The "service in a militia" argument was totally debunked in the Heller v. D.C. Opinion (Jun 2008). And, i do NOT believe nor agree, under any circumstances, that the government has any "lawful" authority to ban any kinds of arms, accessories or appurtenances, ammo or any other prenumbral right. Nor any "lawful" authority to ban arms from any "sensitive" places unless they are ACTUALLY "sensitive" like a Courthouse or Incarceration Facility (about the only two true "sensitive" areas I can think of). BG Checks are PRIMA FACIE UNCONSTITUTIONAL because they're an undeniable "prior restraint" on the exercise of a fundamental, individual, natural, unalienable, "INCORPORATED" RIGHT (secured liberty)! And, JUST BECAUSE there were USURPATIONS OF RIGHTS in the past does NOT give such usurpations legitimatcy in the present! Death to all oath breaking, tyrant wannabe USURPERS!
All gun laws are unconstitutional. What about “shall not be infringed” do you not understand? The 2nd was put in place to protect the people from exactly the people who tell us we can’t own automatics because those are weapons of war.
You often hear it said that "A civilized society has no want or need of weapons". However, this statement is flawed in it's very premise. A "civilized" society in the sense that the term is being used in the previous statement, is marked as one who's people do not and have a desire to do harm to others. In contrast, and "uncivilized" society is one in which it's people do not respect others enough not to do harm to others. So the mark of a civilized society is one that can be trusted with weapons whereas the uncivilized cannot.
Thank God I live in Tennessee 💪, we are a very pro gun state 1000%. We are a stand your ground State. We are very happy with our guns and no one could ever take that from us. I challenge anyone or government to come here and try to take my guns away. It ain't happening ever..... God Bless America.
Americans need to understand one thing. We here in the USA are blessed beyond comprehension just for the fact that we do have The 2nd Amendment in the Constitution . Which guarantee also the 1st. G-d Bless the founders for their incredible wisdom. These are eternal and natural rights.
Patrick Henry spoke and began the American Revolution in 1765. No notes. No index cards. No teleprompter.Washington was the "Sword" Jefferson was the "Pen" and Patrick Henry was the "Tongue".
"could it really be considered one of the 'great rights of mankind' worthy of constitutional protection" (from Know your Bill of Rights Book - Sean Patrick).. to join a government military/militia? Citizens of any country can do that! We are the only country with 2A. The Founding Fathers MUST have meant "We The People" when they drafted 2A.
If you are unarmed you live at the mercy of those who are not....Need proof, give up your right and ability to defend yourself......Then claim you are free....Tyrants and criminals throughout history will insist otherwise....Its for your own safety, Of course. "Shall not be infringed"
He says at about 30:38 that Justice Stephens says that the Right of Self Preservation is not a Constitutional Right because it was not specifically stated in the Constitution. Amazing.
In a way, this vindicates those Founders that resisted the inclusion of a Bill of Rights, because they said that if these rights were mentioned, people might forget that there were others, such as in the 10th Amendment.
That would be useful, but far from enough. The bad news is that the people we're dependent upon to get that done will never do it, since that is clearly not in the interest of the people that rule over us.
@@abramgaller2037 Indeed, it would be a great start! What I find troubling, is the bitter reality of it occuring only in our dreams, unfortunately. Present-day American government has morphed into the very all-powerful, all-pervasive monstrosity that the "Anti-Federalists" had the wisdom and foresight to predict it would under the Constitution. Many of us in modernity, are quite familiar with the brilliant ideology of the founders; their methodology is what we are incapable of applying. We simply live at such a high standard of comfort and luxury, that we don't do what Thomas Jefferson so eloquently described in the Declaration of Independence.
If bearing arms is our Constitutional right and a state like CA only allows it if one has a special permit, how can that be resolved if a person is denied even though that person has a perfect record? Can that person conceal carry anyway because the Constitution allows it? Isn’t CA violating a person’s enumerated rights which supersede any local and even state jurisdictions?
I watched 55:50 mins of this, that is where he lost me, by dismissing the Constitution so easily. IF they attempted to ban certain guns, ("assault weapons"), --even IF the president signed it into law, the Congress passed it, and the SCOTUS ruled that it was OK to do that-- then, it still doesn't matter, because it is a Natural Right. It is a necessity to a person who wants to protect their Individual Right to Life & LIBERTY, therefore it is a natural right which we are born with & NO human has the right to take. Which means, btw, that the ban on any weapon that the govt or police can have, including but not limited to, fully autos, doesn't mean anything, because to protect our liberty from a tyrannical govt we have the right to the same weapons we'd be fighting against. Yeah, I know that thought creates a problem for many people. but, the left should love that idea, since they want pop control so much.>:)
Let me show you something real quick. The second amendment states in full: " 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." Now, let's take this amendment at its literal context. A well regulated Militia (since there are none left in existence) in 21st century terms means a police force. That regulated police force is the right of the people of the state so that the police force can protect the people from a tyrannical government. It is a right of the well regulated police force to keep and bear Arms for the protection of the people in the state. Therefore, if we take the first part of the amendment out (which is what SCOUTS did in their ruling) we get, " the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" this has two completely different meanings. The SCOTUS ruling is in direct contradiction to what the literal meaning of the 2nd amendment states.
+Hayotowin More Guns = More people getting killed by guns.. other countries where u have MUCH MUCH MUCH less guns = Much Much Much less people getting killed by guns.. Simple as that.
+Hayotowin: Good response. He weakened what he was saying at the end, for example he was glad that there were sheriffs who still had such a "spirit" and yet basically said with Aunty Em, "We can't go against the Law Dorothy" which of course weakens the spirit of any who would hear him. Either a man has the right to revolt and that is an "individual (and natural) right or he has to wait for "the group" which of course makes his right and his spirit subservient to the many. Not what the Founders were about, eh? JWC
+Epic MP Would you feel any better if the murder victims were pushed out of 5th story windows? Or run down with trucks? Why are you concerned only with people murdered with guns? And check the murder rates in countries where guns are banned. Please explain why the US is far down on the list despite having the world's highest rate of gun ownership.
@5:05 Ask ANY logical and morally responsible law enforcement officer of any rank and they will tell you that their law abiding citizens are FORCE-MULTIPLIERS because law enforcement knows they are responding to a crime that has ALREADY happened or is in the process of happening. RARELY is law enforcement there prior to the committing of a crime where they can stop the bad guy. They know that if a law-abiding citizen with a gun can defend themselves and their families or those around them that innocent life can be saved and law enforcement doesnt have to clean up the mess. This is why there are around 400,000 to 3 Million lives SAVED each year in the U.S. alone by the use of firearms for self-defense. In many of those instances the firearm is never even fired... it is simply brandished. This is also why there are only about 30,000-50,000 gun deaths per year in the U.S., more than half of those are suicide. Then take away accidental discharges of firearms and the real number of violent crimes committed with firearms in the 8,000-10,000 range, IF NOT LOWER! Stats do NOT lie... but our crooked political parisites think they know what is best for us instead of listening to what WE think is best for US... OUR GOVERNMENT NO LONGER REPRESENTS US, WE THE PEOPLE!!!
The 2A is not about hunting deer. It's all about hunting wannabe tyrants and usurpers. And, the American people HAVE dropped the ball already. Additionally, the only way to unlawfully "possess a gun" is if you're committing a real crime while so doing. And, it's not a "high capacity magazine" when the firearm was designed for its use. It's a "standard capacity magazine." Furthermore, LE has become the STANDING ARMY the founders feared for the people and/or the Select Militias which were such a problem in post Civil War America.
but aren't all weapons in essence "dangerous" the very fact that people have the right to arms means that the people are dangerous if pushed, and they will bear arms to remedy the assault on their liberty. The whole argument the government gives of "dangerous" is ridiculous because arms are just a tool, it's people that threaten their use of that tool that are dangerous. A gun is no more dangerous than a can opener if left on the table. It's only in the perceived threat to life and liberty that gun should be picked up and I myself prefer a dangerous weapon if someone is trying to take something from me that someone else is not entitled to.
Mr. Erier gets to the point the citizens of the USA are the militia not the police not the military not the National Guard who shot an unarmed student in Ohio.
The discussions surrounding the right to keep and bear arms during the ratification debates make it clear the primary reason for an amendment specifically prohibiting the federal government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms was to keep it from being able to control the state militias and effectively disarm the people. With this in mind, it logically follows that the founding generation intended for the people to have access to weapons capable of matching military firepower, and they would in no way be shocked at the idea of the general population owning so-called “assault weapons.” In fact, that was the point. They wanted the populace to both possess military equipment and the have the ability to use it. They wanted to ensure the people could resist the government - by force if necessary. When you bring up this truth today, a lot of people laugh it off, claiming a bunch of rednecks with AR-15s could never face down the U.S. military. Well, tell that to Afghani nomads and Vietnamese peasants. One does not have to be an advocate of violent revolution to recognize the danger of allowing the government to have a monopoly on guns. It’s a matter of balancing power with power. The government will be far less likely to become tyrannical or oppressive when the people maintain the ability to resist. When you remove the option of self-defense, it tips the scales of power toward the government. That opens the door to tyranny. Technology has certainly changed over the last 250 years. Human nature hasn’t. Government is still prone to abuse the people when it can get away with it. Power still corrupts. Absolute power still corrupts absolutely.
The Supreme Court ruling of 2008 was abhorrent to the gun owners of this country. To say that a particular firearm is "unusual", and that that justifies a ban of said firearm, is completely absurd, ignorant, and downright moronic. Just because an item is unusual to one individual doesn't mean it would be unusual to another. To say that, because this firearm is not as prevalent in this nation as this one, we can remove it from civilian ownership, is illogical. The Supreme Court needs to reverse their ruling and go back to adhering to the Constitution.
Does the Second Amendment give me the right to walk around with hand grenades in my pockets? I have read the Amemdment carefully and I think hand grenades are "arms".
Incorrect. Automatic firearms are in fact legal as the Constitution restricts the Gov from infringing on them. They are know as class three firearms. They require a federal tax stamp and I believe you must have an FBI background check. They also range in price from $15,000 to $200,000 and the dealer must have a class three FFL also checked by the FBI I believe. You can also buy explosives I think but definitely fact check me and everyone else for that matter.
I have passed this on to all my friends / family. My goodness, I will listen to this many times in the next few days.
Thank you Dr. Erler and Hillsdale College.
Thank you Hillsdale College!
The "service in a militia" argument was totally debunked in the Heller v. D.C. Opinion (Jun 2008). And, i do NOT believe nor agree, under any circumstances, that the government has any "lawful" authority to ban any kinds of arms, accessories or appurtenances, ammo or any other prenumbral right. Nor any "lawful" authority to ban arms from any "sensitive" places unless they are ACTUALLY "sensitive" like a Courthouse or Incarceration Facility (about the only two true "sensitive" areas I can think of).
BG Checks are PRIMA FACIE UNCONSTITUTIONAL because they're an undeniable "prior restraint" on the exercise of a fundamental, individual, natural, unalienable, "INCORPORATED" RIGHT (secured liberty)!
And, JUST BECAUSE there were USURPATIONS OF RIGHTS in the past does NOT give such usurpations legitimatcy in the present!
Death to all oath breaking, tyrant wannabe USURPERS!
All gun laws are unconstitutional. What about “shall not be infringed” do you not understand? The 2nd was put in place to protect the people from exactly the people who tell us we can’t own automatics because those are weapons of war.
Exactly.
You often hear it said that "A civilized society has no want or need of weapons". However, this statement is flawed in it's very premise. A "civilized" society in the sense that the term is being used in the previous statement, is marked as one who's people do not and have a desire to do harm to others. In contrast, and "uncivilized" society is one in which it's people do not respect others enough not to do harm to others. So the mark of a civilized society is one that can be trusted with weapons whereas the uncivilized cannot.
Thank God I live in Tennessee 💪, we are a very pro gun state 1000%. We are a stand your ground State. We are very happy with our guns and no one could ever take that from us. I challenge anyone or government to come here and try to take my guns away. It ain't happening ever..... God Bless America.
BRAVO!
Americans need to understand one thing. We here in the USA are blessed beyond comprehension just for the fact that we do have The 2nd Amendment in the Constitution . Which guarantee also the 1st. G-d Bless the founders for their incredible wisdom. These are eternal and natural rights.
Justice Stevens is quite irrational.
Patrick Henry spoke and began the American Revolution in 1765. No notes. No index cards. No teleprompter.Washington was the "Sword" Jefferson was the "Pen" and Patrick Henry was the "Tongue".
Little do the gun banners know, most so called "assult wepons" are much less than "high power."
"could it really be considered one of the 'great rights of mankind' worthy of constitutional protection" (from Know your Bill of Rights Book - Sean Patrick).. to join a government military/militia? Citizens of any country can do that! We are the only country with 2A. The Founding Fathers MUST have meant "We The People" when they drafted 2A.
If you are unarmed you live at the mercy of those who are not....Need proof, give up your right
and ability to defend yourself......Then claim you are free....Tyrants and
criminals throughout history will insist otherwise....Its for your own safety,
Of course.
"Shall not be infringed"
He says at about 30:38 that Justice Stephens says that the Right of Self Preservation is not a Constitutional Right because it was not specifically stated in the Constitution. Amazing.
Clearly he wasn't familiar with the 10th amendment.
In a way, this vindicates those Founders that resisted the inclusion of a Bill of Rights, because they said that if these rights were mentioned, people might forget that there were others, such as in the 10th Amendment.
As a country we need a non-delegation amendment to the Constitution.
That would be useful, but far from enough. The bad news is that the people we're dependent upon to get that done will never do it, since that is clearly not in the interest of the people that rule over us.
@@billgreenidge6740 That is true, but it would reify non-delegation as a tool. It would be a start.!
@@abramgaller2037 Indeed, it would be a great start! What I find troubling, is the bitter reality of it occuring only in our dreams, unfortunately. Present-day American government has morphed into the very all-powerful, all-pervasive monstrosity that the "Anti-Federalists" had the wisdom and foresight to predict it would under the Constitution. Many of us in modernity, are quite familiar with the brilliant ideology of the founders; their methodology is what we are incapable of applying. We simply live at such a high standard of comfort and luxury, that we don't do what Thomas Jefferson so eloquently described in the Declaration of Independence.
@@billgreenidge6740 Yes it is a sad truth!
If bearing arms is our Constitutional right and a state like CA only allows it if one has a special permit, how can that be resolved if a person is denied even though that person has a perfect record? Can that person conceal carry anyway because the Constitution allows it? Isn’t CA violating a person’s enumerated rights which supersede any local and even state jurisdictions?
Good speech!
I watched 55:50 mins of this, that is where he lost me, by dismissing the Constitution so easily. IF they attempted to ban certain guns, ("assault weapons"), --even IF the president signed it into law, the Congress passed it, and the SCOTUS ruled that it was OK to do that-- then, it still doesn't matter, because it is a Natural Right. It is a necessity to a person who wants to protect their Individual Right to Life & LIBERTY, therefore it is a natural right which we are born with & NO human has the right to take. Which means, btw, that the ban on any weapon that the govt or police can have, including but not limited to, fully autos, doesn't mean anything, because to protect our liberty from a tyrannical govt we have the right to the same weapons we'd be fighting against.
Yeah, I know that thought creates a problem for many people. but, the left should love that idea, since they want pop control so much.>:)
Let me show you something real quick. The second amendment states in full: " 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." Now, let's take this amendment at its literal context. A well regulated Militia (since there are none left in existence) in 21st century terms means a police force. That regulated police force is the right of the people of the state so that the police force can protect the people from a tyrannical government. It is a right of the well regulated police force to keep and bear Arms for the protection of the people in the state. Therefore, if we take the first part of the amendment out (which is what SCOUTS did in their ruling) we get, " the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" this has two completely different meanings. The SCOTUS ruling is in direct contradiction to what the literal meaning of the 2nd amendment states.
+Hayotowin More Guns = More people getting killed by guns.. other countries where u have MUCH MUCH MUCH less guns = Much Much Much less people getting killed by guns.. Simple as that.
+Hayotowin:
Good response. He weakened what he was saying at the end, for example he was glad that there were sheriffs who still had such a "spirit" and yet basically said with Aunty Em, "We can't go against the Law Dorothy" which of course weakens the spirit of any who would hear him.
Either a man has the right to revolt and that is an "individual (and natural) right or he has to wait for "the group" which of course makes his right and his spirit subservient to the many. Not what the Founders were about, eh? JWC
+Epic MP Would you feel any better if the murder victims were pushed out of 5th story windows? Or run down with trucks? Why are you concerned only with people murdered with guns? And check the murder rates in countries where guns are banned. Please explain why the US is far down on the list despite having the world's highest rate of gun ownership.
@5:05 Ask ANY logical and morally responsible law enforcement officer of any rank and they will tell you that their law abiding citizens are FORCE-MULTIPLIERS because law enforcement knows they are responding to a crime that has ALREADY happened or is in the process of happening. RARELY is law enforcement there prior to the committing of a crime where they can stop the bad guy. They know that if a law-abiding citizen with a gun can defend themselves and their families or those around them that innocent life can be saved and law enforcement doesnt have to clean up the mess.
This is why there are around 400,000 to 3 Million lives SAVED each year in the U.S. alone by the use of firearms for self-defense. In many of those instances the firearm is never even fired... it is simply brandished. This is also why there are only about 30,000-50,000 gun deaths per year in the U.S., more than half of those are suicide. Then take away accidental discharges of firearms and the real number of violent crimes committed with firearms in the 8,000-10,000 range, IF NOT LOWER! Stats do NOT lie... but our crooked political parisites think they know what is best for us instead of listening to what WE think is best for US... OUR GOVERNMENT NO LONGER REPRESENTS US, WE THE PEOPLE!!!
The 2A is not about hunting deer. It's all about hunting wannabe tyrants and usurpers. And, the American people HAVE dropped the ball already. Additionally, the only way to unlawfully "possess a gun" is if you're committing a real crime while so doing. And, it's not a "high capacity magazine" when the firearm was designed for its use. It's a "standard capacity magazine." Furthermore, LE has become the STANDING ARMY the founders feared for the people and/or the Select Militias which were such a problem in post Civil War America.
Heeeey! That's too much truth at one time. You're causing a rude awakening for a bunch of folks.
Reference Switzerland everyone (citizen) holds at home a fully automatic sub machine gun . Check the number of home invasions there.
Most gun laws hurt the poor!
Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris needs to pull up a chair and learn something here. Trump 2020.
A very serious and intelligent analysis which is far too uncommon in the current atmosphere of anger and vitriol,
that CDC comment aged well
but aren't all weapons in essence "dangerous" the very fact that people have the right to arms means that the people are dangerous if pushed, and they will bear arms to remedy the assault on their liberty. The whole argument the government gives of "dangerous" is ridiculous because arms are just a tool, it's people that threaten their use of that tool that are dangerous. A gun is no more dangerous than a can opener if left on the table. It's only in the perceived threat to life and liberty that gun should be picked up and I myself prefer a dangerous weapon if someone is trying to take something from me that someone else is not entitled to.
Mr. Erier gets to the point the citizens of the USA are the militia not the police not the military not the National Guard who shot an unarmed student in Ohio.
The discussions surrounding the right to keep and bear arms during the ratification debates make it clear the primary reason for an amendment specifically prohibiting the federal government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms was to keep it from being able to control the state militias and effectively disarm the people. With this in mind, it logically follows that the founding generation intended for the people to have access to weapons capable of matching military firepower, and they would in no way be shocked at the idea of the general population owning so-called “assault weapons.”
In fact, that was the point. They wanted the populace to both possess military equipment and the have the ability to use it. They wanted to ensure the people could resist the government - by force if necessary.
When you bring up this truth today, a lot of people laugh it off, claiming a bunch of rednecks with AR-15s could never face down the U.S. military. Well, tell that to Afghani nomads and Vietnamese peasants.
One does not have to be an advocate of violent revolution to recognize the danger of allowing the government to have a monopoly on guns. It’s a matter of balancing power with power. The government will be far less likely to become tyrannical or oppressive when the people maintain the ability to resist. When you remove the option of self-defense, it tips the scales of power toward the government. That opens the door to tyranny.
Technology has certainly changed over the last 250 years. Human nature hasn’t. Government is still prone to abuse the people when it can get away with it. Power still corrupts. Absolute power still corrupts absolutely.
Professor Erler should know that there are already fully functional tanks in the hands of private citizens. Just search UA-cam.
yes, but no ammo.
@@PapaDragon123 Watch and be enlightened: ua-cam.com/video/w6klYe733MU/v-deo.html
Machine guns are NOTTT ILLEGALLL it's called a CLASS III LICENSE!!!
And therefore makes the LICENSE Illegal & a violation of 2nd A rights! don't be fooled!
The Supreme Court ruling of 2008 was abhorrent to the gun owners of this country. To say that a particular firearm is "unusual", and that that justifies a ban of said firearm, is completely absurd, ignorant, and downright moronic. Just because an item is unusual to one individual doesn't mean it would be unusual to another. To say that, because this firearm is not as prevalent in this nation as this one, we can remove it from civilian ownership, is illogical. The Supreme Court needs to reverse their ruling and go back to adhering to the Constitution.
Does the Second Amendment give me the right to walk around with hand grenades in my pockets? I have read the Amemdment carefully and I think hand grenades are "arms".
Incorrect. Automatic firearms are in fact legal as the Constitution restricts the Gov from infringing on them. They are know as class three firearms. They require a federal tax stamp and I believe you must have an FBI background check. They also range in price from $15,000 to $200,000 and the dealer must have a class three FFL also checked by the FBI I believe. You can also buy explosives I think but definitely fact check me and everyone else for that matter.
Correct as well as artillary w/live ammo see the most armed man youtube
I'm pretty sure that you understand what you are saying.