8 Facts about the SECOND AMENDMENT

The 2nd Amendment is so hotly debated in part because of the order of its two clauses: The prefatory clause: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” and the operative clause: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
In this video, Learn Liberty aruges that its wording should have been reversed - and elucidates 8 facts about the 2nd Amendment that you might not have realized.
Join Students For Liberty’s Local Coordinator Program: join.studentsforliberty.org/
And for more on guns in America, see these posts on the Learn Liberty Blog:
How Gun Control Might Be Seen in the Future: www.learnliberty.org/blog/how...
Why Do You Need a Gun?: www.learnliberty.org/blog/why...
CHAPTERS:
0:00 A Poorly Worded Amendment?
1:32 Fact #1: The roots of the 2nd Amendment can be traced to the English Bill of Rights of 1689.
3:37 Fact #2: The 2nd Amendment ALSO has roots in STATE constitutions.
5:59 Fact #3: The 2nd Amendment went through several drafts.
8:06 Fact #4: The 2nd Amendment has a “prefatory,” or “preface” clause, and an “operative” clause.
10:46 Fact #5: History has not looked kindly upon previous attempts to regulate guns.
12:33 Fact #6: The two major political parties used to be flipped on the interpretation and implementation of the 2nd Amendment.
14:40 Fact #7: There was another attack on the 2nd Amendment in 1994.
16:28 Fact #8: American police are increasingly militarized.
17:46 Last Thoughts
#2ndAmendment #FoundingFathers #gunrights
LEARN LIBERTY:
Your resource for exploring the ideas of a free society. We tackle big questions about what makes a society free or prosperous and how we can improve the world we live in. Watch more at www.learnliberty.org/

[@mitchellbryars9338]

The constitution isn't for telling the people what they can do, it's for telling the government what they can't.

[@winston1788]

Correcto Mundo bryars. And also mob rule, eg a plurality voting to loot the few remaining producers. Must be why the vile D word isn't mentioned anywhere in US constitution.

[@isaac_steinberg]

Not really, the US constitution lists all the things the federal government can do and they can only do those things. State constitutions or the constitutions of foreign States are actually the opposite, they list the things the State is not allowed to do but the State can do anything not explicitly denied.

[@savvycivvy5644]

@@isaac_steinbergtell me you know nothing about the constitution, without telling me you know nothing about the constitution…

[@isaac_steinberg]

@@savvycivvy5644 bruh go read the US constitution and the constitution of any US State or for example the constitutions of the States of Europe. The US constitution is clear the Congress only has power to do specifically mentioned things but the States can do anything not explicitly denied to them. US State constitutions as far as I know are all clear if you read them that the State government can do anything unless the State constitution explicitly says they can't do that thing. This is the same with the constitutions of the States of Europe and everywhere else (federal types of constitutions excepted).

[@savvycivvy5644]

@@isaac_steinberg you lost all credibility when you began your comment with “bruh” the US constitution supersedes all state constitutions. Hence, why people call it the “Supreme Law of the land.” Both state and federal governments are suppose to work with the constitution not against it. If a state defies the constitution the federal government is suppose to ensure they no longer continue to do so, and vice versa. It really is not that challenging to understand.

[@TheJeep1967]

Anyone who interprets the 2nd Amendment as giving the government the ability to regulate guns is ignoring the fact that the entire Bill of Rights is a prohibition against the government violating recognized unalienable rights held by the people.

[@savvycivvy5644]

*preexisting inalienable rights.

[@davidav8orpflanz561]

The only inailiable rights the Founding Fathers spoke of are, LIFE, LIBERTY, PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS...not gun ownership!!!

[@TheJeep1967]

@@davidav8orpflanz561 We hold these truths to be self-evident (meaning obviously true, and requiring no proof, argument or explanation), that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights (our rights come from our Creator not the Government, and since they are given by our Creator, they cannot be taken away) that among these (meaning these are SOME of the rights) are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Nowhere in the US Constitution and all amendments does the government grant rights, yet they discuss them quite a bit. This is because they understood that all of our rights are inherent rights (endowed by our Creator), and inherent rights are unalienable. The Second Amendment states "…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Because all of the rights of the people are inherent rights and inherent rights are unalienable, the right addressed in the 2nd Amendment is an unalienable right

[@davidav8orpflanz561]

@@TheJeep1967 So wrong, the Founding Fathers were very smart men, who thought things through. If, they wanted the Militia requirement to be separated from "keeping and bearing arms", they would have written two, separate thoughts sentences separating those ideas, instead they used a comma to join them, and placed the Militia requirement, before the Right to Keep and bear arms. Read Federalist Paper #29, it's their explanation of the 2nd Amendment, not mine, or the NRA's spoon-fed BS! Right, to vote...the "Creator" didn't grant that "RIGHT", eh, "WE THE PEOPLE" did it unto ourselves, as part of forming a more perfect (self-ordained, no "Creator" needed), to promote peace and tranquility unto themselves, and their posterity (future generations), the mechanisms thru democracy to adjust the Republic's laws as needed, as technology advances, and new ideas and discoveries were birthed...they gave us the Right, to change " Rights" the government can grants, and revoke, no " Creator" needed, they just stated that "LIVE, LIBERTY, and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS shouldn't be touched, as foundational "Natural" Rights they wanted the USA to embrace, and build upon. An argument could be made that by majority voting, the whole Constitution could be trashed, and replaced...what if, a majority of " WE THE PEOPLE" voted in the Communist Party, and changed into a Communist Country, stripping individuals' rights...it would be legally done that way... in fact, Trump is uttering such Didtatorship rhetoric if he gets re-elected in 2024. If, you want to keep your right to cast ballots concerning preserving rights, don't vote Republican, the writings on the wall what they want to do to people's rights...and, revoke many! But, keep trying... And, who is the "CREATOR"? Mine is natural science...evolution...if you need a name label, we'll call her - "MOTHER NATURE", she takes no worship requests or orders, and does as she pleases! Everyone, can pick their own version of a "Creator"....and, every creator has a set of inalienable Rights to hand out? Other rights are given and taken, by " WE THE PEOPLE"...that's the "GOVERNMENT". When you find the "Creators" written inalienable Rights list, handed down to the Founding Fathers, let me know, and see it...meanwhile, I'll believe the Founding Fathers left the "Creator" mostly unspecifically defined and vague for a reason...so, we can have the Freedom to govern ourselves, without any other "Supreme Being" dogma needed! - LIKE THE BIBLE'S GOD - BS!

[@davidav8orpflanz561]

The funny thing about the word "inalienable" that you keep wanting o use as LEGAL justification for - US Constitutional RIGHTS THE GOVERNMENT CANT TAKE AWAY, is - it is NOT IN THE US CONSTITUTION, or any Amendment/Bill of Rights! That is the LAW of the LAND! Period! Nope - not at all, do your own US Constitution word search! "0/0" You might be thinking of the Declaration of Independence, which is nothing more than a BREAK-UP LETTER between the American Colonies and the King of England, leading to a bitter and violent divorce! Thus, ALL AMENDMENTS and RIGHTS of the US Constitution are subject to the will of "WE THE PEOPLE" to change by Democratic majority VOTE! And, the 2nd Amendment is not Sacrosanct/off limits from that fact, as an "INALIENABLE" right: that's just wishful thinking, and misguided interpretations abound - aka, propaganda! If people really had inalienable RIGHTS to LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS in the US Constitution: then the government couldn't put criminals in prison, or execute them...and prisoners could nullify their punishment sentences by saying that being incarcerated stopped their rights to pursue happiness and LIBERTY/FREEDOM. The "GOVERNMENT" takes away Rights, legally, every day from people, whom "WE THE PEOPLE", by due process of their forbidden actions in our society, and the Republic of laws to seek justice, have determined need that done to them! So, stop saying and thinking we have inalienable RIGHTS in the US Constitution - because it isn't there! Never was!

[@AviatorMike777]

The fact that it was worded to say "...To Keep And Bear ARMS" and not "Muskets" shows you that James Madison knew that arms would change over time. Absolutely brilliant, if you ask me.

[@matthewlee9728]

Exactly anything common including common to the military were suppose to be able to own were not supposed to be able to be out gunned by our government

[@devilsoffspring5519]

"Arms" doesn't specifically mean firearms, air guns, crossbows or any projectile chucking device in general. It simply means "weapons."

[@j.sumner6999]

Yes, but the militia clause tells us that the arms people have the right to keep and bear includes, but is not limited to, arms used by a militia, that is, military arms. Unfortunately, some judges cannot accept that reality and deprive the people of the right to keep and bear those arms.

[@MRsolidcolor]

Why would they limit its people to a gun that was out dated in the war they just won…. It’s written to be applied to whatever year you read it..

[@Tora1337]

Yes, "common use of the day."

[@robertlivingston1634]

The purpose of the government is not to place regulations or restrictions, it's purpose is to protect the rights of the people.

[@blueboyblue]

*Declaration of Independence* - *_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness._*

[@nickandrews4545]

It's not poorly written at all. It's written exactly the way people wrote and even spoke back then. It's very plainly worded, its meaning is clear. It applies to all arms, not just guns or firearms. It applies to all arms ever made.

[@roseblite6449]

Offensive AND Defensive Arms, such as body armor.

[@History_Nurd]

​@@roseblite6449body armor is considered an arm? Wasnt it a protective device? Technically protected?

[@crazysquirrel9425]

@@roseblite6449 Arms includes anything that can be used offensively or defensively. Therefore body armor is part of arms.

[@bluewater454]

Exactly right. There are those who have tried to use the term “arms” as a limitation, due to the fact that swords were more common than firearms. The fact is that the opposite is true. The use of the word “arms” is expansive, not limiting. It allows us to use whatever armament is available to use at the time.

[@prof113]

Exactly corrext. If I had to compare today's grammer and the grammer of our forefathers, my vote for that written by the simple-minded would be for today's grammer.

[@gregpowell3515]

These men where highly educated. It’s not poorly written.

[@Amsidkdnsls]

No one trying to hear how educated he was , and it doesn't matter if we can understand it clearly

[@authenticallysuperficial9874]

It's written like shit. The second draft is grammatically impossible. The final draft is only grammatically correct if we take it to only support milias and not the personal right to bear arms. It's a nightmare.

[@011CJ]

Well written and clearly worded. Only an idiot would not understand its meaning. 🇺🇸🗽🦅

[@rcstl8815]

It was political and as such resembles sausage.

[@thomasjeffersun]

It was good for the 18th & 19th century but after that it can easily be written a lot better

[@Paradigm1976]

In 1791, "well regulated" meant "well trained", and as to who the militia is, George Mason commented, at the time, "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people minus a few public officials".

[@mfraze8753]

I agree and would add it also meant "well armed" as well. Even in today's world though what is the purpose of regulating something? It's for controlling something, just like controlling a militia. Having a "well trained" and "well equipped" militia makes it effective and efficient, which is what the end result of regulating something should be. Sadly, people fail to look beyond the "control" part of regulating something. The entire purpose of regulating something is to take something that is chaotic, Un useful, or even dangerous in its current form, and make it useful, make it efficient and effective, or make it safe to use. Regulation should never be about denying the use of something.

[@americanpatriot7247]

​@mfraze8753 WELL said, friend!

[@GuillermoLG552]

He said Militia not the "well regulated Militia." Also George Mason didn't sign off on the Constitution.

[@mfraze8753]

@@GuillermoLG552 It was clear to me what Paradigm1976 posted. Was it not to you? So what if George Mason didn't sign off on the Constitution, it was up to the states to ratify it, not specific individuals. He quoted George Mason as asking "I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people minus a few public officials". People often think that the militia is our own military, that would be incorrect. The comment also clarified that "Well regulated" meant well trained at the time it was written in the 2nd amendment. I agree with that statement and added that it also meant well equipped, or well-armed as pertaining to the 2nd amendment. I tried to explain the actual purpose of regulating something, that although it is for control, it is not for denying access or for punishment. Control is not the ultimate end point of regulating anything. When you think about our current government over the last decades, or even longer, do the regulations we have meet the end goal of making something usable, or more effective, or more efficient, or removing chaos? Or does it hand over the control of what is being regulated to our government minimizing or even removing our access to it? Should we allow unelected officials from government agencies to continue to make new regulations that impact each of us? Don't get me wrong, I don't hate these people or the agencies, but by creating them our government as managed to remove "we the people" from the equation.

[@GuillermoLG552]

@@mfraze8753 " The comment also clarified that "Well regulated" meant well trained at the time it was written in the 2nd amendment" At the time the 2nd amendment was written "arms" meant a broadsword, musket and pike.

[@johnbates8964]

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials".

[@kaseyboles30]

George mason expressing his belief in the citizen over the politicians.

[@Currygoatpapi]

The 2nd Amendment sounds well written to me especially against a tyrannical government imposing they’re will.

[@davidav8orpflanz561]

The Founding Fathers didn't make conducting insurrections against any government body in the USA legal, with the 2nd Amendment! Just ask those Trump supporters who used tht excuse and are now servicing time for trying it!

[@terrykern397]

​@davidav8orpflanz561 largest un armed Insurrection ever

[@Mick-wp5gz]

So let me get this straight you're understanding of the founding fathers and what they meant is based upon the current Rogue government doing something it never had the right to do now I don't agree with the people that marched into Congress on January 6th those antifa BLM members those feds they should have stayed outside but that was their job that day to push narrative that idiots like yourself would believe you don't understand the Constitution or form of government or anything else you're poorly educated fool who thinks these educated because somebody else told you so you don't understand why the Bill of Rights exist you have no understanding of our form of government or what it was that was supposed to be the founding fathers never envisioned a standing army they said so very clearly and they gave very specific reasons for it just like the Bill of Rights you're right exist for a very specific reason yet the left thanks for some reason all of those rights are ours except for that second one that's a cutout for the military all the rights are my rights except for the second one that that's the military is right how f****** stupid are you the federal government was never envisioned to do what it has been doing it was never envisioned to be a bloated bureaucracy that tells you what you can and cannot do in your daily life the FDA the the ATF they were never envisioned even the FBI we're never envisioned to exist there was never supposed to be a standing army only Congress was supposed to make laws but now you have this bureaucracies like the ATF going well there's a band on this where do they get a right to make rules for you to have to follow they do not only Congress has a right to make laws the president has the right to either veto it or sign it and then administer it and the Supreme Court is supposed to decide the constitutionality if it's brought before them this is the way our government is supposed to exist this is the way it's supposed to work you hate Trump because some f****** d******* that want to hold on to power told you to hate him that is the saddest thing ever you believe there was an Insurrection on the January 6th which means you don't understand what the word Insurrection it's sound pathetic but this is the Democrats work they created the Department of Education again something that was never supposed to exist that goes around and creates rules and regulations for State schools that they're supposed to follow they create laws for you to follow cut out from the process that's supposed to exist and since the Advent of the Department of Education your education has been watered down now that doesn't mean you have to be an unga Fool If You Can Read comprehend you have critical thinking and deductive reasoning skills then you should be able to educate yourself but instead you're an ignorant fool

[@randynutt5660]

The intense attacks ON the 2nd Amendment by the current Administration is a clear sign that it is still needed.

[@AZ-fy9mx]

​@@davidav8orpflanz561nothing you said makes any sense kiddo

[@dhosekowski1391]

It’s really really simple, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

[@MRsolidcolor]

To keep = to have To Bear = to carry We the people see what’s coming and have on mass told the federal government to stick it.. more and more people buy guns every day

[@gregwalker6281]

Are those the only words to the second amendment???

[@gregwalker6281]

What's the name of your militia? What's the charter number? Who's the president of of your militia?

[@user-dz7wv6fi5l]

@@gregwalker6281a well regulated militia means a well armed well trained militia. A militia is a paramilitary organization that is independent of the government. You cannot have a militia without the right to bear arms. Also the second paragraph says the PEOPLES RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL Not BE INFRINGED. Wrap your tiny brain around that. The real question is, what do you think about the Constitution in general?

[@gregwalker6281]

@@user-dz7wv6fi5l you do realize there's more than eight to the second amendment don't you?

[@andybreglia9431]

The Second Amendment does not "grant" rights. It RECOGNIZES a right to self-defense endowed by our Creator.

[@Joseph-es6mu]

It's good to know the 2nd amendment allows us the freedom to pick and choose. Who lives and who dies. In other words open season on anyone? 😢

[@christinegreen2543]

The Second Amendment is NOT about hunting (aka grocery shopping of the day) and NOT about self defense both have been recognized and accepted rights of all men even under the most totalitarian regimes. Our Founding Fathers had not just returned from a hunting trip, nor had they just returned from a shoot out with the local thugs. They had just returned from defeating the richest, best trained, most powerful best equipped military the world had ever seen. With their private arms that included muskets, flintlocks, semi automatic rifles, rockets, explosives, bombs, cannons even battle ships. They wrote the Second Amendment to assure that WE THE PEOPLE retain the arms necessary to defeat the richest best equipped best trained most powerful military of our time. What makes America unique among nations is that America protects its citizens right to the bear arms necessary to overthrow the government. The very arms other nations have historically banded its citizens possessing. So when someone says that civilians don’t need to own military “style” arms they reveal that while being correct they have no understanding of the Second Amendment intent & purpose. They are correct in that civilians don’t need a military “style” weapons. We need to have the best military weapons available.

[@mudpuppy4930]

Thank you Natural Rights

[@Bighitter03]

​@@Joseph-es6muoh the ignorance in this statement. It has nothing to do with blatant murder

[@user-ce2lm8ii6s]

i beg to differ on that one it does grant you the right under any pretense to forever keep your arms even though the goverment would beg to differ

[@snovicki]

“The right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED “. That is very clear language.

[@user-sl6ql9lk3r]

than why was with strong regulation the first words?

[@LicheLordofUndead]

If you read the Pre=Amble to the Bill of Rights, this is not just a Bill of Rights it is a list of Restrictions against the Government infringing on these rights.

[@parajerry]

And leftists cannot explain why an Amendment giving the government (military does not equal militia) power appears in the list of 10 restrictions on the government. Just another example that they KNOW they are lying.

[@55Quirll]

Totally, and here is the Preamble : THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

[@TheSlickmelon]

Currently, the U.S. is seeing an unrelenting effort by the federal government (and some state governments) to disarm civilians, despite our elected officials having taken an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution and the 2nd Amendment. 🤔

[@yuki-sakurakawa]

The first liberty to go has always been freedom of speech & press, and freedom of association. They arrested people for speaking against the war (freedom of speech ww1 and ww2), they arrested people and blacklisted people for suspicion of being a communist (freedom of association). Iirc, people Once had to check their guns when they entered towns from outside (countryside). Should there be limits on such speech and press? Surprisingly, many people would say yes, even most libertarians. Most would be against kiddie prn, even if it didn't involve real kids. Most would be against slander. Most would be against shouting fire in a crowded theatre. That being said, should there not be any regulations on guns as there are on speech & press?

[@johnostambaugh8638]

The government is scared or why would the government fear the people.

[@paulrodgers252]

The civil (Left) people in the United States Government fear the military (Right) citizens especially the United States military trained Veteran (Militia) Citizens; civilian is 2 Words: civil ian; ian or an are coded as Soldier so civilian is in fact: civil (no Arms) Soldier;

[@AnthonyTrifoglio]

It's almost like the biggest flaw in the constitution is that they had no written set of steps to follow for a hash punishment for those that break their oaths 🙄

[@mtojebogi]

Imagine that.. follow the money.. who's been paying off the gov.. and once you know who.. then you know why.

[@shooterspodcast8667]

These days, many politicians consider the Bill of Rights as "The Bill of Needs", and goes on about how people DO NOT NEED certain things. NOT true.

[@johnmartin3517]

Spot on! ON THE MARK! If a person is safe enough to be out of jail you are safe enough to own a gun!!!

[@55Quirll]

I agree, if you have served your sentence and are released all your rights should be restored to you. If not, then why are out of prison and among society

[@nikolajbohjerhansen5600]

@@55Quirll what about people who just haven't commited the crime yet. planned attacks are a thing you know

[@55Quirll]

@@nikolajbohjerhansen5600 Yes, keep them under surveillance, but until then, they have their Rights unless you want BB to take away your rights and live those in Cuba

[@mikerichard6962]

Then they should have wrote the right to keep and bear arms unless You plan to commit a crime...

[@55Quirll]

@@mikerichard6962 Punishment was much worse back then compared to now with no reform considered. I still prefer having all rights returned or just keeping the person in prison

[@MNDrummer]

If the Bill of Rights did not exist we would still have all of these rights. The U.S. Constitution is a limit on government power, it does not, in any way, limit the power of the people.

[@emmittmatthews8636]

Das right!!!

[@crazysquirrel9425]

That would require blind trust in the governments. What happens when we blindly trust any government with anything?

[@alightinthedarkages9494]

We'd still have those rights because a piece of paper written by humans doesn't grant us those rights. God does.

[@waaynneb1808]

the facts are clear that even though some of these basic human Rights enumerated within Bill of Rights are to be protected, the marching of time and numerous (Government) Court cases have chipped-at, stepped-on, and even allowed outright infringements on those listed Rights. THAT's why MANY of the Founding fathers insisted on having them especially showcased - otherwise likely soo much easier and quickly these Rights may have been reduced, lost and/ or obscured/ mis-interpreted if simply left to the Declaration and US Constitution.

[@crazysquirrel9425]

@@waaynneb1808 Most people are too LAZY to literally fight for their rights.

[@HuckleBerry476]

People fail to realize that when the original constitution was written, the only way a majority would agree to sign it was if there was a document specifically stating the rights of the people, protecting them from the Gov. Hence The bill of rights. That bill of rights is a subset of rules that apply directly to the government stating clearly what the GOVERNMENT CANNOT TOUCH. It is a restriction on the government plain and simple..

[@monoXcide01]

Correct. Learn Liberty also has an excellent video explaining positive rights vs negative rights. Most of the Bill of Rights are negative rights

[@BrothersKeeper44]

damn....so well said brother

[@LoanwordEggcorn]

Yes, those are known as negative rights: restrictions on the Government. The Bill of Rights recognizes pre-existing natural rights that cannot be infringed by government. It does not create or grant any rights. When a government no longer protects those rights (or actively works against them, as it does today), it ceases to be legitimate, according to the Declaration of Independence.

[@kenabi]

which is literally explained in the bill that became the bill of rights, as drafted by the first congress, in the first paragraph.

[@TheCrotchetyoldwoman]

So this amendment gave the enslaved the right to be armed?

[@henryblanton6992]

Our Founding Fathers were Concerned that not only a Large Standing ARMY would be Hazardous to our Liberties, they were also mindful of Select Militias (Read: National Guard) as well.

[@mikerichard6962]

Remember Ruby Ridge... Waco ??

[@jacobygilbert196]

"Those who sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither". Thomas Jefferson

[@LordRahl11]

The second amendment is not poorly written. It is written simply so that its meaning wasn't hard to understand. And the bill of rights doesn't give us our rights it simply outlined rights we are born with as human beings.

[@devilsoffspring5519]

It specifies and acknowledges, or "enumerates", rights. The concept of said rights exists outside of the document as well as outside of government/authority as a whole.

[@JackTulsen77]

The bill of rights doesn't grant us rights. It specifies rights the government can not infringe upon.

[@devilsoffspring5519]

@@JackTulsen77 That's what I meant, but people always argue with me when I say it :) I'm Canadian by the way. We have no rights. Canada is a police state and a dictatorship.

[@elizabethlockley5861]

You got it that’s exactly what it is.

[@michaelraymond9274]

Well said my friend. 🇺🇸

[@rednecksniper4715]

“Those who would give up essential liberties to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Benjamin Franklin

[@davidav8orpflanz561]

So, people who join the military, giving up their freedom for security, don't deserve LIBERTY?

[@seanjohnson386]

Ol' Benny hit the nail on the head.

[@joefordney3278]

The second amendment protects arms not guns arms is any weapon currently used in combat meaning we have a right and obligation to have any weapons our military has

[@ChasePhifer-hj3wl]

​@@joefordney3278 Many places make it illegal to open or conceal carry a sword. This is clearly unconstitutional. If guns can be carried, so too can swords. Right to bear ARMS, not just firearms. We need a National Sword Association.

[@kaseyboles30]

Of course every idiot on the planet a couple years ago missed the word essential in that.

[@anniebones7516]

As a former member of the United States millatary, which outside of manufacturing is the professional on weapons for the weapon to qualify as a assault rifle the select fire switch has three options. safety,semi, and auto or full auto if you like any other rifle with simular characteristics is just a semi-automatic rifle

[@wockawocka5293]

Well done video sir. Thank you. I find it annoying that people struggle to grasp the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment. There are plenty of writtings from our founding fathers about the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. Also, the pre amble of the Bill of Rights clearly states that the Bill of Rights doesn't "grant" our rights. Those rights pre exist government. The Bill of Rights is to restrain the government. The true meaning of the 2nd Amendment - Free people don't ask permission to bear arms.

[@RebMedino]

😂😂😂

[@JonathanWrightSA]

The sentence is clear. It's not the founder's fault that people who hate firearms intentionally try make it more complicated than it is. Coupled with the fact that average intelligence has declined and critical thinking is frowned upon. I am always skeptical of people that don't use Oxford commas, or don't know how to use them 🙄

[@bubblegumgun3292]

The dumming down of Americans has always been intentional ✡️✡️⚛️⚛️

[@FourthRoot]

No, it is not clear. And I say this as a staunch supporter of gun rights. For one thing, they say "arms". Does that mean all kinds of arms? What about nuclear bombs, those are arms. All weapons are arms, so are litterally ALL weapons legal? If not, where does it say that guns are protected, but nuclear missiles aren't. By the way the Davey Crocket was a tactical nuclear bomb deployable by an infantryman. Also, does the government have the power to strip people of that right as punishment for a violent crime? If not, are people allowed to carry guns in prison? What constitutes "infringement"? Is it infringing to say a 5 year old can't carry a gun to school? 5 year olds are people. You are not trying very hard to come up with ambiguous examples if you think it's clear.

[@CustomWeldingandFab]

Literally all weapons are legal. Even the govts own arguments in the Miller case against the NFA proves the NFA is unconstitutional but the courts defend govt interests over the peoples because the people are weak.

[@lukeherdaii9528]

Yes, arms means all arms or weapons. I suppose if you want to make absurd comparisons, yes, the constitution protects your right to own a nuclear weapon, if you can afford to do so, and that’s exactly the point. Only the rich and/or governments can do that. The idea that I can’t own a knife bc it’s whatever length is ridiculous. It’s open to protect All rights and All weapons Necessary for self protection. Now go ahead and break down crying or if you are the other kind of control freak, explode thy head at my audacity 😂. Government does Not have any right to decide what I own or how I defend myself, and therefore no right to take anything from me. But, they always will. Enough commas for you?

[@FourthRoot]

@@CustomWeldingandFab Try building a machine gun in your garage and let me know how it goes when you tell the police what you're doing. Sure, that might be the case under your interpretation of the second amendment, and I would even say that is the most litteral interpretation of the second amendment, but neither your interpretation, nor the correct interpretation matters. All that matters is the government's interpretation. If the government thinks something is illegal, then it really is illegal for all practical purposes.

[@Blgtn43]

The 2nd Amendment is not a permission slip for the people. It is restrictions for the government.

[@devilsoffspring5519]

If the government can take away a right, then the people can disagree with them. If the government insists on using violence, the people must be in a position to have the capacity for much more violence in order to retain the right that was being taken away. I'm Canadian and I don't remember who said it, but there's a quote that goes something like this: "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that is completely unnecessary until after it has been abolished."

[@robertwilber1909]

The Constitution was written to remind our elected representatives why we threw George out and what they would be hanged for.

[@jdenney]

That's not the constitution. That is the amendments, and the declaration of independence.

[@robertwilber1909]

@@jdenney Do you ever wonder what life would be like if you'd had enough oxygen at birth?

[@magister343]

The US Constitution was an instrument of the counter revolution, by which the wealthy elites tried to recentralize power into a larger more corruptible government like that of the British Empire. The Bill of Rights was a concession to the Anti-Federalists who really opposed the whole project altogether.

[@LearnLiberty]

@robertwilber1909 Today, things are different. What do you think people should do now?

[@khanhgiapham-mi4hg]

@@LearnLiberty please explain how things are different.

[@gmanm1907]

Shall not be infringed that’s all I need to hear

[@AleksiJuvakka]

So nuclear arms are fair game?

[@njpme]

​@@AleksiJuvakkacommonly used weapons

[@AleksiJuvakka]

@@njpme It does not say that in the constitution, besides one could easily argue that assault rifles aren't 'common' either. The forefathers clearly meant all arms, so mr zuckerberg should be able to purchase nuclear arms if he wanted

[@njpme]

@AleksiJuvakka obviously there are exceptions just like how not every speech is 1st Amendment protected

[@AleksiJuvakka]

@@njpme Where are these exceptions listed in the constitution?

[@nunyurbyznes7611]

The founders and the people of that day were head a shoulders above today in education and political learning. What they wrote made perfect sense to them!

[@ricker269]

The biggest issue that I have when someone refers to the 2nd Amendment, for or against, is that people rarely state the complete 2nd Amendment. They usually only recite the first half of it. 😮

[@Nanofuture87]

The government cannot be the source of rights, otherwise by what right could people create the government in the first place?

[@bubblegumgun3292]

That's actually kinda pretty deep. Maybe some would say God in the same way morals are, but that question becomes which god for no god has even mentioned rights including the Christian god. Rights like morals seem to be a farce, a social construct or a opinion which is too say there is none. While if we grant a god, simply having a god does not lead one to derive rights or morals from god In short, might makes right

[@spongeintheshoe]

People decided we should have a government and nobody stopped them. Because who would? The police?

[@dimitristsagdis7340]

the gov is supposed to be the guarantor of the people's right. The people's rights are supposed to be self-evident so they need no source, they are by themselves.

[@billmullins6833]

@dimitristsagdis7340 wrote, "the gov is supposed to be the guarantor of the people's right." I would say that the purpose of government is is to secure (i.e. protect and defend) our rights and thus whenever government fails to protect the rights of We the People then it is time for a change. To the founders it was a self-evident truth that the proper function of government was to protect civil rights, not to somehow make society "safer".

[@spongeintheshoe]

@@billmullins6833 We have a right to live.

[@lifelongconservative3338]

The National Firearms Act of 1968 must be overturned.

[@parajerry]

Needs to revoke all gun control even back to the Al Capone days....including the tax on class-3.

[@donshields6749]

The nfa was 1934 the gun control act was1968!

[@douglasbockman2772]

'68 was the gun control act, the NFA happened about 1934. Both laws are illegal.

[@mikerichard6962]

Johnson was a Tyrant too

[@glennquagmire835]

The commas you refer to, separates the Prefatory clause and the Operative clause. It make complete sense for the structure and lexicon of the time.

[@parajerry]

Simply diagram the sentence and it is still clear today.

[@Anthony_February]

The 10th Amendment, which was ratified the same day as the 2nd I believe, sets a system by which the US has powers and those not delegated to it are left to the states and after that the people. Clearly the drafters of the 2nd and 10th were aware of both provisions since they passed on the same date - so they were aware of the 10th amendment making the “people” a group separate from the federal or state government.

[@guskiworks5976]

The second amendment VERY CLEARLY states NOT any discrimination against age, race, gender, ability, criminal status, caliber, capacity, rate of fire, geographic location, feelings, political affiliation, or any other tyrannical restrictions, It only discriminates against INFRINGEMENT.

[@davidav8orpflanz561]

I think the 1st part, is supposed to discriminate against anyone who is not able to join the Regular Military from having any "uninfringed" right to Guns!

[@RM-lk1so]

What about people who have been charged with a "felony", offense. Yet have served their time consequences. I surly don't see the relevance. Once one has "paid The penalty", or other wise. Why shouldn't individuals have the right to Cary? I can't go deep woods camping due to the lack of self protection. That's fkd up. How about the very idea of self protection in all other situations? So I'm left to be a victim? Seriously

[@TexasPapa13]

@@RM-lk1sofelons absolutely got their weapons back back in the day. That didn’t change till 1968.

[@sergeantrandomusmc]

⁠@@davidav8orpflanz561the founding fathers DESPISED the idea of a standing army. They didn’t want one, so the militia was to provide for the defense of the nation. The militia was “any able body male”. The video covers this exact topic.

[@davidav8orpflanz561]

@sergeantrandomusmc Another one of Uncle Sam's Misquided Children (USMC) - It was the "States" that didn't want a large standing Regular Army, which they felt could by overpowering military force march in and control them like the British Army had done, not the Founding Fathers who created the Federal Government. The Federalist also conceeded that a Large standing Army, during times of peace, was a waste of money when not needed for a fight, which the "States" didn't want to be taxed to support. Hence, the comprimise was a smaller standing Army that could be suplemented by the State's militia - albeit the militias needed to be prepared enough to need little military training upon mustering for a fight. You cite this video as accurate...? It's not. It's a self- serving spin of wishful thinking! I'll direct my facts to Federalist Paper #29, about the Militia's meaning in the 2nd Amendment, written by Alexander Hamilton (an actual Founding Father), not some gun nut who probably doesn't even know this reference existed when making his video! So, if you read Federaist Paper #29 about the Militia, which, like legal notices even today, to make things legal , is required, information is to be published and available for the public's review. The Founding Fathers published Federalist Paper #29, and many more in a NEW YORK CITY newspaper, and that was the premises of the 2nd Amendment's meaning concerning "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free " STATE", the Founding Fathers ratified into the US Constitution, as a prerequisite to keeping and bearing firearms. Like to have the right to vote, there were prerequitites like being a citizen of the USA, etc. Not all rights are just freely handed out, eh! See, Militias, well regulated, belong to the "STATES," but as part of the common defense, can in time of need be placed under the Federal Military's control. You cite this video as sacrosanct on the subject, but this guy is making shit up to fit a narrative that the Founding Fathers did not endorse. Basically, "I just want to have guns, because I like having guns - without fulfilling the requirement to be "fit to fight"/qualified onto a modern battlefield in a "WELL REGULATED" status, needing little training when mustering for military duty. Why do gun owners of military capable firearms not want to Patriotically live up to the Founding Father's expectation of duty and responsibility to be "WELL REGULATED" trained, fit to fight? If you think that "WOLVERINES" movies are an accurate depiction of how AR-15 owners are gonna fight a properly equipped and trained professional military enemy - it's not. Such nice little camp fires make lovely targets for stand-off weapons, guided by thermal signature guidance systems! Don't even think about calling anyone with your iPhone "BOOM"...then there's logistics/resupply, medical, intelligence, lack of crew-served weapons systems, indirect fire weapons systems support, aviation assets... As a Green Beret, Guerilla Unconventional warfare expert trainer, that little band of "Wolverines" would have been mopped up on day one in time for lunch! Go ahead and read Federalist Paper #29, and think of how the "Militia" changed from rank and file marching, volkey firing muskets...to the modern Infantry soldier, who has to SHOOT, MOVE, AND COMMUNICATE! Those 1776 Milita people just had to learn a few verbal orders, a few flags, drums, or bugle calls. Can you set up and operate a secure SINGARS radio? Can you read and navigate by a topographic map - at night, without light? Modern fighting is way more about having a gun in hand...without everything else, it's practically useless for more that 2 minutes into a fight, the enemy needs to call in a bomb strike on your defenseless from that - ass! Now, drop and give me 10 "WELL REGULATED" pushups! If you can? Then grab you 50 pounds backpack, and complete a 12 mile force march in 3-hours, whilst also carrying your rifle! Go, patriot wannabe! If you were a real US Marine, you'd know this to be true...these back yard beer can plinkers are just minor speed bumps, if not "WELL REGULATED", WELL TRAINED IN MODERN WARFARE, AND WELL SUPPORTED BY LAND, SEA, AND AIR as part of a bigger fightingcforce they can intergrate into, without their TYPE II diabetes medications, or portable oxygen generators!

[@THERAGGEDEDGE]

The constitution, and by extension, the bill of rights was not written to grant rights and liberties to the citizenry, but to protect the rights and liberties of citizens from government abuses. It should also be noted that it is incumbent on the citizens to exercise their rights and liberties, lest they be easily coaxed into surrendering them, or just letting them disappear.

[@brianczmowski3962]

This means adults getting off their asses and actually teaching the constitution and amendments to the upcoming generations. The Government System is knowingly withholding such knowledge in the schools. The kids won't fight for rights they don't know they have.

[@kenhayhurst374]

EDGE, I like what you wrote but would like to add 1 idea. When people "exercise their rights and liberties", they must also accept the 'responsibilities' that go with them. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is often used as an example of restrictions on the 1st amendment. If there IS a fire, you should yell. If not, you must accept the the consequenses of your actions. If people get hurt or are killed in the rush to escape, it is on you. I exercise my 2A rights daily but take the responsibility that goes with it seriously. I train, I am consious of my enviroment, and my firearm has never left the holster in public for 2 decades.

[@ajalvarez3111]

@@kenhayhurst374 Absolutely not. You cannot “legislate” responsibilities”. That legislation is the first weapon used to disarm you. Too nebulous. I agree, you should be responsible. But, there are already laws that address irresponsibility. Brandishing, shooting your gun in the air, etc. The consequences are there already. You don’t need to pile on endless “laws”. The vast majority of gun owners are responsible gun owners, not criminals. You are looking for a solution to a non-problem.

[@kenhayhurst374]

@@ajalvarez3111 I think we are on the same page. I didn't say, or mean to infer, anything about legislation. I just meant that our rights come with responsibilities. More laws on the books will not change the way people act. We can only do that ourself.

[@waaynneb1808]

@kenhayhurst374 Yes, I agree fully with that statement that we should be aware of and take responsibility serious when exercising our Rights, including to keep & bear arms.

[@paulheinz2145]

Even Judge Scalia took the time to explain the language in Heller. He analysed each word and their use in that time. Thanks for backing up what he already explained beyond any doubt.

[@robertjohnson6878]

In 1967 at the Sacramento protest against the Mulford Act the Panthers were not disarmed at the Capitol . They were confronted by the Sacramento Police Department at a gas station where they took the arrest without resistance. Even though their protest had been perfectly legal.

[@realbadger]

George Mason clarified that The Militia is the whole of the People, _except for a few public officials..._

[@redtiger7268]

There is a dictionary from 1812 in the Library of Congress that defines the Militia as "every able bodied man in a township over the age of 12"

[@dwwolf4636]

Who cares. It's the People that have the right to keep and bear arms, not the Militia. Sure those People form the Militia.

[@yuki-sakurakawa]

Switzerland probably got it right. More militia based, but weapons can be stored at home with ammo in the armoury. And nobody kills each other (they're also trained in the military as national guard).

[@redtiger7268]

@@dwwolf4636 Even if they want to play the "militia" word game per the standard dictionaries of the time (dated 1818 was the one I found) The Militia was "every able bodied man over the age of 12 in a township of sound mind" It had nothing to do with a government sponsored entity. The 'well-regulated" part did not mean controlled by law it meant to be well supplied.

[@dwwolf4636]

@@redtiger7268 I agree, but it is irrelevant. The rights of the people are not to be infringed.

[@douglasfletcher718]

I think the final draft is more poetic than the first, but just as clear. The fact that people have a hard time understanding the wording just indicates the decline in education in the US.

[@steyraug96]

The difficulty understand is intentional. They're scum in government. Why you think most have never held a real job, especially the unelected?

[@RM-lk1so]

Not a decline. An Indoctrination.

[@TheModdedwarfare3]

​@@RM-lk1soyeah, some people are so stupid that they think trump won lol

[@vashmatrix5769]

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson.

[@parajerry]

He was correct. We haven't been 'free' in decades.

[@alwaysfreedom9354]

@@parajerry Not after FDR's New Deal. Tax slavery.

[@dalepres1]

The sentence is actually perfect and very clearly written. Shall NOT be infringed. What could be more clear? We had just defeated the English in a revolution. We weren't following or copying the English bill of rights, we were creating our own. The 2nd Amendment stems from the King's attempt to strip the colonies of the right to keep and bear arms.

[@tomparnow3330]

The ability to form a militia shall not be infringed, the ability to own and use guns shall not be infringed.

[@RM-lk1so]

"SHALL NOT"

[@kablake94]

It's not the grammar that is the problem. It's the anti-gunners lies about what the 2nd Amendment says and it's purpose until they can get it repealed.

[@gridtac2911]

The communist manifesto clearly outlines to succeed in conquering a land you must destroy the family, religion, and anything not centered around the state. Also you must conquer their language. Marxist communists have been doing this for generations, slowly redefining words to meet their goals.

[@rogermorris-zd4dp]

AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN!

[@kablake94]

If we don't stop them, it absolutely will happen at some point. If we don't put an end to this woke, marxist crap contaminating the culture, it will happen.

[@crazysquirrel9425]

Gun rights come from more than the 2A. They also come from the 1A, 4A, and the 9A. Even part of the 10A if you stretch it.

[@kablake94]

@@crazysquirrel9425 none of our rights, including our gun rights, come from any amendment or any other part of the Constitution. Our rights are inherent and granted to us by God at birth. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution protect those God given rights from an overreaching federal government. It's an imortant distinction to be made....liberty is not derived from the Constitution.

[@johngalt2.031]

You missed the quote from President Thomas Jefferson. The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.

[@47coffee]

The term "REGULATED" at the time means gun cleanliness, sighting and marksmanship on point, keeping the powder dry, and keeping the lead balls smooth. Over 200+ years the term "REGULATED" has indeed evolved to encompass additional values, such as standardization and constant oversight and monitoring by an external body.

[@parajerry]

Probably by deliberate design by the globalist progressives. Their playbook includes bastardizing the language to take control of the meaning of laws.

[@billycoggins]

I've always found it interesting that NO OTHER Amendment seems to confuse folks! 🤨

[@Rick-np9vz]

You know it's the last four words! Some people are too busy trying tell you how to understand! Albert had it right! If YOU don't understand it you can't explain it!

[@spongeintheshoe]

@@Rick-np9vz What about the rest of them?

[@Rick-np9vz]

@@spongeintheshoe the rest of what?

[@spongeintheshoe]

@@Rick-np9vz The rest of the words.

[@Rick-np9vz]

@@spongeintheshoe which part? Because if you struggle with the written word you may not understand! The definition of some of the words has been changed! Like the word "militia" When written, you were the militia! Not "in" the militia! The word "regulated" meant, equipped! and prepared!

[@frederickgillette3432]

It is actually very well written. The people need ARMS for service in the militia. The militia (the able bodied men) is the only law enforcement authorized by the constitution

[@anniefili5491]

exactly

[@reypolice5231]

I believe that sheriff and constable are also mentioned. As to whether they individually obey their oath to uphold the constitution I won't argue.

[@Curtis-im4ty]

You said it perfectly

[@frederickgillette3432]

@@reypolice5231 they are not mentioned in the federal constitution. They may be mentioned in the various state constitutions

[@bradhowlett1]

Any powers not explicitly authorized in the constitution shall be held by the people. The fact that sheriffs are elected locally means it is authorized by the constitution. You know what's NOT authorized? ATF, FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. None of those answer to the people.

[@lockehaney3013]

so which constitution is supreme, the state or the US in 2a?

[@lbracknell]

Federal law "Trump"s State law (if it adheres to the requirements of the Constitution).

[@study_legal_history]

The Constitution of the USA and the several State Constitutions are each supreme in their respective jurisdictions. The US Constitution is not supreme in all matters, but only those specified in that Constitution. Any law passed by Congress can only reach those areas the US Constitution describes; national law does not automatically trump state laws. See Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 wherein Congress has exclusive jurisdiction over certain subjects and locations, with conditions. The USA was the united STATES OF AMERICA with a limited national/federal government. A state citizen did not encounter national jurisdiction unless he were counterfeiting the coins of the US, traveling in Washington, DC, in coastal waters or engaged in interstate commerce, etc. Now here's how The People allowed this to get overturned. Congress proposed and the states, not The People, ratified the 13th amendment wherein Congress took private property from state citizens and arrogated it to be public property. The second section of that amendment prohibited these free slaves from access to the judicial power for any remedy or protection from Congress. The 14th amendment created the class of persons, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and are allowed to roam throughout the states, as residents (a temporary presence, not a citizen of a state). Congress will now follow these persons into a state and regulate their treatment and behavior. The persons were granted the PRIVILEGE of voting. Their labor can be TAXED. A non-judicial court system was extended to harass the state citizens into compliance. And then White people joined the Social Security System, making their legal status the same as the 14th amendment persons. Visit talkradiomore dot you know the rest for the unfolding story.

[@The-BCC]

So, to add to this there are a few things that were not mentioned. One of these is Switzerland. The Swiss have as many guns per capital as America, because it started its independence 700+ years based on a healthy civilian militia with they have stayed true to, and there government supports. Our founding fathers respected this and wanted for there people and new country. Second, The words “A well regulated militia” was put first, because they just Fought a tyrannical government and wanted the people to be able to protect there country from all dangerous invaders whether that be from outside our borders or within. Also, Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined”. "It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in that it's not about the regulatory state. There's been nuance there. It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight." Healthy, well funded and ready to go… Currently I believe there are 50 states that ban private militias. Totally unconstitutional. Militia comes first because it was the most important… Big government doesn’t have our best, in there intentions. It’s like taxes, we fought for our independence over 3% tax. And until the 16th amendment in 1913 Americans never paid taxes. Because all taxes are unconstitutional in the USA. 3rd, militias are not great for expansion. So when the government started expanding West and fighting Indians the government has to start there own military and there need and reliance on militias started diminishing. I’m sure there’s more I’m forgetting but here’s a start. Lol Oh yes, to have a militia it was the responsibility of 18-45yr olds males to Acquire on their own, weapons. Whether that be by making, trading or buying. And that’s why ghost gun laws are unconstitutional. If you have money, you can buy. So ghost gun regulations only limit those that can’t afford to buy firearms or weapons. Our government put the burden on the people to fund a militia. Were Switzerlands government still to this day supports its people buy mandating shooting ranges in every town, giving militia aged men military grade rifles and who Ammo that they keep at there home. They open carry these rifles on public transportation and shoot at ranges that shoot over roads, buildings and public. It’s not an issue, because the swiss people have no corals and not a mindset to do harm to each other. And lastly, firearm weapon platforms were actually made for civilians first and then later became adapted by by the military. Yes, now a days a military branch may have a particular need and will call for civilian weapon manufacturers to make something for there needs and then go in to military trials for testing. And pretty much all firearm designs that we use now all came in the late 1800’s-1930’s. There was some refinements in the 40s & 1950’s but not much has changed since then. Yes, the metallurgy, CNC made, powers, ergonomically shapes and fancy paint jobs have developed. Plastic vs wood, but the actual mechanics, and how they function is still the same stuff… ok, buy! 😂

[@tmactable]

It’s clear It’s simple Some just don’t agree with what it says

[@dougwalk8034]

The door to America swings both ways, those that disagree with our constitution, can get the 'F' out !!!

[@adamhearts9195]

Right it's total gaslighting to try and imply that there's any controversy or confusion regarding what it says

[@adamhearts9195]

They are just feigning ignorance to bring you over to their side and thought process to rethink your original position open the fact that I might be teal,,, We've come so far that we think the color is actually green or purple 😂

[@grizzlygrizzle]

Grammatically, "A well-regulated militia...," is a SUBORDINATE clause.

[@mikewagner9630]

Shall NOT be infringed!!!! That’s the only thing that needs to be understood!!!!! And they have been long infringing on those rights , they should be happy that we allow them to regulate them as much as they already do!!!! Keep pushing and you won’t like when we push back!!! lol

[@55Quirll]

We shouldn't even let them do that, prior to The National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 I believe, you could go to a gun store and buy any gun and accessories that you wanted. Now they are telling you what you can buy and a little while later it is declared illegal and you are a criminal

[@jameshuguelet3394]

Those who argue the 2nd Amendment doesn't cover rights of ordinary citizens but only rights of Militia ignor the following plain words. What a is Militia today is not what a Militia was in the days that Amendment was written. The problem is our ignorance today.

[@thomasdodson5049]

The 2nd Amendment was very clear and well written. That is how they spoke back then. You proved that point by showing several different documents with the same type of language. The Founding Fathers knew exactly what they were saying and how they wanted it written. Not surprising that a generation that can’t define what a woman is doesn’t understand what the Founding Fathers meant!🇺🇸

[@williamclark7900]

Well said my man! I can give many examples of how the use of language has changed in just in my lifetime. I never imagined the definition of woman would ever get fuzzy. I had that pretty much nailed down when I hit middle school.

[@robertkreger7978]

The modern interpretation of “well regulated” is well equipped.

[@rchris77nd]

These days if your anti gun your definition of "Well regulated" means well restricted. Incorrectly I might add Because the next sentence verifies what it means.

[@ChasePhifer-hj3wl]

If you're libertarian, would having a public policy for/against trans (definition of a woman, as you stated), not go against such philosophy? Different strokes, different folks?

[@rchris77nd]

​@@ChasePhifer-hj3wlThere are a lot of reasons why the definition of a woman has to be clear and definitive for many reasons. There are also major problems with the Trans issue when it comes to letting kids make life altering decisions that will change their bodies forever before they are old enough to buy liquor.

[@donaldsmith1415]

Also all governments are allowed funded and controlled by the citizens/ people so taking their rights unless they were convicted of crimes of actual violence or have been deemed mentally impaired is illegal and unconstitutional in every aspect!!!!!!!

[@BEERLIGHTBROKER]

One minute in I hit pause to write this comment. America is divided by the media that tells them a different story by the day.

[@DieselRamcharger]

america is divided by its own ignorance.

[@ssnerd583]

@@DieselRamcharger .......HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA......NO.. We are divided by those who seek to keep us from coming together and throwing down our masters. Arrogance is simply an artifact of the brainwashing and mind control that is blasted at us from every possible angle in order to maintain our control by our masters.

[@ssnerd583]

The media, in its entirety, is the TRUE ENEMY of WE THE PEOPLE.

[@scubaguy007]

I'm a Charles Heston type gun owner. "From my cold dead hand." That is a simply worded statement.

[@kirknunya4291]

It’s charlton, not Charles.

[@scubaguy007]

@@kirknunya4291 you should at least capitalize his name. What a loser. 😂🤣😂🤣

[@alwaysfreedom9354]

Many young Americans do not know that Heston marched with MLK.

[@tweetdriver]

It's important to note that 2008 was the first time the SCOTUS landed on that side, and it was a partisan ruling.

[@alwaysfreedom9354]

Yes. When the Supreme Court ruled against the Second Amendment, FDR had put known racists on the Supreme Court. FDR was allowed to ignore our entire Bill of Rights. Including the right not to be starved to death by your own government. FDR punished farmers for trying to feed starving Americans. FDR also had his own race-based concentration camps. Under FDR, you could go to prison for having a gold coin in your pocket. FDR was a racist Jew-hating eugenicist, in love with Stalin and Mussolini. No interracial marriage allowed under FDR. But it was not just FDR. During Prohibition, tens of thousands of Americans were poisoned by their own government. It was mostly women who pushed to change our Constitution just to get laws passed regulating alcohol.

[@pjones1403]

And the Supreme Court by the way can be held and even judged by a citizen grand jury! And punished according to that board and committee of WE THE PEOPLE! The SCOTUS are ALSO HELD TO ACCOUNT by THE PEOPLE!

[@NeverSuspects]

Arms is more then just guns. Its about weapons.

[@Timmerdetimmerdetim]

it's about accidents too

[@bmaxse]

And, Not just weapons, but also armor/shields, to protect against weapons. 👍🏻✌🏼🙏🏼

[@bmaxse]

@@Timmerdetimmerdetim "Accidents" ? That sounds quite stupid. What was even your point at all?

[@jhutch1470]

@@bmaxse He doesn't know. He was just taught to hate the right he has to save himself from unlawful violence.

[@nickemanouil114]

​@@Timmerdetimmerdetim there are no accidents, it's called lack of "common sense", training, and paying attention

[@ultimatedragon8836]

All of the rights in the bill of rights are individual rights.

[@alwaysfreedom9354]

Human rights.

[@johnrichardson4002]

A government of the people, by the people. The fore fathers were not rich. They were not the elite. They were of the people . They had no ties to big industry . They were formed at a time when the evidence of a tyrannical government was noted and agreed upon. Leading to the structure of our said government and the foundation of the Constitution.

[@bornfree3124]

Shall not be infringed by the elected govern-ment who was elected to protect the people and their property, the very gov which is trampling on the people and their property.

[@davidr7333]

As we have seen, evil people have always existed and, until very recently, a much more significant threat to our safety. And both criminal threats (criminals in and outside government) have both grown exponentially.

[@ebr-fan1117]

I've never met anyone who has not committed a crime in their lifetime, having been convinced or not. Government employees as well.

[@alwaysfreedom9354]

@@ebr-fan1117 There are crimes only because there is a law. And there are crimes that are evil acts. Murder, rape, robbery.

[@ebr-fan1117]

@@alwaysfreedom9354 I agree , there are crimes merely because there are laws. However, I would not characterize all robbery as evil. For an example, a starving individual and the need for food would trump evil. Laws are codified guide to conduct.

[@dragonf1092]

Second amendment doesn't give the local, state, federal, judicial governments any legal authority over guns period.

[@crazysquirrel9425]

No part of the constitution does.

[@waaynneb1808]

It specifically prohibits it, as in the wording: Shall NOT be Infringed

[@crazysquirrel9425]

@@waaynneb1808 And yet we have HOW MANY gun control laws? HOW MANY Court decisions stripping gun rights or limiting them?

[@waaynneb1808]

@@crazysquirrel9425agreed. that's what happens when we allow govt. to dictate what their limitations are... Things need to change. the Supreme Courts (both States' and Federal) MUST be filled with Judges that hold to literal interpretation rather than sway Political. THAT is supposed to be We the People's safety/ sanity controls against politicians that will always want to push their own agenda.

[@waaynneb1808]

I was absolutely aghast how this latest Justice (KBJ) was allowed into such a position. Her record of decisions is VERY WEAK regarding upholding traditional/ literal reading of our Founding documents

[@55Quirll]

The Constitution was the blueprint for the Federal Government, it put chains on and told it what it was permitted to do. Since people wrote it, why would they put limits on themselves? Common sense and the laws in the book did that. The sad part is the Federal Government is saying that the Constitution puts limits on the people and gives the Government unlimited power - see the Commerce Clause.

[@user-we4es3sv9u]

Cursory examination of the foundational basis for an armed citizenry proves that the 2nd Amendment is addressing and supporting the right of the people to defend themselves and their country. The language can be dated without weakening it's meaning; i.e. "well regulated" in that era meant "well practiced, proficient". It's not hard to verify this fact. Up until the late 19th century, the term "well regulated" meant as I quoted above, "well practiced and proficient". This reference was to rifle and pistol sights of that day. Obviously, the meaning was as I described, but some choose to avoid digging more deeply into the terminology of the late 18th Century. The predicate "The Right of the People...." was assuring that the initial and opening clause of the 2nd Amendment would address the universal nature of the remaining clause, that being "The Right of the People....". To even suggest any other meaning, even if based on warped "translation" of the first clause, would be folly. The true meaning (and that is still true to this day) implied the supreme necessity that the Colonials be proficient with their firearms, whether for self defense (something taken for granted in those days) fighting invaders, (more likely, fighting potential oppression) or for putting meat on the dinner table.

[@kelleycoon2070]

Shall not be infringed means what it says. The founders knew this day would be coming.

[@davidav8orpflanz561]

1st part is a pre-quaification for the 2nd part - and ignored!

[@rogercarroll8764]

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a right which pre-existed to formation of governments. Like the the freedom of speech and religion, Any government has to recognize that these rights exist outside of government and held by the people themselves. It takes more than words on paper, the people must defend those rights AGAINST any form of government. All governments must eventually try to usurp those rights. By distorting or lying, all governments try to make citizens ignorant of what rights we retain.

[@RM-lk1so]

See the current educational system. The Indoctrination of the students I'm the schools. Get involved with the local educational system..

[@Au_Ag_ratio5021]

citizens have privileges and immunities.

[@alwaysfreedom9354]

@@RM-lk1so Education ended in the US when my World War Two vet teachers retired. Decades ago. Young Americans do not even know FDR refused to save any Jews and starved Americans. He punished farmers for not plowing crops under as children ate out of garbage cans in the big cities. Look up the Wickard v Filburn Supreme Court case under FDR. FDR put known racists on the Supreme Court. Young Americans know none of this. FDR called Stalin Uncle Joe and Blood Brother. Stalin starved millions of his own people.

[@johnliggitt3002]

A bit lopsided nowadays, the general population has become ambivalent and lazy. We cannot sit by idly and watch politicians ( government) take something away from us that was never”given “ but endowed by the sheer fact of being a private citizen with GOD GIVEN RIGHTS to protect ourselves from enemies, especially a tyrannical government or enemies within or without! GOD BLESS AMERICA!🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

[@AdvisoryScientist]

Section 10, Clause 3, No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, . . . Only Congress can provide for calling out and organizing the militia. Second Amendment, December 15, 1791: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State " does not provide consent, power, or authority for states to keep troops or form militias. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." does not grant a Right; it prohibits the government from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Many people conflate the 2nd Amendment (1791) with the Militia Acts of 1792: 1792 - Militia Acts Congress exercises the power in Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 to pass two militia acts: The May 2, 1792 act provided to the President, authority to call out the militia. The National Guard is the Moliia. The May 8, 1792 act provided for organizing the militia and required, “That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket . . .”. The Militia and “The right of the people to keep and bear arms . . .” are unrelated. They do not depend on each other.

[@prof113]

By the way, the fact that our citizenry is armed has been a deterent to our enemies when they considered taking physical possession of our land. I think we need to think need to spend more time remembering our history than trying to tear down our future by regressing to a nanny state.

[@RPMTreVietnam]

The government is not the source of anybody’s rights. It would be childish and ridiculous to think or act as if it were true.

[@joelquinn6840]

We the People have the final say, PERIOD. Thats why we elect representatives and a jury is made up of the People. Im a peace officer NOT a law enforcement officer. My job is to protect people and property and keep the peace NOT hunt ppl down and nickel and dime them for every arbitrary dictate. Oh, and every [restrictive] gun law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[@Arclight1988]

I find it funny that the only people who have a hard time understanding what the Second Amendment means are the ones who want to scrap the whole thing. Im always 'shocked' by that.

[@barrykennedy9947]

The important is straight forward. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[@davidav8orpflanz561]

What about the pre-qualification to be in a State elected officials WELL REGULATED Militia? Read Federalist Paper #29.

[@TexasPapa13]

@@davidav8orpflanz561stop copy and pasting things you didn’t read. Well regulated meant well equipped and in good working order in the 1700s. This is well documented.

[@davidav8orpflanz561]

@TexasPapa13 No copy & Pasting, reading and reciting actual references (Federalist Paper #29 about the Militia)...Alexander Hamilton's ideas as was legal notice procedure and publically published in NY NEWSPAPERS of what "Well Regulated" meant to him, and the Founding Fathers, and all who ratified the US CONSTITUTION. Don't know where you are getting your information from about "well equiped" ,etc unless it's opinion NRA magazine articles? But, praytell, which Founding Father was it, and cite the document too? Inquiring minds want to know!

[@frostriver8686]

“So long as people will submit to arbitrary measures, so long will they find masters" -James Otis, Jr.

[@josephbicknell6522]

I was really impressed until you got to the police. Like an uncle telling you things and all of a sudden he wants to show you where the aliens probed him.

[@josephbicknell6522]

I can just see responding to someone with a rifle as an active shooter. The cops arrive and they say to each other do you have your revolver ready?

[@josephbicknell6522]

The police are not a hostile force imposing their will upon the people by stolen taxes. They are necessary to enforce the laws enacted by the people through their representatives. Or did you think people were perfect and would obey the law?

[@josephbicknell6522]

You really fumbled the ending.

[@gregoryholliday6017]

The founders were consistent with INDIVIDUAL rights when they CONISTENTLY used the "PEOPLE". No ambiguity.

[@jasoncarter455]

The second amendment should have started with An armed citizenry being necessary to the security of a free state

[@macduece2112]

Yo Jason, FYI: the word "citizenry" needs to be Upper Case as a lower case "C" demonstrates your station as second class citizen or 14th Amendment citizen.

[@rchris77nd]

It's basically just the way language has changed over the years. In the times of our forefathers well regulated meant well maintained and militia meant the people. If you ask me it's been purposely misdefined more and more over the years by people who oppose it.

[@Soravia]

If a person cannot protect his natural rights with lethal force, he only has permissions granted by those who can impose one way shooting range on his life.

[@JacobJohnston827]

The sentence structure of the 2nd Amendment is quite clear once you realize that at the time of its writing, there was no distinction between the people and the militia, every person capable of picking up a gun that was not part of the standing army, was by definition at the time, a member of the militia. The word regulated was not how its defined today. At the time, a regulator was a mechanical devices that is still around today designed to prevent pressure systems from getting overwhelmed and damaged. Just because people rewrote the dictionary does not mean the constitution as been changed. its not one of the recognized means in article 5 by which the constitution can be amended. If you want to use modern definitions, the second amendment would read "A well functioning armed citizenry being necessary for the security of a free state, the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

[@richardc6269]

The State government would be the caretakers for the militia. Regulations would be imposed. This isn't difficult, crazies make it difficult. Idr what year the Supreme Court ruled it was ok for everyone to carry a weapon. The gun manufacturers were in bed with them at the time.

[@wizzard4063]

Im also tired of people misquoting Heller. It does NOT say we have a right to bear arms for self defense. It say thst we have a right to arms, "in common use for TRADITIONALLY LAWFUL PURPOSES, like self defense..." Self defense was an example of a lawful purpose, just one example.

[@ralphw7950]

The wording of the 2nd amendment was chosen very carefully, to ensure the government does not infringe on this very important right.

[@parajerry]

The founders said that the Constitution (and by extension, the BoR) are written for an educated, moral people. Most of the 'people' are no longer educated or moral. Ripe for tyranny.

[@ChasePhifer-hj3wl]

If you could write another amendment to the constitution or another piece to the Bill of Rights, what would you add?

[@rebeltrucking3768]

No party lines..... Just a Man running for an Office, it would be less corrupt

[@hondosmith3172]

That lawmakers are barred from taking money from special interests or investing in the industries they legislate. Somehow, we can't have legislation for sale to the highest bidder.

[@rdsii64]

The 2A doesn't grant you the right to keep and bear arms. The 2A acknowledges that this is a natural right and it forbids the government from infringing on that right. Even with out the 2A the framers held the belief that it was a natural right and shouldn't be subject to the political winds. The reason the bill of rights even exists is because they didn't think the constitution addressed these issues properly.

[@luddite4change449]

Fact 8. To the founders the hundreds of thousands of armed federal officers would be considered an Army.

[@zeusmaster6379]

Rights always take precedent over government…the way the founders intended

[@jhutch1470]

Well, they used to anyway.

[@RM-lk1so]

BC George stole all the rights of the people. Hence America was born

[@andyfletcher3561]

I object strenuously to the term ''guns'' as relates to the Second Amendment. It CLEARLY states ''ARMS''. As to phony terms and conditions, there are none. It holds NO limitations.''...The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED''. It really can't be any clearer. It only becomes muddled when being circumvented.

[@Wrangler808]

⚠️When the government tells you that you don’t need a gun, YOU NEED A GUN!!!

[@rangersmith4652]

2A can't conceivably refer to a governmental right because governments have no rights. Governments have powers and authorities, not rights.

[@sinjin6219]

And the entire Constitution, including the amendments, limits what the GOVERNMENT can do. It clearly states what Congress is and is not allowed to do. It does not limit what the PEOPLE can do.

[@rangersmith4652]

@@sinjin6219 Exactly right, wrt Congress but also to the other branches.

[@alwaysfreedom9354]

Yes. I have told people that many times over the decades. They are human rights!

[@wdblackman]

Our inalienable rights exist because we exist. It is inherit to our nature as human beings. Each of us has the right and power to defend those rights, using any means necessary, from any entity that seeks to destroy or remove any of our rights. As a nation of people, we combine our powers to create an organization that should attempt to protect those rights and powers on a more effective scale. We are the creator of government-it is our creation. The creation cannot supersede the creator. The government cannot do anything more than what we have power to do individually. Therefore the creation cannot say to the creator, “I will limit your power because you have created me.” To be the check against that delegated power from being used tyrannically against us, the 2A was enumerated to establish the fact that we can defend ourselves and the method we utilize to do this collectively is called a militia. So, the militia is the people-all people are the militia. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789 "...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..." - James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788 “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788 "This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." - St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803 "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." - Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

[@hawkeyeinthehouse2995]

GOD BLESS YOU FOR YOUR EXTENSIVE EXPLANATION WHY THE 2nd AMENDMENT IS SO IMPORTANT. EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE TO READ YOUR COMMENT.😉😁👍🙏🎯 ON POINT.😁

[@EarlHayward]

Now that you have regurgitated all that, explain the relevance as the Bill of Rights didn’t apply to State governments until the passage of the 14th Amendment… I bring this up because everything you shared was in relation to the Federal government, not State government… Specifically, the protections in the Constitution was all to limit the Federal government as such a powerful, centralized, Federal government was feared… Don’t take this the wrong way, I am former Navy, own many firearms, and appreciate our 2nd Amendment (but, find the 14th Amendment more important)! Point is, you cannot really talk about the 2nd Amendment these days without also understanding the 14th and what Senator Howard (who wrote the Amendment) asserted during his speeches in Congress in 1866… Understanding that will help one understand the intent of the 2nd, probably more than all that which you put in your comment!

[@jhutch1470]

@@EarlHayward The explanation is in the 10th amendment.

[@wdblackman]

@@EarlHayward all rights enumerated in the Constitution before and after the 14th Amendment applied to any level government. That is the nature of an inalienable right. It is a right that has always existed and will continue to exist. The Constitution merely dictates these in law to expressly define how governments should or should not act. No city, county, state or federal government can violate any of our rights. You think that any of those wise men who tirelessly fought to define the Constitution thought “Well, our new federal government won’t be able to silence us, but I guess it’s ok if the state of New York can”? That’s asinine. They didn’t want any entity (individual or government) to silence them, prevent them from defending themselves, or take their property.

[@davidav8orpflanz561]

No "Inalienable rights" in the US Constitution to be protected, just the ones WE THE PEOPLE decide we want to have.

[@davidpowell6258]

I believe that our 2nd amendment may have came about because we had the French American Indian War and after the brutal war the British confiscated arms and not just the arms issued. This left some individuals not able to hunt or protect themselves. Later we had to go to war with the British not well armed. I believe no amendment has been violated more often by our states and country and upheld by courts misinterpreting the peoples right to keep and bear arms than any other amendment in our constitution.

[@stanwooddave9758]

From SCOTUS Justice Thomas, in a dissenting opinion in a case **Stenberg v. Carhart,** 530 U.S. 914 (2000,) “partial-birth abortion” case: he wrote “ prior to 1989, the term *‘Assault Weapon’* did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term, developed by Anti Gun Publicist.”

[@rrussell9731]

"An armed society is a polite society." This is obviously true. More people are armed now than ever before and we have certainly become more poliite.

[@ssnerd583]

....only in SOME places in the country.....many places are badly out of control and assuredly NOT 'polite' in any way, shape, or form!! Texas = YES MOST of Florida?? = NO!

[@alightinthedarkages9494]

Only to the extent that good everyday people are largely armed. Where they are not, criminals and gangs victimize the unarmed sheep all around them on a regular basis. I.e. Democrat-run shithole cities with the strictest gun laws.

[@alwaysfreedom9354]

I do know the gun crime rate is down in the last 55 years. With a few Socialist Democrat cities not included. Also, there were a lot of Jews wishing they had tools of freedom. As FDR refused to save any of them.

[@ChiefCabioch]

The "well regulated militia" meant arms should be well maintained and accurate, and sufficient ammo.

[@corneliusbartholemew6725]

Wrong

[@ChiefCabioch]

@corneliusbartholemew6725 well genius, what did "well regulated" mean in 1789?.....it meant accurate and ready at a moments notice, btw genius the courts agree.....you lose.

[@alwaysfreedom9354]

@@corneliusbartholemew6725 The only time the Supreme Court ruled against the human right to own and carry tools of freedom was when FDR had stuffed the Court with known racists. They also allowed FDR to have his own Nazi-like race-based concentration camps! The SCOTUS also allowed another racist Democrat to get more unconstitutional gun laws. We now have a less racist Supreme Court that supports our Bill of Rights. There are more than 120 million gun owners and more guns than people in the US. We will keep our guns. Tools of freedom. In my state we have law enforcement pros telling us to carry guns! "If someone breaks into your home, blow him back out the door!" "If you have to shoot, shoot him a lot! I want to read the newspaper through him!" Reporters asked him why his officers shot a man so many times. His answer was, "They ran out of bullets!"

[@robN64]

If the “rights” in the Bill,of Rights are conferred by government, then OF COURSE the government can take them away. That’s why those rights have always been seen as “natural” or God given rights. Man (humans) in nature has those rights by virtue of his/her humanity, not through the sufferance of any person or group outside his/her person.

[@andrewchan5153]

I would word the 2nd Amendment differently so that it would be timeless: The rights of the people to arm themselves with various armaments of various caliber and capabilities, shall not be infringed. For armaments exceeding certain destructive capabilities, lincensing, training, screening, and legal liabilities education may be imposed. There should be no limits as to what the "armaments" may consist of, and the more destructive an armament is, the more stringent the process of acquiring it should be. There shall be no conscription of any kind in the United States of America." That way We The People can own a F-16 or a tank fully loaded with ordnances. That way, full fledged deterrance against tyranny and invasion can be acheived as opposed to only having small arms. Also, the ban on conscription goes along with the 13th Amendment ban on involuntary servitude, although certain SCOTUS judges have their own spin on what "involuntary servitude" constitutes when the legalize the military draft.