Style Switcher

Predefined Colors

Is Gun Ownership a Right?

Is Gun Ownership a Right?

What does the Second Amendment claim? Is weapon possession a right for all Americans? Or simply for a tiny militia? Eugene Volokh, Professor of Law at UCLA, discusses what the Founding Fathers planned. Donate today to Prager U! Have you taken the promise for college selection? Click below! JoiningPrager U is cost-free! Sign up currently to obtain all our video clips as quickly as they’re launched. DownloadPragerpedia on your apple iphone or Android! Thousands of resources as well as truths within your reaches. apple iphone: Android: JoinPrager United to obtain brand-new boodle every quarter, special very early accessibility to our video clips, as well as a yearly TownHall call with Dennis Prager! JoinPrager U’s message listing to have these video clips, cost-free goods free gifts as well as damaging statements sent out straight to your phone! Do you go shopping on Amazon? Click as well as a percent of every Amazon acquisition will certainly be given away to Prager U. Same wonderful items. Same affordable price. Shopping made significant. BROWSE THROUGH Prager U! FOLLOW us! Facebook: Twitter: Instagram: Prager U gets on Snapchat! SIGN UP WITH Prager REQUIRE! ForStudents: SgPaX. JOIN our Educators Network! Script:. Does an American person have a Constitutional right to have a weapon? Here’s what the Second Amendment states: “A well-regulated Militia, being essential to the safety and security of a cost-free State, the right of individuals to maintain as well as birth Arms, will not be infringed.”. Now, it when appeared to me like that language just shielded state militias as well as not people. Indeed, this is the sight held by the 4 dissenting Supreme Court justices in the 2008 situation of District of Columbia versus Heller, a site situation handling weapon possession. But the a lot more research study I did, the a lot more I concerned understand that my first sight was incorrect which the Founders were, as a matter of fact, safeguarding a specific right. The 5 justices that elected to attest the right to have a weapon in DC versus Heller had, undoubtedly, made the right choice. Let’s check out the change again. ” A well-regulated Militia, being essential to the safety and security of a cost-free State, the right of individuals to maintain as well as birth Arms, will not be infringed.”. We initial requirement to concentrate on the expression “the right of individuals.” Note that individuals are the just one whose right is safeguarded below, not the militia or a state federal government. This expression “the right of individuals” turns up a couple of times in theConstitution For instance, the First Amendment describes “The right of individuals peaceably to set up, as well as to seek the Government.” And the Fourth Amendment protects “The right of individuals to be safe … versus unreasonable searches as well as seizures.”. Why, after that, if the writers of the Constitution really felt so highly concerning “the right of individuals” to have weapons, did they consist of language concerning “a well-regulated militia”? These opening words of the change could be called a “validation condition.” Such stipulations are made use of to assist describe why a right is being safeguarded. But it’s the personnel condition that discusses what right is being safeguarded. In this situation, the right of individuals to maintain as well as birth arms. And what was words ‘militia’ recognized to indicate at the time? Well, the Militia Act of 1792 specified “militia” to indicate all white men 18 to45 Today, obviously, “militia” would certainly consist of females as well as individuals of all races, however it was plainly not a referral to a tiny, National Guard- kind team. And what concerning the component of the change that states a militia is essential “to the safety and security of a cost-free State”? What, the challengers of individual weapon possession ask, does an individual right of weapon possession concern that? Again, historic context is crucial. In the 1790 s, the expression “cost-free State” had not been made use of to indicate a specific state like New York or RhodeIsland Rather, it indicated what we would certainly call today a “cost-free nation”– a country without despotism. A “cost-free State” is what the Framers desired America to be. They saw an armed population as, partially, a bush versus tyranny. Citizens that have tools can shield themselves, protect against authoritarians from taking power, as well as shield the country from international opponents. This does not indicate, however, that this right is unrestricted. Free speech, for instance, has actually long undergone some slim as well as affordable policies. But serious constraints on possessing a weapon, like serious constraints on cost-free speech, would certainly breach the Second Amendment as the Founders recognized it. For the full manuscript, see
sourcePosted in Gun ControlTagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


David MacLane - posted on October 5, 2019 12:40 am

You can't make it any clearer than this, but to Marxist lunatics hell bent on destroying the US from within, it means nothing.

David MacLane - posted on October 5, 2019 12:51 am

There are only 3 countries left in the world where it's citizens have a Constitutional Right to keep and bear arms and thus self defense. The United States of America, Mexico and Guatamala. Those rights exist mostly on paper in Mexico and Guatamala, as actual ownership of weapons is severely restricted (Infringed). Only people I see carrying guns outside of their homes in Mexico, are gangsters and those who work for them.
Former US President Ronald Reagan said this in 1984…." If we lose freedom here (in America), there is no place to escape to….This is the last stand on earth."

Hans-Christian Bauer - posted on October 5, 2019 2:57 am

"…, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" what's unclear about this?

Hans Blix - posted on October 5, 2019 4:00 pm

I’m buying one more gun

Tesseract 14 - posted on October 5, 2019 4:54 pm

I don't really think there should be any restriction or restriction, it should be unlimited, because the government has no restrictions, the point of having weapons at least to the founding fathers, should be to overthrow a corrupt government, at the moment we could not do that if we wanted to at all

skharri18 - posted on October 5, 2019 5:39 pm

Conservatives: "Healthcare rights turn doctors into slaves but gun rights don't turn gun manufacturers into slaves. My mommy says I'm smart."

captain crunch - posted on October 5, 2019 8:38 pm


lamanchadale - posted on October 5, 2019 9:04 pm

There is more to the second amendment than meets the eye. "The overriding purpose of the Framers in guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was a check on the standing army, which the Constitution gave the Congress the power to raise and support", Daniel J. Schultz from the "Lectric law library"
"A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government" George Washington.

In old English, "milite" means soldiers, "militisc" means military. In Latin "milit" means soldier. In the "modern English" of 1590, "militia" meant "The body of soldiers in the service of a sovereign or state".

Therefore, when someone reads the second amendment: "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", a person with basic knowledge of the era in which it was written could interpret the meaning as:


Therefore the second amendment implies that the people not only have a right to be armed, but also have a RESPONSIBILITY TO BE ARMED, AND A RESPONSIBILITY TO BE ARMED WITH WEAPONS REQUIRED TO DEFEAT A STANDING ARMY.

Jyoji Bristol - posted on October 6, 2019 12:13 am

I think the litmus test is simple….whoever or whatever is trying to seize property (gun, house, land, etc.) that was legally bought, stored and maintained and not used in a crime or immoral act is a tyrant or are tyrants or tyrannical. When does a tyrant stop take your stuff? Answer…when your dead or have nothing left to give including your life.

James Lewis - posted on October 6, 2019 1:14 am

The Constitution gives the federal government 17 specific powers. The only way that the feds can have more powers is by Amendment. The federal government does not have the authority to control guns, drugs, health care, and, many other things that they control. This is called an " originalist " interpretation of the Constitution. You know the same interpretation that the Founders had, and, that the states ratified. This is what my several years of studying history, and, the Constitution has taught me. Members of Congress take an oath to defend, and, bear true faith, and, allegiance to the U.S. Constitution. As for as I'm concerned, they can start any time.

josiah miranda - posted on October 6, 2019 10:14 am

It’s a piece of paper y’all, get ready for a dictatorship so start buying 80% ghost guns.

Mike P - posted on October 6, 2019 12:52 pm

Yes the ownership of weapons is a right. The "militia" is the right of people to possess weapons in the context of self preservation. That cannot exist unless this also protects the right of an individual. The government is not supposed to impede that. That's what the second amendment says. So things like background checks, weapon bans, and all this other stuff which constitutes prior restraint is in fact unconstitutional.

Scotland is da best - posted on October 6, 2019 1:37 pm

Yes, 2nd ammendment

Thomas Z71 - posted on October 6, 2019 3:25 pm

Your answer is YES!! (stopped video at 0:06) … next

Rich Moreland - posted on October 6, 2019 4:20 pm

Let's break it down:
[A well-regulated militia] being necessary for [a free state], the right of the people to keep and bear [arms] shall not be infringed.

Now let's replace the bracketed items with different words, and see how we can interpret this:
[Clean teeth] being necessary for [good overall health], the right of the people to keep and bear [toothbrushes] shall not be infringed.

Ask yourself, does the modified statement mean that only people with clean teeth have a right to own toothbrushes? Or does it mean that owning a toothbrush is a right because its important to maintain clean teeth?

appleseedfanatic - posted on October 7, 2019 1:48 am

Keep buying guns and keep voting Republican.

David Westfall - posted on October 7, 2019 6:38 am

Yes to 2nd amendment rights!!!

stankygeorge - posted on October 7, 2019 9:55 am

Well said!
Gun ownership is not only a Constitutional Right but a duty as a citizen!
My duty to my country is to own a minimum of three of the following weapons;
a pistol for self protection
a shot gun for hunting and protection
a long rifle for hunting and protection
All the above weapons can also be used to protect my country when everything else has been defeated!

karl johnston - posted on October 7, 2019 10:39 am

Good job. However notice the punctuation used in constitution. Comas are important

That hairy Berry - posted on October 8, 2019 2:03 am

Save 4 minutes of your life the answer is

YES !!!!

TheRedfox909 - posted on October 8, 2019 3:42 pm

We should have no licences and shit mabey for machine guns but semi autos and pistols is a right why the hell should we have a pass to use a right

William Nelson - posted on October 8, 2019 6:08 pm

It's a guaranteed right. I am a people and it states the RIGHT of the people
To own guns.

Iyce Phoenixx - posted on October 8, 2019 11:52 pm

Pretty much, everyone is the militia, as most men were during the revolution

Scaundure The Helion Titan - posted on October 9, 2019 11:41 am

Anyone forget that the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence goes very deep into how it is the people that have the right to abolish the government if it becomes oppressive, destructive, or tyrannical? Let that sink in Beto O’Rourke!

kingkam78 - posted on October 10, 2019 12:57 am

I mean, the Second Amendment is literally the one Amendment that says: "Shall Not Be Infringed", and it protects all the other Amendments.

Post a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.