The Second Amendment: How the gun control debate went crazy | Kurt Anderson
Articles Blog

The Second Amendment: How the gun control debate went crazy | Kurt Anderson

November 22, 2019

We all now know about the Second Amendment. We hear about it all the time. It is a huge driver of our politics on the
Right. What people need to know is that the Second
Amendment only recently became such a salient amendment. Here’s the Second Amendment: “A well-regulated
militia, being necessary to the security of a free state—“ Let me repeat that: “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.” Well, first of all: what did that mean, the
Second Amendment, back in the 1780s and 1790s when the Constitution and its first amendments
were written? It meant, because the new United States would
have no standing army, that any armed defense of the States or the United States would depend
on militia who would be mobilized to fight the fights they needed to fight. So there’s that. Another important fact about the state of
play when this amendment was written was the nature of arms themselves, of guns. A really good shooter could fire three or
four rounds a minute—and that’s a really good one with these poorly aimed muskets and
early rifles that they had. So that was what was being regulated. It was, “Oh, let’s have a militia and
they can use these guns,” which were the state of the art, but compared to many, many,
many rounds per second firearms that we have today, it’s the same word but virtually
a different machine. So fast forward—or slow forward. For centuries of the Second Amendment didn’t
really come up. People had guns; they hunted. Not everybody, but that’s what happened,
they used them for protection in rare cases, but it wasn’t a big deal until starting
in the 1960s when suddenly in a matter of months and a few years a presidential candidate,
the great leader of African America and freedom Martin Luther King were killed, and other
people attacked by assassins. Suddenly it seemed to reasonable people that,
“Oh, we should have some controls on who can get guns how easily.” So we enacted some very modest regulations
about registrations and limiting certain kinds of cheap weapons and so forth. And back then in the late ’60s and even in
the early ’70s the National Rifle Association was reasonable, was fine. Okay yeah they negotiated these laws but they
were okay. Then, as so many things were going haywire
in the national discourse in the late ’70s, the National Rifle Association and the gun
lobby more generally went out of its mind, to be blunt, and decided to be absolutists,
that there would be no regulation of guns and we would fight any regulation of guns,
and, moreover that was all driven by a fantasy that the Federal Government was about to confiscate
all of our guns that every individual had. So suddenly the Second Amendment became a
thing that people were aware of and it was driving this passionate, fervent political
faction. The NRA, by the way, changed its motto from
one about safe sporting and so forth to quoting the Second Amendment. But still for a while, for 20 years, the courts
weren’t buying this idea that the Second Amendment meant that we could not regulate
the ownership of guns or the sales of guns. And by the way, we’d allowed: ”Oh, you can’t
buy machine guns, you can’t have a sawed-off shotgun.” Those things happened over the course of the
20th century, and nobody said boo. But suddenly at the end of the 20th century
we had this ferocious and powerful faction interpreting the Second Amendment in a new
way, interpreting the Second Amendment in a new way that the retired Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court in the ’90s, after he retired, Warren Burger—a Republican, put in place
by a Republican president—said, “This is a fraud that people like the NRA are committing. This is not what the Second Amendment means,
it’s a fraud,” he said. But they kept at it and it became more and
more respectable, this idea that the Second Amendment was absolute and applied to individuals
who weren’t members of the National Guard or any other well-regulated militia. And finally in 2008 and 2010 in two decisive,
definitive, absolute decisions the Supreme Court decided this new interpretation of the
Second Amendment that had not existed in respectable legal circles 20 years earlier was the law,
is what the Constitution meant. So that’s now what our Constitution means. So as a result any, I think, really meaningful
regulation of the ownership of guns at this point is a political fantasy as a result,
ironically, of the Second Amendment absolutists and re-interpreters and revisionists and fantasists
having imposed their interpretation of the Second Amendment on all of us.

Only registered users can comment.

  1. This is probably one of the most idiotic imbeciles I have ever witnessed on social media or any other media for that matter. Who is this moronic individual who looks like he is stoned out of his right mind? I have never heard Martin Luther King called the great leader of African America and freedom! What the hell does mean and I am sure MLK would be appalled. MLK was a great American leader who was fighting for civil rights for all Americans and the desegregation of American institutions. The idea that he was a leader of Africa America (like for Kurt Anderson to point that country out on a world map). This guy is just another tool that uses words to insight separation between the people of our great nation. This is the same nonsensical manure that the DNC likes to regurgitate with the divide and conquer agenda. MLK did not die in vain and his message is still pertinent today as it was in the 1960s. He sounds like one of those imbeciles that believes only the wealthy blacks and whites should coexist with a common goal and the poor blacks and whites should be fighting for their scraps. Regardless of ethnic heritage, we are all American who live in "America" and we all should work together to bring about peace and prosperity for of us. You would think this guy would be more careful with his word or does he believe that African Americans are not part of America? I get so sick of these socialist or whatever using language to further some in government who continually use divide and conquer techniques to divert peoples attention away from the real issues. Our, all Americans, Constitution's first wordS in large print says, "WE THE PEOPLE" and that includes black, white, brown, etc. It set forth the fact that our government is operated by our consent and our laws will be applied equally. That is our goal as a nation. MLK fought hard and made it very clear that he wished for the day when all Americans regardless of color would be treated equally by the government, the courts, the schools. But most of all we would be treated equally by one another. This is a nation of people and we must all stick together is we are to survive. I hope you read this Kurt. You may actually learn something. I will get to the 2nd Amendment next. Stay tuned.

  2. Not just in my opinion, but the opinion of our Founding fathers such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and many others our Second Amendment was put into our Constitution as the 2nd Amendment was that every person of age in America maintain the right to bear arms. This amendment was so important that is was only second to the first which is freedom of speech, of course. Our founding fathers put this amendment in the constitution to ensure that "WE THE PEOPLE" would always have the right and maintain weaponry to use against our government should they become tyrannical and stop asking for our consent. Our government is one that exist and functions ONLY with the consent of the American people. Our founding father were so frightened by the idea of tyrants and dictators taking control of our government that they made it abundantly clear in the Second Amendment. The founding fathers made it clear that the interpretation of Second Amendment is still clear today. THE SECOND AMENDMENT STATES THAT IT "PROTECTS THE RIGHT OF THE INDIVIDUAL TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS…period. If they could read into the future they would have wanted us to be armed equal to our military establishments. That is made very clear in the part that talks about a well organized militia. The founding fathers thought that if our government officials became out of control tyrants and dictator then "We the People" would have the necessary tools, ie. guns, rifles or whatever our military had, in order to organize into a militia and fight back to secure our countries constitution and our freedoms. They thought that if a president decided to declare himself KING, whose word was law like a supreme dictator, that the American citizen would have the ability to form militias with their armed citizens and fight for our Constitution and our freedoms that are the foundation of our republic. The second amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with hunting or home security. Those two activities where a given. They wanted to ensure that American individuals right to keep and bear arms was never, ever infringed upon. Regardless of how many nitwits would have you believe such asinine nonsense. In Kurt's words, "The uh uh um um the um um um uh uh duh duh uh", which didn't make any sense whatsoever. Basically our founding fathers believed that anyone who was willing to give up his right to bear arms and his freedom for security or safety or whatever deserves neither freedom nor security. Just because a few people out of 325,000,000 break the law and commit murder does not mean you take away the rights of them all. Just ask the millions of Australians who live in constant fear because their tyrannical government took away their God given right and ability to defend themselves does not mean we follow suit. Furthermore, the criminals in Australia are having a field day and are basically doing whatever they want because they still have their guns and the ability to commit home invasions or whatever criminal activity they want without the fear of retaliation. There are 4,500 homes burglarized each day in America and I guarantee these criminals are looking the highest payoffs with the least risk. Although a burglar would most likely not try to burglarize a home with an armed resident and this becomes very clear when reading the statistics, etc. But for the most part you will only finds the articles saying "The government doesn't put a lot of emphasis on defensive gun use. Wonder why they do not because statistics say the between 500,000 to 3 million defensive gun uses occur each year. Hard to figure how many of those were defending their homes against intruders. But I would think it is quite a few. Be safe and make sure you get good training and practice using you weapon. God bless America and God bless President Donald J. Trump. TRUMP 2020

  3. Anderson and other less intelligent leftist would just do away with the 1st Amend. and the 4th Amend. Only those people in the military or government would have the right to speak. And why not do away with warrants and just allow the police to walk on in and search and seize whatever they want. We could stop paying them and let them just go around and help themselves to our stuff. How about the 5th Amend. If you are ordered by the authorities to incriminate yourself…why not. Just think of all the time that would save the court systems. Aren't we here to serve the desires of the government officials who would rather just do away with the Constitution and become Kings and Queens. Asinine nonsense spewing and regurgitating from the mouth piece of a bunch of leftist imbeciles who want to destroy the Constitution bit by bit until we have a communistic fascist society where we all live in high rise ghettos and do as our masters dictate without any way to defend our Constitution and our freedoms. Not to mention our God given right to defend ourselves against those who want to cause us harm. First they destroy the 2nd Amendment, then the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and so on until we become another North Korea. Then they could tell us what to say, read, watch, etc. etc. DO NOT BE FOOLED BY THE LETHARGIC, MONOTONE, SLURRING SPEECH!! It is all designed to make you strain to listen to the nonsense and destructive opinions of these leftist minions.

  4. 1:16
    He didn't just argue that the 2nd amendment was created because at that very time we didn't have an army. No thats bs. Tell me why the colonists came over to start a new country? Maybe because of a tyrannical government that was steadily gaining the reigns of control thereby screwing over their own citizens?

    Who am I to argue that it's beyond logical to prevent that from happening again since citizens would actually have a means of protection this time around? Our history? I guess it's just bs now to this guy lmao

    Also the musket argument is really dumbfounded since it specifically states 'arms' meaning any firearm can be owned by a citizen. Not just muskets! Do you think the founding fathers were just oblivious to evolution or something? I mean my Lord they already had weapons a bit more advanced than the musket at that time anyways.

  5. This is one of the worst breakdowns I’ve seen of the gun debate. His interpretation of the 2nd is 180 from the Supreme Court. The text explicitly states the right of the people. Contrasting the militia, the people’s right shall not be infringed. Not the militias right to bear arms. Also, the US in 1775 had a standing army called the Continental Army. It was made up of militia members from several colonies for a duration of one year. About 22000 in total, were supplemented by states militias in time of need. A child could have given a better breakdown.

  6. Go ahead give up your guns and everyone will be coming to take your shitt!!!
    Who's going to protect you the police.lmgao.. the!!!
    Don't worry they'll be there after you're dead to put you in the ground that's just a fact.!!!

  7. The second amendment includes AR-14 automatic guns for killing large numbers of unarmed men women and children.
    Solution: Everyone carries an AR-14 or
    AR-14's are illegal for civilians to purchase or own.
    My opinion: I see no reason for non combatants to own automatic weapons.
    If gun loving Americans cannot understand that then let the mass killing continue until they do.

  8. English 101: subordinate clauses. The militia part is subordinate to the not infringing part. Every gun law is unconstitutional.

  9. It is (or should be) common knowledge that James Madison…the guy who wrote the 2nd ammendment…expresses in writing that the right to keep and bear arms was not limited to muskets and most certainly included cannons. This was in response when asked by a merchant marine captain if he could arm his ship to defend against pirates. Also, the National Guard is NOT a militia. By definition, the militia consists of all able bodied citizens between 17 and 45 …as defined by the US Government in 1903.
    "Tench Coxe: “Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American… [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788."

    Thomas Jefferson In his Commonplace Book, Jefferson quotes Cesare Beccaria from his seminal work, On Crimes and Punishment: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

  10. It has nothing to do with a standing army. Plus the US did have a standing army. In the Marine Corp a chant starts as so.."back in 1775 our Marine Corp came alive"

  11. Almost 100% of what Mr. Anderson says in this video is inaccurate, including the the affiliation of the NRA and Republicans. As many Democrats as Republicans support the NRA. The founding fathers were very explicit in their writings about the need for individuals to be able to protect themselves from an oppressive government. Mr. Anderson might have bee able to sway some people, but his obvious condescension and sarcasm got in his way.

  12. The amendment specifically refers to "arms" meaning armament for good  reason. They could have said musket or cannon, but the founding fathers were smart enough to realize military technology changes. Just like swords and arrows were replaced by new technology, muskets would one day be replaced as well. The second amendment protects our rights own tools to defend ourselves and this nation, be it a sword, a musket, a rifle, or a laser ray gun.

  13. It's like this guy has never read the federalist papers or is trying to pretend they don't exist so no one will go hear the founding fathers' opinions on guns from the horse's mouth.

  14. When follower of a society are told what to do without consent, by a modern socialist government not unlike Hitler's, THEY WILL UNDERSTAND THIS AMENDMENT.🤔

  15. Our ForeFathers knew that governments go crazy….The second amendment "became a thing? " lol. Kurt, you are so uneducated about the 2nd Amendment and probably a lot of other things.

  16. Cigs kill 521 thousand Americans a year including kids < No hype for bans. Instead of using foreign aid money to use technology to secure vulnerable places, with far far less deaths, you people want to attack guns. This is why we struggle for a common meaning to CONSCIOUSNESS. Big think.. Compare gun deaths to stabbings, and also look at the CDC statistics for lives saved in self defense. That doesn't even list lives saved just by flashing guns at people showing signs of hostility.

    You people try to act like guns are the problem.. No no.. Humanity is the problem, and failure to use technology to adapt is the problem. Right now as it stands, attacking peoples rights could result in conflict with civilians by the government in america, and that is a fight that could distract military from defending against hostile rivals waiting for something like that. So instead, the military would take the most logical action, and that action being the fastest action to resolve the issue.

    That action being a military coup. That would be terribly nasty, but it would be the best action to increase chances of survival for the nation in such a situation. We're trying to stop it all by trying to get a volunteer system for GPS firearms with special mods. Like IRIS Nerospec Tactical Gun Tracking System modified with a sliding rail to allow battery changing without ability to remove from firearm. With alert system for the battery being out for more than 5mins or however long the backup batter takes to start getting low so law enforcement can be sent on the way depending on the situation of the gun owners..

    We have solutions that are ignored, and we have proof that many of you have ZERO care for life in your simple minded attempts to be rational caring beings. Consciousness is NOT equal..

  17. Maybe with strict gun control we could reduce the ability of someone killing 20 people and of wounding 50 more in 30 seconds?

    Really, no one can fight government who has tanks, drones and soldiers, stupid! Only your children get killed by your neighbors.

  18. Pornography is ilegal in middle east and its enforced, the law. Culturally in the middle east u have intercorse to have babies.
    Im just saying yemen pedofiles? Usa is that and perverted also…

  19. What the second amendment is really about.

  20. I’ve noticed how BT has pushed this topic on fb too several times, but it always seems that the overwhelming majority people commenting know, understand, & support the 2A. Maybe BT needs to think bigger.

  21. His assertions are false. He is ignorant of the Founders intent and he ignores the fact that the RKBA is in opposition to the state monopoly on force and that explains why the courts ignored and neglected the issue as it directly challenged its authority, as it does today, which results in this meely mouthed refutation of the plain language and discarding of the history of our founding.

    Cherry picking critics and lying about the support for the correct and ORIGINAL understanding of this individual right

    The Heller decision contradicts all of THIS REVISIONISTS version of non history. Amicas breifs and the facts in the case are correctly vindicated.

  22. Are you trying to be serious, 'Big Think', or simply shoveling more of the disingenuous tripe the MSM/Ignorant 'Left' has been harping for over 20 years now?
    Technology changes. It usually advances. Do you believe ONLY the 'Law-Abiding' should be restricted to ownership/usage of muzzle loaders, while the rest of the world (and the Black Market that exists within it), would see criminals/gang members doing the same? How about a govt. going/gone corrupt and tyrannical?
    The 2nd Amendment applies, in SPITE of technology.

  23. Find a nanny nice history lesson but the truth of the matter today the Second Amendment means, I am forced to live in a country where everyone is free including the descendants of the people who my barbaric ancestors have destroyed. I know you guys disagree but if the government words to try to take weapons away from anybody it would be only one group in court, only one group protesting, only one group marching that's a fact

  24. Cuando la tirania es ley, la revolucion es orden. 2A is to keep the gov in check period, why is it so hard to understand.

  25. My god you are so full of SHIT.The second amendment is there so we can protect ourselves against a tyrannical government.It is there for all of us and the NRA has nothing to do with it.It is a constitutional right.PLEASE SHUT UP if you don’t know what the hell you are talking about.The government wants to disarm us.An unarmed society is a one of SLAVES!!!!!!!!!

  26. We are different people and will never agree on this, the good news is we dont need to kill each other because of it thanks to a voting process given to us by George Washington. Happy voting

    “I think it comes down to reckoning with our history and our history of
    white supremacy in the United States. The fact that we live in a
    post-genocidal society oftentimes that was orchestrated by the United
    States government in that if we want to talk about mass shooting we need
    to recognize the massive number of ingenious mass shootings that was
    conducted by the United States government. I think back to the battle of
    Wounded-Knee and the several hundred Native Americans predominately
    men, woman and children that were slaughtered by the United States
    government back in the nineteenth century. And how that is never
    discussed as a mass shooting.  And that was wrong because those people
    were not armed and we were stealing their land.”
    —Little Double-Jointed Davey Hogg 6 Sept 2019

    “I think it comes down to reckoning with our history and our history of
    white supremacy in the United States. The fact that we live in a
    post-genocidal society oftentimes that was orchestrated by the United
    States government in that if we want to talk about mass shooting we need
    to recognize the massive number of ingenious mass shootings that was
    conducted by the United States government. I think back to the battle of
    Wounded-Knee and the several hundred Native Americans predominately
    men, woman and children that were slaughtered by the United States
    government back in the nineteenth century. And how that is never
    discussed as a mass shooting.  And that was wrong because those people
    were not armed and we were stealing their land.”
    —Little Double-Jointed Davey Hogg 6 Sept 2019

    “I think it comes down to reckoning with our history and our history of
    white supremacy in the United States. The fact that we live in a
    post-genocidal society oftentimes that was orchestrated by the United
    States government in that if we want to talk about mass shooting we need
    to recognize the massive number of ingenious mass shootings that was
    conducted by the United States government. I think back to the battle of
    Wounded-Knee and the several hundred Native Americans predominately
    men, woman and children that were slaughtered by the United States
    government back in the nineteenth century. And how that is never
    discussed as a mass shooting.  And that was wrong because those people
    were not armed and we were stealing their land.”
    —Little Double-Jointed Davey Hogg 6 Sept 2019

  30. Just because you would like to have the Second Amendment say something that it does not say doesn't make it so you are trying to take the rights away from the people and our right to protect ourselves from tyranny from the government's control that is why we have the 2nd Amendment so that we can protect ourselves if the government themselves try to overrun the people we the people so you need to stop putting all of this false information out on the internet so that you can confuse people who may not be as intelligent as most of us people in the country who do know the Constitution and our rights to bear arms …shame on you for all of your falsity that you are trying to spread over the internet you should shut down your little website here on YouTube and ask forgiveness from all the "we the people" who believe that we do have these rights based on the Constitution and the Second Amendment which allows us to keep and bear arms it has nothing to do with hunting and it has nothing to do with all of this bologna that you keep trying to tell everyone …shame on you!!!

  31. You sir have done no research about the purpose of the right to bear arms. Automatic weapons existed (crank guns) the founding fathers have several documents explaining the necessity of the individual to keep an bear arms in order to form a militia to fight back against an overbearing government. You fail to site any sources.
    For example:
    Thomas Jefferson wrote “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms” The Papers of Thomas Jefferson. “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…”
    – George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790. “The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
    – Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824.

  32. It took me a good two minutes to be sure that this guy was not being satirical… This guy is so dishonest and is overlooking the history behind our constitution and why it exists the way it does. This country is able to be so successful due to the system of checks and balances in place to prevent a select few people from holding the majority of power. Between the different branches of government to term limits to, yes, our bill of rights, keeps the government in check and to serve the people and not the people serving the government. Yes, the second amendment IS the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms of many sorts without limitation. I am willing to accept certain limitations and licenses but whether it is a pocket knife, machete, pistol, or rifle, law abiding mentally stable citizens cannot be prohibited by governing bodies to have weapons. It is not about hunting or sport shooting, while those are great, it is about the freedom to protect ones self, family, property, and country from threats both foreign and domestic without reliance on the government.

  33. For people to remain free. they are to be armed to protect themselves against their government….PERIOD…YOU IGNORANT ASSHOLE!!!!

  34. God do I hate these people! No creativity just pure misery. And to think young Democrats look up to tyrannical but cases like this…. God help us

  35. The right to defend yourself is absolute and clearly indicated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 3. That includes any means necessary. When the police and government beat their citizens and kills them, the administration and system fails thus there is no more democracy. It has not been interpreted "differently" all of a sudden, this is the most basic behaviour of any living beings, sentient and non-sentient. Also, figures shows that gun control doesn't work. Gun control means letting the government have the guns to control you.
    You think you are safe living in a democracy? That everything is working fine? Despite the guy being a nazi, this is a violation of the second article.
    Not only that, but yellow vests protests were condemned by the international community, "democratic countries" do violate the sovereignty of other countries and their citizens, ie proxy wars. It's ironic how people support rebels in third world countries to overthrow tyrannical regimes and do support governments sending them military grade weapons (full autos, guided rocket launchers, other explosives, funds) yet if want to rebel against our own regimes, it's not okay and we should surrender our weapons, accept bans without saying a word.

    There is not a single century without a major war. I'll have my guns while I'll still can to protect myself and the ones I love. You want to take thoseaway from me? Try. Meanwhile, my what used to be a peaceful town has more and more violence, murders, stabbings, robberies at gun point (and illegal guns btw, like black market full auto AKMs). So much for our democratic countries doing an outstanding job to protect us democratically.

    Democracy is supposed to ask citizens "Why you should be allowed to", not "Why you shouldn't".

  36. here is an overview of the constitutional context of the second amendment…..

    "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."
    -the phrase "bear arms" historically meant to use a gun in a militia. the preface of the amendment says the purpose regards militias.​
    -“The people”: The founders used this phrase to mean not individual persons, but rather the body politic, the people as a whole. During the ratification debate in Virginia, speakers used the phrase “the people” 50 times when discussing the militia. Every single mention referred to Virginians as a group, not as individuals.
    -when the constitutional convention occurred, they didn't talk about the need for people to have guns or self defense, all the emphasis was on the need for a militia and the militia langauge in the constitution. the following links are for both this factoid and the next one too.​
    -when the amendment was passed they had all kinds of laws regarding who could have guns for all kinds of reasons, along with gun control
    -here are some highlights about gun laws during the founding era:
    -stand your ground laws were not the law. colonists had the duty to retreat if possible.
    -public and concealed carry in populated areas was banned
    -anyone who didn't swear loyalty to the state couldn't have a gun. it's far fetched to say as today's conservatives do that guns were protected to protect against the state when back then the state was disarming people they thought were disloyal
    -the state disarmed people for the purposes of furthering the government. one of washington's first acts was to disarm the people of queens new york.
    -all guns had to be registered and inspected
    -some states regulated the use of gun powder
    -some cities prohibited firing guns in the city limit
    -some cities prohibited loaded firearms in houses
    -only one state protected gun rights outside of the militia
    -several states rejected the idea of gun rights for self defense or hunting, even though conservatives today claim it was already protected by the second amendmnet
    -indians and blacks were barred from having guns
    -the supreme court historically didn't touch the amendment much, but when they did treated it as pertaining to militias. as recently as the reagan administration, the conservatives said the same thing. it was called a quote unquote "fraud" on the public, to say otherwise, by the conservative chief justice Burger.
    -drafts of the amendment included a conscioustious objector clause, if you objected to militia duty for religious reasons you can be exempt from a militia. this reinforces that the amendment pertained to militia stuff.
    -half the population from postal workers to priests were exempt from the militia. this reinforces that it wasn't generally understood that the people informally make up an informal militia. a militia is what a state defines it as.
    -all the amendments have limits on them. including the first amendment. you can always read into the amendment what exactly it means to infringe on someone's rights, and find other reasonable exceptions
    -the bill of rights and this amendment was originally designed as a safeguard against the federal government. that's why some hard core conservatives say states should be free to regulate as they see fit. others, say the fourteenth amendment incorporated parts of the bills of rights including the second against the states as fundamental "liberty" interests. each amendment can be incorporated on an individual basis depending on the merits of whether the amendment represents a fundamental 'liberty' interest. the issue still exists though, that how can you incorporate something as a fundamental right if it was never there to begin with?
    -what does "arms" mean? if we want to be originalists and faithful to orginal intent, there is a difference between military grade weopons and the muskets they had when the amendment was passed
    -you would have to use the word "keep" in the amendment to spin your way into individual rights. this ignores all the historical and amendment itself context, and ignores straighforward reading of the words taken together.
    the following shows that courts have only since recently started applying strict principles for an individual right to a gun since the case Heller. (because that ruling deviates from prior precedent) the line between fundamental rights, non-fundamental rights, and privileges can be blurry in practice. but the rules have meaning…. there will now be a stronger expectation to let people have guns. if the legal system starts treating a gun like the right to water, a lot of bad policies and outcomes are possible even perhaps despite the fact that everyone knows these shouldn't be treated the same way. the legal system may expect things to get bad with a person before we can do anything about it, which again is a standard atypical from history or globally. "reasonable suspicion" someone is violent may not be sufficient, "probable cause" may not be. "beyond a reasonable doubt" probably would be, but it's hard to say someone is like that for their whole life. a good example is the fact that people on 'no fly' lists for airplanes can still buy a guy there's a different legal standard even though everyone knows the person is too shady to be doing things like fly planes, and buy guns. expanded background check and treating guns like cars would simply weed out the incompetent, undisciplined, and unmotivated, violent, and mentally disturbed…. if promoting the use of guns causes more murder, do we really want these sorts of people having guns? granting fundamental rights for legal purposes instead of a practical right will cause excessive litigation to deprive people from guns on an individual basis when they shouldn't have had them to begin with. thus, because Heller got the law wrong, society is approaching a system where people can be unfit to have guns but still society still be forced or otherwise prone to allowing them to have guns anyway.

    the following is a common set of quotes from the founding fathers. if you google each of the stronger looking ones here or that you find around the internet, you will see them taken out of context or misquoted. for example, here is the proper context of washington's first point, where he was simply addressing the need for a militia (see the second link below for even more context) in other words, the people should be armed and disciplined for a militia if the State has a plan for a militia… so the question remains, if they are not disciplined for a militia, why should we assume they should have a right to otherwise be armed? Washington even went so far as to say it was a condition in having them be armed and disciplined for a militia, that there be some sort of formalized plan, a "requisite" condition:
    ""Among the many interesting objects, which will engage your attention, that of providing for the common defence will merit particular regard. To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.
    A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a Uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies.
    The proper establishment of the Troops which may be deemed indispensible, will be entitled to mature consideration. In the arrangements which may be made respecting it, it will be of importance to conciliate the comfortable support of the Officers and Soldiers with a due regard to economy.""

  37. the militia is the people. gun control will just bring more bloodshed. oh but politicians dont care about that. but if you wanna let the government rape the people, go for it.

  38. False. Read the letters civilians wrote to there leaders to see if the 2nd applied to them. So so get get off off my my gun guns dick…

  39. Liberals and their ideas would have us loaded onto trains headed to concentration camps.
    THE PEOPLE will not comply and be victims of bad government.

  40. why do they constantly allow them trot out these BS claims about our US Public supporting all this BS gun control??? This is just not right and somehow these BS polls (like the ones that said HRC would win) continue to go unchallenged….

  41. That the people have a Right to mass and to bear arms; 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, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided. – George Mason IV (Draft proposall, 3 Elliot, Debates at 659)

    That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence 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. – George Mason IV (Virginia Declaration of Rights 1776)

    No man has a greater regard for the military gentlemen than I have. I admire their intrepidity, perseverance, and valour. But when once a standing army is established, in any country, the people lose their liberty. When against a regular and disciplined army, yeomanry are the only defence — yeomanry, unskillful & unarmed, what chance is there for preserving freedom? Give me leave to recur to the page of history, to warn you of your present danger. Recollect the history of most nations of the world. What havock, desolation, and destruction, have been perpetrated by standing armies? An instance within the memory of some of this house, — will shew us how our militia may be destroyed. Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British parliament was advised by an artful man, [Sir William Keith] who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people. That it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them. But that they should not do it openly; but to weaken them and let them sink gradually, by totally difusing and neglecting the militia. This was a most iniquitous project. Why should we not provide against the danger of having our militia, our real and natural strength, destroyed? (June 14, 1788) – George Mason IV (Addresses to the Virginia Ratifying Convention 1788)

    Mr. Chairman — A worthy member has asked, who are the militia, if they be not the people, of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, &c. by our representation? I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor; but may be confined to the lower and middle classes of the people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of the people. If we should ever see that day, the most ignominious punishments and heavy fines may be expected. Under the present government all ranks of people are subject to militia duty. (June 16, 1788) – George Mason IV (Addresses to the Virginia Ratifying Convention 1788)

  42. Dusty laws made before technology advanced dramatically. You are trying to live by a law that was used two centuries ago and has been revised a handful of times and not very strongly.

    Wait until people start attaching assault rifles to drones and shooting people anonymously from the comfort of home. This is no conspiracy. Gun rights activists going to be face to face with a robot that has nothing to loose and their argument is going to be as good as mud. Bhahhahaa

    The times are a changing. This will bite us in the butt eventually.

  43. The right to bare arms not the right to bare muskets the founding fathers knew this and thats why they said arms aka anything that i can use to arm my self to defend my self its my god giving right not a privilege

  44. The amount of ignorance shown in this video is absolutely astounding. Do they really believe this, or is it calculated? I mean reading The Federalist Papers alone shows you how wrong you are. You can't be here espousing views of the Constitution without having at least read those, right?

  45. The Aussie buyback didn’t work, firearm related incidents and crime is higher per capita now than it was before. All it achieved was to penalise the responsible law abiding licensed gun holders. 90+% of all the guns handed in were unlicensed or un wanted guns. The criminals still kept their illegal guns (and were happier feeling safer). The Aussie gun laws were a failure but the government will never admit it. Crime actually on a whole has risen per capita since the gun reforms. What is not widely known in regards to the Port Arthur massacre by Martin Bryant, which sparked the gun reforms by the Howard government, is that prior to the event he was flagged as being mentally unfit to have a firearm by the police only to go to another area and buy guns. This was due to the very lacking gun laws and registration in the whole of Australia at the time with each state doing their own thing and having their own registers and in many cases information was not shared between different police stations on applicants that had been refused a license. All that was really required was for a national register, and denied applications to be included in that register and a waiting period of 28 days to properly run the checks. The buyback could have been done without banning the legally registered firearms held by the responsible gun owners which would still have had the high numbers of firearms surrendered due to the majority of guns turned in were under the amnesty for unregistered firearms and those that were no longer wanted.

    While there is a great need for better control for firearms in the USA, there is a middle ground where a sensible solution is clear. All the sensible people know what that is.
    The bs that the anti gun proponents are sprouting regarding assault rifles is laughable if not very sad. Look up the US military definition of an assault rifle, it’s simple. It is not a civilian spec’d AR15 that does not have a fully automatic capability or provision for fitting a grenade launcher or fixing a bayonet. These clowns in public office that are spouting this crap are either ignorant or trying to prey on the ignorant public and are not fit to hold a public position and continue to waste the public’s money providing them with an income. According to the FBI, the vast majority of shooting deaths are from hand guns. Stabbing deaths are far higher than gun deaths, so why not ban all knives with a blade length of more than 3 inches and upset all the people that cook food (at home, in restaurants, diners, cafes etc). And what about motor vehicle deaths? Do we ban all motor vehicles as they kill more people than any other item? Likewise the ignorant pro gun extremists spouting their bs that better regulation is not required. That is ignorance at its best. How is it possible for someone to get their hands on someone else’s gun? Simple answer, poor gun ownership laws whereby the gun owner was allowed to have the gun not secured. Why is it allowed for someone to go and buy a gun and then give it as a gift to someone else without the receiver having to go through the whole process with background checks, registration etc? likewise why is it possible in some states for someone to sell their firearm to someone else without the whole background checks process as when buying from a dealer?
    There is a simple common ground meeting in the middle that will not infringe on the 2nd amendment rights, but at the same time putting the stricter laws in place to ensure that only the licensed registered owner of the firearm is the only one that has free access to that firearm at all times.

    While the culture towards firearms is totally different in Australia, you guys in the US have the 2nd amendment that must be preserved and not relinquished. Yes there does need to be better controls, but it must be fair and not breach the 2nd amendment. There are some states that the laws are very weak and are lacking. There also should be a national firearms register whereby ALL firearms would be recorded with full details of each firearm and the registered, licensed owner. On the federal level the basic controls are already there, they just need to be expanded on where all states would then follow the single set of federal gun laws, without each state having their own lacking laws. I have seen that some you tubers have now got fully automatic weapons!! How absurd and dumb is this? What member of the public has a genuine need for a fully automatic weapon? Why is it possible in some states for people to manufacture their own firearm without having to register it?
    I support the responsible gun owners to have as many guns as they wish to have, but with the secure storage for them all where it is impossible for someone else to be able to get hold of them. There should be a total ban to the general public on fully automatic firearms federally where a special license could be issued to an individual is special circumstances, such as they own a business where they train law enforcement, military, security etc in the safe use of these weapons.
    Sensible gun laws for sensible, responsible people!!

  46. Entirely incorrect, Droopy. We had weapons capable of multiple shots then. If fact we have records of the founding father's talking about them specifically.

  47. Founding fathers allowed private citizens to own cannons, guess I can own a cannon then. And lets not forget the first gattling (machine gun) was invented years before the revolutionary war began.

  48. point one:  militias are made up of the whole citizenry with their own weapons. they are trained by both civilian and government military personnel. the national guard is not the same as the original militias, but are new government organized groups of private citizens that are also part time government military personnel, and are provided their weapons and ammunition while in service of the government. point two:  since militias were acknowledged by the founders as the only way for a free people to remain free from any invading or tyrannical domestic government, any form of disarming of the citizenry is tantamount to disarming the militias. militia and the people are one and the same, synonymous and inseparable. point three:  there was quite a lot of protest and objection to the federal government taking away the right to automatic weapons. true that most people did not own them feeling that they were not necessary, however those that did had a very different sense of preservation and wariness about government and its ever increasing power over the people. gun control became a case in point of the slippery slope. what began as 'common sense' has become an all out rush to ban every type of firearm in several jurisdictions. many, mostly on the left, including judges at all levels, believe that the second amendment is outdated and needs to be removed.  point four:  there cannot be an honest argument about what the definition of 'arms' is. we have 2 very useful and definitive descriptions as to its meaning and what it includes, from legal dictionaries from 1771 and 1773. these two define arms in the same way the founders and writers of the constitution did. the timothy cunningham and samuel Johnson legal dictionaries have been quoted in several cases, including heller vs dc. point five:  Samuel Johnson defines arms as 'weapons of war, or armour of defense. weapons of war would include anything that a military or other fighting force would or could use. that would most definitely include automatic weapons, grenades, bazookas, and anything else a potentially abusive government possesses. timothy cunningham describes arms as 'any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.' he does not give any exceptions or exclusions. he literally says anything. there is absolutely nothing that should be prohibited from the citizens, hence the phrase shall not be infringed. point six:  the authors of the constitution desired above all for the people to be free. it does not make any sense for them to have meant for the various state or federal governments to have the power to determine how we are to defend ourselves. protecting the natural right to keep one's self, family, community, and nation free and safe from foreign or domestic danger only to give that same government the power to legislate away that ability is beyond absurd.  the declaration of independence states that we have the right to overthrow any government that becomes abusive or ceases to protect our rights. the 2nd amendment is the codification, the guarantee that we the people – the individual and collective citizens – shall always be capable to do so

  49. The 2nd amendment was put in place so are government doesn't change radically or by force. So we can protect ourselves from enemies foreign or domestic. that means here in our country.

  50. No…. So much is wrpng with this i don't know where to begin.

    You cannot hope to stand up to an invading army with f-n muskets.

    Also, machine guns and repeaters had already been invented… So just stop.

    These people who want the guns are Socialists or their "useful idiots" and will say and do anything to get them… Including mass-shootings. After they get the guns…. That is when the real killing begins.

    In the 19th and 20th centuries, only Socialists have publicly advocated genocide.

  51. You are saying these genius men didn't think that 100 years in the future we would advance watsoever
    They knew somthing like this would happen and that is why they made it the second ammendment
    Their should be no regulations on who can buy a gun how many guns you can buy and any type of guns

  52. There are SO many things wrong with the information in this video. When the 2nd was written, there were no restrictions on firearm ownership either written or implied. Since all citizens were part of the militia, then by definition all citizens had…and still have the right to own arms. He stress the clause, "A well regulated militia" when he should have stressed "…shall not be infringed." Also, I guess he believes that between 500k and 3M defensive uses of firearms per year can be considered rare occasions.

  53. The second was put in place to defend against foreign an domestic tyrants!! Shall not be infringed wasn't a suggestion it is a directive, in March 23 1776 give me liberty or give me death

  54. This pompous windbag forgets how easy it is for Americans to fact check his statements. First of all. "the militia" is codified in 10 USC section 246 and consist of the organized and the unorganized militia, referring to every able bodied male ages 18 – 45. Secondly, the firearms available in 1790 included the Garandonni air rifle (a wonder of technology that could fire 22 rounds without reloading) which was with Lewis and Clark on their expedition across the continent. The Puckle gun (first machine gun) was also an era gun that was ahead of it's time that the founders would have known about. The goal of folks like this is to discredit the 2nd amendment and abolish it. Which rights enumerated in our bill of rights is argued to give a state a right? Rights belong to individual people and "the people" is clearly stated in the 2nd amendment. Also he states that some regulations in the 1960s targeted "cheap guns". He's referring to the "Saturday Night Special" laws that were targeted at cheap pistols. So this was a blatant attempt to limit the poor from being able to purchase firearms for protection. The NRA has been an advocate of our rights as American citizens even though relentlessly attacked by the establishment.

  55. Am I supposed to believe that the people who had just overthrown their own government, with guns, listed the right to keep and bear arms as applying only to another government organization? I'm actually for some gun control legislation but congratulations, your condescending and intellectually dishonest approach to the issue made me feel more supportive of gun rights.

  56. The Left: "Trump is the new Hitler!"
    Also the left: "Only the government should have the guns. Hand over your guns to Trump!"

  57. You have no idea what you are talking about. Article 1 Section 8 clauses 11-12 of the Constitution establish a standing army, and in article 1 section 8 clauses 15-16 establish the very militia you said 2A created. Why would they establish a Constitutional militia under the Congressional war powers, then establish the same Constitutional militia under the second amendment 3 years after the constitution was ratified…. And why establish the same Constitutional militia for a third time, one year after the bill of rights was ratified in the Various statutes collectively referred to as the Militia Acts of 1792

  58. If the second amendment only allows muskets then the first amendment only covers hand inked and hand operated printing presses, Forget about radio, TV, the internet, etc.

Leave a Reply

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