CRIMINALS DO NOT OBEY LAWS I'm a retired police officer. I responded to many violence related calls during my career. It was important that we as first responders were kept informed of crime statistics. Mass killings are horrific but I strongly believe that the anti-gun legislation that many politicians and activists are pushing for will do more harm than good. If a violent individual chooses to commit an act of violence, illegally obtaining weapons will be possible regardless of laws on the books. *Criminals do not obey laws.* I've been reading about and listening to the anti-gun arguments and frankly many of the politicians and activists know very little about handguns, rifles, and violent crime data. I am shocked at what most anti-gun politicians and activists choose to say in an attempt to achieve their political and personal agendas. There are many biased anti-gun statistics being quoted and many are just not true. If I didn't know the difference between an automatic and semiautomatic rifle or pistol, I certainly wouldn't be arguing for anti-gun legislation without first educating myself. According to the FBI 2018 "Crime in the United States" report compiled from American law enforcement agencies, violent crime has decreased and represented the third lowest rate since 1970. Only (2 percent) of all reported homicides were committed using rifles...all types of rifles. That same FBI report reflected that knives were used in (11percent), hands, fists and feet (5 percent), and blunt objects (3 percent). I would be happy if laws stopped crimes from occurring, but they never have. Laws are meant to deter and attempt to prevent the commission of crimes, and they are valuable tools for law enforcement officers. If written laws stopped crimes from being committed, there would be no need for the police, jails, and the courts, etcetera. More than 18.66 million Americans have handgun carry permits and that doesn't include states that don't require permits. Firearms are used more than 2 million times a year for personal protection, lives saved many times without a shot ever being fired. I pray that Americans are not willing to give away their freedom and means of protecting themselves, rights that many Americans have given their lives to preserve.

@usethetools

4 жыл бұрын

IMO no gun should be restricted for law abiding American Citizens... consider the weaponry the terror training cells have that are in many of our states. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is self defense and defense of the state. A Select Fire Rifle most certainly should be available to law abiding American Citizens, uninfringed. Now the Enumerated Powers of the Federal Government do NOT authorize jurisdiction over American Citizens Firearm rights, and the state constitutions are not to violate the US Constitution however both the federal and states governments violate there oath. The Full Automatic Rifles were banned around 1930 or so supposedly to hinder gangsters from having “GANSTA” weapons but everyone knows criminals will get what they want regardless of the dictates ... There is an agenda to disarm the population in order to depopulate and control and enslave the balance. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.

@raymarchetta7551

4 жыл бұрын

As a retired LEO also that has also been my observation. Gun Con control advocates - Using laws to tyrannize us against the very things laws are supposed to protect us from.

@braininavatnow9197

3 жыл бұрын

I just wished every American could hear your message.

@clairedeiotte8898

3 жыл бұрын

There has been more crazy stupid car and young peope shooting auto magics at schools and even one kids bank acct. Got over 500 000.00. $ half a million. To go nuts i think he was to get a pardon. Hs no just used. I bet he regrets it. I think they play a fast talk gaje with they're big words as they slice and dice original intent of said laws or the constitution. These fast talkers dont like educating the black poor districts it democratic cause they lose. So much for conservative Christians. They must lie cheat and arm. To get paid off to become the cult they are. Twisting the will of they're big money donors and polluting by get away by way of judges and corrupt senators congress DOJ and ags. So and well no tax paying in so called C non profit. As they try to overthrow the constitution the dead that for democracy. They should take they're fast talking lips and really serve this country. In the services Not cheating what so many real patriots died for so they can run there twisted lies. 1800. Were not in

@sabrewolf4129

2 жыл бұрын

Does this violent individual mean police officers as well? ALSO, Shall Not Be Infringed means SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, at no time in the Constitution, you know, the actual LAW, does it say ANYTHING about "criminals" not having the same rights as everyone else.

Here is Judge Kozinski dissenting in full text with the proper citation if anyone does not have access to a case database like West Law. One of the greatest dissents ever so I hope SG Noel Francisco and The Federalist Society don't mind!: "All too many of the other great tragedies of history - Stalin's atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few - were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. See Kleinfeld Dissent at 578-579. If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars. My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed - where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once. Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the right of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten. Despite the panel's mighty struggle to erase these words, they remain, and the people themselves can read what they say plainly enough: 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 sheer ponderousness of the panel's opinion - the mountain of verbiage it must deploy to explain away these fourteen short words of constitutional text - refutes its thesis far more convincingly than anything I might say. The panel's labored effort to smother the Second Amendment by sheer body weight has all the grace of a sumo wrestler trying to kill a rattlesnake by sitting on it - and is just as likely to succeed." KOZINSKI, J., dissenting in Silveira v. Lockyer, 328 F.3d 567, 569-70 (9th Cir. 2003)

@raymarchetta7551

4 жыл бұрын

In other words : if you need that many words to refute the plain language of a few words then you have refuted yourself

@nateo200

4 жыл бұрын

@@raymarchetta7551 Interpreting legal texts isn't so cartoonishly simple for a plethora of reasons. If Courts just replied with "Affirmed" or "Reversed" on Appeal for example, no one would learn. Read McDonald v. City of Chicago authored by Justice Alito. In that case you learn A LOT not just about the 2nd Amendment but how the 14th Amendment applied it to the states and how racists perverted the definition to deprive African Americans who bravely fought in the Civil War on either side of life, liberty, and due process by disarming and killing them summarily.

@nateo200

4 жыл бұрын

@Corno di Bassetto Thank you for replying to my post. I don't care if you agree or disagree with me but all that matters if you gave me something to think about. I want to address your points on the merits properly but am busy at the moment so I will be brief but if you are interested in my reply, which I do want to spend time on as no one goes to a Federalist Society video to make a meritless argument lol. And you cited sources I'm familiar with. Briefly and First off, The 14th Amendment and construction era Amendments fundamentally changed the Constitution and it is hard to fully grasp. The Voters Rights Act for example, changed Federalism radically, the Independent Counsel Act hit the second structural element of the Constitution as highlighted by Justice Scalia dissenting in Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654, 697 (1988) (SCALIA, J., dissenting) aannnndddd, of course, the elephant in the room is Administrative Law.....yuck. I tend to have a problem with the method of "Selective Incorporation" of the Bill of Rights to the States via the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, I take Justice Thomas's concurrence on every case to do this where he argues the Privileges or Immunities Clause is properly the method that already had incorporated the rights but for the Slaughter House Case.

@raymarchetta7551

4 жыл бұрын

nateo200 I agree. All I was saying is there is a big difference between one word affirmed or reverse and a 5000 word decision versus a 40,000 word decision.

@nateo200

4 жыл бұрын

ray marchetta Well yes...lol Justice Thomas likes to stick to the “10 page rule” and Judge Thaler of the US Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit speaks about how it requires work (especially when he was a District Judge) but concision > length basically. Justice Gorsuch has written very short but concise opinions on matters I didn’t think could be less than 5 pages and that blows your pants off! If you can deliver an opinion that hits hard in 3/4ths a page on something complex.....you give the people a chance to understand the opinion more as Thomas has said repeatedly. It’s also like a one hit K/O!

If you are unarmed you live at the mercy of those who are not....Need proof, give up your right and ability to defend yourself......Then claim you are free....Tyrants and criminals throughout history will insist otherwise....Its for your own safety, Of course. "Shall not be infringed"

Americans have the right and the courts MUST recognize it.

@seanberthiaume8240

3 жыл бұрын

so why aren't they!? See nj ca ny conn mass...

We the People!! Need to regulate the Government. NOT THE PATRIOTS OF THE CONSTITUTION,s Right to Bear Arms.

@UnconventionalReasoning

2 жыл бұрын

It's We the White Male Landowning People, if you're going to be an originalist.

Why should we have to have to PAY for a RIGHT?Do we have to pay to vote or use a computer(1st Amendment)or go to church!?

@vidyanandbapat8032

2 жыл бұрын

That's right. Taxing guns and ammo is an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. More dangerous infringemnent on the right to keep and bear arms is to ask for license for owning and/or possessing a firearm. Right to keep and bear arms is the most fundamental human right and it's an individual right which is superior to some other rights such as civic rights. I especially appreciate justice Barrett's (She has no nexus whatsoever with famous American gun manufacturer Barrett arms who is the manufacturer of Barrett .50 Cal which is one of the most popular heavy machinegun) opinion about the same where she had clearly segregated the rights into individual rights and civic rights and advocated for supremacy of individual rights such as the right to keep and bear arms being most fundamental to those over civic rights such as voting right. Many democrats/demonrats (which is a synonym for communist or socialist) mocked it as distributing guns like candies or chocolates or depriving of voting rights but distributing AK-47s as fundamental necessities.

District of Colombia v Heller remains lawful so long as the Supreme Court enables semi-automatics used in civilian massacres to be treated the same as conventional firearms lawful for self-defense. The Supreme Court loses credibility with each successive massacre of citizens self-defense laws are designed to protect. Protection disappears when a shooter armed with any semi-automatic decides to massacre civilians. Owners of semi-automatics in the line of fire generally have no advance warning if ever targeted. Any chance to self-defend disappears when a shooting spree is initiated using a semi-automatic firearm.

shall not be infringed

shall not be infringed shall not be infringed shall not be infringed shall not be infringed shall not be infringed shall not be infringed SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED !

@UnconventionalReasoning

2 жыл бұрын

You are 3/5 of a person You are 3/5 of a person You are 3/5 of a person ... We do not grant you the right to vote We do not grant you the right to vote We do not grant you the right to vote ... You are not eligible for naturalization You are not eligible for naturalization You are not eligible for naturalization Yes, of course the white males want everything as originally written...

@arc-audio

Жыл бұрын

What does that sentence begin with?

all arms should be protected by the second amendment until the cause come into case abuse to warrant individual scrutiny, rather than blanket abuse of constitutional rights as have been prevalent to date.......

WHY is there ANY DEBATE or ARGUMENT BS PERIOD!?

@UnconventionalReasoning

2 жыл бұрын

Because more than half the country does not want to purely follow the "historical" aspect of the Constitution, since it only recognized the "equal rights" of under 40% of the population. Well, that depends on how you do the counting: 1 + 1 = 2 or 1 + 1 = 8/5.

The heller decision has nothing to do with the original intent of the second amendment. It ignores the actual history.

The people have the power to say,"the second amendent states that no law can be made,Restricting Gun Ownership.Any law by its making is made invalid instaniously. The Gun law is what the people of the state you are in say they are.

Now they think they own you..

Interesting how we need a SCOTUS decision that the 2nd Amendment means what it says, because reading comprehension doesn't get taught in school anymore.

@UnconventionalReasoning

2 жыл бұрын

Yes... "Well-regulated militia". Did you skip school?

@sabrewolf4129

2 жыл бұрын

@@UnconventionalReasoning WE THE PEOPLE are the militia. Did you skip school? It seems like it. Because that is why it ends with THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEARS ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

@DefBroadcasting

Жыл бұрын

@@UnconventionalReasoning This is embarrassing for you. You're using the 2022 definition of 'regulated' to define the 1700s one, and you think the prefatory clause limits the scope of the operative clause. You then ask if someone skipped school. School continues forever. Today you learned what a prefatory clause means.

@arc-audio

Жыл бұрын

@@sabrewolf4129 almost no historians agree with that. Scalia made that up in 2008.

@sabrewolf4129

Жыл бұрын

@@arc-audio No historians agree with what exactly? That the 2nd means what it says? Scalia was an idiot.

I had Philip Bobbitt for Con Law at Texas Law.

Doesn't the executive , judicial, Congress in federal &state take an oath to PRESERVE PROTECT, AND DEFEND. THE US Constitution?

Strict Scrutiny applies to the FULL SCOPE of my rights fellas! And, then there's this: Boyd v. US, 116 US 616: "The court is to protect against any encroachment of constitutionally secured liberty." ... ANY ENCROACHMENT ..." [EMPHASIS MINE] Profs O'Shea and Lund gave great speeches. Even the San Francisco guy was a 2A proponent. The Supreme Court has repeatedly referred to the definition of "to bear arms" as: “… to ‘wear, bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” Heller v. D.C., 554 U. S., at 584 (2008)(quoting Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125,143 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting)); alterations and some internal quotation marks omitted). Did that say, "... OR IN THE CLOTHING OR IN A POCKET, ..."? Sure sounds like open or concealed carry at discretion of individual to me. [EMPHASIS MINE] Additionally, the government's arguments that they have expanded/enhanced, non-enumerated powers because they have declared an "emergency” for "Public Safety" (or even "National Security") and passed some "color of law" legislation are UNPERSUASIVE and MAKE NO SENSE because the Constitution and Bill of RIGHTS were written by the founders with the expressed purposes of ensuring "Domestic Tranquility," providing for the “common defence,” [sic] and promoting the "General Welfare". Terms which INCLUDE the goals of "public safety" and "national security"! 16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 98, "No emergency has just cause to suppress the Constitution." There's absolutely ZERO authority in the Constitution for 922(g). Not to mention a multitude of other valid, logical, historically supported arguments. INFRINGE: actively break the terms of a law, agreement, etc.; contravene, violate, transgress, break, breach; disobey, defy, flout, fly in the face of; disregard, ignore, neglect; go beyond, overstep, exceed; infract; act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on, restrict, limit, curb, check; undermine, erode, diminish, weaken, impair, damage, compromise, REGULATE [EMPHASIS MINE] ABRIDGE: to reduce the effect of a law, privilege or power. In a generic sense the term “abridge” means to cut short. For example, to make an abridged copy of a book means to reduce the number of words in a book without affecting the quality or substance of the book. In a legal context, the term is generally used to explain taking away or restricting some existing right of a person such as abridging the right to vote; v. To diminish, lessen, or restrict a legal right. To condense or shorten the whole of something, such as a book, and not merely a portion of it. Gorsuch. Now Kavanaugh. And Trump's gonna have 6.5 more years! There's a couple pretty old USSC Justice's still.

@HaleysComet81

Жыл бұрын

Notice you left out well-regulated...

@rkba4923

Жыл бұрын

@HaleysComet81 The phrase, " well regulated," refers to the Militia, NOT, "the right of the people." The phrase which refers to the inalienable, individual RIGHT is, " SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." The Militia is regulated under Title 10 US Code. This is clearly explained in Heller v. D.C. (2008). Furthermore, at time of founding, "regulated" didn't have same meaning as today. "Well regulated" simply meant: well- trained/equipped/organized/calibrated, etc. This can be verified by the dictionaries in existence at that time. Thank you for engaging.

It's our right.. So talk all you want. This is not Germany and everyone knows how that turned out from them.. We have Gavin in on a lot not this EVER... absolute control is what they want.. But we the people will not go with that... But by all means talk all you want.. but that will never be a debate.......🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

@UnconventionalReasoning

2 жыл бұрын

Let's arm every single Black man with an AR15. Oh, that's why Reagan signed gun control into law in CA...

kids far younger than 15 or 16 bore arms. the law states the age to purchase from a retailer is 18 or 21. but you can be younger than 18 and own a rifle.

Would have been a great video, but unwatchable due to low audio level.

In 2008 the Heller decision made clear what it meant to bear arms. Scalia quoted Justice Ginsburg's writing in a previous case. From cornell.edu: Justice Ginsburg wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment … indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” “..in the clothing or in a pocket” is carrying concealed. Yet it was stated that states can have restrictions: "Longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." Yet, this doesn’t pertain to the carry of style, bearing of appropriation, or limitations supported by curtailment of classes or permits. And like in Heller, a firearm held in an inoperable fashion by state law is an Infringement and therefore Unconstitutional. So why are states still allowed to have felonious laws enacted against a citizens right to carry concealed without a permit? I mean if the 2nd Amendment doesn't allow the Uninfringed right to carry concealed, then every state that allows Constitutional Carry is in violation of the precedent set by the 2nd Amendment and must have policies to govern and restrict said concealed carry supported by classes and training, yet no such reality exists.... So again, why has RBG and all of SCOTUS failed to protect the American people against Tyrannical State laws which Infringe upon citizens Unalienable Rights?

@sabrewolf4129

2 жыл бұрын

Because it has always been about control.

46:25 - 46 Locke and Blackstone on resisting oppression

45-46:25 Locke on self defense

What i AM against is my brother to have And keep And bare his m 16 And his ar 15s.

Too bad equal justice under the law isn't honored in Oklahoma. I have a full pardon from Idaho and CCW license from Idaho and Wyoming. Only Oklahoma refuses to honor Full Pardons granted for Crimes listed as violent. That includes Presidential and state Full Pardons. Please visit KZread/Darrell McDevitt

@bamor223

6 жыл бұрын

Hello Darrell, As far as I know it.... I am not a lawyer but I believe a pardon and or clemency does not undo the conclusion of guilt.... It only removes the consequences and penalty associated with the guilty judgement. To completely overturn the guilty judgement you would have had to have new evidence, file a motion for appropriate relief, a judge reopen the case, present the new evidence and receive judgement again. Some states just do not view clemency as a clean slate.

@nateo200

5 жыл бұрын

I think it was Justice Brandeis or Justice Jackson but they made a comment about how a pardon is de facto admitting guilt if you take it. Federal Pardons or Full Pardons from a Governor are usually absolute (assuming no strings attached). Some states have "pardons" that do not meet statutory requirements under 18 USC 9?? (can't remember the specific statute). Michigan had this problem with Alabama where a misdemeanant who had his record expunged was issued an Alabama CCW and then charged as a felon in possession and possession of a firearm in a school zone. The 11th Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part. This was in 1997 before background checks were as thorough and the misdemeanor at hand has a potential sentence of 2 years which makes it a felony under federal law even if you never serve more than a day. I can't remember the case but if I stumble on it on West Law I'll share it.

@UnconventionalReasoning

2 жыл бұрын

Equal justice under the law in the Constitution meant Equal justice for white landowning males.

The President's oath: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Article II Section 3: ; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed So wouldn't it be the Presient"s job to enforce HELLER?

@seanberthiaume8240

4 жыл бұрын

EVERYBODY LAW ENFORCEMENT AND UP!

@UnconventionalReasoning

2 жыл бұрын

Was Heller written in 1787? Or is it the 28th Amendment? Or was it the writing of an activist jurist, perhaps the *most* activist jurist who pretends to not be?

@raymarchetta7551

2 жыл бұрын

@@UnconventionalReasoning was the English Bill of Rights of 1689 written in 1787? How about William Blackstone's General Treatise of 1765? was that written in 1787? These are just SOME of the sources that "activist jurist" considered. How about the Federalist's papers?

@UnconventionalReasoning

2 жыл бұрын

@@raymarchetta7551 so more references to affluent white males who otherwise were busy colonizing and enslaving over a quarter of the world. Of course they needed the right to bear arms, that's how to enforce minority rule. Did slaves have the right to bear arms? Did they get guns? Of course, since they weren't paid, they conveniently couldn't buy guns.

@sabrewolf4129

2 жыл бұрын

@@raymarchetta7551 Ignore him, AM is just being an idiot.

51 - 53 soft despotism

More elites talking elite

More elites talking elite