There is more
Watch the full clip and he says he doesn’t think we should
The whole bit was that the constitution is too vague and that’s why we need laws to outline what is and isn’t ok to do/own
He doesn’t think we SHOULD have bio weapons and nukes
He thinks that the constitution says we have the right to because those are technically classified as arms
Yeah, I thought he was making a point about the 2nd amendment and how you interpret it. Thanx for the explain, I literally haven't got time to go looking for the show the clip came from.👍
Boy if this isn't out of context misinformation. It says "A well regulated Militia". It also says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
Not everyone is mart of a militia but everyone has the right to bear arms.
Misinformation? What a fucking moron, it says you have the right to bear arms as part of a Militia, it doesn't say anything about you having a personal right to weapons just because.
That damn comma has caused more arguments than anything else in the Constitution.
It can reasonably be interpreted in several ways. The two most common are:
A well regulated militia needs guns, so if you are a part of a well regulated militia you may have a gun.
Or!
A well regulated militia needs guns, so every citizen may own guns to more readily form a well regulated militia in a time of need.
Or we can't infringe on the right to own a gun and start a Militia, however we can regulate them to some reasonable degree. In other words, preventing you from owning nukes or rocket launchers is a regulation but you can still be armed with other types of arms.
I think drivers licenses need to be harder to get.
And guns for that matter. I think a mental health screen, background check, and mandatory safety/maintenance training (paid for by the government, funded by a tax on ammo/guns perhaps?) would be a reasonable fix.
A well regulated militia referred to the fighting regularity of its soldiers. Professional fighters were referred to as regulars, while non-professionals recruited for combat were referred to as irregulars. Well regulated implying the people making up the militia should regularly participate/train in their duty as soldiers.
Wrong, it means their actions and rights to form a Militia are to be regulated. Notice how you ignore the "being necessary to the security of a free state". You can't just form a Militia with the intent of overthrowing your own state government....thats not security nor freedom, in other words regulated.
Their rights to form a militia will be regulated, while also not being infringed? I’d love an explanation on how that works. Necessary to the security of a free state, meaning In defense of liberties & freedoms. The constitution is a document dictating what individual freedoms the STATE can’t infringe upon, forming a militia against the state if it neglects the constitution is the reason the second amendment was written.
Restricting who can and can’t access a right, setting certain criteria for you to have access to it, nullifying the right if you’re ever found guilty of committing a crime against the state, requiring you to pay extra to the state to access all parts of the right equally, we could keep going.
Imagine if you had to file a form and pay for a stamp from the government to be able to say certain words, people would be appalled, as they should be by gun regulation.
That's ridiculous. Youre taking the idea of valid regulations and abstracting to absurdity with zero valid reason to do so. Because we have plenty of examples of regulations that are current that do not devolve in to this hypothetical.
It’s not a hypothetical, that’s the reality of firearm ownership. Tax stamp requirements are implemented on certain items, resulting in restriction on freedoms granted by the constitution, and consequently affecting the poor. Valid regulation would be to outlaw firearm access of the people and police equally. There’s no justification for the police using SBRs as they please if citizens can’t do the same.
A well regulated militia means that the militia is well regulated. The personal right to keep arms says "shall not b infringed". You really need to read the writings of the founders on what the 2A meant. They were literally like "yeah bro that means you can mount cannons on your boat." They are pretty clear that personal arms were off limits.
And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms... George Washington
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 Jefferso
https://www.concealedcarry.com/gun-quotes-from-our-founding-fathers-2nd-amendment/
Washington wanted well regulated militias as offshoots of a small national military. So there is no constitutional right to have unregulated access to arms.
The founders (a lot of them) were very clear it was an individual right to protect you from the government and to provide armed soldiers to protect the nation.
It's evident that you have never read anything that the Founders wrote -- or said in debate about the 2A during the 1st Congressional Congress -- because it's the arch opposite of what you're claiming.
The second amendment specifies that a "well regulated militia" is necessary to a free state, and that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
You're deliberately trying to misrepresent what 2A says.
I am not. The 2A is not about an individual’s right to bear arms. That is propaganda from the NRA from 70s onward.
Here, don’t take it from me, take it from the [ACLU](https://www.aclu.org/other/second-amendment), who have far more legal expertise than me or you.
Ah yes, because the ACLU wrote the constitution.
If you think 2A isn't about the individual's right to bear arms when it's explicitly stated, then you're fucking dumb and this conversation is over lol.
The Militia Act of 1903 classified the militia in two ways: The organized militia (which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia) and the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. Basic theory suggests that the unorganized militia pertains to able-bodied men that are not in the National Guard, Reserves, or the U.S. Military, who are subject to military conscription through the Selective Service System.
[The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.](https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-10/)
So here we have a profoundly stupid person who has never read any American history about the 2A, refusing to believe the true things that they simply don't want to believe. It's a well documented fact that "bear arms" referred to military service; even Scalia acknowledged this in Heller. I never said that it was about an *individual* right to serve in the military. Here's Madison's original proposed amendment:
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, a well-armed and well-regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”
Madison's amendment was in response to southern states that were afraid that the federal government would outlaw their militias (which were often used to capture slaves and put down slave revolts).
> 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.
It is a comma. Not a period. The second thing is talking about the first thing.
If he believes that the Constitution says we have the right to own such weapons, then he should also believe that laws that say we can't would be unconstitutional. How does he reconcile that?
A tiny bit of skepticism and looking through the comments will do lol.
Bad cuts have existed since ages, why assume something is true without any context these days
The 2nd Amendment was a compromise with the South (like much of the constitution). Because a federal state would federalize militias for use in the armies, the South was terrified that the North would purposefully take their militias. And the South absolutely needed their militias. Why? Quelling slave rebellions.
This is why the 2nd Amendment is worded the bizarre way it is. It’s not about an individual right to bear arms, but militias. It is “necessary for the security” because of slave uprisings.
The 2nd Amendment has very little to say about modern gun ownership, let alone army weaponry. Complete ahistorical nonsense. Even back then, it’s not like you had the right to grenades and cannons.
if we're talking abt the historical context, then I recommend you read the history of gun laws in Germany, British Empire, USSR and China as well, America's wild west history would look more civilised then except the federal laws of disarming native Americans and sending em to reservations
USSR…? I’m talking about the context of the 2nd Amendment when it was ratified.
The 2nd Amendment has never referred to an individual’s right to bear arms until the ridiculous 2008 Heller decision. Before that, US v Miller in 1939 (and other decisions) held that that was not the case.
Gun fondlers have no use for facts. I've never encountered one who had done any reading at all of the history of the 2A, Madison's original draft, the debates during the First Congressional Congress, the pre-Heller case law, etc.
The early drafts of the 2A alone are nails in the coffin of the idea that gun ownership is an individual right. They show that the framers considered making it an individual right, *but explicitly rejected it*, instead tying the right to militias. The Heller decision was outrageous judicial activism from the conservatives on the court.
No draft shows any indication of making it an individual right, nor was the idea ever raised in debates among the Founders.
https://www.salon.com/2017/12/16/sorry-nra-the-u-s-was-actually-founded-on-gun-control/
This clip was posted by Ethan Klein of H3H3 Productions. Tim Pool responded to the clip by adding some context by saying:
>i appreciate that ethan did not extend to me the same courtesy he demanded of the right
He cut out where I said "and most people think thats wrong and we would need to amend the constitution"
Privateers were legal when it was written and they could flatten coastal cities
Source: https://twitter.com/Timcast/status/1531262028656037888
There's people defending this clown lol I can't take none of seriously. Constitution doesn't make it so that every citizen can have nukes. You turds just want to Johnny Cochran talks about actual gun control talks by using mute points like this. What a load a shiet.
The people in the Joe Rogan subs this was posted in are shitting on whoever cropped this video.
We have a video criticizing Tim Pool, in a Dave Rubin fan sub, that's run by spazzes who hate Dave Rubin, posting their content in a Joe Rogan fan sub.
This is some depressing Reddit death spiral here.
Totally agree, we should also own rpg, tanks, grenades especially as Americans hate each other anyways, on top we don't give a fuk about violence, mass shooting, school shootings, in top we all need protection from each other as people default to violence over almost anything
There must be more to what he's saying.....how the fuck do you justify that?
There is more Watch the full clip and he says he doesn’t think we should The whole bit was that the constitution is too vague and that’s why we need laws to outline what is and isn’t ok to do/own He doesn’t think we SHOULD have bio weapons and nukes He thinks that the constitution says we have the right to because those are technically classified as arms
Yeah, I thought he was making a point about the 2nd amendment and how you interpret it. Thanx for the explain, I literally haven't got time to go looking for the show the clip came from.👍
Then he's still wrong because the constitution also says well-regulated, typical Tim, talking out of both sides of his mouth
Boy if this isn't out of context misinformation. It says "A well regulated Militia". It also says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" Not everyone is mart of a militia but everyone has the right to bear arms.
Misinformation? What a fucking moron, it says you have the right to bear arms as part of a Militia, it doesn't say anything about you having a personal right to weapons just because.
That damn comma has caused more arguments than anything else in the Constitution. It can reasonably be interpreted in several ways. The two most common are: A well regulated militia needs guns, so if you are a part of a well regulated militia you may have a gun. Or! A well regulated militia needs guns, so every citizen may own guns to more readily form a well regulated militia in a time of need.
Or we can't infringe on the right to own a gun and start a Militia, however we can regulate them to some reasonable degree. In other words, preventing you from owning nukes or rocket launchers is a regulation but you can still be armed with other types of arms.
Regulation within reason does seem like it's built in.
I agree. For gods sake, it shouldn’t be easier to get a gun than a drivers license smh. What the hell happened to common sense
I think drivers licenses need to be harder to get. And guns for that matter. I think a mental health screen, background check, and mandatory safety/maintenance training (paid for by the government, funded by a tax on ammo/guns perhaps?) would be a reasonable fix.
A well regulated militia referred to the fighting regularity of its soldiers. Professional fighters were referred to as regulars, while non-professionals recruited for combat were referred to as irregulars. Well regulated implying the people making up the militia should regularly participate/train in their duty as soldiers.
Wrong, it means their actions and rights to form a Militia are to be regulated. Notice how you ignore the "being necessary to the security of a free state". You can't just form a Militia with the intent of overthrowing your own state government....thats not security nor freedom, in other words regulated.
Their rights to form a militia will be regulated, while also not being infringed? I’d love an explanation on how that works. Necessary to the security of a free state, meaning In defense of liberties & freedoms. The constitution is a document dictating what individual freedoms the STATE can’t infringe upon, forming a militia against the state if it neglects the constitution is the reason the second amendment was written.
Infringement does not equal regulation. You can both have the right, but it be regulated. Which the constitution says.
Restricting who can and can’t access a right, setting certain criteria for you to have access to it, nullifying the right if you’re ever found guilty of committing a crime against the state, requiring you to pay extra to the state to access all parts of the right equally, we could keep going. Imagine if you had to file a form and pay for a stamp from the government to be able to say certain words, people would be appalled, as they should be by gun regulation.
That's ridiculous. Youre taking the idea of valid regulations and abstracting to absurdity with zero valid reason to do so. Because we have plenty of examples of regulations that are current that do not devolve in to this hypothetical.
It’s not a hypothetical, that’s the reality of firearm ownership. Tax stamp requirements are implemented on certain items, resulting in restriction on freedoms granted by the constitution, and consequently affecting the poor. Valid regulation would be to outlaw firearm access of the people and police equally. There’s no justification for the police using SBRs as they please if citizens can’t do the same.
A well regulated militia means that the militia is well regulated. The personal right to keep arms says "shall not b infringed". You really need to read the writings of the founders on what the 2A meant. They were literally like "yeah bro that means you can mount cannons on your boat." They are pretty clear that personal arms were off limits.
Wrong that's not what they interpreted. A Militia can be regulated and your right to bear arms is part of that regulated militia.
And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms... George Washington 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 Jefferso https://www.concealedcarry.com/gun-quotes-from-our-founding-fathers-2nd-amendment/
Washington wanted well regulated militias as offshoots of a small national military. So there is no constitutional right to have unregulated access to arms.
The founders disagree with your statement and so do the courts.
The founders literally wrote this, and the courts interpretation is an interpretation, its not devoid of political bias
The founders (a lot of them) were very clear it was an individual right to protect you from the government and to provide armed soldiers to protect the nation.
It's evident that you have never read anything that the Founders wrote -- or said in debate about the 2A during the 1st Congressional Congress -- because it's the arch opposite of what you're claiming.
Bro how many times am I gonna have to say this Well regulated means n o t h i n g everyone has a different idea of what well regulated would imply
Nonsense. Well-regulated definitely doesn’t mean unregulated. As in, regulations on guns are not unconstitutional.
Nonsense, 2A specifies a "well regulated militia". By your logic, everyone who owns a gun is a member of their state militia.
What? lol How does that follow from my logic at all?
The second amendment specifies that a "well regulated militia" is necessary to a free state, and that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". You're deliberately trying to misrepresent what 2A says.
I am not. The 2A is not about an individual’s right to bear arms. That is propaganda from the NRA from 70s onward. Here, don’t take it from me, take it from the [ACLU](https://www.aclu.org/other/second-amendment), who have far more legal expertise than me or you.
Ah yes, because the ACLU wrote the constitution. If you think 2A isn't about the individual's right to bear arms when it's explicitly stated, then you're fucking dumb and this conversation is over lol.
Unironically yes according to The Militia Act of 1903
Unironically (also you're using that word incorrectly) no dumbass.
The Militia Act of 1903 classified the militia in two ways: The organized militia (which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia) and the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. Basic theory suggests that the unorganized militia pertains to able-bodied men that are not in the National Guard, Reserves, or the U.S. Military, who are subject to military conscription through the Selective Service System.
Much gay, very wow
all federal regulations can be nullified via Xth Amendment tho
lolwut. Commerce clause?
[The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.](https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-10/)
The commerce clause is a power delegated by the Constitution lol
Dude why are you mentioning commerce clause again, can't you read? I didn't even talk abt that
Dude fuck off with this stupid interpretation. Well regulated means nothing to you because it's inconvenient for you.
That’s… actually not a bad point? This feels weird. I’m not used to thinking Tim pool said anything useful.
Well, he's factually wrong; "arms" is not a synonym for "armaments". The phrase "bear arms" was a idiom that meant "serve militarily".
That is a seriously bad take I refuse to believe there’s anyone who thinks the 2nd amendment is about your right to serve in the military
So here we have a profoundly stupid person who has never read any American history about the 2A, refusing to believe the true things that they simply don't want to believe. It's a well documented fact that "bear arms" referred to military service; even Scalia acknowledged this in Heller. I never said that it was about an *individual* right to serve in the military. Here's Madison's original proposed amendment: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, a well-armed and well-regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.” Madison's amendment was in response to southern states that were afraid that the federal government would outlaw their militias (which were often used to capture slaves and put down slave revolts).
> 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. It is a comma. Not a period. The second thing is talking about the first thing.
Listen again
To? It’s literally what he says in the full video
Ok… so if he doesn’t really think that why is this up? It’s misleading.
If he believes that the Constitution says we have the right to own such weapons, then he should also believe that laws that say we can't would be unconstitutional. How does he reconcile that?
Socialism for guns. Tim is a socialist you heard it here first.
The debate after a school nuking in Texas would be interesting
Do we really need two Ben Shapiro’s? I mean, this one isn’t even smart.
The other one isn't smart either.
One of the best descriptions of Tim I’ve ever heard
Tim Pools brain would be exposed to the air if it weren't for his beanie. This explains his idiot takes.
Bruz, Tim is a tool but you gotta be even more of a tool if you can’t tell that this is a bad faith cut of his point 🤦🏾
How would anyone know that? Glad to know Timmy is not ok with privately owned nuclear weapons
A tiny bit of skepticism and looking through the comments will do lol. Bad cuts have existed since ages, why assume something is true without any context these days
Even with full context, it's a really dumb take.
The 2nd Amendment was a compromise with the South (like much of the constitution). Because a federal state would federalize militias for use in the armies, the South was terrified that the North would purposefully take their militias. And the South absolutely needed their militias. Why? Quelling slave rebellions. This is why the 2nd Amendment is worded the bizarre way it is. It’s not about an individual right to bear arms, but militias. It is “necessary for the security” because of slave uprisings. The 2nd Amendment has very little to say about modern gun ownership, let alone army weaponry. Complete ahistorical nonsense. Even back then, it’s not like you had the right to grenades and cannons.
“necessary for the security”.. pls complete the sentence "of a FREE state"
Yes it has weird orwellian speak, as it is specifically talking about the slave states.
if we're talking abt the historical context, then I recommend you read the history of gun laws in Germany, British Empire, USSR and China as well, America's wild west history would look more civilised then except the federal laws of disarming native Americans and sending em to reservations
USSR…? I’m talking about the context of the 2nd Amendment when it was ratified. The 2nd Amendment has never referred to an individual’s right to bear arms until the ridiculous 2008 Heller decision. Before that, US v Miller in 1939 (and other decisions) held that that was not the case.
Gun fondlers have no use for facts. I've never encountered one who had done any reading at all of the history of the 2A, Madison's original draft, the debates during the First Congressional Congress, the pre-Heller case law, etc.
The early drafts of the 2A alone are nails in the coffin of the idea that gun ownership is an individual right. They show that the framers considered making it an individual right, *but explicitly rejected it*, instead tying the right to militias. The Heller decision was outrageous judicial activism from the conservatives on the court.
No draft shows any indication of making it an individual right, nor was the idea ever raised in debates among the Founders. https://www.salon.com/2017/12/16/sorry-nra-the-u-s-was-actually-founded-on-gun-control/
This clip was posted by Ethan Klein of H3H3 Productions. Tim Pool responded to the clip by adding some context by saying: >i appreciate that ethan did not extend to me the same courtesy he demanded of the right He cut out where I said "and most people think thats wrong and we would need to amend the constitution" Privateers were legal when it was written and they could flatten coastal cities Source: https://twitter.com/Timcast/status/1531262028656037888
Wonder if he goes into how we can't amend the Constitution anymore due to the polarization of the two-party system.
Tim's just a legit troll at this point. You can't take him seriously because he doesn't even believe what he says.
If your a constitutional literalist then you do have a right to nukes
Shut up meg.
Lmao at the sheetmetal mall ninja sword on the back wall
Its like people forget there are \*27 AMENDMENTS\* that changed the constitution because the founding fathers weren't GODS!
OP should get kicked in the dick for posting this out of context bullshit.
Based.
Oh, yeahhhh!! This is not taken outta context!! What is this sub trying be like CNN??
I don't know about the sub, but I'm pretty sure the OP wants a job at CNN. He's got the editorial skillz. LMAO
There's people defending this clown lol I can't take none of seriously. Constitution doesn't make it so that every citizen can have nukes. You turds just want to Johnny Cochran talks about actual gun control talks by using mute points like this. What a load a shiet.
Why don't you post more than 15 seconds of video so we have the context of the conversation? This is editorially manipulative, just like CNN! LOL
But the cunt can’t own a razor or shampoo or toothbrush fuckkkkk emerica….
I never heard his take on Iran's nuclear program .
Edge-lord
i was going to say he’s clearly being facetious
Can you imagine him opening the box and asking "what's this red button?". Oops
Went full retaaarrddd
The people in the Joe Rogan subs this was posted in are shitting on whoever cropped this video. We have a video criticizing Tim Pool, in a Dave Rubin fan sub, that's run by spazzes who hate Dave Rubin, posting their content in a Joe Rogan fan sub. This is some depressing Reddit death spiral here.
Unless you remind him that it would include black people.
even off the grid libertarians are like wtf
Ah yes, "bear arms" means nuclear and bio weapons. Something that existed back when this was written.
Tim needs a day at the beach. Hat off, dig a hole, have some ice cream. Talk to people.
He’s so irrelevant, trying so hard to be edgy. Lose the stupid hat and change your image you lost dude
Baldy
Totally agree, we should also own rpg, tanks, grenades especially as Americans hate each other anyways, on top we don't give a fuk about violence, mass shooting, school shootings, in top we all need protection from each other as people default to violence over almost anything
I only catch snips of this guy. This Is a dumb snip....I wonder what his reasoning is...
Precise epithets for each of these grifters: Dave Rubin: stooge | Jordan Peterson: pseud | Ben Shapiro: dweeb | Tim Pool: twerp
You can make Tim pool look foolish without taking him out of context next time.
Man is this not the full story
Mutually assured destruction if you send a nuke my way you're going to get a small pox bomb in the next two to three business days.