Town Hall: The Second Amendment and the Individual’s Right to Own and Carry a Gun
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 лис 2015
- Participants debate whether the Supreme Court got it right when it ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own a handgun. Professor Michael O'Shea of the Oklahoma City University School of Law argues in favor of the resolution. Professor Carl T. Bogus of the Roger Williams University School of Law argues against the resolution. Jeffrey Rosen, President and CEO of the National Constitution Center, will moderates. Event held at the Chicago Cultural Center on November 19, 2015.
“I’m not an expert on reconstruction because it contradicts my argument but I have facts about other eras of American history that give me a 1% chance to argue”
The period where people were limiting rights out of fear black people would use them isn't a good place to draw from for restrictions on constitutionally protected rights.
Bogus ..enough said he prattles on ignoring "bear" and "shall not be infringed". Intellectually dishonest.
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 can't believe that no one talked about Federalist 28 where Hamilton argued:
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance."
It's an individual right and there's no need for debate
no the bill of rights was to protect the governments right to keep and bear arms. Then they say the right of the people, they mean the right of the government. The founding fathers were concerned that the weak would trample on the rights of the powerful. This is reflected in the federalist papers. They designed it so that if the government became tyrannical the people would be able to just ask the government for their guns back to fight them. They knew that the default state of man is to treat eachother with fairness and equality, and if we didnt ensure there was a large disparity in force.
For 217 years in year 2008 no Supreme Court opined that the 2nd Amendment held an individual right not in connection with service in militia. Suddenly in a 5 to 4 decision spilt along ideological lines a 21st Century Supreme Court (SCOTUS) discovered such a right. Then two years later SCOTUS held that right against the states through the 14th Amendment for the first time. There is no indication that the Framers intended the Bill of Rights to apply to the states. Where in Madison’s notes to the constitutional convention did you find a discussion about an individual right to bear arms not in connection with service in the militia?
@@mrschnider6521 The "people" means the people. The Constitution uses "the state" for the states and "congress" otherwise.
@@mrschnider6521 someone didn't graduate high-school
@@mrschnider6521 You’re full of 💩!
The second amendment was put into the constitution because if it hadn't been for armed law abiding citizens our country would never have won its independence! The second amendment makes all the other amendments possible!
@Corno di Bassetto I'm a little confused by your organization. It kind of seems that you have put together excerpts from various conversations into a 'ctrl-v' format. Regardless of certain logical fallacies in the premise you propose, (eg, x-happend, therefore y happened soley because of x, and I say there is no debate on the matter...)You do understand that it was the militia that put-down Shay's rebellion, and that the second amendment protects the militias from federal government?-- This is in compliance with all the original first ten amendments that limit power vs 'grant' limited rights.
Yes, the state has absolute monopoly on that power. And a single state has more monopoly on the power than the United States, thanks to the ‘amendments.’ Notice, however, the 2A limits ‘states,’ differently than the other amendments that state ‘congress.’ Also, crediting Madison as the ‘author’ is far more myopic than I think you really are. Tell me, did Madison submit his own amendments or did he compose a summary of hundreds of amendments submitted by another governing body?
Also, pompous? That’s laughable considering your other posts.
Obviously you did not listen to the debate. None other than General George Washington found the militias to be not well trained, thus ineffective during the war. Further Southern colonies were reluctant to send their militias to participate because they feared revolt by the enslaved if they left the state.
Apparently in your absolutist zeal about the 2nd Amendment you believe it was 2nd only because it was exceeded in importance by the First Amendment. Unfortunately for you the 2nd Amendment was initially the 4th Amendment of twelve drafted by Madison. However since three through four were ratified by the states, these ten became known as the Bill of Rights. They were closely modeled after George Mason’s Virginia Declaration of Rights.
Again why do you believe that an armed unorganized mob would have the legal right to destroy what 39 to 55 Elite White male Freeholders had struggled to create and get ratified by other White Male Freeholders?
@@avg8orThis is a reminder that 3 years ago you made this poor take. No body expects a government to simply roll over because a group starts a rebellion and that isn't inconsistent with a right to revolution view point. You certainly sound pompous arguing that the man who dipped pen in ink to drag across a page didn't write the Bill of Rights, simply because he had access to the view points of others. A dark mirror of your copy paste argument.
I’m sorry, but I’m missing the post that I commented to for context. Not sure what you are really referring to or why the need for ad hominem. Good day.
*Rights are not for trends, votes or the job of a corrupt legislature ! They cannot be argued away, justifiably removed or limited morally at any time. Unalienable means the science is settled ! Learn it, live it, love it !*
If they had not put the right to keep and bear arms in there, there is no way we would ever have the ability for voters to get it in there or a mechanism to strike down these laws and probably be living under nazi germany today.
'Rights' have nothing to do with science (except for the 'social sciences'). 'Rights' aren't really rights, they are temporary privileges... and CAN be, and have been taken away before and it will happen again in the future.
@@rsr789 So the Right not to be randomly killed by another is a temp privilege? I am referring to big R Rights, not little r rights. Rights are also known as Human Rights. The Right not to be treated differently just because of something you have no control over, such as race or sex, is a big R Human Right. The right to get the hotdog you just bought off of a vendor is perhaps what you refer to. Has nothing to do with what I claimed. The Bill of Rights is a decent example of big R rights that the left want to get rid of. Eliminating Human Rights is NOT something good, it is truly that of evil. As a Republican [the party that has never created even one racist law] I am for Human Rights for all.
Prof Bogus's contention that the interpretation of the Second Amendment is best left to the legislative branch obviates the precise purpose of the Amendments to the Constitution--as well as the Constitution itself--which is to immunize them from the legislature.
Facts> 1. From 1994-2009, the number of privately owned guns in the USA went from around 190 million to around 310 million. According to pew research, "Between 1993 and 2000, the gun homicide rate dropped by nearly half, from 7.0 homicides to 3.8 homicides per 100,000 people. Since then, the gun homicide rate has remained relatively flat."
2. Most mass shootings are committed by people using handguns. Further, most happen in gun free zones.
3. Rifles kill fewer people than knives. Further, when you add together people killed by hands, feet, and blunt objects, that number is also higher than the people who are killed by rifles.
4. Around 2/3 of the gun deaths are suicides.
5. We have a non-white crime problem. Not a gun problem. For example, if new york city was all white the shooting rate would drop by over 90%. (Color of crime) 6. So, being that police are responsive in nature. How would a woman be able to defend herself against 3 home intruders.? Similar question in regards to the elderly. 7. If you trust the government with having all of the guns you are a simpleton
8. "Because "assault weapons," as defined by state and federal law, are semiautomatic only and can fire in neither fully automatic mode nor three-shot-burst mode, they are not assault rifles."
9. There is no gun show loophole
10. You have to get a permit if you want to carry a concealed gun. “In addition, Mother Jones excludes “shootings stemming from more conventional crimes such as armed robbery or gang violence,” further skewing their statistics against whites. In spite of these biases, Mother Jones’ own statistics show that since 1982, non-whites are about 60 percent more likely per capita to be mass shooters than those Mother Jones considers white.” Amren
First, most of the gun crime is committed by non-whites who use illegally obtained handguns.
Legal> 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.
i. Well-regulated- as used in the Second
Amendment, implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.
ii. Militia- all able bodied citizens over the age of 17. Every ‘free able-bodied white male citizen‘ shall be enrolled in the militia. They also had minutemen. In places like Virginia, people would get fined if they showed up without their gun and ammo.
iii. Being necessary to the security of a free state- as used in the Second Amendment, meant “security of a free polity,” not security of each of the several States
iv. The right of the people- operative part of the sentence.
v. Keep arms- to have weapons. No, it didnt apply to just muskets. vi. Bear arms- means 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. vii. Shall not be infringed- So, in the law the have may, shall, may not, and shall not. Obviously shall not is the strongest verbiage.
Supreme Court>
1. The Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms;
2. Statutes banning handgun possession in the home violated Second Amendment; and
3. Statute containing prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for purpose of immediate self-defense violated Second Amendment.
First, the militia, the able bodied citizens, were suppose to, with guns, defend the country and the laws of the country. Anyway, the second amendment protects the right , for the purpose of immediate self defense, to lawfully acquire guns typically possessed by law abiding citizens at the time of inquiry. In Heller, the court held that handguns (semi-auto) in common use at the time of inquiry shall not be banned. Further, being that guns like the ar-15 have been in common use for decades, I would argue that this also would apply to semi-automatic rifles like the ar-15. In Heller, the court also did not differentiate between regulations governing ammunition and those governing guns themselves. I would argue that this was because the right to possess guns for immediate self-defense and to protect yourself against the government implies a corresponding right to obtain the bullets necessary to use the gun. We can also imply that the right to keep and bear arms for immediate self-defense also encompasses the right for citizens to acquire ammunition for guns in common use as that is what is needed for the citizens to “acquire and maintain proficiency in their (guns) use.” (Heller)
Osgood 1800's- possession of arms also implies possession of ammunition.
Andrews 1871- Right to keep arms, necessarily involves the right to purchase and provide ammo suitable for such arms.
Why you all are idiots: "Assault Weapons"- Semi-automatic
"Assault Rifles"- Three-round burst and/or Automatic
1994 assault weapons ban: Krauthammer “This ban is purely symbolic… the real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for ultimate confiscation.”
2005 San Francisco Proposition H: SF wanted to ban and confiscate all handguns and forbid the sale of any kind of firearm and all firearm ammo. Trivia question, so if a .25 caliber hollow point can not expand to .45 caliber, how is the .25 more destructive.?
Anyway. Trivia question. When you have a bump stock do you still have to pull the trigger more than one time.? Another trivia question, can people make a bump stock equivalent themselves.? 3-d printing.? Why do some South American countries have an insanely high homicide rate despite their very strict gun laws.? In Australia did the armed robbery rate go up or down after the 96 gun buy back.? Again, in the USA 31 percent of the population is Hispanic and black. Over 80 percent of the gang members in the USA are either black or hispanic (national gang center) and if New York City was all white the shootings would drop by over 90 percent. (Color of crime) So, you trying to compare the USA to other nations like Australia is disingenuous to put it mildly.
Per Capita, what are the safest states in the union when it comes to gun violence and what do those places concealed carry laws look like.
Do guns save lives.? How many more or less than they take every year.? How long on average does it take to reload.? Mass shootings committed by nra members.? Lastly, over or under 15% percent of gun crime is committed with legal guns.?
Whoever thought of the concept of "Gun Free Zones is a BRAIN DEAD MORON!!!!!
This debate is stupid in my opinion. The Supreme Court DOES NOT MAKE LAWS AND IT MUST UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION....PERIOD !!! Any federal judges who do not adhere to Constitution are TREASONOUS and CORRUPT !!!
The premise is absurd. How can you read the second amendment and not conclude it protects your right to a gun? Unless you think bear arms means the arms of a bear
"Its like the supreme court just makes this stuff up" 1:02:50 The only people who are making crap up is you. Clearly this constitutional scholar can read. I hope he realizes that you immediately loose all credibility when you refuse to admit what is clearly a fact. In a debate you typically want to establish credibility, not immediately surrender it.
Apparently you missed the premise and the question. Where does the amendment say or imply that you have an individual right to bear arms not in connection with nor in conjunction with service in the militia. Who are the People the amendment refers to? It’s the same “The People” referenced in the Preamble to the Constitution. Consequently The People are The militia. They were White Male Freeholders who ratified the Constitution. They were in fact a minority of the citizens who lived in the colonies at the time the Constitution was written and ratified. Judges are not consummate historians, almost none have delved deeply into history.
None of the Framers specified how future generations should interpret what they wrote. Methodologies such as Originalism, Textualism, Living Constitution or any combination are all interpretive methodologies form the 20th Century. Rummaging around in the bowels of history to discover isolated quotes without context is not history. The only debater who told a contiguous story was the debater from the National Constitution Center. He appeared to be a student of history.
The debater from the Federalist Society was ideological in his presentation, which is not surprising because it’s members subscribe to the same interpretive methodologies that are known as conservative methodologies. No Justice owns up to being an activist Judge. They all claim to just call ball and strikes, but to us laymen, numerous historians and other constitutional scholars that’s a fiction.
Btw the Southern states wanted militia as protection against enslaved revolts. This is why they were were wary of Congress controlling the militia. If Congress ordered them out of a state who would protect them from the enslaved.
We believe that any serious student of history understands that the Constitution was written and ratified to endure. It was written by an elite group of White male freeholders, some of whom owned other human beings, as property not people. These elite White males feared unorganized people with guns. Some even feared militias, since some of those who participated in Shay’s Rebellion in MA, were in the militia that’s why the state had the authority to appoint the officers of the militia. It was also why the Article I could order the militia to put down an insurrection anywhere.
Why would those elite White males Freeholders construct such a system that could legally taken down by an unorganized armed group of men who concluded that a government entity was tyrannical? Such a group is known by another name, it’s a mob pure and simple.
@@chkmate67 Is there any other amendment where "the people" means anything but "the people"? Speech? Assembly? Religion? This is so obviously an individual right that it was taken for granted as such at the time of the Bill of Rights and arguments otherwise are not based on the plain text or history.
@Jim H
This is why the amendment is more important than ever. Because mongs like you will break their pea brains in half to try and make weak arguments that "the people" referred to in the Second Amendment are a completely different group of "the people" referenced in every single other amendment. They should have written it so a mentally arrested five year old, like you, could understand it.
Read the second amendment the right to bear arm, end of debate. It was laid down by our forefather. So we dnt go tru what they went tru, protect your self from and un constitution government. They want to take our right away from us. Our birth right. Dangerous freedow over peaceful slavery..... the words of Thomas Jefferson
If you think disarming law abiding citizens will make our country safe, take a look at what happened to Australia when they disarmed their citizens. Honest people turned in their firearms, The criminals didn't. the crime rate soared to making victims of all the law abiding citizens, especially the elderly. Criminals will always be able to find a way to find weapons to use against the unarmed.
He literally conceded that the right belonged to ‘the people.’
Rather than debating that the ownership in English Declaration was to individuals, he merely emphasized that Parliament could regulate it.
I do not understand how ANYONE could walk away from this feeling persuaded that individuals do not have a right to keep and bear arms.
I get the theory against absolutism, but that was not the debate. Individual’s right was.
@Corno di Bassetto You seem like you think you are arguing with me, yet have responded to nothing that I actually posted. Maybe you meant to respond to someone else? If you are just looking for an argument with me, I can tell you that your arguments are not 100% correct. For example, Constitutional rights is not a 'thing.' Furthermore, they CAN be regulated by laws. And in our current cuck system of SCOTUS obedience, they in fact are regulated by laws and enforced by SCOTUS 'rulings.' The rights referred to in the Constitution are not grants or gifts. They are 'limits' on the government. And, clearly, the Constitution was not enough of a limit on the federal government to work. As far as regulating the first amendment by prior restraint, you are talking about SCOTUS rulings. SCOTUS does not have the 'Constitutional' power to make 'law.' That power is called 'legislating.' Only one branch was provided that power in the Constitution.
Lol. You replied to my post, buddy. I just don’t think you are reading. I am a constructionist. Maybe try listening instead of clamoring away at the keyboard.
No infringement means just that..
The guy on the left just devolves into saying “the militia” has the right to have arms, but it says “the right of the people” and there’s historical precedent there. The bill of rights is clearly directed towards protecting individual rights. Saying “the militia has rights to weapons” is the most redundant, ignorant statement. Of course the militia needs weapons. It is essentially a branch of the military. You would never need to express that as a right. No one on earth needs to explain that militaries need weapons.
protecting the individual rights of the people.
If you are one of the people, then you have the 4 rights in the Bill of Rights and reserve all others.
We left England behind years ago..they don't have say..
Prof. Bogus is *not* one of the great storytellers of out time.
Professor “bogus”
What an incredibly fitting name
Anyone actively attempting to curtail or in fact eliminate your freedoms is not acting in good faith and does not deserve the privilege of your time for a debate. They only deserve contempt.
1:02:45 "the coherent answer is you have the right to an armed militia" What the hell is a right to an armed militia? and does this man know how to read? they say the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
I love how extrodiarly weak this guys arguments are its almost like hes sat in an echo chamber his entire life and now for the first time is actually being hit with questions and actually is forced to think about the issue and not just reapeat things other ignorant people have said.
Everytime they bring this crap up they push more laws that dont make sense. People then realize their rights are under attack and move the strengthen these rights. The assult weapons ban ended and now most americans have one in their closet. they pass more gay laws in califonia now there are gun sanctuary states and shall issue states everywhere and it is succeeding.
Finanlly we are at a point where the public understands drug laws and drug war is counter productive and very harmful to the country. I dont want to have to wait as long for the end of gun control as we did for drugs. both are made to give the government loads of power that they immediately abuse. Its absolutely shameful that marijuna is still a federal crime, its like they wont let go of even a shred of power. what is a compromise when you get absolutely nothing for giving up so much. I think its gun control loosers who wont compromise.
@KD Debate is an important part of any democracy. This is especially true when the idea being evaluated is so evenly split across the country as political platforms and the Supreme Court split on the issue both demonstrate.
@@tylerthorstrom4100 America is not a democracy and even if it was, my rights trump the decision made by 2 wolves and 1 sheep over what's for dinner. Want to come and personally curtail my right to self defense? Stack Up and try. Otherwise F-off.
@@mrschnider6521 What do you mean "as we did for drugs"? We are still waiting for the end of the War on Drugs. The DEA is still very much alive and well, killing innocent people in foreign countries and forging evidence to secure convictions in the US, as they always have been. People are still being deprived of their right to keep and bear arms for possession of substances, which include many other naturally occurring substances besides cannabis, the government does not like.
Let's debate the right to live now. Why not ? Rights are for expanding, enforcing and abiding by. They are not for debating the reduction or limitation ever. It is treason against God to even think about altering His gift to humanity.
We are a free country..and will remain that way..
I have a few questions for Professor Bogus. The framers put the arming of the Militia into the Constitution. we can agree on that. The question then is, if the Militia was to be armed by the Government, what was the purpose of the Second Amendment? There would be no need for it, it had already been addressed. The only reasonable conclusion is to guarantee the right to ALL the people individually. Also note the language of the Second Amendment, " the right of the people to keep and bear arms". "The right", denotes a pre-existing right, they did not create the right, they re-affirmed the right. A militia cannot have a pre-existing right, a militia may not exist at all, a non entity cannot have rights, only a living person can have a pre-existing right. Also, if you believe the framers intended this pre-existing right to be delegated to only those persons in the militia, as you stated, then why didn't they say so? Why didn't they say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms"? The framers chose and debated virtually every word. If that were their intention, why didn't they say so? Then answer this, what was the purpose and intent of the Bill of Rights? The purpose was to name certain inherent rights of the people, that could not be taken away by Government. If that is the case, why would the 2nd Amendment only give rights a Governmental entity, the Militia? A right, as you have stated, they already have? Your analysis is totally inconsistent with the known and accepted reasons and purpose for the Bill of Rights. Your statements regarding the Supreme Court smack of Uber-democracy. Something the founders abhorred. A 5/4 decision should not be accepted and left up to the legislature or popular vote? That begs the question, why have a Constitution at all then? Take your premise to the final conclusion. There is no part of the Constitution that is not debatable, no part that there is not disagreement on, that being the case, forget the Supreme Court, just let the legislature decide all matters, that is insane! The express purpose of the Constitution is to limit Government, to limit excess legislation, that was the purpose of a Republic, that is why they did not form a Democracy. Your premise does not only have no logical basis, it undermines the entire Constitution as a whole.
@Corno di BassettoWe can agree on the effects and questionability of the Supreme Court. But I cannot agree on your evaluation of the Second Amendment. The express purpose of the Bill of Rights in it's entirety is to protect the people's rights against government over-reach or encroachment. If the express purpose is to protect the "people's' rights, that by definition means all the people. NOT just the people in the militia. IF as proposed, the militia is now a governmental supplied and run organization, then the people are protected against it also, as it is a part of the Government, whether Federal or State. You cannot have it both ways.
DEMOCRATES say we're Deplorables and they can't trust us to speak up or vote ..
Mr. Bogus. Well I guess his name says it all. Not taking into consideration "shall not be infringed", fumbling over his words, long intellectually dishonest statements, long pauses, and finally injecting race into the equation. Horrible. Mr. Bogus is just that. Bogus.
How the hell did Bogus win this debate with umms and uh's and terrible oratory skills? I call bs.
Although your debaters may be knowledgeable and appear to be going refined arguments historically, I would state that both have missed the whole point of why the second amendment is written. The bill of rights were not written so that the government would know how to legislate these rights. It was to say these are the rights of the people and they shall not be abridged. I don't see the word except for this or that. Shall not be abridged is authoritative language and leaves no room for interpretation. When we look at the declaration of independence it proclaimed that we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights that among these are life liberty and pursuit of happiness. That security is right governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it and to institute new government laying its foundation on such principles organizing its powers in such form as to them seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness. The people's of the states already had their own bill of rights that told their representatives we the people retain these rights, so hands off and to ratify the federal constitution these rights are also hands off. These rights are above the laws of men. The constitution was written with a separation of powers. Legislative, Executive and Judicial to bring Ballance to governance. And the people retained the final say on whether a law was just in each case. There has been only one jury trial in the history of the supreme Court and was held by John Jay supreme Court Justice who when giving the jury instructions for their deliberation he acknowledged to them but they had the right to judge the facts of the case and also to judge the law itself even though he would prefer that they left the judging of the law to the justices yet they still retain that right and could nullify the law in that case as it pertained individually. They did not judge where the law was constitutional they judged whether it should be used in this particular instant and that decision shall not be overturned under any circumstance this was the final balance the people retained over the government.
See due process in the legal system gave the final say to the people 12 jurors if you look at the decision in a 1794 case zylstra versus corporation of Charleston South Carolina Justice Waters in his decision gave us the perfect definition of what due process requires and that is the birthright in time and memorial of the people to a jury trial. He also warned that when you put the legislative executive and judicial power in one single institution than tyranny will usually be the result and therefore it is unconstitutional to deprive a person of life liberty and pursuit of happiness without a jury to weigh the facts and it's a law should be followed. That is why we have the 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th amendments the 7th also requiring a jury in civil cases and the 8th to guarantee through the process that our liberties and property are protected. Going back to the second amendment the people have the right to bear arms and they shall not be infringed is the last resort as shown in the declaration of Independence that they can and have a duty to when tyranny prevails overthrow the tyranny and re-establish what is right and just for them and in order to protect that fundamental right the government was told hands off we have a right to own and protect ourselves not only against perpetrators but against a tyrant government and this right shall not be infringed.
It astounds me how educated man and let their egos get so involved that they miss the whole point while trying to explain and defend why something that says one thing really means this when the language does not leave a room for interpretation. As the internet grows and this knowledge becomes more accessible and people start realizing how their rights have been eroded and then given false truths and as the government continues to try to keep their power and as the Injustice is becoming greater and greater between the rich and the poor and separation of government and the people continue to be out of reach I fear that we will come through a point when it's time to throw off the government we have and to institute a new government. If this constitution will be obeyed by the people we put in government to follow then a whole lot of Injustice would not be happening and Liberty would prevail we have to get back on that road. As a veteran I took and owe to depend the Constitution as the supreme law of the land and whenever a law is in conflict with the Constitution it is no law and any law trying to abridge our rights to a jury and our rights to bare arms, well they are no law at all from their inception. They cannot be enforced they cannot be given any weight within our country and government.
For your consideration. Anyone want to debate me on this, because I also have an ego, but also have a reverence to GODS truth.
Mfw I wasted 1:14 on listening to a political activist with the last name Bogus. Really great to hear more history from O’Shea, glad I know of him know. I wish there were more liberal activists that could argue the historical point and not haphazardly skip from our founding to now. Seems most debates are from hot topic book release liberals and a calm collected liberty minded lawyer.
Up to the Americans ,no infringement
Up to the 1960s legal scholars considered the right to arms a collective right not an individual right?
A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a
superficial appearance of being right.
Thomas Paine
“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, of Virginia:
No debates Plan English shall not be infringed.
Wars were fought to keep England and other countries from destroying our constitution ..
I love my country but rather treat my Government like my pet lion. He's furry, warm and, playful. We do fun things together, but I still don't turn my back on him. That is the nature of the beast.
1:19:53 yup it definitely clearly tells us what it’s about, and yet he still can’t see it. His problem is ideological, he doesn’t like guns, so he reads the literature looking for what agrees with his pre conceived opinion
It's as simple as this. You asked yourself as a free person that you're supposed to be in this country do you have a right to have a firearm? Of course you do.
There is no gun violence epidemic in this country. Its the biggest lie ever told. IF you break down their own statistics, mag capacity and weapon type isnt even a factor in 1% of the deaths. also you never hear them state the total number of deaths when they show the total number of gun deaths. regardless of that, making people beat eachotehr to death with clubs and other crud weapons doesnt solve anything.
Also, most felons are not school shooters or mass murders. Those poeple typically are in jail, most felons are poeple convicted of small property crimes and drug crimes. often times they are minorities of people who are opressed by the overall majority and more likely to be victims of volence. i hate when they use them as a scape goat as if it was a felon with a gun that convinced them to take their anti gunner stace on guns. there is no reason why a felon shouldnt be able to vote or use a firearm or be deprived of any other right. If that were the case the government could pass a law that made everyone a felon and then vote themselves into office and rule the country. they would have no politcal means of taking back power and no means of force.
When you lie to people constantly you cant be mad when no one believes you any more.
If it was as simple as that why did it take 217 years, year 2008, and a Supreme Court divided along ideological lines to find that individual right, plus two additional years 2010 to hold the 2nd Amendment to the states. Scalia in his claim that the 2nd Amendment actually held an individual right of self defense not in connection with service in the militia created all sorts of illogical contradictions. He went on to right that it was not an absolute right. Consequently it ok for felons to be denied the right to own a firearm. Well how does square with his principle of self-defense inherent in the amendment. You mean a felon looses his right to self defense with a gun? He has the right, but has to use other methods? Why? Everyone has the right in a school zone to defend themselves but not with a gun? Why not? How does the amendment create a right to own a gun for self defense, then turn around and legally nullify that right? The contradictions go on and on in Scalia’s written opinion.
Carl is real bogus. What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" don't you understand. Actually, I'm sure you understand it, but your Ideology prevents you from admitting it.
England and UK or UN don't have say interfearance of other countries is treason and a threat to America.
Stay awake....stay awake...uh...let me ...uhh....tell....you the most...uhh...dynamic story about...the...uh...constitution.....uh...
(Wear them down with uhhhhhh)
This dude spent more time trying to sell shit than discussing 2A.
Americans true Americans don't question our constitution nore do we add or take off items to push their agenda.
Ah yes, the 'No True Scotsman' logical fallacy. BTW, per your post, you are stating that 'true Americans' are wilfully ignorant.
1:17:00 book mark
The Second Amendment is not about hunting. It is about self defense as that is the first right of natural law. And the founding fathers spoke of natural law and the rights man has as a result.
If the Second Amendment only applied to those in a militia, why didn't the US government and state governments disarm those people when they were not part of a militia, or were to young or to old to be a member. Why didn't they take the guns of those people? Answer that question.
I wonder if the venue or producer provided armed security? After all its was held in Chi-Iraq.
We the people are the democrates and Congress scalerts who came from other countries educated in our schools ,the rest of us are Deplorables..but yet can't fix their country easy fix take ours
Like it or not the Supreme Court gets to say what the law is. You don’t and neither do I. So watch this Supreme Court do exactly what you say they cannot do, which is take away a right that has existed for 50 years.
The Supreme Court didn't give me the right God did, so the Supreme Court can't take it away. Let them try
Also, the English and Linguistic scholars that were asked to submit a "linguistics brief" proclaim your assertion that the Second Amendment only applies to the state militias is incorrect. The Founding Fathers were masters of the English language and they knew exactly what they were saying and intended. According to the Rules of English, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state", is a prefatory or justification clause. And it in no way alters, nor effects the operative clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed", in anyway whatsoever. While you might disagree as this argument soundly counters yours, it's a fact of English.
Its a God given right to protect our homes and love ones and a caveman was even allowed a spear..
Big words and it's called treason and terraney..
Heard him silence the phones because real Americans can't be heard.
Leave our constitution and our bill of right alone ....No infringement can't buy back what you didn't sale..
I did not get my rights from government. My rights came from my creator. The Government cannot take anything away from me that I never got from the government in the first place. The only thing government does is behave like an arrogant bully and trample on the sacred rights that my creator gave me !!
They can put signs on door
Congress speakers for itself not for Americans ..they are treasonouse and pushing for take over of America..
Bull ,that is unconstitutional no infringement ..
It take a police department 20 min to get to a scene what happens to a family in a home invasion by then will be up to your attack on Americans right to protect themselves .
Congrass and democrates letting gangs and child molesters and drugs and M13 ..in we call that terraney and treason by not closing borders or fixing immagration laws which democrates have said they wouldn't ..that not upholding constitution or their oaths..
"TYRANNY" is the correct spelling.
Nore do we change it without the vote of the people and approvel of the people.
That the schoolers and democrates and Congress idas today ,with the agenda 21 and putting chips in hands and attacking President Trump on false clames ,clames that the democrates are doing themselves and Congress and media backing ..without Americans approving or being asked to vote..
My property is mine ..we are not a parliament ..go away not in America they don't..treason..
Professor Bogus is awful. He takes 5 minutes to say something that can be said in 1 minute.
We stand by President Trump and our constitution and our bill of rights ..so pull it out of the file cabinet.
Not true Americans will deside..
Let the business have choice ..like with smoking even we respect that ..
We are not a parliament this is America not England UN or UK or China..
Even my children can read and understand the second amendment. This is absolutely ridiculous.
I"m not swayed. Rights pre-exist government. Citizens have the right to defend themselves from ANY threat. The only thing government should be able to regulate is HOW a citizen USES their arms. Keeping and carrying shall not be infringed. Use for defensive purposes shall not be infringed. Only use for offensive purposes should become the domain of regulation.
People saw their own arms off as a way of surviving, if it came to their life they would want a gun. I have no idea why people want to forfiet this important right for themselves and all future generations and get nothing in return. Democrats loose so much credibility on this topic, it they want to sway independants to vote conservative this is a great debate to bring up.
Well you should go back to the beginning of time because no society/tribe etc permitted every citizen to bear whatever arm they wanted to defend themselves. What you are for is anarchy where no government has the right to dictate anything. Your state is one where absolute freedom and liberty exists.
The entire purpose and fundamental point of intent of the 2nd Amendment can be found in the first sentence. "A well regulated militia, being NECESSARY for the security of a free state"....THAT is the fundamental purpose and intent. And That was the context in which it was written. It is not by chance that the framers chose those opening words to the Amendment.
It was an entire and empircal reference to keeping and maintaining individual states militia as security forces to be called up as needed in lieu of a standing army...of which at that time the framers recoiled against. That is the ENTIRE context and intent. A failure to recognize that fundamental concept makes any other argument extraneous..
Allow me to retort...
There was no standing Army at the time, individual Colonies offered up "Militias" to combat real or perceived enemies. Today the USA spends $775 Billion on its military forces, hence making the concept of "Militias" OBSOLETE...
Additional, what the clever Framers don't mention is that:
People hunted for food.
People used guns to ward off beasts in the Wilderness.
More telling, but not mentioned by the Framers was that, people at the time hunted Natives and armed themselves to ward off Natives.
People feared Slaves and Slave rebellions hence the need for guns.
It's not so good to see the frames as brilliant infallible men, they formed the country in crisis and attempted to unite Colonies into States with the focus on a central government(Federal Government) which the States feared.
Interestingly, the leaders of the Revolutionary War were not the Framers(Washington & Franklin were the two who did both), so essentially the country was formed with two different generations of (white) men.
Finally, to let you realize how clever the framers were or to realize they had the insight to omit information; the Framers never refer to the concept of "slavery" in the US Constitution. They were well aware of what to write and what to omit. This is important to get into mind, motivation & elusiveness of the Framers as any forensic expert might.
In conclusion, the second Amendment is a complex and controversial thought experiment and to "know" what was over 200 years ago so expertly without examination of the forces involved is folly and a perpetuation of "Myth" which humans have a penchant for...
@@SeriousPOV Not much I see in your comments as being a retort to my commentd as I generally agree, other than u last paragraph which I already addressed in my original comment as to 2nd amendment Intent and Context. What I stated is clear and unambiguous and supported by constitutional scholars across the country.
@@deppsterdeppe725
I would not expect you to change positions based on my intel. I would not expect you to take the time to think about it.
Humans love "myth"...once myth has entered one's humanity, it is hard to disavow.
However, it is important to speak truth to folly. And your response has not teeth, no research, no perspective, other that advancing you "myth"...
The people on the fence, not in my camp nor not in your camp are the ones who ingest what you say and what I say and they form opinion on the length, breathe and intellect of our dance...
@@deppsterdeppe725
Once you accept the premise, you accept the lie.
Learned people advocated as scholars for Slavery, common people who never attended higher learning knew that it was morally and Constitutional wrong, so, be careful when you advocate for a Constitutional Scholar.
Eastman is a Constitutional Scholar and so is Luttig, both had opposing views on 1/6/21...
@@SeriousPOV Well u sure have offered an unusually high volume of words without actually stating what your position is on the intent, purpose and context of 2nd amendment. Also neither Eastman or Luttig have any credentials as constitutional scholars. But as example, Jamie Raskin legitimately was a Constitutional law professor before Congress.
Congress bull it up to American's congress works for the American people we hold the power not you..your fired
SCOTUS has always ruled on what would be considered controversial issues along ideological lines. Roe v. Wade, Obergerfell v. Hodges, and many others. Professor Bogus doesn't want conservative justices ruling on cases they'll decide in the majority. I'm sure he's fine with Roe v. Wade, Obergerfell v. Hodges, the cases against Obamacare, and others. If they rule on a case along his ideology it's fine. Just not the other side.
You also have to throw in the 9th and 10th amendment when it comes to gun control
This guy is stuck in the civil war which had nothing to do with the founding fathers or slavery 😂🤣😂🤣he's confused.
I know you think that the army and navy and Air Force Marines belongs to the government. But if you break the second amendment rights of the people to bear arms you might find out that that army might turn on you to government I would think about that. The Armed Forces aren’t gonna always be in the forces because they’ll be having to go back home and become citizens again
Worst case Americans are dying due to their not fixing it but they want their votes..ask angle moms
Like I said we have to go through classes and we get idea checks and we the people have say because Congress don't speak for Americans they speak for democrates and themselves..
I'm sorry Professor Bogus, but you're mistaken. According to the Militia Act of 1903, and it's various amendments, congress laid out the definitions of all forms of US forces. We have Federal Forces, such as the US Army, US, Navy, US Marines. Then there is the National Guard, formerly the militia forces of the states. Then there is the Unorganized Militia. 10 USC section 246.
And well as the reserves/national guard...
Ya we do have that right to bear arms from Gov.terraney or invasion from other countrys and homeland..this is not a parliament or England ..
The coherent answer is that there is NO SUCH THING OF A “assault weapon”
Something must be USED to become an "Assault' WEAPON. THE WORD "ASSAULT' IS AN ACTION, NOT A THING !!! It is a VERB !
@@robertmckinley2030 …there is no such thing of an assault rifle
Why does t ay SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED WHEN IT'S SO INFRINGEDDDD!!!?
Bet Americans get the last laugh..it's terrany to go against our constitution and it treason to go against our way of life ..this is not a parliament this is America..
Please correct your spelling. The word is spelled "tyranny."
Where American votes..why are there voting going on with out Americans votes ..treason
We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States. Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and Regulate them Well!
Whoops to late ask angle moms
And also review the top where it says shall not be infringed and is guaranteed sounds like to me you're trying to micromanage the second so really all gun laws are unconstitutional any and all law's that violate the first 10 and 14th amendments are unconstitutional wake up America stand up and rise up Happy New years
The democrates have had utube and Twitter and FB to quit us and they have..now democrates will destroy our constitution ...
weren't the founding fathers Brits?
let's poll a good sample size of Brits who are educated and reasonable, on what they would've meant, if they were in the shoes of the founding fathers.
Technically they were Brits, but the American Colonies were a different animal when the revolution came along. Ben Franklin was very popular in France by exaggerating American culture as it existed then.
That’s like saying Canadians now are Brits. Even by the time of the revolution culture was very different.
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself" - George Washington
Congress and democrates should be ashamed.
Left is heard ,Republicans on the right don't have that right...
what is so hard to understand that it's the right of the people to keep and bear arms to keep and bear arms will not be in fringes any law written on guns are null and void
I know everyone is not on the same page but I know they’re trying to divide up that first sentence in the second amendment but let me make it clear to you about something that is real. United States Army is made up of the people it is made up of the citizens of the United States of America. The militia is the people because before there was an army they were the people and they were the militia. They got together in the country formedAn army navy Air Force and Marines which is made up of where the people of the United States. This is why we have the right to bear arms as citizens have the right to carry arms as a Citizen. When you tell me that the army belongs to the federal government you’re dead wrong with this statement. How could it belong to the government when it is made up of the people who want to defend their country. The militia in this country is the people who make up the army and the Armed Forces. I don’t know why the government thinks that they own the army navy Air Force and Marines and they could turn them on their own mothers and fathers and brothers Sisters. When we are the ones that’s in their services. This is not the intent of the Armed Forces the Armed Forces was intended for if we are ever invaded by other countries are a foreign government that the people in this country could join in with our militaries and defend Our country. So this thing about we got an army and you don’t you need to rethink that because it’s not true the people are the army and the navy and Air Force and Marines not to government. So anything that you do on the second amendment and then you say that this we are not the militia you’re dead wrong.
We all have to go through a idea check before purchases of hand gun we also have to go to classes we the people are not children. We are not deplorables like democrats call us and we can think for ourselves..we don't need parents or slave owners ..,
Not even they beleive their own bullshit, and the only thing that has resulted from this war against the 2nd amendment is that we have more assault weapons, 2nd amendment sanctuary states, wide spread acceptance of concield carry. When you go after important rights the people feel threatened and make moves to strengthen those rights. im sorry that gabby giffords got shot, but i dotnt see how passing laws that criminalize large sections of society and mandate cops break down peoples doors and shoot them fixes or addresses what happened in any way.
Who is we, and who are you to speak for almost 270 million Americans. Apparently some of us either can’t or do not speak for themselves. And who is us anyway? Who or what do you believe in, our constitution or some Big Loser running around attempting to sell you some Big Lie about an election being stolen, or some idiotic conspiracy theory. Actually almost anyone can buy a gun without going through a check of any kind.
.
Do you think that criminals are going to give up theirs...your a joke if you think that..what entresting is that video.of bido was allowed due to he was a crimminal and for home invasion has a arrest record ..,but was allowed to speak against our right to protect our families ..
To much power to democrates and Congress will destroy our constitution
This is so much BULLSHIT that there even having a DEBATE. "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is pretty cut and dry in my opinion. I vote HELL YES. Move elsewhere if you don't like OUR CONSTITUTION! I'm not going to listen to DEBATERS twisting words just because they don't like our RIGHTS. Don't like guns, don't buy one and leave us alone. Not getting mine if I'm breathing, only from my dead hand. As you get older and/or you're disabled and can't flee are you suppose to just give up? Not me, someone is going to be perforated.
You have a god given right to defend yourself. The idea that our right defend is somehow tied to a government regulated malitia is rediculous. Also, the government has no right to declare what is the proper way you or I am "allowed" to defend myself and my freedoms, as long as i am not taking away anyone else's god given freedoms. It also makes absolutely no sense that our FF would disarmed the people, especially considering that is exactly what England's sitting army tried to do. It is shocking how dude with the rediculous laugh can get this wrong, considering the historical perspective.
Please back up your statement
@@arthurzetes If someone attacks you, say, while you are out weeding your front garden do you first have to ask permission to whack your attack over the head with your shovel?
@@Anon54387 no you don’t. Does that mean you can carry a gun? No it doesn’t
O'Shea is terrible. His presentation skills are like a 2 out of 10.
Except, that the congress passed the Militia act of 1792 that stated that members of a militia had to provide their own arms. Meaning congress wasn't going to arm the militia as proscribed in the Constitution.
While I support the Second Amendment and feel Mr. O'Shea made a compelling case for the individual right, to be fair I don't think Prof Bogus was well-prepared and he did not give an effective presentation of the merits of the case against the individual right.
Ya all fake news
DEMOCRATES own media and FB ,twisters,and utube and we been shut down and not heard ..co's has band America from being heard..
And laugh about it.,
Gov has too much powers..