Відео

Shocking you all allowed illegal immigrants in the USA stock up people killing people out here and it's more of the immigrants doing it. The supreme Court was for the people forget the nonsense protect your families from drug dealers all these gangs coming over here especially your property

Still not clear in today's society everyone so soft any insult is deemed that violence is a rational responce.

The government has always changed their words any time to do anything they wanted to fit what ever wanted do.

Shal not be infringed says it all, the word means no infringed .

At 6:27 the host and Blocher are both completely wrong. Heller does not grant any rights. Neither does the Constitution grant any rights. The right described in Amendment II and affirmed by Heller is, like all rights, pre-existing. It is a natural, inherent, and unalienable fundamental right that is merely enumerated in the Constitution for particular protection. This is Con Law 101 stuff, people.

At 4:00 Blocher is completely wrong again. The court did NOT split 5-4 on the question of whether the right described in Amendment II is an individual right. In fact, on that point the Justices agreed 9-0 that the right is an individual right unconnected with militia service. Even the dissenting Justices conceded this point. Where they differed was the extent to which the government could permissibly burden that right.

At 2:15 Blocher is completely wrong that the collective rights theory prevailed in the court for 200 years. That's just not true. The truth is that until Heller, the question had never been directly addressed by the courts, because it was never, ever seen in US jurisprudence as a "collective right", precisely because there is no such thing as a "collective right". The "collective right" theory was a fabrication by a single judge in the mid 20th-century, which gun control advocates seized upon and then repeated to themselves so many times that they came to believe it was historically accurate. The Heller decision *specifically* addresses this point and refutes it.

Thanks for the video

This has changed since the Rahimi decision where the Supreme Court says you can only be temporarily disarmed for the time you are a danger to yourself or someone else. So whether the felon had a violent or non violent felony permanent disarming someone is unconstitutional so this video is a moot issue.

A Win for the government? The People ARE the Government

Everything this clown says is a fumble of reality

What do you both not get about SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!? And BEING NECESSARY FOR THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE!? Wanna talk domestic abusers!? Look into COPS

This guest is a clown. Would love to have a word with him on his stupidity

I am glad that I found this video thank you for putting it out it is very educational on a lot of this stuff😊

Great conversation guys, extremely important too! This goes back to something that I think far too few people can fully grasp, and that's the human capacity and propensity for self-delusion. In other words, when it comes to belief, (everything from political frameworks, religious faith, belief in a system, belief in institutions, in people, ect), people don't just believe in things, subconsciously they desperately want what they believe in to bet rue - every bit as much as they actually believe it to be true. You not only have to overcome a persons belief in something, you have to overcome the fact that they want to believe what they believe. You can't convince someone who believes in god that he doesn't exist by giving them a text-book that shows that there's no evidence of his existence. And this holds true for things that we're taught to see as being objective fact, like believing our justice system in practice is about attaining justice and that it's not subject to human error. When in reality we have a justice system that in practice is designed to not necessarily find and convict the guilty party, so much as it's about getting convictions/confessions . All the incentives pus police and especially prosecutors, to focus on getting convictions and/or confessions. For a thought experiment say a prosecutor is presented with a case where they have a suspect who they're now prosecuting and have plenty enough evidence to get a conviction, but find contradictory evidence that could mean that the person being prosecuted is innocent while at the same time not eough to prove that they're innocent. The way our system is designed - it would lead them 10 times outa 10 to go ahead and get the conviction. Because the incentives push for wins first and foremost, and right now as it stands - they can get that win. And like the saying goes, a bird in the hand is worth two in a bush. Meaning, that the person may be innocent, but if they stop the prosecution to explore where this contradictory evidence leads to make sure that they are 100% positive that the suspect is guilty, who's to say that they'll ever be able to find another suspect, who has enough evidence against them for the prosecutor to win a case against them? And so there faced with a situation where the person they got may be innocent, but they have a good enough case as it stands now to get a conviction, while maybe never finding another suspect whom the prosecutors will be as confident that they'll be as likely to convict. With the incentive structure, they're gunna go for that conviction. There are very few actually "evil" people out there, in fact even the worst people in the world have convinced themselves that they are the good-guys, or that at least the awful things they do or have done is justified. the problem is we are humans - therefore fallible and incapable of objectivity - and therefore that's the case for anything we create is as well. Everything we believe in, say, interpret, etc - is subject to biased interpretations influenced by pre-existing world-views and life experiences. And we are all, no matter how intelligent we may be, capable of convincing ourselves of all sorts of falsehoods wile not even realizing that this is the case. That prosecutor in the example i brought up, they'd be able to do this because they'd convince themselves, that this contradictory evidence isn't enough - and the person they got now is still guilty and they aren't gunna allow any second thoughts. They want to believe they are serving justice - every bit as much as they actually believe that they are. I don't know if there's a way to account for these flaws, but this is something people need to become more aware of at the least. Sorry for the massive rant, no clue it was this long till now that i finished, lol. Once again - great discussion!

I’m a Felon and never went to jail !

A God given inalienable right under the second amendment of the United States Constitution should not be a privilege by permission, license, or permit from the government whether it is a municipal, county, state, or the federal government. Attorneys, Lawyers, Persecutors, Prosecutors, Justices, and quite frankly the entire judicial system are the problem with lawfare in America ! Do you ask permission each time that you exercise God Given inalienable rights as if were a privilege ? What about saying a prayer or going to assemble at a church or the press printing a newspaper or an article ? So why does that apply the second amendment ?

How amazing is it the with 8.5 billion people on the planet, we discovered by proxy of these individuals that there is a specific amount of hubris required to manifest the audacity to promulgate _rules_ for Galactic issues we haven't faced and cannot currently enforce?

i would love to hear these Pre-NFA laws he is quoting.

Keep it in your trousers and stay out of trouble.

So they use racist laws to take guns away dam and they call Trump hitler

VICTIMLESS DUI 3rd: UNITED STATES MARINE: (From Young-Marine to Man/Husband/Father, to Grandfather.) 50 years ago was my DUI 3rd Non-Violent/Victimless felony offense ... All offenses were VOID OF VICTIM, INCIDENT, ACCIDENT, and without a DAMAGED PARTY. After serving (6) years as a front-line Marine during the Iranian crisis (1979). Before having a wife, children, and grandchildren, returning to civilian life was difficult... (Honorable Discharge ) Can the Bruen decision regain my gun right for family and home protection after 50 prohibited years based on nexus with 18USC(g)(1) (g) It shall be unlawful for any person- (1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;...! (Are prohibited from firearm possession) Legally, DUI felons are no longer considered part of "We the People" and should not be required to pay taxes! When Michigan DUI offenses have NO victim, NO incident, NO accident, and NO damaged party, the gun "Right" and citizenship should never be a lifetime gun ban! We served our time of punishment ... - USMC (Semper Fidelis) SGT E-5 (5811)

In Brasil, we named his fenomenal in historical interpretation or autentic interpretation

The right to self defense is a God given right, period!

UNITED STATES MARINE: (From Young-Marine to Man/Husband/Father, to Grandfather.) 50 years ago, was my (3rd) third Non-Violent/Victimless DUI felony offense ... All offenses were VOID OF VICTIM, INCIDENT, ACCIDENT, and DAMAGED PARTY. After serving (6) years as a front-line Marine during the Iranian crisis (1979), (Before having a wife, children, and grandchildren) the return to civilian life was difficult... (Honorable Discharge ) Can the Bruen decision help this 67-year-old United States Marine regain his gun right for family and home protection after 50 defenseless, prohibited years based on nexus with 18USC(g)(1) (g) It shall be unlawful for any person- (1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; Legally we are no longer part of "We the People"! When DUI offenses have NO victim, NO incident, NO accident, and NO damaged party, the 2nd Amendment "Right/Privilege" should never be "eternally prohibited"! - USMC (Semper Fidelis) SGT E-5 (5811)

UNITED STATES (MICHIGAN) MARINE: (From Young-Marine to Man/Husband/Father, to Grandfather.) 50 years ago, was my (3rd) third Non-Violent/Victimless DUI felony offense ... All offenses were VOID OF VICTIM, INCIDENT, ACCIDENT, and DAMAGED PARTY. After serving (6) years as a front-line Marine during the Iranian crisis (1979), (Before having a wife, children, and grandchildren) the return to civilian life was difficult... (Honorable Discharge ) Can the Bruen decision help this 67-year-old United States Marine regain his gun right for family and home protection after 50 defenseless, prohibited years based on nexus with 18USC(g)(1) (g) It shall be unlawful for any person- (1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; Legally we are no longer part of "We the People"! When DUI offenses have NO victim, NO incident, NO accident, and NO damaged party, the 2nd Amendment "Right/Privilege" should never be "eternally prohibited"! - USMC (Semper Fidelis) SGT E-5 (5811)

UNITED STATES (MICHIGAN) MARINE: (From Young-Marine to Man/Husband/Father, to Grandfather.) 50 years ago, was my (3rd) third Non-Violent/Victimless DUI felony offense ... All offenses were VOID OF VICTIM, INCIDENT, ACCIDENT, and DAMAGED PARTY. After serving (6) years as a front-line Marine during the Iranian crisis (1979), (Before having a wife, children, and grandchildren) the return to civilian life was difficult... (Honorable Discharge ) Can the Bruen decision help this 67-year-old United States Marine regain his gun right for family and home protection after 50 defenseless, prohibited years based on nexus with 18USC(g)(1) (g) It shall be unlawful for any person- (1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; Legally we are no longer part of "We the People"! When DUI offenses have NO victim, NO incident, NO accident, and NO damaged party, the 2nd Amendment "Right/Privilege" should never be "eternally prohibited"! - USMC (Semper Fidelis) SGT E-5 (5811)

UNITED STATES MARINE: (From Young-Marine to Man/Husband/Father, to Grandfather.) 50 years ago, was my (3rd) third Non-Violent/Victimless DUI felony offense ... All offenses were VOID OF VICTIM, INCIDENT, ACCIDENT, and DAMAGED PARTY. After serving (6) years as a front-line Marine during the Iranian crisis (1979), (Before having a wife, children, and grandchildren) the return to civilian life was difficult... (Honorable Discharge ) Can the Bruen decision help this 67-year-old United States Marine regain his gun right for family and home protection after 50 defenseless, prohibited years based on nexus with 18USC(g)(1) (g) It shall be unlawful for any person- (1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; Legally we are no longer part of "We the People"! When DUI offenses have NO victim, NO incident, NO accident, and NO damaged party, the 2nd Amendment "Right/Privilege" should never be "eternally prohibited"! - USMC (Semper Fidelis) SGT E-5 (5811)

United States of America v. Duarte in the ninth circuit court of appeals says felons are not prohibited.

Whats the difference from assault to any person to dv? Nothing. So why make different rules

Tell Me ??? Where have our Rights Went ??? A Right can not be Registered Regulated Restricted Revoked Lisenced or Taxed only Privileges can be... What are our Inalienable Rights today ??? Self Defense is a God Given Right not subject to laws of man . All these Rules and Laws are against our bill of rights so why are people being murdered over them ??? When men with Machine Guns come to take your guns... Exactly What Are Your Rights ??? Who are the Real Criminals ???

I have a felony from 1994 and can’t protect my family haven’t been in trouble since it’s bullshit

Does this settlement only cover New York students?

Where'd our Rights Go ??? A Right can not be Registered Regulated Restricted Revoked Lisenced or Taxed only Privileges can be !!! Self-defense is a God Given Inalienable Right not a Privilege !!! Whatever we choose !!! Vote them Out !!!

United States Marine! (50 years ago was my last DUI) VICTIMLESS, NON-VIOLENT alcohol-related traffic offenses without victim or accident shall eternally abrogate 2-A "Rights" by nexus with Federal 18USC922(g)(1). 50 years ago my DUI offenses were VOID OF VICTIM, INCIDENT, ACCIDENT, or DAMAGED PARTY, and, void of mens rea- (Intent to do harm!) After serving (6) years as an honorably discharged United States front-line Marine during the Iranian crisis (1979), returning to civilian life alone, was difficult... Can the Bruen decision help get this 67-year-old Marines 2-A right restored after 50 years as a prohibited person for non-violent DUI offenses! When DUI arrests have NO victim, NO incident, NO accident, and NO damaged party, the 2nd Amendment "Right" should never be "eternally abrogated"! If there were a law to disarm taxpayers prior to 1968, wouldn't it still be on the books? - USMC (Semper Fidelis) SGT E-5 (5811)

CAN THE BRUEN DECISION HELP ME? Written by a United States Marine! (50 years ago was my 3rd DUI) "PLEASE READ" ...! VICTIMLESS, NON-VIOLENT alcohol-related traffic offenses eternally abrogate 2-A "Rights by nexus with 18USC922(g)(1).". My DUI's were VOID OF VICTIM, INCIDENT, ACCIDENT, and DAMAGED PARTY and, void of mens rea- (Intent to do harm!) After serving (6) years as an honorably discharged United States front-line Marine during the Iranian crisis (1979), returning to civilian life was difficult... WITHOUT a victim, incident, accident, or damaged party, the 2nd Amendment "Right" should never be eternally abrogated! Can the Bruen decision get this 67-year-old Marines 2-A right restored after 50 years as a prohibited person? - USMC (Semper Fidelis) SGT E-5 (5811)

WHAT ABOUT THE BRUEN DECISION? Written by a United States Marine! (50 years ago was my 3rd DUI) "PLEASE READ" ...! VICTIMLESS alcohol-related traffic offenses eternally abrogate 2-A "Rights by nexus with 18USC922(g)(1).". My DUI's were VOID OF VICTIM, INCIDENT, ACCIDENT, and DAMAGED PARTY and, void of mens rea- (Intent to do harm!) After serving (6) years as an honorably discharged United States front-line Marine during the Iranian crisis (1979), returning to civilian life was difficult... WITHOUT a victim, incident, accident, or damaged party, the 2nd Amendment "Right" should never be eternally abrogated! Can the Bruen decision get this 67-year-old Marines 2-A right restored? - USMC (Semper Fidelis) SGT E-5 (5811)

You, a lawyer, should know that there is NO SUCH THINGas ‘reasonable suspicion. The police MUST HAVE REASONABLE ARTICULABLE suspicion OF A CRIME!

This guy is a tyrant.

Dick Heller is salt

Harry the gun dude, or just the gun dude

3 easy answers 1 A Cop can just say I was scared for my life. 2 Qualify immunity. 3 Lack of Accountability and proper Punishment for Police Officer misconduct.

Right off the bat we have a problem. The gun manufacturers do NOT have immunity from civil liabilities. If their products are defective, they definitely can and have been sued. This idea that they are immune is given in bad faith by bad actors wishing to conflate two different legal theories. One is that arms manufacturing is somehow different and should be held liable for the decisions and actions of others. The other is that a business is responsible for their products and the safe use there of for the operator. Make no mistake, firearms manufacturers are liable for the safe use of their weapons for the user. They are not responsible for how the user decides to use the weapon.

when we fix qualified immunity we will begin to abolish the caste system in this country.

Thank you sir for your excellent, to the point, none BS interview.

Does anyone else think that the idea of “meeting an important governmental interest” is antithetical to the purpose of the second amendment? A key reason for the second amendment is to protect the people from a corrupt government. Are we seriously going to allow the government to say it’s not in the government’s best interest to give you the power to defend yourself from us?

Left wing media :see there u go you heard it here she said wife gets out of line its unconstitutional not to give ger a back hand matter of fact she said ts your duty 😳

The Constitution was written to limit government over the people, so the Government making decisions on how to circumvent the "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED " clause in the Constitution is in itself Unconstitutional

I would question her scholarly advice if she thinks this pertains to 1791 and 1868. Since no one from the founding generation of our “founding fathers” were alive by 1868. So it would be mistake to take an interpretation from nearly 80 years after the bill of rights were passed. And this is not how SCOTUS (at least the current SCOTUS) would handle these questions either. It’s why they use dictionary from the founding era. Not from 1868, 1934, or 2021 to address definitions of words👍