Constitution Lecture 8: Commerce, Arms and the Meaning of “Regulate” (HD version)
Articles,  Blog

Constitution Lecture 8: Commerce, Arms and the Meaning of “Regulate” (HD version)


Two of the most misunderstood clauses in the
Constitution are the Commerce Clause and the Second Amendment. But in both cases, the misunderstanding
centers around the meaning of the word “regulate.” Nowadays, we consider the word “regulate”
to mean restriction and prohibition. But is this what it has always meant? Is this how
we should read the word when it appears in the Constitution? The Commerce Clause is Article I Section 8
Clause 3, which says that Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce among the several
states. This is commonly known as the “interstate commerce” clause, although as you can see
the words “interstate commerce” appear nowhere. It is widely interpreted today to
mean that Congress can pass whatever restrictions it likes against forms of commerce that move
from state to state, again based on what we today consider the meaning of the word “regulate.” The Second Amendment is another place in the
Constitution where we see the word “regulate.” Here it is being used by gun control advocates
as justification: if Congress has the power to regulate the militia, then it must be able
to restrict arms, require licenses, etc., because as we all know the word “regulate”
means “prohibit,” right? First of all, remember from Lecture 3 that
the Bill of Rights confers no new powers on Congress, it only restricts Congress’s enumerated
powers. But even so, we’ll look at the meaning of “regulate” and see if there is any
justification here at all. One note: you usually see two extra commas
in this amendment, one after Militia and the other after Arms. This is due to a transcription
error and was not in the amendment as proposed by Congress and ratified by the states. No
special meaning or changes to the amendment should be inferred by their presence, as some
gun control advocates do. So, what does the word “regulate” mean?
Does it include the power to prohibit? Remember from Lecture 2 that we must go by the meaning
of the word as it existed at the time of ratification. So, what did people at the time mean by “regulate”?
Perhaps a good place to start is with the dictionary definition, from a dictionary widely
used at the time. At the time, the biggest English dictionary
was Samuel Johnson’s. His name was used the way Noah Webster’s is used today. He
began his work in 1746, and was finished nine years later, with only a single clerk for
assistance. It came to be seen as definitive, used throughout the English-speaking world.
The entire text is available for free at books.google.com. Johnson’s dictionary defined “regulate”
as “to adjust by rule; to direct.” In other words, regulate, at its core, means
“to make regular.” Essentially, to regulate something is to say, “If you want to do
this, here is the process you must go through.” This is in diametric opposition to prohibition
or limitation. So, to regulate commerce among the states means to make such commerce regular,
to stop states from imposing restrictions, duties, or excises on goods from other states,
and to encourage the free flow of commerce. In the case of the Second Amendment—remember
that it is the militia that is well-regulated and not arms—this means that the militia
should have sufficient resources to make it “regular,” and have the ability to follow
the necessary requirements to make it effective. An armed citizenry is crucial to this end.
In fact, since the whole point of the amendment is to stop the government restricting arms,
then regulating as prohibition is nonsensical. Another place to look for the meaning is in
the ratification conventions. In the records from these conventions, we see the word “regulate”
being used to describe the government’s role in elections, jury trials, courts, and
many other aspects of government. Obviously there is no plausibility in the reading of
“regulate” to mean restriction or prohibition in these cases. Another good place to go to see the commonly
used meaning of words is in newspapers. The Pennsylvania Gazette is the newspaper for
which the most articles survive to this day. According to a study by Constitutional Law
Professor Randy E. Barnett of George Mason University, during the period of ratification
the Gazette used the word “regulate” 393 times, and “regulation” 410 times. In
each and every case, the usage was consistent with the meaning “to make regular.” There
was no sense at all in which it implied restriction or prohibition. But perhaps the most obvious and unimpeachable
source for this is the Constitution itself, as it mentions regulate in many other places.
Seeing how the word is used elsewhere in the Constitution demands a consistent reading
in the Commerce Clause and the Second Amendment. For example, in Article I Section 4, the state
legislatures are given the power to set the times, places, and manners of holding their
elections. It also gave the Congress the power to alter “such regulations.” Setting a
time, place, and manner of something is therefore regulating, but there is no sense in which
this is any kind of prohibition. Prohibiting an election or restricting the votes would
be an affront to our liberties. Also, Clause 5 of Article I Section 8 gives
Congress the power to regulate the value of money. Notice that this does not confer any
kind of power on Congress to prohibit money or restrict who can use it. It can’t even
“regulate” its value to “zero.” But nowhere is it more plain than in Article
III Section 2 Clause 2. Here, it gives Congress the power to make both “exceptions” and
“regulations” to the appellate power of the Supreme Court. By making exceptions separate
from regulations, it makes it completely clear beyond any doubt that the word “regulation”
does not in any way include restrictions or prohibitions, or else there would have been
no need to also explicitly grant them the power to make exceptions. Now, does giving Congress the power to “regulate”
mean that absolutely no power to restrict is inferred? No, because quite clearly there
are cases where restrictions are necessary to regulate. But it is not the thing being
regulated that the restrictions are levied against. That would be contradictory. For example, the Commerce Clause makes sure
that commerce shall be regular. In that sense, there are many restrictions that should not
be placed on commerce. So in the power to regulate is the power to stop the states from
placing restrictions on commerce, which is itself a restriction. It’s not a restriction
on commerce, however; it’s a restriction on the states’ ability to interfere with
commerce. The defining case on this issue, and indeed
one of the biggest defining cases on the Constitution itself, is Gibbons vs. Ogden. The State of
New York had restricted navigation of its waters from a privately-run ferry from New
Jersey that competed with a ferry run by the state of New York. The Supreme Court found
that, since by restricting navigation they were restricting commerce, specifically the
service of a ferry, that the State of New York was in violation of the Commerce Clause.
Indeed, how can one engage in commerce among the states without something crossing the
state lines? Here is the Commerce Clause used in its proper scope: stopping the states from
putting restrictions on commerce that moves in or out of them. So, despite how this word “regulate” has
been misinterpreted by politicians, pundits, and the courts, it is very easy to see that
the Commerce Clause in no way restricts how people and businesses may conduct commerce
with each other, merely preserving and “making regular” the means by which they can do
so. Likewise, in the Second Amendment, the word “regulate” in no way allows the government
to restrict or prohibit the keeping and bearing of arms; in fact, it’s just the opposite.
The understanding of this one crucial word shows how the Constitution is there to preserve
our liberty from the power of the state more than anything else in the entire text. We
must therefore vocally correct those who would misinterpret our rights into nonexistence.
Until next time, stay strong and be free.

100 Comments

  • Shane Killian

    @RexT42 The common draw-the-line point the Supreme Court has converged on is "clear and present danger." You can have weapons as long as you do not pose a clear and present danger to others. I don't really have a problem with that criteria.

  • kosmoincalgary

    @AllAreWe In the previous lecture on the commerce clause video, Shanedk was discussing his interpretation of the word "regulate" using supporting documents such as news papers and dictionaries to derive what the word meant at the time. I did not agree with his interpratation of that meaning when analyzing the commerce clause.

  • AllAreWe

    @Kosmoincalgary

    Part 1)

    I can understand how this could seem fallicious logic – however, when it comes to historical context, the common usage of the word is very important to understand.

    For example, "Gay" in Samuel Johnson's dictionary is as defined: Airy, Cheerful, Merry, Frolick, Fine, Showy…

    Whereas in the modern context, it usually referred to a homosexual nature.

    If the constitution included the phrase, "Right to gay lives", The modern result would be amusing to imagine.

  • AllAreWe

    Part 2)
    If you look at the other definitions in the dictionary:

    1) to adjust by rule; to direct.
    2) A method; order
    3) Regular: Orderly, agreeable to rule.
    4) Prohibit; to forbid, deter, hinder.

    Note definitions 1, 2, and 4 – The phrase would mean, "here's some rules." , yet if you look further in the constitution, you would note that it does not clarify on the additional rules, prohibition or methods.

    It would then make sense that the intention was the third definition, Orderly.

  • kosmoincalgary

    @AllAreWe I agree with the use of historical context, that is important and I applaud Shanedk for the research and presenting a good case as to what the word meant in the context of the day. What I did not agree with was how he took that context to mean that somehow the governments powers were diminished or reduced by the word regulate, which in my opinion was quite the opposite. When one regulates something, it necessitates additional rules and limitations on the activity being regulated.

  • kosmoincalgary

    @AllAreWe All definitions posted in the video imply additional powers to set rules, not fewer powers and less rules. In order for something to be regular, it must be limited only to a set of possible methods by which it occurs, otherwise it would be anything but regular.

  • HV S

    @shanedk ok……my knowledge base is also mostly self taught…..i really appreciate your videos….exceptionally value them……but… there has to be a way to some how make this knowledge more accessible…i wish we knew of a way to be more affective…

  • AllAreWe

    The local library?

    In my opinion, as an avid reader, It's never too late to start reading regularly, and it doesn't take much to catch up, so to speak.

    Thankfully, there is a pool of amazing books from which to choose.

    If you're concerned about how long it takes to read, A good trick to speed reading is to try avoid sounding the words out in your head; Instead, trust your brain to imagine what the book is saying. Avoid paying any attention to filler words like the, an, ok, of course, etc..

  • Shane Killian

    @AllAreWe Here's a trick I developed that I wish they'd taught in school: read an entire line of text at one time. By that, I mean, don't scan your eye from left to right; look across at the whole line at once and then move down to the next one. It takes practice, and if the line's too long it doesn't work, but for most books it works great.

  • AllAreWe

    I didn't know I was doing that. Neat!

    I'm deaf since birth and I grew up to closed caption and subtitles. CC and subtitles are not usually long sentences and I guess I got used to doing that subconsciously.

    BTW, I want to mention that I greatly appreciate that your videos are captioned. That's what drew my attention to your materials.

  • Shane Killian

    @AllAreWe Thanks. It's great that YouTube can do that from just a transcript now; I don't have to take the time to sit down and make the subtitles. I just upload my script.

  • Newenlightenmentnow

    So you want the government to "regulate" the right to own a machine gun, is that it? Tell me, how far do you want the government to "regulate" arms? How about weapons grade plutonium? It is my right according to you. Look, I don't give a damn, what the word regulate meant then, we live in the 21st century, and you don't get to have automatic, or even semi-automatic weapons. When the 2nd ammendment was written, people had muskets. That means one shot, then it took 2 min. to reload.

  • Shane Killian

    @Newenlightenmentnow Weapons-grade plutonium isn't arms; geez, is this the ONLY argument you gun control nuts have?

    Oh, and when the 2nd Amendment was written, people also had CANNONS. Did you forget that?

  • Shane Killian

    @Newenlightenmentnow "Here is a crucial difference in kind. Of course, the bow snd arrow could be used for aggressive purposes, but it could also be pinpointed to use only against aggressors. Nuclear weapons, even "conventional" aerial bombs, cannot be.

    (cont'd)

  • Shane Killian

    @shanedk "These weapons are ipso facto engines of indiscriminate mass destruction. (The only exception would be the extremely rare case where a mass of people who were all criminals inhabited a vast geographical area.) We must, therefore, conclude that the use of nuclear or similar weapons, or the threat thereof, is a crime against humanity for which there can be no justification."

    –Murray Rothbard, "The Ethics of Liberty," 190-191.

    Now let's have no more of this pathetic strawman, okay?

  • shananagans5

    @Newenlightenmentnow We can have semi auto. We can even have full auto with a class III license. The founding fathers intended that we have the ability to fight the gov should that be needed so my guess is the founding fathers would not support restrictions on full autos. While that might not be pratical today, we can undoubtedly use semi or even full auto(if you are legal) to protect ourselves, our family, and our property. Why do you have a problem with that?

  • spock431

    @shanedk sorry, i Thought it did,
    But canada has benifited of gun control, and i still think it would be good in the US
    and stabbing is less good at killing people

  • spock431

    @shanedk odd, it seems to have decreased with time in Canada, however, this could be misleading me, as Canada classifies abduction and attempted murder as violent crime while the US

  • shax108

    You didnt define regular as it meant back then. I am a gun owner but we have to admit that they didnt know about rocket launchers, nukes, etc at the time of the constitution.

  • Shane Killian

    @Ramshobraja Yes, I absolutely did! I used a dictionary of the time, I looked at how the Constitution uses the word, I looked at how the founders used it, I looked at how the newspapers used it…how did I NOT define how it meant back then?

    The bit about the rocket launchers is just standard gun control nuttery.

  • blurglide

    Johnson's dictionary defines militia as "A national force; Trainbands". It would seem that would imply more of a National Guard / formal military org than normal people with guns.

  • mothahen123

    people need to interpret the constitution differently depending on the day and age. the second amendment was written in the days of muskets and canons. not fully automatic weaponry. i think everyone can agree that stronger laws/regulations should be put in place as to who can/can't purchase a gun as well as the types of guns sold to civilians

  • Shane Killian

    @mothahen123 No, that's what the lecture's for. So I don't have to keep going through this crap over and over again with people who just don't want to learn.

  • Shane Killian

    @mothahen123 The lecture covers the invalidity of the "living text" interpretation, which is what you advocated. And you don't read it; it's a video, like this one. WATCH it.

  • mothahen123

    @shanedk lol i meant i watched it. my point isn't simply that the constitution should be interpreted with the times. i was specifically referring to the second amendment. people say that banning certain weapons is unconstitutional, but i don't find that to be a valid argument

  • Shane Killian

    @mothahen123 That's living text. It doesn't matter what portion of the Constitution you think it applies to, it's still demonstrably wrong.

  • Shane Killian

    @islamiscrap8888 Theoretically, no one is above the law, and you should be able to make a citizen's arrest. Realistically, the cop will mop the floor with you and never face any consequences for it.

  • mothahen123

    @weyghrwyjdtjhjerhjwr i don't think you understood what i wrote. when this amendment was put into affect, nobody even dreamed of the types of weaponry that would be created in the next 200 years. "arms" back then are not in the same zip code as "arms" now

  • mothahen123

    Tell me why it's bogus. I'm not going to go and by the book, but there are members of the Supreme Court that feel the constitution should be interpreted as a living document. I don't find it bogus you bigot

  • Shane Killian

    "there are members of the Supreme Court that feel the constitution should be interpreted as a living document."

    Argument from authority. I refuted the concept in Lecture 2.

    And false accusations of bigotry are NOT allowed on this channel. First warning.

  • mothahen123

    who are you to refute that? you may not agree with it, but just because you say it does not make it intrinsically true. i'm not using them as an example because they are socially above me and i accept what they say as truth, rather they are obviously very learned on the subject. that's the problem with everyone i've debated on this channel. i have my point of view and you have yours, but every single one of you "knows" that what you think is the absolute truth.

  • mothahen123

    @shanedk who are you to refute that? you may not agree with it, but just because you say it does not make it intrinsically true. i'm not using them as an example because they are socially above me and i accept what they say as truth, rather they are obviously very learned on the subject. that's the problem with everyone i've debated on this channel. i have my point of view and you have yours, but every single one of you "knows" that what you think is the absolute truth.

  • mothahen123

    I didn't reference the fact the certain justices agree with me because they're of higher social power than I. I did so because they obviously are very learned on the subject, and I'm not an idiot for thinking that the Constitution should be interpreted as a living document. And yes I can call a man a bigot if he's acting like one. That would be my first amendment right, thank you.

  • mothahen123

    I haven't ignored your arguments. I have listened and disagreed, as often happens in an argument. For a man who is so knowledgable about the Constitution, you seem to be ignoring my basic rights as an individual.

  • Shane Killian

    Another mealy-mouthed smug statist. Just as you do NOT have the right to barge into someone else's home and start preaching, you do NOT get to come onto MY channel and break the rules I have so clearly posted. Now you're whining first amendment violations just like creationist and moon hoaxers when they resort to these despicable tactics, not being able to respond logically. Go wallow with them.

    Third AND FINAL WARNING. ALL you have to do is start debating rationally. Do you have it in you?

  • Shane Killian

    "I haven't ignored your arguments."

    You didn't refute them. All you did was appeal to some politicians in black robes–whom the Constitution is supposed to limit as much as any other!

  • mothahen123

    Your arguments are impossible to refute because they're opinion-based, as any interpretations of the Constitution are. You and I clearly have varying opinions, but the fact that you made this video stating yours does not make you intrinsically correct.

  • Shane Killian

    "who are you to refute that?"

    A person capable of formulating a logical argument.

    "you may not agree with it, but just because you say it does not make it intrinsically true."

    It's not "because I say so," it's because I formulated a logical argument that has yet to be refuted.

    "because they are socially above me"

    Not according to the Constitution.

  • Shane Killian

    "Your arguments are impossible to refute because they're opinion-based"

    No, I gave solid, logical reasons for my position. If you can refute that, or show how my logic is faulty, then do so. But "because some politicians in black robes said so" is NOT a proper response to a logical argument.

  • Shane Killian

    "but the fact that you made this video stating yours does not make you intrinsically correct."

    The fact that no one's been able to refute it without referring to judges as though they were priests certainly seems to point in that direction, though.

  • johnrainrules

    "Your arguments are impossible to refute because they're opinion-based, as any interpretations of the Constitution are. You and I clearly have varying opinions"

    I love how a logical argument changes someone from absolute certainty to the world is nothing but an opinion in about 3 posts.

  • mothahen123

    by "socially above me", i mean hold more socai power than I, which is obviously the case. And your'e "logical argument" is based on lots of initial assumptions that you gave no proof of being true. Obviously if the principles are correct, then the conclusions will be too.

  • Shane Killian

    WTF is "social power"?

    "And your'e "logical argument" is based on lots of initial assumptions that you gave no proof of being true."

    For example?

  • Shane Killian

    People privately owned cannons. That was protected by the Second Amendment. Where they could be obtained is irrelevant. Stop evading.

  • Ganga Din

    Hahaha! If you think banning automatic weapons is about availability for purchase, then lets see this….if I home-built a cannon that is okay. But if I homebuilt an automatic weapon that is not okay?
    That said, you think its okay for cannons to be privately owned, because in your mind it is not available.. but you want to ban automatic weapons BECAUSE they are available? So pretty much you want to ban whatever is available? Therein is the explanation why "gun control" is actually a "gun ban"

  • mothahen123

    No, you're taking my words out of context. Obviously, the "arms" of the late 1700s are far different than the "arms" of today. We can debate that if you'd like, but you'd have to be a dumbass to not agree. I never said that their should be a "gun ban". Read the last sentence of my first comment.

  • Shane Killian

    I mean, you might as well say that free speech doesn't apply to the internet since the founders didn't have it!

    MORON.

  • Ganga Din

    Did they say "to bear arms of late 1700s…shall not be infringed"?
    Or is it you that introduced that in there.
    how am I "dumbass to not agree"? Agree with what? Reading what is not written and not meant?

  • johnrainrules

    "Obviously, the "arms" of the late 1700s are far different than the "arms" of today"

    Yes, that is why police should only be allowed to carry flintlocks.

    "We can debate that if you'd like, but you'd have to be a dumbass to not agree. I never said that their should be a "gun ban"."

    Internet karma. First you claim someone is a dumb ass if they don't agree with you, then you mix up their and there.

  • mothahen123

    Nobody at that ime period could have predicted the technological boom in weaponry that took place over those short few centuries. Should people be able to purchase RPGs and C4 at their local gun shop? no. and it's impossible for you to know what was meant by them at the time they wrote it. i'm simply thinking logically.

  • Shane Killian

    "and it's impossible for you to know what was meant by them at the time they wrote it."

    Yeah, I mean, it's not like they wrote it down and explained it in detail or anything…

  • Ganga Din

    Yes, same goes for internet access, same goes for internal combustion engine, same goes for airtravel too. Does this mean no one should be allowed to have access to any of these things?
    If you sincerely believed this, then you would protest the federal govt from building ICBMs using taxes. After all the founders could not have imagined those and hence power to levy taxes provided in the constitution cannot be used for that purpose.
    You think logically, and I am the king of Monaco.

  • mothahen123

    You really don't understand logic do you. Can you go and buy internet access, internal combustion, and engine, or partake in air travel at a local store, bring it to a school and shoot up the place? nope, didn't think so mr King

  • Ganga Din

    Yes I can, if I wanted to. See, I can bring my internal combustion "and engine" and mow down students in a school if I wanted to, or create a car bomb. Same goes for aircrafts. Same goes for internet use for bullying others. I think you should think a little before you start answering your own questions, like a dumbass.

    I still have not seen your reasons as to why the federal govt should multiple ICBMs. A single ICBM can "shoot up" multiple cities, let alone just one school.

  • mothahen123

    Everything you listed was created for different reasons. I can't ban the possession of rocks because you could potentially throw it at someone. Guns (in case you were unaware of this) are created to do damage to people. I've heard many decent arguments against gun regulations (such as most of shanedk's) but yours is certainly not one of them.

  • Ganga Din

    "Guns (in case you were unaware of this) are created to do damage to people."
    Phew.. in that case no one should have them. Not even police and military.

    Agreed?

  • Shane Killian

    He's not arguing against gun regulations; he's arguing against your stupid and nonsensical argument FOR the regulations.

  • johnrainrules

    "I can't ban the possession of rocks because you could potentially throw it at someone. Guns (in case you were unaware of this) are created to do damage to people."

    So I shouldn't be able to own a handgun, but if I buy one of those taco delivering unmanned drone helicopters and mount it with shotgun tazers that would be cool?

  • johnrainrules

    "Can you go and buy internet access, internal combustion, and engine, or partake in air travel at a local store, bring it to a school and shoot up the place?"

    As far as air travel goes, have you ever heard of 9-11.

  • johnrainrules

    "Nobody at that ime period could have predicted the technological boom in weaponry that took place over those short few centuries. "

    Luckily they left a way to amend the Constitution if it is required.

    "Should people be able to purchase RPGs and C4 at their local gun shop?"

    Should people be able to buy soda pop. After all the Founders couldn't have possibly known you could jam 800 grams of fructose into 16 oz. of fluid and give 8 year olds "adult" onset diabetes.

  • Shane Killian

    The criteria (as described in the Rothbard passage I quoted below) is, can the weapon be used to specifically target aggressors? If so, it should be allowed.

  • mothahen123

    here's my thesis. i'm not against gun possession altogether. as the system is now, virtually anyone, regardless on mental handicap or past history of violence, can go to a store and purchase an ak47, a weapon that no civilian needs for self defense. i want there to be stricter regulations on who can purchase weapons, as well as bans on certain weapons to be sold to civilians.

  • Shane Killian

    And who decides what people need? I'll bet the shop owners during the LA riots wished they could have had automatic weapons.

  • johnrainrules

    ". i want there to be stricter regulations on who can purchase weapons, as well as bans on certain weapons to be sold to civilians."

    Meaning cops should all get flintlocks. After all the founders couldn't have known there would be automatic pistols available.

  • William Sonak

    Guns exist you can't eliminate them. With basic machine tools you can make a gun and even if you could eliminate them. People would just use some other means to kill one another. Like poison or IEDs. Crime is caused by money or lack of money, sexual conflict, and mental illness. Gun bans just cause more crime thru illegal trade and disarming the victims of violent crime. Also increasing the probability of some sort of tyranny!

  • HondoLane76

    Is there anything in the 2a (or constitution) that would suggest that the constitution and/or its amndmnts pertain only to "law abiding citizens" or "non-violent criminals"? Also, what does "shall not infringe" mean? My beliefe of a proper reading of the 2a (at the time it was written) is that every person has an inalienable birth right to own and carry any "arm" (gun, tank, RPG, etc.) they want. And that most importantly, NO ONE can deny, inhib, or disqualify some or all of that right.

  • Shane Killian

    Everything in the Constitution says that rights belong to EVERYBODY ON THE PLANET.

    Your reading of "shall not infringe" is correct.

  • HondoLane76

    Ok, let's follow this through, and say the 2nd Amndmnt has been suspended. Who's going to determine what weapon is "needed" for self defense. You don't think an ak47 is needed. I do. Who's going to decide…the majority? That is a pure democracy where two wolves and a sheep vote to see what's for dinner. This is exactly why we have a constitutional republic with birth rights protected by it. So that 51% of the people can't decide what's best for the other 49%..including gun ownership!

  • HondoLane76

    So if "the const. should be interpreted differently depending on the day", does that mean that your mortgage or lease should be interepreted differently? If you have a lease that says your rent is $300/mo for 3 years can the landlord change his mind in 1 year saying that things are different now and your rent will be $500/mo. Can the banks change your fixed interest rate b/c rates go up? Nope, they can't, and neither can the constitution. Ironically, the supreme court does this every day 8-(

  • HondoLane76

    I was almost sure you would agree with that! It's funny how almost no one (not even Ted Nuggent) fights for the true meaning of the second amend. Thanks for your input and timely response. Btw how did you accumulate your knowledge of the constitution? v/r Hondo.

  • skm1091

    Shane I heard that trainbands had to purchase their own weapons and equipment. And that is why the 2nd Amendment says that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. I could be wrong so correct me if I am wrong here.

  • Comrade Red Fang

    Libertarians always claim that banning guns will lead to a tyrannical government, Australia has practically banned gun ownership and yet they’re in the top ten for economic freedom unlike the US, and America has the highest gun ownership rate in the world… please fill in the blank

  • oren

    This is very interesting. Which came first, the creation of laws restricting trade, or the change in meaning of the word "regulate"? Was this change in its meaning gradual, or was it engineered by a particular politician or political group?

  • The Proletariat Voice

    There is no way the “militia” could fight off tyranny since the military has machine guns, tanks, jets, missiles, submarines, nuclear weapons, and special forces… so how exactly will owning a gun stop all that?

Leave a Reply

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