"Arms" can just as easily refer to an axe, a spear, a knife, or a bow and arrow. The term "firearm" isn't referenced. The right to bear arms simply means weapons. In general.
And of course arms would include ‘firearms’. If one was going to ‘take up arms’ in order to resist the British Empire, I doubt the Brits would be too worried about axes and spears.
@@glasshalffull2930lances were still used buy calvary into WWI. Heavy calvary with lances were used extensively in the Napoleon wars. So yes axes and spears were weapons used and feared buy bolth sides during the war of Independence.
One thing about militia at that time was the population was relatively small, and the colonies could only afford so much for military. Our coinages was borrowed money. Militia was regional and paid for themselves, and also at hotspots the regular military may not have been able to respond to Militia trained, but we're not required to actually follow military conducts This is why they were feared by the British. They had no qualms about what we would call gorilla tactics, and also intentionally shooting officers. That was not respectful. But the short is you had people that lived in the same areas, knew each other, and trained together. And could be employed with the Continental army.
Sure, so why did he put in the "well regulated" part? Part of that meant drilling on the common and following orders, learning about firearm you are using. It's funny how that part seems to always escape the gun nut types. Joe Blow mental case who goes and blows away 20 six year old kids at their school and kills a few teachers for the hell of it doesn't really fit that description, but is what you all defend.
"........well regulated militia..........." You forgot that part. The constitution actually spells it out. We don't need opinions. Militias were actually a specific group of people. Mason's phrase seems to more of a generality that he pulled off the top of his head. Everybody has opinions, we don't need them if people would just actually read the constitution that they rave so much about. Have a nice day.
Simply put a militia is a group of neighbors standing together as a group against outside threats. It can be formed spontaneously, or it can have long standing roots in the community. It is just as organic as the ability of an individual to act and is justified not just by the 2nd amendment, but also by the 1st amendment right of assembly.
@@diffened Pretty sure it doesn't define a militia at all. Because they knew from first hand experience what one was. It is only folks who've never even considered the concept of taking up arms to defend their neighbors that can't comprehend it.
@@diffened honestly? Who care how the Constitution defines it? My explanation is correct regardless of the Constitution. You are trying to narrow the definition because you want to control the narrative of what constitutes a militia so you can control how others perceive the legality of firearms ownership. Fine, fine. I'll accept that is your goal. But it doesn't change the fact that a militia is a group of people willing to stand together against an outside threat. It doesn't matter whether they are armed with pitchforks, guns, or just a willingness to resist by whatever means they have. A big chunk of that animosity towards a militia is the idea that if the people have no ability to band together they cannot resist what others intend to do to them. For those that support the idea that some thing in particular should be done with them...having little to no resistance is a goal. Controllers want to control. But they don't understand the spirit of resistance to those who would do them harm is internal. It cannot be extinguished. It may be suppressed, but only until they become fed up with that which is being done to them. At which point no external force can prevent them from forming together against that threat. Amend the Constitution. Clarify the intent to control and disarm. Prove the plan. It will only make people more certain that they need to be ready to resist, that they need to be on the lookout for danger coming from over the horizon. And when they decide to act nothing can stop them. No law, no threat, no play on words.
@@DonksGrooves I couldn't read all your reply. I stick by my statement. "......a well regulated militia....." was put in there for a reason. Militias drilled on the commons learned about firearms, how to shoot and clean them. Militias were for defending against Indians or any foreign attacker, and they were for putting down rebellions. That is all a far cry from what we have now, right-wing nut jobs buying guns and blowing away students and teachers. have a nice day
@@Spiritof_76 You make an excellent point but they are not ad hoc, they are always operational, a key attribute that distinguishes a militia group from a standing army. They are a component of the US Army and their command structure can go all the way to the POTUS, another reason why the NG is not a militia. We can agree to disagree about the standing army part. Since there are always Guard members on duty, they are, IMO, a standing army, just not a very big one. :)
@@oxigenarian9763 Having been in the National Guard and the Reserve for over 20 years, at no time did I ever consider myself a part of the "standing army," but rather a trained and willing benchwarmer. Both did and still continue to be activated for overseas combat zone deployments just as often as active duty units, and aren't much of a home-turf defending militia. I did work with a vet who joined the Georgia State Militia, who still wore the standard uniform and drilled with a state unit.
@@Spiritof_76 While on a football team playing on the gridiron or on a pitch, those members "warming the bench" are still part of the overall team. As it would apply to the military, that would be part of the overall standing army. You can split hairs with state guards being controlled by state governors but they can still be federalized and so, are part of the federal standing army. A reserve, reserve unit if you will. There are states that have their own guard (militia) who can never be federalized.
One thing you never hear is that due the frequent raids by the Abenakis from Canada into Maine and other colonies, every household was to be armed to protect the villagers at a moments notice when being attacked. This was before the Constitution was written. Being armed for protection was common. Then came the French & Indian War and, of course, the American Revolution. The 2nd Amendment was the result of the hostilities the colonists had become accustomed to.
@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv I'm sure that is part of the puzzle. My point was that since the early days of the colonists, being armed for protection has always been the mindset of the forefathers, be it from hostile raiders, foreign governments or domestic governments. Every citizen has a right to defend themselves.
@@johnmurray950 Please keep in mind that Obama was only trying to get guns away for people are not fit to have them. Trump was the president that wanted disarm most Americans. That is not guess on my part. He said it in front of cameras.
@@johnmurray950 Feb, 28, 2018: In a meeting with lawmakers, Trump said, “I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida. He had a lot of firearms. They saw everything. To go to court would have taken a long time. So you could do exactly what you’re saying, but take the guns first, go through due process second.”
George Mason - often called the father of the Bill of Rights - defined militia thusly: “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
Against who? What training? And who decides that your wannabe defense is lawful? People stockpiling weapons and pretending to be soldiers is a recipe for disaster.
In my opinion the meaning is (since the State will and always does have an Army or Militia the People must keep the involute right to defend themselves against such Army or Militia. The Bill of Rights was not adopted because the People trusted those in power, but because they didn't.
That's a very good way to look at it. The 2nd Amendment refers to a "well regulated militia". The only militia that describes is the National Guard. Just giving people the right to own a gun is not a well regulated militia.
@@thelakeman5207 Just saw your response. The militia in colonial times would have been assembled from an area far smaller than a state. Think village or county at most. Like volunteer firemen, a group of neighbors organized for common good.
@@thelakeman5207mainly because words and language change over time and they were not time travelers nor could they foresee the changes in language that have occurred. Back then, if you said to anyone, “well regulated” they would have known you meant, “in working order” not, “oppressed and limited”. Back in my youth, if I said, “I walked out into the rain, no cap” it would have meant my hair got wet, not that I was telling the truth.
Very well done. I was surprised that you only mension one state, though. There was more than one state that had similar statements in their constitutions.
Back then, “militia” meant much the same thing as it does today. What the article described was an “un-regulated militia”. BTW - I’m from Canada, and we still use the term in its original British context. (Don’t forget, you were still technically “British” untill the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution were fully in force). Here militia means something more like what you call “National Guard”. Literally, a “well regulated militia”. We don’t even use the concept of “un-regulated militia”. We just call them “paramilitary groups”, and they operate entirely independent of, and hold no allegiance whatsoever to Canada or any level of government. As a 40+ year veteran I just call them wannabe terrorists.
Everywhere in Europe they would be considered (wannabe) TERRORISTS. We (Italy and Germany) had something like that in the 70s, early 80s, and both left and right wing "militias" considered themselves heroes fighting for their own concept of "freedom". They lost. BIG TIME!! In most European countries, the only people authorized to own weapons (light and not war weapons) are hunters and sportsmen of age who have passed a physical and psychological fitness exam. You can apply for a gun license for personal defense, but you must provide a valid reason, such as protection from robberies for shopkeepers. However, there are laws that punish excessive use of them (shooting a fleeing thief, especially if unarmed, is a crime). Of course, the Police and Army are authorized, but with limitations on use in peacetime. We, ancient savages!
That is what it means in the US. However the Constitution was after The Articles of Confederation, which failed badly and many of these people want that sort of failed government. If they don't want it to be Somalia.
That’s what they are here too. Somewhere along the way a myth that the Founding Fathers wanted random weirdos to overthrow the democratic government they themselves established took root and has grown from fringe to ‘history.’ The modern incarnation of that was really fanned by a convicted murderer that took over the NRA in the 1970s and turned it from a hunting/sporting gun club with a focus on safety into a death cult that convinced everyone the 2A was a murder-suicide pact for the nation.
@@Future-Preps35 “Kill millions of their own citizens because they disagreed with their political positions.” Exactly what Trump is promising to do. He said so himself, on national TV, in his rallies, for everyone to hear. He planned to use the US military to do it because he will now have complete legal immunity to give such orders. And most of those “militias” will gladly support Trump and turn against their fellow Americans in that endeavour. It’s a matter of public record.
Next up we can look at “regulation” As in the militia training manual “Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States.” This had nothing to do with laws but rather provided guidance to impromptu command structures, troop maneuvering, how to train with your buddies from the bar in military tactics and the like. “Well regulated” means citizen militia groups can train themselves.
Almost every state constitution still defines militia as all able bodied fighting age men. There is also a procedure for the governor to call fourth the militia for compulsory service during certain emergencies.
American had just finished a war with an oppressive government. The Founders did not want that to happen again. The people having the capacity to protect themselves from an oppressive government. That is the purpose of the second amendment and specifically for that purpose.
Perhaps you should read Federalist Papers #9 - for those unfamiliar wiht the Federalist Papers, it is the contemporaneous explanation of the US Constitution to the public by two of the authors of the Constitution. And they (all 85 of them) are the go to documents for understanding the Constitution.
@joseph, aahahahahahahahaahahahahahaaaaaa...... that's hilarious. Among the first times militias were used, they were used to put down insurrections, The Whiskey Rebellion and Shay's Rebellion. This happened very close to the founding and was done by founders. I guess they had a different interpretation.
@@diffened Wow you are so smart. I could tell because of how long you spelled "laughing", and that you need to spell out your laughter, instead of actually posting a cogent argument or reference. This despite your lack of facts. The whiskey Rebellion was NOT started by the Founders, and was waged against George Washington - an actual Founding Fathe and the farmers that started it LOST. And Sheys rebellion started a YEAR BEFORE the constitution was signed and ended before the constitution was signed. I guess you aren't so smart after all.
@@diffened That was actually the Federal Government that put down the Shay Rebellion. Of course like any government they did not consider themselves being oppressive at the time.
Immediately after the founding, the prevailing school of thought was that we didn't want a standing army. As we learned while under British rule, a standing army could be used to oppress the people. The idea of "militia" was that the civil population would be armed and if war were to break out, the government would call out all able-bodied men who'd grab their guns and go to war. The government did maintain a small officer's corps which studied military tactics, they traveled abroad as observers of other countries' wars and studied foreign military commanders. When the War of 1812 started, we didn't have a real army, yet we'd declared war on the nation with the largest army in the world.
Read the minutes of the 1st Constitutional Convention. Our Founders discussed the difference between the general militia and a select militia, Our National Guards are select militias. All enfranchised able-bodied men between the ages of 18 (some jurisdictions 16 and 45.
"Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, [Richard Henry] Lee warned that liberties might be undermined by the creation of a select militia that "[would] answer to all the purposes of an army", and concluded that "the Constitution ought to secure a genuine and guard against a select militia by providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined" - Fields, William S.; Hardy, David T. (Spring 1992). "The Militia and the Constitution: A Legal History". Military Law Review
There were no minutes kept at the Constitutional Convention as the participants were afraid that their discussion would be revealed and misinterpreted. However, several participants kept personal notes. The draft Constitution was presented as a complete document that the states had to either accept or reject in total. Don't take my word for it. Read Jack Rakove's book "Original Meanings," which is the definitive historical recounting of the process of creating the Constitution.
@@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv not so. I checked out a book at the library over 3 decades ago and read it. While it might not have been “official minutes” and could possibly been the personal minutes of an attendee. Chances are they were Farrand’s Records which were printed under the Secretary of State John Q Adams’ supervision. There are other sources, but you’re too lazy to GOOGLE it before casting aspersions that are contrary to your own perception of the world!
For a bit more, read the Second Militia Act of 1792, It defines the basic equipment expected of militia members. That might have been the "well regulated" factor. Maybe. Mostly , General Washington wanted no part of the untrained militia members. Good video!
The meaning of these words is far more uncertain and contested than what the speaker claims. The NCC should produce at least one more video like this to be truly nonpartisan
I think the word “well regulated” should have been “well armed” the word regulated back then didn’t mean what it does today, if I’m not mistaken, they called the armed bands that roamed the hills looking for enemy soldiers “regulators”
I’d recommend a visit to the Armory in Colonial Williamsburg and listening to the docent without interruption. Madison wrote the 2nd Amendment, and would have understood “well-regulated” in the context of the Virginia model.
Any armed person is officially a soldier of the state or country. If you own a firearm, you can legally be called forth like the national guard to serve. That is what a militias existence is for. Military waiting to be called forth.
☝️🤓- #AKTUALLY (TEKNIKALLY SQUEAKING) In the United States of America "The Militia" is currently defined as: 1. EVERY Male Citizen Between The Age of 18 & 65. PLUS 2. ANY (Male OR Female) Person of ANY Age (Between 0 & ∞) who is (Enlisted OR Commissioned) In The (Army OR Air) National Guard at ANY Given Time Regardless Of Their (Place of) Citizenship in ANY Given Space NOT in The U.S. (or Any Given) Space &/or Air Force BUT Can be in The Air & Space Museum (During Opening Hours). ☝️☺️#JusSayin'
Right on! No alliance but to the common good of the people. That means that if you have any entity, foreign or domestic such as a tyrannical government, the people have the right and a duty to confront them in any way they might find best suitable to overcome it. That includes armed citizens willing to defend their Constitution, the people’s rights, and people's property. At least is what i understand from that article, but I'm no scholar, but the idea just sounds good!
"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." Not a lot of words just very key specific words
True, and those words make it clear that the Second Amendment doesn't depend on what a militia is; that is just the background rationale for prohibiting infringement of the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
The Founders would have considered any employed armed body of men as a standing Army. Their heads would be spinning if they knew that the US had over 137,000 armed "law enforcement" officers.
@@normgtg schools used to teach that old food pyramid, five senses, we only use 10% of our brain, the Boston Tea party happened in response to an increase in taxes and on and on also right. 😆😂😝🤣 PRICELESS!
@@trevormillar1576 Sort of. Your National Guard is more State controlled and regulated. Our Militia, while mostly operating within provincial boundaries, is completely under federal control and funding. Provincial authority cannot mobilize the militia without federal approval. Whereas your state governors have the authority to mobilize National Guard resources as required. Please correct me if I’m wrong on this. PS - I’m not talking about using military force against the civilian population. That’s a whole different bag of snakes.
1791 the phrase "well regulated" meent well equipped and well organized, not controlled. From The National Constitution website: "'Well-regulated' in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined, it didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in that it's not about the regulatory state. There's been nuance there. It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight. In other words, it didn't mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty."
That assertion would seem at odds with Article VI Clause 4 of the Articles of Confederation... ...which is, essentially, the document upon which the wording of the 2nd Amendment is based.
@@justsayin...2784the Articles of Confederation did not exist any more once the Constitution of the United States of America was sign in to Law on 17 September 1787;
at 2:02 he states that one rationale for gun ownership is for, "the ability to protect the prerogative of one's state against federal oppression." Where do the founding fathers state the "against federal oppression" part? That sounds like a recipe for civil war because one man's "oppression" (ending slavery) is another man's righteous cause. Educate me.
The sovereign States were in specific debate about how to form a federal government of a type that the States would find tolerable. The Constitution was a document in which they were trying to "constitute" a palatable form of Federal Government. It was the very substance of the document, the concern, and the States' demand for the first 10 amendments. One might be able to argue that the Constitution only applies to the federal government, and not foreign governments or state governments, or smaller municipalities, or even individuals, but to try to separate the Federal Government from the very purpose, form, and function of the Constitution ... doesn't even make sense. So, of course, it's primarily about the Federal Government, and the security of a "free" State (as opposed to a State inequitably bound by a Federal Government) is a direct reference to the danger of Federal tyranny, specifically.
Neither does it make a reference to muskets as some anti-gunners state. The common man owned a flintlock or a musket, in otherwords the state of the art of firearms at that point in history. Such as the AR platform is today.
It's unfortunate that this short video changed from what the title is about to essentially be "why did peoeple need firearms in early America." It would make sense in a longer explainer video, but not in one this short.
You're correct. And the need to bear arms was varied at the time from personal protection, hunting, security of your village, town or state to today most importantly security from government oppression. A revolution was fought to free us from an oppressive government. Think about that statement. And one of the major obstacles early on was the "Government" restricting ownership of firearms to keep the people weak as to not oppose the will of the British "Government" forces. The same thing applies today. Firearm restriction for whatever reason is always encouraged by a government that doesn't want opposition to their rule. When citizens can't rise up, then ANY type of government can rule. For lack of a better term, firearm ownership is a necessary evil for the protection of our Republic. The other reasons are in addition to that principle. Any problems with guns that the society experiences are due to social and cultural issues, not gun ownership.
Article 1, Sec 8, clauses 12 through 16 of the Constitution deals with the Armies, Navy and Militias. The Militia Act of 1792 defines Militia as every able-bodied, male, citizen between the ages of 18 and 45, later changed to 18 to 54. That seems fairly self-explanatory to me. If you are an able-bodied, male citizen, between the ages of 18 and54, YOU are The Militia and you not only have the right to keep and bear arms but have the mandate to be armed and trained.
If you want know what militia means in Constintutional terms, read the Constitution Article 1 Section 8 Clauses 14-15, it says what the "well regulated militia" is , and it ain't "the proud boys".
The COTUS required Congress to discipline the militia. In other words, the job of making sure that the militia was well regulated fell on Congress. Congress fulfilled that obligation by passing The Militia Act of 1792. The COTUS limited the power to appropriate for armies (men and money) to two years. The Tenth Amendment restricted states from retaining troops without the permission of Congress while reserving the right of the people to be involved in militias.
"I ask you, who are the Militia? They are the Citizens, armed." "No free man shall be debarred the use of arms. " REGULATED, meant trained, at the time. It didn't mean what it now means. That would be contradicting itself, if it meant registered, controlled, permitted, licensed, or etc - in combination with shall not be infringed. The National Guard didn't exist until about one century & one-half after the Bill of Rights was ratified.
The United States had an Army and Navy since it's founding, but never had a large, well trained standing military prior to WWI. During wars prior to WWI, the US depended on volunteers and state militias to fight larger wars. Thie founders distrusted large standing armies based on what they experienced under British rule.
The times they are a changin'. Had they experienced the Soviet Union, the Nazis, and the "People's" Republic of China, would their musket era minds change? I believe so.
thanks! would be curious as to your opinion on the right of a citizen to own a nuclear weapon. I've encountered people of a libertarian leaning who say that there is absolutely no limitation of the type of "arms" we can posses based on a strict interpretation of 2A. Thanks.
There is no limitation. I'm not saying, necessarily, that such is a good thing. I'm just saying that the right protected (not granted) by the second amendment does specifically allow for "any" armament, to include even those declared illegal by the Geneva Convention. A professional military can't bear such weapons outlawed by the Geneva Convention, but civilian militias most certainly can. Otherwise, the Geneva Convention would violate the Second Amendment, rendering The accords of the Geneva Convention null and void for the whole of the United States, since the US Constitution inherently supersedes any agreement made under the authority granted by the US Constitution. So, yes. Private civilians most certainly can own and *use* nuclear weapons, A1 Abrams tanks, mustard gas, viral contagions, etc. 30-round magazines? LOL! Most certainly. Now, are the allowed to employ them in criminal ways? Uh, no. But that has nothing to do with the rights of the second amendment. That was to do with the rights of other people. However, two things about your phrasing that I think are dangerous errors. 1. It seems that you're confusing the term "citizen" with "civilian". They mean different things. Not all civilians are citizens, and not all citizens are civilians. Members of a professional military force can be citizens. However, a member of a professional military is *not* a civilian. They are either military or mercenary. A government controlled military is simple "military". A civilian controlled military (professionals) is "mercenary". That's the distinction between those two (four) terms. That's also why we have a fifth term, "militia". A militia is a civilian amateur force (neither professional military nor professional mercenary) with (up to, and including) military-grade weapons and equipment. Regarding the second amendment, it's a right of the "people" (civilians) to keep and bear arms. When a civilian joins a professional, government controlled military, that civilian inherently gives up certain civilian rights, making them *not* a civilian any longer. When someone leaves the military, they return to a "civilian" life. Regardless, then never gave up their "citizenship" (if they had such before joining the military, which may or may not be the case). 2. It's not a matter of "strict" or "loose" interpretation of the second amendment. It's a matter of "literal" or "presumptive" application. The second amendment says what the second amendment says. If you want to go beyond what the second amendment says, then you're going beyond what the second amendment says. It's not a matter of interpretation. It's a matter of application.
@@morganeoghmanann9792 I would say that, by the second amendment in isolation, you are correct. However, the second amendment does not acknowledge a positive right, as it were, even though it might be argued that it protects one. Instead, the second amendment simply states a universally broad prohibition, precluding any infringement, whatsoever, by any entity, government or otherwise, upon the general "right to bear arms". As such, any infringement upon that right, in any way, shape, or form, to include infringing on one's right to bear any specific *TYPE* of armament, is a violation of the direct prohibition enumerated in the second amendment. Therefore, since the second amendment is a specific prohibition against any type of infringement, then *ANY* type of infringement is a violation. Stated perhaps more succinctly, you are correct in that the second amendment does not specify the *RIGHT* to bear any specific *TYPE* of armament, but it *does* prohibit anyone from disallowing it.
Mr. Neily represented the Plantifs in Columbia v. Heller Supreme Court decision. This explains his desire to turn this into a "right-2-bear-arms" video. This seems like something that should have been disclosed. Better yet have him collaborate with someone with a different philosophical viewpoint. I admire the National Constiution Center, but do better.
You mean you admire the National Constitution Center until the information they present conflicts with your worldview. The NCC is an overtly non-partisan organization. They aren't here to confirm our biases.
I wondered at the beginning when he described Washington’s Continental Army as “professional soldiers.” Thy were anything but that. Pretty much anyone who showed up.
The founders would never have been complacent about unfettered access to assault weapons. All those little drawings show muzzleloading Flintlock muskets.
Registering weapons isn't an infringement on keeping and bearing. And, your rights can be suspended through due process. That is, individuals who demonstrate they are a risk to public safety can be denied the right to keep and bear. Felony convicts, for example. The right to form a militia does not include the right to overthrow a representative government. Not getting one's way in an election is not being oppressed.
I think you do have the right throw off a bad government . Sound familiar ? Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
The Second Amendment phrase "well regulated" in Colonial English meant "WELL ARMED." In that period most law enforcement outside of urban areas was done by armed contractors to County Sheriffs who were called "Regulators" because they were armed and skilled with firearms. The Second Amendment was NOT about government regulation of private firearms...........................elsullo
You logic is ... amusing. Flawed. But amusing. The second amendment is not about *only* government regulation of private firearms. It's about "any" regulation of private ... arms, including, but not limited to firearms. It doesn't say "congress shall make no law" (like the first amendment, and other amendments do). It says "shall not be infringed". By anyone or anything. Anywhere. Anytime. For any reason. Such as ... gun-free zones, like schools, courthouses, military bases, etc. I'm not saying, necessarily, that such is a good thing. I'm just saying what it says.
That is only one interpretation. Regulated strongly implies rules. And if General Washington didn't want "unregulated militias", it meant they not only were not trained but felt no requirement to submit to rules like all militias and soldiers and National Guardsmen have to.
@@morganeoghmanann9792 You're misunderstanding grammar. Neither the definition of nor the interpretation of the words "regulated", "militia", or "State" have any bearing on the second amendment. Yes, the second amendment includes those words, but grammatically, they are all in a parenthetical statement, and have no effect on the actual subject-verb of the sentence proper. Insert whatever meaning one wants to for "regulated", "militia", or "State", correct or otherwise, and the subject-verb of the sentence proper is unaffected. Regardless of however one wants to interpret those words, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Period. Quite literally, in fact. By the inherent grammatical structure, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to maintain the security of a free State" is 100% immaterial to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed", because the sentence proper is, grammatically, not dependent on the preceding parenthetical statement. The initial parenthetical statement is stating the rationale for the sentence proper, but the sentence proper ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed") is not *dependent* on that initial, parenthetical statement. If you disagree with me, then diagram the sentence for me in such a way that it demonstrates dependence on the words "regulated", "militia", and/or "State". I assert that such cannot be legitimately done, but if you believe differently (and you are, in fact, somehow correct), then it shouldn't take you more than 20 or so seconds to type out that diagramming, and so prove your assertion to be true. Please so diagram that single sentence, and so end the debate, if you can.
@@jamesday3591 So the first part of the Second Amendment has no meaning? Then why add it? It is there for a reason and your exercise in sophistry is less than effective.
@@morganeoghmanann9792 I didn't say the first part of the sentence had no meaning. I said that the meaning of the sentence proper was not dependent on that initial parenthetical statement. Go back and read what I wrote, specifically the part about "The initial parenthetical statement is stating the rationale for the sentence proper". That's the meaning: it's presenting the rationale. It's academic, second-grade grammar, whether one is willing to acknowledge it or not. It's not opinion. It's not "sophistry". It's not an exercise. Certain people like to distract from what the sentence *says* by instead talking about the rationale (militias, and regulated, and the National Guard, etc., etc., etc.) that are *all* red herrings: blatant, freshmen level logical fallacies in order to get the conversation off of what the second amendment *says*, and on to whether or not the *rationale* for the second amendment is properly understood. I do agree with your assertion that my comments are generally "less than effective", as no matter how clearly one articulates a concept, people without ears will not hear it, and people who aren't willing to acknowledge grammatical structure, typically are not interested in intellectual discussion. They just don't like the second amendment, regardless of what it either says or means. I'll repeat my honest challenge to you: Diagram the sentence in such as way that it actually means what you claim it means. I have all confidence that such won't pan out, academically. If you don't like the second amendment, at least be honest enough to say that you don't like it, but don't lie about what it says.
The founding fathers were worried about a standing army because most coups were instigated by the military in Europe at the time so they decided on using the militia, the federal government supplied arms and ammunition to the states and the states constructed and controlled the armouries where the weapons were stored, this worked well till the British tried to keep control of their colony and the founding fathers realized they had no choice but to stop relying on an untrained militia and increase the size of the standing army, the biggest mistake the founding fathers made was in not realizing how stupid many people would act because they never bothered repealing the second amendment as it was no longer needed and Militias in several instances became renegades who would go from place to place raping and stealing because once the federal government realized they had to have a large standing army they stopped supporting the state militias.
To be fair, there are various opinions about the concept of a 'militia' so I will explain this based on what I've gathered from our founding documents. 1) The National Guard is based in the individual states and identified with their home states' name and under the command of the Governor of each state BUT they could also legally come under the command of the POTUS. 2) IMO, since they are active all the time, they represent a "standing" army spoken of in the formative years of our Constitution. A real militia can be explained by two attributes: 1) a militia is NOT under the control of a central government and 2) they are ad hoc and only form to address a specific problem. The lines tend to blur and if you sift through the comments, you will find differing opinions, especially about the National Guard. Once again, IMO, the National Guard is mistaken for a militia but they are under central control and are active all the time. So, why do I say this? Our founding principles revolve around liberty especially tyranny of a ruling government and, at that time, that was King George III. He was a tyrant, clearly, and his acts of tyranny are explained in the part of The Declaration of Independence that most folks don't like to read. ) To be sure, the Colonies were not in conflict with British people, they were in conflict with the King Our Founders wary of a standing army because they were afraid that a central government would use that army against the people should they choose to abandon our Constitution. This framed their preference for militias and understanding that any tyrant who wants to usurp the power of government must first get rid of the militias. They relied heavily on the idea that militias, free from the immediate control of the government, would best protect our country's founding. Hence, a true militia should be ad hoc only arising from a particular need and consist only of The People not under the command of any central government. Back then it would have been Britain but this was a universal principle intended for the ages.
"Private militia" is a misnomer and ahistorical. Since Roman times militia were organized by governments to protect the state. The Founders probably knew the history. Somehow the Supreme Court either didn't read or just ignored the first half of the 2nd Amendment and decided for the specious claim of a it being an individual right. For over 200 years no one had thought that, including the SC. Nowadays you seen ammosexuals who mistakenly think that the amendment was for people who want to overthrow the government.
For 220 some years people had at most a shotgun or handgun, there were no school shootings, no mass murders by a single gunman. The government never enslaved us. The NRA invented this paranoia and fear of a government boogie man, and has convinced its followers to stockpile and feel no remorse.
A militia is just a group of neighbors willing to stand together against an outside threat. One can be organized on the spot if necessary. In essence this is just like other citizens banding together when in need...for instance those looking out for their neighbors after hurricane Helene that didn't wait for permission or charter to do so. It was organic, and it was done as necessary. Meanwhile Federal help took days to organize and arrive. If a threat spontaneously occurs, neighbors will spontaneously organize to meet that threat. Being armed isn't a pre-requisite, but it certainly makes defense of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness far easier when you are able to stand against those threats. It certainly makes it easier for neighbors to count on the aid of one another if things go bad enough that they feel the need to organize. The idea that it might be used against government is derived from the feeling that higher echelons of government have become intrusive and a potential threat to local communities. Presuming that threat doesn't manifest there should be no concern from any outsiders that citizens being armed is in some way a threat to them or their designs.
A militia is a military-grade civilian force that stands as the last line of defense against an opposing military force used for either domestic tyranny (federal oppression) or foreign invasion. Federal tyranny is *the very circumstance* involved in the revolution, out of which came the US Constitution, and therefore the second amendment. It's the very context of the question: "what it meant at Founding" (of our nation). There's no "sneaking in" of the very context of the American Revolution.
@@jamesday3591That only explains why the Founders didn't originally have a standing army. State militias protecting the independence of the states is not the same as random citizens "defending freedom." That's entirely modern propaganda.
@@jamesday3591 No, sir. With respect. Neither the US constution nor any state constitution refers to "domestic tyranny." At the time of the American revolutiion, there could not have existed any "federal tyranny," because there was no federal government. The purpose of the militias was to supplement and augment the regular mility in defense of the national against foreign invasion.
It doesn’t matter what militia meant. The first part is subordinate. The main clause says,“shall not be infringed.” If you think otherwise, you should study English some more.
There are countless terms for which their contemporary definitions have evolved compared with 200 years ago. A new definition of a word is called a “semantic change”. Here are two good examples. Please respond if you know of others
200 years ago, “gay” meant: joyful. And long ago, if you were "naughty", you had naught or nothing. Then it came to mean evil or immoral. Now, it means that you are just badly behaved. In the 18th century, "well-regulated" meant something was well-organized, well-armed, and well-disciplined. It did not have the same meaning as the word "regulation" is used today. Instead, it meant that a militia was in a state to fight effectively.
Militias were not untrained. Much like today, the state militias were drilled in marching, maneuver and combat. The militia may not have been professional, in that they were not full time soldiers; however they were professional in that they were paid for their military service. But here we come to the crux; the meaning of words change over time. Very clearly the National Guard of today fill EXACTLY the role that the militia of 1775 did. I am a supporter of the Second Amendment. The modern interpretation of the 2A by the people of the USA is overwhelmingly that there IS a personal right to bear arms. There is also an overwhelming consensus that that right is limited. You can't own a nuke, a SAM, a 155 mm howitzer, an 88 mm AT gun or a 0.50 caliber machine gun. The meanings of words change. In 1775 "arms" were something that fired one shot and took from 20 seconds up to several minutes to reload. If the meaning of "arms" changes, then the meaning of "militia" can change as well. As a side note. There was the Whiskey Rebellion. The Founding Fathers put it down. The Founding Fathers believed that just because some group of disgruntled people got some weapons together that did NOT give them the right to overthrow the government. The Founding Fathers did NOT believe that an armed population was a check against the democratic will of the people.
Actually you can own a 50 cal machine gun, tanks with operational weapons and you can get a destructive device licence for a 88mm antitank cannon etc, but you would need some deep pockets. Plenty of videos out there with civilians playing with those kind of toys. There was a full auto 50 cal machine gun for sale dated 2017 on Rock Island Auction estimated to go for $14,000 to $22,500. Rounds readily available. Search for "Lot 2503: Group Industries Class III/NFA M2 .50 Cal Hvy MG"
An AT gun, Howitzer, and a .50 Cal machine gun absolutely can be purchased and owned by a private citizen today. It requires a Class 3 license and a good deal of money, but it is Legal.
@@jamesmcghee8304 The "requirement of" ________ (insert "license" or any other requirement in the blank, advisable or otherwise) constitutes a form of infringement. Just sayin'. You can say the second amendment is phrased too broadly, if you want to. That might be a legitimate claim. But to claim that an infringement is not an infringement, simply because you think that the infringement is good, advisable, wise, reasonable, productive, safer, better, should have been allowed for, etc., doesn't somehow make it *not* an infringement.
@@mac11380 I call BS. Certain individuals can own them if they have strict government approval for owning them. That doesn't sound like a right. You do NOT have a personal right to anything much above small arms, even under this radical right-wing supreme court. You certainly do not have the right to use them for anything resembling their intended purpose. All rights are limited, even second amendment rights. There is no special carve-out for guns. The question on guns is where the line gets drawn. Clearly the framers thought single shot muzzle-loading small arms were covered by the 2A. Anything beyond that is open for debate. Also, they thought there was nothing wrong with disallowing carrying weapons, whether open or concealed in certain areas, like towns.
Read Article I Section 8 (that defines the responsibilities of Congress) clause 12: “to raise and support Armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;“ Now read clause 13: “to provide and maintain a Navy;” Notice the difference? There is no limitation placed on Congress for funding the Navy. But the Army can only be funded for a maximum of two years. It is clear from Article I Section 8 that the Founders did not want a standing army. So if you want to disband the army and rely solely on the militia to defend the United States against the Russians, the North Koreans, the Chinese, the Iranians, and everyone else who wishes to do us harm, be my guest. Otherwise, the 2nd Amendment is nothing other than a dead letter no longer applicable to the United States that exists today, a country vastly different from the one that existed 237 years ago. The 2nd Amendment needs to be repealed. It has turned the Constitution into a suicide pact.
The wording of the early militia regulations was nearly identical to the preceding British militia regulations. Under the US Constitution the head of the "well regulated militia" is the President. ("The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States"). The National Guard fulfils this function today. Private militias do not.
@@maurimojo If you can't find a copy of the US Constitution, you aren't trying very hard. For British precedents, try the Militia Act of1757. For background reading, try: "To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right." by Joyce Lee Malcolm. Highly recommended.
Militia: every able body America male to serve in an national emergency. The only difference between then and now is women are added. It has nothing to do with the military or national guard.
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution puts the state militias under the control of Congress. Congress was to provide rules for the militias and arm them. States retained the right to select leaders for their own militia as long as they followed the rules established by Congress. This is the meaning of "well regulated." The National Guard is exactly the type of organization contemplated by the Constitution. There is no mention in the Constitution or Bill of Rights of "personal firearms" because personal firearms were a common tool. Professional hunters provided game for hotels, restaurants and butcher shops. Many people hunted for their own food. Regulation of personal firearms was up to local communities. Many communities forbade the open display of firearms, or even their possession within city or community limits. It is only because of modern mythologizing that we have become confused about proper behavior with and regulation of firearms.
The National Guard didn't even exist at the time the US Constitution was written. The name comes from France, and was a force raised by the French Republic during the French Revolution. So, the National Guard is not relevant to any discussion of the original meaning of the Second Amendment.
Oh PLEASE!! In the Colonial Era the militia was ALL MALES between 16 and 60 who could perform the duties of a soldier! In this case that meant any guy who could fire a weapon competently! And that is all it meant!!!
@@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv Now point out exactly where in the Second Amendment the Foundung Fathers specified they were referring to ONLY single shot firearms or muskets? You can't because they didn't! The Founders were wise enough to know things would change and technology would advance so they anticipated it by the way the worded the Amendment. Unless of course you are willing to admit those ignorant, backwoods savages were and still are wiser than so-called 'modern, better educated' Americans. Like, say, you.
@@jamesday3591obviously, you know ⭕️ about the Constitution and Amendment XIV Section 3 and 1; civil is establish in Article I.6.2, Article II.4 and Amendment XIV.3 as is military office; civil is a Constitution Law Word and Form, Class and office establish by ‘We the People’ over US of A;
What did the term “militia” mean at the Founding? "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788 "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789 “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 "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." - Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789 The founders were not worried about types of arms and in fact arms was used all inclusively so the public could have parity of weapons with government forces that could be used against the public. The founders were worried about types of governments such as the one on April 19, 1775. The Second Amendment was written as a law against government to stop government gun confiscation from ever happening again as it did on April 19, 1775.
@morganeoghmanann9792 wrote "Arms" can just as easily refer to an axe, a spear, a knife, or a bow and arrow. The term "firearm" isn't referenced. The right to bear arms simply means weapons. In general." --------- But morgan, one thing the word could not refer to are weapons that had not yet been invented. AND THE MORGAN GOES DOWN !!!
First four words of the Second Amendment: "A well regulated militia..." I've never heard any person who wants to own semi-automatic assault rifles even quote these words...they simply gloss over them and fast forward to the end where it says, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Individuals acting alone with their arms is NOT an organized militia, and lord knows, they HATE to have ANY regulations...
You are so wrong. Regulate did not mean government control. It met to be training and arming of themselves. James Madison the author of the 2nd amendment said it himself that the people are the militia. Read the original works no what tyrants want you to believe.
@@lewiswork3943 //Regulate did not mean government control. It (meant) to be training and arming of themselves.// Show me where in the Second Amendment that the Founding Fathers wrote, "A well regulated militia...but NOT government-trained..." That's one of the unfortunate aspects of the Constitution is that it tends to use very broad language that lends itself to be interpreted in multiple ways. //James Madison the author of the 2nd amendment said it himself that the people are the militia.// Of COURSE, the people are the CANDIDATES for the militia...once they are REGULATED. Now, who gets to be in charge of that regulation and training? The Continental government? The Federal government (upon which the Constitution was founded)? State government? City government? Uncle Joe? The unknown neighbor down thataways? Imagine a militia getting together, scores of members all arguing amongst themselves about how to lead an assault or a defense: "My uncle says we should go in one by one..." "No, my neighbor says a full-scale simultaneous assault in a straight line is the way to go..." "No, no! We learned you're supposed to go in scattered with a three-wave assault with auxiliaries moving against their flanks...!" Utter chaos...NOT "well regulated." In today's world, people with guns tend to think, "NO ONE is going to tell me what to do with my guns or how to defend my home/our city/our state/our country. Utter chaos.
@@toAdmiller You're arguing about a red herring. The second amendment is not *about* militias, well regulated or otherwise, state-controlled or otherwise. The parenthetical statement "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is presenting a premise of rationale for the right enumerated in the second half of the sentence. It is neither the right, itself, nor the required application of that right. The right *is* the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and said right shall not be infringed, *because* (as one statement of premise among a myriad of potential reasons not directly enumerated in the sentence) a well regulated militia is necessary to maintaining the security of a free State. You're misapplying, misinterpreting, and misrepresenting grammatical syntax.
@@toAdmiller What exactly do you believe I am "reading into it". I believe that I'm taking it at face value, based on its literal grammatical meaning. What do you believe I am asserting that is not present in the sentence at face value? Whether I agree with it or not is immaterial. I just noticed that the two of you were arguing about something that isn't present in the actual sentence.
He didn't leave it out. That's also inherently included. However, would the employment of those weapons against a "slave rebellion" constitute a violation of the slaves' right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? Most assuredly. You can keep arms! You can bear arms! But you cannot commit crimes, regardless of any other rights you might have.
I would say that if this country was ever attacked and they needed people the gun owners would step up to defend this country just like the men in the past
He completely ignores the fact that the Second Amendment specifies: "A *_well regulated_* Militia ..." Literally the very first words of the amendment.
A reading of the 13 colonial charters as well as the early state constitutions note that certain types of peoples "undesirables" can be disqualified from being in militia. They also detailed the serving requirements to be in the militia, i.e. reporting to register with the major in charge of the militia when you arrive etc... Also, what is often overlooked today that was noted in the constitutions, is the verbiage where the state notes the fear of a centralized government. If you read these, you will come to the conclusion each state individually controls their militia and firearm ownership. The federal government has no business in this concern.
The gun rights protected by the state and federal constitutions were written for a time when there was no state or federal army, or police force. You literally had to have a firearm just to ensure the survival of yourself and your family, especially if you were on the frontier. There was an awful lot of frontier for most of population until about the 1950's. There is absolutely no reason for most US citizens to possess a firearm. The main reason people think they need one is precisely because of the lack of gun control. If there weren't so many guns, people would feel safer because they would actually be safer.
No reason? Some of us live in what you would call "wilderness with wild animals." Your'e correct, but only if you don't venture off your golf course. This is another example of a metro-sexual telling country folk how to live.
Doesn't the Constitution reference "a well regulated militia". Surely they did not mean a militia made up of people with all kinds of firearms showing up at the front lines totally disorganized. Or maybe they did. I don't think they meant that. They remembered how badly the Revolution had gone in the beginning. Even at Yorktown it was the well armed, well trained and well led troops of France that forced Cornwallis to surrender without a fight..
They meant that since militias are necessary (as one of several potential points of rationale), "people" (in the most unrestricted general application) have the inherent right (not granted by, but protected by the second amendment) to keep and bear arms. It's not "the right of the people to form militias". It's "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". However, regardless of what they "meant" by a "well regulated" militia, a militia can, indeed, be comprised of people with all kinds of arms (firearms, kitchen knives, brass knuckles, mustard gas, broken off table legs, stones picked up off the ground, tactical nukes, A1 Abrams tanks, post it notes for very small paper cuts) showing up at the front lines totally disorganized. The more organized the better, and an unorganized, poorly regulated militia is probably not going to be very effective at "maintaining the security of a free state", but it still *is* a militia. A starved, deaf, feral dog with only two legs and one eye is still a dog.
No, the militias that existed for hundreds of years before the founding of the country were not to defend against attach by a federal government. The militias were to defend against Native Americans and the French, mostly, although Indians occasionally worked with the English settlers against the French or other tribes, depending upon their individual interests. From the time the Pilgrims first landed until the formation of the Continental Army there was no federal government or standing army to come to the aid of the populace or, for that matter, to attempt to disarm the populace. England certainly did not fund and man and supply a standing military in the colonies, and it would have taken months to get help from Britain if required/ So, militias had been and were necessary. At the time the First Amendment was drafted, there was no U.S. Army, as the Continental Army had been essentially disbanded after the Revolution. as a result, it made sense to cite the historical need for militias when creating the First Amendment to make clear that the new government would not try to disarm the populace as the British government had attempted to do once the colonies appears to be moving toward rebellion. People at the time were very concerned that they were not merely substitution one king for another, you know. But it is simply right-wing, gun-nut, revision of history to suggest that the First Amendment was drafted to protect the citizens of the various states from the federal government which, by the way, did not have the means to fund an army to disarm anybody. That is why it was a big deal that the federal government first authorized the building of frigates, such as the USS Constitution, to protect our shipping interests in the Mediterranean. I notice you don't give your qualification--other than the gun-theme movie poster behind you. Are you a historian? Or are you merely another gun nut who wants to claim they need 30-round magazines because the big, bad government is going to try to make them into liberal sheep?
@@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv Regulated back then meant, the regulations. The regulation of the militia was, you brought your own firearm, your own ammo, and your own powder. Basically your own arms. You had to have a certain amount of powder and ball when you were called to Muster, usually on a Sunday. If you did not have the required arms, you would be fined somehow. They were a civilian force. Reading deeper into history, written back then, you will find there was also a regulated militia, and an unregulated militia too.
“Well Regulated” in 18th century parlance meant well maintained and operating in good order such as a well regulated clock by example. The modern concept of “regulated” such as by regulations is only a recent thing. Colonial civilian militias called for the civilian militiamen to provide their own weapons and ammunition in a clean, orderly and fully functioning manner. This encompassed firearms as well as munitions and edged weapons and in some cases, wealthy militiamen provided their own artillery. Yes, American civilians did possess and use cannons as many fur trapping companies and frontier town militias did. Unorganized Militias are by definition civilian in nature. They are different from Organized Militias such as the Nation Guard. Basically, speed bumps slowing enemy forces until the regulars arrive and to serve as partisan forces in asymmetrical warfare. Also as the 2nd Amendment intended, they are there to keep a tyrannical government in check when that government puts its own needs ahead of the populace. A little known fact is that the first use of a Kalthoff 30 round repeating flintlock rifle (not musket) in 1659 in combat by the Danes against the Swedes. Ian McCollum of Forgotten Weapons did a video on this rifle. It is a fascinating video on a very interesting weapon. Apparently, a 30 round magazine is not a new thing. Another repeater sold to colonists was the Lorenzoni repeating flintlock. It was made from the mid 1600’s to about 1778. Yet another one was the Puckle manual repeating firearm of 1718. So repeating rifles are not new and the framers of the Constitution were well aware of these enhanced firepower weapons when they drafted the 2nd Amendment.
@@rebel-yellenterprises1479 Regulated does not not regulated. The states the state militia and the feds regulate the federal militia. Keep making things up but even the present corrupted and incompetent SCOTUS has not agreed.
Excellent presentation! Thank You If I'm not mistaken, (if I am please correct me) most of these types of individual rights were not willy nilly handed out to all. Indentured servants weren't allowed to own guns as well as slaves despite the fact that they too were born here not all rights were extended to everyone. There were many actual, real American citizens who could not enjoy all rights. If a slave or indentured servant, maybe a member of a family committed a crime it was the property owner who was held to account in most cases. So much damage is done by Americans today who misuse guns. I have to wonder who pays for all the destruction and loss of life and property? Why isn't it mandated today that gun owners must buy insurance to guard against innocent taxpayers having to flip the bill to pay and pay and pay for mass murders and so on??? Leave it to the actuary's to figure out how much to charge a hunter who already buys home and other types of insurance just in case someone is hurt on their property and so on. If you want it for protection, leave it to the actuary's to figure out what their (and our) risk is.... ... there must be a way for a capitalistic society like ours to find balance between paying for the damage guns create be it a state, federal or private citizen creating cost for taxpayers. Why not mandate insurance? Seems like a sane thing to do!
This reply is not "Pro Gun" but rather an attempt to get you to understand reality. Your "argument" is fundamentally flawed. Guns cannot act on their own. They are inanimate objects. It is the people that are the problem. The constitution makes gun ownership legal to every citizen. You cannot adjudicate the guns, only the people. By placing insurance requirements or any other restriction that would prohibit any individual from freely owning a gun would be illegal. When people who have misunderstanding like you do finally realize it is not the guns that are the problem, but it is in fact the people, some real progress could be made. But the insistence on blaming an inanimate object for action taken is incoherent and flawed. Additionally reality hurts. The "damage done" as you state is really insignificant in the bigger picture. SOOOO many other easier to solve issues would save many more lives and much more money. So to make a real difference you would need to EMOTIONALLY let go of the whole gun argument and focus your efforts where the more important priorities are. Then one day, perhaps the gun issue would rise high enough on the priority list to see changes. Until then it is merely an argument perpetuated by the media making a buck on peoples emotional state. Speaking of emotional state... where is the anti-gun platform's push for mental health services? It is non existent. But that is a whole other issue needing to be addressed. Even if guns did not exist there will still be murders and serial killers..... And lastly, you make an attempt at converting real peoples pain and suffering into a monetary equation. What is the value of life taken? How can you leave something like that to the 'Actuaries"? Shameful.
@@bigtobacco1098 Nothing wrong with regulations and capitalism in fact it's suppose to be that way. What's socialistic is when the regulation puts you in jail like when booze and drugs are prohibited from being manufactured or used. Regulations sometimes are needed in Capitalism like regulating monopoly's and making sure they don't ruin resources of others. Socialists seem to like to regulate people, like what we put in or do to our bodies. Abortion fits in here too.
The second amendment is very clear, no debate is necessary as to what it means. The only people who want to misinterpret or deny its meaning are the ones that don’t want others to have firearms, period.
It was a the an extremely advanced and sophisticated rifle. A musket was carried by the British army and had very poor ballistics. Maybe 100 yards at best. The Rifle owned by the Colonials was a true rifle. Good out to 300 yards. The constitution acknowledges that you have a right to the very best and most sophisticated weapon for self defense.
No. A militia is a civilian force armed with military grade weapons of the highest available capacity and lethality, sufficient to engage against an aggressive professional military force (either domestic or foreign). As such, the respective weapons necessary to engage such a professional military force scales with technology.
@ighdesigns - So does the First Amendment not apply to radio, television, or the internet, since those things did not exist at the time the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights were drawn up and ratified? Your position is absurd and untenable.
There is a BIG LEAP of logic from "the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." to "not only the ability to protect the perogatives of one's state againt federal oppression" especially when you look at the term "insurrection" in the US Constitution. Perhaps the Ministry of Truth would like to employ you, and maybe you can replace the work "constitution" in the name of this channel with the word "propaganda"
![ROSÉ (로제) - number one girl [더 시즌즈-이영지의 레인보우] | KBS 241129 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/A9oByH9Ci24/mqdefault.jpg)
"Arms" can just as easily refer to an axe, a spear, a knife, or a bow and arrow. The term "firearm" isn't referenced. The right to bear arms simply means weapons. In general.
And of course arms would include ‘firearms’. If one was going to ‘take up arms’ in order to resist the British Empire, I doubt the Brits would be too worried about axes and spears.
@@glasshalffull2930lances were still used buy calvary into WWI. Heavy calvary with lances were used extensively in the Napoleon wars. So yes axes and spears were weapons used and feared buy bolth sides during the war of Independence.
@@joshuathomas8529 “used and feared” some in the Revolutionary War and of little impact compared to firearms and cannon.
And it would include a cannon in those times or even a fighter jet in our times.
Nuclear weapons?
One thing about militia at that time was the population was relatively small, and the colonies could only afford so much for military. Our coinages was borrowed money.
Militia was regional and paid for themselves, and also at hotspots the regular military may not have been able to respond to
Militia trained, but we're not required to actually follow military conducts
This is why they were feared by the British. They had no qualms about what we would call gorilla tactics, and also intentionally shooting officers.
That was not respectful.
But the short is you had people that lived in the same areas, knew each other, and trained together. And could be employed with the Continental army.
"the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason
Sure, so why did he put in the "well regulated" part? Part of that meant drilling on the common and following orders, learning about firearm you are using. It's funny how that part seems to always escape the gun nut types. Joe Blow mental case who goes and blows away 20 six year old kids at their school and kills a few teachers for the hell of it doesn't really fit that description, but is what you all defend.
You 'get it' :)
"........well regulated militia..........." You forgot that part. The constitution actually spells it out. We don't need opinions. Militias were actually a specific group of people. Mason's phrase seems to more of a generality that he pulled off the top of his head. Everybody has opinions, we don't need them if people would just actually read the constitution that they rave so much about. Have a nice day.
Simply put a militia is a group of neighbors standing together as a group against outside threats. It can be formed spontaneously, or it can have long standing roots in the community. It is just as organic as the ability of an individual to act and is justified not just by the 2nd amendment, but also by the 1st amendment right of assembly.
Pretty sure the constitution defines it differently.
@@diffened Pretty sure it doesn't define a militia at all. Because they knew from first hand experience what one was. It is only folks who've never even considered the concept of taking up arms to defend their neighbors that can't comprehend it.
@@diffened How so? Educate us, please. Thank you.
@@diffened honestly? Who care how the Constitution defines it? My explanation is correct regardless of the Constitution.
You are trying to narrow the definition because you want to control the narrative of what constitutes a militia so you can control how others perceive the legality of firearms ownership. Fine, fine. I'll accept that is your goal.
But it doesn't change the fact that a militia is a group of people willing to stand together against an outside threat. It doesn't matter whether they are armed with pitchforks, guns, or just a willingness to resist by whatever means they have.
A big chunk of that animosity towards a militia is the idea that if the people have no ability to band together they cannot resist what others intend to do to them. For those that support the idea that some thing in particular should be done with them...having little to no resistance is a goal. Controllers want to control. But they don't understand the spirit of resistance to those who would do them harm is internal. It cannot be extinguished. It may be suppressed, but only until they become fed up with that which is being done to them. At which point no external force can prevent them from forming together against that threat.
Amend the Constitution. Clarify the intent to control and disarm. Prove the plan. It will only make people more certain that they need to be ready to resist, that they need to be on the lookout for danger coming from over the horizon. And when they decide to act nothing can stop them. No law, no threat, no play on words.
@@DonksGrooves I couldn't read all your reply. I stick by my statement. "......a well regulated militia....." was put in there for a reason. Militias drilled on the commons learned about firearms, how to shoot and clean them. Militias were for defending against Indians or any foreign attacker, and they were for putting down rebellions. That is all a far cry from what we have now, right-wing nut jobs buying guns and blowing away students and teachers. have a nice day
Excellent point to drive home about the National Gard! They are not the militia, they are a standing army...
They are a standing army 2 days a month plus 15 more days each year. They might not be a militia, but they sure aren't a standing army.
@@Spiritof_76 You make an excellent point but they are not ad hoc, they are always operational, a key attribute that distinguishes a militia group from a standing army.
They are a component of the US Army and their command structure can go all the way to the POTUS, another reason why the NG is not a militia.
We can agree to disagree about the standing army part. Since there are always Guard members on duty, they are, IMO, a standing army, just not a very big one. :)
@@oxigenarian9763 Having been in the National Guard and the Reserve for over 20 years, at no time did I ever consider myself a part of the "standing army," but rather a trained and willing benchwarmer. Both did and still continue to be activated for overseas combat zone deployments just as often as active duty units, and aren't much of a home-turf defending militia. I did work with a vet who joined the Georgia State Militia, who still wore the standard uniform and drilled with a state unit.
@@Spiritof_76 Well, I certainly think you are qualified to hold that opinion and thank you for serving!
@@Spiritof_76 While on a football team playing on the gridiron or on a pitch, those members "warming the bench" are still part of the overall team. As it would apply to the military, that would be part of the overall standing army. You can split hairs with state guards being controlled by state governors but they can still be federalized and so, are part of the federal standing army. A reserve, reserve unit if you will. There are states that have their own guard (militia) who can never be federalized.
One thing you never hear is that due the frequent raids by the Abenakis from Canada into Maine and other colonies, every household was to be armed to protect the villagers at a moments notice when being attacked. This was before the Constitution was written. Being armed for protection was common. Then came the French & Indian War and, of course, the American Revolution. The 2nd Amendment was the result of the hostilities the colonists had become accustomed to.
Yes but that is not a regulated militia. The second was for other things than you think. The big thing was fear of a slave revolt.
@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv I'm sure that is part of the puzzle. My point was that since the early days of the colonists, being armed for protection has always been the mindset of the forefathers, be it from hostile raiders, foreign governments or domestic governments. Every citizen has a right to defend themselves.
@@johnmurray950
Every citizen has the right to be defended from people that are not safe with weapons. This channel is against that.
@@johnmurray950
Please keep in mind that Obama was only trying to get guns away for people are not fit to have them.
Trump was the president that wanted disarm most Americans. That is not guess on my part. He said it in front of cameras.
@@johnmurray950
Feb, 28, 2018: In a meeting with lawmakers, Trump said, “I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida. He had a lot of firearms. They saw everything. To go to court would have taken a long time. So you could do exactly what you’re saying, but take the guns first, go through due process second.”
10 USC 245 ... all men between 17 and 46 are in the "Militia" today.
George Mason - often called the father of the Bill of Rights - defined militia thusly: “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
I'm sure he didn't mean women or minorities, if you want to go back to originalism. also "......a well regulated militia.........."....
The civilian population trained to defend our country.
The citizens answer to a tyrannical government.
We are not a militia. We are a population with guns with no training or drilling.
civilian? it civil and they were scared of their own shadow; military protect, defend and War where as civil hid under the bed;
@@mattharmon3838 “Defend your country”? Against who? Itself?
Against who? What training? And who decides that your wannabe defense is lawful? People stockpiling weapons and pretending to be soldiers is a recipe for disaster.
In my opinion the meaning is (since the State will and always does have an Army or Militia the People must keep the involute right to defend themselves against such Army or Militia. The Bill of Rights was not adopted because the People trusted those in power, but because they didn't.
Ever hear of a volunteer fire department? I believe the militia referred to is analogous. Local volunteers to defend the common good.
That's a very good way to look at it. The 2nd Amendment refers to a "well regulated militia". The only militia that describes is the National Guard. Just giving people the right to own a gun is not a well regulated militia.
@@thelakeman5207 "well regulated" meant "in working order" such as dry powder and a firearm in working condition. It did not mean controlled.
@@thelakeman5207
Just saw your response. The militia in colonial times would have been assembled from an area far smaller than a state. Think village or county at most. Like volunteer firemen, a group of neighbors organized for common good.
@@DyvmSlorm If that's what they meant, why didn't they put those words in the Constitution?
@@thelakeman5207mainly because words and language change over time and they were not time travelers nor could they foresee the changes in language that have occurred.
Back then, if you said to anyone, “well regulated” they would have known you meant, “in working order” not, “oppressed and limited”.
Back in my youth, if I said, “I walked out into the rain, no cap” it would have meant my hair got wet, not that I was telling the truth.
Very well done. I was surprised that you only mension one state, though. There was more than one state that had similar statements in their constitutions.
Well said, Clark Neily. Thank you for sharing real insights.
And now, what did the phrase, "well regulated" mean at the Founding?
Its interesting that these words are interpreted to suit your preference
Back then, “militia” meant much the same thing as it does today. What the article described was an “un-regulated militia”.
BTW - I’m from Canada, and we still use the term in its original British context. (Don’t forget, you were still technically “British” untill the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution were fully in force). Here militia means something more like what you call “National Guard”. Literally, a “well regulated militia”.
We don’t even use the concept of “un-regulated militia”. We just call them “paramilitary groups”, and they operate entirely independent of, and hold no allegiance whatsoever to Canada or any level of government. As a 40+ year veteran I just call them wannabe terrorists.
Everywhere in Europe they would be considered (wannabe) TERRORISTS. We (Italy and Germany) had something like that in the 70s, early 80s, and both left and right wing "militias" considered themselves heroes fighting for their own concept of "freedom". They lost. BIG TIME!!
In most European countries, the only people authorized to own weapons (light and not war weapons) are hunters and sportsmen of age who have passed a physical and psychological fitness exam. You can apply for a gun license for personal defense, but you must provide a valid reason, such as protection from robberies for shopkeepers. However, there are laws that punish excessive use of them (shooting a fleeing thief, especially if unarmed, is a crime). Of course, the Police and Army are authorized, but with limitations on use in peacetime.
We, ancient savages!
That is what it means in the US. However the Constitution was after The Articles of Confederation, which failed badly and many of these people want that sort of failed government. If they don't want it to be Somalia.
That’s what they are here too. Somewhere along the way a myth that the Founding Fathers wanted random weirdos to overthrow the democratic government they themselves established took root and has grown from fringe to ‘history.’ The modern incarnation of that was really fanned by a convicted murderer that took over the NRA in the 1970s and turned it from a hunting/sporting gun club with a focus on safety into a death cult that convinced everyone the 2A was a murder-suicide pact for the nation.
The way things are going in Canada, maybe you should call them potential Defenders of Liberty.
@@Future-Preps35 “Kill millions of their own citizens because they disagreed with their political positions.”
Exactly what Trump is promising to do. He said so himself, on national TV, in his rallies, for everyone to hear. He planned to use the US military to do it because he will now have complete legal immunity to give such orders. And most of those “militias” will gladly support Trump and turn against their fellow Americans in that endeavour. It’s a matter of public record.
Next up we can look at “regulation”
As in the militia training manual
“Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States.”
This had nothing to do with laws but rather provided guidance to impromptu command structures, troop maneuvering, how to train with your buddies from the bar in military tactics and the like.
“Well regulated” means citizen militia groups can train themselves.
Almost every state constitution still defines militia as all able bodied fighting age men. There is also a procedure for the governor to call fourth the militia for compulsory service during certain emergencies.
American had just finished a war with an oppressive government. The Founders did not want that to happen again. The people having the capacity to protect themselves from an oppressive government. That is the purpose of the second amendment and specifically for that purpose.
Perhaps you should read Federalist Papers #9 - for those unfamiliar wiht the Federalist Papers, it is the contemporaneous explanation of the US Constitution to the public by two of the authors of the Constitution. And they (all 85 of them) are the go to documents for understanding the Constitution.
@joseph, aahahahahahahahaahahahahahaaaaaa...... that's hilarious. Among the first times militias were used, they were used to put down insurrections, The Whiskey Rebellion and Shay's Rebellion. This happened very close to the founding and was done by founders. I guess they had a different interpretation.
@@diffened Wow you are so smart. I could tell because of how long you spelled "laughing", and that you need to spell out your laughter, instead of actually posting a cogent argument or reference. This despite your lack of facts. The whiskey Rebellion was NOT started by the Founders, and was waged against George Washington - an actual Founding Fathe and the farmers that started it LOST. And Sheys rebellion started a YEAR BEFORE the constitution was signed and ended before the constitution was signed. I guess you aren't so smart after all.
@@diffened That was actually the Federal Government that put down the Shay Rebellion. Of course like any government they did not consider themselves being oppressive at the time.
Immediately after the founding, the prevailing school of thought was that we didn't want a standing army. As we learned while under British rule, a standing army could be used to oppress the people. The idea of "militia" was that the civil population would be armed and if war were to break out, the government would call out all able-bodied men who'd grab their guns and go to war. The government did maintain a small officer's corps which studied military tactics, they traveled abroad as observers of other countries' wars and studied foreign military commanders. When the War of 1812 started, we didn't have a real army, yet we'd declared war on the nation with the largest army in the world.
Read the minutes of the 1st Constitutional Convention. Our Founders discussed the difference between the general militia and a select militia, Our National Guards are select militias. All enfranchised able-bodied men between the ages of 18 (some jurisdictions 16 and 45.
"Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, [Richard Henry] Lee warned that liberties might be undermined by the creation of a select militia that "[would] answer to all the purposes of an army", and concluded that "the Constitution ought to secure a genuine and guard against a select militia by providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined"
- Fields, William S.; Hardy, David T. (Spring 1992). "The Militia and the Constitution: A Legal History". Military Law Review
@@nickmonks9563 many thanks!
There were no minutes kept at the Constitutional Convention as the participants were afraid that their discussion would be revealed and misinterpreted. However, several participants kept personal notes. The draft Constitution was presented as a complete document that the states had to either accept or reject in total. Don't take my word for it. Read Jack Rakove's book "Original Meanings," which is the definitive historical recounting of the process of creating the Constitution.
You just made up fake minutes. Typical of the fans of this channel.
@@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv not so. I checked out a book at the library over 3 decades ago and read it. While it might not have been “official minutes” and could possibly been the personal minutes of an attendee. Chances are they were Farrand’s Records which were printed under the Secretary of State John Q Adams’ supervision. There are other sources, but you’re too lazy to GOOGLE it before casting aspersions that are contrary to your own perception of the world!
Guns and pocket knives are like apple pie and the 4th of July.
For a bit more, read the Second Militia Act of 1792, It defines the basic equipment expected of militia members. That might have been the "well regulated" factor. Maybe. Mostly , General Washington wanted no part of the untrained militia members. Good video!
why? that a law where as all ratified Constitution Amendments are Laws since the Constitution is the supreme Law of the United States of America;
The meaning of these words is far more uncertain and contested than what the speaker claims. The NCC should produce at least one more video like this to be truly nonpartisan
I think the word “well regulated” should have been “well armed” the word regulated back then didn’t mean what it does today, if I’m not mistaken, they called the armed bands that roamed the hills looking for enemy soldiers “regulators”
@@jnsmilldid you take either United States Military Oath and Affirmation, Enlist or Office, to the Constitution of the United States of America?
I’d recommend a visit to the Armory in Colonial Williamsburg and listening to the docent without interruption. Madison wrote the 2nd Amendment, and would have understood “well-regulated” in the context of the Virginia model.
Then Madison should have done a better job of writing it. It is a mess.
Of course the Virginia model was for a state regulated militia to deal with slave revolts.
@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv it's not. Actually quite simple.
@@NorincoKid80
It is a very simple mess and that is why it still being debated and even the present corrupt SCOTUS does not agree with this channel.
Minute man. Get it. Rally to meet a threat from the outside. It was your duty…not a privilege to own dangerous toys
Any armed person is officially a soldier of the state or country. If you own a firearm, you can legally be called forth like the national guard to serve. That is what a militias existence is for. Military waiting to be called forth.
☝️🤓- #AKTUALLY (TEKNIKALLY SQUEAKING) In the United States of America "The Militia" is currently defined as:
1. EVERY Male Citizen Between The Age of 18 & 65.
PLUS
2. ANY (Male OR Female) Person of ANY Age (Between 0 & ∞) who is (Enlisted OR Commissioned) In The (Army OR Air) National Guard at ANY Given Time Regardless Of Their (Place of) Citizenship in ANY Given Space NOT in The U.S. (or Any Given) Space &/or Air Force BUT Can be in The Air & Space Museum (During Opening Hours).
☝️☺️#JusSayin'
George,.. ... ....aahahahahahahaahahahahahahaaa .................ohohohohohohohohhohohoooooo
@diffened
Ya Tryin to Get Somethin' Off Your Chest Son? Maybe Somethin'
or Someone, maybe Someplace Somewhere Ya Got On Your Mind?
Right on! No alliance but to the common good of the people. That means that if you have any entity, foreign or domestic such as a tyrannical government, the people have the right and a duty to confront them in any way they might find best suitable to overcome it. That includes armed citizens willing to defend their Constitution, the people’s rights, and people's property. At least is what i understand from that article, but I'm no scholar, but the idea just sounds good!
"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." Not a lot of words just very key specific words
This video is supposed to be about "militia" (based on the title at least) not just the second amendment or right to bear arms.
True, and those words make it clear that the Second Amendment doesn't depend on what a militia is; that is just the background rationale for prohibiting infringement of the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
@@quadibloc2 And ... What, pray tell, does "well regulated" mean in your little dictionary, Bloc? Hmmmmm ... "Well regulated", eh?
Well prepared
Well you just look up what it means in an Old dictionary not what it means now .
Well regulated meant well running not government controlled .
The Founders would have considered any employed armed body of men as a standing Army. Their heads would be spinning if they knew that the US had over 137,000 armed "law enforcement" officers.
Good review 👍
Why has this requirement been forgotten? Without, it morphs into viliganties.
What about the "well regulated" part?
How do you know what they meant?
Only 50 years ago, this was taught in our schools.
@@normgtg schools used to teach that old food pyramid, five senses, we only use 10% of our brain, the Boston Tea party happened in response to an increase in taxes and on and on also right. 😆😂😝🤣 PRICELESS!
I thought the word "militia" meant the National Guard.
@@trevormillar1576 it doesn't.
@@cmfernandez9283
It does and did when referring to a regulated militia. As opposed the people that attacked the capitol building.
@@trevormillar1576 Sort of. Your National Guard is more State controlled and regulated. Our Militia, while mostly operating within provincial boundaries, is completely under federal control and funding. Provincial authority cannot mobilize the militia without federal approval. Whereas your state governors have the authority to mobilize National Guard resources as required. Please correct me if I’m wrong on this.
PS - I’m not talking about using military force against the civilian population. That’s a whole different bag of snakes.
@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv I think we've already established you don't know what you're talking about.
@@cmfernandez9283
You have made it clear that you don't know. And you just showed it again.
1791 the phrase "well regulated" meent well equipped and well organized, not controlled. From The National Constitution website:
"'Well-regulated' in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined, it didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in that it's not about the regulatory state. There's been nuance there. It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight. In other words, it didn't mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty."
That assertion would seem at odds with Article VI Clause 4 of the Articles of Confederation...
...which is, essentially, the document upon which the wording of the 2nd Amendment is based.
@@justsayin...2784the Articles of Confederation did not exist any more once the Constitution of the United States of America was sign in to Law on 17 September 1787;
Samuel Johnsons dictionary of 1755 disagree with your definition....
It meant state regulated. That is clear historically and largely due to fear of slave revolts in the South.
@@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv
the Militia establish in the Constitution and Amendment II is the United States Militia;
at 2:02 he states that one rationale for gun ownership is for, "the ability to protect the prerogative of one's state against federal oppression." Where do the founding fathers state the "against federal oppression" part? That sounds like a recipe for civil war because one man's "oppression" (ending slavery) is another man's righteous cause. Educate me.
The sovereign States were in specific debate about how to form a federal government of a type that the States would find tolerable. The Constitution was a document in which they were trying to "constitute" a palatable form of Federal Government. It was the very substance of the document, the concern, and the States' demand for the first 10 amendments.
One might be able to argue that the Constitution only applies to the federal government, and not foreign governments or state governments, or smaller municipalities, or even individuals, but to try to separate the Federal Government from the very purpose, form, and function of the Constitution ... doesn't even make sense.
So, of course, it's primarily about the Federal Government, and the security of a "free" State (as opposed to a State inequitably bound by a Federal Government) is a direct reference to the danger of Federal tyranny, specifically.
Neither does it make a reference to muskets as some anti-gunners state. The common man owned a flintlock or a musket, in otherwords the state of the art of firearms at that point in history. Such as the AR platform is today.
It's unfortunate that this short video changed from what the title is about to essentially be "why did peoeple need firearms in early America."
It would make sense in a longer explainer video, but not in one this short.
You're correct. And the need to bear arms was varied at the time from personal protection, hunting, security of your village, town or state to today most importantly security from government oppression. A revolution was fought to free us from an oppressive government. Think about that statement. And one of the major obstacles early on was the "Government" restricting ownership of firearms to keep the people weak as to not oppose the will of the British "Government" forces. The same thing applies today. Firearm restriction for whatever reason is always encouraged by a government that doesn't want opposition to their rule. When citizens can't rise up, then ANY type of government can rule. For lack of a better term, firearm ownership is a necessary evil for the protection of our Republic. The other reasons are in addition to that principle. Any problems with guns that the society experiences are due to social and cultural issues, not gun ownership.
Article 1, Sec 8, clauses 12 through 16 of the Constitution deals with the Armies, Navy and Militias. The Militia Act of 1792 defines Militia as every able-bodied, male, citizen between the ages of 18 and 45, later changed to 18 to 54. That seems fairly self-explanatory to me. If you are an able-bodied, male citizen, between the ages of 18 and54, YOU are The Militia and you not only have the right to keep and bear arms but have the mandate to be armed and trained.
If you want know what militia means in Constintutional terms, read the Constitution Article 1 Section 8 Clauses 14-15, it says what the "well regulated militia" is , and it ain't "the proud boys".
South Carolina law required men to be armed on their way to church. That law may be still on the books but not enforced.
I have never heard of militias being used in the 20th or 21st century.
The COTUS required Congress to discipline the militia. In other words, the job of making sure that the militia was well regulated fell on Congress.
Congress fulfilled that obligation by passing The Militia Act of 1792.
The COTUS limited the power to appropriate for armies (men and money) to two years.
The Tenth Amendment restricted states from retaining troops without the permission of Congress while reserving the right of the people to be involved in militias.
Well regulated, means well practiced in the context
"I ask you, who are the Militia? They are the Citizens, armed."
"No free man shall be debarred the use of arms. "
REGULATED, meant trained, at the time. It didn't mean what it now means. That would be contradicting itself, if it meant registered, controlled, permitted, licensed, or etc - in combination with shall not be infringed.
The National Guard didn't exist until about one century & one-half after the Bill of Rights was ratified.
The United States had an Army and Navy since it's founding, but never had a large, well trained standing military prior to WWI. During wars prior to WWI, the US depended on volunteers and state militias to fight larger wars. Thie founders distrusted large standing armies based on what they experienced under British rule.
The times they are a changin'. Had they experienced the Soviet Union, the Nazis, and the "People's" Republic of China, would their musket era minds change? I believe so.
The term "well organized" may give clue
OK, does the Federal Constitution (US) supersede a states?
Yes, it does.
thanks! would be curious as to your opinion on the right of a citizen to own a nuclear weapon. I've encountered people of a libertarian leaning who say that there is absolutely no limitation of the type of "arms" we can posses based on a strict interpretation of 2A. Thanks.
The second amendment protects bearable arms against government infringement. A nuclear weapon is not a bearable arm.
There is no limitation. I'm not saying, necessarily, that such is a good thing. I'm just saying that the right protected (not granted) by the second amendment does specifically allow for "any" armament, to include even those declared illegal by the Geneva Convention. A professional military can't bear such weapons outlawed by the Geneva Convention, but civilian militias most certainly can. Otherwise, the Geneva Convention would violate the Second Amendment, rendering The accords of the Geneva Convention null and void for the whole of the United States, since the US Constitution inherently supersedes any agreement made under the authority granted by the US Constitution.
So, yes. Private civilians most certainly can own and *use* nuclear weapons, A1 Abrams tanks, mustard gas, viral contagions, etc. 30-round magazines? LOL! Most certainly.
Now, are the allowed to employ them in criminal ways? Uh, no. But that has nothing to do with the rights of the second amendment. That was to do with the rights of other people.
However, two things about your phrasing that I think are dangerous errors.
1. It seems that you're confusing the term "citizen" with "civilian". They mean different things. Not all civilians are citizens, and not all citizens are civilians. Members of a professional military force can be citizens. However, a member of a professional military is *not* a civilian. They are either military or mercenary. A government controlled military is simple "military". A civilian controlled military (professionals) is "mercenary". That's the distinction between those two (four) terms. That's also why we have a fifth term, "militia". A militia is a civilian amateur force (neither professional military nor professional mercenary) with (up to, and including) military-grade weapons and equipment.
Regarding the second amendment, it's a right of the "people" (civilians) to keep and bear arms. When a civilian joins a professional, government controlled military, that civilian inherently gives up certain civilian rights, making them *not* a civilian any longer. When someone leaves the military, they return to a "civilian" life. Regardless, then never gave up their "citizenship" (if they had such before joining the military, which may or may not be the case).
2. It's not a matter of "strict" or "loose" interpretation of the second amendment. It's a matter of "literal" or "presumptive" application. The second amendment says what the second amendment says. If you want to go beyond what the second amendment says, then you're going beyond what the second amendment says. It's not a matter of interpretation. It's a matter of application.
There is no limitation, true, but by the same token there is no specified RIGHT to own a particular TYPE of weapon / armament either.
@@morganeoghmanann9792 I would say that, by the second amendment in isolation, you are correct. However, the second amendment does not acknowledge a positive right, as it were, even though it might be argued that it protects one.
Instead, the second amendment simply states a universally broad prohibition, precluding any infringement, whatsoever, by any entity, government or otherwise, upon the general "right to bear arms". As such, any infringement upon that right, in any way, shape, or form, to include infringing on one's right to bear any specific *TYPE* of armament, is a violation of the direct prohibition enumerated in the second amendment.
Therefore, since the second amendment is a specific prohibition against any type of infringement, then *ANY* type of infringement is a violation.
Stated perhaps more succinctly, you are correct in that the second amendment does not specify the *RIGHT* to bear any specific *TYPE* of armament, but it *does* prohibit anyone from disallowing it.
Mr. Neily represented the Plantifs in Columbia v. Heller Supreme Court decision. This explains his desire to turn this into a "right-2-bear-arms" video.
This seems like something that should have been disclosed. Better yet have him collaborate with someone with a different philosophical viewpoint.
I admire the National Constiution Center, but do better.
You mean you admire the National Constitution Center until the information they present conflicts with your worldview. The NCC is an overtly non-partisan organization. They aren't here to confirm our biases.
Perhaps you could offer your biased opinion
I wondered at the beginning when he described Washington’s Continental Army as “professional soldiers.” Thy were anything but that. Pretty much anyone who showed up.
The founders would never have been complacent about unfettered access to assault weapons. All those little drawings show muzzleloading Flintlock muskets.
Registering weapons isn't an infringement on keeping and bearing.
And, your rights can be suspended through due process. That is, individuals who demonstrate they are a risk to public safety can be denied the right to keep and bear. Felony convicts, for example.
The right to form a militia does not include the right to overthrow a representative government.
Not getting one's way in an election is not being oppressed.
I agree antifa does not have the right
I think you do have the right throw off a bad government .
Sound familiar ?
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
You think the people don't have the right to overthrow the government? What are you a foreign bot?
@@Saxxin1we are SELF GOVERNED ........do you understand What that means??
@@d.h.jefferies2191 Are you high? Or just paid to troll?
The Second Amendment phrase "well regulated" in Colonial English meant "WELL ARMED." In that period most law enforcement outside of urban areas was done by armed contractors to County Sheriffs who were called "Regulators" because they were armed and skilled with firearms. The Second Amendment was NOT about government regulation of private firearms...........................elsullo
You logic is ... amusing. Flawed. But amusing.
The second amendment is not about *only* government regulation of private firearms. It's about "any" regulation of private ... arms, including, but not limited to firearms. It doesn't say "congress shall make no law" (like the first amendment, and other amendments do). It says "shall not be infringed". By anyone or anything. Anywhere. Anytime. For any reason. Such as ... gun-free zones, like schools, courthouses, military bases, etc. I'm not saying, necessarily, that such is a good thing. I'm just saying what it says.
That is only one interpretation.
Regulated strongly implies rules. And if General Washington didn't want "unregulated militias", it meant they not only were not trained but felt no requirement to submit to rules like all militias and soldiers and National Guardsmen have to.
@@morganeoghmanann9792 You're misunderstanding grammar. Neither the definition of nor the interpretation of the words "regulated", "militia", or "State" have any bearing on the second amendment. Yes, the second amendment includes those words, but grammatically, they are all in a parenthetical statement, and have no effect on the actual subject-verb of the sentence proper. Insert whatever meaning one wants to for "regulated", "militia", or "State", correct or otherwise, and the subject-verb of the sentence proper is unaffected.
Regardless of however one wants to interpret those words, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Period. Quite literally, in fact.
By the inherent grammatical structure, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to maintain the security of a free State" is 100% immaterial to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed", because the sentence proper is, grammatically, not dependent on the preceding parenthetical statement. The initial parenthetical statement is stating the rationale for the sentence proper, but the sentence proper ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed") is not *dependent* on that initial, parenthetical statement.
If you disagree with me, then diagram the sentence for me in such a way that it demonstrates dependence on the words "regulated", "militia", and/or "State".
I assert that such cannot be legitimately done, but if you believe differently (and you are, in fact, somehow correct), then it shouldn't take you more than 20 or so seconds to type out that diagramming, and so prove your assertion to be true.
Please so diagram that single sentence, and so end the debate, if you can.
@@jamesday3591 So the first part of the Second Amendment has no meaning? Then why add it? It is there for a reason and your exercise in sophistry is less than effective.
@@morganeoghmanann9792 I didn't say the first part of the sentence had no meaning. I said that the meaning of the sentence proper was not dependent on that initial parenthetical statement. Go back and read what I wrote, specifically the part about "The initial parenthetical statement is stating the rationale for the sentence proper". That's the meaning: it's presenting the rationale.
It's academic, second-grade grammar, whether one is willing to acknowledge it or not. It's not opinion. It's not "sophistry". It's not an exercise.
Certain people like to distract from what the sentence *says* by instead talking about the rationale (militias, and regulated, and the National Guard, etc., etc., etc.) that are *all* red herrings: blatant, freshmen level logical fallacies in order to get the conversation off of what the second amendment *says*, and on to whether or not the *rationale* for the second amendment is properly understood.
I do agree with your assertion that my comments are generally "less than effective", as no matter how clearly one articulates a concept, people without ears will not hear it, and people who aren't willing to acknowledge grammatical structure, typically are not interested in intellectual discussion. They just don't like the second amendment, regardless of what it either says or means.
I'll repeat my honest challenge to you:
Diagram the sentence in such as way that it actually means what you claim it means. I have all confidence that such won't pan out, academically.
If you don't like the second amendment, at least be honest enough to say that you don't like it, but don't lie about what it says.
Who are the militia today? All those citizens who responded to hurricane damage in NC way before FEMA. They are the militia.
Better yet. What did the term "well regulated" mean?
How times change!
The US Constitution is the second most guarantee of my right to protect myself. The first is my God-given right.
Aw gee, widdle ikken has imaginaweee fwends.
GROW UP WIDDLE BAABEE !!!!!!!!!!!!
@@TheTerminator-1 What kind of child posts something like that? What are you - brain-dead?
The founding fathers were worried about a standing army because most coups were instigated by the military in Europe at the time so they decided on using the militia, the federal government supplied arms and ammunition to the states and the states constructed and controlled the armouries where the weapons were stored, this worked well till the British tried to keep control of their colony and the founding fathers realized they had no choice but to stop relying on an untrained militia and increase the size of the standing army, the biggest mistake the founding fathers made was in not realizing how stupid many people would act because they never bothered repealing the second amendment as it was no longer needed and Militias in several instances became renegades who would go from place to place raping and stealing because once the federal government realized they had to have a large standing army they stopped supporting the state militias.
re: constitution: all you have to know is what a "comma" meant 250 years ago and now,,,,,the same thing
To be fair, there are various opinions about the concept of a 'militia' so I will explain this based on what I've gathered from our founding documents.
1) The National Guard is based in the individual states and identified with their home states' name and under the command of the Governor of each state BUT they could also legally come under the command of the POTUS.
2) IMO, since they are active all the time, they represent a "standing" army spoken of in the formative years of our Constitution.
A real militia can be explained by two attributes: 1) a militia is NOT under the control of a central government and 2) they are ad hoc and only form to address a specific problem.
The lines tend to blur and if you sift through the comments, you will find differing opinions, especially about the National Guard. Once again, IMO, the National Guard is mistaken for a militia but they are under central control and are active all the time.
So, why do I say this? Our founding principles revolve around liberty especially tyranny of a ruling government and, at that time, that was King George III. He was a tyrant, clearly, and his acts of tyranny are explained in the part of The Declaration of Independence that most folks don't like to read. ) To be sure, the Colonies were not in conflict with British people, they were in conflict with the King
Our Founders wary of a standing army because they were afraid that a central government would use that army against the people should they choose to abandon our Constitution. This framed their preference for militias and understanding that any tyrant who wants to usurp the power of government must first get rid of the militias. They relied heavily on the idea that militias, free from the immediate control of the government, would best protect our country's founding.
Hence, a true militia should be ad hoc only arising from a particular need and consist only of The People not under the command of any central government. Back then it would have been Britain but this was a universal principle intended for the ages.
"Private militia" is a misnomer and ahistorical. Since Roman times militia were organized by governments to protect the state. The Founders probably knew the history. Somehow the Supreme Court either didn't read or just ignored the first half of the 2nd Amendment and decided for the specious claim of a it being an individual right. For over 200 years no one had thought that, including the SC. Nowadays you seen ammosexuals who mistakenly think that the amendment was for people who want to overthrow the government.
For 220 some years people had at most a shotgun or handgun, there were no school shootings, no mass murders by a single gunman. The government never enslaved us. The NRA invented this paranoia and fear of a government boogie man, and has convinced its followers to stockpile and feel no remorse.
The present SCOTUS only cares when people notice they don't care about the law.
A militia is just a group of neighbors willing to stand together against an outside threat. One can be organized on the spot if necessary. In essence this is just like other citizens banding together when in need...for instance those looking out for their neighbors after hurricane Helene that didn't wait for permission or charter to do so. It was organic, and it was done as necessary. Meanwhile Federal help took days to organize and arrive.
If a threat spontaneously occurs, neighbors will spontaneously organize to meet that threat. Being armed isn't a pre-requisite, but it certainly makes defense of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness far easier when you are able to stand against those threats. It certainly makes it easier for neighbors to count on the aid of one another if things go bad enough that they feel the need to organize. The idea that it might be used against government is derived from the feeling that higher echelons of government have become intrusive and a potential threat to local communities. Presuming that threat doesn't manifest there should be no concern from any outsiders that citizens being armed is in some way a threat to them or their designs.
See 10 USC 245 regarding militia
@@richardfoltz1663
Unorganized is the opposite of regulated. So now you should be admitting that I am right.
Citizens armed with military type weapons which were reasonable and needed to repel armies foreign and domestic
The British had militias of colonists also.
Wait, how did you sneak in "federal oppression?" Neither he US Constitution nor any state constitution refers to "federal oppression."
A militia is a military-grade civilian force that stands as the last line of defense against an opposing military force used for either domestic tyranny (federal oppression) or foreign invasion. Federal tyranny is *the very circumstance* involved in the revolution, out of which came the US Constitution, and therefore the second amendment. It's the very context of the question: "what it meant at Founding" (of our nation). There's no "sneaking in" of the very context of the American Revolution.
Glad somebody is paying attention here. They always need to sneak in that bit of ahistorical propaganda.
@@jamesday3591That only explains why the Founders didn't originally have a standing army. State militias protecting the independence of the states is not the same as random citizens "defending freedom." That's entirely modern propaganda.
@@jamesday3591 No, sir. With respect. Neither the US constution nor any state constitution refers to "domestic tyranny." At the time of the American revolutiion, there could not have existed any "federal tyranny," because there was no federal government. The purpose of the militias was to supplement and augment the regular mility in defense of the national against foreign invasion.
Ah, yes, well, this video is political propaganda, not historical perspective. The picture of Clint Eastwood in the background gives it away.
It doesn’t matter what militia meant. The first part is subordinate. The main clause says,“shall not be infringed.”
If you think otherwise, you should study English some more.
There are countless terms for which their contemporary definitions have evolved compared with 200 years ago. A new definition of a word is called a “semantic change”. Here are two good examples. Please respond if you know of others
200 years ago, “gay” meant: joyful.
And long ago, if you were "naughty", you had naught or nothing. Then it came to mean evil or immoral. Now, it means that you are just badly behaved.
In the 18th century, "well-regulated" meant something was well-organized, well-armed, and well-disciplined. It did not have the same meaning as the word "regulation" is used today. Instead, it meant that a militia was in a state to fight effectively.
Militias were not untrained. Much like today, the state militias were drilled in marching, maneuver and combat. The militia may not have been professional, in that they were not full time soldiers; however they were professional in that they were paid for their military service. But here we come to the crux; the meaning of words change over time. Very clearly the National Guard of today fill EXACTLY the role that the militia of 1775 did. I am a supporter of the Second Amendment. The modern interpretation of the 2A by the people of the USA is overwhelmingly that there IS a personal right to bear arms. There is also an overwhelming consensus that that right is limited. You can't own a nuke, a SAM, a 155 mm howitzer, an 88 mm AT gun or a 0.50 caliber machine gun. The meanings of words change. In 1775 "arms" were something that fired one shot and took from 20 seconds up to several minutes to reload. If the meaning of "arms" changes, then the meaning of "militia" can change as well.
As a side note. There was the Whiskey Rebellion. The Founding Fathers put it down. The Founding Fathers believed that just because some group of disgruntled people got some weapons together that did NOT give them the right to overthrow the government. The Founding Fathers did NOT believe that an armed population was a check against the democratic will of the people.
Actually you can own a 50 cal machine gun, tanks with operational weapons and you can get a destructive device licence for a 88mm antitank cannon etc, but you would need some deep pockets. Plenty of videos out there with civilians playing with those kind of toys. There was a full auto 50 cal machine gun for sale dated 2017 on Rock Island Auction estimated to go for $14,000 to $22,500. Rounds readily available. Search for "Lot 2503: Group Industries Class III/NFA M2 .50 Cal Hvy MG"
An AT gun, Howitzer, and a .50 Cal machine gun absolutely can be purchased and owned by a private citizen today. It requires a Class 3 license and a good deal of money, but it is Legal.
Perhaps you can own them, so you can nit pick the wording, but you don't have a Constitutionally Protected Right to them.
@@jamesmcghee8304 The "requirement of" ________ (insert "license" or any other requirement in the blank, advisable or otherwise) constitutes a form of infringement. Just sayin'. You can say the second amendment is phrased too broadly, if you want to. That might be a legitimate claim. But to claim that an infringement is not an infringement, simply because you think that the infringement is good, advisable, wise, reasonable, productive, safer, better, should have been allowed for, etc., doesn't somehow make it *not* an infringement.
@@mac11380 I call BS. Certain individuals can own them if they have strict government approval for owning them. That doesn't sound like a right. You do NOT have a personal right to anything much above small arms, even under this radical right-wing supreme court. You certainly do not have the right to use them for anything resembling their intended purpose.
All rights are limited, even second amendment rights. There is no special carve-out for guns. The question on guns is where the line gets drawn. Clearly the framers thought single shot muzzle-loading small arms were covered by the 2A. Anything beyond that is open for debate. Also, they thought there was nothing wrong with disallowing carrying weapons, whether open or concealed in certain areas, like towns.
Read Article I Section 8 (that defines the responsibilities of Congress) clause 12: “to raise and support Armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;“
Now read clause 13: “to provide and maintain a Navy;”
Notice the difference? There is no limitation placed on Congress for funding the Navy. But the Army can only be funded for a maximum of two years. It is clear from Article I Section 8 that the Founders did not want a standing army. So if you want to disband the army and rely solely on the militia to defend the United States against the Russians, the North Koreans, the Chinese, the Iranians, and everyone else who wishes to do us harm, be my guest. Otherwise, the 2nd Amendment is nothing other than a dead letter no longer applicable to the United States that exists today, a country vastly different from the one that existed 237 years ago. The 2nd Amendment needs to be repealed. It has turned the Constitution into a suicide pact.
This is woefully inadequate.
The wording of the early militia regulations was nearly identical to the preceding British militia regulations.
Under the US Constitution the head of the "well regulated militia" is the President. ("The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States"). The National Guard fulfils this function today. Private militias do not.
Nonsense
@@arch3088 Read them.
Where are they? Any specific ones?
@@maurimojo If you can't find a copy of the US Constitution, you aren't trying very hard.
For British precedents, try the Militia Act of1757.
For background reading, try: "To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right." by Joyce Lee Malcolm. Highly recommended.
Militia: every able body America male to serve in an national emergency. The only difference between then and now is women are added. It has nothing to do with the military or national guard.
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution puts the state militias under the control of Congress. Congress was to provide rules for the militias and arm them. States retained the right to select leaders for their own militia as long as they followed the rules established by Congress. This is the meaning of "well regulated." The National Guard is exactly the type of organization contemplated by the Constitution. There is no mention in the Constitution or Bill of Rights of "personal firearms" because personal firearms were a common tool. Professional hunters provided game for hotels, restaurants and butcher shops. Many people hunted for their own food. Regulation of personal firearms was up to local communities. Many communities forbade the open display of firearms, or even their possession within city or community limits. It is only because of modern mythologizing that we have become confused about proper behavior with and regulation of firearms.
why some look up term in old enlgish books iam sure
The National Guard didn't even exist at the time the US Constitution was written. The name comes from France, and was a force raised by the French Republic during the French Revolution. So, the National Guard is not relevant to any discussion of the original meaning of the Second Amendment.
Oh PLEASE!! In the Colonial Era the militia was ALL MALES between 16 and 60 who could perform the duties of a soldier! In this case that meant any guy who could fire a weapon competently! And that is all it meant!!!
That is what you claim AND that was was with single shot muskets. Not modern with modern weapons, including automatics.
I think in the video it says through 50. People at 60 were considered quite old back then.
Yes and I am writing this on a iPhone not covered by the first amendment as it is much better than Morse code correct ?
@@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv Now point out exactly where in the Second Amendment the Foundung Fathers specified they were referring to ONLY single shot firearms or muskets? You can't because they didn't! The Founders were wise enough to know things would change and technology would advance so they anticipated it by the way the worded the Amendment. Unless of course you are willing to admit those ignorant, backwoods savages were and still are wiser than so-called 'modern, better educated' Americans. Like, say, you.
See my reply to "musket" man.
Wow, way to ignore the history of militias in the colonies. Sad that history is being re-written to serve political agendas.
The Word is Militia and if your cite is that any Form not House in the National Archives in Washington D.C. your a civil;
Was that intended to be coherent?
@@jamesday3591obviously, you know ⭕️ about the Constitution and Amendment XIV Section 3 and 1; civil is establish in Article I.6.2, Article II.4 and Amendment XIV.3 as is military office;
civil is a Constitution Law Word and Form, Class and office establish by ‘We the People’ over US of A;
This happened to a certain European country in the 1930s.
Yes it did!
What did the term “militia” mean at the Founding?
"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
“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
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789
The founders were not worried about types of arms and in fact arms was used all inclusively so the public could have parity of weapons with government forces that could be used against the public. The founders were worried about types of governments such as the one on April 19, 1775. The Second Amendment was written as a law against government to stop government gun confiscation from ever happening again as it did on April 19, 1775.
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials." - George Mason, co author of the 2nd Amendment.
The right to bear arms……. Ok, I wanna own nuclear arms.
@morganeoghmanann9792 wrote "Arms" can just as easily refer to an axe, a spear, a knife, or a bow and arrow. The term "firearm" isn't referenced. The right to bear arms simply means weapons. In general." --------- But morgan, one thing the word could not refer to are weapons that had not yet been invented. AND THE MORGAN GOES DOWN !!!
First four words of the Second Amendment: "A well regulated militia..."
I've never heard any person who wants to own semi-automatic assault rifles even quote these words...they simply gloss over them and fast forward to the end where it says, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Individuals acting alone with their arms is NOT an organized militia, and lord knows, they HATE to have ANY regulations...
You are so wrong. Regulate did not mean government control. It met to be training and arming of themselves. James Madison the author of the 2nd amendment said it himself that the people are the militia. Read the original works no what tyrants want you to believe.
@@lewiswork3943 //Regulate did not mean government control. It (meant) to be training and arming of themselves.//
Show me where in the Second Amendment that the Founding Fathers wrote, "A well regulated militia...but NOT government-trained..."
That's one of the unfortunate aspects of the Constitution is that it tends to use very broad language that lends itself to be interpreted in multiple ways.
//James Madison the author of the 2nd amendment said it himself that the people are the militia.//
Of COURSE, the people are the CANDIDATES for the militia...once they are REGULATED.
Now, who gets to be in charge of that regulation and training? The Continental government? The Federal government (upon which the Constitution was founded)? State government? City government? Uncle Joe? The unknown neighbor down thataways?
Imagine a militia getting together, scores of members all arguing amongst themselves about how to lead an assault or a defense:
"My uncle says we should go in one by one..."
"No, my neighbor says a full-scale simultaneous assault in a straight line is the way to go..."
"No, no! We learned you're supposed to go in scattered with a three-wave assault with auxiliaries moving against their flanks...!"
Utter chaos...NOT "well regulated."
In today's world, people with guns tend to think, "NO ONE is going to tell me what to do with my guns or how to defend my home/our city/our state/our country. Utter chaos.
@@toAdmiller You're arguing about a red herring. The second amendment is not *about* militias, well regulated or otherwise, state-controlled or otherwise. The parenthetical statement "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is presenting a premise of rationale for the right enumerated in the second half of the sentence. It is neither the right, itself, nor the required application of that right.
The right *is* the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and said right shall not be infringed, *because* (as one statement of premise among a myriad of potential reasons not directly enumerated in the sentence) a well regulated militia is necessary to maintaining the security of a free State.
You're misapplying, misinterpreting, and misrepresenting grammatical syntax.
@@jamesday3591 Nope... I'm just not reading into it what you are.
@@toAdmiller What exactly do you believe I am "reading into it". I believe that I'm taking it at face value, based on its literal grammatical meaning. What do you believe I am asserting that is not present in the sentence at face value?
Whether I agree with it or not is immaterial. I just noticed that the two of you were arguing about something that isn't present in the actual sentence.
Militia, in English common law was- any able bodied man
Why do you leave out the prerogative of slave owners to have weapons in case of slave rebellions?
He didn't leave it out. That's also inherently included. However, would the employment of those weapons against a "slave rebellion" constitute a violation of the slaves' right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? Most assuredly. You can keep arms! You can bear arms! But you cannot commit crimes, regardless of any other rights you might have.
I was NATIONAL GUARD.
I think the key point in the 2cd Amendment is the term "Well regulated", and all that means.
I would say that if this country was ever attacked and they needed people the gun owners would step up to defend this country just like the men in the past
ahahahahahahaaaaa ...what a ridiculous statement. Are you seven years old living in a fantasy world?
You're wrong.
He completely ignores the fact that the Second Amendment specifies:
"A *_well regulated_* Militia ..."
Literally the very first words of the amendment.
The civilian population.
A reading of the 13 colonial charters as well as the early state constitutions note that certain types of peoples "undesirables" can be disqualified from being in militia. They also detailed the serving requirements to be in the militia, i.e. reporting to register with the major in charge of the militia when you arrive etc... Also, what is often overlooked today that was noted in the constitutions, is the verbiage where the state notes the fear of a centralized government. If you read these, you will come to the conclusion each state individually controls their militia and firearm ownership. The federal government has no business in this concern.
The gun rights protected by the state and federal constitutions were written for a time when there was no state or federal army, or police force. You literally had to have a firearm just to ensure the survival of yourself and your family, especially if you were on the frontier. There was an awful lot of frontier for most of population until about the 1950's. There is absolutely no reason for most US citizens to possess a firearm. The main reason people think they need one is precisely because of the lack of gun control. If there weren't so many guns, people would feel safer because they would actually be safer.
And the old adage pops up... only the criminals will have firearms. Or barring that it'll be like England... knives.
No reason? Some of us live in what you would call "wilderness with wild animals." Your'e correct, but only if you don't venture off your golf course. This is another example of a metro-sexual telling country folk how to live.
Doesn't the Constitution reference "a well regulated militia". Surely they did not mean a militia made up of people with all kinds of firearms showing up at the front lines totally disorganized. Or maybe they did. I don't think they meant that. They remembered how badly the Revolution had gone in the beginning. Even at Yorktown it was the well armed, well trained and well led troops of France that forced Cornwallis to surrender without a fight..
They meant that since militias are necessary (as one of several potential points of rationale), "people" (in the most unrestricted general application) have the inherent right (not granted by, but protected by the second amendment) to keep and bear arms. It's not "the right of the people to form militias". It's "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".
However, regardless of what they "meant" by a "well regulated" militia, a militia can, indeed, be comprised of people with all kinds of arms (firearms, kitchen knives, brass knuckles, mustard gas, broken off table legs, stones picked up off the ground, tactical nukes, A1 Abrams tanks, post it notes for very small paper cuts) showing up at the front lines totally disorganized. The more organized the better, and an unorganized, poorly regulated militia is probably not going to be very effective at "maintaining the security of a free state", but it still *is* a militia. A starved, deaf, feral dog with only two legs and one eye is still a dog.
And bearing arms means short sleeve shirts😅😅😅😅
watch the patriot
No, the militias that existed for hundreds of years before the founding of the country were not to defend against attach by a federal government. The militias were to defend against Native Americans and the French, mostly, although Indians occasionally worked with the English settlers against the French or other tribes, depending upon their individual interests. From the time the Pilgrims first landed until the formation of the Continental Army there was no federal government or standing army to come to the aid of the populace or, for that matter, to attempt to disarm the populace. England certainly did not fund and man and supply a standing military in the colonies, and it would have taken months to get help from Britain if required/ So, militias had been and were necessary. At the time the First Amendment was drafted, there was no U.S. Army, as the Continental Army had been essentially disbanded after the Revolution. as a result, it made sense to cite the historical need for militias when creating the First Amendment to make clear that the new government would not try to disarm the populace as the British government had attempted to do once the colonies appears to be moving toward rebellion. People at the time were very concerned that they were not merely substitution one king for another, you know. But it is simply right-wing, gun-nut, revision of history to suggest that the First Amendment was drafted to protect the citizens of the various states from the federal government which, by the way, did not have the means to fund an army to disarm anybody. That is why it was a big deal that the federal government first authorized the building of frigates, such as the USS Constitution, to protect our shipping interests in the Mediterranean. I notice you don't give your qualification--other than the gun-theme movie poster behind you. Are you a historian? Or are you merely another gun nut who wants to claim they need 30-round magazines because the big, bad government is going to try to make them into liberal sheep?
Militia by definition is a civilian force. Otherwise it would just be called a military. That solves the whole thing
Doesn't solve anything at all.
Regulated does.
@@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv Regulated back then meant, the regulations. The regulation of the militia was, you brought your own firearm, your own ammo, and your own powder. Basically your own arms. You had to have a certain amount of powder and ball when you were called to Muster, usually on a Sunday. If you did not have the required arms, you would be fined somehow. They were a civilian force. Reading deeper into history, written back then, you will find there was also a regulated militia, and an unregulated militia too.
@@williamdavis6400
You don't seem to be the expert you think you are.
“Well Regulated” in 18th century parlance meant well maintained and operating in good order such as a well regulated clock by example. The modern concept of “regulated” such as by regulations is only a recent thing. Colonial civilian militias called for the civilian militiamen to provide their own weapons and ammunition in a clean, orderly and fully functioning manner. This encompassed firearms as well as munitions and edged weapons and in some cases, wealthy militiamen provided their own artillery. Yes, American civilians did possess and use cannons as many fur trapping companies and frontier town militias did. Unorganized Militias are by definition civilian in nature. They are different from Organized Militias such as the Nation Guard. Basically, speed bumps slowing enemy forces until the regulars arrive and to serve as partisan forces in asymmetrical warfare. Also as the 2nd Amendment intended, they are there to keep a tyrannical government in check when that government puts its own needs ahead of the populace.
A little known fact is that the first use of a Kalthoff 30 round repeating flintlock rifle (not musket) in 1659 in combat by the Danes against the Swedes. Ian McCollum of Forgotten Weapons did a video on this rifle. It is a fascinating video on a very interesting weapon. Apparently, a 30 round magazine is not a new thing. Another repeater sold to colonists was the
Lorenzoni repeating flintlock. It was made from the mid 1600’s to about 1778. Yet another one was the Puckle manual repeating firearm of 1718. So repeating rifles are not new and the framers of the Constitution were well aware of these enhanced firepower weapons when they drafted the 2nd Amendment.
@@rebel-yellenterprises1479
Regulated does not not regulated. The states the state militia and the feds regulate the federal militia.
Keep making things up but even the present corrupted and incompetent SCOTUS has not agreed.
Excellent presentation! Thank You
If I'm not mistaken, (if I am please correct me) most of these types of individual rights were not willy nilly handed out to all.
Indentured servants weren't allowed to own guns as well as slaves despite the fact that they too were born here not all rights were extended to everyone. There were many actual, real American citizens who could not enjoy all rights. If a slave or indentured servant, maybe a member of a family committed a crime it was the property owner who was held to account in most cases.
So much damage is done by Americans today who misuse guns.
I have to wonder who pays for all the destruction and loss of life and property?
Why isn't it mandated today that gun owners must buy insurance to guard against innocent taxpayers having to flip the bill to pay and pay and pay for mass murders and so on???
Leave it to the actuary's to figure out how much to charge a hunter who already buys home and other types of insurance just in case someone is hurt on their property and so on.
If you want it for protection, leave it to the actuary's to figure out what their (and our) risk is....
... there must be a way for a capitalistic society like ours to find balance between paying for the damage guns create be it a state, federal or private citizen creating cost for taxpayers. Why not mandate insurance? Seems like a sane thing to do!
That's how I feel about the 1st amendment... free speech insurance
And voting insurance for bad policy 😅😅😅
Who's capitalist ??? 😮😅 we are very regulated
This reply is not "Pro Gun" but rather an attempt to get you to understand reality. Your "argument" is fundamentally flawed. Guns cannot act on their own. They are inanimate objects. It is the people that are the problem. The constitution makes gun ownership legal to every citizen. You cannot adjudicate the guns, only the people. By placing insurance requirements or any other restriction that would prohibit any individual from freely owning a gun would be illegal. When people who have misunderstanding like you do finally realize it is not the guns that are the problem, but it is in fact the people, some real progress could be made. But the insistence on blaming an inanimate object for action taken is incoherent and flawed. Additionally reality hurts. The "damage done" as you state is really insignificant in the bigger picture. SOOOO many other easier to solve issues would save many more lives and much more money. So to make a real difference you would need to EMOTIONALLY let go of the whole gun argument and focus your efforts where the more important priorities are. Then one day, perhaps the gun issue would rise high enough on the priority list to see changes. Until then it is merely an argument perpetuated by the media making a buck on peoples emotional state. Speaking of emotional state... where is the anti-gun platform's push for mental health services? It is non existent. But that is a whole other issue needing to be addressed. Even if guns did not exist there will still be murders and serial killers..... And lastly, you make an attempt at converting real peoples pain and suffering into a monetary equation. What is the value of life taken? How can you leave something like that to the 'Actuaries"? Shameful.
@@bigtobacco1098 Nothing wrong with regulations and capitalism in fact it's suppose to be that way.
What's socialistic is when the regulation puts you in jail like when booze and drugs are prohibited from being manufactured or used.
Regulations sometimes are needed in Capitalism like regulating monopoly's and making sure they don't ruin resources of others.
Socialists seem to like to regulate people, like what we put in or do to our bodies. Abortion fits in here too.
The second amendment is very clear, no debate is necessary as to what it means. The only people who want to misinterpret or deny its meaning are the ones that don’t want others to have firearms, period.
They had no guns like we have today. Let people have all the muskets they want. Isn’t that what being an originalist means?
It was a the an extremely advanced and sophisticated rifle. A musket was carried by the British army and had very poor ballistics. Maybe 100 yards at best. The Rifle owned by the Colonials was a true rifle. Good out to 300 yards. The constitution acknowledges that you have a right to the very best and most sophisticated weapon for self defense.
@@josephloughrey3434 Fine with me.
they had no internet back then so free speech only applies to parchment and a quilled pen.
No. A militia is a civilian force armed with military grade weapons of the highest available capacity and lethality, sufficient to engage against an aggressive professional military force (either domestic or foreign). As such, the respective weapons necessary to engage such a professional military force scales with technology.
@ighdesigns - So does the First Amendment not apply to radio, television, or the internet, since those things did not exist at the time the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights were drawn up and ratified? Your position is absurd and untenable.
There is a BIG LEAP of logic from "the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." to "not only the ability to protect the perogatives of one's state againt federal oppression" especially when you look at the term "insurrection" in the US Constitution. Perhaps the Ministry of Truth would like to employ you, and maybe you can replace the work "constitution" in the name of this channel with the word "propaganda"