The 2nd Amendment Explained
Articles Blog

The 2nd Amendment Explained

August 26, 2019

When did the 2nd amendment stop being about
a “well regulated militia” and start being about individual gun ownership? And did you know that the answer has to do
with the KKK, German socialists, and Al Capone? As one of the most hotly contested (and vaguely
worded) sentences in history, the full text of the 2nd amendment says: “A well regulated
militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep
and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” So this intellectual crossword puzzle was
added to the Bill of Rights by James Madison and his crew of anti-federalists. When they were ratified in 1791, the anti-federalists
expressed nervousness about the newly formed federal government gaining too much power
over the states or becoming tyrannical. So the language of the 2nd amendment was geared
towards curbing the central government’s power over individual political dissenters. But today, the 2nd amendment and gun control
debate is framed almost exclusively around “the right to bear arms” without talking
too much discussion of a well regulated militias. And there’s a reason for that. Because even though the story of gun rights
and gun legislation is often debated in the court of public opinion, when it comes to
questions of Constitutional interpretation, there’s really only one court that reigns
supreme… and that’s, well the Supreme Court. So for this episode I’m going to trace the
5 major rulings made by the Supreme Court on the 2nd amendment, since its ratification,
in 1791, and yes, the story does involve the Case 1: United States vs. Cruikshank Well it took a while before the highest court
in the land heard a case on the 2nd amendment (1876 to be precise) and that first case actually
involved the KKK and states’ rights in the wake of the Civil War. After the conclusion of the Civil War, the
newly reunited nation was in the midst of Reconstruction when they passed the 1870 Enforcement
Act, which was designed to prevent mobs run by private citizens and groups like the KKK
from blocking newly freed black citizens’ access to Constitutional rights – which seems
like a good law. But in 1873 a mob of white residents who were
sometimes collaborators of the KKK and would later go on to form a terrorist group called
“The White League” in 1874, murdered an estimated 100 African Americans who had occupied
the Colfax Louisiana State House. Three of the members of the mob were convicted
of violating the 1870 Enforcement Act, under the charge that they had prevented black citizens
from assembling peacefully, exercising their right to vote, and that they had curtailed
the black citizens’ 2nd amendment rights to bear arms. However the court ruled that the 2nd amendment
was only designed to stop the federal government from “infringing” on citizens’ rights
to own arms as a safeguard against potential “tyranny.” Therefore state governments and other private
citizens couldn’t be charged with taking someone else’s right to bear arms away. But the question of the “militia” and
what defines a “well regulated militia” actually lasted through the next two supreme
court rulings on the 2nd amendment and that brings us to case 2, Presser vs.
Illinois. Herman Presser was part of an armed citizen
militia of workers in Cook County, Illinois, that had ties to the Socialist Labor Party. And he led a group of several hundred armed
citizens through the streets in protest in 1879 and was found guilty of violating Illinois’
state laws about who could organize a militia. Essentially the law stated that unless you
were a member of an already recognized volunteer militia of the state of Illinois, the federal
government, or had special recognition from the governor, then you could not organize an independent
militia. And Presser disagreed, stating that the 2nd
amendment protected his group’s right to organize a militia to protect themselves from
tyranny. But the Supreme Court disagreed, saying that
while the federal government could not limit “well regulated militias” the state government
could. So armed militias were allowed but only if
the state agreed to it. But that wasn’t the last we’d heard of
the 2nd amendment because the dawn of the 20th century brought us even more debate about
how and why someone would organize a militia and what kinds of weapons were necessary in
these efforts. And the surprising culprit behind this new
twist was none other than Al Capone and the mysterious Valentine’s Day Massacre of 1929. Case 3: United States v. Miller. Ok so we’re back in Illinois (specifically
Chicago) on February 14th, 1929, when 7 criminal associates of mobster George “Bugs” Moran
were gunned down in a garage. And although most people suspected the infamous
Al Capone was behind the hit job, no one was ever brought to trial for the murders, which
have now become something of American historical folklore mixed in with a heavy amount of conspiracy
theory. But the Valentine’s Day Massacre, and similar
crimes like it, began to shift the cultural conversations around gun ownership more towards
what kind of guns it was reasonable for a private citizen who is unaffiliated with any
type of law enforcement or military to carry. But the militia debate was still a big part. In 1934, the federal government passed the
National Firearms Act, which imposed taxes and restrictions (including new registration
laws) on certain kinds of guns like machine guns and sawed off shotguns. And the ambition here was not only to impose
new taxes, but also to limit the use and spread of guns that were frequently used in the commission
of gang crimes, like the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre. So back to the Supreme Court, a man named
Jack Miller and another man were found guilty, under that current version of the National
Firearms Act, of carrying an unregistered sawed off shotgun across state lines, which
was one of the restricted weapons. And when his case (United States v. Miller)
reached the Supreme Court in 1939, the court stuck by the legality of the National Firearms
Act, noting that, “…[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession
or use of a [sawed-off] shotgun . . . has some reasonable relationship to the preservation
or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees
the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” Thus reinforcing the federal government’s
ability to regulate particular types of guns. Ok so 3 out of the 5 Supreme Court rulings
on the question of the 2nd amendment focused on states’ rights versus federal rights,
and the organization of militias. But when did we start to see the current interpretation
of the law as just “the right to bear arms?” And how did the shift from a “well regulated
militia” to arguments about individual self defense occur? Well the National Firearms Act proved to be
pretty contentious. It required that people transferring as well
as those who were already in possession of restricted firearms had to pay taxes on the
gun and also report those weapons to the government. As a result, the Treasury Department could
give information to State governments about people who registered their restricted or
banned weapons and those people could be prosecuted under State laws. So in the 1968 Haynes case, the Supreme Court
found that this regulation violated gun owners’ protection from self-incrimination under the
5th amendment and as a result the 1934 act became “virtually unenforceable.” We also have to add then NRA into this story. Because in 1977, the National Rifle Association
experienced a huge shift in their political agenda. Prior to the 1977 convention (known as the
“Revolt at Cincinnati”) the NRA’s agenda in the mid 20th century focused heavily on
hunting, conservation, and marksmanship. But the new contingent that took over that
year’s convention was invested in transforming the agenda to center squarely on individual
gun ownership and a narrower interpretation of the 2nd amendment. From this point forward the group gains traction
as a gun’s rights lobby organization, and moves from a relatively bipartisan hobbyist
group to a political powerhouse that makes individual interpretation of the 2nd amendment
as key part of its agenda. So we’re just up to our final 2 Supreme
Court rulings on the 2nd amendment from 2008 and 2010, and these ones absolutely 100% have
to do with an individual’s right to gun ownership. But they’re less way back history and more
current headlines, and both of these decisions mark a pretty big shift from the Court’s
previous rulings on the matter. The 2008 ruling, in District of Columbia v.
Heller, found that restrictive gun regulations in the District of Columbia were an infringement
on an individual citizen’s rights to bear arms for the purposes of lawful self defense,
even outside of any well regulated militia. And a similar decision in 2010’s McDonald
v. Chicago found that 2nd Amendment rights could not or should not be limited by state
governments (since Chicago had enacted gun regulations that prevented many if not most
private citizens from purchasing handguns). These two recent decisions focused heavily
on the individual “right to bear arms” and less on the “well regulated militia.” So how does it all add up? Well, even though Heller in 2008 and McDonald
in 2010 represent the current status of rulings on the 2nd amendment, the fact that they center
individual gun ownership for the purposes of self-defense and not the regulation of
militias could stem from a couple of different avenues. The first is that after the Civil War, the
National Guard took up the mantle of state protection, making militias less central to
interpretations of the 2nd amendment. The second is that around the 1920s and 1930s,
we started to see an increase in discussion not only of what makes a well regulated militia,
but also what kinds of guns should or shouldn’t be protected under the second amendment. But these rulings all focused on stopping
the federal government from limiting the second amendment and heavily favored the states… However, although Heller did determine that
the right to lawful individual gun ownership was protected under this current interpretation
of the 2nd amendment, the late Justice Antonin Scalia did note that the right to self-defense
and individual gun ownership under the 2nd amendment “is not unlimited.” So, whichever side you believe is correct,
it looks like this debate will continue to rage on. So what what do you think? Anything to add to our timeline on interpretations
of the 2nd amendment and the “well regulated militia”? Drop them below with all of your citations
on local history, the Brady Bill, and variations in state laws and we’ll see you next week! I had fun last week hanging out with Vanessa
from Braincraft but before we get to that, I wanted to let you know about the new PBS
Digital Studios series “America From Scratch” It asks big questions about how we would re-make
America if we started over today. They ask fun questions like, Should 12-year-olds
be allowed to vote? What if there were no states? Do we even need a president? There’s a link in the description so you
can check it out. Okay, on to whether or not breakfast is the
most important meal of the day! Tony Vasile on Youtube said he enjoyed the
crossover! Speaking for team Danessa (which is what I’ve
renamed us) I say thanks Tony! We enjoyed collaborating on this one! Julie Wylie on Facebook enjoyed the food puns,
which makes me feel quite proud since she’s a dietitian. Mission accomplished and thanks for writing
Julie! And “The Pwnzerwilldie” on Youtube (a
viewer with a sharp mind and a bit of a morbid username) asked if we could do an episode
on how and when drinking coffee in the morning became normalized and what the effects of
caffeine are on our bodies. That’s another good area for a collaboration
so if there are any nutritionists or folks on Youtube good with biology and anatomy (hint hint, Joe Hanson) then hit us up! We’d love to answer more crossover questions! So keep those comments coming and we’ll see
you next week!

Only registered users can comment.

  1. What a croc of doodoo!!! Maybe this woman, and those who thought this through should learn something from real History…

  2. The NFA has been unenforceable since 1968? No mention of the GCA that year? Your lack of knowledge on the subject greatly undermines your credibility.

    Gun owners don't want to budge on the issue because we have already given up 80% of the right. Unconstitutional laws like the NFA and GCA are enforced with severe penalties. Keep and Bear means Own and Possess. Any chicanery or restriction is an infringement.

  3. If you had to be a militia to keep and bear arms the second amendment would say the right of the well regulated militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but it says “the RIGHT of THE PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”. It is the right of the people, not the militia.

  4. The thing is back during the revolutionary war is that the arms that the military had wore the same as the ones the average citizen had and that includes Canon's

  5. Ironically those MOST OPPOSED to the rights of Citizens to own firearms,are the same individuals who seem to favor open borders. Where untold amounts of illegal firearms along with Drugs are being smuggled in.I think MOST NORMAL INTELLIGENT ADULTS,realize NO ONE does anything unless it benefits them personally. Just look at Obama's and Holder's FAST and Furious where they GAVE the Cartels untold amounts of illegal firearms ,and THEN PROCEEDED to lose track of them.

  6. The Second Amendment protects an individual right that existed before the creation of any government. The Declaration of Independence made clear that all human beings are endowed with certain unalienable rights, and that governments are created to protect those rights.

    The right to keep and bear arms simply implements the unalienable right to individual self-defense against aggression of any kind. The Second Amendment refers to “the right of the people” (not the state) as a pre-existing right that government must respect.

  7. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    1) being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    2) A well regulated Militia, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    3) A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State shall not be infringed.

    4) A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.

    Learn how English is written.

  8. I own and operate a shooting device legally which shoots up to 7 – 12 GA shells, has about a 14 inch barrel, which requires absolutely no federal tax stamp and needs no registration whether state or federal.

  9. Anti-Federalists

    Very good, the Federal Govt will kill you without a thought …..f*** the Feds …….Our Country….
    Our Constitution …..Love it or Leave It ……LIBERALISM KILLS

  10. Liberals start with taking something incredibly simple and they try to make is sound complicated. That was a very straightforward statement made by our founding fathers that anyone with an elementary understanding of English could understand.

  11. The person whom is to bear arms should be responsible of what actions he is bearing arms for.Such as protecting his own rights to defend.To understand that a person should have the rights to bear arms to protect as a individual.Who do you trust.And who is not safe with a gun.A gun owner must trust his own actions.To not harm people is more than a action it is the ability to feel that you can trust your own self with the right to bear arms and bear arms and know whom you are.

  12. Do others defend them selves.Many people use guns to come against people.The right to bear arms is a individual purpose to listen to your own self not others.It is also not a judgement to not be a danger to society.Genesis still applies.Anyone who sheds the blood of another person his blood shall be shed.In capital murder the people have the right to do what they want to to people whom murder.It is a judgement.And self defense is not a judgement.It is protecting your rights and life.But all in all God will judge evil and it will be serious judgement.

  13. Revelation in the Bible is serious.Lake of fire and whom shall be sent there judgement great white throne are at the judgement seat.

  14. Paraphrasing the second amendment:

    Because the government is going to have guns, the private citizens will always have the right to own and carry guns

  15. Paraphrasing the second amendment:

    Because the government is going to have guns, the private citizens will always have the right to own and carry guns

  16. You folks should really be reading the writings of the authors of the Constitution. They clearly lay out that it is about INDIVIDUAL rights.

  17. Is a Militia the People? Or a small group of people from within a larger grouping of people, who can be chosen or denied based on anothers persons opinions. For example a State militia could not allow black people to join. That state militia could turn against its own people ( so much for a free State but rather a free militia) unless everyone is the Free militia = Free state.

  18. When the Second Amendment was written, they were'nt just comming back from a hunting trip, they had returned from pushing back a tyrant who beleived they should have guns and you should'nt. But we did have guns and we didnt just hand them over. We gave it to em. Left their dead bodies in the streets.

  19. If you join a "MILITIA" and the FBI will start a FILE on you (if they don't already have one on you) and you will be tracked by them for the rest of your life. They will know everything you do ready to pounce of you at the first chance they get.

    Every NEW and Used firearm sold in a store must be REGISTERED already. If I buy a gun from say Bud's Gun Shop in Kentucky online or in person it must go through a person that has a Federal Fireamrs License and a *record of it must be recorded*. If the BUYER lies on the registration of any gun, he is guilty of PERJURY and could be sentenced to prison. That is REGULATION ENOUGH. These Dopes mis-represent and / or LIE about reality to people that don't know squat.

    Once they topple the Second amendndment, they will move on to the other "Bill of Rights" guarantees After THAT, they will pick the Constitution apart until we have no "rights" They will ruin the First, Fourth, Fifth and so on until the Bill of Rights is GONE, then they will destroy the rest of the Constitution until we no longer have one, this is what they WANT TO DO. BB

  20. Not even close. This idiot misses the fact that the revolutionary war was fought by farmers whom refused to turn their technologically superior rifles, capable to hitting a target at 200 yards compared to 80 yards, to the British. If you have any doubt why the 2nd amendment was written and what it meant, just read the freaking Federalist. They actually explain it in detail why they wrote it… you know, the actual writers!
    This is pure BS

  21. FYI, the "militia" referred to in the 2nd Amendment means the whole body of the people, i.e the civilian population, not affiliated with any government.

  22. I like her work and appreciate her perspective. The one issue I take with her stance is the Bill of Rights is for individuals. That includes the 2nd Amendment.

  23. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms”. There is no comma or period in that. If somehow that’s confusing to you then maybe you should go back to preschool. People use future cases after the constitution like the government or judicial system can’t pass unconstitutional laws.

  24. Heck, as she actually reads the text, her own tone and cadence as she reads it, is exactly what it states!

    And her whole production is to downplay what she clearly states in the beginning!!!

    How would you have a well armed militia, (to take on the government or tyranny from) if not individual citizens (the people) having rights to have firearms?!?!?!?

    When they talk about the militia in the constitution, they are actually fucking talking about a militia! The terms army and military had already been widely used for ages! They meant that a militia is a civilian militia, not a government army or military, as she states herself the framing of the second amendment was to reserve a right for the people to defend the constitution and nation itself should the government become too powerful or tyrannical!

    Baffles me at people who actually state what they want to disprove. Don’t like the second amendment, find a country without one, go live there and see how you like it.

  25. First off, open a history book, and find out what "regulated" meant at the time the bill of rights was written. your whole diatribe goes down the toilet when you do. regulated meant TRAINED! the regular army was the trained army the first training manual was the army manual of regulation. it contained no rules, just training items, like "the coffee tastes better if the latrines are dug downstream". just like many English words have changed meaning over the years. "gay" meant happy, banner Also at the word militia meant individual volunteers who came forward with their own equipment to assist in the defense of their neighbors and towns. during the revolutionary war the word referred to untrained individuals who aided the regular army. the wording of the 2nd amendment meant a well trained volunteer being necessary to a free state, the right of the poeple to possess and carry weapons shall not be restricted. The foolish people who think violence is the fault of guns are the same fools who claim that cars are not to blame for drunk driving, you can't have it both ways. you can not legislate anger and violence. all you can do is punish those who commit violent acts and murder. weather its driving a car or truck or truck into a crowd of people, or building an explosive device (Oklahoma City) some one who is determined to commit mass murder will. maybe we should look into the source of the mental illness that is the true cause of the tragedies that are occurring with alarming frequency, and focus less on the instruments they use that the vast majority of people use in peaceful and recreational ways. About the same number of people die each year from drunk drivers as gun violence. of the 10,000 murders by firearms only 374 are done with rifles, that includes all of the scary black guns and "high capacity" semiautos as well as bolt actions. while that number is 374 too many, it does not rise to a level that banning them is slightly reasonable. more people are killed by dogs than people weilding AR15s. the first 10 amendments, the bill of rights, are all individual rights. I am not willing to give up any of mine to make some moron feel "safer". To quote our founding fathers, those who give up their rights for more security, deserve neither.

  26. Wasn't it George Washington that said that every able body man should have a weapon, ammunition and supplies to fight a limited war?

  27. The second amendment right is guaranteed to the people what’s so hard to understand about who the right belongs to

  28. But she is a fat negro lesbian, so she is obviously better equipped to decide what the founding fathers wished the second amendment to mean, then they were. LOL So apart from her obvious problems with reading and comprehending what she just read, which is scary, she really should choose a African country, that has her style of government, IE dictatorship, and no right to self defense, but the absolute right to be oppressed and killed at the mercy of the government, and then she should move there, just don`t tell anybody that you are a fat lesbian, most African countries do not like that kind perversion.

  29. Get fucked. You're reading between the lines and ascribing your own interpretations for your agenda through case law that leans heavily in your favor by means of omitting a counter balance of case law that easily outweighs all of your arguments. You're taking extreme examples coupled with the inclusion of buzz words like the KKK and Capone masquerading that bullshit as culpable arguments to water down the legitimate concerns of a populace fearful for its safety. LOVE how you use the McDonald case as an example when 9 years later after that ruling Chicago has now turned into an absolute WAR ZONE under anti-gun measures introduced to make it safer lol. Get fucked.

  30. There's nothing vague about the wording. You merely don't want to acknowledge the fact that the answer to the rhetorical question: "Who are the militia?" can be found in the FIRST THREE WORDS of the Constitution's preamble. The Founding Fathers had already fought off an external tyrant and put the 2nd Amendment in place to guard against future tyrants — foreign AND DOMESTIC!!!!

  31. What this bish fails to understand is that if we were to have well regulated militias that were capable of overthrowing a tyrannical government is that the people would be armed equally to the government. We are far from that place.

  32. We the people are the militia! The founding fathers wanted everyone to be educated, trained, and armed at all times.

  33. So you’re saying we should focus on the Dred Scott and Separate but equal rulings by SCOTUS instead of later ones when it comes to civil rights. Why is the 2nd Amendment the only one the left refuses to defend? If you would study history, it is there to protect the people from an over reaching government.

  34. Just because you cannot understand English and the very clear use of punctuation marks does not mean that it is invalid or that your poorly constructed opinions on said statements are any less relevant today.

  35. She's nothing but a product of government schools and the communist indoctrination of those schools; this video is so full of lies it's sickening!!!

  36. The highest court is in Philadelphia . The supreme court also ruled that if the government makes codes , statutes or regulations on a person's liberties . The that people could disregard those rules with impunity .

  37. Could not agree more with Andrew Kenseth below. Scroll through this channel's videos and you'll see how deep this goes. No matter what the right if self defense is granted not by any government, but a natural right.

  38. A well regulated militia is separate from the right of the people to keep and bear arms.They're both in the second amendment yet separate.This is because a well regulated militia is for sure necessary to defend against tyranny but peoples rights to keep and bear arms is in the interest of self defense which is a natural right not given by man.This video tries to blur the separation of the two.

  39. Only a leftist block head would think that anything about the wording of the 2nd Amendment is a puzzle. It is clear and to the point. shall not be infringed so get off my lawn.

  40. The constitution of America was written to make sure that the people of the United States of America's rights were not stepped on by a leftist or a Socialist Party so the First Amendment Second Amendment Third Amendment Fourth Amendment are our rights as Citizens the government has no right and you have no right to tell any United States citizens what to do with our constitution Constitution was plainly written as is God Bless America and God bless each and everyone of us go Second Amendment

  41. Did she just miss the entire original meaning of the 2nd Amendment. Case law means shit. Why don't you override the 2nd Amendment by 2/3rds states vote? Can't, can you?

  42. This commentator is quite biased against guns. Not did she ignore the Federalist Papers and the first case of Nunn V. Georgia (1846) which clearly was about the right of the individual to bear arms. But she framed the Supreme Court's decisions in a way which made it look like they changed their outlook. The Supreme Court doesn't like to make sweeping changes, so they severely limit the scope of their decisions. Therefore the cases about Militias were specifically addressing that issue, cases about individuals rights addresses that issue. Also her introduction about how misleading the second amendment is was cheap. The second amendment clearly contains two clauses separated by a comma. The whole constitution is written with a significant effort toward brevity. So it that light the 2nd amendment is quite clear. Just look at any state constitution to compare the length of the documents.

  43. All done by Democrats. Full of half lies, and she has forgotten about the punctuation in the second amendment. And this video is done by Democrats. So there for there is definitely a left wing agenda propaganda video.

  44. For anyone that is watching this video please do more research because she didn't even come close to the true meaning of the second amendment. There are videos out there that break it down word for word and explains that it absolutely means for the private citizens to own and keep firearms.

  45. I am a right-leaning person myself, but after watching this video and reading the comments, I'm rather disappointed in the feedback shown here. The lady didn't even make an opinion on the matter; she simply stated what the history and changes behind the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment has been. There's really no good reason this video should be bashed whatsoever.

  46. Let's look at The United States vs Nazi Germany. One of the key things done to implement Nazi tyranny was to take away everyones guns…A gunless society is ripe for the taking….There is only one reason to take guns away from people, and it's not the reasons stated ….In 1938 most Germans didn't know that concentration camps existed and were shocked when they found out…. What are fema camps ? I'm pretty shocked that they exist… What are they for ? How long ago did they start building them…. Were they built based on a "prediction" of some future event , or a plan for a future event ? A plan makes a lot more sense…Would American Soldiers fire on their own people ? Probably not. I guess that's a good reason to have foreign troops on U.S soil. Like the "Strong Cities" initiative…. The UN is nothing more than an attempt at a one world Government. Did anyone vote for that, or Agenda 2030 ? Have you read Agenda 2030 ? It's being implemented as I'm writing this…. I never got a chance to vote against it ? Should the United Nations be able to make laws in our country ? There is only one way to instate a one world government. To cause the worst world wide financial collapse in history, throw in some war, death, plagues maybe, and when things are really bad offer a one world currency followed by a one world government as "The Solution"…

  47. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
    It does NOT imply "regulations" attached to a specific entity or object.

  48. What rights do we really have if we don’t have the right to protect our property and family. If we give away 2A we will soon witness all other rights regulated and removed by out of control government. Think twice before coming into my house and confiscating my guns.

  49. I don't give a rats a$$ what ANYONE says about the matter, I have a God Given RIGHT to Live AND Protect MY LIFE, and the Lives of those I PROVIDE FOR…..THAT'S MY 2A…..

  50. Back then they wore white, today they wear black.

    Here are the details you didn't explain.

  51. I read that the well reg militia, and the rights of the people as it is written provide two different restrictions to Congress. I also think our states in the government should start investing in militias to curtail school violence. The way these acts of violence occur always come down to gun free zones. We can't do much about businesses who chooses against the 2nd except point them out, but the schools are the governments problem and it can be handled by state militias specific for these issues. They could also be implemented in local business areas as provided security from the state. That means the militia ideal isn't so outdated as some officials would have us believe.

  52. Saying that the 2nd amendment is solely for an organized militia is like saying that the 1st amendment is only for the press. Come on guys. You can dislike guns and want the 2nd amendment gone, but when you blatantly lie what the constitution represents (the restriction of government) then nobody can take your opinions seriously.

  53. Great piece of leftists propaganda it is very obvious you don't have the slightest understanding of history. One look up meaning of militia and who a militia is two there is a comma as in it is the right of the people not the right of a militia the reason for this is for the people any people may form a militia if needed and to do that they need arms. Last of all yes this right has already been infringed by the government because all arms would be covers by the right as written in the bill of rights.

  54. Yawn. What is the PURPOSE OF THE 2A. She even mentions it several times…to allow THE PEOPLE THE MEANS TO FIGHT TYRANNY OF GOVERNMENT. There it is in a nutshell. WE, THE PEOPLE, HAVE FINAL POWER OVER OUR GOVERNMENT. Land of the FREE and the home of the BRAVE.

  55. Holy crap, this video has completely twisted the wording of the 2nd amendment to an agenda rather than the meaning as written. Go take some English classes and then critique the wording. The wording is extremely well written, it's not vaguely worded or an intellectual crossword puzzle. This kid on this video did his homework if you want a legitimate explanation in vivid detail, far surpassing my English skills when he gets into breaking down the entire sentence.

  56. Wow. She really reaches with her conclusions. "Nice" dare I say, stereotypical music in the background too. Almost laughing as she speaks, she lets her ideology be known.

  57. Your looking into the 2nd ammendment, and this is what you came up w/?? THATS AMAZING!!!! and your kk k angle… laughable!!! Try Again!! This time look into the newly freed slav es and What a fire arm did to keep them free!!!! And find out which of the early civil rights leaders said this "A Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give."… do a little more productive research .. Then shoot the rebuttal to this trash…

  58. Democrates wanted gun control, and they didnt want former black slaves to own any, there is no need to explain the 2nd amendment, it plainly states the truth.

  59. Democrats like to say a well regulated militia and they want to be the ones to regulate it. Our founding fathers did not intend the same government trying to oppress us to regulate the militia that is fighting Them. Anything the government has a citizen should have Show they can put up an adequate defense and survive. This includes fully automatic weapons. Shall not be infringed means exactly that. Our founding fathers would have already been at war with our crooked a** government if they were alive today.

  60. If the people have no guns. The Militia will have no guns. The militia is made up of the people. The Federal government wouldn't arm a Militia that's standing up against their tyrannical acts.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *