Second Amendment (Advanced Level)

In this session, students will engage in a conversation on the #SecondAmendment, and its protection of the right to keep and bear arms. This exchange introduces students to different viewpoints and debates surrounding the Second Amendment by using the National Constitution Center’s Interactive Constitution. Students will analyze the Second Amendment’s text and history, how the Second Amendment shaped its core protections, and how the #SupremeCourt has interpreted it over time. Through these discussions, students will build understanding of the resources and methods used by Supreme Court justices and constitutional scholars when analyzing and forming opinions this provision. Students will identify key points of agreement and disagreement from essays by #constitutional scholars, be able to trace the historic development of the Second Amendment, and use evidence from the readings to explore modern interpretation of the Second Amendment.
Find more resources on this topic: constitutioncenter.org/intera...
Register for upcoming classes: constitutioncenter.org/intera...
Visit our media library to discover more online classes, podcasts, and Town Hall conversations: constitutioncenter.org/intera...
Subscribe to the National Constitution Center on KZbin: kzbin.info...
Follow the National Constitution Center on social media!
Facebook: / constitutionctr
Twitter: / constitutionctr
Instagram: / constitutionctr
Sign up for our newsletter: visitor.r20.constantcontact.c...

[@raymarchetta7551]

Held: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm UNCONNECTED with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. - Heller, 2008.

[@rkba4923]

The phrase, "in the home" is not in the Second Amendment, however, even though idiots like Sleepy Joe try to convince us the 2A is about the right to hunt deer in our living rooms.

[@bulrydrdan]

The militia was the free people not a standing armies because history would have shown that once we had a standing army citizens wouldn't be allowed to own firearms.

[@bobbywise2313]

​@@bulrydrdanThat is correct. It is interesting to look at several of the draft of the amendment before the finalized version was made. I think some of the drafts were actually better written.

[@enchentez]

​@bobbywise2313 where can I find these early drafts?

[@bobbywise2313]

@@enchentez I have seen them when I was searching the history of the second amendment. A quick Google search of early drafts of the second amendment should get you there.

[@Dragontron20]

It in fact protects all arms. Swords, guns, bats, everything.

[@FUCKTHEFASCISTSCONTROLLINGYT]

Stun guns, as we saw in the Caetano ruling in 2016 too.

[@rkba4923]

"Every terrible implement of the soldier," and "arms usual in the regular service." - Tench Coxe and Thomas Jefferson, respectively.

[@rkba4923]

Arms: Any Thing that may be used for offensive or defensive purposes; usu. refers to WEAPONS OF "WA...," uh, MILITARY UTILITY. Archaic: Weapons of Offence, or Armour of Defence. (sic)

[@jimsilvey5432]

That being the case, why can't I own or sell fully automatic weapons ? Also, though I am not sure about this, but I think my access to explosives is limited.

[@rkba4923]

@@jimsilvey5432 Because we have been unlawfully deprived of our right to "every terrible implement of the soldier," and "arms usual in the regular service," by oath breaking, usurpers in our OUTLAW GOVERNMENTS!!!

[@BenTheThird]

‘Arms’ includes armor for defense… such as ceramic plate body armor.

[@dustinmark6808]

Absolutely correct otherwise our speech could be interpreted to only apply 2 ink quils and parchment

[@1Chandranath]

Arms is defined as weapons and ammunition. So technically no it doesn't.

[@dustinmark6808]

@@1Chandranath nope for legal purposes today's bs meanings don't apply only the meaning when the original laws or constitution applies silly billy

[@BenTheThird]

@@1Chandranath Incorrect. Here is the technical definition: "Anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands, or uses in his anger, to cast at or strike at another."

[@1Chandranath]

@@BenTheThird double incorrect. The definition I used is from Oxford Languages. Creators of the Oxford dictionary and other dictionaries in more than 50 languages.

[@joykeebler1916]

Arms - being 'capitalized' - "exclusively": All the kinds of Weaponry: that would be necessary - for the 'domestic' and 'national' defense.

[@s.evanhowie1416]

In 1933 the National Guard was federalized as a reserve component of the US Army. It is essentially the army at the state level, but can be deployed outside of the country in times of war. The militia is a separate entity…

[@wowbagger3505]

We are still all in the Militia. I would argue today all women are in the Militia too!

[@nathandennis8078]

​@@wowbagger3505incorrect

[@rkba4923]

@@wowbagger3505 the unorganized militia yes, but the organized militia, no.

[@user-dz7wv6fi5l]

@@nathandennis8078, I guess u missed the part that says the people right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Pretty clear whatever way u want to spin the part about a well regulated militia. That part does not mean what those of you on the left say either. We have a God given right to bear arms.

[@nathandennis8078]

@user-dz7wv6fi5l yeah and it says that bur the original intent was clearly meant for militia men in the military not an individual right. There's 2 drafts of the 2nd amendment before the finalized version was made. That's what the founders had in mind

[@Roger-ws8rj]

I really love how when people bring up weapons that are in common use as for reasons to be acceptable into the public, they fail to realize that a bazooka (for example) is in common use in the military, the military which is what we need to defend ourselves against in case of a hostile government which is why we need the second amendment and why it protects all arms.

[@rsr789]

The USAF has thermonuclear ICBMs, which regular citizenry have access to them too? You see the slippery slope, yes?

[@franmoore8811]

​@@rsr789First of all private entities do "own" nukes until they are transfered to the federal government. So if a corporation can own a nuke why not an individual? Clearly there are challenges for an individual to build a nuke and yes there is a question of what defensive purpose that weapon of mass destructiob would serve. My view is a nuclear weapon isn't an individual "arm"...it isn't used to protect against an individual aggressor so it is different from a bazooka. The entire "common use" rule is completely made up. The framers knew there would be advancements in firearm technology and by definition a new technology has no "historical" precedent nor is it "common"...and yet revolvers, guns using bullets, semiautomatic weapons etc were all "uncommon" when they were first developed. The idea that "arms" only applied to what was commonly used at the time the Amendment was ratified is just as illogical as the "common use" condition...a condition nowhere even implied under the 2nd Amendment

[@bigtobacco1098]

@@rsr789 no...not really common use .... and full auto is regulated ... bad try

[@vKILLZ0NEv]

@@rsr789 "Has" is not the same as "in common use", you see the flaw in your question, yes?

[@theyhateme8763]

when it was written normal folks could own canons.. try reading history

[@andybreglia9431]

When the sheriff calls up a posse, he is effectively activating elements of the constitutional militia.

[@jamesherron9969]

The whole Bill of Rights was written after the constitution constitution deals with the government powers, and how it will operate. The bill of rights are additional limits on the power and non-negotiable rights of the people.

[@dragonf1092]

The bill of rights is the constitution, they are amendments to the constitution of the united states of America supreme law of the land.

[@geoffreywood5808]

Those Rights are NONnegotiable!

[@melgillham462]

Actually not, the B.O.R. was prerequisite to ratification of the constitution therefore numbered 1-10. None would sign it unless these were first and foremost.

[@jamesherron9969]

@@melgillham462 excuse me, sir, you need to go look at the dates on that the Bill of Rights was the first amendment to the constitution. Two years after the constitution was signed, putting it for years after independence was Gained Date of independence 1776 signing of the US Constitution 1787 ratification of the Bill of Rights, 1791. These are the three dates that you should know, sir.

[@jamesherron9969]

@@geoffreywood5808 You are 100% correct nonnegotiable and alienable rights granted to all living creatures

[@dragonf1092]

US supreme Court "The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since it's unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment... In legal contemplation it is as inoperative as if it had never been passed... Since an unconstitutional law is void the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it. A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supercede any existing law. Indeed insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land (the constitution)it is superceded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." Bonnet V. Vallier, 16 NW. 885,136 Wis. 193(1908) Norton V. Shelby county,118 US 425(1886). Heller and anything on should all be moot,null and void. This case precedes heller and everything after heller, the NFA, GCA and all illegal unconstitutional gun control laws should all be null and void not legally binding enforceable laws.

[@dwwolf4636]

No. Bruen is a paint by numbers approach of How they approached their 2A methodology to get to the Heller decision and expands its usage beyond arms ban cases ( in this case applied the carrying of fire arms outside of the home and CC permits). It cites and affirms Heller favorably dozens of times. It also destroys interest weighing and restricts the historical record to ca. 1810 for restrictions and limits the rest of history to affirmations of the 2ndA. Arms ban cases have been dealt with by Staples, Heller and Caetano.

[@nathandennis8078]

What does shall not be infringed mean?

[@afnDavid]

To me this is beginner to intermediate level mainly because they only present a superficial and incomplete explanation of what the 2nd is, how it came about, or what inspired our founding fathers. I had much higher expectations, when I saw "Advanced Level." Quite disappointed.

[@commonsenseskeptic]

By the five minute mark, this video fall flat on its face. Your "expert" completely misses the mark.

[@jamesherron9969]

Yeah, the problem with the National Guard and early 1900s was the founding fathers only intended for Americans to defend our country not go around the world attacking a foreign countries but again the main reason for the first paragraph of the second amendment was to ensure the sovereignty of the state from the federal government

[@dragonf1092]

To ensure the sovereignty of the people, the people each and every American citizen are the state. Not politicians, judges, district attorney's, prosecutors,law enforcement.

[@Leslie-es5ij]

Trouble is the national guard has been used against the people many times in favor of the few.

[@dragonf1092]

@@jamesherron9969 yep I read it all the time Article 4 section 2 paragraph 1 The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. Second amendment 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. Amendment 14 section 1 No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states. 9th amendment The enumeration in the constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. 10th amendment The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution,nor prohibited by it to the states,are reserved to the states respectively,"OR TO THE PEOPLE". Abridge Curtail (a right or privilege),to reduce in scope, diminish, Deprive.

[@dragonf1092]

@@jamesherron9969 we the people are the state each and every American citizen.

[@dragonf1092]

@@jamesherron9969 the constitution is by the people, for the people, Of the people.

[@andybreglia9431]

"Well regulated" in the context of 1790 era means well trained and skilled. Today, this is one of the functions of the municipal rifle range and local rifle instructors. We are talking shooting skills and not dismounted drill and other trappings of a standing Army.

[@stuartgray5877]

And that they had your name and a way to contact you. If your name is not on a list somewhere you are NOT "In a militia".

[@anthonyshaddox7594]

The flaw in the legal arguments for the interpretation of the second amendment by the academic community. Case in point: English Common Law. The founding fathers and the colonists were English citizens beholding to English Common Law. In the Declaration of Independance all points listed showed where the English King was violating The Law. For example: it had been unlawful for the English king to barracks troops on private property since the 12th century. Example two: After the battle of Hastings in the war with William the Conqueror, some of William's descendance became so corrupt English Citizens were being killed because of their corruption. The people forced up on the king The Right of Lawful Rebellion. Where in if the government became so corrupt it was causing citizens the loss of their lives, the people had the right to take up arms and remove the corrupt government from power restoring Law and Order (Yes, this means bloodshed.) This is what the founders of our country did in the hostilities that created our nation. Armed private citizens removing corrupt government from power. The argument of gun control advocates breaks this right. It is interesting how Academia presents its information as if none of these issues ever occurred before in the entirety of history and only became a problem that America had to address.

[@anthonyshaddox7594]

@@NSOcarth And, what does English History say?

[@anthonyshaddox7594]

It appears you're injecting a side argument here. Just because I didn't post the history of Heller, doesn't mean I know nothing about History nor about Heller. After reviewing my previous comment, nothing in my statement dismisses Heller nor uses it. It was not the subject matter of my discussion. Your gross overgeneralization about what I may know and your assumption of facts not presented seems like you're sidetracking my statement and reasoning fallaciously. According to our founders, and English Common Law, Citizens have a duty to remove corrupt government from power. Academia tends to not teach this anymore. This doesn't dismiss Heller and I see nothing in my statement that even implies that. You know what happens when you ass/u/me.

[@anthonyshaddox7594]

@@NSOcarth You assumed what I do not know. I'm 62 I know about Heller, I've training in statistics. I've been a Municipal government employee for 26 years. I've worked with the police and attorneys for the city as well. Your deduction has insufficient information. Nothing I stated takes anything away from Heller. Perhaps you could learn about the History of English Common Law and actually see that it is taught in Constitutional Law classes of both the U.S and England. I've also been around firearms all of my life. I'm an avid defender of a citizen's right to protect their lives with lethal force if necessary. Your absence of Evidence argument is a fallacy.

[@anthonyshaddox7594]

@@NSOcarth "IF you know Heller you know the book that was credited with the decision." Ahh, no. You can know Heller without reading the book by Malcom. Now, if you want a thorough understanding of the sources: sure. The Law itself is defined. While I've read the law of Heller, I did not go read Malcom's book. However, I am aware of some of the statistics. I've also read the CDC report on violent crime commissioned by then President Obama who was not happy with the results of the statistics. Statistics such as three percent of all murders in the U.S. are done with rifles. There are six rifle types of which the semi auto is one of six of those types. The requirement that any individual can't understand an issue unless they read a specific book is simply not realistic, because they can come to many of the same conclusions by actually looking at the data.

[@anthonyshaddox7594]

@@NSOcarth All right I can agree with that :)

[@ljsmooth69]

now what do you think local protection to national protection means? and yes they are two completely different things.

[@Angl0sax0nknight]

Common use and dangerous and unusual weapons isn’t found anywhere in the Constitution. So how can that be used as a deciding factor? Considering that anyone could design and build any weapon they wanted to. Also Cannons and war ships were in private hands. In my opinion is if the government can use it then the PEOPLE can also.

[@rogerclark9285]

Article one , section 8 outlines the powers retained by the federal government. Clause 11 To declare war. To issue letters of Marque and Reprisal. to make rules concerning captures on land and water. Not only did civilians have the right to possess military grade weapons, the government expected that they would.

[@leftyshawenuph4026]

It doesn't make much sense for a militia to show up for a gun fight armed with knives, does it? If the militia(s) are denied access to comparable weapons, then there really is no point to the 2nd amendment.

[@rsr789]

​@@rogerclark9285 Yes, 'military grade weapons' of 1791: Muskets, flintlock pistols, and single-shot hand-loaded canons. You are more than welcome to won all of those in their original 1791 context per Madison's words. What one cannot do is somehow translate that to the radically changed modern 'military grade weapons', like ICBM's, Jet fighters, long range nuclear bombers, etc... there is a reason why no individual should have any of those.

[@rogerclark9285]

@@rsr789 "Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35-36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding. Opinion of the Supreme Court, DC v Heller, 2008

[@chrisfreebairn870]

It's a joke to argue the 2nd from the founders perspective, except to understand how it arose; the modem military, state & federal, is constrained wrt being used to tyrannise the ppl, & no legal militia now exist; numerous examples show what happens when nutjobs decide to take on the state; it is abundantly clear the thing needs rewritten for modern life. The greatest threat of modern tyranny is from the GOP, their wannabe dictator DJT (who casually misused the military to get his upside down bible photo), & their willingness to cozy up to crazies like those currently receiving multi year sentences for seditious conspiracy bc they acted on the big lie lie promulgated by DJT & the maggats. He has shown you how to lose your democracy; through disinformation, lies, disrespect for the spirit & letter of the law & preparedness to use violence for political gain in service of personal egotism disguised as patriotism. If you can't address that elephant in the room all concerns about the 2nd will be irrelevant, except insofar as the death toll when the shit really hits the fan. All this crap about the purpose of the 2nd from the very ppl trying to undermine your democracy from within. Time to update the conception of the risks to democracy from those that were conceivable 200 years ago, don't you think?

[@prepperdan]

Maybe the 2nd amendment is not needed "today" but who knows in 20 or 50 or 100 years due to incrementalism of laws and society maybe our children will need these powers. There may be a time when the government turns on the people in such a way that an uprising may be necessary. These rights must be protected

[@gordonadams5891]

Keep in mind the Constitution provides for putting down insurrection (Article 2). President Washington drove the point home by leading militia to put down the Whiskey Rebellion. The framers never considered the Second Amendment as a self destruct button.

[@kurtkuhne1260]

Well they've been incrementally for well over 100yrs now already. times almost up...!

[@davezemba9109]

Buddy we are already there. We don't need to wait 50 years.

[@FUCKTHEFASCISTSCONTROLLINGYT]

​@@gordonadams5891Kerp in mind that the British (our central government at the time) said singing thre Declaration was treason... Believe me.. that should be an absolute last resort, but that is one of the main purposes of the second amendment. .. to ensure that the right of the people to be armed to protect their freedom from who ever threatened it. Foreign or domestic.

[@mandi7888]

The government has already turned on the people our federal taxes being used to fund another country's war , funding chinese bio weapons research and spy agencies being used to invade the lives of law abiding citizens without any evidence of criminal activity.

[@chriscarey8336]

I may be wrong as Im not an English scholar but I read this to be two independent sentences joined together first you have to”a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state shall not be infringed” the second I read “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed”. I would love to hear the thoughts of an English major on this interpretation.

[@stuartgray5877]

I have often said that it is the WORST written sentence in the entire document.

[@vKILLZ0NEv]

That's how I read it. Reads like a list of things that shall not be infringed.

[@jimjersey2345]

When will the scotus rule on nonviolent felons 2A rights ??? Like the Range case or Williams case ?

[@YFR888]

I understood that the Militia was the whole of the population, all of us are the Militia

[@thogevoll]

A militia does not have to be overly formal. The founders defined it as all able bodied males 18 to 46 years of age.

[@rsr789]

I wish people would read as to how Madison came upon the Bill of Rights and what his process was PRIOR to their creation in September 25, 1789. The missives between Madison and the States demonstrate that the worry was a standing army and NOT that individual citizens could own muskets and flintlock pistols. As such, there is a very good reason why Scalia in his majority opinion in Heller 554 U.S. 570 (2008), of 30 single-spaced pages, referenced Madison's communication with the States and how the decision to include arms and militias as one of the amendments came about, for it would have detrimental to his opinion.

[@rsr789]

@@NSOcarth Your response has nothing to do with what I posted. so... 🤷🏻‍♂

[@rsr789]

@@NSOcarth You responded to the comment I made, not the other way around. You sound mentally unsound, you should be banned from owning firearms.

[@rsr789]

@@NSOcarth Thank you for proving my point. Only someone mentally unsound wants those who are mentally unsound from owning firearms. BTW, the government has the ability to take away our ownership of firearms, and this would be a perfectly sensible reason.

[@bobbywise2313]

​@@rsr789When you say, "has the ability" what exactly do you mean? Keep in mind the second amendment does not give anyone the right the bear arms. It rather says the right can not be infringed. The right is totally independent from our federal government and thanks to the 14th amendment our state governments. I have mixed feelings about that part of the 14th amendment myself but it is our current law of the land.

[@DarthVaderTheSithLord]

You do realize that in Madison's notes the day that he introduced the Bill of Rights, he referenced such rights as relating "first to private rights", correct?

[@seancastle5971]

Tackling the idea that bazookas aren't protected under the 2nd amendment. Arms had a definition during the founding era. So start by looking at that. A bazooka is an offensive armament that can be easily carried by one man. The term "dangerous" and "usual" is a misrepresentation of an affray. As in use of an arm in a dangerous and unusual way.

[@TeranRealtor]

@@NSOcarth 2A at it's core is about We The People bringing from home, the types of weapons we'll need if we get called together to form up a milita. For that militia to be "well regulated" (equiped, skilled, trained) - We The People hace to already OWN fully auto weapons that we have practiced with. Bazookas that we have practiced with. Cannons that we have practiced with. ........ and that we can bring from HOME. Not from some "militia storehouse" that a tyrant can raid when he decides to do tyrant things.

[@michaelneal7377]

Thanks for uploading this video I appreciate it

[@jimjersey2345]

I have a nonviolent felony in Kentucky i had expunged. I now live in Louisiana. What do i do to restore my 2A rights ? Do i have to do it in Kentucky ? Or can i apply in Louisiana ?

[@user-rf3cn2ou3x]

The constitution of the United States of America , along with each amendment should be taught in schools across the country, why this hasn't been done is a testimony of what the government has become. The 2a is needed today more than ever before. It is the only thing that keeps the government from total control of us.

[@dragonf1092]

The second amendment Text explicitly states THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE, therefore protects every single American citizen whether they are a felon or not or a law abiding citizen or not.

[@franmoore8811]

Except the ability to deny rights (voting, fredom of association, AND gun ownership" after a conviction as long as the government respects due process rights has long been established. This requirement for due process is why I am convinced "red flag" laws that don't require a conviction after a jury trial for violation of a pertinent statute violate the Constitution. This should apply to mental illness (mental competency) as well..

[@dragonf1092]

@@franmoore8811 due process of law is a trial by jury not a judge,law enforcement or politician saying this person or that person. And the court only has authority to temporarily limit the second amendment rights of a citizen only when they are imprisoned for committing a actual crime.

[@dragonf1092]

@@franmoore8811 all gun control laws are unconstitutional they all Infringe upon the constitutionally protected rights (liberties, privileges, immunities)of American citizens. Background checks are illegal unconstitutional discrimination picking and choosing who can or cannot have and exercise their constitutionally protected second amendment rights. They violate not only the second amendment but background checks violate article 4 section 2 paragraph 1 and the 14th amendment of the constitution of the united states of America supreme law of the land. Gun free zones are unconstitutional infringements everywhere in the continental united states of America is covered and protected by the constitution of the united states of America supreme law of the land every square inch is protected under the second amendment, article 4 section 2 paragraph 1,9th amendment,14th amendment section 1, therefore to make any place illegal to possess or Cary any weapons would be unconstitutional. Red flag laws are unconstitutional infringements depriving American citizens discriminating picking and choosing who can or can't possess or Cary a gun. Licenses/permits are unconstitutional no American citizen needs permission from anyone to possess or Cary any weapons (arms) anywhere in the united states of America,all natural born citizens and naturalized citizens have the constitutionally protected rights, liberties, privileges, immunities to keep and bear arms. The constitution Text explicitly states shall not be Infringed therefore denying all government officials whether local/state/federal/judicial from violating or taking it away. 14th amendment section 1 does so as well NO STATE SHALL MAKE OR ENFORCE ANY LAW WHICH SHALL ABRIDGE THE PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES. Article 4 section 2 paragraph 1 states the citizens in each state have the same rights and privileges as citizens in the several states. all American citizens no matter what state they live in have the same equal rights as any other citizen in the united states of America, therefore denying any citizen because they are labeled a felon is unconstitutional therefore illegal. All gun control laws are unconstitutional infringements therefore illegal null and void, not legally binding enforceable laws.

[@dragonf1092]

@@franmoore8811 no citizen can be denied the right to vote,if any state does so they are committing crimes in violation of the 15th amendment. Jail/prison is a previous condition of servitude therefore to deny any American citizen because they are labeled a felon their constitutionally protected rights to vote is a crime.

[@dragonf1092]

@@franmoore8811 no government officials have any legal lawful authority whatsoever to deny any citizen to associate with anyone.

[@jamesherron9969]

The term arms comes from the military at the time militaries and commanders, would use the phrase to arms men which meant to your weapon, not necessarily a gun

[@Au_Ag_ratio5021]

and the term people doesn't mean person or citizen. Rights are for people. If you are one of the people, then keep and bear.

[@jimjersey2345]

When interpretating the amendments we must keep in mind not only how the spoke at that time. But also what was going on at that time.

[@montanaglow123456789]

It's odd the preface is first when the originally worded one was much better interpretation

[@dragonf1092]

Liberty The quality or state of being FREE. The power to do as one pleases. FREE from physical restraint. Freedom from arbitrary or despotic control. The positive enjoyment of various socially, political, or economic rights and privileges. The power of choice. A right or immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant: privilege. Right Something to which one has a just claim: the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled.

[@Au_Ag_ratio5021]

Rights are for People. Citizens have privileges and immunities.

[@dragonf1092]

Using the commerce clause to tax guns is a violation of the 9th amendment enumeration clause and the second amendment shall not be Infringed clause.

[@leftyshawenuph4026]

She literally says "like" four times in one sentence. That same sentence contains this gem: "...that they're knocking down our doors, literally, surrounding us, Britain, and, um, Spain, and stuff like that..." . What dummy gave her the mic for this?

[@dustinschroller4884]

Yes, most women are legally idiots, and yet they can vote.

[@leftyshawenuph4026]

@@dustinschroller4884 I don't think... I mean, did you just... Are you seriously...um... What?

[@dustinschroller4884]

@@leftyshawenuph4026 I don't need to explain myself to you. Have you ever HELD a gun? Women and bitch men are non- consequential to me in gun rights discussions.

[@devos3212]

Not necessary

[@kennethcurtis1856]

Remember, you are listening to her. What does that say about you?

[@countschad]

The founding fathers understood that "the people" means "the individual." Just as it does everywhere it is mentioned in the constitution.

[@user-ll2gi2dl2n]

It's time for English class. Read the following passage and answer the questions according to the text only. 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. Who is the militia? What makes the militia less than well regulated? Why is this important?

[@jamesherron9969]

And if you notice he says that justice, Paul used text and tradition and history, but he doesn’t “any of the history of the justice Paul actually use because he didn’t. He used his own interpretation of the Second Amendment, ignoring the second paragraph where it says the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.

[@BG-mr5xv]

Obviously it was a compromise. Approval of a standing army in exchange for an absolute right to keep and bear arms

[@user-tc5pl3zw3h]

This matter was so important that the founders framed it with the fewest words possible to eliminate confusion, and did so immediately after the establishment of the most critical, core ideas in the Constitution. It was not the most high priority, but it was the very next thing on their minds. So, "keep and bare arms", not "Keepin' bare arms". And they mention arms, but not amunition... Odd, that. My favorite language is "well-regulated". I think nothing in the entire 2nd amendment clears up how arms are meant to be managed, kept, born, and fired. At this point in American history, I won't bother to defy the established norm of civilians keeping themselves armed versus civilians holding arms at home in case they are called up by their local militia/guard. The amendment clearly points to weapons held by civilians in the context of a militia. They're in the same sentence. But I won't debate it now. I just think "well-regulated is the most important idea in this amendment. It's not there for no reason. Also, civilian militias were FAR more capable of putting up a reasonable fight against a professional army in 1778. That's not even a sliver of truth in our world. The National Guard/State Guard is the closest thing we have to a "well-regulated militia". Imagine another statement written in the same format, but its parts taken seperately. "Upon turning 18, children may enter into romantic relationships with adults." Arguing that this statement finds its core purpose in only the second half of the statement is flat out despicable! But that's what many people do to the 2nd amendment every day. By this point in American history, it isn't feasible or rational to think of just cancelling individual gun ownership. But we should definitely return to the "well-regulated"" core of the 2nd amendment. with common sense laws around wualifications for gun ownership.

[@jimbell7516]

Why isn’t the last four words of the second amendment discussed?

[@jdwar11]

The militia as written had no intention of it being under a local or state government control. The militia was of the people in case of the government or in case of an invasion. This amendment has absolutely nothing to do with the federal or state military units or organizations. This amendment was a contract setting forth a line that no government can infringe upon

[@dragonf1092]

We the people are the state not law enforcement, judges, politicians. In order for we the people to remain free from tyranny, crime, foriegn invasion we the people each and every individual american citizen must be well armed with weapons that are in good working order.

[@BENJAMINelsbury]

I’m 5 mins into this and kept hearing the phrase “ founding members” it’s weird why aren’t they saying “founding fathers”?

[@rkba4923]

Why do you think it is that the State and Local governments have not organized, trained and maintained the militia as provided for in our Supreme Law?

[@peterplotts1238]

What do you think the National Guard is?

[@rkba4923]

@@peterplotts1238 It's not the militia! The militia is regulated by Title 10 USC. The NG is regulated by Title 32 USC. What do you think the NG is?

[@peterplotts1238]

Whatever, p***k@@rkba4923

[@StageMan57]

Hello Young KZbinr! I don't know if you're a lawyer, but for your edification? Our Founders didn't write our Constitution of the United States for Constitutional Lawyers. They wrote it for the general citizens who could read and write. It was our Foundational Law. They wrote what the meant, and meant what they wrote. As a 66 year old Patriot that has been a hobby historian since I was 36. Let me give you my well researched perspective on our 2nd Amendment. As a hobby historian who has read a tremendous amount of colonial writings by a myriad of guys from that period. Did you know that the word "regulated" had a substitute word that could be used in it's place, depending on who was using it and how it was being used. That word is "discipline[d]". And, "discipline" could and was used to mean "trained". So, those three words could and were used interchangeably. Most people today use the word "discipline" to mean being chastised, reprimanded or punished. That wasn't always the case back then. Although it could be used to indicate that as well. Next, Madison's grammatical structure of the 2nd Amendment is, "by our standards"... was a train wreck. Madison loved commas. By our standards of grammatical structure it's punctually inaccurate. Again... by our standards today. As you know in todays English a comma typically means a continuation of the preceding thought on a topic. But Nooooo! Not with Madison! After reading his writings I had to come to the conclusion that one of two things were going on. The first one is... Madison was never taught proper punctuation, ooor! ... he believed his succeeding topic and statement was a part and parcel to his preceding topic and statement. I'm open to other possibilities if you can think of any. Madison's 2nd Amendment was in fact two topics and two statements. He knew that when he wrote, and so didn't his contemporaries who read his writings! Not to mention those guys back then didn't use verbs in the same way we use them today. For example. In Madison's first statement he doesn't include the word "is". He uses "being". In modern English we would use "is" instead of "being" As an example! Let's say... for some reason, that Tom Jefferson was suppose to attend a meeting with the other Founders . Let's say... one of the founders asked if Jefferson would be attending. In today's English we would ask that question more or less like this... "Will Mr. Jefferson be attending? And, in todays English we may get a response like this...He can't make it because his horse "is" sick." Back then people's speech would be in what we might consider to be... spoken in a reverse manner, and the question and response may look more like this... "Will Mr. Jefferson be in attendance? and the response may sound like this... "His horse being ill, he will not." As you know, back then their speech was more short and concise. There was not as much verbose grammar used as we use today. Whether it was spoken or written. In other words... no excessive or wasted words. Here is Madison's 2nd Amendment: "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." Now! Here is Madison's 2nd Amendment punctually accurate: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State.

[@StageMan57]

@@NSOcarth LOL, So! Your very comment is indicative of ignorance. Which may also indicates that you don't like education. Maybe even drawing the conclusion that you've probably have never read any academic books. Maybe your attention span won't allow you to make informative intelligent contribution to the comments. You probably didn't have the attention span or patience to watch the whole video. Maybe you have ADHD and don't know it. If Churchills OPINION was a fact. No one would be accomplishing anything of substance or value. Maybe Churchills opinion could be said about videos... "by it's very length, defends itself against the risk of being watched", or a drive... "by it's very length, defends itself against being driven". Give me a break! And stop trying to sound intelligent, and being lazy by posting blurbs. Copying and pasting a quote is easy. Try typing something by using your brain.

[@jaredray7034]

How much do you want to bet that when the next constitutional amendment is written, it concludes with: TLDR? Or LOL? Or LAMAO? Or IMO? Or BTW? Language is a bitch like that.

[@StageMan57]

@@jaredray7034 Language isn't a bitch only to those who do not want to learn.

[@StageMan57]

@@jaredray7034 I was hoping you would learn something of our country's history. But, you're probably not an American.

[@economath8164]

[8:03] This guy is simply wrong. The test of what arms are protected was first settled in U.S. v. Miller: the core of the right protects any weapon that's useful to the common defense. That would include bazookas or grenades in the context of modern defense; really, any weapon on the military MTOE of conventional forces. The D.C. v. Heller case simply expanded upon that to include all other weapons in common use. So, what then is left out? Simply put, any weapons banned under international humanitarian law (i.e. the law of war): chemical, biological, and radiological weapons definitely, and nuclear weapons, as they haven't been used in a hot war for over 75 years; and maybe other indiscriminate weapons, such as landmines.

[@davidwilkie9551]

So this is the story of multiple unresolved theories of morality and "Truth in Labelling" about the the difference between Rights and unregulated freedom. The Right to Bear Arms is a protected business selling Servitude or enforcing obligations etc? A military Provisioning concept, +/- , built into lighthly regulated societies.. (This cannot make for a stable future)

[@jamesherron9969]

In the context of the second amendment, the right of the state, do you have a well organized militia, was to ensure the sovereignty of said state from the federal government

[@earllsimmins9373]

Enforce Clauses 15 & 16 of the Constitution.

[@johngrissom2242]

Supreme Court already settled the question of owning arms,and Ted Nugent.

[@sgtaddy]

The 2nd amendment and the militia act of 1792 states that the people are the militia. They had to being their own weapons to mustard for militia duty. That right there means that the government can not regulate the 2nd amendment.

[@TeranRealtor]

The People ARE the Militia...... and the People are to bring their own weapons, which they are already skilled in using. If WE are the Militia - then those weapons ARE SPECIFICALLY, "WEAPONS OF WAR". We should all have weapons of today - commonly carried by soldiers of today.

[@bobbywise2313]

​@@TeranRealtorYes we actually should buy there is strength in numbers as well.

[@nathandennis8078]

​@TeranRealtor no able bodied males are the organized militia everybody else is the unorganized militia. A well organized militia is a well regulated milita therefore members of the millitary are militia members

[@bobbywise2313]

@@nathandennis8078 Wrong the military is under the federal government which is the exact opposite of what the militia is. Militias buy their very purpose can not be in anyway under the federal government. The whole purpose of citizen militia is to protect the free state from tyranny.

[@TeranRealtor]

@@nathandennis8078 I do wonder if you understand the phrase "well regulated" as used in the text of the 2A..... and that is important. As far as organized and unorganized (and those definitions matter as well) - We The People make up both of those. And the right of the people to keep and bear the arms we need to be in the militia - is important. To be well regulated (skilled, equiped, trained) - in a timely manner, when those of us in the unorganized militia are called together to form the organized militia - requires that we already HAVE the weapons, and are skilled with their use. The founders intended civilians to be the militia - and bring from home our own weapons. The founders intended the militia to both protect the USA from other countries or enemies, as well as to protect the citizens from our own government if needed.

[@johnbaldwin2904]

The Ammendment does not need an advanced level of understanding. Read Madisons Federalist 46 and the meaning is crystal clear

[@TerryWalls-in9jb]

Your freedom is attached to the second amendment

[@1leggedmedia]

Are you sure you're an expert in this field cuz I don't hear you talking about what the regulated means in our second amendment because regulated back then meant that they all had the same type of rifle to fire the same type of ball so that they could arm them better it doesn't mean regulations to make it to that they can control how and when and where you had a firearm

[@dougmoore5252]

In Florida assuming no criminal record., Citizens can freely keep firearms. Subject to a federal background check before taking possession of a gun. Yes the 2nd amendment, the 2nd part is about firearms. Of course those have changed dramatically, the AR-15 is a semiautomatic version rifle. Not in any similar to military version which is fully automatic. There are many millions of those owned by Americans.

[@TeranRealtor]

The 2A talks about people bringing from home, the weapons they need to use to join together and form up a militia. ....... it's talking about We The People, having the right to own and carry around with us, actual weapons of war. We should all have whatever the Marines and the Army are issued - with ZERO government paperwork involved.

[@pgiando]

The 2nd Amendment has been obsolete for its originalist purposes since 1903 when the congress passed a law to fund State militia training and arms.

[@ZeteticPlato]

👍

[@NYRossetti]

Militia: at the time the 2nd Amendment was ratified, the "militia" meant "the standing force of a nation." This isn't necessarily only "military" or "government". It can be the People.

[@AntiMarxism21stCentury]

There's little doubt that either the violent tyrant or the fluffy bunny nutball enforces the disarming of the free citizen.

[@BG-mr5xv]

Look at the next Ammendment

[@aolvaar8792]

Vermont Constitution, Vermont was a country before a State. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State--and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

[@nicholasjose9407]

How the whole gun right debate went to black and white shit from 100 yrs ago

[@rkba4923]

I'm confused as to how the COTUS, which includes the BoRs, is the "supreme Law of the Land," and "all ... Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; ...," yet it supposedly only applied to the federal government? "Makes no sense to me!!! Just sayin'.

[@bobbywise2313]

There is a phrase in the 14th amendment that basically says all US citizens rights protected by the constitution also are also protected rights to the citizens of the states. I like to ask people if Texas can establish a state religion for example. The first amendment says congress, the federal government, can not make a law respecting the establishment of religion. It never says Texas can not have a state religion. So could Greg Abbot make us Texans kneel to him daily? Lol. The correct answer is actually that phrase in the 14th amendment. I kind of disagree with that part of the amendment and I know the founders feared a powerful federal government more than anything. They basically felt each state could maintain their life as per the citizens wishes as long as a Republican form of government existed in each state. The 14th amendment at times seems to collide with the 10th amendment.

[@johnnixon4085]

Nowhere in either the Constitution proper nor any Amendment is the right to keep and bear arms granted to the citizens. From the plain text it's quite clear that the right predates the document, and the government has no authority to infringe upon it.

[@jamesherron9969]

The answer to your question is shall not be infringed upon the government has no ability to regulate firearms to individuals. That is what the constitution says, and the word and meaning of shall not be infringed has not changed in 250 years it amazes me how lawyers will overlook the simple. And shortest amendment to the constitution

[@1leggedmedia]

The government has absolutely no right to restrict us

[@jimjersey2345]

The word arms is easy to define. Especially when you use it in the context of the time of the writing of the 2nd amendment. The words they used back then. "Take to arms, the British are coming" is an example of what they would have said at the time. At the time, most everyone had a gun of some sort. But not everyone. "So take to arms" could include a sword, a club or even a rake or knife. Anything one could use to defend ones self. Remember our founding fathers did not just return from a tea and crumpets party... they just got done freeing a nation from the iron grip of a tyrannical government. Dont forget the king had given orders to his army to take away every gun from every home and person. So in my opinion, arms can refer to anything you can use to defend yourself. Mainly using guns.

[@brianniegemann4788]

Actually in colonial times, guns were not cheap or commonly available. The Massachusetts militias drilled with spears, not muskets. And social attitudes were different, violence was far less tolerated than today. Only after the Civil War did guns become cheap and popular.

[@rkba4923]

Speaking of Standing Armies - Gen. Milley gotta go!!!

[@sparrowdynamics]

Great video, BUT right off the bat Tom said something that needs correction because words matter. At 1:33, the Bill of Rights enumerates (lists) just some of the natural rights of the people... it does nothing to "protect rights". James Madison in Federalist #48 was summing up that a "parchment barrier" is not a sufficient guard against centralized power. Meaning that, words on paper are just words on paper. The paper may list some rights, but it is the duty of the people to maintain/keep them. We've gotten too far from this truth because too many of us in the recent past have repeated the lie that the Constitution "protects rights".

[@melgillham462]

The constitution acknowledges these rights and restricts government in its authority.

[@sparrowdynamics]

​@@melgillham462 Exactly. The words written in the constitution acknowledge a few of the rights we already have as humans (whether they were written or not), and the words written also restrict government in its authority... BUT not not in action. Governments (including ours) will often operate outside of its authority and do things that are "unconstitutional". They usurp authority from the people. And this is why Madison said that a "parchment barrier" is not a sufficient guard. The key word being "sufficient".

[@ljsmooth69]

the aspect of commonly used weapons and unusual weapons aspect is incorrect. back then they have people on Canon's they owned all kinds of weapons. it was any weapon that was a firing weapon they didn't necessarily have to be gunpowder either! so far you haven't brought up the fact of the drafts that were made before the end of the result Constitution because other people wouldn't pass second amendment into la until he changed it over and over again but then you got two States back then. the original second amendment was not where did the way it is today. you haven't brought any of that stuff supposed to be to snorkel fact not just certain parts of History!

[@billgoodman5614]

It says the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Not the militia has the right to keep and bear arms.

[@kimberHD45]

The federal government has no jurisdiction or authority to “regulate” modern meaning being limit or infringe upon gun ownership. They do it in violation of the Constitution, making their action null and void, but this is the exercise of the means to infringe not a right to infringe.

[@dragonf1092]

There is no age limit under the second amendment.

[@dragonf1092]

@@NSOcarth because there is no age limit they cannot restrict by age.

[@dragonf1092]

@@NSOcarth the states shouldn't be legally restricting anything because of amendment 14 section 1 No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states

[@nathandennis8078]

So your cool with a 5 year old with a gun got it😂

[@nickminneti825]

I had to stop listening...the faulty premise that "a well regulated militia" meant something like the national guard destroyed this whole point. The militia in this context meant citizens who could fight. Regulated in this context meant well practiced or prepared. Look up these words in a 1700's era dictionary...not today's dictionaries, this debate has redefined the words to mask the original intent of the words. You will see folks knew it meant the citizens must be able to keep and bear arms to defend themselves, their family and even the basis of society's rules: the constitution. To keep and bear arms meant to ensure proficiency as well, as a citizen able to take up arms in personal, local and even common defense. Tyrants don't write gun laws to disarm themselves, they write them to disarm the opposition. And look how insidious is the manipulation of words to undermine intent as manifest in the debate over "militia" and "regulated"

[@YourAirworthiness]

Very sophomoric. No mention of the changes between the 6th and 7th drafts of the 2nd Amendment…

[@johngrissom2242]

Me and you are the militia.

[@fallingleaveskungfu]

There's a distinct liberal bias in this "class" to put it lightly. The Founders were very clear that "every man" was the militia for example. Furthermore, the dictionary definition of "arms" in 1791 also included armor.

[@TeranRealtor]

@@NSOcarth Each state had (and now has) it's own constitution. And each state ratified the federal constitution as well as the Bill of Rights, accepting the terms of those documents. And the only rational definition of what arms should be allowed, has to come from "What is the purpose of those arms?" Since "A well regulated militia......" is why "the people" are allowed to keep and bear arms - those arms are weapons of war. We need to own, carry, practice with - our own weapons of war. (if we are to respect the 2A)

[@TeranRealtor]

@@NSOcarth Seems we are more in agreement than not - I think the founders considered self defense as a given - and the 2A was about ALSO having military grade weapons at home. With zero government paperwork. For ALL of the people. ..... so anybody not currently behind bars or in a mental asylum. Some people think it is only about personal self defense - and want it only for limited capacity handguns.

[@TeranRealtor]

@@NSOcarth We are in agreement. The God given right was to self protection - to include protecting self, family, neighbors, state, country. I just meant that since the 2A mentions militia as important - we are supposed to own, and have enough ammo to become skilled with, military weapons..... AND be able to carry them around with us, with no government infringement. I'm not saying that the 2A is militia related. It is military grade weapon related.

[@jamesmay5365]

If they were talking bout sum thing else besides we the people keeping arms then why they in the bill of rights those are for us, and every one was walking around with guns then an looks like if it meant something else there would have been gun laws on the books write from the start but no we always been able to have guns because the 2nd says we can

[@TeranRealtor]

AND the types of weapons they meant for us to be able to bring from home were specifically what we would need in a military type of battle. We should be allowed to own and carry - without any government paperwork - any type of weapons commonly carried by a Marine or any soldier in the US Military.

[@jamesmay5365]

@@TeranRealtor that's right if ya want em and can buy em that's one's right and busniess

[@robertengland8769]

Three words: pipe shot gun!

[@TeranRealtor]

I saw one of those when I was a juvenile probation officer. Attached to the cross bar of a bicycle. Those kids could be engineers!

[@dragonf1092]

Bear protects all concieled and open carrying of all weapons (ARMS) every where in the united states of America.

[@georgesakellaropoulos8162]

The answer to the big question is never.

[@ljsmooth69]

Annette call for self-reliance bells after the revolutionary war when thirteen British immigrant colonies Wonder Independence against their 13 Great Britain and their separate declaring their separation from their homeland of Great Britain.

[@stansova3138]

Lets go back to the time when the 2nd amendment was made, did they have communications like we had today, nope, they had pony riders, where if there area was invaded they sent out pony riders to other states for help and warning that an attack was being made on the United States. So it seemed natural that after fighting Britain, that in order to defend the country, that they needed a state militia, armed by the citizens of the area to fight and hold until help came to them. We also have to look at travel back then, it was quite a nerve racking deal to be traveling from one city to another, therefore you where allowed to carry arms to protect yourself. So I guess with today's fast moving military, and communications could over ride the 2nd amendment, well did you ever hear of H.E.M.P. well just one of these could cut out America's communications and electronic devices, to where the only thing you might be able to do is ride those ponies. Now guns won't be affected unless you have some fancy gun, and just think a city / town or area with no electricity, no communications, well their would be lots of people trying to get the food while it was still good, (no refrig, freezers, micro waves, etc.) Think of all the possibilities for hungry people who have guns. R U getting it yet! To get our weapons taken away from us, well it just might be another Cambodia story, look up pol pot, and read his story about a gun free people.

[@jameshenryarchbold5061]

What part of "shall not be infringed!" do you scholars not understand? Get thee hence Satan!

[@Charlie-fe7qh]

First you all forget the title. WE THE PEOPLE... NOT we the government. We the People have the rite to keep and bare arms and it shall not be Infringed, and we the people have the rite to form a regulated militia to maintain our free state from all opposition of oppression government be it foreign or our own.... as for armes. Are anything that we can use as a wepon be it a bb gun or a tank.... keep in mind too. How and where does a enemy force attack when the opposition force is everywhere.

[@dragonf1092]

Where rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no rulemaking or legislation which would abrogate them. Miranda V. Arizona,384 US 436 p.491. All laws which are repugnant to the constitution are null and void. Marbury V. Madison, 5 US (2nd Branch)137,174,176(1803). A law repugnant to the constitution is void. An act of Congress repugnant to the constitution cannot become law. The constitution supercedes all other laws and the individuals rights shall be liberally enforced in favor of him the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary. Marbury V. Madison, 5 US 137(1803). An unconstitutional law is void and is as no law. An offense created by it is not a crime. A conviction under it is not merely erroneous but is illegal and void and cannot be used as a legal cause of imprisonment. Ex. Parte Siebold, 100 US-371(1879). No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore. Murdock V. Pennsylvania,319 US 105. If the state converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity. Shuttles worth V. City of Birmingham, Alabama,373 US 262. Impunity Exemption from punishment or freedom from the injurious consequences of action. Article 4 section 2 paragraph 1 the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. Amendment 14 section 1 No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states Nor deny to any person within it's jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Amendment 2 The RIGHT of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. abridge Curtail (a right or privilege),to reduce in scope, diminish, deprive. Infringed Actively break the terms of, act so as to limit or undermine, encroach on.

[@joykeebler1916]

The Second Amendment - is work-able - within - in it's own framework: Such as: "The Bill of Rights...."

[@dragonf1092]

A well regulated militia means a well armed people with weapons that are in good working order. Regulated To adjust so as to ensure accuracy, to put or keep something in good order. Shall not be Infringed. No the local, state, federal, judicial governments have no legal lawful authority or jurisdiction to legislate any guns whatsoever. Amendment 14 section 1 No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states. Article 4 section 2 paragraph 1 The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

[@dragonf1092]

No under the constitution supreme law of the land there are no limitations whatsoever.

[@redpooljack777]

@@NSOcarth The Bill of Rights are LIMITATIONS IMPOSED UPON GOVERNMENT; violating them puts the government into direct breach of the social contract from whence its authority to govern anyone is granted. Or in words you can possibly grasp: by breaking these rules, the government voids any legitimate claim for continued governance of the people. Also "Constitution" does not mean "limitations".

[@ericbitzer5247]

A third grader can understand the second article of The Bill Of Rights. The well regulated militia part is the REASON the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. People who want to ban take it way out of context. And every terrible implement of the soldier is the definition of arms. The "laws" on the books violate The Bill Of Rights.

[@SuckItYouTube19]

The 2nd Amendment wasn't magically created out of no where. It comes from ... wait for it... England. They had a very similarly written law. Its part of English Common law that a lot of our government got its foundation. The English gave different rights to Protestants than it did Catholics. This is WHY the use of "the People" wording was used. You see, the Founding Fathers were consistent. They were not redundant for no reason. They used redundant language to make it CRISTAL CLEAR what they meant. The 1st 9 Amendments were what each and every citizen had by default. Only the 10th Amendment was not directed to the individual, directly. It told the states don't violate the above rights of the people. Nevermind the views of slaves and women at the time, that has since been addressed. And this is why any BS you mention about the "flip flopping" around the 1865 era is wrong. There was no flip flopping. The Democrats in the South didn't want former slaves to have guns, so good luck trying to support THAT rationale. 😂😂😂😂😂

[@ljsmooth69]

and that lady just said that that answer for question about what's the difference between State and Commonwealth. no no it doesn't it all you didn't even come to that. the state was the people within the state under natural-born I've been there are the US territories territories that were obtained by the government after our nation was founded. that that are under the Commonwealth of national birthright.. completely two different things. missing a lot of key points . that is leading to miss guiding information by the lack of on the full data all the information actually being examined interpreted.

[@dragonf1092]

No the state does not have legal lawful authority or jurisdiction to legislate or enforce any gun control laws. Shall not be Infringed. 14th amendment section 1 No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states.

[@SaikawaYasashi]

It is clear that bazookas were indeed protected arms if you read back the related comment.

[@peterplotts1238]

Thanks for reminding us that America is in the grip of a bazooka crisis.

[@byronwatkins2565]

You seem to misunderstand the purpose of the US Constitution. In addition to defining a federal government to be a union of separate states, the constitution explicitly states all acts that that federal government might perform against one of its citizens or allow one of those several states to perform instead. The Tenth Amendment makes this claim explicit. It is NOT any government's duty "to limit the individual right to possess guns or other firearms;" instead, the Second Amendment makes it quite clear that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Second Amendment makes it quite clear that part of the federal government's duty is to make sure that no subordinate government shall infringe this essential right either. Any claim that a state or local government might curtail its citizens' 2A rights has no more merit than a similar claim that they might limit any of our other "unalienable rights." 1) That Charlottesville might deny the KKK their 1A right to assemble and discuss their bigoted and incorrect beliefs. 2) That Ohio might deny Terry his 4A protections from illegal search and seizure. 3) That Arizona might deny Miranda his 6A right to an attorney and 5A protection from coerced self-incrimination. 4) That the U.S. Marshals might deny Stack and others access to release with reasonable bail. 5) That numerous southern states might deny blacks their freedom from slavery and other mistreatment. 6) That businesses might deny advertised services to people whose lifestyle(s) the proprietors find distasteful. Public aversion to 2A affords government the political capital to pass unconstitutional weapons bans, to offer court opinions that allow and encourage officials to infringe upon our right to bear arms, to punish citizens who have the temerity to defend themselves (or others) with guns, and simply to ignore weapons seizures and other harassment. This acceptance was shortsighted, however, for it has emboldened "our" governments to begin denying our remaining rights as well. 1) Reporters can now be imprisoned for no offense beyond telling the truth about government corruption. 2) "Civil asset forfeiture" allows LEOs to rob us of money or other valuable assets simply because they want it. 3) "Qualified immunity" makes it impossible to sue police officers for mistreating our persons illegally while "performing their 'duty'." 4) Cronyism among LEOs and other court officials make it extremely difficult to bring any of them to justice. 5) Cronyism avoids all but the lightest possible punishment of court officials once they finally are caught. 6) "Extraordinary rendition" permits smuggling suspects out of the country for confinement and punishment without due process. 7) NSA spying on and stockpiling our telephone and internet communications against a future 'need' to keep us in our place. 8...) etc. As long as we are content to allow it, this list will continue to grow and to become more and more severe.

[@dragonf1092]

Especially states in the 14th amendment section 1. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states

[@dragonf1092]

As well as article 4 section 2 paragraph 1

[@dragonf1092]

It is not the state or federal governments job to defend us it is our job to defend ourselves and our country that is why we have the second amendment we are supposed to be a free country not subjugated to tyrants thinking they are royalty. The federal government job is to protect the borders from foriegn invasion.

[@nathandennis8078]

If your not a sworn law enforement officer or a member of the milita then no you cannot defend youur country at most you can defend yourself

[@EnSerio71]

Why can't it be amended and clarified? Otherwise it is a uniform issue tank top or short sleeve shirt and show your guns. Based on how srupid people has used them. It could say I ❤ TS with a question mark. 😂

[@crazysquirrel9425]

Why do people argue over our rights? We are only bound to obey laws if we CONSENT to them. Dec of Ind clearly says that governments govern by the CONSENT of the people and we have the right to withdraw that consent. When did anyone give informed CONSENT to be governed (and that includes all the Fed and State laws too)? You are NOT a person. You are a PEOPLE.

[@ljsmooth69]

and back then the national army was the colonial army wasn't it that was a southern army nothing Northern army at that time. just because they called the northern army. just because they called the northern army the colonial army after that fact did not make it so.

[@tapperjames48]

Please allow me to bring up a few facts. We humans have a built in defense switch that goes off when attacked . What we use in defense is up to what is available and reachable. Equalizing against an attacker is paramount. No other human has any business in dictating what use of any arm is used,lest a 3rd party wish to step in to assist? No government does anything for any people. Only for themselves. The gentile rule is almost over. That means the fallen angels that caused all this have to defend? Will be gone. Along with all humans that make rich doing there bidding. Ah! Oh what a beautiful day! Defend for God's sake with all arms at all times.

[@jasonstephenson793]

You are also miss interrupting his statement on restricting the right of felons or mentally ill from possessing firearms, because in the 90's the supreme court ruled that it was unconstitutional to prohibit felons based off conviction from the right to bear arms, that's why all 50 states now must have a way for felons to regain their right to keep & bear arms, also in the 90's Supreme court ruled that it was also unconstitutional to prohibit someone that had been institutionalized or has sought out mental heath treatment from keeping & bearing arms, unless the government could prove beyond a reasonable doubt in a trail, that a individual with such illness presented a clear & present danger, at this time to, is when the Supreme Court ruled that laws that provide criminal punishment for mental illness unconstitutional. I also want to point out you are wrong about the founding fathers & a standing army, what they fear was the legislative branch & the judicial branch using it against the people, that's way the constitution forms the Army as a separate branch of government, with the executive branch having full control over it, except for the power of the purse, which is given to the legislative branch. The branch of government they feared the most was the judicial branch, that's why courts are highly restricted in their authority & are limited solely to constitutionality & enforcing the laws as stated by the legislative branch as to the intent & meaning of the law.

[@jasonstephenson793]

@@NSOcarth LMAO, you do know that colonies belonged to either British, France or Spain? So, what you are commenting on is, how they operated before the Declaration of Independence. despised court & judgeswitnessed how both parliament & the crown would abuse the courts to do all kinds of really bad things & how judges themselves would abuse their powers & create laws as they pleased. That's why all courts are restricted to interpretation of the constitution & enforcement of the laws only. They have no power to create laws, no power to tax, no power to do order the military to do anything & the list goes on & on again you really need to learn your history & be able to separate US history from world history