Comedian Cenk argues that gun control advocates are not educated enough to understand the Constitution, and that a ban on guns should be implemented in order to protect the public. I'm here to defend the Constitution and the rights of the Founding Fathers.
00:00:43.000How about the other part of the amendment, the first half of the amendment?
00:00:48.000Oh, let's read the whole amendment for a second.
00:00:51.000A 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.
00:01:02.000Listen, I understand that liberals try and paint conservatives as stupid and conservatives try and paint liberals as stupid.
00:01:08.000I also understand there are low information voters on both sides, okay?
00:01:11.000In this situation, Cenk is trying to point to the Second Amendment activists as the least educated among the gun control debate, people who wouldn't have ever even picked up a constitution or read the Second Amendment.
00:01:26.000Would it stand to reason that in this debate, the people more likely to understand the Second Amendment would be people who've gone through the process of purchasing a firearm, maybe becoming licensed since concealed carry and are by law required as they go through this course to understand their Second Amendment rights as it relates maybe becoming licensed since concealed carry and are by law required as they go through this course Wouldn't it stand to reason, Your Honor, that?
00:01:51.000That they might be more likely or required to have read the Second Amendment as opposed to Cenk's audience who there's no necessity to read the Constitution at all to simply hold the opinion that we should ban guns.
00:02:05.000Go check out the pro-gun sites, whether it's the NRA, go to a concealed carry course.
00:02:09.000When I've gone to firearm safety courses, they've given us pocket constitutions.
00:02:13.000Again, look at the groups and make your own inferences.
00:02:16.000Now let's get to the facts of which he provides very little, but I promise you I'll do my due diligence.
00:02:21.000The Founding Fathers debated these to no end.
00:02:24.000They debated literally every comma of the Second Amendment.
00:02:27.000The very last edit they did was to take out a comma.
00:02:38.000They had the first part, the right to keep and bear arms, in the first half of the sentence, in the first copy of this amendment, and then they switched it after debating it.
00:02:51.000So if they just wanted to write the second half of the amendment, the right to keep and bear arms for the people, they could have just written that.
00:02:58.000It's not like they didn't think about it.
00:03:24.000So every word, the fact that both clauses are in their matters, they consciously, the Founding Fathers, chose to include both militia, comma, the right of the people shall not be infringed.
00:03:37.000See, it says militia, as Cenk said, very careful, comma, separation, the right of the people shall not be infringed.
00:03:47.000Why were they so hell-bent on not just the militia, not just soldiers with guns, but the people having the right to bear arms?
00:03:54.000Cenk explains this with his very next sentence.
00:03:59.000And they were there to protect the community, and sometimes they rose up against the federal government, and George Washington had to go fight those militias on behalf of the United States of America.
00:04:10.000If George Washington had to fight militias, meaning people with guns, not necessarily soldiers with guns, what would have been the easiest way for George Washington to ensure that these battles didn't happen again maybe elsewhere in the country?
00:04:36.000Because the people with weapons became a militia and had just finished fighting off a tyrannical government for two years.
00:04:43.000The biggest empire the world had ever seen up until that point.
00:04:46.000And to avoid said tyranny in the future, even with Washington knowing full well that he could become a tyrant himself, they put the Second Amendment in for the people as a failsafe.
00:04:56.000In the South, they were largely slave patrols.
00:04:58.000They wanted to have everybody be able to carry arms so that if there was a slave insurrection, they would be armed and be able to shoot the slaves.
00:06:23.000Cenk just describes motive and lack of intelligence to his opponent here.
00:06:27.000Now, considering that gun control is the single biggest losing issue for Democrats, and one in which even far-left Democrats are willing to give, as seen with someone like Bernie Sanders in Vermont, what's more plausible?
00:06:41.000The Supreme Court ruling to which he's referring to, we'll bring up on screen as I know he didn't, were just stupid right-wingers or that they too had access to the information I just provided and Cenk withheld from you.
00:06:56.000Looking at the case specifically, something Cenk won't tell you.
00:06:59.000Is that even though the ruling was in favor of the current interpretation of the Second Amendment, the dissenting arguments are just as important.
00:07:05.000Dissenting Justice Stevens argued that the Second Amendment only protects the rights of individuals to bear arms as part of a well-regulated state militia, not for other purposes, even if they are lawful.
00:07:17.000Maybe because even among Cenk's leftist pro-gun control audience, this argument, the one that needs to be made legally, would be wildly unpopular.
00:07:26.000The only way to have ruled against a Supreme Court ruling allowing for private citizens to have guns would not be incremental gun control, would not be some kind of a tiered assault weapons ban, but a total...
00:07:41.000Justice Breyer agreed with Stevens, but added that even if possession were to be allowed for other reasons, any law regulating elusive firearms would have to be unreasonable or inappropriate to violate the Second Amendment.
00:07:50.000The dissenting judges acknowledged that to legally rule in the other direction would require no rights for private citizens to own guns, for hunting, for protection, for target shooting, nothing.
00:08:00.000They argue that maybe the government could subjectively grant the privilege to own firearms to some, but the right to To bear arms would be all but non-existent, period.
00:08:09.000And that's why people like Schenk and leftists have to lie to their constituency about gun control.
00:08:14.000Because legally, we're talking legally now, when it comes down to it, the only leg they have to stand on would be wildly unpopular even within their own party.
00:08:22.000The other interesting part here is what do they mean by the people?
00:08:25.000It says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
00:08:31.000The people could mean two different things.
00:08:39.000Or it could mean the people of the United States.
00:08:42.000So, for example, they're referring to the security of a free state, and the state is trying to protect itself against the federal government in the context of the founding fathers.
00:08:51.000So it could mean the people of that state.
00:08:54.000Okay, I'll address it, but this last part is...
00:09:01.000No one would interpret that as meaning that every single person gets to have nuclear arms.
00:09:18.000They would interpret that to mean, well, since we need a strong military, and that's essential for a free state, You cannot ban nuclear arms from the people of the United States.
00:09:33.000Now, can we address that in a future video?
00:09:35.000Sure, but this video is getting long, so how about we stick to what actually exists instead of getting into silly hypotheticals that act only as a vehicle for chink to do as really bad, stupid conservative voice.
00:09:46.000If you think about arms, What does arms mean?
00:10:37.000Muskets were not the only weapons around at that time.
00:10:40.000There were high-capacity, rapid-fire assault weapons like the Girondoni air rifle, the Puckle Gun, the Belt and Flintlock, the Pepperbox Revolver, And yes, the Founding Fathers were completely aware of it.
00:10:51.000They had the chance to ban those or expressly outline an exclusion in the Second Amendment, but they didn't.
00:10:58.000It's for that same reason that James Madison wrote a letter of mark and reprisal to a private ship asking if they had the right to own cannons to protect themselves from piracy.
00:11:05.000Again, real, factual, observable history here.
00:11:08.000We'll provide the links because they don't.
00:11:21.000If a million dollars hundreds of years ago adjusted for inflation would, let's say, be over a billion dollars today, I'm not good at math, let's just assume, a cannon expressly protected under the Second Amendment hundreds of years ago when adjusted for inflation, But at least be a high-capacity rifle, if not a drone with high-capacity magazines hanging from its webcams.
00:11:44.000Not talking feelings or opinions here, pure history and law.
00:11:49.000Can we have any regulation of any of our rights?
00:11:52.000Well, of course we get a reasonable regulation of any of our rights.
00:11:55.000Freedom of speech is perhaps the most important right we have as Americans, but I can't go into a crowded theater and yell fire because that poses a danger to people.
00:12:02.000You'd think Chink would be better equipped.
00:12:05.000The yelling fire in a crowded theater to try and regulate speech argument, that's the kind of argument you'd skim past in a high school debate club so you could get to the arguments that were more compelling.
00:12:14.000Well, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, so speech is like freedom of speech is regulated, right?
00:12:18.000You can't yell fire in a crowded theater.
00:12:19.000That wasn't a stupid liberal voice, just chinks.
00:12:56.000Yeah, as horrible as it sounds, it is protected.
00:12:59.000Now, let's change that situation to less extreme example than yelling fire in a crowded theater.
00:13:03.000But that same white supremacist, oh brother, where art thou, KKK member, walks into the Black Lives Matter club and he says, hey, I don't know if you saw, but that black guy just robbed a liquor store.
00:13:43.000But if a militia was there to protect their community for whatever purpose back in the day, depending on where you lived, the north or the south, and they needed the arms to protect the community, what would be the modern-day equivalent of that?
00:13:56.000Now, today we don't have muskets anymore.
00:13:58.000I'm not sure Washington and Jefferson meant AR-17s or AK-47s.
00:14:05.000Things that fire 13 bullets in a second is what they would have considered reasonable arms.
00:14:11.000He just said AR-17 in case there were any doubt left as to how little Shank knows about firearms.
00:14:21.000Maybe he's talking about the AR-17 shotgun that was made in 1964, and they only produced, I think, about 1,200 worth, and he just knows a ton.
00:15:26.000And unlike Shank, who just says, look it up, read the history, it's exactly right.
00:15:29.000I will provide all of these sources at the original post of this video at louderwithcrowder.com for you to view at your reading.
00:15:35.000As a matter of fact, every single point of his conjecture can be refuted with historical evidence, documents and legal precedent at the link below.
00:15:54.000So if I just take out the ancient language and putting modern language, it reads like this.
00:15:59.000A well-regulated police force being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
00:16:07.000When you read it like that, does that sound like every single person gets to have a gun?
00:16:12.000No, it sounds like, yeah, you get to have a gun if you're part of the police force that is protecting the security of a free state.
00:16:24.000Ah, and how's that working out for you, this awkward moment where you've argued for years that a systemically corrupt, racist American judicial institution now becomes the one to whom you demand we willingly give over our rights to autonomy, self-protection, and now, for some reason, our unwavering trust.