Well then maybe you should actually read what the relevant lawmakers at the time thought it meant. They debated it rigorously... it’s quite clear that they were of a mind that American citizens are allowed firearms as a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT. Furthermore even if this were not the case, and context was shifted to modern times, the need for firearms would still remain for modern purposes, like self defense. Who do you trust with a firearm more? Yourself after proper training, or a stranger who works for the worlds largest killing machine? The answer should be obvious.
@45 fottuto stronzo label it how you want. It isn't the complete story. World History and Slavery do not start with America. MR is spinning this white rage garbage. They sound like Bernie haters last year. "Why so enraged if there's NO white rage?" Umm because you're talking shit about us and my Father and Grandfathers (first gen Americans), that fought in WWII. Duh?!!! Some people do not understand how to protect their childrens futures. White Men do. So of course if you try to deny our existence we will do something. That's why... We win. Some should learn how to Win in this world. We'd actually get some left wing things done! It doesn't take privilege to fight for freedom. MR is apparently in the slave mind business and selling excuses. At least that's the approach since Biden was elected and Emma came on.
@@ManuelCastro-ns5sd you can call whatever names make you feel better about your ignorance on the matter. I'm pretty sure the snowflakes are the fools like you that ignore history and reality.
@@brentnoury7626 wtf does it matter if slavery didn't start with America? What is the point of that argument? Slavery is still a part of American history, no matter where it started, it still left a huge stain on this country and the effects are still going through the communities to this day
I kept watching the ad for how to (legally) hide my guns from the government because patriotism means I need to have an adversarial relationship with the government these days.
@@BadassRaiden It could be the ads are targeted based on the title of the video being about the second amendment or based on the possible audience of right wingers being sent to this video by a family member asking them to have more nuance in their views. Those individuals would be most likely to respond to this video by doubling down on whatever secrets that man, green screen driving around his 320 acre security farm, has to teach.
is there any chapter in her book about the First Victimes of the colonists and militias' guns : the American First Nations ? like talking about states right to wage war on Natives during the King Philip's war ...
@@melissagaynor5880 because the discussion is a biased one. Against whites. It's racist to call us all horrible. Obviously. It's wrong to claim we created slavery. It's a complete Americentric view of History. And frankly I'm done dealing with people, no matter how close politically we are aligned, that want to trash whites all day for a living. Enough is enough. All fucking day everywhere you look. It's Obvious reverse racism. And White Men don't put up with that bullshit! That's why we rule the world.
I can't comprehend how many people think it's a RIGHT to own a gun, because the second amendment days we have the right to bear arms. And that they think "arms" means guns specifically. Like no it means you have the right to use whatever tools at your disposal to defend yourself and your property. That tool can sometimes be a gun. Sometimes, it might be the kitchen knife. Guns are like cars. You have the right to travel, but that does not extend specifically that you have the right to drive a car. You have to prove that you can operate a car the way it should be operated. If you can't, well not only does it get taken away, but the privilege to drive at all, ie your license gets taken away. Privilege is the key word there. Operating and driving a car is a privilege just like owning and being able to use a gun is a privilege. Because when it gets taken away, your right to bear arms remains unimpaired. You don't need a gun to defend/protect yourself, not even if you're facing one. Also there's no statistic that actually says one way or the other, if having a gun or being near someone who has one - who is not law enforcement - actually increases your chance or anyone else's chance for that matter of living. Just another failed talking point of gun nuts. And I by no means "hate" guns. I used to want to be a sniper but that's a whole nother story - but given the opportunity I'd love to have a personal long range rifle I can go to the range with. So I certainly don't think that it's just outright immoral to own a gun - but the argument that you need one or have the right to one - is utterly false.
The right to keep and bear arms “extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” That the right includes other weapons does not mean it doesn’t include firearms. Your entire argument is asinine.
Arms, in the context of US law, is defined by DC v Heller as the traditional common law interpretation. Meaning that which you bear on your person for offense and wear on your person for defense. Guns are protected since, as Rodger above me noted, the arms protected extend, prima facie, to include arms not even existing at the time of the founding.
No it's not asinine. I never said it doesn't include firearms. The point I was making was that "arms" is specifically vague and general for a reason, because let's be truthful they did already have guns back then, and they very much could have specifically stated citizens have the right to own a gun. They did not. It's so that it doesn't specifically specify that you have the right to any one particular tool, instead it men's you have the right to use any tool available to you as a tool to bear arms with. That very much means you do not have the specific right to OWN A GUN. It also doesn't mean you have the right to access to it either. You simple have the right, to use that which you have access to, to bear arms. My gun and car analogy is literally spot the fuck on, you just can't admit it because you're a fucking troll and you don't understand that larger picture. Also you seem to think rights are things in an of themselves, which they are not, which is exactly why you don't have the right to own a gun, a gun is a thing. The right to bear arms, is not a thing. Rights are principles, notions, abstractions. They are not tangible things in the world itself. In fact it's better to say, that rights are actions - autonomous actions. You have the right to travel, an action, you do not have THE RIGHT to a car, a thing. You have the right to free speech, an action. You do not have the right to be recognized by any one outlet to voice you own opinions, ie the right to any one service. If you did, it would mean that no business could ever deny anyone for any reason, because you would literally have the right to that service. We know that's wrong, because business can very much turn away anyone for any reason except sexual and racial discrimination. The moment they do they infringe upon your right not to be discriminated against for your ethnicity, gender, age, sexuality. Again you don't have the right to any service, you only have the right to not be discriminated from that service for age, sexuality, ethically, gender. Also you have the right to free speech, but you can't just go tell someone you are going to murder them. And what you said goes both ways in that, arms yet to exist can also go back to not existing. So if the country as a whole hypothetically stopped manufacturing guns and the only ones in the country were in the hands of people who won't sell them, how does someone coming of age get their hands on a gun then? Owning a gun is a right. They have a right to a gun. So does that mean they get to demand someone give them one? Or demand the government start manufacturing them again so then can have one? After all it is their right to have one, and other people have one, so shouldn't they be allowed to demand one? You're an imbecile. Copy and pasting some Latin and a quote doesn't make you right - or smart. You have the right to travel, not the right own a car. You have the right to free speech, not the right to tell someone you are going to murder them. You have the right to bear arms, you don't have the right to own a gun. Taking away a car or any mechanical transport, does not take away or infringe upon your right to travel. It may make it harder, but that's irrelevant to this argument. Rights are inalienable traits of conscious beings (which is why animals have rights), not tangible things that can be taken away. Like I said they can take away any and all transport, but they can't take away your right to travel - because you still have your two legs. You can't infringe upon the right to travel until you take my legs away, either by cutting them off, or enslaving me and putting in chains. Both of which infringe on separate rights as well. Likewise all the guns, and all the knives and all the bow and arrows, all of it can be made unavailable to you and it does not infringe on your right to bear arms. You still have the capacity to literally bear *arms* in defense of yourself and property and until they literally stop you from standing up in defense of yourself, your second amendment right has not been infringed upon. Now there is an argument to be made, since global society has the capacity to provide cars, and guns, etc, basically on tap, that we should have the rights to these things - but that is NOT this argument. This argument is whether or not your right TO those things already exists - of which it does not. Lastly, I'll be very simple. Since you think the right to bear arms extends outward and forward indefinitely, then it extends backwards indefinitely as well. Unfortunately however, the guy who collects medieval weapons gets them taken away when he starts hacking people with swords - or something as benign as just swinging it around dangerously in a public place even if no one is around who could be injured. Learn the how to conceptualize the whole picture bub.
@@BadassRaiden You sure got angry very quickly. It seems like you might be the hyper emotional type that can’t stand being contradicted. I made my position known and included a quote from a Supreme Court ruling. In no way am I trolling. Based on your comments it would seem you think the government can ban any arms they choose to so long as other arms are available. That would imply that the government could ban ALL weapons. This is not how rights are applied here. Imagine applying that to any other Constitutional right. By your logic the government would be able to ban any form of speech they choose so long as there is at least form of speech left available. They would be able to ban any form of religious practice so long as there is one left available. Your argument doesn’t hold any water. Unfortunately your analogy isn’t as good as you think it is. First, driving is recognized by the courts as a right. No right is absolute but being a right restricts the government’s ability to control said right. For example, we have the right to vote but you can lose that right while you’re in prison. You have the right to free speech but that doesn’t protect threats or incitement to violence. You have the right to freedom of religion but animal sacrifice is not allowed. With regards to driving, no one has ever seriously discussed banning vehicles altogether. Vehicles are responsible for as many deaths as guns each year but no one wants to ban them. The right to keep and bear arms means you have the right to all bearable arms. That includes firearms. You DO have the right to own firearms. This has been held by every court at every level. You seem to be confused as to what “keep and bear” means. To keep is to possess, which is an action. To bear is to wield, which is also an action. You have the right to possess and wield arms. This right would be completely annihilated if the government could simply ban all arms. By the transitive theory, you have the right to arms. A right is something the government is not allowed to deny you or do to you. A right has literally nothing to do with other civilians or even the government owing you something. It is only that the government cannot deny you your right. The government may not deny you free speech, the practice of your religion (or to not practice religion at all), access to arms, due process etc. Nobody owes you anything. Ah, ad hominem attacks, the sign of a true intellect. The discussion is on the second amendment, which is a legal right. You can bay and moan all you want about your personal definition of “rights” but that matters not one bit when we have a Constitution that says otherwise. All of your insults and made up definitions are worthless.
@@rogerdodger4212 your whole argument is undone by the fact that Australia used to have guns, then they banned guns. Did they infringe upon their citizens rights to defend themselves? No. Their constitution may be different from ours, but guns used to be allowed - and then they weren't. It didn't change the fact that they were still allowed to defend themselves with the arms at their disposal. It was very much left vague and general for the singular reason that no one is privy to any one armament. That the sole purpose for it's vagueness. Bring out all the Latin you want, it's still the fact as to why it was made vague and why it remains vague to this day; because if no form of weaponry even existed of any kind - you still have the right AND can execute your right to bear arms. You still have the right to pick of a rock and defend yourself. The thing you defend yourself with IS NOT A RIGHT, and you literally seem to think they are the same thing. You made my point that rights are things that the government can't take away. A gun, they can in multiple circumstances literally come and take it away from you; if you have committed a felony, or otherwise proven you can not responsibly own a gun. If owning a gun were a right, the would literally never under any circumstances be able to take it away from you. Having a gun is not a constitutional right, and its certainly not a human right. In no way shape or form was my argument an ad hominem fallacy. That's absolutely comical. Stop trying to use big ideas to make you sound smart. Also where did I say I was mad? If you take swear words or caps for enunciation as anger - you need to rethink how you make judgement calls. And if we are being technical the government allows itself, our government especially - to do literally whatever the fuck it wants. So yes if the government wants to ban any and all forms of weaponry including forks and butter knives it may so well please, even a non corrupt one. And it still did not infringe upon your right to bear arms. You seem to think the right to bear arms is the same thing as the right to have arms made available to you. It. Is. Not. Bear arms means defend yourself. Simple as that no matter how much shit you try and add to it. The capacity to defend yourself is the thing that can't be taken away or infringed upon. Make you no longer allowed to have a gun not not infringe upon your capacity to defend yourself. You still have full capacity to defend yourself. All things aside that is literally the simplest reason to why you are completely wrong. The right to bear arms literally means the right to defend yourself. If guns are taken away from you - you still have 100% capacity to defend yourself. Period. That's it. Simple as fucking that. Guns being taken away affects in no way your individual capacity to defend yourself, and that is literally what bear arms means. Also, human rights trump constitutional rights so, get bent square.
@Slater Slater Great. Whatever your opinion may be on how intelligent either of them may be, the claim that Steven isn't willing to debate others he disagrees with and is therefore cowardly is a good one! 🤣🤣
Is she for black gun ownership? I get the historical context she's providing, but I can't tell if she is in support of modern day black people owning guns. I'm a black progressive lefty but I do have a cabinet full of guns. On guns and black people I feel like now that we FINALLY have some widespread opportunity to acquire the same weapons as our white counterparts, we're pushing to either eliminate the second amendment in some cases, or severely limit it so that we can't take part in it in the same manner as white Americans have been doing throughout history (particularly modern history).
I think you might be able to email her and ask her that question. But as for this discussion I appreciate how they stayed on topic and was discussing a historical background of the second amendment and how it was used quite explicitly to subjugate rather than to make sure tyranny wasn't achieved.
@@cooldrop02 that's the point i would say. Propaganda always sells the opposite of what tha matter is (always sells black for white or white for black)
“All American households should have 5 guns. A semi auto pistol and revolver for him and her to carry. A shotgun for small game and home defense. A large caliber bolt action rifle for large game (which btw is far far far more powerful than an AR-15). And a semi auto rifle (ar, ak, ect) to protect against tyranny and to have fun with friends on the weekends” “Gun rights are black rights” -Killer Mike
That’s funny we see government tyranny every day with how the cops treat the minorities and all white “mu guns patriots” just talk about how they deserve it all people that talk about that are a joke only in your dreams would you be able to stand against the US government and that fact that you think different is funny
@@WESTSIDEP707 Uh huh, the blk man's qoute you're upset about definitely says everything about you when you immediately blame wht ppl. You're the racist here, and most places....And its more about deterrence than anything, but still Joey doesn't strike anyone as a master tactician so it'll probably be okay.
@@deandredunbar9618 i have meet people that think the second amendment means there should be no rules at all and if a 9 year old has enough money to buy a pistol they should be able to .
One of the most crucial elements is who the militias were meant to be for and against. It wasn't the people vs the government. It was the states vs the federal government. States needed well regulated, aka properly functioning militias in order to protect themselves from being seized. Its really important to understand the mindset these rules were written as: People scared of singular control, ie a king. Independent states with an overarching federal government work to have unity without complete control by one person. This is why the constitution, prior to incorporation doctrine based on the 14th amendment, only applied to the federal bodies. States, absolutely, could and did restrict free speech, be overtly religious, quarter soldiers, etc. States did maintain rules on firearms and do to this day. So who was the militia? Well this varies, but often, quite literally, described as every able bodied white male. But the state militias slowly transformed, via the militia acts, into what we now call the state national guards. You know, very well regulated militias (non standing but trained force). Reading the 2nd amendment as an individual right is a modern concept. Ironically based on, so called, orginalism. But Scalia tier orginalism is not interested in what the founders really thought. Over 200 years juris prudence on this was clear. But activist judges don't care.
One of the reasons I'm opposed to increased gun control and assault weapon bans is I think it would be a good idea to keep black people armed in places where their rights might be at risk and where the police might take who knows how long to show up. There's a story about a bunch of guys who showed up at a mosque with their rifles to make trouble for the Muslims there. It was a Nation of Islam mosque. As soon as they saw that the people they were planning to harass were also armed they left.
Of course, if I was black, I would definitely want the right to defend myself. It is kind of crazy thinking about people crying about facism but they want to disarm the opposition. Sounds very hitlerish.
All we need is normal nationwide gun control. Not banning guns, not taking all of them away. Make a license, only be able to purchase with a license, needs to make a few hours on the shooting range. 48h holding time to avoid suicides, irrational decisions. If only cities do it, but counties surrounding them do not, it becomes useless. Almost all illegally held guns found in cities were purchased in the counties surrounding them. Wel live in a seriously dumb society... why do we have stricter laws on cars than guns, doesn't make sense...
The North detested slavery??? What is she saying? We are talking about the 18th century. The North also had slavery and funded it even later. They didn't detest it at all.
This isn't a complicated subject. The Militias were the LEOs of that time. The 2nd Amendment declares that the States will have the power to make and enforce criminal laws, and this power would not be usurped by the Federal govt. The higher numbered Amendments add additional restrictions to Federal law enforcement powers. Much later, the 14th Amendment declared that all those same restrictions apply to the States.
I am a leftist but I support the 2nd amendment..... I do because I fear that is my only Way to defend myself from fascist powers in America.... I don't trust police departments and I fear right wing malitias...... Guns are terrible but if we can't defend ourselves , history will repeat itself.... Weapons for me are a plan Z..... whole lot of peaceful options between A and Z
I used to be in support of gun control, but more and more lately, I've been in support of the second amendment. I'm not sure that I'll ever own one, especially since I don't think I'm emotionally capable of using one in self defense, but it feels scary to me to not have the option if society gets bad enough.
I own a gun and I am not a gun person. I only have one in case some a****** decides to break into my home and I feel my life is endangered. If not for those people I wouldn't own a gun, don't care about them. If no armed burgler breaks into my house, then the gun collects dust as it were. That is the only reason I want the second amendment, to protect me from criminals.
I own guns and occasionally use them to put meat in the freezer. These ammo sexual gun fetishists posturing and posing and stroking are embarrassing and utterly unaware of what they reveal about themselves.
As interesting as this piece of scholarship is, I think it is important to also point out the vital role that firearms ownership played in the fight for many just causes. Black Liberation movements, early feminist movements, lgbt self defense, etc. have often hinged on the ability to own arms and defend marginalized communities with them. It seems that historically the failings of the 2nd amendment lay in the fact that it was at times not extensive enough, and precluded those that needed it the most from benefiting from it. In all of this I see no evidence for tighter gun control (nor am I claiming that Prof. Anderson does). (Edit: grammar)
@@britsareweak please refer yourself to the black panthers of California occupying the state building. And that’s just one example of many. You’re being ahistorical at best.
@@britsareweak You have yet to contend with anything anyones put forward. You have to demonstrate how people don’t understand history with specific examples and evidence. Not just saying “No u.”
@@britsareweak My point is more so the fact the understanding of the 2nd amendment and the purpose it serves, just like any other part of the constitution, changes with time, and the Supreme Court exists to recognize that fact. Today the cultural understanding of the 2nd amendment is far different than what it was originally intended for and many, including the minority groups you’re dismissing entirely, would say the 2nd amendment needs to stay in order protect themselves from fascists. I tend to agree, I have a family to protect, and we’re black in a mostly white dominated part of the south. I shouldn’t have any less ability to defend myself than these dangerous nationalists should because of your unnuanced understanding of history.
Fascinating! I have to admit to having ignored the slave rebellion factor during my conversations about the Second Amendment. That will be rectified henceforward.
Of the many things overlooked is that during the American Revolution a Spanish force was involved. Due to British forces present in Louisiana the Spanish fought them off, then they launched a force from New Orleans to Florida and defeated the British there also. I bring this up to point out that Louisiana kept to French law for a very long time, notable among these was that the offspring between a free person and a slave was free. Yes there were free Black men fighting for the Patriots, but as they weren't from colonial states, they weren't accounted for. One more thing I like to point out is that the Confederacy has free Black men in their ranks even before the Union did, and that the C.S.A. had integrated units almost 100 years before the Union did.
The Confederacy having so called "integrated units" before the union is not quite true. To start the Confederacy never had any sort of integrated unit during the Civil War much less African Ameircans in designated combat roles. While it is well documented that some amoung the Confederacy believed that slaves should have been used in combat roles it was certainly not a popular idea, with legislation relating to it only being ratified by the confederate congress out of utter desperation in 1865 with said units likely never seeing any combat before the war ended. It is also well documented that many African Americans served in auxiliary roles in the C.S.A, however it is important to note that a majority of these people were slaves and didn't have much of a say in the matter. Regardless of whether or not a handful of so called "Black Confederates ever existed, the Union fielded as many as 200,000 African Americans in combat roles during the war and any discussion about this topic has to centre around that comparison.
@@Niel2760 Well, when France established a presents in the Mississippi river valley in the 1600's their law came into control, thus the offspring between slave and a free person were free.
@@Niel2760 Forgive me I ended my reply before I should have. There were free Black men and women in Louisiana, and even during the War Of 1812 the men took up arms.
@@nootboot9744 You should read my comment in its entirety, and if you still don't believe me New Orleans has a Civil War museum with a very good website.
To me whites not wanting slaves or free blacks is not the real reason the 2nd amendment was created. To me it was more that the freedom Americans now have is because the majority of the population were armed. Now I do not disagree with her I just think the idea of tyranny was not as important as she believes. Washington himself has General Felix in 1785 report on Shay as an insurgent leader.
Truth fears no question, no statement, or no claim. If you knew the truth, you would call them on their show and explain why these myths are not "facts."
@@RittenhousesRifle Whoever told you some of us were liberals told you wrong. The Black Panther Party and the Black Liberation Army are just two examples...
No group no mater how large can take or vote to take property of self protection away from a individual! The group (democracy) can laws made but those laws are to be ignored as if never passed! The individual is the most important thing within our Republic that we live in! Again we do not live in a democracy ( group of dictators) we live in a Republic ( individual rights)!!!! People have made themselves stupid by the idea that they themselves not having authority to do something could get together and have a representative do it for them. You cannot delegate authority you do not have to others!!! What part of that do people not get? A gun is a tool! Stop talking about the right to have tools!!!
She claims that the North detested slavery. But as far as I know the north didn't detest slavery in the 18th century at all. When it wasn't efficient anymore for the north they got rid of it, but they still had slaves when the Constitution was written I thought.
@@TealJosh But that amendment wasn't written when the civil war broke out. As far as I know it was written at the time I am referring to and slavery was legal in the north then
The easiest way to disprove the "slave patrol" idea is Vermont which subsequently adopted an individual right to keep and bear arms AND abolished slavery in the same year (1777). Why would they afopt sch a provision the same year slave patrols become a non-issue?
You just made a composition fallacy. Just because a small colonial state, in both size an population, may have had somewhat progressive ideals for that time period, does not mean that ALL colonies had the same ideals. You need more evidence to show that this was prevalent throughout all or most of the colonies, especially those in the South.
@@ericblevins3301 "The South" will be hard to prove but since amendments required 3/4 approval of the states it easy to show that slavery was not a consideration in many states. But you want a "large state" Pennyslvania abolished slavery in 1780. In their 1790 constitution "Sect. XXI. That the right of the citizens to bear arms, in defence of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned." Note the militia was covered in Sect. 2 "The freemen of this commonwealth shall be armed and disciplined for its defence. Those who conscientiously scruple to bear arms, shall not be compelled to do so; but shall pay an equivalent for personal service. The militia officers shall be appointed in such manner, and for such time, as shall be directed by law." If the rkba was only for militia why have seperate in its' own amendment twenty sections later? Why have a right to bear arms in defence of themselves (slave patrol) when it had been abolished? PA is a "big state"
@@goldenshine9434 The South was definitely less freedom oriented. The statement I was seeking to address was the thought gun rights were thought of only as a means to control slaves. Hence VT and PA (first and largest) showing there was gun rights without slavery. Were there those who thought of guns only to control slaves, sure. Was that predominant throughout the Union? No. No more than those who thought "freedom of speech" extended only to those with opinions I like.
Thats what leads to mob rule and actual dictatorship. Its why we have Constitutional Republic and not a true Democracy. We never really had Democracy we only adapted some of it to help benefit us the people.
*sigh* the wording is very clear. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the peoples right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The militia is what is well regulated, not the right of the people. This is very clear as the right of the people is followed immediately with the clarifier "shall not be infringed". You can argue that this is imperfect, and doesn't map on to a modern world, but twisting the verbiage of the amendment to try and make it say something it doesn't is not helpful. Frankly I agree with gun regulation (not in the form of bans) but pretending like they are constitutionally supported in the framework of the second amendment is just not true.
@@vinnygi just because the wording is clear doesn't mean people agree with it. But you have to be a 3rd grader not to understand the wording of the amendment.
@@blitz8425 no, the wording is anything but clear. Like I said, scholars have been arguing over its meaning for years. I didn’t say anything about whether I or anyone else agrees with the sentiment.
@@vinnygi I do not think you can make a good faith argument that the intent is not clear. The militia is what's well regulated, not the right per the wording.
mi·li·tia /məˈliSHə/ Learn to pronounce noun a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency. ... so we agree, the civilians need guns. You know... to be part of the Militia...
3:00 "Legal historian Paul Finkelman argues that this scenario is implausible.[66] Henry and Mason were political enemies of Madison's, and neither man was in Congress at the time Madison drafted Bill of Rights; moreover," how could this debate take place when henry and mason weren't even in congress? the right to own guns was partly inspired by the English bill of rights of 1689 . we can have fair debates about guns but predicating them on lies isn't a good ground to stand on.
Listening to Seder talk.... Uhhhh so thanks Carol uuhhhhhhh for uhhhhhh coming back on uhhhhhhhh the show uhhhhhhhh um I really uhhhhh appreciate it uhhhhhhhh so thank uh you
Yeah, usually that's an indicator that someone is thinking about what they're saying (though it may also just be a bit of a vocal tic for Sam as well). Generally, saying things such as 'like' or 'um' means one is putting extra thought into their words. Something I'm betting you aren't familiar with, hence my explanation. Hope that helps~! :)
@@zach-rac oh uhhhh that's really interesting. So every ditzy high school girl who says "like" every 3 words is actually a thought provoking, under the radar genius? Wow, your explanation makes perfect sense. Every time I've seen someone shaking with nervousness during a public speech and they repeatedly say "uhhhmmmm", it's actually because they have so much knowledge and information they want to make sure they can explain it properly to the rest of us simple folk? That's wild. Thanks for your totally legitimate and not BS response 👍
No one needs an assault rifle! They are military guns. I am over 60 & have only ever seen a handgun on police. Our gun violence rates are significantly lower & so are our general crime rates. I think guns are further dividing your country.
@@gaminggaming6845 Can’t regulate that. All the other first world countries seem to do fine without them. And their gun deaths less than half of the US (per capita). Maybe instead of guns being a right, healthcare should.
you know you can have both right and guns are actually quite important for a lot of things especially in rural areas and i do agree that assault rifles are unneeded for all of these because when are you going to need to shoot 30 deer at once? Also a lot of anti gun legislation (especially in nyc) was made to stop Black people from open carrying so they couldnt protect themselves from racist attackers and the like
I love how this is even a debate. Meanwhile the rest of the world is like: yeah we'll take strict gun laws and in exchange not have multiple mass shootings a day, people feeling safer on the streets etc.
I Love you, you tell the truth about our history, Shays Rebellion, 2nd Amendment truths...If the Constitution is followed today we would have no racism today...
@@blakebrown534 I agree with you to a point in that government and those who support government authority claim that an individual can’t own a machine gun! Fist of all who say I don’t and secondly, what magical force gives groups of individuals the authority the elect other groups of individuals then garner those elected with powers they themselves do not have? Sure the government (which is comprised of individuals) may claim you can’t own something but they do so without legal or moral authority! For example the so called war in drugs. There is no legal standing or authority from government to define the legal status of a substance nor can other people grant them that authority! I understand that they do and on a daily basis but they do so because they have a monopoly of force and the people of America let them as a whole! It’s not morally ethical nor dose government have this authority to tell individuals what they can or cannot do with there own bodies( Row vs Wade is a perfect example where the Supreme Court stated that government has no authority in telling a female what she can or cannot do with her own body)! It all comes down to Americans not knowing what our flag STANDS for and what we actually live in! Do you know what the American flag STANDS for?
God created me and I was given the right to be able to pick up an equal weapon of the age to be able to protect myself! This lady said the we all think that the second amendment was about a militia having arms to protect itself from foreign armies, and that that is a myth! False, that is not it’s purpose and was not thought to be it’s purpose! I am an individual and I want a fun, that is all I need! How is me wanting a weapon of the time to protect myself a myth? This conversation over this topic is how rights are taken! Stop talking about gun rights! Not a groups business what an individual has!!!! Oh and by the way, we do not live is a fucking democracy!!!!!!
@@blakebrown534 I can appreciate that that is what you believe! However I didn’t state what you believe I stated what I believe! What I believe is in fact the gospel according to John! Me being John of course!
@@albertbecerra you are "free" to believe whatever you want. I'm sure the Native Americans believed they were "free" to live on the land their ancestors had lived on for 10,000+ years. The European colonists didn't believe that.
Misinformation about the case involving the sawed off shotgun. A sawed off has no practical usefulness in the protection of the State if a person owning one were called upon. But she seems to conveniently left out that a within a "well regulated militia," the government doesn't provide weapons. Its logistically impossible and impractical for the government to do so. You supply and maintain your own, therefore for a militia to be raised, civilians must first own their own weapons capable of reasonably protecting the State outright. And for those that dont know, "States" are in fact countries. The United States of America are in fact 50 different countries all residing under one collective flag, just like Europe tried to do with the formation of the European Union (But it doesnt have the same affect as the US, because Europe has long been long established kingdoms and nations prior, where the US was more "we create States as we expand."
I can only laugh at the lack of logic this woman has (no, not because she is a woman). She literally says it is a myth that the second amendment exists for the people to resist a tyrannical federal government then says the southern states feared a tyrannical federal government. Then she wants to say the militia was woefully ineffective in combat. Yes, that is why they wanted people to own their own weapons and train with them regularly. Later she talks about how the militia was unsuccessful against Shea’s Rebellion. The rebels WERE the militia. Of course she ignores the changes other militias have made throughout our history. Pathetic.
@@RittenhousesRifle you spam comment, unironically, things like ‘big beta male energy’ and ‘big cuck energy’. On a channel you hate watch. That’s pathetic.
She is saying that the North detested slavery. But they had slaves as well at that time. George Washington and several other founding fathers were all slave owners. But she says the north detested it.
@@philadelphiaeagles834 Do you or do you not believe in imaginary creatures and theories about society that are mere educated guesses FROM 300 YEARS ago?
I don't like the term "white rage" because it's a (very racist) way to dismiss any and all complaints made by white people. Saying the 2nd amendment is grounded in white supremacy would be more accurate.
There's nothing about calling racist people racist. You need to understand, people aren't talking about all white people, just racist ones. There's no need for people to take offense to a term if they understand it.
@@RittenhousesRifle widely disliked? Nice try, we're the global majority, including in the USA. It's the right wing that has the most distrust and hate, all over the world.
Personally, I think it’s befitting. I’m white, and I am not offended. I don’t associate with the context of the terms usage. I think more white people need to hear it, because there are so many who are ignorant to their own bullshit. If you are white, and aren’t utterly disappointed in the response to racial issues by many other white people, then you may not be a champion of anything but indifference.
@@whyamimrpink78 think about that last line. So the real non-racist where slave owners? Why do you think it was called the "compromise" it was a effort to end slavery while doing "bipartisanship" with the slave owners. Obviously not enough cause they liked free labor too much. Maybe this isn't racist but thats what you want to see? Just like right wingers, always trying to call someone racist.
@@thugstin6429 I don't agree with the South being less Racist of course but the Compromise was made because the other solution is War. Which did happen, obviously. But Blacks and MR types seem to forget who freed the slaves. Not themselves. And, you can be a Leftist as I am and disagree with Sam.
@@El_Chuncho the idea that the second amendment was placed there by white men to create slave patrols is ridiculous. The root even discredited it. Each amendment within the Bill of Rights was voted on unanimously by the states, not only those heavily reliant on slave economics
Yes I assumed that it was just a spin of narrative to push some gun grab agenda. But we know this is not at all possible., So will look further into it.
It's a federal, representative, democratic republic. What you said is an 11-year-old Heritage Foundation effort to cancel the word "democracy" because it sounds like "Democrat."
A Republic is a form of democracy. You cannot support a republic if you oppose democracy. Those two positions are mutually exclusive, and if you "think" you hold both, then you are mistaking Republics with dictatorships.
Are you implying that the United States of America is just as Authoritarian and Tyrannical as The People's REPUBLIC of China? Or the Islamic REPUBLIC of Iran? Or even the former Union of Soviet Socialist REPUBLICS? A Republic is a country or government without a Monarch or Hereditary Aristocracy, that's literally it. It can be Capitalist, Socialist, Fascist, Communist, Democratic, Authoritarian, Anarchist, Oligarchical etc. Fill in any ideology into a country that isn't a Monarchy and you can call it a Republic.
@@HumanSupremacist That is completely wrong. A Republic is specifically a system of government where the people elect representatives to serve them (pass and enforce legislation, etc) in government. A democracy is a system of government where the people decide on legislation directly or choose their governing legislatures (Republic) through voting. Almost every democracy that has ever existed was a Republic, because holding elections for the whole population to decide on every single piece of legislation is prohibitively time consuming and expensive. By definition, a Republic IS a Democracy. Any system that is not Democratic cannot be a Republic (oligarchies are not Republics, monarchies are not Republics, etc) because the people do not decide their representatives in those systems.
It's amazing how little so-called "Constitutional Originalists" care about actual historical context.
Like world History or the fake bullshit MR keeps pushing??
Well then maybe you should actually read what the relevant lawmakers at the time thought it meant. They debated it rigorously... it’s quite clear that they were of a mind that American citizens are allowed firearms as a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT. Furthermore even if this were not the case, and context was shifted to modern times, the need for firearms would still remain for modern purposes, like self defense.
Who do you trust with a firearm more? Yourself after proper training, or a stranger who works for the worlds largest killing machine? The answer should be obvious.
@45 fottuto stronzo label it how you want. It isn't the complete story. World History and Slavery do not start with America. MR is spinning this white rage garbage. They sound like Bernie haters last year. "Why so enraged if there's NO white rage?" Umm because you're talking shit about us and my Father and Grandfathers (first gen Americans), that fought in WWII. Duh?!!! Some people do not understand how to protect their childrens futures. White Men do. So of course if you try to deny our existence we will do something. That's why... We win. Some should learn how to Win in this world. We'd actually get some left wing things done! It doesn't take privilege to fight for freedom. MR is apparently in the slave mind business and selling excuses. At least that's the approach since Biden was elected and Emma came on.
@@ManuelCastro-ns5sd you can call whatever names make you feel better about your ignorance on the matter. I'm pretty sure the snowflakes are the fools like you that ignore history and reality.
@@brentnoury7626 wtf does it matter if slavery didn't start with America? What is the point of that argument? Slavery is still a part of American history, no matter where it started, it still left a huge stain on this country and the effects are still going through the communities to this day
Denying black people arms is racist. I love ❤️ 2A
I got a pro-Second Amendment ad in the beginning of this video with some dude trying to be a badass standing in a poorly done green screen video.
I kept watching the ad for how to (legally) hide my guns from the government because patriotism means I need to have an adversarial relationship with the government these days.
It's because of the title video.
Like do people not get to choose what is advertised on their videos?
@@BadassRaiden I don't think so, I think the ads are targeted based on things you like and keywords that are in the video title.
@@BadassRaiden It could be the ads are targeted based on the title of the video being about the second amendment or based on the possible audience of right wingers being sent to this video by a family member asking them to have more nuance in their views.
Those individuals would be most likely to respond to this video by doubling down on whatever secrets that man, green screen driving around his 320 acre security farm, has to teach.
I can't think of a greater flex I have on America than being a black man who owns property and guns.
She's the best, I love her. She's being attacked so badly, it's infuriating. They had to turn off comments on her UA-cam videos
is there any chapter in her book about the First Victimes of the colonists and militias' guns : the American First Nations ?
like talking about states right to wage war on Natives during the King Philip's war ...
Wait really? I’m just hearing this for the first time, and that’s disturbing. Are there any books or historical texts about that?
Well, Mayans were the first slave owners on American soil. MR likes fake history that grifts off identity politics.
@@brentnoury7626 how does that change these facts, Mr. Strawman?
@@melissagaynor5880 because the discussion is a biased one. Against whites. It's racist to call us all horrible. Obviously. It's wrong to claim we created slavery. It's a complete Americentric view of History. And frankly I'm done dealing with people, no matter how close politically we are aligned, that want to trash whites all day for a living. Enough is enough. All fucking day everywhere you look. It's Obvious reverse racism. And White Men don't put up with that bullshit! That's why we rule the world.
@@brentnoury7626 You can't be serious...
I can't comprehend how many people think it's a RIGHT to own a gun, because the second amendment days we have the right to bear arms. And that they think "arms" means guns specifically. Like no it means you have the right to use whatever tools at your disposal to defend yourself and your property. That tool can sometimes be a gun. Sometimes, it might be the kitchen knife.
Guns are like cars. You have the right to travel, but that does not extend specifically that you have the right to drive a car. You have to prove that you can operate a car the way it should be operated. If you can't, well not only does it get taken away, but the privilege to drive at all, ie your license gets taken away. Privilege is the key word there. Operating and driving a car is a privilege just like owning and being able to use a gun is a privilege. Because when it gets taken away, your right to bear arms remains unimpaired.
You don't need a gun to defend/protect yourself, not even if you're facing one. Also there's no statistic that actually says one way or the other, if having a gun or being near someone who has one - who is not law enforcement - actually increases your chance or anyone else's chance for that matter of living. Just another failed talking point of gun nuts. And I by no means "hate" guns. I used to want to be a sniper but that's a whole nother story - but given the opportunity I'd love to have a personal long range rifle I can go to the range with. So I certainly don't think that it's just outright immoral to own a gun - but the argument that you need one or have the right to one - is utterly false.
The right to keep and bear arms “extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” That the right includes other weapons does not mean it doesn’t include firearms. Your entire argument is asinine.
Arms, in the context of US law, is defined by DC v Heller as the traditional common law interpretation. Meaning that which you bear on your person for offense and wear on your person for defense. Guns are protected since, as Rodger above me noted, the arms protected extend, prima facie, to include arms not even existing at the time of the founding.
No it's not asinine. I never said it doesn't include firearms. The point I was making was that "arms" is specifically vague and general for a reason, because let's be truthful they did already have guns back then, and they very much could have specifically stated citizens have the right to own a gun. They did not. It's so that it doesn't specifically specify that you have the right to any one particular tool, instead it men's you have the right to use any tool available to you as a tool to bear arms with. That very much means you do not have the specific right to OWN A GUN. It also doesn't mean you have the right to access to it either. You simple have the right, to use that which you have access to, to bear arms. My gun and car analogy is literally spot the fuck on, you just can't admit it because you're a fucking troll and you don't understand that larger picture.
Also you seem to think rights are things in an of themselves, which they are not, which is exactly why you don't have the right to own a gun, a gun is a thing. The right to bear arms, is not a thing. Rights are principles, notions, abstractions. They are not tangible things in the world itself. In fact it's better to say, that rights are actions - autonomous actions. You have the right to travel, an action, you do not have THE RIGHT to a car, a thing. You have the right to free speech, an action. You do not have the right to be recognized by any one outlet to voice you own opinions, ie the right to any one service. If you did, it would mean that no business could ever deny anyone for any reason, because you would literally have the right to that service. We know that's wrong, because business can very much turn away anyone for any reason except sexual and racial discrimination. The moment they do they infringe upon your right not to be discriminated against for your ethnicity, gender, age, sexuality.
Again you don't have the right to any service, you only have the right to not be discriminated from that service for age, sexuality, ethically, gender. Also you have the right to free speech, but you can't just go tell someone you are going to murder them. And what you said goes both ways in that, arms yet to exist can also go back to not existing. So if the country as a whole hypothetically stopped manufacturing guns and the only ones in the country were in the hands of people who won't sell them, how does someone coming of age get their hands on a gun then? Owning a gun is a right. They have a right to a gun. So does that mean they get to demand someone give them one? Or demand the government start manufacturing them again so then can have one? After all it is their right to have one, and other people have one, so shouldn't they be allowed to demand one?
You're an imbecile. Copy and pasting some Latin and a quote doesn't make you right - or smart. You have the right to travel, not the right own a car. You have the right to free speech, not the right to tell someone you are going to murder them. You have the right to bear arms, you don't have the right to own a gun. Taking away a car or any mechanical transport, does not take away or infringe upon your right to travel. It may make it harder, but that's irrelevant to this argument. Rights are inalienable traits of conscious beings (which is why animals have rights), not tangible things that can be taken away. Like I said they can take away any and all transport, but they can't take away your right to travel - because you still have your two legs. You can't infringe upon the right to travel until you take my legs away, either by cutting them off, or enslaving me and putting in chains. Both of which infringe on separate rights as well. Likewise all the guns, and all the knives and all the bow and arrows, all of it can be made unavailable to you and it does not infringe on your right to bear arms. You still have the capacity to literally bear *arms* in defense of yourself and property and until they literally stop you from standing up in defense of yourself, your second amendment right has not been infringed upon. Now there is an argument to be made, since global society has the capacity to provide cars, and guns, etc, basically on tap, that we should have the rights to these things - but that is NOT this argument. This argument is whether or not your right TO those things already exists - of which it does not. Lastly, I'll be very simple. Since you think the right to bear arms extends outward and forward indefinitely, then it extends backwards indefinitely as well. Unfortunately however, the guy who collects medieval weapons gets them taken away when he starts hacking people with swords - or something as benign as just swinging it around dangerously in a public place even if no one is around who could be injured. Learn the how to conceptualize the whole picture bub.
@@BadassRaiden You sure got angry very quickly. It seems like you might be the hyper emotional type that can’t stand being contradicted. I made my position known and included a quote from a Supreme Court ruling. In no way am I trolling.
Based on your comments it would seem you think the government can ban any arms they choose to so long as other arms are available. That would imply that the government could ban ALL weapons. This is not how rights are applied here. Imagine applying that to any other Constitutional right. By your logic the government would be able to ban any form of speech they choose so long as there is at least form of speech left available. They would be able to ban any form of religious practice so long as there is one left available. Your argument doesn’t hold any water.
Unfortunately your analogy isn’t as good as you think it is. First, driving is recognized by the courts as a right. No right is absolute but being a right restricts the government’s ability to control said right. For example, we have the right to vote but you can lose that right while you’re in prison. You have the right to free speech but that doesn’t protect threats or incitement to violence. You have the right to freedom of religion but animal sacrifice is not allowed. With regards to driving, no one has ever seriously discussed banning vehicles altogether. Vehicles are responsible for as many deaths as guns each year but no one wants to ban them.
The right to keep and bear arms means you have the right to all bearable arms. That includes firearms. You DO have the right to own firearms. This has been held by every court at every level.
You seem to be confused as to what “keep and bear” means. To keep is to possess, which is an action. To bear is to wield, which is also an action. You have the right to possess and wield arms. This right would be completely annihilated if the government could simply ban all arms. By the transitive theory, you have the right to arms.
A right is something the government is not allowed to deny you or do to you. A right has literally nothing to do with other civilians or even the government owing you something. It is only that the government cannot deny you your right. The government may not deny you free speech, the practice of your religion (or to not practice religion at all), access to arms, due process etc. Nobody owes you anything.
Ah, ad hominem attacks, the sign of a true intellect. The discussion is on the second amendment, which is a legal right. You can bay and moan all you want about your personal definition of “rights” but that matters not one bit when we have a Constitution that says otherwise. All of your insults and made up definitions are worthless.
@@rogerdodger4212 your whole argument is undone by the fact that Australia used to have guns, then they banned guns. Did they infringe upon their citizens rights to defend themselves? No. Their constitution may be different from ours, but guns used to be allowed - and then they weren't. It didn't change the fact that they were still allowed to defend themselves with the arms at their disposal. It was very much left vague and general for the singular reason that no one is privy to any one armament. That the sole purpose for it's vagueness. Bring out all the Latin you want, it's still the fact as to why it was made vague and why it remains vague to this day; because if no form of weaponry even existed of any kind - you still have the right AND can execute your right to bear arms. You still have the right to pick of a rock and defend yourself. The thing you defend yourself with IS NOT A RIGHT, and you literally seem to think they are the same thing. You made my point that rights are things that the government can't take away. A gun, they can in multiple circumstances literally come and take it away from you; if you have committed a felony, or otherwise proven you can not responsibly own a gun. If owning a gun were a right, the would literally never under any circumstances be able to take it away from you. Having a gun is not a constitutional right, and its certainly not a human right. In no way shape or form was my argument an ad hominem fallacy. That's absolutely comical. Stop trying to use big ideas to make you sound smart. Also where did I say I was mad? If you take swear words or caps for enunciation as anger - you need to rethink how you make judgement calls. And if we are being technical the government allows itself, our government especially - to do literally whatever the fuck it wants. So yes if the government wants to ban any and all forms of weaponry including forks and butter knives it may so well please, even a non corrupt one. And it still did not infringe upon your right to bear arms. You seem to think the right to bear arms is the same thing as the right to have arms made available to you. It. Is. Not. Bear arms means defend yourself. Simple as that no matter how much shit you try and add to it. The capacity to defend yourself is the thing that can't be taken away or infringed upon. Make you no longer allowed to have a gun not not infringe upon your capacity to defend yourself. You still have full capacity to defend yourself.
All things aside that is literally the simplest reason to why you are completely wrong. The right to bear arms literally means the right to defend yourself. If guns are taken away from you - you still have 100% capacity to defend yourself. Period. That's it. Simple as fucking that. Guns being taken away affects in no way your individual capacity to defend yourself, and that is literally what bear arms means. Also, human rights trump constitutional rights so, get bent square.
Love these segments...learn so much nuance/details of time periods that get summed up in more broad summations.
I got an ad for some white guy's 2nd amendment field guide in the middle of this video. The fucking irony...
Because, the Right is constantly grifting.
I wish Steven Coward could debate him on this topic. He is an expert.
@@ropativ7483 did your mind just snap or somethin?
Coward?
I mean if that's true, why has Steven debated guys like Sargon of Akkad?
@Slater Slater Great. Whatever your opinion may be on how intelligent either of them may be, the claim that Steven isn't willing to debate others he disagrees with and is therefore cowardly is a good one! 🤣🤣
Is she for black gun ownership? I get the historical context she's providing, but I can't tell if she is in support of modern day black people owning guns.
I'm a black progressive lefty but I do have a cabinet full of guns.
On guns and black people I feel like now that we FINALLY have some widespread opportunity to acquire the same weapons as our white counterparts, we're pushing to either eliminate the second amendment in some cases, or severely limit it so that we can't take part in it in the same manner as white Americans have been doing throughout history (particularly modern history).
I think you might be able to email her and ask her that question. But as for this discussion I appreciate how they stayed on topic and was discussing a historical background of the second amendment and how it was used quite explicitly to subjugate rather than to make sure tyranny wasn't achieved.
@@cooldrop02 that's the point i would say. Propaganda always sells the opposite of what tha matter is (always sells black for white or white for black)
“All American households should have 5 guns. A semi auto pistol and revolver for him and her to carry. A shotgun for small game and home defense. A large caliber bolt action rifle for large game (which btw is far far far more powerful than an AR-15). And a semi auto rifle (ar, ak, ect) to protect against tyranny and to have fun with friends on the weekends”
“Gun rights are black rights”
-Killer Mike
Not my personal choices but Mike is correct.
I'm a vegan but otherwise totally with him lol
That’s funny we see government tyranny every day with how the cops treat the minorities and all white “mu guns patriots” just talk about how they deserve it all people that talk about that are a joke only in your dreams would you be able to stand against the US government and that fact that you think different is funny
@@WESTSIDEP707 I submit the war in Afghanistan, Vietnam, the Korean War, bay of pigs, and the US revolution as evidence to the contrary.
@@WESTSIDEP707 Uh huh, the blk man's qoute you're upset about definitely says everything about you when you immediately blame wht ppl. You're the racist here, and most places....And its more about deterrence than anything, but still Joey doesn't strike anyone as a master tactician so it'll probably be okay.
It says(well regulated) militia but they all ways forget the well regulated part .
Well regulated is subjective. So you have a definition I'm sure other people have a different definition
Well regulated meant in good working order. In this context it meant well armed and trained.
@@deandredunbar9618 i have meet people that think the second amendment means there should be no rules at all and if a 9 year old has enough money to buy a pistol they should be able to .
@@rogerdodger4212 That’s no clearer and equally as subjective.
One of the most crucial elements is who the militias were meant to be for and against.
It wasn't the people vs the government. It was the states vs the federal government.
States needed well regulated, aka properly functioning militias in order to protect themselves from being seized.
Its really important to understand the mindset these rules were written as:
People scared of singular control, ie a king. Independent states with an overarching federal government work to have unity without complete control by one person.
This is why the constitution, prior to incorporation doctrine based on the 14th amendment, only applied to the federal bodies.
States, absolutely, could and did restrict free speech, be overtly religious, quarter soldiers, etc.
States did maintain rules on firearms and do to this day.
So who was the militia? Well this varies, but often, quite literally, described as every able bodied white male.
But the state militias slowly transformed, via the militia acts, into what we now call the state national guards.
You know, very well regulated militias (non standing but trained force).
Reading the 2nd amendment as an individual right is a modern concept. Ironically based on, so called, orginalism.
But Scalia tier orginalism is not interested in what the founders really thought.
Over 200 years juris prudence on this was clear. But activist judges don't care.
One of the reasons I'm opposed to increased gun control and assault weapon bans is I think it would be a good idea to keep black people armed in places where their rights might be at risk and where the police might take who knows how long to show up.
There's a story about a bunch of guys who showed up at a mosque with their rifles to make trouble for the Muslims there. It was a Nation of Islam mosque. As soon as they saw that the people they were planning to harass were also armed they left.
google the Mulford act of 1968. police prefer that locals not be able to defend their turf.
Of course, if I was black, I would definitely want the right to defend myself. It is kind of crazy thinking about people crying about facism but they want to disarm the opposition. Sounds very hitlerish.
All we need is normal nationwide gun control. Not banning guns, not taking all of them away. Make a license, only be able to purchase with a license, needs to make a few hours on the shooting range. 48h holding time to avoid suicides, irrational decisions.
If only cities do it, but counties surrounding them do not, it becomes useless. Almost all illegally held guns found in cities were purchased in the counties surrounding them. Wel live in a seriously dumb society... why do we have stricter laws on cars than guns, doesn't make sense...
@@jessebianchi2631 Funny because that was then Governor Reagan disarming the Black Panthers. The right only likes gun control when it's disarming POC.
@Gage Acosta I want less irresponsible gun purchases, period.
It's a good thing the professor has such excellent enunciation, because her mic is awful.
😂😂 got an ad for the "Patriots Guide", a guide to prevent the tyrannical government from confiscating your guns, before this clip.
I GOT AN AD ABOUT PRESERVING YOUR SECOND AMENDMENT TWICE IN THIS VIDEO, FREAKIN' TWICE
The North detested slavery??? What is she saying? We are talking about the 18th century. The North also had slavery and funded it even later. They didn't detest it at all.
She was quoting a famous person who famously said it.
Even though what you say is true, there is also some truth in that quote.
This isn't a complicated subject. The Militias were the LEOs of that time. The 2nd Amendment declares that the States will have the power to make and enforce criminal laws, and this power would not be usurped by the Federal govt. The higher numbered Amendments add additional restrictions to Federal law enforcement powers. Much later, the 14th Amendment declared that all those same restrictions apply to the States.
Exactly
More high level ideas from Sam and friends
Thank you. No really thank you 👍
I am a leftist but I support the 2nd amendment..... I do because I fear that is my only Way to defend myself from fascist powers in America.... I don't trust police departments and I fear right wing malitias...... Guns are terrible but if we can't defend ourselves , history will repeat itself.... Weapons for me are a plan Z..... whole lot of peaceful options between A and Z
Me too. I’m a huge second amendment and a leftist (universal healthcare)
I used to be in support of gun control, but more and more lately, I've been in support of the second amendment. I'm not sure that I'll ever own one, especially since I don't think I'm emotionally capable of using one in self defense, but it feels scary to me to not have the option if society gets bad enough.
I am pro guns but the 2nd amendment does say "regulated" which means not without rules by definition.
@@sweethands4328 So much for those constitutionalist libertarians.
@@sweethands4328 Regulated gun rights are good....common sense gun laws are needed...We should do it like the DMV
Holy fuck this is going make so many conservatives piss their pants with rage. I love it!
I own a gun and I am not a gun person. I only have one in case some a****** decides to break into my home and I feel my life is endangered. If not for those people I wouldn't own a gun, don't care about them. If no armed burgler breaks into my house, then the gun collects dust as it were. That is the only reason I want the second amendment, to protect me from criminals.
I own guns and occasionally use them to put meat in the freezer. These ammo sexual gun fetishists posturing and posing and stroking are embarrassing and utterly unaware of what they reveal about themselves.
Me too. Haven't fired it in 15 years.
@Chandler Bing "but I think we'll be able to deal with them". You must be a ninja. Teach me your ways
@@cwalkn2269 Other countries manage.
@@longshorts7148 there's very easy filter: domestic abuse.
As interesting as this piece of scholarship is, I think it is important to also point out the vital role that firearms ownership played in the fight for many just causes. Black Liberation movements, early feminist movements, lgbt self defense, etc. have often hinged on the ability to own arms and defend marginalized communities with them. It seems that historically the failings of the 2nd amendment lay in the fact that it was at times not extensive enough, and precluded those that needed it the most from benefiting from it. In all of this I see no evidence for tighter gun control (nor am I claiming that Prof. Anderson does).
(Edit: grammar)
Supply evidence of gun toting feminists, etc.
@@britsareweak please refer yourself to the black panthers of California occupying the state building. And that’s just one example of many. You’re being ahistorical at best.
@@britsareweak You have yet to contend with anything anyones put forward. You have to demonstrate how people don’t understand history with specific examples and evidence. Not just saying “No u.”
@@britsareweak DC vs Heller would disagree with you. (You see how this works? Citations are cool huh?)
@@britsareweak My point is more so the fact the understanding of the 2nd amendment and the purpose it serves, just like any other part of the constitution, changes with time, and the Supreme Court exists to recognize that fact. Today the cultural understanding of the 2nd amendment is far different than what it was originally intended for and many, including the minority groups you’re dismissing entirely, would say the 2nd amendment needs to stay in order protect themselves from fascists. I tend to agree, I have a family to protect, and we’re black in a mostly white dominated part of the south. I shouldn’t have any less ability to defend myself than these dangerous nationalists should because of your unnuanced understanding of history.
Fascinating! I have to admit to having ignored the slave rebellion factor during my conversations about the Second Amendment.
That will be rectified henceforward.
Just ordered the book - Thanks, everybody
- Please see Killer Mike on this subject ✌
The “militia” is the National Guard. They can cry about it all they want but that is what they meant.
So does the National Guard own their own weapons?
@@mikew6060 government property
Rights are of individuals.
@Chandler Bing What's English?
p.s. Don't sweat it.
Carol Anderson rocks!!
Here because of my recent stumble and subsequent fall into the Vaush pit. 😂
I like Vaush
You should look up Beau of the fifth column and potholer54 if you haven't already
@@RittenhousesRifle Citation buddy
@@whyamimrpink78 Disagree.. Any examples?
@@RittenhousesRifle I have never seen it. I like how he embarrassed Tim Pool and his take on Kyle vs Dore was great also.
Love the show. Left is best.
Of the many things overlooked is that during the American Revolution a Spanish force was involved. Due to British forces present in Louisiana the Spanish fought them off, then they launched a force from New Orleans to Florida and defeated the British there also. I bring this up to point out that Louisiana kept to French law for a very long time, notable among these was that the offspring between a free person and a slave was free. Yes there were free Black men fighting for the Patriots, but as they weren't from colonial states, they weren't accounted for. One more thing I like to point out is that the Confederacy has free Black men in their ranks even before the Union did, and that the C.S.A. had integrated units almost 100 years before the Union did.
How did the csa have integrated units 100 years before the Union?
The Confederacy having so called "integrated units" before the union is not quite true. To start the Confederacy never had any sort of integrated unit during the Civil War much less African Ameircans in designated combat roles. While it is well documented that some amoung the Confederacy believed that slaves should have been used in combat roles it was certainly not a popular idea, with legislation relating to it only being ratified by the confederate congress out of utter desperation in 1865 with said units likely never seeing any combat before the war ended. It is also well documented that many African Americans served in auxiliary roles in the C.S.A, however it is important to note that a majority of these people were slaves and didn't have much of a say in the matter. Regardless of whether or not a handful of so called "Black Confederates ever existed, the Union fielded as many as 200,000 African Americans in combat roles during the war and any discussion about this topic has to centre around that comparison.
@@Niel2760 Well, when France established a presents in the Mississippi river valley in the 1600's their law came into control, thus the offspring between slave and a free person were free.
@@Niel2760 Forgive me I ended my reply before I should have. There were free Black men and women in Louisiana, and even during the War Of 1812 the men took up arms.
@@nootboot9744 You should read my comment in its entirety, and if you still don't believe me New Orleans has a Civil War museum with a very good website.
Yes, wanting to protect your family is the same as not wanting your slaves to run off the plantation.
To me whites not wanting slaves or free blacks is not the real reason the 2nd amendment was created. To me it was more that the freedom Americans now have is because the majority of the population were armed. Now I do not disagree with her I just think the idea of tyranny was not as important as she believes. Washington himself has General Felix in 1785 report on Shay as an insurgent leader.
Calling facts myths doesn't make it so.
Truth fears no question, no statement, or no claim. If you knew the truth, you would call them on their show and explain why these myths are not "facts."
@@RittenhousesRifle Whoever told you some of us were liberals told you wrong. The Black Panther Party and the Black Liberation Army are just two examples...
@@vikuswavy5785 No thanks. Arguing the obvious isn't in my interests. Work on your logic.
@@RittenhousesRifle People can be wrong about slavery without being racist against white people.
@San Te Not a point.
Great vid!
No group no mater how large can take or vote to take property of self protection away from a individual! The group (democracy) can laws made but those laws are to be ignored as if never passed! The individual is the most important thing within our Republic that we live in! Again we do not live in a democracy ( group of dictators) we live in a Republic ( individual rights)!!!! People have made themselves stupid by the idea that they themselves not having authority to do something could get together and have a representative do it for them. You cannot delegate authority you do not have to others!!! What part of that do people not get? A gun is a tool! Stop talking about the right to have tools!!!
her book won't load in the Amazon app cart
Ooh-boy, Sam's being a liberal again.
Guns are a lefty ideology too
@@WolfenX4 Yep
For the algorithm
Brilliant Video
A comment for the algorithm gods.
Thanks guys
Chomsky has discussed this before.
yet most Americans dont even know who he is
@@eziosblade3 unfortunately, you’re correct.
She claims that the North detested slavery. But as far as I know the north didn't detest slavery in the 18th century at all. When it wasn't efficient anymore for the north they got rid of it, but they still had slaves when the Constitution was written I thought.
@@luperamos7307 between creating the constitution and the civil war, I think there was a few years. Something may have happened then, maybe?
@@TealJosh But that amendment wasn't written when the civil war broke out. As far as I know it was written at the time I am referring to and slavery was legal in the north then
We've seen how this turned out.
I'm definitely going to have to check out that book
The easiest way to disprove the "slave patrol" idea is Vermont which subsequently adopted an individual right to keep and bear arms AND abolished slavery in the same year (1777). Why would they afopt sch a provision the same year slave patrols become a non-issue?
You just made a composition fallacy. Just because a small colonial state, in both size an population, may have had somewhat progressive ideals for that time period, does not mean that ALL colonies had the same ideals. You need more evidence to show that this was prevalent throughout all or most of the colonies, especially those in the South.
@@ericblevins3301 "The South" will be hard to prove but since amendments required 3/4 approval of the states it easy to show that slavery was not a consideration in many states. But you want a "large state" Pennyslvania abolished slavery in 1780. In their 1790 constitution "Sect. XXI. That the right of the citizens to bear arms, in defence of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned." Note the militia was covered in Sect. 2 "The freemen of this commonwealth shall be armed and disciplined for its defence. Those who conscientiously scruple to bear arms, shall not be compelled to do so; but shall pay an equivalent for personal service. The militia officers shall be appointed in such manner, and for such time, as shall be directed by law." If the rkba was only for militia why have seperate in its' own amendment twenty sections later? Why have a right to bear arms in defence of themselves (slave patrol) when it had been abolished? PA is a "big state"
Vermont was ahead of its time. Their policies weren’t accepted, especially in the South.
@@goldenshine9434 The South was definitely less freedom oriented. The statement I was seeking to address was the thought gun rights were thought of only as a means to control slaves. Hence VT and PA (first and largest) showing there was gun rights without slavery. Were there those who thought of guns only to control slaves, sure. Was that predominant throughout the Union? No. No more than those who thought "freedom of speech" extended only to those with opinions I like.
More people need to listen to Professor Carol Anderson about the 2nd ammendment
*The truth shall set you free…*
Sad FACT we ALWAYS out numbered them we need to use their laws against them
Thats what leads to mob rule and actual dictatorship.
Its why we have Constitutional Republic and not a true Democracy. We never really had Democracy we only adapted some of it to help benefit us the people.
*sigh* the wording is very clear.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the peoples right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The militia is what is well regulated, not the right of the people. This is very clear as the right of the people is followed immediately with the clarifier "shall not be infringed".
You can argue that this is imperfect, and doesn't map on to a modern world, but twisting the verbiage of the amendment to try and make it say something it doesn't is not helpful.
Frankly I agree with gun regulation (not in the form of bans) but pretending like they are constitutionally supported in the framework of the second amendment is just not true.
If it’s so clear, why have constitutional scholars and courts been arguing over it for 200 years?
@@vinnygi just because the wording is clear doesn't mean people agree with it. But you have to be a 3rd grader not to understand the wording of the amendment.
@@blitz8425 no, the wording is anything but clear. Like I said, scholars have been arguing over its meaning for years. I didn’t say anything about whether I or anyone else agrees with the sentiment.
@@vinnygi I do not think you can make a good faith argument that the intent is not clear. The militia is what's well regulated, not the right per the wording.
@@blitz8425 so, back to my original point. Maybe you think the wording is clear, but many many people don’t.
mi·li·tia
/məˈliSHə/
Learn to pronounce
noun
a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
... so we agree, the civilians need guns. You know... to be part of the Militia...
Abolished the police and we can't own guns to protect myself. I would hate to live on your world.
Lmao 🤣 this is something
3:00 "Legal historian Paul Finkelman argues that this scenario is implausible.[66] Henry and Mason were political enemies of Madison's, and neither man was in Congress at the time Madison drafted Bill of Rights; moreover," how could this debate take place when henry and mason weren't even in congress? the right to own guns was partly inspired by the English bill of rights of 1689 . we can have fair debates about guns but predicating them on lies isn't a good ground to stand on.
They were delegates/govenor of Virginia.
It maybe plausible to some degree but no one has proved their empirically.
Listening to Seder talk....
Uhhhh so thanks Carol uuhhhhhhh for uhhhhhh coming back on uhhhhhhhh the show uhhhhhhhh um I really uhhhhh appreciate it uhhhhhhhh so thank uh you
Yeah, usually that's an indicator that someone is thinking about what they're saying (though it may also just be a bit of a vocal tic for Sam as well). Generally, saying things such as 'like' or 'um' means one is putting extra thought into their words. Something I'm betting you aren't familiar with, hence my explanation. Hope that helps~! :)
@@zach-rac oh uhhhh that's really interesting. So every ditzy high school girl who says "like" every 3 words is actually a thought provoking, under the radar genius? Wow, your explanation makes perfect sense. Every time I've seen someone shaking with nervousness during a public speech and they repeatedly say "uhhhmmmm", it's actually because they have so much knowledge and information they want to make sure they can explain it properly to the rest of us simple folk? That's wild. Thanks for your totally legitimate and not BS response 👍
Complete hogwash.
No one needs an assault rifle! They are military guns. I am over 60 & have only ever seen a handgun on police. Our gun violence rates are significantly lower & so are our general crime rates. I think guns are further dividing your country.
Guns have been around since the founding. It isn’t dividing us. The only division comes from the narratives surrounding guns
i agree with you to a point but i think a lot of anti gun laws are made by people who simply dont understand guns
@San Te i dont like you talking about my uncle bubba that way! He's just following orders!
@@gaminggaming6845 Can’t regulate that. All the other first world countries seem to do fine without them. And their gun deaths less than half of the US (per capita). Maybe instead of guns being a right, healthcare should.
you know you can have both right and guns are actually quite important for a lot of things especially in rural areas and i do agree that assault rifles are unneeded for all of these because when are you going to need to shoot 30 deer at once? Also a lot of anti gun legislation (especially in nyc) was made to stop Black people from open carrying so they couldnt protect themselves from racist attackers and the like
I love how this is even a debate. Meanwhile the rest of the world is like: yeah we'll take strict gun laws and in exchange not have multiple mass shootings a day, people feeling safer on the streets etc.
Sam, it's disconcerting that your video had an ad talking about the importance of the second amendment.
It's important to strap up, but remember the history of it
Huh?
I Love you, you tell the truth about our history, Shays Rebellion, 2nd Amendment truths...If the Constitution is followed today we would have no racism today...
*"If the Constitution is followed today we would have no racism today..."*
Really? Could you give me an example?
Gun control conversation should be considered criminal conversation!!!
You're already controlled...you can't own machine guns. There should be regulation on it, not an outright ban.
@@blakebrown534 I agree with you to a point in that government and those who support government authority claim that an individual can’t own a machine gun! Fist of all who say I don’t and secondly, what magical force gives groups of individuals the authority the elect other groups of individuals then garner those elected with powers they themselves do not have? Sure the government (which is comprised of individuals) may claim you can’t own something but they do so without legal or moral authority! For example the so called war in drugs. There is no legal standing or authority from government to define the legal status of a substance nor can other people grant them that authority! I understand that they do and on a daily basis but they do so because they have a monopoly of force and the people of America let them as a whole! It’s not morally ethical nor dose government have this authority to tell individuals what they can or cannot do with there own bodies( Row vs Wade is a perfect example where the Supreme Court stated that government has no authority in telling a female what she can or cannot do with her own body)! It all comes down to Americans not knowing what our flag STANDS for and what we actually live in! Do you know what the American flag STANDS for?
I agree.
Sam Seder is becoming so common and predictable.
God created me and I was given the right to be able to pick up an equal weapon of the age to be able to protect myself! This lady said the we all think that the second amendment was about a militia having arms to protect itself from foreign armies, and that that is a myth! False, that is not it’s purpose and was not thought to be it’s purpose! I am an individual and I want a fun, that is all I need! How is me wanting a weapon of the time to protect myself a myth? This conversation over this topic is how rights are taken! Stop talking about gun rights! Not a groups business what an individual has!!!! Oh and by the way, we do not live is a fucking democracy!!!!!!
The Romans created Jesus. Your mother and father created you.
@@blakebrown534 I can appreciate that that is what you believe! However I didn’t state what you believe I stated what I believe! What I believe is in fact the gospel according to John! Me being John of course!
Your god doesn't exist and any 'rights' we as apes have are those we give each other
@@user-gk9lg5sp4y I disagree, I believe everyone has a right to individual freedom
@@albertbecerra you are "free" to believe whatever you want. I'm sure the Native Americans believed they were "free" to live on the land their ancestors had lived on for 10,000+ years. The European colonists didn't believe that.
Misinformation about the case involving the sawed off shotgun. A sawed off has no practical usefulness in the protection of the State if a person owning one were called upon. But she seems to conveniently left out that a within a "well regulated militia," the government doesn't provide weapons. Its logistically impossible and impractical for the government to do so. You supply and maintain your own, therefore for a militia to be raised, civilians must first own their own weapons capable of reasonably protecting the State outright. And for those that dont know, "States" are in fact countries. The United States of America are in fact 50 different countries all residing under one collective flag, just like Europe tried to do with the formation of the European Union (But it doesnt have the same affect as the US, because Europe has long been long established kingdoms and nations prior, where the US was more "we create States as we expand."
Very interesting
So brilliant. Thank you
I can only laugh at the lack of logic this woman has (no, not because she is a woman). She literally says it is a myth that the second amendment exists for the people to resist a tyrannical federal government then says the southern states feared a tyrannical federal government.
Then she wants to say the militia was woefully ineffective in combat. Yes, that is why they wanted people to own their own weapons and train with them regularly.
Later she talks about how the militia was unsuccessful against Shea’s Rebellion. The rebels WERE the militia. Of course she ignores the changes other militias have made throughout our history.
Pathetic.
She is right. You are ignorant.
@@RittenhousesRifle you spam comment, unironically, things like ‘big beta male energy’ and ‘big cuck energy’. On a channel you hate watch. That’s pathetic.
How well did the second amendment work for the students at Kent State?
@@kmaher1424 She is wrong. You are ignorant.
See, not really a strong argument.
She is saying that the North detested slavery. But they had slaves as well at that time. George Washington and several other founding fathers were all slave owners. But she says the north detested it.
So we should be like England where we'd have to pay for public television. This sounds like some boot licker talk
You have every right not to own a gun.
This is useful information
Very interesting. It's crazy how little Americans know.of their history.
Its crazy how little you know about....anything, but in this case America/Americans yet looovve them so much you're obsessively xenophobic.
The 2nd amendment is great. It helped former slaves defend themselves from Democrats who wanted to intimidate them.
The first US President to make death from a disease his policy for the country was a Republican, Donald Trump.
@@aheroictaxidriver3180
We appreciate your work of fiction. Bravo.....
@@philadelphiaeagles834 This coming from one of the princes of the neighborhood of make believe.
@@aheroictaxidriver3180
So that is your preferred pronouns?
Ok then.
@@philadelphiaeagles834 Do you or do you not believe in imaginary creatures and theories about society that are mere educated guesses FROM 300 YEARS ago?
Bumping this.
Lol all those other rights are ok to have, but that one she makes specious arguments about is not.
I don't like the term "white rage" because it's a (very racist) way to dismiss any and all complaints made by white people. Saying the 2nd amendment is grounded in white supremacy would be more accurate.
I'm guessing it is used in the context of irrational fear and anger attributed to white people of minorities taking their social standing away.
There's nothing about calling racist people racist. You need to understand, people aren't talking about all white people, just racist ones. There's no need for people to take offense to a term if they understand it.
@@RittenhousesRifle widely disliked? Nice try, we're the global majority, including in the USA. It's the right wing that has the most distrust and hate, all over the world.
@@RittenhousesRifle That's not what they said, stupid.
Personally, I think it’s befitting. I’m white, and I am not offended. I don’t associate with the context of the terms usage. I think more white people need to hear it, because there are so many who are ignorant to their own bullshit. If you are white, and aren’t utterly disappointed in the response to racial issues by many other white people, then you may not be a champion of anything but indifference.
Many Americans think freedom is being able to carry a gun.
True freedom is not needing to carry a gun.
What?
Just more half truths from the grift of MR.
Ah yes, cause MR has such a bad reputation making conservatives piss themselves.
@@whyamimrpink78 think about that last line. So the real non-racist where slave owners?
Why do you think it was called the "compromise" it was a effort to end slavery while doing "bipartisanship" with the slave owners. Obviously not enough cause they liked free labor too much.
Maybe this isn't racist but thats what you want to see? Just like right wingers, always trying to call someone racist.
@@thugstin6429 I don't agree with the South being less Racist of course but the Compromise was made because the other solution is War. Which did happen, obviously. But Blacks and MR types seem to forget who freed the slaves. Not themselves. And, you can be a Leftist as I am and disagree with Sam.
This just seems like total race baiting
How so? You can't bait what's already written in history.
@@El_Chuncho the idea that the second amendment was placed there by white men to create slave patrols is ridiculous. The root even discredited it. Each amendment within the Bill of Rights was voted on unanimously by the states, not only those heavily reliant on slave economics
Yes I assumed that it was just a spin of narrative to push some gun grab agenda.
But we know this is not at all possible.,
So will look further into it.
🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮
We are a Republic not of a democracy!🇺🇸❤️
It's a federal, representative, democratic republic. What you said is an 11-year-old Heritage Foundation effort to cancel the word "democracy" because it sounds like "Democrat."
A Republic is a form of democracy. You cannot support a republic if you oppose democracy. Those two positions are mutually exclusive, and if you "think" you hold both, then you are mistaking Republics with dictatorships.
It's a democratic republic, dummy
Are you implying that the United States of America is just as Authoritarian and Tyrannical as The People's REPUBLIC of China?
Or the Islamic REPUBLIC of Iran?
Or even the former Union of Soviet Socialist REPUBLICS?
A Republic is a country or government without a Monarch or Hereditary Aristocracy, that's literally it.
It can be Capitalist, Socialist, Fascist, Communist, Democratic, Authoritarian, Anarchist, Oligarchical etc.
Fill in any ideology into a country that isn't a Monarchy and you can call it a Republic.
@@HumanSupremacist That is completely wrong.
A Republic is specifically a system of government where the people elect representatives to serve them (pass and enforce legislation, etc) in government.
A democracy is a system of government where the people decide on legislation directly or choose their governing legislatures (Republic) through voting. Almost every democracy that has ever existed was a Republic, because holding elections for the whole population to decide on every single piece of legislation is prohibitively time consuming and expensive.
By definition, a Republic IS a Democracy. Any system that is not Democratic cannot be a Republic (oligarchies are not Republics, monarchies are not Republics, etc) because the people do not decide their representatives in those systems.
Wrong
No! You are!
Yeah you already watched a 24 minute video, gtfo.
Video is longer than time since post. Your troll ass didn't even watch it.
Drop and "wrong" and then don't further elaborate to own the Libs 😎😎
🤡 💩 posting....
😂😂 got an ad for the "Patriots Guide", a guide to prevent the tyrannical government from confiscating your guns, before this clip.
For the algorithm