In Search of the Second Amendment trailer

[freatork1]

Constitution of North Carolina, December 18, 1776:

XXV. "The property of the soil, in a free government, being one of

the essential RIGHTS of the COLLECTIVE BODY OF THE PEOPLE, it is

necessary,…"

-----

So, the quote at 1:04 about "the people" having the right to keep and bear their "private arms" is referring to a COLLECTIVE BODY keeping their private arms and not being dependant on the arms of a standing army of their State security.

[legaleagle45]

@freatork1 XII.

Constitution of Pennsylvania - September 28, 1776: XII. That the people have a right to freedom of speech, and of writing, and publishing their sentiments; therefore the freedom of the press ought not to be restrained.

Guess that means that the government has freedom of speech and that only official governmental publications are protected by freedom of the press...

[SaigaPhoenix308]

@freatork1 could you be any gayer? you might as well post a picture of yourself wearing a micheal jackson shirt while sucking elton johns cock.

[freatork1]

"No free man shall be debarred the use of arms."

-------------------

The actual quote is:

"No Freeman shall be debarred the use of arms in his own lands or tenements"

This was a proposal for the Virginia Constitution of 1776, which the State rejected. But the "use of arms" by a Freeman on his "own" land is not the same thing as "the people" "bearing arms" for the security of the State. It wouldn't even have been a right for all persons in Virginia, if it had been accepted.

[freatork1]

The quote at 0:30

"The great object is, that every man be armed."

-----------------

In context, he's talking about every MILITIAMAN, and he's talking about whether the Federal or the State gov't will arm them:

"May we not discipline and arm them, as well as Congress, if the

power be concurrent? so that our militia shall have two sets of

arms, double sets of regimentals, &c.; and thus, at a very great

cost, we shall be doubly armed. The great object is, that every

man be armed..."

[waypasthadenough]

@freatork1

Every military organization is 'disciplined' which says nothing about the right of the people to keep and bear arms so they can kill the freaks who want them disarmed.

[legaleagle45]

@freatork1 wrote: "In context, he's talking about every MILITIAMAN"

Nope. You left out some stuff...

"The great object is, that every man be armed. But can the people afford to pay for double sets of arms, &c.? Every one Who is able may have a gun."

The great object that Henry was speaking of was that every man be armed so that the militia would be fully armed by the personal weapons owned by the miltiamen. To this end everyone who is able may have a gun. Seems clear to me.

[freatork1]

legaleagle45 said - "The great object that Henry was speaking of was that every man be armed so that the militia would be fully armed by the personal weapons owned by the miltiamen."

--------------------------

RUBBISH!

"But can the people afford to pay for double sets of arms &c.?"

Can you explain what Henry meant by THAT?

He was debating whether militia weapons (not privitely owned weapons) were to be paid for by the Federal or the State Governments.

[legaleagle45]

@freatork1

It is very simple. The militia primarily relied upon the individual owned arms, but there were always persons who did not own arms due to poverty, or otherwise. As a result, the government would purchase a subset of the total arms used in the militia. Henry was concerned that what you would have is individuals owning arms + plus the feds owning arms + the states owning arms.

[legaleagle45]

@freatork1

And that the very best way to insure that the militia had arms was if every man be armed. Why do you suppose that the militia laws of the period required even persons who were not members of the militia to have arms? Further, you seem to insist upon a pure "states rights" thesis of the 2nd with your insistance upon a "collective people" approach. The was rejected by ALL 9 justices is Heller for very good reasons. Unfortunately, this forum does not allow in depth responses.

[freatork1]

legaleagle45 said - " And that the very best way to insure that the militia had arms was if every man be armed."

------------

As I've already said and shown, Henry said nothing about every man owning guns or having the right to own guns. The fact that he's talking about every "man" being armed by either the fed or state governments is evidence enough that he's talking about militiamen.

The video is misleading propaganda.

[legaleagle45]

@freatork1 wrote: "Henry said nothing about every man owning guns "

Incorrect. Henry said: "The great object is, that every man be armed."

freatork1 wrote: "The fact that he's talking about every "man" being armed by either the fed or state"

You already conceded that the primary method of arming the militia was with privately owned arms, so you lose. What Henry is saying is that it would be great if every man had their own arms so that neither the states or the feds would have to pay.

[freatork1]

@legaleagle45 - "You already conceded that the primary method of arming the militia was with privately owned arms, so you lose."

---------------

I don't recall conceding any such thing.

I'll lose only if you prove that Henry was arguing for a "RIGHT" for ALL individuals to own guns.

[legaleagle45]

@freatork1 wrote: I don't recall conceding any such thing.

Close enough... down thread you wrote this:

"legaleagle45 said - " The militia primarily relied upon the individual owned arms."

----------------------

That may be true"

Do you now dispute that fact? If so I can supply info from militia returns which show same... in fact upwards of 95% in Rhode Island, although the average was 2/3rds.

[freatork1]

@legaleagle45 - "If so I can supply info from militia returns....."

------------------------------­----

Will it show that "Henry was arguing for a "RIGHT" for ALL individuals to own guns?" That's the point that you're trying to deflect from.

[legaleagle45]

@freatork1 on his channel, you wrote: When they say that they could be prevented from "bearing arms," they DIDN'T mean that they would be prevented from exercising a fundamental right to "carry guns."

Correct.

@freatork1 on his channel, you wrote: "They meant that they could be prevented from "rendering military service,"

Wrong. The terminology means to carry arms for purpose of offense or defense against another person. See, 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (1771)

[legaleagle45]

@freatork1 wrote: "Henry said nothing about every man owning guns"

Yes he did. Taken in context, what Henry was saying is this "every man should be armed and everyone who is able should have one. But this is not going to happen, so the government must step in and provide some of those guns to insure the militia is fully armed. However, if both the feds and the state provide those arms, we will be paying double." You realize, that this debate did not even concern the 2nd Amend, right?

[freatork1]

@legaleagle45 - "You realize, that this debate did not even concern the 2nd Amend, right?"

-----------------------

That's my WHOLE point.

The quote in the video fools people into thinking that it wast.

[legaleagle45]

@freatork1 wrote: The quote in the video fools people into thinking that it wast.

Incorrect. What they are doing is establishing that the framers already believed such an individual right existed by virtue of preexisting common law.  Are you familiar with the English Bill of Rights?

[legaleagle45]

@freatork1

Quakers were opposed to any form of self defense against another person, but were not opposed to hunting food for substitnance. Thus the definition from 1771 I provided fits perfectly within debates. Bearing arms did not mean carrying arms for purposes of hunting, however.

Try this "no person who gets seasick on a ship, shall be compelled to serve in the Navy".

That does not imply that all ships are part of the Navy, which is directly analogous to what you are asserting.

[freatork1]

@legaleagle45 - "Bearing arms did not mean carrying arms for purposes of hunting, however."

------------------------------­-----------

Look, if you think it's a fundemental right to "carry" "guns," who are you to say it doesn't mean they could be carried for hunting? Your argument is inconsistant and full of holes. Wasn't it you who said the 2nd Amendment was based on a proposal referring to "hunting?"

[legaleagle45]

You say bearing arms = rendering military service. I say bearing arms = carry arms for purpose of offense or defense against another person. Your version of the CO clause: no person religiously scrupulous of rendering military service, shall be compelled to render military service . My version: no person religiously scrupulous of carrying arms for purpose of offense or defense against another person, shall be compelled to render military service.

Mine is better. No duplication.

[freatork1]

@legaleagle45 - "Mine is better. No duplication."

------------------------------­----

No duplication? The Framers wouldn't say that those scrupulous of doing 'x' wouldn't be compelled to do 'Y'.

In the debate in the First Congress, why was it sugested that conscientious objectors should pay a fee, "to be established by law," so that they wouldn't be compelled to "bear arms?" You don't PAY to be excused from exercising a personal right to carry guns for defence against another person.

[legaleagle45]

@freatork1 wrote on his channel: "Actualy, he does quote the Second Amendment and give the purpose for it only in THAT section. "

Incorrect. Tucker specifically deals with the 2nd Amend at Volume 1— Appendix Note D, Sec 12, Par 8.. "This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty .... The right of self defence is the first law of nature..." It is available online, google Tuckers Blackstone

This specific explanation is controlling over a reference in another part

[freatork1]

@legaleagle45

"...all room for doubt, ... seems to be completely removed, by the fourth article of amendments to the constitution, since ratified, viz. "That a militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep, and hear arms, shall not be infringed." ....the power of arming the militia, not being prohibited to the states, respectively, by the constitution, is, consequently, reserved to them, concurrently with the federal government."

[freatork1]

legaleagle45 said - " Why do you suppose that the militia laws of the period required even persons who were not members of the militia to have arms?"

---------------------------

Let's see it.

But this is a side-step from what Henry was saying, and I suspect you'll side-step your way into a full circle.

[legaleagle45]

@freatork1 wrote Let's see it.

Connecticut's earliest militia law ordered that all persons exempt from militia duty "shall yet in all respects provide, keep and maintain in constant readiness, compleat arms." In 1684, New York passed a similar provision, ordering that all persons "freed from training by the law, yet that they be obliged to keep convenient arms and ammunition in their houses as the law directs to others."

More..

[legaleagle45]

More:

Delaware law ordered that "every freeholder and taxable," even those exempt from training, provide himself with arms and "shall be obliged to keep such arms and ammunition by him." Virginia's militia law provided that "every person" exempt from mustering "shall always keep in his house or place of abode such arms, accoutrements, and ammunition, as are by the said act required to be kept by the militia of this colony."

[freatork1]

@legaleagle45 - "Unfortunately, this forum does not allow in depth responses."

------------------------------­----

There aren't enough characters to enable you to effectively baffle with BS and avoid the actual point, are there?

[SexyArcanine666]

@freatork1

Hey freakdork, how did gun control protect you from those London riots? Those riots are all the proof we needto see that you are full of shit and so is gun control.

[freatork1]

legaleagle45 said - " The militia primarily relied upon the individual owned arms."

----------------------

That may be true. But Henry made NO mention of privately own weapons in that speech.

As usual, from your crowd, you're diverting attention AWAY from what WAS said, to something that was NEVER said- that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to secure a right for ALL individuals to own guns as a way of arming the militia.

[freatork1]

The quote at 0:16

"[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them;.."

-------------

In case anyone's thinking he's talking about kids being "taught alike.. how to use them," by their fathers, he ISN'T. "How to use them" means "trained to arms." These young men wouldn't have been "taught alike" if it was by their fathers.

[walls0stone]

I don't advocate violent acts because I do not wish to give them another picture of a "nut". however, as an educated, responsible American...I'd pity the poor fellow they send to take my 2nd amendment from me.

[waypasthadenough]

@walls0stone

That's what they want. All of us sitting at home waiting our turn.

The garbage won't send a 'fellow.' The cowardly "Liberal"(communist) garbage who claim to be pacifists and who have put their guilt trip on you will send scores of black-suited Nazis who are trained to kill you and your family at the slightest hint that you might fight back. They'll treat you just like they treated the Branch Davidians, The Weavers, the Hutaree. They'll classify you as one of them.

[whoo689]

Obviously the 2nd Amendment is for gun ownership. I mean, there's no such FUCKING thing as a "collective right"! All rights are for individuals to protect against encroachment by the state and collective. The collective can do whatever the hell it wants if we don't keep it in check, after all. So why would a so-called "collective right" need to be in the BoR?

[freatork1]

@whoo689 - "there's no such FUCKING thing as a "collective right"! All rights are for individuals."

------

PENNSYLVANIA DECLARATION OF RIGHTS.

III. "That the people of this State have the SOLE, EXCLUSIVE and inherent right of governing and regulating the internal police of the same."

A personal right to govern the police? That's the "sole" right of ONE collective body.

[freatork1]

@whoo689

----

Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.

IV. "The people of this Commonwealth have the SOLE and EXCLUSIVE right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not, or may not hereafter, be by them expressly delegated to the United States of America, in Congress assembled."

Sole right of one collective body. That body is in the 9th & 10th Amendments.

[ArcyTheFurryArcanine]

@freatork1

LOL. Damn freak, did you forget the constitution already?

[freatork1]

@Arcy Furry Arcanine - "did you forget the constitution already?"

----------------

I don't know why you bother making any comments because you NEVER address what's been said. Now, piss off to someone's channel to say something crude about a users mothers tits, as you frequently do.

[ArcyTheFurryArcanine]

@freatork1

I always do, you are the one who side steps LOL

[greengriffin1]

There is no First Amendment without the Second Amendment!

[Antibacterialspray01]

absolutely

[aajdjr]

you touch my gun you will ONLY GET BULLETS (if you know what i mean ; |

[volodenon]

fuck ya liberal bastards cannot take away my gun like they tried the fucking 4 people who voted for it should be taken out and beaten silly stupid anti-freedom liberal cock-suckers always out to amend all of our rights like the fascists

carpet-munchers they are

[Verator]

BEST video EVER!

[waypasthadenough]

There's nothing 'lawful' about the 2nd Amendment. The Founders wrote it for the day when we would be told to 'turn them in' or 'register' them. That's when you pick up your weapon, go down the street to the local "Liberal" freak, politician, newswhore, and send it to hell.

willowtowndotcom

[scruz1299]

YOU'RE GODDAMN RIGHT BROTHER!!!!

[Verator]

he's right plain and simple

[freatork1]

@waypasthadenough - "The Founders wrote it for the day when we would be told to 'turn them in' or 'register' them."

------

Shortly after ratification of the Constitution everyone had to register themselves, their arm and ammunition. This information was collected by the State government for the Federal Government in the "Return of Militia." Why wasn't there a single objection raised? You've been brainwashed by the gun industry.

[waypasthadenough]

@freatork1

Check this lying "Liberal" freak. Yes, they had militia rolls, and yes, of course many of them had weapons that the govt. knew about. But that was so they could be used in defense of the state or the local community.

Modern registration is so lying "Liberal" shit like freatork1 can tell its braindead black-suited Nazis to come kill you for not obeying its evil laws.

"Liberal" season is coming. Don't waste time telling garbage like this why you're splattering its brains.

[freatork1]

@waypasthadenough - "Modern registration is so lying "Liberal" shit

In the "Return of Militia" ALL arms, ammunition and equipment had to be registered. Why didn't ANYONE cry about "lying Liberal shit" and "evil laws" at that time, eh? Like I said, you've all been brainwashed by modern gun industry propaganda.

You called me a liar without pointing out the lie.

[waypasthadenough]

@freatork1

OK, what is "Return of Militia?" Is it a book? It's not on Amazon as far as I can find.

Source yourself....

[freatork1]

@waypasthadenough - "..what is "Return of Militia?" Is it a book?"

------

It's exactly what I told you it was in my last post. No, it's not a book. I went to the first link of a Google search. The link is on the comments section of my channel. There's a gif image of the relevant document from the Library of Congress.

[waypasthadenough]

@freatork1

Links on your page don't seem to work.

What did you search for?

[freatork1]

@waypasthadenough - "What did you search for?"

----

Errr.. Try "return of militia"

You're showing WHY you're unable to understand the meaning of the Second Amendment. I told you I did a Google search and went to the first link. How come you still haven't managed to do that?

[waypasthadenough]

@freatork1

Been there done that. Saw nothing that proves anything. Especially the silliness on your youtube page. As all "Liberal" shit you hack and slice and see what you want.

Not all the Founders were good guys. Some were statists, like the evil ones we face today.

[waypasthadenough]

@freatork1

The militias were once organs of the king, then the colonies, then the states. So of course they were trained and 'regulated' meaning 'well trained.' Not meaning they had their weapons at the permission of the states or the king.

History of England and American has been one of increasing Liberty, not decreasing it. If we have to spill "Liberal"(communist) blood to increase it some more, or take back what the shit has stolen so be it.

[freatork1]

@waypasthadenough - "If we have to spill Liberal.. blood.. so be it."

--------

Cuckoo!!!!

Do they allow YOU to have guns?

[waypasthadenough]

@freatork1

Yes honey child, please come visit over the water and beat on my door at 3 a.m. so I can show you the business end of one of them...

[waypasthadenough]

@freatork1

And your page says you're in the UK, where the stupid sheeple turned in their weapons. Gun owners should have picked up their weapons, went down the street and splattered the brains of the politicians and other scum like you who wanted them disarmed so they couldn't fight back against "Liberal" tyranny. 

[waypasthadenough]

@freatork1

Did you mean the garbage on The Potowmack Institute site? What a shining pile of commie shit they are...

Very trustworthy, uh huh. More targets for "Liberal" season....

[freatork1]

@waypasthadenough - "Links on your page don't seem to work."

--------

Copy and paste the top link from my channel into the bar at the top of your screen. For some reason, a hyphen (-) appears in the link (g-if). Remove it before clicking search.

"Artillery side arms, sabres, pairs of pistols, muskets, rifles, fuses, bayonets, cartridge boxes, knapsacks, ram rods (not you), espontoons, pounds of powder, etc,etc, etc." EVERYTHING was registered. It's a gif image of the actual document .

[waypasthadenough]

@freatork1

If it originates with the SPLC it's communist propaganda. End of discussion...

[legaleagle45]

@freatork1

No arms ammunition or equipment were registered. There was a count of the weapons, ammunition and equipment EMPLOYED by the militia, whether those militia arms were owned by the individuals are were owned by governmental bodies. It was not even an attempt to count all private arms, let alone register all private arms.

[legaleagle45]

@freatork1 wrote: In the "Return of Militia" ALL arms, ammunition and equipment had to be registered

Incorrect.. The return of the Militia merely counted arms , ammunition and equipment used by the militia. Yhis included both government owned arms and privately owned arms, but did not include any arms not used in the militia and the individual owners of these privately owned arms were not identified.

[TheBoberton]

@freatork1

'In the "Return of Militia" ALL arms, ammunition and equipment had to be registered.'

Not at all.

It was merely taking inventory to know what weapons the militia had.

Say the militia is ten men. Six of them have muskets, two have cannon, and two have sabres. The Return of the Militia would take this as six muskets, two cannons, and two sabres.

This of course did not include private arms unrelated to militia duty.

[avatar941]

Great video, thanks for posting, can't wait to see the whole thing

[fnherstalpatriot]

Fred Thompson is no different than the rest of the puppets.

[airborne373]

Hi It5lee- Here is another site to check on Fred Thompson's entire voting record including his support for bills that restricted 2ND Amendment Rights votesmart dot org

Ron Paul also is the #1 Rep. candidate in the third quarter to received donations from active duty military and veterans. This is from Federal Election Commission filings. You can google this, it has been in many MSM stories even RP's opponents begrudgingly admit this data.

[airborne373]

Here is a link you may want to visit. It is a matter of record that Fred Thompson was in fact anti-gun as a Senator. Sorry to be the one to tell you. But it is researchable and verifiable if you look.

conservativesagainstfred.wordp­ress dot com/2007/06/11/fred-thompsons-­anti-gun-senate-record/

[ChampionofLiberty]

I have this documentary on DVD and I enjoyed it.

[airborne373]

Senator Fred Thompson took money from American Gun Owners and second amendment rights groups and then voted against Gun Owners 14 times in the senate.

Ron Paul has A+ rated by Gun Owners of America.

Ron Paul got far more donations from military personnel in the second quarter 2007 than any other presidential candidate.

[greengriffin1]

Great job!

[MatthewLeee]

Chills down my spine, can I have the soundtrack PLEASE.

[davidthardy]

Sure. I'm probably gonna do some more clips next week or so, and can strip off the audio then. Just give me your email.

[capnarness]

I agree without the 2nd, we've got nothing. For a means to preserve it check out YouTube video: The Maturing of the Democratic Process, subtitled, Resolved: The American public is now just as capable of voting on the competing Democratic and Republican versions of Congressional bills, as voting on the competing candidates.

The concept is to restore faith and trust in U.S. govt., to avert a fascist takeover when the administration's CCP credit card maxes out.

[AlephTeth]

David Hardy's documentary does an excellent job detailing the history of the Second Amendment. I bought the DVD a few weeks ago and I'm very impressed with the overall quality and the research that went into its production.

[nowhiteguilthere]

awesome

[chiefarooney]

Powerful....

[riceski]

Great Trailer - thanks

Riceski

[OceanDreamForMe]

hans154, exactly the same did Turks to the Armenians, first they disarmed them, then slaughtered...

I wish police in the UK was armed as well...they should be able to ptotect themselves as well as other innocent ppl...

[Yakko77]

Just ordered a copy. I can't wait to get it! I always enjoy a good 2nd Amendment debate and I hope this film is as informative as the trailer seems.

[hans154]

i wish we in Europe realized the importance of individual armory meant for self protection. Disarming a population is preparing them to be slaughtered. It was the first thing that Hitler did; disarming the Jews.

[Hunt4life]

Hammer on, Dave!

[jaqson42]

Sweet, we can preorder the film now! I can't wait to see it. Btw, the music from the trailer is really nice, where is it from?

[davidthardy]

Jason Miller of Prophetikmusic.com.

[jneilschulman]

I can't wait to see the full documentary!

[2ndafe]

Our country is in grave need of these types of films. I only hope that the finished product can live up to the hype of this great trailer.