I. Ok, now that we’ve forced all of our anti-gun friends to concede the fact that gun rights apply to individuals, let’s move on to the other big question about the Second Amendment: did the founders intend for the people to have any weapons (including military weapons), or did they just mean for us to have muskets? A. This may sound like a silly false dichotomy, but several news pundits and celebrities have actually claimed that the Second Amendment is for muskets, and several others who realize how stupid that sounds still say the same thing another way by claiming that the founders never imagined something as powerful as an AR-15. 1. Examples of people saying this a) Msnbc (1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oG-xPA9reHs B. This is the claim gun control activists make when they accept (begrudgingly or otherwise) that the Constitution guarantees individual gun ownership. C. I have several points to make about this perception of the Second Amendment. D. First of all, The founders were not stupid. This perception assumes that our founding fathers had no sense of history and no imagination whatsoever. They obviously knew that weapons in the future would be more lethal than weapons of their time. It doesn’t matter whether they specifically imagined an AR-15. They chose their words very carefully. They intended for the right to be open ended. If they wanted us to only have muskets, they would have said, “the right of the people to keep and bear muskets, shall not be infringed.” E. Secondly, by this same logic that the Second is for muskets, free speech wouldn’t apply to the internet, warrants wouldn’t be necessary to search computer hard drives, and free exercise of religion wouldn’t include Mormons. 1. “Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way... the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” Justice Scalia, DC vs Heller F. Finally, muskets weren’t even close to the deadliest weapons that existed at the time of the founding, and the founders knew it. There were plenty of pre-constitution assault weapons that could destroy buildings, or sink ships, or kill a whole lot of people in a very short time. 1. girandoni air : Built in the 1770’s famously used on the Lewis & Clark expedition. 22 round about 30 seconds a) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle 2. Pepperbox /. repeating with three or more barrels that revolve around a central axis. Some had over 20 barrels. Concept first developed in the 15th century. Hundreds of years before the Constitution. a) https://www.google.com/search?q=pepperbox+revolver&rlz=1C1C HBD_enUS749US749&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahU KEwi_89-r3qPjAhVPu54KHShuAZ8Q_AUIECgB&biw=1366&bih= 625#imgrc=_ b) https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBD_enUS749US749& biw=1366&bih=625&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=S2IiXf62A8X4-wTpsqTY CQ&q=pepperbox+rifle&oq=pepperbox+rifle&gs_l=img.3..0j0i24.7 1483.74028..74163...1.0..0.202.1772.0j10j1...... 0....1..gws-wiz-img ...... 35i39j0i5i30j0i8i30j0i10i24.eVMXnDW5NYY#imgrc=bP0-RgE RudnrcM: 3. Puckle Gun: Primitive version of a . Built in 1717. 9 rounds/minute a) https://www.google.com/search?q=puckle+gun&rlz=1C1CHBD_en US749US749&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjuza 353qPjAhUFsp4KHcs6AYUQ_AUIECgB&biw=1366&bih=625 4. Belton : Built in 1770’s. repeated flintlock design: 20 rounds in 5 seconds a) https://www.google.com/search?q=belton+flintlock&rlz=1C1CHBD _enUS749US749&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi i8JuT36PjAhUKnZ4KHfxZC5sQ_AUIECgB&biw=1366&bih=625 5. And you don’t even need a history lesson to know there were obviously: a) b) Mortars c) Hand Grenades (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenadier G. The founders knew all about these weapons, and yet they didn’t leave them out. They deliberately chose the word “arms” without any caveats. II. Conclusion: A. So, surely at this point, any anti-gun folks still listening must be running out of ways to misinterpret the Second Amendment, right? I think I’ve pretty well left no stone unturned when it comes to the Second Amendment. But, even after they drop the interpretation thing, gun-control activists still have a couple of points to make. B. First of all, you may have noticed a common theme here with every one of these arguments I’ve laid out, that the founders regarded an armed citizenry as the ultimate deterrent against a tyrannical government. Many gun control supporters have addressed this line of thought. They say an armed citizenry couldn’t actually stop tyranny anymore. They call the idea quaint, or cute, or just outright ridiculous. They say, “If you think an AR-15 is going to protect you from government tyranny, I have a black helicopter I’d like to introduce you to.” 1. Oh really? Why don’t you say that to Vietnam? Why don’t you say that to Afghanistan? Both of which thwarted the efforts of the most powerful countries in the world using little more than small arms, homemade explosives, and guerrilla tactics. a) And they never had 320 million people. They never had over 300 million guns. b) If Americans had to resort to similar tactics, we would be far greater in number, far more heavily armed, far more resourceful, and far more resilient than any insurgency in history. c) Whether tyranny came knocking from outside or within, that tyrant would have one hell of a fight on his hands. 2. As the ultimate proof that armed citizens prevent tyranny, I’d also like to point out the fact that Gun control was the favorite policy of countless genocidal governments in the . a) An estimated 56 million defenseless people were rounded up and murdered under gun control regimes like the Soviet Union, Germany, China, and many more. b) https://patriotpost.us/pages/77 c) Justice Joseph Story (appointed to the Supreme Court by James Madison), "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." C. The last point anti-gun activists can make once they’ve resentfully accepted that the founders and the courts all concur that Americans do have the right to bear arms is that they don’t like the Second Amendment and to be safer and more progressive we ought to repeal it. As horrible of an idea as this is, I have to say, at least they’re being honest. At least they accept the facts, and they respect the Constitution enough to admit that the amendment process is the only way to get what they want. At least when they suggest repeal, it forces us to have an honest conversation about our right to defend our life, liberty, and property. I’ll take that debate over interpretational debates any day. 1. NYT had an article in 2017 called “Repeal the Second Amendment”: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/opinion/guns-second-amendment- nra.html?referer=https://www.google.com/ a) “Expansive interpretations of the right to bear arms will be the law of the land — until the “right” itself ceases to be.” b) This is obviously a horrible idea for reasons I’ve already articulated and reasons that are forthcoming in future videos. My reason for bringing it up is to point out that this is not a fringe idea. It is in the mainstream. It is in the New York Times. I have no doubt this repeal movement will only grow in popularity. III. So, that’s it for the Second Amendment, but when arguing the Constitutionality of gun control legislation, the 2nd amendment is not the only part of the Constitution we should consider. We also have to consider the 14th amendment. 1. And we’ll get to that on the next episode.