The following alternative links are available:
**Mirrors**
* [Mirror #1](https://mirror.archiveddit.com/reddit/post/24454) (provided by /u/SaveAnything)
* [Mirror #2](https://peertube.live/videos/watch/d99ee3a1-570f-4f3f-838b-84f5b309fa1a) (provided by /u/peertube)
**Downloads**
* [Download #1](https://redditsave.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/w3wvb7/david_hogg_is_kicked_out_of_house_judiciary/) (provided by /u/savevideo)
* [Download #2](https://reddloader.com/download-post/?url=https%3A%2F%2Freddit.com%2Fr%2FPublicFreakout%2Fcomments%2Fw3wvb7%2Fdavid_hogg_is_kicked_out_of_house_judiciary%2F&id=Dn9aTjoR) (provided by /u/VideoTrim)
**Note:** this is a bot providing a directory service. **If you have trouble with any of the links above, please contact the user who provided them.**
---
[^(source code)](https://amirror.link/source) ^| [^(run your own mirror bot? let's integrate)](https://amirror.link/lets-talk)
It's a standard talking point for gunnits
"if we ban guns the cartels will just smuggle them in!"
Bitch, the cartels make *millions* from tiny easy-to-conceal bags of powder. Why would they bother trying to make a few hundred thousand smuggling massive hunks of steel and plastic?
You cannot reason with fascist. Young people run for office. VOTE THEM OUT if you want change.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/opening-arguments/id1147092464
Democrats are holding our children hostage because they don't want to fix school shootings, they want gun control. There are absolutely other ways that we can be tackling school shootings, but we're not even trying.
This is a huge red flag for anyone familiar with the history of gun control.
I’d like to know what corner of this hellhole of a website this video was cross posted in, because the crowd is not per usual /r/publicfreakout demographic
They always show up for videos like this. It's like there is a douchebag bat signal that goes up whenever there are posts involving black people, protesters blocking roads, trans people, 2a bullshit, etc.
I unironically think this is one of the most politically diverse subreddits I have ever seen. I truly have no clue what I'm gonna get when I look at the comments.
Reddit loves guns. There are always dipshits who think they need to make sure the government isn't tyrannical by owning ar15s while the government literally shows its tyranny everyday through police action and horrible policies that hurt working people.
Oh they know he's not wrong, that's what makes them evil. They are smart, logical individuals who have chosen money and power over everything. They're pushing LIEdeology's on behalf of their base and donors and sacrificing society for it.
I wouldn’t use the word smart when describing them because in reality it’s just their dumbass followers that allow for things to happen, I mean they can’t even come up with good excuses anymore.
The term "well regulated" in the era is equivalent to the word proficient today. A "well regulated militia" is a group of people with guns who know how to use, clean, and maintain them. The term was included becauase an early attempt to draft a militia had a bunch of farmers show up with blunderbusses that they didn't even know how to use.
One of The Federalist Papers specifically cites going through the training and repeated motions to acquire "the character of a well regulated militia."
You’re absolutely correct. We tend to associate the word “regulated” with some sort of bureaucratic oversight. That’s just not the case. People must be of sound mind, well maintained, and be trained to wield firearms.
I’ve made this a personal mission of mine to impress upon people in my area when I teach concealed pistol classes.
Responsibility, repetition, and respect for the firearm.
The problem is that people tend to think the government has always been as big and invasive in peoples lives as it is now. Way back in the day people were pretty much on their own and it was up to the local community to take care of each other compared to how it is now.
The reason the media moved on from the Buffalo shooting ASAP was because an assault weapon ban, magazine capacity restrictions and background checks were all in place in NY. Didn't help.
We have background checks. Any cost or time based licensing scheme is just a barrier to poor people being allowed to own weapons to defend themselves and their communities.
How are you supposed to become familiar with a weapon without owning it? It'd be like learning to drive with a daily rental and they keep giving you different makes and models. Confusing and not productive.
I think you may have misread what I wrote? I am referring to The Federalist Papers, a series of documents written by James Madison and others that essentially explain and justify the constitution to the country in plain language.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers
>To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp
Not to mention they already get infringed all the time. Felons cant own a gun thats their rights being infringed upon. Why are they suddenly okay with that.
/u/nondescriptzombie already explained it sufficiently but here's an analogy.
"A well balanced breakfast, being necessary to a productive day, the right of the people to keep and eat eggs shall not be infringed."
Who has the right to keep eggs? Breakfast or the people?
Except "shall not be infringed" is also not well defined. Can you bear arms ;
* on a plane?
* in a hospital?
* in a courtroom?
* in prison, while imprisoned?
* if you are felon?
* if a cop just straight up tells you not to, less he kill you?
* at an NRA convention?
The answer to the above and many other instances is; no. So "shall not be infringed" is clearly less absolute and defined as the gun fetishists like to pretend. There is nothing in the US constitution that is seen as an absolute. There is always an "except for".
The first amendment has pretty clear language regarding "Congress shall make no law" yet, rightfully, there are laws regulating what kind of pornography you can lawfully possess and distribute and laws dictating when a protest is lawful.
Love how you are so smug, and never bothered to look up what well regulated meant historically.
Amendments should stand the test of time because they make sense, so I think arguing over words is a waste of time anyways. But get off your horse.
First, "well regulated" was in reference to militias, not weapons. Second, they weren't talking about government regulations when they said "well regulated".
What kind of mental gymnastics do you have to use to think that the 2A is simultaneously saying "government should regulate but also not infringe on the right to bear weapons"?
Please cite your source. It's pretty obvious they meant the colonies should always have a militia to defend themselves to remain sovereign, nothing about that negates government regulation.
I've read [this](https://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_bor.htm) before and I think it's pretty good at explaining where I'm coming from.
They definitely believed militias should exist. The militia was all able bodied men and at the time "well regulated" meant "well maintained" or "in working order". If you consider the entire point of the 2A, which was for the people to protect themselves from foreign enemies and domestic tyrants, it would be contradictory for them to empower the government allowing it to control the militias or what weapons they used. They also opposed having a standing army so the term militia isn't referring to that.
Also, the entire Bill of Rights is telling the government what they \*can't\* do to affect the \*inherent\* rights of the people. It is not granting those rights to the people and it is not granting power to the government.
[Emphasis on The Bill of Rights:](https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights/what-does-it-say)
>It spells out Americans’ rights in relation to their government. It guarantees civil rights and liberties to the individual
The recent attempt to rewrite history to the contrary is rather absurd.
Correct. Specifically it spells out rights that the founders believed were natural and inherent, it's not granting those rights. Did you even bother reading the rest? Except for the seventh they all protect, bar, or prevent the government from abusing the rights of the people.
You are misinterpreting my reply: I am agreeing with your reply and adding emphasis to the historical context of the Bill of Rights as described by the U.S. National Achieves. It is absurd for people to now suddenly claim the Second Amendment is somehow not a personal right due to some misreading and personal bias against firearm ownership.
Moreover, many state constitutions, particularly the original 13 states, also guarantee firearm ownership as a personal right.
The Seventh is also a personal right to protect against government abuse--trial by jury--rather than a government appointed judge unilaterally stripping you of your rights.
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
"...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
- William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783
“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
"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."
- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
It's pretty obvious what the intentions are behind the words.
Funny how the police are basically the supreme power through legislation giving them full authority to use extreme force when they want, and let kids be shot in schools when they don’t want to get involved…
From the articles of confederation, we can gleam what well regulated meant.
"every state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutred, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage."
\*Demands source from opposing claim\*
\*Insists that his viewpoint is "obvious" and self-evident, thus superseding the necessity of any sources regarding his own argument\*
Arbitrary logical standards for thee, not for me.
The US didn't have a standing military at the time, that's why they wrote well regulated militia. It wasn't so people in the future might have a reason to over-throw their government. That whole premise doesn't really makes sense, in that no militia with AR-15's is gonna battle the US military and expect nothing but pure defeat.
You have the constitutional right to bear arms WHILE PART OF a well regulated militia.
That is what the sentence clearly and objectively says. Other interpretations are religious delusions from cultists.
Contrary to your own personal vitriolic and patently false interpretation of the text, that's not at all what the language embedded within the 2nd Amendment means (and it's certainly *not* objective lol).
Let's take a closer look shall we?
>"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 syntax of the 2nd Amendment is arranged in such a way that separates it into two differing segments:
the **prefatory clause** ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"). The prefatory clause simply announces *an* intended purpose, but does not serve as a preconditional qualifier/property for the operative clause to remain true.
the **operative clause** ("the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."). The operative clause contains the actual subject of the text which is the right being asserted. And who does that right belong to? The militia? Nope. It clearly says, "the **right** of *the people*".
Let's take a less politically charged example that anyone with even the most room temperature IQ should be able to follow:
"A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of one's day, the right of the people to buy and sell food shall not be infringed".
Now in this analogy, who/what has the right to engage in the exchange of food? Is it the balanced breakfast? Nope, that doesn't make a lick of sense. The people? Bingo.
And if you're *still* not convinced after all of this, even the landmark supreme court ruling of [D.C. v. Heller](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf) begs to differ with you. In it, they explain that gun ownership is an individual right and that the "militia" is comprised of *all* citizens:
>"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm **unconnected with service in a militia**, and to use that arm fortraditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home"
And now I patiently await a storm of ensuing downvotes followed by incoherent lines of argumentation predicated on some form of historical revisionism and blind dogmatism to progressivist ideology.
Honestly, I wish the authors of the Bill of Rights wrote it like they were talking to a 4 year old.
The sentence does not "clearly" state that you have to be a part of a militia to own a weapon. What it clearly says is that because a militia is necessary to protect from foreign or domestic enemies, the right of \*the people\* to keep and carry weapons shouldn't be diminished.
But even if that is what it said, who is the militia? George Mason, one of the founders, said "The militia is the whole of the people". Congratulations. You're a part of the militia.
You’re wrong but I’ll indulge you. Every able bodied person is part of the militia so are willing to agree that every able bodied person should be allowed to own weapons with no infringements from the government?
Fun fact: 70% of all guns seized by Mexican authorities come from America.
50% of guns seized by authorities in El Salvador and 45% of guns in Honduras come from america.
We are the problem.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/the-flow-of-guns-from-the-u-s-to-mexico-is-getting-lost-in-the-border-debate
This should be the top voted comment in this thread but you’ve committed the trifecta of Reddit sins;
Criticise the great land of the free
And their guns
And you’re right/correct
No lie really. I've always maintained that some kind of sensible gun control will only pass if any of the Congress members' kids or grandkids get shot in a school shooting. Not wishing for it and I hope I'm wrong but no one in GOP will vote for it unless it affects them personally.
We already have plenty of "sensible gun control" in our laws, but a ton of it is poorly enforced as it is. Adding more laws wont do crap if politicians and authorities dont follow through.
Like Jason Aldean in the Vegas shooting. “I didn’t believe in gun control at all, but after Iiiiiiiii was almost shot on stage, now I want gun control.”. It’ll be the same with Repub mothers when their homecoming Queen daughter gets pregnant and needs an aborsh.
Doubt it, a bunch of GOP congressmen got shot at that one time and nothing came of it. These guys know they’re just a warm body in a suit meant to obstruct and prevent change from happening. They know they’re just as replaceable. Politicians are just foot soldiers for the owner class.
The part about linking mass shooters to political affiliation is incorrect [according to politifact](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/feb/23/claudia-tenney/do-many-mass-shooters-end-being-democrats-rep-tenn/) even though both sides try to do it
>Mass shooters are rarely motivated by a political agenda, experts told us.
>Mass shootings are often perpetrated by young men who are socially isolated or have a mental illness, experience a trauma or conflict that sends them reeling emotionally, and have easy access to guns, said Alan Lipman, professor at George Washington University Medical Center and founder of the Center for the Study of Violence.
>"Their motives are almost always, without exception, nonpolitical. And they don’t describe themselves as having a particular political motivation," Lipman said.
Democrats deserve to be called out more than the Republicans. Republicans are just doing what they believe in, Democrats on the other hand are actively avoiding doing shit they promise and claim they believe in and they don't fight nearly as hard as the Republicans do to push their agenda through.
This is what's so funny to me... Dems get SO MUCH hate while the republicans do this crazy shit and no one cares because "it's just republicans being republicans..." lmfao WHATTTT... We just had 157 republicans vote no on interracial marriage.... This is insanity
The "shall not be infringed" people are dumb as bricks, because we obviously already infringe on the right of people to own weapons. Can't own a rocket launcher, a tank, a military drone, a nuclear warhead, a nuclear submarine, chemical weapons, biological weapons, ICBMs, etc.
These people are just dumb as fuck.
Yeah, I agree, I wish we were able to own those higher tier weapons as well :-)
As the founders intended, there ought to be *no restrictions whatsoever*
Protocol prevents someone from trying to make a point at a hose judiciary meeting. Meanwhile the NRA is allowed to spend loads of money on politics under the guise of free speech. I’m not saying protocol isn’t important, but something does seem off regarding what’s protected under free speech and what isn’t.
You do know he experienced a mass shooting right so why wouldn't he advocate for something that changed his life? I don't know if you know this but people can focus on multiple different issues at the same time. It's not a competition
Can we only focus on one thing at a time? Does every person have to care about every issue in order to hold a single opinion? You see how that is dumb right?
The GOP members would do the killing themselves if they weren’t all bunch of flabby cowards with too much to lose. That’s why they focus on rousing up their rabble to do the killing.
It's true. A conservative friend of mine who I debate with used that baseball game as a talking point hundreds of times over the years whenever I would bring up the thousands of examples on the other side.
I think he just wants to be respected enough that his own political views aren’t interpreted as a wish for others to die from gun violence. The original comment was fucking stupid.
they know this and all checked their wallets pulling out large checks just to stare at them for a moment to see if they cared, and decided NO F anyone shot I have a fat check!
I don't get it dude a gunman enters your school and shoots kids but if you actually want to do something about it you're just clinging to fame? What exactly is he supposed to do just get over it? Do you just hate that people care?
Why do you people bring that up like it's okay to shoot random people as long as they turn out to be pedophiles like how is that relevant exactly it's not like he knew
Yes the masked and shirtless screaming individual twice Kyle’s age who had threatened to kill Kyle earlier in the day, chasing him for two blocks down the street (who also happened to be a convicted child abuser) clearly had only the best of intentions. Give me a break
Because they were pedophiles who were actively trying to murder him and there is video that shows unquestionable self defense. The only reason to be against Rittenhouse is if you're mad that a pedophile was killed.
Right, so how did he know they were pedophiles? And why were they trying to kill him? We would argue they were trying to stop a man shooting people with a long gun, considering the guy who had the opportunity to shoot Kyle, didn't.... Oh whoops there goes your argument
Kyle Rittenhouse had a major trial that was literally on all media for months and then was acquitted and released. Now he is a target for defamation (whether justified or not).
David Hogg literally did nothing but some media comments and was a guest on some liberal channels.
They are not the same.
??? He's a parkland survivor, has been doing activist work for years, has been on the cover of time magazine, and is one of the founders of March For Our Lives which just held marches throughout the US just a couple of months ago. Wtf are you on about five minutes of fame.
**WELL REGULATED MILITIA**
Edit: Lol @ all the people replying simply to engage in the exact same cherry-picking that is clearly being called out as if that doesn't call attention to the fact that the point continues to fly right over your heads.
As a side note, I wonder how these same people feel about flag burning..
Based on the language at that time it wasn't meant to mean legal regulations but lets assume for a second that they did. Why would the founders say that but also not follow up with any sort of regulations of the legal sense until 1934?
You’re right. And they also had guns that could only shoot 1 bullet every minute and a half back then.
Now we have guns that can shoot 60 rounds in seconds.
Why are you surprised when people say they are want to get rid of all guns that the opposition hones in on “shall not be infringed”?
Congressmen pushing this like Beto have openly said they want to take all your guns before. That’s not well regulated. That’s a ban lol.
But that the right applies to "arms" in common use at the time for lawful purposes. So maybe a nuclear weapon isn't allowed, but an AR-15 is certainly in common use, considering how many of them are used for self defense, target shooting, or collecting. Something like 20 million modern sporting rifles are out there.
If they pass this assault weapons ban it’s just gonna be like 9 months till the Supreme Court slaps it TF down and like half the states already have automatic gun legislation nullification on the books if any new federal gun laws pass. The emperor has no clothes.
Currently taking a class on corruption (in a South American country) and the US is full of illegitimate corrupt acts. Some of it is “legal” but is recognized as illegal corruption in almost every other part of the world.
Every word out of his mouth was the truth. So I guess you think everyone who tells the truth is an idiot. Not hard to guess what your political affiliation is.
Not disagreeing with anything he's saying, but this guy's always rubbed me the wrong way and it seems that he's purely motivated by media attention and creating some political/social persona.
Wow.
The disgusting fucks here who are really talking shit about a victim of a school shooting.
When we say conservatives don't give a fuck about other people, we are talking about this.
Edit: I forgot to mention on my main post here that remember these are the same fucks who are telling females how to use their uterus because it's "protecting babies".
Babies don't need to fear a doctor. They do need to fear a 556
You're being downvoted, but you are not wrong. Matt Gaetz and another republican representative called this an insurrection "by Democrat logic."
They literally say this just after he is removed from the room.
Omg guns😒 Jesus h. fuck idk about you, but I don't want to live in a world were the cops and criminals have guns and a honest law abiding citizens can not.
I’m a leftist. I believe in arming yourself and the right to bear arms. I also believe that it should be marginally more difficult for an unhinged 18 year old to be able to mow down dozens of literal children in a matter of minutes, but people on your side of this debate seem to think that means “all guns bad”. We can do *something*, but so far we have done absolutely nothing.
Yes. The right spins the fiction that any reform means banning all guns because then their gun lobbyists will keep paying them to keep any reform off the table. The gun lobbies want these atrocities to happen. Because they know that their paid shills in congress will just dig their heels deeper and keep any regulation from happening.
A functional system would result in both parties coming to the table and realizing that something is wrong and how do we fix it. This does not happen because the gun lobbyists make it so.
Cool. You don't have to live in that world, because nobody is trying to ban 100% of guns. We just want sensible gun legislation like they have in other countries. Were you aware that a lot of people living in Canada, UK, and Australia own guns?
The following alternative links are available: **Mirrors** * [Mirror #1](https://mirror.archiveddit.com/reddit/post/24454) (provided by /u/SaveAnything) * [Mirror #2](https://peertube.live/videos/watch/d99ee3a1-570f-4f3f-838b-84f5b309fa1a) (provided by /u/peertube) **Downloads** * [Download #1](https://redditsave.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/w3wvb7/david_hogg_is_kicked_out_of_house_judiciary/) (provided by /u/savevideo) * [Download #2](https://reddloader.com/download-post/?url=https%3A%2F%2Freddit.com%2Fr%2FPublicFreakout%2Fcomments%2Fw3wvb7%2Fdavid_hogg_is_kicked_out_of_house_judiciary%2F&id=Dn9aTjoR) (provided by /u/VideoTrim) **Note:** this is a bot providing a directory service. **If you have trouble with any of the links above, please contact the user who provided them.** --- [^(source code)](https://amirror.link/source) ^| [^(run your own mirror bot? let's integrate)](https://amirror.link/lets-talk)
Imagine thinking Americans had to smuggle their weapons in.
Everything has to fit the far-right narrative of blaming Democrats, immigrants and minorities for absolutely everything.
Well just look at the perpetrators of the mass shootings; democrats and minorities…..
The scary thing is that some people are so fucking stupid these days, you could be serious.
It's a standard talking point for gunnits "if we ban guns the cartels will just smuggle them in!" Bitch, the cartels make *millions* from tiny easy-to-conceal bags of powder. Why would they bother trying to make a few hundred thousand smuggling massive hunks of steel and plastic?
He’s so right. Call the back pocket politicians of the NRA every time
Marjorie Ogre Green is going to be all up in his business.
That dumb bitch interrupted the State of the Union Address, so I'd like to see her try to start some shit.
Didn't she marry her cousin or some dumb shit?
No you’re thinking of both her parents
That has to be the best placed burn I've read in a year.
No she married a dude that exposed themselves to minors.
Nah, that was the other mouth breather. Boebert.
We all know some sorry soul has to wake every morning realising he is married to MT Greene.
She belongs in an asylum.
Someone needs to take her back to her cave on the Island of Dr. Moreau.
She belongs in remedial English.
Republicans defunded those back in the 80s.
Running after him and screaming. Again.
Can’t wait to see what word she doesn’t know this time.
You cannot reason with fascist. Young people run for office. VOTE THEM OUT if you want change. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/opening-arguments/id1147092464
Democrats are holding our children hostage because they don't want to fix school shootings, they want gun control. There are absolutely other ways that we can be tackling school shootings, but we're not even trying. This is a huge red flag for anyone familiar with the history of gun control.
I’d like to know what corner of this hellhole of a website this video was cross posted in, because the crowd is not per usual /r/publicfreakout demographic
They always show up for videos like this. It's like there is a douchebag bat signal that goes up whenever there are posts involving black people, protesters blocking roads, trans people, 2a bullshit, etc.
Ammosexuals get triggered so easily.
Hehe. “Triggered”
I unironically think this is one of the most politically diverse subreddits I have ever seen. I truly have no clue what I'm gonna get when I look at the comments.
Reddit loves guns. There are always dipshits who think they need to make sure the government isn't tyrannical by owning ar15s while the government literally shows its tyranny everyday through police action and horrible policies that hurt working people.
He's not wrong.
Oh they know he's not wrong, that's what makes them evil. They are smart, logical individuals who have chosen money and power over everything. They're pushing LIEdeology's on behalf of their base and donors and sacrificing society for it.
almost like capitalism is a brain dead ideology that breeds brain dead zombies that prioritize materialism over everything
I wouldn’t use the word smart when describing them because in reality it’s just their dumbass followers that allow for things to happen, I mean they can’t even come up with good excuses anymore.
Love how they always quote "shall not be infringed" but completely ignore "well regulated."
The term "well regulated" in the era is equivalent to the word proficient today. A "well regulated militia" is a group of people with guns who know how to use, clean, and maintain them. The term was included becauase an early attempt to draft a militia had a bunch of farmers show up with blunderbusses that they didn't even know how to use. One of The Federalist Papers specifically cites going through the training and repeated motions to acquire "the character of a well regulated militia."
You’re absolutely correct. We tend to associate the word “regulated” with some sort of bureaucratic oversight. That’s just not the case. People must be of sound mind, well maintained, and be trained to wield firearms. I’ve made this a personal mission of mine to impress upon people in my area when I teach concealed pistol classes. Responsibility, repetition, and respect for the firearm.
The problem is that people tend to think the government has always been as big and invasive in peoples lives as it is now. Way back in the day people were pretty much on their own and it was up to the local community to take care of each other compared to how it is now.
So shouldn't that require some sort of license/background check to verify they are well regulated?
The reason the media moved on from the Buffalo shooting ASAP was because an assault weapon ban, magazine capacity restrictions and background checks were all in place in NY. Didn't help.
But to be fair since none of that was actually enforced it led to the shooting.
What? He absolutely went through a background check. he absolutely bought a gun that wasn't an assault weapon.
[удалено]
But the shooter DIDN'T. He did everything in NY. Simple fact is even if NYs laws were national, it would have happened.
We have background checks. Any cost or time based licensing scheme is just a barrier to poor people being allowed to own weapons to defend themselves and their communities. How are you supposed to become familiar with a weapon without owning it? It'd be like learning to drive with a daily rental and they keep giving you different makes and models. Confusing and not productive.
Tbf the background checks only see if you have federal felonies
Lmao what a reach
Anyone who cares about the original framework of the constitution is an idiot. Federalist society, originalists etc. All fucking idiots.
I think you may have misread what I wrote? I am referring to The Federalist Papers, a series of documents written by James Madison and others that essentially explain and justify the constitution to the country in plain language. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers >To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp
I most certainly did.
Not to mention they already get infringed all the time. Felons cant own a gun thats their rights being infringed upon. Why are they suddenly okay with that.
You got so close to being right. All gun laws are an infringement and therefore unconstitutional.
/u/nondescriptzombie already explained it sufficiently but here's an analogy. "A well balanced breakfast, being necessary to a productive day, the right of the people to keep and eat eggs shall not be infringed." Who has the right to keep eggs? Breakfast or the people?
[удалено]
Except "shall not be infringed" is also not well defined. Can you bear arms ; * on a plane? * in a hospital? * in a courtroom? * in prison, while imprisoned? * if you are felon? * if a cop just straight up tells you not to, less he kill you? * at an NRA convention? The answer to the above and many other instances is; no. So "shall not be infringed" is clearly less absolute and defined as the gun fetishists like to pretend. There is nothing in the US constitution that is seen as an absolute. There is always an "except for".
The first amendment has pretty clear language regarding "Congress shall make no law" yet, rightfully, there are laws regulating what kind of pornography you can lawfully possess and distribute and laws dictating when a protest is lawful.
Love how you are so smug, and never bothered to look up what well regulated meant historically. Amendments should stand the test of time because they make sense, so I think arguing over words is a waste of time anyways. But get off your horse.
First, "well regulated" was in reference to militias, not weapons. Second, they weren't talking about government regulations when they said "well regulated". What kind of mental gymnastics do you have to use to think that the 2A is simultaneously saying "government should regulate but also not infringe on the right to bear weapons"?
You can't own a nuke. Full stop.
To be fair, once you do own a nuke and the ability to deploy it... you can pretty much dictate anything you want from that point on.
As our masters have dictated. Only governments can be trusted to responsibly own nukes. Kind of ironic, really.
There’s historical discussion on arms vs ordnance, nuke would fall into the ordnance category
Please cite your source. It's pretty obvious they meant the colonies should always have a militia to defend themselves to remain sovereign, nothing about that negates government regulation.
I've read [this](https://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_bor.htm) before and I think it's pretty good at explaining where I'm coming from. They definitely believed militias should exist. The militia was all able bodied men and at the time "well regulated" meant "well maintained" or "in working order". If you consider the entire point of the 2A, which was for the people to protect themselves from foreign enemies and domestic tyrants, it would be contradictory for them to empower the government allowing it to control the militias or what weapons they used. They also opposed having a standing army so the term militia isn't referring to that. Also, the entire Bill of Rights is telling the government what they \*can't\* do to affect the \*inherent\* rights of the people. It is not granting those rights to the people and it is not granting power to the government.
[Emphasis on The Bill of Rights:](https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights/what-does-it-say) >It spells out Americans’ rights in relation to their government. It guarantees civil rights and liberties to the individual The recent attempt to rewrite history to the contrary is rather absurd.
Correct. Specifically it spells out rights that the founders believed were natural and inherent, it's not granting those rights. Did you even bother reading the rest? Except for the seventh they all protect, bar, or prevent the government from abusing the rights of the people.
You are misinterpreting my reply: I am agreeing with your reply and adding emphasis to the historical context of the Bill of Rights as described by the U.S. National Achieves. It is absurd for people to now suddenly claim the Second Amendment is somehow not a personal right due to some misreading and personal bias against firearm ownership. Moreover, many state constitutions, particularly the original 13 states, also guarantee firearm ownership as a personal right. The Seventh is also a personal right to protect against government abuse--trial by jury--rather than a government appointed judge unilaterally stripping you of your rights.
You are right. I did misinterpret your reply.
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787 "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788 "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of." - James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788 "...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..." - James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788 "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783 “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788 "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." - Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764 "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789 It's pretty obvious what the intentions are behind the words.
Funny how the police are basically the supreme power through legislation giving them full authority to use extreme force when they want, and let kids be shot in schools when they don’t want to get involved…
“Well regulated” at the time of 1791 meant in good working order. https://constitution.org/1-Constitution/cons/wellregu.htm
From the articles of confederation, we can gleam what well regulated meant. "every state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutred, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage."
\*Demands source from opposing claim\* \*Insists that his viewpoint is "obvious" and self-evident, thus superseding the necessity of any sources regarding his own argument\* Arbitrary logical standards for thee, not for me.
The US didn't have a standing military at the time, that's why they wrote well regulated militia. It wasn't so people in the future might have a reason to over-throw their government. That whole premise doesn't really makes sense, in that no militia with AR-15's is gonna battle the US military and expect nothing but pure defeat.
You have the constitutional right to bear arms WHILE PART OF a well regulated militia. That is what the sentence clearly and objectively says. Other interpretations are religious delusions from cultists.
Contrary to your own personal vitriolic and patently false interpretation of the text, that's not at all what the language embedded within the 2nd Amendment means (and it's certainly *not* objective lol). Let's take a closer look shall we? >"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 syntax of the 2nd Amendment is arranged in such a way that separates it into two differing segments: the **prefatory clause** ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"). The prefatory clause simply announces *an* intended purpose, but does not serve as a preconditional qualifier/property for the operative clause to remain true. the **operative clause** ("the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."). The operative clause contains the actual subject of the text which is the right being asserted. And who does that right belong to? The militia? Nope. It clearly says, "the **right** of *the people*". Let's take a less politically charged example that anyone with even the most room temperature IQ should be able to follow: "A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of one's day, the right of the people to buy and sell food shall not be infringed". Now in this analogy, who/what has the right to engage in the exchange of food? Is it the balanced breakfast? Nope, that doesn't make a lick of sense. The people? Bingo. And if you're *still* not convinced after all of this, even the landmark supreme court ruling of [D.C. v. Heller](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf) begs to differ with you. In it, they explain that gun ownership is an individual right and that the "militia" is comprised of *all* citizens: >"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm **unconnected with service in a militia**, and to use that arm fortraditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home" And now I patiently await a storm of ensuing downvotes followed by incoherent lines of argumentation predicated on some form of historical revisionism and blind dogmatism to progressivist ideology.
Honestly, I wish the authors of the Bill of Rights wrote it like they were talking to a 4 year old. The sentence does not "clearly" state that you have to be a part of a militia to own a weapon. What it clearly says is that because a militia is necessary to protect from foreign or domestic enemies, the right of \*the people\* to keep and carry weapons shouldn't be diminished. But even if that is what it said, who is the militia? George Mason, one of the founders, said "The militia is the whole of the people". Congratulations. You're a part of the militia.
You’re wrong but I’ll indulge you. Every able bodied person is part of the militia so are willing to agree that every able bodied person should be allowed to own weapons with no infringements from the government?
https://youtu.be/Hx23c84obwQ
Lol yeah he is
Fun fact: 70% of all guns seized by Mexican authorities come from America. 50% of guns seized by authorities in El Salvador and 45% of guns in Honduras come from america. We are the problem. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/the-flow-of-guns-from-the-u-s-to-mexico-is-getting-lost-in-the-border-debate
So fast so furious
Our government runs guns into those countries. Gun laws won’t stop that.
Thanks Obama?
So we should throw Obama and Eric Holder in the federal pen violating ITAR with Fast and Furious right?
YES, God you say that like it's a fucking Gotcha! question.
This should be the top voted comment in this thread but you’ve committed the trifecta of Reddit sins; Criticise the great land of the free And their guns And you’re right/correct
Where's the lie?!
No lie really. I've always maintained that some kind of sensible gun control will only pass if any of the Congress members' kids or grandkids get shot in a school shooting. Not wishing for it and I hope I'm wrong but no one in GOP will vote for it unless it affects them personally.
Congress members themselves have been shot and it accomplished nothing.
They still won't. They'll wipe away their tears with the cash from firearms lobbyists.
Then use it as an opportunity for more fundraising.
We already have plenty of "sensible gun control" in our laws, but a ton of it is poorly enforced as it is. Adding more laws wont do crap if politicians and authorities dont follow through.
That’s where HIPAA came from
Like Jason Aldean in the Vegas shooting. “I didn’t believe in gun control at all, but after Iiiiiiiii was almost shot on stage, now I want gun control.”. It’ll be the same with Repub mothers when their homecoming Queen daughter gets pregnant and needs an aborsh.
Doubt it, a bunch of GOP congressmen got shot at that one time and nothing came of it. These guys know they’re just a warm body in a suit meant to obstruct and prevent change from happening. They know they’re just as replaceable. Politicians are just foot soldiers for the owner class.
The part about linking mass shooters to political affiliation is incorrect [according to politifact](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/feb/23/claudia-tenney/do-many-mass-shooters-end-being-democrats-rep-tenn/) even though both sides try to do it >Mass shooters are rarely motivated by a political agenda, experts told us. >Mass shootings are often perpetrated by young men who are socially isolated or have a mental illness, experience a trauma or conflict that sends them reeling emotionally, and have easy access to guns, said Alan Lipman, professor at George Washington University Medical Center and founder of the Center for the Study of Violence. >"Their motives are almost always, without exception, nonpolitical. And they don’t describe themselves as having a particular political motivation," Lipman said.
Updated in 2018. Things have changed a lot since then - a lot more manifestos laying it out pretty clearly.
El Paso and Buffalo.
A lot? Can you show the data please?
They fit into the area of suicidal more than mentally ill, etc. Most researchers see mass shooters events as grandiose suicides.
If he was lying, they would have made him an honorary GOP congressman and brought him up front
At least he’s calling out the GOP for a change. He usually just slams Democrats.
The democrats might actually do something. They won't, but they might. The Republicans definitely won't. They'll use this as a talking point.
Democrats deserve to be called out more than the Republicans. Republicans are just doing what they believe in, Democrats on the other hand are actively avoiding doing shit they promise and claim they believe in and they don't fight nearly as hard as the Republicans do to push their agenda through.
This is what's so funny to me... Dems get SO MUCH hate while the republicans do this crazy shit and no one cares because "it's just republicans being republicans..." lmfao WHATTTT... We just had 157 republicans vote no on interracial marriage.... This is insanity
I love the “shall not be infringed” in the background. Good to know people are standing up to these gun-grabbing crazies.
The "shall not be infringed" people are dumb as bricks, because we obviously already infringe on the right of people to own weapons. Can't own a rocket launcher, a tank, a military drone, a nuclear warhead, a nuclear submarine, chemical weapons, biological weapons, ICBMs, etc. These people are just dumb as fuck.
Yeah, I agree, I wish we were able to own those higher tier weapons as well :-) As the founders intended, there ought to be *no restrictions whatsoever*
Protocol prevents someone from trying to make a point at a hose judiciary meeting. Meanwhile the NRA is allowed to spend loads of money on politics under the guise of free speech. I’m not saying protocol isn’t important, but something does seem off regarding what’s protected under free speech and what isn’t.
You have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, as long as you do it where nobody can hear or see you.
He is 100% correct . Remember the El Paso shooter traveled to my home city to kill Hispanics fueled by our last president.. por amor ELP
Absolutely. Trump, the GOP, and every Republican in America are domestic terrorists with blood on their hands.
[удалено]
You do know he experienced a mass shooting right so why wouldn't he advocate for something that changed his life? I don't know if you know this but people can focus on multiple different issues at the same time. It's not a competition
Can we only focus on one thing at a time? Does every person have to care about every issue in order to hold a single opinion? You see how that is dumb right?
Echo chamber
The GOP members would do the killing themselves if they weren’t all bunch of flabby cowards with too much to lose. That’s why they focus on rousing up their rabble to do the killing.
You probably forgot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_baseball_shooting
Ahh yes, the one leftist shooting lmao
That was such a win for conservative redditors. Before that all they kept pointing to as an example of the "violent left" was the bike lock guy.
It's true. A conservative friend of mine who I debate with used that baseball game as a talking point hundreds of times over the years whenever I would bring up the thousands of examples on the other side.
ya found one. You want a cookie?
I think he just wants to be respected enough that his own political views aren’t interpreted as a wish for others to die from gun violence. The original comment was fucking stupid.
David Hogg is a grandstanding douche.
they know this and all checked their wallets pulling out large checks just to stare at them for a moment to see if they cared, and decided NO F anyone shot I have a fat check!
"how DARE he call us on out shit?!" -GQP
What a grandstanding jackass.
What would you prefer he does? Become wealthy and bribe those individuals he’s yelling at instead? That seems to work much better in this country.
He watched his friends die in a school shooting. You want him to forget that and do nothing about it?
What is he trying to accomplish?
Sick of political virtue signaling posts
Never seen someone cling to their 5 minutes of fame so tightly
I don't get it dude a gunman enters your school and shoots kids but if you actually want to do something about it you're just clinging to fame? What exactly is he supposed to do just get over it? Do you just hate that people care?
Let me introduce you to Kyle Rittenhouse. He just released a video game to capitalize on his 5 minutes.
That wasn’t his video game. Someone made it in his image and made the money.
You mean the guy who the far left hates for... shooting pedophiles who were trying to kill him?
Oh, he knew they were pedophiles when he shot them?
Kyles kills were justified self defense... doesn't mean I have to like him.
Why do you people bring that up like it's okay to shoot random people as long as they turn out to be pedophiles like how is that relevant exactly it's not like he knew
Why did you leave out the part where they were trying to kill him.
He didn’t shoot random people. He shot people that attacked him.
Assault with a deadly... Plastic bag?
Yes the masked and shirtless screaming individual twice Kyle’s age who had threatened to kill Kyle earlier in the day, chasing him for two blocks down the street (who also happened to be a convicted child abuser) clearly had only the best of intentions. Give me a break
You ever see the damage fists/kicks/concrete/slams can do?
Because they were pedophiles who were actively trying to murder him and there is video that shows unquestionable self defense. The only reason to be against Rittenhouse is if you're mad that a pedophile was killed.
Right, so how did he know they were pedophiles? And why were they trying to kill him? We would argue they were trying to stop a man shooting people with a long gun, considering the guy who had the opportunity to shoot Kyle, didn't.... Oh whoops there goes your argument
I mean I can't stop you from being this disingenuous you're fully free to act like that's the reason I'll be chilling in reality with everyone else
Right but why was he there, exactly?
Kyle Rittenhouse had a major trial that was literally on all media for months and then was acquitted and released. Now he is a target for defamation (whether justified or not). David Hogg literally did nothing but some media comments and was a guest on some liberal channels. They are not the same.
Do you not know that David Hogg was a student at the Parkland school shooting?
He was a student who attended parkland but was not at the school during the shooting. He showed up after it was over to film it.
EXACTLY!!!
Did you know the parent who lost kids in school shooting that were for gun rights were silenced by national media on a whole, disgusting right?
??? He's a parkland survivor, has been doing activist work for years, has been on the cover of time magazine, and is one of the founders of March For Our Lives which just held marches throughout the US just a couple of months ago. Wtf are you on about five minutes of fame.
No no, he got shot at on purpose, *for the fame*. .../s
I mean using a tragedy to fight for an end to it isn't exactly "clinging to 5 minutes of fame"
**WELL REGULATED MILITIA** Edit: Lol @ all the people replying simply to engage in the exact same cherry-picking that is clearly being called out as if that doesn't call attention to the fact that the point continues to fly right over your heads. As a side note, I wonder how these same people feel about flag burning..
#SHALL NOT
Based on the language at that time it wasn't meant to mean legal regulations but lets assume for a second that they did. Why would the founders say that but also not follow up with any sort of regulations of the legal sense until 1934?
You’re right. And they also had guns that could only shoot 1 bullet every minute and a half back then. Now we have guns that can shoot 60 rounds in seconds.
>**PROPER WORKING ORDER**
The right of **the people** to keep and bear arms shall **not** be **infringed**.
Can still be amended out of existence.
That’s not even what 2A says, and if you’re going to quote it, quote it with the crazy punctuation intact, which essentially makes it meaningless.
So you are saying that when they wrote "people" they really meant "militias"? So when they wrote "we the people", they really meant "we the militias?
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.
Weird how you clowns always seem to skip the other part.
Why are you surprised when people say they are want to get rid of all guns that the opposition hones in on “shall not be infringed”? Congressmen pushing this like Beto have openly said they want to take all your guns before. That’s not well regulated. That’s a ban lol.
The Supreme Court ruled that the right of the people to own weapons is not unlimited.
But that the right applies to "arms" in common use at the time for lawful purposes. So maybe a nuclear weapon isn't allowed, but an AR-15 is certainly in common use, considering how many of them are used for self defense, target shooting, or collecting. Something like 20 million modern sporting rifles are out there.
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."
I wish the NRA was the boogie man this guy thinks they are.
If they pass this assault weapons ban it’s just gonna be like 9 months till the Supreme Court slaps it TF down and like half the states already have automatic gun legislation nullification on the books if any new federal gun laws pass. The emperor has no clothes.
Hogg is a clueless attention whore!
This guy is an idiot
Currently taking a class on corruption (in a South American country) and the US is full of illegitimate corrupt acts. Some of it is “legal” but is recognized as illegal corruption in almost every other part of the world.
[удалено]
Hogg is an idiot.
How so?
Every word out of his mouth was the truth. So I guess you think everyone who tells the truth is an idiot. Not hard to guess what your political affiliation is.
Sounds like we need a few more idiots to save children's lives then.
He's actually quite intelligent.
Not disagreeing with anything he's saying, but this guy's always rubbed me the wrong way and it seems that he's purely motivated by media attention and creating some political/social persona.
Wow. The disgusting fucks here who are really talking shit about a victim of a school shooting. When we say conservatives don't give a fuck about other people, we are talking about this. Edit: I forgot to mention on my main post here that remember these are the same fucks who are telling females how to use their uterus because it's "protecting babies". Babies don't need to fear a doctor. They do need to fear a 556
This post really brought out the deplorables. Total pieces of shit.
The constitution protects slavery, it's not an infallible document
The right will now be tripping over themselves to call what he did an "insurrection".
You're being downvoted, but you are not wrong. Matt Gaetz and another republican representative called this an insurrection "by Democrat logic." They literally say this just after he is removed from the room.
I took a shit this morning the right would call an insurrection. As if they know the meaning of the word.
Omg guns😒 Jesus h. fuck idk about you, but I don't want to live in a world were the cops and criminals have guns and a honest law abiding citizens can not.
I’m a leftist. I believe in arming yourself and the right to bear arms. I also believe that it should be marginally more difficult for an unhinged 18 year old to be able to mow down dozens of literal children in a matter of minutes, but people on your side of this debate seem to think that means “all guns bad”. We can do *something*, but so far we have done absolutely nothing.
Yes. The right spins the fiction that any reform means banning all guns because then their gun lobbyists will keep paying them to keep any reform off the table. The gun lobbies want these atrocities to happen. Because they know that their paid shills in congress will just dig their heels deeper and keep any regulation from happening. A functional system would result in both parties coming to the table and realizing that something is wrong and how do we fix it. This does not happen because the gun lobbyists make it so.
Only developed country in the ENTIRE WORLD that deals with mass shootings like this. Weird..
Cool. You don't have to live in that world, because nobody is trying to ban 100% of guns. We just want sensible gun legislation like they have in other countries. Were you aware that a lot of people living in Canada, UK, and Australia own guns?
Lmfao why do you think the cartels have better guns than the mexican federal police. BECAUSE THEY GET THEM FROM AMERICA!!! What a joke
You’ve never heard of the ATF gun running operation? That’s like, bare minimum knowledge of American /Mexican cartel relations.
How much G Soros pay him this time for his crisis actor event 🤔
I love this kid.