And that is unconditional, period. The gov has already made all kinds of exceptions that disqualify people already. We have the largest prison population in the world. When those people get out, regardless of their offense,in every state they are automatically disqualified from owning a fire arm. Millions of people. Is that right already greatly "infringed"?
@@donfronterhouse4759 IMO if you are a felon, you have already infringed upon the rights of other citizens. Therefore, you forfeit some of your rights for a time by doing so. But we are all aware that criminals do not care about any laws in the first place. They will never give up their guns. If they have a firearm, they often obtain it illegally either through theft or by purchasing it from someone (another criminal) who is also breaking the law by selling it to them (depending on the laws of their state concerning the sale of guns).
Connecticut requires a pistol and ammo permit to buy shotgun shells.. Why does it feel like I was stripped of being able to defend myself , before proving I am worthy to protect myself ? I was violated period !! So yes Brian all laws are infringements , well said
The government's (by concept) only duty is to protect the citizenry and assist them during difficult times. They do have a right to review safety issues regarding guns carried into public spaces. We gave them the power to do that. However, in Constitutional law they are as subservient to the amendments as the people. They may claim words, meanings, semantics or intentions of the amendments were yada yada, but doesn't matter unless the people agree and allow them to move forward with legislation. If they are unilaterally making any change whatsoever to a Constitutional amendment, they are infringing and that is illegal and comes with severe legal penalties. This is because they are systematically (conspiring) to deny a group or persons their Civil rights. The substance of the Revolutionary War.
That means that if they make the men stupid nobody gets to take there gun's. You are just stuck with someone dangerous and it's your fault and responsibility.
@@foxtrotjulietbravo5536 When you attack someone baised on grammar and spelling you automaticly lose the discussion because you choose to attack rather than face the subject. 🤣
It's ironic that many that oppose the right to bear arms with the idea We would never have to fight against tyranny in this country are the very people who called President Trump a tyrant. Riddle me that????
Also really weird how such a dangerous armed population of MAGA seemed to forget their weapons when deciding to commit Insurrection. THERE WAS NO INSURRECTION!!!!
Yep. Schools won't teach that now. They are run by unions who are run by the DNC who are owned by China. If u don't think so, check out where the money comes from.
I’m licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and I love that our constitution takes it a step further, and says that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, and the state shall not be questioned.”
“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” -Patrick Henry, Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution
Anyone who has taken the time to read the 2nd Amendment should know this. It's clear. Many will try to claim that the emphasis is on the Malitia...It's not, It's the People's Right to bear arms.
Each state is to maintain its own well-regulated militia,generally based on regions and population.It’s your God-given right,not to mention they put it in writing to keep “present day” bureaucrats from misconstruing its intent.
One thing I have to disagree with is when he said only women and kids hunt with the 223 unless it’s varmints. The 223/555 is a very good hunting round from coyotes, and hogs to even deer. I hunt with the 556 all the time and have always gotten a one hit drop with deer. It’s all about placement and which ammo you use. Soft points are great for hunting larger game like deer while hollow points are great for hogs.
Joey said a lot of things that were cringe worthy and factually incorrect. I admire him for his service to the country and what he gave up in said service, but he made so many mistakes in the interview that he should have been edited out.
These discussions are informative and interesting, but not necessary ones for 2A supporters IMO. The right to arms in the US is deeply, immutably fixed in our culture, is codified in our highest law, is multi-generational in its durability and considered sacrosanct by most US citizens. Any other arguments are giant, useless, endless, repetitive dismissals of the right that offer up the same weak-kneed alternatives or outright attacks on it, and made out of the same twisty blend of fact and fiction and jaundiced propositions bound by slippery tropes and half-baked logic; ones that try to wrestle the right to the ground -- or put it under it; ones that try to signal some holier virtue and appeal to "the people's safety", while dismissing the right, its importance and its history, all the while demeaning those who uphold it. The right to keep and bear arms, for me and those who support it, is just not up for discussion.
One of the best interviews I've ever seen! Two incredibly smart people Well done. This shows that the constitution is an actual living document. The verbiage our founders chose was purposeful and careful.
When Joey refers to "black powder", he is most likely, for the layman who knows little to nothing about firearms, describing the color of the gun powder. Because, gun powder, in general, is black. However, gun powder is normally classified by the coloration, or lack thereof, of the smoke it produces when burned inside a cartridge casing, within the chamber. There are two different classifications: Black Powder & Smokeless Powder. Black powder was utilized in firearms from the beginning, hundreds of years ago...until, 1884. In 1884, smokeless powder was invented, but took some time to gain acceptance. So, practically, by 1890, or so, smokeless powder (nitro-cellulous) had, for the most part, replaced black powder in NEW firearms. Smokeless powder, in general, cannot be safely used in firearms designed to use only black powder. So, today, some antique firearms, and modern reproductions of the same antique firearms, still use black powder, or, a modern black powder substitute (like GOEX). By & large, the overwhelming majority of modern firearms, use smokeless powder.
Muzzleloader hunting still exists. Barely. Between no more goex, lack of percussion caps or 209 primers, and the almost pointless existence of subs in flintlocks... Add that to the lead bans. I have a flintlock but with the less than 1% lead, then youre stuck with other metals requiring either sabots or double patching smaller caliber rounds. Politicians are killing every single aspect of firearms. Its a multidisciplinary attack on firearms and any and all uses including conditioning people to see themselves or their loved ones as ending up on the wrong side of a firearm. Now the left is pushing the narrative of the right wanting civil war against the people and their loved ones. Multidisciplinary
I would think that the right to bear arms inherently includes the right to shoot tyrannical people. The individual citizen was the law and order. This leads to a relatively polite law abiding citizenry. We have given too much to the criminal element. I understand low level crime, although it is crime. But why do we keep people alive who will never be functional members of society? The current crime wave requires people to defend themselves. When they do the legal and criminal scrutiny of the victim for defending themselves is outrageous. We don't need nor desire brutal thugs roaming our streets. We should celebrate and thank people with the nerve to defend themselves.
I beg to differ. Look at current happenings. The govt would be very interested in going much farther against the US population than they would against other countries. Look at our current administration.
The purpose of the second amendment is to prevent government from violating the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was written by a group of people who had just freed a nation from an oppressive, tyrannical government; government which might also want to violate other rights, such as freedom of speech.
To the point of confiscating every gun in the country: I remember a video that was taken during Desert Storm. It showed Iraqi people sitting in a mud hut that had no roof, just mud walls, making guns from scratch. They had some kind of a lathe they were turning the barrels, they were putting the pieces together. The only thing you could do is "uninvent" guns, and wipe the memory of every human on the planet so they couldn't remember how to make one. I sincerely doubt that will ever happen. Guns exist. The last man who has one would rule the world.
This comment shows how wrong you guys are concerning guns. You pretend that we want to take away all your guns because you dont have a great argument for why you're against gun control.
The gun flag law legislation is stupid because your enemy or mad sibling could turn you in, I think they need to address the mental health first and foremost
The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780 (plurality opinion). We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government offic-ers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self defense. New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. Supreme Court of The United States of America, 2022
In 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." Supreme Court, 1939. Change out sawed off shotgun with any modern weapon, and there ya go. What the hell happened since then? All logic, reason, common sense, and the second amendment have been thrown out the window and we now know with 100% certainty that every lunatic out there is armed without any differentiation between them and responsible gun owners. Absolutely shameful and completely insane.
Actually the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is also to protect against tyranny, whether it be from your own government or a different country's government!!!
Loved the show guys! CORRECTION: the AR-15 is a rifle/carbine that can be chambered in a wide variety of calibers. 5.56 NATO /.223 Remington is vastly more common than others, but 300AAC BLK, .458 SOCOM, 6.5 Grendel…LOTS of calibers can be chambered in the AR-15 platform. These additional cartridge options allow the platform to be suitable for hunting every size and shape of wild game.
I remember when Pat Buchanan ran for President and was asked about his views on gun control. He said if you need a trailer hitch to move it you need a permit.
@@foxtrotjulietbravo5536 so a Supreme Court case in 1931 said that arms used by the average soldier are protected by the constitution. Howitzers are not used by the average soldier so whole we are allowed to own them they could have controls on them. The case involved a sawed off shotgun.
A few corrections: The NFA which requires a $200 tax to own a machinegun, SNR, SBS, Silencer or AOW was enacted in 1934. FOPA enacted May, 1985 prevented the sale of machine-guns manufactured after that date to be sold or transferred to civilians A .223 round is a smaller caliber, but used much more powder, and normally a longer than a 9mm handgun. It is definitely more powerful than a 9mm, but much less powerful than most rifle rounds, such as .308, 30-06, .762, etc. Blackpowder is not used in cartridges.
To defend him, I think he said "black powder" to simplify it to non-experienced people that aren't knowledgeable in firearms. Now, when they talked @ 40:00 mark, yes, the 5.56x45/.223 is way more powerful, because of velocity. The bullet, going that fast, will create a bigger temporary and permanent wound cavity from the sheer shock of the velocity of the bullet. The temporary wound cavity can rupture surrounding organs, arteries, veins, and other tissue. Also, when they talk about the different types of bullets @ 44:32, a FMJ (full metal jacket) would most likely go through if it doesn't hit bone, but the soft tipped bullets will do more mushrooming and/or breaking apart, due to the softer tip... When they talk about the AR-15 being "less lethal" then the bigger calibers, shot placement is a big factor, rather than the gun and/or bullets alone..
Black powder can be used in cartridges. Its just not as powerful. A 10 mm 170 grain bullet using 20 grains 777 3f has low 800s fps and will cycle. But nowhere near as powerful as smokeless.
Could the same argument around taking away an individual's right under the second amendment by using a multiple strike system be used in regards to other rights? For example, could an individual lose their right to be a parent just because somebody else tells the courts that mental illness, criminal history, and education should disqualify them from raising their own children? Or could anyone be barred from voting because of their mental illness, criminal history, and education if a case was made to courts that someone is unfit to do vote?
Uvalde would have been stopped or in the least drastically minimized causalities had law enforcement not been so cowardly and done their jobs to begin with in stead if standing around with their thumbs up their asses, not to start a conspiracy theory here, but the inactions of local law enforcement sure makes on think that the whole situation was a set up.
“[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.” - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788
I just bought a book with the Declaration, Articles of Confederation, and Bill of Rights. Without a doubt, what is in this book, is more relevant today than ever.
I think its fascinating that a brit understands the 2nd amendment better than 50% of Americans. It is clearly stated what the second amendment means. They even put the proper punctuation in to separate the 2 thoughts written in the 2nd amendment. It clearly states the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. To say those arms couldn't be what weapns we have today is ludicrous, they had weapons that fired at rates as high or higher than what we have today.
Can someone explain to me why the govt thinks getting rid of AR15s will protect children and make them safer. Yet, letting criminals go unprosecuted and prisoners out of prison will not hurt children and make them unsafe?
I admire him for his service and sacrifice, but most of what he said was simply factually incorrect from the NFA to powder type, to the definition of select fire.
This was a great informative podcast in relation to 2nd Amendment, definition of assault weapons and the current debate over Red Flag laws that everyone should listen to with an open, inquiring mind.
Spot on... it really is that simple. Our founders recognized our God given right to defend ourselves. The 2nd amendment does not grant us the right, it was to prevent the government from infringing on our right.
i2 ASK JESUS TO COME INTO YOUR HEART TODAY AND TURN FROM YOUR SINS!! John 3:16 " For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son (Jesus!), that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
He’s to be admired for his service and sacrifice, but most of what he said was factually incorrect, from the NFA to his definition of select fire, to black powder and more.
The oboma administration made just that case against our retire war fighters, arguing that anyone treated for PTSD or showing signs of PTSD should have their 2A rights taken away. Some also labeled veterans as 'most likely to become extremists domestically'. That administration also wanted all health records digitized and for doctors to report patients who exhibit signs of any mental disabilities/illnesses to have their gun rights taken away. In many cases, like Uvalde, I believe, the local police are like: Oh no, someone shot up a school... Five hands pop up, 'Oh I bet it was this kid...'
The founders intended we the people posses "weapons of war" as a deterrent or bulwark against tyranny. That includes fully automatic or select fire weapons.
As to "Weapons of War", the AR15 was SPECIFICALLY redesigned to be different from the rifle sold to militaries. Most other firearms haven't. Citizens can legally own a m1911, the exact weapon if war the military used from. 1911 to 1985. The Beretta 92 us exactly the military weapon that replaced the 1911 until like 2020. The Beretta can be found and purchaed at any gunstore. The Beretta was replaced with the Sig p320, released to the public BEFORE adopted to the military. Muskets were used for decades, they are legal to own, as are single shot rifles in military calibers. Revolvers? Yep, used by the military. Repeating magazine fed rifles in much more powerful rounds than the 5.56mm of an AR15, were used in the m1 Garand. The Springfield m1a is EXACTLY that weapon of war. The weapons of war arguments are BS, because even fully automatic Thompson Submachine guns were legal for civilians sbd and still are, to own. Shotgun? Yep, used in the military, Bolt action repeaters? Used in the mitary The AR15 is NOT the functional equivalent of the military m16, m14, etc. It was specifically redesigned to NOT be the same.
You don't need a gun to do harm to another person, just the will, and the dis-concern for another life. Crazy people. Like someone that stand at a podium yelling at everyone, then shaking invisible hands.
It’s pretty simple. What is the “Right” enshrined in the Second Amendment? It literally says “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”. THAT is the “Right”, the right to keep and bear arms. Next, who is the “Right” afforded to? Again, it clearly says “the right of THE PEOPLE”. It doesn’t say: the right of the MILITIA, it says “the people” It goes on to say “Shall not be infringed”, which is not necessary. Not necessary because that’s the reason for enshrining the rights in the first place was to ensure they weren’t “infringed”. Not necessary, but added for emphasis. Lastly, the beginning, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”, was also unnecessary. It was a qualifier to provide a justification for the right. Not necessary, and also not the ONLY reason the right was important, it was just the most obvious, since they had just fought a revolution.
WOW! A Brit who knows more about our history, and Constitution than most Americans and can eloquently discuss it, is truly a blot on our honour!! Wake up people!!
Just like when you have a neighbor that's always trying to make you and other neighbors life a living hell could call in on you and say that you have a gun or guns and are a threat to her and others
At additional issue with RFLs, the list of people/relationships with the targeted individual are too broad and have been added to by various states. 'school officials' is one category of person who can initiate an extreme risk protection order against an individual. Presumably this is to stop shootings by school age kid. The issue is, if the school official (wait, specifically, which ones? Teachers? Principals? Councilors? The attendance clerk? A sub? The librarian? A tech specialist? A janitor? Who? All of them? These do include college officials. If, let's say, hypothetically, there's a rabid Anti-2a clerk at the registration desk the colleges next semester overhears two 21yr olds (or 19,etc) talking about a hunting trip. Can this person who KNOWS a person MUST BE INSANE to own or like firearms be able to report those college kids for an ERPO (RFLs)? How about a classroom teacher who sees a pic of one of his or her students aiming a handgun at something unknown? Will it matter if that kids 18 or 19? How about if it's a bolt action rifle? This has major implications for 1st Ammendment speach, too. If a person is overheard, say, at church, talking about getting an AR15 for home protection and the still living Flower Children overhear, can the tell the religious leader and have them report the individual for an ERPO? California supposedly changed the list of individuals able to start the process. As opposed to the guns legal to purchase in CA, list, this one is only getting more entries because, 'not enough ppl were reported since the law was implemented'. Are they allowed to interview ex-spouses? Ex-girlfriend/boyfriends? Kelly stated 'evidence' is supposed to be presented in the initial hearing but there isn't one list of what constitutes evidence. Is a nosey neighbor's word good enough or does he or she need pictures? Where is the target at the time this 'evidence' is presented, to give their side of the talking point? Not invited and neither are they allowed any legal representation in the initial hearing. Is it possible a local police officer or government agent, or teacher is corrupt enough to think they are doing 'the greater good' by making up stories about law abiding citizens just because 'guns are bad'?
I live in az...met a guy whos ex wife reported him....he was taken to a mental facility for the 3 day minimun required without any actual evidence...he did not even own a firearm...while he was in the mental facility his ex wife basically ransacked his house taking anything she wanted because she was bitter about him wanting a divorce...red flag laws are crap
there is a section in the National Rifleman magazine called the Armed Citizen . it is a collection of news paper clippings of citizens defending themselves and others from criminals .
Are not red flag laws not an infringement like any 2nd amendment regulation or law? Harvard's 1791 dictionary has the same definition of infringement as today's. So any regulation or law is an infringement.
The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. It is a sporting rifle. The legal definition of an assault rifle is a rifle that fires more than one round per trigger pull, which the majority of civilians do not own.
“Motor one! Make sure PPD knows we have a elevated threat in the trees! South side of Constitution Avenue!! Look for the yellow don’t tread on me flag!”
Our forefathers ensured We the People could purchase & trade firearms in a private sale to ensure that Government DOES NOT KNOW EXACTLY WHO HAS FIREARMS TO PREVENT TYRANNY!!!
I really wish we had something like the second amendment in Canada. Our government has also been trying very hard to take away our guns. Now they are trying to take away hand guns that people use to defend themselves against criminals who have illegal guns anyway. I personally think that these states that have restrictions on gun ownership should be taken to the Supreme Court, because the constitution is clear.
I've been a gun guy since 6. Bows and arrows too. My favorite gun is a shotgun. As a poor person, it's an all around tool. Firearms are for the people to protect themselves from the government, foreign enemies, and others in private encounters. I hope to own a 12 gauge semi auto someday. I have a.22 Cal rifle in mint condition from 1965. No serial number but model number.
One fail point for background checks is the difference between retail and wholesale. Police background checks take a minimum of six months and can last three years--and need to be periodically re-investigated. How many cops go bad or were bad and still passed background checks? There are a number of famous federal officers who passed all of their checks and then wound up in prison. Background checks are no silver bullet.
It was also indeed put in place in defense from the government in this country when they decided to infringe on the people's rights. This government we have now is one of those governments. The people are the governing authority in this country.
In the old days when there were indoor firing ranges in CHICAGO, I often fired alongside various local police departments and I thought many of those officers were LUCKY!...because they could reuse thier unperforated targets! 😆 50x250 X was my qualifier!
No offense to your 2nd guest Joey, but he's got a lot of factual errors. The NFA, passed in 1934, established a registry of: 1. firearms capable of automatic fire, 2. short barrelled rifles, which have a barrel length of less than 16 inches (SBR), 3. short barrel shotguns, which have a barrel length of less than 18 inches (SBS), 4. silencers, 5. firearms which fall into a category known as "any other weapon" (AOW). On 19 May, 1986, the registry for automatic weapons was closed, meaning no more automatic weapons could be added to the registry. This is why legal automatic weapons are so expensive. Cartridges have propellant (powder or gunpowder), but not necessarily black powder. Black powder is an antiquated propellant. Smokeless powder, invented in 1886, is a more modern propellant. At the risk of sounding nerdy, this is a very important distinction. What makes a rifle bullet more devastating is velocity. The bullet creates both a temporary stretch cavity and a permanent wound cavity. These are far more effective in stopping a threat from a high velocity rifle round than they are pistol rounds. Energy is a product of the velocity and the weight of the bullet. This, along with proper shot placement, is what puts down an aggressor. Finally, regarding gun control legislation, the reason most gunowners and 2A proponents are opposed to ANY additional gun control legislation is that the gun control crowd inevitably asks us to "compromise" our rights for some ostensible measure of increased safety. This safety is always temporary and never quantifiable. A year later, if not sooner, they're back expecting additional compromises. The problem is they never give anything. They may not take as much as they wanted, but they always take something. We in the 2A community are tired of surrendering more and more of our rights, all while those on the gun control side refuse to prosecute criminals (the true "weapons" in need of control) and continue to push for greater reduction of our rights. Sorry...no sale! We aren't compromising anymore.
With respect, Joey...the 5.56 or .223 round shot from a rifle will do more damage than a 9mm shot from a handgun. If I had a choice, I'd rather be shot with a 9mm. Obviously, I'd rather not be shot at all.
This was a good podcast. CAIN shut up for a change and did not self aggrandize about himself incessantly. He did organize the interviews, kept the conversation flowing and on point. He let the guests share their expertise with viewers. That is what gives a podcast value.
Red Flag laws are FAR more invasive in my state. In my state a neighbor can anonymously file a "concern" with law enforcement, and they will come and take your firearms into "protective custody" and set some date in the future for you to appear in front of a judge to prove you are not a 'threat' to have your firearms returned to you. Because of the current backlog of cases, that could take 2 years.
There are three entities in the 2nd amendment. The Free State, The Militia needed to ensure it's security, and finally the people. Since the Free State and not the people controls the militia, The people are allways allowed to keep and bear the same arms as the State controlled Militia. Milita=Local PD, Sheriff, State Police, and Feds.
