Comments by "Jacob Watson" (@jacobwatson3781) on "" video.

  1. There are limits, what planet do you live on?
    3
  2. ​@@JMu-sm4lyWhat does the constitution say?
    3
  3. ​ @MelodusDethicus No, people like you do not know what the founders truly said about gun regulations. Also, you only fit well regulated into your narrative vs what it says. It says well regulated.
    2
  4. ​ @gigakrait5648 Although some gun rights advocates attempt to demonize government power, it is important to recognize that one of the most important rights citizens enjoy is the freedom to elect representatives who can enact laws to promote health and public safety. This is the foundation for the idea of ordered liberty. The regulation of gun powder and firearms arises from an exercise of this basic liberty. In 1786, Boston acted on this legal principle, prohibiting the storage of a loaded firearm in any domestic dwelling in the city. Guns had to be kept unloaded, a practice that made sense since the black powder used in firearms in this period was corrosive. Loaded guns also posed a particular hazard in cases of fire because they might discharge and injure innocent bystanders and those fighting fires.
    2
  5. ​ @oneslackr did the state register and house weapons for the militia at the founding?
    2
  6. And any person who says to suspend the constitution should be jailed right?
    2
  7. ​ @212caboose and it says well regulated
    2
  8. ​@@JMu-sm4lyJavelin counts doesn't it?
    2
  9. ​ @onthelake9554 so, your a single issue voter?
    2
  10. ​ @Mitch_Conner75926 when the 2A was written, did everyone have the same right to buy a gun?
    2
  11. ​ @RCenal after well regulated
    2
  12. ​@@JMu-sm4lydoes it define "arms", who defines that? Meaning, is a Javelin an arm?
    2
  13. ​ @captintinsmith3774 interesting since the founders did believe in gun regulations. Also, you just proved that well regulated has meaning.
    2
  14. ​ @aca2950 I can't yell fire in a theater. See, there are limits.
    1
  15. ​ @jordanbruner3714 but there is a spot that says "well regulated".
    1
  16. ​ @savvycivvy5644 Ahh, so, so you agree Javelins aren not in society's best to be available to the public?
    1
  17. ​ @chazzx1018 Interesting, what rights did slaves, women, Native Americans have in the Bill of Rights?
    1
  18. ​ @guyweisbeck3258 Tough talk from a simple Ammosexual
    1
  19. ​ @JimLander How?
    1
  20. ​ @JimLander is that how slaves thought?
    1
  21. ​ @JimLander How about Javelins, do I have a right to them?
    1
  22. ​ @savvycivvy5644 to clarify, if the majority of Americans vote that a certain gun should be banned, that gun should be banned? You're saying if society says so, that is the way it should be?
    1
  23. ​ @dougjustdoug6391 if you do a little reach you will find the framers also want the guns housed and registered. You need to study up a bit more.
    1
  24. ​ @savvycivvy5644 interesting, can a local government say guns can't be carried in certain locations?
    1
  25. ​ @gigakrait5648 Interesting, there is a debate of what kind of weapons civilians can have vs a military?
    1
  26. ​ @bradchristy8429 wait, isn't a threat of being charged an infringement? Go ask Alex Jones about that?
    1
  27. ​ @chesslover8829 that's the point, well regulated has meaning. No one wants to admit that.
    1
  28. ​ @bradchristy8429 No, that is what you want it to mean.
    1
  29. ​ @chesslover8829 were they at the time when it was originated by the founders?
    1
  30. ​ @gigakrait5648 did the guns have to be registered and housed?
    1
  31. ​ @gigakrait5648 One of the most common claims one hears in the modern Second Amendment debate is the assertion that the Founders included this provision in the Constitution to make possible a right of revolution. But this claim, too, rests on a serious misunderstanding of the role the right to bear arms played in American constitutional theory. In fact, the Founders engaged in large-scale disarmament of the civilian population during the American Revolution. The right to bear arms was conditional on swearing a loyalty oath to the government. Individuals who refused to swear such an oath were disarmed. The notion that the Second Amendment was understood to protect a right to take up arms against the government is absurd. Indeed, the Constitution itself defines such an act as treason. Gun regulation and gun ownership have always existed side by side in American history. The Second Amendment poses no obstacle to enacting sensible gun laws. The failure to do so is not the Constitution’s fault; it is ours.
    1
  32. ​ @gigakrait5648 Today American gun rights advocates typically oppose any form of registration – even though such schemes are common in every other industrial democracy – and typically argue that registration violates the Second Amendment. This claim is also hard to square with the history of the nation’s founding. All of the colonies – apart from Quaker-dominated Pennsylvania, the one colony in which religious pacifists blocked the creation of a militia – enrolled local citizens, white men between the ages of 16-60 in state-regulated militias. The colonies and then the newly independent states kept track of these privately owned weapons required for militia service. Men could be fined if they reported to a muster without a well-maintained weapon in working condition.
    1
  33. ​ @gigakrait5648 The modern gun rights movement has aggressively pursued the goal of expanding the right to carry firearms in public. The American colonies inherited a variety of restrictions that evolved under English Common Law. In 18th-century England, armed travel was limited to a few well-defined occasions such as assisting justices of the peace and constables. Members of the upper classes also had a limited exception to travel with arms. Concealable weapons such as handguns were subject to even more stringent restrictions. The city of London banned public carry of these weapons entirely. The American Revolution did not sweep away English common law. In fact, most colonies adopted common law as it had been interpreted in the colonies prior to independence, including the ban on traveling armed in populated areas. Thus, there was no general right of armed travel when the Second Amendment was adopted, and certainly no right to travel with concealed weapons. Such a right first emerged in the United States in the slave South decades after the Second Amendment was adopted. The market revolution of the early 19th century made cheap and reliable hand guns readily available. Southern murder rates soared as a result. In other parts of the nation, the traditional English restrictions on traveling armed persisted with one important change. American law recognized an exception to this prohibition for individuals who had a good cause to fear an imminent threat. Nonetheless, by the end of the century, prohibiting public carry was the legal norm, not the exception.
    1
  34. ​ @gigakrait5648 there, now you have some reading to do. I gave supply you more if needed.
    1
  35. ​ @gigakrait5648 nothing unusual about a weapon designed for war? That doesn't even pass the smell test.
    1
  36. ​ @chesslover8829 but it does mean register and house right?
    1
  37. ​ @bradchristy8429 No, that is what you want it to mean
    1
  38. ​​ @ravensmere1 He is quoting the most 2A supporting Supreme Court Justice ever, so yeah, he is correct.
    1
  39. ​ @rona4960 Is there a history of towns banning certain weapons inside of the town?
    1
  40. ​@Eversaut there is plenty of history and tradition in banning certain weapons. What planet are you from? Boston, in the 1780s, you have a little reading to do. After that, do look at what the west did after 1812 and civil war. You should be all caught up after that.
    1
  41. ​ @oneslackr So, would you say there is a long long history or some local jurisdictions and states doing that?
    1
  42. ​ @Eversaut Bruin talked about history and tradition but failed to acknowledge the actual history and tradition. What they did with that decision was what the Court did with Roe, they made up law in order to fit their narrative. Bruin was judicial actisim.
    1
  43. ​​ @oneslackr Did I say during the war or at founding? You will find they did register and house weapons for the militia. When you pick and choose what to find in history to support your narrative, you get exposed.
    1
  44. ​ @wildsteedworx4605 how does that apply to gay marriage?
    1
  45. ​@nathanielbass771 when you say agreed upon, who is in agreement?
    1
  46. ​ @nathanielbass771 Can you address the question, who is agreeing?
    1
  47. ​ @techwatch1228 and is well regulated
    1
  48. ​ @RCenal You're not aware? Just Google it.
    1
  49. Well regulated, you keep trying to skip that part.
    1
  50. ​ @lemagicbaguette1917 No, you want to fit a narrative, that isn't a definition, that's an opinion.
    1
  51. ​ @lemagicbaguette1917 Why did the founders want weapons registered and housed?
    1
  52. ​ @captintinsmith3774 exactly, you view is a simple opinion, nothing more.
    1
  53. ​ @lemagicbaguette1917 To say a registry is unconstitutional is uncommonly silly since that is what the founders did. History is not on your side. First problem you have is where in the constitution does it say a violent felon can't have a weapon? Do you support violent felons not being able to own weapons?
    1
  54. The constitution doesn't say what weapons someone can't have. Wake me when Colin complains about not having Javelins.
    1