The Second Amendment in Its Broader Constitutional Context

[PatriotsRepublic]

All patriots must realize that the elite (which this scumbag is a part of) do not want you or anyone else having an ability to defend yourselves against the laws HE and his scumbag colleagues believe are best for you and for the country... we're not smart enough to even disagree with his obvious supremacy to the common person. This is why elites like him will always "interpret" the Constitution to mean what they want it to mean and not what it originally meant. Time for another revolution.

[Mrcharliebobo]

This guy is a clown!! LMFAO!!

[Chuichupachichi]

It's no wonder this guy's name is Bogus! He's as Bogus as Bogus can be. I guarantee you his middle name is Bunk! "Carol Bunk Bogus"

"what they were thinking about"? What a Jackass! Listen to him for 2 minutes & try to imagine the founders sounding anything like him. They'd still be having "tea time" & paying through their nose for it.

What the hell does he know about how their minds were thinking? His mouth doesn't speak anything near how theirs spoke

[Chuichupachichi]

The founders had just used arms against their own government for it was necessary to the security of their freedom

Add Jefferson's words - "the government must be chained down with the Constitution"

Obviously, they saw the government as the threat to the security of the people's freedom. The government is what they had just fought. Unfortunately, its a necessary monster... thus, the chains

[Chuichupachichi]

Now we're supposed to believe that the 2nd is to empower the government with the control of the people's firearms?

Who the hell needs to be passing the candy bar? These Professor Law Boys ain't shit. I just tore his argument a new one

That's what happens when you willingly choose to be a liar. It makes you equivalent to a dummy. Even this high school dropout can handle Professor Dummy Liar

[TheStapleGunKid]

All of Bogus' claims, particularly that the second amendment only existed to arm slaveowners, have been discredited by other scholars and disproven in the courts, most notably in the Heller case. Bet he cries himself to sleep every night now.

[Joseph565112]

Your right SgtZellmer.

[SgtZellmer]

obviously this guy can only guess. However it says "the people" that their right shall not be abriged. So whether to defend from angry slaves or a home invader or Russians on Red Dawn its there and theres no logical reason why it shouldnt be there.

[wait887]

Notice that this guys changes the word rights to powers because he knows that government has no right. It only has powers. Well Amendment 2 speaks of a right to bear arms. not a power to bear arms.

[Ataxicabdriver]

States, independent of the federal government, have the right to maintain a militia. Individuals, Independent of both the state and federal government, have the right to keep and bear arms.

[bigl991986]

A milita is responsible for arming themselves. His argument holds no water. The South Carolina milita fought against Cornwalis. This guy is just making this up as he goes. James Madison must be rolling in his grave.

[skateking1022]

A militia is technically defined as an army of the people with their own arms and no government control anyways so it justs gets dumber and dumber a dumber,

[fishslab]

...the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms...

Neither the states nor the federal government have the power to license or prohibit the bearing of arms.

[unregisteruser]

Is this argument even remotely coherent? Congress was never given plenary authority to arm a militia. It was given restricted authority to organize it. How can an argument like this even elevate to the level where it was video taped?

[ResponsibleGunOwner]

Our founding fathers lived in fear of an overbearing, overtaxing, tyrannical central government. While there were probably some slave owners fearing insurrection, I strongly doubt it was the driving force behind the 2nd Amendment. The concept of slavery was falling out of favor and even Jefferson was questioning the morality.

This is simply the desperate effort of a losing side attempting to resurrect their argument by pulling the race card.

[CPofVirginia]

I agree entirely. That's what the Left does when they start losing a debate on any issue--pull the race card. Never mind all of the historical inaccuracies of what this man did regarding the record of actual events. Clearly he never read The Federalist 46.

His argument about the fears over slave revolts doesn't hold water given that the state constitutions of the free states recognized the right to bear arms as well.

[straightfistpit]

We the People The Slaves and Our Goverment Big Brother the Slave Owners