@@sycamorebacker1 True but sadly we have to even though those criminal traitors do not obey any laws including the ( unlawful ) ones they impose on WE the people.!
He should not be able to be in position of any job of justice office 🤬☠️ He’s not telling the truth about his opinion on 2 Amendment and if he is then he Doesn’t qualify for the position ‼️‼️‼️🤬🤥
@@bronson6585 a tank HAS a gun...It ISNT a gun itself. It is a VEHICLE of war, much like an 18 wheeler is a Vehicle of Commerce. Even an 18 wheeler needs a special license and training. No regular Joe would get a vehicle of war that is fully operational nor do regular Joe's seek to get such a vehicle. Not only that but such a thing would be severely cost prohibitive thus locking out over 95% of regular people struggling to survive regular life let alone trying to afford a weapon of war.
Honestly I would have asked him why our founding fathers saw fit to add "Shall not be infringed" to the second amendment but not the first or any of the other amendments following the second amendment.
That man has not answered a single question asked to him. He was asked his opinion, and he talked about what other people would do. Or he would say he hasn't looked into it. Then WTH job is he interviewing for, if he hasn't even done his homework?
They never answer questions anymore they just dance around the questions ! It's always a dog and pony show . I just finished watching Sen Lee asking the FBI director if they are using information from phone companies to locate who was in DC on Jan 6 and same thing just another dance routine !
@@Toddscomp2 lol ..good one , its funny to me when they say exept me for who I am when they cant even to the same ... the good Lord doesnt make mistakes but hey what do I know , "there's nothing new Under the Sun " ( history repeats itself ) Saddam and Gomorra . A man isn't free untill his conscience is - San Lee .
This entire 2nd Amendment discussion becomes convoluted from the beginning with the word "right". "Right" isn't really the correct word. If you go back and read The Federalist Papers, the original states constitutions and communications between the Founders and signers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights you find that they looked at keeping and bearing of arms as a "responsibility" and not just a right. The Founders and our first and subsequent Chief Justices to our Supreme Court referred to over and over that we citizens have the responsibility to protect ourselves, our families and our property. I believe in discussions regarding the 2nd Amendment that we make it very clear that it is a fundamental responsibility to keep and bear arms.
good point if it's a responsibility it wouldn't be included in the bill of rights thou. And a right to bear arms gives you the option to bear arms if you want. What I am wondering is why is that the only place in the constitution that uses the word "Infringed" and when you use the word shall makes a rule rather than a permission. NEC specifies this. Shall expresses an instruction or command.
I think there is a good reason why they stated Right instead of responsibility. The reason why I say that is because, Responsibility is something that can be taken away especially if you are negligent in upholding that said responsibility. Another reason they used the word Right, because it follows the concept of inalienable rights that we hold since birth given to use by our creator. Just like the right of thought and reason and to speak the right to self defense, they weren't simply just given to us and they are not something you can truly take away from us they are inherent in all of nature and followed by all animals. It's also why the Second Amendment has the secondary clause in unlike any other Amendment "Shall not be Infringed". Because the founders knew the essential power of self defense and power of Armaments. And the nature of governments tendency to desire in controlling that particular Right. We can see through history and what the founders have seen. In which authorities in power have always desired to control who had access to weapons and those who did not. Why were nobles allowed to carry swords and peasants could not? In human nature would the government allow those who they persecute or those considered less desirable to have access to a means of defense from their oppressors? of course not if they did they would fight back against that oppression. That's also why when a regime wants to get more authoritarian or totalitarian they must gain control the means to resist that authority and control. Just like when Hitler came in power in Germany he was a big proponent of gun control and he made sure that those who he considered less desirable and wanted to oppress had no means to resist it. Shoot just look how our own country got our own independence what were the first two battles in the war for American independence? The battles of Lexington and Concord aka the shot heard around the world. What was the British Empire trying to do in that action. They were marching to Lexington and Concord to Confiscate the American powder stores, arms and ammunition located at Lexington and Concord. So our country got its first start for the fight for independence by the British attempt to Confiscate the American colonists stores of Arms and Ammunition.
The Second Amendment is already one of the most "regulated" of Amendments. Every read the 1934 NFA? Let me guess you just "feel" that more limitations would help. Answer a question for me. What does "gun show loophole" mean? Ever read the 1968 Gun Control Act? The Heller decision? How many more limitations do you want for a Constitutional Right? Do you have any dangerous books in your home that should be banned? Maybe "Catcher in the Rye"? The Bible or Book of Mormon? For those of us who actually swore an oath to the U.S. Constitution, we understand the sacrifice that upholds our nations principles. For you it's about how you feel. Lemmings march right off the cliff just like you. And remember, just like Mario Cuomo...."What will I do when they come for me?" Think about that. "Bad behavior" created this country you enjoy instead of getting on our knees for the Redcoats. Are you on your knees Danny? I bet you are many times.
@@nomadjeff1922 I think you woefully misunderstood what I was saying. Mike Lee was agreeing that some limitations are prudent , while I was trying to hammer home that shall not be infringed means don’t fuck with it in anyway. I guarantee that the only time you will see me on my knees is on the final judgment day. I will stand and fight to the bloody end for my freedom and the future of my children. I hate this tyranny so much and stand ready to be counted among the resistance. Do you? Will you lay down YOUR life for the liberty of our children??? It’s easy to opine here, what happens when you’re face to face with these goons? I hope and believe that you will stand with me.
There are lots of things that I don’t care for with Garland but the 1st listed definition of entitlement literally means a right to something by law or contract. So by using entitlement he has said it is a right by law. Do I trust he means what he says? Not necessarily but entitlement in this context is a correct term.
Judge Garland used the word "entitled" when referring to who should or should not have arms rights. Natural rights such as the right to self-defense descend from nature and God and are not government entitlements. The Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution recognized some pre-existing historical and natural rights that existed without and before the Constitution and which were not created by it. None of those natural rights can be entitlements. A public servant who does not understand this difference is not fit to serve. Thank you Senator Lee. You are my favorite Senator, followed by Dr. Paul and somewhere in the distance Senators Cruz and Rubio, for your defense of the Constitution as written. I am dismayed that you may perhaps be the only Senator who truly supports and defends the Constitution as written.
@@LoanwordEggcorn But no one uses these to protect their right to own a gun. If people think their 2nd amendment is under siege then use the 9th amendment. It is supposed to protect all of our rights that are not written down . . .
@@jetcitysinatra7300 Agree 100%, but 9th and 10th amendment lawsuits are far more general. Since we have a 2nd amendment, and it's more specific, it applies first. Please note: I agree with you.
@@LoanwordEggcorn We, up until the 1970's no one had the right to privacy but the 9th amendment was used and the court granted Privacy an actual Right. The more it gets used the more it will be accepted as a way to protect our rights. . . Just sayin. If the courts start to apply the 2nd amendment as it was meant to be taken then we will still have the 9th amendment. . .
Does he have an opinion or thought on anything? I am not a judge and I understand the meaning of 'Shall NOT be infringed". I realize that you can't (meaning should NOT be allowed) do a search and seizure (on anything) without a warrant. What a tool. He would have been great in Nazi Germany. Blindly followed orders to a T.
I observe from this interview a salient code switch when answering questions regarding passed decisions as a jurist compared to opinions of policy as a bureaucrat.
For a judge he (it) sure has alot of AH's and UH's when (it) he speaks . When it becomes AG, it will have no hesitation with it's pen when it comes to the 2A .!
I think before these committees meet again, they should establish a rule for YES or NO answers only. After which, an explanation to the YES or NO answer can be stated. This "Judge" avoids answering the questions by muttering nonsense as well as hiding behind elected officials by repeating their answers. This guy has no backbone, he may have a mountain of experience, but in this room, it amounts to nothing..
The govt doesnt know the difference between a pole or a hole, let alone the duity of posterity the constitution demands of them. Goldfish memory glub glub
Its obvious merrick garland cares not for what America is and means and stands for. As someone who is educated enough to have read most of our founding documents, its history, it's importance, and the sacrifices made for it and then refuse to embrace it. He absolutely disgusts me with his cold refusal to acknowledge what he is and believes. We know he can't because views would b a shock to everyone that loves n their heart, the red white and blue. His disagreement and disdain for our American ideals is very dangerous and frankly sad. That someone can know about this country and the glorious potentials and turn from it, while being n a position of authority, is of grave concern for every single U.S. citizen. I'm flabbergasted as to why people who would drag us all to ruin r able to get support from the public at all.
A deep historical analysis of the second amendment would show that it was enacted as a principal means to ensure that no tyrannical government could ever assert itself by disarming the private citizenry.
Has he answered anything definitively? I have yet to see a clear answer. And if that is normal for these hearings how does it help anyone to make a decision on the merits of a candidate?
Garland is answering these questions as if it’s a Supreme Court nominee hearing instead of a person about to run the largest law enforcement agency that has prosecutorial powers. Considering his answers it appears he will look at all existing court cases and craft policies around loopholes he discovered. President Silver Alert said he wasn’t going to politicize the DOJ yet Garland keeps stating he’s going to pursue the Biden agenda. That hardly sounds apolitical.
Millions of Americans know the meaning of the second amendment. It"shall not be infringed" PERIOD!! I hope that we will all stand for America when the time comes.
Watching these cabinet picks from the old guard is like watching your favorite fighter try to fight in their 50s. Theyre all obviously too cognitively declined to be a Walmart greeter much less run the countrys DOJ.
NOBODY can answer a simple question with a Yes or No and Always comes with a Time Burning repeat of gratuity and I am Sick of It. Of course I'm Late to this party, is this Bagel on Our SCOTUS, I can't seem to find a clear answer?
Why the HELL cant these people answer all their questions!!!! If they cant answer simple questions that make them look guilty of some curruption, they should be fired
I am curious why does the supreme court and other courts fail to recognize , "shall not be infringed upon", and immediately say you can restrict and control? Shall not be infringed???
ANY judge OR official that seeks to deny or reject our God given rights granted in 1791 pertaining to our American Constitutional to us as American citizens needs to be disbarred and imprisoned . The 2A was written and debated and accepted as it now stands to STOP all issues relating to it that are such a big issue at this time. In other words: KEEP, HONOR, RESPECT, AND DEFEND OUT CONSTITUTION- or GET OUT OF OFFICE.
As written not how you feel! Maybe ask the same about other rights to put him on the spot. The time I looked the second amendment is the only one that states, shall not be infringed. And is the one right the tyrants are infringing on constantly! 18 U.S.C. 241 & 242 should be enforced moving forward. 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
This is 7:49 I'll never get back... I couldn't sit through the whole thing. Every time I listen to a politician, even a one masquerading as judge, I need a bath.
It's always so disappointing when people brought before the senate don't even state what they personally believe and dodge questions with "I don't have the information in front of me" or "I haven't researched that" or "I'd be happy to work with you to understand your concerns". Most of them are well-coached to provide as little as possible and as much non-answer as possible. Thank you Sen. Lee for trying.
I'm disappointed that Lee let him slide on the fact that Garland hadn't studied the history of the 2nd Amendment since he wants to be the AG. Also disappointed he didn't press him for an answer about whether he believes in banning certain types of firearms. That one was a total non-answer. He should have also pressed the liability issue in drawing comparisons with any other legal product sold in the U.S. Those were no-brainer questions that deserved a decisive answer.
at least he didn't say he hasn't thought much on it but when asked a simple question he dodged it as if he was pro dodgeball player. But it did him way too many aaah ummm,s to say that.
How about the part that says " A well regulated militia being necessary to a free state"! Come on people they are saying it without saying it . Form and regulate or we are going to lose our Republic.
"where there is room under the law for the president's policies to be pursued, I think the president is entitled to pursue them" meaning yes, he's going after your AR-15
You know what would be amazing?. Id be blown away If any one of these nominees could just once, give a straight forward answer to the question that they are asked. It should be an automatic disqualification for any nominee to dance around they way they have been the passed few days..
It’s about time the Construction is considered, in this situation! It’s been laying on their desks for hundreds of years and the Holy Bible is in every room in every hotel and motel in this beautiful republic of The United States of America!
If you do not want to carry a firearm for self-protection, that's your right. I do want to carry a firearm for my self-protection, and that's my right. No government representative can tell me I can't. I have the right to carry any type of firearm I want for my protection.
2nd amendment is 100% CLEAR in it's wording.!
Yes. It does not have to be taken to court.
@@sycamorebacker1 True but sadly we have to even though those criminal traitors do not obey any laws including the ( unlawful ) ones they impose on WE the people.!
How can a judge not have, at least out of curiosity not looked into the historical meaning of the 2nd amendment?
He's a liar. That's how.
He said it himself that the Judiciary should help Biden force gun control as much as he can get away with.
He should not be able to be in position of any job of justice office 🤬☠️ He’s not telling the truth about his opinion on 2 Amendment and if he is then he Doesn’t qualify for the position ‼️‼️‼️🤬🤥
and I am no scholar asking this
Deliberately
Question Lee and all Senators failed to ask: What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?
Shall not be infringed,if someone can afford a tank,so be it.
@Justin Edwards get a funny bone.
@@bronson6585 a tank HAS a gun...It ISNT a gun itself. It is a VEHICLE of war, much like an 18 wheeler is a Vehicle of Commerce. Even an 18 wheeler needs a special license and training. No regular Joe would get a vehicle of war that is fully operational nor do regular Joe's seek to get such a vehicle. Not only that but such a thing would be severely cost prohibitive thus locking out over 95% of regular people struggling to survive regular life let alone trying to afford a weapon of war.
Honestly I would have asked him why our founding fathers saw fit to add "Shall not be infringed" to the second amendment but not the first or any of the other amendments following the second amendment.
What has Garland thought deeply about? Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh --NO vote @ Senator Mike Lee
I pray the people such as Mr. Lee takes them all zee way wray alll of them offf and down
Oh so he’s anti 2nd amendment. He just doesn’t want to admit it.
Exactly right brother!
@@dannyboy5272 you know with all of his stuttering, you can tell he is another puppet
More BS than the Chicago Stockyards!!
He must be a Biden nominee, because you'll never get a clear answer. And I'm surprised he doesn't say I'll circle back to you.
yeah, and they are indeed both scorpians add to Hillary rice gourmet
That man has not answered a single question asked to him. He was asked his opinion, and he talked about what other people would do. Or he would say he hasn't looked into it. Then WTH job is he interviewing for, if he hasn't even done his homework?
They never answer questions anymore they just dance around the questions ! It's always a dog and pony show . I just finished watching Sen Lee asking the FBI director if they are using information from phone companies to locate who was in DC on Jan 6 and same thing just another dance routine !
@@Toddscomp2 exactly. And what pisses me off is the Senate and congressman who are asking the questions never push for an answer. They just let it go.
If it slithers like a snake and hisses like a snake it must be a _ _ _ _ _? Fill in the blank
@@joseinfante7540 not anymore Jose ! You forgot if the snake want to identify as a eagle than the snake is an eagle ! Get with the program buddy ! 😁
@@Toddscomp2 lol ..good one , its funny to me when they say exept me for who I am when they cant even to the same ... the good Lord doesnt make mistakes but hey what do I know , "there's nothing new Under the Sun " ( history repeats itself ) Saddam and Gomorra . A man isn't free untill his conscience is - San Lee .
Garland is terrible at this. So glad he's not a Justice. Swamp!
I actually thinkk this ah was put into it with the backing of whats his name.......
This entire 2nd Amendment discussion becomes convoluted from the beginning with the word "right". "Right" isn't really the correct word. If you go back and read The Federalist Papers, the original states constitutions and communications between the Founders and signers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights you find that they looked at keeping and bearing of arms as a "responsibility" and not just a right. The Founders and our first and subsequent Chief Justices to our Supreme Court referred to over and over that we citizens have the responsibility to protect ourselves, our families and our property. I believe in discussions regarding the 2nd Amendment that we make it very clear that it is a fundamental responsibility to keep and bear arms.
good point if it's a responsibility it wouldn't be included in the bill of rights thou. And a right to bear arms gives you the option to bear arms if you want. What I am wondering is why is that the only place in the constitution that uses the word "Infringed" and when you use the word shall makes a rule rather than a permission. NEC specifies this. Shall expresses an instruction or command.
@@rickdavis7141 Agree with your comments. Thank you!
I think there is a good reason why they stated Right instead of responsibility. The reason why I say that is because, Responsibility is something that can be taken away especially if you are negligent in upholding that said responsibility. Another reason they used the word Right, because it follows the concept of inalienable rights that we hold since birth given to use by our creator. Just like the right of thought and reason and to speak the right to self defense, they weren't simply just given to us and they are not something you can truly take away from us they are inherent in all of nature and followed by all animals. It's also why the Second Amendment has the secondary clause in unlike any other Amendment "Shall not be Infringed". Because the founders knew the essential power of self defense and power of Armaments. And the nature of governments tendency to desire in controlling that particular Right. We can see through history and what the founders have seen. In which authorities in power have always desired to control who had access to weapons and those who did not. Why were nobles allowed to carry swords and peasants could not? In human nature would the government allow those who they persecute or those considered less desirable to have access to a means of defense from their oppressors? of course not if they did they would fight back against that oppression. That's also why when a regime wants to get more authoritarian or totalitarian they must gain control the means to resist that authority and control. Just like when Hitler came in power in Germany he was a big proponent of gun control and he made sure that those who he considered less desirable and wanted to oppress had no means to resist it. Shoot just look how our own country got our own independence what were the first two battles in the war for American independence? The battles of Lexington and Concord aka the shot heard around the world. What was the British Empire trying to do in that action. They were marching to Lexington and Concord to Confiscate the American powder stores, arms and ammunition located at Lexington and Concord. So our country got its first start for the fight for independence by the British attempt to Confiscate the American colonists stores of Arms and Ammunition.
Very Good point Rick and appreciated.
@@charlenealston1966 him i
Skirts all answers, not to be trusted for sure
the whole lot
“Shall not be infringed” doesn’t mean that there should be “some limitations”!
The Second Amendment is already one of the most "regulated" of Amendments. Every read the 1934 NFA? Let me guess you just "feel" that more limitations would help. Answer a question for me. What does "gun show loophole" mean? Ever read the 1968 Gun Control Act? The Heller decision? How many more limitations do you want for a Constitutional Right? Do you have any dangerous books in your home that should be banned? Maybe "Catcher in the Rye"? The Bible or Book of Mormon? For those of us who actually swore an oath to the U.S. Constitution, we understand the sacrifice that upholds our nations principles. For you it's about how you feel. Lemmings march right off the cliff just like you. And remember, just like Mario Cuomo...."What will I do when they come for me?" Think about that. "Bad behavior" created this country you enjoy instead of getting on our knees for the Redcoats. Are you on your knees Danny? I bet you are many times.
Shall NOT be infringed mean EXACTLY what it says! That it shall NOT be hampered in ANY WAY!
@@nomadjeff1922 I think you woefully misunderstood what I was saying. Mike Lee was agreeing that some limitations are prudent , while I was trying to hammer home that shall not be infringed means don’t fuck with it in anyway. I guarantee that the only time you will see me on my knees is on the final judgment day. I will stand and fight to the bloody end for my freedom and the future of my children. I hate this tyranny so much and stand ready to be counted among the resistance. Do you? Will you lay down YOUR life for the liberty of our children??? It’s easy to opine here, what happens when you’re face to face with these goons? I hope and believe that you will stand with me.
Actually it does
Every Individual has a Right to Self Defense.
Against tyranny especially! That’s what the second amendment specifically was written to guard against!
Ahh The Sgt. Shultz response to every question, very interesting!
I'm not buying it somethings off with him on his 2a policy define entitled to a firearm when it's a right not an entitlement
There are lots of things that I don’t care for with Garland but the 1st listed definition of entitlement literally means a right to something by law or contract. So by using entitlement he has said it is a right by law. Do I trust he means what he says? Not necessarily but entitlement in this context is a correct term.
Judge Garland used the word "entitled" when referring to who should or should not have arms rights. Natural rights such as the right to self-defense descend from nature and God and are not government entitlements. The Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution recognized some pre-existing historical and natural rights that existed without and before the Constitution and which were not created by it. None of those natural rights can be entitlements. A public servant who does not understand this difference is not fit to serve.
Thank you Senator Lee. You are my favorite Senator, followed by Dr. Paul and somewhere in the distance Senators Cruz and Rubio, for your defense of the Constitution as written.
I am dismayed that you may perhaps be the only Senator who truly supports and defends the Constitution as written.
*Loanword* then I guess the 2nd Amendment doesn't really matter then. Just use the 9th Amendment.
@@jetcitysinatra7300 Yes, the 9th also applies, as does the 10th.
@@LoanwordEggcorn But no one uses these to protect their right to own a gun. If people think their 2nd amendment is under siege then use the 9th amendment. It is supposed to protect all of our rights that are not written down . . .
@@jetcitysinatra7300 Agree 100%, but 9th and 10th amendment lawsuits are far more general. Since we have a 2nd amendment, and it's more specific, it applies first. Please note: I agree with you.
@@LoanwordEggcorn We, up until the 1970's no one had the right to privacy but the 9th amendment was used and the court granted Privacy an actual Right. The more it gets used the more it will be accepted as a way to protect our rights. . . Just sayin. If the courts start to apply the 2nd amendment as it was meant to be taken then we will still have the 9th amendment. . .
Who was the Judge the signed off those fisa's .... They guy that was picked to be the next AG
I wish the courts would view the election "irregularities" on the merits rather than procedurally shut it down!
Would you say “ evasive” ?
Does he have an opinion or thought on anything? I am not a judge and I understand the meaning of 'Shall NOT be infringed". I realize that you can't (meaning should NOT be allowed) do a search and seizure (on anything) without a warrant. What a tool. He would have been great in Nazi Germany. Blindly followed orders to a T.
This individual needs to be taken out of any position that would allow him to be a judge. What part of "shall not be infringed" doesn't he understand?
Was he scared of breaking him with the China doll questions? Not an entitlement it is a law biding citizens right. Read it again Sam, Sam I am
I observe from this interview a salient code switch when answering questions regarding passed decisions as a jurist compared to opinions of policy as a bureaucrat.
For a judge he (it) sure has alot of AH's and UH's when (it) he speaks . When it becomes AG, it will have no hesitation with it's pen when it comes to the 2A .!
I think before these committees meet again, they should establish a rule for YES or NO answers only. After which, an explanation to the YES or NO answer can be stated. This "Judge" avoids answering the questions by muttering nonsense as well as hiding behind elected officials by repeating their answers. This guy has no backbone, he may have a mountain of experience, but in this room, it amounts to nothing..
Senator Mike Lee
War blow
I'm so glad I live in a constitutional carry state. No permit needed to open or conceal carry!!
Is the constitution not clear enough for our government to understand?!
The govt doesnt know the difference between a pole or a hole, let alone the duity of posterity the constitution demands of them. Goldfish memory glub glub
" That the law Allows??? " ROOM under the constitution??? These guys are an imminent danger to our country.!!
he can remove that title of honorable from the front of his name!
what the hell would judges know about the law anymore!?! they just do what their dem overlords tell them to do!
For a judge, he sure says plenty of ums, uhs, & and uhs & and ums....
You can’t go against the 2nd amendment without going against the highest law-The Constitution!
Its obvious merrick garland cares not for what America is and means and stands for. As someone who is educated enough to have read most of our founding documents, its history, it's importance, and the sacrifices made for it and then refuse to embrace it. He absolutely disgusts me with his cold refusal to acknowledge what he is and believes. We know he can't because views would b a shock to everyone that loves n their heart, the red white and blue. His disagreement and disdain for our American ideals is very dangerous and frankly sad. That someone can know about this country and the glorious potentials and turn from it, while being n a position of authority, is of grave concern for every single U.S. citizen. I'm flabbergasted as to why people who would drag us all to ruin r able to get support from the public at all.
NO, THERE IS NO RIGHT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, ESPECIALLY THE 2A THAT IS SUBJECT TO LIMITATIONS! NO WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION SAYS THAT!
This corrupt system wont be fixed from the top down. It needs to be disregarded from the bottom up.
MAKE. HELLER STAND THIS MAN DOES NOT DESERVE TO BE CONFIRMED. ALREADY GOING AGAINST THE OUTH TO STAND FOR THE CONSTITUTION
A deep historical analysis of the second amendment would show that it was enacted as a principal means to ensure that no tyrannical government could ever assert itself by disarming the private citizenry.
Has he answered anything definitively? I have yet to see a clear answer. And if that is normal for these hearings how does it help anyone to make a decision on the merits of a candidate?
Garland is answering these questions as if it’s a Supreme Court nominee hearing instead of a person about to run the largest law enforcement agency that has prosecutorial powers. Considering his answers it appears he will look at all existing court cases and craft policies around loopholes he discovered. President Silver Alert said he wasn’t going to politicize the DOJ yet Garland keeps stating he’s going to pursue the Biden agenda. That hardly sounds apolitical.
@@deeinfl5600 Agree 100%, but in a perverse sense Garland is being honest in admitting that he will be political.
if the current era is not "your" era that you are studied and versed in, then you are no longer relevant or applicable to the position at hand.
Millions of Americans know the meaning of the second amendment. It"shall not be infringed" PERIOD!! I hope that we will all stand for America when the time comes.
Watching these cabinet picks from the old guard is like watching your favorite fighter try to fight in their 50s. Theyre all obviously too cognitively declined to be a Walmart greeter much less run the countrys DOJ.
Here we go again! Circle Jerk and more circle Jerk!
I would think the #1 question would be "What further law would stop criminals from getting guns?"
Quite a different attitude to questioning Judge Garland to when he questioned the slime ball Bill Barr
The "LAW" says shall not be infringed! If you support the "LAW" keep that in mind!
Lol this Judge dances around all the questions. 🤔
Never a dead straight answer on anything.
A little indication of what the 2nd amendment means.
NOBODY can answer a simple question with a Yes or No and Always comes with a Time Burning repeat of gratuity and I am Sick of It. Of course I'm Late to this party, is this Bagel on Our SCOTUS, I can't seem to find a clear answer?
Judge Garland's nick name is "uh uh um um uh"
I don't trust Judge Garland.
why cant this guy give a real answer
Why the HELL cant these people answer all their questions!!!! If they cant answer simple questions that make them look guilty of some curruption, they should be fired
I am curious why does the supreme court and other courts fail to recognize , "shall not be infringed upon", and immediately say you can restrict and control? Shall not be infringed???
Senator Mike Lee
Brun in hell is comeing
That's like holding Ford or Chevrolet,or any other auto manufacturer, accountable for every fatalities to drunk drivers! This is insanity!
ENTITLED IS NOT OUR 2ND AMENDMENT. OUR SECOND AMENDMENT IS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT!
Who brought Merrick back? Ugh
Be grateful that Garland isn’t on the Supreme Court for a lifetime appointment. As AG he may last 4 years.
Biden. Biden is a principal author of Senate gun bans for many decades.
I believe it was....none other than......O'SAMA O'BAMA.....⌛......next......
ANY judge OR official that seeks to deny or reject our God given rights granted in 1791 pertaining to our American Constitutional to us as American citizens needs to be disbarred and imprisoned .
The 2A was written and debated and accepted as it now stands to STOP all issues relating to it that are such a big issue at this time. In other words: KEEP, HONOR, RESPECT, AND DEFEND OUT CONSTITUTION- or GET OUT OF OFFICE.
Garland's opinion on the 2nd Amendment is whatever Biden's opinion is.
david grg117 He needs to be answering based on the rule of law not what Biden or anyone else wants. Totally unacceptable.
As written not how you feel! Maybe ask the same about other rights to put him on the spot. The time I looked the second amendment is the only one that states, shall not be infringed. And is the one right the tyrants are infringing on constantly! 18 U.S.C. 241 & 242 should be enforced moving forward. 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
I like Mike Lee and I'm not even from Utah lol
Differently an anti gun judge
All I heard was I'll have to Circle back to you on that
This is 7:49 I'll never get back... I couldn't sit through the whole thing.
Every time I listen to a politician, even a one masquerading as judge, I need a bath.
Its frustrating listening to non-answer answers! What's the point???
It's always so disappointing when people brought before the senate don't even state what they personally believe and dodge questions with "I don't have the information in front of me" or "I haven't researched that" or "I'd be happy to work with you to understand your concerns". Most of them are well-coached to provide as little as possible and as much non-answer as possible. Thank you Sen. Lee for trying.
allow lulu winke to answer this question for ya judge as well: yes sir [scorpian} add him to Hillary list of 's
Lip service , tell em what they want to hear
I'm disappointed that Lee let him slide on the fact that Garland hadn't studied the history of the 2nd Amendment since he wants to be the AG. Also disappointed he didn't press him for an answer about whether he believes in banning certain types of firearms. That one was a total non-answer. He should have also pressed the liability issue in drawing comparisons with any other legal product sold in the U.S. Those were no-brainer questions that deserved a decisive answer.
I believe it says in the constitution to protect ourselves from Tierney of the government
2:06 - Just curious how much $ taxpayers are paying for those mini bottles of water.
at least he didn't say he hasn't thought much on it but when asked a simple question he dodged it as if he was pro dodgeball player. But it did him way too many aaah ummm,s to say that.
How about the part that says " A well regulated militia being necessary to a free state"! Come on people they are saying it without saying it . Form and regulate or we are going to lose our Republic.
I am not german; but, as the language presents itself to me
vee zell...english not too great either
Thank God he is not on the Supreme Court😮
"where there is room under the law for the president's policies to be pursued, I think the president is entitled to pursue them" meaning yes, he's going after your AR-15
You know what would be amazing?. Id be blown away If any one of these nominees could just once, give a straight forward answer to the question that they are asked. It should be an automatic disqualification for any nominee to dance around they way they have been the passed few days..
Senator Mike Lee
Blow u p
Who cares what the president likes or dislikes are
5:08 - "Or for whatever reason..." Bad choice of words, bud.
All the reasons that you shouldn't be on this committee! Sen.Lee!
avoids every question.
Desperately trying to avoid answering questions.
send all those lying judges to a reality show on EPSTEIN ISLAND people, who needs them, they are dangerous, biased ,political,
Any gun does not fire itself it needs the action of another to press the trigger. That person needs to be accountable.
Our Attorney General is a WIMP !!!!!!!!
It’s about time the Construction is considered, in this situation! It’s been laying on their desks for hundreds of years and the Holy Bible is in every room in every hotel and motel in this beautiful republic of The United States of America!
Winnet
What is freedom or civil rights ? How does it feel
Garland lying his ass off. 😒
I, I, I, I, I, um....
If you do not want to carry a firearm for self-protection, that's your right. I do want to carry a firearm for my self-protection, and that's my right. No government representative can tell me I can't. I have the right to carry any type of firearm I want for my protection.
You can always tell when garland is lying his mouth is moving
Lee, get to the questioning. Most long winded guy in the Senate.
Winnettuitetdemandaafricacritomodajonyluminatiwarmat
The only time they follow the law is if it fits their agenda and the rest are ignored. Fire all the ones tge rank and file say are bad
Our Second Amendment rights shall not be infringed
This ( men ?? ) Is not FIT to be a janitor.
He said they had to look into the meaning of the second amendment?