Vaush: "Israel can't have a culture! All they have is a set of behaviors and beliefs with wide ranging origins that form a unique mix which we can easily distinguish from those of their neighbors!"
Even the Wikipedia page on the 2nd Amendment is rife with historical precursors, discussions, and debates about the individual's right to bear arms How the hell can Destiny AKA Mr. Wikipedia himself say that there were no historical arguments?
The problem with Destiny's argument about 2A: Yes he is correct the original intention of the framers making the 2A was not for citizens to privately own guns but for the people (it is defined multiple ways in the constitution) to collectively own arms to spring up as an organic militia in times of war, insurrection, etc. Historians are largely in agreement with this interpretation and it comports to the founders intentions. HOWEVER, the fundamental reason for the founders intention for organically driven citizen militias was because they were hoping to avoid the need of an indefinite and professionally standing army being enshrined to the federal government. Problem is if we are to take their original intentions to heart, the entire US military as it exists now must be dismantled. The framers would be appalled at the sheer girth of the modern armed forces. The reality is neither side follows the spirit of what the 2A was supposed to be. So who really cares, private citizens ought to be allowed to ignore its original intention if the federal government is ALSO allowed to ignore the intention of the 2A by the framers.
The collective right idea was soundly rejected by the SCOTUS in Heller. The 2A protects the right of individuals to own arms so that they can form militia's in the first place.
@@PlazmaZ5 and the only reason why they said that was because it contradicts the 14th amendment. But originally the intent was a collective right within a state militia
@@nathandennis8078 No it was not. Read the quotes of the Founding Fathers in regards to their stances on gun rights. Absolutely no right within the bill rights is conditional nor "collective" It protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms so that they may form militias in the first place. Collective right is just gun controllers post hoc rationalization to try and justify more gun control.
@PlazmaZ5 a "well regulated militia for the security of a free state," so as far as you have a right to bear arms as a milita for the security of a free state. If you aren't part of the milita, then you had no such protection. Able bodied males 17 -45 as such a mitlia under the direction of your commander in chief of your state. 2 or more people that gather are not a milita constitutionally without any control of your leader. 2 or more people gathering under the direction of your president/ governor/congress makes it a milita only for able bodied males 17-45. the right of the state to protect themselves is the collective aspect of it as it was originally written. The state is a body of people. The government, as a whole, is the establishment, not an individual. Is the meaning different now, absolutely, but is the original intent what you think it was no.
@@PlazmaZ5 I'll add the original text to supplement what I was saying earlier: "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." The section you're using to support your believe is the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" part, but what you're missing is that you view that clause as being an independent clause grammatically but it very clearly is not. Its being used as a dependent clause for the initial clause which is "A well regulated militia". The clause does not stand on its own, its used in extension of the initial beginning clause. If you were correct that it was meant to stand on its own, the framers would of placed it in its own stand alone sentence under the 2A, instead of using commas. Secondly to clarify, I said collectively in my first comment because "the people" is not used the same way within the entirety of the constitution. The framers define the people in multiple different ways in different parts of the constitution, it can mean "we the people of the United States", just the people of an individual state or states, or just individuals alone. Most scholars and constitutional lawyers seem to agree (pre Heller decision ofc) that "the people" in this context means the people as a group of individuals represented by their state legislatures. It may seem like a distinction without a different but it very much does matter to distinguish that.
55 iq > go in YT comments > say destiny is wrong > provide no counter claim or source > say the wording is clear > get your permenent caretaker to swap ur IV > profit ?
I think Destiny worded it in a way that Vaush likes to word his arguments, where they end up with a rational conclusion but the explanation sounds like the opposite. Destiny is saying that the second amendment only covers a militia’s right to own guns, but giving the federal government the power to take private citizen’s guns would infringe on militia’s rights since they are comprised of civilians.
@@Damacles1776 well we can debate this till the end of time but nor i nor you have the understanding and the background to say for sure so yeah i dont have strong opinion i just hate people that think is ''so obvious'' and they comment as such
@@astolfo99 I don't get it. You're complaining about the people criticizing him, but you can't even go through the effort to break down their claims? You're the best Destiny fan aren't you?
@opensocietyenjoyer OP is a perfect example. Of Destiny choosing to interpret "the people" as the "the state" that is wildly dishonest. And you'd realize that if you were objective. Destiny is very objective and consistent on issues he doesn't care about. But whenever he feels a personal or political bias he drops all objectivity and becomes just as brain rot as everyone else on the internet
I wish I could actually sit down with Destiny and pinpoint he’s views on certain things because when he talks about almost all the major issues in America he always comes off as dismissive. Healthcare? Americas healthcare system is robust and works well. Guns? Not as big of an issue as people make it out to be. Student loan debt? Most degree earners have high income and can afford it. All these things might be largely true… kinda, but he never goes into detail about what alternatives he might prefer, and when asked it’s always “maybe” or “probably” or “sure I guess” like what is your actual position??
I agree it's frustrating, but would you rather he lie and say, "I'm 100% confident that X is true," when in reality he's only 70-80% confident? Somewhat unrelated -- but it feels really odd and fake to me when online political pundits go around saying they're absolutely sure of their positions but then go on to cover such a wide range of political issues that there's no conceivable way they could have high-level expertise on all of those issues equally. Like, really? They just happen to have an equal degree of certainty about their positions on border patrol, transgender issues, taxation, Israel-Palestine, Ukraine-Russia, and federal interest rates? And this certainty rate just happens to be 100% for every issue? Destiny is somewhere between expert-level educated and layman tier on important issues, and he readily admits it. He often says, "Keep in mind that I haven't done extensive reading," and "If you could show me x, I'll admit that I'm wrong." I think this approach, despite being unsatisfying, is ultimately more truthful. TLDR: pick your poison, lol
The problem with this interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that the Federal government’s legal opinion is that states cannot secede/rebel against the federal government (see Civil War and SC Nullification Crisis). So why would the 2nd amendment refer to State Militias to fight against the Federal Government?
Perhaps a steelman would be that if the federal government is doing something that would require the states to protect themselves with their own militias then the constitution doesn't exactly matter at that point. It kind've makes sense. If you wanted to create a government that was conducive to liberty but still united, a good compromise would be to give all states the right to arm themselves but to make it illegal to rebel, so that in instances where individual states wanted to rebel for reasons not believed just by the majority of the United States population, that the federal government would have a way of keeping the overall nation united without itself breaking the law.
@@adamanderson3042 while I see your point, I wonder what happens when an individual states population directly supports that open rebellion, even if a majority of the country does not, see the Civil War. Secession was extremely popular in the South in that in my states Secession votes were landslides, at least officially. There’s evidence to suggest in the “Upper South,” essentially the 2nd wave of secession votes, had voter intimidation and some amount of fraud, plus suffrage was limited to just white men at the time. These states responded to what their populations thought were just for seceding for a variety of reasons, the primary one being that of the issue of slavery. However they lost and the federal government won. During the reconstruction period where the radical republican faction controlled Congress with a supermajority. Congress made no attempts to alter the Constitution via amendment to clarify this 2nd amendment issue. It seems that if this was the intention of the 2nd amendment and after this bloody civil war if the intention was to allow states to have arms for a potential rebellion, you’d modify the provision after an unsuccessful rebellion that almost destroyed the country. Especially if you have a significant portion of the country under military occupation for said rebellion.
My two major issues with that is number one at the time of the bill of rights being drafted in 1791 it was primarily for state rights as was held in 1833 before even the civil war in Barron v Baltimore that held that the bill of rights only applied to the federal government not the states as the idea of a bill of rights was guarantees against a powerful federal government not state governments. Instead the state constitutions would grant citizens their individual rights, seeing many state laws regulating firearms before the civil war like one law from Delaware that completely banned African Americans from owning guns in 1832 or Virgina that banned people from carrying pistols in 1838. All seeming to indicate that their was no idea of individual liberty when it came to guns
I think no rights in the bill of rights can be abridged whatsoever. So any person should be able to have a gun no matter what. Even if they’re incarcerated.
Destiny. You're wrong on this one, entirely. The second ammendment absolutely has to do with individuals and there is a mind boggling amount of proof, including letters directly approving the use and ownership of cannons on private ships. You're just rage baiting with this one.
Destiny read the federalist paper but not the anti federalist paper? So once again destiny only reads one side of the arguments, and then goes with it. As always destiny gets half the info and develops a world view based on it.
Prime example would be the fronteirsmen NEEDING firearms to protect themselves from wilderness, protecting their property/loved ones, and hunt for food. In America it's perfectly legal for individuals to build firearms, there's only laws to prevent you from DISTRIBUTION of those created arms so there's that historical common use aspect 2 fold. The 2nd ammendment intent is to have a counter balance in the event of the system internally collapsing. Founding fathers learned from Spainish colonization and British that when "The People" are disarmed they're put at the mercy of their legislators with little to no ability to swing back. I gravely disagree with destiny thinking that the 2nd ammendment is for states NOT individuals. It would be like saying States have the right to prevent specfic AMERICAN news orgs from broadcasts because the first ammendment is on a state by state basis.
How can you say he’s rage baiting when he makes such strong concessions while talking about it. “I’ve only done a cursory search” “my mind could be flipped”. It doesn’t seem like he’s super well read, and he hedges really hard because of it
@@CutACrow But each state does have laws governing free speech? Plenty have anti defamation laws and many require news broadcasters to adhere to a certain level of journalism to gain news licenses to broadcast on certain frequencies.
@@117Ender He was asked a question, and qualified that he had not read extensively and could be wrong. What more do you want? This must be a sensitive topic for you, huh?
Yeah, it's wild how much NRA/Scalia 90's-00's Heller changed how people thought about the Second Amendment. Not a single legal scholar thought before the 1990s an individual right was a thing and Chief Justice Berger even pointed it out on PBS it was a lobbying campaign by the NRA. Stevens actually had a great dissent that was historically accurate in Heller.
And the "well regulated" cannot, by definition, be the regulation of the government since the Militia exists to oppose the government. The regulation is clearly a reference to local "experts" like a military veteran who lives in the same neighborhood as you who ensures everyone knows how to load and care for a firearm.
destiny is correct about the 2nd amendment. The founding fathers, including Washington himself, emphasized the need for a *well-regulated* militia, with men that were sufficiently organized and managed. It was never meant that “all of the people” were considered the militia. The whole point of the militias (the first being the minute men) were to quell internal rebellion, indian incursions, and overstep from the federal government. Researchers analyzed collections of public, journalistic, and early congressional discussions of the right to “bear arms,” and the phrase was almost exclusively used in a military, rather than in a personal defensive, context.
How can an argument be made than 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with individual firearms, if it quite literally asserts the right of people to keep and bear arms? If they meant something different, wouldn't they write something different that is not this?
@@beurksman "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Does "the people" in this context mean the first amendment only extends to the state?
Pew research published April 2024 says: Around nine-in-ten U.S. Jews (89%) express a favorable view of the Israeli people, and 54% have a favorable view of the Israeli government.
So the second statistic disproves Destiny then. 46% of Jewish people either disapprove or have no opinion on it, that’s a lot of Jewish people… That means there are plenty of them… the number of Jewish people that support it is not %90 or whatever number Destiny threw out…
Even more stats in case anyone is interested from same pew report: But Jewish adults under 35 are divided over Israel’s military response: 52% say the way Israel has carried out the war has been acceptable, while 42% call it unacceptable, and 6% are unsure. Jews ages 50 and older are far more likely to say Israel’s conduct of the war has been acceptable (68%). All is as of April 2024
Destiny fell for the meme of focusing on the milita part of the 2nd while ignoring the very clear wording that grants we the people to bear arms. This is a high school level of interpretation attempt. Pretty embarrassing
The actual problem with the second amendment is that its 2 frases long. And it will be forever interpreted with diffrent lenses. I actualy agree that it shoud be a doomsday clause to help citizens protect themselves from the tyrany of the gouverment,its just that its not that clear thats what the 2 amendment stands for.
Dude - go read the founding father's direct quotes about it during the ratification process, specifically Virginia ratification. I cannot believe that you don't even have a basic grounding in this history before you make such a bold, clearly disprovable statement like "it had nothing to do with individual liberty".
@@onlyeveryone2253 "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776 "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Stephens Smith, son-in-law of John Adams, December 20, 1787 "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824 "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789 “To disarm the people…[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them.” - George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788 “I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788 "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." -Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788
@@onlyeveryone2253 Citizens wrote many letters to the founding fathers asking for clarification, you can google them and read them. The founding fathers again and again reiterate that individuals are the beneficiary of the 2A
2nd amendment issue is we are supposed to have a militia. We don’t. This is a really big issue since guns used to have a community to them and people to better supervise. Gun culture since the NRA has taken a strict down turn away from community based guns to self defense based guns towards other things
100% wrong. The second amendment isn't contingent on the existence of a militia. But a militia will always exist, consistent of any citizen who can be called upon to defend the country. Also this idea that because there is no official militia present and widely recognized is so duplicitous, the federal government investigates citizens who train and form militias.
@@frankdevo5715 i never said it was contingent. I’m highlighting how gun culture is fundamentally different then it used to be which is why mass shootings have gone up over the years gun culture has shifted a lot from sporting or military work to self defense and violence. With the lack of a community which any conservative should agree with this is bound to fail and lead to mass shootings
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Similarly, as another example, Massachusetts’s Declaration of Rights from 1780 provided This doesn't say the militia has that right. People is plural for person. And the militia was made up of the common man. "No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950] )\ "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243- 244)
“As I dug deeper into sources, however, I realized that not only was the individual rights model of the Second Amendment trumpeted by gun rights advocates deeply flawed, but that the rival collective rights model also seemed difficult to reconcile with many of the sources I encountered. …Having discovered that the individual and collective rights models were minority views in the Founding era, I set out to discover when these two interpretations rose to prominence in American law. Although I found some scattered evidence for both of these theories during the Founding era, it became clear to me that both of these models gained a strong hold on American legal thinking only in the decades after the adoption of the Second Amendment. …Partisans of gun rights argue that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, recreation, and, if necessary, to take up arms against their government. Gun control advocates also claim to have history on their side and maintain with equal vigor that the Second Amendment simply protects a collective right of the states. Both sides have the history wrong. The original understanding of the Second Amendment was neither an individual right of self-defense nor a collective right of the states, but rather a civic right that guaranteed that citizens would be able to keep and bear those arms needed to meet their legal obligation to participate in a well-regulated militia. …Although each side in the modern debate claims to be faithful to the historical Second Amendment, a restoration of its original meaning, recreating the world of the minuteman, would be a nightmare that neither side would welcome. It would certainly involve more intrusive gun regulation, not less. Proponents of gun rights would not relish the idea of mandatory gun registration, nor would they be eager to welcome government officials into their homes to inspect privately owned weapons, as they did in Revolutionary days. Gun control advocates might blanch at the notion that all Americans would be required to receive firearms training and would certainly look askance at the idea of requiring all able-bodied citizens to purchase their own military-style assault weapons. Yet if the civic right to bear arms of the Founding were reintroduced, this is exactly what citizens would be obligated to do. A restoration of the original understanding of the Second Amendment would require all these measures and much more. …Regulation in modern America is typically seen as antithetical to rights. The opposite was the case for the colonists, who believed that liberty without regulation was anarchy. …The state's coercive authority over citizens could be significant. Failure to appear properly armed at a muster resulted in stiff penalties, and government kept close tabs on the weapons citizens owned to meet this vital public obligation. Although ardent in their love of freedom, Americans feared anarchy as much as they dreaded tyranny. An armed body of citizens unregulated by law was a mob, not a militia. The golden mean between the two extremes of anarchy and tyranny was the idea of well-regulated liberty, and nothing better captured this ideal than the militia” (Saul Cornell “A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and The Origins of Gun Control in America” 2006 Kindle: loc. 50, p. 1).
Exactly right, the true unifying tool that makes people equal. In a place like England, might makes right cause if you are a young strong man, you are essentially untouchable by anyone old, young, or infirm. So every "weak" person in England is at the mercy of every "strong" person in England, that is inherently unfair
Yeah Destiny I’m sure you’re right and not the founding fathers and every single Supreme Court judge ever.. 😂 You definitely understand constitutional law better than them. 😂😂
@@yojou3695so you want every random RU-vid commenter to provide the dozens upon dozens of sources for something that has been settled law for hundreds of years, challenged in court and only upheld? Steven Crowder, however you feel about him, has videos highlighting Federalist papers from the authors of the bill of rights. They clearly explain the 2nd amendment being for individuals.
@@giovalladares1022 1. who said anything about dozens of sources? but good try derailing. 2. Best you can do is admitting you saw a Crowder video once lmao.
