The 2nd Amendment -- It's just 1 sentence.

[Babaziba]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz,

[jwg101x]

great vid! 

[firestream93]

Hellz yeah...this guy for President!

[blizzardballz]

A well regulated militia: one that will not to violate treaty

[bilashhossain]

I'd rather butcher my own chicken lol

[BudWiser999]

Tell this LOUD & CLEAR to the gun-grabbing JEW GOONS running the U.S. Government. They succeeded in Australia and Canada. IT MUST NOT HAPPEN HERE!

[iowaworker]

The only reason there is a 2nd ammendment is so if the government tries to take over, (obama) that we can defend the republic. The communist and socilist federal government is taking over, by making everyone lower class, taking away our weapons, and pretty much rendering us defenceless. We must not let our united states republic government become communist!

[reddogloc]

A middle aged balding white guy quoting "Body county"? No, I have no idea where your coming from. Body count, wasn't that Ice-T's rock band before he went Gangster rapper full time?

[migkillertwo]

how'd you get the hand-grenades?

[cautionfiamable]

relax people, we have guns!! how is the government going to take them?? i will simply use my guns to protect my guns! i almost hope the government tries to take them, some liberal wienies will be killed off in the process.

IF THE GOV WANTS MY GUNS, IM GIVING THEM ALL MY BULLETS FIRST! and i have alot alot of bullets

[roe22silva]

God bless you Sir, from TEXAS

[MikeG11986]

Thats actually not true they arent anti gun in europe. There are actually protests to get their guns back.

Americans will never let the government take their guns away. So they are starving the people of ammo.

[Nrabites]

Wow - hand grenades?

Cna you say paranoid?

Hey Vig - haow about background checks?

[TheVigilante2000]

I'm fine with background checks....as long as it is not expensive and it is very very fast. Maybe $20 and 15 minutes at the most.

Not in favor of a waiting period. It does stop someone getting mad at you, buying a gun, and killing you before they 'cool off' in less then 3 days. It also stops you from getting a gun until after being threaten, shot, and killed. The criminal already had a gun?  He broke the rules!!

[PatriotsRepublic]

background checks are unconstitutional and unnecessary. Why should a person who has not committed a violent crime be barred from owning a gun... and on the other side, why should someone who's committed a violent crime with a gun ever be let out of jail? If you don't want someone to own a gun, simple, don't ever let them out of jail once they commit a violent crime, or, if they did do their time... they've DONE THEIR TIME... paid the price... so what right do we have to take their rights?

[TheVigilante2000]

Well it is constructional for a felon (or an insane person) to lose a lot of their rights. They cant vote, they can be denied jobs, they can be denied professional certifications, their testimony can be considered suspect, they can be put on offender lists, and they can be denied gun ownership.

Also a background check can stop fugitives, aliens, and maybe even terrorists from getting legal guns.

Other then the fee and time it takes, I dont see much of a downside.

[PatriotsRepublic]

The downside is allowing bureaucrats to decide what is freedom and what is allowed... why do we have a problem with immigrants? Why is there a problem with terrorists? Most of the time, it is the solutions that "control freaks" in our government place on society that are the cause of the problems we face. The more things you make illegal, the more good people will become felons. For example, contempt of court, if deemed to impede the court case is a felony, should that person lose his rights?

[TheVigilante2000]

I have no problem with immigrants, but I dont really feel the need for armed non-citizens in our country. I dont want a jihadie to fly here, buy an AK and walk down a busy street shooting. Call me funny that way. I agree we have too many laws, but Im thinking felons should lose most, if not all, their rights.

[PatriotsRepublic]

If our court system wasn't being controlled by bleeding heart liberals who think that murderers can be 'rehabilitated' and the laws weren't being created by a bunch of control freaks who think they have the right to make laws banning sodomy or smoking pot or taking coke etc... we'd have far fewer unnecessary people in jail. Anyone in jail for selling drugs is a felon.. that is wrong. Selling drugs and doing drugs are a part of our Liberty that is inalienable. I say get rid of the control freaks.

[MstrMnd420]

@TheVigilante2000 Lol if Jihad came and started shooting with an AK down a busy street he would not last very long. PatriotsRepublic was talking about a person being in contempt of court (Possibly from a J Walking ticket) becomes a felon for arguing his point in court from a J Walking ticket that really should be nobodies fucking business, if dude wants to walk across the street he should be FREE to do so. That person should lose all his rights from the point he started to defend them self?pft

[MstrMnd420]

@PatriotsRepublic I completely agree with you *Thumbs up!

[badazz1911]

for those idiot wanna be gun banners that think "militia" refers to the military or the national guard, try reading a fuckin dictionary!!!! the word militia is defined as "civilian soldiers" not the fucking army!!!! DUMBASSES!!!!!

[sailure1]

Just a couple points...the NRA does fight the laws. the problem is the same government who writes the laws decide if its right in doing so...see the problem here. California passed anit-gun laws, then announced they were within the bounds of the 2A. A well regulated militia is a army of common men who come to aid the country. Regulated means prepared for war in this sentence, just as my use of word "common" meant non-military and non-police...see how english works LOL small joke

[godoffallufukinbitch]

2nd amendment=the ability to defend the constitution..............im in iowa...but willing to be on your millitia, when the bankers become too BOLD...

END THE FEDERAL RESERVE

[thablackmarkit]

Yeah burn that mother fucker down.

To stop the war machine, you have to stop the money machine.

[MrPolysyllabic]

Well, I'd join a militia with you guys any day. Thanks for the input.

[beretta001]

U.S. Code title 10, subtitle A, part 1, chapter 13, § 311 Militia: composition and classes

a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

b) defines organized v. unorganized militia. damn 500 limit.

[TheVigilante2000]

Basically all men between 16 and 45 are in the unorganized militia. But I don't think that really matters in regard the the 2nd because a law can't redefine the Constitution. A law that disbanded the unorganized militia would not make the 2nd moot. As I am 45, I am not in the unorganized militia, but the 2nd does not say that only militia members can bear arms, all people can (with the idea that a militia could be formed to fight for the Free State if needed by the people).

[beretta001]

Of course.

I just LOVE using that against the "only the militia should have guns" crowd, though.

[TheVigilante2000]

Yeah, me too.

[thablackmarkit]

This ain't the boyscouts.

[FreelancePatriot76]

MrPoly,

You can reload the clips.

Let the real men fight the revolution.

[MrPolysyllabic]

If it's "real men" who think you're going to stop the bombs they drop with bullets, I am more than happy to not be one.

[FreelancePatriot76]

Huh? you said here on this post, you'd join us.

But the problem is you're a whinny pussy.

Do you even own a riffle?

FAG.

[TheVigilante2000]

MrPolysyllabic made an interesting point that the 2nd amendment has a context built into it while the rest of the constitution has little. Why? Were they drunk? Was it a mistake? I dont think so. Most of the constitution (including the B of R) is very procedural and specific. I believe at the time, the rights that were outline in the B of R were well understood as rights, but were included just to make sure that in the future, they would not be taken away by congress or the president.

[beretta001]

Ratification of the BoR was actually seen as stupid to something like half the states. Everyone referred to every right in the BoR as well understood intrinsic rights, so many didn't even think they should need to write them down.

Now I'm glad the other half bitched about it enough to get them written down in the Constitution. Gives it the force of law.

Also, every right in the BoR are civil protections against arbitrary government intrusion. From the 1st to the 10th, and all in between.

[TheVigilante2000]

The 2nd amendment at the time (and now) is not a well accepted right outside (and even inside) of the US. We are the only country that actually recognizes it as a right. Many countries allow guns, but none consider it a right. A right cannot be universally taken away. A right is intrinsic, not a privilege that is bestowed on a class or group. Bottom line, the founding fathers knew this right was going to be controversial and wanted to add a little context to it for future generations.

[MrPolysyllabic]

If the intent is to grant the right to keep and bear arms to EVERYONE, why mention "well regulated militia"? Why not just: The right of the people to keep and bear arm shall not be infringed? Without mention of "well regulated militia" the context cannot be confused. Currently, the 2nd Amendment could be seen as meaning "the people" whom are referred to are those "people" whom are a part of a "well regulated militia" Seems to me that the amendment needs to be amended to omit the term.

[TheVigilante2000]

Interesting, but I think you have it backwards. They put that in to try to be clear as to the why of the amendment to begin with. Why put in 'necessary to the security of a free State'? It was to guide laws and lawmakers in the future that this was not about self protection, hunting, or target shooting, but the ability to defend the constitution.

At the time, the concept of a standing army was seen as something a king needed to remain in power. A republic did not need (or want) one.

[MrPolysyllabic]

Read the other Amendments, if 2A begins by giving a reason for the amendment it is the only one written by that Convention to do so. If that was their mode of operation, to give a reason for rather than a requirement then no other Amendment does that. If they had to explain "why" for 2A, why didnt the same go for all others? I just wish the confusion did not exist, bearing arms is our right but with language like that its left open for interpretation.

[beretta001]

It didn't "grant" any right. "shall not be infringed"

It acknowledges that the right existed before even the Constitution existed.

It was written to convey this message to future generations:

"You NEED to protect the right to bear arms, because you may NEED to call the militia to arms to defend the Constitution from internal usurpers".

If they hadn't given a reason, it would be just THAT much easier to talk people into amending the constitution to get rid of it.

BoR applies to all.

[MrPolysyllabic]

If what you say is true, why haven't the other 9 amendments been changed? None of them give a reason. Why is it so difficult to admit that the language is flawed and left open for debate? If the words "well regulated militia" weren't there it could only be understood that everyone, militia or not, can own and bear arms. Your ad-lib of the meaning is just that, your own ad-lib. Thats not what it says. I was saying take words out, not put more in. Keeping our right to bear arms is still the goal.

[beretta001]

It was meant to evoke that spirit of resistance that everyone still had at the time. The Militia just helped win a war against a corrupt uncaring government. It was a point of pride for them.

The other 9 amendments haven't been changed because they are harder to frame as bad (though, if you know anything, those amendments are limited more often than they should be as well. Except more subtly). It's easier to tell people that people having guns is bad than it is to say their privacy is bad.

[beretta001]

If you knew anything of the framer's opinions on the second amendment, you would see that my "ad lib" is actually what they all wanted. That was the original intent. I just explained it in my own words.

The Language isn't flawed. They KNEW the 2nd would come under fire in the future (because it already had a few years before). If anything, that's why they gave it a reason. It's arguably the most important, WILL come under attack, and the people need to know WHY it is there to protect it.

[MrPolysyllabic]

And when the Supreme Court gets around to saying it in their own words, will we lose our 2nd Amendment right? How about we not let people say it in their own words and just let the passage explain for itself. It can still be interpretted either way, either guns are for people who are using them to defend the State or guns are for anyone who wants one for any reason they wish to have it. I'd just like to know which one it is before I make a stand on it, wouldn't you? Though I prefer the latter.

[beretta001]

I do let it explain itself. What it was written to mean is that nobody will be unnecessarily forcibly disarmed by the government, because they may need to serve in a militia against a tyrannous government. Again.

Their own words are fine, if they have the same idea as the original intent.

It's not for any reason they wish to have it. You can have it for whatever reason you want, but the reason it should not be taken away was for the potential need to serve in a militia.

[disturbedone5009]

i wish my school had a shooting course.

[TheVigilante2000]

My high school had a shooting team and a gun range.  Ahhh Alaska.

[disturbedone5009]

i live in california aka the peoples republic of california. no further explanation required.

[Privvy321]

Yes. The 2nd ammendment gives you the right to bear arms.

The term "ARMS" is in this day and age. A blanket reference to any weapon you wish?

Or does the state have some control over that?

Perhaps the should only allow weapons designed and produced like those from when the second ammendment was written?

[TheVigilante2000]

As the arms mentioned are in reference to a militia, that would be military class weapons.

I think the state should only allow weapons useful to a militia though (not bombs, long range missiles, heavy artillery, etc.)

[beretta001]

"Arms" refer to personal fire"arms". When the amendment was written, that was rifles, shotguns, and pistols.

The government should have no control over what property a person can own. They should be able to dictate how you use it in that it doesn't infringe upon the rights of another person. Like laws against murder and assault.

The 2nd amendment gives nothing. "shall not be infringed." It's "protecting" a pre-existing right.

[imwhatsfourdinner]

this guy should run for public office.

[ThunderousBuns]

Why hasn't this been fought against...? Seems like a perfect case for the NRA.

[TheVigilante2000]

The NRA only fights gun control through lobbyists by trying to prevent elected officials from passing gun control laws. They don't try to fight it in the courts after it is passed. This is because of a 70 year old supreme court decision that seemed to say the amendment conveys only a collective right to gun ownership. This is also around the time that fully automatic weapons became semi-outlawed. I think this needs to be reexamined and it has with the Washington DC case.

[beretta001]

The Miller case actually mentioned that it was an individual right. People never notice that. They just never "declared" it an individual right (because back then, they assumed that went without saying) legally.

The NRA does a LOT of stuff. They fund lawsuits they feel they can win, they help get pro-gun candidates elected to public office, and they run programs to help expand responsible gun ownership (pistol training for CCW permits, safety classes for kids, etc)

[justineofthenorth]

I'm still having a hard time understanding how federal laws and state laws can conflict.......or even municipal laws. States rights? Anyhow, I'm trying to get my American partner to explain these things to me.

[imwhatsfourdinner]

here is the deal. it's confusing and retarded.

the states have all the power, they allow the federal government it's power. this is fact.

on the other hand, the federal government has it in their head that they trump the states in power, which is false.

so there is constant arguing between them over where the power really lies in the courts, etc.

our federal government is alienating it's base and is pushing it's luck, if they don't clean up their act they will be replaced.

[beretta001]

The people have all the power. They allow both the states AND the federal government any power they have.

The states are reserved their rights, the Federal government is reserved their rights, both have a few that are the same. That's in the Constitution, they both trump each other in different ways.

The Civil War expanded the dominance of the Federal government. But they keep trying to take it WAY too far nowadays.

[imwhatsfourdinner]

i will support beretta001's statement as a more accurate and detailed than mine.

i was trying to simplify it, but this is a better explanation.

thanks beretta001

[frocagol]

Please, please...

Don't tell that all european think the same. We, in Europe, are gouverned by a whole bunch of asshole, I agree. But some of us (and we are a lot), have guns.

And I can tell you that the way to buy a gun is so complicated and long (average of one year waiting...) that you must LOVE guns to be ready to pass thru the walls the government builds between you and your passion.

So keep on fighting for your rights, you must avoid what happened to us in europe, at any cost.

[sirsean1227]

If guns kill people .... pens misspell !!!

You are the man!

[fastedos1969]

The NRA is a joke and doesn't stand for the constitution.

[lo2676]

DUDE YOUR ARE MY HERO!!!! We need more people like you in congress!

[Agent0061958]

Very, very well said, my friend. Of all the misinformation the public get's on television, wouldn't be nice if someone would take just 5 minutes to tell America some untainted truth? You would think in this age of information, something so simple would be common knowledge. Thank you for giving such a comprehensive explanation of the 2nd Amendment. I wish you could speak in Congress.... XD

[beretta001]

I agree, any firearm regulations/infringments should be fought tooth and nail.

"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth." - George Washington

[fresnel149]

It's also probably worthy to note that the United States Code says that there are two militias: the active militia, consisting of the National Guard, and the reserve militia, which is all male citizens 18-35. Also, from 1792-1903, it was against the law for a Reserve Militiaman to NOT own a rifle. I've always found that enlightening.

[Goodspittin]

Dude you make so much sense.