Words matter. I was very intentional in my wording of the title for this video. I even used all caps on one word in particular. And I knew some people would just respond to the title without watching the video. Which is why I have made a serious effort to challenge all of those commenters to watch the video and then tell me whether they agree. Sadly, only a few so far have had the maturity to do so. I say sadly, because anyone who think that the 2nd Amendment "gives" us a right are the ones I made this video for. Word are important and if our rights are "given" by a document then they can be taken simply by amending that document, which is what some people have been suggesting lately.
Hey Brian, I'll admit that your video title did get me at first and then I just had to watch the entire video to see what you meant?? Glad I did and I agree with you! I also am enjoying you start your videos with a holy Bible verse! God bless and stay safe out there!!
Justice Scalia said "The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it 'shall not be infringed.' "
@@SurvivalOnPurpose He is dead, isn't he? Of course, I could name one or three members of the Court that could assume the same status as Scalia and improve the Court!
In whatever way I see fit. With whatever I'm holding in my hands. My right to defend my GOD GIVEN FREEDOMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. and Washington does NOT tell me what GOD has given
It only tells the GOVERNMENT, IT cannot say what you may keep and bear. No rights are "granted" by the Constitution, only that the government shall not infringe or curtail those rights.
I’m taking an informal survey. Did you even watch the video? Because, based on your comment - which I completely agree with by the way- I don’t think so.
" 2ndA Has No restrictions PERIOD! " Of course it does. ALL Constitutional amendments have some restrictions. Are you arguing that prisoner has the right to a firearm while in prison? That would be a restriction if not.
@@papimaximus95anybody not locked up should be able to own anything that exsist and carry it anywhere they can leggaly be period tge debate ebded dec 15 1791
@@matthewlee9728 "Anyone that passes enacts or ebforces any gun law should be jailed for life no parole 23 1 lockdown" Does that include the "gun law" you created above?
The second amendment to the constitution: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The term "regulated" means to put in good order. In other words, they wanted us to train with firearms. Regulation in this sentence DOES NOT mean legislated by politicians. The word "militia" means the home guard, comprised of the citizens, which cannot be sent over-sea to fight. Also, for those who say the founders could not have envisioned rapid fire small arms, do a search for Multi-barreled guns of the 16th century. The concept of rapid fire was nothing new, when the constitution was written. Let's also not forget that the muzzle loading rifles were the "assault weapons" of that time, and the framers of the constitution wanted us to keep and bear them. Our founders knew you don't need a militia to hunt bear, moose or geese. So, it has NOTHING to do with hunting. The 2A was about self protection and a final check against a tyrannical government.
In Australia they have brought in laws where to buy a knife you need to show your I.D. or email proof of age if on the internet. They claim it is to stop knife crime and underage youth getting knives. The underage knife crime has risen in Australia with the large increase in immigration from certain parts of the world. Governments always there with new laws to problems they have created.
I guess nobody reads the supporting documentation submitted with the constitution explaining that the Second Amendment pertains to anything you deem necessary to defend yourself and the constitution. James Madison (you know the guy that authored most of the constitution) wrote several papers explaining that the Second Amendment includes but is not limited to cannons and anything else you could use as a means of protection.
You are exactly correct. Regardless of what laws state or federal governments might declare, they cannot take away our God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We the people, however, can forfeit our rights but if we are wise, we will not. Let us hold fast to that which God has given us.
It starts in kindergarten, our schools are awful. A 12 year old can decide to transgender, but if they want to have sex with an adult the adult goes to jail, but not the transgenderer ? The gun/2a issue is the same thing. People teach your children that guns are bad ?
Almost. 2A tells the govt they shall not infringe and reminds them why. The best efforts by the govt public 'education' for over 120 years is making the words of the constitution be accepted by the people to mean something different.
The right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon. That statement is common sense, except for a tyrannical government that tries to take that right from us.
According to the Founders, the Constitution, the various Militia Acts, etc., the People, or the Unorganized Militia, are supposed to be armed in a similar manner to the Active Military. Those citizens should be skilled in the use of those, the Well Regulated part. So, perhaps you are correct, not AR-15s, but whatever the military is issued, the People are meant to be able to have similar arms. ARMS. Not muskets. Not bolt guns. Remember, the Billnof Rights is supposed to limit the Government, not the People.
The constitution does not grant rights. Your rights exists extant of government. The first amendment doesn't say that you have the right to practice religion how you chose. It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof" All of the bill of rights say: "Government may not" None of them say: "You may do this"
@aubreyleonae4108. Why are you sorry? And why do so many people who don’t believe in a “creator” seem to have an almost pathological need to chastise those of us who think it is the only logical, rational conclusion?
@@papimaximus95 It doesn't have to be listed somewhere to be true. The premise is that certain rights are inherent in our humanity. Therefore they are given by our Creator. One of those inherent rights is to deny the existence of Creator. I think that is a highly illogical and irrational position but you have an inherent right to your beliefs.
To be accurate, it says nothing about what we should or should not own. What it says is what the government should not do, which is infringe upon our rights.
One of the reasons the second Amendment was written was because of what happened at Lexington with the British, they came for the most powerful military weapon of the day our cannons, our answer was come and take it if you dare.
The people shall have equivalent arms as the government, as Hamilton stated below. "In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair" Alexander Hamilton; Federalist Paper No. 28
correct. It recognizes a right that we already have. It doesn't say the citizenry has the right to own firearms. It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The choice of wording implies the right is preexisting.
I believe you are correct, Brian. The Bill of Rights is not a list of rights "given" to you, it is a list of items prohibiting the government from infringing, restricting, or removing from the citizens of the United States. Unfortunately we have let the government get so big and powerful that they "think" they have the power to tell the citizenry what they are allowed to do. When the government tells the citizens what they can and can not do, you have a Socialist / Communist government. Far from the Constitutional Republic that we started with. Perhaps it's time to refresh 1776 ideas and start over again. God bless y'all and stay safe out there.
had to be sure of what your thumbnail meant, i also watch 10th amendment center, and other constitutional sites on yt. michael bolton on 10th amendment also covered this subject. we have a right to own any arms,. only the amount of money we have limits what we own. the government has no power to limit, restrict deny, disparage, prohibit our right to arms. and we have the right to bear arms as we see fit, we do not need a permit slip to travel with and conceal arms!
The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution and Bill of Rights were written to limit Government not the People. There is not 1 limit in any of these documents that limits The People!
The biggest shame of the modern American education system is a the idea that a piece of paper gives of right rather than our nation being acknowledging and agree to not infringe these GOD GIVEN rights. Well said, sir
I cannot count the number of times I've had this very same discussion. Everyone says, "The X Amendment gives me the right to..." and I try to explain that the Constitution gives NO rights. It simply limits what the government can do to the rights you already have. If you take a moment to read the darn thing, it's apparent that it's NOT giving you anything. No where does it say, "you have the right to carry a gun".
You should look up Tenche Coxe and what he has said about our rights! It was also believed by many of those founders, that having a “standing army”, (their term for the actual military, not a civilian militia), was much more of a threat to our Republic than having a majority of citizens being armed. They believed so because they thought that a regular military, (or standing army), could be used against the citizens themselves.
Words ARE important! As is 'reading'. The govt is limited by the constitution to those things mentioned. Not unlike the military's UCMJ Article 134, the govt uses the Commerce Clause to justify anything they want. They've even given themselves immunity from prosecution when people recognize how illegal many of their acts are.
Thanks Bryan for the video. I continuously argue with my brothers over this. I believe if I can afford a tank, I may do so without any government interference.
I don't think "knee jerk" applies in this instance. If someone implied a meaning that wasn't clear and unambiguous, then that could be a knee jerk reaction. An accidental misunderstanding or hearing or seeing only part of say, a sign partially covered by a parked truck, that might apply. A planned out title is different. Any attempt to use shock, hyperbole, or misdirection to get people to think different carries the same risk as public pranks. Neither good nor bad, just the same risk.
The entire point of this video was that words matter because language influences perception. Yes, this title was planned out for the express purpose of emphasizing that point. Which is why I have down my best to respond to almost every comment that seemed as though the commenter didn’t watch the video and just reacted to the title. I call that a knee jerk reaction because isn’t considered response.
As usual, some are commenting before listening to what you say. These are likely the same people that believe the Constitution and/or government gives us our rights when in fact those rights are given by God and can neither be given nor taken away by man (inalienable rights). These documents restrict the power of the government and tells them what THEY cannot do and even states that any rights not listed are reserved to the People. The Federalist Papers which were the discourse between the Founding Fathers before and during the writing of the Constitution and Bill of Rights make it clear that that the Founders intent was that We The People have the right to be equipped with the same arms (all means of defense - guns, ammunition, swords, cannons, etc) that are in common use by a standing army (military of the government) and such as are in common use at the time because they understood that arms technology would advance with time. They were very careful in the wording of these documents and understood the importance and need for the ability of the People to protect themselves from both external and internal threats (governments become tyrannical by the consolidation of power). The National Firearms Act of 1934 and Gun Control Act of 1968, among other unconstitutional laws and BATFE ‘regulations’ which are also unconstitutional, infringe upon our right to the same arms as our military and our ability to overthrow a tyrannical government. That is why we have a Constitutional Republic (consent of the governed under the rule of law) and not a democracy (mob/majority rule). Good video, but your title is being misinterpreted and will cost you views and subscribers despite it being factually correct. Hoping this will give others an understanding of your intent before ignorantly posting comments or unsubscribing to your great channel.
Honestly, if it cost me some viewers who are prone to knee-jerk reactions, but educates some other viewers to the critical importance of words and how they are used to shape perception, I’ll take that trade off
He used a dirty click bait tactic and now he's paying for it. GOOD! That's what should happen. I just stumbled onto his channel so I won't be back. I've unsubscribed from channels after YEARS of watching them when they started click baiting lime this. It's a manipulative waste of time.
I flipped on your channel presuming that you would bring up the reason we can own an AR-15 or AR-15s, or any weapon(s) the government owns, due to our Natural Right to Self Defense and Self Preservation, which came before the Constitution and the BORs. Your understanding, IMO, is 100% accurate and I concur. Have as good a weekend as possible!
The founders and framers recognized that certain rights were inherently existent by virtue of being alive and human, and one of those rights was the right to self preservation, with the best tools available. These men were unique. None of them sought power or riches. In fact, most of the founders ended the revolution much worse off financially...or even dead. We need to do whatever it takes to ensure these rights are preserved, because once gone, they're gone forever. When is the last time government recognized you had a "new" right? I mean, other than the decadent pretend that your gender differed from your plumbing, wich isn't really a right, except to be deluded with government backing.
It’s been many years since I read it, but one of the Militia Acts created in our Republic’s early years says not only that every able body man is in the militia, but he is required to have a weapon of equal ability as the regular army. I’ll have to look it up again…
The entire bill of rights does not "give" or take rights, it plainly expresses preexisting rights granted by our Creator, God. No "government of humans" can take them away without declaring "THE PEOPLE" to be slaves.
Meh; POLITICAL POWER is what gives you the "right" to have/do ANYTHING. If you wanna keep your AR-15's, then what you need to do is see to it that the people who hold governmental-offices will make it so that you CAN keep your AR-15's.
@@SurvivalOnPurpose I saw it; and, it's nothing that you don't learn about in political science 101. My point was that regardless of where you think your "rights" originate, they flow to you through the gun-barrels of He who Holds the Most and Biggest Guns: The governing-office-holders (who have the obedience of the military and law-enforcement agencies); and, just WHO those ARE, are what you need to CONCERN yourself with.
The video title is quite misleading! LOL. I had to watch the whole video to figure out the point that you were trying to make. With that said, I agree with you whole heartedly! And to add to it, some people say that it was written so long ago that they had no idea how modern weapons would evolve. I can only say that even back then machine guns were available and the musket was the common mans "modern" weaponry at the time. So yes, they knew weapon technology would progress but they had the wisdom not to limit the 2A to weapon advancements.
I have the right to be armed with whatever the hell I chose and that has nothing to do with the bill of rights, The right to keep and bear arms was given to you and I by God not the constitution. And while I did make this comment before watching I can READ, the bill of rights gives us nothing just protects what already exists.
New and improved Second Amendment 2.1 Second Amendment 2.1 In order to maintain the blessings of liberty and freedom throughout the land. The pre-existing natural right of the individual to self-defense, shall always be upheld and protected. The right to manufacture, keep and bear arms, ammunition, and parts and accessories for arms, will not be infringed or impeded, by any law or mandate by either the states or the federal government. A free market being necessary for a free people, the right to manufacture arms for sale, or any accessory for arms including ammunition, will not be infringed or impeded, by any law or mandate, by either the federal government or the states. This includes both carrying for an individual, or caring for a company, for trade or sale in another state. Or any other reason that is moral. Uninfringed or impeded by law or mandate. :-)
@SurvivalOnPurpose That sounds "kinda good" to me. "Except" I "THINK". "Shall, not be in fringed covers it all that anyway." Allow me to "Enlighten" you with two known facts, which totally disproves your thoughts. Fact number one. The National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) Passed by Congress in 1934. Fact number two. The Gun Control Act of 1968, a US federal law, regulates the Firearms industry and Firearms ownership. Enacted into law by Congress 1968. Fun fact: Doesn't Congress swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution ????????. As for "kinda of good" Unlike James Madison's Second Amendment. It is a good example of a poorly written positive law. Definition for positive law. Any law or mandate written by human beings to control other human beings. The most egregious law being, slavery. When I rewrote my version of the Second Amendment 2.1, I incorporated 100% natural law. For those ignorant as to the nature of natural law, please read the book written by Lysander Spooner: Natural Law. And become enlightened!. I gave much thought to what I wrote and I considered my words very carefully. The fact that it is written 100% under natural law makes it far superior to James Madison's positive law version. And I like the way my version incorporates the new word impede. I believe it gives it bigger linguistic teeth than it had before. I hope I have given you food for thought one Spooner at a time.:-)
Is it an arm? - YES / Then there should be no question. / Dangerous and Unusual ?- NO. / In common use for lawful purposes? - YES. So, the government has no jurisdiction because "The Right.....shall not be infringed.". Maryland lawmakers need to read the Constitution.
Constitutionally, there would be no need for a convention. That would not require changing the Constitution, just reversal of case law and/or previous court decisions. I can recall nothing in the Constitution about "dangerous and Unusual". And, yes to no more NFA.
The 2nd Amendment, does not specify any weapons in particular. It says; "Arms"! An "Arm" is classified as anything that is useful, for protection purposes or military purposes. Such as, rifles, muskets, bayonet, cutlass, sword, pike, pole arms, fowling pieces, mortars, cannon, pistol, etc. In modern design, it would be anything, that is a rifle, pistol or handgun, shotgun, etc. It could be manually operated or semiautomatic. Not fully automatic, unless you have the proper paperwork. I've owned or used, a variety of weapons, from single shot, black powder to lever actions, bolt actions, pumps, and semiautomatic. Yes, words do make the difference.
The 2nd Amendment says nothing about having paperwork. And you should not need it to own a machine gun or anything else. Shall not be infringed means just that.
If you're trying to say that the 2nd Amendment denies the federal government the authority to restrict citizens from keeping and bearing arms (in any manner), why didn't you just say that?
Why does it take a normal everyday person with common sense to point out the obvious. Thanks I sure hope those in Congress and other parts of our government see this video maybe it would open their eyes to the truth. Simple direct straight to the point.
I thought this was click bait... I was wrong. As with the 1st Amendment, all of the modernized ways to express yourself and express yourself legally are covered. The pen and paper are not what this is limited to. The AR15, like any modern semi-auto rifle, is a modernized version of a musket. Therefore, an AR15 is covered by the 2nd Amendment and is legal to own. With the Heller and Bruen decisions by SCOTUS, an AR15 is an arm and not subject to the NFA in any way. With that said, any semi-automatic firearm is an arm and thus protected.
You are correct. Our rights don't come from the government. The Bill of Rights talks about negative rights, those that prevent the government from infringing on the individual's natural rights. Our rights come from God, aka natural rights and are inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government because they were granted to us by them in the first place.
The current case law states that the states have the right to allow you to own an AR-15 under state police powers. That said, the Federal government does NOT have the right to keep you from having an AR-15 which is the real issue. The Federal government has a list of enumerated powers, like regulating commerce, but does NOT have the right to control firearms. It is up to the state legislatures. Another national assault weapons ban is very, very likely to be held unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court based on the plain language, context, and legislative history of the US Constitution. If California and New Jersey wants to ban AR-15s then they can do it. I don't live there anymore and don't want to live there anymore. I do not want California or New Jersey telling my I can't own an AR-15 in Michigan because those states have no authority to regulate Michigan.
If the Supreme Court read the 2nd amendment like it does the others, firearms training would be mandatory in K-12 and every Walmart would be required to have a shooting range. However, a well regulated militia would also mean certain people would lose their certification based on their lack skill and temperament. TL;DR There should be civilian or military national service and rights should also confer responsibilities.
You’re right, GOD GIVES each of us our rights. The constitution and the bill of rights are simply man’s feeble attempt to codify those pre-existent rights.
The government doesn't give you rights god given rights say a man can protect himself an his and if you use a gun or a fist that isn't nobody's business you believe what you will and so will everyone else.
Amen, you had me at first. I thought you was going to say we only could bear muskets or something silly like that. Good job. Thank God. I really try and listen to every point of view on a lot of things. I am 61 years old and my beliefs are pretty much carved in Stone . My Bible has been my textbook most of my life.
I don't know why so many Americans are pro-2nd Amendment. It is plainly clear that there need to be greater restrictions on gun access. It is in every American citizens best interest.
You probably think guns need serial numbers? That is incorrect. A citizen is legally authorized to build their own firearm. Serial numbers didn’t exist is 1791.
Yep, we have the right to own or build whatever we want. Please read the title again - closely. Then maybe watch the video and let me know what you think.
Words matter. I was very intentional in my wording of the title for this video. I even used all caps on one word in particular. And I knew some people would just respond to the title without watching the video. Which is why I have made a serious effort to challenge all of those commenters to watch the video and then tell me whether they agree. Sadly, only a few so far have had the maturity to do so. I say sadly, because anyone who think that the 2nd Amendment "gives" us a right are the ones I made this video for. Word are important and if our rights are "given" by a document then they can be taken simply by amending that document, which is what some people have been suggesting lately.
Hey Brian, I'll admit that your video title did get me at first and then I just had to watch the entire video to see what you meant?? Glad I did and I agree with you! I also am enjoying you start your videos with a holy Bible verse! God bless and stay safe out there!!
@@SurvivalOnPurpose the title is misleading to say the least. Our rights are derived from them Creator not a piece of paper.
Yep, that is exactly what I said in the video and why the title is 100% accurate.
@SurvivalOnPurpose You're a good guy. Keep the faith and take care!
@@SurvivalOnPurpose Keep the faith and take care!
Justice Scalia said "The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it 'shall not be infringed.' "
Thank you!
We need several more like him on the court
I'm pretty sure the 2nd amendment establishes the Nations' Guard.
@@SurvivalOnPurpose He is dead, isn't he? Of course, I could name one or three members of the Court that could assume the same status as Scalia and improve the Court!
The 2A is there for us to protect the rest of the Constitution.
From the gooberment !
In whatever way I see fit. With whatever I'm holding in my hands. My right to defend my GOD GIVEN FREEDOMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. and Washington does NOT tell me what GOD has given
It only tells the GOVERNMENT, IT cannot say what you may keep and bear. No rights are "granted" by the Constitution, only that the government shall not infringe or curtail those rights.
2ndA Has No restrictions PERIOD!
I’m taking an informal survey. Did you even watch the video? Because, based on your comment - which I completely agree with by the way- I don’t think so.
" 2ndA Has No restrictions PERIOD! "
Of course it does. ALL Constitutional amendments have some restrictions. Are you arguing that prisoner has the right to a firearm while in prison? That would be a restriction if not.
@@papimaximus95anybody not locked up should be able to own anything that exsist and carry it anywhere they can leggaly be period tge debate ebded dec 15 1791
Anyone that passes enacts or ebforces any gun law should be jailed for life no parole 23 1 lockdown
@@matthewlee9728 "Anyone that passes enacts or ebforces any gun law should be jailed for life no parole 23 1 lockdown"
Does that include the "gun law" you created above?
The 2A protects my right to arm myself with any & EVERY thing available… including the AR15, M16, SKS, etc…
Nerf guns
Dark matter
I’m conducting an informal survey. Did you watch the video before commenting? And you are correct in your wording of what the 2nd Amendment does.
Phased plasma rifle in the 40-watt range
Unobtainium??
Anything the military carries is what any civilian militia should be legal to carry.
Or anything else we want to have. Did you watch the video?
....and the militia is the people, ergo anything the military carries, the people should be able to carry.
NO. ARMS. i.e. ANYTHING that can be used both offensively and defensively.
@@MrGratefulEd It doesn't matter if the military uses it or not. That's the point.
PRECISELY!! THE NFA OF 1934, AND 1968 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND THEREFORE MUST BE IMMEDIATELY REPEALED!!
US citizens have an absolute right to any and all weapons of war
Yep, but that right is not given to us by any amendment
The second amendment to the constitution: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The term "regulated" means to put in good order. In other words, they wanted us to train with firearms. Regulation in this sentence DOES NOT mean legislated by politicians.
The word "militia" means the home guard, comprised of the citizens, which cannot be sent over-sea to fight.
Also, for those who say the founders could not have envisioned rapid fire small arms, do a search for Multi-barreled guns of the 16th century. The concept of rapid fire was nothing new, when the constitution was written. Let's also not forget that the muzzle loading rifles were the "assault weapons" of that time, and the framers of the constitution wanted us to keep and bear them.
Our founders knew you don't need a militia to hunt bear, moose or geese. So, it has NOTHING to do with hunting. The 2A was about self protection and a final check against a tyrannical government.
Did you watch the video?
In Australia they have brought in laws where to buy a knife you need to show your I.D. or email proof of age if on the internet. They claim it is to stop knife crime and underage youth getting knives. The underage knife crime has risen in Australia with the large increase in immigration from certain parts of the world. Governments always there with new laws to problems they have created.
show me a man who has a AR 15 and specifically a KJV bible, this is a wise man
Owning an AR 15 gives you the right to buy another AR 15 0:42
I think you need to watch it again.
The Bill of Rights simply enumerates our INHERENT and INALIENABLE rights. The Bill of Rights is a list of gov't RESTRICTIONS.
I guess nobody reads the supporting documentation submitted with the constitution explaining that the Second Amendment pertains to anything you deem necessary to defend yourself and the constitution. James Madison (you know the guy that authored most of the constitution) wrote several papers explaining that the Second Amendment includes but is not limited to cannons and anything else you could use as a means of protection.
Funny, you should mention that. I’m conducting an informal survey. Did you watch the video before making this comment?
@@SurvivalOnPurpose Chuck uses a stunt double? I don't remember any crying scenes.
When was the Constitution written? Why now? Just curious.
You are exactly correct. Regardless of what laws state or federal governments might declare, they cannot take away our God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We the people, however, can forfeit our rights but if we are wise, we will not. Let us hold fast to that which God has given us.
Nicely articulated point and you, sir, are 100% accurate.
The document does not grant rights, but prevents govt from taking those natural rights away
If only we could get the majority of Americans thinking the way they should.
They've been brainwashed quite thoroughly.
It starts in kindergarten, our schools are awful. A 12 year old can decide to transgender, but if they want to have sex with an adult the adult goes to jail, but not the transgenderer ? The gun/2a issue is the same thing. People teach your children that guns are bad ?
Confusion is the devil's best foot forward, please People stay Vigilant!
2A Affirms rights has no power to grant rights.
Exactly
Almost. 2A tells the govt they shall not infringe and reminds them why.
The best efforts by the govt public 'education' for over 120 years is making the words of the constitution be accepted by the people to mean something different.
The right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon. That statement is common sense, except for a tyrannical government that tries to take that right from us.
Yep.
According to the Founders, the Constitution, the various Militia Acts, etc., the People, or the Unorganized Militia, are supposed to be armed in a similar manner to the Active Military. Those citizens should be skilled in the use of those, the Well Regulated part. So, perhaps you are correct, not AR-15s, but whatever the military is issued, the People are meant to be able to have similar arms. ARMS. Not muskets. Not bolt guns. Remember, the Billnof Rights is supposed to limit the Government, not the People.
Just taking an informal survey, did you watch the video before commenting?
@@SurvivalOnPurpose Commented while watching. I started laughing when what I was saying started to be covered while I was typing. My mistake.
The constitution does not grant rights. Your rights exists extant of government.
The first amendment doesn't say that you have the right to practice religion how you chose. It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof"
All of the bill of rights say: "Government may not"
None of them say: "You may do this"
Yep
When the Second Amendment the people owned military weapons and until 1934 we were also allowed to own the same.
And that should still be the case.
Man. I didn't know so many people didn't know we aren't "given" that right.
Great video, Bryan.
Very interesting how the title was worded. Made me think for a second. Then I said, wait, the constitution does not “give” us rights. Well done, sir.
Our rights are God given.i think some of the complainers didn't watch the entire video.
It was bound to happen
Sorry, but I did not at any time receive my rights from a character in a book. Mine come from reality. So do yours.
@aubreyleonae4108. Why are you sorry? And why do so many people who don’t believe in a “creator” seem to have an almost pathological need to chastise those of us who think it is the only logical, rational conclusion?
"Our rights are God given"
Please show where that is listed in the Bible or other religious text.
@@papimaximus95 It doesn't have to be listed somewhere to be true. The premise is that certain rights are inherent in our humanity. Therefore they are given by our Creator. One of those inherent rights is to deny the existence of Creator. I think that is a highly illogical and irrational position but you have an inherent right to your beliefs.
It actually says we should own what the military has.
To be accurate, it says nothing about what we should or should not own. What it says is what the government should not do, which is infringe upon our rights.
One of the reasons the second Amendment was written was because of what happened at Lexington with the British, they came for the most powerful military weapon of the day our cannons, our answer was come and take it if you dare.
Wasn't sure where you were going here, but you pulled it out and made some great points. Thx again
Thanks.
the 2nd amendment don't say that you can not own an Armalite 15.
You are correct.
Of the original Bill of Rights every amendment has been circumvented if not out right nullified in many parts of the U.S.
An Ar is no different than any other semi auto rifle
I agree. Did you watch the video?
The people shall have equivalent arms as the government, as Hamilton stated below.
"In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair" Alexander Hamilton; Federalist Paper No. 28
Or superior arms to the government.
Government doesn’t have the authority to limit our self defense choices. We are autonomous creatures.
correct. It recognizes a right that we already have. It doesn't say the citizenry has the right to own firearms. It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The choice of wording implies the right is preexisting.
exactly.
I believe you are correct, Brian.
The Bill of Rights is not a list of rights "given" to you, it is a list of items prohibiting the government from infringing, restricting, or removing from the citizens of the United States.
Unfortunately we have let the government get so big and powerful that they "think" they have the power to tell the citizenry what they are allowed to do.
When the government tells the citizens what they can and can not do, you have a Socialist / Communist government. Far from the Constitutional Republic that we started with.
Perhaps it's time to refresh 1776 ideas and start over again.
God bless y'all and stay safe out there.
Actually the 2a gives you right to own whatever the government has to defeat said government when it becomes tyranttical
no, it doesn't. You already have that right, it just protects it. See my pinned comment.
had to be sure of what your thumbnail meant, i also watch 10th amendment center, and other constitutional sites on yt. michael bolton on 10th amendment also covered this subject. we have a right to own any arms,. only the amount of money we have limits what we own. the government has no power to limit, restrict deny, disparage, prohibit our right to arms. and we have the right to bear arms as we see fit, we do not need a permit slip to travel with and conceal arms!
In my opinion, EVERY Amendment that exclaims our God-given rights should end with "shall not be infringed".
The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution and Bill of Rights were written to limit Government not the People. There is not 1 limit in any of these documents that limits The People!
Exactly
The biggest shame of the modern American education system is a the idea that a piece of paper gives of right rather than our nation being acknowledging and agree to not infringe these GOD GIVEN rights. Well said, sir
Nope, the fact that lm alive gives me that right ! The 2a just says that the government doesn't have the right to infringe up on it !
Exactly!
I cannot count the number of times I've had this very same discussion. Everyone says, "The X Amendment gives me the right to..." and I try to explain that the Constitution gives NO rights. It simply limits what the government can do to the rights you already have. If you take a moment to read the darn thing, it's apparent that it's NOT giving you anything. No where does it say, "you have the right to carry a gun".
You should look up Tenche Coxe and what he has said about our rights! It was also believed by many of those founders, that having a “standing army”, (their term for the actual military, not a civilian militia), was much more of a threat to our Republic than having a majority of citizens being armed. They believed so because they thought that a regular military, (or standing army), could be used against the citizens themselves.
Yep.
Well stated. The RIGHT already existed, the 2nd Amendment simply prohibits government limitation.
I'm not even going to lie. I was about to talk crap and then I actually watched the video. Lol. Very well put, sir. Keep up the good work.
Words ARE important! As is 'reading'.
The govt is limited by the constitution to those things mentioned. Not unlike the military's UCMJ Article 134, the govt uses the Commerce Clause to justify anything they want. They've even given themselves immunity from prosecution when people recognize how illegal many of their acts are.
Thanks Bryan for the video. I continuously argue with my brothers over this. I believe if I can afford a tank, I may do so without any government interference.
yep
I don't think "knee jerk" applies in this instance. If someone implied a meaning that wasn't clear and unambiguous, then that could be a knee jerk reaction.
An accidental misunderstanding or hearing or seeing only part of say, a sign partially covered by a parked truck, that might apply.
A planned out title is different. Any attempt to use shock, hyperbole, or misdirection to get people to think different carries the same risk as public pranks.
Neither good nor bad, just the same risk.
The entire point of this video was that words matter because language influences perception. Yes, this title was planned out for the express purpose of emphasizing that point. Which is why I have down my best to respond to almost every comment that seemed as though the commenter didn’t watch the video and just reacted to the title. I call that a knee jerk reaction because isn’t considered response.
If you ask others for permission to protect yourself, they will say...
As usual, some are commenting before listening to what you say. These are likely the same people that believe the Constitution and/or government gives us our rights when in fact those rights are given by God and can neither be given nor taken away by man (inalienable rights). These documents restrict the power of the government and tells them what THEY cannot do and even states that any rights not listed are reserved to the People. The Federalist Papers which were the discourse between the Founding Fathers before and during the writing of the Constitution and Bill of Rights make it clear that that the Founders intent was that We The People have the right to be equipped with the same arms (all means of defense - guns, ammunition, swords, cannons, etc) that are in common use by a standing army (military of the government) and such as are in common use at the time because they understood that arms technology would advance with time. They were very careful in the wording of these documents and understood the importance and need for the ability of the People to protect themselves from both external and internal threats (governments become tyrannical by the consolidation of power). The National Firearms Act of 1934 and Gun Control Act of 1968, among other unconstitutional laws and BATFE ‘regulations’ which are also unconstitutional, infringe upon our right to the same arms as our military and our ability to overthrow a tyrannical government. That is why we have a Constitutional Republic (consent of the governed under the rule of law) and not a democracy (mob/majority rule). Good video, but your title is being misinterpreted and will cost you views and subscribers despite it being factually correct. Hoping this will give others an understanding of your intent before ignorantly posting comments or unsubscribing to your great channel.
Honestly, if it cost me some viewers who are prone to knee-jerk reactions, but educates some other viewers to the critical importance of words and how they are used to shape perception, I’ll take that trade off
He used a dirty click bait tactic and now he's paying for it. GOOD! That's what should happen. I just stumbled onto his channel so I won't be back. I've unsubscribed from channels after YEARS of watching them when they started click baiting lime this. It's a manipulative waste of time.
@@form4li7y Thanks for giving me a shot. Stay safe.
I agree 💯. GOD gave me all my rights, not the government. Praise HIS HOLY name! My 2nd amendment right “shall not be infringed “.
I flipped on your channel presuming that you would bring up the reason we can own an AR-15 or AR-15s, or any weapon(s) the government owns, due to our Natural Right to Self Defense and Self Preservation, which came before the Constitution and the BORs. Your understanding, IMO, is 100% accurate and I concur. Have as good a weekend as possible!
2nd amendment is to protect yourself from the government
The founders and framers recognized that certain rights were inherently existent by virtue of being alive and human, and one of those rights was the right to self preservation, with the best tools available. These men were unique. None of them sought power or riches. In fact, most of the founders ended the revolution much worse off financially...or even dead. We need to do whatever it takes to ensure these rights are preserved, because once gone, they're gone forever. When is the last time government recognized you had a "new" right? I mean, other than the decadent pretend that your gender differed from your plumbing, wich isn't really a right, except to be deluded with government backing.
I wish everyone in the U.S. would watch this video and maybe it would dawn on them what these words really mean. Very well said, my friend.
Heck. So do I.
It’s been many years since I read it, but one of the Militia Acts created in our Republic’s early years says not only that every able body man is in the militia, but he is required to have a weapon of equal ability as the regular army.
I’ll have to look it up again…
The entire bill of rights does not "give" or take rights, it plainly expresses preexisting rights granted by our Creator, God. No "government of humans" can take them away without declaring "THE PEOPLE" to be slaves.
My point exactly
Meh; POLITICAL POWER is what gives you the "right" to have/do ANYTHING. If you wanna keep your AR-15's, then what you need to do is see to it that the people who hold governmental-offices will make it so that you CAN keep your AR-15's.
I’m doing an informal survey. Did you watch the video before commenting?
@@SurvivalOnPurpose I saw it; and, it's nothing that you don't learn about in political science 101. My point was that regardless of where you think your "rights" originate, they flow to you through the gun-barrels of He who Holds the Most and Biggest Guns: The governing-office-holders (who have the obedience of the military and law-enforcement agencies); and, just WHO those ARE, are what you need to CONCERN yourself with.
The video title is quite misleading! LOL. I had to watch the whole video to figure out the point that you were trying to make. With that said, I agree with you whole heartedly! And to add to it, some people say that it was written so long ago that they had no idea how modern weapons would evolve. I can only say that even back then machine guns were available and the musket was the common mans "modern" weaponry at the time. So yes, they knew weapon technology would progress but they had the wisdom not to limit the 2A to weapon advancements.
I have the right to be armed with whatever the hell I chose and that has nothing to do with the bill of rights, The right to keep and bear arms was given to you and I by God not the constitution. And while I did make this comment before watching I can READ, the bill of rights gives us nothing just protects what already exists.
Bingo.
New and improved Second Amendment 2.1
Second Amendment 2.1
In order to maintain the blessings of liberty and freedom throughout the land. The pre-existing natural right of the individual to self-defense, shall always be upheld and protected. The right to manufacture, keep and bear arms, ammunition, and parts and accessories for arms, will not be infringed or impeded, by any law or mandate by either the states or the federal government.
A free market being necessary for a free people, the right to manufacture arms for sale, or any accessory for arms including ammunition, will not be infringed or impeded, by any law or mandate, by either the federal government or the states. This includes both carrying for an individual, or caring for a company, for trade or sale in another state. Or any other reason that is moral. Uninfringed or impeded by law or mandate. :-)
Sounds kinda good to me. Except I think “shall not be in fringed“ covers all that anyway.
@SurvivalOnPurpose That sounds "kinda good" to me. "Except" I "THINK". "Shall, not be in fringed covers it all that anyway."
Allow me to "Enlighten" you with two known facts, which totally disproves your thoughts.
Fact number one. The National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA)
Passed by Congress in 1934.
Fact number two.
The Gun Control Act of 1968, a US federal law, regulates the Firearms industry and Firearms ownership.
Enacted into law by Congress 1968.
Fun fact: Doesn't Congress swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution ????????.
As for "kinda of good"
Unlike James Madison's Second Amendment. It is a good example of a poorly written positive law.
Definition for positive law. Any law or mandate written by human beings to control other human beings.
The most egregious law being, slavery.
When I rewrote my version of the Second Amendment 2.1, I incorporated 100% natural law.
For those ignorant as to the nature of natural law, please read the book written by Lysander Spooner: Natural Law.
And become enlightened!.
I gave much thought to what I wrote and I considered my words very carefully. The fact that it is written 100% under natural law makes it far superior to James Madison's positive law version. And I like the way my version incorporates the new word impede. I believe it gives it bigger linguistic teeth than it had before.
I hope I have given you food for thought one Spooner at a time.:-)
Is it an arm? - YES / Then there should be no question. / Dangerous and Unusual ?- NO. / In common use for lawful purposes? - YES. So, the government has no jurisdiction because "The Right.....shall not be infringed.".
Maryland lawmakers need to read the Constitution.
Shall it be infringed includes “dangerous and unusual”
@@SurvivalOnPurpose true, but a convention at this time is dangerous. I'd rather see the NFA sunset.
Constitutionally, there would be no need for a convention. That would not require changing the Constitution, just reversal of case law and/or previous court decisions. I can recall nothing in the Constitution about "dangerous and Unusual". And, yes to no more NFA.
The 2nd amendment doesn't restrict what kind of weapons you can own . God gives us the right so we can own whatever we need or choose.
Thank you sir!!! I always tell people to be careful. It's always in the wording.
The right to self defense comes from our Creator.
Like all rights.
How do i get a t shirt "2nd amendment cowboy" and is there one thats cowgirl?
I bought mine at the Cadillac Ranch RV Park just west of Amarillo, Texas. I tried to find an online source for you but drew a blank.
@SurvivalOnPurpose I tried Amazon as well, nothing.
Arms from the Latin word Arma meaning tools of war. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing.
The 2nd Amendment, does not specify any weapons in particular. It says; "Arms"! An "Arm" is classified as anything that is useful, for protection purposes or military purposes. Such as, rifles, muskets, bayonet, cutlass, sword, pike, pole arms, fowling pieces, mortars, cannon, pistol, etc. In modern design, it would be anything, that is a rifle, pistol or handgun, shotgun, etc. It could be manually operated or semiautomatic. Not fully automatic, unless you have the proper paperwork. I've owned or used, a variety of weapons, from single shot, black powder to lever actions, bolt actions, pumps, and semiautomatic. Yes, words do make the difference.
The 2nd Amendment says nothing about having paperwork. And you should not need it to own a machine gun or anything else. Shall not be infringed means just that.
my rights were given to me by my creator. No man can take those rights from me. They can take my life, but not my freedom or my rights.
If you're trying to say that the 2nd Amendment denies the federal government the authority to restrict citizens from keeping and bearing arms (in any manner), why didn't you just say that?
Because the whole point of the video was that words matter.
Didn't know where you were going with this at first. In the end, you earned another subsriber.
Welcome to the insanity
Good work Brian, freedom to do what we ought to and not whatever we want to. Honest you tube channel ( how refreshing).
I’m taking an informal survey. Did you watch the video?
@@SurvivalOnPurpose yes the whole video, Jefferson, Madison, Mason. Amendments etc.
Why does it take a normal everyday person with common sense to point out the obvious. Thanks I sure hope those in Congress and other parts of our government see this video maybe it would open their eyes to the truth. Simple direct straight to the point.
I thought this was click bait... I was wrong. As with the 1st Amendment, all of the modernized ways to express yourself and express yourself legally are covered. The pen and paper are not what this is limited to. The AR15, like any modern semi-auto rifle, is a modernized version of a musket. Therefore, an AR15 is covered by the 2nd Amendment and is legal to own. With the Heller and Bruen decisions by SCOTUS, an AR15 is an arm and not subject to the NFA in any way. With that said, any semi-automatic firearm is an arm and thus protected.
The NFA is unconstitutional.
@@SurvivalOnPurpose Absolutely.
You are correct. Our rights don't come from the government. The Bill of Rights talks about negative rights, those that prevent the government from infringing on the individual's natural rights. Our rights come from God, aka natural rights and are inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government because they were granted to us by them in the first place.
Amen I sure hope they don't cancel you big brother is listening
Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.
And. Yet. It. Is. In. Every. State.
I’m conducting an informal survey. Did you watch the video before commenting.
The current case law states that the states have the right to allow you to own an AR-15 under state police powers. That said, the Federal government does NOT have the right to keep you from having an AR-15 which is the real issue. The Federal government has a list of enumerated powers, like regulating commerce, but does NOT have the right to control firearms. It is up to the state legislatures. Another national assault weapons ban is very, very likely to be held unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court based on the plain language, context, and legislative history of the US Constitution. If California and New Jersey wants to ban AR-15s then they can do it. I don't live there anymore and don't want to live there anymore. I do not want California or New Jersey telling my I can't own an AR-15 in Michigan because those states have no authority to regulate Michigan.
I'm not real big on the whole concept of "allow" when it comes to the government allowing me to exercise an inalienable right.
If the Supreme Court read the 2nd amendment like it does the others, firearms training would be mandatory in K-12 and every Walmart would be required to have a shooting range.
However, a well regulated militia would also mean certain people would lose their certification based on their lack skill and temperament. TL;DR There should be civilian or military national service and rights should also confer responsibilities.
Survival is not an accident and neither is liberty. You couldn't be more right Brian
If all your new content is going in this direction, I'm all for it. Godspeed my brother.
Not gonna lie Brian ya had me a little worried there at first but you are absolutely correct god give rights and shall not be infringed upon
I’m glad I watched all the way. People need to learn to not judge things based on headlines
Amen brother. All Americans have the right to have whatever gun they want.
You’re right, GOD GIVES each of us our rights. The constitution and the bill of rights are simply man’s feeble attempt to codify those pre-existent rights.
Well said... so how can courts outright ignore this after bruen?
Because they have been politicized
The government doesn't give you rights god given rights say a man can protect himself an his and if you use a gun or a fist that isn't nobody's business you believe what you will and so will everyone else.
Well said. I wish they taught this in school
What about "shall not be infringed"don't you understand?I am allowed to own a fully auto fire arm.
I agree 100%. Obviously you didn’t watch the video. Words matter.
The Constitution delineates the rights of the PEOPLE, not the Gvt. All rights were G-d given, and were enshrined to prevent a tyrannical Gvt.
My point exactly
Amen, you had me at first. I thought you was going to say we only could bear muskets or something silly like that. Good job. Thank God. I really try and listen to every point of view on a lot of things. I am 61 years old and my beliefs are pretty much carved in Stone . My Bible has been my textbook most of my life.
Thanks 👍
Thank you for educating people on this issue.
The indoctrination centers (aka public school system) want you to believe otherwise.
Liberty is not an accident
2a is a protection of an inalienable right.
Bingo
Good video Brian. Very informative. God bless you and your family.
I don't know why so many Americans are pro-2nd Amendment. It is plainly clear that there need to be greater restrictions on gun access. It is in every American citizens best interest.
I guess we disagree
You probably think guns need serial numbers? That is incorrect. A citizen is legally authorized to build their own firearm. Serial numbers didn’t exist is 1791.
Yep, we have the right to own or build whatever we want. Please read the title again - closely. Then maybe watch the video and let me know what you think.
Well said!
I agree sir.