Why You Were Lied To About The 2nd Amendment
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 жов 2023
- Why is there such a huge debate over the 2nd Amendment, and why do politicians keep trying to disarm the people they’re supposed to serve?
~
Get new episodes in your inbox once a week: thewhyminutes.com/subscribe/
/ whyminutes
/ thewhyminutes
Host: / nickfreitasva
The 2nd Amendment DOES NOT give the people the right to keep and bear arms. "The right of the people" means that we already have this right. We are born with the right to defend ourselves, and the 2nd Amendment says the government shall not infringe on this right.
That's a crucial distinction.
No rights are created by the Constitution. One of the purposes of the Constitution is protect the rights every person has by birth.
Shall not be infringed! Has great meaning. So any law that the government has made restricting gun rights for the individual is unconstitutional!😅
THIS
Just like much of the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment is not meant to keep the people in check, but to keep the government in check.
If the 1st Amendment applies to radio, TV, and the internet, and if the 4th Amendment applies to electronic surveillance and video surveillance, then the 2nd Amendment applies to modern weapons.
Very good point!
You have the right to bear nuclear arms.
@@XtremiTeez You would never convince the government to allow citizens to have them since nuclear arms are not regulated the same way that firearms are.
@@jamescrumbaker3169 what part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
@@XtremiTeez are you trained in the handling of nuclear materials?
“Where governments fear the people, there is liberty. Where the people fear governments, there is tyranny!” - Thomas Jefferson
That is the fundamental issue… the government doesn’t fear the people at all, or even particularly give a F about them anymore.
@@13TX
The Tree of Liberty Thirsts.
Only, I don't fear my government. I'd rather die than follow the rules of a tyrannical govt
@@denisebatalha3552
I think the same way -- but there is fear, but determined to not "cave in to fear". That's when the adrenaline kicks in and I die with a smile, knowing that I saved the children -- or something like that. I'm ready, even though I'm not a "prepper" per se.
@@13TX Especially when the political leader of one of the parties says "you don't need an AR-15 when facing an F-15 or a nuke". That is not even a thinly veiled threat against one third of his constituents - people he is supposed to "represent" and not rule. Time to get the pretenders of Freedom, Liberty, and even Democracy out of office and any form of government authority. I'd even suggest that if you have that kind of attitude, you shouldn't be allowed to be paid for employment by the law-abiding citizens of the US. YOU work for WE THE PEOPLE and not the other way around.
PS, I know we are a Constitutional Republic. Thank God!
The government has gone way beyond infringement.
And tyrannical to be quite honest
@@bittorrentpromotion4084 "When tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty." - Thomas Jefferson
THE MODERN MILITARY weapon of 1791 was a Long Bow? Or was it a Brown Bess?
Now why did 'Ye old Kings of England" not like private ownership of military weapons (except for relatives and appointees)?
What was the Tower of London used for3-4 centuries ago and earlier?
The rest got the the rope.
Now here are advertisements about the Donald wanting to establish a dictatorship.
Well I thimk there may be a related historical procedure to establish that. For some reason it always worked.
Maybe the old Mad magazine IBM "THIMK AHEad" sign. Should also be. Look behind 1st.
Why did they put the M next to the N anyway?
I wish more people would realize that the constitution doesn’t give us “rights”, it gives the government rules on how they must behave towards the people they serve.
All 10 amendments listed things that the federal government could not do against an individual or state.
The 2A is literally a blueprint for citizen militias. If you don’t want to abide by the 2A as written then you have no respect for the document.
Fundamentally the wrong way to look at it. There are no natural rights. There's no court to go to if a badger snatches a child or a flood washes your cabin away. Civilization creates rights by imposing duties. By agreeing not to steal, we create a right to private property. It's a philosophical ideal that really should be taught in primary school. We'd have better citizens if people understood their duties as well as they think they understand their rights.
@@Lawrence330no we wouldn’t lmao 😂 we would still have ppl starving and mental illness would still be bad… not to mention this was written when black ppl and women weren’t considered to be anything except property… so if we gonna follow old honkey rules… get the muskets out and tally fourth ye old masta
@@Lawrence330 You're conflating the ability to impede a right with the non-existence of the right. In the absence of government and society you have literal unlimited rights. You can simply kill the badger or build a dam to stop the flood, those are your rights. The bill of rights is not granting anything, it is recognizing the inherent rights of living beings and restricting the government from even an attempt at infringing on those rights.
Whenever they argue that the "well regulated militia" is the military, I always ask, "why would a government guarantee the right of itself to have firearms?".
For the defense of the nation state... It's not difficult to imagine like you think it is
@@RextheRebel So then, why would a government "right" be enshrined in a document that specifically enumerates the rights of the people?
Well regulated means well trained. The militia would be useless with out proper inculcation from competent officers/instructors. Washington knew this very well and introduced many European military officers to accomplish this task. Baron von Steuben was one of them.
The militia is the military. The 2nd states the people have the right to bear arms. The 2nd does not guarantee the right of the militia. If you want to pretend the people are the militia, then you are saying the people need to be 'well regulated', siding with the gun grabbers. Read it but include the commas. Due to a standing army being required to keep the country safe, the right of the people shall not be infringed.
@@Ziggy_Moonglow Well Regulated meant back then In proper order or well maintained, not regulated as we know it now. You made the same point gun grabbers make. Also militia is not the same as the military.
The biggest problem with the government is politicians that want to rule, not serve, the people.
You mean politicians like Trump who want to rule over people?
in regards to a “well-regulated” militia being an issue for you being an obstacle in accepting the 2a as a guaranteed right for American citizens to keep and bear arms.
Luckily, this has already be explained in the “Militia Act” passed by Congress and upheld by several court decisions. It’s even still found in Federal(United States Code) Law . But, we’ll get to that in a minute.
What about the attitude of the people of that day? We could look at a few direct quotes regarding the 2nd Amendment around the time it was written.
“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” - George Mason, Speech at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 1788
The 2nd Amendment clearly states the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. And, that is; to secure a free State. Not duck hunting.
And, it’s NOT the only reference.
“The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” Samuel Adams Massachusetts Ratifying Convention 1788
“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” - Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” - Thomas Jefferson
The 2nd Amendment can be broken up grammatically into 2 distinct clauses.
“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.”
PREFATORY Clause: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,”
OPERATIVE Clause: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Both clauses are centered around the 2nd Amendment, but establish separate ideas while still supporting the overalll concept.
From here we need to examine the text of both clauses to determine the intended meaning of the syntax of 2nd Amendment.
To do that, we need to understand exactly what is meant in the 2nd Amendment in reference to the “militia”
“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 Militia Act defined (Militia Act was passed in 1903, again in 1916, and RE-AFFIRMED in 1956 by SCOTUS). exactly what a “well regulated” Militia is. Which was subsequently broken up into 2 classes. “Organized” (National Guard, etc) and “Unorganized” (Common People of Military serving Age) And, it’s actually still listed in the current Federal law today.
10 U.S. Code§ 246.Militia: composition and classes
(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of theUnited States and of female citizens of theUnited States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are-
(1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
As you see, we are the UNORGANIZED Militia, and our rights to bear arms are protected by the US Constitution. It’s very clear.
Remember, the American Revolution literally began over the British attempting to disarm the American Colonies.
This is the entire reason the 2nd Amendment was added to the Constitution by our forefathers. It’s not about duck hunting, or target shooting; it’s about the people being the LAST check and balance against a tyrannical government. Think our forefathers weren’t concerned about their government eventually turning tyrannical?
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild, and government to gain ground."
- Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, Paris, May 27, 1788
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
- George Washington (George Washington's First Annual Message to Congress; January 8, 1790)
Something the communists party knew well.
All political power comes from the barrel of a gun.
MAO ZEDONG, Problems of War and Strategy
Very well written and an EXCELLENT presentation of FACTS regarding OUR Constitutional REPUBLIC, which was created for the SOLE PURPOSE to "BREAK AWAY FROM" the democracy form of government, which is WHY WE DECLARED OUR INDEPENDENCE FROM the democracy of Great Britain 247 years ago! KUDOS!
And THAT is a well regulated argument! Thank you!
Don’t forget the original Militia Act of 1792. Which requires all able bodied men between 17-45 to attended all Militia training when called. They were required to provided their own firearms, ammunition etc.
Well said. Everyone send this to a Demorat
A militia by its very definition is a civilian fighting force outside of the government run armed forces.
The moment the government is given jurisdiction over a militia, it ceases to be a militia, and is now a conscripted government fighting force.
Also the 2nd Amendment has more than one clause. The first part is a statement that a militia that is competent and able to fight effectively (what well regulated means) is necessary to a free state, as in to ensure a state of freedom, that freedom must be able to defend itself.
The next part elaborates, addressing the fact a militia is indeed comprised of the people, not government soldiers. Ergo, their equipment and armaments do not come from the government, but by the people. The people must of course be capable of being ready at a moment's notice to defend against threats both foreign and domestic. Thus, the people's right to keep (own and retain) and bear (retain at all times) arms (shorthand for "armaments," which includes ALL tools of warfare/combat), is so dang important that no laws that would infringe upon (hinder, make less useful, weaken) that right are null and void. The people must be able to be as well armed or even more well armed than the force(s) that would seek to strip them of their human rights.
We have the 1st Amendment to try to resolve problems diplomatically without bloodshed. We have the 2nd Amendment for when diplomacy fails, and we must defend ourselves from those who would skirt or outright flaunt the law, as we see every anti-gun politician doing, as well as the media.
Finally, the tiresome claim that the 2nd Amendment only applies to muskets is as absurd a claim that the 1st Amendment only applies to quill and ink, so please, anyone making that argument, kindly go ram a cactus up your arse.
Ouch.....Biden and his cronies will need to seek medical attention after that.....maybe they need to chew them for lunch so we don't need to hear them
Very well Stated..
Thank you for breaking it down!!!!
The original intent of the 2A was to keep the Govt in check!!!!
But it also has a couple more purposes!!!!
When we get ‘Invaded’ by a foreign Army, it is the Civic DUTY of the Citizen to take up arms and defend the country!!!!
Also, it’s to defend ourselves from others (Criminals) who want to do us harm to us and our families we protect!!!!!
@@sgt_slobber.7628We're being invaded by a foreign army right now at our southernmost border. That foreign army is being armed and equipped by the DC demons in order to bring us peons to heel. We better start getting our sh-t together and get ready to fight because time is very short and the DC demons believe they can win.
Youshould actually go read the militia clause of the constitution and get some context not some out your arse rhetoric.
What anti-gun proponents forget, or more likely ignore, is that the people who organized (regulated) a militia expected the recruited individuals to bring their own arms, so the leaders didn’t have to equip them. That was only possible if the people already had arms, which they already had a right to keep and bear.
Explain this logic further. Get me from A to Z, because that sounds like bullshiz.
Thank you for the history lesson. Anyone that can think rationally through to the end can get from A to Z. I would venture that 99% of every man in the 13 original colonies had at least one if not two, depending on how many sons were in that family, had arms. It was their right to have arms to protect themselves from any harm that came their way because help was not available. And, they also had a supply of munitions, because the distance to town could have been anywhere from a days walk to a weeks ride to get what was needed. Study history people.
regulated in the 18th century simply meant to be supplied and in working order, not its modern redefinition of to restrict
@nwj03a
Look up the Militia Acts of 1792.
They must own their own arms, similar to the way the King of England had every man own a bow and know how to use it. The difference being, one was the British being state controlled while the American model was individual controlled.
As a USMARINE...I AM PART OF A WELL REGULATED MILITIA....Ain't no way no how Their gonna CANCEL MY RIGHTS ....I FOUGHT HARD FOR THEM!!! SEMPERFI
As a US citizen I am part of a well regulated militia....Ain't no no how they're gonna CANCEL MY RIGHTS.
Don't mess with a Marine, you'll regret it if you live. USMC 👍👍🙋♂️🙏🇨🇱🇺🇲
Amen! And thank you for your Service to OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC that is NOT, has NEVER been, and WILL NEVER BE a democracy!
Hear ya , however use your'' grape' 8when dealing with arms.
As much as I respect any marine, you are a government employee, and serve nobody but the military industrial complex
This needs to be shared everywhere
Why? He doesn't seem to understand what a complex sentence is. He's giving his wrong interpetation.
@@charlielemmel311 because our government is corrupt and if shit hits the fan, people should have the proper information.
@@charlielemmel311 Read the recent Supreme Court rulings. Very progun.
@@alwaysfreedom9354 really? Is that why they refused to hear a gun rights case last week?
@@charlielemmel311 How many times do you want them to tell us the human right to own guns is in our Bill of Rights? Bump stocks are not guns. They are toys. They have told us many times, we have the human right to own and carry guns! They get many hundreds of cases on many subjects every year. 99% are ignored.
I weary of the constant assault on my liberties not only by my government, but also from my ignorant, ill-informed countrymen.
Brother you got that right.
Why do you call it "your own government " ? Is it normal for something that's supposedly yours to assault you ? I don't get it .
I'm as weary as you. It seems like a daily assault.
@@watsamatau, are you that dense?
@@DOUGLAS55ish no , but you are .
It is not only your Right, it is your responsibility.
Well put
Exactly. Gun protestors never realize that pretty much the only way to stop a bad guy with an illegal gun is to have a responsible law abiding citizen with a legal gun.
And DUTY as a citizen. If you don't have a firearm, and specifically a rifle capable of combating your enemy, foreign or domestic, and have not trained how to use it properly and effectively, then you are not living up to your responsibility.
It is neither a duty or a responsibility. Because if it were, it would not be a right, it would be compulsory. Makes about as much sense as "you have the right to give me all of your money, or else". The negative right (responsibility) associated with it is that you cannot violate other peoples rights with the exercise of your right to keep and bear arms.
This all boils down to a simple fact. They want to take this specific right away because with it you can defend all of your other rights. They want to take our rights because they want to enslave us all. And the only question we each need to answer is: are you willing to let them do that or are you willing to fight and if necessary die to protect yourself and your loved ones. All of the other semantics and philosophical questions don't matter in the face of these truths.
The Militia part is a sub clause. That's why "being necessary to the security of a free state" is between commas. It is stating the importance of the right by giving an example, not stating who the right is restricted to and even states that "the people" (common citizens) cannot be restricted from keeping (owning) and bearing (using) arms.
In modern language, it would say something like;
"A well-equipped and maintained militia is necessary to the security of a free State. Therefore, no individual shall be barred the ownership and use of arms."
I understand your attempt here, but, and speaking from a purely literary standpoint, commas don't do what you, and many who oppose gun rights, say it does. Commas are breaks in sentence structure to prevent run-ons and, in many cases, separate parts of the phrase that can be removed without removing the context of the sentence. (similarly to what I just did there.) Many opponents to the 2nd Am. point to the commas at separating these lines and then using them out of context to draw untrue conclusions about the context of the rights there in.
The simple fact is, the entirety of the wording of 2a cannot be looked at in piecemeal. It HAS to be regarded as whole. When people say "That comma has meaning" They obfuscate from the original intent of the Bill of Rights, which was put in place to warn the Govt. that the people have every right to revolt should the elected officials fail to represent the people they are elected to govern.
As stated in several posts above me, the 1st amendment is our peaceful means of telling the govt to course correct. Should that fail, the 2nd amendment warns the govt that should the 1st amendment fail to reach our representatives, we have a duty to remove them by force if necessary.
@@Alustar22 You got my upvote. And young Americans should know that FDR killed more Jews, by his actions and inaction, than 120 million gun owners ever will. Most were starved. Read history books.
@@Alustar22 it's justified and well past time to use that force!!
The people are the militia. Not the police, and not the National Guard.
but the people usually do a pretty lousy job of self regulation sadly...
@@machupikachu1085 Then they need to organize themselves. Every state should have an official volunteer militia independent from the police and national guard. The colonel should be elected by the volunteer militiamen
All these guys were smart enough to write everything down and preserve it. Thank God they all had the foresight to do that
Problem is there are too many r3t^rds who don't read real history; they only read fake "history" about "but mUh WhIte mAn BaD..."
Except John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and John Marshall.
Why? It hasn’t protected us. The federal government infringes on our rights at will.
Too bad the trumpubliclowns don't want the public education system to enable people to read well enough to understand what the founders wrote...
Foreskin
If 2A was about maintaining a militia, then the second half should say "The power of the government to equip and maintain Militias shall not be infringed"? But it doesn't. Instead it says "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
2A explicitly says "the right of the people", not "the right of the government" or "the right of the militia".
It essentially said what you did in the Articles of Confederation prior to the adoption of the Constitution. Under the Articles of Confederation there was neither an Executive (federal government) nor Judiciary.
The text of the individual was added to the Constitution in addition to the militia clause due to the introduction of the Executive & Judicial branches (creation of a centralized federal government).
The Constitutional Amendments were at their inception designed to be a safeguard against Federal overreach subordinating the Rights of the individual States and general citizenry of those States; to ensure neither the Federal government nor a coalition of States in conjunction with the Federal government would impose, disarm, disenfranchise, dictate, threaten, or otherwise inhibit the individual liberties of any individual group of citizens or States.
You are absolutely correct in what you said, because if it was solely for the militias of the individual States, then the language from the Articles of Confederation would have been adopted as they had been written.
A militia is individuals whom volunteer to join together to protect the community. The national or state guard would not apply as they are not first responders.
@@kerwinbrown4180We are the militia
@@godssara6758 The federal government passed a law making any male between certain ages militia members so you are in agreement with them. The militia is a regulated military group of volunteer soldiers called up to fight raiders and for other purposes.
If anyone cares they can look up English and USA law that applies. The militia Acts for instance.
Well said
Another great program my friend. Be well.
Another helpful consideration in establishing the intent of the wording of the 2nd amendment is the definition of the word "regulated". At the time of the writing and with the adjective of "well" (well regulated) the true definition should eliminate any question. To regulate meant to make regular, not to impede and the adjective "well" could not make since otherwise. If something is well regulated, that means it is in precise functioning order not that it has been restricted or impeded. For instance, people who calibrated clocks and watches, to keep better time were called "Regulators". So the whole of the writing is meant to establish the fact that since a robust and well functioning militia was necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the PEOPLE (those who obviously would serve in a militia if need be) to keep (have always) and bear (carry with) shall not be infringed. We can't allow the enemy to dictate the meaning of words. They have no honor and will obfuscate meanings to their advantage.
The 2nd amendment "conveyed" nothing. It was a straight-up prohibition on government interfering with a right that had been "endowed to us by the Creator".
you and i know that. there are idiots that think we were not created by God so we have to coach them through using intellect.
@@DavidautofullCalling people idiots because they don't share your religious beliefs is not how you coach with intellect.
Are you happy with that? Do you feel better now mr not a commodity? Understand the gist, don’t knit pick it apart. You either agree or don’t with the video. I can’t even tell what side your on. Figure it out
@@I_am_a_human_not_a_commodity you call a duck a duck right? Calling an idiot an idiot is only natural
do you know what convey means in the context of written/spoken language? It does not mean 'give you' it means 'tells you'. For a piece of writing to convey something just means that this is what it communicates.
Absolutely great explanation Nick. You consistently make me glad I live in Virginia because I know you are on the case. I may be an old guy now but for what it is worth you have my support and respect.
I will be sharing this with many and filing it for the next time someone starts to spout the opposing narrative. Thank You
Great argument against collectivism and collective punishment!
Nick,you NEED to be in congress. Immediately! Please get there. 🙏
He is at the state level in Virginia. If I recall he represents the same district as of of our Founders did (perhaps James Madison?).
But, yep, we need more like him at the federal level.
He ran a few years ago against spamburger , just like Trump that year he was ahead in votes the night before and by morning his opponent mysteriously pulled ahead ! I’d say he was cheated out of the vote the same way others were !
For those who do not understand the meaning of "Rights", we need to make it clear once and for all:
The 2nd Amendment does not apply to full-auto, belt-fed, semi-auto, nor does it apply to bolt action rifles, pistols, or revolvers nor does it apply to any variety of AR15 platform or AK47 varient. It most definitely doesn't apply to bump/buttstocks, pistol braces, or any after market furniture made available to assist the development of.
The 2nd Amendment RESTRICTS GOVERNMENT..! The technology of the firearm is irrelevant. The restrictions on the government remain the same, regardless of the firearm period.
The second amendment doesn't apply to background checks, or any type of weapons ban nor to any preventative agenda offering justification for them.
The Second Amendment was not written to grant permission for citizens to own and bear firearms yet, it forbids government interference in the human "right" to keep and Bear Arms.
This "Human Right" of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, "Shall Not Be 'Infringed" that is all, nothing to follow after it. This ALSO applies to the other "Human Rights". They are not granted. They stipulate "Inherent Rights" that the GOVERNMENT MAY NOT PROHIBIT..!
Every time a government official even talks about gun's, they are in direct "Violation of Oath of Office.
sooo you just prove to everyone, you dont understand the basic definition of English or meaning of words.
"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."
1. im gonna start with bear arms - literally means any weapon the people can use with hands so yes, all guns ect are protected under it.
2. that's why the founding fathers said god given rights but everything else is basically correct
When our constitution was written,, ALL weapons were military style. try learning about how our nation was created
@@SlavicWeaponsu might’ve should have kept reading I almost thought oh shit here’s a libtard but I kept reading. Read it again & maybe again till u realize he is saying exactly wat u said.
thats not even true@@user-nl7sw4yi1r
Amen. Well said sir.
The mental gymnastics of people trying to interpret the 2A in ways that let them take away your guns can be truly impressive.
Well stated Nick. I’ve explained to people for years how the USA is Absolutely NOT a democracy and cited James Madison, former President and Father Of The Constitution as proof. Keep up the good work Brother Veteran, we appreciate you taking the time to do this type of Fact based educational video.
Very well articulated. Also, the Constitution's primary objective is to LIMIT the government, NOT individuals, who have God-given (not government-given) RIGHTS.
Anything "given" can be taken. No deities required. Ever.
@@TheBuddyLama They're actually called "inalienable rights", which literally means "rights that can never be taken away".
Close. The Constitution by its design endowed it with power. That power was divided to reduce the speed at which it could get out of hand, but it endowed it with power.
The Bill of Rights was intended to empower the people to be a brake on that power once it began to get out of control. Most people don't even know that there is a Preamble to the Bill of Rights. That Preamble makes it quite clear that the Constitution would have never been ratified by the States without the guarantees of the first 10 amendments. That without those guarantees the compact between the People, the States, and the Federal government would never have been created. And therefore any successful attempt to unilaterally rescind those guarantees effectively makes the Federal government no longer a legitimate authority because that compact will have been broken.
And contrary to what you will hear in some quarters...the Bill of Rights is as much a part of the Constitution as any of the other articles...for the reasons stated above.
I think the point is that the gov isn't supposed to have any authority over your rights. The 2nd was supposed to be to remind them of that. The problem is that a lot of Americans are just simply cowards now and would rather give up freedom form "safety", and we all know the saying for that.@@TheBuddyLama
I love that there's a majority of people out there who think that a founding document of a government would include a clause for its overthrow. I know you believe that, but you believe that because you're an idiot.
The term "well regulated" in the 18th and 19th centuries referred to being well calibrated, functioning properly, accurate, in proper working order. What was one of the most popular clock companies in existence in years past? 'Regulator.' What was the term that referred to sighting in a rifle, even into the 20th century? "Regulating the sights."
The supposition that the Founders would place tight limits on the very items that ensured American independence is false, and unsupported in their writings. The word "guns" does not appear in the 2nd Amendment. The general terms "arms" does, however. The forcible attempt to seize mostly *privately purchased* arms and munitions is what literally kicked off the Revolution on April 19, 1775. The Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution, and Bill of Rights (not Bill of Regulations, Bill of Restrictions, etc) plus the Federalist Papers and Anti Federalist Papers - among others - carry a clear message that the People themselves are the critical final check to tyrannical power, definitely not standing armies and are "...necessary to the security of a Free state." Also, where are the requirements enumerated for licensing, registration, and mandatory training in order to beg *permission* to exercise civil rights?
The 2nd Amendment is obviously one of the first ten, therefore, part of the Bill of Rights. As to the claim that "The founders didn't have a context for assault-type weapons...", that is also false, as 75% of colonial *artillery* was privately purchased, according to scholarly research by David Kopel and others. The rifles often used by colonials enabled vastly more accurate and lethal results at greater ranges than smooth bore British muskets.
In summation, the notion that the 2nd Amendment refers to anything other than an individual natural right to possess personal arms for defense of self and nation is preposterous, unsupported by volumes of historical fact, and devoid of intellectual honesty.
everything you said is spot on accurate and true. unfortunately,many, if not most people have not taken 2nd amendment rights seriously and have not been prepared to defend themselves and/or others. the result in recent years has been many mass shootings where the victims couldnt return fire and were essentially "fish in a barrel". the only question is why so many crazies out there wanting to shoot people they dont even know? that makes no sense at all and makes me fear they may be getting manipulated [brainwashed] somehow to get them to do it. sounds paranoid i know, but recent events make me wonder if certain 3 letter gov agencies may be evil and corrupt enough to do such things in order to undermine the constitution. anyone???
Well said.
Well regulated also meant well provisioned. In the late 18th century municipal police forces did not exist. A sheriff or marshal was assigned and when in need the local militia was activated much like a posse in western movies. During the Revolution the Continental Army would add local militias into their ranks. The murder of Jane McRae by Indian marauders in Fort Edward marshaled many militias to join in pivotal Battle of Saratoga.
Well regulated meant three things, well equipped, as in the quality of the weaponry, well stocked, in that of ammo and provisions, and well trained. The US populace should have mandatory gun exercises if anything, and a rifle for every adult. That would be providing for the common defense.
Well stated and exactly correct on the facts, something that has become rare online lately.
Thank you Sir. Ask the good folks of Texas
Well done! Crystal clear and well argued... I suppose that is because it was already thoroughly argued more than 200 years ago!
You know, all you have to do is view history. American people had guns and could fight the English because of it. They were not a government at that time. Now, in this day, we have seen the federal govt grow to what our founding fathers fought not to have.
They should ask the holocaust survivors what they think of guns.
That is a fantastic misunderstanding of the fundamental conflict that gave us this country. Shut up.
@@MegaLokopo I'd think they would've loved to have them.
@@mobiusone6994 Yep.
That's how we GOT the 2a. It would seem hypocritical and sus if they staged an armed revolt against their government ,and the new government said 'no guns.'
the US Supreme Court weighed in on this a few years back and declared the 2A is about individual rights. so why is this still being discussed?
Because both federal and state governments continue to pass laws restricting individuals' second amendment rights in violation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The government apparently doesn't understand the meaning of "...the right..shall not be abridged".
Because 100 million gun owners refuse to do what the Founding Fathers did. Simple as.
Classic left-wing strategy: ignore all losses and keep demanding what you want until you get it just because someone hopes you'll shut up.
Also popular among small children.
Because the law as was written clearly calls for regulation of said rights. If you want to change that, fine. But don't act like the 2nd is something you wish it was, vs. what you think it says.
@@robforrester3727 I'm guessing you missed the part "shall not be infringed".
IMAGINE WHAT THEY WOULD GET AWAY WITH IF THEY TAKE OUR GUNS...
just look at germany or canada
@@RealTrashPanda Canada has one of the highest percentages of gun ownership in the western word, so let's not go nuts.
@@machupikachu1085no one is going nuts here
@@machupikachu1085 America has 120 million gun owners. And more guns than people. And America's gun owners will never kill as many Jews as FDR did. Read history books.
@@machupikachu1085 News reporters tell us they have a lot of gun laws. There are more than 120 million gun owners in the US. More guns than people.
Great work Nick! I'm spreading this one around.
Two things: The politicians who most want to take your guns, are the best reasons to keep your guns, because: The 2nd Amendment is there to insure that "we the people" can always tell government "no" and make it stick.
People who don't like guns should talk to holocaust survivors and ask them about their opinion of guns.
Yep, you and your rifle are gonna do really well against tanks and rocket launchers. Freedom!
@@robforrester3727 We left Afghanistan didn't we, and because of Biden, with our tail tucked between our legs.
@@robforrester3727 Have you ever done any research on occupations? You don't occupy a country by having the most tanks.
But you do by having the most rifles?@@MegaLokopo
This is the best and most concise interpretation and justification of the 2nd amendment I ever heard! What a pity, that people of your morality and open mindness are usually not found in the circles of the "political elite".
No it isnt
It does my heart good to know that there really are people like you in our government.
“Well regulated.” Some latter day bureaucrat with nanny state on the brain decided it meant government regulation. Great video!
Well regulated like a good running clock
It does
Another reason people thinking it’s about militias is this, what government ever felt it needed to bother to expressly give itself the right to bear arms?
Good point! Looking at things from a different angle sometimes makes what you know more clear. Or, it can totally change what you see.
....or grant its oppressed populace the ability to mount an armed resistance to itself?
And why would they put it in the Bill of Rights rather than one of the Articles that grants powers to the state?
A person can disagree with the Second Amendment, but it is entirely dishonest to frame it as a power of the state to control people. It's a weak argument that falls apart under the smallest amount of scrutiny.
All of them? Minus stating it in their foundational document?
All of them.
"It doesn't matter who 'needs' an automatic firearm, when it's your _right_ to own one"
Does that apply to people with violent tendencies, or with a criminal record?
Or how about teachers with unruly students who also has a short temper?
@@Melora84Who decides that? You? Has to be a standard that can't be thrown aside or too broad scoped to be used as an excuse to take everyone's guns away.
Yep. I want more than one.
Correct.. that’s the problem we are. Talking about a persons right.
How about someone coming up to you to take your car because somebody on the other side of town got a DUI and killed innocent people? Should that person who drove drunk justify you losing your car over it when you had nothing to do with it? And don't say cars are not deadly weapons. Anything, if used in the wrong way can be considered a deadly weapon. Even a hammer can be called that. See my point? @@Melora84
Excellent clarification. I wish more of these "influencers" would dabble into these subjects more instead of coming off as pop-culturally/accidentally correct. Guys like Tim Pool, The Quartering, etc. These facts are not only fascinating and paint a much larger picture for everyone, it's absolutely vital that people understand them. Most people do not.
"To ban guns because CRIMINALS use them is to tell the LAW-ABIDING that their RIGHTS and LIBERTIES depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the GUILTY and LAWLESS." Lysander Spooner
MAGA? Lol.
EAD!@@nwj03a
"To ban driving while drunk because CRIMINALS do it is to tell the LAW-ABIDING that their RIGHTS and LIBERTIES depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the GUILTY and LAWLESS." - Lindsay Lohan
@@ronniejamesstepfordIf the anti-gun logic was applied to driving it would be a ban on owning THE VEHICLE because some people drive drunk.
@@ronniejamesstepfordauto insurance companies are an excellent example of applied demographics . If you live in an area that is considered high risk because of a certain percentage of irresponsible individuals , your rates go up accordingly. And the fact that you personally have had no crashes or citations makes very little difference. It's pure " Collectivism ".
“What makes you think you should have automatic weapons?” I don’t know, probably the fact that you want to keep me from getting one.
This is the kind of person we need in the White House. Strong, moral, intelligent, and well spoken.
He reads preprepared scripts. Let's not get too impressed
That’s exactly why he’ll never get there. He’s like an anti politician
Meanwhile we have a dude that literally falls asleep in meetings...
They used to be called statesmen. That was before politician became a job sector.@@daltonnunyabiz3067
@@matthewhunter6421 apparently you never seen his show
Great video. Refreshing to see a representative actually representing the people's concerns. Thank you.
You are amazing!! Thank you!! And keep up the great work!!
There are four, not three branches of government. The executive, the legislative, the judicial AND AN ARMED POPULACE.
This needs to be played on every TV displayed in a retail location throughout the country. Well done.
It needs to be taught in our government run indoctrination centers, AKA the corrupt & worthless public school system.
You can lead a Liberal to reason, but you can't make them think.
"In a retail location?" Shaddup, bot.
Well statedI It is so simple to understand but far too many people do not know their history and believe what stupid or corrupt politicians tell them.
Most college students think we fought france during the civil war and the American Revolution was in the 1940's and have No Idea how many stars are on the American Flag.
Refusing to become a victim is not evil, it is evil to create victims by not enforcing laws.
Exactly right! Well done!
if the second amendment didn't apply to individual citizens, then it would not be in the Bill of Rights.
Citizens are fictional.
Individuals have rights, collectives have power. I have been saying that for 40 years. Thanks for the reinforcement.
Exactly. It’s why we are a Republic and not a Democracy.
No, collectives also have rights; in relation to other groups. IE, states have rights to enforce their own laws (subordinate to the individual rights enumerated by the constitution) without regard to the amount of power the federal government or some other state wields over them. They aren't god given, but they are still rights.
You are THE MAN! KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!!!
Very Well Said! Thank You!
Shall NOT be infringed.
Full Stop.
❤️🔥⚠️
We need to keep hearing from people like Representative Frietas. This man clearly loves learning, and teaching, American history. This is a great nation that needs to get back to work.
You can lead a Liberal to reason, but you can't make them think.
As one of the many people who actually work in America, I invite you to stop talking.
And with that being said, you have a new subscription.
The other videos were also very informative.
Thanks and Happy New Year
Hopefully a year in which people will find that common sense is actually a great thing.
Excellently put, Friend.
If our inalienable rights were just privileges, to be held or denied by political whim, then we would be Canadians, but we are not.
The 2nd amendment is in fact, an amendment. It’s not an inalienable right, it was also not written today (when nukes exist), it was when a musket was shot twice a minute… by rich land owners. And they also sucked at shooting.
@@nwj03a Please do a simple google search for "puckle gun," amongst other repeating arms at the time. The founders well knew what was on the horizon in terms of weaponry, and desired for private citizens to possess much of these weapons for their own use. In fact, Madison essentially writes as much in a Letter of Marque and Reprisal, where a private vessel wanted to use a cannon (something Joe Biden got very wrong in a speech), and Madison's response amounts to "why wouldn't you be able to have a cannon?"
@@nwj03aDid you write your opinion on a cell phone or computer? I'm looking at the first amendment right now and funny it doesn't mention a thing about modern technology, yet people use them everyday to exercise their freedom of speech. So then explain why would the 2 ND be any different? Also there were many items available back then that were almost equal to, and some surpassing even modern firearms. Plus the word firearm is not used in the text, it clearly states ARMS, and guess what, cannons, swords, clubs, machine guns, bayonets, bombs....are all arms.
@James I’m going to come back to this echo chamber of morons rubbing their guns like a baby suckling the teet.
Gun violence is an America only problem. Us and literally nobody else. There isn’t a single example of the problem we have, not one, zero.
You, yes you, individually, have no clue what to do with a weapon. You are literally a moron the moment anyone confronts you. You are not a militia, you are not well trained, you are not well regulated. You, exactly you, are a coward, or at best an idiot, when real war happens.
You, just you, cower when another man confronts you, just you, alone, no help. You, are a civillian.
You think movies apply to you, you think you’re an exception. You are afraid, because that’s who you are. You are a cowardly little man who couldn’t watch a man have his head cut off, with his hands behind his back in zip ties, watching that moment the man’s face twitches when knife hits spinal cord.
You are a problem. You are an American problem. Your ilk is bad, you’re stupid, you don’t understand violence, you don’t get what you’re even talking about.
You, specifically you, are the reason innocent people die every week in America. Every other country has figured this out, but you need to rear entry your AR so hard that you forgot it was screaming assault.
I loathe that you exist and I spent time protecting the rights that you enforce on people that never wanted their kids to die in schools.
The hero you point to is me. The good guy with a gun. I don’t have a gun, I don’t want a gun, I’m not interested in protecting you anymore. You are a failure of entitlement, just you.
SGT NJ 3/1 SFG (A) Bronze star, 2 x ARCOM, 2 x AAM. You’re a militia? You’re a nobody… and so am I, but at least I know it.
Your policy (not facts, just opinions) puts my children at risk. You couldn’t protect a blanket from getting wet with a flamethrower. Militia? Maybe it’s maybelline.
You are a failure of understanding violence and what modern weapons can do. You are a failure of a safety bubble that I built and you think you had anything to do with. You protect nothing, your gun protects nothing, but maybe some day you can bury a loved one and wax poetically about what the second amendment definitely doesn’t say.
Your freedom isn’t free, but you sure feel entitled to tell me all about what you never earned really means. I hope you never procreate.
Good one. I'm Canadian and I believe you have that just about right. The only reason why legally acquired firearms are still in the possession of their owners is because Trudeau
does not have the legal means to take them. And we know he would in an instant.
Thanks for this well rounded and concise argument!
Agreed...excellent!
It’s an awful argument made by an idiot.
Preach it, brother!
Mogadisha Somalia was a prime example of a well organized militia ! It fought off the might of the US army and it’s allies having no tanks,helicopters, armoured vehicles or aircraft ! There was a gun on every rooftop and every street !
The people who say well-regulated means government regulated, may as well say, the militias ought to have been regulated by King George of Britain. It’s nonsense.
Well said, but the British were out of the picture by the writing of the COTUS.
Read an explanation of the changes in meanings of different words once. It seem at the time the 2nd A was written "well regulated" meant well supplied. A letter from Geaorge Washington complained about unregulated militiamen showing up for service without weapons or uniforms. Do it really means the citizen militia needs to be well armed. I agree.
“ I will send a fully armed battalion to remind you of my love! DADADADADA!” -king George III
Maine is doing swell.
And that the English were on the correct side and our founding fathers were outlaws.
You're the best, Nick. Not in your district, but fellow Virginian here. The universal background checks we were saddled with does concern me. Would appreciate your thoughts on the matter, sometime. Be safe.
The Constitution is the Supreme law of the land. Any law that violates the Constitution is an unjust law. Any lawmaker who violates the Constitution is breaking the law.
This is the most concise and helpful explanation of the 2nd amendment i have found on the Internet. The fact that we can see for ourselves the original writing of the founding fathers on the matter really helps.
This is excellent. What it makes me wonder is, are there some individuals who are too stupid to have rights? If they cannot understand simple historical context, and elementary logic, if they somehow think that "rights" are only for them, and the few that they determine to be worthy, then they need to be corrected or put somewhere that limits the harm they can do. We as a people long ago decided that the dangerously and criminally insane should be confined for the good of the law abiding and peaceful, now they seem to be running the government.
While some may be too stupid to understand the gravity and value of their rights, they all deserve them as they are endowed by our Creator - not by man.
That said, I believe that people need to do their homework when it comes to voting.
well we do call them democrats so at least the labeling is complete
The truth , Loud and Clear...
Really great video and viewpoints. And great production. I am definitely subscribing and will follow this, hoping to see more great content.
THANK YOU!
This video is incredibly well done and thus a great resource to send to those unaware. Such a great alternative to just whining about the problem.
The only reason to take away a person's right to defend themselves, and hold people around them accountable via the ultimate power granted by God, is that the government is afraid they will use that right to shoot someone. But if a law abiding citizen has gotten by for decades without shooting someone, and the people around them are not doing anything that merits being shot, what is the government worried about? Is it that the government plans to do something that the people would shoot them for? If so, the problem isn't the willingness of the people to take up arms, the problem is the government doing something it shouldn't.
Like a black kid trying to pick up his little brother? Or going bowling in Maine? Or going to college at Virginia tech? Or going to school at sandy hook? Or going grocery shopping in Buffalo? Or going to a concert at Vegas?
People got shot for those things, no heroes such as yourself did anything. We have more guns per capita than literally any industrialized country. Where was captain America?
@@nwj03aNotice all the "gun-free zones" you listed.
You also have to include the times and places where responsible people with firearms protected innocents, as well as self-defense.
You'll find that the FBI lied about the number of defensive firearms use to hide the real numbers.
In countries where no or very restricted individual firearms ownership is allowed, the government and police are the mass-murderers.
America is a far better place to live than any of those. If you want to be restricted, move to one of the totalitarian or nanny state regimes where criminals know you're disarmed.
@@LRRPFco52I like RPGs.. can I own one?
@@savantdude It is possible to own RPGs in the US, as long as you pay the stamp tax for what's called a Destructive Device. I don't agree with the NFA taxation scheme. Anti-armor weapons should be well-regulated at the local level.
@@nwj03ayou don't belong on American soil...please leave
The erosion of the second amendment started with the 1930s legislation prohibiting automatic weapons. With special licenses and restrictions and TAXES a person can still own them. I have never heard anyone right or left say we should repeal that law. Why?
Some have. But the main battle rifle of World War Two was semiauto. You do not really need full-auto. Also, no guns were taken from anyone You just had to pay a tax. You could keep those guns. FDR had no respect for the entire Bill of Rights. He had his own Nazi-like concentration camps. Out of nothing more than racism.
Protect your rights at all cost! We've lost most of them north of the border!
so...get them back?
It ain't the Bill of Needs.
Key word for the first ten amendments is inalienable, meaning cannot be taken or given away, you can choose not to use your right but you can't give it away or have it taken
Absolutely brilliant argument!! 😎😎
Run for President please 🙏
This needed to be said! Thank you!
Thank you... I have been telling people to read supportive documents and memoirs for YEARS... its pretty clearly spelt out that the people are meant to have the same weaponry as the military, as to be effective against a military should the need arise.
Dead on Nick! Thank you for the clarity
This is a great channel, thanks.
The government does not need a constitutional amendment to grant themselves the right to bear arms.
So glad I found your channel. The informational content is presented in a common sense and logical way. 2 traits our society seems to be lacking these days. Wish my state had representatives like you!
Very well said.
Why is this so Complicated?
The restrictive Clause is Clear!
" The Right of the PEOPLE to Keep and Bear Arms, Shall not be Infringed."
Clearly, it Doesn't say the Right of the Militia, but the Right of the PEOPLE!
Then we have Article 4/2 ....The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
9th &10th Amendments clarify that Our Rights Belong to We the People of the U.S. as declared in the Preamble to the Constitution!
9th .....The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
10th ....The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
According to the US Code, the organized militia consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia. The unorganized militia includes every male citizen between the ages of 17 and 45.
It is our inherent right and patriotic duty to possess firearms and be ready to defend our country.
Sandy hook
Congress gave themselves the power to regulate and controll militias in 1916. Which also gave them the right to oversee the training, equipping, and use of militias. This was not what the purposes of militias originally were. When the government controls what the militias does, they become a national military. Which was never supposed to exist. The militias were the national defense. They were not supposed to be regulated by the very government they were designed to protect We the People from.
@AkronButtercup-cr2lf
Article 1, Section 8 outlines Congress' powers regarding the Militia. It already had the power to organize, arm, train, and discipline the Militia. The Dick Act did established a permanent organized militia. The National Defense Act of 1916 merely expanded it.
@THall-vi8cp thank you.
@Buttercup So you’d be cool with disbanding the military? Just relying on you to protect you?
A unarmed society is a voiceless society.
Hitler disarmed the citizens of Germany just before he invaded Poland which of course began WWII.
Thanks for this video.
Well Said.
I would vote for Nick if he ran for president. wink wink, hint hint, nudge nudge
Hear! Hear!
He couldn't possibly win... he makes too much sense.
Unfortunately most men/women who should lead don’t want to.
@@tricopimp I can relate to that sentiment.
I wrote him in last time, but I assume not enough of us did that to make a difference.
i learned all this in grade school. there is a reason these facts of history are no longer taught in public school.
Rights aren't worth the paper they're enumerated on unless you have the ability to enforce those rights by force if necessary. The second ammendment is what makes a theoretical right, a right in reality.
Thank you
The people attacking the right of the individual ALL have one thing in common. They want MORE Government control over the individual, and THEY want control over the government. Because the individual is responsible for their own life, they must be free to protect themselves, and they must be free to choose.
I appreciate how Nick simplifies these topics for us dum-dums out there who understand what they mean but have trouble articulating the facts to others. Thank you, Nick, from me, a dum-dum!!
Well said. Thanks.
Spot on!