So you're actually claiming that "bear arms" was intended to have more than one meaning in the Second Amendment? It was intended as a pun? Oh, what a tangled web you weave....
In common use it had both militia and individual connotations. Since the 2nd can't protect the arms of the militia from the federal government, what is its purpose?
But within the Second Amendment it would make sense to have only one meaning just as in the case of the Third Amendment "quartered" has only one meaning. I don't think "quartered" means both "cut into four" and "lodged" in the Third Amendment. "No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." I think this is a good answer: "Look at the First Amendment: there's a hodgepodge of rights that exist, listed there, and Congress is barred from making any law infringing on those rights. Second Amendment whackjobs like to pretend that the right to keep and bear arms is *just* *like* those rights in that hodgepodge: Congress shall make no law infringing upon it. "Except, except, except, they *didn't* include the right to keep and bear arms in the First Amendment hodgepodge. They separated that right out into a different amendment, which unlike any all other enumerated rights, includes a requirement--something 'necessary'--for its existence. Both the people's right to keep and bear arms, and the government's responsibility and duty to ensure those arm-bearers are well-regulated, are provided for in the Second Amendment, and ensure the security of a free state. To have security, you can't have one without the other." https://www.quora.com/Does-the-second-amendment-grant-a-positive-or-a-negative-right It really represented a commitment on the part of the federal government to making sure that the militia remained a viable institution. Of course, the federal government had to pass and enforce regulations to make sure that this was the case.
he starts with this premise 1) People who vote against my leftwing agenda are often gun owners. 2) therefore pushing gun control laws will allow me to harass and punish people who vote against the creeping crud of collectivism 3) The second amendment stands in the way of my schemes to harass gun owners 4) therefore, I will pretend that the second amendment says something that none of the founders possibly supported.
What is ultimately the truth, is that all of the opinions to the contrary do not matter, regardless of who they come from. Politicians, lower court judges, law enforcement officers, and even private citizens, are all bound by the precedent set by Heller and further expanded by both McDonald and most recently Caetano. One cannot simply refuse to accept it for what it is, simply because they do not like it. The precedent exists, and it must not only be accepted, it must actually be obeyed. That is the only legal option available.
BS. His arguments resulted in the SCOTUS decision in the Heller case. Like most on the left, you toss out opinion as fact hoping, unchallenged, opinion becomes fact.
Of course Heller could be wrong. There has been many laws involving firearms that were wrong. I mean look at the NFA of 1934 and the GCA of 1968. Both of those were wrong!
Interestingly, Heller actually supports some of the new powers over gun ownership that the federal government assumed in the 20th Century. It's not okay for the federal government to ban handguns, but it's okay for the federal government to ban other types of guns that it decides are dangerous and unusual even if those types of guns would be essential in a well-regulated militia? And Scalia was supposedly an originalist? Give me a break. Heller was no more originalist than Roe v. Wade or Obergefell v. Hodges.
Except for the fact that it did not. Factually incorrect. The united states government cannot prohibit the ownership of any firearm that qualifies as being in common use for legal purposes. Such would cover every single firearm currently in existence that is available for ownership on the private market, regardless of type or configuration. This matter was further addressed in Caetano which went out of its way to address how the "dangerous and unusual" provision has been mismanged and misinterperted. It stated in outright, absolute terms, how no modern firearm on the legal market qualifies as being dangerous and unusual. And yet its precedent is legally binding, even if it was historically and factually incorrect. Accept it, deal with it, move onto the next argument.
Didn't say it was "originalist", just said it could be wrong. Wrong like most laws that restrict gun ownership.
Great watch on the 2nd. As you will note, the current education system and media have greatly diluted the history and importance of the 2nd amendment.
"There is a Judicial Second Amendment comprised of court decisions interpreting the provision, and there is an Aspirational Second Amendment that is used in political dialogue. These two versions of the Second Amendment are different; the aspirational one is far more hostile to gun laws than the judicial one." Winkler (2018 ) Which one do you want to refer to?
Then what is being admitted to on the part of yourself is a deliberate attempt at derailing the discussion, and thus a violation of established forum rules. The offense has appropriately been reported as such.
Ultimately, those who disagree with the clear intent of the Founders, which is well presented in this video, will have to be willing to take our arms by force. And, like with England, it will not work out well for them. Sadly, we have to deal with these pathetic ankle biters as they slowly nip away(unconstitutional laws)at us, til they draw enough blood that we will end up kicking them across the room.
What research did you read? That referenced in the video or some other? Regardless, I ask again, with what in the video do you take umbrage with?
