Why does everyone try to interpret the founders intent of the 2nd amendment. You can read quotes from the founders that show they did intend it to be an individual right.
Because it justifies the infringements they impose. Shall not be infringed applied to all people and all arms. The government has indoctrinated the people to believe some people dont have these rights and some arms are prohibited or restricted. Thru time this will lead to an authoritarian government and we are starting to see this today.
@Corno di Bassetto no,it doesnt at all. The constitution and bill of rights is restriction on all government. You have a real misunderstanding of how the founding documents of this country work,or even what they are for. The constitution and bill of rights trumps all of the states constitutions and Bill's of rights. Noone of nothing has the authority to "take" a natural right from me. Why? Because they can't be taken. Even the man sitting on death row still has the right to keep and bear arms. I know that you won't understand that because you dont know what a right is. You also dont understand how our governments were designed to operate. Using your logic, the supreme court wouldn't even exist. It only exists to be the arbiter of all things constitutional. Which thomas Jefferson said was a dangerous doctrine and would lead to despotism. Congress only has authority over land that has been legally purchased from the many states to aid in its duty to the people. Congress doesnt have the authority or jurisdiction to create late that would be enforced within the states. The constitution and bill of rights are the supreme law of the land. The states had to agree to this constitution and also agree they wouldn't violate ot.Do you know what governments one and only job is? No,you dont or you wouldn't have said what you did. Governments only job is to protect my rights. Period. That's it. The best thing you can do is educate yourself. I'd suggest reading the anti federalist papers and the federalist papers so you get an understanding of how everything in this country is suppose to operate.gun control kills far more people than anything else when referring to gun deaths. The vast majority of those people would be carrying a firearm if it wasn't for gun control. The Heller decision was far more harmful than good for the 2ndA. If you could think instead of just repeating what you have heard you would know why and would have mentioned it. The reality is that it doesnt matter. We have natural rights no matter where we stand at in this country. Noones taking anyone's firearms and noone is giving them up. And I feel for anyone who try's. If you are so against firearms I'm sure you will volunteer to be point going into that first house. Good luck. You will need jt
They BOTH leave out one very important element of the Second Amendment which contains no ambiguity. It lies in what constitutes the definition of infringement. And by all definitions and infringement is a restriction, limitation, or encumbrance of any kind.There is no valid argument that can be made that the second amendment does not specifically say infringement is prohibited. With every gun law proposal should come one simple question: “Does this law place a restriction, limitation, or encroachment on the Right to possess or carry arms?“ if the answer is yes then the law is invalid under article 6 paragraph two of the constitution. Yes, some of the rights to enumerated in the bill of rights can be limited or restricted, as in the mentioned restrictions on the first amendment, however the second amendment is the ONLY enumerated Right in the Bill of Rights that specifically prohibits infringement. That means it was intended to prohibit any limitation or restriction to any degree. He also goes on to consistently talk about how the second amendment didn’t apply to cannons at the time of ratification. In this he is outright wrong. It actually did apply to cannons, allowed for civilian ownership of cannons and in some cases civilian ownership of cannons was required by law, as in the civilian owned merchant ships, (and for the defense of some frontier townships) because they were expected to DEFEND THEMSELVES from piracy, and were required to be properly armed for naval warfare IF called on by the government for assistance.
If there is no restriction on weapons, well when someone like Mao uses all the biological, chemical, nuclear and rationion weapons to overthow the US and install themselves as a dictator, they will eliminate the right to bear arms anyway.
The milita is the people. In order for the milita to even be possable the individual has to be armed. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
Yes but you don’t have the kind of organized Militia that Madison would’ve recognized as Militia simply by having an armed population. What he meant by the term was the organized Militia of the States.
@@walterbailey2950 no. I am the militia. The next guy is the militia. The people are the militia. Not to mention the constitution is the peoples restrictions on government. Even if the constitution didn't exist. I don't have an owner. I am free to own whatever I choose. Why? Incase someone or something cones along that believes they have some type of authority over me. You may wantvto read more than that one letter about a specific topic. All of the founders at some point mentioned an armed populace. It must really bite to wake up daily fighting for your own slavery
@@FreedomInc They mentioned an armed populace. But what you’re missing is that colonial state and federal Militia laws required the entire populace to be part of government Militia. Typically before the revolution all men between the ages of 16 and 60 had to enroll in the Militia of their Colony. During and after the revolution colonial militia laws were placed with state and federal Militia laws. I’ve been reading through primary sources of this period for years and I’ve yet to run across one single incidents where anyone before 1800 describe the Militia as a group of armed individuals acting without government authority. The understanding of that time was that of John Adams: “To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, counties or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.”
@@FreedomInc I’ve actually read quite a few of the original writings of the founding generation, enough to know that your view is quite different from theirs.
@@walterbailey2950 yea. Because individuals didn't take it upon themselves to take a stand againstcan oppressive government. Notice in the restriction on government known as the 2nd amendment it mentions both the "militia" and "the people". Odd that "militia" wasn't used a second time. Government doesn't own me. Nor do you. And,you are full of it. One letter or journal entry isn't "enough". All of ghe founders spoke on many occasions of the rights of people (people meaning more than one person). What you suffer from is called indoctrination . You may want to read the little known essays called the federalist papers and anti federalist papers. Think, if the founders thought like you there would be british flags in all of our front yards
The 2A was never about protecting state-appointed militias. James Madison introduced his Bill of Rights on the floor of the US Congress as a matter of the fundamental rights of individual American citizens. His bill was not about state rights, which are really state powers. It uses the wording "right of the people"--not "power of the States". And so, the 2A must be interpreted as a matter of a fundamental individual right.
That and the fact that every other bill of rights amendment is an individual right, so to argue the collective rights based on a prefatory clause that simply gives context is disingenuous at best, and nefariously intended at worst.
The right of the people (all American citizens). To keep (to own,to have). And bear (to carry, to wield, to use). Arms(all weapons). Shall not (can not). Be infringed (be taken away,be limited,be violated).
@@cl8804 well regulated militia means a well armed people. Regulated in 1778 meant to adjust so as to ensure accuracy, to put or keep something in good order. The right of the people proves we the people each and every American citizen are the militia. The constitution is a written instrument. As such it's meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted it means now. S. Carolina V. US 199 US 437,448(1905).
@@cl8804 where do you see militia facility in the second amendment 🤣😂🤣😂 keep means to own to have, possess. American citizens don't have to store their arms (guns)in any facility. They have the full legal right to carry their guns anywhere they so choose openly or concealed, every square inch of the united states of America is protected under the constitution of the united states of America supreme law of the land.
20:21- 20:51 If we are talking about resisting Tyranny, Blocher"s statement seems to assume that none of the US military would defect if the US government became tyrannical. If there were defections by army staff who took there planes and tanks with them (like we saw in the Libyan Revolution) that would even the odds on the heavier equipment and the conflict would be decided by the grunts on the ground with the best small arms. So even if the average Joe does not own a fighter jet it still makes sense for them to own small arms.
Even if you leave that aside,look at the wars we have been fighting for the last 2 decades. Guys living in caves wearing sandals packing 50year old ak47's and some homemade b$mbs kept the strongest and most technically advanced military's in the world at bay. And we along with the rest never "won". We pulled out before the job was done because they realized they could never win that war unless they wiped out the entire middle east.
Not to mention every decision made by politicians are predicated on the fact that the citizenry is armed. The second amendment has been staving off tyranny every second since this country was founded.
Agreed. Moreover, the military that would decent to fight tyranny would have a moral and patriotic duty to join and protect the militia. It would be a symbiotic relationship. I am from Venezuela 🇻🇪. I dare to say that you put 500,000 small arms in the general public who support the Constitution and are able body would have organized around a political leader or pro democracy military leader. However, there are laws in the books that prohibits regular people to own guns.
@@shandorkato That's why Venezuelan police officers are starting to be targeted by Venezuelan citizens in Venezuela for their Venezuelan government issued firearms. The Venezuelan police officers go out on patrol one day in Venezuela and then never come back. And then the remains of the Venezuelan officers are found in some Venezuelan rural area several weeks later in Venezuela. By the way, I'm writing like that because I don't want anyone to take what I say out of context. It's a sad situation in Venezuela. And I wish there was something more I could do as an American to peacefully help the freedom-loving Venezuelan people.
Scenarios about Americans taking up arms against their own government have nothing to do with the original intent of the second amendment Or any other part of the US Constitution.
The Militia Acts of 1792 mandated that anyone that joined a militia had to provide their own firearm within 6 months. Meaning they had to go out and buy it themselves for duty. Congress mandated that. There was no, and is, no requirement that any person that joined a militia, and had to buy and provide their own arms, were to relinquish them to said militia when they left service. Not only that, but they had to provide their own powder and ball. Meaning they had to provide their own ammunition for militia service. The Second Amendment has multiple purposes that Scalia couldn't affirm because of Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy that wouldn't side with the majority without Scalia including the possibility of so called "gun control" measures. Scalia would have written a more broad sweeping ruling, and gone much further than he did were it not for Kennedy. Scalia would have affirmed that the Second Amendment protects and individual Right to keep and bear arms, and that this applies to individuals, and militias, for the purposes of the Right so the Individual to protect themselves from tyranny and the right of Natural Law, and Common Law, that affirms the Right of Self Defense. The "unreasonable" test, or "reasonable" test is a highly subjective and malleable test which has no standard which any justice can look too except in their own personal judgement. There is no fixed "reasonable", or "unreasonable" legal standard that can be followed. That is why he wishes to follow that standard. It makes it possible for judges to apply any standard, or test, they wish, and not a legal, nor Constitutional one. It wasn't just the Brady Bill in 1993. It was also the "Assault" weapons ban in 1993. Also. The Republicans also flipped 54 seats in the House and not just those that were targeted by the NRA. We flipped governorship's and state legislators. He's down playing what happened and not adhering to facts, and the totality of what happened. The left always cites polls with broad sweeping questions that support their views. They always forget, and deny, that when specifics are introduced that support always collapses. No, it was not defined and believed by the people by the first clause. We were a far more educated people back until in the 1960s when this principle and idea of gun control began to take hold in colleges and law schools. Before that, We the People did not, in anyway, think of believe that the right of an individual to keep and bear arms for self defense was predicated upon service in a state/county militia. He is again perpetrating a myth and a legal false argument. No one with an inkling of intelligence can look at the Democrat party and believe for one second that they are for law and order. Except when they wish to impose their will on the American people, and rule, and not govern. There is a distinct difference between the two concepts. State Supreme Courts routinely adhered to the belief that the Right to keep and bear arms was an individual right throughout the 20th century, and even the 19th. For example, while the Dred Scott case was in essence overturned by the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. It held that freedmen would have the rights of a citizen, "and to keep and carry arms wherever they went". No mention of any militia. That all freedmen would be allowed the rights of all Americans to keep and bear arms. And everywhere the anti-gun movement has gained control violent crime and homicide has increased and not shrunk by any measure. Self Defense is not applicable law where they've heavily restricted it. Meaning you can be charged with a crime of manslaughter, or murder, if the state, or District Attorney, or Commonwealth's attorney deems so. I'll add more soon.
@Corno di Bassetto Clearly you haven't read the Bill of Rights, nor the debates in the various states constitutional ratification. YES, there most certainly is the Individual Right to keep, own, possess, and bear arms. Regardless of your nonsensical anti-Catholic screed and diatribe.
@Corno di Bassetto Actually, what will more than likely happen is that RBG will pass, and another originalist justice will be appointed and further affirm such individual rights. Sorry for your luck, but you are going to lose and I'm going to love it.
@Corno di Bassetto Lastly, even the Supreme Court loathes to overturn it's own rulings except after a very long time. Even Koramatsu v. US is still the law of the land ruling that the internment of Japanese and Japanese-Americans was, and still it, Constitutional. Whether you like it or not. Maybe you should read more Constitutional law, and factual history than simply relying on your uninformed opinion.
@Corno di Bassetto Thomas, Gorsuch, Alito, Kavanaugh, and one more will make Roberts opinion, and position irrelevant. 5 Originalists, 1 swing vote, and 3 liberals. We win, and you lose for at least 20, or more years.
45:00 Since Heller, the standard of review became more fundamental than strict scrutiny. It became no scrutiny, because the 2A already has all the scrutiny already baked in.
THE ROLE OF FIREARMS “Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence. The church , the plow , the prairie wagon and citizen’s firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the pilgrims landed , to the present day , events , occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace , security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms , and more than 99 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good. When firearms go , all goes - we need them every hour.” -President George Washington Address to the 2nd session First United States Congress 🇺🇸
They weren’t making a case as to dangerous and unusual weapons NOT being protected. Scalia who wrote the opinion was very clear, and continually clarified later, that it wasn’t yet at issue and they weren’t ruling on it. They were pointing out what was the court’s opinion so far on this.
Rights are not supposed to be subject to popular opinion or popularly enacted laws. This is the very reason for the Bill of Rights. It places limits on government so that we are free. No one would argue that the government can place limits on political speech because that would be tyranny. Why, then, have a right to bear arms that the government can put limits on?
They dont. Authoritarian government like we have will take all means of rebellion from the people. This starts small thru indoctrination by making the masses believe that a felon for example dont have these rights. Now that has morphed into everyone is guilt and we have red flag laws in 18 states. We are going down that path and noone cares until affects them directly.
In the 18th century today’s idea of an inherent conflict between individual and corporate rights didn’t exist. The second amendment is just one example of how rights could simultaneously be those of individuals and the states. It gives the states primary control over most of the nation’s military power and an individual right in order to arm State Militia, because the states didn’t have the money to pay for all the weapons needed.
You posted this about the Bill of Right. “It places limits on government”. The question is which government? Under the principle of Federalism there is the Federal government and State governments. The Bill of Rights applied to which government after ratification in 1791? If you answered the Federal Government only, you’re right: If you answered State governments you are wrong. You don’t have to be an intellectual heavy weight as Justice Scalia was called. Brilliant intellectual notwithstanding what Scalia and almost all lawyers are not, are brilliant historians. Had Scalia been such a person, he would not have roamed far afield, all the way back to the UK’s Rights of Man to find his justification for a protected individual right in the 2nd Amendment. A read of colonial laws would have shown, that “We the People” from colony/state did not mean all of the people. Women, the enslaved, indentured servants, native Americans, and other categories were also not allowed to own a firearm. Those who were authorized, who had to own a firearm, were White males who could vote. They were 1st Citizens. They were also in the Militia. They had to have a musket and ammunition for said musket. They were subject to inspection, they could be registered from state to state. The Militias had to train, their officers were appointed by state government. The militia, an organized force was the force that insured against tyranny at the Federal level. To those who wrote the Constitution, an unorganized group of men with guns was a mob. One of the main reasons for a new kind of government was unorganized men with guns defying state governments. Shays rebellion was approx 1,000 armed men not controlled by government of Massachusetts who refused to pay taxes, and threatened to take down that government. It makes no logical sense that those 55 Elite White men wrote a constitution that they thought would endure yet could be legally ended by mob violence. Sure we know that We People who ushered in the Constitution had the right to end it. However, that would be by the same way it was created, not by bullets by ballots. .
@@stephenyoung5392 only government can become tyrannical,and they have made a calling to action to abolish or change said government illegal. Reguardless,you can legally say whatever you want. The call to action in any case is what is illegal,not the speech itself
Freedom Inc. wrong, we the people are the government, they receive their powers from us and not the other way around, read the declaration. When the govt doesn’t uphold the constitution, it is not only your right but your duty to abolish. What they are trying to do is unconstitutional and an act of tyranny, which have the right to action against regardless of what the govt says.
at the time I'm writing this, I've only watched up to time stamp 27:30. Few things I'd like to point out [that might appear later in the video, not sure yet]..... 1. The only thing you need to "interpret" the Constitution, specifically what's in the Bill of Rights - and gun control in particular - is the writings in the Federalist and anti federalist papers. Those are the EXACT thoughts of the Founding Fathers having been penned and amassed into those particular digests.......and the speaker makes NO mention to it. 2. As he speaks about "modern problems the Framers didn't have to deal with - Uzi's, machine guns, flame throwers and things like that they didn't ever have to imagine." He is dead wrong. Greek Fire is an ancient technology [c. 672] used by the Byzantine Empire - and his commentary suggests that "assault weapons" were "simply unknown or unforeseeable" to the Framers....weapons such as the Girardoni air rifle [Jefferson issued to Luis and Clark expedition], The Belton flintlock, the Puckle Gun [a type of Gatling gun developed 60+ years before the Rev. War] and pepperbox revolvers ........ So far and in my view, this first speaker is not very inspiring because he's making a biased speech about it. Leaving out key information is causing that bias and it's simply disingenuous as an argument. Ok.....onto the rest of the video..........
Check out this video. th-cam.com/video/wnUi1qSCByk/w-d-xo.html Also, Heller was actually a Law Enforcement Officer so I think he should have the right since he's part of an official militia.
@@Oneness100 - "Official" has nothing to do with it. A militia is a state, quality, or condition of a combatant, fighter, or warrior. Lat. *miles* (warrior) + *-itia* (state, quality, or condition). All it takes to constitute a militia is for a private person to stand up against violence. There can be a militia of many, or a militia of one. Resisting a violent emergency is the defining element. "Official" implies that someone must hold some sort of office, or be approved by someone who holds some sort of OFFICE. But because the 2A was intended to guard against government overreach, it makes no sense to imply that a protected militia must hold government office or be approved by someone who does. A militia is made up of private citizens and legal alien residents. Leave government office out of it.
@@texasbeast239 Huh? What's your problem? A Militia - a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency. Another definition - all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service. The 2A also states WELL REGULATED, which back in the days when they created the 2A, they had Minutemen and others that were trained to protect and serve when necessary, but that has all been replaced by LE, Military, but they also have Reserves and Volunteers. Now, if you are in the Reserves or Volunteers, then you are part of a well regulated Militia. But if you aren't, then I don't see how you can be part of a WELL REGULATED Militia. By yourself? NO. That would be a PRIVATE Militia and it's NOT Well Regulated. If this were the late 1700's, if you had a gun/rifle, you would have to serve in any and all wars, or other law enforcement, but since you don't, then you are more of a traitor hiding behind your pathetic understanding of the 2A.
@@Oneness100 www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm your definition of "well-regulated" is wrong. how can a group of citizens form a militia against a tyrannical government if the militia is governed/approved by the very same tyrannical government it is to defend itself from? "we the people" means exactly that, not the people of public office or people of a certain class... we have a right to assemble and we also have a right to keep and bare arms...if those two rights are practiced together, we effectively have a militia
Liberty= Freedom from control, obligation or restriction,etc; power or right of doing, speaking etc; according to choice, but granted by an external source; self-determination. I choose free will.
Love how he Huckster-Conflates the term ‘self-defense’ with ‘right to keep and bear arms’ in his opening statement. It’s really not a hard concept to understand than the ‘right to keep and bear arms’ is the right to own and carry the means of self-defense and only someone being entirely disingenuous like him would imply that someone who believes in the right to keep and bear arms believe that you don’t not have a common law rights to self-defense with out the right to keep and bear arms. It’s just that right to keep and bear arms which makes your common law right to self-defense useful against powerful threats. And of course there moronic you’d need ‘tanks and rocket launchers’ argument, acting he does understand the basic notion of deterrence, and clearly demonstrating that he does not understand anything about warfare.
So why do you think James Madison refused to include self-defense in the second amendment explicitly when the Pennsylvania ratifying convention asked him to with this proposal? “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers.”
The second amendment isn’t about self defense. The second amendment isn’t about hunting. The second amendment isn’t about national defense. The second amendment is about keeping the federal government in check.
PA state constitution, article 1 sub-section 21: "The right if the people to keep and bear arms IN DEFENSE OF THEMSELVES AND THE STATE shall not be questioned."
@Corno di Bassetto Wrong, all you need to do to inform yourself is read the Federalist Papers. There is no excuse for this ongoing type of ignorance. Here's an example of a rifle that fired multiple rounds with one pull of the trigger. Learn something military.wikia.org/wiki/Belton_flintlock
They may have not had tanks, or hi-tech weaponry back then. This is now. Not then. Times have evolved. To be able to have a chance. We also need weaponry of War. I wish Brandon would leave about 85 million dollars in firearms here in America for us.
I would argue dangerous speech is protected speech .Because during the founding fathers era talking of revolution was dangerous speech so yes it should be protected.
As far as I understand it, Originalist argue that if a phenomenon either didn't exist or had no clear analogue at the time of the framing, or was simply not mentioned by the Constitution, the Court should stand down and let law-making bodies pass law as they see fit.
Yes, I agree. How about the part that says shall not be infringed. Also, notice that the 2nd amendment is the only one that says shall not be infringed.
First person that's a good point but he acts like the part of to text shall not be infringed does not exist dust making the case of regulations to not differ from other amendments
I don't understand how this is so debated. I understand our previous generations surrendered alot of our rights but coming back to these rights the second amendment clearly states militia which is made of the people.
It’s confusing because what they were talking about a government militia that was privately armed for the most part no longer exists. The idea that she would join a government military organization but have to provide your own weapons strikes modern Americans as strange because it doesn’t happen anymore. But that’s what happened in the 18th century.
Bruen ruling certainly addresses, finally, several of the issues raised or addressed here. And remarkably, supports Alan Gura, even with exact language used.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news but I have to disagree. Responsible is not the correct word to use to describe his speech. As an second amendment activist, I found several misleading and flat out purposeful alterations to wording he cites from Heller and the rest of his argument. I'm happy to share and debate this with you should you request.
I love how the opening argument by the gun control guy flat out says two tier scrutiny is necessary.... and the Bruen happened. Text as informed by history is the only test.
That's what I was getting at. Banning guns wouldn't do a thing. Look at Australia. It's people. Not guns. I don't play CoD. I play what's called "Military service". You know, they guys who defend your ass.
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"
Canon - at the time the 2nd amendment was adopted - were in fact owned by private individuals. And today you can still legally own a muzzle loading canon.
Battle ships armed with cannons were privately owned then. The fact is exactly what Thomas jefferson said in the 1820's " for the supreme court to be the sole arbitrator of all things constitutional is dangerous and will lead to despotism" even the founders realized the danger in this. Take felons as an example. My opinon is if someone is free (not incarcerated) they have the same rights as the next citizen. The "law" for "public saftey" purposes says they do not. If someone is safe enough to be released,they are safe enough to exercise all of their rights. Even most "pro 2ndA" citizens will say "no,they are too dangerous to have access to firearms". I have two problems with this line of thought. First, a gun is a tool os the argument most 2ndaer's will use. "If they intend to kill even if tou take away the guns they will just find another tool". So the same doesnt apply to felons? Second,once you make a right a privelege for ANYONE at all,you open the door for it to be treated like a privelege. And that's why we are seeing what we are seeing today. The nfa is 100% unconstitutional and that's what started this snowball to what we are dealing with today. If someone is too dangerous to be in our free society the issue isnt whether or not they can legally buy a gun,because if they want one they will get it anyway. The issue is why were they released to begin with if they are too dangerous to exercise their rights granted to them by birth. The founders even said that a right cannot be taken,not even by government and not even with consent.
Any rational person who looks at the bill of rights in the historical context cannot come to any conclusion other than individuals have the right to arms.
If the 1st amendment were treated as the first speaker views the 2nd amendment. This debate could not have happened in several states and in DC prior to Heller.
May I suggest reading about how Federalism works. Initially the BoR only refrained federal power, or in 3rd terms, Federal troops. National Guard under State control can quarter units as the 3rd has never 'incorporated' via the 14th against the states. Its never made it to SCOTUS. So, except for 2nd circuit, troops under state authority can be quartered displacing citizens. It sucks, but that's how the Bill of Rights and the 14th operate.
The Congressional Record for the Senate on July 9, 1985, quotes Biden describing FOPA as a “balanced piece of legislation that protects the rights of private gun owners while not infringing on law enforcement’s ability to deal with those who misuse guns or violate laws.” He added, “During my 12 and a half years as a member of this body, I have never believed that additional gun control or federal registration of guns would reduce crime. I am convinced that a criminal who wants a firearm can get one through illegal, nontraceable, unregistered sources, with or without gun control.”
"We're here today to talk about what the 2nd ammendment means and what it allows. Not whether we like or dislike gun control.".... Didn't stick to that statement very long, did he? More like "We're here to discuss why guns are bad and Heller is wrong."
Since the constitution already discusses militias in other areas it seems odd that they needed to add an amendment to the constitution reaffirming that. Furthermore, it’s in the Bill of Rights which deals specifically with an individuals rights. It’s my belief that the first part simply reaffirms the importance of militias but that the right of the people to have arms is a right that the government cannot take away, felons and the like are obviously exempt
Why? His compelling reason for denying felons was not present in the constitution. Seems like an appeal to common sense or a change in the times suggesting the judicial philosophy of textualism or originalism has flaws.
No but the federal Militia act passed only five months after the second amendment was ratified does require all men in the country between 18 and 44 to join the militia.
So you can defend yourself, you just simply aren’t allowed the best tool to do it with??? That’s the anti argument? You can have your right as long as we render it useless?
Lesson for today: Vocabulary 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Regulated: To Maintain something, so that it Operates Properly Militia: Military force of Civilians to supplement a regular army in an emergency People: The Citizens of a country Keep: Retain Possession Bear: Carry Infringed: Act so as to Limit or Undermine on something
@@DowJonesDave And you don't have to be part of his militia. A militia doesn't threaten your freedom. You are "threatening" the right of people to keep and bear arms, though.
@@Anon54387 Yes militias do threaten my freedom. Because militias are political. Anyway, SCOTUS covers all that. But as far as the second amendment is concerned. You have it backwards if you think the right applies to militias. It only applies to people. "The right of THE PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed." Because militias are dangerous. The second amendment is an individual right, not connected with militia service. Why are you making the leftists argument for them?
It’s a rights to arms, not a right to guns. So guns are included in anything that you can use to defend yourself, the first speaker does make an excellent case against sensitive places though. He is right there. You have no less a right to self defense in any place that you may be at anytime.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Its the operative clause. THE PEOPLE not the STATES. If the people don’t want it they can amend it. THAT is a proper way to establish popular opinion.
You can't sue a cop for not protecting you. That's a supreme court decision BTW. So if you can't sue a cop for not protecting you THEN you need the tools to protect YOURSELF! Legally it's YOUR job to protect yourself.
Why does Blocher keep saying "STATE militias"? "The militia" meant, and still means, "citizens capable of bearing arms". See any dictionary. Search "US Code, Militia".
Why would you need the right to bear arms in a militia??? The gov can grant that right at any time - the amendments are people's rights. The amendments are individual rights.
Blocher has somehow twisted originalism to be judicial activism. Incredible. Plessy vs. Ferguson was wrong, Brown vs. Board of Education overturned it, totally upending precedent. The Dred Scott decision was wrong. Precedent must be overturned when it is wrong. The Heller decision overturned the erroneous idea that this is about the militia rather than individuals. People like Warren Burger and Griswold had it wrong, plain and simple. State governments can also be tyrannical. This is why the right to bear arms is an individual one not some weird idea of a collective right. The right of the people is taken to mean individual rights anywhere else it appears in the Bill of Rights except for the 2nd Amendment according to Blocher. He also poisons the well by bringing up McVeigh. This guy is a dishonest person. This common law right to self defense is not the same as a 2nd Amendment recognizing a right to keep and bear arms. If it were there would not have been all these gun carry prohibitions.
If it was wrong how do you explain article 1 section 8 clause 15. How do you explain the existence of the federal Militia act of 1792 passed only five months after the second amendment was ratified?
Regarding the right to bear arms; if you are a natural born citizen of the several United States; you are the licensor, not the licensee. A licensor is a person or a company with exclusive legal rights over a thing that gives, sells or otherwise surrenders to another a limited right to use that thing. The person benefiting from the grant is called a licensee and the legal term used to describe the authority so given is license. “We The People” in the “Bill of Rights,” did not surrender the right to bear arms to the government in fact we explicitly forbid the government from infringing on said right. Regarding the “well regulated militia” portion of the second amendment; “We The People” (licensor) granted the government (licensee) a limited right (a license) to use arms as follows: ("A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,") Another term you should familiarize yourself with is, “Gaslighting.” Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which a person or a group covertly sows seeds of doubt in a targeted individual, making them question their own memory, perception, or judgment, often evoking in them cognitive dissonance. The ultimate goal of which is the disempowerment of the targeted individual.
Your walking somewhere and the next thing you know a bullet strikes you in the legs but running is a good thing to do if possible to take cover the rifles shots are hundreds of feet away it's a militia coming after you.
28:29 No applicability? Just like this guy has misinterpreted the word "regulated" (in the 18th century, the word "regulated" meant closer to "ordered" or "drilled." Regulated only means "government control" to us today.), but the reason why the 3rd amendment existed in the first place (and is never "invoked" today because it's doing it's job. "When you do things right, no one can be sure you've done anything at all.") was to prevent the police state that was quartering "the King's men" in your home. That they were there made life mighty difficult for the Culper Ring.
It does not matter what "regulated" meant. It's a prefatory clause stating why the right should not be infringed. In no interpretation can one glean the prefatory clause of a "a well regulated militia" calls for state regulation of the entity that's tasked with holding power against said government. The left literally believe the founders were playing wink wink word games and possessed brain damage levels of cognitive dissonance. 'Militia regulates government, government regulates militia.' derp
How is it an "unfunded mandate" if it only applies to entities that accept funding? The funding is the funding. If the university doesn't like the requirement, they are free to refrain from taking federal funds. And yes, I get what he means. But that's life. I have to have a professional license. Guess what, that is an unfunded mandate. Driver license, unfunded mandate. Running water in the office, unfunded mandate. California style gun storage laws, unfunded mandate. Etc.
INTENT differentiates civilian murders using conventional firearms from civilian massacres using semi-automatic firearms! In 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court determined the Second Amendment protects rights of citizens to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia including individual self-defense. However, recent civilian massacres using advanced rapid fire, semi-automatic firearms pose a new challenge for U.S. Senators to elevate INTENT with self-defense. Democratic support for gun safety legislation includes a ban on military style assault weapons to civilians. Conversely, Republican gun safety supporters argue the Supreme Court authorized use of military style weapons for individual self-defense. The Supreme Court in 2008 did not differentiate extraordinary differences between conventional and semi-automatic firearms. Missing was emergence of criminal INTENT as an adjunct to individual “self-defense”. INTENT clearly enables owners of semi-automatics to well exceed manual re-load limitations of conventional firearm counterparts. Intent provides mass shooters using semi-automatic firearms a distinct advantage to massacre as opposed to murder civilians. Intent enables possessors of semi-automatic firearms to initiate large scale civilian massacres that cannot be replicated using conventional firearms. There is no Second Amendment self-defense comparison between firearms requiring manual reloads from gas compressed semi-automatics. Semi-automatic weapons sustain common mass slaughter of civilians including women and children. The individual self-defense provision of the Second Amendment upheld by the Supreme Court excludes INTENT. Exclusion of INTENT to conduct civilian massacres clearly distinguishes semi-automatic from conventional counterparts. INTENT as opposed to self-defense clearly differentiates semi-automatics used in civilian massacres from civilian murders using conventional manual re-load firearms.
Miller covered that in 1939. It expressway states that militia weapons are constitutionally protected. Thus the NFA stands on grounds that it regulates "sporting" weapons only. "Military style assault weapons" are specifically what the 2A covers. The 2A is there for the people to hold real militia based power against the state. It's not written for hunting or "personal protection." If you wish to ban "assault weapons" then you must also ban the state from possessing them. Heller ruled that the 2A is meant for the broad citizenry of the republic, not a sanctioned militia. Thus the broad public is to hold military style assault weapons in personal possession in order to shoot and kill a tyrant federal government that would seek to ban arms, for example.
Two classes of weapons in DC v Heller exist: conventional v. semi-automatic. Murders are attributable to conventional weapons. Massacres are attributable to semi-automatic weapons. Fully automatic weapons excluded in DC v Heller are closely related to semi-automatic military style weapons in civilian massacres. Absence of a manual reload requirement precludes banning automatic weapons while sanctioning semi-automatics to shoot and kill innocent civilians. The automatic reload capability accompanied by rapid fire 30 round clips in semi-automatics supports civilian massacres unattainable using conventional firearms. Civilian massacres directly attributable to semi-automatic weapons is a direct consequence of INTENT. If INTENT is to massacre civilians including women and children, a lawful semi-automatic becomes the weapon of choice. Heller decision providing the general public with advanced military grade semi-automatic assault weapons is directly attributable to increasingly common civilian massacres. Slaughter of civilians using lawful military grade assault weapons will continue until DC v Heller is reversed!
@@kentgreene2207 there are not 2 classes of firearms. So the rest of that was a waste of time as is meaningless drivel. Again if you wish to see semi-auto rifles and pistols banned after 120 years, you also need to ban them from the US military and government overall. The reason the people must posses large capacity weapons was exemplified in the 2020 riots where hordes of brainwashed Marxist oxygen wasters burned, looted, and murdered nationwide on behalf of the democrat party.
The massacre in Las Vegas showed that it's trivial to convert a semi-automatic gun into a machine gun. No need to pull the trigger; the trigger pulls itself.
The last time "We The People," the "Unorganized" Militia had to effectuate Our Rights......The United States Of America was born and established Mister.....
@@walterbailey2950prior to the ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1791, there was no "law" written or transcribed to paper for the people to familiarize themselves, each colony established their own posts and watchers.....
I feel like I've heard Scalia address the second amendment. It is about the militia.... of the people. The right of the people to keep and bear arms being necessary for a militia does not refer to a state government keeping the arms under lock and key for the national guard. It refers to the homes of the people. Beyond that, he's right about the problems of how to apply it to new things like machine guns and rocket launchers.
@@walterbailey2950 whatever the militia may be, the construction suggests that I, as the owner of a firearm, am able to join the militia with my firearm. The "the right of the people" follows a comma, and points to the nature of the revolution, as well as earlier English history. The militia is dependent upon "the right of the people".
@@markheithaus The construction of words changes with the way people conceptualize their world over time. The meanings don’t stay static throughout time. In a world where rights are conceived as both individual and collective at the same time the construction is different from that of a world where people see inherent antagonism between individual and corporate rights, such as the 21st century US. In 1791 state laws REQUIRED all men of military age to enroll in the militia. That’s a simple fact that there’s no getting around. It simply wasn’t a choice. And a few months after the second amendment was ratified this federal law followed saying: “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia by the captain or commanding officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this act. And it shall at all times hereafter be the duty of every such captain or commanding officer of a company to enrol every such citizen, as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of eighteen years, or being of the age of eighteen years and under the age of forty-five years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrolment, by a proper non-commissioned officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved.” We’re also talking about an individual right because the states and the federal government lacked the funds to arm the Militia and so required them to arm themselves: “That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.” It had to be a right of the states as well in order for them to be in charge of these militia organizations rather than putting primary control in the federal government, which is something that most people at the time opposed. The constitution does give the federal government control over the militia but only when federalized and it was a lot more difficult to federalize the old State Militia than it is to federalize the National Guard today.
@@markheithaus It is true that the State Militia system of 1791 depended on the individual right of the people. As I was saying neither the federal nor the state governments had the money to arm the hundreds of thousands of men who were required to serve in the Militia at the time, hence the need for the Militiamen to be able to arm themselves. Without an individual right they could not have done so. Where I think you get off track is in assuming that private ownership necessarily meant that it was purely individual and did not involve state organization of the militia.
@@walterbailey2950 you're very knowledgeable and articulate, and polite. Thank you. It seems to me that the issue would be how the rights are distributed. The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, while the right to form and organize a militia is a state right (?). In any case, if the words in the second amendment no longer reflect reality (a militia being dependent upon the ability of the members to bring their own firearms), then the amendment needs to be amended. The words mean now what they meant then.
I know right? It's just a synthetic polymer (ie: plastic). I guess back whenever that judge or whoever made that opinion they didn't have teflon tape (which is like nothing). Or maybe people were simply that stupid (and still are). I assume the teflon coating on the rounds was so thin that is was clear, wasn't it? Or was it like a powder? I'd imagine that an extremely fine teflon powder (with a spherical granulation) would make for an excellent dry lubricant. At least at lower temps.
Yep, we have a Constitutional right to use a common weapon to defend ourselves with very specific restrictions, No brandishing in Federal buildings, bars, airports, a demonstrated dangerous person, any substance misuse at time of use
The arm forces and the people who make up those arm forces are the mineral militia. There was no army in the beginning only the people who made up the militia and formed an army create a bigger militia
Your argument that semi-automatics armed with rapid fire, self reloading clips are conventional defies common sense. Semi-automatics as opposed to conventional firearms emulate fully automatic weapons used in military operations. The self-defense argument is arguable as long as semi-automatics are treated as conventional firearms requiring manual reloads. Automatic reloads clearly differentiate semi-automatics from conventional self-reload firearms.
It's misleading when he says "Common law has always protected self defense". True, but IF YOU CAN'T OWN A GUN, then your ability to defend yourself isnt worth much.
January 6 highlights the importance of the people to keep and bear arms to stop a tyrant party that orchestrated 110 days of riots, unleashed a virus on the world, all to steal an election.
i find that it is not that hard to figure out what our forefathers meant by reading their quotes they pretty much show their reasons for our rights n their mind set sooo yeah
Ok, then Mr. "Oh it's all so obvious". Would they consider a rocket launcher an "arm"? Any time someone purports that the issue is really simple, it usually means they haven't actually given it much thought.
Really it is simple if you READ the historical documents the founding fathers laid it all out in many letters quotes and papers they wrote. According to the way they explain it, yes that would be considered an arm. They did consider canons arms so it stands to reason they would also consider a rocket launcher an arm.
@@satackett They would not consider a cannon an arm on the basis of bearing it though based on the reasoning in Heller. That was the logic behind the ban of a jet or a tank. If you can carry a cannon you are a stronger person than me.
wouldnt that be crazy if such thing was real that a constitution existed that said the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. That would mean any human allowed to walk amoung other humans as the sense of the age of majority had the right to bear arms and to infringe was treason and punishable by death. wouldnt that be something if what was written must first be said leaving what was written to mean precisly what was said. That would eliminate so many positions in society, professors, scholors, achedemics, lawyers, attorneys, judges, millitaries, legislators, branches of government, positions of authority, power, and representation. Another mind blower is if that sentence all men are created equal really ment all humans even the just united egg and sperm we generally call conception. I know scary stuff
The same ones arguing the text of the 2A based on it's history does not prohibt gun control are the ones saying the Constitution protects gay marriage, did the Constitution always protect gay marriage or no?
Shall not be infringed? Sounds uncertain to me. There are educated people. There are intelligent people. These are not the same people. Do not confuse one with the other.
Alan Gura has some creepy statist positions. @41:15 he says the states have no right to check federal power, and that the outcome of the Civil War was correct. I'm assuming he is referring to the consolidation of power at the Federal level, and compulsory participation in the Union by all the states. @56:04 he says that unless the Supreme Court is the decider, there is no alternative that would leave us with "any measure of liberty". False. The states have the final say via the Principles of 98.
If Small arms are really not effective against the modern military then why did insurgency forces have so much success in Afghanistan and Vietnam. Not to mention does the United States government really going to order bombing and destruction of the city's and infrastructure. Not to mention the United States military has about 1.3 million personnel where is 53.million American households have guns. Read more: www.ammoland.com/2019/02/what-a-socialist-once-said-about-gun-ownership/#ixzz6ETrIldw3 Under Creative Commons License: Attribution Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook Except that there is a statement by George Orwell that will be immediately recognizable to anyone who has spent time in discussions about guns on-line: “That rifle hanging on the wall of the working class flat or labourer’s cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.” The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjugated races to possess arms. Adolf Hitler
As Justice Black would say the constitution is absolute and can not be interpreted ,it reads as it is written, I like the inherit right of the common law of self defense .
Holy chit, there is so much missing information in this video, not to mention way too many non-relevant opinions, as usual....and both sides didn't even mention or reference The Federalist Papers?.....Hell, just read the comment section instead.
About 70 % of the student come from other countries brought in by schools ..paid for by grants and loans ,which grant come from American Tax payer taken away from Americans children ..
I wish that Scotus had consulted the federal Militia act of 1792 and article 1 section 8 clause 15 of the constitution. These make clear that a well regulated militia as described in the second amendment was a largely privately armed force organized by the states. Well regulated originally meant effective for use in battle and as a police force.
Yes, the Constitution does tell the elected officials that they can't do what they want to do when it conflicts with the Constitution. This guy gives me a headache.
![⭐ฮิตในTikTok!! ( หมูเด้ง MooDeng ) Ver. แดนซ์โจ๊ะๆ ReMix BY [ ดีเจกิต รีมิกซ์ ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3krsyfWUeHU/mqdefault.jpg)
Why does everyone try to interpret the founders intent of the 2nd amendment. You can read quotes from the founders that show they did intend it to be an individual right.
Because it justifies the infringements they impose. Shall not be infringed applied to all people and all arms. The government has indoctrinated the people to believe some people dont have these rights and some arms are prohibited or restricted. Thru time this will lead to an authoritarian government and we are starting to see this today.
Seriously. The leftist professor presents his case as if there are no primary source documents stating exactly what the founders intended.
Thank you.
Unnecessary "interpretations" allows for states to invent a way to pass by-laws on gun control.
@Corno di Bassetto no,it doesnt at all. The constitution and bill of rights is restriction on all government. You have a real misunderstanding of how the founding documents of this country work,or even what they are for.
The constitution and bill of rights trumps all of the states constitutions and Bill's of rights. Noone of nothing has the authority to "take" a natural right from me. Why? Because they can't be taken. Even the man sitting on death row still has the right to keep and bear arms. I know that you won't understand that because you dont know what a right is.
You also dont understand how our governments were designed to operate. Using your logic, the supreme court wouldn't even exist. It only exists to be the arbiter of all things constitutional. Which thomas Jefferson said was a dangerous doctrine and would lead to despotism.
Congress only has authority over land that has been legally purchased from the many states to aid in its duty to the people. Congress doesnt have the authority or jurisdiction to create late that would be enforced within the states. The constitution and bill of rights are the supreme law of the land. The states had to agree to this constitution and also agree they wouldn't violate ot.Do you know what governments one and only job is? No,you dont or you wouldn't have said what you did. Governments only job is to protect my rights. Period. That's it.
The best thing you can do is educate yourself. I'd suggest reading the anti federalist papers and the federalist papers so you get an understanding of how everything in this country is suppose to operate.gun control kills far more people than anything else when referring to gun deaths. The vast majority of those people would be carrying a firearm if it wasn't for gun control.
The Heller decision was far more harmful than good for the 2ndA. If you could think instead of just repeating what you have heard you would know why and would have mentioned it.
The reality is that it doesnt matter. We have natural rights no matter where we stand at in this country. Noones taking anyone's firearms and noone is giving them up. And I feel for anyone who try's. If you are so against firearms I'm sure you will volunteer to be point going into that first house. Good luck. You will need jt
They BOTH leave out one very important element of the Second Amendment which contains no ambiguity. It lies in what constitutes the definition of infringement. And by all definitions and infringement is a restriction, limitation, or encumbrance of any kind.There is no valid argument that can be made that the second amendment does not specifically say infringement is prohibited. With every gun law proposal should come one simple question: “Does this law place a restriction, limitation, or encroachment on the Right to possess or carry arms?“ if the answer is yes then the law is invalid under article 6 paragraph two of the constitution. Yes, some of the rights to enumerated in the bill of rights can be limited or restricted, as in the mentioned restrictions on the first amendment, however the second amendment is the ONLY enumerated Right in the Bill of Rights that specifically prohibits infringement. That means it was intended to prohibit any limitation or restriction to any degree. He also goes on to consistently talk about how the second amendment didn’t apply to cannons at the time of ratification. In this he is outright wrong. It actually did apply to cannons, allowed for civilian ownership of cannons and in some cases civilian ownership of cannons was required by law, as in the civilian owned merchant ships, (and for the defense of some frontier townships) because they were expected to DEFEND THEMSELVES from piracy, and were required to be properly armed for naval warfare IF called on by the government for assistance.
Spot on. Not that the egghead in this video will ever understand that.
If there is no restriction on weapons, well when someone like Mao uses all the biological, chemical, nuclear and rationion weapons to overthow the US and install themselves as a dictator, they will eliminate the right to bear arms anyway.
The milita is the people. In order for the milita to even be possable the individual has to be armed. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
Yes but you don’t have the kind of organized Militia that Madison would’ve recognized as Militia simply by having an armed population. What he meant by the term was the organized Militia of the States.
@@walterbailey2950 no. I am the militia. The next guy is the militia. The people are the militia.
Not to mention the constitution is the peoples restrictions on government. Even if the constitution didn't exist. I don't have an owner. I am free to own whatever I choose. Why? Incase someone or something cones along that believes they have some type of authority over me.
You may wantvto read more than that one letter about a specific topic. All of the founders at some point mentioned an armed populace. It must really bite to wake up daily fighting for your own slavery
@@FreedomInc They mentioned an armed populace. But what you’re missing is that colonial state and federal Militia laws required the entire populace to be part of government Militia.
Typically before the revolution all men between the ages of 16 and 60 had to enroll in the Militia of their Colony. During and after the revolution colonial militia laws were placed with state and federal Militia laws.
I’ve been reading through primary sources of this period for years and I’ve yet to run across one single incidents where anyone before 1800 describe the Militia as a group of armed individuals acting without government authority.
The understanding of that time was that of John Adams:
“To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, counties or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.”
@@FreedomInc I’ve actually read quite a few of the original writings of the founding generation, enough to know that your view is quite different from theirs.
@@walterbailey2950 yea. Because individuals didn't take it upon themselves to take a stand againstcan oppressive government.
Notice in the restriction on government known as the 2nd amendment it mentions both the "militia" and "the people". Odd that "militia" wasn't used a second time.
Government doesn't own me. Nor do you. And,you are full of it. One letter or journal entry isn't "enough". All of ghe founders spoke on many occasions of the rights of people (people meaning more than one person).
What you suffer from is called indoctrination .
You may want to read the little known essays called the federalist papers and anti federalist papers.
Think, if the founders thought like you there would be british flags in all of our front yards
The 2A was never about protecting state-appointed militias. James Madison introduced his Bill of Rights on the floor of the US Congress as a matter of the fundamental rights of individual American citizens. His bill was not about state rights, which are really state powers. It uses the wording "right of the people"--not "power of the States". And so, the 2A must be interpreted as a matter of a fundamental individual right.
That and the fact that every other bill of rights amendment is an individual right, so to argue the collective rights based on a prefatory clause that simply gives context is disingenuous at best, and nefariously intended at worst.
Watched again after a couple of years. Alan’s predictions are now reality.
The right of the people (all American citizens).
To keep (to own,to have).
And bear (to carry, to wield, to use).
Arms(all weapons).
Shall not (can not).
Be infringed (be taken away,be limited,be violated).
looks like you missed the "well-regulated militia" part, kid
@@cl8804 well regulated militia means a well armed people. Regulated in 1778 meant to adjust so as to ensure accuracy, to put or keep something in good order. The right of the people proves we the people each and every American citizen are the militia.
The constitution is a written instrument. As such it's meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted it means now.
S. Carolina V. US 199 US 437,448(1905).
@@cl8804 if the people are not armed with weapons that are in good working order they cannot remain FREE from tyranny, invasion, or crime.
@@dragonf1092 unless they store it at a local militia facility, of course
@@cl8804 where do you see militia facility in the second amendment 🤣😂🤣😂 keep means to own to have, possess. American citizens don't have to store their arms (guns)in any facility. They have the full legal right to carry their guns anywhere they so choose openly or concealed, every square inch of the united states of America is protected under the constitution of the united states of America supreme law of the land.
Thank god the 1st guy was on the team that lost.
20:21- 20:51 If we are talking about resisting Tyranny, Blocher"s statement seems to assume that none of the US military would defect if the US government became tyrannical. If there were defections by army staff who took there planes and tanks with them (like we saw in the Libyan Revolution) that would even the odds on the heavier equipment and the conflict would be decided by the grunts on the ground with the best small arms. So even if the average Joe does not own a fighter jet it still makes sense for them to own small arms.
Even if you leave that aside,look at the wars we have been fighting for the last 2 decades. Guys living in caves wearing sandals packing 50year old ak47's and some homemade b$mbs kept the strongest and most technically advanced military's in the world at bay. And we along with the rest never "won". We pulled out before the job was done because they realized they could never win that war unless they wiped out the entire middle east.
Not to mention every decision made by politicians are predicated on the fact that the citizenry is armed. The second amendment has been staving off tyranny every second since this country was founded.
Agreed. Moreover, the military that would decent to fight tyranny would have a moral and patriotic duty to join and protect the militia. It would be a symbiotic relationship.
I am from Venezuela 🇻🇪. I dare to say that you put 500,000 small arms in the general public who support the Constitution and are able body would have organized around a political leader or pro democracy military leader.
However, there are laws in the books that prohibits regular people to own guns.
@@shandorkato That's why Venezuelan police officers are starting to be targeted by Venezuelan citizens in Venezuela for their Venezuelan government issued firearms.
The Venezuelan police officers go out on patrol one day in Venezuela and then never come back. And then the remains of the Venezuelan officers are found in some Venezuelan rural area several weeks later in Venezuela.
By the way, I'm writing like that because I don't want anyone to take what I say out of context.
It's a sad situation in Venezuela. And I wish there was something more I could do as an American to peacefully help the freedom-loving Venezuelan people.
Scenarios about Americans taking up arms against their own government have nothing to do with the original intent of the second amendment Or any other part of the US Constitution.
The Militia Acts of 1792 mandated that anyone that joined a militia had to provide their own firearm within 6 months. Meaning they had to go out and buy it themselves for duty. Congress mandated that. There was no, and is, no requirement that any person that joined a militia, and had to buy and provide their own arms, were to relinquish them to said militia when they left service. Not only that, but they had to provide their own powder and ball. Meaning they had to provide their own ammunition for militia service.
The Second Amendment has multiple purposes that Scalia couldn't affirm because of Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy that wouldn't side with the majority without Scalia including the possibility of so called "gun control" measures.
Scalia would have written a more broad sweeping ruling, and gone much further than he did were it not for Kennedy.
Scalia would have affirmed that the Second Amendment protects and individual Right to keep and bear arms, and that this applies to individuals, and militias, for the purposes of the Right so the Individual to protect themselves from tyranny and the right of Natural Law, and Common Law, that affirms the Right of Self Defense.
The "unreasonable" test, or "reasonable" test is a highly subjective and malleable test which has no standard which any justice can look too except in their own personal judgement. There is no fixed "reasonable", or "unreasonable" legal standard that can be followed. That is why he wishes to follow that standard. It makes it possible for judges to apply any standard, or test, they wish, and not a legal, nor Constitutional one.
It wasn't just the Brady Bill in 1993. It was also the "Assault" weapons ban in 1993. Also. The Republicans also flipped 54 seats in the House and not just those that were targeted by the NRA. We flipped governorship's and state legislators. He's down playing what happened and not adhering to facts, and the totality of what happened.
The left always cites polls with broad sweeping questions that support their views. They always forget, and deny, that when specifics are introduced that support always collapses.
No, it was not defined and believed by the people by the first clause. We were a far more educated people back until in the 1960s when this principle and idea of gun control began to take hold in colleges and law schools. Before that, We the People did not, in anyway, think of believe that the right of an individual to keep and bear arms for self defense was predicated upon service in a state/county militia. He is again perpetrating a myth and a legal false argument.
No one with an inkling of intelligence can look at the Democrat party and believe for one second that they are for law and order. Except when they wish to impose their will on the American people, and rule, and not govern. There is a distinct difference between the two concepts.
State Supreme Courts routinely adhered to the belief that the Right to keep and bear arms was an individual right throughout the 20th century, and even the 19th.
For example, while the Dred Scott case was in essence overturned by the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. It held that freedmen would have the rights of a citizen, "and to keep and carry arms wherever they went". No mention of any militia. That all freedmen would be allowed the rights of all Americans to keep and bear arms.
And everywhere the anti-gun movement has gained control violent crime and homicide has increased and not shrunk by any measure.
Self Defense is not applicable law where they've heavily restricted it. Meaning you can be charged with a crime of manslaughter, or murder, if the state, or District Attorney, or Commonwealth's attorney deems so.
I'll add more soon.
@Corno di Bassetto Clearly you haven't read the Bill of Rights, nor the debates in the various states constitutional ratification. YES, there most certainly is the Individual Right to keep, own, possess, and bear arms. Regardless of your nonsensical anti-Catholic screed and diatribe.
@Corno di Bassetto Actually, what will more than likely happen is that RBG will pass, and another originalist justice will be appointed and further affirm such individual rights. Sorry for your luck, but you are going to lose and I'm going to love it.
@Corno di Bassetto Lastly, even the Supreme Court loathes to overturn it's own rulings except after a very long time. Even Koramatsu v. US is still the law of the land ruling that the internment of Japanese and Japanese-Americans was, and still it, Constitutional. Whether you like it or not. Maybe you should read more Constitutional law, and factual history than simply relying on your uninformed opinion.
@Corno di Bassetto Thomas, Gorsuch, Alito, Kavanaugh, and one more will make Roberts opinion, and position irrelevant. 5 Originalists, 1 swing vote, and 3 liberals. We win, and you lose for at least 20, or more years.
@Corno di Bassetto Mine was given me by my battle buddies and soldiers under me as a sergeant. I brought them all home alive and well.
13 years later and here we are with NYRPA vs NY. Hopefully we will get better clarification in 2022.
Let's go Brandon
Clarence Thomas read your message and granted our wish.
45:00
Since Heller, the standard of review became more fundamental than strict scrutiny. It became no scrutiny, because the 2A already has all the scrutiny already baked in.
THE ROLE OF FIREARMS
“Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself.
They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence. The church , the plow , the prairie wagon and citizen’s firearms are indelibly related.
From the hour the pilgrims landed , to the present day , events , occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace , security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable.
Every corner of this land knows firearms , and more than 99 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate they are in safe and sane hands.
The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.
When firearms go , all goes - we need them every hour.”
-President George Washington
Address to the 2nd session
First United States Congress 🇺🇸
Up to this moment; it is safe for anyone to say that there is no place on Earth which is safe to live in without an "ARM".
@Adam Meek There are a lot of doctored and fake quotes falsely attributed to the founding fathers in the second amendment debate today.
One of the best debates Ive heard in a while. Civilized and intelligent. Although I disagree with some of the opinions
They weren’t making a case as to dangerous and unusual weapons NOT being protected. Scalia who wrote the opinion was very clear, and continually clarified later, that it wasn’t yet at issue and they weren’t ruling on it. They were pointing out what was the court’s opinion so far on this.
Can you explain your last sentence?
Rights are not supposed to be subject to popular opinion or popularly enacted laws. This is the very reason for the Bill of Rights. It places limits on government so that we are free. No one would argue that the government can place limits on political speech because that would be tyranny. Why, then, have a right to bear arms that the government can put limits on?
They dont. Authoritarian government like we have will take all means of rebellion from the people. This starts small thru indoctrination by making the masses believe that a felon for example dont have these rights. Now that has morphed into everyone is guilt and we have red flag laws in 18 states. We are going down that path and noone cares until affects them directly.
In the 18th century today’s idea of an inherent conflict between individual and corporate rights didn’t exist. The second amendment is just one example of how rights could simultaneously be those of individuals and the states.
It gives the states primary control over most of the nation’s military power and an individual right in order to arm State Militia, because the states didn’t have the money to pay for all the weapons needed.
The Bill of Rights doesn’t just restrict government. It also includes plans for how laws are supposed to work
No but you do need laws to organize a State Militia system.
You posted this about the Bill of Right. “It places limits on government”. The question is which government? Under the principle of Federalism there is the Federal government and State governments. The Bill of Rights applied to which government after ratification in 1791? If you answered the Federal Government only, you’re right: If you answered State governments you are wrong. You don’t have to be an intellectual heavy weight as Justice Scalia was called. Brilliant intellectual notwithstanding what Scalia and almost all lawyers are not, are brilliant historians.
Had Scalia been such a person, he would not have roamed far afield, all the way back to the UK’s Rights of Man to find his justification for a protected individual right in the 2nd Amendment. A read of colonial laws would have shown, that “We the People” from colony/state did not mean all of the people. Women, the enslaved, indentured servants, native Americans, and other categories were also not allowed to own a firearm. Those who were authorized, who had to own a firearm, were White males who could vote. They were 1st Citizens. They were also in the Militia. They had to have a musket and ammunition for said musket. They were subject to inspection, they could be registered from state to state.
The Militias had to train, their officers were appointed by state government. The militia, an organized force was the force that insured against tyranny at the Federal level. To those who wrote the Constitution, an unorganized group of men with guns was a mob. One of the main reasons for a new kind of government was unorganized men with guns defying state governments. Shays rebellion was approx 1,000 armed men not controlled by government of Massachusetts who refused to pay taxes, and threatened to take down that government.
It makes no logical sense that those 55 Elite White men wrote a constitution that they thought would endure yet could be legally ended by mob violence. Sure we know that We People who ushered in the Constitution had the right to end it. However, that would be by the same way it was created, not by bullets by ballots.
.
Speech isnt regulated in any way. The call to action is what is illegal
Freedom Inc. To protect from govt tyranny and the call to action against it IS legal
@@stephenyoung5392 only government can become tyrannical,and they have made a calling to action to abolish or change said government illegal. Reguardless,you can legally say whatever you want. The call to action in any case is what is illegal,not the speech itself
Freedom Inc. wrong, we the people are the government, they receive their powers from us and not the other way around, read the declaration. When the govt doesn’t uphold the constitution, it is not only your right but your duty to abolish. What they are trying to do is unconstitutional and an act of tyranny, which have the right to action against regardless of what the govt says.
Is child pornography a call to action? Because it is limited speech.
@@franklinandslash wtf are tou talking about? At least make limited sense if you need to join in the conversation
at the time I'm writing this, I've only watched up to time stamp 27:30. Few things I'd like to point out [that might appear later in the video, not sure yet].....
1. The only thing you need to "interpret" the Constitution, specifically what's in the Bill of Rights - and gun control in particular - is the writings in the Federalist and anti federalist papers. Those are the EXACT thoughts of the Founding Fathers having been penned and amassed into those particular digests.......and the speaker makes NO mention to it.
2. As he speaks about "modern problems the Framers didn't have to deal with - Uzi's, machine guns, flame throwers and things like that they didn't ever have to imagine." He is dead wrong. Greek Fire is an ancient technology [c. 672] used by the Byzantine Empire - and his commentary suggests that "assault weapons" were "simply unknown or unforeseeable" to the Framers....weapons such as the Girardoni air rifle [Jefferson issued to Luis and Clark expedition], The Belton flintlock, the Puckle Gun [a type of Gatling gun developed 60+ years before the Rev. War] and pepperbox revolvers ........
So far and in my view, this first speaker is not very inspiring because he's making a biased speech about it. Leaving out key information is causing that bias and it's simply disingenuous as an argument.
Ok.....onto the rest of the video..........
1 Angry Patriot did you expect better from a liberal?
Check out this video. th-cam.com/video/wnUi1qSCByk/w-d-xo.html
Also, Heller was actually a Law Enforcement Officer so I think he should have the right since he's part of an official militia.
@@Oneness100 - "Official" has nothing to do with it. A militia is a state, quality, or condition of a combatant, fighter, or warrior. Lat. *miles* (warrior) + *-itia* (state, quality, or condition). All it takes to constitute a militia is for a private person to stand up against violence. There can be a militia of many, or a militia of one. Resisting a violent emergency is the defining element.
"Official" implies that someone must hold some sort of office, or be approved by someone who holds some sort of OFFICE. But because the 2A was intended to guard against government overreach, it makes no sense to imply that a protected militia must hold government office or be approved by someone who does.
A militia is made up of private citizens and legal alien residents. Leave government office out of it.
@@texasbeast239 Huh? What's your problem?
A Militia - a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
Another definition - all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.
The 2A also states WELL REGULATED, which back in the days when they created the 2A, they had Minutemen and others that were trained to protect and serve when necessary, but that has all been replaced by LE, Military, but they also have Reserves and Volunteers. Now, if you are in the Reserves or Volunteers, then you are part of a well regulated Militia. But if you aren't, then I don't see how you can be part of a WELL REGULATED Militia. By yourself? NO. That would be a PRIVATE Militia and it's NOT Well Regulated.
If this were the late 1700's, if you had a gun/rifle, you would have to serve in any and all wars, or other law enforcement, but since you don't, then you are more of a traitor hiding behind your pathetic understanding of the 2A.
@@Oneness100 www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm your definition of "well-regulated" is wrong. how can a group of citizens form a militia against a tyrannical government if the militia is governed/approved by the very same tyrannical government it is to defend itself from? "we the people" means exactly that, not the people of public office or people of a certain class... we have a right to assemble and we also have a right to keep and bare arms...if those two rights are practiced together, we effectively have a militia
Liberty= Freedom from control, obligation or restriction,etc; power or right of doing, speaking etc; according to choice, but granted by an external source; self-determination. I choose free will.
Love how he Huckster-Conflates the term ‘self-defense’ with ‘right to keep and bear arms’ in his opening statement. It’s really not a hard concept to understand than the ‘right to keep and bear arms’ is the right to own and carry the means of self-defense and only someone being entirely disingenuous like him would imply that someone who believes in the right to keep and bear arms believe that you don’t not have a common law rights to self-defense with out the right to keep and bear arms. It’s just that right to keep and bear arms which makes your common law right to self-defense useful against powerful threats. And of course there moronic you’d need ‘tanks and rocket launchers’ argument, acting he does understand the basic notion of deterrence, and clearly demonstrating that he does not understand anything about warfare.
I'd like to know why a professor is debating the 2nd amendment. Unless he is a constitutional professor.
So why do you think James Madison refused to include self-defense in the second amendment explicitly when the Pennsylvania ratifying convention asked him to with this proposal?
“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers.”
Right that confused the hell out of me.
The second amendment isn’t about self defense.
The second amendment isn’t about hunting.
The second amendment isn’t about national defense.
The second amendment is about keeping the federal government in check.
Yeah man he had typical leftist talking points just dressed up a little bit.
The Rhode Island Constitution has an Amendment that only says, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
….Washington state constitution…"The right of the individual citizen to bear arms
in defense Of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired"....
PA state constitution, article 1 sub-section 21: "The right if the people to keep and bear arms IN DEFENSE OF THEMSELVES AND THE STATE shall not be questioned."
This has to be the most civilized Second Amendment debate I've ever heard.
The abject leftist bias of the professor is adorable, its clear that legality comes a distant second to his feels and liberal religious beliefs.
All judges who violate American citizens constitutional rights should be immediately removed for bad behavior.
He's wrong at 17:07 & 1:10:00. He doesn't know firearm history. There were machine/automatic rifles back then.
@Corno di Bassetto Wrong, all you need to do to inform yourself is read the Federalist Papers. There is no excuse for this ongoing type of ignorance.
Here's an example of a rifle that fired multiple rounds with one pull of the trigger. Learn something
military.wikia.org/wiki/Belton_flintlock
@Corno di Bassetto Enlighten yourself by reading Federalist paper #69 to continue after learning about Belton Flintlock.
@Corno di Bassetto You made an ignornt comment on my thread and then ran like a dumb*ss coward.
@Corno di Bassetto My error: It is FP #29 & 46 not 69. I'll DM your coward a*s.
They may have not had tanks, or hi-tech weaponry back then. This is now. Not then. Times have evolved. To be able to have a chance. We also need weaponry of War. I wish Brandon would leave about 85 million dollars in firearms here in America for us.
I would argue dangerous speech is protected speech .Because during the founding fathers era talking of revolution was dangerous speech so yes it should be protected.
I felt like I was watching 2 people staying that shall not be infringed means you can infring the 2nd ammendment.
As far as I understand it, Originalist argue that if a phenomenon either didn't exist or had no clear analogue at the time of the framing, or was simply not mentioned by the Constitution, the Court should stand down and let law-making bodies pass law as they see fit.
I was surprised neither presenter talked about what “shall not be infringed” meant to the court.
Yes, I agree. How about the part that says shall not be infringed. Also, notice that the 2nd amendment is the only one that says shall not be infringed.
First person that's a good point but he acts like the part of to text shall not be infringed does not exist dust making the case of regulations to not differ from other amendments
You could dial 9-1-1 back then, but the wait times were crazy.
I don't understand how this is so debated. I understand our previous generations surrendered alot of our rights but coming back to these rights the second amendment clearly states militia which is made of the people.
It’s confusing because what they were talking about a government militia that was privately armed for the most part no longer exists.
The idea that she would join a government military organization but have to provide your own weapons strikes modern Americans as strange because it doesn’t happen anymore. But that’s what happened in the 18th century.
Bruen ruling certainly addresses, finally, several of the issues raised or addressed here. And remarkably, supports Alan Gura, even with exact language used.
The initial speech on the Janus form is quite exceptional. Ideological responsibility. A nod to logic.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news but I have to disagree. Responsible is not the correct word to use to describe his speech. As an second amendment activist, I found several misleading and flat out purposeful alterations to wording he cites from Heller and the rest of his argument. I'm happy to share and debate this with you should you request.
Founding fathers were clear on the all amendments, letters and federalist papers names a few.
The carve outs were pre existing, it wasn’t the issue being ruled on in HELLER
I love the first lecturer
'OW BOUT that NYSRPA V. BRUEN decision in June 2022?!!! We've come a long way, Baby!!!
I love how the opening argument by the gun control guy flat out says two tier scrutiny is necessary.... and the Bruen happened. Text as informed by history is the only test.
That's what I was getting at. Banning guns wouldn't do a thing. Look at Australia. It's people. Not guns.
I don't play CoD. I play what's called "Military service". You know, they guys who defend your ass.
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"
Why hasn't anyone used the 9th amendment to certify personnel right to keep and bare?
Canon - at the time the 2nd amendment was adopted - were in fact owned by private individuals. And today you can still legally own a muzzle loading canon.
Battle ships armed with cannons were privately owned then.
The fact is exactly what Thomas jefferson said in the 1820's
" for the supreme court to be the sole arbitrator of all things constitutional is dangerous and will lead to despotism" even the founders realized the danger in this.
Take felons as an example. My opinon is if someone is free (not incarcerated) they have the same rights as the next citizen. The "law" for "public saftey" purposes says they do not. If someone is safe enough to be released,they are safe enough to exercise all of their rights. Even most "pro 2ndA" citizens will say "no,they are too dangerous to have access to firearms". I have two problems with this line of thought. First, a gun is a tool os the argument most 2ndaer's will use. "If they intend to kill even if tou take away the guns they will just find another tool". So the same doesnt apply to felons? Second,once you make a right a privelege for ANYONE at all,you open the door for it to be treated like a privelege. And that's why we are seeing what we are seeing today. The nfa is 100% unconstitutional and that's what started this snowball to what we are dealing with today. If someone is too dangerous to be in our free society the issue isnt whether or not they can legally buy a gun,because if they want one they will get it anyway. The issue is why were they released to begin with if they are too dangerous to exercise their rights granted to them by birth.
The founders even said that a right cannot be taken,not even by government and not even with consent.
Sometimes they were privately owned. More often they were provided by the government that organized the militia.
Any rational person who looks at the bill of rights in the historical context cannot
come to any conclusion other than individuals have the right to arms.
If the 1st amendment were treated as the first speaker views the 2nd amendment. This debate could not have happened in several states and in DC prior to Heller.
We'll see in June if Judge Clarence Thomas makes the right decision for the right of the people.
I'm hoping for this decision tomorrow 🙏
@@buckshatt340, I hear bro we are all waiting patiently.
Clarence Thomas deserves a spot on mount Rushmore and the $10 bill.
@@adlucem9845, Judge Clarence Thomas not only does he have the cojones to make the right decision but he’s a patriotic of the Second Amendment.
May I suggest reading about how Federalism works. Initially the BoR only refrained federal power, or in 3rd terms, Federal troops. National Guard under State control can quarter units as the 3rd has never 'incorporated' via the 14th against the states. Its never made it to SCOTUS. So, except for 2nd circuit, troops under state authority can be quartered displacing citizens. It sucks, but that's how the Bill of Rights and the 14th operate.
The Congressional Record for the Senate on July 9, 1985, quotes Biden describing FOPA as a “balanced piece of legislation that protects the rights of private gun owners while not infringing on law enforcement’s ability to deal with those who misuse guns or violate laws.”
He added, “During my 12 and a half years as a member of this body, I have never believed that additional gun control or federal registration of guns would reduce crime. I am convinced that a criminal who wants a firearm can get one through illegal, nontraceable, unregistered sources, with or without gun control.”
"Everyone, not just the select militia"
Uh... yes actually!
"We're here today to talk about what the 2nd ammendment means and what it allows. Not whether we like or dislike gun control.".... Didn't stick to that statement very long, did he? More like "We're here to discuss why guns are bad and Heller is wrong."
Actually, he just eviscerated the "originalist" claim. He's brilliant.
You will never get rid of second amendment. Molan labe
Since the constitution already discusses militias in other areas it seems odd that they needed to add an amendment to the constitution reaffirming that. Furthermore, it’s in the Bill of Rights which deals specifically with an individuals rights. It’s my belief that the first part simply reaffirms the importance of militias but that the right of the people to have arms is a right that the government cannot take away, felons and the like are obviously exempt
Why? His compelling reason for denying felons was not present in the constitution. Seems like an appeal to common sense or a change in the times suggesting the judicial philosophy of textualism or originalism has flaws.
The way I read it. Because the Militia is important the people can bear AND keep guns. It doesn't say you have to be in a militia to have a gun..
No but the federal Militia act passed only five months after the second amendment was ratified does require all men in the country between 18 and 44 to join the militia.
It doesn't say a lot of things but if you read it "contextually' it sure does.
I disagree with the discount Sylvester Stallone.
So you can defend yourself, you just simply aren’t allowed the best tool to do it with??? That’s the anti argument? You can have your right as long as we render it useless?
2AMENDMENT No mention of public Servants
US Supreme Court Rules
Castle Rock v Gonzales
and
DeShaney V. Winnebago
Where is their Jurisdiction
Lesson for today: Vocabulary
2nd Amendment to the US Constitution: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Regulated: To Maintain something, so that it Operates Properly
Militia: Military force of Civilians to supplement a regular army in an emergency
People: The Citizens of a country
Keep: Retain Possession
Bear: Carry
Infringed: Act so as to Limit or Undermine on something
I don't want to be part of your militia. Does that mean I don't have a right to bear arms? The militia threatens MY freedom. You don't get it.
@@DowJonesDave And you don't have to be part of his militia. A militia doesn't threaten your freedom. You are "threatening" the right of people to keep and bear arms, though.
@@Anon54387 Yes militias do threaten my freedom. Because militias are political. Anyway, SCOTUS covers all that. But as far as the second amendment is concerned. You have it backwards if you think the right applies to militias. It only applies to people. "The right of THE PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed."
Because militias are dangerous. The second amendment is an individual right, not connected with militia service. Why are you making the leftists argument for them?
It’s a rights to arms, not a right to guns. So guns are included in anything that you can use to defend yourself, the first speaker does make an excellent case against sensitive places though. He is right there. You have no less a right to self defense in any place that you may be at anytime.
I have little faith in debating these issues they are written in the constitution.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Its the operative clause. THE PEOPLE not the STATES. If the people don’t want it they can amend it. THAT is a proper way to establish popular opinion.
Quick question, when a court says the people v. (Blank) is that you prosecuting them or the state?
You can't sue a cop for not protecting you. That's a supreme court decision BTW. So if you can't sue a cop for not protecting you THEN you need the tools to protect YOURSELF! Legally it's YOUR job to protect yourself.
Why does Blocher keep saying "STATE militias"?
"The militia" meant, and still means, "citizens capable of bearing arms". See any dictionary. Search "US Code, Militia".
Why would you need the right to bear arms in a militia??? The gov can grant that right at any time - the amendments are people's rights. The amendments are individual rights.
Well worded and well-thought out, but he suffers from the Historian's Fallacy a bit. Other than that though, I think he makes some really good points.
The second dude makes more sense.
Blocher has somehow twisted originalism to be judicial activism. Incredible. Plessy vs. Ferguson was wrong, Brown vs. Board of Education overturned it, totally upending precedent. The Dred Scott decision was wrong. Precedent must be overturned when it is wrong. The Heller decision overturned the erroneous idea that this is about the militia rather than individuals. People like Warren Burger and Griswold had it wrong, plain and simple. State governments can also be tyrannical. This is why the right to bear arms is an individual one not some weird idea of a collective right. The right of the people is taken to mean individual rights anywhere else it appears in the Bill of Rights except for the 2nd Amendment according to Blocher. He also poisons the well by bringing up McVeigh. This guy is a dishonest person. This common law right to self defense is not the same as a 2nd Amendment recognizing a right to keep and bear arms. If it were there would not have been all these gun carry prohibitions.
If it was wrong how do you explain article 1 section 8 clause 15. How do you explain the existence of the federal Militia act of 1792 passed only five months after the second amendment was ratified?
Regarding the right to bear arms; if you are a natural born citizen of the several United States; you are the licensor, not the licensee. A licensor is a person or a company with exclusive legal rights over a thing that gives, sells or otherwise surrenders to another a limited right to use that thing. The person benefiting from the grant is called a licensee and the legal term used to describe the authority so given is license.
“We The People” in the “Bill of Rights,” did not surrender the right to bear arms to the government in fact we explicitly forbid the government from infringing on said right.
Regarding the “well regulated militia” portion of the second amendment; “We The People” (licensor) granted the government (licensee) a limited right (a license) to use arms as follows: ("A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,")
Another term you should familiarize yourself with is, “Gaslighting.” Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which a person or a group covertly sows seeds of doubt in a targeted individual, making them question their own memory, perception, or judgment, often evoking in them cognitive dissonance. The ultimate goal of which is the disempowerment of the targeted individual.
I wonder how Gura feels after Uvalde.
There should be even less gun regulations at schools clearly
Your walking somewhere and the next thing you know a bullet strikes you in the legs but running is a good thing to do if possible to take cover the rifles shots are hundreds of feet away it's a militia coming after you.
28:29 No applicability? Just like this guy has misinterpreted the word "regulated" (in the 18th century, the word "regulated" meant closer to "ordered" or "drilled." Regulated only means "government control" to us today.), but the reason why the 3rd amendment existed in the first place (and is never "invoked" today because it's doing it's job. "When you do things right, no one can be sure you've done anything at all.") was to prevent the police state that was quartering "the King's men" in your home. That they were there made life mighty difficult for the Culper Ring.
It does not matter what "regulated" meant. It's a prefatory clause stating why the right should not be infringed. In no interpretation can one glean the prefatory clause of a "a well regulated militia" calls for state regulation of the entity that's tasked with holding power against said government.
The left literally believe the founders were playing wink wink word games and possessed brain damage levels of cognitive dissonance.
'Militia regulates government, government regulates militia.' derp
@@adlucem9845 We're on the same side, man. C'mon.
A bar to guns for felons should be tied to crimes that would be punishable by death otherwise since the ratification.
How is it an "unfunded mandate" if it only applies to entities that accept funding? The funding is the funding. If the university doesn't like the requirement, they are free to refrain from taking federal funds.
And yes, I get what he means. But that's life. I have to have a professional license. Guess what, that is an unfunded mandate. Driver license, unfunded mandate. Running water in the office, unfunded mandate. California style gun storage laws, unfunded mandate. Etc.
INTENT differentiates civilian murders using conventional firearms from civilian massacres using semi-automatic firearms!
In 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court determined the Second Amendment protects rights of citizens to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia including individual self-defense. However, recent civilian massacres using advanced rapid fire, semi-automatic firearms pose a new challenge for U.S. Senators to elevate INTENT with self-defense.
Democratic support for gun safety legislation includes a ban on military style assault weapons to civilians. Conversely, Republican gun safety supporters argue the Supreme Court authorized use of military style weapons for individual self-defense.
The Supreme Court in 2008 did not differentiate extraordinary differences between conventional and semi-automatic firearms. Missing was emergence of criminal INTENT as an adjunct to individual “self-defense”.
INTENT clearly enables owners of semi-automatics to well exceed manual re-load limitations of conventional firearm counterparts. Intent provides mass shooters using semi-automatic firearms a distinct advantage to massacre as opposed to murder civilians. Intent enables possessors of semi-automatic firearms to initiate large scale civilian massacres that cannot be replicated using conventional firearms.
There is no Second Amendment self-defense comparison between firearms requiring manual reloads from gas compressed semi-automatics. Semi-automatic weapons sustain common mass slaughter of civilians including women and children.
The individual self-defense provision of the Second Amendment upheld by the Supreme Court excludes INTENT. Exclusion of INTENT to conduct civilian massacres clearly distinguishes semi-automatic from conventional counterparts.
INTENT as opposed to self-defense clearly differentiates semi-automatics used in civilian massacres from civilian murders using conventional manual re-load firearms.
Miller covered that in 1939. It expressway states that militia weapons are constitutionally protected. Thus the NFA stands on grounds that it regulates "sporting" weapons only. "Military style assault weapons" are specifically what the 2A covers.
The 2A is there for the people to hold real militia based power against the state. It's not written for hunting or "personal protection."
If you wish to ban "assault weapons" then you must also ban the state from possessing them.
Heller ruled that the 2A is meant for the broad citizenry of the republic, not a sanctioned militia. Thus the broad public is to hold military style assault weapons in personal possession in order to shoot and kill a tyrant federal government that would seek to ban arms, for example.
Two classes of weapons in DC v Heller exist: conventional v. semi-automatic. Murders are attributable to conventional weapons. Massacres are attributable to semi-automatic weapons.
Fully automatic weapons excluded in DC v Heller are closely related to semi-automatic military style weapons in civilian massacres. Absence of a manual reload requirement precludes banning automatic weapons while sanctioning semi-automatics to shoot and kill innocent civilians.
The automatic reload capability accompanied by rapid fire 30 round clips in semi-automatics supports civilian massacres unattainable using conventional firearms.
Civilian massacres directly attributable to semi-automatic weapons is a direct consequence of INTENT. If INTENT is to massacre civilians including women and children, a lawful semi-automatic becomes the weapon of choice.
Heller decision providing the general public with advanced military grade semi-automatic assault weapons is directly attributable to increasingly common civilian massacres. Slaughter of civilians using lawful military grade assault weapons will continue until DC v Heller is reversed!
@@kentgreene2207 there are not 2 classes of firearms. So the rest of that was a waste of time as is meaningless drivel.
Again if you wish to see semi-auto rifles and pistols banned after 120 years, you also need to ban them from the US military and government overall.
The reason the people must posses large capacity weapons was exemplified in the 2020 riots where hordes of brainwashed Marxist oxygen wasters burned, looted, and murdered nationwide on behalf of the democrat party.
The massacre in Las Vegas showed that it's trivial to convert a semi-automatic gun into a machine gun. No need to pull the trigger; the trigger pulls itself.
Guy looks like Leonard from Big Bang Theory
The last time "We The People," the "Unorganized" Militia had to effectuate Our Rights......The United States Of America was born and established Mister.....
In 1791 almost everyone capable bearing arms was in the organized Militia of The states according to law
@@walterbailey2950prior to the ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1791, there was no "law" written or transcribed to paper for the people to familiarize themselves, each colony established their own posts and watchers.....
I feel like I've heard Scalia address the second amendment. It is about the militia.... of the people. The right of the people to keep and bear arms being necessary for a militia does not refer to a state government keeping the arms under lock and key for the national guard. It refers to the homes of the people. Beyond that, he's right about the problems of how to apply it to new things like machine guns and rocket launchers.
Doesn’t refer to state government keeping arms under lock and key. It does refer to a privately armed force under the control of state government
@@walterbailey2950 whatever the militia may be, the construction suggests that I, as the owner of a firearm, am able to join the militia with my firearm. The "the right of the people" follows a comma, and points to the nature of the revolution, as well as earlier English history. The militia is dependent upon "the right of the people".
@@markheithaus The construction of words changes with the way people conceptualize their world over time. The meanings don’t stay static throughout time. In a world where rights are conceived as both individual and collective at the same time the construction is different from that of a world where people see inherent antagonism between individual and corporate rights, such as the 21st century US.
In 1791 state laws REQUIRED all men of military age to enroll in the militia. That’s a simple fact that there’s no getting around. It simply wasn’t a choice. And a few months after the second amendment was ratified this federal law followed saying:
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia by the captain or commanding officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this act. And it shall at all times hereafter be the duty of every such captain or commanding officer of a company to enrol every such citizen, as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of eighteen years, or being of the age of eighteen years and under the age of forty-five years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrolment, by a proper non-commissioned officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved.”
We’re also talking about an individual right because the states and the federal government lacked the funds to arm the Militia and so required them to arm themselves:
“That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.”
It had to be a right of the states as well in order for them to be in charge of these militia organizations rather than putting primary control in the federal government, which is something that most people at the time opposed.
The constitution does give the federal government control over the militia but only when federalized and it was a lot more difficult to federalize the old State Militia than it is to federalize the National Guard today.
@@markheithaus It is true that the State Militia system of 1791 depended on the individual right of the people. As I was saying neither the federal nor the state governments had the money to arm the hundreds of thousands of men who were required to serve in the Militia at the time, hence the need for the Militiamen to be able to arm themselves. Without an individual right they could not have done so.
Where I think you get off track is in assuming that private ownership necessarily meant that it was purely individual and did not involve state organization of the militia.
@@walterbailey2950 you're very knowledgeable and articulate, and polite. Thank you.
It seems to me that the issue would be how the rights are distributed. The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, while the right to form and organize a militia is a state right (?). In any case, if the words in the second amendment no longer reflect reality (a militia being dependent upon the ability of the members to bring their own firearms), then the amendment needs to be amended. The words mean now what they meant then.
Rights don't have bias, opinions or judgement. They just are. Silly man.
Legally Speaking: ANTONIN SCALIA
I know right? It's just a synthetic polymer (ie: plastic). I guess back whenever that judge or whoever made that opinion they didn't have teflon tape (which is like nothing). Or maybe people were simply that stupid (and still are).
I assume the teflon coating on the rounds was so thin that is was clear, wasn't it? Or was it like a powder? I'd imagine that an extremely fine teflon powder (with a spherical granulation) would make for an excellent dry lubricant. At least at lower temps.
people are like this but when they become a victom of a crime they change there mind
Yep, we have a Constitutional right to use a common weapon to defend ourselves with very specific restrictions, No brandishing in Federal buildings, bars, airports, a demonstrated dangerous person, any substance misuse at time of use
The arm forces and the people who make up those arm forces are the mineral militia. There was no army in the beginning only the people who made up the militia and formed an army create a bigger militia
Your argument that semi-automatics armed with rapid fire, self reloading clips are conventional defies common sense. Semi-automatics as opposed to conventional firearms emulate fully automatic weapons used in military operations.
The self-defense argument is arguable as long as semi-automatics are treated as conventional firearms requiring manual reloads. Automatic reloads clearly differentiate semi-automatics from conventional self-reload firearms.
It's misleading when he says "Common law has always protected self defense". True, but IF YOU CAN'T OWN A GUN, then your ability to defend yourself isnt worth much.
This is why I think background checks are unconstitutional.
I wonder if Gura has a different mindset after Jan 6.
Ha
January 6 highlights the importance of the people to keep and bear arms to stop a tyrant party that orchestrated 110 days of riots, unleashed a virus on the world, all to steal an election.
i find that it is not that hard to figure out what our forefathers meant by reading their quotes they pretty much show their reasons for our rights n their mind set sooo yeah
Ok, then Mr. "Oh it's all so obvious". Would they consider a rocket launcher an "arm"? Any time someone purports that the issue is really simple, it usually means they haven't actually given it much thought.
Really it is simple if you READ the historical documents the founding fathers laid it all out in many letters quotes and papers they wrote. According to the way they explain it, yes that would be considered an arm. They did consider canons arms so it stands to reason they would also consider a rocket launcher an arm.
@@satackett They would not consider a cannon an arm on the basis of bearing it though based on the reasoning in Heller. That was the logic behind the ban of a jet or a tank. If you can carry a cannon you are a stronger person than me.
wouldnt that be crazy if such thing was real that a constitution existed that said the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. That would mean any human allowed to walk amoung other humans as the sense of the age of majority had the right to bear arms and to infringe was treason and punishable by death. wouldnt that be something if what was written must first be said leaving what was written to mean precisly what was said. That would eliminate so many positions in society, professors, scholors, achedemics, lawyers, attorneys, judges, millitaries, legislators, branches of government, positions of authority, power, and representation. Another mind blower is if that sentence all men are created equal really ment all humans even the just united egg and sperm we generally call conception. I know scary stuff
Well, it does say that the right shall not be infringed. What is crazy about it?
The same ones arguing the text of the 2A based on it's history does not prohibt gun control are the ones saying the Constitution protects gay marriage, did the Constitution always protect gay marriage or no?
zmm1990 so you advocate using force against people for exercising their first amendment rights?
Mr. Blotcher is disingenuous. The common law right to self-defense in no way guarantees a person the right to own or use a gun in self-defense.
Dan Stewart wrong
IT EXISTED BEFORE AND WILL CONTINUE AFTER YOU AND i HAVE COMPLETED OUR PURPOSE HERE IN OUR TEMPORARY HOME.
Shall not be infringed?
Sounds uncertain to me.
There are educated people.
There are intelligent people.
These are not the same people.
Do not confuse one with the other.
Those who cannot do, teach.
Alan Gura has some creepy statist positions. @41:15 he says the states have no right to check federal power, and that the outcome of the Civil War was correct. I'm assuming he is referring to the consolidation of power at the Federal level, and compulsory participation in the Union by all the states. @56:04 he says that unless the Supreme Court is the decider, there is no alternative that would leave us with "any measure of liberty". False. The states have the final say via the Principles of 98.
If Small arms are really not effective against the modern military then why did insurgency forces have so much success in Afghanistan and Vietnam. Not to mention does the United States government really going to order bombing and destruction of the city's and infrastructure. Not to mention the United States military has about 1.3 million personnel where is 53.million American households have guns.
Read more: www.ammoland.com/2019/02/what-a-socialist-once-said-about-gun-ownership/#ixzz6ETrIldw3
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook
Except that there is a statement by George Orwell that will be immediately recognizable to anyone who has spent time in discussions about guns on-line: “That rifle hanging on the wall of the working class flat or labourer’s cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjugated races to possess arms.
Adolf Hitler
As Justice Black would say the constitution is absolute and can not be interpreted ,it reads as it is written, I like the inherit right of the common law of self defense .
That's it? That's all you got?
Holy chit, there is so much missing information in this video, not to mention way too many non-relevant opinions, as usual....and both sides didn't even mention or reference The Federalist Papers?.....Hell, just read the comment section instead.
About 70 % of the student come from other countries brought in by schools ..paid for by grants and loans ,which grant come from American Tax payer taken away from Americans children ..
I wish that Scotus had consulted the federal Militia act of 1792 and article 1 section 8 clause 15 of the constitution. These make clear that a well regulated militia as described in the second amendment was a largely privately armed force organized by the states.
Well regulated originally meant effective for use in battle and as a police force.
Yes, the Constitution does tell the elected officials that they can't do what they want to do when it conflicts with the Constitution. This guy gives me a headache.
Lost me when you said diverse you say one thing but mean the opposite.