Skip to content
Advertisements

Penn & Teller explain the second amendment in just over one minute

June 20, 2016

  Out of all the amendments to the Constitution in the Bill of Rights the Second Amendment is the most clear in my opinion because it clearly states the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed–PERIOD. I find the Second Amendment to be far more clear than the First Amendment because the First Amendment states “the CONGRESS shall make no law” when it comes to establishing a religion or denying the free exercise of religion, or of free speech, or the right to peacefully assemble, or to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

  The wording of the First Amendment leaves open the possibility that the States can in fact regulate it and that is something which can be debated, whereas the Second Amendment removes all doubt with its wording. Nobody can infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms and that is a distinction in wording that I believe has been lost on the majority of the American people, but it is a distinction which should not be ignored.

  Yet the left seems to have a problem with the wording of the Second Amendment due to the militia being mentioned in the descriptive clause of the amendment. They feel as if the mention of the militia in the Second Amendment muddies the waters when it comes to who has the right to keep and bear arms and it all comes down (in their minds) to that comma which separates the descriptive clause from the active clause in the amendment.

  Here is a video which is just over one minute long where Penn & Teller explain the Second Amendment, and that comma, in just over one minute. There is an F-Bomb in the video put it just helps to drive the point home.

  Enjoy:

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

Advertisements
16 Comments leave one →
  1. lou222 permalink
    June 20, 2016 9:00 pm

    Seems simple enough…leave it to Government to want to read something into what was never there. Even the Supremes are starting to second guess what the Constitution means…..well at lease “some” of them….it seems that once you question things, you might be in danger…well…it SEEMS so!

    Liked by 1 person

    • June 20, 2016 11:14 pm

      Some of the constitutional problems that occur are due to the technological advancements that have been made since 1776. Even during the Colonial period there were restrictions on firearms – New York, Boston and Philadelphia were not the frontier. Unfortunately the politicians (as was previously posted) lie on this the issue of guns.

      Liked by 2 people

    • June 21, 2016 5:49 am

      It seems simple to me as well but now with the report that Thomas might retire after the election I have a bad feeling SCOTUS is going to make it much more difficult.

      Liked by 1 person

      • lou222 permalink
        June 21, 2016 8:57 am

        Tell me it isn’t so, CJ, that politicians lie!!!
        I also read that Justice Thomas’ wife Ginny said he was NOT thinking of retiring….at best it got the left salivating over who to put in next that is more left than the last one.

        Liked by 1 person

      • June 21, 2016 7:05 pm

        I know Lou, it is hard to believe they lie isn’t it?! 😉 I hope you are right about Thomas’ wife and he is not retiring!

        Liked by 1 person

  2. June 20, 2016 10:20 pm

    Very well put.

    As Juge Nap says

    “The constitutional reference of “the” right to keep and bear arms makes clear that the Framers recognized that the right pre-existed the government because it stems from our humanity. That’s why pre-political rights are known as fundamental or natural rights. ”

    http://www.judgenap.com/post/in-defense-of-self-defense

    Liked by 1 person

    • June 21, 2016 5:50 am

      Exactly, they understood that if right came from the government the government could take them away!

      Like

  3. June 20, 2016 10:36 pm

    Here is an ad that uses work place violence which the 2nd amendment never condoned to justify more gun laws. I guess if the guy came in with a baseball bat and bludgeoned the other guy that would be OK?

    Liked by 2 people

    • June 21, 2016 5:51 am

      Unbelievable!

      Like

    • lou222 permalink
      June 21, 2016 9:44 pm

      All I can say is “WOW”!

      Liked by 1 person

  4. June 23, 2016 1:46 am

    I hit the reblog button. This is incredible.

    Liked by 1 person

    • June 23, 2016 5:30 am

      It was a great explanation wasn’t it?! Thanks for sharing it.

      Liked by 1 person

      • June 23, 2016 9:12 am

        Indeed.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. zoebrain permalink
    June 23, 2016 6:35 am

    Nope. The wording is an edited version of Queen Anne’s Bill of Rights 1689.

    Whereas the late King James II., by the assistance of diverse evil counsellors, judges, and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion, and the laws and liberties of this kingdom:—

    5. By raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace, without consent of Parliament, and quartering soldiers contrary to law.

    6. By causing several good subjects, being Protestants, to be disarmed, at the same time when Papists were both armed and employed contrary to law.

    And, thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representation of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done), for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties, declare:—

    6. That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law.

    7. That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law.

    10. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed; nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
    —–
    The situation in the newly forming United States was different. There was still a distrust of standing armies, yet volunteers available “in a minute”, the Minutemen, were deemed an acceptable substitute.
    This meant a populace that had to be educated in the use of arms – universal basic training as we’d call it now. And that in turn meant that any and all restrictions on arms had to be viewed with a jaundiced eye, so as not to interfere with the ability to raise a disciplined and militarily effective force at a moment’s notice. A well-regulated militia, not a rabble in arms. Moreover, one that could and would be called out in times of peace as a posse commitatus to enforce laws and deal with slave revolts.

    We now live in an age where standing armies are as necessary as standing navies were then, and for the same reason – the technology has gone way past civilian everyday experience. While there is still a place for guerilla units with small arms to harass an occupying force that is averse to genocide, they stopped being effective on the battlefield around 1812. Just look at ISIS. They become targets for drone strikes, air attacks, etc.

    Like

Trackbacks

  1. Penn & Teller explain the second amendment in just over one minute | Rifleman III Journal
  2. Penn & Teller explain the second amendment in just over one minute | Cmblake6's Weblog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: