Does the 2nd Amendment Ensure an Individual's Right to Bear Arms?

[W9ILL]

Gun control is bull shit. It dosent make the streets safer, in fact shortly before the gun control act passed, people who had no guns or only one suddenly turned into gun nuts and when and stock piled thousands of guns. It dosent prevent crime, if somebody wants to kill you they will get the job done with or withount a gun. The Firearm control act is a butchery of the second amendment witch was added to the constitution to give the people a means to defend themselves from an opressive government

[builderfun]

this guy is so so hot and sexy, love to have him in bed

[unclefixer]

This guy is typical government beauracrat, people don't have rights unless we like it and grant them those rights! He does not understand the simple one line statement of the second amendment, Congress shall make no law infriging on the right of citizens to keep and bare arms. Militias in the colonial days were local men who got their guns and if the need arose, used them. Its simple stupid, its about freedom and the means to protect it, even from idiots like this guy.

[kirksvillemale]

you just try and take my gun, see what happens.

[Coowallsky]

Dellinger got his azz handed to him in Heller.

[stedav]

Us British do have a ban on guns, its virtually impossible to obtain A gun legally in the UK. Our police don't even carry guns never have (apart from S019 our version of SWAT), and yet our gun crime is far far lower than the USA. Ban idiots like you!

[Coowallsky]

@stedav And yet your violent crime rate increased after your gun ban. Go figure.

[TheAlexagius]

@stedav wow an idiot who odesn't understand why gun cfrima happens the usa has a higher population and a higher population density a greater higher crime producing less educated underclass and a thriving drug try and FYI the murder rates in the usa are in the places with the MOST gun control not the least the UK has ALWAYS had low gun related murders even when machine guns were readily availible, try robbing a home in texas you = dead, in the uk you go to jail after your kid are mudered and your

[TheAlexagius]

@stedav wife has been raped, i live in the uk so dont say i'm some yank red neck i hope to move to america it aint free but compared to the uk it really is, on a side note i think we've seen after the riots that the uk police cannot keep order and if shop keepers could protect thier property with guns and the same to home owners the riots would have been much much smaller

[MrStopmotion88]

This video should be five seconds long. The answer is yes.

No power-hungry politician is going to take my guns!

[sgtpetersen]

So does this guy believe the states militia should still use muskets. Times have changed and so has warfare. Try and clear a building with a musket. Sawed off shotgun would work great. I don't understand his problem. I have guns and I will not give them up.

[zergling6000]

@sgtpetersen My thoughts exactly. If i were the guy "in trouble" for having a sawn-off shotgun I could win the case real quick, even with this constraint of "militia based", what gun isn't made with that in mind

[phantomcharger]

Fuck this shithead

The best stewards of liberty are the people, you can not trust this, or any government with your freedoms

[RyanR3volution]

I don't understand while there is a debate whether it is a individual right, of course it is a individual right.

[migkillertwo]

The 2nd amendment was created to protect the states' right to form a militia yes, but that doesn't matter. The LAW says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and qualifies this by saying that this is so that states can form militias. HOWEVER, that does not mean that the 2nd amendment LIMITS the use of arms to serving in militias. The framers of the 2nd amendment rejected such language.

[hallufus]

what does it matter what early drafts stated. The FINAL draft is constitutional, the section referring to a militia is a SUBORDINATE clause. A free state needs a militia (or an army) for its security, but the founding fathers were well versed in the hazards that could result if that militia came under the control of a tyrant; King George and his redcoats being a ready example at the time. The 2nd amendment was drafted to ensure a person's ability to protect himself from the STATE!

[dortmundpls]

This guy's a goof, IMO. The U.S. Constitution says that Congress shall maintain a Navy and may call up the militia, (male citizens) to form the Army, if needed. That's why a national draft is legal to make you serve in the army even if you don't want to. Back in the late 1700's when the 2nd amendment was written, the militiaman could be relied upon to have his own weapon, rather than being issued one. That's why you have a right to be armed-period.

[helltrackrider]

@dortmundpls

The draft isnt legal...

The draft is per the Federal Government; nowhere does it give the Federal Government the power to force servitude in the military; it grants the authority to call upon the militias - but, doesnt grant the authority to the Federal Government to lay the laws of the formation of the militias...this is within the States powers; and the States cannot force servitude as well...has to be voluntary.

The Draft is 100% illegal.

[helltrackrider]

@dortmundpls

The illegality was further solidified via the 13th Amendment as well...

Lincoln, Wilson and FDR all instituted the draft without the authority - all should have been impeached for this measure alone..unfortunately, our Congress held the same mindset..and felt that they had the authority to transfer military powers to the President, which they do not..see todays "Wars" - none are declared, this means the President has NO control over the military..but yet, he acts lawlessly.

[Jesses001]

How does arming mean disarming? He just put that in as if there was no question, and it was so clear. Well it is not clear to me how arming and disarming are one in the same, and I would bet most people are scratching there heads on that one too.

[gopher0]

He a great politician

I got no idea where he stands

[retusyllib]

It's a good thing this guy is not a Supreme Court Judge. Those who can, do; those who can't, teach. This guy can't do either.

[GoLuckyOops]

If there are gun laws preventing gun ownership, this only prevents law abiding citizens from being able to obtain them.

Criminals obtain guns illegally so they cannot be traced back to them. It has been shown statistically that there is not a correlative relationship between gun legality and gun related deaths. A criminal is less likely to rob a house if he knows law abiding citizens will likely be able to defend themselves.

[UBCSWraith]

arming = disarm? This guy's retarded. Why do all these politicians strive to take away freedom and gain more power for themselves?

[JimTL1000R]

wow...now i get it. the constitution is allot like the bible. is says this but means that. so, a perfect example of this scenario was WACO TX scenario.

[nelsonboy707]

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety " Ben Franklin.

[Watcher3223]

So, the government has the right to guns and not the People?

Then what, pray tell, is supposed to stop a government from becoming corrupt and taking the rights away from the people?

Your rights to free speech, to a fair and speedy trail, to worship freely, to assemble peaceably, and so on mean NOTHING without the ability to defend your rights from a powerful force (government) that can grow and gain the ability to take them away from you for its own sake and at your expense.

[119119119119]

And don't forget that when miller was heard that miller wasn't there it was only a government lawyer who claimed incorrectly that sawed off shotguns were not military weapons. In fact they were widly used in ww1 and are still used today.

[wingatei]

God bless this man for actually having a brain.

[sbcnotch]

this guy is a fucking moron

[Lad22nd]

I'm Australian and i realize what's happening in America, you guy's NEED to keep your guns trust me.

[jwiska]

this guy doesn't understand reality

[CptrDctr]

Personal opinions, not the facts. Really...are WE gonna trust a man named Dellinger? IT"S the people that has the right to keep and bear arms... it says that in black and white...anyone that will atempt to bastardize the Constitution has an agenda and that is to disarm so they can control. Period!!! What a MORON! He should be shot...as well as any other that attempts to rule rather than govern!

[vatoencabronado]

If Congress decided when to arm and not to arm, from day one, where did we get this idea of personal gun ownership? This guy is full of bull, it that was the case all along, we wouldn't be discussing it, as we would not own guns today, they'd only belong to the government.

[vatoencabronado]

What is it that gun control people are aiming for? I'm not bothering them, why do they insist on bothering me? I don't infringe on their rights, whey do they insist on infringing on mine?

[YouJustL0stTheGame]

Ignorance and misunderstanding. They watch the media shouting about the gun crimes in America and fail to realize that the vast majority are being committed by criminals who would acquire a gun regardless of laws. None of this should matter though, follow the ideas of the founding fathers, not this corrupt government. Insure the only way they can take your gun, is from you cold dead hands.

[Lad22nd]

The constitution states we have the right to bear arms.

[usmcredwhiteblue]

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

Thomas Jefferson

[glennwih]

"..., the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." ANY FUCKING QUESTIONS YOU DUMB ASSES? It is amazing the ECA (EAST COAST ASSHOLES) that fill the net.

[daddyg321]

The bill of rights is to the PEOPLE- The militia is us,all able bodied male 17-65. At the start the fed. could not have a standing army,only the armed populace. I'm not sure it's been properly changed.

[BourbonWhiskies]

damnit I cant get over this..He said can be decided in a court..This is their court not ours..We are not voting on this they are. It is not our interp its theirs

[BourbonWhiskies]

Yuh know this is stupid becouse the people who dont believe in guns Or didnt.. People were drafted to do the duty of somones elses idea..Placed gun in their hands and placed them in harms way intentionaly to use or die...

[BourbonWhiskies]

This is bullshit...The 2nd amm.. is exactly what it says it is.. If it wasnt then the people who wrote it wouldnt have allowed what the intended to allow.. they want to tear up the constitution just like they do the bible

[tiecuando]

I'm not laughing because I'm a damn fool. I'm laughing because I'm watching some fat-ass in a comfortable chair, talking about taking my stuff. The best part is, he is far, far away, and he has body guards probably.

Heh, disarm me. Yah, I think he is the most amply equipped to do it because the only thing they have that works are naughty WORDS! Pussies.

[eghotchkin]

are you telling me the freedom of speech only covered back then? whether you choose to believe it or not the second amendment gives the people the right to fight and defend for the other 9 original amendments, and now to defend all of the other amendments added since

[allgoo19]

Most frequently use of gun:

1)by the ruling government against people's liberty, not the other way.

2)by the criminal. 90% of Mexican drug cartel come to US to buy their guns. Other small use bank robbery, likes of west Hollywood shoot out.

3)Leisure, recreation use. Hunting, shooting range etc.

4)Self defense. Only useful when the intruder have no gun and gives you enough time to prepare which rarely happens.

IMO, only meaningful use of gun ownership is 3)

[eghotchkin]

your an idiot. you can still defend yourself against a gun attack. just because the criminal has a gun doesnt mean hes going to know how to shoot accurately. and if self defense against a gun is useless then why do police even bother with shootouts? wouldnt that mean they would automatically lose? oh and by the way guns are used 2.5 million times in the U.S every year to PREVENT crime in many forms. that far outranks the number of murderes you fucking gungrabber

[Matchu80]

"I can't believe this channel doesn't get more views.

Just goes to show where the retards of our generation hold their priorities. "

Wow, I've actually never noticed how low all the view counts are... keep it up ForaTV!

[ForaTv]

Thank you.

[DrZoid99]

Well said. All the retards wants to see some other retards humiliate themselves in some reality show.

[stevemcgee99]

A lying bastard!

"That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

Virgina Declaration of Rights, 1776.

There are MANY references to protecting liberty from big government while drafting the constitution.

[numbah1pinoy]

I can't believe this channel doesn't get more views.

Just goes to show where the retards of our generation hold their priorities.

[DrZoid99]

Well said.

Its cause they don't have explosions or sex. only wisdom.

Like most people that buy an iphone because of the touch screen and overlooking the fact the as a cellular phone its quite lousy.

"ohhhh shiny...."

[whoo689]

The mistake a lot of people make, I think, is to argue that something is automatically "unconstitutional", and therefore we don't have a right to do it, just because the Constitution is absent on the matter. But, let's consider the fact that it was written 200 years ago. The Founders didn't give a shit about abortion, gay marriage, or the other social issues of our day. It just wasn't on the agenda. Would they be liberal or conservative on these matters? It's hard to say.

[whoo689]

No one argues that we don't have a right to buy and sell and apply for a job and such just because the Constitution doesn't explicitly mention it, nor does the Constitution mention 100s of rights we know we already have. It's only those rights where there is ambiguity that the Founders gave us the Bill of Rights. They said that all other constitutional duties and rights belong to the states and the people. We technically have an infinite number of rights as long as we don't hurt anyone.

[whoo689]

I'm pro-guns for self-defense and all that, but I'm no gun nut, and I think it's just foolhardy to hide behind the 2nd Amendment as a reason to keep the right to self-defense with a gun. We can just as effectively argue for it without saying "2nd amendment"! Plus, invoking the 2nd Amendment just to argue simple buying and possession, not even to fire it but just to keep guns, makes you sound like a pretentious jackass. Then again, this could make it easier for someone to ban guns.

[DrZoid99]

The problem is there are many gun nuts out there, hiding behind the second amendment every time someone says gun control, not understanding the gun control would help us separate between responsible hands and iresponsible ones.

[Watcher3223]

How does gun control help to separate responsible and irresponsible people? As far as I can see, all it does is making something illegal, which a criminal isn't going to care much about anyways.

Maybe you should read up on what criminals think about gun control, particularly Sammy "The Bull" Gravano.

[DrZoid99]

I have read it. If people wouldn't see in gun the ultimate expression for freedom, It would be much easier to regulate them. Then people like Sammy Gravano wouldn't say this things. A relative of mine is head of WITSEC, he dealt with people like Gravano all the time. They talked and talked but when it comes to actions.....

[Watcher3223]

The gun isn't merely an "ultimate expression of freedom." It is symbolic of the people's ability to defend their other freedoms from those who want to deny them from the people.

As for Gravano, he makes a point: criminals will not obey the law and, of course, they will always have a gun while those they will trespass against won't because of gun control.

I like how you'd try to discredit the person but miss the whole point entirely.

[DrZoid99]

A: We did a great job defending the 1st amendment.

B: Gravano is talking about people like him. He doesn't talk about the crazy rapper or the petty 7/11 robbers. Gun control would take guns away from those people so that law enforcement could concentrate on people like Gravano. Do you have any Idea how hard it is to be in law enforcement when everyone around you could be armed? anyone can suddenly have a surge of power and go nuts.

[Watcher3223]

A: And your right to free speech means nothing if you have no way to defend it, even by force if necessary.

B: Again, Gravano made a point about criminals not obeying gun control laws.

[Watcher3223]

And, if an idiot was crazy enough to "have a surge of power and go nuts," others around him, if they're armed, may stop him.

That's what was meant when Robert Heinlein said "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."

Besides, you can't punish people (which is what a ban would do basically) for crimes they may or may not commit. Administer punishment against the responsible party when a crime has actually been committed.

[DrZoid99]

My relative and dad are in law enforcement.

they would be so happy when gun control would come back.

A personal example: My family has been stationed in Israel for a few years and I myself as being an Israeli citizen too am serving in the IDF for the past year and half.

I Israel has the same gun laws as the us and the same crime rates (proportionally of course) and is in much more danger of terrorist attacks and existence then the US.

Yes they don't have "patriot acts" and stuff like that and

[DrZoid99]

merely a faction of the population have guns.

(and yes the Israeli counterparts of Gravano have plenty of weapons).

Deep down its all about mentality. About making the second amendment something holy that cannot be touched while the first and fifth (which are more relevant this days than the second) and other are being swept away.

[Watcher3223]

Here's the thing: I'm a Libertarian. ANY affront to the Bill of Rights, IMO, is traitorous as ALL ten of the Bills are completely and equally relevant.

But, the 2nd gives teeth to the rest of the Amendments because they enable their forceful defense should the people decide to take up arms when trying to defend their rights through policy fails to work.

The validity of the 2nd is confirmed by this rhetorical question: can people in government become corrupt?

[whoo689]

Back in the day, EVERY American citizen was a member of the "militia", so, yes, it does imply a right to bear arms. Besides, how much sense would it make for the Founders to make the Bill of Rights all individual rights except one? And why would the gov't need to remind itself it has the right to form an army and bear arms? All gov'ts form militaries!! It's implied! Even the Founders reiterated time and again how important self-defense with arms against tyrannical gov't is.

[DrZoid99]

Back then the gov't wasn't the only one. the ruling bodies of the 13th colonies were still in effect. the unification of everything was a long process (even today we ca still see remnants of individual state legislation). This right insures the unification of all armed organizations back then into one (the us army) and prevent states from taking direct action.

[eirefrance]

That depends. Are we looking for the truth or asking a pretend originalist who only cares about the Constitution when he or she can use it to further ideology?

[Redfingers]

They had Indian raids....Pancho Villa...this isn't the samey US we're dealing with, they had a legitimate claim to bearing arms.

And even today, it extends to SELF defense, not defense of the state.

If you commit a crime with a weapon, that crime should be prosecuted, not HAVING a weapon, which could just as easily be used to prevent crimes, as the police duly illustrate.

[3rdwitness]

oh no you don't either, you commie pinko. That constitution NEVER intended to take all guns from the public. Back then, guns were not only a part of daily life by preference, but also necessary to survival and therefore COULD NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES have intended that individual rights to bear arms be negated. Ignorant nonsense...not even a logical argument.

[eirefrance]

"Back then" is entirely meaningless. Do you, or does anyone else, have any reason to believe the Founding Fathers intended for us to maintain the same lifestyle as they did? No, of course not. What matters is the Constitution and what was intended to be put in it. Calling people names doesn't make your childish argument any more true.