The 2nd Amendment Does Not “GIVE” You The Right To Own An AR15

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 พ.ย. 2024

ความคิดเห็น • 518

  • @SurvivalOnPurpose
    @SurvivalOnPurpose  หลายเดือนก่อน +17

    Words matter. I was very intentional in my wording of the title for this video. I even used all caps on one word in particular. And I knew some people would just respond to the title without watching the video. Which is why I have made a serious effort to challenge all of those commenters to watch the video and then tell me whether they agree. Sadly, only a few so far have had the maturity to do so. I say sadly, because anyone who think that the 2nd Amendment "gives" us a right are the ones I made this video for. Word are important and if our rights are "given" by a document then they can be taken simply by amending that document, which is what some people have been suggesting lately.

    • @TheMongo1357
      @TheMongo1357 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      Hey Brian, I'll admit that your video title did get me at first and then I just had to watch the entire video to see what you meant?? Glad I did and I agree with you! I also am enjoying you start your videos with a holy Bible verse! God bless and stay safe out there!!

    • @vincentc6919
      @vincentc6919 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

      @@SurvivalOnPurpose the title is misleading to say the least. Our rights are derived from them Creator not a piece of paper.

    • @SurvivalOnPurpose
      @SurvivalOnPurpose  หลายเดือนก่อน +3

      Yep, that is exactly what I said in the video and why the title is 100% accurate.

    • @TommyBeasley-if5cg
      @TommyBeasley-if5cg หลายเดือนก่อน +3

      @SurvivalOnPurpose You're a good guy. Keep the faith and take care!

    • @TommyBeasley-if5cg
      @TommyBeasley-if5cg หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      @@SurvivalOnPurpose Keep the faith and take care!

  • @Knotjammin2
    @Knotjammin2 หลายเดือนก่อน +125

    Justice Scalia said "The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it 'shall not be infringed.' "

    • @rollypollyguy3976
      @rollypollyguy3976 หลายเดือนก่อน +6

      Thank you!

    • @SurvivalOnPurpose
      @SurvivalOnPurpose  หลายเดือนก่อน +9

      We need several more like him on the court

    • @RJ-hm9gi
      @RJ-hm9gi หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      I'm pretty sure the 2nd amendment establishes the Nations' Guard.

    • @rdh53
      @rdh53 21 วันที่ผ่านมา

      @@SurvivalOnPurpose He is dead, isn't he? Of course, I could name one or three members of the Court that could assume the same status as Scalia and improve the Court!

  • @corynelson4512
    @corynelson4512 หลายเดือนก่อน +84

    The 2A is there for us to protect the rest of the Constitution.

    • @gatorflea2788
      @gatorflea2788 หลายเดือนก่อน +6

      From the gooberment !

    • @Bitterstone3849
      @Bitterstone3849 หลายเดือนก่อน +10

      In whatever way I see fit. With whatever I'm holding in my hands. My right to defend my GOD GIVEN FREEDOMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. and Washington does NOT tell me what GOD has given

  • @williamgaines9784
    @williamgaines9784 หลายเดือนก่อน +21

    It only tells the GOVERNMENT, IT cannot say what you may keep and bear. No rights are "granted" by the Constitution, only that the government shall not infringe or curtail those rights.

  • @AnAmericanFather
    @AnAmericanFather หลายเดือนก่อน +89

    The 2A protects my right to arm myself with any & EVERY thing available… including the AR15, M16, SKS, etc…

    • @mac11380
      @mac11380 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Nerf guns

    • @swynty777
      @swynty777 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Dark matter

    • @SurvivalOnPurpose
      @SurvivalOnPurpose  หลายเดือนก่อน +6

      I’m conducting an informal survey. Did you watch the video before commenting? And you are correct in your wording of what the 2nd Amendment does.

    • @billybones4523
      @billybones4523 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Phased plasma rifle in the 40-watt range

    • @MylesDavid
      @MylesDavid หลายเดือนก่อน

      Unobtainium??

  • @IanSchell-g1j
    @IanSchell-g1j หลายเดือนก่อน +46

    2ndA Has No restrictions PERIOD!

    • @SurvivalOnPurpose
      @SurvivalOnPurpose  หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      I’m taking an informal survey. Did you even watch the video? Because, based on your comment - which I completely agree with by the way- I don’t think so.

    • @papimaximus95
      @papimaximus95 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      " 2ndA Has No restrictions PERIOD! "
      Of course it does. ALL Constitutional amendments have some restrictions. Are you arguing that prisoner has the right to a firearm while in prison? That would be a restriction if not.

    • @matthewlee9728
      @matthewlee9728 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

      ​@@papimaximus95anybody not locked up should be able to own anything that exsist and carry it anywhere they can leggaly be period tge debate ebded dec 15 1791

    • @matthewlee9728
      @matthewlee9728 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Anyone that passes enacts or ebforces any gun law should be jailed for life no parole 23 1 lockdown

    • @papimaximus95
      @papimaximus95 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@matthewlee9728 "Anyone that passes enacts or ebforces any gun law should be jailed for life no parole 23 1 lockdown"
      Does that include the "gun law" you created above?

  • @sinistersilverado965
    @sinistersilverado965 หลายเดือนก่อน +19

    US citizens have an absolute right to any and all weapons of war

    • @SurvivalOnPurpose
      @SurvivalOnPurpose  หลายเดือนก่อน +4

      Yep, but that right is not given to us by any amendment

  • @GooberMcSnuffles
    @GooberMcSnuffles หลายเดือนก่อน +10

    The second amendment to the 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.
    The term "regulated" means to put in good order. In other words, they wanted us to train with firearms. Regulation in this sentence DOES NOT mean legislated by politicians.
    The word "militia" means the home guard, comprised of the citizens, which cannot be sent over-sea to fight.
    Also, for those who say the founders could not have envisioned rapid fire small arms, do a search for Multi-barreled guns of the 16th century. The concept of rapid fire was nothing new, when the constitution was written. Let's also not forget that the muzzle loading rifles were the "assault weapons" of that time, and the framers of the constitution wanted us to keep and bear them.
    Our founders knew you don't need a militia to hunt bear, moose or geese. So, it has NOTHING to do with hunting. The 2A was about self protection and a final check against a tyrannical government.

  • @joshpitts25
    @joshpitts25 หลายเดือนก่อน +83

    Anything the military carries is what any civilian militia should be legal to carry.

    • @SurvivalOnPurpose
      @SurvivalOnPurpose  หลายเดือนก่อน +4

      Or anything else we want to have. Did you watch the video?

    • @MrGratefulEd
      @MrGratefulEd หลายเดือนก่อน +6

      ....and the militia is the people, ergo anything the military carries, the people should be able to carry.

    • @212caboose
      @212caboose หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      NO. ARMS. i.e. ANYTHING that can be used both offensively and defensively.

    • @212caboose
      @212caboose หลายเดือนก่อน +4

      @@MrGratefulEd It doesn't matter if the military uses it or not. That's the point.

    • @michaelgiancanna-jaume4637
      @michaelgiancanna-jaume4637 หลายเดือนก่อน +9

      PRECISELY!! THE NFA OF 1934, AND 1968 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND THEREFORE MUST BE IMMEDIATELY REPEALED!!

  • @jude.v25
    @jude.v25 หลายเดือนก่อน +36

    You are exactly correct. Regardless of what laws state or federal governments might declare, they cannot take away our God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We the people, however, can forfeit our rights but if we are wise, we will not. Let us hold fast to that which God has given us.

  • @libra7624
    @libra7624 หลายเดือนก่อน +10

    show me a man who has a AR 15 and specifically a KJV bible, this is a wise man

  • @jimholman5045
    @jimholman5045 หลายเดือนก่อน +12

    Nicely articulated point and you, sir, are 100% accurate.
    The document does not grant rights, but prevents govt from taking those natural rights away

  • @craigshugg2332
    @craigshugg2332 หลายเดือนก่อน +9

    In Australia they have brought in laws where to buy a knife you need to show your I.D. or email proof of age if on the internet. They claim it is to stop knife crime and underage youth getting knives. The underage knife crime has risen in Australia with the large increase in immigration from certain parts of the world. Governments always there with new laws to problems they have created.

  • @terryhsley3808
    @terryhsley3808 หลายเดือนก่อน +8

    If only we could get the majority of Americans thinking the way they should.

    • @OneWildTurkey
      @OneWildTurkey หลายเดือนก่อน

      They've been brainwashed quite thoroughly.

    • @Leslie-es5ij
      @Leslie-es5ij หลายเดือนก่อน

      It starts in kindergarten, our schools are awful. A 12 year old can decide to transgender, but if they want to have sex with an adult the adult goes to jail, but not the transgenderer ? The gun/2a issue is the same thing. People teach your children that guns are bad ?

  • @212caboose
    @212caboose หลายเดือนก่อน +9

    The Bill of Rights simply enumerates our INHERENT and INALIENABLE rights. The Bill of Rights is a list of gov't RESTRICTIONS.

  • @Chris-sm6xu
    @Chris-sm6xu หลายเดือนก่อน +23

    Owning an AR 15 gives you the right to buy another AR 15 0:42

    • @OneWildTurkey
      @OneWildTurkey หลายเดือนก่อน

      I think you need to watch it again.

  • @laffz2224
    @laffz2224 หลายเดือนก่อน +12

    I guess nobody reads the supporting documentation submitted with the constitution explaining that the Second Amendment pertains to anything you deem necessary to defend yourself and the constitution. James Madison (you know the guy that authored most of the constitution) wrote several papers explaining that the Second Amendment includes but is not limited to cannons and anything else you could use as a means of protection.

    • @SurvivalOnPurpose
      @SurvivalOnPurpose  หลายเดือนก่อน

      Funny, you should mention that. I’m conducting an informal survey. Did you watch the video before making this comment?

    • @OneWildTurkey
      @OneWildTurkey หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@SurvivalOnPurpose Chuck uses a stunt double? I don't remember any crying scenes.

    • @RJ-hm9gi
      @RJ-hm9gi หลายเดือนก่อน

      When was the Constitution written? Why now? Just curious.

  • @KNIGHTJUMPS
    @KNIGHTJUMPS หลายเดือนก่อน +22

    2A Affirms rights has no power to grant rights.

    • @SurvivalOnPurpose
      @SurvivalOnPurpose  หลายเดือนก่อน +8

      Exactly

    • @OneWildTurkey
      @OneWildTurkey หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      Almost. 2A tells the govt they shall not infringe and reminds them why.
      The best efforts by the govt public 'education' for over 120 years is making the words of the constitution be accepted by the people to mean something different.

  • @DReynolds5294
    @DReynolds5294 หลายเดือนก่อน +4

    Man. I didn't know so many people didn't know we aren't "given" that right.
    Great video, Bryan.

  • @FD_Boss
    @FD_Boss หลายเดือนก่อน +8

    Very interesting how the title was worded. Made me think for a second. Then I said, wait, the constitution does not “give” us rights. Well done, sir.

  • @darrellwoods2586
    @darrellwoods2586 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    Confusion is the devil's best foot forward, please People stay Vigilant!

  • @dennishein2812
    @dennishein2812 หลายเดือนก่อน +19

    Our rights are God given.i think some of the complainers didn't watch the entire video.

    • @SurvivalOnPurpose
      @SurvivalOnPurpose  หลายเดือนก่อน +4

      It was bound to happen

    • @aubreyleonae4108
      @aubreyleonae4108 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Sorry, but I did not at any time receive my rights from a character in a book. Mine come from reality. So do yours.

    • @SurvivalOnPurpose
      @SurvivalOnPurpose  หลายเดือนก่อน +4

      @aubreyleonae4108. Why are you sorry? And why do so many people who don’t believe in a “creator” seem to have an almost pathological need to chastise those of us who think it is the only logical, rational conclusion?

    • @papimaximus95
      @papimaximus95 หลายเดือนก่อน

      "Our rights are God given"
      Please show where that is listed in the Bible or other religious text.

    • @SurvivalOnPurpose
      @SurvivalOnPurpose  หลายเดือนก่อน +4

      @@papimaximus95 It doesn't have to be listed somewhere to be true. The premise is that certain rights are inherent in our humanity. Therefore they are given by our Creator. One of those inherent rights is to deny the existence of Creator. I think that is a highly illogical and irrational position but you have an inherent right to your beliefs.

  • @andrewmcgibbon9785
    @andrewmcgibbon9785 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    The constitution does not grant rights. Your rights exists extant of government.
    The first amendment doesn't say that you have the right to practice religion how you chose. It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof"
    All of the bill of rights say: "Government may not"
    None of them say: "You may do this"

  • @bmuell64
    @bmuell64 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    Wasn't sure where you were going here, but you pulled it out and made some great points. Thx again

  • @markcain2418
    @markcain2418 หลายเดือนก่อน +6

    According to the Founders, the Constitution, the various Militia Acts, etc., the People, or the Unorganized Militia, are supposed to be armed in a similar manner to the Active Military. Those citizens should be skilled in the use of those, the Well Regulated part. So, perhaps you are correct, not AR-15s, but whatever the military is issued, the People are meant to be able to have similar arms. ARMS. Not muskets. Not bolt guns. Remember, the Billnof Rights is supposed to limit the Government, not the People.

    • @SurvivalOnPurpose
      @SurvivalOnPurpose  หลายเดือนก่อน

      Just taking an informal survey, did you watch the video before commenting?

    • @markcain2418
      @markcain2418 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@SurvivalOnPurpose Commented while watching. I started laughing when what I was saying started to be covered while I was typing. My mistake.

  • @stanhutchins4365
    @stanhutchins4365 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    The right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon. That statement is common sense, except for a tyrannical government that tries to take that right from us.

  • @johnford8769
    @johnford8769 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    When the Second Amendment the people owned military weapons and until 1934 we were also allowed to own the same.

    • @SurvivalOnPurpose
      @SurvivalOnPurpose  หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      And that should still be the case.

  • @ScottWilliams-wu1ye
    @ScottWilliams-wu1ye หลายเดือนก่อน +4

    It actually says we should own what the military has.

    • @SurvivalOnPurpose
      @SurvivalOnPurpose  หลายเดือนก่อน +3

      To be accurate, it says nothing about what we should or should not own. What it says is what the government should not do, which is infringe upon our rights.

  • @jasonthomspon7829
    @jasonthomspon7829 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    I'm not even going to lie. I was about to talk crap and then I actually watched the video. Lol. Very well put, sir. Keep up the good work.

  • @randyscj429
    @randyscj429 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Hello Brian, that's what it means, you're right! Hope all's well with everyone/thing! Keep up the good work and vids. Be safe and take care, "God Bless", sincerely, Randy. 😇🙏👊

  • @normanphair8488
    @normanphair8488 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Amen I sure hope they don't cancel you big brother is listening

  • @woodscrafter1971
    @woodscrafter1971 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    I wish everyone in the U.S. would watch this video and maybe it would dawn on them what these words really mean. Very well said, my friend.

  • @Doc-Holliday1851
    @Doc-Holliday1851 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    correct. It recognizes a right that we already have. It doesn't say the citizenry has the right to own firearms. It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The choice of wording implies the right is preexisting.

  • @Devin7Eleven
    @Devin7Eleven หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    I’m glad I watched all the way. People need to learn to not judge things based on headlines

  • @philrc1
    @philrc1 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    The video title is quite misleading! LOL. I had to watch the whole video to figure out the point that you were trying to make. With that said, I agree with you whole heartedly! And to add to it, some people say that it was written so long ago that they had no idea how modern weapons would evolve. I can only say that even back then machine guns were available and the musket was the common mans "modern" weaponry at the time. So yes, they knew weapon technology would progress but they had the wisdom not to limit the 2A to weapon advancements.

  • @IsNoyb
    @IsNoyb หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    the 2nd amendment don't say that you can not own an Armalite 15.

  • @GmanGSW
    @GmanGSW หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    I flipped on your channel presuming that you would bring up the reason we can own an AR-15 or AR-15s, or any weapon(s) the government owns, due to our Natural Right to Self Defense and Self Preservation, which came before the Constitution and the BORs. Your understanding, IMO, is 100% accurate and I concur. Have as good a weekend as possible!

  • @brianlykins6663
    @brianlykins6663 หลายเดือนก่อน +4

    I believe you are correct, Brian.
    The Bill of Rights is not a list of rights "given" to you, it is a list of items prohibiting the government from infringing, restricting, or removing from the citizens of the United States.
    Unfortunately we have let the government get so big and powerful that they "think" they have the power to tell the citizenry what they are allowed to do.
    When the government tells the citizens what they can and can not do, you have a Socialist / Communist government. Far from the Constitutional Republic that we started with.
    Perhaps it's time to refresh 1776 ideas and start over again.
    God bless y'all and stay safe out there.

  • @lifeforce218
    @lifeforce218 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    The people shall have equivalent arms as the government, as Hamilton stated below.
    "In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair" Alexander Hamilton; Federalist Paper No. 28

    • @SurvivalOnPurpose
      @SurvivalOnPurpose  หลายเดือนก่อน

      Or superior arms to the government.

  • @rogervincent8314
    @rogervincent8314 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    had to be sure of what your thumbnail meant, i also watch 10th amendment center, and other constitutional sites on yt. michael bolton on 10th amendment also covered this subject. we have a right to own any arms,. only the amount of money we have limits what we own. the government has no power to limit, restrict deny, disparage, prohibit our right to arms. and we have the right to bear arms as we see fit, we do not need a permit slip to travel with and conceal arms!

  • @patricklee5576
    @patricklee5576 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Bravo sir !!!! Keep pumping them out !!!! SC!!!!!

  • @johnquill5883
    @johnquill5883 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    Good work Brian, freedom to do what we ought to and not whatever we want to. Honest you tube channel ( how refreshing).

    • @SurvivalOnPurpose
      @SurvivalOnPurpose  หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      I’m taking an informal survey. Did you watch the video?

    • @johnquill5883
      @johnquill5883 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      @@SurvivalOnPurpose yes the whole video, Jefferson, Madison, Mason. Amendments etc.

  • @TheMadriverboy
    @TheMadriverboy หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    One of the reasons the second Amendment was written was because of what happened at Lexington with the British, they came for the most powerful military weapon of the day our cannons, our answer was come and take it if you dare.

  • @WMoney-k8k
    @WMoney-k8k หลายเดือนก่อน +4

    Of the original Bill of Rights every amendment has been circumvented if not out right nullified in many parts of the U.S.

  • @JonathanMichael0
    @JonathanMichael0 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    If all your new content is going in this direction, I'm all for it. Godspeed my brother.

  • @gellydesigns
    @gellydesigns หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Good video Brian. Very informative. God bless you and your family.

  • @willkearns5055
    @willkearns5055 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    An Ar is no different than any other semi auto rifle

  • @chaosad9754
    @chaosad9754 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    Didn't know where you were going with this at first. In the end, you earned another subsriber.

  • @starlingblack814
    @starlingblack814 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Thanks Bryan for the video. I continuously argue with my brothers over this. I believe if I can afford a tank, I may do so without any government interference.

  • @GrandPitoVic
    @GrandPitoVic หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Thank you sir!!! I always tell people to be careful. It's always in the wording.

  • @bigal2696
    @bigal2696 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Well said. I wish they taught this in school

  • @shawnlawler6076
    @shawnlawler6076 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Amen, you had me at first. I thought you was going to say we only could bear muskets or something silly like that. Good job. Thank God. I really try and listen to every point of view on a lot of things. I am 61 years old and my beliefs are pretty much carved in Stone . My Bible has been my textbook most of my life.

  • @nobodyreally8441
    @nobodyreally8441 หลายเดือนก่อน +4

    I agree 💯. GOD gave me all my rights, not the government. Praise HIS HOLY name! My 2nd amendment right “shall not be infringed “.

  • @montecraig7032
    @montecraig7032 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Government doesn’t have the authority to limit our self defense choices. We are autonomous creatures.

  • @Spetznatz01
    @Spetznatz01 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    You should look up Tenche Coxe and what he has said about our rights! It was also believed by many of those founders, that having a “standing army”, (their term for the actual military, not a civilian militia), was much more of a threat to our Republic than having a majority of citizens being armed. They believed so because they thought that a regular military, (or standing army), could be used against the citizens themselves.

  • @OneWildTurkey
    @OneWildTurkey หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Words ARE important! As is 'reading'.
    The govt is limited by the constitution to those things mentioned. Not unlike the military's UCMJ Article 134, the govt uses the Commerce Clause to justify anything they want. They've even given themselves immunity from prosecution when people recognize how illegal many of their acts are.

  • @haroldmiller6853
    @haroldmiller6853 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Not gonna lie Brian ya had me a little worried there at first but you are absolutely correct god give rights and shall not be infringed upon

  • @jamesartmetal8403
    @jamesartmetal8403 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    I see what you’re saying 👍🏼🇺🇸

  • @patrickcooper8923
    @patrickcooper8923 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    Well stated. The RIGHT already existed, the 2nd Amendment simply prohibits government limitation.

  • @richardbobb1878
    @richardbobb1878 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    New and improved Second Amendment 2.1
    Second Amendment 2.1
    In order to maintain the blessings of liberty and freedom throughout the land. The pre-existing natural right of the individual to self-defense, shall always be upheld and protected. The right to manufacture, keep and bear arms, ammunition, and parts and accessories for arms, will not be infringed or impeded, by any law or mandate by either the states or the federal government.
    A free market being necessary for a free people, the right to manufacture arms for sale, or any accessory for arms including ammunition, will not be infringed or impeded, by any law or mandate, by either the federal government or the states. This includes both carrying for an individual, or caring for a company, for trade or sale in another state. Or any other reason that is moral. Uninfringed or impeded by law or mandate. :-)

    • @SurvivalOnPurpose
      @SurvivalOnPurpose  หลายเดือนก่อน

      Sounds kinda good to me. Except I think “shall not be in fringed“ covers all that anyway.

    • @richardbobb1878
      @richardbobb1878 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @SurvivalOnPurpose That sounds "kinda good" to me. "Except" I "THINK". "Shall, not be in fringed covers it all that anyway."
      Allow me to "Enlighten" you with two known facts, which totally disproves your thoughts.
      Fact number one. The National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA)
      Passed by Congress in 1934.
      Fact number two.
      The Gun Control Act of 1968, a US federal law, regulates the Firearms industry and Firearms ownership.
      Enacted into law by Congress 1968.
      Fun fact: Doesn't Congress swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution ????????.
      As for "kinda of good"
      Unlike James Madison's Second Amendment. It is a good example of a poorly written positive law.
      Definition for positive law. Any law or mandate written by human beings to control other human beings.
      The most egregious law being, slavery.
      When I rewrote my version of the Second Amendment 2.1, I incorporated 100% natural law.
      For those ignorant as to the nature of natural law, please read the book written by Lysander Spooner: Natural Law.
      And become enlightened!.
      I gave much thought to what I wrote and I considered my words very carefully. The fact that it is written 100% under natural law makes it far superior to James Madison's positive law version. And I like the way my version incorporates the new word impede. I believe it gives it bigger linguistic teeth than it had before.
      I hope I have given you food for thought one Spooner at a time.:-)

  • @rando27enco
    @rando27enco หลายเดือนก่อน

    The biggest shame of the modern American education system is a the idea that a piece of paper gives of right rather than our nation being acknowledging and agree to not infringe these GOD GIVEN rights. Well said, sir

  • @eriknelson2559
    @eriknelson2559 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    If you ask others for permission to protect yourself, they will say...

  • @johnbravo1005
    @johnbravo1005 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Actually the 2a gives you right to own whatever the government has to defeat said government when it becomes tyranttical

    • @SurvivalOnPurpose
      @SurvivalOnPurpose  หลายเดือนก่อน

      no, it doesn't. You already have that right, it just protects it. See my pinned comment.

  • @martok2112
    @martok2112 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    In my opinion, EVERY Amendment that exclaims our God-given rights should end with "shall not be infringed".

  • @chrismurphy3482
    @chrismurphy3482 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution and Bill of Rights were written to limit Government not the People. There is not 1 limit in any of these documents that limits The People!

  • @Dale820
    @Dale820 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Why does it take a normal everyday person with common sense to point out the obvious. Thanks I sure hope those in Congress and other parts of our government see this video maybe it would open their eyes to the truth. Simple direct straight to the point.

  • @mrfawkes9110
    @mrfawkes9110 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    I have the right to be armed with whatever the hell I chose and that has nothing to do with the bill of rights, The right to keep and bear arms was given to you and I by God not the constitution. And while I did make this comment before watching I can READ, the bill of rights gives us nothing just protects what already exists.

  • @kestrel5719
    @kestrel5719 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    Well said!

  • @Jinha-qy7ox
    @Jinha-qy7ox หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Well said... so how can courts outright ignore this after bruen?

    • @SurvivalOnPurpose
      @SurvivalOnPurpose  หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      Because they have been politicized

  • @tolarpowell5069
    @tolarpowell5069 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    The founders and framers recognized that certain rights were inherently existent by virtue of being alive and human, and one of those rights was the right to self preservation, with the best tools available. These men were unique. None of them sought power or riches. In fact, most of the founders ended the revolution much worse off financially...or even dead. We need to do whatever it takes to ensure these rights are preserved, because once gone, they're gone forever. When is the last time government recognized you had a "new" right? I mean, other than the decadent pretend that your gender differed from your plumbing, wich isn't really a right, except to be deluded with government backing.

  • @rickyfargason8859
    @rickyfargason8859 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    You are correct. Our rights don't come from the government. The Bill of Rights talks about negative rights, those that prevent the government from infringing on the individual's natural rights. Our rights come from God, aka natural rights and are inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government because they were granted to us by them in the first place.

  • @echo6echo419
    @echo6echo419 หลายเดือนก่อน +6

    I cannot count the number of times I've had this very same discussion. Everyone says, "The X Amendment gives me the right to..." and I try to explain that the Constitution gives NO rights. It simply limits what the government can do to the rights you already have. If you take a moment to read the darn thing, it's apparent that it's NOT giving you anything. No where does it say, "you have the right to carry a gun".

  • @Leslie-es5ij
    @Leslie-es5ij หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Nope, the fact that lm alive gives me that right ! The 2a just says that the government doesn't have the right to infringe up on it !

  • @stevemaster8344
    @stevemaster8344 หลายเดือนก่อน +5

    As usual, some are commenting before listening to what you say. These are likely the same people that believe the Constitution and/or government gives us our rights when in fact those rights are given by God and can neither be given nor taken away by man (inalienable rights). These documents restrict the power of the government and tells them what THEY cannot do and even states that any rights not listed are reserved to the People. The Federalist Papers which were the discourse between the Founding Fathers before and during the writing of the Constitution and Bill of Rights make it clear that that the Founders intent was that We The People have the right to be equipped with the same arms (all means of defense - guns, ammunition, swords, cannons, etc) that are in common use by a standing army (military of the government) and such as are in common use at the time because they understood that arms technology would advance with time. They were very careful in the wording of these documents and understood the importance and need for the ability of the People to protect themselves from both external and internal threats (governments become tyrannical by the consolidation of power). The National Firearms Act of 1934 and Gun Control Act of 1968, among other unconstitutional laws and BATFE ‘regulations’ which are also unconstitutional, infringe upon our right to the same arms as our military and our ability to overthrow a tyrannical government. That is why we have a Constitutional Republic (consent of the governed under the rule of law) and not a democracy (mob/majority rule). Good video, but your title is being misinterpreted and will cost you views and subscribers despite it being factually correct. Hoping this will give others an understanding of your intent before ignorantly posting comments or unsubscribing to your great channel.

    • @SurvivalOnPurpose
      @SurvivalOnPurpose  หลายเดือนก่อน +4

      Honestly, if it cost me some viewers who are prone to knee-jerk reactions, but educates some other viewers to the critical importance of words and how they are used to shape perception, I’ll take that trade off

    • @form4li7y
      @form4li7y หลายเดือนก่อน

      He used a dirty click bait tactic and now he's paying for it. GOOD! That's what should happen. I just stumbled onto his channel so I won't be back. I've unsubscribed from channels after YEARS of watching them when they started click baiting lime this. It's a manipulative waste of time.

    • @SurvivalOnPurpose
      @SurvivalOnPurpose  หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@form4li7y Thanks for giving me a shot. Stay safe.

  • @tom_olofsson
    @tom_olofsson หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    The right to self defense comes from our Creator.

    • @mrfawkes9110
      @mrfawkes9110 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      Like all rights.

  • @crazywisdom2
    @crazywisdom2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Thank you for all you do !!!

  • @jeremybryant5778
    @jeremybryant5778 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Survival is not an accident and neither is liberty. You couldn't be more right Brian

  • @allenfranks4966
    @allenfranks4966 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    2nd amendment is to protect yourself from the government

  • @randybradley7427
    @randybradley7427 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Amen brother. All Americans have the right to have whatever gun they want.

  • @johnharrison6745
    @johnharrison6745 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    Meh; POLITICAL POWER is what gives you the "right" to have/do ANYTHING. If you wanna keep your AR-15's, then what you need to do is see to it that the people who hold governmental-offices will make it so that you CAN keep your AR-15's.

    • @SurvivalOnPurpose
      @SurvivalOnPurpose  หลายเดือนก่อน

      I’m doing an informal survey. Did you watch the video before commenting?

    • @johnharrison6745
      @johnharrison6745 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      @@SurvivalOnPurpose I saw it; and, it's nothing that you don't learn about in political science 101. My point was that regardless of where you think your "rights" originate, they flow to you through the gun-barrels of He who Holds the Most and Biggest Guns: The governing-office-holders (who have the obedience of the military and law-enforcement agencies); and, just WHO those ARE, are what you need to CONCERN yourself with.

  • @jackmaness2048
    @jackmaness2048 หลายเดือนก่อน

    YES!!!! Someone else has figured it out. Thank you sir....

  • @TommyBeasley-if5cg
    @TommyBeasley-if5cg หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Arms from the Latin word Arma meaning tools of war. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing.

  • @jamesnelson5110
    @jamesnelson5110 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Your comments are right on the money. You make perfect sense. However the USA has had 360+ mass shootings so far this year. No other country has that level of violence. Obviously many people do not understand what the right to bear arms to protect yourself means.

  • @MichaelR58
    @MichaelR58 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Good video Brian , thanks for sharing, YAH bless !

  • @jasong9774
    @jasong9774 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    I don't think "knee jerk" applies in this instance. If someone implied a meaning that wasn't clear and unambiguous, then that could be a knee jerk reaction.
    An accidental misunderstanding or hearing or seeing only part of say, a sign partially covered by a parked truck, that might apply.
    A planned out title is different. Any attempt to use shock, hyperbole, or misdirection to get people to think different carries the same risk as public pranks.
    Neither good nor bad, just the same risk.

    • @SurvivalOnPurpose
      @SurvivalOnPurpose  หลายเดือนก่อน

      The entire point of this video was that words matter because language influences perception. Yes, this title was planned out for the express purpose of emphasizing that point. Which is why I have down my best to respond to almost every comment that seemed as though the commenter didn’t watch the video and just reacted to the title. I call that a knee jerk reaction because isn’t considered response.

  • @steveladner4346
    @steveladner4346 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Found this channel through RFB

  • @averageamerican4507
    @averageamerican4507 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    I agree sir.

  • @GT500Shlby
    @GT500Shlby หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Amen.

  • @arctodussimus6198
    @arctodussimus6198 หลายเดือนก่อน +6

    It’s been many years since I read it, but one of the Militia Acts created in our Republic’s early years says not only that every able body man is in the militia, but he is required to have a weapon of equal ability as the regular army.
    I’ll have to look it up again…

  • @bradydavis6365
    @bradydavis6365 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    my rights were given to me by my creator. No man can take those rights from me. They can take my life, but not my freedom or my rights.

  • @carlj3515
    @carlj3515 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍❤️❤️👍. Very well said.

  • @CPK13
    @CPK13 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Great video - Thanks!👍🏻👍🏻

  • @mikebohling2280
    @mikebohling2280 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Well said Brian

  • @WhatIfBrigade
    @WhatIfBrigade หลายเดือนก่อน

    If the Supreme Court read the 2nd amendment like it does the others, firearms training would be mandatory in K-12 and every Walmart would be required to have a shooting range.
    However, a well regulated militia would also mean certain people would lose their certification based on their lack skill and temperament. TL;DR There should be civilian or military national service and rights should also confer responsibilities.

  • @darrenhays021
    @darrenhays021 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Absolutely agree wholeheartedly with u. However I go a little further. I think ALL free people should have all rights being that even IF u have been in prison once u are out u should have all rights as every other free person. You go to prison to “pay” your debt to society, so once ur out u should be free to carry AND vote! Most don’t know this but up until the 1968 gun act things were that way but since then “ex-cons” aren’t allowed to have firearms. Man I miss James Yeager for this conversation

    • @SurvivalOnPurpose
      @SurvivalOnPurpose  หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      Man, I miss him too every day

    • @darrenhays021
      @darrenhays021 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@SurvivalOnPurpose I never got the chance to meet him face to face so I’m a little jealous of u but I learned a lot from his videos. So it’s up to us I guess to pass on this way of thinking and understanding

  • @BastardOfTheNorth
    @BastardOfTheNorth หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.

    • @NANA-lq5md
      @NANA-lq5md หลายเดือนก่อน

      And. Yet. It. Is. In. Every. State.

    • @SurvivalOnPurpose
      @SurvivalOnPurpose  หลายเดือนก่อน

      I’m conducting an informal survey. Did you watch the video before commenting.

  • @marcmalonzo566
    @marcmalonzo566 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Thank you for educating people on this issue.
    The indoctrination centers (aka public school system) want you to believe otherwise.

  • @loulunetta425
    @loulunetta425 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Is it an arm? - YES / Then there should be no question. / Dangerous and Unusual ?- NO. / In common use for lawful purposes? - YES. So, the government has no jurisdiction because "The Right.....shall not be infringed.".
    Maryland lawmakers need to read the Constitution.

    • @SurvivalOnPurpose
      @SurvivalOnPurpose  หลายเดือนก่อน

      Shall it be infringed includes “dangerous and unusual”

    • @loulunetta425
      @loulunetta425 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@SurvivalOnPurpose true, but a convention at this time is dangerous. I'd rather see the NFA sunset.

    • @SurvivalOnPurpose
      @SurvivalOnPurpose  หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      Constitutionally, there would be no need for a convention. That would not require changing the Constitution, just reversal of case law and/or previous court decisions. I can recall nothing in the Constitution about "dangerous and Unusual". And, yes to no more NFA.

  • @justsomedude-pm4
    @justsomedude-pm4 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    I was waiting till the end to leave my nasty comment. You almost got me. 😂😂😂😂😂

  • @jamesallen1761
    @jamesallen1761 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    He did a weave.really good video!