The Constitutional Right to Bear Arms Has Outlived Its Usefulness
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 лис 2013
- "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." -2nd Amendment
Recent mass shooting tragedies have renewed the national debate over the 2nd Amendment. Gun ownership and homicide rates are higher in the U.S. than in any other developed nation, but gun violence has decreased over the last two decades even as gun ownership may be increasing. Over 200 years have passed since James Madison introduced the Bill of Rights, the country has changed, and so have it guns. Is the right to bear arms now at odds with the common good, or is it as necessary today as it was in 1789?
The second amendment has not outlived it's usefulness because government still seeks to constantly extend it's power at the expense of the rights of the people.
James haury And owning a weapon to defend yourself against tyranny? The US spends trillions on its military. No militia in the world can beat the US army, much less any local homegrown uprising.
Just give up then.Cede all of your rights to an overbearing oppressive government and become a slave.
So what are you gonna do about it? Shoot a federal officer? Shoot a politician? lol
Smart Aleck.
freedom isn't free. If you want to be defenseless that is your problem.
"The second amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceedingly rare occasions where all other rights have failed. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once." -Judge Alex Kozinski
Every country that has given up it's guns & right to have them have come under some form of dictatorship.
John Donovan is hands-down one of the best debate moderators. He does a great job steering the debate to productive places without ever inserting his own opinions. It's a rare skill and it's one of the reasons these debates are so good. Well done.
He needs to moderate every presidential debate. Then we could get away from accusations of bias from the moderators.
In this day and age the right to bear arms has never been so necessary.... consider the limitless excuses for offenders, while the victims get nothing, justice, !! I dont think so.
Funny considering the number of times that guns stop crimes outpaces the times guns are used for criminal activities
@@thomasboland540 so are you telling me that they can't you other means to protect themselves?
@@rajashashankgutta4334 Yeah, how effe ctive are "other methods" at stopping people?
AMEN & AMEN
Regarding usefulness & historical context "...there were no professional police forces..." I would beg to differ here. The British Army was indeed there to police our forefathers...and well...we all know what they did to "protect" the citizenry.
You're talking about how a foreign government treated its vassal... a better look would be at how the chinese government is treating its people. A people 'unarmed' is a people open to repression. Now if only we weren't so secure in our 'arms' and started looking to the economical, political, and educational repression that has been placed upon us.
@@alexanderwryn2112 Before 1776, the people living in the 13 colonies were British citizens. The British Army was not a foreign government any more than the FBI is a foreign government in the states.
@@treelinehugger the colonies are restless tonight :)
@@treelinehugger Sooo what kind of representation were we given in the Parliamenr
@@thomasboland540 You are off-topic.
The British Army was not a foreign government in the 13 colonies - as suggested by Alexander Wryn. For example, if the Chinese Army posted troops in Hong Kong, they would not be a foreign government in Hong Kong.
While desirable, representation is not a requirement of governments.
The 2nd amendment is more relevant today than it has ever been.
Yes it has!....for sure!
Firearms forever.
+Gʀᴀʏ Fᴏx
Agreed,
"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"
Sounds pretty fucking clear to me
I bet you could not pass a basic iq test because the SECOND AMENDMWNT IS OBSOLETE.
How can protecting ourselves from a potential oppressive government become obsolete?
***** Agree, collecting those guns will be tricky to say the least.
exactly. It's more relavent today then at its conception.
+SPAD58 If you think you're going to win a fight with an oppressive government in the modern day you're too fucking stupid to be trusted with any gun.
irllcd13 Well that coming from a two digit IQ is very impressive. I would not want to live the life of a coward like you and do nothing so I can be safe.
***** How can protecting yourself against an oppressive government be outdated? You do agree that the purpose of the second amendment is to protect ourselves against the tyranny of the state don't you ?
The 2nd amendment is not just about hunting or protecting yourself, it is also about keeping the government in line. For any american to think otherwise is just foolishness.
Right on Brother !
Yeah... because your home defense weapon is going to stop armored vehicles, missiles, drones, helicopters, tanks, etc
Just try to take it easy on them when you keep them in line, ok buddy?
My friend you obviously have never heard of a Coup de tat ! USE YOUR HEAD MAN, Every American that is wearing a gun for a daily wage has family that are just ordinary Law abiding Citizens. The only real threat are the foreign troops that are already here ! but even those people will think twice about taking any action......You just see things on a superficial level,,,Good little Sheep..Congrats Pal. VOTE for your Country or VOTE for GLOBALISM. It's that Simple.
Yeah, see....
Here in America, if we don't like a politician, we elect someone else. The government isn't decided by who has the biggest stick.
Its not working lol
If guns are not necessary, then start by disarming law enforcement.
Its how the Brit do it, right?
They tried that. However, because of the need for a present, overpowering force, the cops have to arrest people with knives or bats or other weapons. So they went back to carrying guns.
David Michels Oh, wow, you mean disarming people and the cops doesn't make gun crime magically disappear? Holy Mary, Joseph, and all the Saints! LOL
David Michels Do you have a reference for that?
David Michels
We have special branch for the once-in-decade-and-not-every-day high school massacres.
Debate like this makes me even MORE sure that we need the 2nd Amendment..
This KEEPS people free from opression of THEIR GOV'T and of FOREIGN GOV'T attacks.
Keep or not keep? Keep of course! The right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon!
Lol, given just how open ended and vague the "right" is.. almost have to agree. It seems like the amendment was written specifically to be vague so that each stage of society could determine what it means to them, with the exception that people would always retain the right to challenge the governments bans and legislation.
Lord Razer Has nobody noticed, the phrase "A well regulated Militia". To me that doesn't say that everyone should have a gun willy nilly.
Honestman400 Yeah, people like to ignore that part when it's inconvenient.
Honestman400
At the time the Constitution was written, something was said to be "well regulated" when it was efficient, effective, and worked well. For instance, a watch that ran on-time was "well regulated." Therefore, "A well regulated Militia" was an army that was effective and efficient. So the whole Second Amendment could be written as, "Since an efficient and effective militia is necessary for the security of a free state, but is also a risk to a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, which serves to mitigate the risk of an efficienct militia."
RockyMountainHiker CO I see your point, however states no longer keep a well regulated militia.
33:00 - this argument is just an argument out of fear of guns and is not supported by any actual real evidence. Many people have many neighbors that own guns and never have a problem with these people. Do I want to get on a plane were everyone has a gun? YES!!! Not a single person on that plane would try to hijack that plane. Unless terrorists accounted for over 1/2 the people on the plane, they wouldn't be able to take the plane over. If everyone on the planes had guns, the Twin Tower buildings would still be there.
Don't need to hijack.. just blow up... using a gun to blow out a window or shoot out the fuselage. The idea of a plane full of people armed to the teeth is just plain stupid.. might as well arm everyone with small pox. The problem isn't the majority of people who aren't suicidal/homicidal.. it's the few who's happiest dream is to die in a 'blaze of glory', as our hollywood office boxes have so thankfully idolized for us.
Lord Razer _"using a gun to blow out a window or shoot out the fuselage."_ -- You DO realize that you can't do that, right? That is an urban legend only believed by people who know nothing at all about airplanes.
Also, you DO realize that before 9/11, we didn't have any problems with people "blowing up" jet liners with .22 pistols. I know that appears to be a surprise to you, but it just simply didn't happen.
_"might as well arm everyone with small pox."_ -- Ya, because preventing a hijacking is EXACTLY like killing a bunch of people with small pox.
Many countries used to have the right to bear arms, but then something happened to them and they no longer felt so insecure as to need those arms. It was called civilisation. Something that appears to have passed America by.
A famous world statesman once said:
“America is the only nation in history which, miraculously, has gone directly from barbarism to degeneration without the usual interval of civilisation.”
Keith Pinster You believe that you can't blow out a window or shoot out the fuel lines so that fuel ceases to make it to the engines? I guess I didn't realize airplanes were bullet proof or that severe decompression was an "urban legend".
Welcome to the new world? And yes we did, well perhaps we, the United States, did not, but other places in the world most definitely did.
My point is relevant, while for a vast majority the idea of pulling a gun on a bunch of people armed with guns sounds like a terrible idea, there are always those special few who don't mind killing as many as possible before dying themselves. And a gunfight in the street is one thing.. in a cramped plane something quite different.
Honestman400 Quite possibly. Of course, with the violent crime rate skyrocketing after gun control was imposed in most of those countries, maybe it is commons sense that bypassed THOSE countries. On the other hand, the governments of those other countries probably aren't nearly as tyrannical as our government is, so it's possible that the citizens trust their government much more than do I and those that are vigilant to protect not only our own civil liberties, but people like you and Lord Razer who demand that we should all be slaves.
why do you need an Escalade 2015 when a 1980 ford pinto will perform the same BASIC function?
Why do you need a pinto when a model T can provide for the same needs? Who said anything about a motorcycle?' Citizens should need a license for a horse drawn carriage. The government is the entity that provides your right to legs, it isn't innate!
@@KingHalbatorix breaks your legs. Sells you a wheelchair (at high price) , taxes you on that wheelchair, regulates use of the wheelchair, and tells you to be thankful you couldn’t get around without them
Dershowitz is misreading the first clause of the Second Amendment. Notice how the first clause refers to a "Militia" and the second clause refers to the "People." The Framers had just fought a war against King George, a war where loyalist militias were used to oppress and brutalize the people, the Second Amendment should be read as a warning: "[Because] a well-regulated militia [a militia than can be used against the people] being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms [against such a militia] shall not be infringed."
The greatest massacres of the 20th Century were carried out by thug-militias in Germany, China and Russia. The Second Amendment acknowledges that the government has to be able to call up a military force for national defense, but it also provides that this militia could never be used en masse against an armed populace.
That's what he does. He's a professional liar with very distinct ulterior motives.He is a very clear representation of the minds who are attempting to destroy this country. He's a creep.
Your name "BloodofPatriots" says it all! LOL
JoebooSauce You don't know the source, do you? Sad.
Interesting. I've never looked at it from this perspective before. I really like it, although I don't think it's very accurate. I do think, however, that the Founders would agree that it is a valid new take on the old concept. And I think it is a valid view of the 2A as we stand today. Especially if you replace the word "militia" with the word "police". Which, come to think of it, very well might be the situation that the founders meant, so maybe you _are_ right! :)
Keith Pinster
the founders were not talking about government appointed police. those were the loyalist militia that our founders were fighting against.
and no sensible person is going to put all that power into any local police force, especially when there's so many police departments training their officers to shoot first and ask questions later. would you want to let the police in new york be your main protectors when there's literally 1000's of videos of them beating peaceful protesters in the streets and shooting unarmed citizens who they only suspected of a crime. they get away with all they do and there's no consequences. California is no better off. they get paid administrative leave for shooting women who were not doing anything wrong except for driving a vehicle that somewhat matches the description of a wanted cop who is on a rampage. all over the country they arrest and assault people who are just videotaping them, and get away with it because there's not enough evidence.
we are completely overrun and transitioning to a total police state and i would much rather have my guns to protect my family on my own terms. that is my constitutional right.
I think what it boils down to are these two questions:
Do we trust our police to self-regulate and never trust that they will be willing to infringe on all the rest of our rights, as well as be available for immediate protection of all citizens. I think the answer to this is quite obviously not. The Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no legal requirement to protect anyone and, based on many, many reports, the police are quite often all too willing to not just stick a toe over the line, but jump as far as they can over the line.
The second question is: do we trust our government to not become tyrannical if given the opportunity? As a former Marine and die-hard patriot, I have to say - I love my country, but I _fear_ my government. They have proven themselves more than willing to infringe on any rights that stand in their way.
The 2nd amendment is, above anything else, a way for people to be able to keep government in check. The only way the government can avoid becoming tyrannical (because of it's very nature) is to be afraid of the people. Without the 2A, the American populous ceases to be citizens and becomes surfs.
This debate is clearly about self defense, rather than defending against a tyrannical government. It has nothing to do with the 2A. But it also clearly shows that banning guns has at best no effect, but at worst a highly negative effect on our ability to protect ourselves against criminal acts.
You think you're ar-15/ sawn-off shot gun will protect you from the government who has f-35s, raptors, predator drones, artillerys and howitzers that can level cities, the abbrams tank (best in the world), cyber cell that can disable powergrids?? Did I mention world ending nukes?
The second AMMENDMENT will never "OUTLIVE" its usefulness..........PERIOD
"Where was there an example of a militia in the 20th and 21st centuries?"
See: Black Panther Party for Self Defense
See: Athens Tennessee Massacre
See: Battle of Blair Mountain
See: Carnegie Steel Workers vs. Pinkertons and Police
See:(Rodney King beat down which is tyrannical by itself) As a result: Korea town in LA fighting off mobs, and Police trying to take the Koreans guns and then leave with guns while rioters were still out there.
See: Rosewood Florida with police backing the murderers.
We must have the means to defend against oppressive governments. I don't understand the reason this is so hard to grasp.
' *We must have the means to defend against oppressive governments. I don't understand the reason this is so hard to grasp.* People say that however.. these same idiots also claim the goverment and cops ( by extension since they enforce the laws of the goverment) are all Nazis,.
So much for defending agaist oppressive governments
Strange concept. The gov't you speak of has better guns and trained killers who do not need to use guns. The gov't you talk of can come at you side ways and do not need guns to silence you. Throw out drones, bombs, tanks, planes, special forces, CIA, FBI, secret services, and other trained gov't operatives you could have all the guns you want and you would still be screwed. In reality though you do not see gov't operatives going to theaters and such and killing people. So in short you bearing arms or not has no effect on how the gov't treats you.
Then.... the only defence is the collapse of the economy and insuficiant funs with which to equip paramilitary organizations. I guess we'll have to wait them out.
But do you think the people of nazi Germany or early soviet Russia thought their own governments would harm them when they took their firearms? No, they thought it was genuinely a good idea, which they learned the hard way, was not.
Homeowner - Assault rifle, handgun.
Tyrannical gov - Drones, tanks etc.
Yeah, i would love to see you start a rebellion.
Any questions regarding the wording of the Amendment as opposed to it's intent, need only look to the other writings of the founders at the time for clarity. It is clear in the writings of Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, etc. that the right encompasses both personal self preservation and armed resistance to oppressors, both foreign and domestic. A simple Google search could prove to be invaluable. Ultimately, the debate ended as I expected it would with a New York audience, and the exact same arguments made in say Houston, would render a much different result. That being said, I enjoyed it thoroughly, and there were good points made by everyone......except maybe Dershowitz. lol
Vote "undecided" then choose the side you already agreed with. 64% came in already agreeing with the motion, pretty clear this audiences isn't representative of the public.
It isn't? Oh yeah, because you say so with your of course unbiased opinion. No one likes a sore LOSER.
Nate, don't go bringing facts into this, liberals hate that.
JoebooSauce Liberal NY. Take this debate to Tennessee and you'll have a different outcome. Nobody is going to change their mind
James K come to texas and you'll get outright hostility
Just don't go to any heavily populated areas like Austin or Houston, or College Station. Houston's economy will attract all kind of people, Austin is well-articulated in liberal arts (it's a good place to be a liberal there), and College Station is full of people who are afraid to die poor (in other words, conservatives) but who are ultimately very nice. These are all the places I know of so no. Texas is a red state, yes. But you are free to stay inside your comfort zone. If liberalism feels nice, bask in its warmth. Immigrants do not improve the economy, now that's an intelligence squared debate I'll love to have here.
That was Hitler's argument... and Pol Pots... Mao's... Stalin's...
People who say that the right to bear arms has outlived it usefulness never had any clue about the importance of this right or the moral necessity for a free human being to be able to defend themself, their family, and their society from those who would do them harm. Those who think if we get rid of guns the world will be less violent and such a wonderful place are living in a deluded fantasy utopia and most have no experience with how the world actually works or they are reacting emotionally towards an incident. Even if we could eliminate all guns from the face of the planet, it would be immoral to do so. Eliminating guns does not eliminate violence. All it would do is reinstate the disparity between attacker and defender, law abiding and criminal, that existed before. Like it or not there is a reason why the gun has been called the "great equalizer" and a very good reason behind the phrase "a polite society is an armed society". Once again let me emphasize that taking away guns will not end violence. What it will do is reinstate the disparity between the 20 year old college student and the 200 pound rapist, the 85 year old grandma and the 18 year old mugger armed with a knife, the lone business owner faced with an angry mobbed determined to destroy his/her livlihood, guns are used thousands of times every year to save lives.. On top of all this let's get to the original reason for the second amendment, the one that ignorant statist who place all faith in government are unable to understand even with a thorough review of history. The original purpose of the 2A is to give me and you a means to protect our freedom and liberty should it ever go that far. The 2A is the teeth behind the other 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights. There is a reason that tyrannical governments disarm their populations. Now, let me address the obvious nonsense that usually follows in response. The militia is NOT the national guard. One of the models for the 2A was the Constitution of my home state of Virginia. The militia consists of every able bodied citizen capable of defending the republic and it still does here in Virginia. Now on to 'well-regulated', oh this is a favorite of ignorant liberals, I'm not conservative by the way so don't even try. If you think the Founders would have included something in the Bill of Rights that gives the government power to regulate, as you know the term today, one of the rights that they saw as inherent (I don't see them as inherent but thats a different story), then you neither know our Founders, our history, the enlightenment, or the individual rights that our country was founded upon. 'Well-regulated' as it was used in the 18th century meant proper functioning, ready to go. It had nothing to do with government rules. If you think it does I'm sorry you have no clue about how our great country was founded. Now, the last over used ignorant response, "we wouldn't stand a chance against the might of the US military". Oh, okay so I guess we should just give up should that fight even become necessary. Funny how so many people who say that have Che Guevara pictures in their profile or posters on their wall. Even if it did come down to that I am fairly certain the military would fracture. If you think we wouldn't stand a chance, tell that to the mujahideen against the soviets, the taliban against our troops, the vietcong, etc. It comes down to, the right to own firearms is fundamental to any free society that lives in a violent world and any free society in which men or woman govern. That isn't going to change. Even if they are banned its absurd to think the criminals, who commit these tragedies are going to say, "oh now they are against the law, I guess I can't shot up this school now". Stop trying to work the law and start trying to help society and people!
There are also murmurs about how freedom of religion has outlived its usefulness, and that religion should be done away with outright. I'm wondering how long it will be before freedom of speech has outlived its usefulness.
Actually remember reading about this somewhere. On a farm for animals or somesuch.
I think you are referring to Animal Farm by George Orwell.
But yes, you are right. I wonder how long it will be till all our rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights will be considered "outdated". I mean who needs a trial by jury or to be protected against unreasonable searches and seizures. What do you have to hide? I'm sure it sounds ridiculous, but I'm sure that there are people out there that think that. That is scary when people don't believe they should have any of these rights.
Tony CJ
me thinks his ceaselessness was sarcasm...
***** It was also a book about hypocrisy, and rewriting the core rules to suit one's convenience.
"Four legs good, two legs -bad- *_better_* ..."
***** Like I said. You need the Second Amendment to protect the First Amendment.
***** The original video title mentions it.
It is well to remember what occasioned "the shot heard 'round the world". The redcoats were marching to seize the armory. They were forestalled not by soldiers wielding the weapons from the armory, but by the spontaneous resistance of individuals using their personal weapons.
"Use it or lose it."
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!!!
Hunting has zero to do with self defense, the 2nd amendment has zero to do with self defense.
The second amendment wasn't for hunting. It specifically says to defend against tyranny. Or a rogue government or whatever
The question should be - Are you ok with criminals with weapons having a greatert advantage of yourself and your family?
That is hardly the question. Americans are freaked out by the neighbours, and therefore, "stand your ground" and "castle" laws are the worst laws I can think of. A 75 year old man with Alzheimer's and a 19 year old who was trying to get help from someone after a car accident were killed because of laws like this. If the people didn't have guns, these people would still be alive today. As would Trayvon Martin. Guns ratchet up the danger unless you are a highly qualified and highly skilled marksman. If a criminal comes into a restaurant with guns and you start firing, you can a) kill someone, which would be horrible, b) miss and kill an innocent person, which would be horrible, c) miss and when they return fire get yourself and others killed, or d) you hit one of them and then enter into a shootout with the others. How are any of these options a good thing? We are not in the old west and American paranoia needs to be checked. Violent crime is decreasing year by year, but fear of crime is at scary levels. The war on drugs has not made America safer, and a lack of a good social safety net has made life difficult for many poor Americans. In the end, I'm glad I don't live there and can leave my front door unlocked without worry.
It is called life. things happen. you are seeking a perfect world. Sorry, but life doesn't work that way. None of what you said or anything you say gives you or anyone else the right to Take away an individuals Basic Right to defend himself or his property. And that is why the law will stand. No man should be at the mercy of another man that wants to do harm to his body or property. If my life is in jeopardy, i have the right to protect it, by whatever means possible. Not to have this right is to surrender to the world around you. If i get shot in the attempt to protect my self because the assailant got me first, well at least i had an option and a chance, but to be totally defenseless is much worse.
tomatodamashi
Scarcely a month goes by but I read in the paper about the police shooting some unarmed person. Cops are usually conservatives. They tend to divide the world into "good guys" and "bad guys", or as they come to think of it, as "us" and "them". And they seem to be getting really nervous, more and more trigger happy and badge heavy. Now they have fully automatic assault weapons and tanks. Of course that is only to control pot smokers.
There is a great and growing social division in the U.S., and indeed, around the world. The masters of war and finance are growing fearful, but not so fearful as to inhibit their greed and need to control. Those desires are insatiable. If history is any guide, they will not be stopped with kindness or reason. They will cling to wealth and power until it is taken from their cold, dead hands.
Bankers loan us non-existent money which must be repaid with interest by real labor. And the wealth and power continues to concentrate into fewer and fewer hands.
Freedom: Use it or lose it.
hisxmark
I live by cash in cash out Never take credit, never borrow money. Us as individuals can break the banking system, by changing the way we use money. If i don't have it, I don't spend it. It is mainly our fault for giving the banks that power to control us. The banks hold my money, i have a debit card. beyond that, i am not their pawn.
nashkita77 Good Job
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."- Benjamin Franklin
than explain how in UK Canada Europe Australia and Japan have less gun murders than the US or no huge mass shootings like what happened in Florida or Sandy hook
Aaron Chand
You explain why, in the summer, crime and ice cream sales both increase. Does that imply that one causes the other? Does ice cream cause crime or does crime cause ice cream to be sold?..... Just like in your example does that mean one has to cause the other just because they both happen to be true. No.
I'd also like to see your supposed stats on this as you can't just make random claims to me with no data like every other liberal in the world. Things aren't that simple that you can't just say "Look they have no guns and there's very little crime! that must mean what I want it to mean." that would be a most uneducated and simplistic way of looking at complex problems. Instead of looking at demographics, culture, and other things, you just cherry pick data and create a false causation. Did you know most gun crime in the US is from (mostly Black and Mexican) gang related crimes? Wonder what kind of gang activity is present in Australia.......
Hmm, when we google it, it looks like their gangs are the ones committing the majority of gun related violence, just like in the US. And according to this wikipedia page, in 1984 there were "13 shootings taking place in Sydney in the space of two weeks" and in 2014 "As a result of heightening violence, New South Wales Premier Nathan Rees announced the state police anti-gang squad would be boosted to 125 members from 50". Boy that is interesting. I wonder why banning guns doesn't make criminal gangs stop carrying, trading and using guns.....and only disarms the people afraid to break the law... (aka law abiding citizens... aka the victims of these gangs)
Oh look, when I find the page comparing crime stats of Australia and The US
www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Australia/United-States/Crime
: They have two times more burglaries, 3 times more RAPE VICTIMES, 12% more auto thefts, 1% more assualts, twice as many assault victims, Wow and a staggering 43% more victims of crime period.... Boy.... that is just amazing.......... See, I can cherry pick, too :D
Tra Lalala theres less mass shootings in Australia like what happend in Flordia or Sandy Hook. 20 years ago in April 1996 there was a huge mass shooting in Austrlia Port Arthur and they banned guns and they havent had a huge mass shooting since 1996 your living in the 18th century the rest of the world dose fine without arming everyone more specfically the UK here in Canada Australia and the rest of Europe France Germany etc
that was 200 years ago things change
Aaron Chand
LOL so you want to cherry pick and ignore the fact that Australia has double the victims of every other crime and only focus on a crime that effects the least amount of people in the entire country/world... what an idiot. Arming the country is about us being free from the government, of course, most people don't care about that stuff because, when the shit hits the fan, all the people of Germany just follow their tyrannous leaders and help shove the jews into furnaces. No I will not. I am from the USA where our government was created with THAT VERY THING in mind. We refuse to take the power from the people and give it to the elitist politicians that think they are better and smarter than all of us. We are the world. We are the people and man will be here, even when all government fails. Man and his experience of life is nature. and Government cannot be allowed to control or force us into anything.
I am not living in the 18th century. You are just an idiot that doesn't notice anything going on in the world. You apparently don't notice like HALF of the world's people live under controlling, tyrannous governments. Like Iran where they throw you from a rooftop if you have gay sex. Im sorry but you are just being selfish in that you want to disarm those who would have no other way to protect themselves. At least if the Jews had weapons they could have offed themselves before being tortured and forced into slave labor, as I probably would have preferred to do, instead of watching them throw my little baby in the air and then use him as target practice (as they actually did quite a lot right in front of the parents).
Why don't Americans look at democratic countries which don't have guns and see if they have more or less gun deaths?
+Sharon O'Donnell Its not just about gun murder rates, you have to looks at violent crime rates and murder rate in general. In places where there are restrictions on firearms in the US we have higher crime rates.
Here are the things you need to know:
Supreme Court in Heller 2008: 2nd Amendment is an *individual* right.
Supreme Court in McDonald 2010: It is incorporated to the States.
Supreme Court in Miller 1939: 2nd Amendment protects weapons "suitable for use in a militia".
I've been watching a lot of these IQ2 debates and now I can predict the results before I jump to the end. . . . There seems to be a liberal and feminist bent among the audience (which is a sample of the population) . . . Yes to vegetarianism, no to faith in afterlife, yes to legalisation of drugs (all drugs), no to guns etc. . ..
I am seeing that too. What a bunch of useless idiots. Stay safe!
+Muhammad Shafiq that is the essence of civil politics: if you didn't show up, don't blame the result, and be a good citizen to bite your bullet!
+Muhammad Shafiq I was thinking the same. The choice of location for the debate is the largest factor in deciding the winner.
+Muhammad Shafiq Gee, imagine that, the well-educated, intelligent and open-minded aggregate together to share opinions and discuss ideas. Did you really expect to find gun-toting fanatics from Kentucky to show up? The people who would most benefit from sitting in on this debate with a truly open mind are those who have long since closed their minds to the issue. They only see it as the government as trying to take their guns rather than a concerned populus that just wants to keep more mass shootings and pointless killings from happening. You do realize the direct correlation to the fact that most liberals have graduated college while many conservatives have not? I'm not making it up either, liberalism is inextricably linked to intelligence:
personal.lse.ac.uk/kanazawa/pdfs/SPQ2010.pdf
Read for yourself. Peer reviewed and published by an accomplished researcher in an accredited psychology journal.
+Joseph Celesbin Right so if you care about gun rights you need to live in a place where you give up almost all rights to guns for self-defence? And so many people have to do this to sway the debate.
Bullshit. It's like New York and New York alone deciding the next president and everyone saying "well you should have lived in New York".
Everyone having a gun makes America safer! And yes I would like to be on a plane where everyone was armed!
I wouldn't. What I don't much like is that we have moved from a situation where we have the right to bear arms to one in which many believe they must carry pistols at all times. That wasn't normal during much of the 20th century, Even if it was earlier. I am not convinced we are advancing social cohesion, and that is the bottom line for international power, and domestic peace. Sure if everyone else is carrying, I want to also. But I would prefer more movement in the direction of building bridges between all of us. And this is one place where I think commerce plays a part. The CCW has been really big business, and the paranoia is a big business.
Thats because you assume people are stupid and do not have sense.
***** Lol! Decompress. They could just drop down to 15,000 feet. You watch too many movies.
Allan Dershowitz opinion about this is horrible.
You need a gun to protect yourself from your government. That is one of the reasons it was implemented at the Constitutional Convention in 1787
Personally I believe that USA has the best Constitution on the planet. And owning a firearms is useful and very relevant today!
At the end of this debate result requires to have round two somewhere in Texas, don't you agree?
It's not reasonable at all for the govt to want to disarm the people. History shows what has happened everytime the govt has been successful at implementing a gun registry and or gun confiscation, and it is horrific what happened to those people at the hands of their own govts.
They should start renting guns like wifi routers at the airport cause i would want to have the right to protect myself when i enter as a tourist.
I'd like to know how many Bloomberg plants were in the audience.
or soros...
Sandy's argument was high-minded and well-envisioned. Loved listening to him.
In a society where the government cannot possibly take ALL the guns away from the criminals, how does one defend themselves from a criminal with a gun when the lawful citizen does not and cannot have a gun??
Looking at the end results of this debate makes me happy that these people have NO POWER and their opinions mean absolutely NOTHING when it comes to enacting law...
this is a total waste of time debating something that will never be taken out of the constitution.
The fact is that this debate was done in a liberal location, which made the debate in the positive toward their position and of course the end result of the "vote" was that way.
It's probably because most people who watch Intelligence Squared are fairly educated. Most educated people acknowledge that sometimes change is required to make the world a better place. Guns don't make the world a better place, I'm afraid.
Jordan Vanderkuyl The studies cited in THIS debate do not agree with your claim. Did you even watch this debate?
And I'd bet that if a guy with a knife was beating down your door.... You will hope you had a gun or a guy with a gun shows up to protect you. So sometimes guns DO make the world a better place.
Jordan Vanderkuyl tell that to the swiss.
Jordan Vanderkuyl and btw this is about the *right* to have guns not whether guns make the world a better place.
Just like drugs or abortion. Many of us can process the idea that we don't want them but we can tolerate their allowance.
*****
If you watch the videos from the Ukraine, you will see the Govt troops firing on civilians. You think the citizens there think the govt will protect them and they do not need the rights to protect themselves?
Even US history is filled with the govt stepping on the rights of the citizens. Lincoln declared martial law and suspended the writ of habeas corpus. Black citizens were subjected to syphilis testing as late as 1972. The current NSA spying programs.....
You can claim that there is not nor will there ever be a need to be able to stand up to the Govt, but the same claim was made by some colonists of the crown.
Simply put the only sure way to enslave a people is to deny them the ability to say no.
Soap box, ballot box, bullet box.
And this HAS been used in the US already. Google "The Battle of Athens".
Grrrrrr! BEAR arms!
The 2nd amendment was designed as a last resort against federal tyranny, reserving the rights and means for the States to stand up---------just like they did in revolutionary war, it's not a statement of individual rights, but a statement of state right. So it had the preamble of Well regulated militia, being essential to freedom of the states.
The Civil war proved even a well trained militia united from 10+ states wasn't enough to fight against federal force, and federal government wasn't on the side of tyranny in waging civil war. The 2nd amendment was outdated and inadequate in protecting states from federal intervention.
The purpose of the Constitution and Federal government is to delegate certain widely shared interests, these interests couldn't be fulfilled by state government. Federal government is not a substitute or higher authority to the state government.
As the perception of suitable means for self protection wildly differ from area to area, proper ways and means for self protection should be a local issue, it should be debated and regulated by local authority, in state or county level. It's not a proper interest to be delegated to federal government.
who ever said that the 2nd amendment is out dated, is out there damn mind....it is more needed today than it was then....this debate proves that fact....
Biggest BS debate audience ever, i was wondering why there were so many clapping for weak arguments until i saw the numbers at the end.
generally in most debates on this show you approximately have (40% agree/disagree) (25%disagree/agree) (35% undecided) and the job of debaters to persuade the undecided to their favor.
in this debate it was (64% agree) (18% disagree) (18% undecided), even if they got ALL of the undecided to their side they still wouldn't be able match the FOR opposition. i've never seen this before and i've watched many debates here. there weren't enough people to persuade to the other side, only 14% undecided changed position.
this debate wasn't an honest representation of anything, also typical alan dershowitz unethical debating tactics, always shouts people down and interrupts people, ruining their train of thought, he's been using the same tactics since the 80s, watch this guy get destroyed by Norman finkelstein.
the mediator at the beginning said "we have a mission to raise the level of public discourse" but all i saw in this debate was public perception manipulation.
Guns are a deterrent against all forms of tyrants, right now a group of corporations are trying to pass the TPP which the public is not allowed to vote on or even view! so our inadequate government has already failed on upholding your first amendment by not recognising your right to "to petition the Government".
so do you think a government that has actively participated to silence your free speech is interested in protecting you/your safety/ your right to defend yourself?
the point here, Eugene Volokh also mentioned this i think:
is to make it too expensive for the government to become tyrannical (or more tyrannical then it already is) not make it easier, guns play a huge role in this..
***** But these academics are not intelligent enough to point out what a group of corporations along with the government is passing behind everyone's backs (Trans-Pacific Partnership). I think that's what his point was.
I'm not sure what you were watching, but it looked like to me that the panel for the motion clearly won this debate. Your bias is shown loud and clear.
Countrymusicnumber1
Clearly won? Hardly. I found both sides heavily lacking.
"the point here, Eugene Volokh also mentioned this i think:
is to make it too expensive for the government to become tyrannical (or more tyrannical then it already is) not make it easier, guns play a huge role in this.."
the armed citizen force might slow the government a little bit but not very much
and with 800 billion dollars in their budget suppressing the uprising would not
be very expensive to the military
robinsss
"this debate wasn't an honest representation of anything, also typical alan dershowitz unethical debating tactics, always shouts people down and interrupts people, ruining their train of thought, he's been using the same tactics since the 80s, watch this guy get destroyed by Norman finkelstein."
I don't know any moments where he was unethical
what were some?
the pro-gun side lost this debate at a few crucial points
the first was when Dershowitz said the 2nd amendment does not mention
the right to self defense
and the pro gun side(43:43) quoted Heller as their proof that the 2nd amendment protects the right to self defense
what was the proof before Heller?
the pro gun side lost miserably
-"I don't want to live in a country with 300M guns".
Too late. You can't get rid of them now.
not true, many countries have managed disarmament after abolishing gun rights
@@lucretius8050yes, it's true. Those countries didn't have 400-600M firearms in the hands of 321M citizens. They also didn't have a 2nd amendment.
Because people gave credence to the notion that the 2nd amendment is no longer relevant, we are now dealing with myriads of people who feel that the first amendment has outlived its usefulness; we are living in troubling times, folks. It is our obligation as citizens of this republic to stand for our basic human rights, and act as the bulwark of liberty against the authoritarians who seek to discredit the rights enumerated in our constitution that are intrinsic to our very humanity.
The problem with the American 2nd Amendment - BEFORE WE EVEN GET TO FIREARMS - is that it was written in the first place!
And in Federalist 87, Alex Hamilton brought it up: WHAT the hell is the point in "legalizing" something in an amendment, that wasn't made "illegal" in the original governing document?
I am so thankful mr douchawits was not at the constitutional conventions , he deals in complete fantasy , warm regards
Not once did either side simply state "Liberty" as a reason for the 2nd Amendment. That's sad.
And thats the problem with people who want to have this discussion.
+hoot1141 Probably because it has nothing to do with the second Amendment. You have other freedom's not guaranteed in the constitution. Are you sure you know what the talking point of the debate was?
+Josh White The topic was "Is self defense obsolete?".
Never Suspects they don't understand the term "self defense".
wait...the 2nd is not a RIGHT, it is a RESTRICTION on the government. Why can't people understand that subtle but very important distinction? and what a liberal audience....I'm happy to print up a gun-free zone yard sign for them.
It is sickening and frightening that the Americans in the room agreed with the motion.
As a "liberal" (since most of my views align with theirs),this is one of the topics where I differ and I have to say LEAVE THE FKN GUNS ALONE. There are other fkn problems that have bigger impacts than guns. With finite resources we need to start prioritizing shit for efficiency reasons.
Me thinks they should hold such a debate in a swing state, not a dominantly conservative state nor a dominant liberal state...just a suggestion.
why?
ThePharphis , because the people attending would be more diverse. New York is a liberal state and so the vote would obviously be for the motion...swing states would have more diversity, but like I said it's just a suggestion, it's possible my suggestion would never work...
Katacia Sanders well this is why the "winners" are measured by who gains the larger number of voters in their favor and not by absolute standing. Your point may still affect how people reason and will interpret the arguments (it probably does) based on their local politics but taking the difference b/w before and after helps minimize this
ThePharphis , yeah I suppose it does, but I still think they should try to hold it in like Ohio or Florida, one of the swing states, but like I said before holding it in a swing state might not even work to well, so oh well...
ThePharphis The system is easily exploitable. If you want your side to win you vote against your side at the beginning and for afterwards. Many might even just vote neutrally at the beginning, and for their motion afterwards. It has half the impact, but it's easier to convince yourself that you were being honest... because you weren't _too_ sure if you stood on a certain side but the debate "pushed you over".
The right to bear arms has never been more important than it is today.
The threat to our freedom has never been greater than it is today.
I lived in a nation without the right to bare arms, my first night there I saw a dead person on the street for the first time, everyone just walking past like it was routine. The murder rate was shocking, I would never want that to happen here. Them being disarmed has not protected anyone.
I don't need and restrictions placed on me. Thanks. Good day.
as far as I'm concerned it not open for debate
A live audience in the most liberal city in America gets to choose the winner, I don't need to watch 1 hour and 48 min to see how this will end
the guns issue and debate shows how infantile and entitled some americans are.
A question to the people from the US: Do you really feel unsafe if you don't have a gun in your house?
I'm asking because I live in a country where there are no guns amongst regular citizens, and I can't even imagine everybody in my country suddenly owning a gun. The presence of guns is so alien to regular people here, that I would personally be suspicious about meeting any regular Joe who owned a gun for self defense purposes. Only hunters own weapons (single-shot hunting rifles mostly) and it takes months to complete training and obtain a license for this weapon.
Then again, our criminals don't have guns by definition as well, and from what I understand of the pro-gun argument in the US is, that since the bad guy will always have a gun, good guys need a gun as well.
that's all probably secondary, i think it's more of a states' rights issue
I watched a video this morning that should answer your question and it provides facts and recent history. THE EXECUTIVE: Obama's Real Reason He Wants Your Guns (Full Documentary)
yes - I do feel safe with a firearm in the house
This is the United States
And here, we have something called the constitution
And the Bill of rights
Too bad you have allowed yourself to be disarmed
So because you fail to protect yourself - you burden others like the police to do it for you -
That's real noble of you
Its because of how we won our freedom. Militias essentially kicked the ass of the Brits, which was made of average citizens, who had guns. If all of Americas military disappears, good luck trying to invade America. Some of our citizens have bigger firepower than our army, and that's a built in protection. You think the holocaust could happen here? Screw the Milgrim experiment, we're ready to fight our own government if its unfair, or "Overthrow." Thats why u'll always need to pry the guns from our cold dead fingers
Anthony Calandrino Amen Brother
I hate all these liberal gun grabbing bastards
Traitors to the constitution - all of them
WOW! this guy said he wants to rewrite the constitution, and that he.. "might consider" including the right to self defense. these people are insane. like to see you try to take my guns..
Of course the 2nd Amendment hasn't outlived its usefulness. We need it more now than ever. The government is bigger than ever. It is taking more of our liberties every year. While some of you trust that mega-government not to take your freedoms, why would you not want the right to be armed to ENSURE that the government doesn't become try to take ALL of your freedoms?
Dershowitz is wrong. The framers thought a state based militia was necessary to contain the feds, and they thought is would not resist the power of the feds, which is what happened. Given that, they thought the right to keep and bear arms among the people should not be infringed.
I am going to say this, I liked the video a lot. Here is my question to everyone. What happens when all the guns are taken from the people? When, you start to bad to one gun then more guns bans start to follow. Look at the all guns that were band under Clinton, all fully automatics. The Criminals still have them. Now, look at the AR-15 style. Noticed, I said AR-15 style. It is not a fully automatic. It looks like one, but it is not. This ban on all AR-15 weapons have started since the middle of 1995. Have, you thought about my question. A dictator always comes to power, when you disarm the people, the people suffer. Look at how many people did Mao kill? 45 million. Look at Stalin, how many did he kill? 20-60 Million people. Look at Hitler, how many people did he kill after he took the guns? 11 million, that includes 1 million children. I will never ever give up my weapons till I am dead. When the guns are taken the government has total control and this what the second amendment is about. Every law bidding American Citizen is part of the militia. That is who the militia is. I shoot every weekend and every cook out that I have at my home, that is like 8 times week. I took an oath in 1994 to Support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, from ALL ENEMIES BOTH FOREIGN and DOMESTIC and TO DEFEND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA from the SAME.
Don’t ever give up your guns !!
I will never give up my guns, nor my right to keep and bear arms. If you want my guns, try and take them!
The second ammendment is NOT about self defence, it is about collective defense of the people against a tyrannical government.
I really enjoyed the debate. I’m not an American and I live in a country where we don’t have guns and they don’t have a place in our society. However whilst I don’t really understand the relationship Americans have wIth guns, I do respect the fact that Americans have this right and it’s their concern.
So whilst I acknowledge the Americans right to own guns, I do struggle with the argument behind the rights. Protection I guess is a valid argument , if you cannot rely on your police to protect you of course you need to protect yourself. I was shocked when I was last in the United States how politically polarised the country is and how little trust people have in their own government. That said surely there are safeguards in your government and the legislature to prevent and stop tyranny happening. If Americans truly fear tyranny, they should look to change the legislature as a better way than having guns for that purpose.
I really don’t have an issue with gun ownership in the United States if that is what Americans want. If you like guns , for protection or sport that’s ok. Have as many as you like. It’s your right and I’m good with that. I just don’t understand the narrative that Americans need guns for their protection against tyranny or a foreign invader. In 2020 I can’t really think who would want or be able to invade the United States. I think America has a historical relationship with guns and that’s ok. Have them because you like them. I don’t claim to understand how State’s could tolerate armed militias, the thought of them terrifies me. So to conclude, I would say that you have a right to have guns and that’s fine if you want them. I don’t think that Americans should fear updating the constitution especially on 2nd Amendment countries outside of America do it all the time , and of course just because you update it, it doesn’t mean you can’t retain the rights that you want.
Perhaps if someone has time , they could explain the fear of tyranny, is it real and if so why don’t Americans protect themselves through legislation. Also are militias really relevant in the year 2020 and what do think about them ?
Please everyone be safe
Legislation is only as effective as people are willing to follow it. Several times through out history the state has been the biggest oppressor of the citizen. There are also time when the state is overwhelmed and cannot protect the citizen. These instances make it necessary for the individual to protect himself and his property.
Are they unaware that MLK Jr. applied for a concealed carry permit after his home was blown up and he was denied a permit.
There should NOT be a constitutional right to self-defense. The right to self-defense is an INTRINSIC HUMAN RIGHT derived from the RIGHT TO LIVE. Enumerating it in a legal document only leaves open the possibility of unjustly REVOKING the right to defend your own life.
In 1774 England banned guns & gunpowder in colonial America!! Attempted gun confiscation in Apr.1775, started that 8 year war for independence & England almost won that war!!
THE FIRST DRAFT of the 2nd Amendment (June 8, 1789) during the first session of Congress read: "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." - It was REVISED by congress (and condensed) to its current form in late September 1789.
I can't believe this debate. These people are supposed to be professional analyst and they COMPLETELY left out what is the definition of a militia. Especially according to American law.
10 U.S. Code § 331 - Militia
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are-
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Debate over and done. The second still holds validity today for this simple reason. And I'm not even going into the part where Sheriff's ability to form Posses from the citizenry. We can't act as a legitimate participant in our country if we continue to segregate, and delegate the responsibilities of upholding American Freedom to a select few.
Being called into service for Posse, military draft, or simple public service such as jury duty are fundamental to preserving our liberty. Educate yourself into how the system works before you take some bodies word for it.
In closing...need I remind people of The Battle of Athens, Tennessee?
Proof that it has NOT outlived it's usefulness: That guy thinks it HAS.
Nice to see common sense prevailed. This American gun fetish is really getting ridiculous.
This country doesn't ignollegd the right to bare arms. If that was the case you wouldn't have so many people in jail for a illegal weapons charge.
I very much enjoyed this civil discourse. As a non American who does not believe the right to bear arms is useful in 2013 this debate helped to solidify my thoughts and listen more closely to those who support bearing arms. To listen very carefully to those you do not agree with is so important - it affords the chance to reconsider, re-evaluate your own opinions or to solidify your own points. These debates by Intelligence squared both in the US and UK give me greater confidence in people's ability to think carefully rather than the shouting, ranting and interruptions of the likes of Bill O'Reilly on Fox News.
The right to bear arms is more relevant today then when it was invoked. We face more tyranny from our own government then ever before in History. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Law of the land does not outlive its need.
One of the first things Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot did was take away all the guns in their country. If only the police have guns you have a police state.
"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." -2nd Amendment
A well regulated militia needed citizens with guns. With an army presence throughout the country and police force in every town and city there is no longer a need for a ‘well
regulated militia’ so citizens with guns are no longer needed to join one unless they live in relatively unpopulated places where the police can no longer be called in a reasonable time for assistance.
In towns and cities therefore guns are not needed by citizens in the same way that they were when the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution was necessary and when guns feature so much now in crime and so many innocent people are being killed because the 2nd Amendment provides criminals or irresponsible and careless citizens with guns, to stop that another Amendment is needed to rectify the harm that the 2nd is now causing. Not to do so is endangering the lives of citizens, the self-same circumstances that existed when unarmed citizens had no defence whatever against armed criminals.
How to disarm the populace is a problem. Gun clubs could still exist and citizens keep their guns there. Ownership otherwise could be authorised as is done in Europe and elsewhere by
licencing ownership when reasonable cause for a gun is justified. Anyone without such a licence found with gun can be charged as is done elsewhere too.
The 2nd Amendment was justified to prevent loss of life for people who couldn’t afford to buy guns and needed a local force with guns to defend themselves and their communities. Since those being killed in schools and other public places where unarmed people congregate are without guns and it’s impossible to police every home or public meeting against armed assault limiting gun possession is the least that
the Constitution can do to protect all citizens when guns are so easily obtained at relatively low cost.
Shops that sell things that can cause harm can be subject to the law and forced to recompense those injured. When the 2nd Amendment prevents any such recompense those killed and injured by guns in the hands of criminals are as defenceless as
communities that needed a ‘well-regulated militia’ and didn’t have one when the Amendment was passed.
What the 2nd Amendment was really about was providing gun protection for communities and citizens that had none when guns were being used criminally against them. It recognised the impossibility of taking guns from the criminals when there was no machinery to do so. Today, that’s no longer the case. It’s very easy now to prevent the sale of guns, the import of guns, the distribution of guns, the ownership and possession of guns. To leave the Constitution providing killers and criminals with guns is making it complicit in the murder and injury of citizens, and thus perverting its whole purpose and intent.
✫The woman in the audience asked for an example of a modern day need for people to take up arms against the government, I would suggest that we do not currently have that need because we currently do have arms.
The ONLY way to stop a lethal TERRORIST IS TO STOP them DEAD IN THEIR TRACKS. If you want to become a sitting duck that is your own prerogative! Not me!
The right to bear arms saved the lives of scores of Jews in Poway, CA the other day.
The reason why the Second Amendment played no part in law for the first two hundred years, is because no one was attempting to restrict the right to own firearms until Joseph Eisenhower came out with a proposal in 1968 to ban all handguns and seize them. After that, things got going with the defense of the second amendment.
However, after the Civil War had ended, a proposal was made in Congress to outlaw militias in the south, and a representative stood up and said no, you can't do that as it's a violation of the second amendment.
The winner of this debate is the eloquent, sharp-witted man on the very left, arguing for the motion. Really, he eclipses the rest of the panel and completely overshadows his debating partner.
Also, no, we do not currently have a well regulated militia..However, that is very off base. The entire point is that at the drop of a hat, millions of Minutemen could become a militia. The entire point is to protect the if, and or when factor.
Theres nothing to debate Denying someone the natural right to self defense by any means that they deemed necessary is in its self an act of aggression against an otherwise peaceful group of people. No politician, no constitutional amendment or pice of legislation from any government can take this natural right away and if they try they should be met with deadly force.
Absolutely NOT!! It has NOT!!! It is a God given right!!! Woe unto those who violate any of our God given Rights!
No it hasn't, in fact, I think it is needed more now than ever with the rise of the auth-left, auth-center, and auth-right.
The Second Ammendment Is Just As Applicable/Important Today! Any fool that denies this really needs to wake up to reality!
I'm well aware of the Tyranny of the Majority, but I'm also concerned with the danger of the Tyranny of the Minority.
"The second amendment is a doomsday provision, *one designed for those exceedingly rare occasions where all other rights have failed.* However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once." -Judge Alex Kozinski"
Who's watching this video and reading this in 2021?
So don’t ask the government to step in when mass shootings continue we need common sense gun laws
bullshit, it's needed more than ever
It Is called a RIGHT not a privilege and a RIGHT can not be taken away only privileges can be altered or taken! It is not up for debate! What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED do these people comprehend.