“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788. Case closed?
This is the difference between us and all the nations touted to have a more civilized society than ours but nearly every single one of them, has called upon the U.S. for their freedom
@Corno di Bassetto "The Constitution of most of our states, and of the United States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson "Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” Tench Coxe "To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason
Ive already watched this Colin Noir never talks about the founding fathers or their quotes. He works for the nra. The nra is a fake pro gun association. Try the goa who actually is pro constitution. "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt
The Founders lived thru a tyrannical government and feared that above all things... to even imagine that they would suggest that the government had the rights to have weapons/guns and not the people is laughable.
Federal militia law from the time of the Second Amendment actually required people to own military weapons and enroll in the state militia where they liked it or not.
They feared tyranny might develop under a Republic as happened to the Roman Republic. All gentlemen in those days had a classical education and were very familiar with the history of ancient Greece and Rome. In Rome, the Republic was destroyed by generals like Cornelius Sulla,.Julius Caesar, Marius, Pompey, and others. These generals commended armies that were loyal to them personally, not necessarily to the Republic. They used their armies to advance their personal ambitions, which might or might not be aligned with the policies of the Republic's government. The Founders saw this as a potential danger to the American Republic. They had gone through the Revolutionary War and had seen some generals, especially Washington, become powerful. Luckily Washington did not harbour ambitions dangerous to the Republic -- this is a major aspect of his greatness. To defuse this danger, the Founders avoided creating a standing army, and relied instead on volunteer militias to defend the country. In order to make such militias part of the regime they were creating, they adopted the 2nd Amendment, which says that in order to ensure that well regulated militias (not gangs) every male white citizen (implied) had the right to "keep and bear arms". Standing armies are given guns and uniforms and training by the government. The soldiers agree to serve full time for some period, for which they will be paid. British soldiers were said to "take the King's shilling" when they enlisted and were promptly paid a shilling as a sign that they were now soldiers of the King. Volunteer militias do not receive weapons, uniforms, or payment from the government. They provide their own, and volunteer their time. The Founders hoped that including the words "well regulated" would have the effect of disciplining the militias to some extent so that their activities would fulfill their goal of protecting the "security of the State". It did not specify what such regulations were or who would impose them, but trusted the citizenry to adopt sensible, patriotic rules for themselves. To facilitate recruitment, a large pool of men who owned firearms was useful, so that the best men could be chosen. If the only men who owned guns in a community were too old or infirm to participate in a militia, it would be impossible to form a militia. So, to ensure that there would be enough men available to form a serviceable militia, the Amendment recognized that white men (implied) had the right to keep and bear arms. Did the Founders envisage a country without well regulated militias, in which millions of people would "bear arms" into theaters, supermarkets, churches, schools and county court? Certainly not. They themselves did not carry arms with them as they went about their daily activities. They did not debate the Constitution with guns in their hands. When they fought duels, like Hamilton and Burr, did both men arrive at the site with guns in their holsters? Certainly not. Did ordinary citizens carry guns all the time -- while they plowed their fields, slaughtered pigs, drove to the crossroads store, walked to church? We don't see much mention of that in the literature they produced. Why didn't somebody blow the Headless Horseman away when he started scaring everybody? Did Rip Van Winkle make to sure get a new gun when he woke up? It might have been more common for people on the "frontier" to carry guns, since they feared the Indigenous people whose land they were stealing. But most Americans didn't live on the frontier. They lived in places like New York or Charleston or Philadelphia, or, a majority of them, in settled agricultural regions. One group that carried guns was the Slave Patrols. And here we come to the kind of thinking that motivates much of the gun culture today. The nightmare of a slave holding society is a slave revolt. In Haiti, there had been a slave revolution at around the same time as the American republic was taking shape. Slave owners were well aware of the Haitian Revolution, and the harsh treatment meted out by the former slaves to their former "masters". Sugar production is one of the most arduous forms of labour, and that's what the Haitian slaves had been forced to do for centuries. When they had not performed up to the standards of their overseers, they were punished ruthlessly "as an example". All this oppression, when finally overthrown by the Haitian people, led to atrocities against the "masters" by the newly free slaves. All this was current news to American slave "owners", and they were afraid the same thing would happen to them some day. So they set up Slave Patrols made up of armed white men who would ride around at night looking for slaves who had wandered away from their master's plantation. When found, such a slave would be whipped and returned to his "owner". The Slave Patrols were especially on the lookout for groups of slaves, meeting together in the backwoods and socializing or -- horrors! -- planning a revolt. These meetings were dealt with very harshly. White people spread rumors about black men sneaking off to meet slaves from other plantations to organize a revolt, in which they would kill their "masters", rape white women, burn the house and the outbuildings and then go one to the next plantation and do the same. Just like Haiti! Nowadays, the gun culture is saturated with similar fantasies, of "ghetto dwellers" breaking out of their slums and descending on the white suburbs with their illegally obtained guns, looking to shoot the suburban men and rape their women. They would "intrude" into the homes of white people and stand there with guns, with their strange hair styles and headscarves, their tasteless jewelry or even gold "grills" on their teeth, listening to rap and hip hop on their stolen cell phones as they manhandle the nice things the white people have gone into debt to buy. The "rioter", the "intruder", the "criminal", the "ghetto N--" arouse the same fears that used to torment white people during the times of slavery. And for some white people the response is the same: militarize the cops and have them clamp down on the ghetto dwellers. But you can't always rely on the cops! So you need to arm yourself to defend your loved ones and your property. Like that couple in Missouri who saw a group of black people marching with banners and chanting slogans outside their luxury townhouse and rushed to grab their guns and go outside to "defend" their property from these "intruders". In reality, the group of marchers were totally peaceful and caused no disruption whatsoever, aside from making some noise with their chants. But, driven by the ancient fear of a slave revolt as it has been updated to the 21st century, this wealthy couple saw "N-- in the neighbourhood" and assumed the Evil Day had come and rushed out to confront them, guns in hand. That white couple became instant heroes to the millions of Americans who have kept alive in their hearts the fear of slave revolt, and who were awestruck by the heroism of these two gun toting rich folks. That fear underlies much of the gun culture that is so prevalent in the US. It explains the profound emotional attachment felt by many Americans to their guns; it explains their endless threats of insurrection to overthrow "tyranny" (rule by non whites), and their panic over the demographic changes that have made it inevitable that America will be majority non-white in a few decades.
The discussions surrounding the right to keep and bear arms during the ratification debates make it clear the primary reason for an amendment specifically prohibiting the federal government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms was to keep it from being able to control the state militias and effectively disarm the people. With this in mind, it logically follows that the founding generation intended for the people to have access to weapons capable of matching military firepower, and they would in no way be shocked at the idea of the general population owning so-called “assault weapons.” In fact, that was the point. They wanted the populace to both possess military equipment and the have the ability to use it. They wanted to ensure the people could resist the government - by force if necessary. When you bring up this truth today, a lot of people laugh it off, claiming a bunch of rednecks with AR-15s could never face down the U.S. military. Well, tell that to Afghani nomads and Vietnamese peasants. One does not have to be an advocate of violent revolution to recognize the danger of allowing the government to have a monopoly on guns. It’s a matter of balancing power with power. The government will be far less likely to become tyrannical or oppressive when the people maintain the ability to resist. When you remove the option of self-defense, it tips the scales of power toward the government. That opens the door to tyranny. Technology has certainly changed over the last 250 years. Human nature hasn’t. Government is still prone to abuse the people when it can get away with it. Power still corrupts. Absolute power still corrupts absolutely.
Hot heads are needed at times. If the colonists had sat with the King of England and discussed cordially their differences, they would be in the river Thames.
JEFFERSON SAID THAT WHEN WE READ THE CONSTITUTION, LET US ALWAYS COME BACK TO THE ORIGINAL INTENT. THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” ― James Madison “The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.” - Massachusetts` U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788 William Grayson, of Virginia:
Corno di Bassetto The 14th amendment prevents the states from "doing whatever they want with Guns" . States cannot violate your civil rights such as the Second Amendment under the 14th amendment to the constitution. (including turning them all into scrap metal).
It was fantastic to see an actual debate. Too often debates devolve into shouting matches where both parties depart from facts. Its deeply troubling that so few people can have respect for anothers opinion while disagreeing with it. I dont have to like your views to respect you as a person. If you are a person who cares deeply about this country or your fellow man who am I to call out your beliefs as unintelligent or stupid? If a person is incorrect on facts I can only offer factual evidence. If that person is rejects those facts, I have no more reason to debate. Either way it is no cause to treat another with disrespect or hatered. From my own study of oposing sides i believe that owning and carrying a firearm is my individual right and I do so. However I believe that right also puts a serious responsibility on any individual that chooses to exercise that right. Laws that address criminals, mentally ill, firearm storage, and the responcibility of the individual are necessary. This works to ensure that ownership and bearing of firearms does not interfere with others rights so spelled out in our Constitution. If an individual, by exercising a right, fails to live up to the responcibility inharent to that right, they should and must be made to answer for the suffering caused by their individual choices. It's a tough issue that is more often argued with feelings rather than facts. This is true on both sides of the issue. I do believe that a more honest and humble conversation about the concerns and causes of the problems of today's society would do much more good for those we seek to protect. Those being both the individual and their rights, and those who have had their own lives and rights violated.
WE TODAY IN AMERICA HAVE A TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT RIGHT NOW. AS THE CENTRAL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND WITH MEDIA CONTROL OVER FAKE NEWS AND FALSE NARRITIVE NEWS HAS CREATED A SELECTIVE PEOSECUTING LAW ENFORCEMENT THAT IS NOW HAPPENING TO THE BLACK PEOPLE THROUGH RACIAL PROFILEING AND WHAT ROBERT MEULLER IS DOING TO PRESIDENT TRUMP WHEN THERE HAS NOT BEEN ONE NOT, ONE CRIME THAT INVOLVES PRESIDENT TRUMP . THE OTHERS THAT HAVE BEEN CHARGED AND THE FEW THAT HAVE BEEN CONVICTED MOST OF THEM WERE ALREADY UNDER FBI INVESTIGATION FOR SOME OVER 10 PLUS YEARS.. PRESIDENT TRUMP IS BEING SELECTED BY A TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT WITH THE FBI AS A GOVERNMENT MILITANT TRAINED GROUP. THIS CAN AND DOES HAPPEN TO MANY MANY NORMAL CITIZENS WHO EVEN HAVE NOT COMMITTED A CRIME BUT YET GET THIER LOIVES RUINED BY THE GOVERNMENT. THIS IS THE DEMOCRATS AND THE DEMOCRATES ARE NOT LIKE THE DEOMOCRATS OF YESTERYEAR. THEY ARE NOW A SOCIALIST ANTIFA VIOLENT GROUP THAT USES THE MEDIA TO LIE AND SPIN THE TRUTH IN THE NEWS. FOR EXAMPLE JUST LOOK UP UA-cam AND FAKE NEWS. CNN WILL POP UP ALL OVER. AND HERE IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE . NOW CHRIS CUOMO ONCE SAID ON T.V. THAT IT IS ILLEGAL FOR ANY CITIZEN TO OWN HILLARY CLINTONS WIKILEAKS EMALIS THAT TELL THE TRUTH AND EXPOSE HER LIES AND TELL THE REAL TRUTH ABPOUT HER. AND IF THE CITIZENS HAD A COPY OF THE WIKILEAKS EMAILS THEN IT IS ILLEGAL AND THEY THE CITIZENS ARE CRIMINALS. AND ONLY THE MEDIA LIKE HIMSELF CHRIS CUOMO AND THE MEDIA ARE THE ONLY LEGAL ONES WHO CAN LEGALLY POSSESS THE HILLARYS WIKILEAKS. NOW THAT IS A REAL LIE. AND WHEN THE MEDIA WHICH IS A CORPORATION LIE TO THE MASSESS AND CITIZENS WHO DO NOT KNOW THE TRUTH IS FRAUDULENT NEWS. THAT IS VERY INFLUENTIAL TO THE ELECTION PROCESS . SO FORGET RUSSIA THAT TOOK OUT ADDS IN FACE BOOK . BUT WE HAVE THE LIBERAL MEDIA THAT ON PURPOSELY LIE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO INFLUENCE TO LIKE OR DISLIKE A POTENTIAL CANDIATE. THAT I BELIEVE SHOULD BE ACTIONABLE BY TRUMP AND CONGRESS SHOULD PASS MANY LAWS THAT IF A REPORTER SPINS OR LIES OR DISTORTS THE TRUTH FOR THIER CORPORATIONS WHICH ARE NEWS MEDIAS SHOULD GO TO PRISON. PERIOD. NOW HOW THIS HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE GUN AND THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS IS BECAUSE OF PROBLEMS LIKE THIS. SO FELLOW CITIZENS YOU BETTER KEEP ALL YOUR GUNS ALL BIG AND SMALL.BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT HAS PUSHED IT ALREADY WITH RACIAL PROFILING AND WE ALL KNOW THAT OBAMA USEDA EXECUTIVE ORDER TO STOP ANY INVESTIOGATION INTO THE FAST AND FURIOUS DEAD IN ITS TRACKS. OUR GOD GIVEN RIGHTS ARE NON NEGOTIABLE. ALL LAWYERS DO IS COMPLICATE THE ISSUES BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO AND TRAINED TO DO. SO YOU CAN LISTEN TO A FAT CROOKED CAREER POLITICIAN TELL YOU THAT YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS OR YOU CAN SAY WHAT BEN FRANKLIN SAID. GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH.
Sadly, this is not the format that works for the 24/7 media machine. Short, one-line insults work much better in capturing the attention of the average, on-the-go citizen. This debate was fantastic. I learned much and now feel like I better understand the history that led us to DC v Heller.
I love how neither one spoke of the last part of the 2nd amendment, shall not be infringed was read but totally ignored in this discussion and to say nothing of the other parts of the Constitution that speak of the militia and the most awesome part of the Constitution "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." People need to understand what liberty means and stop letting people decide for you
The 2nd amendment doesn't give citizens the right to keep and bear arms! It just acknowledges that fact. As a free man I have the right to protect myself and my possessions from all that wish to deprive me of my life or my possessions.
@@deppsterdeppe725 So they are outlawed and prohibited in all 50 states by what authority? The same state and federal governments which were put on notice by the Second Amendment of the US Constitution that the state and federal governments are prohibited from outlawing and prohibiting Citizen Militias? George III and Thomas Gage agreed with your position. If fact, they tried to enforce your position at Lexington and Concord with somewhat questionable results. By the way, Hitler was a big fan also.
@@generalbarry They are outlawed and explicitly prohibited by Laws put in place by each state legislatures of course, as that is how laws are enacted as most people know.. The far right NRA myth and twisted perversion of the original intent of the 2nd amendment is their 40+ year fairytale. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...The fundamental reference and entire point lies therein.
The Second Amendment was the anti-standing army amendment. It failed spectacularly in that respect. If it was intended to curb state violence against citizens, it has also failed, as the US has the rates of violence by police.
what Attorney Michael Waldman ignore is the 2nd amendment was a principle UNDERSTOOD long BEFORE the American Revolution. IT was the PRIMARY tools for INDIVIDUALS to PROTECT and DEFEND THEIR PERSON FAMILY AND COMMUNITY on the FRONTIER. Battle of Saratoga was primarily won due to the Individual taking their PERSONAL ARMS to stand and fight the British.
I think it’s quite simple here’s why: 1. What were the events that brought forth this document? What was the driving principle of the revolution? What was the mindset of these revolutionaries, turned framers? A. They had just fought the greatest military power on earth at the time with a group of farmers, lawyers, politicians, clerks, store owners, tradesmen etc. who provided their own weapons, that were equal if not better, than those of the Tyrannical British. The #1 motivation Liberty 2. What does the very first line of the constitution say? A. “ We the people” Who are the people? Each Individual Citizen 3. What is the type of government that they formed? A. A republic, that represents the rights of the individual. These people feared an oppressive government. They wanted the people to have the ability to protect against threats foreign or domestic. The Bill of Rights were added due to the concerns of the anti-federalists. According to the framers the Militia was the whole of the people themselves, and each individual to keep his own arms. These rights are not granted by the second amendment, only protected by it. The Constitution limits the powers of government not the people. Our rights are pre-ordained, “precede” the government does not grant them therefore has no authority to take them. We are not subjects, therefore “by and for the people.” . “Can not be infringed” are clear and powerful, when you consider the above. As well as the framers own words: Thomas Jefferson “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776 “ Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” - Jefferson`s “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764 George Mason “[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually.”. . . I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” - Virginia`s U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788 “That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free state.” - Within Mason`s declaration of “the essential and unalienable Rights of the People,” - later adopted by the Virginia ratification convention, 1788 Samuel Adams “The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.” - Massachusetts` U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788 William Grayson “[A] string of amendments were presented to the lower House; these altogether respected personal liberty.” - Letter to Patrick Henry, June 12, 1789, referring to the introduction of what became the Bill of Rights Richard Henry Lee “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms… The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.” - Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788 James Madison The Constitution preserves “the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” - The Federalist, No. 46 Tench Coxe “The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them.” - An American Citizen, Oct. 21, 1787 “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” - The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788 “As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” - Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 Noah Webster “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power.” - An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787 Alexander Hamilton “[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens.” - The Federalist, No. 29 Thomas Paine “[ A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.” - Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775 Fisher Ames “The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people.” - Letter to F.R. Minoe, June 12, 1789 Elbridge Gerry “What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise a standing army upon its ruins.” - Debate, U.S. House of Representatives, August 17, 1789 Patrick Henry “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.” - Virginia`s U.S. Constitution ratification convention
@@leezaslofsky4438 So you are out for your morning jog. Suppose someone attacks you. Do you have to ask anyone for permission to defend yourself? No? Well, then it is a right. And since self defense is a right so is a tool for self defense, and a gun is a great tool for self defense.
@@Anon54387 This is a typcal "argument" from a gun nut. Suppose you are not armed/ Suppose you are not able to get hold of your weapon? Suppose you are disabled, or frail elderly, or a teenager nt yet old enough to be armed? MOST people NEVER get attacked. Of those who get attacked, a large proportion are not able to get hold of a gun, ar not famliar with the use of a gun , do not believe in using lethal force in an inident they may have misinterpreted, or where it is easier to use a cell phone tocall for help, or where the "attacker" can be dealt with other than by using lethal force against her or him. Americans pay enormous amunts of money for their 18,000 police agencies, and more huge sums for private security agencies, and many security devices that can prevent an attacker from getting anywhere near the you. You seem to dismiss all this spending, training, and day to day activity, and single out the rare instances where a person may find herself or himself under attack with no access to any kind of security aside from the possession of a lethal weapon. Once you have st up that rare situation, yu base your whole attitude to firearms on it, as if it were a typical everyday occurrence. That is the wrong way to approach this issue. In a society where massive efforts are going on every minute of every day to preserve personal security, the real uestion is how can people faced with a difficult situation access the help that society provides? Ignoring all that, you pretend that "we" are lone cowboys riding around in unpopulated areas, where the only possible response to "attack" is a lightning fast resort to firearms, with the intention of either killing the attacker or wounding her or him so badly that she or he loses the capacity to threaten you. Such rare incidents are NOT the best baiss for approaching the question of firearms in modern society. And indeed in most modern countries, there are regulations that constrain the possession and use of firearms, thereby reducing the incidence of "attacks" and increasing the safety of the public. Only in the US, and certain corners of the world's gangster community, is the issue approached as if society has completely failed to provide any security for its members. In this fantasy world, the question of "gun rights" sddenly becomes urgent, as the complete failure of society to protect its members from lethal threats forces individual citizens and residents to resort to lethal self defense, based on their own rapid apprecitation of what is happening at the moment of "attack". This kind of idiotic fantasizing accounts for many of the deaths and injuries suffered by ordinary Americans because they happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time; or react in ignorance of the actual situation (like the cop who murdered a 10 year old kid who was playing around with a toy gun, or the cop who murdered a man who had just informed him that he was in legal possession of a firearm and reached to get the documents requested by the cop). In fact, yu do NOT have a "right" to kill or injure someone because you imagine that he is a dnger to you. You are bound by law -- and not a new law -- to respond to threats with proportionate force, or, better, to try to prevent any use of force at all. That used ot be called "Keeping the King's Peace". The KIng has commended his subkects not to kill each other, and whoever kills someone breaches that command and is therefore liable to be punished. The King's Peace was imposed in order to get rid of the custom of revenge killing or injuring relatives of a person thought to have killed or injured someone. If a man kills your cousin, you go and kill one of his cousins, thus exacting revenge and resolving the crime. That was the wy things were until kings gained enough power to suppress that kind of tit for tat, almost random murder and injury. That kind of thing makes it difficult to society to gain prosperity, because3 you might be targeted by someone's cousin for something your cousin did without you knowledge some years ago. Now it's not called the King's Peace in the US, but the idea remains the same: we are required, as members of society, to do our best to keep the peace. Gun nuts think that means that they have th right to kill anyone who "attacks" them. That is the wrong interpretation, and in most cases it is against the law to do so. Gun nuts, in their foolish indifference to Reason, think society would be more "polite" if everyone knew he was risking death of wounding if he dared to be impolite. Such ruthless contempt for the lives and personal safety of others is typical of a gangster or psychopathic mentality. A society of armed psychopaths wold perhaps benefit if every psychopath had the "right" to kill other psychopaths when they get rowdy. But only a small number f people are psychopaths or gangsters, and it is a big mistake to base social customs on their behaviour -- in fact, on letting them set the standards for society in general. If we're going to let a small minority set the standards for society as a whole, wouldn't it be better to choose peace loving, constructive, caring people as that minority, rather than ruthless killers? Or was Jesus an impractical dreamer who got what such people usually get from the more realistic members of society: torture and death, public humiliation, and a reputation as a Loser?
Waldman at 58:30 attempt the classic Liberal argument that since Muskets were the main stay is it muskets that we have a right to? This is a MUTE arguement since ARMS is understood as a CONCEPT of DEFENSES just as ALL THE RIGHTS are a CONDEPT and IDEOLOGY and NOT SPECIFIC to a PARTICULAR CLASS OF TOOL OR METHOD
Ok, for many Americans the subtleties of the debate will be lost. It would be important to remind those on the left of the issue that The Constitution was written so it could be understood by the average joe of the time, not those holding a Phd in linguistics. Additionally, politicians write laws everyday knowing they're un-constitutional and also knowing their courts will uphold them and the case will either never make it to SCOTUS, or will never get to see the case as 8,ooo or so cases are requested review and only 75-80 actually get heard (About 1%). So as a politician there is a very good chance your un-constitutional law will remain the law for many years.
The origianl wording from Madison clearly outlines the reason for citizens to have arms, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person,” Patrick Henry objected to elements of the draft because he thought a future abolitionist President could activate the militia and send it out of state and expose the slave states to a slave uprising because the militia primarily served as the slave patrol. Thus, the version in the Constitution was produced, A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. You need look no further than Switzerland to see a modern example of Madison's intention. Every man 18 to 30 is a member of the reserves and keeps his issued weapon at home.
@@danielpalos I agree, we shouldn't have security problems. But 314 mass shootings in 186 days in 2022 is a scurity problem. Since 2020, firearms are the leading cause of death in those ages 1 to 19. That is a security problme. So, what is the solution to those security problems?
@@elviejodelmar2795 - A few points about Switzerland: *conscientious objectors are exempted both from military service and from keeping a rifle at home; *to keep a long gun at home, a person must be at least 18 years of age, may not have been placed under guardianship, may not give cause for suspicion that he would endanger themselves or others with the weapon, and may not have a criminal record with a conviction for a violent crime or of several convictions for nonviolent crimes; *gun sellers are required to scrupulously check that background, and a national record exists; *a person who kept a gun but then winds up landing outside of the above restrictions will have their gun confiscated; *purchasing a handgun, as opposed to a hunting gun, requires a permit, and these are valid only for between 6 and 9 months and a separate permit is required per handgun; *there’s no right to open carry; to concealed carry requires a license, and to obtain the license you must provide proof you really need to concealed carry … like you’re a bodyguard to a high-profile person, basically; *open carry of long guns is absolutely forbidden, you are only allowed to transport your long gun to the shooting range or hunting ground in a case with the ammunition kept separately from the long gun; *a long gun kept at home must be kept under lock and key, with the ammunition stored separately. I in general agree with what you write, and you may already know all the above, but for other readers’ sakes I felt I ought to outline how guns and gun ownership are really quite tightly regulated even in Switzerland, as opposed to in our current, quite broken, USA. The mad dash by conservatives in the USA, beginning in the 1980s, to warp the 2nd Amendment from its original intent-of allowing for the organizing of a federal militia in the event of a hostile foreign invasion-to, instead, our bizarre present-day shoot-‘em-up free-for-all is, in a word, insane. I’ve watched it over the decades in disbelief. And of course it’s led to today’s predictable results. It’s about time we, the sensible majority, took back control of our country, away from the insane conservative minority who today undemocratically rule it.
@@danopticon 19th century jurisprudence and commentary unfortunately disabuse your position. Your view collapsed because of extensive scholarship on the subject that was too irrefutable to ignore, not that your opinion is correct. FYI, do you know roughly per polling what percent of the population actually agrees with your interpretation of the Second? It's around 25%. That puts you in the extreme minority, not the "sensible majority." You're entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts about the numbers that actually support your position.
This is the very best of America; sober considered debate about the Constitution. I learned more about the complexities of the Second Amendment by listening to both sides of this respectful debate than i have by listening to the shouting, tumult and abuse that does on in the so called public discourse. Those that want to reduce the idea of of discussion and debate by using violent and abusive language could do well to just stop and think about how these two men conduct themselves in this sensitive discussion.
Hening's Statutes of the laws of Virginia state that in 1623 that each man had to carry a loaded firearm with them on their way to and from work in the field and post a sentry over them as they worked. In 1625 a law was passed that men on their way to and from church had to carry a loaded firearm on their way to and from church. Not the militia, but each individual man was mandated by law to do so.
Absolutely right. Even nowadays, we see such provisions in laws at some places wherein individual citizen has not just a right, but a duty, of not just owning, but always carrying a firearm, which, in today's times of magazines, is always loaded.
The guy on the right acknowledges that the right to bear arms was intended to prevent a tyrannical government. Who is going to prevent a tyrannical government if it's not the people who are not part of the government controlled military? He tosses out the statements that are not logical. There are so many instances where it's made obvious that the founding fathers intended for individuals to have the right to bear arms that it's amusing that we are still debating it. And btw, I see selective service as the best example of the modern militia.
So basically a Marxist and a Communist arguing over what constitutes "sensible" Infringement. Not one of these "scholars" addressed the phrase "Shall not be infringed" aside from reading it. One of them even ridiculed the notion of examining each word for its separate meaning. This, ladies and gentleman is WHY we need the second amendment. This is HOW tyranny relentlessly and insidiously creeps and forces its way into the world. This is WHAT the founders were talking about when they described tyranny. It is Evil itself. It is anything that seeks to limit Freedom and the Infinite Potential of Man.
Talking as someone who's a conservative on the gun issue, it wasn't mentioned because it's irrelevant to the discussion. The question is how far the right goes not whether you can infringe on it.
@@vidyanandbapat8032 Not armed ones. It's illegal to drive a tank on the streets for example, nor can you own a tank on private property that is armed, same goes with jet fighters. Also, there are some weapons which are outright banned to be owned by private citizens, like nuclear bombs, nuclear-powered submarines, etc...
There is no debate : The 2nd Amendment states very clearly - the right of the people to keep and bear arms. And NO...…….the founding fathers would NOT be in favor of gun control. Considering what's going on right now in Virginia - with the new Communist Governor trying to seize the peoples firearms - the founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing when they wrote the 2nd Amendment. We have the right to defend ourselves from the time we are born . That right comes from God. Government, Federal or State - has no right to limit or take away that right.
Not once in all of US History and juris prudence was the idea that gun ownership was ever not considered as an individual Right until the 1970s when the Democrat party first began that purporting that as a legal basis for gun control.
Absolutely right. It was even there in the older British Bill of rights(1689) and the Magna Carta from which the Amer8can Bill of rights(1791) is emerged.
Please demonstrably explain and then prove this 'god'; then deomntrartbly prove that it was in any way responsible for the compromise that was the US Constitution.
It is unusual to see a debate on this issue conducted so civilly and rationally. Typically, both sides just interrupt each-other and blurt out self serving statistics. This forum is the only non-partisan discussion I've ever seen on the RKBA.
Sounds like the argument, 'common use' has been already decided by the Federal Supreme court and the gun grabbers need to piss off (including politicians grandstanding for re-election). with approximately 40 million AR-15's bought and owned, legally, the question is who and why they want us to abandon the right to bear arms. That was tried before and this was the result: withoutsanctuary.org
Common with intellectuals like Waldman to always have the answers with government always being the solution. It is convenient how intellectuals are immune from the ramifications of their own ideology. I think it is best demonstrated at the end when he claims: 1. Vehicles have been made safer by government regulations. This is not true, as evidenced in risk analysis by John Adams in 'Managing Transport Risks: What Works?' (2010) 2. Microstamping: no technology currently exists to make this economically feasible (California has a law for this even though it doesn't exist) and there is no evidence to show it works or that it would change homicide rates. 3. Smart guns might be a good idea but there is a high technology cost for this and some deep questions about the guns functioning when needed that have caused them to not be feasible as of yet. And if they are that great, why is the market not supplying them? Why would you need laws to force your purchase of one? 4. Why does he care if someone is openly carrying? How much distrust does he have in everyone? 5. Even if it were a collective right, people will just join a militia and continue to own and use guns. 6. After his ideology settles, Waldman needs to prove that any government intervention has ever worked with guns, then figure out why it worked, and finally make more policies based off of these facts assuming they do not violate the constitution. If you wanted to have an honest debate, like Waldman is claiming to have, about effecting the homicide rate, you have to start by looking at where and why the homicides are actually being created. For this you would need to start with the failed drug war, the failed welfare state, and a whole host of other topics. Waldman needs to read Thomas Sowell's 'The Quest for Cosmic Justice' (2002) and then revisit his ideology.
I am curious as to WHERE, in the Constitution, is the power to regulate a right given to the Federal government? "Those power's not given to the Federal government belong to the States and to the people respectively"
Well, this is what makes some of the pro gun rights people look so ridiculous. The Bill of Rights are largely a set of restrictions on the federal government, but now gun rights activists look to the feds to overturn state and municipal laws.
No one seems to understand the militia of the time. The militia of the time was not State controlled. They certainly were not the *Kings Militia.* In fact, the militia that began the Revolution, the militia to which many of the Framers belonged, was the Sons of Liberty, an ad hoc militia, made up of individuals, who eventually pushed the British, into Boston Harbor. The Sons of Liberty were very like the Irish Republican Army, with political and militant wings. Also, the Phrase "well Regulated" did not carry the same meaning as today. The phrase "Well regulated" indicated "in proper working order". This meaning was demonstrated by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 29, _"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would _*_entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia,_*_ would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss."_ From this quote we can deduce two things: 1. If the Founders meant for government to control the militia, they would have used the verb “to discipline”, as in “a well disciplined militia” (an objective Hamilton described as “futile” and “injurious”) 2. As Hamilton observes, well regulated meant the people were responsible for training themselves to arms, as well as supplying and equipping themselves. "Well Regulated" was a superlative of the _character_ desired in a militia. Though Hamilton thought this onerous, by demanding the Second Amendment, the States devolved this responsibility to the People. One final word regarding the 14th Amendment : The phrase, "Shall not be infringed" *guarantees a constitutional immunity* from infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. Therefore, as Justice Thomas suggests in his McDonald Concurring Opinion, the 2nd Amendment would be better incorporated under the "privileges & immunities" clause of the 14th.
That is absolute nonsense: there was no militia during the 18th century that didn’t serve without government authority and organization. You simply have no idea what you’re talking about and I can prove it.
@@rainsilversplash4376 it’s astounding because you’re the one who’s really ignorant. You just don’t know it. The sons of liberty were a terrorist organization. They acted with encouragement of some rebel leaders but not as a Militia. Massachusetts colony did use its militia against the British and formed some of them into a select corps called Minutemen that were given special training.
We do not have a free state, ask any divorced father whose had his children taken and extorted just to not be put in a cage. If there are ANY laws requiring a human to actively DO and/or maintain something, i.e. Income, is tyrannical.
i have two questions for the dude on the right. why is a semi auto getting termed as a assault rifle and what does shall not be infringed mean ????????????????????????????
The safety of vehicles is in the operation of those vehicles. Not in adding systems that make a crash more survivable. No system can compensate for unsafe operation of the vehicle such as driving it into a crowd, building or other vehicle on purpose. Firearms are the same the safety is in the responsible carry and use of the firearm. Modern firearms are very safe no need to put additional systems into them. Safe use is the responsibility of the owner.
"Common Sense gun laws, or any gun laws for that matter, are designed to stop the very people who are most likely to disobey them, while effectively legislating the law-abiding citizens out of their right to defend themselves. You then have a situation where only the criminals have guns and the the law abiders are disarmed. A perfect storm.
Waldman starting at 49:48 does a double speak stating the courts have upheld decisions against individual rights in support gov and public interest which is the CORE OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS that the ANTI FEDERALIST ORIGINALLY FOUGHT TO STAY OFF A CENTRALIZED CONTROLLING GOV which now Waldman said is the reason judges have ignored individual gun rights case. This is CONTRARY TO THE PURPOSE of the VERY RIGHTS IN THE BILL OF THE RIGHTS
The "woke" finds it abhorrent to look for fault or to lay blame. That's SO judgmental! However, I do expect the BLM to do a Jan 6 on the Capitol (you know, a mostly peaceful protest like they did at the Portland, Oregon police station on 04 Aug 20) to demand a ban on high-capacity, high-power assault hammers.
Question: If you have a child in the classroom beating others with a stick, do you say, "It's not the stick's fault," and proceed to arm the others for self-defense?
A rephrasing of the amendment is because of the need of a militia as a first line of our defense the right those who legally required to bear arms shall not be infringed by the National government under the military clauses.
I have this thing about the elites belief as to what the 2nd amendment was intended to do. The elite rarely want to allow the commoners to be on an equal footing.
That because Congress doesent want to under stand 1 amendment freedoms of the constitution .2 amendment to keep all the freedoms and god given rights and rest of the amendment safe .it is closer to that time again the country is so divided
I’m waiting for the day that SCOTUS speaks of the Infringement Clause of 2a. 2a is the only “right” that has such a clause. Therefore, it has the most protection of any “right”. In the end, it doesn’t matter what a judges “opinion” is on anything. The second amendment, created in 1791, was signed the very same year the first Supreme Court of the United States was created. The first Chief Justice of the United States was John Jay; the Court's first docketed case was Van Staphorst v. Maryland (1791), and its first recorded decision was West v. Barnes (1791). 2a predates the entire government.
The framers intended to deny the Government the ability to restrict or infringe upon the natural right of the people to keep and bear military arms for self-defense, which includes the defense of one's freedom and countrymen from Tyranny.
This guy points toward Madison while at the same time that we shouldn't look back at the construction and intent ... seems an odd position, since Madison states that examining the construction and intent is the only way to see its faithful execution: "The Constitution itself, whether written or prescriptive, influenced as its exposition and administration will be, by those causes, must be an unfailing source of party distinctions. And the very peculiarity which gives pre-eminent value to that of the United States, the partition of power between different governments, opens a new door for controversies and parties. There is nevertheless sufficient scope for combating the spirit of party, as far as it may not be necessary to fan the flame of liberty, in efforts to divert it from the more noxious channels; to moderate its violence, especially in the ascendant party; to elucidate the policy which harmonizes jealous interests; and particularly to give to the Constitution that just construction, which, with the aid of time and habit, may put an end to the more dangerous schisms otherwise growing out of it. With a view to this last object, I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that be not the guide in expounding it, there can be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful exercise of its powers. If the meaning of the text be sought in the changeable meaning of the words composing it, it is evident that the shape and attributes of the Government must partake of the changes to which the words and phrases of all living languages are constantly subject. What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense And that the language of our Constitution is already undergoing interpretations unknown to its founders, will I believe appear to all unbiased Enquirers into the history of its origin and adoption. Not to look farther for an example, take the word "consolidate" in the Address of the Convention prefixed to the Constitution. It there and then meant to give strength and solidity to the Union of the States. In its current & controversial application it means a destruction of the States, by transfusing their powers into the government of the Union." - James Madison Also, the Second Amendment was included because of the fears that Congress would neglect its obligation under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 to organize, arm, and discipline the militias. The fear was that Congress wouldn't provide for the arming of the militia, since that power had been placed within the purview of the federal government. It would, as Patrick Henry stated, render the best defense of our liberty nugatory by leaving the states without any arms. While as Mason put it, Congress would then use the excuse to create a permanent standing army.
At the 8:00 mark he tries to argue it was written to codify the militia's right to bear arms . Why would that need to be enshrined ? Why would it say THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS ?
Except, if you read "The Federalist Papers" that was written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay. all written by them before the Constitution was ratified
There are whole hosts of "laws" passed by Congress and state legislatures that the Supreme Court never grants certiorari and resolves their constitutionality or unconstitutionality.
Although, the recent increase in deaths caused by guns is attributed to people suffering from mental illness, we seem to overlook the fact some people are evil. At some point in the evildoers life, they make a conscious decision to kill. The reasons may vary but the senseless deaths affect us all and in ways that we may never comprehend.
Michael Waldman makes a HUGE ERROR of the LIBERALS @ 32:50 he states thing started to CHANGE 100 yrs later arguing that urban cities with more population became the norm thus things REGARDING GUNS HAD TO CHANGE-THIS IS THE ERROR THOUGH SOCIAL CONSTRUCTS CHANGE AS their INTEREST of RESIDENCE THE RIGHTS GOVERNING THE PEOPLE DO NOT CHANGE BUT THAT HAS BEEN THE LIBERAL TAKE...That we need to Change the CONSTITUTION to REFLECT a DIFFERENCE OF SOCIETY THAT IS FLAT OUT FALSE!!!!
No it's not. If you understand English, and have studied American history, the words of the Founding Fathers, they meant to express to We the People at the time, a plain and understandable Right in language. It's not clumsy, complicated, or difficult.
Given the term "well-regulated militia", is the individual right a completely unqualified right? Doesn't the well-regulated militia have a duty to qualify the individual? Do not the State, and the People, have a security interest in qualifying those who purchase, keep, and bear arms? We certainly train and qualify members of the armed forces on military weapons systems. Another example, upon reaching the qualifying age (already an "infringement") should not the "militia" (its contemporary equivalents) duly vet those seeking to begin to keep arms? This would take a burden off of the gun dealer, and this could stop the troubled 18- to 25-year-old from procuring a weapon likely to be misused. There is a "juvenile" or "young offender" aspect to this issue in practice. The presentation of the proper qualification document and its verification might simplify the purchase for the gun dealer. Why should we not use what we have learned about brain development to improve this situation?
@@jonathanoconnor9546 My understanding of that decision is that one is not required to be a member of the militia to keep and bear arms, and I can agree with that. That's different from being qualified by a militia. My family all together took a hunter safety course conducted by the county sheriff. The instructors were definitely assessing whether or not we were "in our right mind" prior to giving each of us a certificate. The course didn't require my continuing service in the Sheriff's Department in any kind of auxiliary capacity. I think it would be good for those interested in gun ownership to be qualified by the militia, that being consistent with the term "well regulated."
Yes, it is. The right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. How many times does it need to be said? BTW, one doesn't have to be in a militia to have the right. That would make it a privilege. You guys are all reading from the same faulty script. I know, my teachers in college tried to fill my head with the nonsense that one had to be in a militia as well.
@@Anon54387 The US Constitution constrains the federal government on this matter, not the States. At the time, the point of the Second Amendment was to address States' concerns with Federal power. Obviously slaves were not the People and were not to have any right to arms. In large measure, militia existed to maintain "domestic tranquility", that is, in the South, to maintain an economic system that included slavery. Who has to serve in the militia is up to the Free States, and very deliberately so. I did not propose militia membership to keep and bear arms, I proposed the "militia" be it Sheriffs or State or local police, be the agencies that qualify human beings to keep and bear arms. (It's the people, not the guns, right?) Slaves didn't qualify and nobody was taking that infringement to court back when the language was written because it was a clear social assumption. Infringement in fact existed from the beginning as a matter practicality. Today we have mentally ill people legally buying weapons and killing children. We are supposed to just accept that? Would the authors of the 2nd Amendment tell us to just accept that? Nobody who sent their kid to school thought it was going to happen to them. What's a mentally sound, law abiding citizen's problem with qualifying with a weapon? They should do it for their own and their family's safety. At the end of hunter safety class, the retired Sheriff's Deputy who qualified me for hunting safety told the story of how he as a kid shot his sister in the eye, blinding that eye for the rest of her life. There are lots of good reasons for weapons training before operating a weapon. By now it should be a clear social assumption that the mentally ill should not keep and bear arms, and the State and local "militia", not the federal government, is the proper power to make the call on who is and who is not mentally ill. Because they are the ones who have to risk their lives, enter the school, hunt down the shooter, and deal with them one way or another.
And what they feared was to come to pass has happened, our government is becoming tyrannical!!!!!!!! Bearing weaponry, armaments is as much of a right as breathing air!!!
42:20 - Joseph Story is an "obscure" source? First time I've heard a supposedly informed scholar make that ridiculous claim in an effort to dodge the issue.
You guys are having this show about the constitution second amendment the right of every individual to have a firearm then my damn question is why are these states curtailing the Second Amendment restricting our purchases of certain firearms and you guys are sitting there like it’s all fine and well!🕶
The liberal's argument at the 58ish mark is misplaced. He's basically making a "living Constitution" argument. "It doens't matter what the original intent was, the country evolves, so the Constitution evolves. What was legal then doesn't need to be legal now, blah blah blah." And even if he's right, he's wrong as it applies to guns. The majority of Americans favor gun rights. Doesn't mater if you are a gun owner or not. The vast majority of Americans (around 73% the last time surveyed) believe that individuals should have the right to own a gun. Every state but 4 or 5 have the individual right to own guns enshrined in their state constitutions. And of those few that didn't, even fewer didn't grant the right by statute. That's why D.C. stood out so much, it was this extreme example that America didn't agree with. So if he wants to argue original intent, that's fine. But there is no "living Constitution" argument against the individual right. Whatever the Second Amendment was originally intended to be, it's clear that Americans want it to be an individual right.
Commerce in gunpowder/explosives as firearms propellants were not controlled by the monarch? Manufacture was not controlled by the Crown? The elements of gunpowder was unregulated, and freely available and not centrally administrated? Arms were crafted throughout the colonies and states. We can see that gunsmithing was widely available as an offshoot of metal fabrication, of course. Gunpowder, however, was strictly controlled.
When the TYRANNICAL government comes the NATIONAL GUARD comes with them. They are the SAME side of the coin. WE the ppl in EACH STATE need our OWN MILITIA.
Good debate except that no one even danced close to the original and primary intent for the 2nd. It was to allow common people, all people in the US to maintain a free nation of free individuals. That allowing an armed society would help protect it from foreign and domestic tyrannical governments. So why even argue gov control of arms even being a good idea? Maybe a collection of citizens?
The original and primary intent of the 2nd was not to allow all people the right to protect themselves. The 2nd amendment was never intended the accessed by africans brought to this land as slaves. Neither of these men address the idea that southern colonies like virginia maintained militias to control slave then later free population of africans.(Many of these southern militias developed into their modern police departments, which explains why they still have issues policing poc). Black codes made it illegal for blacks to have guns. States changed their state constitutions like TN to reflect their purpose of keeping weapons out of the hands of blacks and the NRA backed gun control as late as the 60s in an effort to keep groups like the black panthers from having guns.
The right to keep and bear Arms, shall NOT be infringed....what don’t these idiots understand, the 2nd A was given to protect us against govt tyranny, from what the govt is trying to do now. The govt is overstepping their authority.
Right to keep and bear arms"...meant whatever you chose o be armed with!!! That could be a rock; a bowie knife, a base ball bat...it meant ARMED.PERIOD. The right to keep and bear arms! Or weapons of YOUR choice!
The guy on the right, though i don't agree with him, was very astute until the very end, when he mentioned people running around with military weapons. He was of course referencing ARs. He stated an absolute falshood. What majes a military weapon a military weapon is simply wheather a military uses it or not. Nobody is running the streats with military weapons. ARs Have never been used by a standing army, in battle. ARs are not remotely similar to miliary weapons. A rifles function is soley responsible for a military's decision to employ it. That function is select or automatic fire. ARs DO NOT HAVE SELECT OR AUTOMATIC ABILITY. 1911S, AK47, SKS, MOSIN NAGANT, M1 GARAND, 30 CARBINE, and mant more are guns actually used in war, mant still today. If you are going to be among the most brilliant minds, debating guns, learn something about the ones you do not like, and offer a factual argument, for the control of that gun. Thank you.
WE THE PEOPLE decided that having the ability and the means to defend our person and our dignity is a fundamental right. All the gimmicks by the gun control side OF THE PEOPLE can not and will not take that right away. It is unamerican to suggest that a PEOPLE will not be allowed to defend his or her person with a weapon of at least equal, if not greater power/utility to the one an opponent may use against them. The historical record is clear. Overwhelmingly more Law abiding Americans have owned and used arms for their own defense than the number of lawbreakers have used them. This very fact shows the utility of the Bill of Rights, which merely confirms the right os a citizen to self defense, and limits the federal and the state government from infringing on the inaliable right of the PEOPLE to bear (own, maintain, train in and use) arms for their individual defense and the defense of their state ( See Second amendment)
2 bad arguments. And one misstated argument The musket argument. And the car argument. The micro stamping misstatement. Muskets were the most technologically advanced of their time. Just like we didn’t have UA-cam and other modern methods for speech. We didn’t have the firearms tech that we have now. So as we evolve. We will always have to remember to not forfeit our rights in that process. No one has a constitutional right to own a car. So that entire argument has no merit. Micro stamping does not print anything on a bullet. Even if it could the bullet traveling down the barrel would scrape it right of in a millisecond So he fails to understand that which he wishes to argue.
Jeffrey Rosen - "Two states that seem to recognize an individuals right. Pennsylvania, of all people, in it's revolutionary charter said that the people had the right to "bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state." There's no reference to a militia there." ----------------------------------- The word 'militia' doesn't need to be there for this to be a militia provision. What military force defends the state if not the state militia? And the defence of "themselves" is about the common or civil defence, not self defence.
Bob Sykes - The right of a State to fund, operate, and maintain it's own state militias, are powers and functions reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment. The proposals/amendments submitted Roger Sherman and the Virginia delegation dealt with those very powers. In the wording/text of the Constitution itself, States have "powers", not "rights". The aforementioned proposals from Sherman and Virginia were defeated precisely because the Federalists DID NOT want there to be any question or dispute regarding the Federal Government's authority over the state militias. They did not want to give the states a "platform" that they could then use/exploit to challenge the authority of Congress regarding various militia functions. They agreed, in principal, that states would still be allowed to maintain and operate their own militias, in accordance with the procedures set by Congress. The Federalists simply did not want to have *that kind* of amendment in the Constitution. Sherman was told his amendment really wouldn't be necessary because there was nothing in the Constitution that actually prevented the states from funding their own militias. The Second Amendment establishes that the citizens have a right to their firearms, and militia service did not, and would not, change that. The militia powers did not allow the Federal Government to disarm any law abiding citizen, wether they were a militia participant or not. That's the "right of the the people" part.
"defense of themselves" *does* mean self defense. "and of the state" covers ( obviously ) the common defense/militia related stuff. Otherwise, it would have been redundant. That's what people actually did back then: the firearms they used for defending property/farms, hunting wildlife & game, - *then* became the firearms they used in service.
radiokorps said: "The Second Amendment establishes that the citizens have a right to their firearms, and militia service did not, and would not, change that." ------------------------------ This is just a blatant assertion. There's actually no mention of firearms in the Second Amendment as the word "arms" is part of the phrase "bear arms" which means "render military service" according to Madisons original proposal. Original: "... compelled to render *military service*." Next version: "compelled to *bear arms*." To the Framers, they meant the same thing, and none of these mean "compelled to *carry firearms*."
radiokorps said: ""defense of themselves" does mean self defense." ------------------------------- Again, this is just a blatant assertion. The evidence that the arms bearing provision is a militia provision that doesn't address self defense is in the same declaration of rights: VIII. "That every member of society hath a right *to be protected* in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property, and therefore is bound to contribute his proportion towards the expence *of that protection*, and yield his *personal service* when necessary, or an equivalent thereto:.. Nor can any man who is conscientiously scrupulous of *bearing arms*, be justly compelled thereto, if he will pay such equivalent,.." 1. The "protection" is militia protection. 2. "Personal service" is service in the militia. 3. "Bearing arms" means military service in the militia. Also, look at this: SECT. 7. "...nor shall any member, while he continues such, hold any other office, except in *the militia*." So, where is the militia provision? XIII. "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
Bob Sykes - And the first part of the proposal clearly said. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; ". Not the right of the" militia".( The Founders knew how to set qualifications regarding militia service, and did so in the Fifth Amendment.) The militia is drawn from the people, not the other way around. The firearms people personally owned for protecting homes and property; hunting wildlife and game, *then* became the firearms they used when called into action. Now: The Federal government can end militia service any time it wants and thus negate your Second Amendment rights in that fashion. Congress can end conscription at any time, and simply release the individuals from service. Now that they're no longer part of a militia, their firearms no longer qualify for Second Amendment protection. That's NOT how constitutionally enumerated rights of the people in Bill of Rights are supposed to work. One reason the Second Amendment protects an individual right unconnected with militia service. The state militias of the 18th and 19th centuries were finished off when Congress finally repealed the Militia Act(s). "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States." - Noah Webster, "An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Constitution". "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms" - Samuel Adams. "Arms" ( in the Second Amendment ) means firearms. Militia members were required to own their own firearms. If they didn't have a firearm they had to go out and personally purchase a firearm for themselves. This is precisely how the militias "got their guns". Every individual had to personally supply their own firearm. The firearm was the weapon used by militia participants. That "arms" means firearms ( in the text of the second amendment ) is agreed to by both sides in this debate. This is you simply playing games. And being profoundly disingenuous. Also : "The majority of the Pennsylvania convention refused to propose amendments to the Constitution, which was ratified on December 12, 1787. However, the "Dissent of the Minority of the Convention" demanded a declaration of rights. Apparently written by Samuel Bryan, author of "Centinel," the document was first published on December 18, 1787 and was circulated throughout the country. Among the rights declared was the following: " That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers.' " Under your convoluted reasoning, someone would actually have to be enrolled in military service in order to have the right to hunt with a firearm. ( " killing game" ) which is obviously not the case ( or the intention ). So, no, the term "bear arms" does is *not* confined to military service. Again, from the Heller Majority opinion : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - " 1. Operative Clause. a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly and Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search and Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5 Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people” in a context other than “rights”-the famous preamble (“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the people” will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the people”). Those provisions arguably refer to “the people” acting collectively-but they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.6 What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. As we said in United States v. Ver- dugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990): “‘[T]he people’ seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution.... [Its uses] sugges[t] that ‘the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are re served in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.” This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”-those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.” We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans. b. “Keep and bear Arms.” We move now from the holder of the right-“the people”-to the substance of the right: “to keep and bear Arms.” Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18thcentury meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar). The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. For instance, Cunningham’s legal dictionary gave as an example of usage: “Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms.” See also, e.g., An Act for the trial of Negroes, 1797 Del. Laws ch. XLIII, §6, p. 104, in 1 First Laws of the State of Delaware 102, 104 (J. Cushing ed. 1981 (pt. 1)); see generally State v. Duke, 42 Tex. 455, 458 (1874) (citing decisions of state courts construing “arms”). Although one founding era thesaurus limited “arms” (as opposed to “weapons”) to “instruments of offence generally made use of in war,” even that source stated that all firearms constituted “arms.” 1 J. Trusler, The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in the English Language 37 (1794) (emphasis added). Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35-36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding. We turn to the phrases “keep arms” and “bear arms.” Johnson defined “keep” as, most relevantly, “[t]o retain; not to lose,” and “[t]o have in custody.” Johnson 1095. Webster defined it as “[t]o hold; to retain in one’s power or possession.” No party has apprised us of an idiomatic meaning of “keep Arms.” Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.” The phrase “keep arms” was not prevalent in the written documents of the founding period that we have found, but there are a few examples, all of which favor viewing the right to “keep Arms” as an individual right uncon nected with militia service. William Blackstone, for ex ample, wrote that Catholics convicted of not attending service in the Church of England suffered certain penal ties, one of which was that they were not permitted to “keep arms in their houses.” 4 Commentaries on the Laws of England 55 (1769) (hereinafter Blackstone); see also 1 W. & M., c. 15, §4, in 3 Eng. Stat. at Large 422 (1689) (“[N]o Papist . . . shall or may have or keep in his House ... any Arms...”); 1 Hawkins, Treatise on the Pleas of the Crown 26 (1771) (similar). Petitioners point to militia laws of the founding period that required militia members to “keep” arms in connection with militia service, and they conclude from this that the phrase “keep Arms” has a militia related connotation. See Brief for Petitioners 16- 17 (citing laws of Delaware, New Jersey, and Virginia). This is rather like saying that, since there are many statutes that authorize aggrieved employees to “file com plaints” with federal agencies, the phrase “file complaints” has an employment related connotation. “Keep arms” was simply a common way of referring to possessing arms, for militiamen and everyone else. At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose- confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We think that JUSTICE GINSBURG accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization. From our review of founding era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous in stances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.”8 It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s arms bearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”-what he called the law of “self preservation.” 2 Collected Works of James Wilson 1142, and n. x (K. Hall & M. Hall eds. 2007) (citing Pa. Const., Art. IX, §21 (1790)); see also T. Walker, Intro duction to American Law 198 (1837) (“Thus the right of selfdefence [is] guaranteed by the [Ohio] constitution”); see also id., at 157 (equating Second Amendment with that provision of the Ohio Constitution). That was also the interpretation of those state constitutional provisions adopted by preCivil War state courts.9 These provisions demonstrate-again, in the most analogous linguistic context-that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia. The phrase “bear Arms” also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: “to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight” or “to wage war.” See Linguists’ Brief 18; post, at 11 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). But it unequivocally bore that idiomatic meaning only when followed by the preposition “against,” which was in turn followed by the target of the hostilities. See 2 Oxford 21. (That is how, for example, our Declaration of Independence ¶28, used the phrase: “He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country . . . .”) Every example given by petitioners’ amici for the idiomatic meaning of “bear arms” from the founding period either includes the preposition “against” or is not clearly idiomatic. See Linguists’ Brief 18-23. Without the preposition, “bear arms” normally meant (as it continues to mean today) what JUSTICE GINSBURG’s opinion in Muscarello said. In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and JUSTICE STEVENS propose is not even the (some times) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. Giving “bear Arms” its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war-an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed. See L. Levy, Origins of the Bill of Rights 135 (1999). Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.” Grotesque. Petitioners justify their limitation of “bear arms” to the military context by pointing out the unremarkable fact that it was often used in that context-the same mistake they made with respect to “keep arms.” It is especially unremarkable that the phrase was often used in a military context in the federal legal sources (such as records of congressional debate) that have been the focus of petition ers’ inquiry. Those sources would have had little occasion to use it except in discussions about the standing army and the militia. And the phrases used primarily in those military discussions include not only “bear arms” but also “carry arms,” “possess arms,” and “have arms”-though no one thinks that those other phrases also had special military meanings. See Barnett, Was the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Conditioned on Service in an Organized Militia?, 83 Tex. L. Rev. 237, 261 (2004). The common references to those “fit to bear arms” in congressional discussions about the militia are matched by use of the same phrase in the few nonmilitary federal contexts where the concept would be relevant. See, e.g., 30 Journals of Continental Congress 349-351 (J. Fitzpatrick ed. 1934). Other legal sources frequently used “bear arms” in nonmilitary contexts.10 Cunningham’s legal dictionary, cited above, gave as an example of its usage a sentence unrelated to military affairs (“Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms”). And if one looks beyond legal sources, “bear arms” was frequently used in nonmilitary contexts. See Cramer & Olson, What Did “Bear Arms” Mean in the Second Amendment?, 6 Georgetown J. L. & Pub. Pol’y (forthcoming Sept. 2008), online at papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1086176 (as visited June 24, 2008, and available in Clerk of Court’s case file) (identifying numerous nonmilitary uses of “bear arms” from the founding period). JUSTICE STEVENS points to a study by amici supposedly showing that the phrase “bear arms” was most frequently used in the military context. See post, at 12-13, n. 9; Linguists’ Brief 24. Of course, as we have said, the fact that the phrase was commonly used in a particular context does not show that it is limited to that context, and, in any event, we have given many sources where the phrase was used in nonmilitary contexts. Moreover, the study’s collection appears to include (who knows how many times) the idiomatic phrase “bear arms against,” which is irrelevant. The amici also dismiss examples such as “ ‘bear arms . . . for the purpose of killing game’” because those uses are “expressly qualified.” Linguists’ Brief 24. (JUSTICE STEVENS uses the same excuse for dismissing the state constitutional provisions analogous to the Second Amendment that identify private use purposes for which the individual right can be asserted. See post, at 12.) That analysis is faulty. A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics). If “bear arms” means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage (“for the purpose of self defense” or “to make war against the King”). But if “bear arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game” is worthy of the mad hatter. Thus, these purposive qualifying phrases positively establish that “to bear arms” is not limited to military use.11 JUSTICE STEVENS places great weight on James Madison’s inclusion of a conscientious objector clause in his original draft of the Second Amendment: “but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.” Creating the Bill of Rights 12 (H. Veit, K. Bowling, & C. Bickford eds. 1991) (hereinafter Veit). He argues that this clause establishes that the drafters of the Second Amendment intended “bear Arms” to refer only to military service. See post, at 26. It is always perilous to derive the meaning of an adopted provision from another provision deleted in the drafting process.12 In any case, what JUSTICE STEVENS would conclude from the deleted provision does not follow. It was not meant to exempt from military service those who objected to going to war but had no scruples about per sonal gunfights. Quakers opposed the use of arms not just for militia service, but for any violent purpose whatso ever-so much so that Quaker frontiersmen were forbid den to use arms to defend their families, even though “[i]n such circumstances the temptation to seize a hunting rifle or knife in selfdefense . . . must sometimes have been almost overwhelming.” P. Brock, Pacifism in the United States 359 (1968); see M. Hirst, The Quakers in Peace and War 336-339 (1923); 3 T. Clarkson, Portraiture of Quaker ism 103-104 (3d ed. 1807). The Pennsylvania Militia Act of 1757 exempted from service those “scrupling the use of arms”-a phrase that no one contends had an idiomatic meaning. See 5 Stat. at Large of Pa. 613 (J. Mitchell & H. Flanders eds. 1898) (emphasis added). Thus, the most natural interpretation of Madison’s deleted text is that those opposed to carrying weapons for potential violent confrontation would not be “compelled to render military service,” in which such carrying would be required.13 Finally, JUSTICE STEVENS suggests that “keep and bear Arms” was some sort of term of art, presumably akin to “hue and cry” or “cease and desist.” (This suggestion usefully evades the problem that there is no evidence whatsoever to support a military reading of “keep arms.”) JUSTICE STEVENS believes that the unitary meaning of “keep and bear Arms” is established by the Second Amendment’s calling it a “right” (singular) rather than “rights” (plural). See post, at 16. There is nothing to this. State constitutions of the founding period routinely grouped multiple (related) guarantees under a singular “right,” and the First Amendment protects the “right [singular] of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” See, e.g., Pa. Declaration of Rights §§IX, XII, XVI, in 5 Thorpe 3083-3084; Ohio Const., Arts. VIII, §§11, 19 (1802), in id., at 2910-2911.14 And even if “keep and bear Arms” were a unitary phrase, we find no evidence that it bore a military meaning. Although the phrase was not at all common (which would be unusual for a term of art), we have found instances of its use with a clearly nonmilitary connotation. In a 1780 debate in the House of Lords, for example, Lord Richmond described an order to disarm private citizens (not militia members) as “a violation of the constitutional right of Protestant subjects to keep and bear arms for their own defense.” 49 The London Magazine or Gentle man’s Monthly Intelligencer 467 (1780). In response, another member of Parliament referred to “the right of bearing arms for personal defence,” making clear that no special military meaning for “keep and bear arms” was intended in the discussion. Id., at 467-468.15
If you are unarmed you live at the mercy of those who are not....Need proof, give up your right and ability to defend yourself......Then claim you are free....Tyrants and criminals throughout history will insist otherwise....Its for your own safety, Of course. "Shall not be infringed".
@7:15 If it's a civic duty, it's not a right. It makes no logical sense that a person has a "right" to perform a civic duty. At no time has the individual had a duty under the law to perform military service in this country. If that were so, the draft would be redundant. Government does NOT have rights, government has power. People do not have power, they have rights. A right, by the way, is a freedom that the government is prohibited from violating. People have a "right" to supply a firearm and ammunition when called up for military duty? I want some of what you're smoking. In the immortal words of Joe Biden, "Come on, man!". (By the way, the Founding Father's answer makes perfect sense to those of us with the ability to reason without prejudice.)
Does a gay man have a right to join the US Army? Does a black man have a right to be a volunteer firefighter? Does a Catholic have the right to help make sandbags in a flood disaster? The "right to keep and bear arms" meant that every white male citizen had the right to participate in the local militia. To do so, he needed to own a firearm, since the government did not provide weapons. So every white male citizen was eligible to be a militiaman, as long as he could provide himself with a firearm. Black men, women, Indigenous people, and various other categories did NOT have this right at the time the 2nd Amendment was adopted. Over the years, as those groups gained more rights, they too were eligible to join a militia (in practice, the National Guard).
@@civiljeff There is no such right under the law. The response to a threat or attack or an attack must be proportional to the nature of the threat or attack. We do not blow up entire buildings because one of its residents said he would kill us if we didn't stop making noise. Society demands of its members that they keep the peace. That means that each member of society must do her or his part in that, using common sense and restraint so as not to disrupt social peace (in old times called The King's Peace). The idea that any country governed by laws would release residents from their obligation to uphold civic peace and order, on the excuse that there is some inherent right to use lethal force in protection of one's life or property is FALSE and DESTRUCTIVE. No society can long maintain peace and order if its members are using lethal force whenever they feel like it, on the excuse that they were "protecting themselves or their property" by doing so. A society which tolerates such wild and unregulated use of lethal force is condemning itself to a kind of suicide, in which the very people who claim to uphold social peace are the ones who are hacking away at it with deadly weapons. Such situations sometimes arise in places where government has collapsed and gangs or "warlords" compete for power using deadly force against each other or against people generally. Those who, like the fascists and nazis of the 1930s, have the goal of ending constitutional government and legality consciously seek to create situations in which government is reduced to impotence by creating such disorder and violence that the people begin to long for a Leader, or a Boss, or a Dictator, or a Duce or a Caudillo or Fuehrer or a Conducator or a Khozyain (depending on the prevailing language and traditions) who will use unlimited brutal force to suppress the disorder that is ruining their lives. And this seems to be the goal of the writer of the comment I am replying to: the brutal destruction of public peace and order so as to make possible the unbridled rule of those who are prepared to use firearms against their fellow residents, offering some limp excuse to justify their savagery. I know many of those who take the position that shooting off firearms if you feel threatened is a "human right" see themselves as the pillars of peace and order in society, and blame others, for "causing the problem" they propose to "solve" by shooting off their firearms. In fact it is the DESERTION by these people of their duty to uphold law and order that is the problem, not the ongoing "crime problem" which has never been solved in any country at any time except by the deliberate and radical upgrading of social justice and the resolute enforcement of laws against the abuse of lethal weapons. The DESERTION of law and order by certain sections of the American middle class is born from panic over the threat to white supremacy caused by the demographic changes now occurring in America, i.e. the relative growth of the non white population. The only way forward for the American Republic is to take vigorous action to prevent and, when necessary, to punish such behaviour, and a resolute response from members of the public against those who, for reasons of racist fear, desire for enrichment, or a love of violence, promote the ideology of "America as Free Fire Zone for White Gun Owners". If the American Republic cannot muster the energy and resolve to overcome the promoters and enactors of "Free Fire Zone America", it will surely die, and be replaced by a dictatorship of the gun owners and their stooges in public office, and their hidden supporters in the police and the armed forces. If that happens, then America will have renounced its bold experiment in freedom and democracy, and subsided into a more northerly version of what used to be called "banana republics" because they were fully owned by the banana companies and held down by the bullies and criminals those companies paid to do their dirty work. In contrast there will be the nations of East Asia: united, well organized, economically advanced, and, in some cases, pretty free and democratic. For the fact is that even now, Japan and South Korea are as or more democratic than the US; and in many ways are far ahead of the US economically and technologically. And China, with its gigantic economic and demographic weight, keeps moving ahead while the US quarrels over its constant obsession: race.
dan jones 1 second ago WE TODAY IN AMERICA HAVE A TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT RIGHT NOW. AS THE CENTRAL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND WITH MEDIA CONTROL OVER FAKE NEWS AND FALSE NARRITIVE NEWS HAS CREATED A SELECTIVE PEOSECUTING LAW ENFORCEMENT THAT IS NOW HAPPENING TO THE BLACK PEOPLE THROUGH RACIAL PROFILEING AND WHAT ROBERT MEULLER IS DOING TO PRESIDENT TRUMP WHEN THERE HAS NOT BEEN ONE NOT, ONE CRIME THAT INVOLVES PRESIDENT TRUMP . THE OTHERS THAT HAVE BEEN CHARGED AND THE FEW THAT HAVE BEEN CONVICTED MOST OF THEM WERE ALREADY UNDER FBI INVESTIGATION FOR SOME OVER 10 PLUS YEARS.. PRESIDENT TRUMP IS BEING SELECTED BY A TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT WITH THE FBI AS A GOVERNMENT MILITANT TRAINED GROUP. THIS CAN AND DOES HAPPEN TO MANY MANY NORMAL CITIZENS WHO EVEN HAVE NOT COMMITTED A CRIME BUT YET GET THIER LOIVES RUINED BY THE GOVERNMENT. THIS IS THE DEMOCRATS AND THE DEMOCRATES ARE NOT LIKE THE DEOMOCRATS OF YESTERYEAR. THEY ARE NOW A SOCIALIST ANTIFA VIOLENT GROUP THAT USES THE MEDIA TO LIE AND SPIN THE TRUTH IN THE NEWS. FOR EXAMPLE JUST LOOK UP UA-cam AND FAKE NEWS. CNN WILL POP UP ALL OVER. AND HERE IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE . NOW CHRIS CUOMO ONCE SAID ON T.V. THAT IT IS ILLEGAL FOR ANY CITIZEN TO OWN HILLARY CLINTONS WIKILEAKS EMALIS THAT TELL THE TRUTH AND EXPOSE HER LIES AND TELL THE REAL TRUTH ABPOUT HER. AND IF THE CITIZENS HAD A COPY OF THE WIKILEAKS EMAILS THEN IT IS ILLEGAL AND THEY THE CITIZENS ARE CRIMINALS. AND ONLY THE MEDIA LIKE HIMSELF CHRIS CUOMO AND THE MEDIA ARE THE ONLY LEGAL ONES WHO CAN LEGALLY POSSESS THE HILLARYS WIKILEAKS. NOW THAT IS A REAL LIE. AND WHEN THE MEDIA WHICH IS A CORPORATION LIE TO THE MASSESS AND CITIZENS WHO DO NOT KNOW THE TRUTH IS FRAUDULENT NEWS. THAT IS VERY INFLUENTIAL TO THE ELECTION PROCESS . SO FORGET RUSSIA THAT TOOK OUT ADDS IN FACE BOOK . BUT WE HAVE THE LIBERAL MEDIA THAT ON PURPOSELY LIE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO INFLUENCE TO LIKE OR DISLIKE A POTENTIAL CANDIATE. THAT I BELIEVE SHOULD BE ACTIONABLE BY TRUMP AND CONGRESS SHOULD PASS MANY LAWS THAT IF A REPORTER SPINS OR LIES OR DISTORTS THE TRUTH FOR THIER CORPORATIONS WHICH ARE NEWS MEDIAS SHOULD GO TO PRISON. PERIOD. NOW HOW THIS HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE GUN AND THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS IS BECAUSE OF PROBLEMS LIKE THIS. SO FELLOW CITIZENS YOU BETTER KEEP ALL YOUR GUNS ALL BIG AND SMALL.BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT HAS PUSHED IT ALREADY WITH RACIAL PROFILING AND WE ALL KNOW THAT OBAMA USEDA EXECUTIVE ORDER TO STOP ANY INVESTIOGATION INTO THE FAST AND FURIOUS DEAD IN ITS TRACKS. OUR GOD GIVEN RIGHTS ARE NON NEGOTIABLE. ALL LAWYERS DO IS COMPLICATE THE ISSUES BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO AND TRAINED TO DO. SO YOU CAN LISTEN TO A FAT CROOKED CAREER POLITICIAN TELL YOU THAT YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS OR YOU CAN SAY WHAT BEN FRANKLIN SAID. GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH.
There may be room for the arguement that every generation has a right to make their destiny. That is where leadership and education need to balance it. Let's not make change to quickly as has happened in New York State with Andrew Cuomo ' ramming the safe act down the throats of its citizens without debate and due process. Vote him out and repeal this unconstitutional law.
The problem with your "argument" is that one generation does not have the right to remove the foundation of Liberty from another. Since we are always half a generation away from tyranny who are we to make the decision for future generations what tools they may use to fight for their freedom?
sorry I will carry my gun when and were I want when I feel I need to. there should be no gun laws but maybe gun rules. because gun laws infringe and gun rules do not.
they did not have military guns . they had their hunting guns. and they were not forced to join it was an honor and a love for their fellow man!!!!!!!!!!!!! and to secure our lives from tyranny. WE STILL NEED OUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS as our government dose not honor the CONSTITUTION AS IT IS WRITTEN!!!!!
Alan Gura DESTROYED Waldman in this debate. He made so many unassailable points. On the one hand, Waldman says the second amendment protects people participating in militia service. Then Gura notes that Article I, Section 10 prohibits the states from having armies without congressional approval. If that's the case, it seems there's a clear incongruity here. You can't have a gun unless you're in the militia...and the gun-owning right is a collective one...but then the states (the collective) don't have the right to have a militia? Makes no sense...UNLESS the reading is one where INDIVIDUALS have the right, not the collective. Waldman talks about how "assault weapons" aren't needed and should be regulated. Then Gura mentioned, correctly, that the term "assault weapon" is simply a term used to ban certain guns that look scary and are actually no more dangerous or powerful than guns that aren't covered. It seems that Waldman believes background checks and bans and other schemes such as microstamping will solve gun violence...therefore, he feels it's okay to invalidate the second amendment for practicality's sake.
The right to keep and bare arms ??for European immigrant citizens only, because,why was Native Americans disarmed during the colonial westward manifest destiny GENOCIDE movement and put on Resevations at gun point and it wasnt until 1924 We INDIGENOUS people became US citizens ???.(Indigenous History) Debate the Native American disarment issue!
The leftists who would disarm the individual citizen constantly claims that our 2nd amendment only applies to the militia and by today's definition being the State's National Guard..... One of the primary if not the prime purpose of the 2nd amendment is to prevent the federal government imposing tyranny on the individual states..... However, the fact that the POTUS has the power to take command of the National Guard from the Governor of the state as the defacto "Commander an Chief" of the military. Just as the Governor of a state cannot stop his state's national guard from being called up by POTUS in the event of war or other actions where our military is deployed, the national guard cannot be expected to stand against a federal incursion of the state in a lawful manner..... Therefore the 2nd amendment is the individual right of the citizen and not just the right of the militia.....
An important observation by Waldman, was that 30,000 people are killed by cars now. And at the time of the Founding zero people were killed by cars. So, can't we say, that had the Founders known that technology would bring about something called a car, and that 30,000 people would be killed a year, they surely didn't mean to allow for cars in our Constitution? Right? And so cars are not Constitutional? I mean if some reason that the Founders had no idea that modern arms would come to be, and so surely the 2A doesn't apply to them? Is not this identical to the above reasoning? And in both cases, the reasoning is flawed. Another thing Walden implies is we have not made guns "safer". Well, that couldn't be more false. In all levels of technology we've made them safer, to a tremendous degree: Smokeless powder that is not explosive Metallurgy that prevents them from blowing up. Incredibly better trigger designs reducing negligent discharges. The adding of "safety" switches, which was unimagined for centuries. And I could go on. To suggest that a modern firearm is not immensely safer than an arm at the Founding is ludicrous. Black powder is EXTREMELY dangerous, for it is an explosive. Modern powder is not an explosive. Side note, another manipulative point Walden made was noting there was a law in Boston, suggesting this condones "regulation", that one had to keep gunpowder outside away from inhabited dwellings. Duh, it was an explosive. Though he failed to mention why? I enjoyed the gentlemanly nature of the debate. But, quite frankly, Waldman was not convincing that he was not pushing an agenda. And I'm not suggesting that agenda doesn't have valid points. But when you manipulate facts and cherry pick history to push the agenda, then things go south for me, and I can't take you seriously any longer. Gura never comes off to me as pushing an agenda.
57:34 Waldman praises Illinois legislature for its gun laws this in 2014 but now in 2017 and the GUN VIOLENCE IN ONE MOST GUN CONTROLLED STATE IS OUT OF CONTROL because as Expected CRIMINALS DONT OBEY GUN LAWS INNOCENT LAWFUL PEOPLE DO THUS BECOME VICTIMS
Mr. Waldman severely damaged his argument when he was talking about the Penn. State protection, because, had he been forthcoming, and complete, he wouldn't have said the world "people" was used, without noting that Penn immediately changed the wording to "Citizens" from "people", around time of ratification. If the intention of the change is not absolutely clear, then I don't know what is. Citizen is an individual. Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. Art. 1, § 21 (enacted 1790, art. IX, § 21). 1776: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power. Declaration of Rights, cl. XIII.
Michael Waldman - "Pennsylvania was the one state that did not have a militia." ----------------------------------- Not true. SECT. 7. The house of representatives of the freemen of this commonwealth shall consist of persons most noted for wisdom and virtue, to be chosen by the freemen of every city and county of this commonwealth respectively. And no person shall be elected unless he has resided in the city or county for which he shall be chosen two years immediately before the said election; nor shall any member, while he continues such, hold any other office, except in the militia. Here is the militia provision XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. And to prove that the militia provision doesn't address self defence VIII. That *every member of society* hath a right *to be protected* in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property, and therefore is bound to contribute his proportion towards the expence of that protection (the militia), and yield his personal service (in the militia) when necessary, or an equivalent thereto:.. Nor can any man who is conscientiously scrupulous of *bearing arms*, be justly compelled thereto, if he will pay such equivalent,... And there can be NO doubt that bearing arms meant military service.
Why is WalDman given double the time to speak? he talks of NRA supporting military grade guns being carried in TEXAS FALSE- the long rifles legally carried are semi auto rifles that LIBs FREAK OUT mentioned by GURA that are MERELY DESIGN TO LOOK LIKE MILITARY AGRADE RIFLE BUT ARE IN FACT LAWFUL SEMI AUTOMATICS!
The founding fathers knew technology would advance and that there would always be bad people, that's why you should have the same equipment as the military and always be armed.
Gura - "The fear, at the time.. was that some future tyrannical government would.. weaken the militia system by targeting the possession of arms." ------------------------------------- Not true. There's no mention of gun ownership in the ratification debates, the Federalist Papers or in the First Congress debates. The ONLY reason put forward for an amendment (at several conventions) was that Congress might fail to maintain the militia forces and prevent the states from keeping them maintained by claiming that the right was given up in Article 1, Section 8.
Bob Sykes - to keep and bear arms means just that. You're clueless. Congress has the power to end conscription any time it wants. Ergo, Congress can negate your Second Amendment rights and protections any time it wants. The Founders knew how to set qualifications with regards to militia service, and they did just that in the Fifth Amendment "...or in the Militia, when in actual service in a time of War or public danger;". No, the actual State Militia Proposals brought forth by the Virginia delegation and Roger Sherman were rejected an defeated. This proposal dealt with am enumerated personal, individual right... a right of the people. Just like the First and Fourth Amendments.
radiokorps said: "to keep and bear arms means just that. You're clueless." --------------------------------------- I'm not clueless, but you're brainwashed, as are most Americans. How come it's mostly Americans who seem completely oblivious to the universally known military expression and phrase "bear arms?" If a man is said to have "borne arms," what has he done? And "keep" arms does NOT mean personally "own" arms, it's a collective right to keep arms IN READINESS. Have a look at these very early militia laws and statutes: Delaware's militia act required each militiaman to "keep the same [arms] by him at all times, ready and fit for service" The word "keep" doesn't mean "own," it means "keep in readiness" and "keep in good working order." Virginia militia law required each militiaman to "keep at his place of abode one pound of powder and four pounds of shot," and to "keep his horse, arms, and ammunition." Again, the word "keep" doesn't mean "own," it means "keep in readiness" and "keep fit for service." Virginia also required their militiamen to "constantly keep the aforesaid arms, accoutrements, and ammunition ready." This means "keep ready for militia service" When you also take on board the fact that to "bear arms" meant to render "military service," then "keep and bear arms" means " *keep arms ready for militia service* " not "own" and "carry" "guns."
Bob Sykes - Americans did actually own their own militia arms. Every person had to personally supply their own firearm. If you didn't have a firearm, you had to got out and buy one for yourself.
+radiokorps Going down the parsing of history is not necessary. Proponents of some collectivist view of the 2nd amendment need to show it even makes any sense at all. 1) How does this theory give the 2nd amendment any teeth at all and secure and protect anything? 2) Why, when it happens nowhere else in the Bill Of Rights, would our founders grant rights to (in essence) the government? 3) Why is it appropriate to apply their definition of "the people" to the 2nd Amendment and not the 1st? Or the 4th? There view makes no logical sense. Their burden is to first have their view make logical sense. Then only then would it be necessary to debate them further.
radiokorps said: "Americans did actually own their own militia arms." ----------------------------------------- Actually, sometimes militiamen were required by law to PROVIDE the specified MILITIA arms for the purpose of the collective defense. If they didn't provide the specified arms, or "keep" them fit for service, they could have been fined. This shows that those arms were seen as MILITIA arms which the public had a claim to.
“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788.
Case closed?
This is the difference between us and all the nations touted to have a more civilized society than ours but nearly every single one of them, has called upon the U.S. for their freedom
@Corno di Bassetto
"The Constitution of most of our states, and of the United States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
Tench Coxe
"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason
When you mute someone who shares the truth, means you know that you lost.
Ive already watched this Colin Noir never talks about the founding fathers or their quotes. He works for the nra. The nra is a fake pro gun association. Try the goa who actually is pro constitution.
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
- William Pitt
The Founders lived thru a tyrannical government and feared that above all things... to even imagine that they would suggest that the government had the rights to have weapons/guns and not the people is laughable.
They were equally afraid of a central banking system.
No doubt about it thank you for bringing that to our attention.
Federal militia law from the time of the Second Amendment actually required people to own military weapons and enroll in the state militia where they liked it or not.
They feared tyranny might develop under a Republic as happened to the Roman Republic. All gentlemen in those days had a classical education and were very familiar with the history of ancient Greece and Rome.
In Rome, the Republic was destroyed by generals like Cornelius Sulla,.Julius Caesar, Marius, Pompey, and others. These generals commended armies that were loyal to them personally, not necessarily to the Republic. They used their armies to advance their personal ambitions, which might or might not be aligned with the policies of the Republic's government.
The Founders saw this as a potential danger to the American Republic. They had gone through the Revolutionary War and had seen some generals, especially Washington, become powerful. Luckily Washington did not harbour ambitions dangerous to the Republic -- this is a major aspect of his greatness.
To defuse this danger, the Founders avoided creating a standing army, and relied instead on volunteer militias to defend the country. In order to make such militias part of the regime they were creating, they adopted the 2nd Amendment, which says that in order to ensure that well regulated militias (not gangs) every male white citizen (implied) had the right to "keep and bear arms".
Standing armies are given guns and uniforms and training by the government. The soldiers agree to serve full time for some period, for which they will be paid. British soldiers were said to "take the King's shilling" when they enlisted and were promptly paid a shilling as a sign that they were now soldiers of the King.
Volunteer militias do not receive weapons, uniforms, or payment from the government. They provide their own, and volunteer their time. The Founders hoped that including the words "well regulated" would have the effect of disciplining the militias to some extent so that their activities would fulfill their goal of protecting the "security of the State". It did not specify what such regulations were or who would impose them, but trusted the citizenry to adopt sensible, patriotic rules for themselves.
To facilitate recruitment, a large pool of men who owned firearms was useful, so that the best men could be chosen. If the only men who owned guns in a community were too old or infirm to participate in a militia, it would be impossible to form a militia. So, to ensure that there would be enough men available to form a serviceable militia, the Amendment recognized that white men (implied) had the right to keep and bear arms.
Did the Founders envisage a country without well regulated militias, in which millions of people would "bear arms" into theaters, supermarkets, churches, schools and county court? Certainly not. They themselves did not carry arms with them as they went about their daily activities. They did not debate the Constitution with guns in their hands.
When they fought duels, like Hamilton and Burr, did both men arrive at the site with guns in their holsters? Certainly not. Did ordinary citizens carry guns all the time -- while they plowed their fields, slaughtered pigs, drove to the crossroads store, walked to church? We don't see much mention of that in the literature they produced. Why didn't somebody blow the Headless Horseman away when he started scaring everybody? Did Rip Van Winkle make to sure get a new gun when he woke up?
It might have been more common for people on the "frontier" to carry guns, since they feared the Indigenous people whose land they were stealing. But most Americans didn't live on the frontier. They lived in places like New York or Charleston or Philadelphia, or, a majority of them, in settled agricultural regions.
One group that carried guns was the Slave Patrols. And here we come to the kind of thinking that motivates much of the gun culture today.
The nightmare of a slave holding society is a slave revolt. In Haiti, there had been a slave revolution at around the same time as the American republic was taking shape. Slave owners were well aware of the Haitian Revolution, and the harsh treatment meted out by the former slaves to their former "masters". Sugar production is one of the most arduous forms of labour, and that's what the Haitian slaves had been forced to do for centuries. When they had not performed up to the standards of their overseers, they were punished ruthlessly "as an example". All this oppression, when finally overthrown by the Haitian people, led to atrocities against the "masters" by the newly free slaves.
All this was current news to American slave "owners", and they were afraid the same thing would happen to them some day. So they set up Slave Patrols made up of armed white men who would ride around at night looking for slaves who had wandered away from their master's plantation. When found, such a slave would be whipped and returned to his "owner".
The Slave Patrols were especially on the lookout for groups of slaves, meeting together in the backwoods and socializing or -- horrors! -- planning a revolt. These meetings were dealt with very harshly. White people spread rumors about black men sneaking off to meet slaves from other plantations to organize a revolt, in which they would kill their "masters", rape white women, burn the house and the outbuildings and then go one to the next plantation and do the same. Just like Haiti!
Nowadays, the gun culture is saturated with similar fantasies, of "ghetto dwellers" breaking out of their slums and descending on the white suburbs with their illegally obtained guns, looking to shoot the suburban men and rape their women. They would "intrude" into the homes of white people and stand there with guns, with their strange hair styles and headscarves, their tasteless jewelry or even gold "grills" on their teeth, listening to rap and hip hop on their stolen cell phones as they manhandle the nice things the white people have gone into debt to buy.
The "rioter", the "intruder", the "criminal", the "ghetto N--" arouse the same fears that used to torment white people during the times of slavery. And for some white people the response is the same: militarize the cops and have them clamp down on the ghetto dwellers. But you can't always rely on the cops! So you need to arm yourself to defend your loved ones and your property.
Like that couple in Missouri who saw a group of black people marching with banners and chanting slogans outside their luxury townhouse and rushed to grab their guns and go outside to "defend" their property from these "intruders". In reality, the group of marchers were totally peaceful and caused no disruption whatsoever, aside from making some noise with their chants. But, driven by the ancient fear of a slave revolt as it has been updated to the 21st century, this wealthy couple saw "N-- in the neighbourhood" and assumed the Evil Day had come and rushed out to confront them, guns in hand.
That white couple became instant heroes to the millions of Americans who have kept alive in their hearts the fear of slave revolt, and who were awestruck by the heroism of these two gun toting rich folks.
That fear underlies much of the gun culture that is so prevalent in the US. It explains the profound emotional attachment felt by many Americans to their guns; it explains their endless threats of insurrection to overthrow "tyranny" (rule by non whites), and their panic over the demographic changes that have made it inevitable that America will be majority non-white in a few decades.
the second amendment easily defined, THE RIGHT TO PROTECT YOURSELF, FAMILY AND YOUR PERESONAL PROPERTY WITH DEADLY FORCE USING FIREARMS
The discussions surrounding the right to keep and bear arms during the ratification debates make it clear the primary reason for an amendment specifically prohibiting the federal government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms was to keep it from being able to control the state militias and effectively disarm the people. With this in mind, it logically follows that the founding generation intended for the people to have access to weapons capable of matching military firepower, and they would in no way be shocked at the idea of the general population owning so-called “assault weapons.”
In fact, that was the point. They wanted the populace to both possess military equipment and the have the ability to use it. They wanted to ensure the people could resist the government - by force if necessary.
When you bring up this truth today, a lot of people laugh it off, claiming a bunch of rednecks with AR-15s could never face down the U.S. military. Well, tell that to Afghani nomads and Vietnamese peasants.
One does not have to be an advocate of violent revolution to recognize the danger of allowing the government to have a monopoly on guns. It’s a matter of balancing power with power. The government will be far less likely to become tyrannical or oppressive when the people maintain the ability to resist. When you remove the option of self-defense, it tips the scales of power toward the government. That opens the door to tyranny.
Technology has certainly changed over the last 250 years. Human nature hasn’t. Government is still prone to abuse the people when it can get away with it. Power still corrupts. Absolute power still corrupts absolutely.
i open carry every day here in vegas ...SUBSCRIBE
I agree
If only political debates were this calm the country might be in a better place right now
Hot heads are needed at times. If the colonists had sat with the King of England and discussed cordially their differences, they would be in the river Thames.
JEFFERSON SAID THAT WHEN WE READ THE CONSTITUTION, LET US ALWAYS COME BACK TO THE ORIGINAL INTENT. THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Indeed!
Indeed!
Indeed!
“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
― James Madison
“The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.” - Massachusetts` U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788 William Grayson, of Virginia:
Corno di Bassetto The 14th amendment prevents the states from "doing whatever they want with Guns" . States cannot violate your civil rights such as the Second Amendment under the 14th amendment to the constitution. (including turning them all into scrap metal).
It was fantastic to see an actual debate. Too often debates devolve into shouting matches where both parties depart from facts. Its deeply troubling that so few people can have respect for anothers opinion while disagreeing with it. I dont have to like your views to respect you as a person. If you are a person who cares deeply about this country or your fellow man who am I to call out your beliefs as unintelligent or stupid? If a person is incorrect on facts I can only offer factual evidence. If that person is rejects those facts, I have no more reason to debate. Either way it is no cause to treat another with disrespect or hatered.
From my own study of oposing sides i believe that owning and carrying a firearm is my individual right and I do so. However I believe that right also puts a serious responsibility on any individual that chooses to exercise that right. Laws that address criminals, mentally ill, firearm storage, and the responcibility of the individual are necessary. This works to ensure that ownership and bearing of firearms does not interfere with others rights so spelled out in our Constitution. If an individual, by exercising a right, fails to live up to the responcibility inharent to that right, they should and must be made to answer for the suffering caused by their individual choices. It's a tough issue that is more often argued with feelings rather than facts. This is true on both sides of the issue. I do believe that a more honest and humble conversation about the concerns and causes of the problems of today's society would do much more good for those we seek to protect. Those being both the individual and their rights, and those who have had their own lives and rights violated.
+Chad Kamerad Well put,
Karen Garcia Thank you.
WE TODAY IN AMERICA HAVE A TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT RIGHT NOW. AS THE CENTRAL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND WITH MEDIA CONTROL OVER FAKE NEWS AND FALSE NARRITIVE NEWS HAS CREATED A SELECTIVE PEOSECUTING LAW ENFORCEMENT THAT IS NOW HAPPENING TO THE BLACK PEOPLE THROUGH RACIAL PROFILEING AND WHAT ROBERT MEULLER IS DOING TO PRESIDENT TRUMP WHEN THERE HAS NOT BEEN ONE NOT, ONE CRIME THAT INVOLVES PRESIDENT TRUMP . THE OTHERS THAT HAVE BEEN CHARGED AND THE FEW THAT HAVE BEEN CONVICTED MOST OF THEM WERE ALREADY UNDER FBI INVESTIGATION FOR SOME OVER 10 PLUS YEARS.. PRESIDENT TRUMP IS BEING SELECTED BY A TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT WITH THE FBI AS A GOVERNMENT MILITANT TRAINED GROUP. THIS CAN AND DOES HAPPEN TO MANY MANY NORMAL CITIZENS WHO EVEN HAVE NOT COMMITTED A CRIME BUT YET GET THIER LOIVES RUINED BY THE GOVERNMENT. THIS IS THE DEMOCRATS AND THE DEMOCRATES ARE NOT LIKE THE DEOMOCRATS OF YESTERYEAR. THEY ARE NOW A SOCIALIST ANTIFA VIOLENT GROUP THAT USES THE MEDIA TO LIE AND SPIN THE TRUTH IN THE NEWS. FOR EXAMPLE JUST LOOK UP UA-cam AND FAKE NEWS. CNN WILL POP UP ALL OVER. AND HERE IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE . NOW CHRIS CUOMO ONCE SAID ON T.V. THAT IT IS ILLEGAL FOR ANY CITIZEN TO OWN HILLARY CLINTONS WIKILEAKS EMALIS THAT TELL THE TRUTH AND EXPOSE HER LIES AND TELL THE REAL TRUTH ABPOUT HER. AND IF THE CITIZENS HAD A COPY OF THE WIKILEAKS EMAILS THEN IT IS ILLEGAL AND THEY THE CITIZENS ARE CRIMINALS. AND ONLY THE MEDIA LIKE HIMSELF CHRIS CUOMO AND THE MEDIA ARE THE ONLY LEGAL ONES WHO CAN LEGALLY POSSESS THE HILLARYS WIKILEAKS. NOW THAT IS A REAL LIE. AND WHEN THE MEDIA WHICH IS A CORPORATION LIE TO THE MASSESS AND CITIZENS WHO DO NOT KNOW THE TRUTH IS FRAUDULENT NEWS. THAT IS VERY INFLUENTIAL TO THE ELECTION PROCESS . SO FORGET RUSSIA THAT TOOK OUT ADDS IN FACE BOOK . BUT WE HAVE THE LIBERAL MEDIA THAT ON PURPOSELY LIE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO INFLUENCE TO LIKE OR DISLIKE A POTENTIAL CANDIATE. THAT I BELIEVE SHOULD BE ACTIONABLE BY TRUMP AND CONGRESS SHOULD PASS MANY LAWS THAT IF A REPORTER SPINS OR LIES OR DISTORTS THE TRUTH FOR THIER CORPORATIONS WHICH ARE NEWS MEDIAS SHOULD GO TO PRISON. PERIOD. NOW HOW THIS HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE GUN AND THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS IS BECAUSE OF PROBLEMS LIKE THIS. SO FELLOW CITIZENS YOU BETTER KEEP ALL YOUR GUNS ALL BIG AND SMALL.BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT HAS PUSHED IT ALREADY WITH RACIAL PROFILING AND WE ALL KNOW THAT OBAMA USEDA EXECUTIVE ORDER TO STOP ANY INVESTIOGATION INTO THE FAST AND FURIOUS DEAD IN ITS TRACKS. OUR GOD GIVEN RIGHTS ARE NON NEGOTIABLE. ALL LAWYERS DO IS COMPLICATE THE ISSUES BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO AND TRAINED TO DO. SO YOU CAN LISTEN TO A FAT CROOKED CAREER POLITICIAN TELL YOU THAT YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS OR YOU CAN SAY WHAT BEN FRANKLIN SAID. GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH.
What's sad is that this has been posted since 2014 and the number of comments and views is really low. Pretty damn important topic!
Sadly, this is not the format that works for the 24/7 media machine. Short, one-line insults work much better in capturing the attention of the average, on-the-go citizen. This debate was fantastic. I learned much and now feel like I better understand the history that led us to DC v Heller.
I love how neither one spoke of the last part of the 2nd amendment, shall not be infringed was read but totally ignored in this discussion and to say nothing of the other parts of the Constitution that speak of the militia and the most awesome part of the Constitution "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." People need to understand what liberty means and stop letting people decide for you
Thats from the Declaration.
The 2nd amendment doesn't give citizens the right to keep and bear arms!
It just acknowledges that fact.
As a free man I have the right to protect myself and my possessions from all that wish to deprive me of my life or my possessions.
The fact that the citizen militia may be dormant, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
THE SILENT MAJORITY?!
In fact, citizen militia and paramilitary groups are outlawed and prohibited in all 50 States. Dormant or active they are unlawful.
@@deppsterdeppe725 So they are outlawed and prohibited in all 50 states by what authority? The same state and federal governments which were put on notice by the Second Amendment of the US Constitution that the state and federal governments are prohibited from outlawing and prohibiting Citizen Militias? George III and Thomas Gage agreed with your position. If fact, they tried to enforce your position at Lexington and Concord with somewhat questionable results. By the way, Hitler was a big fan also.
@@generalbarry They are outlawed and explicitly prohibited by Laws put in place by each state legislatures of course, as that is how laws are enacted as most people know.. The far right NRA myth and twisted perversion of the original intent of the 2nd amendment is their 40+ year fairytale. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...The fundamental reference and entire point lies therein.
The Second Amendment was the anti-standing army amendment. It failed spectacularly in that respect. If it was intended to curb state violence against citizens, it has also failed, as the US has the rates of violence by police.
what Attorney Michael Waldman ignore is the 2nd amendment was a principle UNDERSTOOD long BEFORE the American Revolution. IT was the PRIMARY tools for INDIVIDUALS to PROTECT and DEFEND THEIR PERSON FAMILY AND COMMUNITY on the FRONTIER. Battle of Saratoga was primarily won due to the Individual taking their PERSONAL ARMS to stand and fight the British.
I think it’s quite simple here’s why:
1. What were the events that brought forth this document? What was the driving principle of the revolution? What was the mindset of these revolutionaries, turned framers?
A. They had just fought the greatest military power on earth at the time with a group of farmers, lawyers, politicians, clerks, store owners, tradesmen etc. who provided their own weapons, that were equal if not better, than those of the Tyrannical British. The #1 motivation Liberty
2. What does the very first line of the constitution say?
A. “ We the people”
Who are the people?
Each Individual Citizen
3. What is the type of government that they formed?
A. A republic, that represents the rights of the individual.
These people feared an oppressive government. They wanted the people to have the ability to protect against threats foreign or domestic. The Bill of Rights were added due to the concerns of the anti-federalists. According to the framers the Militia was the whole of the people themselves, and each individual to keep his own arms.
These rights are not granted by the second amendment, only protected by it. The Constitution limits the powers of government not the people. Our rights are pre-ordained, “precede” the government does not grant them therefore has no authority to take them. We are not subjects, therefore “by and for the people.” . “Can not be infringed” are clear and powerful, when you consider the above.
As well as the framers own words:
Thomas Jefferson
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776
“ Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” - Jefferson`s “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764
George Mason
“[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually.”. . . I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” - Virginia`s U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788
“That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free state.” - Within Mason`s declaration of “the essential and unalienable Rights of the People,” - later adopted by the Virginia ratification convention, 1788
Samuel Adams
“The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.” - Massachusetts` U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788
William Grayson
“[A] string of amendments were presented to the lower House; these altogether respected personal liberty.” - Letter to Patrick Henry, June 12, 1789, referring to the introduction of what became the Bill of Rights
Richard Henry Lee
“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms… The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.” - Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788
James Madison
The Constitution preserves “the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” - The Federalist, No. 46
Tench Coxe
“The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them.” - An American Citizen, Oct. 21, 1787
“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” - The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788
“As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” - Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
Noah Webster
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power.” - An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787
Alexander Hamilton
“[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens.” - The Federalist, No. 29
Thomas Paine
“[ A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.” - Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775
Fisher Ames
“The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people.” - Letter to F.R. Minoe, June 12, 1789
Elbridge Gerry
“What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise a standing army upon its ruins.” - Debate, U.S. House of Representatives, August 17, 1789
Patrick Henry
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.” - Virginia`s U.S. Constitution ratification convention
Fascinating discussion. Thanks for posting!
I love the second amendment Subscribe
The first Right of Natural Law is the Right of Self Defense of life and limb and his or her family.
Really? Where are these rights listed, and by whom? Or are you just making that up?
@@leezaslofsky4438 So you are out for your morning jog. Suppose someone attacks you. Do you have to ask anyone for permission to defend yourself? No? Well, then it is a right.
And since self defense is a right so is a tool for self defense, and a gun is a great tool for self defense.
@@Anon54387 This is a typcal "argument" from a gun nut. Suppose you are not armed/ Suppose you are not able to get hold of your weapon? Suppose you are disabled, or frail elderly, or a teenager nt yet old enough to be armed?
MOST people NEVER get attacked. Of those who get attacked, a large proportion are not able to get hold of a gun, ar not famliar with the use of a gun , do not believe in using lethal force in an inident they may have misinterpreted, or where it is easier to use a cell phone tocall for help, or where the "attacker" can be dealt with other than by using lethal force against her or him.
Americans pay enormous amunts of money for their 18,000 police agencies, and more huge sums for private security agencies, and many security devices that can prevent an attacker from getting anywhere near the you.
You seem to dismiss all this spending, training, and day to day activity, and single out the rare instances where a person may find herself or himself under attack with no access to any kind of security aside from the possession of a lethal weapon.
Once you have st up that rare situation, yu base your whole attitude to firearms on it, as if it were a typical everyday occurrence.
That is the wrong way to approach this issue. In a society where massive efforts are going on every minute of every day to preserve personal security, the real uestion is how can people faced with a difficult situation access the help that society provides?
Ignoring all that, you pretend that "we" are lone cowboys riding around in unpopulated areas, where the only possible response to "attack" is a lightning fast resort to firearms, with the intention of either killing the attacker or wounding her or him so badly that she or he loses the capacity to threaten you.
Such rare incidents are NOT the best baiss for approaching the question of firearms in modern society. And indeed in most modern countries, there are regulations that constrain the possession and use of firearms, thereby reducing the incidence of "attacks" and increasing the safety of the public.
Only in the US, and certain corners of the world's gangster community, is the issue approached as if society has completely failed to provide any security for its members. In this fantasy world, the question of "gun rights" sddenly becomes urgent, as the complete failure of society to protect its members from lethal threats forces individual citizens and residents to resort to lethal self defense, based on their own rapid apprecitation of what is happening at the moment of "attack".
This kind of idiotic fantasizing accounts for many of the deaths and injuries suffered by ordinary Americans because they happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time; or react in ignorance of the actual situation (like the cop who murdered a 10 year old kid who was playing around with a toy gun, or the cop who murdered a man who had just informed him that he was in legal possession of a firearm and reached to get the documents requested by the cop).
In fact, yu do NOT have a "right" to kill or injure someone because you imagine that he is a dnger to you. You are bound by law -- and not a new law -- to respond to threats with proportionate force, or, better, to try to prevent any use of force at all.
That used ot be called "Keeping the King's Peace". The KIng has commended his subkects not to kill each other, and whoever kills someone breaches that command and is therefore liable to be punished.
The King's Peace was imposed in order to get rid of the custom of revenge killing or injuring relatives of a person thought to have killed or injured someone. If a man kills your cousin, you go and kill one of his cousins, thus exacting revenge and resolving the crime.
That was the wy things were until kings gained enough power to suppress that kind of tit for tat, almost random murder and injury. That kind of thing makes it difficult to society to gain prosperity, because3 you might be targeted by someone's cousin for something your cousin did without you knowledge some years ago.
Now it's not called the King's Peace in the US, but the idea remains the same: we are required, as members of society, to do our best to keep the peace. Gun nuts think that means that they have th right to kill anyone who "attacks" them. That is the wrong interpretation, and in most cases it is against the law to do so.
Gun nuts, in their foolish indifference to Reason, think society would be more "polite" if everyone knew he was risking death of wounding if he dared to be impolite. Such ruthless contempt for the lives and personal safety of others is typical of a gangster or psychopathic mentality.
A society of armed psychopaths wold perhaps benefit if every psychopath had the "right" to kill other psychopaths when they get rowdy.
But only a small number f people are psychopaths or gangsters, and it is a big mistake to base social customs on their behaviour -- in fact, on letting them set the standards for society in general.
If we're going to let a small minority set the standards for society as a whole, wouldn't it be better to choose peace loving, constructive, caring people as that minority, rather than ruthless killers?
Or was Jesus an impractical dreamer who got what such people usually get from the more realistic members of society: torture and death, public humiliation, and a reputation as a Loser?
the second amendment easily defined, THE RIGHT TO PROTECT YOURSELF, FAMILY AND YOUR PERESONAL PROPERTY WITH DEADLY FORCE USING FIREARMS
Waldman at 58:30 attempt the classic Liberal argument that since Muskets were the main stay is it muskets that we have a right to? This is a MUTE arguement since ARMS is understood as a CONCEPT of DEFENSES just as ALL THE RIGHTS are a CONDEPT and IDEOLOGY and NOT SPECIFIC to a PARTICULAR CLASS OF TOOL OR METHOD
Ok, for many Americans the subtleties of the debate will be lost. It would be important to remind those on the left of the issue that The Constitution was written so it could be understood by the average joe of the time, not those holding a Phd in linguistics. Additionally, politicians write laws everyday knowing they're un-constitutional and also knowing their courts will uphold them and the case will either never make it to SCOTUS, or will never get to see the case as 8,ooo or so cases are requested review and only 75-80 actually get heard (About 1%). So as a politician there is a very good chance your un-constitutional law will remain the law for many years.
The origianl wording from Madison clearly outlines the reason for citizens to have arms, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person,”
Patrick Henry objected to elements of the draft because he thought a future abolitionist President could activate the militia and send it out of state and expose the slave states to a slave uprising because the militia primarily served as the slave patrol.
Thus, the version in the Constitution was produced, A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
You need look no further than Switzerland to see a modern example of Madison's intention. Every man 18 to 30 is a member of the reserves and keeps his issued weapon at home.
I agree. We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.
@@danielpalos I agree, we shouldn't have security problems. But 314 mass shootings in 186 days in 2022 is a scurity problem.
Since 2020, firearms are the leading cause of death in those ages 1 to 19. That is a security problme.
So, what is the solution to those security problems?
@@elviejodelmar2795 - A few points about Switzerland:
*conscientious objectors are exempted both from military service and from keeping a rifle at home;
*to keep a long gun at home, a person must be at least 18 years of age, may not have been placed under guardianship, may not give cause for suspicion that he would endanger themselves or others with the weapon, and may not have a criminal record with a conviction for a violent crime or of several convictions for nonviolent crimes;
*gun sellers are required to scrupulously check that background, and a national record exists;
*a person who kept a gun but then winds up landing outside of the above restrictions will have their gun confiscated;
*purchasing a handgun, as opposed to a hunting gun, requires a permit, and these are valid only for between 6 and 9 months and a separate permit is required per handgun;
*there’s no right to open carry; to concealed carry requires a license, and to obtain the license you must provide proof you really need to concealed carry … like you’re a bodyguard to a high-profile person, basically;
*open carry of long guns is absolutely forbidden, you are only allowed to transport your long gun to the shooting range or hunting ground in a case with the ammunition kept separately from the long gun;
*a long gun kept at home must be kept under lock and key, with the ammunition stored separately.
I in general agree with what you write, and you may already know all the above, but for other readers’ sakes I felt I ought to outline how guns and gun ownership are really quite tightly regulated even in Switzerland, as opposed to in our current, quite broken, USA.
The mad dash by conservatives in the USA, beginning in the 1980s, to warp the 2nd Amendment from its original intent-of allowing for the organizing of a federal militia in the event of a hostile foreign invasion-to, instead, our bizarre present-day shoot-‘em-up free-for-all is, in a word, insane. I’ve watched it over the decades in disbelief. And of course it’s led to today’s predictable results.
It’s about time we, the sensible majority, took back control of our country, away from the insane conservative minority who today undemocratically rule it.
@@danopticon Well said.
@@danopticon 19th century jurisprudence and commentary unfortunately disabuse your position. Your view collapsed because of extensive scholarship on the subject that was too irrefutable to ignore, not that your opinion is correct.
FYI, do you know roughly per polling what percent of the population actually agrees with your interpretation of the Second? It's around 25%. That puts you in the extreme minority, not the "sensible majority." You're entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts about the numbers that actually support your position.
This is the very best of America; sober considered debate about the Constitution. I learned more about the complexities of the Second Amendment by listening to both sides of this respectful debate than i have by listening to the shouting, tumult and abuse that does on in the so called public discourse. Those that want to reduce the idea of of discussion and debate by using violent and abusive language could do well to just stop and think about how these two men conduct themselves in this sensitive discussion.
I really appreciated the stuttering at 32:00
Hening's Statutes of the laws of Virginia state that in 1623 that each man had to carry a loaded firearm with them on their way to and from work in the field and post a sentry over them as they worked. In 1625 a law was passed that men on their way to and from church had to carry a loaded firearm on their way to and from church. Not the militia, but each individual man was mandated by law to do so.
Absolutely right. Even nowadays, we see such provisions in laws at some places wherein individual citizen has not just a right, but a duty, of not just owning, but always carrying a firearm, which, in today's times of magazines, is always loaded.
The guy on the right acknowledges that the right to bear arms was intended to prevent a tyrannical government. Who is going to prevent a tyrannical government if it's not the people who are not part of the government controlled military? He tosses out the statements that are not logical. There are so many instances where it's made obvious that the founding fathers intended for individuals to have the right to bear arms that it's amusing that we are still debating it.
And btw, I see selective service as the best example of the modern militia.
So basically a Marxist and a Communist arguing over what constitutes "sensible" Infringement.
Not one of these "scholars" addressed the phrase "Shall not be infringed" aside from reading it. One of them even ridiculed the notion of examining each word for its separate meaning.
This, ladies and gentleman is WHY we need the second amendment. This is HOW tyranny relentlessly and insidiously creeps and forces its way into the world. This is WHAT the founders were talking about when they described tyranny. It is Evil itself. It is anything that seeks to limit Freedom and the Infinite Potential of Man.
Talking as someone who's a conservative on the gun issue, it wasn't mentioned because it's irrelevant to the discussion. The question is how far the right goes not whether you can infringe on it.
@@HistoryNerd808 It goes up to the level of civilians owning tanks and fighter jets which they do own.
@@vidyanandbapat8032 Not armed ones. It's illegal to drive a tank on the streets for example, nor can you own a tank on private property that is armed, same goes with jet fighters. Also, there are some weapons which are outright banned to be owned by private citizens, like nuclear bombs, nuclear-powered submarines, etc...
There is no debate : The 2nd Amendment states very clearly - the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
And NO...…….the founding fathers would NOT be in favor of gun control.
Considering what's going on right now in Virginia - with the new Communist Governor trying to seize the peoples firearms - the founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing when they wrote the 2nd Amendment. We have the right to defend ourselves from the time we are born . That right comes from God. Government, Federal or State - has no right to limit or take away that right.
Should children be able to buy a .50 caliber machine gun?
@@stevemiller7429 Yeah. They should.
@@vidyanandbapat8032 You're insane, seek professional psychiatric help ASAP.
@@rsr789 Why?
Not once in all of US History and juris prudence was the idea that gun ownership was ever not considered as an individual Right until the 1970s when the Democrat party first began that purporting that as a legal basis for gun control.
Absolutely right. It was even there in the older British Bill of rights(1689) and the Magna Carta from which the Amer8can Bill of rights(1791) is emerged.
No debate needed nor authorized!
The Right to Keep & Bear Arms is a GOD given Right.
Please demonstrably explain and then prove this 'god'; then deomntrartbly prove that it was in any way responsible for the compromise that was the US Constitution.
It is unusual to see a debate on this issue conducted so civilly and rationally. Typically, both sides just interrupt each-other and blurt out self serving statistics. This forum is the only non-partisan discussion I've ever seen on the RKBA.
once YTube stumbles across this video it will disappear
Sounds like the argument, 'common use' has been already decided by the Federal Supreme court and the gun grabbers need to piss off (including politicians grandstanding for re-election). with approximately 40 million AR-15's bought and owned, legally, the question is who and why they want us to abandon the right to bear arms. That was tried before and this was the result: withoutsanctuary.org
Common with intellectuals like Waldman to always have the answers with government always being the solution. It is convenient how intellectuals are immune from the ramifications of their own ideology. I think it is best demonstrated at the end when he claims:
1. Vehicles have been made safer by government regulations. This is not true, as evidenced in risk analysis by John Adams in 'Managing Transport Risks: What Works?' (2010)
2. Microstamping: no technology currently exists to make this economically feasible (California has a law for this even though it doesn't exist) and there is no evidence to show it works or that it would change homicide rates.
3. Smart guns might be a good idea but there is a high technology cost for this and some deep questions about the guns functioning when needed that have caused them to not be feasible as of yet. And if they are that great, why is the market not supplying them? Why would you need laws to force your purchase of one?
4. Why does he care if someone is openly carrying? How much distrust does he have in everyone?
5. Even if it were a collective right, people will just join a militia and continue to own and use guns.
6. After his ideology settles, Waldman needs to prove that any government intervention has ever worked with guns, then figure out why it worked, and finally make more policies based off of these facts assuming they do not violate the constitution.
If you wanted to have an honest debate, like Waldman is claiming to have, about effecting the homicide rate, you have to start by looking at where and why the homicides are actually being created. For this you would need to start with the failed drug war, the failed welfare state, and a whole host of other topics. Waldman needs to read Thomas Sowell's 'The Quest for Cosmic Justice' (2002) and then revisit his ideology.
I am curious as to WHERE, in the Constitution, is the power to regulate a right given to the Federal government? "Those power's not given to the Federal government belong to the States and to the people respectively"
Well, this is what makes some of the pro gun rights people look so ridiculous. The Bill of Rights are largely a set of restrictions on the federal government, but now gun rights activists look to the feds to overturn state and municipal laws.
the second amendment easily defined, THE RIGHT TO PROTECT YOURSELF, FAMILY AND YOUR PERESONAL PROPERTY WITH DEADLY FORCE USING FIREARMS
No one seems to understand the militia of the time. The militia of the time was not State controlled. They certainly were not the *Kings Militia.* In fact, the militia that began the Revolution, the militia to which many of the Framers belonged, was the Sons of Liberty, an ad hoc militia, made up of individuals, who eventually pushed the British, into Boston Harbor. The Sons of Liberty were very like the Irish Republican Army, with political and militant wings.
Also, the Phrase "well Regulated" did not carry the same meaning as today. The phrase "Well regulated" indicated "in proper working order". This meaning was demonstrated by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 29, _"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would _*_entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia,_*_ would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss."_
From this quote we can deduce two things:
1. If the Founders meant for government to control the militia, they would have used the verb “to discipline”, as in “a well disciplined militia” (an objective Hamilton described as “futile” and “injurious”)
2. As Hamilton observes, well regulated meant the people were responsible for training themselves to arms, as well as supplying and equipping themselves. "Well Regulated" was a superlative of the _character_ desired in a militia. Though Hamilton thought this onerous, by demanding the Second Amendment, the States devolved this responsibility to the People.
One final word regarding the 14th Amendment : The phrase, "Shall not be infringed" *guarantees a constitutional immunity* from infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. Therefore, as Justice Thomas suggests in his McDonald Concurring Opinion, the 2nd Amendment would be better incorporated under the "privileges & immunities" clause of the 14th.
That is absolute nonsense: there was no militia during the 18th century that didn’t serve without government authority and organization.
You simply have no idea what you’re talking about and I can prove it.
@@walterbailey2950, your ignorance of history is astounding. Research *"The Sons of Liberty"*
@@rainsilversplash4376 it’s astounding because you’re the one who’s really ignorant. You just don’t know it. The sons of liberty were a terrorist organization. They acted with encouragement of some rebel leaders but not as a Militia.
Massachusetts colony did use its militia against the British and formed some of them into a select corps called Minutemen that were given special training.
Very good conversation
We do not have a free state, ask any divorced father whose had his children taken and extorted just to not be put in a cage. If there are ANY laws requiring a human to actively DO and/or maintain something, i.e. Income, is tyrannical.
Slavery in all of its forms
i have two questions for the dude on the right. why is a semi auto getting termed as a assault rifle and what does shall not be infringed mean ????????????????????????????
The safety of vehicles is in the operation of those vehicles. Not in adding systems that make a crash more survivable. No system can compensate for unsafe operation of the vehicle such as driving it into a crowd, building or other vehicle on purpose. Firearms are the same the safety is in the responsible carry and use of the firearm. Modern firearms are very safe no need to put additional systems into them. Safe use is the responsibility of the owner.
I thought it was a poor analogy as well..
I agree we should take out all the seat belts, air bags, and drivers license requirements to make sure people can operate vehicles safely.
Where do these people keep appearing from?
"Common Sense gun laws, or any gun laws for that matter, are designed to stop the very people who are most likely to disobey them, while effectively legislating the law-abiding citizens out of their right to defend themselves. You then have a situation where only the criminals have guns and the the law abiders are disarmed. A perfect storm.
Waldman starting at 49:48 does a double speak stating the courts have upheld decisions against individual rights in support gov and public interest which is the CORE OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS that the ANTI FEDERALIST ORIGINALLY FOUGHT TO STAY OFF A CENTRALIZED CONTROLLING GOV which now Waldman said is the reason judges have ignored individual gun rights case. This is CONTRARY TO THE PURPOSE of the VERY RIGHTS IN THE BILL OF THE RIGHTS
Question if you are nailing a piece of wood and hit your thumb is it the hammers fault or your own for not using it correctly????
Well some weapons of used wrong correctly do more than damaging your thumb.
The "woke" finds it abhorrent to look for fault or to lay blame. That's SO judgmental! However, I do expect the BLM to do a Jan 6 on the Capitol (you know, a mostly peaceful protest like they did at the Portland, Oregon police station on 04 Aug 20) to demand a ban on high-capacity, high-power assault hammers.
Question: If you have a child in the classroom beating others with a stick, do you say, "It's not the stick's fault," and proceed to arm the others for self-defense?
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself" - George Washington
the second amendment easily defined, THE RIGHT TO PROTECT YOURSELF, FAMILY AND YOUR PERESONAL PROPERTY WITH DEADLY FORCE USING FIREARMS
A rephrasing of the amendment is because of the need of a militia as a first line of our defense the right those who legally required to bear arms shall not be infringed by the National government under the military clauses.
Can't wait to hear/see discussions following decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen.
It looks like bumpstocks are going to be legal.
I have this thing about the elites belief as to what the 2nd amendment was intended to do. The elite rarely want to allow the commoners to be on an equal footing.
That because Congress doesent want to under stand 1 amendment freedoms of the constitution .2 amendment to keep all the freedoms and god given rights and rest of the amendment safe .it is closer to that time again the country is so divided
I’m waiting for the day that SCOTUS speaks of the Infringement Clause of 2a. 2a is the only “right” that has such a clause. Therefore, it has the most protection of any “right”. In the end, it doesn’t matter what a judges “opinion” is on anything. The second amendment, created in 1791, was signed the very same year the first Supreme Court of the United States was created.
The first Chief Justice of the United States was John Jay; the Court's first docketed case was Van Staphorst v. Maryland (1791), and its first recorded decision was West v. Barnes (1791). 2a predates the entire government.
so I should be fully familiar with full auto since that is standard issue!!! follow the law!!
The majority of Americans understand why they want to take our guns, and it’s not going to happen.
The framers intended to deny the Government the ability to restrict or infringe upon the natural right of the people to keep and bear military arms for self-defense, which includes the defense of one's freedom and countrymen from Tyranny.
This guy points toward Madison while at the same time that we shouldn't look back at the construction and intent ... seems an odd position, since Madison states that examining the construction and intent is the only way to see its faithful execution:
"The Constitution itself, whether written or prescriptive, influenced as its exposition and administration will be, by those causes, must be an unfailing source of party distinctions. And the very peculiarity which gives pre-eminent value to that of the United States, the partition of power between different governments, opens a new door for controversies and parties. There is nevertheless sufficient scope for combating the spirit of party, as far as it may not be necessary to fan the flame of liberty, in efforts to divert it from the more noxious channels; to moderate its violence, especially in the ascendant party; to elucidate the policy which harmonizes jealous interests; and particularly to give to the Constitution that just construction, which, with the aid of time and habit, may put an end to the more dangerous schisms otherwise growing out of it.
With a view to this last object, I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that be not the guide in expounding it, there can be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful exercise of its powers. If the meaning of the text be sought in the changeable meaning of the words composing it, it is evident that the shape and attributes of the Government must partake of the changes to which the words and phrases of all living languages are constantly subject. What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense And that the language of our Constitution is already undergoing interpretations unknown to its founders, will I believe appear to all unbiased Enquirers into the history of its origin and adoption. Not to look farther for an example, take the word "consolidate" in the Address of the Convention prefixed to the Constitution. It there and then meant to give strength and solidity to the Union of the States. In its current & controversial application it means a destruction of the States, by transfusing their powers into the government of the Union." - James Madison
Also, the Second Amendment was included because of the fears that Congress would neglect its obligation under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 to organize, arm, and discipline the militias. The fear was that Congress wouldn't provide for the arming of the militia, since that power had been placed within the purview of the federal government. It would, as Patrick Henry stated, render the best defense of our liberty nugatory by leaving the states without any arms. While as Mason put it, Congress would then use the excuse to create a permanent standing army.
The Right Of The People To Keep And Bare Arms Shall Not Be Infringed.
the second amendment easily defined, THE RIGHT TO PROTECT YOURSELF, FAMILY AND YOUR PERESONAL PROPERTY WITH DEADLY FORCE USING FIREARMS
no definition can be be clearer of its meaning
Plain and simple English , known by most Americans common shall not be infringed.
At the 8:00 mark he tries to argue it was written to codify the militia's right to bear arms . Why would that need to be enshrined ? Why would it say THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS ?
Somehow it is assumed that the Militia would show up empty handed unless told otherwise???
What is it about leftist that there always trying to take peoples rights away ?
chris wilder because they’re communists. And like a scorpion or viper. It’s their nature.
Because they are NOT Right! Well there may be a few, but I rarely ever see them.
Except, if you read "The Federalist Papers" that was written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay. all written by them before the Constitution was ratified
There are whole hosts of "laws" passed by Congress and state legislatures that the Supreme Court never grants certiorari and resolves their constitutionality or unconstitutionality.
Although, the recent increase in deaths caused by guns is attributed to people suffering from mental illness, we seem to overlook the fact some people are evil. At some point in the evildoers life, they make a conscious decision to kill. The reasons may vary but the senseless deaths affect us all and in ways that we may never comprehend.
Michael Waldman makes a HUGE ERROR of the LIBERALS @ 32:50 he states thing started to CHANGE 100 yrs later arguing that urban cities with more population became the norm thus things REGARDING GUNS HAD TO CHANGE-THIS IS THE ERROR THOUGH SOCIAL CONSTRUCTS CHANGE AS their INTEREST of RESIDENCE THE RIGHTS GOVERNING THE PEOPLE DO NOT CHANGE BUT THAT HAS BEEN THE LIBERAL TAKE...That we need to Change the CONSTITUTION to REFLECT a DIFFERENCE OF SOCIETY THAT IS FLAT OUT FALSE!!!!
Gura is a class act
Very interesting debate on scholarly research of the 2nd Amendment, but mostly irrelevant unless you are an attorney.
No it's not. If you understand English, and have studied American history, the words of the Founding Fathers, they meant to express to We the People at the time, a plain and understandable Right in language. It's not clumsy, complicated, or difficult.
People are governed by Discipline
and Respect. The 2nd. Cannot
Be replaced by any part of our
Government. Read infrenged definition.
the second amendment easily defined, THE RIGHT TO PROTECT YOURSELF, FAMILY AND YOUR PERESONAL PROPERTY WITH DEADLY FORCE USING FIREARMS .....SUBSCRIBE
Given the term "well-regulated militia", is the individual right a completely unqualified right? Doesn't the well-regulated militia have a duty to qualify the individual? Do not the State, and the People, have a security interest in qualifying those who purchase, keep, and bear arms? We certainly train and qualify members of the armed forces on military weapons systems. Another example, upon reaching the qualifying age (already an "infringement") should not the "militia" (its contemporary equivalents) duly vet those seeking to begin to keep arms? This would take a burden off of the gun dealer, and this could stop the troubled 18- to 25-year-old from procuring a weapon likely to be misused. There is a "juvenile" or "young offender" aspect to this issue in practice. The presentation of the proper qualification document and its verification might simplify the purchase for the gun dealer. Why should we not use what we have learned about brain development to improve this situation?
Google District of Columbia v Heller. That will answer your questions.
@@jonathanoconnor9546 My understanding of that decision is that one is not required to be a member of the militia to keep and bear arms, and I can agree with that. That's different from being qualified by a militia. My family all together took a hunter safety course conducted by the county sheriff. The instructors were definitely assessing whether or not we were "in our right mind" prior to giving each of us a certificate. The course didn't require my continuing service in the Sheriff's Department in any kind of auxiliary capacity. I think it would be good for those interested in gun ownership to be qualified by the militia, that being consistent with the term "well regulated."
it means well trained and functioning
Yes, it is. The right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. How many times does it need to be said? BTW, one doesn't have to be in a militia to have the right. That would make it a privilege.
You guys are all reading from the same faulty script. I know, my teachers in college tried to fill my head with the nonsense that one had to be in a militia as well.
@@Anon54387 The US Constitution constrains the federal government on this matter, not the States. At the time, the point of the Second Amendment was to address States' concerns with Federal power. Obviously slaves were not the People and were not to have any right to arms. In large measure, militia existed to maintain "domestic tranquility", that is, in the South, to maintain an economic system that included slavery. Who has to serve in the militia is up to the Free States, and very deliberately so. I did not propose militia membership to keep and bear arms, I proposed the "militia" be it Sheriffs or State or local police, be the agencies that qualify human beings to keep and bear arms. (It's the people, not the guns, right?) Slaves didn't qualify and nobody was taking that infringement to court back when the language was written because it was a clear social assumption. Infringement in fact existed from the beginning as a matter practicality. Today we have mentally ill people legally buying weapons and killing children. We are supposed to just accept that? Would the authors of the 2nd Amendment tell us to just accept that? Nobody who sent their kid to school thought it was going to happen to them. What's a mentally sound, law abiding citizen's problem with qualifying with a weapon? They should do it for their own and their family's safety. At the end of hunter safety class, the retired Sheriff's Deputy who qualified me for hunting safety told the story of how he as a kid shot his sister in the eye, blinding that eye for the rest of her life. There are lots of good reasons for weapons training before operating a weapon. By now it should be a clear social assumption that the mentally ill should not keep and bear arms, and the State and local "militia", not the federal government, is the proper power to make the call on who is and who is not mentally ill. Because they are the ones who have to risk their lives, enter the school, hunt down the shooter, and deal with them one way or another.
And what they feared was to come to pass has happened, our government is becoming tyrannical!!!!!!!! Bearing weaponry, armaments is as much of a right as breathing air!!!
Don’t ban AR-15 geez
42:20 - Joseph Story is an "obscure" source? First time I've heard a supposedly informed scholar make that ridiculous claim in an effort to dodge the issue.
He hopes to the people in the audience it is.
You guys are having this show about the constitution second amendment the right of every individual to have a firearm then my damn question is why are these states curtailing the Second Amendment restricting our purchases of certain firearms and you guys are sitting there like it’s all fine and well!🕶
The militia is to be regulated, not the ownership of weapons.
"A well regulated Militia" NOT "A regulated ownership of arms."
The liberal's argument at the 58ish mark is misplaced. He's basically making a "living Constitution" argument. "It doens't matter what the original intent was, the country evolves, so the Constitution evolves. What was legal then doesn't need to be legal now, blah blah blah." And even if he's right, he's wrong as it applies to guns. The majority of Americans favor gun rights. Doesn't mater if you are a gun owner or not. The vast majority of Americans (around 73% the last time surveyed) believe that individuals should have the right to own a gun. Every state but 4 or 5 have the individual right to own guns enshrined in their state constitutions. And of those few that didn't, even fewer didn't grant the right by statute. That's why D.C. stood out so much, it was this extreme example that America didn't agree with. So if he wants to argue original intent, that's fine. But there is no "living Constitution" argument against the individual right. Whatever the Second Amendment was originally intended to be, it's clear that Americans want it to be an individual right.
I just saw "my side" win the debate.
Very interesting
Commerce in gunpowder/explosives as firearms propellants were not controlled by the monarch? Manufacture was not controlled by the Crown? The elements of gunpowder was unregulated, and freely available and not centrally administrated?
Arms were crafted throughout the colonies and states. We can see that gunsmithing was widely available as an offshoot of metal fabrication, of course. Gunpowder, however, was strictly controlled.
When the TYRANNICAL government comes the NATIONAL GUARD comes with them. They are the SAME side of the coin. WE the ppl in EACH STATE need our OWN MILITIA.
Good debate except that no one even danced close to the original and primary intent for the 2nd. It was to allow common people, all people in the US to maintain a free nation of free individuals. That allowing an armed society would help protect it from foreign and domestic tyrannical governments. So why even argue gov control of arms even being a good idea? Maybe a collection of citizens?
The original and primary intent of the 2nd was not to allow all people the right to protect themselves. The 2nd amendment was never intended the accessed by africans brought to this land as slaves. Neither of these men address the idea that southern colonies like virginia maintained militias to control slave then later free population of africans.(Many of these southern militias developed into their modern police departments, which explains why they still have issues policing poc). Black codes made it illegal for blacks to have guns. States changed their state constitutions like TN to reflect their purpose of keeping weapons out of the hands of blacks and the NRA backed gun control as late as the 60s in an effort to keep groups like the black panthers from having guns.
The right to keep and bear Arms, shall NOT be infringed....what don’t these idiots understand, the 2nd A was given to protect us against govt tyranny, from what the govt is trying to do now. The govt is overstepping their authority.
Cuirksahnk is about if private individuals could be tried for violating civil rights under the fourteenth amendment.
the second amendment easily defined, THE RIGHT TO PROTECT YOURSELF, FAMILY AND YOUR PERESONAL PROPERTY WITH DEADLY FORCE USING FIREARMS .....SUBSCRIB
Your group got together and work it out you would it shoud take much more that a simple majority to change amements
Right to keep and bear arms"...meant whatever you chose o be armed with!!! That could be a rock; a bowie knife, a base ball bat...it meant ARMED.PERIOD. The right to keep and bear arms! Or weapons of YOUR choice!
The guy on the right, though i don't agree with him, was very astute until the very end, when he mentioned people running around with military weapons. He was of course referencing ARs. He stated an absolute falshood. What majes a military weapon a military weapon is simply wheather a military uses it or not. Nobody is running the streats with military weapons. ARs Have never been used by a standing army, in battle. ARs are not remotely similar to miliary weapons. A rifles function is soley responsible for a military's decision to employ it. That function is select or automatic fire. ARs DO NOT HAVE SELECT OR AUTOMATIC ABILITY. 1911S, AK47, SKS, MOSIN NAGANT, M1 GARAND, 30 CARBINE, and mant more are guns actually used in war, mant still today. If you are going to be among the most brilliant minds, debating guns, learn something about the ones you do not like, and offer a factual argument, for the control of that gun. Thank you.
WE THE PEOPLE decided that having the ability and the means to defend our person and our dignity is a fundamental right. All the gimmicks by the gun control side OF THE PEOPLE can not and will not take that right away. It is unamerican to suggest that a PEOPLE will not be allowed to defend his or her person with a weapon of at least equal, if not greater power/utility to the one an opponent may use against them. The historical record is clear. Overwhelmingly more Law abiding Americans have owned and used arms for their own defense than the number of lawbreakers have used them. This very fact shows the utility of the Bill of Rights, which merely confirms the right os a citizen to self defense, and limits the federal and the state government from infringing on the inaliable right of the PEOPLE to bear (own, maintain, train in and use) arms for their individual defense and the defense of their state ( See Second amendment)
2 bad arguments. And one misstated argument The musket argument. And the car argument. The micro stamping misstatement.
Muskets were the most technologically advanced of their time. Just like we didn’t have UA-cam and other modern methods for speech. We didn’t have the firearms tech that we have now. So as we evolve. We will always have to remember to not forfeit our rights in that process.
No one has a constitutional right to own a car. So that entire argument has no merit.
Micro stamping does not print anything on a bullet. Even if it could the bullet traveling down the barrel would scrape it right of in a millisecond So he fails to understand that which he wishes to argue.
It's clearly an unsuccessful l individual right when we are supposed to be free people.
Jeffrey Rosen - "Two states that seem to recognize an individuals right. Pennsylvania, of all people, in it's revolutionary charter said that the people had the right to "bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state." There's no reference to a militia there."
-----------------------------------
The word 'militia' doesn't need to be there for this to be a militia provision. What military force defends the state if not the state militia? And the defence of "themselves" is about the common or civil defence, not self defence.
Bob Sykes - The right of a State to fund, operate, and maintain it's own state militias, are powers and functions reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment.
The proposals/amendments submitted Roger Sherman and the Virginia delegation dealt with those very powers.
In the wording/text of the Constitution itself, States have "powers", not "rights".
The aforementioned proposals from Sherman and Virginia were defeated precisely because the Federalists DID NOT want there to be any question or dispute regarding the Federal Government's authority over the state militias. They did not want to give the states a "platform" that they could then use/exploit to challenge the authority of Congress regarding various militia functions.
They agreed, in principal, that states would still be allowed to maintain and operate their own militias, in accordance with the procedures set by Congress. The Federalists simply did not want to have *that kind* of amendment in the Constitution.
Sherman was told his amendment really wouldn't be necessary because there was nothing in the Constitution that actually prevented the states from funding their own militias.
The Second Amendment establishes that the citizens have a right to their firearms, and militia service did not, and would not, change that. The militia powers did not allow the Federal Government to disarm any law abiding citizen, wether they were a militia participant or not. That's the "right of the the people" part.
"defense of themselves" *does* mean self defense. "and of the state" covers ( obviously ) the common defense/militia related stuff. Otherwise, it would have been redundant.
That's what people actually did back then: the firearms they used for defending property/farms, hunting wildlife & game, - *then* became the firearms they used in service.
radiokorps said: "The Second Amendment establishes that the citizens have a right to their firearms, and militia service did not, and would not, change that."
------------------------------
This is just a blatant assertion. There's actually no mention of firearms in the Second Amendment as the word "arms" is part of the phrase "bear arms" which means "render military service" according to Madisons original proposal.
Original:
"... compelled to render *military service*."
Next version:
"compelled to *bear arms*."
To the Framers, they meant the same thing, and none of these mean "compelled to *carry firearms*."
radiokorps said: ""defense of themselves" does mean self defense."
-------------------------------
Again, this is just a blatant assertion.
The evidence that the arms bearing provision is a militia provision that doesn't address self defense is in the same declaration of rights:
VIII. "That every member of society hath a right *to be protected* in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property, and therefore is bound to contribute his proportion towards the expence *of that protection*, and yield his *personal service* when necessary, or an equivalent thereto:.. Nor can any man who is conscientiously scrupulous of *bearing arms*, be justly compelled thereto, if he will pay such equivalent,.."
1. The "protection" is militia protection.
2. "Personal service" is service in the militia.
3. "Bearing arms" means military service in the militia.
Also, look at this:
SECT. 7. "...nor shall any member, while he continues such, hold any other office, except in *the militia*."
So, where is the militia provision?
XIII. "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
Bob Sykes - And the first part of the proposal clearly said. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; ". Not the right of the" militia".( The Founders knew how to set qualifications regarding militia service, and did so in the Fifth Amendment.) The militia is drawn from the people, not the other way around. The firearms people personally owned for protecting homes and property; hunting wildlife and game, *then* became the firearms they used when called into action.
Now:
The Federal government can end militia service any time it wants and thus negate your Second Amendment rights in that fashion. Congress can end conscription at any time, and simply release the individuals from service. Now that they're no longer part of a militia, their firearms no longer qualify for Second Amendment protection. That's NOT how constitutionally enumerated rights of the people in Bill of Rights are supposed to work.
One reason the Second Amendment protects an individual right unconnected with militia service.
The state militias of the 18th and 19th centuries were finished off when Congress finally repealed the Militia Act(s).
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be
disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe.
The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws
by the sword; because the whole body of the people are
armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands
of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised
in the United States."
- Noah Webster, "An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Constitution".
"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize
Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of
conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are
peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms" - Samuel Adams.
"Arms" ( in the Second Amendment ) means firearms. Militia members were required to own their own firearms. If they didn't have a firearm they had to go out and personally purchase a firearm for themselves. This is precisely how the militias "got their guns". Every individual had to personally supply their own firearm.
The firearm was the weapon used by militia participants. That "arms" means firearms ( in the text of the second amendment ) is agreed to by both sides in this debate. This is you simply playing games. And being profoundly disingenuous.
Also :
"The majority of the Pennsylvania convention refused to propose amendments to
the Constitution, which was ratified on December 12, 1787. However, the
"Dissent of the Minority of the Convention" demanded a declaration of
rights. Apparently written by Samuel Bryan, author of "Centinel," the
document was first published on December 18, 1787 and was circulated throughout
the country. Among the rights declared
was the following:
" That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of
themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of
killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of
them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from
individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to
liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept
under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers.' "
Under your convoluted reasoning, someone would actually have to be enrolled in military service in order to have the right to hunt with a firearm. ( " killing game" ) which is obviously not the case ( or the intention ). So, no, the term "bear arms" does is *not* confined to military service.
Again, from the Heller Majority opinion :
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
" 1. Operative Clause.
a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of
the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights
use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the
First Amendment’s Assembly and Petition Clause and in
the Fourth Amendment’s Search and Seizure Clause. The
Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The
enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall
not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by
the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously
refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights
that may be exercised only through participation in some
corporate body.5
Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people”
in a context other than “rights”-the famous preamble
(“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the people” will choose members of the House), and the Tenth
Amendment (providing that those powers not given the
Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the
people”). Those provisions arguably refer to “the people”
acting collectively-but they deal with the exercise or
reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the
Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer
to anything other than an individual right.6
What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously
refers to all members of the political community, not an
unspecified subset. As we said in United States v. Ver-
dugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990):
“‘[T]he people’ seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution.... [Its
uses] sugges[t] that ‘the people’ protected by the
Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second
Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are re
served in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to
a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that
community.”
This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in
the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”-those who were male, able bodied, and within a
certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as
protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an
organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative
clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the
people.”
We start therefore with a strong presumption that the
Second Amendment right is exercised individually and
belongs to all Americans.
b. “Keep and bear Arms.” We move now from the
holder of the right-“the people”-to the substance of the
right: “to keep and bear Arms.”
Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18thcentury meaning is no
different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of
Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons
of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the
English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson).
Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary
defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his
defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast
at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary
of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar).
The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that
were not specifically designed for military use and were
not employed in a military capacity. For instance, Cunningham’s legal dictionary gave as an example of usage:
“Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on
Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms.” See also, e.g., An
Act for the trial of Negroes, 1797 Del. Laws ch. XLIII, §6,
p. 104, in 1 First Laws of the State of Delaware 102, 104
(J. Cushing ed. 1981 (pt. 1)); see generally State v. Duke,
42 Tex. 455, 458 (1874) (citing decisions of state courts
construing “arms”). Although one founding era thesaurus
limited “arms” (as opposed to “weapons”) to “instruments
of offence generally made use of in war,” even that source
stated that all firearms constituted “arms.” 1 J. Trusler,
The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in
the English Language 37 (1794) (emphasis added).
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century
are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First
Amendment protects modern forms of communications,
e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844,
849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern
forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27,
35-36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima
facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,
even those that were not in existence at the time of the
founding.
We turn to the phrases “keep arms” and “bear arms.”
Johnson defined “keep” as, most relevantly, “[t]o retain;
not to lose,” and “[t]o have in custody.” Johnson 1095.
Webster defined it as “[t]o hold; to retain in one’s power or
possession.” No party has apprised us of an idiomatic
meaning of “keep Arms.” Thus, the most natural reading
of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have
weapons.”
The phrase “keep arms” was not prevalent in the written documents of the founding period that we have found,
but there are a few examples, all of which favor viewing
the right to “keep Arms” as an individual right uncon
nected with militia service. William Blackstone, for ex
ample, wrote that Catholics convicted of not attending
service in the Church of England suffered certain penal
ties, one of which was that they were not permitted to
“keep arms in their houses.” 4 Commentaries on the Laws
of England 55 (1769) (hereinafter Blackstone); see also 1
W. & M., c. 15, §4, in 3 Eng. Stat. at Large 422 (1689)
(“[N]o Papist . . . shall or may have or keep in his House
... any Arms...”); 1 Hawkins, Treatise on the Pleas of
the Crown 26 (1771) (similar). Petitioners point to militia
laws of the founding period that required militia members
to “keep” arms in connection with militia service, and they
conclude from this that the phrase “keep Arms” has a
militia related connotation. See Brief for Petitioners 16-
17 (citing laws of Delaware, New Jersey, and Virginia).
This is rather like saying that, since there are many statutes that authorize aggrieved employees to “file com
plaints” with federal agencies, the phrase “file complaints”
has an employment related connotation. “Keep arms” was
simply a common way of referring to possessing arms, for
militiamen and everyone else.
At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to
“carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford
English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford).
When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning
that refers to carrying for a particular purpose-
confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S.
125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of
“carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE
GINSBURG wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is,
as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate[s]:
‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing
or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and
ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict
with another person.’” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion)
(quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We
think that JUSTICE GINSBURG accurately captured the
natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase
implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose
of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes
participation in a structured military organization.
From our review of founding era sources, we conclude
that this natural meaning was also the meaning that
“bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous in
stances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to
the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.
The most prominent examples are those most relevant to
the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades
of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear
arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms
in defense of himself and the state.”8 It is clear from those
formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James
Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s arms
bearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural
right of defense “of one’s person or house”-what he called
the law of “self preservation.” 2 Collected Works of James
Wilson 1142, and n. x (K. Hall & M. Hall eds. 2007) (citing
Pa. Const., Art. IX, §21 (1790)); see also T. Walker, Intro
duction to American Law 198 (1837) (“Thus the right of
selfdefence [is] guaranteed by the [Ohio] constitution”);
see also id., at 157 (equating Second Amendment with
that provision of the Ohio Constitution). That was also
the interpretation of those state constitutional provisions
adopted by preCivil War state courts.9 These provisions
demonstrate-again, in the most analogous linguistic
context-that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying
of arms in a militia.
The phrase “bear Arms” also had at the time of the
founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly
different from its natural meaning: “to serve as a soldier,
do military service, fight” or “to wage war.” See Linguists’
Brief 18; post, at 11 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). But it
unequivocally bore that idiomatic meaning only when
followed by the preposition “against,” which was in turn
followed by the target of the hostilities. See 2 Oxford 21.
(That is how, for example, our Declaration of Independence ¶28, used the phrase: “He has constrained our fellow
Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms
against their Country . . . .”) Every example given by
petitioners’ amici for the idiomatic meaning of “bear arms” from the founding period either includes the preposition
“against” or is not clearly idiomatic. See Linguists’ Brief
18-23. Without the preposition, “bear arms” normally
meant (as it continues to mean today) what JUSTICE
GINSBURG’s opinion in Muscarello said.
In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and JUSTICE STEVENS propose is not even the (some
times) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a
hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the
actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an
idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No
dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have
been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried
that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy
to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the
hybrid definition. Giving “bear Arms” its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right
to be a soldier or to wage war-an absurdity that no
commentator has ever endorsed. See L. Levy, Origins of
the Bill of Rights 135 (1999). Worse still, the phrase
“keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word
“Arms” would have two different meanings at once:
“weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of
“bear”) one half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled
the bucket and died.” Grotesque.
Petitioners justify their limitation of “bear arms” to the
military context by pointing out the unremarkable fact
that it was often used in that context-the same mistake
they made with respect to “keep arms.” It is especially
unremarkable that the phrase was often used in a military
context in the federal legal sources (such as records of
congressional debate) that have been the focus of petition
ers’ inquiry. Those sources would have had little occasion
to use it except in discussions about the standing army and
the militia. And the phrases used primarily in those
military discussions include not only “bear arms” but also
“carry arms,” “possess arms,” and “have arms”-though no
one thinks that those other phrases also had special military meanings. See Barnett, Was the Right to Keep and
Bear Arms Conditioned on Service in an Organized Militia?, 83 Tex. L. Rev. 237, 261 (2004). The common references to those “fit to bear arms” in congressional discussions about the militia are matched by use of the same
phrase in the few nonmilitary federal contexts where the
concept would be relevant. See, e.g., 30 Journals of Continental Congress 349-351 (J. Fitzpatrick ed. 1934). Other
legal sources frequently used “bear arms” in nonmilitary
contexts.10 Cunningham’s legal dictionary, cited above,
gave as an example of its usage a sentence unrelated to
military affairs (“Servants and labourers shall use bows
and arrows on Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms”).
And if one looks beyond legal sources, “bear arms” was
frequently used in nonmilitary contexts. See Cramer &
Olson, What Did “Bear Arms” Mean in the Second Amendment?, 6 Georgetown J. L. & Pub. Pol’y (forthcoming Sept.
2008), online at papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1086176
(as visited June 24, 2008, and available in Clerk of Court’s
case file) (identifying numerous nonmilitary uses of “bear
arms” from the founding period).
JUSTICE STEVENS points to a study by amici supposedly
showing that the phrase “bear arms” was most frequently
used in the military context. See post, at 12-13, n. 9;
Linguists’ Brief 24. Of course, as we have said, the fact
that the phrase was commonly used in a particular context
does not show that it is limited to that context, and, in any
event, we have given many sources where the phrase was
used in nonmilitary contexts. Moreover, the study’s collection appears to include (who knows how many times) the
idiomatic phrase “bear arms against,” which is irrelevant.
The amici also dismiss examples such as “ ‘bear arms . . .
for the purpose of killing game’” because those uses are
“expressly qualified.” Linguists’ Brief 24. (JUSTICE
STEVENS uses the same excuse for dismissing the state
constitutional provisions analogous to the Second Amendment that identify private use purposes for which the
individual right can be asserted. See post, at 12.) That
analysis is faulty. A purposive qualifying phrase that
contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this
side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some
courses on Linguistics). If “bear arms” means, as we
think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit
the purpose of the carriage (“for the purpose of self
defense” or “to make war against the King”). But if “bear
arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the
carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply
cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to
carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game”
is worthy of the mad hatter. Thus, these purposive qualifying phrases positively establish that “to bear arms” is
not limited to military use.11
JUSTICE STEVENS places great weight on James Madison’s inclusion of a conscientious objector clause in his
original draft of the Second Amendment: “but no person
religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled
to render military service in person.” Creating the Bill of
Rights 12 (H. Veit, K. Bowling, & C. Bickford eds. 1991)
(hereinafter Veit). He argues that this clause establishes
that the drafters of the Second Amendment intended “bear
Arms” to refer only to military service. See post, at 26. It
is always perilous to derive the meaning of an adopted
provision from another provision deleted in the drafting
process.12 In any case, what JUSTICE STEVENS would
conclude from the deleted provision does not follow. It was
not meant to exempt from military service those who
objected to going to war but had no scruples about per
sonal gunfights. Quakers opposed the use of arms not just
for militia service, but for any violent purpose whatso
ever-so much so that Quaker frontiersmen were forbid
den to use arms to defend their families, even though “[i]n
such circumstances the temptation to seize a hunting rifle
or knife in selfdefense . . . must sometimes have been
almost overwhelming.” P. Brock, Pacifism in the United
States 359 (1968); see M. Hirst, The Quakers in Peace and
War 336-339 (1923); 3 T. Clarkson, Portraiture of Quaker
ism 103-104 (3d ed. 1807). The Pennsylvania Militia Act
of 1757 exempted from service those “scrupling the use of
arms”-a phrase that no one contends had an idiomatic
meaning. See 5 Stat. at Large of Pa. 613 (J. Mitchell & H.
Flanders eds. 1898) (emphasis added). Thus, the most
natural interpretation of Madison’s deleted text is that
those opposed to carrying weapons for potential violent
confrontation would not be “compelled to render military
service,” in which such carrying would be required.13
Finally, JUSTICE STEVENS suggests that “keep and bear
Arms” was some sort of term of art, presumably akin to
“hue and cry” or “cease and desist.” (This suggestion
usefully evades the problem that there is no evidence
whatsoever to support a military reading of “keep arms.”)
JUSTICE STEVENS believes that the unitary meaning of
“keep and bear Arms” is established by the Second
Amendment’s calling it a “right” (singular) rather than
“rights” (plural). See post, at 16. There is nothing to this.
State constitutions of the founding period routinely
grouped multiple (related) guarantees under a singular
“right,” and the First Amendment protects the “right
[singular] of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” See,
e.g., Pa. Declaration of Rights §§IX, XII, XVI, in 5 Thorpe
3083-3084; Ohio Const., Arts. VIII, §§11, 19 (1802), in id.,
at 2910-2911.14 And even if “keep and bear Arms” were a
unitary phrase, we find no evidence that it bore a military
meaning. Although the phrase was not at all common
(which would be unusual for a term of art), we have found
instances of its use with a clearly nonmilitary connotation.
In a 1780 debate in the House of Lords, for example, Lord
Richmond described an order to disarm private citizens
(not militia members) as “a violation of the constitutional
right of Protestant subjects to keep and bear arms for
their own defense.” 49 The London Magazine or Gentle
man’s Monthly Intelligencer 467 (1780). In response,
another member of Parliament referred to “the right of
bearing arms for personal defence,” making clear that no
special military meaning for “keep and bear arms” was
intended in the discussion. Id., at 467-468.15
Military arms of that day were muskets, today their ar15's.
If you are unarmed you live at the mercy of those who are not....Need proof, give up your right and ability to defend yourself......Then claim you are free....Tyrants and criminals throughout history will insist otherwise....Its for your own safety, Of course.
"Shall not be infringed".
@7:15 If it's a civic duty, it's not a right. It makes no logical sense that a person has a "right" to perform a civic duty. At no time has the individual had a duty under the law to perform military service in this country. If that were so, the draft would be redundant. Government does NOT have rights, government has power. People do not have power, they have rights. A right, by the way, is a freedom that the government is prohibited from violating. People have a "right" to supply a firearm and ammunition when called up for military duty? I want some of what you're smoking. In the immortal words of Joe Biden, "Come on, man!". (By the way, the Founding Father's answer makes perfect sense to those of us with the ability to reason without prejudice.)
Does a gay man have a right to join the US Army? Does a black man have a right to be a volunteer firefighter? Does a Catholic have the right to help make sandbags in a flood disaster?
The "right to keep and bear arms" meant that every white male citizen had the right to participate in the local militia. To do so, he needed to own a firearm, since the government did not provide weapons. So every white male citizen was eligible to be a militiaman, as long as he could provide himself with a firearm.
Black men, women, Indigenous people, and various other categories did NOT have this right at the time the 2nd Amendment was adopted. Over the years, as those groups gained more rights, they too were eligible to join a militia (in practice, the National Guard).
@@leezaslofsky4438 The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! I'm James Madison, and I approve this message.
the second amendment easily defined, THE RIGHT TO PROTECT YOURSELF, FAMILY AND YOUR PERESONAL PROPERTY WITH DEADLY FORCE USING FIREARMS
@@civiljeff There is no such right under the law. The response to a threat or attack or an attack must be proportional to the nature of the threat or attack. We do not blow up entire buildings because one of its residents said he would kill us if we didn't stop making noise.
Society demands of its members that they keep the peace. That means that each member of society must do her or his part in that, using common sense and restraint so as not to disrupt social peace (in old times called The King's Peace).
The idea that any country governed by laws would release residents from their obligation to uphold civic peace and order, on the excuse that there is some inherent right to use lethal force in protection of one's life or property is FALSE and DESTRUCTIVE.
No society can long maintain peace and order if its members are using lethal force whenever they feel like it, on the excuse that they were "protecting themselves or their property" by doing so.
A society which tolerates such wild and unregulated use of lethal force is condemning itself to a kind of suicide, in which the very people who claim to uphold social peace are the ones who are hacking away at it with deadly weapons.
Such situations sometimes arise in places where government has collapsed and gangs or "warlords" compete for power using deadly force against each other or against people generally.
Those who, like the fascists and nazis of the 1930s, have the goal of ending constitutional government and legality consciously seek to create situations in which government is reduced to impotence by creating such disorder and violence that the people begin to long for a Leader, or a Boss, or a Dictator, or a Duce or a Caudillo or Fuehrer or a Conducator or a Khozyain (depending on the prevailing language and traditions) who will use unlimited brutal force to suppress the disorder that is ruining their lives.
And this seems to be the goal of the writer of the comment I am replying to: the brutal destruction of public peace and order so as to make possible the unbridled rule of those who are prepared to use firearms against their fellow residents, offering some limp excuse to justify their savagery.
I know many of those who take the position that shooting off firearms if you feel threatened is a "human right" see themselves as the pillars of peace and order in society, and blame others, for "causing the problem" they propose to "solve" by shooting off their firearms.
In fact it is the DESERTION by these people of their duty to uphold law and order that is the problem, not the ongoing "crime problem" which has never been solved in any country at any time except by the deliberate and radical upgrading of social justice and the resolute enforcement of laws against the abuse of lethal weapons.
The DESERTION of law and order by certain sections of the American middle class is born from panic over the threat to white supremacy caused by the demographic changes now occurring in America, i.e. the relative growth of the non white population.
The only way forward for the American Republic is to take vigorous action to prevent and, when necessary, to punish such behaviour, and a resolute response from members of the public against those who, for reasons of racist fear, desire for enrichment, or a love of violence, promote the ideology of "America as Free Fire Zone for White Gun Owners".
If the American Republic cannot muster the energy and resolve to overcome the promoters and enactors of "Free Fire Zone America", it will surely die, and be replaced by a dictatorship of the gun owners and their stooges in public office, and their hidden supporters in the police and the armed forces.
If that happens, then America will have renounced its bold experiment in freedom and democracy, and subsided into a more northerly version of what used to be called "banana republics" because they were fully owned by the banana companies and held down by the bullies and criminals those companies paid to do their dirty work.
In contrast there will be the nations of East Asia: united, well organized, economically advanced, and, in some cases, pretty free and democratic. For the fact is that even now, Japan and South Korea are as or more democratic than the US; and in many ways are far ahead of the US economically and technologically. And China, with its gigantic economic and demographic weight, keeps moving ahead while the US quarrels over its constant obsession: race.
dan jones
1 second ago
WE TODAY IN AMERICA HAVE A TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT RIGHT NOW. AS THE CENTRAL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND WITH MEDIA CONTROL OVER FAKE NEWS AND FALSE NARRITIVE NEWS HAS CREATED A SELECTIVE PEOSECUTING LAW ENFORCEMENT THAT IS NOW HAPPENING TO THE BLACK PEOPLE THROUGH RACIAL PROFILEING AND WHAT ROBERT MEULLER IS DOING TO PRESIDENT TRUMP WHEN THERE HAS NOT BEEN ONE NOT, ONE CRIME THAT INVOLVES PRESIDENT TRUMP . THE OTHERS THAT HAVE BEEN CHARGED AND THE FEW THAT HAVE BEEN CONVICTED MOST OF THEM WERE ALREADY UNDER FBI INVESTIGATION FOR SOME OVER 10 PLUS YEARS.. PRESIDENT TRUMP IS BEING SELECTED BY A TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT WITH THE FBI AS A GOVERNMENT MILITANT TRAINED GROUP. THIS CAN AND DOES HAPPEN TO MANY MANY NORMAL CITIZENS WHO EVEN HAVE NOT COMMITTED A CRIME BUT YET GET THIER LOIVES RUINED BY THE GOVERNMENT. THIS IS THE DEMOCRATS AND THE DEMOCRATES ARE NOT LIKE THE DEOMOCRATS OF YESTERYEAR. THEY ARE NOW A SOCIALIST ANTIFA VIOLENT GROUP THAT USES THE MEDIA TO LIE AND SPIN THE TRUTH IN THE NEWS. FOR EXAMPLE JUST LOOK UP UA-cam AND FAKE NEWS. CNN WILL POP UP ALL OVER. AND HERE IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE . NOW CHRIS CUOMO ONCE SAID ON T.V. THAT IT IS ILLEGAL FOR ANY CITIZEN TO OWN HILLARY CLINTONS WIKILEAKS EMALIS THAT TELL THE TRUTH AND EXPOSE HER LIES AND TELL THE REAL TRUTH ABPOUT HER. AND IF THE CITIZENS HAD A COPY OF THE WIKILEAKS EMAILS THEN IT IS ILLEGAL AND THEY THE CITIZENS ARE CRIMINALS. AND ONLY THE MEDIA LIKE HIMSELF CHRIS CUOMO AND THE MEDIA ARE THE ONLY LEGAL ONES WHO CAN LEGALLY POSSESS THE HILLARYS WIKILEAKS. NOW THAT IS A REAL LIE. AND WHEN THE MEDIA WHICH IS A CORPORATION LIE TO THE MASSESS AND CITIZENS WHO DO NOT KNOW THE TRUTH IS FRAUDULENT NEWS. THAT IS VERY INFLUENTIAL TO THE ELECTION PROCESS . SO FORGET RUSSIA THAT TOOK OUT ADDS IN FACE BOOK . BUT WE HAVE THE LIBERAL MEDIA THAT ON PURPOSELY LIE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO INFLUENCE TO LIKE OR DISLIKE A POTENTIAL CANDIATE. THAT I BELIEVE SHOULD BE ACTIONABLE BY TRUMP AND CONGRESS SHOULD PASS MANY LAWS THAT IF A REPORTER SPINS OR LIES OR DISTORTS THE TRUTH FOR THIER CORPORATIONS WHICH ARE NEWS MEDIAS SHOULD GO TO PRISON. PERIOD. NOW HOW THIS HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE GUN AND THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS IS BECAUSE OF PROBLEMS LIKE THIS. SO FELLOW CITIZENS YOU BETTER KEEP ALL YOUR GUNS ALL BIG AND SMALL.BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT HAS PUSHED IT ALREADY WITH RACIAL PROFILING AND WE ALL KNOW THAT OBAMA USEDA EXECUTIVE ORDER TO STOP ANY INVESTIOGATION INTO THE FAST AND FURIOUS DEAD IN ITS TRACKS. OUR GOD GIVEN RIGHTS ARE NON NEGOTIABLE. ALL LAWYERS DO IS COMPLICATE THE ISSUES BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO AND TRAINED TO DO. SO YOU CAN LISTEN TO A FAT CROOKED CAREER POLITICIAN TELL YOU THAT YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS OR YOU CAN SAY WHAT BEN FRANKLIN SAID. GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH.
There may be room for the arguement that every generation has a right to make their destiny. That is where leadership and education need to balance it. Let's not make change to quickly as has happened in New York State with Andrew Cuomo ' ramming the safe act down the throats of its citizens without debate and due process. Vote him out and repeal this unconstitutional law.
The problem with your "argument" is that one generation does not have the right to remove the foundation of Liberty from another. Since we are always half a generation away from tyranny who are we to make the decision for future generations what tools they may use to fight for their freedom?
sorry I will carry my gun when and were I want when I feel I need to. there should be no gun laws but maybe gun rules. because gun laws infringe and gun rules do not.
It doesn't matter why we have guns. just know that we always will
the second amendment easily defined, THE RIGHT TO PROTECT YOURSELF, FAMILY AND YOUR PERESONAL PROPERTY WITH DEADLY FORCE USING FIREARMS .....SUBSCRIBE
Had the farmers and people not had the right to bear arms we would still be part of the United Kingdom
they did not have military guns . they had their hunting guns. and they were not forced to join it was an honor and a love for their fellow man!!!!!!!!!!!!! and to secure our lives from tyranny. WE STILL NEED OUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS as our government dose not honor the CONSTITUTION AS IT IS WRITTEN!!!!!
Alan Gura DESTROYED Waldman in this debate. He made so many unassailable points.
On the one hand, Waldman says the second amendment protects people participating in militia service. Then Gura notes that Article I, Section 10 prohibits the states from having armies without congressional approval. If that's the case, it seems there's a clear incongruity here. You can't have a gun unless you're in the militia...and the gun-owning right is a collective one...but then the states (the collective) don't have the right to have a militia? Makes no sense...UNLESS the reading is one where INDIVIDUALS have the right, not the collective.
Waldman talks about how "assault weapons" aren't needed and should be regulated. Then Gura mentioned, correctly, that the term "assault weapon" is simply a term used to ban certain guns that look scary and are actually no more dangerous or powerful than guns that aren't covered.
It seems that Waldman believes background checks and bans and other schemes such as microstamping will solve gun violence...therefore, he feels it's okay to invalidate the second amendment for practicality's sake.
Did you read the recent Bruen decision by the Supreme Court?
@@jimklemens5018 I have not read it, but I am aware of it. Seems I was ahead of the curve. LOL.
The right to keep and bare arms ??for European immigrant citizens only, because,why was Native Americans disarmed during the colonial westward manifest destiny GENOCIDE movement and put on Resevations at gun point and it wasnt until 1924 We INDIGENOUS people became US citizens ???.(Indigenous History)
Debate the Native American disarment issue!
The leftists who would disarm the individual citizen constantly claims that our 2nd amendment only applies to the militia and by today's definition being the State's National Guard.....
One of the primary if not the prime purpose of the 2nd amendment is to prevent the federal government imposing tyranny on the individual states.....
However, the fact that the POTUS has the power to take command of the National Guard from the Governor of the state as the defacto "Commander an Chief" of the military.
Just as the Governor of a state cannot stop his state's national guard from being called up by POTUS in the event of war or other actions where our military is deployed, the national guard cannot be expected to stand against a federal incursion of the state in a lawful manner.....
Therefore the 2nd amendment is the individual right of the citizen and not just the right of the militia.....
An important observation by Waldman, was that 30,000 people are killed by cars now.
And at the time of the Founding zero people were killed by cars.
So, can't we say, that had the Founders known that technology would bring about something called a car, and that 30,000 people would be killed a year, they surely didn't mean to allow for cars in our Constitution? Right? And so cars are not Constitutional?
I mean if some reason that the Founders had no idea that modern arms would come to be, and so surely the 2A doesn't apply to them? Is not this identical to the above reasoning?
And in both cases, the reasoning is flawed.
Another thing Walden implies is we have not made guns "safer". Well, that couldn't be more false. In all levels of technology we've made them safer, to a tremendous degree:
Smokeless powder that is not explosive
Metallurgy that prevents them from blowing up.
Incredibly better trigger designs reducing negligent discharges.
The adding of "safety" switches, which was unimagined for centuries.
And I could go on.
To suggest that a modern firearm is not immensely safer than an arm at the Founding is ludicrous.
Black powder is EXTREMELY dangerous, for it is an explosive. Modern powder is not an explosive. Side note, another manipulative point Walden made was noting there was a law in Boston, suggesting this condones "regulation", that one had to keep gunpowder outside away from inhabited dwellings. Duh, it was an explosive. Though he failed to mention why?
I enjoyed the gentlemanly nature of the debate. But, quite frankly, Waldman was not convincing that he was not pushing an agenda. And I'm not suggesting that agenda doesn't have valid points. But when you manipulate facts and cherry pick history to push the agenda, then things go south for me, and I can't take you seriously any longer.
Gura never comes off to me as pushing an agenda.
People didn't serve in the militia because they got lazy and fearful.
57:34 Waldman praises Illinois legislature for its gun laws this in 2014 but now in 2017 and the GUN VIOLENCE IN ONE MOST GUN CONTROLLED STATE IS OUT OF CONTROL because as Expected CRIMINALS DONT OBEY GUN LAWS INNOCENT LAWFUL PEOPLE DO THUS BECOME VICTIMS
Mr. Waldman severely damaged his argument when he was talking about the Penn. State protection, because, had he been forthcoming, and complete, he wouldn't have said the world "people" was used, without noting that Penn immediately changed the wording to "Citizens" from "people", around time of ratification. If the intention of the change is not absolutely clear, then I don't know what is. Citizen is an individual.
Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. Art. 1, § 21 (enacted 1790, art. IX, § 21).
1776: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power.
Declaration of Rights, cl. XIII.
Michael Waldman - "Pennsylvania was the one state that did not have a militia."
-----------------------------------
Not true.
SECT. 7. The house of representatives of the freemen of this commonwealth shall consist of persons most noted for wisdom and virtue, to be chosen by the freemen of every city and county of this commonwealth respectively. And no person shall be elected unless he has resided in the city or county for which he shall be chosen two years immediately before the said election; nor shall any member, while he continues such, hold any other office, except in the militia.
Here is the militia provision
XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
And to prove that the militia provision doesn't address self defence
VIII. That *every member of society* hath a right *to be protected* in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property, and therefore is bound to contribute his proportion towards the expence of that protection (the militia), and yield his personal service (in the militia) when necessary, or an equivalent thereto:.. Nor can any man who is conscientiously scrupulous of *bearing arms*, be justly compelled thereto, if he will pay such equivalent,...
And there can be NO doubt that bearing arms meant military service.
Exactly. WE ARE THE MILITIA
Why is WalDman given double the time to speak? he talks of NRA supporting military grade guns being carried in TEXAS FALSE- the long rifles legally carried are semi auto rifles that LIBs FREAK OUT mentioned by GURA that are MERELY DESIGN TO LOOK LIKE MILITARY AGRADE RIFLE BUT ARE IN FACT LAWFUL SEMI AUTOMATICS!
The founding fathers knew technology would advance and that there would always be bad people, that's why you should have the same equipment as the military and always be armed.
You think the average citizen should their own tanks, fighter jets, and ICBMs?!?
Gura - "The fear, at the time.. was that some future tyrannical government would.. weaken the militia system by targeting the possession of arms."
-------------------------------------
Not true.
There's no mention of gun ownership in the ratification debates, the Federalist Papers or in the First Congress debates. The ONLY reason put forward for an amendment (at several conventions) was that Congress might fail to maintain the militia forces and prevent the states from keeping them maintained by claiming that the right was given up in Article 1, Section 8.
Bob Sykes - to keep and bear arms means just that. You're clueless. Congress has the power to end conscription any time it wants. Ergo, Congress can negate your Second Amendment rights and protections any time it wants. The Founders knew how to set qualifications with regards to militia service, and they did just that in the Fifth Amendment "...or in the Militia, when in actual service in a time of War or public danger;".
No, the actual State Militia Proposals brought forth by the Virginia delegation and Roger Sherman were rejected an defeated. This proposal dealt with am enumerated personal, individual right... a right of the people. Just like the First and Fourth Amendments.
radiokorps said: "to keep and bear arms means just that. You're clueless."
---------------------------------------
I'm not clueless, but you're brainwashed, as are most Americans. How come it's mostly Americans who seem completely oblivious to the universally known military expression and phrase "bear arms?" If a man is said to have "borne arms," what has he done?
And "keep" arms does NOT mean personally "own" arms, it's a collective right to keep arms IN READINESS. Have a look at these very early militia laws and statutes:
Delaware's militia act required each militiaman to "keep the same [arms] by him at all times, ready and fit for service"
The word "keep" doesn't mean "own," it means "keep in readiness" and "keep in good working order."
Virginia militia law required each militiaman to "keep at his place of abode one pound of powder and four pounds of shot," and to "keep his horse, arms, and ammunition."
Again, the word "keep" doesn't mean "own," it means "keep in readiness" and "keep fit for service."
Virginia also required their militiamen to "constantly keep the aforesaid arms, accoutrements, and ammunition ready."
This means "keep ready for militia service" When you also take on board the fact that to "bear arms" meant to render "military service," then "keep and bear arms" means " *keep arms ready for militia service* " not "own" and "carry" "guns."
Bob Sykes - Americans did actually own their own militia arms. Every person had to personally supply their own firearm. If you didn't have a firearm, you had to got out and buy one for yourself.
+radiokorps Going down the parsing of history is not necessary. Proponents of some collectivist view of the 2nd amendment need to show it even makes any sense at all. 1) How does this theory give the 2nd amendment any teeth at all and secure and protect anything? 2) Why, when it happens nowhere else in the Bill Of Rights, would our founders grant rights to (in essence) the government? 3) Why is it appropriate to apply their definition of "the people" to the 2nd Amendment and not the 1st? Or the 4th? There view makes no logical sense. Their burden is to first have their view make logical sense. Then only then would it be necessary to debate them further.
radiokorps said: "Americans did actually own their own militia arms."
-----------------------------------------
Actually, sometimes militiamen were required by law to PROVIDE the specified MILITIA arms for the purpose of the collective defense. If they didn't provide the specified arms, or "keep" them fit for service, they could have been fined. This shows that those arms were seen as MILITIA arms which the public had a claim to.