Comments by "SmallSpoonBrigade" (@SmallSpoonBrigade) on "You're Wrong About The 1st Amendment" video.

@DukeOfJam7591 The 2nd wouldn't be controversial if there weren't so many morons out there. Both the case law and the constitutional amendment weren't at all confusing until relatively recently. Arguably, the 2nd amendment shouldn't be in the constitution at all due to a technicality related to the punctuation not matching. So, you get people that think it means one thing because one version says one thing and another group saying it means something else because the other version says that as well. And they're both sort of partially right as there is a version that says both things. But, the bit that most people get wrong, is that the 2nd amendment is what allows the national guard to exist independent of the federal government. That is currently the only well-organized militia we've got. We could arguably expand that to law enforcement, but going further than that requires mostly gutting the words and intention of the amendment as there is no process for training or organizing the rest of the citizens. It's why they get most of the same gear that the military does, but we don't. I haven't ever seen anybody arguing earnestly for the ability of the population to own mortars, tanks or nukes. Because that would be absolutely nuts. But, there are people that will argue that the line ought to be at various forms of handguns and rifles, even though the constitution was written manly decades before repeaters became a common thing and if you wanted to shoot multiple times without reloading, you had to carry multiple guns to do it.
2
@andiward7068 It does a bit of both. There are things like the interstate commerce clause that tells the government that it can't do certain things with regard to managing trade throughout the nation. But, it also has language like was in early on about how senators are selected.
1
@ViableGibbon It's probably the most accurate portrayal of a courtroom I've seen. 30-40 minutes of back and to the left while the same few frames of film footage is pretty accurate.
1
@albertwatkins7050 No, and you can't really yell fire in a crowded theater either. In the case of the bomb, there's presumably a terrorism statute that covers it. In the latter, it's not technically illegal, but given how dumb people are, you should probably expect that somebody is going to start a rush to get out and trample people. And if that happens, you probably would have criminal liability. There's a lot of things that aren't technically illegal in and of themselves, but are still likely to wind up with somebody being arrested. Around here, public nudity isn't technically illegal, but it will be prosecuted anyways under other rules. The local parks are technically all clothing optional, but there's been a bit of a truce where only certain areas of certain parks allow people to exercise that right.
1
@TheDarthbinky It did abolition it. What your referring to is a loophole where convicted prisoners, who can still be used for slave labor under the amendment as part of their punishment, were leased out to private interests. So, it's kind of misleading to say that FDR criminalized it when he mostly just modified it to be less of an impact on those that aren't convicted of any crimes. These days much of that work is done by illegal immigrants anyways, and we just lock the prisoners up in some facilities for 23hours out of the day. Which seems somewhat less humane.
1