The Japanese general who attacked Pearl Harbor was told "why didn't you go till the west coast of the US and invade it?" and hes answer was this "During my years in the military I have learned that every adult citizen in the US is ARMED".
UK, Australia have out lawed most guns. After that the gun crime using the band guns is going up not down. UK has more street gun crime by street gangs and violent home invasion is going up. Why. Same goes for Australia. If you gun control freaks were right gun crime and violent crime would go down but it is going up.
Jamaica has a total ban on all guns and yet they have a very high gun crime rate. The island does not manufacture guns on the island and all have all the guns have to be smuggled on to the island. Not only that but drugs are also band, pot also has to be smuggled in the government of Jamaica can not control its boarder. So the gun laws do not work.
@rb2112002 Only mentioned it because the details of screening there was actually listed below the video and people in my area are seriously brainwashed on this issue. We have been disarmed to the extent that they're now they're coming after knives. Don't even like that casino.
Agreed! It's too bad that the debate about guns and freedom has been reduced to the "you don't have a NEED for it" argument. Of course, there are a lot of things we don't have a "need" for. Like Internet access, swimming pools, sharp knives, TV's, SUV's, and so on... If it all comes down to banning anything based on it not being "needed" than what's to say the other things I've listed won't get banned for the same reason?
@ymp5000 please clarify: are you saying we should ban guns and consumable alcohol or are you agreeing with what I posted. From your comment, I'm not sure which way your heading so to speak (-:
It is true that it was a racist law in Germany that was meant to take power from those that the government wished to harm. But it is not just about the fact that the gun control was just targeting Jews. It is about power. Human being with power will inevitably abuse that power. This is a truth that is so evident throughout history that I am surprised that it is not thought about much. The question of gun control is about the distribution of power.
every year, 11,000 people are killed by firearms in the united states alone. every year firearms ALSO are used defensivly (for self defense or home defense) 2.5million times per year in the united states alone. so, if you ban guns, there will be 2.5 million deaths per year because those criminals wont obey the laws. if u keep guns, there will only be 11,000 deaths from guns. so hmm...2.5 million dead....or 11,000 dead.....gee thats a tough one. >>COPY AND PASTE ON ALL GUN CONTROL VIDEOS<<
I wish people would stop quoting that statement about gun control in Nazi Germany. Apart from against Jews, guns laws were actually loosened by Hitler by the 1938 Weapon Law. It is just factually untrue.
@stfraleigh Agreed, but the point was it targeted the Jews and nobody else. There is a big difference between the kind of gun control you get in most western nations, gun control that hasn't lead to genocide in the vast majority of nations that have employed it, and the specific gun control employed against the Jews in World War II. The vast majority of people in Germany had more access to guns during the build up to World War II, so its not an argument about gun control. It's about racist laws
@shinra46 You're still missing the point. It wasn't about gun control in general, it was about gun control of specific sections of the public that they were actively trying to destroy. It is a fundamentally different action. If I make a law that puts a gun in 90% of the households in the country, but forbids 10% of the country from owning a gun, is that gun control? Genocidal? Absolutely. But not the same as gun control.
@rb2112002 I think its pretty straight forward, actually. Arming a massive section of the population so they could commit genocide against another sector was worse. Genocide is genocide and we don't actually have a worse crime against humanity that I know of.
Now, gun control, despite what gets argued here, is actually quite common in a number of peaceful democratic nations that have not suffered a genocide (New Zealand, UK, Australia...). So the argument gun control leads to genocide is false
@dafedge2007 My point was that if your goal is to disarm everyone, it is easier to divide people first. Compare gun laws from California to Texas. Who would be more able to resist? The goal might not be genocide, but whatever the goal, divide and conquer works best. Many times in history, gun control was a first step though.
As for gun control in other nations, I think they gave up a very important right. Time will tell.
@rb2112002 HAHAHA you thought slavery was a big political issue in the South? Try taking away the South's guns, and we will leave the union faster than anyone could ever believe!
@revan7666 Oh, it took me a minute, but my brain finally caught up. Some people say that Texas never really joined the Union. Lots of people wanted to separate when you know who took office.
@rb2112002 Well honestly, it never really was our first choice to join the US. The main reason was for support against Mexico and protecting out lands. Now that we are MORE than armed enough, it is now a matter of getting away from the overly liberal government we are now stuck with. Once we get done with that, TX will likely seal off ALL of our borders and become an isolationist country. Then issue jobs to hunt down the illegals, just to create jobs that EVERYONE would jump for to get payback.
@revan7666 Lol, got it all worked out huh?. I don't know why every border state has not followed Az's lead and passed similar laws. If one border state is left open, guess where the illegals will go? I don't even know if the Az law is effective. After the courts gutted it because it violated the foreigners rights (like that have any) it was pretty ineffective. It woke people up though, and the Gov was a gutsy chick for passing it. Az is ok, but God bless Texas.
I'm all about the constitution I think it's the most amazing document in the history of man kind Sincerley! I'm a firm believer in the Second Amendment. But some people have no business packing heat. However, the right to bear arms is essential in a true and free Repulic. Absolutely Imperative to prevent "State Terrorism".
Even if all guns were to be confiscated and their receivers destroyed, law breakers would still make unsafe makeshift weapons like zip guns. And if all zips were destroyed, law breakers would use knives, if all knives were destroyed, law breakers would use rocks and other blunt objects. It just goes to show you that no law can effectively prevent crime, rather it controls the way law breakers break the law.
Less guns=Less crime. Seriously, why is this concept so hard to grasp? If there are less guns in an area there's gonna be less gun crime, it's just common fucking sense!
But instead, you fox-news loving conservative jesus freaks decide it would be smart to give everyone an automatic fuckin' rifle SO EVERYTHING WILL BE SAFER HURR DURR! Basically your saying that more of the problem is the solution to the problem.lol
GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULLS LESS GUNS EQUALS LESS VIOLENCE ♥ OBAMA ♥
Columbine happened because of guns! I blame the manufacturers of these evil machines for the deaths of these poor innocent kids! Guns are the main problem in our country and they are the reason we are not free anymore! We need to BAN ALL GUNS!!!!!!
It's very simple to make a submachine gun out of steel pipes, you can make gunpowder from ceiling paint well. You would have to ban plumbing and shut down Sherwin williams to stop guns. Which is why "Gun control" is impossible to enforce.
awesome video, just one inaccuracy though, the cops are around to "protect and serve" this does not mean us the people, it means the locale or government agency they work for. To protect and serve the government not the people.
Also, the police have no duty to to protect the people and case law has proven this over and over in our history. It is our own duty not anyone else's.
And your bullshit claim that you got right to carry arms. There is no innate/obvious right for a person to carry arms like having free speech or thought. It is just a interpretation you cling to from your dearest 2nd amendment which talks about militia even.
Whatever they meant when they wrote that has lost its meaning a long time ago and now people like you abuse the withered remains.
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. The US constitution states that the people of the US have the right to keep and bear arms (i.e. to have guns) in order to maintain an armed militia that is ready to be called into action at any time. Hitler did in fact enforce gun control on the Jewish population several years into his regime which aided in the eradication of 6 million Jews.
@skinnyman1423 A guy owning a gun and a militia member is two separate things and should not be confused. One obvious difference is that while a militia member can be called in to defend. A gun owner cant. They have not agreed to defend anything and they might even support the invasion force for all the "gun ownership" cares.
Also a militia member got extended privileges and allot of responsibility. They also need military training. A gun owner... not so much.
@Dasmaster1 the militia are groups of armed citizens that are called into action in times of domestic war a prime example of the militia would be the revolutionary war where the militia played key roles in battles they were farmers defending their country, as an American I have the right to defend my country if it's attacked. you have little to no knowledge of American gun ownership so stick with Sweden (who's military ranks behind North Korea's)
@Dasmaster1 Lol, this is a pissing contest isn't it? Like skinnyman1423 said, the M1A2 is pretty much going to crush anything else. That being said, Sweden owns, what, 4 tanks? I don't think that's a fair comparison....
@ImWatchinTheTube Err... Sweden got modified Leopard 2 tanks which is arguably the best tank in the modern world. The Russians and perhaps Japan/China got something similar but its already out of M1A2's league.
Also Swedens army is not rather big. However thats because we have not had a war since 1814. To make it easier for you, USA was founded in 1776.
Also dont diss the sweedes. They have quite the reputation as conquerors and nothing says they cant do it again.
"The adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. In other words. Not you."
According to U.S. Federal Law, specifically Title 10, § 311, there are two classes of militia. The first class covers the organized militia and basically defines the professional military. The other class is the UNORGANIZED MILITIA and basically defines it as every U.S. citizen 18 years of age and older.
In addition, pay attention to the other half of the amendment you are citing:
"THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
Considering what the current U.S. law defines in relation to that, what do you think the ENTIRE amendment means?
It means that the People comprise the militia, both in an organized and unorganized fashion, and that the People have a RIGHT that can't be taken away by the U.S. Federal government.
In addition the first ten amendments are the Bill of Rights follow two clear purposes: identifying the rights of people and limitations of Federal government.
As the 2nd is part of the ten in the Bill of Rights, the 2nd must follow those two purposes, and it does, identifying that People have a right to keep and bear arms and that Federal government cannot infringe on that right.
The amendments were written in few, clear words so the meaning is easily understood by citizens.
The basic purpose of the 2nd amendment: the defense of the People (there is no free state to defend if the People are not free) against tyranny in any and all forms, big and small, foreign and domestic. From a street thug, to an invading foreign army to even the government itself should it no longer serve the People.
This ability of the People to protect themselves is established by the organized and unorganized militia classes pursuant to current referenced Federal law.
Also Hitler did not enforce gun control infact he made it easier for people to attain guns. This worked in his favour even.
And your USA. No gun in the world will save you once a heavy tank or even a troop transport rams in your door. Thanks to your military spending a tyrannical government would have nothing to fear from even the most well armed citizen. Dont kid yourself and think you stand a chance even a snowballs chance in hell.
The Police are Empowered to enforce the law. This includes equipment to handle anything they may encounter on a daily basis. And in USA that includes guns.
However note that they are EMPOWERED. This means they have been granted extra power above and beyond what normal people have so it makes perfect sense that they got guns and we dont.
And more people with guns when the police arrives just confuses the situation and makes civil victims.
Oh... my... god... could your grammar be any more terrible. Now I don't know what the average cop in Sweden has but the average cop in the US is not prepared for an extended armed conflict without back up simply because it's not an everyday thing. Violent crimes that require armed intervention by the police are less likely to happen in areas where guns are present a key reason why you don't hear about people shooting up gun shows.
@skinnyman1423 Hahaha i dont care about my grammar and to be honest. Your not much better and even i can see that... So sad.
By "areas where guns are present" do you mean in America? Do i have to explain to you why America sucks as a reference? How easy is it for someone to go from state to state i wonder. Perhaps as easy as from city to a city? If so then how can you not see why the difference is so large you idiot.
yes I mean in America you ignoramus. Statistically a home with an easily accessible firearm is less likely to be broken into while someone is home, a women is less likely to be raped (awake and resisting not asleep didn't want you to get confused) if she has a firearm. I sleep soundly at night because if someone breaks into my home I can shoot and detain him and proceed to hold him at gun point until the police arrive. I licensed for concealed carry, and class C firearms thanks to the ATF.
@skinnyman1423 Then let me enlighten you. Because America is built up of states which got there own laws but no border control. SMART people can travel between several states to get all the advantages and no penalties.
Such as go to a place where its easy to get a gun and then go to a place where its hard to get it to claim unfair advantages. This is why you should consider USA as a whole country at these times to get an average over all.
and let me enlighten you, under the brady bill there is a seven day waiting period for any firearm along with a back ground check if you have been convicted of a felony you will not be sold a firearm. There are federal laws in play in any state with the addition of state laws. I'm a specialist in the US Army so I would think that my training and discipline are enough, and to say that Sweden has better MBTs then the M1A2 Abrams is wishful thinking.
@skinnyman1423 Seven day waiting period? Uh, I think you need to reread that. Even before I got my CHL, I walked out with my gun within 15 minutes. The background check is instant.
@rb2112002 yeah I noticed that I had read that from the Rhode island firearm purchase requirements and must of mistaken it for a nation wide requirement. Thanks for pointing that out for me.
and let me enlighten you, under the brady bill there is a seven day waiting period for any firearm along with a back ground check if you have been convicted of a felony you will not be sold a firearm. There are federal laws in play in any state with the addition of state laws. I'm a specialist in the US Army so I would think that my training and discipline are enough, and to say that Sweden has better MBTs then the M1A2 Abrams is wishful thinking.
You go in-depth but you seam to confuse several things. There is no real difference between "Law breakers" and "Law takers". One can even shift between the 2 several times.
Also as you say immediate gun prohibition will disarm honest people but not criminals. This because earlier policy and you put yourself into this mess to begin with. Its time to pay the price for it.
Lastly you say Criminals will be unaffected... are you serious... I hope you were kidding there *watches the rest*
@Dasmaster1 Criminals would be more or less unaffected it will make it slightly more diffacult to get guns but wont make it impossible and just like alchohol prohibition will start an underground industry making them. I worked in a prison for a while and saw homemade guns from alot of stuff. a sharpened fork with a bunch of saran wrap on one end becomes a sabot round, a gun is a simple principle, exanding gasses take the path of least resistance and will push a projectile if its in the way.
@jmcclelland2007 Well of course its a simple concept. The basics have existed since the dawn of civilisation. A projectile is pushed out of a tube by an explosive build-up of pressure. However if you think its a piece of cake to make a GOOD gun your in for a surprise.
It demands special precision tools and allot of advanced theories. A gun some random gangster make is just as likely to hurt him as his enemy and is just a shadow to even the "simplest" of firearms.
@Dasmaster1 "normal people" are not the problem if you consider that most people are good then more guns means more good people with guns. to punish everyone because of some peoples mistakes sounds like when i was in grade school and the whole class was denied recess because one kid was acting out....do we really want to be treated like 2nd graders? the more we depend on our government the more freedoms we lose
@jmcclelland2007 Aside from the fact that giving guns to normal people does not serve to help all that much. Why exactly are you all so terrified of your own government? I mean really... Its your government after all so just kick them out if they misbehave.
But going back to the gun issue. If you start giving more guns out dont you think thief's will actually target gun owners to steal guns? It already happens you know. And that means more illegal guns for the bad guys.
@Dasmaster1 We are not afraid of the government but the government needs to be afraid of us. If noone had guns kicking the government out would be like hostages kicking out a bank robber. While it is possible it is difficult when he has the power. in all reality most illegal guns are either sold illegaly or imported on the black market there are not really all that many that are stolen. The cold hard truth is criminals are criminals and will be violent with any weapong be it gun or stick.
@jmcclelland2007 Urrg... lets just forget about the government because i really dont feel like getting into an argument about that again.
But i want you to really think about what good giving guns to people will actually do. Really im curious what exactly you think its supposed to accomplish.
@Dasmaster1 well we can put the government aside and i do not mean to argue so much as debate. however statiscaly areas that have CCLs have lower crime rates than those with harsh gun control. Criminals admit that they fear an armed citizen more than they fear the police, and also admit that they will obtain thier firearms wether or not they are legal. So allowing the people to have guns merely levels the field as the old saying goes "God made all men, Colt made them equal"
@Dasmaster1 "But i want you to really think about what good giving guns to people will actually do. "
The ability of people to protect themselves effectively is the intent, provided that individuals are willing to accept the responsibilities associated with that choice as well as being willing to assume the consequences for exercising that right irresponsibly, both by civil reparation and criminal prosecution.
Understand that, at least in the U.S., law enforcement is only responsible for upholding public order. They are immune from failure to provide for individual protection and there are U.S. Supreme Court cases, notably Warren vs. DC, that sets this as legal precedent.
The reasoning is that law enforcement can't be everywhere at once, therefore your own security is your own responsibility.
You can't rely on the police to protect you if they have no legal obligation to that effect.
For instance, a woman may have a court-issued restraining order against her ex-boyfriend. If the ex-boyfriend violates this order, he would be found in contempt of court.
However, having the restraining order does not necessarily mean the person served with it will comply.
The ex violates the order and attacks the woman. The woman calls the police, but they require time to answer the summons, so she's on her on until then.
If the cops don't get there in time to save her, those officers are off the hook for their failure because of governmental immunity; they tried to get there but they just couldn't make it in time due to practical reasons.
They can't shirk their responsibility of upholding public order by devoting a portion of their limited manpower and resources to just protecting one individual who is the beneficiary of a court-issued restraining order.
Of course, one solution is to allow the woman to arm herself for her own defense.
Just in case, this doesn't justify laws that say people must demonstrate need in order to be armed.
The reason: doing so would reduce the right to keep and bear arms to a privilege, which is unconstitutional.
Meaning: there's no authority for the Federal government to issue permits based on need. As the 2nd is incorporated under the 14th, the same applies to state, county and city governments.
@Watcher3223 So you think its a good idea that everyone has a gun? Well fine but if that happens no criminal will ever be unarmed so remind me again what was the reason for it in the first place?
Also regarding the 2nd amendment its meaning is very shady actually. You can read it in a whole bunch of ways. For example that only a well trained militia should have guns. So if i was you i would not rely on it to support your claims.
"So you think its a good idea that everyone has a gun?"
Misrepresent my argument, why don't you?
I NEVER said that EVERYONE should have a gun.
What I am saying is that people should be allowed the choice, especially if there is no disqualifying condition presented as evidence of ones inability to responsibly own and use a firearm.
In the scenario outlined, the woman should be allowed to be armed should she choose to.
"Well fine but if that happens no criminal will ever be unarmed so remind me again what was the reason for it in the first place?"
They would never be disarmed anyways, so what's your point?
Just because you ban guns, it doesn't mean you will be completely rid of them. It is possible for people to own and use guns illegally, including in societies where it is outlawed. Of course, this basically assures that the law-abiding will never be armed themselves against such people.
"A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state,"
This part of the amendment establishes a need for something, but how would you accomplish that?
"the Right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
This is because the People are regarded as the militia. This correlates to the militia classes as referenced in Federal law. The intent is also established by writings from the framers of the Constitution itself.
"Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people." - George Mason
". . . but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights . . . ." Alexander Hamilton
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... " Samuel Adams
"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." James Madison
Many more quotes like that from America's founding fathers. But, perhaps the simplest, clearest quote of all....
"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson
It is clear that the authors of the 2nd Amendment did not intend the government to exercise control of arms at the expense of the people. The 2nd amendment was meant to recognize a very specific right that can't be taken away for the purpose of defense, even through insurrection if necessary.
@Watcher3223 ugh.. i cant read all of those scattered youtube comments. If you want to send a lengthy response feel free to send it as a message instead. But i can tell you one thing though. If it is "so clear" then why has there been court rulings both ways?
It seams to be there is quite a bit of conflict about it which contradicts the thought that its very straight forward.
For court rulings, ideally justice must be blind and impartial. In reality, however, people who work in justice are just that: people. Impartiality isn't always possible.
One example are differences between judges with the U.S. healthcare bill: democrat appointed judges believe it isn't unconstitutional while republican appointed judges believe it is.
@Watcher3223 Well if you want to debate here then try limit your messages. Youtube's comment system is not all that great and its hard to follow multiple posts :/
Also i have read there justification for why the second amendment dont guarantee weapon ownership for citizens aside from the militia. Its definitely an valid point they bring up and they are not stupid about it either.
The Amendment’s text does justify a different limitation: the “right to keep and bear arms” protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia. Had the Framers wished to expand the meaning of the phrase “bear arms” to encompass civilian possession and use, they could have done so by the addition of phrases such as “for the defense of themselves”
"The Amendment’s text does justify a different limitation: the “right to keep and bear arms” protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia."
Then why does it specify the right of the People, and why doesn't it specify that you must be in a state-organized militia?
Plus, if the right carries a condition requiring service to a militia, then it's technically not a right.
Further, what about reference to a Federal law: title 10, subsection 311. It identifies two militia classes: organized and unorganized. Unorganized is defined as being virtually any citizen aged 18 and up. (Virtually, because it specifies men). In addition, "a well-regulated militia" identifies a militia in a general sense as opposed to a specific militia (like a "state-organized militia", as would be the case if it was written as "THE well-regulated militia."
@Watcher3223 I dont necessarily agree with it but it is a valid point i think. I have said this many times but the 2nd amendment is very poorly written allowing for all types of meanings which is the exact opposite of its purpose. Thus i do not think people should use the 2nd amendment to support there claims since it can just as well be used to refute the same claim.
"I have said this many times but the 2nd amendment is very poorly written allowing for all types of meanings which is the exact opposite of its purpose"
And yet you don't provide many examples or explanations to this effect to support the assertion while ignoring examples and explanations provided that explain why it does describe an individual right and a limit to federal powers.
@Watcher3223 I have done both explaining and showing examples of conflicting sides. If both sides can source the 2nd amendment as support for there contradictory claims then it carries no value what so ever since whatever value it has for one side is negated by the same value from the other version.
You might see it as describing individual rights and limiting federal powers but its just as valid as someone seeing it as completely opposite. You are not going anywhere using it really...
"You might see it as describing individual rights and limiting federal powers..."
Again, the 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights is consistent on the other nine amendments, that is identifying individual civil rights and limits to federal powers.
Why would the 2nd Amendment differ from the rest in that regard, especially concerning a level of force that can coerce the freedoms in the other amendments away from people and garner power to government?
On the issue of interpreting law, especially law that's still in force, the interpretation is either right or wrong; it can't be something that's subject to an academic debate where both sides may have merit.
And what are one of the things lawyers do to find out what a law is supposed to be about and what it's supposed to do? THEY FIGURE OUT THE INTENTION OF IT!
"So what about the other amendments? Focus?"
The other nine amendments comprise an important legal document that has made clear two purposes:
1. Identifying freedoms of the people
2. Identifying limits to federal powers
Why would one amendment deviate from the rest in that regard?
@Watcher3223 I thought they went to law school to learn about law.. shows how much i know. But on a slightly more serious note. The intention of the law should be written IN the law... that is kinda the whole point of it. The intention of the creators stops being important the moment the law is in black and white.
I wonder what the founding fathers thinks of slaves, equal rights for women, internet, copyright etc... But then again who cares what they think?
"I thought they went to law school to learn about law.."
If they're still in law school, they're not lawyers but law students. Once you've graduated an accredited law school and have passed the bar, you can become a lawyer.
But, if you reside in Sweden, then why are we arguing about that? I'm talking of American law, so this would not pertain to you.
@Dasmaster1 "The intention of the law should be written IN the law"
They are; in the second amendment, the intention of the People to keep and bear arms is so they can be part of a "well-regulated militia."
And, remember, under Federal law, if you're an American citizen, you're in one of two militia classes. If you are not a member of the professional military, you're considered a member of the unorganized militia by default. 1 person can comprise an unorganized militia according to law.
@Watcher3223 The law is specifically aimed at a well regulated militia. That means a trained and ! organised ! unit not a 65 year old in a rocking chair watching his crops. There is a large difference here
Once again, IF YOU ARE AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, YOU ARE A MEMBER OF A MILITIA, PERIOD.
IF YOU ARE NOT A MEMBER OF THE PROFESSIONAL MILITARY, YOU ARE CONSIDERED MEMBER OF AN UNORGANIZED MILITIA ACCORDING TO FEDERAL LAW: U.S. CODE TITLE 10, SUBSECTION 311.
@Watcher3223 An unorganised militia and a well-regulated militia... is two complete different things. Just think about it. Is there any way a militia can be worse regulated then an unorganised group of individuals with guns?
"An unorganised militia and a well-regulated militia."
Again, you misinterpret "well-regulated." "Well-regulated" in context of the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with being an organized militia. Again, using the vernacular in use on the day the amendment was written and ratified .... "being well-regulated by ones own discipline and training."
As for citizens being "unorganized militia," it's the responsibility for a gun owner to get that training himself/herself.
The term "regulated" means "disciplined" or "trained". In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "[t]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."
Federalist No. 29: A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it.
"The term "regulated" means 'disciplined' or 'trained'. In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that '[t]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.'"
Correct. The problem with your contention, however, is your insistence that "well-regulated" must also mean being organized. You can be disciplined and trained without being part of an organized militia.
"Federalist No. 29: A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it."
Again, attainment of that ability does not require membership with an organization.
For the excerpt from DC vs. Heller as well as an excerpt from the Federalist papers, none of them indicated being party of an organized militia of any kind.
One states the definition of being "well-regulated" as being disciplined and trained. The other states the need for experience to be proficient in military engagement.
None have stated the need of being a member of an organized militia, much less stating the 2nd defines a right belonging to an organized militia (collective).
In addition, YOU HAVE MISINTERPRETED "WELL-REGULATED."
This is also where citing INTENT is IMPORTANT. In 18th Century vernacular in use at the time, "well-regulated" meant having discipline and training. The law does not cite how you get the training or where, and it certainly DOES NOT imply an organization of any group.
"Well-regulated" may have a different interpretation today, but today's interpretation of the phrase is irrelevant because it ignores the interpretation at the time the law was written. You must resort to interpretation in use at the time to understand the correct intention.
As for a "65 year old in a rocking chair," again, irrelevant. According to law, if you are not a member of a professional military, you are a member of the unorganized militia by default.
@Watcher3223 You do know at least one or two of the "founding fathers" owned slaves right? And the equal rights for women did not really seam important since they are not even established now several generations later.
Perhaps they were more interested in military since thats the only thing your always been good at.
@Dasmaster1 "You do know at least one or two of the "founding fathers" owned slaves right?"
Irrelevant. What does that have to do with the 2nd Amendment and how the rest of the Bill of Rights apply today when recognizing that slaves are people and, if they are citizens, are entitled to the same rights enjoyed by everyone else?
@Watcher3223 Well it would not be the first anomaly in the laws they wrote. But perhaps its just another freedom and limit of federal powers then you think?
Like the peoples right to have a well armoured and trained militia not under the direct control of the state which is only concerned about defending the people? What about the freedom of the people to have such a militia to limit the federal powers?
"Like the peoples right to have a well armoured and trained militia not under the direct control of the state which is only concerned about defending the people?"
The purpose: what if the state turns against its own people, using any armed forces under its control towards that effect?
@Watcher3223 Actually not really. It would be just a small part of its true purpose. For example another part would be to defend the local area in case of an invasion where the army might not be present or concerned about other areas.
Or if some natural catastrophe occur they should organise and provide help to there area.
"Actually not really. It would be just a small part of its true purpose. For example another part would be to defend the local area in case of an invasion where the army might not be present or concerned about other areas."
And, again, state control is not necessarily required for citizens to provide assistance towards defense if they decide to do so: unorganized militia.
"Or if some natural catastrophe occur they should organise and provide help to there area."
And the organization can be free of state control, especially with first responders on the scene who aren't members of a state organization: unorganized militia.
"A militia is a multi-purpose tool."
Correct. Multi-purpose generally means being versatile, hence why there's an organized militia class that is under state control and an unorganized militia class that can act autonomously.
@Watcher3223 *shakes head* Why have you destroyed the meaning of the word militia usa? Listen here whatever usa calls its civilians they are not classified as a militia until it actually can act as a unit. That means they need some chain of command within the unit that can organise them.
"right or wrong its still very much an academic debate going on about a bunch of laws as we speak"
And slowly, but surely, the debate is yielding to the individual rights interpretation, with two big scores being DC vs. Heller (recognition of individual right) and Chicago vs. McDonald (incorporation under 14th Amendment, indicating that states, counties and cities must recognize individual rights interpretation just as federal jurisdictions must).
@Watcher3223 The limitations or rather the "aim" of the law should be IN the law. That is just how its supposed to be. If anything else then its a sever overlook on the part of the law maker.
But, reporters have attempted to use FOIA to obtain personal information, including home addresses and social security numbers, about gun owners for listing on newspaper articles, even though FOIA was INTENDED to obtain info about government activity and NOT INTENDED to be used to invade the privacy of citizens without due process of law to justify it.
It the INTENT of FOIA was not considered when a court denied the request, a news organization would have had its way.
"The People" are defined as the citizens, including civilians; to indicate that "the right of the People, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" means people in connection to a state-organized militia, then that alters the definition of "the People."
Remember: definitions in the Bill of Rights must be consistent, meaning that if the 2nd only means the right of people in service of an organized militia, that also means other rights apply to those people only and not others.
Also consider the Declaration of Independence, which helps to explain the purpose of the Constitution, including the 2nd amendment. A particular quote...
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
How would you propose people be able to alter or overthrow government in the case that voting to change it fails? To uphold the right of the People to change government in that case would mean a violent overthrow.
Don't forget, intention of the 2nd was also established by writings from the people responsible for the Bill of Rights; they intended the right to keep and bear arms to apply to people because the people were considered the militia as a bulwark to a standing army.
@Watcher3223 It always amuses me to see people claim they knew exactly what there founding fathers wanted. But to be honest its rather irrelevant since its not there will that is the law but what is printed in black and white.
If a rule can be read multiple ways its also usually enforced in them too and thats why its so important to have highly trained lawyers to write them in the first place. Once its written its law how stupid it may be.
"It always amuses me to see people claim they knew exactly what there founding fathers wanted."
People aren't claiming to know, they are merely citing what the American Founding Fathers had written themselves regarding what they intended about the Constitution.
"But to be honest its rather irrelevant since its not there will that is the law but what is printed in black and white."
On the contrary. It is relevant because it helps to establish the intent of the laws they made.
The writings are important because they detail the intentions of the very people that had written and ratified the Constitution, which is a document of supreme law of the U.S.
Knowing the intent of the law is an important part of being able to properly interpret the law.
It's amusing how you cast that point aside in an effort to uphold your end of the argument.
"If a rule can be read multiple ways its also usually enforced in them too and thats why its so important to have highly trained lawyers to write them in the first place."
Again, for proper interpretation of the law, it's important to note the intent the people had when they had written them.
And, no, lawyers are not the people who write the laws.
Laws are first written as bills and decided on by duly voted representatives of the People in Congress and the Senate (legislative branch) and then the bill must either be signed to law or vetoed by the President (executive branch).
And, just in case, one does not have to be, or have been, a lawyer in order to be eligible to be elected into these positions of public service.
Laws can be overturned because the legislative branch passes a bill to repeal a law and the President signs the repeal OR the legislative branch successfully votes to override a presidential veto by a 2/3rds majority vote.
A law may also be repealed if the Supreme Court (judicial branch) finds a law unconstitutional and strikes it down on those grounds.
"Guns are bad" Ok, then let's ban them.
"But there are still knives that can kill people" Ok, so let's ban them also.
"Now we can't cut our steak" Ok, so let's make vegetarianism mandatory for all citizens!
"My child died from lack of protien" Ban all pregnancies!
Let's let the government take away all of our rights! :D...
Floppygirl 1 week ago
I like how one of a tag is ron paul.
OrangeManIce 1 month ago
@ST0PandL00K Can you send me the links to your surveys? The "reduces crime to 30% success rate" would be VERY useful.
notbobby125 1 month ago
The Japanese general who attacked Pearl Harbor was told "why didn't you go till the west coast of the US and invade it?" and hes answer was this "During my years in the military I have learned that every adult citizen in the US is ARMED".
Get it?
Packerd01 1 month ago
@Packerd01 indeed, but you nickname packer,
Damn cheesehead
OrangeManIce 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
UK, Australia have out lawed most guns. After that the gun crime using the band guns is going up not down. UK has more street gun crime by street gangs and violent home invasion is going up. Why. Same goes for Australia. If you gun control freaks were right gun crime and violent crime would go down but it is going up.
samten10a 2 months ago
Jamaica has a total ban on all guns and yet they have a very high gun crime rate. The island does not manufacture guns on the island and all have all the guns have to be smuggled on to the island. Not only that but drugs are also band, pot also has to be smuggled in the government of Jamaica can not control its boarder. So the gun laws do not work.
samten10a 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I can't believe how brainwashed people in my country are on this issue.
peterlicious89 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Plz check out my channel and my views on gun control, thanks
Op7Pr0 6 months ago
Playing at Crown Casino today... hope more Australian, in particular Melbourne, sheeple wake up about this vital issue!
peterlicious89 6 months ago
@peterlicious89 Talk about shameless plugs..Damn
rb2112002 6 months ago
@rb2112002 Only mentioned it because the details of screening there was actually listed below the video and people in my area are seriously brainwashed on this issue. We have been disarmed to the extent that they're now they're coming after knives. Don't even like that casino.
peterlicious89 6 months ago 4
Agreed! It's too bad that the debate about guns and freedom has been reduced to the "you don't have a NEED for it" argument. Of course, there are a lot of things we don't have a "need" for. Like Internet access, swimming pools, sharp knives, TV's, SUV's, and so on... If it all comes down to banning anything based on it not being "needed" than what's to say the other things I've listed won't get banned for the same reason?
mdredheadguy1979 6 months ago 9
@mdredheadguy1979 Alcohol, we don’t “need” consumable alcohol either.
ymp5000 1 week ago
@ymp5000 please clarify: are you saying we should ban guns and consumable alcohol or are you agreeing with what I posted. From your comment, I'm not sure which way your heading so to speak (-:
mdredheadguy1979 1 week ago
@mdredheadguy1979 I was just adding one more thing to your list of things not needed.
ymp5000 1 week ago
Gun control means using both hands.
remsensor 7 months ago
@remsensor With a proper Weaver stance.
DiscoDude82 7 months ago
@DiscoDude82 ...And keeping your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire.
shinra46 7 months ago
It is true that it was a racist law in Germany that was meant to take power from those that the government wished to harm. But it is not just about the fact that the gun control was just targeting Jews. It is about power. Human being with power will inevitably abuse that power. This is a truth that is so evident throughout history that I am surprised that it is not thought about much. The question of gun control is about the distribution of power.
stfraleigh 7 months ago
every year, 11,000 people are killed by firearms in the united states alone. every year firearms ALSO are used defensivly (for self defense or home defense) 2.5million times per year in the united states alone. so, if you ban guns, there will be 2.5 million deaths per year because those criminals wont obey the laws. if u keep guns, there will only be 11,000 deaths from guns. so hmm...2.5 million dead....or 11,000 dead.....gee thats a tough one. >>COPY AND PASTE ON ALL GUN CONTROL VIDEOS<<
joshkkv 8 months ago
I wish people would stop quoting that statement about gun control in Nazi Germany. Apart from against Jews, guns laws were actually loosened by Hitler by the 1938 Weapon Law. It is just factually untrue.
dafedge2007 8 months ago
@dafedge2007 That's all well and good. Let me ask you one question though: How did that end up for the Jews?
stfraleigh 7 months ago
@stfraleigh Agreed, but the point was it targeted the Jews and nobody else. There is a big difference between the kind of gun control you get in most western nations, gun control that hasn't lead to genocide in the vast majority of nations that have employed it, and the specific gun control employed against the Jews in World War II. The vast majority of people in Germany had more access to guns during the build up to World War II, so its not an argument about gun control. It's about racist laws
dafedge2007 7 months ago
@dafedge2007 And gypsies. And blacks. And Muslims. And non-christians. And Anglos...
shinra46 7 months ago
@shinra46 You're still missing the point. It wasn't about gun control in general, it was about gun control of specific sections of the public that they were actively trying to destroy. It is a fundamentally different action. If I make a law that puts a gun in 90% of the households in the country, but forbids 10% of the country from owning a gun, is that gun control? Genocidal? Absolutely. But not the same as gun control.
dafedge2007 7 months ago
@dafedge2007 So its a question of screwing one group, or all gun owners. Im not sure which is worse?
rb2112002 7 months ago
@rb2112002 I think its pretty straight forward, actually. Arming a massive section of the population so they could commit genocide against another sector was worse. Genocide is genocide and we don't actually have a worse crime against humanity that I know of.
Now, gun control, despite what gets argued here, is actually quite common in a number of peaceful democratic nations that have not suffered a genocide (New Zealand, UK, Australia...). So the argument gun control leads to genocide is false
dafedge2007 7 months ago
@dafedge2007 My point was that if your goal is to disarm everyone, it is easier to divide people first. Compare gun laws from California to Texas. Who would be more able to resist? The goal might not be genocide, but whatever the goal, divide and conquer works best. Many times in history, gun control was a first step though.
As for gun control in other nations, I think they gave up a very important right. Time will tell.
rb2112002 7 months ago
@rb2112002 HAHAHA you thought slavery was a big political issue in the South? Try taking away the South's guns, and we will leave the union faster than anyone could ever believe!
revan7666 6 months ago
Comment removed
rb2112002 6 months ago
@revan7666 Oh, it took me a minute, but my brain finally caught up. Some people say that Texas never really joined the Union. Lots of people wanted to separate when you know who took office.
rb2112002 6 months ago
@rb2112002 Well honestly, it never really was our first choice to join the US. The main reason was for support against Mexico and protecting out lands. Now that we are MORE than armed enough, it is now a matter of getting away from the overly liberal government we are now stuck with. Once we get done with that, TX will likely seal off ALL of our borders and become an isolationist country. Then issue jobs to hunt down the illegals, just to create jobs that EVERYONE would jump for to get payback.
revan7666 6 months ago
@revan7666 Lol, got it all worked out huh?. I don't know why every border state has not followed Az's lead and passed similar laws. If one border state is left open, guess where the illegals will go? I don't even know if the Az law is effective. After the courts gutted it because it violated the foreigners rights (like that have any) it was pretty ineffective. It woke people up though, and the Gov was a gutsy chick for passing it. Az is ok, but God bless Texas.
rb2112002 6 months ago
@dafedge2007 Reading up on Hitler's laws, he did in fact ban guns for everyone in his controlled territory.
Regardless, gun control is ineffective.
shinra46 7 months ago
I'm all about the constitution I think it's the most amazing document in the history of man kind Sincerley! I'm a firm believer in the Second Amendment. But some people have no business packing heat. However, the right to bear arms is essential in a true and free Repulic. Absolutely Imperative to prevent "State Terrorism".
ASonOfAres 8 months ago
ban guns
gape2011 8 months ago
@gape2011 Ban guns, steal our rights, suck up to a tyrannical government.
Why not?
DiscoDude82 8 months ago
Even if all guns were to be confiscated and their receivers destroyed, law breakers would still make unsafe makeshift weapons like zip guns. And if all zips were destroyed, law breakers would use knives, if all knives were destroyed, law breakers would use rocks and other blunt objects. It just goes to show you that no law can effectively prevent crime, rather it controls the way law breakers break the law.
ironduke27 9 months ago
@Mobydick789 Your a fucking Dildo !!!!
fastmxracer24 9 months ago
Less guns=Less crime. Seriously, why is this concept so hard to grasp? If there are less guns in an area there's gonna be less gun crime, it's just common fucking sense!
But instead, you fox-news loving conservative jesus freaks decide it would be smart to give everyone an automatic fuckin' rifle SO EVERYTHING WILL BE SAFER HURR DURR! Basically your saying that more of the problem is the solution to the problem.lol
GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULLS LESS GUNS EQUALS LESS VIOLENCE ♥ OBAMA ♥
mobydick789 9 months ago
@mobydick789 0/10 troll harder
777BMWfan1 9 months ago
@mobydick789 more guns equal less violence. Twit..
rb2112002 9 months ago
@mobydick789 When was the last time you saw a mass shooting at a gun show if more guns means more crime?
Patriot3332 9 months ago
Columbine happened because of guns! I blame the manufacturers of these evil machines for the deaths of these poor innocent kids! Guns are the main problem in our country and they are the reason we are not free anymore! We need to BAN ALL GUNS!!!!!!
MrFreddyGoldstien 9 months ago
@MrFreddyGoldstien Troll much? Just saying, your position is untenable and it seems like you are just waiting for someone to bite.
MrAgrippa91313 9 months ago
@MrAgrippa91313
He apparently was trolling: his account appears to be currently closed.
Watcher3223 9 months ago
Comment removed
rb2112002 9 months ago
It's very simple to make a submachine gun out of steel pipes, you can make gunpowder from ceiling paint well. You would have to ban plumbing and shut down Sherwin williams to stop guns. Which is why "Gun control" is impossible to enforce.
ilikeminifridges 9 months ago
One of the best videos yet. Thanks you so much. Very imformative and related to my views. Helped me with my CBA essay on gun control. THANKS
VideosToTheMaximum 9 months ago
awesome video, just one inaccuracy though, the cops are around to "protect and serve" this does not mean us the people, it means the locale or government agency they work for. To protect and serve the government not the people.
Also, the police have no duty to to protect the people and case law has proven this over and over in our history. It is our own duty not anyone else's.
CARSON67 10 months ago
And your bullshit claim that you got right to carry arms. There is no innate/obvious right for a person to carry arms like having free speech or thought. It is just a interpretation you cling to from your dearest 2nd amendment which talks about militia even.
Whatever they meant when they wrote that has lost its meaning a long time ago and now people like you abuse the withered remains.
Dasmaster1 11 months ago
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. The US constitution states that the people of the US have the right to keep and bear arms (i.e. to have guns) in order to maintain an armed militia that is ready to be called into action at any time. Hitler did in fact enforce gun control on the Jewish population several years into his regime which aided in the eradication of 6 million Jews.
skinnyman1423 11 months ago
@skinnyman1423 A guy owning a gun and a militia member is two separate things and should not be confused. One obvious difference is that while a militia member can be called in to defend. A gun owner cant. They have not agreed to defend anything and they might even support the invasion force for all the "gun ownership" cares.
Also a militia member got extended privileges and allot of responsibility. They also need military training. A gun owner... not so much.
DIFFERENCE IS KEY!
Dasmaster1 11 months ago
@Dasmaster1 the militia are groups of armed citizens that are called into action in times of domestic war a prime example of the militia would be the revolutionary war where the militia played key roles in battles they were farmers defending their country, as an American I have the right to defend my country if it's attacked. you have little to no knowledge of American gun ownership so stick with Sweden (who's military ranks behind North Korea's)
skinnyman1423 11 months ago
@skinnyman1423 "who's military ranks behind North Korea's" ... Oh im so hurt now. <.<
Lets read the 2nd amendment again shall we?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"
The adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. In other words. Not you.
And just a fun fact. Sweden got better main battle tanks then USA ^.^
Dasmaster1 11 months ago
@Dasmaster1 Lol, this is a pissing contest isn't it? Like skinnyman1423 said, the M1A2 is pretty much going to crush anything else. That being said, Sweden owns, what, 4 tanks? I don't think that's a fair comparison....
ImWatchinTheTube 10 months ago
@ImWatchinTheTube Err... Sweden got modified Leopard 2 tanks which is arguably the best tank in the modern world. The Russians and perhaps Japan/China got something similar but its already out of M1A2's league.
Also Swedens army is not rather big. However thats because we have not had a war since 1814. To make it easier for you, USA was founded in 1776.
Also dont diss the sweedes. They have quite the reputation as conquerors and nothing says they cant do it again.
Dasmaster1 10 months ago
@Dasmaster1
"The adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. In other words. Not you."
According to U.S. Federal Law, specifically Title 10, § 311, there are two classes of militia. The first class covers the organized militia and basically defines the professional military. The other class is the UNORGANIZED MILITIA and basically defines it as every U.S. citizen 18 years of age and older.
Both militias comprise the PEOPLE.
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@Dasmaster1
In addition, pay attention to the other half of the amendment you are citing:
"THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
Considering what the current U.S. law defines in relation to that, what do you think the ENTIRE amendment means?
It means that the People comprise the militia, both in an organized and unorganized fashion, and that the People have a RIGHT that can't be taken away by the U.S. Federal government.
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@Dasmaster1
In addition the first ten amendments are the Bill of Rights follow two clear purposes: identifying the rights of people and limitations of Federal government.
As the 2nd is part of the ten in the Bill of Rights, the 2nd must follow those two purposes, and it does, identifying that People have a right to keep and bear arms and that Federal government cannot infringe on that right.
The amendments were written in few, clear words so the meaning is easily understood by citizens.
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@Dasmaster1
The basic purpose of the 2nd amendment: the defense of the People (there is no free state to defend if the People are not free) against tyranny in any and all forms, big and small, foreign and domestic. From a street thug, to an invading foreign army to even the government itself should it no longer serve the People.
This ability of the People to protect themselves is established by the organized and unorganized militia classes pursuant to current referenced Federal law.
Watcher3223 9 months ago
Also Hitler did not enforce gun control infact he made it easier for people to attain guns. This worked in his favour even.
And your USA. No gun in the world will save you once a heavy tank or even a troop transport rams in your door. Thanks to your military spending a tyrannical government would have nothing to fear from even the most well armed citizen. Dont kid yourself and think you stand a chance even a snowballs chance in hell.
Dasmaster1 11 months ago
Oh... My... god...
The Police are Empowered to enforce the law. This includes equipment to handle anything they may encounter on a daily basis. And in USA that includes guns.
However note that they are EMPOWERED. This means they have been granted extra power above and beyond what normal people have so it makes perfect sense that they got guns and we dont.
And more people with guns when the police arrives just confuses the situation and makes civil victims.
Dasmaster1 11 months ago
Oh... my... god... could your grammar be any more terrible. Now I don't know what the average cop in Sweden has but the average cop in the US is not prepared for an extended armed conflict without back up simply because it's not an everyday thing. Violent crimes that require armed intervention by the police are less likely to happen in areas where guns are present a key reason why you don't hear about people shooting up gun shows.
skinnyman1423 11 months ago
@skinnyman1423 Hahaha i dont care about my grammar and to be honest. Your not much better and even i can see that... So sad.
By "areas where guns are present" do you mean in America? Do i have to explain to you why America sucks as a reference? How easy is it for someone to go from state to state i wonder. Perhaps as easy as from city to a city? If so then how can you not see why the difference is so large you idiot.
Dasmaster1 11 months ago
yes I mean in America you ignoramus. Statistically a home with an easily accessible firearm is less likely to be broken into while someone is home, a women is less likely to be raped (awake and resisting not asleep didn't want you to get confused) if she has a firearm. I sleep soundly at night because if someone breaks into my home I can shoot and detain him and proceed to hold him at gun point until the police arrive. I licensed for concealed carry, and class C firearms thanks to the ATF.
skinnyman1423 11 months ago
@skinnyman1423 Then let me enlighten you. Because America is built up of states which got there own laws but no border control. SMART people can travel between several states to get all the advantages and no penalties.
Such as go to a place where its easy to get a gun and then go to a place where its hard to get it to claim unfair advantages. This is why you should consider USA as a whole country at these times to get an average over all.
Dude this is preschool logic...
Dasmaster1 11 months ago
and let me enlighten you, under the brady bill there is a seven day waiting period for any firearm along with a back ground check if you have been convicted of a felony you will not be sold a firearm. There are federal laws in play in any state with the addition of state laws. I'm a specialist in the US Army so I would think that my training and discipline are enough, and to say that Sweden has better MBTs then the M1A2 Abrams is wishful thinking.
skinnyman1423 11 months ago
@skinnyman1423 Seven day waiting period? Uh, I think you need to reread that. Even before I got my CHL, I walked out with my gun within 15 minutes. The background check is instant.
rb2112002 11 months ago
@rb2112002 yeah I noticed that I had read that from the Rhode island firearm purchase requirements and must of mistaken it for a nation wide requirement. Thanks for pointing that out for me.
skinnyman1423 11 months ago
@skinnyman1423 No problem. I didnt think there was any restrictions in RI. I guess we were both wrong. Isnt open carry legal there without a licence?
rb2112002 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
and let me enlighten you, under the brady bill there is a seven day waiting period for any firearm along with a back ground check if you have been convicted of a felony you will not be sold a firearm. There are federal laws in play in any state with the addition of state laws. I'm a specialist in the US Army so I would think that my training and discipline are enough, and to say that Sweden has better MBTs then the M1A2 Abrams is wishful thinking.
skinnyman1423 11 months ago
You go in-depth but you seam to confuse several things. There is no real difference between "Law breakers" and "Law takers". One can even shift between the 2 several times.
Also as you say immediate gun prohibition will disarm honest people but not criminals. This because earlier policy and you put yourself into this mess to begin with. Its time to pay the price for it.
Lastly you say Criminals will be unaffected... are you serious... I hope you were kidding there *watches the rest*
Dasmaster1 11 months ago
@Dasmaster1 Criminals would be more or less unaffected it will make it slightly more diffacult to get guns but wont make it impossible and just like alchohol prohibition will start an underground industry making them. I worked in a prison for a while and saw homemade guns from alot of stuff. a sharpened fork with a bunch of saran wrap on one end becomes a sabot round, a gun is a simple principle, exanding gasses take the path of least resistance and will push a projectile if its in the way.
jmcclelland2007 10 months ago
@jmcclelland2007 Well of course its a simple concept. The basics have existed since the dawn of civilisation. A projectile is pushed out of a tube by an explosive build-up of pressure. However if you think its a piece of cake to make a GOOD gun your in for a surprise.
It demands special precision tools and allot of advanced theories. A gun some random gangster make is just as likely to hurt him as his enemy and is just a shadow to even the "simplest" of firearms.
Dasmaster1 10 months ago
@jmcclelland2007 And guns in normal peoples hands are also part of the problem here...
Dasmaster1 10 months ago
@Dasmaster1 "normal people" are not the problem if you consider that most people are good then more guns means more good people with guns. to punish everyone because of some peoples mistakes sounds like when i was in grade school and the whole class was denied recess because one kid was acting out....do we really want to be treated like 2nd graders? the more we depend on our government the more freedoms we lose
jmcclelland2007 9 months ago
@jmcclelland2007 Aside from the fact that giving guns to normal people does not serve to help all that much. Why exactly are you all so terrified of your own government? I mean really... Its your government after all so just kick them out if they misbehave.
But going back to the gun issue. If you start giving more guns out dont you think thief's will actually target gun owners to steal guns? It already happens you know. And that means more illegal guns for the bad guys.
Dasmaster1 9 months ago
@Dasmaster1 We are not afraid of the government but the government needs to be afraid of us. If noone had guns kicking the government out would be like hostages kicking out a bank robber. While it is possible it is difficult when he has the power. in all reality most illegal guns are either sold illegaly or imported on the black market there are not really all that many that are stolen. The cold hard truth is criminals are criminals and will be violent with any weapong be it gun or stick.
jmcclelland2007 9 months ago
@jmcclelland2007 Urrg... lets just forget about the government because i really dont feel like getting into an argument about that again.
But i want you to really think about what good giving guns to people will actually do. Really im curious what exactly you think its supposed to accomplish.
Dasmaster1 9 months ago
@Dasmaster1 well we can put the government aside and i do not mean to argue so much as debate. however statiscaly areas that have CCLs have lower crime rates than those with harsh gun control. Criminals admit that they fear an armed citizen more than they fear the police, and also admit that they will obtain thier firearms wether or not they are legal. So allowing the people to have guns merely levels the field as the old saying goes "God made all men, Colt made them equal"
jmcclelland2007 9 months ago
@Dasmaster1 "But i want you to really think about what good giving guns to people will actually do. "
The ability of people to protect themselves effectively is the intent, provided that individuals are willing to accept the responsibilities associated with that choice as well as being willing to assume the consequences for exercising that right irresponsibly, both by civil reparation and criminal prosecution.
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@Dasmaster1
Understand that, at least in the U.S., law enforcement is only responsible for upholding public order. They are immune from failure to provide for individual protection and there are U.S. Supreme Court cases, notably Warren vs. DC, that sets this as legal precedent.
The reasoning is that law enforcement can't be everywhere at once, therefore your own security is your own responsibility.
You can't rely on the police to protect you if they have no legal obligation to that effect.
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@Dasmaster1
For instance, a woman may have a court-issued restraining order against her ex-boyfriend. If the ex-boyfriend violates this order, he would be found in contempt of court.
However, having the restraining order does not necessarily mean the person served with it will comply.
The ex violates the order and attacks the woman. The woman calls the police, but they require time to answer the summons, so she's on her on until then.
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@Dasmaster1
If the cops don't get there in time to save her, those officers are off the hook for their failure because of governmental immunity; they tried to get there but they just couldn't make it in time due to practical reasons.
They can't shirk their responsibility of upholding public order by devoting a portion of their limited manpower and resources to just protecting one individual who is the beneficiary of a court-issued restraining order.
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@Dasmaster1
Of course, one solution is to allow the woman to arm herself for her own defense.
Just in case, this doesn't justify laws that say people must demonstrate need in order to be armed.
The reason: doing so would reduce the right to keep and bear arms to a privilege, which is unconstitutional.
Meaning: there's no authority for the Federal government to issue permits based on need. As the 2nd is incorporated under the 14th, the same applies to state, county and city governments.
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@Watcher3223 So you think its a good idea that everyone has a gun? Well fine but if that happens no criminal will ever be unarmed so remind me again what was the reason for it in the first place?
Also regarding the 2nd amendment its meaning is very shady actually. You can read it in a whole bunch of ways. For example that only a well trained militia should have guns. So if i was you i would not rely on it to support your claims.
Dasmaster1 9 months ago
@Dasmaster1
"So you think its a good idea that everyone has a gun?"
Misrepresent my argument, why don't you?
I NEVER said that EVERYONE should have a gun.
What I am saying is that people should be allowed the choice, especially if there is no disqualifying condition presented as evidence of ones inability to responsibly own and use a firearm.
In the scenario outlined, the woman should be allowed to be armed should she choose to.
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@Dasmaster1
"Well fine but if that happens no criminal will ever be unarmed so remind me again what was the reason for it in the first place?"
They would never be disarmed anyways, so what's your point?
Just because you ban guns, it doesn't mean you will be completely rid of them. It is possible for people to own and use guns illegally, including in societies where it is outlawed. Of course, this basically assures that the law-abiding will never be armed themselves against such people.
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@Dasmaster1
"Also regarding the 2nd amendment its meaning is very shady actually"
Why?
"You can read it in a whole bunch of ways."
Then what are the other ways? Argue to prove your point.
"For example that only a well trained militia should have guns"
Except the part of the 2nd amendment that indicates a well-regulated militia was stating the purpose of the amendment, not how it would work.
What parts of "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is not understood?
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@Dasmaster1
"A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state,"
This part of the amendment establishes a need for something, but how would you accomplish that?
"the Right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
This is because the People are regarded as the militia. This correlates to the militia classes as referenced in Federal law. The intent is also established by writings from the framers of the Constitution itself.
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@Dasmaster1
"Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people." - George Mason
". . . but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights . . . ." Alexander Hamilton
Watcher3223 9 months ago
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... " Samuel Adams
"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." James Madison
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@Dasmaster1
Many more quotes like that from America's founding fathers. But, perhaps the simplest, clearest quote of all....
"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson
It is clear that the authors of the 2nd Amendment did not intend the government to exercise control of arms at the expense of the people. The 2nd amendment was meant to recognize a very specific right that can't be taken away for the purpose of defense, even through insurrection if necessary.
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@Watcher3223 ugh.. i cant read all of those scattered youtube comments. If you want to send a lengthy response feel free to send it as a message instead. But i can tell you one thing though. If it is "so clear" then why has there been court rulings both ways?
It seams to be there is quite a bit of conflict about it which contradicts the thought that its very straight forward.
Dasmaster1 9 months ago
@Dasmaster1 "It seams to be there is quite a bit of conflict about it which contradicts the thought that its very straight forward."
My only thought on that may be disagreement with the obvious coupled with attempts to rationalize it.
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@Dasmaster1
For court rulings, ideally justice must be blind and impartial. In reality, however, people who work in justice are just that: people. Impartiality isn't always possible.
One example are differences between judges with the U.S. healthcare bill: democrat appointed judges believe it isn't unconstitutional while republican appointed judges believe it is.
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@Dasmaster1
And, I'd rather keep debates on an open forum. Sorry.
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@Watcher3223 Well if you want to debate here then try limit your messages. Youtube's comment system is not all that great and its hard to follow multiple posts :/
Also i have read there justification for why the second amendment dont guarantee weapon ownership for citizens aside from the militia. Its definitely an valid point they bring up and they are not stupid about it either.
Dasmaster1 9 months ago
@Dasmaster1
And what is the point you mention?
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@Watcher3223 For example Quote:
The Amendment’s text does justify a different limitation: the “right to keep and bear arms” protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia. Had the Framers wished to expand the meaning of the phrase “bear arms” to encompass civilian possession and use, they could have done so by the addition of phrases such as “for the defense of themselves”
Dasmaster1 9 months ago
@Dasmaster1
"The Amendment’s text does justify a different limitation: the “right to keep and bear arms” protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia."
Then why does it specify the right of the People, and why doesn't it specify that you must be in a state-organized militia?
Plus, if the right carries a condition requiring service to a militia, then it's technically not a right.
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@Dasmaster1
Further, what about reference to a Federal law: title 10, subsection 311. It identifies two militia classes: organized and unorganized. Unorganized is defined as being virtually any citizen aged 18 and up. (Virtually, because it specifies men). In addition, "a well-regulated militia" identifies a militia in a general sense as opposed to a specific militia (like a "state-organized militia", as would be the case if it was written as "THE well-regulated militia."
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@Watcher3223 You asked me for one of the points but bear in mind they are not MY points thus i can not answer his/her place.
Dasmaster1 9 months ago
@Dasmaster1
But, if you agree with it, there must be a reason why.
What makes the argument appealing to you?
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@Watcher3223 I dont necessarily agree with it but it is a valid point i think. I have said this many times but the 2nd amendment is very poorly written allowing for all types of meanings which is the exact opposite of its purpose. Thus i do not think people should use the 2nd amendment to support there claims since it can just as well be used to refute the same claim.
Dasmaster1 9 months ago
@Dasmaster1
"I have said this many times but the 2nd amendment is very poorly written allowing for all types of meanings which is the exact opposite of its purpose"
And yet you don't provide many examples or explanations to this effect to support the assertion while ignoring examples and explanations provided that explain why it does describe an individual right and a limit to federal powers.
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@Watcher3223 I have done both explaining and showing examples of conflicting sides. If both sides can source the 2nd amendment as support for there contradictory claims then it carries no value what so ever since whatever value it has for one side is negated by the same value from the other version.
You might see it as describing individual rights and limiting federal powers but its just as valid as someone seeing it as completely opposite. You are not going anywhere using it really...
Dasmaster1 9 months ago
@Dasmaster1
"You might see it as describing individual rights and limiting federal powers..."
Again, the 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights is consistent on the other nine amendments, that is identifying individual civil rights and limits to federal powers.
Why would the 2nd Amendment differ from the rest in that regard, especially concerning a level of force that can coerce the freedoms in the other amendments away from people and garner power to government?
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@Dasmaster1
On the issue of interpreting law, especially law that's still in force, the interpretation is either right or wrong; it can't be something that's subject to an academic debate where both sides may have merit.
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@Watcher3223 Again you go off into a billion different posts... *sigh* Lets dispose of these in quick succession.
Quotes are misleading and usually dishonest.
The bill has been amended around 17 times. Its not "there" bill any more. And intentions are not important. Just the laws themselves.
Lawyers dont write it but sure knows it better.
So what about the other amendments? Focus?
right or wrong its still very much an academic debate going on about a bunch of laws as we speak. This one included
Dasmaster1 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dasmaster1
"Quotes are misleading and usually dishonest."
Excerpts from writings? Then what, pray tell, is your idea of a reference?
"The bill has been amended around 17 times. Its not "there" bill any more."
What are you talking about? The final version of the Bill of Rights containing the 2nd Amendment was ratified 12-15-1791.
"And intentions are not important. Just the laws themselves."
When one writes a law, there is an intention on what that law is supposed to do.
Watcher3223 9 months ago
"Lawyers dont write it but sure knows it better."
And what are one of the things lawyers do to find out what a law is supposed to be about and what it's supposed to do? THEY FIGURE OUT THE INTENTION OF IT!
"So what about the other amendments? Focus?"
The other nine amendments comprise an important legal document that has made clear two purposes:
1. Identifying freedoms of the people
2. Identifying limits to federal powers
Why would one amendment deviate from the rest in that regard?
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@Watcher3223 I thought they went to law school to learn about law.. shows how much i know. But on a slightly more serious note. The intention of the law should be written IN the law... that is kinda the whole point of it. The intention of the creators stops being important the moment the law is in black and white.
I wonder what the founding fathers thinks of slaves, equal rights for women, internet, copyright etc... But then again who cares what they think?
Dasmaster1 9 months ago
@Dasmaster1
"I thought they went to law school to learn about law.."
If they're still in law school, they're not lawyers but law students. Once you've graduated an accredited law school and have passed the bar, you can become a lawyer.
But, if you reside in Sweden, then why are we arguing about that? I'm talking of American law, so this would not pertain to you.
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@Watcher3223 Oh it does bother me because... The stupidity... it burns T^T
Or rather i just think its stupid and thus i would like to correct it or be corrected myself if i find my views are wrong.
Dasmaster1 9 months ago
@Dasmaster1 "The intention of the law should be written IN the law"
They are; in the second amendment, the intention of the People to keep and bear arms is so they can be part of a "well-regulated militia."
And, remember, under Federal law, if you're an American citizen, you're in one of two militia classes. If you are not a member of the professional military, you're considered a member of the unorganized militia by default. 1 person can comprise an unorganized militia according to law.
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@Watcher3223 The law is specifically aimed at a well regulated militia. That means a trained and ! organised ! unit not a 65 year old in a rocking chair watching his crops. There is a large difference here
Dasmaster1 9 months ago
@Dasmaster1
Once again, IF YOU ARE AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, YOU ARE A MEMBER OF A MILITIA, PERIOD.
IF YOU ARE NOT A MEMBER OF THE PROFESSIONAL MILITARY, YOU ARE CONSIDERED MEMBER OF AN UNORGANIZED MILITIA ACCORDING TO FEDERAL LAW: U.S. CODE TITLE 10, SUBSECTION 311.
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@Watcher3223 An unorganised militia and a well-regulated militia... is two complete different things. Just think about it. Is there any way a militia can be worse regulated then an unorganised group of individuals with guns?
Dasmaster1 9 months ago
@Dasmaster1
"An unorganised militia and a well-regulated militia."
Again, you misinterpret "well-regulated." "Well-regulated" in context of the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with being an organized militia. Again, using the vernacular in use on the day the amendment was written and ratified .... "being well-regulated by ones own discipline and training."
As for citizens being "unorganized militia," it's the responsibility for a gun owner to get that training himself/herself.
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@Watcher3223 Meaning of "well regulated militia"
The term "regulated" means "disciplined" or "trained". In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "[t]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."
Federalist No. 29: A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it.
Seams people do not agree with you here.
Dasmaster1 9 months ago
@Dasmaster1
"The term "regulated" means 'disciplined' or 'trained'. In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that '[t]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.'"
Correct. The problem with your contention, however, is your insistence that "well-regulated" must also mean being organized. You can be disciplined and trained without being part of an organized militia.
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@Dasmaster1
"Federalist No. 29: A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it."
Again, attainment of that ability does not require membership with an organization.
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@Dasmaster1
"Seams people do not agree with you here."
Actually, you've failed to mention anything that negates my arguments.
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@Dasmaster1
For the excerpt from DC vs. Heller as well as an excerpt from the Federalist papers, none of them indicated being party of an organized militia of any kind.
One states the definition of being "well-regulated" as being disciplined and trained. The other states the need for experience to be proficient in military engagement.
None have stated the need of being a member of an organized militia, much less stating the 2nd defines a right belonging to an organized militia (collective).
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@Watcher3223 Also using a gun and military movements/tactics are two complete different areas and should not be confused.
Dasmaster1 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dasmaster1
"Also using a gun and military movements/tactics are two complete different areas and should not be confused"
Irrelevant.
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@Dasmaster1
In addition, YOU HAVE MISINTERPRETED "WELL-REGULATED."
This is also where citing INTENT is IMPORTANT. In 18th Century vernacular in use at the time, "well-regulated" meant having discipline and training. The law does not cite how you get the training or where, and it certainly DOES NOT imply an organization of any group.
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@Dasmaster1
"Well-regulated" may have a different interpretation today, but today's interpretation of the phrase is irrelevant because it ignores the interpretation at the time the law was written. You must resort to interpretation in use at the time to understand the correct intention.
As for a "65 year old in a rocking chair," again, irrelevant. According to law, if you are not a member of a professional military, you are a member of the unorganized militia by default.
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@Dasmaster1
Of course, you don't have to own a gun, but the option is available should you choose to assume the responsibility.
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@Dasmaster1
"The intention of the creators stops being important the moment the law is in black and white."
Laws are black and white; it's application of the law that provides the gray.
"I wonder what the founding fathers thinks of slaves, equal rights for women, internet, copyright etc... But then again who cares what they think?"
Slaves: slavery was abolished, so subjects are citizens entitled to rights.
Women's rights: women are recognized as citizens so they are entitled to rights.
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@Watcher3223 You do know at least one or two of the "founding fathers" owned slaves right? And the equal rights for women did not really seam important since they are not even established now several generations later.
Perhaps they were more interested in military since thats the only thing your always been good at.
Dasmaster1 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dasmaster1 "You do know at least one or two of the "founding fathers" owned slaves right?"
Irrelevant. What does that have to do with the 2nd Amendment and how the rest of the Bill of Rights apply today when recognizing that slaves are people and, if they are citizens, are entitled to the same rights enjoyed by everyone else?
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@Dasmaster1
"And the equal rights for women did not really seam important since they are not even established now several generations later."
Irrelevant, for the same reasons as slaves.
"Perhaps they were more interested in military since thats the only thing your always been good at."
Well, they did have to deal with fighting off the British to earn their independence...
And there is a difference between a militia and a standing army (a.k.a. military), FYI.
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@Dasmaster1
Internet: First Amendment protection
Copyright: that deals with intellectual property, which is about something you own. Property rights.
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@Watcher3223 Well it would not be the first anomaly in the laws they wrote. But perhaps its just another freedom and limit of federal powers then you think?
Like the peoples right to have a well armoured and trained militia not under the direct control of the state which is only concerned about defending the people? What about the freedom of the people to have such a militia to limit the federal powers?
Dasmaster1 9 months ago
@Dasmaster1
"Like the peoples right to have a well armoured and trained militia not under the direct control of the state which is only concerned about defending the people?"
The purpose: what if the state turns against its own people, using any armed forces under its control towards that effect?
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@Watcher3223 Actually not really. It would be just a small part of its true purpose. For example another part would be to defend the local area in case of an invasion where the army might not be present or concerned about other areas.
Or if some natural catastrophe occur they should organise and provide help to there area.
A militia is a multi-purpose tool.
Dasmaster1 9 months ago
@Dasmaster1
"Actually not really. It would be just a small part of its true purpose. For example another part would be to defend the local area in case of an invasion where the army might not be present or concerned about other areas."
And, again, state control is not necessarily required for citizens to provide assistance towards defense if they decide to do so: unorganized militia.
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@Dasmaster1
"Or if some natural catastrophe occur they should organise and provide help to there area."
And the organization can be free of state control, especially with first responders on the scene who aren't members of a state organization: unorganized militia.
"A militia is a multi-purpose tool."
Correct. Multi-purpose generally means being versatile, hence why there's an organized militia class that is under state control and an unorganized militia class that can act autonomously.
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@Watcher3223 *shakes head* Why have you destroyed the meaning of the word militia usa? Listen here whatever usa calls its civilians they are not classified as a militia until it actually can act as a unit. That means they need some chain of command within the unit that can organise them.
Dasmaster1 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dasmaster1 "*shakes head* Why have you destroyed the meaning of the word militia usa?"
I'm just saying what the law says.
"Listen here whatever usa calls its civilians they are not classified as a militia until it actually can act as a unit."
And you listen, I AM JUST SAYING WHAT THE LAW SAYS.
I've even CITED a specific Federal statute that says so!
U.S. Code: Title 10, subsection 311.
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@Dasmaster1
Another source for your perusal: (link text modified to allow posting)
(worldwideweb). lectlaw. k0m / files / gun01. htmm
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@Dasmaster1
And if you're not satisfied with it, then sorry but that is what it is. If you are not satisfied with it, then we agree to disagree.
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@Watcher3223 Fair enough.
Dasmaster1 9 months ago
@Dasmaster1
"right or wrong its still very much an academic debate going on about a bunch of laws as we speak"
And slowly, but surely, the debate is yielding to the individual rights interpretation, with two big scores being DC vs. Heller (recognition of individual right) and Chicago vs. McDonald (incorporation under 14th Amendment, indicating that states, counties and cities must recognize individual rights interpretation just as federal jurisdictions must).
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@Dasmaster1
Additionally, as you've foolishly indicated that intentions weren't important, intentions are important when trying to interpret laws.
The reason: knowing the intention of the law helps to prevent an off-the-wall interpretation that gets the law to do something it wasn't meant to.
Example: the Freedom of Information Act is meant for the public to obtain information on government activity.
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@Watcher3223 The limitations or rather the "aim" of the law should be IN the law. That is just how its supposed to be. If anything else then its a sever overlook on the part of the law maker.
Dasmaster1 9 months ago
@Dasmaster1
But, reporters have attempted to use FOIA to obtain personal information, including home addresses and social security numbers, about gun owners for listing on newspaper articles, even though FOIA was INTENDED to obtain info about government activity and NOT INTENDED to be used to invade the privacy of citizens without due process of law to justify it.
It the INTENT of FOIA was not considered when a court denied the request, a news organization would have had its way.
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@Watcher3223 So much easier it would have been if it actually said in the law that it was for a specific thing dont you agree?
Dasmaster1 9 months ago
@Dasmaster1
"The People" are defined as the citizens, including civilians; to indicate that "the right of the People, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" means people in connection to a state-organized militia, then that alters the definition of "the People."
Remember: definitions in the Bill of Rights must be consistent, meaning that if the 2nd only means the right of people in service of an organized militia, that also means other rights apply to those people only and not others.
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@Dasmaster1
Also consider the Declaration of Independence, which helps to explain the purpose of the Constitution, including the 2nd amendment. A particular quote...
Watcher3223 9 months ago
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@Dasmaster1
How would you propose people be able to alter or overthrow government in the case that voting to change it fails? To uphold the right of the People to change government in that case would mean a violent overthrow.
Don't forget, intention of the 2nd was also established by writings from the people responsible for the Bill of Rights; they intended the right to keep and bear arms to apply to people because the people were considered the militia as a bulwark to a standing army.
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@Watcher3223 It always amuses me to see people claim they knew exactly what there founding fathers wanted. But to be honest its rather irrelevant since its not there will that is the law but what is printed in black and white.
If a rule can be read multiple ways its also usually enforced in them too and thats why its so important to have highly trained lawyers to write them in the first place. Once its written its law how stupid it may be.
Dasmaster1 9 months ago
@Dasmaster1
"It always amuses me to see people claim they knew exactly what there founding fathers wanted."
People aren't claiming to know, they are merely citing what the American Founding Fathers had written themselves regarding what they intended about the Constitution.
"But to be honest its rather irrelevant since its not there will that is the law but what is printed in black and white."
On the contrary. It is relevant because it helps to establish the intent of the laws they made.
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@Dasmaster1
The writings are important because they detail the intentions of the very people that had written and ratified the Constitution, which is a document of supreme law of the U.S.
Knowing the intent of the law is an important part of being able to properly interpret the law.
It's amusing how you cast that point aside in an effort to uphold your end of the argument.
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@Dasmaster1
"If a rule can be read multiple ways its also usually enforced in them too and thats why its so important to have highly trained lawyers to write them in the first place."
Again, for proper interpretation of the law, it's important to note the intent the people had when they had written them.
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@Dasmaster1
And, no, lawyers are not the people who write the laws.
Laws are first written as bills and decided on by duly voted representatives of the People in Congress and the Senate (legislative branch) and then the bill must either be signed to law or vetoed by the President (executive branch).
And, just in case, one does not have to be, or have been, a lawyer in order to be eligible to be elected into these positions of public service.
Watcher3223 9 months ago
@Dasmaster1
"Once its written its law how stupid it may be."
Laws can be overturned because the legislative branch passes a bill to repeal a law and the President signs the repeal OR the legislative branch successfully votes to override a presidential veto by a 2/3rds majority vote.
A law may also be repealed if the Supreme Court (judicial branch) finds a law unconstitutional and strikes it down on those grounds.
Watcher3223 9 months ago
Excellent video. Thanks for taking the time to make it and help educate people about this important issue.
OneCerebralSamurai 11 months ago
Thank you so much on making this very clear. I am currently writing a report on this and you helped me understand what "Gun Control" really is. Sub
Mr3verything 11 months ago
Comment removed
BlameRepublicans 1 year ago
@moltenchromium You know - taking the high road makes it much less fun to troll you! Apology not necessary, but accepted.
BlameRepublicans 1 year ago