Adam Ruins Everything – How the NRA Changed the 2nd Amendment | truTV
Articles,  Blog

Adam Ruins Everything – How the NRA Changed the 2nd Amendment | truTV

understood the amendment
for a long time. For over 200 years,
the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule that
the Second Amendment had anything to do with
individual gun rights. Woo-hoo-hoo-hoo! I have a constitutional
right to– (whistle blowing) Flag on the play! The Supreme Court will not
rule on this issue! Oh, come on!
Are you blind, ref?! Where the (bleep) was the NRA
when all this was going down? Well, they were
pretty different back then. When the National Rifle
Association was founded after
the Civil War, they weren’t
heartland warriors. They were genteel
cultured aristocrats focused on improving
Yankee marksmanship. Oh, yoo-hoo,
boys in blue. You have embarrassed us
in front of the South! You’re all in dire need
of shooting lessons! But they didn’t believe that
everyone should own a gun. In fact,
during the ’20s and ’30s, the NRA even supported some
gun control measures. Gosh darnit, where’s the NRA
that I know and love? Oh, they didn’t show up
until the ’60s and ’70s. A new faction of NRA members
wanted the organization to be more hardcore
about gun rights. So, in 1977,
they overthrew the leadership in a dramatic coup known
as the Revolt at Cincinnati. You’ll have to pry my guns
from my cold, dead hand! And this new NRA
led a decades-long battle to change our understanding
of the Second Amendment. They sponsored law reviews, they gained allies
in the legal community, and they helped seat
gun-friendly judges all the way up
to the Supreme Court. Slowly, but surely,
public opinion began to change. And in the 2008 case,
DC versus Heller, they finally got
what they wanted. (blowing whistle) For the first time in history, the court will rule
on this issue. The Second Amendment in fact
does defend an individual right to bear arms. (air horn blowing)


  • Ragnar Lothrbrook

    "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."
    I'm sorry even the NRA hasn't changed anything this single sentence states. The NRA, like the ACLU, is a defender of civil rights.

  • Corno di Bassetto

    How can the Constitution change meaning with each rotation of justices on the Court? No Court can change the meaning of the Second Amendment, which doesn't even apply to the States anyway, but to the federal Government. As Justice Waite definitively wrote in Cruikshank (1876): "'shall not be infringed' means no more than shall not be infringed BY CONGRESS." A state can do whatever it wants with guns.

  • Jason Penn

    The 2nd Amendment is extremely clear that the INDIVIDUAL has the right to OWN and POSSESS any WEAPON!
    Arms is not limited to muskets as the libtards would have us believe, or the Amendment would have said muskets and not arms!
    The Amendment says "the right of the PEOPLE", not the right of the militia, nor the right of the States, nor the right of the Government! The early Supreme Court felt it did not have to make a ruling because it is quite clear in plain English that the right is reserved to the INDIVIDUAL! It is only wind bag oxygen thieves like Adam Conover who try to infringe on everyone else's rights by trying to change the meaning (and failing to do so)!

  • infections 84

    What part of " 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" do you not understand? We didn't need the Supreme Court to rule that individuals can own firearms. Anyone with a brain can interpret the Amendment and understand that we have ALWAYS had the right to individual ownership.

  • JoseEReyna

    I have not see documents. Books i read from that era a man should be ready for war and women should because they don't go to war. NRA we know was not made in the 1800's put documents from that era.

  • JoseEReyna

    NRA in 20's and 30's was a government programs. NRA we know was made in the 60's. Many world War 2 soilders told me get your facts right.

  • J J

    The 2nd has always applied to individuals, and this was not even close to a new concept with either the NRA, or Heller. Several courtdecisions, such as bliss vs Ky, and Nunn vs Ga,, affirmed it long ago.

    Throughout our entire history, no law or court ruling has ever made militia service of any kind to be a prerequisite for individual gun ownership. Never. The entire premise requires us to accept that the founders intended to impute a right to government which it explicitly excludes from the people. And it presumes that while states can have militias, armed with tanks and cannons, and bombs, but that they needed to explicitly give the people in the militia permission to be armed. Isn't that like telling someone they can have all the coffee in the world, but have to get permission to drink it?

  • Gregory Bogosian

    I think that this is wrong. Adam argues that the 2nd amendment was only meant to protect the Militia's right to bear arms. And I agree with that. But its completely irrelevant because back then the Militia was the entire citizenry. Further, we know that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right because the text calls it a "right of the people." Everywhere else in the constitution, that term denotes an individual right. Not a collective right. He argues, that the "Right to bear arms" was only ever refereed to in a military context. That isn't true. At the time the 2nd amendment was ratified, the constitution of Pennsylvania protected the right to bear arms both in defense of the state, and in defense of the self. That distinction only makes sense if the Founder's generation understood that the "right to bear arms" could also apply in a civilian context. So in short, "The militia." is the entire citizenry of the country, "The right to bear arms" means the right to carry weapons, and a "right of the people" is an individual right. The gun-nuts are right on a constitutional level. Even if they are wrong on a practical level.

  • The Man

    “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is definitely not an individual right (even though it is the right of the people)

  • Eric spears

    Funny thing is that the Supreme Court ruled all the way back in 1857 that there is an individual right to own fire arms stating that all free people had the right to bear arms and Agian in 1876 they ruled Agian after freed slaves were being stop from owning guns. then in 1886 the court ruled again that there is an individual right to firearms ownership after a democrat state tried to make it so that only the military could own arms in 1939 Im miller it was ruled that any arm that could be used by the militia was protected by the 2a dc v heller reinforced the individual right to own arms on concurrence with prior ruling. 2010 ruled that the constitution applied to the states via the 14 a equal protections clause meaning. Then in 2016 a case that the anti gun left loves to hate and ignores it was ruled that all bearable arms are protected by the 2a. It’s only been the democrats that have said that the 2a dosent grant a right to firearms owner ship even though it says the right of the ppl to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. So no when you state that the Supreme Court refused to rule on it is false they have many times in the past that there is a individual right to own arms. For a show that claim to only give the facts they conveniently leave out all of those facts. Kinda makes ya wonder why don’t it

  • Zeeshan

    The reason the NRA is so hard and unmoving is that when the left takes something it doesn't stop taking it. If they gave way and even allowed a little more restriction to pass then that little restriction would grow and grow

  • Missing Apostate

    Yes but Adam always skips the meaning of the information. I mean we have the second amendment, not to hunt but Incase of a tactical government.

  • GSpotter63

    It is clear that the intent of the second amendment is to allow the people access to the tools necessary to prevent a rouge government (foreign or domestic) from taking control away from the people. If this is true then anyone or any party preventing the people from accessing those tools necessary to do the job would be a direct violation of the second amendment. So tell me, do you think a populous restricted to small limited hand guns or out dated muskets would still possess the necessary tools for the job? No? Then the democrats trying to limit the populous from accessing those required tools would be a criminal act against the amendment itself.

  • Kevin Burkett

    we didn't need the SCOTUS to tell us we had rights already protected by the constiution…DC v heller only cemented that fact

  • Ken Alvarez

    Another liberal spin. The Supreme Court ruled and the Constitution says the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. It is very clear-cut this video makes it sound like it's an accident that we got the right to bear arms

  • auggie1980tillend

    They didnt change the definition of gun rights they reinforced what was already there. You adam, just moved so far to the left that you think the nra definition is too radical

  • Douglas Broccone

    You didn't go back far enough.

    The reason the NRA was able to change the public perception was because its corrected view was the historically accurate one and had to do with the civil rights movement protecting these neglected rights for all Americans

    The disdain the case law reflected before that shows the bias against the rights of the People by the govt… especially as it relates to minorities… as gun control began with the black codes.

  • L. Adams

    The constitution is to protect us from government people like you who want to disarm the people. BTW, I also don't trust people with stupid hair!

  • Jacko Jew Jr R

    The “new” NRA went out of their way with support for many gun control measures happening within the 80s. So much for hard core

  • newswars-dotcom

    Interesting stats……gun controlled Brazil has most gun violence???

  • Chase Caldwell

    This was very poorly done…. couldn’t even quote the amendment and do a break down of it word for word and say what it means?

  • late fall chill

    2nd Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." …. Then I say, anyone who owns a gun must volunteer and join a "WELL REGULATED (STATE RUN) MALITIA".  …. And, like the National Guard, must attend regular organizational training. That's what the words of the 2nd Amendment says to rationalize gun ownership !

  • Me and the Bois Vlogs

    They didn't specifically say it was about individual gun ownership because they didn't have to there wasn't idiots trying to get there rights striped

  • thomas magnum

    What a flake. The only thing this retard is ruining is TV (and wasting everyone's time). Justice Scalia ruled on this. Read it and weep.

  • thomas magnum

    Want to learn the REAL story of the 2nd amendment? Got 45 minutes? You won't regret it. You're welcome.

  • Sterling O'Deaghaidh

    I am just going to say it, is anyone else tired of the for/against gun argument, it's like what happened to the common sense thing of educating people and making sure that something that can harm people is handled respectively. Imagine if we had the same level of regulation on tobacco products.

  • Brandon Lopliach

    Regardless of what role the NRA plays; the right to bear arms is an integral right to any free state. I bet Venezuelans wish they had some guns, probably would’ve changed quite a bit. Go move to North Korea if you don’t like it here fruit cakes

  • shibes

    In 1846 in the case of Nunn vs Georgia, The Georgia State Supreme court issued the following decision: "The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and hear arms of every description, not merely as are used by the militia,

    shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the

    smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained:

    the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally

    necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that

    any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and

    void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our

    forefathers trampled underfoot by Charles I. and his two wicked

    sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688,

    conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally

    incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! And Lexington,

    Concord, Camden, River Raisin, Sandusky, and the laurel-crowned

    field of New Orleans, plead eloquently for this interpretation!

    And the acquisition of Texas may be considered the full fruits of

    this great constitutional right."

    So the idea that historically that the 2nd was thought of as anything other than an individual right is buffalo biscuits.

  • Corno di Bassetto

    ALL the Amds are collective. First they are collective in that they apply only to the Congress ("Congress shall make no law"), not to the States. That is now part of history and judicial precedent of nearly 2 centuries, beginning with Barron (1833) and down to the late 20th century including several major Scotus opinions right after the ratification of the 14th Amdt.

    But even apart from that, no Amdt is written to reference individuals. The claim that the First or Ninth does, as even the Heller court claimed, is absurd. No right in the First is exercised individually. And rights retained by the people in the Ninth does NOT mean persons; or that would mean that since murder is not prohibited in the Constitution to the states it belongs to the people, quite an absurdity.

    But even apart from murder, which one might understand as a universal prohibition, what about zoning laws, and speed limits and whether the people can drink booze on a public street or drink and drive. None of those are universally considered the "rights of man." Yet the people can be prohibited from exercising those rights and no one finds any "infringement" in it. Indeed, surely booze is one of the most ancient of all beverages and has even been associated with several major religions. Yet the People were prohibited from drinking booze at one time in America.

    But let's address specifically the Fourth Amdt here. If one read its, you'll find a clear distinction between "people" as a majority or class, and persons, thus:

    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons … shall not be violated … but upon probable cause … and particularly describing … the persons or things to be seized."

    As in the case of the Ninth Amdt, the people "retain" their rights UNLESS PROHIBITED by the State. In the same way, the people are secure in their persons, unless that person can be suspected, upon probable cause, to have committed a crime and thus placed himself outside the security of the law-abiding people.

    Otherwise, the Amdt could and would have been written as, "The right of persons to be secure in their persons. …" So why wasn't it? Indeed, this is true of the 6th and 7th Amdts. Thus "No PERSON shall be held to answer for a … crime" and "nor shall any PERSON be … put in jeopardy" nor compelled "to be a witness against HIMSELF," and "the ACCUSED shall enjoy … a speedy and public trial" and confront "witnesses against HIM," obtain witnesses "in HIS favor," and have "counsel for HIS defense."

    Clearly the framers of the Bill understood the difference between collective and individual rights.

  • Damien Gregory

    Just because they chose not to rule on the issue, doesn’t mean they interpreted it the way you think they might have.

    The reasoning behind the second amendment wasn’t a secret; anyone can read the writings of the founders to see exactly what their thought process was when they framed the bill of rights.

  • reaper10unleashed

    People actually used to bring their rifles to church during the early decades of the US and carnivals actually let kids shoot .22 rifles. Hell, schools used to teach basic shooting skills and high schoolers used to leave their guns in their cars up until the 1970's. The founding fathers were pretty clear on the purpose of the second amendment being the right of the people to bear arms.

  • Chris Lauderdale

    I don't hate gun owners, but I despise the NRA.

    The NRA doesn't represent gun owners. They represent gun manufacturers.

  • Caped Cod

    notice how when Adam was talking about the NRA getting allies in the supreme court and other government agencies no article thing popped up proving that adam was not stating facts only his opinion

  • MrMcMaster12

    They never made an official ruling on the issue cuz they thought it wasn’t necessary cuz they thought it was pretty obvious. If the government becomes tyrannical and people wanna form militias to rebel, they need access to guns. But taking away that access makes the whole point of the 2nd amendment void. Meaning the people can’t use it for it was intended

  • J 13

    The NRA as the borderline extremist organization we know it as today started in 1977 with the election of Harlon Carter as president. It was under him that the organization developed their "no compromise, no surrender, our way or the highway" approach to gun laws. Prior to this, the NRA did express support for some portions of gun control laws, including the Gun Control Act of 1968 (although some suspect this was merely in opposition to people of color taking up arms).

    Another fun fact; when Carter was 18, he shot and killed a 15 year old boy named Ramon Casiano who he suspected of knowing something about his truck being stolen. Just to clarify, this was merely Carter's own personal suspicions; there was no proof the kid had anything to do with it, and was never suspected by law enforcement. Harlon Carter later had his conviction overturned. It wasn't self defense, it wasn't overthrowing a tyrannical government, it was some pissed off guy looking for an excuse to shoot someone and get away with it.

  • Meton2526

    I see a certain host has never read the Federalist/anti-federalist papers.
    The second amendment is an explicit prohibition placed on the (originally federal, now applied to all levels,) government against any infringement on the NATURAL rights of people to keep and bear arms.
    That's why it says "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Not "We grant the privilege to the people to have arms," the ALREADY EXISTING NATURAL right shall not be infringed.


    I think you need to read the Dred Scott case.

    Fear of making AFRICAN Americans citizens revolved, in part, around fear of the 2nd being extending to them as individuals.

  • J.A. Bristol

    I love when the far left point to the "militia" clause as the justification for prohibiting the sale of assault weapons because, by their estimation, we don't need a militia since we have a military. Well, the colonists had a military as well – the british army and navy. And when the british army/navy became one of the tools that King George III used to suppress the rights of the colonists, they used their arms to fight back. Even if the second amendment was only used in reference to a militia, that still wouldn't take away the rights of the common man because the common man is what a militia is comprised of.

    A militia is not only designed to be used against foreign threats, but domestic threats, like a tyrannical government, as well. The military is a force of the government, a militia is a force of the citizen. Should a government decide to overstep its boundaries and actively oppress ordinary citizens out of it's own self interests, the citizens have a legal (constitutional) and ethical right to use lethal force against said oppressive government and any tool which the government uses to oppress them, including the military.

    This is why no republican and no truly patriotic democrat will EVER let assault weapons like the AR15 or any future weapons (like lasers for example) be prohibited from consumption by the general population, because that's what the military uses/will use and the founders wanted to keep civilians and the military on a more-or-less even playing field – at least with regard to firearms – should the need ever again rise for citizens to actively rebel against the government.

  • TerminalCarrion

    Imagine that, the group that makes a lot of money selling guns changed how people interpreted the 2nd amendment, then argued that you can’t change the second amendment. Just the second one…for reasons

    I wonder if money played a part at all

  • Abraham Collins

    Nothing was "changed" you rube. It was restored. Hundreds of years of human rights violations were overturned. Why would you produce content this divisive?

  • New Damage

    Gun nuts love to talk about free market capitalism and how government corruption and money rules politics yet the NRA is one of the best examples of this.

  • Daniel Smith-Hamilton

    The title and video are just straight up lying. The NRA never was about protecting rights because the government wasn’t trying to remove them and once they did they started to protect them. Also the reasoning and meaning and wording of the 2nd amendment have always been the same and have and will never change so yet another lie. This show is garbage.

  • Google User

    If we wernt supposed to have the right to bare arms then why does the 2nd amendment say what it does and why was anyone alowed to purchase firearms that were fully automatic up untill 1986? Can you explain that one Adam?

  • Alan Grant

    Yeah sure the idea of the 2nd amendment has changed from what it was originally but please remember that the Elastic Clause allowed for flexibility of the amendments within the Constitution specifically for instances like these in which times change and the amendments must be altered as well.

  • Marry Jayne

    Talk about skewed. I wish cowards would stop making videos about the things they are afraid of because your ignorance even though you are often intelligent, on this matter is astounding.
    What the hell do you think a colonial militia was you freaking morons? Apparently your lawyers are stupid as you if they are the ones who told you there has been no decisions made on individual gun rights. This goes far beyond simple taking liberties with definition and interpretation when any first-year law student could explain a hundred different instances from over a hundred years ago of the right to bear arms being a matter for the people. That is if he's not another brainwashed coward. and no where does it state in the Constitution or any other historical writing that you must be a part of a militia to have the right to arm yourself. The right to arm yourself is integrable to the right to form a militia but having a militia is not a requirement to the right to bear arms which are also not for hunting you morons. You don't bear arms to hunt. According to the second Amendment itself and the writings and definitions written by The men who created it including but not limited to Thomas Jefferson right to bear arms is essential to a free society.
    The way you people twist history I'm sure you must be Catholic.

  • Ryley Hamilton

    So if our government tries to take our guns and civil war breaks out. On my way to go solve the progressive democrat problem ill solve the miss informed adam problem

  • The Entitled Gamer

    the right to bear arms. arms is the key word there, as in weapons. not just guns. there are many more kinds of weapons today.


    How could you argue that the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect the right to bear Arms. That's absolutely foolish. Have you read it? This is why I can't usually take Adam seriously.

  • Keith Milburn

    A lot of gun owners aren't fit to carry a peashooter never mind a Colt 45, in this day and age only authorised personnel should be allowed, adults buying their kids guns is a joke, 2nd amendment was in a long bygone time of lawlessness, or hasn't the USA changed at all ???, my god supposed to be a civilised country ?, hahahahahaha.

  • Robert Stager

    The 2nd Amendment was a hotly debated issue since its inception. There are countless documents recorded from the founders arguing the argument we debate today. The fact is Gun Control is unconstitutional. The very word "Control" is counter to the very words "shall not be infringed". Militia literally meant "The People".

  • Eric spears

    Wonder why he failed to site Cruikshank v USA when it was ruled that there was an individual right to own a firearm and the federal level and presser v Illinois when it was ruled that the states could not disarm the populace as the militia formed from arms in private ownership while the same ruling stated that the right to bear arms was one of the citizen of the state. Dc v heller ruled that federal enclaves had an individual right to bear arms McDonald v Chicago ruled that every one had a right to bear arms as protected by both the 2a and the 14a. Why did those cases get left by the wayside was it because it hurt the agenda of this show. It’s used the 30 percent rule almost perfectly give 30 percent facts and 70 percent lies to make it appear your telling truth when a basic knowledge of court rulings goes against what they said in this segment

Leave a Reply

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