Jerry Espenson's Rant on guns

[@yao052]

The irony is this ended up backfiring. Danny intentionally asked Jerry Esperson to make a pro gun closing so that he would lose and eventually have the case brought to the Supreme Court. Except Denny Crane ends up winning the case which pissed him off.

[@ATLienForLife]

Right on point!

[@VincentandCoBxl]

Thanks for that info!

[@JoshSmith-ek5gk]

Yep! Just goes to show how stupid the Jury was.

[@ATLienForLife]

@@JoshSmith-ek5gk The jury was so mesmerized being in the same courtroom as Denny Crane they couldn't think straight. Lol

[@JoshSmith-ek5gk]

Lee Griffin oh MosDef’ 😇

[@Sarasdad91]

You can't tell me he wasn't showing a little bit of Alan Shore in his argument. At times he literally sounded like Alan. Jerry was a genius, and Christian should get his own series. Great actor.

[@ISIO-George]

Watching this again, I was thinking the same thing. I could see this being an Alan Shore rant, It's like the one character was channelling the other,

[@brians9508]

@@ISIO-George Actually, like the same writer was writing for both characters. Oh wait, he was . . .

[@seanswinton6242]

I remember the film "Bad Influences" starring James Spader and Rob Lowe. That was my introduction to this actor portraying Jerry Espenson. Great film if you missed it.

[@JoshSweetvale]

The towering sarcasm... spectacular.

[@Matthew_Yoink]

I remember this episode. We, the jury, find in favor of Denny Crane. Not guilty. Denny: your honor, we appeal. Judge: you can’t appeal, you won.

[@KasbashPlays]

2:49 - "PIPE DOWN SACKY BOY!!!" I spat my coffee out laughing.

[@TheChickenlittle11]

2:46 😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@macdonaldukah1680]

😂😂😂😂😂😂 My favourite part in the whole thing, which is saying a lot, cos the entire rant was brilliant!

[@theVolunteer24]

Jerry channeled Alan here, so incredibly well.

[@lt.mouse1485]

Ironically, Jerry was supposed to make a pro gun argument to make Denny lose and the case gets kicked up to the Supreme Court, but he ended up coming across as sarcastic. Denny won.

[@ATLienForLife]

The look on Denny's face throughout is Classic!

[@kevinkalvo7914]

I know.. like a proud dad.

[@ATLienForLife]

@@kevinkalvo7914 To speak that loud without uttering a single word. Shatner is an amazing actor. Underrated.

[@ibashcommunists6847]

The right to bear arms is intended for use against tyrannical governments and leftist trashcans.

[@cartagocuarto7090]

Funny he says "show of hands". This really was the show of Hands.

[@ATLienForLife]

Touché! Tou·ché! Tou·ché! "Hands" Espenson! Cannot believe I didn't catch that.

[@stevenmanchester2104]

and not all of them

[@psalmtone2008]

He's channeling Spader!

[@banjokazooie370]

Funny thing about this case was that Danny and Jerry were trying to lose it so the appeal would go to a higher court but instead they end up winning and Danny then says “even when I am trying to lose I end up winning.”

[@vonn4017]

who's Danny?

[@maninthetrenchcoat5603]

And thus, Jerry earned his wooden cigar.

[@christopherbriggs9526]

Sorry

[@Dr.Beetlejuice110]

This was such a great moment for the character of Jerry. Denny loved every moment of it!!!

[@nzt1423]

Wach the beggining of the episode for a context.

[@Douglas-nt7jd]

​@@arron4749how is he a white supremacist?

[@theyhateme8763]

there it is,, everything is racist@@arron4749

[@foolslayer9416]

This is the most productive use of hypocrisy I've ever seen in an argument.

[@alexandermathieson4774]

he won his case by destroying his own argument . that's some good writing right there

[@MR-ki8ud]

David E Kelly writing. 👏👏👏

[@iluvdissheet]

This was a REALLY good show but shows the gaps in the legal system.

[@salanzaldi4551]

Law abiding citizens have the right to own guns. It isn't the law abiding citizens who are useing guns to commit crimes.

[@iluvdissheet]

@@salanzaldi4551 that's 100% true. The problem is how are they people who commit crimes getting guns? No one seems to know 😕. So any legislation to stop criminals getting guns is shut down by the law-abiding citizens who think its about them. Its not about legal gun ownership. But I would like someone who is a law-abiding, gun owner to explain to me why you feel no responsibility thats its legal to sell a gun at a gun show without any responsibility that you may be selling to a criminal?

[@tpl608]

@@salanzaldi4551 whiskey rebellion. 1st thing Washington did was to take the guns.

[@flashstudiosguy]

I love how all Shatner's character does is just sit and enjoy the show

[@angelrios5897]

The tempo of this script is faster than Busta Rhymes serving as an auctioneer.

[@OneWithManyThings]

Show of hands, who’s titillated? Bahahaha

[@countbenjamin1442]

This show had so many Wonderful moments like this one. For sure one of the top ones

[@PeaceCommando]

I totally agree Count! This was a unique show with a stellar cast and excellent writing. As James Spader once mentioned at a cast panel: "...an excellent cocktail (of humor and drama)".

[@philledwith8307]

I'm watching this again (for about the 100th time) in 2024, and it's stunning how well this rant has aged.

[@LastResort1331]

A well-regulated militia brings their own weapons to the fight.😮

[@mahaffer71]

Just look at out founders and there quotes on the people have the right to own a gun and what militia meant beck then

[@user-pi7sh6im8q]

Hhhh... how much all the cast is broad ❤🌹🌹. Of jeary ❤🌹🌹🌹🌹🌹🌹🌹🫶🫶🌹🌹🌹☺️

[@JonBlondell]

What an actor!

[@polkhigh2317]

boston legal was an amazing series with excellent writers

[@tillscheller]

imho the topics and especially ethics were fine, but the characters switched too many times with no explaination or very poor one liners by the remaining cast. The best thing about the show is, how it secretly makes parody of every single major problem the US had at the time or still has.

[@TheMonk72]

​@@tillschellerit wasn't very secret, nor subtle. It's just that people didn't pay attention.

[@JonBlondell]

An incredible actor!!

[@gerbilfarm]

Denny Crane can't even lose to Denny Crane. Denny Crane.

[@charlesandresen-reed1514]

The hidden danger of all real satire: someone might think it sounds perfectly reasonable.

[@jacobjones5269]

Usually the women..

[@Gmthekiller]

@@jacobjones5269 *trumpsters.

[@zippyzipster46]

@@GmthekillerWow. Nothing like trusting the Government to be the only ones with guns. Nothing like ignoring 2000+ years of human history to believe in fucked up fairy tales. Lol.

[@Gmthekiller]

@@zippyzipster46 the way you was triggered by my comment shows you're deep in Maga cult. How's the deep state? Lol

[@derekbridgerii2102]

​@@zippyzipster46Reason is only valuable when both parties practice it. Everything is reasonable when the effects of decisions are left out of the conversation. The 2nd is just as, if not more important than the rest as it provides the means to defend them.

[@kxmode]

"Uh oh. He's using the Chewbazooka defense."

[@douglasbrock5965]

A militia is a Civilian arm, not a federally controlled one. It means it shall not be infringed because it effects the ability to maintain civilian militia.

[@Wolf-ln1ml]

"Well regulated militia" - Who do you suggest is supposed to be doing the regulating? The militia itself?

[@douglasbrock5965]

@@Wolf-ln1ml ummm the State and not the Fed? You know, like it always was? Dont really know much about it do you.

[@Wolf-ln1ml]

@@douglasbrock5965 _"the State and not the Fed? You know, like it always was?"_ Yeah, not everyone lives in a country that's organized exactly as the USA, and that the situation in the USA is "the way it always was"... But thanks for demonstrating that you're just _another_ US American who is arrogant and ignorant enough to assume that, makes it easier to put this conversation into the right perspective...

[@TomBarbashev]

​@@Wolf-ln1mlWell regulated meant, in general, "functioning as expected, working properly, precise, etc". In the context of a militia it meant "to be well armed and trained". This literally could not exist without "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" being infringed upon.

[@jerrybobteasdale]

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's partly fo keep our State secure and safe. And partly to keep a pool from which can form well-regulated militias.

[@davidchildress7150]

Nah. Not even close. A well regulated militia is defined elsewhere in the constitution...

[@jerrybobteasdale]

@@davidchildress7150 Yes, militia is mentioned elsewhere in the Constitution. For each man to have the protected right to keep and bears arms is in the 2nd Amendment, and it says right there that one purpose for that is provide for a pool of citizens who can form militias. "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." For at least that one reason, it says that the right shall not be infringed. That doesn't preclude other reasons to protect that right, either. The essence of it:"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

[@TomBarbashev]

​@@davidchildress7150The "Well regulated militia" was defined in the Militia Act of 1792, and it meant "all able bodied men between ages 18-45 must provide their own private arms and ammo if called forth to aid the National government."

[@felipepineda1585]

​@TomBarbashev - yes and all this means at the end of the day is... if your own government decides to invade their own population or a foreign enemy, then and ONLY then do the 18 - 45 year old get their weapons. But we become very unconstitutional when amendments don't fit narratives!

[@Digitalhatproduction]

I love how Jerry is channeling his Alan Shore here

[@Turboy65]

"well regulated militia" meant, well equipped and trained, and the militia was all able bodied men able to bear arms. Had nothing to do with the army. Remember, the first amendment was written shortly after we got done winning a war against a British tyrant and his troops. Absolutely it was intended to protect our INDIVIDUAL rights to keep and bear arms...arms suitable for any purpose including killing enemy soldiers at a distance, which we had just spent years doing.

[@tarakivu8861]

You still forgot the "well regulated militia" part.. somehow.. that is missing nowdays. Any idiot can buy and bear one. I am all for shooting as a sport.. but just everyone having one without having to prove "well regulated"?

[@stansman5461]

No, you still need to be mentally sane and not a felon to own a gun. Some states even make sure you aren't a known violent criminal.

[@Turboy65]

@@stansman5461 Where does it say that in the Constitution or Bill of Rights? I actually do think that violent criminals and the mentally ill (democrats, mostly) should not be permitted access to firearms but is that Constitutionally supportable?

[@stansman5461]

@@Turboy65 I believe the able body also included the mind. Since I can't imagine the founding fathers coming across someone with a mental defect and calling them able bodied or considering that they should have the same rights as those of the sane

[@TomBarbashev]

​@@tarakivu8861He didn't forget "well regulated" it was literally the first comment he stated. "Well regulated militia" meant a "well armed, citizen fighting force".

[@RookieActor]

"Nah-ah!!!" I love the way he says that.

[@matthewtraber1143]

5 points to whoever caught Robert Kennedy allusion.

[@Co6521es]

where is it ?

[@felipepineda1585]

Shot in the dark... McCain who knows how to be president?

[@matthewtraber1143]

4:08-4:18

[@californiaslastgasp6847]

@@matthewtraber1143 Please explain.

[@robbkinnin1988]

Boston Legal is a classic. I’ll be binge watching it soon!

[@SofaKing401]

This show really pioneered combining proper legal analysis with sassy monologues

[@DonMeaker]

Oh, and the judge was played by the wonderful Artie Johnson, who used to be the little German (and other characters) on Laugh In, looking from behind various potted plants and saying "Very interesting!!!"

[@mrj60706]

Close. The actor playing the judge was Henry Gibson, who was also on Laugh In with Artie. He also played the head of the Illinois Nazis in Blues Brothers, but not the German hiding in the fern on Laugh In.

[@hard2getitrightagain314]

Henry Gibson!!!! Thank you!!!

[@gbonkers666]

Henry Gibson

[@Celtic_Blade]

For the love, A well regulated Militia does not mean, ‘Let the government tell you who gets to own a gun.’

[@chrissanto]

Yes it does. Do you want to own a tank? Can't do that can you. Also... do you think that a bunch of fat guys running around in the woods can overtake the US Government? Have you ever heard of drones? You can stockpile all the AK-47's you want comrade but one f-35 will turn your compound into ash.

[@mahaffer71]

@@chrissanto You actually can own a tank and F-35 if you have the money. No law saying you cant. In Vietnam and Afghanistan 2 countries that didnt have a navy, air force and technology and training win both wars. Answer Guns

[@chrissanto]

@@mahaffer71 LOL... you really don't know how things work do you? Yes, you can own a tank. There are no Abrams tanks in private hands. Some private citizens do have tanks from WWII but it takes YEARS to get one and costs way more than the tank is worth. Also, while the machine guns on said tanks might still work, the main barrel has been decommissioned. That means that if you try to fire a round through it, it will explode and maybe kill the tank crew. As far as f-35s are concerned... Let us all know who has $80 million dollars to piss away on one jet fighter. Certainly not Trump. See, sales of weapons systems in a global economy is a complicated thing that involves Geo-political concerns and State security concerns. Things you have no experience with or knowledge of. Please stop embarrassing yourself and pipe down.

[@stansman5461]

​@@chrissantoyour first comment was, "you can't own a tank or f35" and your last comment was, "Well, technically you can it'll take a lot of money." So basically, you were wrong in the first one. If you have enough money and investment, you can buy a tank.

[@chrissanto]

@@stansman5461 Well gosh, I guess you misunderstood because I didn't use the word "de-weaponized" . See, it's illegal to own a Sherman tank that can still fire rounds. Sure you can own one, but you can't load it and shoot down a building. Hell, you can own almost anything if you have the money but it is illegal to own a P-52 Mustang that still has machine guns in the wings and nose. On top of the legal issues, do you know how much it costs to maintain those kinds of machines? It's millions of dollars. Nice try kid, maybe serve in the military before you speak about thing you have no knowledge of.

[@booyahinc]

Was any of the legal assessments in this rant accurate? Nuh-uh!

[@JoshSweetvale]

That's rather Jerry's point.

[@tasteslikeawesome]

The people are the militia, and were expected to supply their own guns. Just regular people with canons and muskets, ready to fight tyranny whenever needed. The right of the people, not the government, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It’s the bill of rights, rights of the people, not government rights. It would make no sense to write it that way, let alone put it there.

[@MrOniro1]

Sure, because who needs a complex legal document to be clear and not subject to interpretation, am I right? American's lust for gun is almost equal to the orgasm they get of seeing kids die at the border or watching someone go into bankruptcy because of medical debts.

[@kurtinklern3262]

@@James-ux3nt I have no need to fear that gang bangers will shoot me more than I fear a sick man on my block with his legally purchased weapon.

[@kurtinklern3262]

@@James-ux3nt Why? Just don't let a sick man buy a gun legally.

[@kurtinklern3262]

@@James-ux3nt Lovely rant. Do more to keep sick people from having guns.

[@kurtinklern3262]

@@James-ux3nt 1) Make background checks law for all guns sales. 2) Initiate "red flag" laws. 3) Bump stocks and large magazine bans.

[@janofb]

Could find a right to bear arms for non-military purposes? How about "The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall no be infringed"

[@Panwere36]

The simple truth is.. this is the simple truth.

[@Azraiel213]

Was a nice touch mentioning the imaginary gun show loophole, I didn't even realize it was such an old fib! 😆

[@horrorfan117]

Wait it's imaginary? Guess I didn't buy my gun last weekend.

[@Azraiel213]

Guess you didn't, @@horrorfan117!

[@zrxdoug]

@@horrorfan117 Not without a NICs check you didn't. Claiming you did isn't a fib, it's just a plain ol' lie.

[@ssmt2]

@@zrxdoug I live in Texas. I’ve bought guns at an estate auction and from co-workers. No background check was required in either instance.

[@zrxdoug]

@@ssmt2 They weren't in the business of selling guns for profit..someone selling for profit at a show is..hence gun shows providing NICS services.

[@milky1234123]

Carls face at the end will always get a laugh from me "what the fuck did i just get myself into"

[@dongrey5709]

Need to bring this show back!!

[@patrickkelley6780]

nah.... at least for now.....people tooooo stupid to understand it...

[@seanswinton6242]

I agree. I miss it's predecessor "The Practice" as well. I'm glad I bought the series on DVD. The only complete season of "The Practice" was it's final one. It set the stage for "Boston Legal". It's my pet peeve with changes in technology. Music and movies are often discontinued. Not every TV show one my like is available just like classic music you may have grown up with. Unfortunately, it's legal issues with ownership and royalties.

[@julesmasseffectmusic]

@@seanswinton6242 torrents still a thing?

[@xXxJSCOTTxXx]

@@julesmasseffectmusic I'm pretty sure you can stream every episode of Boston Legal for free with commercials on Amazon Prime. Not sure about The Practice. I've still never watched it even though I've rewatched BL 4 or 5 times.

[@Azraiel213]

Oh no, don't hope for them to try and bring anything that was actually good back for at least another decade. The industry has never been so hopelessly inept, unimaginative and political and thy probably won't clean house for a while yet! 😆

[@n2cycles]

Keep in mind that a free nation must have a militia to defend against other nations but the founder knew that a standing army could be used against the people from a nefarious ruler. The people needed to be armed tomdefemd against its own leaders if the army was used against the people. The British army was used against the people and tried to take the citizens guns.

[@christianjohns8352]

Exactly why the entire premise of the rant in this video is misguided. Also why anti gun activists are naive.... they want the government to have authority over their lives until it doesn't work out for them. As soon as the ball drops, they are begging for help, even anti gun Hollywood has a character in nearly every movie with lawlessness that is a passive schmuck until the bad guys come, then begs the "hero" to protect them. Word of advice to the anti gun crowd... usually the pansy anti gun guy in the movies doesn't make it. Think about that when you make decisions in real life, it's much less forgiving than the movies.

[@Ares99999]

And yet the USA is one of the few countries in the world where guns are so protected. Has it made it safer? No. Quite the opposite. And by the way, the UK has stricter gun laws AND less gun deaths.

[@DXGypsy]

​@@Ares99999the UK also arrests is citizens over words on the Internet and arrests people who defend themselves from violent crimes. They are no model. In fact we fought a war to break away from them and not be like them. America has it's own zeitgeist. Our own mindset. We're individualists. We don't curl in a ball and pray for the government to tell us what to do or to keep us safe. We take care of ourselves. I have absolutely zero interest in being like the UK or the EU or Australia, or any other nation.

[@Wolf-ln1ml]

Due to the sheer size of the USA, there was _zero_ chance of any standing army they could put together at that time to defend the territory from an invasion. Local militias made perfect sense then. Sure, a "standing army" (or rather, a military) can in principle be exploited by a nefarious ruler (government or military leader). But please, show me the militia that stands an actual chance against even just a quarter - *_any_* quarter you want to put together to give your militia the best chance against it - of the US military. To call the fights a "war" would be pure cynicism. You might as well put Mike Tyson against a three-year-old and warn him of the toddler's mean right hook...

[@onichan9710]

The rant was so factually wrong that it is laughable. All able bodied men are, by default, members of the militia. That is a legal definition specifically stated in Federal law and built upon history and tradition.

[@anonymoussources8803]

Right, all able bodied "men", not women, and the founding fathers imposed a cutoff at 45. So women, the disabled and all over 45 are not included in the militia. Also, slaves and native Americans were not included. So if you are an able bodied white guy between 18 and 45, you may keep a firearm.

[@Joe-629]

Even if the 2nd amendment did not exist we would still have the right as persons to keep and bear arms because we are born with our rights. Our rights do not come from the state or the Constitution for that matter. If the second amendment means that only the militia had the right to keep and bear arms, it would have said that. But it does not say that, it says the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The clause points out that the militia is needed for a free state.

[@mahaffer71]

George Mason- "I asked sir what is the militia it is the whole people to disarms of people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them George Mason- "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." Samuel Adams "The constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the U.S who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms"

[@nimrowd2023]

Actually without the Second Amendment, there would have probably been a more restrictive amendment put in place later and still can. The 18th amendment was repealed with the 21st amendment. 24 years later I believe. Close to impossible sure can't rule it out forever.

[@billparrish9200]

Clemenson - fat and thin - was always a great character actor. Black Widow librarian. Loser brother in Bad Company. Chain-smoking flight surgeon in Apollo 13. Great to see him finally acknowledged and given his own wings.

[@zrxdoug]

He was quite good in "The Adventures of Brisco County Jr" as well..

[@pendragonshall]

Peoples ignorance on the second amendment is staggering. The founding fathers wrote several pieces On this. There is no confusion on what they meant. And it is not for what we consider a militia today and it is not for only the army it is for every able-bodied American. The definition and use of militia is different now than it was then and it is for the use of all Americans to have the right to own any fire arm and as many as we want unimpeded. That right is very infringed and impeded. Just like the first amendment is becoming now

[@grizzlynad]

bwahahaha "The definition and use of militia is different now than it was then"... bravo for shooting yourself in the foot (pun intended)

[@pendragonshall]

@@grizzlynad twisting and quoting part of what I wrote only shows you to belong in my first sentence.

[@TommyGlint]

Every able bodied American? Do you not mean between ages 18 to 45? And…. ehm, white? And under disciplin and organizing of Congress if needed? How did you get from that to “everybody gets an Uzi”?

[@pendragonshall]

@@TommyGlint Just as first amendment rights don't apply to just paper and quill but your cellphone and any mode of communication. So does the 2nd amendment right apply to ALL citizens. Arguments on skin color and age were also resolved. As were nationality and sex. Again peoples ignorance on this is staggering. Then they want to argue and make ignorant points. Read up on sites that discuss this other than berkley. God bless and good luck.. youre gonna discover a lot.. like the argument on skin color as that was a democrat arguing point not a constitutional one nor Republican not that most Republican politicians aren't just as rotten as democrat ones these days

[@TommyGlint]

Well, I was just under the impression that Congress specified what the Militias was. Speech is speech no matter the media, but a Militia, who is mustered as such in books and drills on Sundays after church is not the same as everybody gets an AK in 2021. I’m not saying I know a lot about the subject, I just find it odd how important the gun enthusiasts find the words “the people” in that quote, but apparently “Militia” as a term means nothing really, when in fact it isn’t just anybody with a gun.

[@Skoora]

Iirc, he was using the cigarette as a way to help himself trigger a confident outspoken persona, trying to overcome his Aspergers..

[@WilliamMoore-p4g]

Never did a scene make me laugh and scream so much in horror, at the same time.

[@jaypandya1346]

0:29 Carl is like WTF are u doing boi?????

[@Brian-uy2tj]

It is too bad they didn't include their meeting in the conference room outside the courtroom right after this scene where Denny give Jerry a cigar and explains to "Hackey sack man" what the strategy was in the courtroom.

[@KingOfGamesss]

Denny can't lose even when he tries to

[@Brian-uy2tj]

@@KingOfGamesss He didn't lose because he wasn't the attorney and he wanted to lose so that he could appeal the case to a higher court and get a more definitive decision.

[@KingOfGamesss]

@@Brian-uy2tj I was repeating what he said himself...did you forget?

[@kathrynhall7021]

Outstanding writing. I wonder how many "takes" it took to accomplish this argument.

[@seanoneill9130]

@arron4749 Quiet down sleepy get back to your Sago of Swindon you pizzle.

[@mahaffer71]

@arron4749 Frederick Douglass- “A man’s rights rest in three boxes. The ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box. Frederick Douglass- The true remedy for the fugitive slave bill is a good revolver, a steady hand, and a determination to shoot down any man attempting to kidnap Martin Luther King- Violence exercised in self-defense, which all societies, from the most primitive to the most cultured and civilized, accept as moral and legal. The principle of self-defense, even involving weapons and bloodshed, has never been condemned, even by Gandhi Roy Innis-To make inexpensive guns impossible to get is to say that you're putting a money test on getting a gun. It's racism in its worst form

[@playsinmud]

It's funny seeing Henry Gibson as the judge after seeing him as the head Illinois nazi on the Blues Brothers...😂😂😂

[@joshmccollen700]

"A well educated population, being necessary to the economic prosperity of the nation, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed." Now after reading that alternate wording, do you believe the amendment only applies to those individuals enrolled in an accredited university course? Of course not. That's how ridiculous it is to say that the 2nd amendment only applies to individuals serving in a military capacity. The 2nd amendment codifies an individual right to gun ownership (within reasonable limits determined through precedent and judicial review) for any lawful purpose, explicitly, though not exclusively, for the purposes of membership in an old school 18 century militia.

[@55Quirll]

Couldn't have said it better my self. The Bill of Rights are a set of restrictive and declarative statements say to the Federal Government: Keep your hands off, these are the peoples, not yours.

[@GodwynDi]

I'll have to remember this one next time I'm arguing with someone about it

[@Jermbot15]

Yes, you have made a strong case that apples aren't oranges. Unfortunately your argument falls flat when you bait and switch the words "population" for "militia" and "educated" for "regulated." Just take a look at the two terms side by side and decide if you really want to hinge your world view on "well regulated militia" being equivalent language to "well educated population." I give you a C-. You'll probably only convince people who already agree with you.

[@joshmccollen700]

@@Jermbot15I award you 0/10. You seem to have missed the point entirely. The point is that words have meaning. And if you don't like the words then our democratic process gives you all the opportunity you care to take in affecting change. The 2A is crystal clear. If you don't like the words, then work to change them. But don't pretend you don't understand their meaning.

[@Jermbot15]

@@joshmccollen700 Words do have meanings, and the meanings of your words fall short of making a sane or convincing argument. Which is why you're so quickly trying to change the subject to... me voting I guess? You may feel, deep in your emotional little heart, that you have clarity. I envy that simplicity.

[@dimitrijejovanovich6488]

“Pipe down, sacky boy!”

[@matthurstbridge9180]

This scene outlines how humanity went wrong. Lawyers abusing the term 'Grey' ('Grey Area' is a term used in law where there is no clear 'Black & White')

[@mahaffer71]

Till you look at the founding father quotes about the meaning of the 2nd amendment.

[@thirdeyeblind6369]

This is one of my favourite pieces of acting and writing ever! 😂

[@mikeb.2925]

"The right of the people" funny how they didn't write it as "The right of the militia". I mean if you think they took the careful time and detail to write the first 13 words so carefully, then why did they switch to "the right of the people" instead of continuing to speak about the militia?

[@RKD0668]

The more fun part is that at the time of writing there was no standing army. All we had was state militia's, so what the founders are saying is the people will regulate the militia because we are armed too.

[@loremipsum3610]

Honestly it's pretty straight forward. A militia is specifically distinguished from a standing *army*. An army is a tool of the government. A militia is made up of the people. You can't have a militia - well regulated or not - unless the people are already armed.

[@Jmike12345]

@@RKD0668”regulated” meant equipped at that point in time. Hence the British Soldier was often call regulars…meaning uniformed and equipped soldiers.

[@chrisnln1619]

The 2A should be read, in modern terms, as "The right of the *people* to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, because they need to form militias when the *free state* is in danger, be it from a foreign power, or an overreaching government."

[@mahaffer71]

@@chrisnln1619 We could look at the founders' own quotes and see what the 2nd amendment is about

[@Napalmdog]

And it's been taken care of. Well-regulated Militia = National Guard.

[@MrSpiritchild]

The National Guard is not a militia, they serve at the pleasure of the governors, just like the army, marines, navy and air force serve at the pleasure of the president. If the people of any state ever decided their state government was corrupt and tyrannical, and started taking action against their government, the national guard would be called up to put them down. The point of a militia is to fight the government if it's needed, not serve it.

[@Napalmdog]

@@MrSpiritchild Who the hell gets to decide what the 'well-regulated' part of the militia is then? Militias require leadership that need to take responsibility of those under their orders. And remember the 2nd Amendment is a *Federal* document. Individual state's ability to mobilize their Guard units is as well-regulated a militia that could even *hope* to combat the federal military.

[@MrSpiritchild]

@@Napalmdog It says so, right in the text, the right of the people. Private citizens decide who leads and directs the regulation of a militia. 1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law. 2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature. 3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning. 4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits. What good is a militia that is run by the government, when the point of a militia is to overthrow the government if it becomes tyrannical? What a 'well regulated' militia ultimately means, is it can't be a bunch of mountain hicks that just love shooting their guns off, and that we have the power to remain ready at all times to make war with the government. Trained in the arts of war, proficient with munitions, understanding battle tactics and strategy, allowed to gather and discuss the needs of said militia, remaining battle ready through continued exercise. Boston Legal was an awesome show, but don't mistake entertainment as truth. They are mocking a judgment of the courts that is being greatly taken out of context in an effort to make the notion that we shouldn't have the right to keep and bare arms seem viable. The ruling itself is based on a case that wanted to declare that we had to leave our guns at home, that walking down the street with a gun strapped to our hip or our rifle by our side, was not what the second amendment was about. The ruling contends that the right to keep and bare arms extends towards the individual in such a way as we have the right to go out in public with our guns, to defend ourselves from murders, thieves and rapists. And for this show to attempt to make it seem that those that believe in their second amendment rights simply do not care about the lives of others, is intellectually dishonest.

[@Napalmdog]

@@MrSpiritchild you just basically justified extreme left-wing or right-wing militias, you realize that right? If any group of private citizens deems the government to be against their personal interest, they can organize against said government. Otherwise, what are you basing the militia off of? Certainly not the government and the Constitution tied to it. They're *the opposition* now.

[@MrSpiritchild]

@@Napalmdog I did nothing of the sort, in the forming of the militia, the militia has to obey the constitution as well. It can't just stock pile weapons and train because it doesn't like something the government is doing. The thing the government is doing has to be unconstitutional, otherwise your militia isn't any better then the government, and the new government, if the militia succeeded, would be just as bad as the one it deposed. It also must know it's fellow citizens are NOT the enemy, and that it doesn't exist to make war with private citizens, as making war with fellow citizens would make the militia a terrorist organization, not a militia. So a true militia must be based off of constitutional law, understanding and respecting the rights of their fellow citizens. If it does not, it's not a militia, it's just a band of armed thugs. Now it's sometimes hard to recognize the difference between a militia and a band of armed thugs, this is largely because of Hollywood hype that likes to portray militias as armed thugs because it sells movies and improves ratings. Case in point, this episode of Boston Legal... Entertaining, but bullshit. It is an example of liberal minded writers inserting their feelings into an issue they clearly don't have a working understanding of.

[@ellenfisher5750]

Preach, Jerry!!!!

[@rachelpaul4542]

Larroquette Battles As Carl Sack for Shatner's Denny Crane

[@TriebundFeder]

he still wo that case - he is Denny Crane after all

[@Fatherofheroesandheroines]

He spat that out faster than Eminem

[@TennantJunkie1993]

Yay, Aspie lawyer and Carl defending Denny. My two favorite things: Fellow Aspies and John Larroquette.

[@JoshSweetvale]

That furious, sarcastic *sneering* at hypocrisy, that sincere disgust and powerless fury... They're not defectives. They're the *referee bugs.* The reason we've got demagogues and child rapists in the West is because we don't make people like Jerry here _clergy_ anymore. Dudes like him are born to be Commisars and Vicars and Inquisitors.

[@AbisexualCarpenter]

Completely forgot that the scotus from that time was also a mess. Maybe in a different way than the current one but alas, we tend to idealize the past and the deceased

[@37Dionysos]

10,000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea---a good start.

[@christopherweber9464]

If anyone wants to have some real fun try looking up the words to the song that was played at the end of the rant and enjoy.

[@spornge]

Still not as brilliant as when John Larroquette wins a death penalty case by accusing the DA of being anti death penalty by pushing for the dealth penalty in a prosecution.

[@spornge]

That is one of my favorites as well.

[@stinger4712]

The look on Denny's face as Jerry closed his closing....

[@JoshSweetvale]

Like a pyromaniac watching a blaze.

[@DavidAR101]

In 1967, Polish mercenary Rafal Ganowicz was asked what it felt like to take a human life. He replied: "I don't know, I've only ever killed communists"

[@RalphReagan]

Yep, right on!

[@Azraiel213]

Holy fuck, he's not cool, he's cold as ice! 😎

[@vikkiwightman6090]

I'm miss them so much 💕

[@calliewickham7551]

What a lack of understanding

[@darrenberquist1000]

This video hits differently after recent SCOTUS decisions...

[@tarakivu8861]

@theprogram863 Still missing "well regulated militia".. I agree Law is situational and changes not only over time but also with how the society changes. Interestingly, everyone jumps to the constitution to take it word for word when its something they dont like. Funny too.. always freedoms, freedoms.. but fine with having them taken away anywhere else

[@DonMeaker]

The first clause explains why the second is there. The militia comes from the people, and the people have the right to keep and bear arms. When the people practice with their arms, they will be effective when acting as the militia, that is 'well regulated' which means able to hit that at which they aim.

[@markpage9886]

The law... You're guaranteed the right AGAINST self incrimination. But you must give your DNA at the drop of the hat...every lawyer in America knows it but shrugs it off as , Naw, we didn't mean it.

[@michaelmorton5698]

Admiral Kirk and Maltz sitting side by side. Kruge would be humiliated.

[@terrifictomm]

His argument is completely specious. The Court only rules on cases brought before it. In 250 years no one had EVER questioned the fact that RIGHTS belong ONLY to INDIVIDUALS. Freedom of the Press does not belong to the offset web presses that print newspapers but to the individual CITIZEN-OWNERS of the those presses. The Right Against Self-incrimination does not behind to the National Guard. Nor does the Right to be Secure Against Unreasonable Searches belong to the Girl Scouts of America. The reason the Supreme Court had never ruled on the question whether the Right to Bear Arms is an Individual Right is because in 250 years no one had ever been DUMB ENOUGH to raise the question and the lower courts CORRUPT enough to say "No, it's not." Also, regarding his Militia language argument, if the Amendment was simply to ensure State-controlled Militia could have weapons, why didn't they say, "... the right of the STATES to arm their militias shall not be infringed"? But it doesn't say that. It says, "...the right of the PEOPLE to KEEP AND CARRY [bear] GUNS [arms] SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." Emphasis Added Obviously.

[@crazyjacobins305]

Also, when queried as to what is the militia, George Mason replied, it is the whole of the people.

[@terrifictomm]

@@crazyjacobins305 American history is Ray-Cist!

[@crazyjacobins305]

@@terrifictomm How so?

[@terrifictomm]

@@crazyjacobins305 #SarcasmSign

[@terrifictomm]

@Juan Non-sequitur.

[@markconnor9727]

I guess the real trick is to just ignore the first comma in the prefatory clause? Stated another way "Since a well regulated Militia must exist for our security against other countries, the right of the common people to keep weapons shall not be infringed by the aforesaid armed Militia" That's cute. By ignoring the first comma, it makes it seem like it's the well regulated militia's right to bear arms that shouldn't be infringed. Infringed by whom, themselves?

[@jliuatl]

Yes. And not just other countries. The first battles of the American Revolution (Lexington and Concord) was over guns. The British were on the way to take away the colonists’ guns. The founders knew that without guns, the people stand no chance not against foreign countries, but against their own government. Own government? Hogwash. Oh wait. The British were the government of the people at that time... hmmm.

[@robertcarey8237]

Loved it, but just to note, there is no gun show loophole.

[@shawnrobertson844]

For private sales, under federal law any unlicensed person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of the same state as long as the seller does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the purchaser is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under federal law.

[@robertcarey8237]

@@shawnrobertson844 correct

[@nathankindle282]

Problem is, is statement is straight up wrong. It was understood from the VERY BEGINNING that the 2nd amendment protected the right of the people, and not the military to bear firearms. Hell, its stated clear as day in the text, "The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Doesn't get any clearer than that. Still not convinced, our founding fathers made it QUITE clear in their many statements and letters.

[@Burkesworth]

I am absolutely at a loss reading this. You literally (presumably) watched the clip and then ignored the first sentence anyway, where the subject of the entire statement is established; "A well regulated militia". When a legal document refers to "the people" or "the state" or some other collection to describe an arguing side, it's referring to the legal council that represents on behalf of that party ( e.g - "The state finds that..."). In the constitution this clearly reads the same way as the word militia, which is there established as the subject of the entire statement, is meant to be representing "the people", and the clip spells this out when it separates prefatory and operative clause. They EVEN went through the extra effort to say "well regulated" just to be crystal clear they did not intend for this line to be in favor of a relaxed stance on arming the public in general. All this is a non-starter anyway when the whole premise is ridiculous, that the Americans would look to a legal document written over a hundred years ago by slave owners to assist in solving modern policy issues. I promise that if a Springfield rifle could kill 40 school children in under 120 seconds they would have wrote "extremely fucking well regulated" instead.

[@Bwaffle7826]

@@Burkesworth considering this was written 200 years ago "well-regulated" does not mean how we would typically use it today. Back then this meant well equipped. Militias were self supplied by the people who had their own weapons. That's why one of the last things to be discussed during the constitutions construction was a comma in the second amendment. They added it to clarify militia was referring to the people and it shall not be infringed. Seems a little contradictory to say "well-regulated" with your interpretation and "sall not be infringed" later. Your interpretation would carry more weight if these founding fathers restricted some firearms to the public but they didn't. Instead automatic rifles could be bought, yes they did exist, just expensive, and even said in letters to merchants that of course they can still have cannons. In summary their actions and words contradict the meaning you interepted.

[@Burkesworth]

@@Bwaffle7826 are you suggesting that wealthy politicians don't always follow the standard they lay out for the public? I'm shocked sir, shocked I say.

[@Bwaffle7826]

@@Burkesworth at what point did I talk about what they did themselves? I'm talking about what they wrote and how it was enforced with the public. Misinterpretation of what I wrote shows why you may not understand the 2nd amendment. Shocked I tell you, I'm shocked.

[@toddgaak422]

@@Burkesworth Unreal that you people STILL don't understand what "well regulated" means.

[@darrinwebber4077]

That was an excellent presentation. Hilarious and effective. ( I think he was learning from Alan Shore )

[@doctorskull8197]

Great writing and great acting ‼️

[@Ansonidak]

Great scene I loved the way Denny had this look of admiration.

[@thomask70]

I always loved Jerry… Denny Crane.

[@gbonkers666]

When you realize that Shatner and Laroquette were in Star Trek 3 together.

[@marksuckaberg8966]

Pro-gun Americans supposedly ignore the first 13 words of the 2nd amendment. Anti-gun Americans apparently ignore the comma, and the historical implications in the language used -- that given a well regulated (and armed) militia is needed to protect us against foreign aggressors, each citizen's right to also have weapons to protect themselves AGAINST said militia shall not be infringed...you know because the British served as America's militia to "protect us", right up until we asked them to leave and they tried to take all our guns so they could squash this "rebellion". Switzerland understands this concept too, as nearly everyone is and has been armed just in case a country like oh I don't know say Germany wanted to -invade- "offer its protection for a unification of similar people".

[@stormdog9169]

I don't think most folks understand that a militia isn't a military. It's more akin to those backyard doomsday preppers.

[@Zeakthecat]

to be fair, a well regulated milita at the time of the founding fathers had a different meaning. regulated back in the founding fathers, up to the mid 19th century, was "to keep in working order" and the milita was at the time not a national guard or army or anything military related, but referred to the people arming up against a invasion force, rouge government or the common thief, which is later referred in the 2nd part of the 2nd amendment. so in reality, when the founding fathers wrote that in, the translation meant "healthy able bodied men of good character, necessary to the security of the free state, the right of those to keep and load arms against enemies foreign and domestic, shall not be infringed" thats the second amendment in a nutshell, from one autistic male. have fun debating in the comments~!

[@tomspring213]

I love this show so much. I miss it.

[@DjVortex-w]

Out of context, I didn't even understand if his speech was for or against guns.

[@juansanchezvillalobosramir8571]

My thoughts exactly.

[@catherinewilliams9680]

Look at John Larroquette's face, as Jerry continues on with his closing arguments.

[@nadjame674]

Era muito bom Que pena que não passa mais

[@Tinfoilnation]

"ignore the first 13 words" -- Dear Legal Scholars and anyone else that's listening - answer the question: "What is a *militia* ?" Answer: The militia is *The People* . Not the army, not the navy - the plain old ordinary citizens of the country. This is why the right of *The People* to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The fact that after 240+ years we're still having to explain this is getting somewhat tedious.

[@leftofmad]

How about the "well regulated" part? What's the work around there?

[@Tinfoilnation]

@@leftofmad No work around required, as it does not refer to regulations. If translated to 21st century english it would more accurately be "well *equipped* " -- as a well regulated militia is one that has all of it own equipment without having to be armed by the state first. This is kind of important - since it would be *the state* itself they might be asked to fight. As a reminder, this is EXACTLY what happened and why the 2nd amendment is there in the first place. This is why a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. It can't exactly go asking the State for the guns they need now can they?

[@toddgaak422]

@@Tinfoilnation Nice work. leftofmad should rename himself "leftwithtailbetweenlegs".

[@johnchambers2996]

I liked the great Walter Williams' response to "If it saves one life" - make the speed limit five miles per hour.

[@flankspeed]

Cars require a license to drive. And insurance. How about that for guns?

[@johnchambers2996]

@@flankspeed First, there's no constitutional right to own a car and a car is not useful for defending ones self or what's yours. Second, have you ever pondered the bureaucratic BS that a citizen goes through just to own a means of transportation; personal licensing, vehicle licensing, insurances, vehicle registration, and smog checks - no thank you very much.

[@flankspeed]

@@johnchambers2996 I'd rather have the vast number of tonne-weights of metal being driven around the USA at high speeds being driven by people who are qualified to do so, rather than the alternative. Of course, if you're living in a survivalist shack in Oregon surrounded by "home defense" sniper rifles it's not your first concern.

[@flankspeed]

Oh, and while we're at it: how many cars were on the roads when the US constitution was written? And how many large-magazine autofire assault weapons did people have? You might as well try and argue that the Founding Fathers were massive fans of Fox News.

[@johnchambers2996]

@@flankspeed Your ton weights wipe out five times as many people as what firearms murder, other than self murder. Firearms are a deterrent if you've ever had a store in a hoodlum infested neighborhood, and apparently you weren't in downtown Los Angeles during the Rodney King riots where the police stood by and the only businesses that weren't looted and burned were the ones with the "assault rifles". As a veteran who picked up the rifle to defend someone else's country, I find you and your control elements of this country to be rather moronic and insipid.

[@gaygaz9737]

Brilliant and appropriate for this moment in time.

[@ISIO-George]

The commentary in this dialog on the ludicrous and hypocritical thinking of the Supreme Court is even more relevant and on point today as it was at first showing.

[@mmusya793]

LOL this is really REALLY what some Americans think.🤦‍♂🤦‍♂🤦‍♂

[@brianpeters7847]

That's some pretty good acting right there