The 2nd Amendment Explained
Articles,  Blog

The 2nd Amendment Explained

When did the 2nd amendment stop being about
a “well regulated militia” and start being about individual gun ownership? And did you know that the answer has to do
with the KKK, German socialists, and Al Capone? As one of the most hotly contested (and vaguely
worded) sentences in history, the full text of the 2nd amendment says: “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.” So this intellectual crossword puzzle was
added to the Bill of Rights by James Madison and his crew of anti-federalists. When they were ratified in 1791, the anti-federalists
expressed nervousness about the newly formed federal government gaining too much power
over the states or becoming tyrannical. So the language of the 2nd amendment was geared
towards curbing the central government’s power over individual political dissenters. But today, the 2nd amendment and gun control
debate is framed almost exclusively around “the right to bear arms” without talking
too much discussion of a well regulated militias. And there’s a reason for that. Because even though the story of gun rights
and gun legislation is often debated in the court of public opinion, when it comes to
questions of Constitutional interpretation, there’s really only one court that reigns
supreme… and that’s, well the Supreme Court. So for this episode I’m going to trace the
5 major rulings made by the Supreme Court on the 2nd amendment, since its ratification,
in 1791, and yes, the story does involve the Case 1: United States vs. Cruikshank Well it took a while before the highest court
in the land heard a case on the 2nd amendment (1876 to be precise) and that first case actually
involved the KKK and states’ rights in the wake of the Civil War. After the conclusion of the Civil War, the
newly reunited nation was in the midst of Reconstruction when they passed the 1870 Enforcement
Act, which was designed to prevent mobs run by private citizens and groups like the KKK
from blocking newly freed black citizens’ access to Constitutional rights – which seems
like a good law. But in 1873 a mob of white residents who were
sometimes collaborators of the KKK and would later go on to form a terrorist group called
“The White League” in 1874, murdered an estimated 100 African Americans who had occupied
the Colfax Louisiana State House. Three of the members of the mob were convicted
of violating the 1870 Enforcement Act, under the charge that they had prevented black citizens
from assembling peacefully, exercising their right to vote, and that they had curtailed
the black citizens’ 2nd amendment rights to bear arms. However the court ruled that the 2nd amendment
was only designed to stop the federal government from “infringing” on citizens’ rights
to own arms as a safeguard against potential “tyranny.” Therefore state governments and other private
citizens couldn’t be charged with taking someone else’s right to bear arms away. But the question of the “militia” and
what defines a “well regulated militia” actually lasted through the next two supreme
court rulings on the 2nd amendment and that brings us to case 2, Presser vs.
Illinois. Herman Presser was part of an armed citizen
militia of workers in Cook County, Illinois, that had ties to the Socialist Labor Party. And he led a group of several hundred armed
citizens through the streets in protest in 1879 and was found guilty of violating Illinois’
state laws about who could organize a militia. Essentially the law stated that unless you
were a member of an already recognized volunteer militia of the state of Illinois, the federal
government, or had special recognition from the governor, then you could not organize an independent
militia. And Presser disagreed, stating that the 2nd
amendment protected his group’s right to organize a militia to protect themselves from
tyranny. But the Supreme Court disagreed, saying that
while the federal government could not limit “well regulated militias” the state government
could. So armed militias were allowed but only if
the state agreed to it. But that wasn’t the last we’d heard of
the 2nd amendment because the dawn of the 20th century brought us even more debate about
how and why someone would organize a militia and what kinds of weapons were necessary in
these efforts. And the surprising culprit behind this new
twist was none other than Al Capone and the mysterious Valentine’s Day Massacre of 1929. Case 3: United States v. Miller. Ok so we’re back in Illinois (specifically
Chicago) on February 14th, 1929, when 7 criminal associates of mobster George “Bugs” Moran
were gunned down in a garage. And although most people suspected the infamous
Al Capone was behind the hit job, no one was ever brought to trial for the murders, which
have now become something of American historical folklore mixed in with a heavy amount of conspiracy
theory. But the Valentine’s Day Massacre, and similar
crimes like it, began to shift the cultural conversations around gun ownership more towards
what kind of guns it was reasonable for a private citizen who is unaffiliated with any
type of law enforcement or military to carry. But the militia debate was still a big part. In 1934, the federal government passed the
National Firearms Act, which imposed taxes and restrictions (including new registration
laws) on certain kinds of guns like machine guns and sawed off shotguns. And the ambition here was not only to impose
new taxes, but also to limit the use and spread of guns that were frequently used in the commission
of gang crimes, like the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre. So back to the Supreme Court, a man named
Jack Miller and another man were found guilty, under that current version of the National
Firearms Act, of carrying an unregistered sawed off shotgun across state lines, which
was one of the restricted weapons. And when his case (United States v. Miller)
reached the Supreme Court in 1939, the court stuck by the legality of the National Firearms
Act, noting that, “…[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession
or use of a [sawed-off] shotgun . . . has some reasonable relationship to the preservation
or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees
the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” Thus reinforcing the federal government’s
ability to regulate particular types of guns. Ok so 3 out of the 5 Supreme Court rulings
on the question of the 2nd amendment focused on states’ rights versus federal rights,
and the organization of militias. But when did we start to see the current interpretation
of the law as just “the right to bear arms?” And how did the shift from a “well regulated
militia” to arguments about individual self defense occur? Well the National Firearms Act proved to be
pretty contentious. It required that people transferring as well
as those who were already in possession of restricted firearms had to pay taxes on the
gun and also report those weapons to the government. As a result, the Treasury Department could
give information to State governments about people who registered their restricted or
banned weapons and those people could be prosecuted under State laws. So in the 1968 Haynes case, the Supreme Court
found that this regulation violated gun owners’ protection from self-incrimination under the
5th amendment and as a result the 1934 act became “virtually unenforceable.” We also have to add then NRA into this story. Because in 1977, the National Rifle Association
experienced a huge shift in their political agenda. Prior to the 1977 convention (known as the
“Revolt at Cincinnati”) the NRA’s agenda in the mid 20th century focused heavily on
hunting, conservation, and marksmanship. But the new contingent that took over that
year’s convention was invested in transforming the agenda to center squarely on individual
gun ownership and a narrower interpretation of the 2nd amendment. From this point forward the group gains traction
as a gun’s rights lobby organization, and moves from a relatively bipartisan hobbyist
group to a political powerhouse that makes individual interpretation of the 2nd amendment
as key part of its agenda. So we’re just up to our final 2 Supreme
Court rulings on the 2nd amendment from 2008 and 2010, and these ones absolutely 100% have
to do with an individual’s right to gun ownership. But they’re less way back history and more
current headlines, and both of these decisions mark a pretty big shift from the Court’s
previous rulings on the matter. The 2008 ruling, in District of Columbia v.
Heller, found that restrictive gun regulations in the District of Columbia were an infringement
on an individual citizen’s rights to bear arms for the purposes of lawful self defense,
even outside of any well regulated militia. And a similar decision in 2010’s McDonald
v. Chicago found that 2nd Amendment rights could not or should not be limited by state
governments (since Chicago had enacted gun regulations that prevented many if not most
private citizens from purchasing handguns). These two recent decisions focused heavily
on the individual “right to bear arms” and less on the “well regulated militia.” So how does it all add up? Well, even though Heller in 2008 and McDonald
in 2010 represent the current status of rulings on the 2nd amendment, the fact that they center
individual gun ownership for the purposes of self-defense and not the regulation of
militias could stem from a couple of different avenues. The first is that after the Civil War, the
National Guard took up the mantle of state protection, making militias less central to
interpretations of the 2nd amendment. The second is that around the 1920s and 1930s,
we started to see an increase in discussion not only of what makes a well regulated militia,
but also what kinds of guns should or shouldn’t be protected under the second amendment. But these rulings all focused on stopping
the federal government from limiting the second amendment and heavily favored the states… However, although Heller did determine that
the right to lawful individual gun ownership was protected under this current interpretation
of the 2nd amendment, the late Justice Antonin Scalia did note that the right to self-defense
and individual gun ownership under the 2nd amendment “is not unlimited.” So, whichever side you believe is correct,
it looks like this debate will continue to rage on. So what what do you think? Anything to add to our timeline on interpretations
of the 2nd amendment and the “well regulated militia”? Drop them below with all of your citations
on local history, the Brady Bill, and variations in state laws and we’ll see you next week! I had fun last week hanging out with Vanessa
from Braincraft but before we get to that, I wanted to let you know about the new PBS
Digital Studios series “America From Scratch” It asks big questions about how we would re-make
America if we started over today. They ask fun questions like, Should 12-year-olds
be allowed to vote? What if there were no states? Do we even need a president? There’s a link in the description so you
can check it out. Okay, on to whether or not breakfast is the
most important meal of the day! Tony Vasile on Youtube said he enjoyed the
crossover! Speaking for team Danessa (which is what I’ve
renamed us) I say thanks Tony! We enjoyed collaborating on this one! Julie Wylie on Facebook enjoyed the food puns,
which makes me feel quite proud since she’s a dietitian. Mission accomplished and thanks for writing
Julie! And “The Pwnzerwilldie” on Youtube (a
viewer with a sharp mind and a bit of a morbid username) asked if we could do an episode
on how and when drinking coffee in the morning became normalized and what the effects of
caffeine are on our bodies. That’s another good area for a collaboration
so if there are any nutritionists or folks on Youtube good with biology and anatomy (hint hint, Joe Hanson) then hit us up! We’d love to answer more crossover questions! So keep those comments coming and we’ll see
you next week!


  • Jason G

    If the people have no guns. The Militia will have no guns. The militia is made up of the people. The Federal government wouldn't arm a Militia that's standing up against their tyrannical acts.

  • Eric Schon

    So the state can restrict your 1st amendment rights s well? Can the state government go in to your home, search and seize anything they want without due process? So it it's up to the individual states to decide if they want women or blacks to vote? I'm confused I guess, I thought the constitution was the highest law of the land.

  • Jerred Neil

    The Japanese the attacked in the 1940s wouldn’t invade because of the number of gun owning citizens in our country… as our civilian population is the most powerful in the world the second amendment was to keep our own government in check but has also kept every county in the world from attempting to invade the us

  • Alfredo Garnier

    The gobernment wants gun confiscation prior to the establishment of a dictatorship. The day they confiscate all guns, that day communist take the absolut control of the nation. Good by to all liberties.

  • Joe Young

    We need to be quick NOT to jump to red flag laws ask Gary Ellis Ferndale MD. Mr. Ellis executed in his OWN living room during a red flag LAW ENFORCEMENTat 5 a.m. in the morning

  • katanatac

    The 2nd amendment speaks of three things, a free state, a militia, and the people.
    Each is separated by a comma.
    It is the people that have the right(s) as endowed by their Creator, shall not be infringed.

  • Mrjohnnymoo1

    15 seconds in, and I can already tell that they didn't do any research whatsoever checking what the founding fathers had to say about each amendment… Carrying firearms has always been a constitutional right.
    If you want to see how to continue reading.
    IV amendment "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause" (The right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, and papers doesn't just mean the government obviously." Here is the Declaration of Independence. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” in "2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller, recognizing a personal right to have a gun under the Second Amendment and use it for self defense." Here is the 9th amendment "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." (simple meaning you have more rights than these which shall not be listed because the government as no right to list every right you do or do not have. For giggles here is excerpt from The Writer of the U.S constitution James Madison about the meaning of these things,"the constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, both fact and law, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; *that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person; freedom of religion; freedom of property; and freedom of the press*." Notice he did talk about Exercising their rights in elections of government positions, judges jury's and such, but notice what he stated is an unquestionable duty and right. Is this a good enough answer for you? If you don't believe The Writer of the constitution, there is nothing I can do for you. I truly hope this helps you though. Please message me with any other questions 🙂 PBS pay me because I did better research in 20 minutes than this video's entire crew.

  • Mrjohnnymoo1

    Can we just mention that Shotguns were banned because they weren't efficient military arms, yet machine guns were banned because?

  • Mrjohnnymoo1

    The NRA isn't even in the top 20 highest paying lobbyist groups. They donated 5 million dollars last year. That is not a political powerhouse of any standard.

  • Rob Strain

    You start of sorta rightcomment and then go wrong right away. The 2a was always an recognized as an individual right. So much so they weren't going to even put it in writing . The people had just finished fighting a war with England for that very right. As a British subject you had IN WRITING from the king(s)s that right since the mid 15th century. The fact that as a colonist we were being deprived of that right, was the very beginning of the war, when Crispus Attucks was killed in Concord. When put into the Constitution , it was just codifying a natural or God given right. It wasn't giving a right, it was acknowledging it. And when you read the 2a and ALL articles written by its author, it was ALWAYS an individual's right.

  • qtete1

    The right to keep and bear.. is the necessity to protect the PEOPLE from the FOREIGN ……. It is not the AUTHORITY of LEGISLATURE to decide otherwise.

  • Lord Mauldar

    “That the people have a Right to mass and to bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the Body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper natural and safe defense of a free state, that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided.”

    The people are the militia

    The People = militia

    Militia = the people

    The militia is the people

    It’s reeeeaaal fuckin simple y’all…

  • Brian 716

    Founding fathers were clearly dumb and forgot to write, " the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" people will go to any length to try and push an agenda. Even twisting words written on paper which everyone can see. "The People" the militia portion is a prefatory clause. Mind boggling!!! This whole video is bullshit.

  • Brocked and Loaded

    You're historically ignorant, and there's no amount of propaganda you can post on YouTube to change the fact that I have rifles and there's not a damn thing you you can do about that.

  • Michael Hagan

    The leftist play book, Saul Alinsky's "rules for radicals" says " if I remember the quotes correctly. Or to para phrase. "control the language, control narrative." We are not having what the leftist call a gun debate. That would suggest a reasonable conversation amongst citizens. No we the American people are yet again, under attack from the leftist totalitarian communist ideology that was responsible for killing at least 125 million people in about the last 100 years. Some say as many as two hundred million people. ( but what's a hundred million give or take when you are a commie?) the leftist have been working gun control for so long even they decided they wanted to hide their efforts behind a new name, "common sense gun laws." But we've seen in the last century that where there is gun control there is Tyranny. The left has also been working changing the voter demographics. Invalidating your vote granted to you by law. They have been taking crosses off of hill sides, Nativity scenes off of court house lawns and have taken The word God out of the pledge of allegiance. Is this "God control" now going to be called "Common sense God control"? The leftist can't take over a country that has strong borders. Strong family's with a father in the home. A society that reveres A Christian God. That is properly educated in history and who is armed. You can see for yourselves that this is what the leftist totalitarians are doing. This woman is a leftist trying to fool people into giving up thier rights by hook or by crook. Changing history is only one of the many fronts we are being attacked. These people are simply Evil.

  • steven Stayton

    This woman dumb af and looked her shit up from "I'm" lol soaked up all the bullshit she could and vomited all over this video lmao

  • Aleksfoxtrot

    The individual has a right to bear arms because each individual is already part of the US militia. That was our founders intent. Everyone be armed, so we can band together against tyranny if it ever arise again.

    Tench Coxe
    "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans."

    George Mason
    " I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials."

    Thomas Jefferson
    “Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.”

  • kirkpanzer

    The Bill Of Rights doesn't say anything about that the rights are just to hold the Federal Government from our natural rights. No State or Local government should have the ability to strip a citizen of their natural right that are outlined in the Bill of Rights! How would that stand with any other rights: If California took away all ten of the natural rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights then those folks living in that state would no longer be in the USA. You can't pick and choose like a menu it's all or none.

  • John Knerl

    Ha ha lol i love throw your spin on the facts to or words use . the Supreme court in 38 and 39 was a packed court under FDR. So much that we had to add a admendment to limit presidental terms limits. You are also talking about the same time when Japanese-Americans got locked up internment camps wind amount of gold you could own with limited and you had to turn in anything over an ounce you won't even get paid fair value for your gold so you bring it up a time in the thirties and forties that was not kind to are individual rights and civil liberties

  • Jeff Hanson

    FYI they aren't African Americans, they are Americans adding other labels just helps with the division of the country along racial or other segregated lines.

  • Whiteknight06604

    Hahahahaha well regulated has nothing to do with government regulation as we know today. It’s about training . 🙄 also being in a militia has nothing to do with your ability to gun ownership. The second states that in order to have a competent militia private gun ownership is important. An armed individual that is well acquainted with firearms will be important to the militias. Most of this video is a bunch of BS unrelated to gun ownership in the least….. 🙄

  • DesertWarriorBoy

    Lol. That opening may as well have said "I have no idea what the Second amendment is, was, will ever be, how it came to be, who wrote it, and why."

    I would say don't quit your day job. But since your day job is spewing a bunch of horse shit, PLEASE quit your day job and get a new one.

  • Al Swann

    The well regulated militia vs. individual right is a myth created by the left to justify their tyranny. The framers of the constitution recognized no such difference as if did not exist. People owned the firearms and were often compelled by law to do so in order to fulfill their legal requirement to serve in the militia. The only difference between militia and national guard is the name.

  • Ishmael Finn

    This isn't difficult to understand – the militia are the people and the people must be armed in order to muster and be an effecting fighting force.

  • Trinoculus P

    "A well regulated militia" e,g. not a mob "being necessary to the security of a free state" "the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" What part of this is sooooo hard to understand tyrants? OH, that's right, never mind.

  • John Rice

    This is intellectually dishonest or just plain ignorant, one. Well regulated is in reference to the condition of the armaments. Clean, lubricated, and in good working order. Well regulated.
    Militia refers to people 18-35, able bodied, capable of defense.
    The right of the people to own and carry arms(any type), Shall Not be Infringed(to pick away at the edges of, totalitarian tip-toe, incrementalism).

  • Joshua Scott

    WRONG,WRONG,WRONG,WRONG,WRONG Good on her for reading script that fast but shame on who ever put this together. and how did this get on PBS in the first place, did they change their name to Propagandist Bull Shit. Tax Payers should NOT have to pay for this garbage.

  • Bubba Alamo

    This lady's interpretation of the Miller case is all wrong! The Court said (and I'm summarizing) that the 2nd amendment did not apply to the sawed off shotgun because it wasn't a military weapon in common use at that time. The Miller case just reinforces the fact that Military weapons are encouraged for private ownership.

  • Rusty Redden

    You do know it was a requirement for so men to carry guns at one point right? (O don't care that's right)
    Washington had to put down a rebellion and he didn't disarm them… 🤔

  • Kevin ofulm

    To fully understand the 2nd Amendment and exactly what the Founder's meant, I suggest that you visit the Federalist Papers. Then post another video correcting this one.

  • J Burns

    This amendment was all about American citizens being able to own private arms so they could serve in the militia. Therefore it means both one the state can form a militia and two it is made up of private citizens owning weapons. With that being said the state can require background checks, registration of certain types of weapons, and safe storage laws but banning lets say an AR15 completely is unconstitutional. Handguns kill more than any other weapon type but receive far less attention than "assault weapons" which is kind of a made up weapon class. Should we be stricter on semiautomatics just like we do on Machine Guns, Silencers, and Sawed off Shotguns? Of course, but banning them no way!

  • Allen Tompkins

    the states’ concern that the feds might try to disarm the state militias   explains the concern that led to the Second Amendment, which guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” If you read the full text of the Second Amendment in this context it makes much more sense.

    “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.”

    And it clarifies that, in the very first years of the new, more nationalized system, when the Bill of Rights amendments were proposed and ratified, the states were worried that the powerful new federal government might try, for tyrannical purposes, to disarm the state militias.thus the need for armed citizens free of direct government control


    Gun control = Deprivation of rights under color of law like the red flag law.
    ATF = Color of law.

    Why gun control is unconstitutional ? Case law Marbury V Madison

    Gun control is unconstitutional the Supremacy clause of the constitution and Marbury V Madison Seem to make clear that if a law is in open violation to the US Constitution, That law is Null and Void. The law cannot be in conflict with itself. Any law ordinance or amendment that violates the U.S. Constitution is null and void. An unjust Law is no law.

    "If a law is unjust a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.
    ~ Thomas Jefferson

    "Those who give up their freedoms for security deserve neither ~ Benjamin Franklin

    The 2nd Amendment States the right of the people To bear arms shall not be infringed.
    This means is no barrier or no limit on the carrying of arms.

    To Bear arms means All Guns. We the people have to have the gun of our enemy or better otherwise We the people are OutGunned.

    When did all the domestic and foreign enemies have limits on their arms? Never! If we did limit our firearms. The Kentucky long rifle was the best rifle in the world for the US farmers Who band together to become a militia To fight the British Military.

    The Kentucky long rifle can shoot 300+ yards further and more accurate than the British musket. German gunsmiths did the rifling for the Kentucky long rifle to make it shoot that good. We the people had a lot superior firepower With no limits. If we have limits we would not have America.

    Shall not infringe means that you have no barrier between you and your gun with no limits to Accessories or anything else. We the people's rights predated the US Government. We the people are the creator of the Fed. It is the creature. The Fed was designed to serve us not the other way around. The enumerated powers limited the government Power. It is not supposed be limiting us, It is nowhere to be found in their Limited enumerated powers. All gun bans are unconstitutional and are color Of law.

    The Second Amendment says well regulated, This means runs smoothly, This does not mean to regulate We the people's rights out of existence through control.

    Those who forget the evils of the past are doomed to relive them.

    Gun control is a crime against humanity, Being defenseless is no defense.

    Adolf Hitler made the gun control act of 1938 Nazi Germany, To take away The Jews gun rights. Adolf Hitler then gave them their last rightes He put them on a train to place In an extermination camps.

    This is gun control in its true form People control and has nothing to do a safety . The most dangerous person is a parasite politician who wants to suck your rights away For depopulation Like Adolf Hitler, Stalin, The ATT treaty and agenda 21.

    The US Gun control act of 1968 is Word for Word from the 1938 gun control act of Nazi Germany. An unjust law!

    Why are Americans obeying Nazi Germany's gun control act of 1938 ?
    Reasonable Gun control = Treasonable gun control

  • Cephas049

    It's unfortunate that you took a leftist view of the 2nd Amendment because a requirement for belonging to a militia was the ownership of a firearm. Militias did not provide firearms for the militia members AND THAT IS WHERE OUR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS TO OWN (KEEP AND BEAR) ARMS CAME FROM. That's why it says THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

  • Freedom Inc.

    "Vaguely worded" hey dumbass. Its dumbed down so morons like yourself couldnt misconstrue it. It gives the people the right to bear any arm they choose and also the right for the milita to protect against tyranny.

  • Dave Hall

    Very selective Information. No mention of the Federalist papers. Didn't explain the meaning of militia at the time. PragerU did a good one on this

  • EoWKen

    As someone who has actually gone to law school and is passionate about constitutional law it is sickening for me to see how this video is made to look so informative and factual when in reality it is spreading falsehoods, purposely misinterpreting the law and making arguments which are not at all based on sound logic but rather designed to confuse the viewer and get him/her to believe what can only be properly described as being propaganda. Shocking!


    The Supreme Court rulings don’t change the 2nd amendment period. No regulations period. Nothing stated in second amendment about regulations

  • p mor

    useless convoluted confused agenda biased information presented by people who are obviously educated far beyond their level of intelligence and we wonder why our young people think socialism is a good idea ?

  • Chelsea Murphy

    This isn't confusing if you understand that the militia served the purpose of LAW ENFORCEMENT. So let me translate this for you. LAW and ORDER, being necessary for a free state, WE THE PEOPLE also recognize that LAW and ORDER are the first WEAPON of TYRANNY. The drafters of that all important hemp and ink had just spent years fighting the MILITIA. Not so much British soldiers but more conscripts sent here to ENFORCE the LAW, and collect and protect wealth for the crown. Didn't anyone learn the role militia played in school? Why the hell would anyone say they acknowledge their enemy let's keep them around so we can have exuses to own guns. We need cops, so we started forming our own militia, and the militia as well as the people fought and won our freedom against an impossible enemy.

  • Dennis Pfeifer

    The militia is the body of the people in the country…it has nothing to do with the National Guard or the state. This definition is found in the letters of the founding fathers they sent to each other. I was reading their letters yesterday, and it's crystal clear. They were worried about a tyrannical government out of control and never used the word "hunting" in any of their letters when speaking about firearms.

  • Jonas Ark

    Pornography is ilegal in middle east and its enforced, the law. Culturally in the middle east u have intercorse to have babies.
    Im just saying yemen pedofiles? Usa is that and perverted also…

  • Cory McNeill

    Since when was the bill of rights. About organizations or militias……it is rights of the individuals, protected from the government.

  • Fuzzgutter Wins

    Criminal activities always kills the rights of law abiding citizens. The government always hated having their hands tied by the citizens. So they always used criminals to push antigun agenda.

  • RomeoTangoCharlie_78

    You have a God given right to live, government tries to regulate the manner in which Americans can do this. Regardless of what your beliefs are on this issue, it is your right and responsibility to protect yourself.

  • Vigilant Sentry

    If you try to take the Rights of the people you are a communist and a traitor to the people of USA to me. you actually think that criminals will obey gun control laws? Or you believe that reasonable gun control laws is the same as wanting to ban all guns? You must be a special kind of stupid… Participating to give up your guns because you think that criminals have too many guns is like having yourself castrated because you think your neighbors have too many kids…

    Thomas Jefferson said “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”

  • Not PC Principal

    Typical tyrannical leftist garbage! Just drop KKK in it and say it’s bad and white people bad. I’m so sick of hearing this.

  • MrChuckwagon55

    The constitution is not an organic, changing document like some politicians proclam. As such, the second amendment, like all amendments, should be interpreted as they were written at the time they were created, in its original intent.

  • MarkB425

    This video is MISLEADING. The right has ALWAYS BEEN an individual right – as is EVERY OTHER RIGHT. The right applies to the PEOPLE, NOT the militia. The prefatory clause simply lays out the REASON for the preventing governmental infringement of the right itself. And, NO, the militia is NOT simlpy the National Guard. The militia is the body of people. What the narrator states as the "current interpretation" is simply THE interpretation of the 2A. As it is currently understood is the same as the Founders (framers of the Constitution) understood it – an individual right that the government (state or federal) may NOT INFRINGE.

  • G Mac

    “When the government removes the people’s ability to fight against the government, that government has lost it’s right to govern.”

    G. Washington

  • Jay USN-ET2

    Facts mixed with propaganda. This is the worst type of propaganda, the kind that will allow tyranny. Read why the founding fathers created the second amendment! It was to overthrow a tyrannical government. The type of government America is becoming thanks to the treasonous Deep State. We the people, the common people, not just the rich and powerful need to be allowed to defend ourselves against criminals be they individuals or the government. The DOJ, FBI, CIA and many of our judges have a political agenda that has a two tiered justice system, one for the rich that support the Deep State and another for the rest of us.
    These treasonous criminals must be contained and that can only be accomplished by an armed populace.

  • Robert Arangoa

    The second amendment is an individual right hence "The right of the people" . Also The 2A does not give you the right to own a firearm, it protects your right to own a firearm stated in the words "shall not be infringed"l

  • Mike Hayes

    The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. What is so difficult to comprehend about this? Seriously? When we learned in history class about Paul revere riding his horse through out the Boston area yelling the British are coming, the British are coming, he was warning the militia ( a group of colonists who banded together to take up arms against the British) that the redcoats were on the way to confiscate the militias cannons and muskets. That led to the shot heard round the world and the start of the revolutionary war.

  • Nope Can not

    A well regulated militia is the people not the government. It is given to the people to bare arms to be protected from the government. The militia is formed by the people to secure a free state. These idiots want to destroy the 2nd to do exactly that to have a power controlling government and they don’t have to worry about being physically removed from office, those people are all democrats. This lady is leaving out that the democrats are the ones who caused the deaths of over 30,000 black men and over 200,000 white men because the democrats wanted to keep their black slaves. Also the democrats created the KKK, ya this lady is manipulating the truth

  • Justin French

    I've said this before and I'll say it again all of these gun control measures don't do anything to stop gun crime or gun violence I think all of these gun control measures both passed and present don't work and i think all of these gun control measures should be overturned and these anti-gun politicians be removed from public Office and charged with treason and executed because treason is a capital offence.

  • Mr. Papageorgio

    "[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show…"
    Because Miller nor an attorney was there. Miller snitched on his crew, fled and ultimately died before the case was decided.

  • Gys Seacord

    When people think of the causes of the American War for Independence, they think of slogans like “no taxation without representation” or cause célèbre like the Boston Tea Party.
    In reality, however, what finally forced the colonials into a shooting war with the British Army in April 1775 was not taxes or even warrant-less searches of homes and their occupation by soldiers, but one of many attempts by the British to disarm Americans as part of an overall gun control …. and this is why the second amendment was put in to the constitution …. in the bill of Right ,witch individual rights. Not state or federal rights.. she is too so wrong.

  • Dan Jones

    This lady sure talks fast and seems to believe the words coming out of her mouth. Just like a used car salesman trying to sell a lemon to a teenager buying their first car.

  • Randall Lindsey

    From Federalist Paper No. 46:
    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. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

    I used to trust PBS, 60 Minutes, etc.. However, the more I researched for myself, the less trustworthy they became, and now I trust them only to lie & deceive the American people..

  • Joseph Norris

    I watched the first 12 seconds of this and realized, this is all propaganda and misinformation, no need to watch the rest. PBS is a joke but then again, we already knew that.

Leave a Reply

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