#right to bear arms | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

dontmeantobepoliticalbut · 1 year

Text

State Sen. Nathan Dahm (R-OK) has penned several bills loosening gun restrictions, including the nation's first anti-red flag law. He thinks these bills protect the Second Amendment and that they make us safer. We think it's probably one or the other.

Transcript Below:

State Sen. Nathan Dahm: "I'm a strong proponent of the Second Amendment."

Jon Stewart: "Uh-huh."

ND: "I believe that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. That's the one right that's listed in the Constitution that uses that very specific affirmative language. You know, 'Shall not be infringed.'"

JS: "Oh, it's also the one, right, that also uses the phrase, 'well-regulated.'"

ND: "Correct. When it's talking about the militia and the state."

JS: "By the way, just for clarity's sake —"

ND: "Yeah."

JS: "— I'm not against the Second Amendment. I'm not against — I don't want to ban guns. But you're saying more guns make us more safe."

ND: "Yes."

JS: "So, when? We got 400 million guns in the country. We had an increase and gun deaths went up. So when exactly does this curve hit that takes it down? Would a billion guns do it?"

ND: "Let's just run those numbers. You know 400 million, 50,000..."

JS: "Uh-huh."

ND: "You're talking about a — less than a fraction of not even a percent, of 100th of a percent."

JS: "But it goes up, not down. So, your argument is backwards."

ND: "But if you want— ok, so — so let's — let's come up with a solution, ok? So, one of the issues, a contributing factor, again, I — I believe that it's the individual that is the problem."

JS: "So, your solution to that is to 'give them more guns?'"

ND: "So, I'm saying, because people are the problem, we need to look at the problems that those few people are facing and how do we address it versus —"

JS: "But, you've removed the ability for the state to do that."

ND: "No, because you — because you're —"

JS: "If you don't have background checks —"

ND: "Mmm-hmm."

JS: "— and you don't have registration and permitting, how do you know who has a problem in terms of the people who you're giving a gun to?"

ND: "Do you want to talk about the background checks first or do you want to talk about solutions first?"

JS: "I want to talk about, what you're doing is you're bringing chaos to order."

ND: "That's your subjective opinion, that it's bringing chaos to order."

JS: "It's not my subjective opinion."

ND: "It is."

JS: "We have 50,000 gun deaths. That's not a subjective opinion. That's dead people. Let me — let me back up for a second. In every other place in your life, you want to bring order. But guns are the outlier for you. So, let's start with immigration. You want registration, maybe a wall, maybe not a wall. Why do you want that?"

ND: "Well, one of the reasons is because of the fentanyl crisis."

JS: "Right, you —"

ND: "I mean, ok, but —"

JS: "— and you don't know when it's coming across. So what do you do —"

ND: "But the fentanyl crisis is twice what the gun death crisis is."

JS: "Ok, so until the gun crisis gets to the fentanyl level —"

ND: "Not until it —"

JS: "— you don't want to bring order?"

ND: "No, not until it. But —"

JS: "But do you see my point?"

ND: "— if we're going to talk about protecting lives—"

JS: "Uh huh, yes..."

ND: "— that's a larger issue in America than guns is. If we're talking about individual lives —"

JS: "Yes..."

ND: "— of ways they can be protected, loss of life in America, there's loss of life through fentanyl, there's loss of life through obesity. The obesity crisis in America —"

JS: "Mmm-hmm."

ND: "— costs six times the number of lives as guns and so —"

JS: "Right, and you're the guy saying, 'You know what would help this? Ice cream.'"

ND: *chuckles* "No. So, you know what would help the problem that we're facing with firearms?"

JS: "What?"

ND: "The fatherlessness crisis that we have in America. If you look at the statistics —"

JS: "Right. Yeah, they're dying from gun deaths."

ND: "80% of school shooters —"

JS: "Yeah, uh-huh..."

ND: "— either came from a broken or fatherless home."

JS: "So you would say no guns for fatherless homes?"

ND: "No, that's not what I would say."

JS: "Oh..."

ND: "I would say that fathers need to be more engaged."

JS: "Great. So let's — let's put more —"

ND: "— crime with a firearm if they don't have a father in the home."

JS: "— let's put more resources into areas that are poverty stricken. All for it."

ND: "And into fatherlessness, and that's something we're doing —"

JS: "But why with guns are you against bringing order?"

ND: "I'm not against bringing order."

JS: "You are! You're also making it less safe for cops and for people. When the police go to a domestic call, it's the most dangerous call they can go on."

ND: "Mmm-hmm."

JS: "In your world, if they knew that there were firearms in the house, that's a safer call. Is that what you're saying?"

ND: "No, because police —"

JS: "Because why?"

ND: "— because police treat every situation as a potential risk."

JS: "But more guns make us safer? So why don't — when the police go to a house filled with guns — why don't they breathe a sigh of relief knowing that this Second Amendment, that shall not be infringed, is being exercised so fruitfully in this home?"

ND: "Are you familiar with a 39-year-old woman in New Jersey?"

JS: "I'm familiar with a ton of anecdotes."

ND: "That — that —yeah..."

JS: "I'm asking you a simple question."

ND: "This is not an anecdote Jon."

JS: "When the police go to a house —"

ND: "This actually happened. She had a restraining order on her ex-boyfriend."

JS: "I can run through —"

ND: "I know."

JS: "— hundreds and hundreds of examples of women killed by their domestic partners by guns that were not taken away through the lessening of red-flag laws. You're pivoting to anecdotes."

ND: "But the knives — no, this is not anecdotes."

JS: "What the police say is, 'If we had fun registration, if we are able to track purchases, if we are — they have a technology — that every bullet will be stamped with an individual, like a fingerprint, if we had an ATF that wasn't defunded, we would be able to enforce gun laws more effectively, and we would be able to solve gun crimes more effectively.' You're against all of that?"

ND: "Because the person is the threat, not the firearm, not the knife."

JS: "I get it. Great —"

ND: "The — the person, the individual is the one who is the concern here."

JS: "Great. But you don't want anything that could help law enforcement or society determine whether or not a person is a good guy with a gun or a bad guy with a gun."

ND: "Most, even law enforcement —"

JS: "That registry would allow you to have much more effective background checks."

ND: "Mmm-hmm."

JS: "So, I don't understand why you won't just admit that you are making it harder for police to manage the streets by allowing all of theses guns to go out without permits, without checks, and without background stuff. Why is that hard — why can't you just stand by that?"

ND: "Because that's not what I'm doing. I'm defending the individuals right to keep and bear arms."

JS: "That's a different argument."

ND: "Ok, but —"

JS: "You may do — here — here's — here's what I'm saying..."

ND: "Mmm-hmm."

JS: "You want to say, 'I'm a Second Amendment purist, and I'm making it safer.' You're not. You're making it more chaotic, and that's not a matter of opinion, that's the truth."

ND: "That is a matter of opinion, Jon."

JS: "But why take away their tools?"

ND: "Because certain of their tools that they're using would be infringements upon the people's right to keep and bear arms upon their constitutional rights, upon their due process and upon other things."

JS: "So, you're saying that registering is an infringement?"

ND: "Yes."

JS: "Ok, is voting a right?"

ND: "It's a right for citizens, yes."

JS: "Do you have to do anything to do it?"

ND: "Yes."

JS: "What do you have to do?"

ND: "It depends on the state."

JS: "What do you have to do?"

ND: "Sometimes you have to — you have to be at least 18-years-old."

JS: "What do you have to do?"

ND: "And in some places, you have to have a government issued ID."

JS: "What do you have to — you have to —?"

ND: "You have to be on the voter rolls?"

JS: "Register. You have to register."

ND: "Mmm-hmm."

JS: "So, you have to register to have a right. Is that an infringement?"

ND: "Does the right to voting [amendment] say, 'shall not be infringed?'"

JS: "Oh, so this is just a semantic argument now?"

ND: "No, it's not."

JS: "You believe voting rights can be infringed because it doesn't say specifically, 'shall not be infringed?'"

ND: "Is it an infringement upon a 17-year-old's right to vote since they don't have that right to vote?"

JS: "No."

ND: "Oh, it's not an infringement on them?"

JS: "No. Absolutely not."

ND: "Why not?"

JS: "You're the — because, you're the one making the argument not me. I'm saying even rights have responsibilities and that within those responsibilities—"

ND: "Responsibilities, yes—"

JS: "— are responsibilities and order. Otherwise, it's chaotic. I'll go you one further. You want to ban drag show readings to children. Why?"

ND: "To minors, yes."

JS: "Why? What are you protecting?"

ND: "Why can we prohibit children from voting, those under 18 from voting? But also that —"

JS: "Why are you banning — is — is that free speech? Are you infringing on that performer's free speech?"

ND: "They can continue to exercise their free speech, just not in front of a child."

JS: "Why?"

ND: "Because the government does have a responsibility to protect —"

JS: *puts hand to ear* "I'm sorry?"

ND: "The government does have a responsibility in certain instances to protect children."

JS: "What's the leading cause of death amongst children in this country? And I'm going to give you a hint, it's not drag show readings to children."

ND: "Correct, yes."

JS: "So, what is it?"

ND: "I'm presuming you're going to say it's firearms."

JS: "No, I'm not 'Going to say it,' like it's an opinion. That's what it is. It's firearms. More than cancer, more than car accidents, and what you're telling me is, you don't mind infringing free speech to protect children from this amorphous thing that you think of. But when it comes to children that have died, you don't give a flying fuck to stop that, because that 'shall not be infringed.' That is hypocrisy at it's highest order."

Watch the Episode in full HERE.

38 notes · View notes

todaysdocument · 1 year

Photo

It’s Bill of Rights Day! Articles 3 through 12 were ratified on 12/15/1791, and became the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Article 2 became the 27th Amendment in 1992!

Record Group 11: General Records of the United States Government

Series: Enrolled Acts and Resolutions of Congress

Image description:

A zoomed-in portion of the document, reading:

No law, varying the compensa--

Congress shall make no law resp--

--asemble, and to petition the Gov--

A well regulated militia, bein--

Transcription:

Congress of the United States began and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Article the first... After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.

Article the second... No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Article the third... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Article the fourth... A 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.

Article the fifth... No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Article the sixth... The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article the seventh... No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article the eighth... In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Article the ninth... In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Article the tenth... Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Article the eleventh... The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article the twelfth... The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

ATTEST, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, Speaker of the House of Representatives John Adams, Vice-President of the United States, and President of the Senate John Beckley, Clerk of the House of Representatives. Sam. A Otis Secretary of the Senate

#archivesgov #December 15 #1791 #1700s #Early America #Bill of Rights #Bill of Rights Day #Constitution #Amendments #Freedom of speech #freedom of assembly #freedom of religion #right to petition the government for a redress of grievances #right to bear arms #search and seizure #right to a speedy and public trial #right to trial by an impartial jury #cruel and unusual punishment

55 notes · View notes