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.
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...
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
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.
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
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 by CNN 😅 “free press” comcast, Disney, Universal, Warner, entertainment companies are the parent companies. It’s never been a free press fellas.
@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.
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?
@@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.
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.
Typical lawyer BS. The right of the PEOPLE, not the militia, not the states, not the government, but the PEOPLE, just like in every other amendment. Any time the government regulates a right, it becomes a privilege, not a right.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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”
@@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.
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
"...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,
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.
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.
@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.
@@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.”"
@@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
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
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."
@@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.
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.
“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
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.
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.
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 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
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.
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.
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.
@@Σατανας666 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.
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.
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.
“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
What a complete goon. I'd like to see his position now in 2020, where mass riots and civil unrest have become the norm, and where previous anti-gunners are realizing that they cannot rely on the state to protect them and need the ability to protect themselves.
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
@@donotletthebeeswinno, 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.
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.
@@donotletthebeeswin’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”.
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.
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" - Samual Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788 "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that htey may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824 "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers, No. 28 "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Defferson, Commonplace Book quoting Cesare Beccaria, 1774-1776 "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason, Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788 "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776 How do so many people not understand what a preamble is.
@@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 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.
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
@@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 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.
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.
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined… The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” -Patrick Henry, June 5, 1778, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention
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.
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
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.
@@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.
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.
"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"
@@donotletthebeeswin 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!
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.
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.
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!
So, I studied the constitution for years. Along with other writings of the founding fathers and their purposes behind different rights/laws. If you actually do your research instead of listening to the ramblings of a bunch of communists. You will find the purpose of the 2nd amendment was extremely clear. Anyone physically able to carry a gun was allowed to do so. And restrictions of any sort were illegal under the law. When the founding fathers wrote "shall not be infringed". That's exactly what they meant. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The only people looking to 'interpret' this are people looking to circumvent the law and are committing treason. “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” ― William Pitt the Younger
First of all, your four fathers were lying because they found nothing. Can't find something not lost. People were here BEFORE your four fathers got here
The second amendment in no way specifies a type of weapon or the number or location of where it’s kept. Militia meant anyone person that has the ability to come together and fight a tyrannical government. The right of the people to keep and bear arm shall not be infringed leaves nothing to be interpreted No type model or number of arms were ever limited in this meaning. Since this amendment the governments have infringed over 2000 laws. Our forefathers were absolutely clear in its meaning. Anything more is tyranny.
"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..." --The Declaration of Independence The 2nd amendment ensures that the governed can alter or abolish a government that detracts from the rights of the people.
He states, “As a lawyer I understand and appreciate the need for clarity in the law.” What a crock that is. It is the ambiguity in the law that serves lawyers. I stopped watching this knucklehead then.
@@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.
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.
@@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".
According to the supreme court you completely misunderstood the 2nd Amendment. Also I like how you gracefully avoided the numerous firearms regulations instituted during jim crow.
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.
Myth: The 2nd Amendment was written in a time when the only firearms available were muskets that were single shot and took minutes to reload. Reality: The Belton Flintlock was able to fire 20 shots in 5 seconds and was created 14 years before the 2nd Amendment. Two Semi-automatic guns, the Cookson Repeating Rifle and the Kalthoff Repeating Musket were semi automatic and could fire a bullet a second and were invented in the early 1700s and 1650, respectively. The Giriandoni Rifle, created 12 years before the second amendment , used air pressure to extreme amounts (basically a lethal BB gun) to fire a near-silent lethal blow with deadly accuracy. It was also semi automatic and used a 20-round magazine. It was powerful enough to kill deer. And lastly, the Puckle Gun was developed in 1718 and was an early mounted machine gun that used a hand-crank. All of these guns were created before the Second Amendment and were all legal.
Among the biggest lies here are the lies of omission regarding the history of gun ownership and second amendment law. A number of which are referenced elsewhere in the comments section. He then follows up his cherry-picked history thereof with the faulty premise that more gun control laws will lead to more safety. The preponderance of the empirical data do not support that view. However, he does acknowledge the Supreme Court's recognition of a person's right to a firearm in his residence. All of this leads him to conclude (among other things) that a tenant exercising a constitutionally protected right, in the residence he has rented, does not constitute the quiet enjoyment of the property. If you want a case study in faulty reasoning being used to advance a political agenda, here you go. Laughable!
@@robertmckinley2886 debatable as theres been any number of similar cases over the years that all affirm that renting or no an individual cannot infringe on your rights any more than you can infringe on theirs. As such as he actually described the heller case that reaffirmed the right to keep a gun in the home for defense of those in the home then you as a landlord have no right to dictate that your tenant not be able to exercise that right.
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.
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." - Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833
I think the problem in understanding is that in the main body of the Constitution it says, "The Congress shall have Power to provide for Organizing, Arming, and Disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States..." And then the 2nd Amendment says.."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." So, it seems that the "well regulated Militia" would first have to be established by Congress. And those acting as part of the Militia would have to be acting in Service to the United States. Also, any violations of Militia-related laws would apparently fall under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (court martials not civilian trial courts).
@@MD-qz1wx One, though, doesn't have to be in a militia to be able to have guns. It'd be a privilege if that were true, but a privilege would not be in the Bill of Rights and it wouldn't be referred to as a right in the 2nd Amendment either if that were true.
@@Anon54387 I think that's where the confusion lies within the text. If being a member of the Militia was not a requirement for this right, then why mention it in the 2nd Amendment at all? The Framers could have just written, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." Then there would be no confusion.
@@MD-qz1wx The militia is one reason the right is important (can't have a militia without privately owned arms) but, like all rights, they can be exercised in any way and to any extent that doesn't infringe the rights of others. It's why owning a gun is legal but murder is not. The murder is what infringes the rights of someone else, namely their right to life. And since we've a right to life we've the right to defend that life if someone attacks us. It's like that example sentence I gave about Congress and books. The well informed Congress is one reason for the right to books, but one doesn't have to be in Congress to have the right. In fact, if one did have to first be in Congress to have the right it'd defeat the very purpose ie having a well informed Congress. People need to be able to read books ahead of time. But the exercise is not limited to that and that alone. They DID write that the right to arms shall not be infringed. That they stated one reason why it is important in that amendment doesn't mean it is restricted to that and only that. Again, logically speaking that would make it a privilege if that were true.
@@MD-qz1wxIf they wanted ownership of arms to only be for service in a militia, and the militia clauses mandate that Congress has the power to arm the militia.... why amend the Constitution at all? What did that amendment achieve? I don't understand how you guys are so illogical.
In the Words of George Mason and James Madison: “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.” -George Mason
@@unchargedpickles6372 Here it is: Heller v District of Columbia, Supreme Court: Held, quote: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2-53. (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2-22. Also see the Militia Act of 1792
@@raymarchetta7551 Yep, but people like this lawyer will take the phrase "traditionally lawful purposes," and try to define and guardrail that, and drape it with all sorts of legal baggage and stale quotes from lawyers and judges who sit in their law libraries and smoke cigarettes and drink coffee and have never touched a gun, let alone had their hearts invested in the weapons that keep us free. But excellent citations!...thanks.
@@mOYNTdnbzso People like him also love to use the word "regulated". "They wrongly use “regulated” in a government bureaucratic sense, not in the sense it was used when written in the Constitution. "Well regulated: troops: properly disciplined", see the OED, (the Oxford English Dictionary), vol. XIII, p. 524. That was/is the definition in 1790. There are 21,730 pages in 20 volumes in the second edition of the Oxford English Dictionary defining words at different points in time/history. "When those companies are obliged to admit any person properly qualified ...they are called regulated companies"- Adam Smith, 1828, vol. XIII p.524. The militia had both troops and companies. Buy the OED, about $2,000. By the way the Supreme Court uses it in deciding cases.
The second amendment is very clear. It provides that, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."" The first part has been misused for decades. Listening to a gun control advocate who admits he did not study the Second Amendment says all we need to know about the source here. Had he studied, or done a fact check, he would have easily been able to discover the founders intentions. The word arms was described in the dictionaries of the period as "all manner of weapon". The Second Amendment actually provides for 2 rights, something that a constitutional scholar would actually know. It provides for civilians to be able to own any weapon they chose, as well as to form private militias. The conflation here is deliberate or astonishing ignorance for someone who claims to have studied the Constitution. The fact is, civilians were permitted to own warships, not simply muskets. It brings into question his scientific credentials since science is supposed to be impartial and fact based. Either way, he is no expert on the Second Amendment.
He doesn't advocate for gun control and he worked on a case regarding the 2nd amendment. He's clearly bringing up the fact that when he was a child, it was not a controversial issue. Obviously he understands the Constitution as a lawyer. Also, the 2nd amendment refers to the people as a collective, not as "every man" or "every individual" and this idea that it even says you have a right to "any weapon [you] cho[o]se" is unfounded. Obviously militias would be free to arm themselves the way they see fit under this right but it does not guarantee that for individuals.
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!
I like how the only legal precedence that they can point to is US vs Miller, in which the court stated that sawed off shotguns have no militia use, yet our military uses so called "master keys" which are essentially sawed off shotguns. What's more likely: A) The founding fathers' letters on the subject, the plain text of the amendment, and every court case after US v Miller are all wrong. B) US v Miller was wrong.
Correct, seems as if US vs Miller neglected the fact that all muskets are also smoothbore shotguns, or the long history of u.s. military use of shotguns since the founding of the nation, which continues to this day. When one considers the length of revolutionary muskets, certainly all martial shotguns since at least the Spanish American War, are "sawed off".
The 2nd is not ambiguous, who got massacred at Lexington concord? The unarmed people. By the troops that just came back from the arsenal of the militia where all the arms were housed in a nice neat group and ready to be confiscated. A lesson not missed by the way. So after much debate the solution was clear and brilliant. No one claimed it to be anything else but a fact that if invaded don't do the same mistake and be unarmed in an hour. Then to disarm the people who have there own will cost in blood and men to the invaders. And that is what and why there's a 2 nd amendment written down and reinforced by the 9th a.mend. 14th 4th and 5th and sworn under oath to PRESERVE PROTECT and DEFEND THE US CONSTITUTION TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY. SO HELP ME GOD.
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...
“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.
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
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
Informed by CNN 😅 “free press” comcast, Disney, Universal, Warner, entertainment companies are the parent companies. It’s never been a free press fellas.
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.
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.
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
Typical lawyer BS. The right of the PEOPLE, not the militia, not the states, not the government, but the PEOPLE, just like in every other amendment. Any time the government regulates a right, it becomes a privilege, not a right.
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?
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.
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
“well-regulated militia”
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.
“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
"...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.
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!
@@rockit3422so all one must do in order to justify the violation of a human right is to argue that the right in question poses a safety issue?
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
I believe thats intended to leave room for interpretation so they can bend and abuse laws more easily.
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
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."
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.
The best part about this is that the comment section is more knowledgeable about the Second Amendment than the speaker in the video.
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
Well Regulated-1787
1. To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation
2. To put in good order.
So it means *Regular*
“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
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
"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
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.
@@Σατανας666 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.
@@Σατανας666 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?
@@Σατανας666 How so?
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.
His conclusion is straight up insanity.
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.
“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
What a complete goon. I'd like to see his position now in 2020, where mass riots and civil unrest have become the norm, and where previous anti-gunners are realizing that they cannot rely on the state to protect them and need the ability to protect themselves.
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.
@@donotletthebeeswin 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?
@@donotletthebeeswinno, 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.
Hmm, it's almost like he didn't read the federalist papers. 🤔
It’s a bill of individuals rights. No state or corporate rights.
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".
@@donotletthebeeswin’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”.
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
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.
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" - Samual Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that htey may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers, No. 28
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Defferson, Commonplace Book quoting Cesare Beccaria, 1774-1776
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason, Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
How do so many people not understand what a preamble is.
"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
He couldn’t believe his own bs, so he had to prep the audience by bringing up his credibility ( I’m a lawyer )
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%.
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.
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?
This is a pretty standard position from the liberal playbook. Sounds like Mr. Harwood wants the nanny state to tell us all how to live our lives.
yep that's it, common sense law = a nanny state
@@katiecourt28 common sense doesn't exist. If it did then it would be common. Not sure if you have ever been to the school?
@@katiecourt28 what's a common sense law?
@@katiecourt28 will you be my Nanny and tell me how to live my life?
@@dudeyo8428 course I will xx
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined… The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”
-Patrick Henry, June 5, 1778, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention
He said he was a lawyer, enough said. We need less lawyers in this world. MAGA. 🇺🇸🇺🇸🗽🗽.
Burt Justus I want to be a lawyer, but if I ever become one I will use my knowledge to defend the constitution
*ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ*
MOLON ABE BROTHER!!!!!!
I hate autocorrect it changed it to Molina wtf
Yes??
🇺🇸☠🇺🇸☠🇺🇸
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.
Shall not be infringed. Because of people who think like this
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.
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.
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.
This talk hasn't aged well in light of Bruen. The mental gymnastics these "scholars" apply to such a concise, clear statement is astounding.
His speech made me sick.
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.
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.
@@spongeintheshoeare you his husband’s boyfriend?
@@yourmajesty7592 No, just sick of hearing the same _ad hominem_ over and over.
@@spongeintheshoecry
Completely ignored the second half of the sentence. The right of the PEOPLE SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
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.
"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".
@@donotletthebeeswin 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.
@@donotletthebeeswin 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.
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.
Shall not be infringed 🏴☠️
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?
"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.
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!
From the moment I heard "gun violence" I knew that he is a gun control hack.
Because only hacks care about gun violence?
It's so misunderstood that even the speaker doesn't understand it
So, I studied the constitution for years. Along with other writings of the founding fathers and their purposes behind different rights/laws. If you actually do your research instead of listening to the ramblings of a bunch of communists. You will find the purpose of the 2nd amendment was extremely clear. Anyone physically able to carry a gun was allowed to do so. And restrictions of any sort were illegal under the law. When the founding fathers wrote "shall not be infringed". That's exactly what they meant. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The only people looking to 'interpret' this are people looking to circumvent the law and are committing treason.
“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”
― William Pitt the Younger
First of all, your four fathers were lying because they found nothing. Can't find something not lost. People were here BEFORE your four fathers got here
The second amendment in no way specifies a type of weapon or the number or location of where it’s kept.
Militia meant anyone person that has the ability to come together and fight a tyrannical government.
The right of the people to keep and bear arm shall not be infringed leaves nothing to be interpreted
No type model or number of arms were ever limited in this meaning.
Since this amendment the governments have infringed over 2000 laws. Our forefathers were absolutely clear in its meaning. Anything more is tyranny.
Being lectured on the 2nd ammendment on a guy who doesn't even understand what it means...
"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..." --The Declaration of Independence
The 2nd amendment ensures that the governed can alter or abolish a government that detracts from the rights of the people.
thats not what the author of the 2nd amendment said
Try doing that and then have a friend of yours tell me how things worked out for you.
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*
This guy is insane!!!
What he had to say seemed pretty reasonable to me.
@@donotletthebeeswinyou must be insane too
@@connormcmahon4962 No
@@donotletthebeeswin your 2nd amendment puts more people in danger than it protects
He states, “As a lawyer I understand and appreciate the need for clarity in the law.” What a crock that is. It is the ambiguity in the law that serves lawyers. I stopped watching this knucklehead then.
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 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".
What a weak argument by a weak person... (oops, I almost said "man")!
He’s pathetic. He doesn’t put up on screen the 2nd amendment to discuss it
We the people are the militia.
It says you have the right to keep AND bear arms, bearing arms means having them on you
Absolutely. Keep the musket in your car and the flintlock on your hip :)
does 'keep and bear' mean shoot at will?
@@jackconnolly2665Arms, as in ANY Arms. Not ‘certain arms”, not ‘some arms”, and not ‘just flintlock arms”, ARMS.
@@dutube99who is Will and why are we shooting him?
That was hilarious!!
More guns, less crime.
More gun crime
According to the supreme court you completely misunderstood the 2nd Amendment. Also I like how you gracefully avoided the numerous firearms regulations instituted during jim crow.
Yeah he just skipped right over that huh?
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.
Myth: The 2nd Amendment was written in a time when the only firearms available were muskets that were single shot and took minutes to reload.
Reality: The Belton Flintlock was able to fire 20 shots in 5 seconds and was created 14 years before the 2nd Amendment.
Two Semi-automatic guns, the Cookson Repeating Rifle and the Kalthoff Repeating Musket were semi automatic and could fire a bullet a second and were invented in the early 1700s and 1650, respectively.
The Giriandoni Rifle, created 12 years before the second amendment , used air pressure to extreme amounts (basically a lethal BB gun) to fire a near-silent lethal blow with deadly accuracy. It was also semi automatic and used a 20-round magazine. It was powerful enough to kill deer.
And lastly, the Puckle Gun was developed in 1718 and was an early mounted machine gun that used a hand-crank. All of these guns were created before the Second Amendment and were all legal.
Ok, government says per 2nd amendment, only guns allowed for civilians are those created before 1800. Bet you are happy as peach. Right? LOL
Among the biggest lies here are the lies of omission regarding the history of gun ownership and second amendment law. A number of which are referenced elsewhere in the comments section. He then follows up his cherry-picked history thereof with the faulty premise that more gun control laws will lead to more safety. The preponderance of the empirical data do not support that view.
However, he does acknowledge the Supreme Court's recognition of a person's right to a firearm in his residence. All of this leads him to conclude (among other things) that a tenant exercising a constitutionally protected right, in the residence he has rented, does not constitute the quiet enjoyment of the property.
If you want a case study in faulty reasoning being used to advance a political agenda, here you go. Laughable!
@@robertmckinley2886 debatable as theres been any number of similar cases over the years that all affirm that renting or no an individual cannot infringe on your rights any more than you can infringe on theirs. As such as he actually described the heller case that reaffirmed the right to keep a gun in the home for defense of those in the home then you as a landlord have no right to dictate that your tenant not be able to exercise that right.
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.
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833
The language of the 2nd amendment is clear.
I think the problem in understanding is that in the main body of the Constitution it says, "The Congress shall have Power to provide for Organizing, Arming, and Disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States..." And then the 2nd Amendment says.."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."
So, it seems that the "well regulated Militia" would first have to be established by Congress. And those acting as part of the Militia would have to be acting in Service to the United States. Also, any violations of Militia-related laws would apparently fall under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (court martials not civilian trial courts).
@@MD-qz1wx One, though, doesn't have to be in a militia to be able to have guns. It'd be a privilege if that were true, but a privilege would not be in the Bill of Rights and it wouldn't be referred to as a right in the 2nd Amendment either if that were true.
@@Anon54387 I think that's where the confusion lies within the text. If being a member of the Militia was not a requirement for this right, then why mention it in the 2nd Amendment at all? The Framers could have just written, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." Then there would be no confusion.
@@MD-qz1wx The militia is one reason the right is important (can't have a militia without privately owned arms) but, like all rights, they can be exercised in any way and to any extent that doesn't infringe the rights of others. It's why owning a gun is legal but murder is not. The murder is what infringes the rights of someone else, namely their right to life. And since we've a right to life we've the right to defend that life if someone attacks us.
It's like that example sentence I gave about Congress and books. The well informed Congress is one reason for the right to books, but one doesn't have to be in Congress to have the right. In fact, if one did have to first be in Congress to have the right it'd defeat the very purpose ie having a well informed Congress. People need to be able to read books ahead of time. But the exercise is not limited to that and that alone.
They DID write that the right to arms shall not be infringed. That they stated one reason why it is important in that amendment doesn't mean it is restricted to that and only that. Again, logically speaking that would make it a privilege if that were true.
@@MD-qz1wxIf they wanted ownership of arms to only be for service in a militia, and the militia clauses mandate that Congress has the power to arm the militia.... why amend the Constitution at all?
What did that amendment achieve?
I don't understand how you guys are so illogical.
In the Words of George Mason and James Madison:
“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.”
-George Mason
In the words of me, "Where are the regulations?"
Half the people in the comments: "oh we ignore that part..."
@@unchargedpickles6372 Here it is: Heller v District of Columbia, Supreme Court: Held, quote:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2-53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2-22. Also see the Militia
Act of 1792
Love it!
@@raymarchetta7551 Yep, but people like this lawyer will take the phrase "traditionally lawful purposes," and try to define and guardrail that, and drape it with all sorts of legal baggage and stale quotes from lawyers and judges who sit in their law libraries and smoke cigarettes and drink coffee and have never touched a gun, let alone had their hearts invested in the weapons that keep us free. But excellent citations!...thanks.
@@mOYNTdnbzso People like him also love to use the word "regulated". "They wrongly use “regulated” in a government bureaucratic sense, not in the sense it was used when written in the Constitution. "Well regulated: troops: properly disciplined", see the OED, (the Oxford English Dictionary), vol. XIII, p. 524. That was/is the definition in 1790. There are 21,730 pages in 20 volumes in the second edition of the Oxford English Dictionary defining words at different points in time/history. "When those companies are obliged to admit any person properly qualified ...they are called regulated companies"- Adam Smith, 1828, vol. XIII p.524. The militia had both troops and companies. Buy the OED, about $2,000. By the way the Supreme Court uses it in deciding cases.
This lawyer is a liar,.... I know because he's speaking
never discussed it in the classroom yet feels entitled to create a ted talk about it
Everything has a right to defend itself to the best of its ability
That is what the 2nd ammendment means
More like killings
@@laos85 what you just said does not correspond very well with what i said
Would you be so kind as to elaborate on your meaning please
The second amendment is very clear. It provides that, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."" The first part has been misused for decades. Listening to a gun control advocate who admits he did not study the Second Amendment says all we need to know about the source here. Had he studied, or done a fact check, he would have easily been able to discover the founders intentions. The word arms was described in the dictionaries of the period as "all manner of weapon". The Second Amendment actually provides for 2 rights, something that a constitutional scholar would actually know. It provides for civilians to be able to own any weapon they chose, as well as to form private militias. The conflation here is deliberate or astonishing ignorance for someone who claims to have studied the Constitution. The fact is, civilians were permitted to own warships, not simply muskets. It brings into question his scientific credentials since science is supposed to be impartial and fact based. Either way, he is no expert on the Second Amendment.
He doesn't advocate for gun control and he worked on a case regarding the 2nd amendment. He's clearly bringing up the fact that when he was a child, it was not a controversial issue. Obviously he understands the Constitution as a lawyer. Also, the 2nd amendment refers to the people as a collective, not as "every man" or "every individual" and this idea that it even says you have a right to "any weapon [you] cho[o]se" is unfounded. Obviously militias would be free to arm themselves the way they see fit under this right but it does not guarantee that for individuals.
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?
I like how the only legal precedence that they can point to is US vs Miller, in which the court stated that sawed off shotguns have no militia use, yet our military uses so called "master keys" which are essentially sawed off shotguns.
What's more likely:
A) The founding fathers' letters on the subject, the plain text of the amendment, and every court case after US v Miller are all wrong.
B) US v Miller was wrong.
Correct, seems as if US vs Miller neglected the fact that all muskets are also smoothbore shotguns, or the long history of u.s. military use of shotguns since the founding of the nation, which continues to this day. When one considers the length of revolutionary muskets, certainly all martial shotguns since at least the Spanish American War, are "sawed off".
The 2nd is not ambiguous, who got massacred at Lexington concord? The unarmed people. By the troops that just came back from the arsenal of the militia where all the arms were housed in a nice neat group and ready to be confiscated. A lesson not missed by the way. So after much debate the solution was clear and brilliant. No one claimed it to be anything else but a fact that if invaded don't do the same mistake and be unarmed in an hour. Then to disarm the people who have there own will cost in blood and men to the invaders. And that is what and why there's a 2 nd amendment written down and reinforced by the 9th a.mend. 14th 4th and 5th and sworn under oath to PRESERVE PROTECT and DEFEND THE US CONSTITUTION TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY. SO HELP ME GOD.
Well said!