Is Gun Ownership a Right? | 5 Minute Video
Vložit
- čas přidán 21. 07. 2024
- What does the Second Amendment say? Is gun ownership a right for all Americans? Or just for a small militia? Eugene Volokh, Professor of Law at UCLA, explains what the Founding Fathers intended.
Donate today to PragerU! l.prageru.com/2ylo1Yt
Have you taken the pledge for school choice? Click here! www.schoolchoicenow.com
Joining PragerU is free! Sign up now to get all our videos as soon as they're released. prageru.com/signup
Download Pragerpedia on your iPhone or Android! Thousands of sources and facts at your fingertips.
iPhone: l.prageru.com/2dlsnbG
Android: l.prageru.com/2dlsS5e
Join Prager United to get new swag every quarter, exclusive early access to our videos, and an annual TownHall phone call with Dennis Prager! l.prageru.com/2c9n6ys
Join PragerU's text list to have these videos, free merchandise giveaways and breaking announcements sent directly to your phone! optin.mobiniti.com/prageru
Do you shop on Amazon? Click smile.amazon.com and a percentage of every Amazon purchase will be donated to PragerU. Same great products. Same low price. Shopping made meaningful.
VISIT PragerU! www.prageru.com
FOLLOW us!
Facebook: / prageru
Twitter: / prageru
Instagram: / prageru
PragerU is on Snapchat!
JOIN PragerFORCE!
For Students: l.prageru.com/29SgPaX
JOIN our Educators Network! l.prageru.com/2c8vsff
Script:
Does an American citizen have a Constitutional right to own a gun?
Here’s what the Second Amendment says: “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, it once seemed to me like that language only protected state militias and not individuals. Indeed, this is the view held by the four dissenting Supreme Court justices in the 2008 case of District of Columbia versus Heller, a landmark case dealing with gun ownership.
But the more research I did, the more I came to realize that my initial view was mistaken and that the Founders were, in fact, securing an individual right. The five justices who voted to affirm the right to own a gun in DC versus Heller had, indeed, made the correct decision.
Let’s look at the amendment one more time.
“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.”
We first need to focus on the phrase “the right of the people.” Note that the people are the only ones whose right is secured here, not the militia or a state government. This phrase “the right of the people” comes up a few times in the Constitution. For example, the First Amendment refers to “The right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government.” And the Fourth Amendment secures “The right of the people to be secure…against unreasonable searches and seizures.”
Why, then, if the authors of the Constitution felt so strongly about “the right of the people” to own guns, did they include language about “a well-regulated militia”?
These opening words of the amendment might be called a “justification clause.” Such clauses are used to help explain why a right is being secured. But it’s the operative clause that explains what right is being secured. In this case, the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
And what was the word ‘militia’ understood to mean at the time?
Well, the Militia Act of 1792 defined “militia” to mean all white males 18 to 45. Today, of course, “militia” would include women and people of all races, but it was clearly not a reference to a small, National Guard-type group.
And what about the part of the amendment that says a militia is necessary “to the security of a free State”? What, the opponents of personal gun ownership ask, does a personal right of gun ownership have to do with that?
Again, historical context is key. In the 1790s, the phrase “free State” wasn’t used to mean an individual state like New York or Rhode Island. Rather, it meant what we’d call today a “free country”-a nation free of despotism. A “free State” is what the Framers wanted America to be. They saw an armed citizenry as, in part, a hedge against tyranny. Citizens who own weapons can protect themselves, prevent tyrants from seizing power, and protect the nation from foreign enemies.
This does not mean, though, that this right is unlimited. Free speech, for example, has long been subject to some narrow and reasonable regulations. But severe restrictions on owning a gun, like severe restrictions on free speech, would violate the Second Amendment as the Founders understood it.
For the complete script, visit www.prageru.com/videos/gun-ow...
I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy.
U Wot M8 lol
I'm totally going to start using that. I hope you don't mind.
Your statement carries the assumption that you are well-trained in how to properly use a lethal weapon. If this is the case, power to you. We have to be sure that everyone who has a gun actually knows how to use one, which isn't the case right now, sadly. That's why more people are killed by accidental misfires than terrorists in America.
Concerned Citizen issa joke
Liljefe 301, name one wrong thing I said.
"Shall Not Be Infringed", period.
- A Brit who supports the 2A
If you still live in Britain you need to join a firearms group and lobby for the ability to keep arms. It goes against your entire culture due to history of disarmament from your monarchy, but once article 50 is triggered you guys need to have your own arms to defend yourselves.
Aldreth The UK doesn't really have much of a gun lobby, even our police officers are disarmed, so it's mostly a lost cause, it'd be too hard to push for gun rights, especially anytime soon.
All I'd say is keep fighting for your gun rights in America, once you loose them you won't get them back!
Got Sharia Law over there now??!! If you don't like watching women getting stoned to death for the crime of being gang raped by numerous men, who's testimony of not being the ones by the way, is the only testimony admissible because women don't count, arm yourselves. Now.
Many Americans have informed our politicians the guns would be turned on them and it would be civil war.
Gamers Creed: Just because it would be hard to lobby for your gun rights in the UK doesn't mean one shouldn't do it. Trust me when I say this that I'm not being preachy about the following, I actually like the British. Well, not British who are leftists, but I don't like Americans who are leftists either.
The American generation who fought the revolution saw their rights as being trampled, and they literally risked all to fight for those rights. They knew it wouldn't be easy, they knew the odds were against them. They all would have been hanged under orders of King George III had they lost the war.
If someone doesn't start fighting now, the fight will never start. These are the types of things that one must start when there is no hope, or seemingly no hope. One can be surprised at the momentum that can be gained.
I apply the same criticism to my fellow Yanks. We aren't really cut from the same cloth as the people who founded this nation. I hear it in Congress all the time. We have to fight against the big government Congresspeople, but this isn't the time. They constantly say it will be after the midterm election or the next presidential election, but here we are again hearing them say it STILL isn't the time to fight. When will the American people have enough of this? Or the British?
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason (co-authored second amendment)
Amen!
Amen to that
100% correct
DEUS VULT
Actually, Madison copied the portion of the Virginia Constitution that addressed the Right to keep and gear arms, almost word for word, for the Second Amendment. This was written by George Mason, and defended by him during ratification. His full quote you alluded to included " except for a few public officers" after "the whole people". That meant, no Gov't officials such as mayor, assemblymen, sheriffs, etc were to be enrolled in the militia. They already had civil responsibilities to attend to in times of conflict.
We owl a lot to both of these Founding Fathers.
How is... Shall Not Be Infringed... difficult to understand????
CA Politicians: The what? Huh?
@@xxP1ST0LER0xx Dig that...
Because Liberals.
Progressive democrats don't know how to read.
@@ERRORhxc13 Both Reagan and Trump endorsed and signed signed into law more 2ndA restrictions than: Obama or Carter
When seconds matter the police are minutes away.
James In some horrible cases, hours.
nodto modley sometimes days if it turns into a hostage situation.
Same matters to Ambulance and fire fighters, do you think most gun owners own defibrillator and other medical help and fire fighting equipment in same manner?
+Markku Pretty sure people are allowed to own defibs and medkits as well as fire extinguishers and ladders and Dalmatians.
I'm sure they are, but if the motivation was really about their safety, and not other things, they would own those things. Heart problems are much more likely to kill you than violence. If you are thinking about your safety or your family's safety, you'd have those emergency devices and supplies. But most people don't, they just have the gun.
"Does an american citizen have a constitutional right to own a gun?"
YES. The end.
I'm not even an American. I want us to have gun rights too. It should go around the world.
Dude, I know. I love guns. I think they should be a part of a citizen's basic posessions.
You say that now but just wait when your work place gets shot up just like our schools
Sarah Garrison Really? Because mass shootings don't happen that often.
@@sarahgarrison3600 School Shootings happen in Gun Free Zones known as "Schools", Genius.
Short answer: yes. Long answer: yes, but with more words.
It is not only a right, it is a protected right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.
That is a misunderstanding of the 2nd Amendment. The right is a natural right. What the 2A is doing is telling the government it cannot infringe on that right. SCOTUS has allowed for infringement and people accepted that. But that doesn't make it always so. SCOTUS can overturn itself. If we could get enough Justices to admit that allowing infringement was wrong, we could be back to how it was intended in the beginning.
It's not just a decided right. It's a decree of justice and protection of the innocent by our heavenly father. It's a god given right.
Apparently to the leftist it seem it’s a irrelevant amendment
Bro wasn’t it written in 1700s doesn’t really work in 2000s
@@barnsleycamper yes it does with what you just said your also saying we don't have free speech
"The second amendment is outdated." Do you see an expiration date anywhere? Have governments stopped being tyrannical?
funny that a lot of the libturds say that. If the 2nd is outdated, that means the 1st is too because simple math and logic says 1 came before 2.
Evilmonkey 45 if the 2nd amendment is outdated then I guess the civil war amendments are outdated. But no one wants that for without the 2A all amendments are easy to get rid of.
That’s great. I’ll have to use that
Tobin Bosch... trust no one
Another leftist favorite:
"The second amendment only applies to muskets."
Well... then the first amendment only applies to quill and parchment...
_"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and _*_every other terrible implement of the soldier_*_, are the birthright of an American . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, _*_in the hands of the people_*_."_
-Founding Father Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb 20, 1788.
so beautiful 😍
+fsmoura
Exactly - the context is 'the militia' not the individual for personal protection
lecu1967 Do you know what a militia is? It's a military force organized by the common folk and not in any official capacity. The militia is just a word for individuals that form a fighting force separate from any government organization. The militia's rights are the rights of individual citizens.
lecu1967 The militia is comprised of "the people" which are individuals. It is the individuals right to own the arm and bring it with them into the militia. Using your personal arms in defense of self is a byproduct of the individual right to life and the ability to take matters into your own hands.
The militia is the people. The next sentence clarifies this. Also the militia act of 1790, as explained in the video, also clarifies this.
The Original Constitution was written to limit Government, why is that so hard to figure out?
We should have gone with the Articles of Confederation to truly keep the government in check.
The bill of rights is to "amend" the original constitution.
@stanley hoffman amendments can invalidate whatever chronologically comes before it.
Yup
That doesn't eliminate the "well regulated militia" part regardless of your ideology.
Prager U must be winning vs CZcams.
With leftist judges, No.
PreggoU is mostly naked alt-right propaganda.
@@robertwelsh4094 please define Right Wing for me
@@kw7400 RIGHT-WING: Pro-corporate, pro-rich, pro-Old Testament, pro-military, pro-white nationalist, pro-monopolies, anti-labor, anti-math, anti-science, anti-environment, anti-multicultural, anti-democracy, anti-Christ.
@@robertwelsh4094 thanks for defining Right Wing, now define Left Wing
The problem is the regulated part. Liberals assume that means restricted but that's not the case. Regulated means well kept and well stocked.
I thought well regulated means well trained.
It can mean quite a few things.
Regulation- 1. A regulating or being regulate. 2. A rule, ordinance, or law by which conduct, etc. is regulated. 3. Embryology the process by which a structure, damaged or partially changed in an early stage of an animal embryo, adjusts to the disturbance and develops normally ---adj. 1. Ordered or required by regulation; prescribed [a regulation uniform] 2. Usual; normal; ordinary; regular ---SYN. LAW
@@lanceknightmare The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
You posted the current liberally perverted meaning. Mine is the correct one.
And the well regulated has nothing to do with the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Two different concepts in the same amendment.
@@crazysquirrel9425 Your definition of the word regulate is definition 3. in the 1964 Websters New Practical School Dictionary. It is also definition 3. in the 1991 New World Dictionary of American English Third College Edition. The definition I posted is regulation from the 1991 New World Dictionary of American English Third College Edition. The definition of regulation is the less detailed in the 1964 dictionary though still includes the same definition. The two words regulate and regulation while similar have very different meanings.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams
"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
"To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- both accredited to George Mason
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined."
- George Washington
"Militia: a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency."
-The Dictionary
razvaz there are several meanings of milita genius
xXFaTaLBMHXx and which one of them proves me wrong?
You are correct except for the malita is not part of the people. It’s a separate sentence or implication. People also have that right as individuals. Not have to be militia.
The bill of rights doesn't exactly reflect how gun ownership works in the modern era and the law. Gun ownership is a privilege, not a right, according to how it works in america.
"Shall Not Be Infringed", period.
- A Mexican who supports the 2A
Epic
There is no outlined punishment for infringment. The gov takes guns away from people and citizens every single day.
I mean hey, theres a reason they want to be here. If you ask me, mexico should be forced to cede land to america for all the suffering individuals fleeing the corrupt nation. we can work with them to clean up the new land and integrate it into the country while gaining space for them to live, and over time incorporate them into our great nation.
Thought this was a funny quote. "If you love how the war on drugs is going you'll love how the war on guns will end".
omg lol That's a potent quote !
With a lot of dead and imprisoned gun nuts. LOL Try to hold back the US military with your little Bushmaster.
@@robertwelsh4094 I believe your statement makes many assumptions that are misleading. 1. Number of gun owners, 600,000 LICENSED deer hunters in the state of Wisconsin in 2019. 750,000 LICENSED deer hunters in the state of Pennsylvania in 2019. 700,000 LICENSED deer hunters in the state of Michigan in 2019. 250,000 LICENSED deer hunters in the state of West Virginia in 2019. 550,000 LICENSED deer hunters in the state of Illinois in 2019. Just those 5 states of LICENSED hunters would make the largest military in the world. That does not even account for those who own weapons that do not purchase deer hunting license. 2. Not all, and probably most of those in the military who took an oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution from all enemies both foreign and domestic would support a forceful military confiscation of weapons from the citizenry. It’s a voluntary military. If you think all or most of these American men and women will fire upon other American men and women in the cause of collecting firearms, then I don’t think you have thought this through. It’s an oath to a document, not to men.
@@uncledphoto067 Hey long winded trumper, The 2nd NEVER mentions hunting or home protection fool. Next moron please...God, you traitorous trump turds are paranoid morons.
@@robertwelsh4094 my bad. I was under the assumption you were an adult. I can see now you’re probably just a middle school troll.
The Founding Fathers were likely more well educated about our language than many gun opponents today. That said, Everyone knows that if they only intended the "militias" to own arms, they would have said "right of the militia" rather than "right of the people." This infers two different subjects, that is to say, "Militias are necessary, and congress will not impede ANYONE'S rights to gun ownership."
So then if someone is under investigation for ties to terrorism do you not want the government to be able to stop him from buying a weapon? A tricky question because then the government could decide to suspect EVERYONE of terrorism and then NOBODY will ever get a gun again! Oh wait, there are judges and warrants and all those checks and balances to make sure that doesn't happen...
+8181k You don't get it dude. The government can't stop anyone from getting a gun. That is not within their power, realistically. A terrorist could steal a gun, buy a gun on the black market, have someone make a straw purchase for them, etc. You can't stop a determined person from arming themselves anymore than you can stop a determined person from using illegal drugs.
Look at Sandy Hook, that kid didn't buy a gun, he stole them from his mother after he murdered her. Where I'm from, I have no legal right to buy or possess a gun (don't have my license yet). But if I decided I wanted to go on a shooting spree, I could acquire a gun in 3 hours. And since nobody can carry guns in public where I live, I'm guaranteed at least a 5-10 minute window to blow away defenseless people.
People need to accept that no government can guarantee their safety 100%. It's just a fact of life.
8181k Remember the fiasco that almost was? Banning the gun ownership of people on the no-fly list. On the surface it sounds like a Noble idea and here's the but, who determines the people on the list? What does it take to be removed from the list? Why is there no due process to be put on the list? Why was a 6 year old on the list? Why does it practically take an act of Congress to be removed from the list? There are many other reasons why this was a bad idea, fortunatly it wasn't enacted.
hahahahahaha "likely" youre generous!
8181k absolutely not. under investigation isnt guilty. its not tricky at all. no abrogation of ones right (any) without due process. you see we have this thing "innocent until proven guilty" not "guilty until proven innocent".
If you don't like guns put a sign in your front yard stating that your home is a gun free zone. See how that works out for you.
hokeypokeyalso1 it works for schools, so why not (sarcasm)
Hypocrite Leftists wont put signs in their yards stating such because they enjoy the anonymity that we gun owners provide them.
Let me tell you a little story. Once upon a time there was a mother who was home alone at night with her 2 daughters because her husband worked long hard nights. One day, this moron neighbor of hers came to the safe place that was her home and pulled a gun on her and her 10 year old because he thought she took his dog. The mom did not have a weapon and was left utterly defenseless other that having a cell phone to call 911 wish scared the neighbor off. The mother considered herself very lucky this time but extremely mad at her self for not being better prepared. Mom took care of that by buying a 9mm and getting a range membership and practiced practiced practiced. Mom will NEVER be defenseless again. The end
(From Mom)
(Imagine I'm a criminal) hey look gun free zone I'll rob that guy
@@kspikes6010 If no one had a gun in the first place, then no one would need a gun to defend against an armed intruder.
Gun control :Being able to stand there at 25 meters and put two rounds in the same hole. That's gun control.
"professor at UCLA"
oooOOhh thats gotta be tough, talking about the 2nd amendment in a state like CALIFORNIA of all places
toi the minds of a lot of the brainwashed, book-smart and sense-stupid morons in this state, they see it as damn near treason. This state's a lost cause. If you don't live here, for God's sake don't move here, if you DO live here, like me, might wanna make plans to GTFO cause it's crazy town for real.
@@beinrichbimmler7829 I left to study in Eastern Washington. Great place. Spokane voted for trump.
@@JW-mr5mh it's on my short list of states to move to when i finally GTFO, as of now, its Prescott in first place tho
@@beinrichbimmler7829 yu0
As someone who lives in CA, New York and Hawaii are worse in terms of their attitude towards guns
im a gun advocate from Australia. We have middle eastern crime gangs in Sydney who i have personally seen own illegal automated firearms. I couldn't believe it. These people hate us and want to kill Australians and they have the majority of guns on the streets. We need a system that protects the people from getting caught in the cross fire. Break and enters are so common and u have to rely on the police to help it is nonsense the Australian system is happy for us to be victims. I don't know how anyone here could help but please do before i watch my country turn into sweden.
PETRAKIS69ER shoot them as soon as you get a gun
From what I've seen, you have serious SJW problems down under.
PETRAKIS69ER its a shame a massacre at a movie theater with the deaths of 17+ people made you lose your gun grow up tell the police that they have guns problem solved
Did you know that the character who killed those people in the movie theater (in a state where concealed carry of firearms is legal) passed by several theaters until he found one that had a "NO FIREARMS ALLOWED" sign? Local law made it a misdemeanor to ignore those signs.
That's right, that guy passed by several potential target areas because he couldn't be sure that there weren't armed folks inside who'd ventilate him before he could get his fifteen minutes of fame.
and now some of your criminals are manufacturing their own fully automatic firearms. maybes its time for you guys downunder to have that revolution like ours that you never had.
It's really simple. If you like the first amendment, you like the second too. Without the second, you're basically waiting for somebody to come take the first from you.
Leo False dichotomy. Amendments are called that for a reason. Just because an amendment has been made doesn't mean it's set in stone. Look at the alcohol ban.
The first or second weren't added at a later date. They're part of the first 10 which are the governing principles of the country as a whole. It's call the bill of rights. We call them both amendments because they're a part of the document that also includes the ones that were amended in. Either way, the bill of rights was set up specifically in order of importance for a reason.
Leo They're still amendments. A fancy name doesn't change their status as amendments. If some how, we could repeal them, it's legal, but nigh impossible.
So if it's never going to happen, why bother arguing? They're not going anywhere unless somebody finds a way to misuse them and cause a discussion about it.
Leo I simply don't like it when others use fallacies to win arguments.
Gun control = Deprivation of rights under color of law Like the Red flag law.
Yes it is. And the national guard is not "the militia". It is a reserve component of the US military.
Army and National Guard are Government entities, who we love and respect, and gratefully thank them all for serving!
But, the Regulated Militia is the People, not the Government. The Huddled Masses yearning to be Free, and Keep our Freedom at any and all costs! There is Nothing on Earth more important than Freedom!
No, I don't have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I've got an UNALIENABLE right to keep and bear arms because I have the RIGHT to my life, thus I have the correlative RIGHT to utilize WHATEVER I WANT TO DEFEND MYSELF!!
Very well said.
Not to nitpick but the word unalienable is not in the Constitution. In fact, the Constitution wasn't written to grant rights to the people, it was written to spell out the limits of government.
@@Rockhound6165 His point is, if you have an unalienable Right to Life (as stated in the Declaration of Independence) then it stands to reason you must also have the unalienable right to defend your life.
@@Rockhound6165 Yes I believe the Bill of Rights was added later becuase the states wouldn't ratify the Constitution without them.
Actually you have both. The unalienable right first, and the constitutional right to protect it.
The second amendment much like the rest of the bill of rights doesn't grant any rights, it secured those rights from being violated by the government. Allot of people don't understand that, the government can not give you a right because you already have it and the bill of rights is a limit on government power over those rights.
And, sadly, there is a bunch of leftists on the Supreme Court who don't understand that. #OustSotomayor
And yet...
Exactly. Well said.
Correct it's considered a natural right.
Yep. And this makes sense to, if you look back at the founding of the country and the intentions. Where do the left think WE THE PEOPLE came from. This isn't about the government, this is about the people and always has been.
Gun Control : Definition = A firm steady Grip, squeeze the trigger, don't jerk it...
...or you'll go blind
The 2nd Amendment is the most important of all for is the one that protects all the other ones.
It's pretty scary that 4 out of 9 supreme court justices clearly didn't understand the meaning and purpose of the second amendment (edit: or perhaps had a partisan agenda).
Liberals
Christine O'Neal
Communists.
transcendence Now Liberals and Communists are the same thing
dekcarc had a diffrent agenda, but yeah scary to think they can just vote no on an amendment just like that.
czcams.com/video/Eya_k4P-iEo/video.html
What!? A Californian who knows proper gun law? Who knew such mythological creatures existed!
Brian Camp California has people who can think. I know. You are surprised! But we do. North California! Not much liberal tree hugging whale saving gun grabbers here.
In addition to PragerU ya have Ben Shapiro that is not a liberal and usually tends to know what he is talking about as well. Even been on a PragerU some
We exist. There are few of us, but we fo exist.
Brian Camp I did, Because I am one of them. Lol
Me and one of my Uncles are one of them lol
From UCLA.... amazing! Thank you, Professor Volokh. You Sir, have my respect!
Criminals have guns.
Law abiding responsible citizens have guns.
There are also choose not to have a gun.
So what it boils down to is the persons right to have or not to have.
💡
😃
My guns, my choice
Every person has the right to protect themselves. The tool is irrelevant.
Yeah but don't bring a knife to a gunfight.
Word
@RandomSqueaker you do know criminals don't buy guns legally,they get them off the border from mexico instead.
@@YingHobbies that's b.s. lol. Normally they're stolen or bought private party since theres no checks or anything. You can sell a gun to anyone without even asking a name as long as you dont know they're a criminal
@@Anna-tc6rz Thats how -oil addicted stubborn imperialism- *TRUE AMERICAN PATRIOTISM* works.
Self defense is a human right. The constitution states that the government won't take that away from the people.
Every living thing has the right to defend itself.
Has the right to defend itself not necessarily if it can.
Guns VS Games How far does this self defence go? Could I walk through Times Square with a flamethrower to ensure my safety?
AWFULCOLD MINER could I be an escort of extremely armed men? Probably, with the right permits, could I actually bring a type of gun (choosing the right model from the right year). Yes you can, Flame throwers are a massive misconceptions.
Quite illegal to start off with, and the way they work makes them impractical for firing for more than a allocated time, you are better off with a glock still.
AWFULCOLD MINER considering a flame thrower is an area weapon no that would not be self defense, if a stampeding heard of pigs and cows were charging I would say that's feeding the poor.
Daniel Brown the right to protect yourself comes from self defense laws, which allow guns to be used in self defense.
The 4 dissenting judges need to be educated.
U misspelled executed :v
@@mardukgilgamesh1500 lmao
Notice Volokh fails to address the most important word in this Amendment
That word is "Infringed"
There are endless laws existing that INFRINGE on ones ownership and/or use of ARMS
It has allways confused me how so many people have trouble understanding the 2nd amendment. It's not like its written down or anything .LOL
Seems to be written out of context...
The context is fine, it's the interpretation to suit the individual that is the problem. The same thing happened with the 1st Amendment which 99% of Americans completely misinterpret.
It is also interesting that the people who say the explicit wording RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE in the Second Amendment is not an INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY - rather it means the various state national guard units - tend to find abortion is an INDIVIDUAL protected constitutional right (of the mother alone) when the word appears nowhere int he Constitution or any of the amendments and there is no longer a parallel, gender specific right (as 19th Amendment established women's suffrage). There is a process to amend the constitution -- if those in support of abortion seek to have it a protected constitutional right - then they should seek an abortion amendment. If those opposed to an INDIVIDUAL right of gun ownership seek to remove that right, then they too should seek a constitutional amendment. They have not done so in either case, as such amendments would not be ratified.
Written in the 18th century and slavery was ok then too but that was abolished. Grow up America.
@@lordlucan3241 Show me where slavery is a right!
This is the most convincing defense of gun ownership I have ever heard, and I am 64 years old!
Prager U can get a lot done in 5 minutes.
PragerU can, mostly because they ignore everything that proves counterpoint to their argument.
Concerned Citizen , that's what the regressive left does.
Treasure Planet, Sure, that's what everyone who doesn't care about facts does, like PragerU :)
Oh- I get it.Only health care and abortion are manufactured rights with the PC stamp of approval.
our militias are not well regulated, they lack the hardware needed to fight a modern conventional war.
Want to bet on that .? Look up powdered, sugar and dark aluminium and what it can do ..or a untold number of things .
Yeah the need some AA and AT pronto :o
Perhaps you should speak to current and former military people. They absolutely would NOT follow an order to face and fire upon fellow American civilians. To refuse to follow and obey an illegal order is written into the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The "I only followed orders" defense didn't work for the Germans and it won't work here, either. 90%+ would either walk out and join their fellow citizens, or refuse to leave base.
Good video, Professor Volokh. Thank you.
If violence cannot be done with guns, it will be done with blades. if not with blades, then with clubs. If not clubs, then with bare hands.
You can’t prevent it, and you cannot control it. so always be prepared to fight it. Arm yourself.
bombs, planes, trains, and automobiles, shall i go on?
zdcyclops1 nice one
Do you remember that time when that kid broke into that school and punched his teacher & 20 six year-olds to death before turning his hands on himself?
it was a tragedy that will never be forgotten
Do you remember a time when that person made a truck bomb and blow up a government building that had a Daycare center? It was a great Tragedy that should never be forgotten. Here is the crazy thing, guys with guns found and stopped him and his friends from doing more harm. The "Most" important people in our country are guarded by guys with guns 24/7 but sure, lets go with your nonsense logic "Guns Bad". We have a law currently and it has been around a long long time that ban's MURDER but people are MURDERED every single day. Laws are followed by those willing to follow them, problem is some people just want to see the world burn and feel the pain they feel. Laws will never ever stop those people, them the facts of life. Your parents should have taught you that.
are you referring to the Oklahoma bombing or one were your comment would be factual?
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to
persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is
the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound
mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay
guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the
disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender. I'll surrender my guns and my rights when you can guarantee the world free off violence. So far no society has ever been able to accomplish eliminating violence, firearms or no firearms.
Gentleman Adventurer but leftist have right to get their utopia you know
Guns also grant malicious individuals the right to inflict massive harm on society. The "good guy with a gun" scenario has very rarely been played out. The very few times where it has are always highly publicized by conservative media outlets because of their strong confirmation bias.
But the statistics show that the overwhelming majority of mass shooting attacks are stopped by trained law enforcement officers.
Gentleman Adventurer that was beautifully said and so true. An armed society would be the most civilized and respectful of societies.
8181k Can I see your statistics so I can review them?
Adhiraj Gupte Sadly this violence free Utopia people are in search of has never existed.
The simplest and best explanation of our right, to keep and bare arm's as an individual, well done sir.
I am so happy that people actually understand why people need to carry around guns
Yes. Take all the guns and make the 300+million people in the US unanle to defend themselves against the government and criminals, just to protect the not even 100 people a year that die in school shootings, bcause obviously someone who wants to shoot up a school isn't going to buy a gun because he isn't alowed to own one. Just like the gangsters whose murders never make it to the TV, or other criminals, right?
@@NigelUltra its not just school shooting damn dude and the ony thing we need is stronger background checks and if you go to school they shouldnt be allowed to buy a gun but they just want to ban it all together
"The government will never become tyrannical"
"Trump is a fascist"
You know whats really good for fighting fascism? Guns.
You can't have both arguments. Pick one.
Well said.
Idiots reconfirming idiots.
Worked so well when America ripped Japanese Americans from their homes and forced them into internment camps across the country. Or when the Indians tried to fight the American forces that betrayed their treaties and forced them to occupy undesirable lands.
Jason Messinger This is why we need limited government and the 2nd amendment.
Again, I can show you when America was tyrannical and trampled over the rights of Americans, from Indian treaties to Japanese Internment, from Slavery to Jim Crow. When were our access to guns the answer? Yes slaves, indians, branch davidians, black panthers, religious terrorists, and the treasonous south have won battles against the United States with guns, but they lost to a superior force and did not change tyranny with their weapons. Even when gunmen try to silence one powerful voice they despise like MLKs they fail.
The 2nd ammendment is the bodyguard of American rights. Without it, how can the others fight back?
Well simple, Government tries to arrest tons of people for no good reason and tons of people with shoot government for a good reason. Of course if the person is already detained, there isn't much they can do.
nathaniel bixby "Right. So guns failed to protect the persecuted individuals' rights, and the escalation into a shooting war means the government can use its powerful weapons systems against the public."
I didn't necessarily say that guns failed. I said that an individual, if already arrested, can't do much. Also, the government wouldn't stand a chance against a well armed population unless they would be willing to nuke the entire united states in an attempt to make there be no more population. If it came to the government taking away everyone's guns, they are already working against you, not for you. With your logic, they government has no limits. It can push and push and nobody should resist because it might cause problems.
Anyone can get a gun in America, but I guess it comes to with a price. Shooters are there but it also means people can defend themselves. Comes with both pros and cons I guess.
Nefarious actors promote violence, as a pretext to disarm The People. By hook or by crook, they want us disarmed.
Nathaniel Bixby Illegal arrests =\= The government taking complete and utter control of the country
What part of "shall not be infringed" was not clear?
Excellent video. I’ll be honest, I am surprised to see a professor of law from UCLA put up a pro 2A video. Good on you sir, I appreciate this.
The right of the people to own machine guns, tanks, and artillery cannons shall not be infringed.
Considering the government commissioned privateers with warships loaded with cannons to fight the enemies of the US, this is actually quite accurate
Andrew Gunner. ?.
Heavy weaponry like the last two you mentioned are not classified as guns, and therefore must be demilitarized before they can be purchased by civilians. Fun fact though, if you have around 40 grand, you can by a Soviet T-80 tank, have it registered as a tractor, and legally drive it on state roads in the United States.
Except the 2nd amendment doesn't say "guns" it says "arms" which means more than just guns
+Clayton Harris: Well, you"ll probably still get arrested. They'll just nail you with some other violation, like disturbing the peace or some such thing
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
Branwolfe1 moron.. do you realize they can ban all automatic riffles legally? Why? Because the 2nd amendment doesn't guarantee you the right to a semi auto weapon .. just a weapon . They can alow only bolt action riffles and single action revolvers legal. That way you still have the right to own one.
Actually asshat, they have absolutely NO authority to ban ANY weapons...because arms includes ALL weapons....YOU are ignorant and they are traitors to their sworn oaths......
@Chris c, Moron, at the time the constitution was written, cannons and the most advanced weapons of the time were owned by private citizens!!!
Branwolfe1 Preach it!
Branwolfe1 Law Enforcement, loves to Infringe.
Gov. has fed on the Americans Right so long" It has become a Beast." It will never get enough.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms", and I have to have a permit and be 21?? Do you have to have a permit for free speech or the press, nope, so why the Second amendment?
Those laws are violations of your Rights. Any state claiming that you need a permit to carry is defrauding you. Any state claiming that they allow Constitutional carry is also lying, because the Constitution is the Supreme Law. The Constitution protects your inalienable rights. The states certainly don't have the higher power. The Civil War helped to establish that.
I always thought the 2nd amendment was rather clear. To my ears, it says "since a well-regulated militia is necessary for the US to be free, people's right to own guns shall not be infringed."
Not to mention the Founding Fathers seem to have meant this when you look at the Federalist Papers.
Enigma, read this one more time and see if it sets in this time:
There's a difference between a right to "keep and bear arms", meaning access and control of a weapon you have in your possession and a right to a weapon. I'm amazed nobody gets the wording anymore. Or is it that like so many other things, we just hoped that's what it meant and we've heard it shouted out so much that we believe it to be fact. I challenge you to read the words again with what I just said in mind.
A right to access, buy, obtain, is not guaranteed in the constitution, only the right to "keep and bear" them once obtained or made (back then you could and many did)
Now, once you have them, you're protected by our constitution.
How did that get so lost on so many people?! I'm not even "educated".
This means in clear english; regulations are allowed with regard to obtaining a weapon or storage, transportation and acts commited while in possession of a weapon. The 2nd amendment does not offer protection from regulations concerning guns, just that we have the right to have them and not fear infringement for small things, until you commit a felony with one. (wholy other arguments there)
Many gun owners believe that God gave them the right to have and obtain a weapon; perhaps?? but a firearm or deadly weapon has been deemed both necessary and available to regulation, by our constitution. People cite federalist papers as showing intent. Fine, Ratify the federalist papers and then we can add that to the discussion but sadly or correctly, we only get the constitution and if you don't like it, you can try to change it - amendments - there for a reason.
Getting Married is a God-given right but these holier-than-me people who are married, still went and via regulation, got a license to do something that should be a private covenant between God, you and your spouse and yet they don't mind jumping through hoops to do something that you can cite from the Torah, bible, Quran or basically any bound book that a god is the main subject of. Oddly, no protests over it, no name-calling, no violent rhetoric or even tacid opposition.
I guess their marriage isn't as sacred as their perceived right to own guns and never have to follow a rule with regard to them... Interesting.
Mosses didn't receive the commandments, a covenant and a gold-plated AK-47 signed by God did he? I'm still looking through the bible, 3 versions, to find where it's a God-given right.. Any suggestions?
"shall not be infringed". Understand what that means and then you'll stop repeating your post over and over.
spydude38 Tell me genius. Or can you not. You sound like the living embodiment of the opposite end of the spectrum of a "Libtard". Still stupid and annoying, just the other way.
spydude38 aAlso smart guy, the RIGHT of people to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS isn't to be INFRINGED. It says nothing about regulation that we as gun owners, (I am, don't know if you are but I doubt you would qualify as I'm pretty sure you're too young to have one based on your comments) have to go through to OBTAIN a gun.
Don't mix your ignorance of the facts to support the one part you do get, the part about INFRINGEMENT.
GROW UP OR JUST HUSH WHEN YOU HEAR GROWN FOLKS TALK'N.
All we need to do is read the federalist papers, the framers explained what the thought about the issues and why they wrote things!
The common man should NEVER own a firearm! However, if you're a wealthy politician, actor or celebrity, you can hire someone, with a gun, to protect you and yours.
Shane Whitefeather-> Are you being serious?
Thanks for clearing that up so maybe people have a better understanding hopefully.
It's a fact more people want less restrictions on owning a gun
Heffman55 Tomlinson Thats bad. That means any nutter can pick up an assault rifle and start pumping lead into kids.
That is actually wrong. Most people, Dem or rep. agree with restrictions on guns, as in not letting mental ill people or high fire rate weapons
Heffman55 Tomlinson actually I don't care what lawful steps are put in place.
I'm a law abiding citizen, I won't have an issue acquiring any firearm
Criminals however don't care and even today prey on victims that are willing to straw purchase for them. Where it then becomes a cycle. Clean record on a pistol sold several times with several crimes on it. You'll NEVER stop criminals within our system.
The same goes for corruption in government which has pushed time and time again. Of course liberals want no resistance in their push for pure insanity
As a gun owner and a pro 2nd amendment American, I agree in the sense that there shouldn't be so many ridiculous restrictions for example California gun laws. But I have no issue with certain restrictions, like back round checks, having clean mental health, having NO felony, having NO domestic violence or child abuse charges, having NO drug charges (besides maybe weed if it was small amount), these are current to my state that I can think of off top my head that I do agree with 100%...i would even agree with passing a drug test before buying a firearm, but the main issue ppl don't want to happen is for all states to turn into California or be disarmed completely...i think we there can be common ground found but dems need to stop lying...a few Dem lies they love to say which are false are Fully automatic weapons are legal, there's no back round checks needed, anyone can buy a gun with No questions asked, gun show loophole, silencers makes gun silent (they don't, they make them a little quieter but still loud), if you can't buy a gun at your home state you can easily cross state lines with fewer gun laws, and AR15 is an assault weapon...these are all completely false and anyone that's ever bought a gun would know this
Gov't: "We see you started a go-fund-me page for a... tomahawk cruise missle?"
Me: "Under the second amendment, I have a right to organize myself in a well-regulated milita."
Gov't "You have an A-10 Warthog!"
Me: "I need it to protect against government tyranny."
BBRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
THANK YOU PRAGER FOR ANOTHER lesson on Individual Constitutional Rights.
That narrative needs to be published online, on TV, on Billboards AND IN SCHOOLS.
Historical context doesn't matter when the 9th amendment says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
When people say the 2nd is only for militia, muskets, or, "This does not mean though that this right is unlimited," they are obnoxiously ignorant of the 9th.
Hell, if it was mean to be limited, they would have set some limits. Given the weapons of the era, they could've seen some things to restrict. Hell, Washington had to quell at least 1 uprising(see The Whiskey Rebellion) yet the government did not axe the right to bear arms. Even after the freaking Civil War where former Confederates lost some of their rights as citizens, they still kept the right to bear arms.
The right to bear arms, and the right to arm bears! Hoo-rah!
If only those commie Californians wanted to be as well-armed as the rest of us....
Petter Wilhelm Arm the bears! at least bears wont protest their own rights
Petter Wilhelm in Russia we have right to whole bear
I guess the Chicago Bears are unaware of this.
the one i shot last fall did not have a gun.
Great content this is one of the greatest channels on CZcams
Well made video. Excellent delivery of information.
The problem isn't guns, or widespread gun ownership. A gun is a tool, same as a hammer, or a powered nailer. Any tool can ben missused and be deadly in the wrong hands. Shootings also happen in germany - a country with one of the strictest gun laws in existence - so this is no solution. Look at Switzerland. Military service is mandatory for everyone, after the service, you are part of the reserve by default, have your rifle and sidearm at home - including ammo - and are expected to maintain them. This means every household has at least two guns. But no one goes around shooting stuff up. Because they are disciplined in the use and know how to counter someone who does start shooting. That's how you solve this.
Seriously? I live in germany. One and a half years ago, a kid felt so wronged by the world, he shot 8 people, a few of them he directly targeted, not a kilometer from where I live. Yes we don't have the same crazyness as the US. Look at the rest of my post, before calling me a liar. I was making a statement that gun control doesn't prevent shootings, which is true! What prevents any missuse is prevention, not criminalization. Look at Switzerland!
Keiranful And no other country is as drugged up on prescription drugs as the United States. That may be the cause for all this violence.
Or the ignorance of the majority of its people
According to the reasons for gun control governments have by far the worst record for killing people, their own subjects & others subjects.
Domo you are so right. In fact most, if not all, of the mass murderers have one thing in common: anti-depression medication, which all have in common: homicidal and suicidal tendencies, particularly in young patients, which by the way make up the majority of mass murderers.
Finally, thank you PragerU for showing what the 2nd Amendment means. We absolutely MUST keep our constitution whole. Without the 2nd amendment, we cannot protect the rest of our constitution!
Absolutely OUTSTANDING TROOP
Come And Take It !
The Founding Fathers understood that the people shouldn’t be controlled by the government.
This is the dumbest comment ever
Buying guns is like an addiction.
I just can't stop
they are just so much fun.
Not an argument.
Nope. It's a declarative statement.
Not An Argument. lol tell me about it, I'm running out of space here
Caleb Ginting Trump is LITERALLY hitler!
Guns kill babies!
Women buy shoes and purses, men buy firearms.......
South African here. The moment the government made it more difficult to license firearms, we the citizens have become subject to home invasions especially in rural areas and on farms with dire consequences. Don't allow this to happen to you.
Do you just keep a gun anyways?
Elmer Elmtree We can still legally license firearms but the state makes it very difficult to do so. The application process can take up to 3 months to complete. The problem is home invaders are armed to the teeth and you have to use reasonable force to defend yourself. Disarmament embolden criminal elements as they see families as soft targets now.
Elmer Elmtree also from what we've seen in South Africa disarming legal gun owners does very little to curb gun violence. Criminals have in the past and will always find ways to arm themselves illigally. You are inviting crime when you remove law abiding citizens ability to defend themselves.
- - that's awful I hope ur doing alright
Sorry to hear that brother. I pray you and your loved ones stay safe.
Damn straight it is!
The right of the PEOPLE, not the right of the militia. And ARMS not sticks, or muskets, or bows and arrows.
Self preservation is a basic right.
But healthcare isn't. Shows how warped our thinking is.
No one has the right to kill anyone else.
george george So if you can't pay for healthcare you deserve to die?
I believe that EVERYONE has a right to life, and that any attempt to take their lives away from a preventable disease is extraordinarily cruel and unjust. Many healthcare providers before the ACA was implemented could refuse service to anyone they deemed as a "risk", such as babies.
Healthcare should not be a service. It should be a right.
george george Everyone has the right to life. Including criminals. This is why I believe that capital punishment is unjust.
No one has the right to KILL another human being, whose thoughts and actions of a particular instance DO NOT define who they are as a person as they can CHANGE!
Do you realize that you are 4 times more likely to be harmed by a firearm if you have one in your house?
The BEST way to stop an attack is to prevent it in the first place. TEACH future generations what they are doing is WRONG. If they commit a crime, then you may threaten them.
But, as the 8th amendment explicitly states, the punishment must fit the crime. They should NOT be killed for a petty crime.
On a different topic, Criminals should be rehabilitated in prison. This deters future crime they might make and makes the world a better place.
Once again, the solution is prevention, not deadly force.
P.s. Show me proof that God exists; you can't
george george jumping to conclusions? Shame
Anyone who thinks the 2nd Amendment is only about hunting, a militia, or only includes muskets should read direct quotes from the Founding Fathers about the subject.
Razgriz85 Thats like saying anyone who disagrees with slavery or womans sufferage should follow the founding fathers examples. They owned slaves and thought women shouldn't vote. So I assume you also think that woman shouldn't vote and that blacks should be enslaved, given how much you value the opinion of people who lived over 200 years ago, back when the fastest firing speed was 2 shots every 90 seconds. Times have changed, and so should we. More gun control!
ThatFigherGuy,
Your argument is fallacious. Razgriz85 was just stating the obvious: If there is confusion about what the authors meant, perhaps reading their clarifications in other documents might actually *clarify* what the authors were trying to say in the Second Amendment. What he did not say was: "We need to do everything exactly as the founding fathers did 200+ years ago." Your same faulty logic can be used against you too. To pull a Cathy Newman, "So you're saying that all U.S. citizens should live in anarchy because their entire government and founding documents were predicated on the outdated moral standards of oppressive hetero-normative evil white males?"
Additionally, your notion of firearms technology in the late 18th century is surface level at best. While most firearms by the time of the U.S. Revolution were single-shot muzzle loaders that took some time to reload, the notion of firing multiple shots quickly was not that far fetched for people at the time.
Some off-hand examples:
The infamous pirate Blackbeard was known to have carried up to 13 pistols into battle to fire as many shots without having to bother with reloading. Or take the explorer Samuel de Champlain who founded Québec. He loaded his arquebus with 3 musket balls in the mid-1600s and famously killed two Indian chiefs in a single shot, single-handedly winning a battle for his Huron allies against the Iroquois and cementing an alliance by it. Dealing multiple casualties with a single shot or firing multiple shots in rapid succession were not at all uncommon or unfathomable notions for the writers of the Constitution.
By the late 1770s there was a rifled airgun, the Girandoni air rifle, capable of firing multiple shots in a minute, silently, with no muzzle flash. This was not some rare collector item for the rich as it was adopted by the Austrian army in 1780. These were used against Napoleon's Grande Armée to such a devastating effect by Austrian skirmishers that he declared if a soldier caught using one was captured, they were to be executed immediately.
As a third example, take the founding fathers permitting private American citizens to outfit their ships as privateers (i.e. legal pirates) which included cannons and swivel guns as per the Second Amendment. Cannons could fire what was called "grape shot" at the time which essentially turned it into an oversized shotgun firing buckshot. Cannons and grapeshot were often used to disperse crowds or mobs when necessary, as they were able to cut down large numbers of men in an instant with the ease of a single shot. Hand grenades had also existed for over a century.
I mean the Byzantine Empire (Greeks) had flame throwers which used a chemical mix (now lost to time) that could burn under water in the Middle Ages for goodness' sake! To argue that the U.S. founding fathers couldn't conceive of anything but the most rudimentary musket and that they did not intentionally use the generic phrase "arms" to provide citizens with the right to own any and all weaponry necessary to oppose a tyrannical government is either an ignorant or disingenuous argument.
Sincerely,
Kyle of Canada
ThatFighterGuy, our founders put into the Constitution the end of the importation of slaves. I am no expert on 18th century economics, but it stands to reason that slavery was not something that could be removed cold turkey or it would have destroyed the economy, especially in the South; it would have to be phased out. Voting was restricted at first to landowners, meaning that not all men could vote either.
ThatFighterGuy czcams.com/video/CquUBWHU2_s/video.html
Or they should be rejected from our society all together idk how exactly to go about that but I'm certainly becoming more passionate with Hitlers movement after the past decade of bs I've been hearing
Freedom is NEVER outdated!!! Not be infringed........
No ground for interpretation,
Plain and simple.
Self Defence and can't have freedom without it.
underpins all rights.
Includes machine guns.
"When freedom is sacrificed for security, the people shall find neither and lose both." Benjamin Franklin (Not exact quote)
I carry a weapon because I am an independent person. I rely on myself as much as possible.
It is first my responsibility to protect myself and my family.
It is the officer's responsibility to first protect those that cannot protect themselves.
I am not that person so I carry a weapon, I always carry my weapon safely because I respect my weapon and what my weapon can do. I carry my weapon discreetly because I respect others feelings toward my weapon.
I can always depend on my weapon immediately, other citizens can also depend on my weapon when threatened or scarred.
I observe my surroundings and look for unusual activities or behaviors around me, I do this for my safety and the safety of other citizens.
I am a gun owning American citizen!
With more gun laws, I am the person who's gun you will be taking away.
I will no longer be able to protect myself, my family or you my fellow citizen. Your laws only effect me not the criminals.
Very well stated. Absolutely on point.
*scared *affect *police officers are not paid to protect people
The forth amendment says don't tell the government you practce the second amendment.
yes its a God given Right protected by the Second Amendment. it is not a right granted by govt for govt do not have power to do that. if people would read and study what the founders and the writers of the US Constitution said, this would be a non issue. but people chose to remain ignorant and that why we are constantly have to fight this fight.
Jason Lewis The real problem is the lack of education. At one time there were classes on civics and this is no longer being taught in schools. It is always easier to control people if they haven't been taught what hey truly need to know, this they are more malleable and able to be led like sheep.
If you accept any restriction, they are always arbitrary. By the wording, either it is allowed to own arms, any arms, including chemical weapons, biological weapons, nuclear weapons etc. or you accept restrictions and those restrictions can be almost anything.
"god given right" no
I forgot, God created guns in the Garden of Eden. It happened on the 5th day, right after the tuna.
Tony IS Burger That is true. In The Law in Exodus it says that if you kill a man who burgles your house at night you are not accountable for murder, but if it is a daylight robbery you are accountable for murder, presumably because in daylight you could aim for his arm or leg and try not to kill him. That shows that self-defence is part of God's constitution, the Bible.
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.*
-Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
A Militia is made up of armed citizens.
Without armed citizens you cannot have a Militia.
Without a Militia, there is no security for freedom.
Therefore, it is a right for citizens to keep and bear Arms.
If we lose this right ? We lose the country ! And our FREEDOM ! Let's not let that happen !
Holy crap, a UCLA professor on PragerU? Didn't see this one coming.
By the way arms is not limited to guns it also applies to things like knives grenades and nunchucks.
Isaac Walker Armored Personell Carriers, Artillery Pieces, Armed Fighter Crafts, Main Battle Tanks, High Yield Explosive Ordinances, Orbital Bombardment Satellites, Directed Energy Weapons, Biological Payloads, and Nuclear Weapons
Marcus Ezra..... Actually, I believe "arms" was originally defined as weapons (guns, or knives or whatever)able to be carried by infantry and mounted troops, not large ground based weapons requiring animal teams or vehicles to move around and operate.
While it would be nice to have some of those Big Boy Weapons, I ain't gonna hold my breath on that one. And realistically, it would be beyond the ability of all but the most affluent of weapons enthusiasts to own these big weapons. Making it a very un-even and biased distribution of powerful weapons.
I will say, it would be pretty cool to have at least one "Bert Gummer" in every town who would be willing to let others share his goodies. lol
excellent points all around. Though I know realize the somewhat sarcastic nature of my comment was not conveyed well through text...
@Joe Quimby Actually you are incorrec,t look up the Websters 1828 definition of Arms there is a free copy on the net. You are ignorant.
Isaac Walker arms are small arms... Whatever you can hold.
If you don't like firearms that's fine with me. Have fun being a victim
In the Us there are 16 times more gun related deaths per 100,000 inhabitants than in switzerland or germany for example (gunownership is only in some cases legal).
So, your gun surely defends you pretty well.
Tazer 2 If people want people killed or dead. They will find a way with or without a gun. At that point it is no longer about the weapon but the person committing the crime.
Tazer 2 Did you know 60% of those deaths were suicides?
KevlarKev < FUCKIN A.
Tazer 2: Gun ownership is mandatory in Switzerland. They just don't have our so called "War on Drugs".
To the title if the video:
Yes.
Deadly untraceable weapons in civilians hands. Yes that is EXACTLY what the founder intended.
For without that very thing we would still be under British rule.
There is no reason to keep this right in 2019 though except give mass shooters a helping hand.
@@reinatr4848 Yes because they follow the new gun laws. Wow such logic
"We will protect and cherish our 2nd Amendment" - POTUS
KingCobra315 sure, he doesn't obey the constitution on 3 major points or comprehend it, AT ALL but he'll protect it. Lemming.
Yes it is a right it's in the Constitution, and it did not only mean muskets
Back then it also included artillery.
TJ Elder NOPE (edit-I should have said, "not quite a complete answer" My apologies ) !! There's a difference between a right to "keep and bear arms", meaning access and control of a weapon you have in your possession and a right to a weapon. I'm amazed nobody gets the wording anymore. Or is it that like so many other things, we just hoped that's what it meant and we've heard it shouted out so much that we believe it to be fact. I challenge you to read the words again with what I just said in mind.
A right to access, buy, obtain, is not guaranteed in the constitution, only the right to "keep and bear" them once obtained or made (back then you could and many did)
Now, once you have them, you're protected by our constitution.
How did that get so lost on so many people?! I'm not even "educated".
Right TJ Elder, the musket was the "assault rifle" of it's time. Soldiers (called musketeers) used muskets.
J MC I personally don't care what weapons you own. I'D LOVE a Barret .50 decked out with a great scope, bipod, suppressed of course (for my neighbors more than anything, dirty things to clean) I've missed my m203 on my m16A2 from my army days. The same 2nd amendment would be the governing basis for whatever hoops I'd need to go through to get one. In the case of the .50 cal, nothing too hard or crazy where I live to do it legally but it costs so frigg'n much... But if someone has the mentality and civic duty and the piles of gold needed to buy an full auto gunship style multi-cannon, I'm cool with them having it.
As a matter of my opinion, I bet most of us around the world can't really disagree with that. We (in general) are "cool with that" also. Why, because we allow it in the form of police, military, and government stockpiles of nuclear arsenals, existing and being called upon to act on behalf of the public. Even people who say they hate guns, fear guns or want no guns to exist, will call a cop if they need help that might require more than words to resolve ;they have weapons and if not, who would need them in that situation? Any weapon.
I would prefer to be free to qualify for a thing that can kill easily and then exercise my right to own it. But set the bar high for Tactical nukes ok? Really high like change the amendment at that point.
Not specific
"subject to some narrow and reasonable regulations. But not severe..." Who gets to define whats narrow? What's reasonable? What's severe?
THATS EASY " WE THE PEOPLE !"
We The People! Enough said!
It means individual citizens have the right to arm themselves and band together against an oppressive government or certain factions of the government. We saw an example of this in 2014 when the BLM confiscated Cliven Bundy's cattle in Nevada claiming he was illegally grazing his cattle on federal land. According to the constitution, the federal government has no right to own or set rules and regulations on land within the confines of a state and Nevada is open range. Bundy and a group of other armed protesters had a standoff with the sheriffs department and BLM. An agreement was reached to stop the confiscation and release the cattle. The second amendment is there to ensure our rights.
Here's a disturbing fact. The Federal Gov't owns 47% of all the land in the West, including about 85% of Nevada. Keep your guns.
is it a coincidence the the Bureau of Land Management and Black Lives Matter have the same acronym??????
Don’t forget the outright murder of Randy Weavers wife and little boy in northern Idaho.
The Davidians in Waco Texas by the military and goon squads of the fake fraudulent federal reserve.
IgnobleKnight Thank you
a polite society is an armed society
Have you been to Japan?
I think you meant (Heinlein) "an armed society is a polite society".
Higher suicide rate than hours, absolute racism against non-japanese. They have some great aspects to their culture, but if you think manners and bowing is better there because they ban guns, YOU CAN MOVE THERE.
Justin Nother Low gun violence, high economic success, relatively stable middle class. Every country has its flaws but you said America is a polite society, we aren't, there are a myriad of countries considerably more "polite" then us brash Americans
But since you want to call out Japan's flaws, America is #1 for mast shootings #1 for amount of guns in the country, several leagues behind in academic and scientific literacy... etc.
In spite of this, I choose to stay because they can be worked on and looking at the world around os for inspiration is start
Have you been to the UK ? One school shooting in 25 years. Dunblane,1996.
"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Anyone telling you otherwise wants to make you a serf
VERY well said!
Right to bear arms is not just a constitutional right, but a natural right. 2nd Amendment simply acknowledges and protects that fundamental right
Mike Moder EXACTLY. Say there was a hostage situation. A group of terrorists pulled out guns, took hostage of a office building, has a bomb, and is gonna activate if their demands aren't met, you're screwed, there's a 5 percent chance you're gonna make it out of it, but you know what happens, it turns out you were packing heat, shot the guy with the denominator, got cover, shot the other guys, and poof the situation's gone.
So than convicted felons be able to own a gun? How about a murder?
Sure. If that person is safe to be out of prison that person is safe to do every other thing anyone else does. If the person is not safe, keep them locked up. If you complain they will never be safe then that means the prison system is flawed, which it is. Its aimed at punishment instead of rehabilitation and keeping people safe.
Well if we followed God's laws, and Natural Law, and the Capital Punishment laws, your proposed murder wouldn't be able to own a gun, because said murder would be executed.
cool beans: The key distinction here is, due process of law.
I'd just like to take a moment to point out that in the early days of the Colonial Age, local militias and gun ownership were actually _mandated_ by British law. This was because colonies were constantly at threat from angry natives, wild animals, and other empires. Yes, they began disarming colonists in the days leading up to the Revolution, but it does a grave disservice to the debate to forget why the weapons were there in the first place.
Our heritage of gun-loving doesn't come from a love of "freedom", but rather from our heritage as frontiersmen and explorers.
And honestly, that's a cooler and more honest way of looking at it. "Freedom" is the party favor of the first world - we pride it as if we're the only country that does it, as if life in literally _any other_ first-world country is some sort of totalitarian regime. We fought for our freedom, but literally every other country in our position won theirs through diplomacy. Freedom is _not_ something to pride anymore - it's something to be _ashamed_ of if you *don't* have.
What we _can_ pride instead is that we took this continent and we made it our own. We pushed the border forward. We went into the unknown before anyone else. We are *pioneers.* That is what guns should symbolize. These were things we could _only_ accomplish with guns.
It's not that other western democracies are all totalitarian in nature but rather that they are much more easily transformed into them. There is a vast difference between having a constitutional right to something providing in a founding legal document and having a provisional law that allows something as long as conditions for that legal right remain favourable. In other words an inalienable right is different that a conventional one. The brilliance of the American Constitution is that it provides freedom as an inalienable right. This differs from all other western legal documents and really if the principles of the US Constitution were upended the rest of the West would follow.
If every country has freedom, why is the US the only non-socialist healthcare bastion in the first world? (Not that it's free market, either, but it's a lot freer than most countries.)
Reginald Uy well, there's also another historical reason to it, the reason why it was worded "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" as if the right itself was already in existence long before the american constitution was due to to the lessons learned from the magna carta and the actions of the tudor kings of englands who destroyed the chances of any militia from forming from not banning militias but from banning the right to keep and bear arms. So it is also a protection against despotism.
Exceptional job!
THIS SHOULD NOT EVEN BE QUESTIONED...
Restrictions on the right to free speech only come after you abuse that right and cause harm to others. If you yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater, when there is no fire, then you are punished. But, no one is gagged becore entering the theater.
Likewise, no law should apply before a firearm is misused. Only after abuse should there be punishment.
Any law acting beforehand restricts the right to keep and bear arms and is, therefore, unconstitutional.
Well said.
It is perfectly legal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. If it causes panic then it is illegal.
Limiting a guns magazine or clip being limited to 15 rds is the same as limiting a book or magazines pages to 15 or less.
I'm going to riddle your body with some hollow-point information
1 bullet is all it takes, my 6 round bolt action WW1 M1917 rifle is more than capable of killing someone wearing even level 3+ body armor, less than 10 rounds, still deadly.
Limiting a magazine or clip size due to fears of "mass shooting" is lunacy.
1. Criminals do not care about laws, my brother is in prison for that, prior to it he illegally owned firearms as a felon and traded them, he constantly bragged out it, and he got caught.
2. Thinking that just because someone has to reload in 10 shots or less makes shootings somehow "safer" is nuts. You can take a 6 round pump action shotgun with a wide choke and 000 buckshot and kill 30+ people in a nightclub real easy.
The DC Sniper seems to be forgotten today and all he needed was a car with a hole drilled in it, and a single rifle, one of the deadliest shootings in American history, 17 dead and additional 10 severely injured over the course of 1 month. He did not need 30 rounds in a magazine to accomplish his "task", all of his killings were done with less than 10.
that 6 round rifle is modified from the springfeild that can carry 5 rounds per strip clip i played the game verdun so i know that rifle. though not as well as you if you phsically own it and take care of it.
The M1917 Enfield can fit 6 because it was based directly on the P14 (Pattern 14) Enfield rifle that we were producing for the British until we entered the war and figured out we also did not have enough Springfield rifles and instead of retooling our entire arms production industry we would just adapt the P14 to use .30-06 instead of .303 British.
The .303 British round is a rimmed cartridge of bastard heritage (it was an adapted black powder cartridge that went modern smokeless), the .30-06 is superior in every way ballistically and was a newer design that was not rimmed. Due to the fact it was a rimless design we were able to make a 6th .30-06 fit into the magazine well where the .303 was fitting 5.
The M1917 was the most mass produced rifle for the United States during WW1, with over 6 million in total production before production was shut down post war, some of the rifles went on to serve as late as Korea before being retired and or sold to other countries, a few of which still have them in their registered arsenal, albeit more for form and function than combat.
I know that rifle like the back of my hand, I have spent countless hours researching it, I fell in love with that rifle thanks to the very game you mentioned, Verdun. I ended up purchasing one, and realized how advanced that rifle was for it's time, and it's an interesting bastard of a rifle at that, taking the best engineering from the USA, UK, and Germany, 3 of the best firearms manufacturers of the time (US provided the rifle's profile design and the sights), Britain provided the quick spring loaded bolt for volley fire, Germany provided the legendary Mauser action that is still used today).
Vincent... you played a game so you know that gun. No, you know OF that gun. I recently took a friend to the range for his FIRST time of ever shooting a gun. You know his first remark. WOW, I thought it would be easier to hit the target. I was a sniper in the FPS game I play. And that was just with a 9mm pistol.
Just because you "know'" a gun from a game doesn't mean you know crap. I also have a WW2 bolt action rifle. A 1940's Swedish Air Force Mauser Chambered in 7.92mm x 57mm. That rifle is a very serious killing machine. With "factory" Infantry issue ammo, that thing will punch a hole through 10mm of plate steel or 34 inches of hardened oak. It goes through cement block walls like they are dry wall. The sights START at 100 yards and go out to 2000 yards. And it is accurate enough to put round after round through the same hole without a bench rest at 600 to 1000 yards.