Another thing to remember is that criminals will get guns regardless if it's legal or not. If the government takes away the right to own a gun legally, then they are essentially handing a gun monopoly to criminals. This makes it a cake walk for criminals to carry out their crimes, and makes it impossible for the law abiding citizen to defend themselves.
Even though your not a gun advocate, it is great however that you realize the importance of the second amendment. Ignore the idiots posting and spread the truth.
all right; everyone will have guns. guns of the period to wich the article was written, that means single shot rifles, and single shot BLACK POWDER pistols only. there; thus ends the argument......
That's all well and good, but the Supreme Court disagrees. The Constitution is a document that was created to govern the country for the entirety of its existence, not for the moment in time at which it was written.
You think the Constitution was written only to govern in the second it was written, not taking into account the natural progress of society? If that were so, then the Fourth Amendment, too, would only mean that soldiers could not quarter themselves in your house; it would not mean that you have a right to privacy.
No it doesn't. Other constitutional amendments were written so well that they apply to things in the modern era (that did not exist in those times). The founding fathers used the term "arms" so that people would have access to the weapons of the future. That's why the machine gun ban and legislation against explosives is unconstitutional.
So by definition of "militia", the "thirteenth street" gangs Bloods and Crips, and all outlaw motorcycle "clubs" should be and are rightfully given guns right? they see it as protection of themselves and community, so why should gang members be perecuted and prosecuted?
The "militia" definition gets put aside now that the Supreme Court has ruled that all citizens have the right to bear arms. The official interpretation has been made. So, yes, that means the Bloods and Crips have Constitutional rights. The true test of our Constitution comes only when we must apply it to our enemies.
Well actually people for some reason, or another either just never learned it, or just don't know our history. The militia, mostly during, and post Civil War era was transformed into the National Guard of today. It is kept more regulated, and granted BOTH State, and Federal funds. However since the FEDs are giving large amounts of money it is basically been swept in under their umbrella. When you receive a commission as an officer in the Guards it is the same as a Federal commission etc etc.
"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."-2nd Amendment/U.S. Constitution. It is called "two piece legislation" The 2004 Amicus Brief proved this. It starts off talking about States Rights, that being the right to their own State force/militia. Then there is a pause by the usage of a comma "," post-comma it goes on to talk about the "peoples" = (individuals) rights to not only own, but "bear"
To the individual in this video, you are freaking brilliant. You see the constitution for what it is and why our founding fathers wrote it the way they did. They wrote this document following fighting a war themselves for the last two years against a tyrannical state militia and realized that the time may come where they would need to do so again.
A great statement by a non bias source. This guy is not a gun advocate, or hunter such as myself, but he recognizes the need for guns and has full respect for the constitution which is the supreme law of the land. More power to you, keep up the positive frame of mind.
The 2nd amendment, by it's language, recognizes a pre-existing right to the people to be armed, which the government will not infringe. The 2nd also recognizes that the militia, consisting of all able bodied men capable of bearing arms, is essential to a free state. It also mentions "Well regulated" in terms of militia.
What does regulated mean?
In relevant and contextual 18th century usage, it means well trained and disciplined.
Another thing to remember is that criminals will get guns regardless if it's legal or not. If the government takes away the right to own a gun legally, then they are essentially handing a gun monopoly to criminals. This makes it a cake walk for criminals to carry out their crimes, and makes it impossible for the law abiding citizen to defend themselves.
ecawildcats123 2 years ago
umm.....ummmm......but'um.... how about um... we start talking ummm properly
laxlife44 2 years ago
Even though your not a gun advocate, it is great however that you realize the importance of the second amendment. Ignore the idiots posting and spread the truth.
fairman308 3 years ago
all right; everyone will have guns. guns of the period to wich the article was written, that means single shot rifles, and single shot BLACK POWDER pistols only. there; thus ends the argument......
mrbeligos 3 years ago
Comment removed
janitic 3 years ago
That's all well and good, but the Supreme Court disagrees. The Constitution is a document that was created to govern the country for the entirety of its existence, not for the moment in time at which it was written.
jnadel 3 years ago
and just how do you know?
mrbeligos 3 years ago
whats to argue, you HAVE your guns; only there black powder, are not they real guns??
mrbeligos 3 years ago
You think the Constitution was written only to govern in the second it was written, not taking into account the natural progress of society? If that were so, then the Fourth Amendment, too, would only mean that soldiers could not quarter themselves in your house; it would not mean that you have a right to privacy.
jnadel 3 years ago
The 2nd amendment doesn't say blackpowder rifles. It says ARMS. That includes machine guns and explosives.
mikekazik1 3 years ago
No it doesn't. Other constitutional amendments were written so well that they apply to things in the modern era (that did not exist in those times). The founding fathers used the term "arms" so that people would have access to the weapons of the future. That's why the machine gun ban and legislation against explosives is unconstitutional.
mikekazik1 3 years ago
so does than mean free speech only covers media of the time?
darkninja210 2 years ago
ending the "discussion". TOO BIG FOR YOU-TUBE........
mrbeligos 2 years ago
wow an argument of constitutional law we are going to solve it on you tube
5251021 3 years ago
So by definition of "militia", the "thirteenth street" gangs Bloods and Crips, and all outlaw motorcycle "clubs" should be and are rightfully given guns right? they see it as protection of themselves and community, so why should gang members be perecuted and prosecuted?
xpanicxo 3 years ago
The "militia" definition gets put aside now that the Supreme Court has ruled that all citizens have the right to bear arms. The official interpretation has been made. So, yes, that means the Bloods and Crips have Constitutional rights. The true test of our Constitution comes only when we must apply it to our enemies.
jnadel 3 years ago
no because they are criminals.
knightstalker1369 3 years ago
By the way man, being a Constitutionalist would make you a gun advocate. So good job. You're are the right side.
Joseph565112 3 years ago
Well actually people for some reason, or another either just never learned it, or just don't know our history. The militia, mostly during, and post Civil War era was transformed into the National Guard of today. It is kept more regulated, and granted BOTH State, and Federal funds. However since the FEDs are giving large amounts of money it is basically been swept in under their umbrella. When you receive a commission as an officer in the Guards it is the same as a Federal commission etc etc.
Joseph565112 3 years 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."-2nd Amendment/U.S. Constitution. It is called "two piece legislation" The 2004 Amicus Brief proved this. It starts off talking about States Rights, that being the right to their own State force/militia. Then there is a pause by the usage of a comma "," post-comma it goes on to talk about the "peoples" = (individuals) rights to not only own, but "bear"
Joseph565112 3 years ago
It allows "the people" to own and actually "bear" arms.
Joseph565112 3 years ago
To the individual in this video, you are freaking brilliant. You see the constitution for what it is and why our founding fathers wrote it the way they did. They wrote this document following fighting a war themselves for the last two years against a tyrannical state militia and realized that the time may come where they would need to do so again.
Sarge4866 3 years ago 2
A great statement by a non bias source. This guy is not a gun advocate, or hunter such as myself, but he recognizes the need for guns and has full respect for the constitution which is the supreme law of the land. More power to you, keep up the positive frame of mind.
nikeguy908 3 years ago 2
Good post.
gtrbadass 3 years ago 2
I fully agree.
jnadel 3 years ago
The 2nd amendment, by it's language, recognizes a pre-existing right to the people to be armed, which the government will not infringe. The 2nd also recognizes that the militia, consisting of all able bodied men capable of bearing arms, is essential to a free state. It also mentions "Well regulated" in terms of militia.
What does regulated mean?
In relevant and contextual 18th century usage, it means well trained and disciplined.
xagcx 3 years ago 2