of firearm uses in criminal acts proves it as well. So you have to ask why they're demonized and targeted? As someone that watched a couple guys in pajamas and flip flops, carrying 30 yr old AKs, hold off an entire modern Infantry company...I can tell you why. They have plans...and don't want us armed with an effective defense
"The Principality of Zeon" 1] Char did nothing wrong. 2] Goddamn James if you make me like you any more my wife might decide she has a bone to pick with you.
I’ve always thought it was a weird disconnect where people say the 2A doesn’t apply to modern firearms, but then will turn around and say the 1A protects online speech
@@angelgjr1999 yeah this is why I am confused. everyone seems to be conveniently ignoring this part. do they really think that the founding fathers intended the public to have access to whatever firepower imaginable? the debate is not around whether the constitution only allows 18th century smoothbores or some bullshit. obviously guns need to be regulated, and some people want to draw the line around the AR15. which is completely fair according to the "well-regulated" term in the constitution.
@@angelgjr1999 you can absolutely buy weapons of war depending on which state you live in. although the AR15 is a semi-automatic rifle, it has become the poster child for high-calibre weapons due to its use in many mass shootings. i don't blame people for wanting to ban it because its associated with annihilating schoolchildren.
@@benergy592 I agree it’s unfortunate that it’s used in that manner. But do you think the government will stop with the AR? Why not ban pistols since most crime and murders are committed with them?
All firearms even Fully automatic firearms are protected by the second amendment and are used to protect the second amendment. ANY gun law that can be written violates the second amendment and therefore are illegal to enforce.
AS AN INDIAN I FOUND IT TO BE MOST PERFECT VIDEO ABOUT A PROBLEM WHICH IS JUST PLAIN MISUNDERSTANDING WHICH IS NOT ABOUT GUNS BUT "THE CAPACITY FOR ABLE BODY MEN TO DEFEND THEMSELVES FROM A TYRANT BE IT A FORIEGN BODY OR THEIR OWN GOVT."
The Second Amendment protects ALL arms from government regulation, interference, or INFRINGEMENT. Not only does it protect semi-automatic and selective fire rifles, pistols, and shotguns, it protects knives, axes, spears, and swords.
The people who wrote the constitution did understand that arms technology evolves as they experienced that themselves. Therefore they did NOT define ARMS meaning any weapon and its features along with everything needed for that wepon to function including ammo. For the people saying you have the right to bear but not purchase the forefathers also knew in order to bear you must be able to obtain your arms. ALL arms are protected and banning features of a weapon along with banning automatic waepons is simply unconstitutional
@@JoshJones-37334Okay counselor you tell me why they used a Capitol ‘A’ for “Arms”? Certainly they had a definition for that in mind, right? Now where could I find that definition or were they unaware of the need for dictionaries? Would the writings of the men who were involved in the US Constitution such as those in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers be a good place to figure out what they meant.
If I want to buy an Abrams tank the second amendment says I have the right to own one and to own ammo for it. If I want to build my own tank from scratch and load it with 50 BMG ammo I have the second amendment right to drive it to my local mcdonalds and back.
100% I remember hearing something about a ship about 135 years ago asking the government if they could buy a cannon to protect from pirates and the reply they got was basically fuck yea brother why couldn’t you (in modern terms) they still got their cannon
The puckle gun was a multi round gun invented in 1718 so that would have been an “automatic rifle of its time” so we should have full auto weapons available to us
There's no logical reason why a civilian would need to own an unusually dangarous weapon like a Calt M72A1. Is your assault rifle going to stop an MS-06J?
It's not that the SC refused to hear cases about the ar15 and its status under the 2nd Amendment, it's that they didn't want to hear the cases before they went thru the entire lower court process before they are eligible for SC review. Justice Thomas even said this in his decent. The cases have not gone thru all the different appeals, which is usually the tradition before the SC takes up a case. Thomas also said that if and when they do, and are ready for SC review, they should be reviewed and argued, due to the long history of the lower courts misinterpreting the Heller, and Bruen decisions.
@@brianforsakenastheworldcru7667 If you count the gatling gun used during the Civil War as a machine gun, you can say they've been around a couple decades before that.
I have to say, my red white and blue blood was boiling when I saw the title of this video! I have never seen your channel before. But I thought the video was very well done and you have definitely earned subscription from me. 2A for life!
Holy $hit! I'm a criminal! I own a Kentucky Long Rifle and ammo! By the way, after doing more research, the Kentucky is really a Pennsylvania, somehow Kentucky made it famous. Check out the book "The Art of Building the Pennsylvania Long Rifle".
the 2A says arms, because they knew some tyrant would try to claim it only covers muzzle loading flintlocks. arms means all weapons even partical weapons.
I write my representatives on every major unconstitutional firearm law that gets passed here in IL. This state is a lost cause, me and many others are leaving because of that. Taking with us lots of skilled labor and tax dollars.
IL is the first state to collapse into 3rd world in real time 😂 and obviously California is in that process now next is New York and other blue then final the red states yea we are all F ed if trump is not elected president in 2024
8:20 The "Historical context" of the second amendment was to let whites be armed in order to suppress slave rebellions. That's why the 2nd says "the security of a free state", instead of the "security of a free country" like Madison intended. Patrick Henry said it clearly.
You may have hit on the reason the court hasn’t taken most of the 2A cases. They’re waiting for a specific argument that they can hang a tri-cornered hat on to settle the matter for decades to come.
5.56: drops a 180 pound man. Also 5.56: cant drop a 130 pound deer for some reason. Yeah, makes sense. I think people very much over estimate the size of deer, especially on the east coast, or assume every bullet available is 55 grains or less. A 64 grain Power Point (JSP) will do a number on Bambi.
I like the msg. Usually takes 3-4 videos to sub. But knowledge is power and the lights are dimming rapidly. XArmy full-blooded American Indian Lakota nation Hunkpapa tribe Standing Rock reservation here 🇺🇸 I love my country and the people but im fed up with the hate... 🇺🇸Jim StJames Philadelphia PA USA 🇺🇸
its not really click bait per say there is legal case law that suggests the AR15 and other "assault weapons" arent covered under the second amendment. James just goes into why that isnt true. Really personal protection is far more ambiguously protected than keeping military rifles for the primary purpose of forming a militia however the supreme court has already upheld that the 2nd Amendment covers personal protection in the home and outside the home.
@@nemisous83sorry, but anything signed by anyone that is protected by guys carrying the fully automatic version of are semi automatic version isn’t considered law it’s considered control
No guns are "protected by the 2nd amendment." Our rights to possess and defend ourselves with firearms are only elucidated by the 2nd amendment; they are not granted by it. Our right to self defense with firearms is granted to us by our creator, and no law against or for has any effect on that inherent, unalienable right. Let them make any laws they choose. I for one, know I will never give up my right to carry and use weapons. I also know down here in the south there are millions of others who will defend that right vigorously, and by any and all necessary means.
Fun fact, the British also had rifled guns, these were used by companies of skirmishers. The problem with the rifled guns were that they are slow to load, and could not compete on a battlefield with the Bess. The Brown Bess was the most common US firearm, and when the militias and army were finally able to stay on the battlefield, the British lost.
2nd Amendment, Right to Bear Arms. That means if I have the bread to buy an Abrams and the ammo for it, I have the right to. I believe Madison asked if the people could own War Ships and either Jefferson or Franklin said, giddy da fuk up Boi. Of course I am paraphrasing
@@Talon19shall not be infringed is pretty straight forward. As in no restriction. 1791 regulated is not equal to 2024 regulated. 2 completely different meanings/definitions. You can't take text from 233 years ago and apply today's definition. Then think you've made a salient point.
@@Talon19 the issue is the supreme court has already ruled it unconstitutional to tax a right (in regards to poll taxes) and affirmed that taxing or creating a barrier to entry to exercise said right is the same as denying someone a right. The Second Amendment was quite literally created so the populace could form a militia in times of crisis and have the means to arm themselves. The issue is the Supreme Court and Federal Courts like to pick and chose how closely they want to take the literal meaning of the text for example shortly after the 1933 National Firearms Act a case was thrown out over an individuals right to own a sawed off shotgun because "the Military doesnt use sawed off shotguns" the same goes for suppressors. the Supreme Court has struck down multiple cases dealing with suppressors because they arent firearms......yet are treated as firearms under the NFA.
Reasonable minds might come to the conclusion that our forefathers couldn’t envision the destructive power of future firearms that we now have access to. Having a citizenry with a single shot flintlock seems reasonable, however, not a bunch of people with unfettered access to weapons of mass destruction. In addition, we seem to conveniently leave out “well regulated militia” which one could interpret as the National Guard.
@@stuartstuart866 sure but you could also make the argument that the founding fathers never envisioned mass social media, computers, television, and telephones. does that mean you First Amendment right only extends to the printing presses, and what you can yell on a soap box in the middle of town square? Also the National Guard as we know it didn't exist until 1903 before that you had various state and county militia's that weren't formally equipped and trained by the federal government. During the American revolution and prior to it a militia was quite literally anyone with a gun that answered the town call to defend themselves from Native American or French raids. If you read the whole amendment it says in plain english "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" the whole point of the 2nd amendment is for the expressed purpose for people to keep firearms so they can form a militia in times of crisis.
@@nemisous83 Should freedom of speech include lies? Should freedom of speech have penalties for false statements? What does “well regulated” mean? Regulated by who? Most people who own guns aren’t part of a militia, therefore not in compliance to the amendment. The right to bear arms, shall not be infringed. This could be interpreted any number of ways and doesn’t include ammunition. It would be reasonable to assume our forefathers were speaking about single shot rifles not a M242 Bushmaster 25mm chain gun. Anyway, there are no shortages of interpretations, as we keep seeing them in court cases.
@@stuartstuart866 slander and libel are already covered under the legal code. The point of freedom of speech is you can say what you want without being imprisoned by the government or state. Slander and libel are civil cases not criminal also. Well if you actually read the statement it's say "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" this is an affirmation asserting that you need a well regulated militia to ensure the security of the country. It's also important to remember "regulate" in the 18th century has a different meaning that how we use therm today in regards to legislative procedures. "Well regulated" means well armed, well disciplined, well maintained. There is nothing in the Constitution that says you have to be in a militia because colonial militia's where non formal and non binding. The 2A is affirming you have the right to form a militia. Thomas Jefferson was inquired about if individuals could own cannons to which he responded that it was perfectly legal and covered by the 2A. So saying that it only covers single shit muskets is again like saying that if you say "Biden sucks on the internet" the government has the right to imprison you because your right to freedom of speech is only covered by communication methods of periods, so verbal and witten in the newspaper. Regardless this has already been addressed at the supreme Court in regards to the "meaning of the 2A" "if it covers self defense" and "is ammunition covered under the second amendment". AR15's are just a hot potato that the supreme court doesn't want to touch because then they would be forced to strike down every states assault weapons bans so they always send it back to the lower courts so they don't set legal precedence.
Well-presented. I did ADR in the courts for a # of years. Your separation of positions from issues and moving your viewers to focus on the issue is done quite well.
I’m a big fan if your closing statements but having spent years in the "firearms community" I do not get the impression that a significant proportion of "the gun community" sees "I think we should get rid of the 2nd amendment" as a legitimate, acceptable position to take. Guns, just like abortion have become an absolute black and white issue without space for compromise.
There is no compromise, we are endowed these rights to be self evident by our Creator, our right to self defense is irrefutable, as for abortion, murder has never been a right
The 2nd amendment doesn't limit firearm owners. It limits the government.
All of our founding documents are restrictions on government.
As i can see the government does not care about it, because as i can see the people can do anything against the establishment.
This. People seem to forget this.
💯
Unfortunately, people gave the govt authority to violate the 2A. All it would take is a huge group of people to refuse to comply with laws that go against the 2A, but too many people are compliant instead of defiant.
I agree James. The AR15 isn't protected by the Second Ammendment. The Second Ammendment is protected by the AR15.
Not mutually exclusive, mutually congruous.
👏🇺🇸 👏🇺🇸 👏🇺🇸 👏🇺🇸 👏🇺🇸 👏
Lol I'm 14 and this is deep
... as well as all of our rights.
Fucking put that on a bumper sticker boomer... oh wait
If the founding fathers came back today and saw the AR 15, they would immediately go out and buy one.
Then a few of them would take it apart, figure out how it works, and make improvements on the design.
@@michaelmurphy2112 bigger bullets russian style lol
yes, and they would buy it from PSA, because PSA is our American gun Daddy.
Or more....
No, they would laugh at it's over-complex internals, toothpick thin pins, terrible bolt, & unnecessary features, then buy aks
If the founders were alive today, they'd buy an AR-15 and convert that thing to full auto.
Franklin: I see you have access to a device called a Red-coat Hanger? I see we have the same sense of humour.
"The George Washington" model.
If the founding fathers had the AR-15 in 1776 we wouldn't have needed the alliance with the French.
Have you ever fired an m16a1? I have. There is a reason the military doesn't use them and haven't since the 60s. The only people I know of that currently use them is rotc cadets because they were free and it makes no sense to spend the money to arm cadets for purely training purposes. FYI, the full auto setting sucks. You get a couple of seconds of sustained fire before the mag is empty and it's very inaccurate and unwieldy. So no, the founding fathers would not use them. Just as our military doesn't use them, despite what channels like this one say. We haven't used them for 60 years. There aren't many vets left that used the full auto version as a standard rifle.
@activemanishere ..I don't know where you get that! The original M-16 that they sent to Vietnam, was junk because it didn't have a chrome lined barrel, forward assist , cleaning kits and 20 round magazines.
The M-16a1 had the upgrades and was a damn fine weapon after that, though the full auto was still tricky to master for a 3 round burst.
The M-16a2 had the 3 round burst limiter which was very disliked by some . Because that reduced its effectiveness for fire suppression if no M-60, M-249's or M-240's where around.
The entire time I was in the army I fired Expert using an M-16a1 with it's open sights . We had none of this scopes, red dots or other tricks stuff. Just a front post and peep sight.
I'll admit the first time I saw the M-16a1 in basic training, I thought it looked like something, made the Mattel toy company . Then I shot it and fell in love with it. Accurate and light easy to shoot while wearing M17a1 protective mask, which was nearly impossible to do with the M14.
US ARMY 1973 to 1986 ,last duty station 1st Infantry Division, Ft. Riley Ks.
The founding fathers didn't consider photocopiers or email or the internet, but that's protected by the First Amendment.
Nor did they anticipate 3d printers.
Just sayin'.
@@patrickbodine1300 Correct. There was no way at all to manufacture a weapon before the invention of the 3d printer. Nope, never seen Sten guns machined out of hardware store pipes show up in police evidence pictures on the regular. Never heard of a Luty. Curse that 3d printer for inventing violence.
In theory anyway, he said as he typed on youtube.
@@patrickbodine1300they wouldn’t have had a problem with 3d printers, no more than they would have an issue with using wood to build your own house.
They’re somewhat protected by the First Amendment. There are plenty of laws and rules around them.
2A doesn't invoke sporting use as the justification: it invokes military use. By civilians.
It doesn’t invoke civilians. It invokes a regulated militia. An organized militant force that is regulated by the government.
@@GusCraft460 A regulated militia meaning a well organized and trained, ready to be able to overthrow the tyrannical government.
@@GusCraft460
Someone who studies history; how refreshing.
@@GusCraft460you know well regulated just means functional and trained, right?
Look up the meaning of the words in the context of the time. Don't make stuff up based on your feelings.
@@GusCraft460
Tell me how government organization makes a regulated clock work.
The “regulation” argument has been getting stomped in the ground for the past 40 years and only ignoramuses attempt to employ it.
We seem to often forget, The Constitution and Bill of Rights limits what the government can do, NOT what we can do.
Thanks for your excellent message.
yeah ok, mask up sheeple!
@@williamsweet7511
No, not really.
@@TheReasonableSkeptic-ii4tedo explain, bot.
@@TheReasonableSkeptic-ii4teyes it does.
Agree with you. It is no longer being taught though
20 million AR's would seem to suggest they are "in common use"
Y'think? :)
OVER 25 MILLION AS STATED BY THE THE HELLER DECISION
Yes, that's enough for each illegal immigrant, who has come in during Biden’s watch, to have one!
Tactical Style Rifles (AR-Style) are so dominant that there are virtually NO Semi-Auto Rifles (centerfire) that are NOT Tactical Style. The only Hunter Style Semi-Auto that I found was the Browning which is actually a Civilian Version of the BAR _(Browning Automatic Rifle)_ which is a Military Rifle, and the Wooden Stock Springfield M1A which is a civilian clone of the Military M14 Rifle. In a sense, the Modern Sport Rifle has completely wiped out an entire class of Rifles. Today there are virtually NO Hunter Style Semi-Auto Rifles, they are all AR/Tactical Style.
@@davidellis7081 - - Off Topic but have you ever wonder if the lax Immigration Policy was not intentionally flooding the Labor Market with cheap Labor. When there is a surplus of labor, that devalues labor and drives down wages. As if the Working Class were not already screwed, this is a plan to screw us even more. If we can't ship Manufacturing to Mexico, we will just ship Mexico to the USA.
If the 1st Amendment applies to radio, tv, and the internet, and the 4th amendment covers electronic wiretapping and video surveillance, how can the 2nd amendment only apply to 18th-century firearms technology?
This is the most compelling argument I've ever seen to be honest. Makes it pretty simple
I’m glad someone else has made this argument. This is the same thing I’ve said that shuts down the gun control argument immediately.
Analogies are a tricky matter. They exist when two situations are very similar in certain characteristics. An analogy between two situations is not necessarily invalid just because they differ in some aspects-in your analogy, it is mainly communication on one side and the risk of endangering and impairing health and life on the other side. Easier communication on one side, more effective endangerment and impairment of health and life on the other side-in summary: Being able to express one's opinion more easily versus being able to kill more easily and effectively. One is definitely more dangerous for people-at least immediately.
arms
noun
1.
weapons and ammunition; armaments.
"arms exports"
Similar:
weapons (of war)
weaponry
firearms
guns
ordnance
cannon
artillery
armaments
munitions
instruments of war
war machines
military supplies
The Lawful language is defined!
@@luciustitius Hitler came into power with just his words. Id argue words have the potential to cause far more damage to people in the long run than modern weapons in the hands of the people.
Remember Sotomayor saying the A.R-15 are in "Common use".
Priceless
I bet she's rooting for the GOSAFE Act. Banning pretty much all common firearms.
You have common use in Quotation marks, meaning that is verbatim, or a quote.
She didnt say that!
Technically she only said they’re “commonly available”. But the most basic understanding of economics and the law of supply and demand would tell you that if they’re commonly available, that implies that they’re commonly demanded, which means they’re in common use.
Didn't Earn It
@@Redacted-Information The wording she used was "commonly available." They wouldn't be commonly available if they weren't in common use.
The rights of the people to own and bear arms shall not be infringed. All guns control violates the 2nd
Legalize ribauldequins!!
"...the right of the people to keep and bear..." You got the words wrong, but you got the spirit right, and that's all that really matters.
@@christopherzapata4970 paraphrasing
@@kylemarston8650 Like I said, you got the spirit right, and that's what matters
If you're in a well regulated militia...
You forgot that part.
Saying the AR-15 isn't protected by the 2nd Amendment is like Saying the internet, Facebook, X, news media (Fox News, CNN,) isn't protected by 1st Amendment or even computers. Do not forget the AR-15 was in civilian hand before the M-16 was in the military arsenal
They aren't protected by the 1st Amendment. They can choose what can be, or not be, posted on their platforms.
Actually the AR15 protects the second amendment.
PCs, Internet usage, and home manufactured PCs should be licensed and regulated.
@@brianfoster7064 they are protected the platform make no difference in it. You should go and read some the opinion on desent from Justice Thomson how morden day firearms are protected. if the stungun is protected then AR is also.
You are correct sir, it was designed and manufactured in the early to mid 1950s for the civilian market. It wasnt til nearly a decade an a half later that the gun was adopted by the US military.. this whole idea that "its a weapon of war" is complete bs.
I give exactly zero fucks what a government thinks I should be allowed to own. And I mean that as sincerely as possible.
luty time
luty time
@@crazysilly2914 So based
@@MassachusettsTrainVideos1136 and black pilled
Right there with you.
Better than that, throughout American history civilians usually had access to much better equipment than was issued to the military. In 1873 when the military had just upgraded to a single shot trapdoor rifle, civilians already had access to the Spencer and Henry repeating rifles for 13 years, with them holding 8 and 15 rounds in their magazine respectively.
Historically the default in the US was for civilians to be much better armed than the military.
THIS!!!
Actually, the Spencer rifle had been standard military issue (cavalry) since the Civil War, but was replaced by the Trapdoor. Henrys were available, and some State Militia units did purchase them, but it was never an 'issue' rifle.
You can thank the Ordnance board for the fact that between the Civil War and the Spanish American War, the troops were hamstring by a converted muzzleloader while all of Europe had issued bolt action rifles by 1898.
@@schaferhundschmidt1798 Thanks for the correction, I didn't realise they were standard issue for cavalry. I don't know if it changes my point, for the majority of the history of the US civilians had access to the same weapons as the military, and very frequently had access to better or more specialised weapons. The current state of affairs is unusual within the history of the USA. Would you say that's correct?
@user-rt4uf6et9u , you are right. We have NFA '34 to thank for that, with an assist from GCA '68. 🫤
Custer wrote in his memoirs that his men were stuck with old-style rifled muskets left over from the Interstate War while Indians bought the latest repeating rifles from the Quaker traders after assuring them they were just for hunting.
" A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."-George Washington.
most underrated comment, right here
How are you ''free''?
@@k-tz5jg exactly right... europeans often talk proudly of their sacred 'social contract' with their governements, saying that their governments trust them to do the right thing and that the people trust their governements to do the right thing.
in the us, we have never believed in any such social contract. had the american people maintained the arms ammunition and discipline to maintain independence from our government, then we would be as free as the founders intended, and the governement would be as good as it was intended to be.
the unfortunate devolvement of our government from being 'of the people, by the people, for the people' into a separated, self-serving, political-class, tyranical entity is analogous to the frog in the pot of boiling water. not enough of us have been feeling the water get hotter, and now it may indeed be too late. we are being cooked.
Exemplary of the astounding wisdom of our Founding Fathers. Thank goodness, and them, for our Bill of Rights. Especially the 2A.
@@claiborneeastjr4129 and that's why our Guns rights are sooooo not infringed on. lol
The AR isn't protected. The AR owner is protected. Reading is fundamental.
so true. But I still support the gun's right to choose.
The problem already starts at "we the people".
Because what some people don't get is that it _doesn't_ read "we the governemnt" or "we the military".
@@ShootAUT the 2nd is clear. It doesn't say Right of the militia. Which the Left tries to push. It says the Right of the People!
Yes, because “We the people” applies to them too. The military and the government are composed of those same people. You talk about them, like they’re separate entities.
@@O94538O No, I mean it in exactly _that_ way as that it apllies to _everybody_ the same way, as it should.
It's the gun grabbers who speak of it as if it would only apply to governmental armed forces, even though the constitution clearly states otherwise.
Or ''we the militia''.
@@O94538OYou aren't a "people" anymore if you join the military. You're literally U.S. government property.
Secondly, members of the government aren't the "people" either. They're our servants, and we're their masters.
Whenever I hear someone say "the founding father's never envisioned us to have those types of weapons" I always reply with "yeah and the founding fathers never envisioned women and black people voting so tell me again how that's an argument?"
Not to mention by the time the second amendment was written they had 40 shot silenced repeating rifles, semiautomatic rifles, machine guns, grenade launchers, autocannons, airburst rocket artillery, and attack submarines.
Also someone mentioned in another comment that printers, photocopiers, and broadcasts are protected under the 1st amendment
This comment needs pinned. Also more people need to hear and understand this. Defend those who can't protect themselves and speak for the voiceless.
@@Abdegalol when someone on the internet tells you the founding fathers never invisioned the AR-15, tell them to go get a quilt pen and ink, write their comment on some parchment, have a guy on a horse spend the next month delivering it to you, and then, and only then, can you explain to them why their argument is wrong.
You should reply that Article I gives Congress the power to issue letters of marque and reprisal. Thus, the Constitution implicitly recognizes the right of the people to own warships. It doesn’t say anything about authorizing people to build and equip them..that right is presumed. Only a fool would say they were ok with warships but not a hand-held semiautomatic firing a rather anemic intermediate cartridge.
It's like I've been saying, the fact that I can't order a M249 or a "Ma Duce" off Amazon and have it and a pallet of ammo shipped to my door, same day or next day, tells me the 2A is beyond infringed by our government.
Imagine the number of folks who would get PRIME just for the convenience.
And the Supreme Court used to rule that only firearms of "military usefulness" are protected by the 2nd amendment.(1940s)
Ya I can get a computer, copy machine, law books and anything else we have the constitutional right to own but not firearms. When laws are made controlling any of your rights it's telling me that the right has been infringed against illegally.
Shipping lead is expensive. I wait for the free shipping sales.
H.R. 11654 specifically states that if the military has it, Civillians are allowed to buy it at a reasonable price WITH OUT RESTRICTIONS.
Prime is free with my cellphone plan and I use it on the regular it would be nice if I could get what the government has from Amazon or at least some ammo
The thing that baffles me the most is how the phrase "shall not be infringed" can be interpreted in so many ways 😂
It comes down to a person's subjective understanding and their own interpretation of English words. It's pathetic actually.
I think it's what comes before it... "A well-regulated militia being essential..."
Since militias are something of a joke today and have fallen out of favor, a well-regulated militia is clearly not essential. So libs feel they can question gun ownership.
No search or seizer without a warrant.
Until you don't renew your tags.
Freedom of speech unless you think a drivers licenses isn't constitutional.
It's straight forward, no interpretation, anyone who days otherwise is the exact reason the amendment exists. We have the right to own and carry weapons, not guns, not knives, both, weapons, and the government lacks the right to do anything about it.
What
Concerns me is that "Shall not be infringed" is being twisted to say everything except what it actually means YOU(the government or any of your gun grabbing cronies/CANNOT INFRINGE ON OUR RIGHTS TO KEEP AND BEAR WEAPONS (ARMS).
"Shall not be infringed", why is that so hard to understand?
Only because we don't tell them no convincingly.
If only conservatives cared about other rights as much as the right to keep and bear arms.
@Talon19 yea because the attack on the first amendment is coming from the right.
@@Kelgeron If we were to go off the Constitution, there is no gun I shouldn't be able to purchase. That includes assault weapons, but the left got their grubby hands on that. The Second Amendment is not to be infringed upon.
Because evil does what evil desires.
I would argue that full-auto rifles are MORE protected by the second amendment than any semi auto, lever action, bolt action, or any other non-military style of firearm.
Hell Yeah!
The 2A doesn't specify what "arms" the people can bear, therefore it should pertain to everything that can be considered "arms", equally.
@@SmokeNGunsBBQ There's a big difference between everyone having the right to purchase, own and use full auto firearms... and "let's give every hood in America full autos".
@@SmokeNGunsBBQ That's because the general public is grossly ignorant. Just watch 30 mins of police body/dash cam footage on TH-cam. Half of the suspects are already convicted felons and half of them are 14-17 but they still got glocks most of them with switches. The Cartels, "Hoods" and drug dealers clearly don't abide by the NFA so why do we have too??? The only people the NFA punishes are the upstanding citizens.
@@livewire2759 Temu seems to be doing a good job of furnishing the Hood with Automatics
Legally, the second ammendment says we should be able to own every single military weapon and accessory, including modern warships, fighter jets, and artillery, let alone military small arms and explosives. Civilians during the revolution owned military grade(and better) warships, artillery, and small arms
Strictly speaking, anything and everything is covered if it's a weapon.
I would agree to one - and only one - restriction on the second amendment, and that is the barring of the average person to possess WMDs.
@@RighteousJ
Unfortunately, legal history and precedence shows us no rights are unlimited and absolute.
@@Talon19 And therein lies the problem...
@@Talon19 thats what joe biden said. To me "shall not be infringed" doesnt take a constitutional scholar to interpret
@@RighteousJwmd's isn't what I'd called bearable
If it's an arm and it's bearable it's protected. Period. 'shall not be infringed"
Shall not be infringed. Period!
The second amendment was made at a time when civilians had the same thing as the gov. the 2nd amendment gives civilians the right to own fully auto weapons as well.
Not “gives.” Guarantees. The Constitution doesn’t give us anything. It guarantees rights that we already possess. The Second Amendment guarantees our right-which we already had-to own and carry (keep and bear) “arms” free from government infringement. Notice it says “arms” and not “guns.” That’s because anything that can be used as arms is protected. The government doesn’t want you to be aware of that.
At the time, civilians had better technology than the government.
More importantly, and I think this is an error that alot of people make on both sides of the aisle. The 2nd amendment doesn't GIVE American citizens ANYTHING. It protects a right that was there all along. That is clearly stated in the last line. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms (already in place) shall not be infringed". It doesn't say "shall be granted". It is not the governments position to grant rights. It was intended to protect the citizens' ability to defend themselves primarily from a tyrannical government, from abroad or from within our own borders. You know? Kinda like what we dealt with for 12 of the last 16 years?
"My balls are swolen with freedom and Liberty!" I'm pretty certain that was the opening line in a dispatch sent by horse Messenger from Washington to Cornwallis on the eve of the crossing of the Delaware river.
Jesus I don't think there's ever been a more apropos line ever for America
The SCOTUS refused the challenge to our bullshit law in IL because it was a interlocutory appeal. Alito and Thomas want to rip a chunk out of Pritzker's fat ass.
I hope you’re right.
With you. Lake Zurich
Their waiting for the lower courts decision and then the slaughter by the SCOTUS.See the Bruen decision 6/2022.
Alito and Thomas are ready to scorch gun laws... The remaining justices are the ones I'm not sure about.
Yes, I believe the cases remanded back to the lower courts were interlocutory, i.e., not final rulings from the circuit courts. The SCOTUS rarely rules on cases until they have run their course. They are presented with like 7000 cases a session and they are not likely to take cases for which the lower courts should do the leg work. I believe Thos basically wrote, see your sorry ass when you're done with your homework assignment.
I like the 'Sunny in Philadelphia' argument: "Well, I've already got one, so...the end".
One? Sheesh... Rookie! :)
@@Ferd414 One that I'll admit to. Those boating accidents are unpredictable.
@@InknbeansPress Y'know, the guy who finally invents a flotation device for ARs is gonna makes some serious bank...
If anybody asks, tell them the meaning of "shall not be infringed" is "shall not be infringed." Happy 4th 🇺🇲
Our founding fathers were referring to the 30 mm Bushmaster Cannon. . They just didn't know it yet 🦅
Patriots, Goalkeepers, Pantherturms, and Pillboxes.
All are Protected under the 2nd.
The Puckle gun was the 30mm Bushmaster of their day and they had no issues with it, that cannon even had special square slugs specifically for use on non Christians because it would make nastier wounds that couldn't be sewn up. Right to bear arms means right to bear any you damn well please.
James : I'm about to trigger EVERYONE with that title!
My Dutch ass : *_*Gets the Popcorn_**
Gekoloniseerd, ik heb frikandellenbroodjes mee genomen voor de boys
@@sandwich5344 Gaan ze de boel Koloniseren, en dan niet eens het fatsoen hebben om een broodje kroket mee te nemen?
De VOC zou zich schamen voor deze karige bedoening...
The fact we’re even having a debate is the problem to begin with. Anyone willing to have their 2A right infringed upon can go ahead and surrender their 1A rights to save the rest of us the headache of having to govern this republic in the face the difficulties posed by their blatant jackassery.
200 million AR-15s. Think of that.
That they know about 😂
I'm doing my part!
That just reminds me how late to the game I really am. I suck again.
Way more
Yeah...if we were the problem...they would know it. The fact that these rifles are such a slim minority of firearm uses in criminal acts proves it as well. So you have to ask why they're demonized and targeted? As someone that watched a couple guys in pajamas and flip flops, carrying 30 yr old AKs, hold off an entire modern Infantry company...I can tell you why. They have plans...and don't want us armed with an effective defense
"The Principality of Zeon"
1] Char did nothing wrong.
2] Goddamn James if you make me like you any more my wife might decide she has a bone to pick with you.
SIEG ZEON!
goddamned space nazis invading my republic
SIEG ZEON!!!
Humans can only truly progress once our souls are no longer weighed down by gravity.
Wasn't expecting a Gundam: Origins reference here that's for sure lol. Love that managa series. Need to see the anime eventually!
Any gun control law is unconstitutional. Shall not be infringed.
But instead we say, shall only be infringed a little bit.
I’ve always thought it was a weird disconnect where people say the 2A doesn’t apply to modern firearms, but then will turn around and say the 1A protects online speech
IKR 😂
"I don't have the energy to hate half the people I run into." Amen to that!
Happy 4th everyone! 🎇🇺🇸🗽
Just go visit the west coast you’ll get the energy
“I don’t have the energy to hate half the people I meet” very true that shit can consume you if you are not careful
The root of the constitution says: shall not be Infringed. All other laws against the 2A is technically unlawful.
A well regulated militia is how it actually starts…
@@angelgjr1999 yeah this is why I am confused. everyone seems to be conveniently ignoring this part. do they really think that the founding fathers intended the public to have access to whatever firepower imaginable? the debate is not around whether the constitution only allows 18th century smoothbores or some bullshit. obviously guns need to be regulated, and some people want to draw the line around the AR15. which is completely fair according to the "well-regulated" term in the constitution.
@@benergy592 Yeah you can’t buy actual weapons of war or explosives. The AR is a semi automatic rifle.
@@angelgjr1999 you can absolutely buy weapons of war depending on which state you live in. although the AR15 is a semi-automatic rifle, it has become the poster child for high-calibre weapons due to its use in many mass shootings. i don't blame people for wanting to ban it because its associated with annihilating schoolchildren.
@@benergy592 I agree it’s unfortunate that it’s used in that manner. But do you think the government will stop with the AR? Why not ban pistols since most crime and murders are committed with them?
All firearms even Fully automatic firearms are protected by the second amendment and are used to protect the second amendment. ANY gun law that can be written violates the second amendment and therefore are illegal to enforce.
This guy, on the 4th
It's protected by deez
deez Rights?
Deez what?
Deez 5.56 hollow points in muh rifly
Deez Nuts !!
What is deez? Who the hell is Steve Jobs?
AS AN INDIAN I FOUND IT TO BE MOST PERFECT VIDEO ABOUT A PROBLEM WHICH IS JUST PLAIN MISUNDERSTANDING WHICH IS NOT ABOUT GUNS BUT "THE CAPACITY FOR ABLE BODY MEN TO DEFEND THEMSELVES FROM A TYRANT BE IT A FORIEGN BODY OR THEIR OWN GOVT."
The Second Amendment protects ALL arms from government regulation, interference, or INFRINGEMENT. Not only does it protect semi-automatic and selective fire rifles, pistols, and shotguns, it protects knives, axes, spears, and swords.
Thanks!
James Reeves making a Gundam reference is easily the last thing I expected to see today, but I loved it.
1791 definition of “arms” = “ANY offensive weapon and ANY defensive body armor”. Case closed.
Its an arm, its protected.
The people who wrote the constitution did understand that arms technology evolves as they experienced that themselves. Therefore they did NOT define ARMS meaning any weapon and its features along with everything needed for that wepon to function including ammo. For the people saying you have the right to bear but not purchase the forefathers also knew in order to bear you must be able to obtain your arms. ALL arms are protected and banning features of a weapon along with banning automatic waepons is simply unconstitutional
I like internet lawyers who speak with authority. Adorable.
@@JoshJones-37334 Don't need to be a lawyer to interpret words. Go back to a different school
@@crbalch1 muh muh muh, rube
@@JoshJones-37334 rube
@@JoshJones-37334Okay counselor you tell me why they used a Capitol ‘A’ for “Arms”? Certainly they had a definition for that in mind, right? Now where could I find that definition or were they unaware of the need for dictionaries? Would the writings of the men who were involved in the US Constitution such as those in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers be a good place to figure out what they meant.
James you need to argue an AR-15 case in front of the Supreme Court.
There's absolutely no reason to
Correction - shouldn’t need to
We sadly do.
If I want to buy an Abrams tank the second amendment says I have the right to own one and to own ammo for it. If I want to build my own tank from scratch and load it with 50 BMG ammo I have the second amendment right to drive it to my local mcdonalds and back.
DMV may not agree.
Yep. Any and all weapons of war.
As long as you pay to repair all the public roads you f up I'll support you.
@@thesnail4671rubber shoes for the tracks my man
100% I remember hearing something about a ship about 135 years ago asking the government if they could buy a cannon to protect from pirates and the reply they got was basically fuck yea brother why couldn’t you (in modern terms) they still got their cannon
The puckle gun was a multi round gun invented in 1718 so that would have been an “automatic rifle of its time” so we should have full auto weapons available to us
Based
Sick Gundam reference.
Limitting Munzo's ability to defend themselves against Federation abuses likely pushed them further towards rebellion...
@@NateTheBrewerOperation British was clearly an act of self-defense.
@@LAHFaust they just dumped the shipment of tea (Feddie loyalists) into the harbor (Australia)
There's no logical reason why a civilian would need to own an unusually dangarous weapon like a Calt M72A1. Is your assault rifle going to stop an MS-06J?
MS Gundam: Zeon bad, Earth has to defend itself. MS Gundam Zeta: oops Earth might be a tad corrupt.
It's not that the SC refused to hear cases about the ar15 and its status under the 2nd Amendment, it's that they didn't want to hear the cases before they went thru the entire lower court process before they are eligible for SC review. Justice Thomas even said this in his decent. The cases have not gone thru all the different appeals, which is usually the tradition before the SC takes up a case. Thomas also said that if and when they do, and are ready for SC review, they should be reviewed and argued, due to the long history of the lower courts misinterpreting the Heller, and Bruen decisions.
Armed Scholar level of title trolling.
He doesn’t troll, he clickbaits.
@@daa3417GROUND BREAKING!!!!
@@213chewyonly want fatty walks around
@@Esper320if I ever seen him I’ll be sure to have him a nutter butter on standby
Disappointing as usual.
If the second amendment only protects muskets then it also limits the military to muskets.
Thank you for this comment.
First machine gun was invented in 1884
@@brianforsakenastheworldcru7667 If you count the gatling gun used during the Civil War as a machine gun, you can say they've been around a couple decades before that.
It also limits communication and media to quill and pen.
My ar 15s are protected by my ar 15s... 😅😅😅
The AR15 isn’t protected by the 2nd ammendment, but Turknelis are!
Sorry, I don’t make the rules!
Lmao😂 you know how he feel
This is probably the single most effective and succinct argument regarding the 2nd amendment I’ve ever seen. Well done and happy 4th ya’ll.
I have to say, my red white and blue blood was boiling when I saw the title of this video! I have never seen your channel before. But I thought the video was very well done and you have definitely earned subscription from me.
2A for life!
Threw in a Gundam reference. Man of Culture.
Holy $hit! I'm a criminal! I own a Kentucky Long Rifle and ammo! By the way, after doing more research, the Kentucky is really a Pennsylvania, somehow Kentucky made it famous. Check out the book "The Art of Building the Pennsylvania Long Rifle".
Bro was about to cook you with that title, I’m glad i didn’t have to bust out the square headed jokes on you
the 2A says arms, because they knew some tyrant would try to claim it only covers muzzle loading flintlocks. arms means all weapons even partical weapons.
> Principality of Zeon
I say we fight for civilian mobile suits usage now
I write my representatives on every major unconstitutional firearm law that gets passed here in IL. This state is a lost cause, me and many others are leaving because of that. Taking with us lots of skilled labor and tax dollars.
IL is the first state to collapse into 3rd world in real time 😂 and obviously California is in that process now next is New York and other blue then final the red states yea we are all F ed if trump is not elected president in 2024
Wasn't expecting an MSG reference tbh.
what's MSG?
8:20 The "Historical context" of the second amendment was to let whites be armed in order to suppress slave rebellions. That's why the 2nd says "the security of a free state", instead of the "security of a free country" like Madison intended. Patrick Henry said it clearly.
The 2nd amendment wasn't written after the boys got back from a hunting trip...
You may have hit on the reason the court hasn’t taken most of the 2A cases. They’re waiting for a specific argument that they can hang a tri-cornered hat on to settle the matter for decades to come.
We are gonna see that with the new 8585 bill in MA
I really don't understand when people say ARs aren't useful for deer hunting. Especially gun guys. This myth has to go
They aren't powerful enough to assure a clean kill, much less reduce the beast to hamburger as those twunts on the view believe.
5.56: drops a 180 pound man.
Also 5.56: cant drop a 130 pound deer for some reason.
Yeah, makes sense. I think people very much over estimate the size of deer, especially on the east coast, or assume every bullet available is 55 grains or less. A 64 grain Power Point (JSP) will do a number on Bambi.
Depends on what you're Hunting
Some states won't let hunt deer with a .223.
It's considered a varmint round.
@@firestream93 if only ARs came in any other caliber 🙃
@@ALovelyBunchOfDragonballz I knpw they come in different calibers. But, most people are going to have the .233/5.56 version
I like the msg. Usually takes 3-4 videos to sub. But knowledge is power and the lights are dimming rapidly. XArmy full-blooded American Indian Lakota nation Hunkpapa tribe Standing Rock reservation here 🇺🇸 I love my country and the people but im fed up with the hate... 🇺🇸Jim StJames Philadelphia PA USA 🇺🇸
Click bait title?!
I'm in!
Same. I couldn't help myself
its not really click bait per say there is legal case law that suggests the AR15 and other "assault weapons" arent covered under the second amendment. James just goes into why that isnt true. Really personal protection is far more ambiguously protected than keeping military rifles for the primary purpose of forming a militia however the supreme court has already upheld that the 2nd Amendment covers personal protection in the home and outside the home.
@@nemisous83sorry, but anything signed by anyone that is protected by guys carrying the fully automatic version of are semi automatic version isn’t considered law it’s considered control
The Principality of Zeon. Well said, sir!
That colony drop of a gundam reference just gave me another reason why I keep coming back
The best part about the 2nd amendment is it doesn't say gun or knife or any type of weapons an arm can use. It just says we can use them.
No guns are "protected by the 2nd amendment." Our rights to possess and defend ourselves with firearms are only elucidated by the 2nd amendment; they are not granted by it. Our right to self defense with firearms is granted to us by our creator, and no law against or for has any effect on that inherent, unalienable right. Let them make any laws they choose. I for one, know I will never give up my right to carry and use weapons. I also know down here in the south there are millions of others who will defend that right vigorously, and by any and all necessary means.
Bingo. Words on a page are not your rights, your rights are immutable and innate.
Your rights only exist because you possess the power to enforce them. That power comes from the threat and existence of violence.
Well spoken
Damn right we will take your ar-15, your ak47 said that one bundle of sticks
And biden and harris and.........................................................................................................
It says "arms" doesn't mention specific "arms"
“Arms” it’s capitalized, you’re correct they chose not to define it specifically as to not limit it.
@@daa3417
Exactly. It covers any and all arms.
Fun fact, the British also had rifled guns, these were used by companies of skirmishers. The problem with the rifled guns were that they are slow to load, and could not compete on a battlefield with the Bess. The Brown Bess was the most common US firearm, and when the militias and army were finally able to stay on the battlefield, the British lost.
2nd Amendment, Right to Bear Arms. That means if I have the bread to buy an Abrams and the ammo for it, I have the right to. I believe Madison asked if the people could own War Ships and either Jefferson or Franklin said, giddy da fuk up Boi.
Of course I am paraphrasing
Simply because something is **LEGAL** to own doesn’t mean that same thing is immune from regulations and restrictions.
@@Talon19shall not be infringed is pretty straight forward. As in no restriction.
1791 regulated is not equal to 2024 regulated.
2 completely different meanings/definitions. You can't take text from 233 years ago and apply today's definition. Then think you've made a salient point.
@@matthewbeaver5026
“Shall not be abridged” seems plain but conservatives ignore that all the time.
Texas has longstanding tradition of arms control.
@@Talon19 the issue is the supreme court has already ruled it unconstitutional to tax a right (in regards to poll taxes) and affirmed that taxing or creating a barrier to entry to exercise said right is the same as denying someone a right. The Second Amendment was quite literally created so the populace could form a militia in times of crisis and have the means to arm themselves. The issue is the Supreme Court and Federal Courts like to pick and chose how closely they want to take the literal meaning of the text for example shortly after the 1933 National Firearms Act a case was thrown out over an individuals right to own a sawed off shotgun because "the Military doesnt use sawed off shotguns" the same goes for suppressors. the Supreme Court has struck down multiple cases dealing with suppressors because they arent firearms......yet are treated as firearms under the NFA.
@@nemisous83The courts have failed to address the can of worms that is U.S. v Miller and have been dodging that responsibility since 1939.
Not only the AR-15 but all weapons used by the military
When m4 lefty tho?
😮
You English can go...
Best laugh I've had all Independence Day, thanks James!
If there is a political angle here I just can’t see it. Nice pragmatic dispassionate breakdown. Bravo my man.
Was waiting for James to follow up his Gundam ref with ("and Zeon's just misunderstood-")
Now for him to shoutout Killzone's Helghast
Nice OG gundam reference
Reasonable minds might come to the conclusion that our forefathers couldn’t envision the destructive power of future firearms that we now have access to. Having a citizenry with a single shot flintlock seems reasonable, however, not a bunch of people with unfettered access to weapons of mass destruction. In addition, we seem to conveniently leave out “well regulated militia” which one could interpret as the National Guard.
@@stuartstuart866 sure but you could also make the argument that the founding fathers never envisioned mass social media, computers, television, and telephones. does that mean you First Amendment right only extends to the printing presses, and what you can yell on a soap box in the middle of town square?
Also the National Guard as we know it didn't exist until 1903 before that you had various state and county militia's that weren't formally equipped and trained by the federal government. During the American revolution and prior to it a militia was quite literally anyone with a gun that answered the town call to defend themselves from Native American or French raids. If you read the whole amendment it says in plain english "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" the whole point of the 2nd amendment is for the expressed purpose for people to keep firearms so they can form a militia in times of crisis.
@@nemisous83 Should freedom of speech include lies? Should freedom of speech have penalties for false statements?
What does “well regulated” mean? Regulated by who? Most people who own guns aren’t part of a militia, therefore not in compliance to the amendment. The right to bear arms, shall not be infringed. This could be interpreted any number of ways and doesn’t include ammunition. It would be reasonable to assume our forefathers were speaking about single shot rifles not a M242 Bushmaster 25mm chain gun. Anyway, there are no shortages of interpretations, as we keep seeing them in court cases.
@@stuartstuart866 slander and libel are already covered under the legal code. The point of freedom of speech is you can say what you want without being imprisoned by the government or state. Slander and libel are civil cases not criminal also.
Well if you actually read the statement it's say "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" this is an affirmation asserting that you need a well regulated militia to ensure the security of the country. It's also important to remember "regulate" in the 18th century has a different meaning that how we use therm today in regards to legislative procedures. "Well regulated" means well armed, well disciplined, well maintained.
There is nothing in the Constitution that says you have to be in a militia because colonial militia's where non formal and non binding. The 2A is affirming you have the right to form a militia.
Thomas Jefferson was inquired about if individuals could own cannons to which he responded that it was perfectly legal and covered by the 2A. So saying that it only covers single shit muskets is again like saying that if you say "Biden sucks on the internet" the government has the right to imprison you because your right to freedom of speech is only covered by communication methods of periods, so verbal and witten in the newspaper.
Regardless this has already been addressed at the supreme Court in regards to the "meaning of the 2A" "if it covers self defense" and "is ammunition covered under the second amendment". AR15's are just a hot potato that the supreme court doesn't want to touch because then they would be forced to strike down every states assault weapons bans so they always send it back to the lower courts so they don't set legal precedence.
James would you except a nomination to the Supreme Court if asked ?
Immediately
@@JamesReeves whoo whoo 👍👍👍 I’m gonna summit your name
Done 👍🇺🇸
Focus on criminals already and don't tread on the rest of us. It's not that complex but hey, "If it ain't broke, fix it till it is".
I was just going to make acup of tea here at 53° 0°
"I like my bore like I like my jazz, smooth." ~ Captain John Parker
We should be able to buy machine guns at Walmart.
Yeah we should but the boomers gave them away and have told me time and time again “there is no need and no one needs one”.
vending machines
Well-presented. I did ADR in the courts for a # of years. Your separation of positions from issues and moving your viewers to focus on the issue is done quite well.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!
MOLAN LABE & Shall Not Be Infringed the wording is very clear!!!!!!!!!
I like when people tell you to “come and take it” while hiding behind internet anonymity. Where?
@JoshJones-37334 the better question is how would you take them? Better not be empty handed
@@Bicbawsaq what?
@JoshJones-37334 just read it again, text doesn't require hearing.
@@Bicbawsaq Well. Regulated.
So clear
@7:25 Zeon mentioned.
i like to be sure that my AR-15 is fully semi-automatic, because if it was semi fully automatic, that would be dangerous.
When James Reeves makes a legality of firearms video, I sit my white ass down and listen.
Cuck
I’m a big fan if your closing statements but having spent years in the "firearms community" I do not get the impression that a significant proportion of "the gun community" sees "I think we should get rid of the 2nd amendment" as a legitimate, acceptable position to take. Guns, just like abortion have become an absolute black and white issue without space for compromise.
There is no compromise, we are endowed these rights to be self evident by our Creator, our right to self defense is irrefutable, as for abortion, murder has never been a right
@@UrsineArms your creator isn’t real and neither is the tooth fairy
@@UrsineArms I follow the Flying Spaghetti Monster, he who has just as much legitimacy as your creator.
@@borkwoof696 you can say that, but my lead and gunpowder certainly is, try it
@@UrsineArms oh wow very impressive from the religion of peace and love.
Happy Independence Day James!! 🦅
Ummm the constitution never says specific weapons. Arms literally applies to what could be carried on a soldier. So yes the AR-15 is 1000% covered.