"The Sing-Along Second Amendment" by Roy Zimmerman

words and music by Roy Zimmerman

Please like me on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Roy-Zimmerman/39171898761
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/royzimmerman
Visit me at http://royzimmerman.com/

This video was shot at the 142 Throckmorton Theatre in Mill Valley, CA at a "Mark Pitta and Friends" comedy night. Thanks to Mark, Lucy Mercer, Edwin D'Shazo and Tim Stone.

Category:

Comedy

Tags:

• satire
• song
• NRA
• gun
• control
• Columbine
• Virginia
• Tech
• shooting
• Scalia
• Constitution

[JAB63096]

Roy, can you write a song for every amendment? Then I'll be able to memorize them all :P Love the odd moment when I walk into the grocery store and realize I can recite the entire second Amendment.

[Theroha]

Here's what I was taught in my PoliSci class: 1st half of the Amendment essentially establishes the national guard. The 2nd half sets up the rights of citizens to own weapons in case we find ourselves in the situation were we have to fight another war on our own soil or go hunting whatever you need to do. Just don't be stupid and try to start a war because Sarah Palin or Rick Perry said it was a good idea.

[spinynorman230]

This guy NEEDS to join the Capitol Steps...

[TheSpeedy0504]

@Lexter441 Good I'm glad you're consistent and I respect you for that. A lot of people don't see it that way. Either way I think you're right if and only if the states did have regulations for gun control but if you look at places like Texas (I love Texas but those people do love their guns) people would die. I actually think that environmental regulation is okay too because it protects the environment. I think that when the states don't protect people and the planet Fed. Govt. must step in.

[Lexter441]

@TheSpeedy0504 You're right, Federal drug laws are entirely unconstitutional.

Hence why in 1920, the United States HAD to pass the 18th Amendment in order to ban alcohol. But now, our big government thinks it can do whatever it wants.

Most drugs enter the US from foreign countries, so the commerce clause may support the WOD, but I still think it's unconstitutional.

Just like the "Brady Bill" was unconstitutional because of the 10th Amendment.

[TheSpeedy0504]

@Lexter441 Well then you get into issues of constitution vs. peoples lives. If say a crazy guy were to walk into a store with a gun because his state decided he could because they have no gun regulations and he shoots 20 people. What is more important states rights to make their own laws or those people. Also I've noticed that noone ever says that the fed govt shouldn't be able to make antidrug laws. It is against federal law to posses sell or smoke pot. Where is that in the constitution.

[Lexter441]

@TheSpeedy0504 BUT, the main point is that ALL Federal firearms legislation are unconstitutional, not only because of the 2nd Amendment, but also because of the 9th and 10th Amendments, which say any powers not granted to the Federal government by the Constitution are reserved for the states. This made it clear that congress was a separate entity from the states, and had limited roles in the legislation of the people's lives.

[Lexter441]

@TheSpeedy0504 This is precisely why, he argues, that militia officers be appointed by the States, in order to separate the leaders of the militias from the ambitions and agenda that could be shared by an illegitimate Federal government, who seeks to use their armies to encroach on the natural rights of the people and their states.

And he also specifically refers to the ordinary citizen as having the right to be armed.

[Lexter441]

@TheSpeedy0504 Just read Federalist Paper #46. The actual intention of the 2nd Amendment, was for the States to go to war against Congress in order to uphold their sovereignty and rights. The idea was to alienate the people's militias from the Federal government. At the end of the paper, James Madison even compares the predicted size of the armies of Congress to the bodies of ordinary citizens and argues that the people would prevail and uphold their rights and their states.

[TheSpeedy0504]

@Lexter441 What i'm saying is that the government has every right to make regulations about where you can take your guns. There is a very good reason for that. This is what the writers had in mind when they used the word infringed. You can abridge something without infringing it. Guns need regulation they are dangerous.

[Lexter441]

@TheSpeedy0504 That makes no sense. If you're suggesting that the government can decide when and where you can bear arms, then how can you consider the right to bear arms unable to be 'infringed" or "unalienable".

You understand that the purpose to the Bill of Rights, as stated in the preamble is to protect rights from the legislation of the government.

And the 10th amendment says congress can't make laws unless the constitution delegates the powers to it.

So . . . what?

[TheSpeedy0504]

@Lexter441 Yes you're right but they never said that everyone can bear arms all the time, in all places, without any regulation. like I said there is a difference between shall not be abridged and shall not be infringed.