The Much Misunderstood Second Amendment | William Harwood | TEDxDirigo
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 дек 2018
- As a lawyer deeply invested in upholding the objective truth of our Constitution, William Harwood elucidates the history of the Second Amendment, tracing its original intention through the various historical legal interpretations that have led to our current relationship, legally and culturally, to guns. William Harwood has been actively involved in the efforts to reduce gun violence both in Maine and nationally. In 2000, after the Columbine High School shooting, he founded Maine Citizens Against Handgun Violence to lead efforts in Maine. Since then he has served on and chaired the Governing Board of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the American Bar Association Special Committee on Gun Violence. He has also served on the governing Board of States United to Prevent Gun Violence and the U.S. Department of Justice Safe Neighborhoods Project for Maine. Finally, he has authored articles on gun regulation including: Gun Control: State versus Federal Regulation of Firearms, Maine Policy Review (Vol. 11, No. 1 Spring 2002) and a pamphlet entitled Summary of Maine Gun Laws (Maine Citizens Against Handgun Violence Foundation 2003). For the past two years, he has served as Board Chair of Maine Gun Safety Coalition, formerly known as Maine Citizens Against Handgun Violence. This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at www.ted.com/tedx
“the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” is pretty clear language.
Yes...prty simple to me...the right of the People Shal NOT be infringed means exactly that "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" & preaching infringement makes you an enemy of the constitution & you should be treated as such
ninebal thata boy
Robert Phillips it does say that. But the militia is the same today. A citizen organization where they bring their own firearms. How is that any different than back then?
@@robertphillips1262 article 1 section 8 actually requires congress to provide weapons to the militia. The amendment is talking about organized militia being regulated per the constitution. That is why the people or unorganized militia are guaranteed the right.
@@robertphillips1262 congress would actually provide funds to the state to purchase weapons for the milita. Remeber this is after the war, after shays rebellion, after the articles of confederation and after ratification and the creation of the federal government.
1st amendment ~ Congress shall make no law.......
2nd amendment~ ...... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
4th amendment~ The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
5th amendment~ No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime...
Sound like the amendments were restriction on law makers, not a list of rights given to the people by government.
EXACTLY!!
@Jason Lee NAILED IT!
Everyone of these liars knows this
An entire document written in secret and never legally ratified so I don't get all the debate over it.
Yes, but the 2nd Amendment history has to do much with the separation of church and state... it was said that Protestants could bare arms and no one else... not Jews nor Catholics... the people are the ones who can carry...
A well informed citizenry is the best defense against tyranny.
Thomas Jefferson
And where in the phrase well informed does it say anything about weapons of death? Unregulated guns in the hands of all or many is a recipe for chaos. Get over yourself, many other civilized countries do perfectly well without a Second Amendment. It wasn't handed down from the heavens you know.
Which is why when clowns like this bloke spew his anti second amendment propaganda, in an attempt to brainwash the People, we can Refute his claims with Facts, and Historic Precedent which prove him wrong.
Informed, not disinformed
As a lawyer I care about clarity, while lawyers word the bills passed by congress to be as unclear as possible
@Patrickhein9... When you lose something it's always in the last place you look! Why? Cause we stop looking when we find it. That's the English language.
I find the language of many bills and laws to be well worded and pretty clear in the what they’re trying to accomplish
The tittle of the video is correct. This guy misunderstood the second amendment
Exactly, he clearly is one of the people that he talks about.
What's to misunderstand? It clearly says a well armed militia. Gun advocates always ignore that section.
@M. A. seems to me, if you were that worried about your government you could maybe..I don't know...not vote them into power to begin with. And i gotta say, the whole citizen militia thing doesn't seem to be doing all that great thus far.
@@ILoveGrilledCheese right, because if I don't vote for somone, that means a tyrant won't be put in office. Are you daft? There are almost 400 million people living in the U.S. and quite a few of them love worshiping their elected officials. The 2nd amendment is to make sure if the majority does take over, the minority can fight back.
@@therev2100 but the minority has taken over. And I still don't see you marching with guns in tow.
Maybe you could read the federalist papers and get a better idea of what the founding fathers really wanted.
Ask Ireland what they think about the USA's second amendment.
dsm3759703 why?
You mean the Anti Federalists.
Who cares what Ireland thinks. @@dsm3759703
Dan with no name
No the Federalist Papers outline the intent of the Constitution.
We left behind the Articles of Confederation.
However the Anti Federalist papers definitely came to pass
Funny how he didn't talk about McDonald v. Chicago which pretty much threw everything he said out the window.
I mean Heller is at the heart of whether this is, in the status quo, an individual right to bear arms without any connection to a militia. I don't see McDonald adds or takes away anything.
I don’t see how something so clear can be considered misunderstood.
It's clear it was intended to establish a militia where the people had to provide their own arms.
It's done on purpose and it's totally disingenuous. Government is a terrorist organization, and doesn't want you to be able to defend yourself against them.
Exactly
@attrigger...: Misconstruing is what commies do! Art of war... The best way to defeat a far superior enemy IS INFILTRATION. can you connect the dots? "Where is gunner Joe McCarthy when you need him" Funny ha ha or funny peculiar?
Because only the dishonest try to make it complicated to the point of not applying to the people.
He's proud of the fact he got a disabled guy kicked out of his apartment for having a gun.
@MR. Right Being Disabled doesn't mean mentally ill
Yeah, basically preventing a disabled person's means of self defense is clear discrimination, which is in and of itself illegal. It doesn't take a scholar to see that.
@Darth Ur just remember it was the property owner's responsibility to clarify the contract, if they did not then the contract is null and void. Contracts are only valid when both parties understand.
@Darth Ur if you agreed to something you did know about means you didn't agree. If there was a contract then it voids the contract. In this case the property owner would be responsible for making sure the client understands the contract completely because if not it is void.
@Darth Ur which shills-r-us do you shop at?
Why is he so proud of getting a disabled veteran kicked out of his house for wanting to protect himself
Sadly, while kicked out of his house was too far...some vets have lost it. Sorry. Guns for them are bad. Now was the disability linked to any mental issue or just a physical handicap?
he signed a contract with a no guns clause?? if you don't like it find another apartment / don't sign the contract.
Lunar 99 ... because he is a Jewish Zionist thus, He has no heart.
Proud? I suppose the landlord hired him.
@@katiecourt28 contacts are void if they aren't completely understood by both parties. So if the clause was in there and the property owner doesn't disclose that information and only said sign here it voids the contract. So maybe you should stay out of law because you don't understand the fundamentals of laws and contracts.
It's so misunderstood that even the speaker doesn't understand it
The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
His word is not the law.
@@ClarkHathaway3238 But the Constitution is. And it clearly and unequivocally protects a person's right to own and carry a firearm.
@@walden420 Where are you getting "person" and "a (singular and particular) firearm" from?
@@ClarkHathaway3238no, but as one of many of the Founding Fathers of the United States, the Spirit of his words are, like many of his contemporaries, enshrined in the Constitution of the United States.
He, like all American People, was a member of the Militia, which fought for the independence of the country.
A Well Regulated Militia,being Necessary for the Security of a Free State, The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, Shall Not Be Infringed.
Not the State.
Not the Government.
Not the Militia.
The People.
@@Beuwen_The_Dragon Ya that's exactly what I'm saying. People. Plural. Find me where it says you as an individual have a right to a particular firearm of your choosing.
“The other 9 Amendments have never been the subject of such strict scrutiny”
1st Amendment: Am I a joke to you?
No other amendment, not even the first, has been argued to protect a collective right rather than an individual right.
Tenth amendment : “I’m here too!”
Okay so we know what side this liberal piece of s*** is on so this man because he can't afford to own his own home he don't have constitutional rights because he's forced to rent
So this man because he forced to rent an apartment he don't own his own home he has no constitutional rights
So the second amendment only applies to people that own their own home apparently if you have to rent you have no right
TEDx has rules about not allowing controversial or political videos. How did this get through?
TED hosts ideological propaganda from alternative medicine, BLM and third wave feminism. It's our mistake, as viewers, in expecting such an organization to abide by their own standards.
He was pushing "common sense" gun control. That's how it got through .
Because they think it’s “common sense” to take guns away and to cater to a certain audience.
Highway Holligan no there isnt
TED talks are all bogus
To quote D.C. v. Heller (2008):
1. Operative Clause.
a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.[Footnote 5]
Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people” in a context other than “rights”-the famous preamble (“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the people” will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the people”). Those provisions arguably refer to “the people” acting collectively-but they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.[Footnote 6]
What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990):
“ ‘[T]he people’ seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution… . [Its uses] sugges[t] that ‘the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.”
This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”-those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”
We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.
b. “Keep and bear Arms.” We move now from the holder of the right-“the people”-to the substance of the right: “to keep and bear Arms.”
Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar).
The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. For instance, Cunningham’s legal dictionary gave as an example of usage: “Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms.” See also, e.g., An Act for the trial of Negroes, 1797 Del. Laws ch. XLIII, §6, p. 104, in 1 First Laws of the State of Delaware 102, 104 (J. Cushing ed. 1981 (pt. 1)); see generally State v. Duke, 42 Tex. 455, 458 (1874) (citing decisions of state courts construing “arms”). Although one founding-era thesaurus limited “arms” (as opposed to “weapons”) to “instruments of offence generally made use of in war,” even that source stated that all firearms constituted “arms.” 1 J. Trusler, The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in the English Language 37 (1794) (emphasis added).
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35-36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
Like my methods this analysis from probably the assenting opinion is by an educated man and it will fall on deaf ears. Keep it short and focused to have more effect. Focus overlooks even handed coverage often.
Heller was LE. So, yeah he would have 2a protection, because he would bear arms in the event of an emergency to protect the State or Country if required. But a regular civiiian? We wouldn't know since they aren't signed up for reserves. Many also disagree with the judge's ruling in that verbiage should have been used, but wasn't. remember, judge's are not the last word. Judge's can be overturned. Just like the Supreme Court can overturn a previous ruling. It just matters if there are crooked members of the Supreme Court like 4 of the current GOP appointed SCOTUS that are accepting expensive gifts, etc. and making rollings on cases brought to them by their donors.
@@Oneness100 The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, and was expressly meant to be about all former, current or future modern military arms and equipment for the citizenry of the United States.
Regular citizens are the militia, not cops, not the military.
Wow, did this guy actually say that a tenant doesn't have the same constitutional rights as a homeowner? Sir, you are exactly the reason the founding fathers wrote the Bill of Rights for us!
No, what he said was landlords have the right to dictate terms of the lease. Ever lived in an apartment that doesn’t allow dogs, go yell at those people that they are violating your rights. Ever seen a old folks home? Go explain to them how they are violating your rights by not allowing you to live there. It’s legal in my state to smoke in your home, but there are apartments around here that don’t allow that and evict you if you are doing it. The fact that 18 people also thought that’s what he was saying is sad. Can you imagine living in a world where property owners get to decide how that property is being used? We need more government to fix that! ~ “conservatives”
Turned his comments off. Lol
@@myopinion999 were you trying to respond to me? You know I can’t block you from commenting and tagging me, you just did it wrong.
Were you saying a tenant doesn't have the same 2nd amendment rights as a home owner?
@@myopinion999 they have a right for a well regulated militia of course. But no they don’t have the right to take a weapon into someone else’s property. Are the courts who don’t allow weapons in there courts violating your second amendment? Are airplanes violating your second amendment because they don’t let you carry a gun on a plane? If you try and use your logic for anything else it makes no sense.
It’s simple: We have had freedom since 1775 because armed American citizens refused to give up their firearms to the British at Lexington and Concord. Our country was born from citizens refusing to have their guns confiscated. Every 4th of July we celebrate the declaration of that Independence among other rights.
(Sigh), that was the pebble that tipped the scale, nothing more. You’re ignoring everything else that happened prior to that: taxation without representation, and the Boston massacre, which historians are still disputing who caused to this day.
OMG…..why, oh why can’t you understand? It’s a safety issue not a freedom issue. Let’s just get AAR off the table!
More proof to not trust lawyers. Like he said it's simple and the shortest written amendment. This snake will interpret " shall not be infringed" into "limited". What a snake in the grass.
Yes he is
Ssssssss
"Does this mean I can have a cannon on my private ships?"
Answer.... "Of course. Thats why we wrote it"
I think you can make the argument that the cannon is part of a vessel and therefore it might be owned by an individual but is operated by and serves the purposes of a crew.
years before the constitution was written then had a gun that could fire as fast as you could crank it. The technology existed long before the founding fathers got together to come up with the 2nd Amendment. So to say they were talking about only cannons and muzzle loaders is just not true.
People,
Let me read the stitches on fast ball for you. The second amendment says what it means and means what it says.
To Keep and to bear arms . That means you have the right to have a firearm on your person and you can defend your life your family and neighbors with that right however don’t take my word for it, just check the resent ruling from SCOTUS!
And there you have it ! Enjoy!
What is that SCOTUS ruling called?
Well Regulated-1787
1. To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation
2. To put in good order.
So it means *Regular*
He also fails to mention that US v. Miller (the 1930s shotgun case) explicitly states that the 2nd Amendment protects the carrying of military type weapons by citizens that would be used in a militia. Secondly, the people are the militia and does not need to be organized by the State to be recognized as such.
This is the funniest part about the argument. A militia is a "army" of the people. This has nothing to do with any state government.
@Your Kidding Good job trying to shovel the same load of leftist horseshyte on people. People do have a right to keep and bear arms. Since we have the right we have the 2nd Amendment.
@Your Kidding better than being a moron
It protects it weather or not it is used in the military.
@Your Kidding armaments.
And to this day, his husband’s boyfriend still won’t let him sit at the dinner table
You know, it’s honestly amazing how many times I’ve heard that said as though it were somehow an argument against gun control.
It’s based on the Constitution as it was written in the 18th Century, in the 18th Century the militias were Town and village militias for protection from Indian aggression but the Federal Government has tried to take away individual rights from the beginning!
Wow... Maybe you should start with article 1 section 8 and what it says about regulation of th militia, army and navy. It was written 3 years before the bill of rights after all. This guy is a constitutional lawyer? Lol
@parallax3d more than that, it requires them to provide arms to the militia.
Fun fact: many states restrict citizen run milita activities
That's not a BAD place to start, but if he's working with a time limit and if I were him working with a time limit, I'd skip it as only tangentially relevant.
Art 1, sect 8, Clause 15 & 16 deal with regulating and calling forth the militia reserving the appointment of officers and training to the States. It's a stretch to think that it has anything to do with the general rights of citizens. In fact there is no requirement in the Constitution for a state to maintain a militia (all did of course). In fact, clause 16 says provides for "...organizing, arming, and disciplining THE MILITIA..." it says NOTHING of "The People."
Where you'd want to search for information would be the individual Representatives, Senators, the President (Washington). As well as any Congressional record of the debates surrounding the adoption of the 2nd into the B.O.R. THEN you'd have to see the debates in the state legislatures as well to get a full picture as to intent. (And in fact, originally, what we call the 2nd Amd was the 4th Amd, only the first two amd submitted the states were never ratified - 1: would have resulted in a truly MASSIVE House of Representatives - over 6,000 today (proportion was 1:30,00 instead of 1:650,000 as it is) and 2: dealt with changes in compensation in Congressional Pay - neither was adopted, moving the 3rd Amd to the 1st and so on).
"Shall Not Infringe..." is a lovely term of art, and a restriction against the Federal Government in infringing on the GENERAL right to bear arms, but not one that restricts the government from taking away that right from individuals - NO RIGHT is absolute...not one.... to argue otherwise is simply insane.
But arguing that it addresses the MILITIA and not "The People" is biased on its face. But simply arguing that it doesn't address the militia based on "Shall not infringe" is childish and overly simplistic.
AT THE TIME OF THE WRITING "The people" by the way does not mean "ANY PERSON" - those are two different things! "The People" referred ONLY to those who were active in the political community - i.e. Land Owning White Men. THAT is consistent throughout the Constitution and has been confirmed in numerous SCOTUS cases including D.C. v Heller - HELLER, recognizing the mutable nature of societies expanded the meaning to all members of the POLITICAL community. Notice it says POLITICAL Community (Heller, 2008 @2780). BUT THAT CREATES A PROBLEM ITSELF! Now "The People" are who? A basic definition is "Anyone who can vote."
HOWEVER!!!! Numerous lower courts have argued that Heller's wording could mean "Anyone with significant contact with the United States." That would (could) include Noncitizens, documented or not!, Foreign students here on visas, people on work visas, etc. So like the 2nd Amendment itself, Heller does little to clarify from a LEGAL standpoint just who "The people" really are.
THIS is why LAWYERS argue the law and almost invariably non-lawyers don't understand it. While I'm not a lawyer, I was Military Police at 17, then a Crim Law Paralegal and P.I. for 12 years and spent two years in law school (gods it sucked) before becoming a U.S. History Professor.
NO ONE on either side has adequately unscrambled this egg to make real sense of it. One thing I do know is that things are different than they were in 1791. And I'm not talking about technology. There's some sort of sickness in our society that no one seems to be able to address in a sane way - and no it's not LIBERALISM or CONSERVATISM. There have been liberals and conservatives since the beginning. And given how many of our founding fathers were law-breakers - that ain't it either (Yes, even beyond the idea that they were traitors to their King, many of the founders were also Smugglers, tax evaders, etc... John Hancock - you know that guy with the HUGE signature, was known as the PRINCE OF SMUGGLERS throughout the colonies.)
@@toddrainer6542 its 2am right now and im tired so forgive me if I misinterpreted your comment but from what I understood from your comment was that the 2nd amendment doesn't guarantee a citizen the right to privately own a gun and how is it a stretch to say otherwise it also says in the constitution that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, 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 and organizing its powers in such form" how did the founding fathers expect the citizens to fight a government that becomes an enemy of the people if the government has the power to say who can and cannot own a firearm
@@toddrainer6542 you said to start your search in the original founder's writings and arguments as to determine their intent. Then you cite Heller and current people's interpretations of what it may or may not mean, and decide that this egg can't be unscrambled. The founder's opinions on the matter are made quite clear in their writings as to the intent and purpose of the 2nd amendment. A quick search of quotes/opinions held by them will make this obvious. It's a century and half of bad interpretations and infringements that have, "scrambled the egg."
This lawyer seems willfully dishonest.
Do elaborate, please.
@@uniivs "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.
Pretty self explanatory. Everyone has the right to own and carry a gun to secure a Free State(Country). Keyword is "necessary" and "shall not be infringed". "regulated Militia" is basically elaborated as "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms". Thus OP has a point of lawyer seeming willfully dishonest. 2nd amendment doesn't frown upon whether you are mentally ill, sick, and were a convict to own and carry a gun. Everyone has the right and everyone has to deal with the consequences of having the right whether it be good (Free State) or bad (massacres, bloodshed and etc). If you think the government is a tyrant; you can rally people with you or do it yourself. And having that tool(guns) should not be taken from you. However, I think the lawyer was basing their decisions on other sources not the 2nd Amendment. Landlord on that state might have absolute rule on the person since they are occupying their land. If the lawyers were basing it on the 2nd amendment, they would have given the man a gun whether he was sick or not because it is his right to own a gun not JUST the landlord. Ben Franklin once said "“They who would give up an essential liberty(2nd amendment) for temporary security(No or less Gun Violence), deserve neither liberty or security.”"
@@munayata38 you're wrong, he's not "willfully dishonest".
@@thisguy976 Agreed the suggestion of dishonesty implies more than just any particular individual's objection to what is being said. The mere fact that the amendment is couched in terms of 'well regulated militia's' suggests it has a temporal context, and that it has little to nothing to infer of relevance to today
Never trust anyone that speaks like a politician
The best part about this is that the comment section is more knowledgeable about the Second Amendment than the speaker in the video.
After watching this, I finally understand why we need the second amendment.
Americans don’t need the second amendment…. They can easily live without the idea they “need” to own a gun?? They can easily live without them
@@kian9982 yea, ok.
@@josueduran6881 it’s a truth owning a gun isn’t what Americans think “human rights” but y’all are so backwards you can’t see urself living without em
Yeah he read it correctly but then he went off to align it with the wrong meaning. When he pauses and then reads the last line that's what it means. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
@@Alpha_Sovereign the portion about the well regulated militia is actually really important. The whole idea was that the founding fathers were against a standing army and thought the citizens should be able to form a militia to act in defense of the states.
The moment he said “gun violence” he lost all credibility.
He is a child of darkness
Is he supposed to call it “gun fun”?
@@tannertankersley2179 no. violence where a perp CHOOSES to use a firearm.
@@tannertankersley2179 The point of the original poster is - why are guns given a special category? You don't hear about "knife violence", "rope violence" or "fist violence." Guns should not be lobbed in with "violence" because they are sometimes used legitimately - to save lives.
IED violence has given the USA military the what for and a lesson in humility.
"...to disarm the people ― that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason,
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials."George Mason,
"An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a subject" - thomas jefferson
I ask sir...where are the regulations? Or are we going to pretend that part doesn't exist?
So there is 9th Ammendment argument to made there or a living constitution argument. The problem I have is not that the spirit of founders would not have allowed for gun ownership, it is that the arguments were made for fully political reasons. The issue becomes if a new SCOTUS revisits this they can overrule on the basis that logic is super flawed
@@unchargedpickles6372 "well-regulated" in a modern context would be "well-armed, well-equipped, and well-trained to modern military standards", because that's the standard/regulation that is supposed to be expected.
@@jakobroynon-fisher9535 when you join the military today you are not expected to bring your own anti tank, anti aircraft weapons.
When this guy started using the phrase "gun violence" instead of "gun crime", we knew right away where he was from and where he wanted to lead the audience to. Although he claimed to be a lawyer, I am not convinced he is competent because he could not even interpret the "Heller" case correctly.
Hmm, it's almost like he didn't read the federalist papers. 🤔
The final minute of the video explains clearly that I do not own enough ammo or guns for what these people want for our future.
Buy it cheep, stack it deep.
Better have enough for the Martian invasion. Mars Attacks!
@@TheTigerspy ack ack ack ack
Amen Fox!!
Yes, trust the man who cannot spell cheap.
“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” - Thomas Jefferson
"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"
And we don’t need militias anymore because we have the military lol
@@salsa564The people are the militia. So in turn, you are saying, there is no need for people because we have a military.
And it says "The right of the PEOPLE," not the right of the government. Its part of the "Bill of RIGHTS," not the bill of needs.
Obviously someone failed basic civics.
@@CharlieRasch If we are the militia, then we are to be well-regulated. So gun control laws aren't unconstitutional.
@@CharlieRasch The people, in the year 2023, are not the militia. We have 340 million people living in the United States of America. 2nd amendment was written in 1791 before there were police and a standing US army....we have both now. In 1844 America formed it's first police force therefore making the old 2nd amendment null and void. Problem is we have the morons from the deep south (places like Texas and Mississippi) where logic is not a known quantity. As Americans, we must educate our southern brothers because, as is, they are lost in space.
Like it was a divine writing lmao you guys are so oblivious
It's lawyers like this and a judicial system like he describes that scares me. It would take too long for me to break everything down as to why it does.
And shall we just ignore the words shall not be infringed
@@rabbithol3productions you gunna ignore the words "well regulated"?
Imagine being afraid of a good legal system.
@@themadmanescaped1 the militia is well regulated, the people however dont have to be. Also a “good legal system”!? I’d love that, shame we dont have one
@@lucianmayfield1578 The people absolutely have to be. Do you think any schmuck off the street should be allowed to get a firearm? Any firearm? Any potential felon or mentally unstable person?
And before you say "But gun regulation is unconstitutional!!!" like every other conservative moron I would like to inform you that the court system across the country have agreed that it is not unconstitutional to regulate them.
"Good evening, My name is William Harwood and tonight I'll be misrepresenting the second amendment".
Do you think you're qualified to give the sole correct interpretation of the 2nd ammendment?
@@ERROR204.yeah I am
@@ERROR204. anyone with a little intelligence is. The bill of rights is not there to protect Goverments.
@@coltwinchester6124 Taliban alert
A total distortion of the 2nd amendment
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one.’
-Thomas Jefferson
@kteeee: it is better to be caught WITH THAN WITHOUT!!! The law west of the Pecos (river Texas) anyone that has ever been in harms way KNOWS you don't bring a fist to a gun fight.
Small but important correction. It was said by Cesare Beccaria, the Classical criminologist, not Jefferson.
The fact that he was on the side of a landlord that wanted to keep a disabled vet from being able to protect his home from criminals stealing his medication is all I needed to hear about the outrageous self-centered stupidity of these kinds of people.
Nothing saddens me more than the thought that people like him will Pass away of old age long before they ever get to see the consequences of their stupidity
Well written and stated!
I'm sure you would agree that a person storing a gun in their own home is very different than keeping that same gun stored at a local Walmart, or walking around a mall with an AR-1 strapped to your shoulder, right? What's the difference? It is ownership of the domicile vs occupying a privately owned space. Your title on the deed to your home is what make it "yours" in the eyes of the law. Owners of private businesses can make their own laws to limit or restrict all manner of things. Remember the debates about private businesses forcing patrons to wear masks? Or restaurant owners posting signs that refuse to serve to people not wearing shoes. It's their right to make and enforce restrictions for persons entering their own business.
It's the same for landlords. THEY own the property, not the tenants. And just like they can restrict ownership of certain pets, they can also enforce restrictions of having lethal weapons on their premises. Same as a courthouse requiring you to remove any weapons when passing through its metal detectors. So legally, the law was on the landlords side. The tenant agreed and signed his name to the rules and restrictions for living within the landlord's dwelling. He broke them, so he was evicted. Open and shut case. The man's right to own a gun in his OWN home (that he OWNS) was not restricted. He was also free to live somewhere else where a private land owner did not have that restriction.
And lastly, when this presenter passes away, ten thousand more people just like him will be born to continue his fight common sense gun laws. They are here to stay and will be greatly expanded in order to protect civil society and form a "more perfect union". The epidemic of gun-related crime, suicides, and mass shootings in this country are a result of people like YOU making the ease of access of guns to everyone their top priority. This has only perpetuated and greatly exacerbated the problem.
Yeah, shame on that lawyer for wanting people to follow the laws…..
It is not the Vera home. It is owned by the landlord. Regardless what you may think of him as a person, he can set the terms of the lease as he chooses.
@@paulrigney540 “and bear”. Neither the government nor private citizens get to dictate this. Where contract contradict the constitution it is null.
The Intent Behind all of the Amendments are detailed in the Federalist Papers.
No need to try and make it up on our own.
The federalist papers were written to the citizens of New York in an attempt to convince them to ratify the constitution. Alexander Hamilton wrote to persuade ratification without a bill of rights, claiming they wouldn't be necessary.
@@beckyjogilbert5712 The Bill of Rights was needed particularly for the more shaky Southern support if I'm correct. I might be wrong though.
I just wonder why we skim over the well regulated piece...where are the regulations?
@@unchargedpickles6372 I'm pretty sure it mean regulated as in organized.
Not restricted
His conclusion is straight up insanity.
Simple question, where did the Militia Members get their guns being the government didn't supply them? Answer, they brought their own. How do I know that? The Militia Act that passed congress in 1792 said so.
This was absolutely horrible, thank goodness the court just completely dismantled his biased and flawed thinking in the Bruen case.
Actually they did it in Heller*
There are 2 kinds of Militias: An Organized Militia is organized, trained, and used by a State. An unorganized Militia is the people who have not joined the State Militia. So, in fact, the people are the Militia.
And an "unorganized militia" as you call it is probably not going to meet any reasonable definition of "well regulated".
@@ClarkHathaway3238’unorganized” in this context does not mean ‘a confused rabble of headless chickens.”, it means ‘Unofficial”, Not a Regular Army, without salary, Separate from the State.
For instance, The Minutemen. These were Unorganized Militias, consisting of Local Volunteers from given homesteads, settlements and Townships, which would train themselves and equip to muster at a moment’s notice. Their training was on par with the Regulars of the British Army, but they were not Payed Regulars, they were ‘unorganized”.
There are many definitions of a militia but the one thing they all have in common, that its a reference to a group of civilians not military members. If citizens are prevented from owning guns then we cannot have a militia because the citizens cannot come together in a militia to protect there rights, foreign or domestic.
Exactly
Reading this actually made me dumber. Bryan, you have not figured it out, you’ve gone deeper into confusion.
@@Boyo-xe5fp literally, like when has any modern day American jOiNeD tHeIr LoCaL MiLiTiA?! We have the military, national guard and police forces for a reason. What jurisdiction does a “group of civilians” have over anyone? We just saw three men in the Ahmaud Arbery case demonstrate that there is no such thing as “civilian militias” in modern America. If any of these gun nuts acted on the verbiage of a centuries-old constitutional amendment by forming a “civilian militia”, they’d at least be charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, attempted kidnapping, false imprisonment, unlawfully brandishing a firearm, and probably several other crimes.
@@Boyo-xe5fp People shoot bad guys with guns. Bad guys take away guns so people can’t shoot bad guys. Bad guys win.
Is that simple enough for you?
@@Boyo-xe5fp How so?
Now that he said it and made it clear I actually see why it’s the right of the people to keep and bear arms and it shall not be infringed.
I'd like to see him debate Colion Noir.
That he is a lawyer with an agenda is his weakness; that I am not a lawyer is my strength.
Uh, you’re a moron watching youtube videos in grandma’s basement. “Strength” Lol. Moron.
Yeah his agenda is educating America on the true meaning of the amendment. Not sure what you're getting at here.
Definition of infringe: act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
in other words the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be limited of underminded. Pretty clear to me.
The interpretation also said guns in common use at the time are protected. This means ar15 rifles being in common use are protected, standard capacity magazines are in common use and also protected.
Who's right does it confirm? Government? No! The militia? No! The RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bears Arms(plural, as in many), SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! It's the people's right, and the people's right alone, regardless of Mr. Harwood's hope's or his feelings.
*ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ*
MOLON ABE BROTHER!!!!!!
I hate autocorrect it changed it to Molina wtf
Yes??
🇺🇸☠🇺🇸☠🇺🇸
The 2A shouldn’t even be debated. It’s a right the predates the constitution. It says what it says. Deal with it.
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.
"THE right of the people" The second amendment is about individual rights.
"A well regulated militia" This part included local and state government in those rights .
It's literally in "The Bill of Rights"
The words "people" and "militia" refer to collectives, not individuals. It would be radically different if it said "The right of every man".
@@ClarkHathaway3238 Soooo, "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
... Is only for groups of people and not individuals?
Fascinating!
@@llibressal That is not what I'm saying.
@@ClarkHathaway3238 Oh, you meant the language could have been a bit more clear?
@@llibressal I'm saying the language refers to a right granted to communities not individuals.
From the moment I heard "gun violence" I knew that he is a gun control hack.
He quotes the ruling that says you can have a gun ONLY in the home, and then is a part of a lawsuit against a man who has a gun ONLY in his home.
Technicly, it wasn't HIS home, but someone else's home who rented it out to the man, therefore the ultimate decision belonged to the owner, NOT the rentee
Maybe in Maine. But in the free state of Texas, a person paying rent, and receiving mail at an address is the resident and has all rights pertaining thereto. My drivers license has the address of the home I rent. My license does not have the property owners name on it. It is against the law to prohibit a renter from possessing a firearm in the domicile he pays for. It is also unlawful to restrict a gun owner from bringing his firearm into a hotel (the ultimate in temporary accommodation). Oh, and you misspelled technically.@@therandomekekistani5812
@@therandomekekistani5812 Technically, a 'home' isn't the same as 'ownership'. That was the tenant's home, not the landlord's.
It wasnt discussed much because it had been so clearly written. But as societal anomalies begin to happen, insecurities will rise, and those that are insecure and in power will attempt reckless control of an uncontrollable situation.
The second was literally to overthrow the government if the first is ignored.
Maybe he should reread the 1939 Miller Case. The case was remanded to the District Court to take evidence concerning the usefulness of the sawed off shotgun during war. In WWII, Filipinos making shotguns from water pipes killed Japanese soldiers. The 1939 case really means that weapons cannot even be taxed, mush less restricted.
I'm speechless. In my opinion a concealed handgun license is a direct infringement to the 2nd Amendment. Thus being null and void
Lol did it say that.
Concealed carry.
Did the 2nd amendment say a gun, bac then a musket long as fuk.... concealed?
Also you started with in my opinion.
Yea that's now how it works. Lmao
@@michaelfiori6700 the 2nd amendment refers to "arms", meaning all arms. Not just muskets. You really think the founding fathers didn't think guns would advanced past muskets? lol. I guess they intended "freedom of the press" to only mean a printing press right? All other news media doesn't count.
@Michael Fiori They said "keep and bear arms"
"Arms" means weapons. Not muskets.
Caetano v Massachusetts confirmed modern weapons are legally protected arms. Your gun control is dead
First of all, it says the right to keep and bear arms, not the right to keep it secret that you're bearing arms. Second, if anyone can apply for a license, then anyone can get a gun.
@@michaelfiori6700 back then, muskets weren't the only guns that existed, but keep on asking zero questions and just blindly gulp down what ever Don Lemon vomits
A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
Not true. See article 1 section 8 clauses 15&16.
@@chuckszmanda6603 notice it's a quote from one of the original framers? So anything to the contrary is a violation of the vision for the constitution.
@@chuckszmanda6603 actually the militia is still the people. Article 1 section 8 just specifies how militia is brought together.
@@chuckszmanda6603 Don't forget Article 2, Section 2, clause 1 that puts the President as Commander in Chief of the Militia when called into Federal Service. It's clear that they're NOT talking about a poorly trained rabble of farmers training on the village green but ARE talking about a structured organization that the State is required to organize, train and discipline per Congresses mandates, AND to provide all the Officers. It was intended to take the place of a large federal standing army. They did allow a small federal standing army that had to have it's funds renewed every 2 years. No such restriction is placed on the Navy.
It is true that the people themselves are also a militia that can be drafted into service IF such need arises.
Another thing that people tend to overlook (especially 2nd amendment 'enthusiasts") is that Congress placed a comma between "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" and "shall not be infringed" INTENTIONALLY separating the 2 clauses and putting the focus to be on "A well regulated militia" instead. Had they intended the subject of "shall not be infringed" to be on "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" the comma would not be there, and in fact the entire first half of the amendment would be irrelevant and most likely wouldn't be there.
Further, as an Amendment is intended to modify, add to, delete from or nullify the part of the document it's amending, and the 2nd Amendment in no ways changes or nullifies the wording of Art 1, Sect 8 clauses 15 & 16 or Art 2, Sect 2, clause 1, we can only infer it's an addition to the MILITIA clauses of Art 1 sect 8. Clauses that include giving Congress the power and authority to call forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, SUPPRESS INSURRECTION and repel invasions.
execute: carry out or put into effect (a plan, order, or course of action).
And in this instance, I'd add enforce to that list.
@@philleprechaun6240 I agree 100%.
Defense of the home and community are a side affect of the second. Also the second was not meant to be limited and covers all tools of war not just guns .
Exactly it uses the word arms, which means weapons of war. Democrats say that they believe in the second amendment and only want to ban the weapons of war which is the exact kind of weapon that the second amendment protects. We got the word arm from the French along with armor, armory and army. The term arms covers everything from spears to jets.
2:32 both.
He couldn’t believe his own bs, so he had to prep the audience by bringing up his credibility ( I’m a lawyer )
Im from Maine and I have literally NEVER heard of a "No gun clause". EVERYONE has guns. By the way, Rockland is one of the worst cities in the state. It is FULL of crime.
Where leftist go crimes follow.
What's the demographic make up of that area?
"The RIGHT of THE PEOPLE to KEEP and bear ARMS SHALL not be INFRINGED (violated, invalidated, defeated). THE PEOPLE!!! Period. See your way OUT.
This talk hasn't aged well in light of Bruen. The mental gymnastics these "scholars" apply to such a concise, clear statement is astounding.
he literally said " we did not discuss the second amendment in my classroom"
No, he said it wasn’t (past tense) discussed back in the 70s before Heller made up out of whole cloth the right to personally own guns for any reason.
@@nickalbukerk8215 Why do you LIE like that, Nick?
Where in the "Bill of Rights" does it mention your 2nd amendment right ends at your front porch?
The founding fathers were smart enough to realize that they specifically would have said the right to bare arms only for a militia, but they said the people to bare armsthat right will not be infringed.🥰
Nothing misunderstood here. How hard is it to understand "shall not be infringed "
It’s almost as if this guy hit the pause button on understanding the true and clear purpose of the 2nd Amendment. He’s a danger to freedom.
our 2nd amendment right is our most important right because it protects our other rights.
And Terrorists are so happy too, they can bring any guns and ammunitions to their target without interference! LOL
Bro forgot about the second part “ the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Why is it that whenever someone talks about "common sense gun laws" or "common sense gun control" it turns out to be just another euphemism for "civilian disarmament"? Has anyone noticed that the places with the highest levels of per capita gun ownership - rural communities - have much lower per capita levels of gun crimes? Why aren't they hotbeds of gun crimes? Yet we invariably find the highest per capita levels of gun crimes and gun violence where they had the strictest gun restrictions.
So, this is what a real life super villain looks like.
Really??
I would've thought the Las Vegas shooter qualified as a Villan.
@@linuxd The guy never even sought to explain his motives. He was closer to a natural disaster than a super villain.
@@jasonking9727 yet the 2nd amendment is saying that it is built specifically for the security of the state
Mass shooting is an issue for the security of the state.
"....shall not be infringed."
The presentation is a very creative interpretation of this phrase on his part.
"Well regulated" very creative interpretation of the phrase on the GOP part
never discussed it in the classroom yet feels entitled to create a ted talk about it
9:42 oh yeah *a* gun (nevermind the fact that this could mean the government could restrict you right to only have a single shot 22) you forget the the founding fathers James Madison wrote a letter to a *private* ship owner the he could totally own a cannon on his ship. (The privateer wanted to protect against pirates)
This isn’t just “A gUn” and it is being carried outside the home
Should be titled "my misunderstanding of the 2nd amendment".
This is the type of sophistry that costs precious lives. The saddest part is, this lawyer doesn't even know it!
If that is the case, why have more lives been lost AFTER Scalia's ruling? (28k yr to 46k yr)
Just because you dont like the explanation doesn't make it false. His explanation is right on the money and you cannot read it any other way. The second amendment is cut and dry and very simple. You were suppose to maintain firearms for use in a militia. Once a standing army was created for good or bad the second amendment became moot. Didnt stop scalia being an activist judge and craping on 200 years of precedence.
@@darkroom3116 The room isn't dark, there's a bag over your head that some1 thought would hide your stupidity - Evidently that didn't work!?
@@GregariousAntithesis Curious considering the continental army was formed before the 2nd amendment was even written, yet they still decided to distinctly identify the importance of an armed civil population and the right of the *people* to bear arms. Seems like one of them may have gone, "oh, this is kind of moot considering that army we formed over a decade ago".
I think i missed the part of the amendment that said only for home. Oh and where it said “a gun”. I always thought “arms” meant plural.
Definition of minuteman
: a member of a group of men pledged to take up arms at a minute's notice during and immediately before the American Revolution
They would met in a church a tavern a front yard a palor etc.
I have a great idea we should rewrite the 2nd amendment to say “the peoples right to keep and bear any type of arm shall not be infringed”
Ah, I see, AK47 and M16 are fully automatic, sawed-off shotguns, 100 round drum magazines
The founding fathers nearly put the 2nd first as they were so scared the government might try to take it
No. The founding fathers were scared that others, either the British or rebelling colonies, would overthrow their federal government and do away with their constitution. This is why they wanted to organize militias that would protect the federal government. And have them in every state, loyal to the feds. Other people were worried that the federal government would be too powerful. So they wrote the 2A so that any individual had the right to join these militias.
“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”
-George Mason, June 4, 1788, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention
It’s a bill of individuals rights. No state or corporate rights.
“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.” And this guy went to law school? Someone needs to reevaluate their standards of admission because he’s obviously illiterate...
He seems to flip the sentence. The point of the well regulated militia part is to explain the necessity of shall not be infringed. By making the militia the main point and then declaring the militia concept obsolete he achieves his desired conclusion.
The amendment was ratified by the States and authenticated by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson as:
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.
Note: one comma and militia not capitalized.
You Are Wrong.
No where else in the Constitution or in the Bill of Rights does "The People" mean anything other than the citizens of the U.S.
No other amendment is clearer with its "Shall Not Be Infringed" wording.
There was no other case law before because there was not sweeping infringement until the 1930s and then there was no citizens group ready to step in and take up the citizens cause for their rights. However by now We The People have seen just how much infringing the government will do and We The People will not take any more.
The Right of the People To Keep and Bear Arms IS an individual right and it does not mean one gun you keep at home - it does not say the right of the people to keep a single arm at home...
At the time the Bill of Rights was written free citizens had the same guns or better than the standing armies of the day and THAT was the standard that the Second Amendment was written to.
You Are Wrong.
Absolutely correct in your observation of how "The People" was used in the Constitution, it absolutely, precisely meant the citizens of the U.S. This guy and everyone else like him is an enemy of the constitution and freedom, and should be treated as such.
the right of a free press no longer applies since it only applied to quill pens and parchment paper.
First Regular Regiment of the US Army known as 1st Infantry was commanded until January 1st 1792, 2nd Amendment passed at December 15th 1791, so it’s OBVIOUS that the Founding Fathers didn’t want any state army, SMH!
4:35 'as more and more violence occurred'.
Citation needed.
6:45 "The NRA had come up with this position all by itself, without any basis in the law." There was no (or very little) legal precedent for the NRA's position concerning the right of the people (citizens) to keep and bear arms because, for the previous 200 years, legislators, judges, and lawyers were using a literal interpretation of the 2nd amendment. I would argue that a handful of politicians were creating a new position that would in turn lead to new legal contests.
This is also why there is currently no legal precedent regarding the 3rd amendment. No one is trying to pick apart our right to not be forced into quartering soldiers.
You are spot on. The 2nd Amendment received about as much attention as the 3rd because it is so clearly stated and non-arguable. Then FDR had to pack the Supreme Court to get his un-Constitutional gun (and other laws) to not be repealed on Constitutional grounds. Now we've the Dems in our time saying if the current Supreme Court doesn't rule against the 2nd Amendment they'll pack the Supreme and other federal courts in 2021 if they win both the White House and the Senate.
The founders were clear, and appeals to past SCJs does not change that. Washington said it himself. The people should not only be armed, but trained, so that they are not dependent on the military to preserve their own freedom and livelihood.
"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies."
I like how he makes it sound like the NRA did it on it own and not with the support of millions of law abiding citizens supporting the NRA and happy to have someone to fight for them as they could see the writing clearly on the wall for the future if they didn’t defend the 2nd amendment.
I love how this guy tries to use his lawyer title to persuade people lol
A lawyer’s job is to twist the words of laws to meet their argument
@@samdetwiler4531 No, the job of a lawyer is to convince a jury of one’s peers, beyond a reasonable doubt, using legal arguments based on the laws and current precedent.
He doesn't really do that. The bulk of what he has to say is an argument and a solid one at that.
@@samdetwiler4531 if you believe that you might be a cartoon character
This guy is one the reasons lawyers have such a bad reputation.
The prefatory phrase about militias is "an ablative absolute clause giving context for the main clause," and is illuminating in that function. "The Second Amendment does not say it protects the right of state militias to bear arms.
George Mason University law Professor Nelson Lund
Love how this is the 1st result when looking up "2nd Amendment"....
I love how he says leave them with a friend even though the gun is not registered to them
And in some states this is currently illegal as there would have to he a background check performed on each firearm and they would have to be "legally" transfered to this friend. Each background is anywhere from $20-40 bucks and then the paperwork on each as well
He doesn't understand the reality lmao. You have to understand this guy makes a living off of restricting gun rights, a very fruitful living.
Registration is the first step to confiscation.
@@sgl49ers02 Wrong. There is no "transferal of ownership" when leaving a gun somewhere. If you were going hunting with your buddies and rode in your friend's truck, but first had to make a stop at the local tax collectors office to renew your hunting license and left your AR-15 in his truck, that does not constitute a transferal of ownership, nor legal requirement for your buddy to get a license to legally operate said firearm. It's a nonsense argument.
The simple fact is that the landlord owned the property. It was his name on the title. He is entitled to make restrictions on who lives within his property, including what types of pets are accepted and whether lethal weapons can be brought or kept on premise. It's their right. If you own your own home, with your name of the deed, then you may decide if you want to keep a gun there. (And good luck to you and your family if you do keep a firearm in your home. The statistics weigh heavily against you as most guns purchased for so-called "protection" are never actually used for that purpose when using in a homicide or suicide.)