In Search of the Second Amendment trailer

Trailer for the first documentary on the Second Amendment, starring twelve professors of constitutional law. Available at www.secondamendmentdocumentary.com

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• right
• to
• arms
• second
• amendment

[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.

[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?

[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 - "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?

[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 - "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.

[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?"

[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