Are Gun Rights OUT OF CONTROL in America?

What does the Second Amendment really protect — and has the Supreme Court interpreted it correctly? In this video, we break down the history, the court rulings, and the fierce debate over whether the right to bear arms is an individual freedom or meant only for state militias. Supporters say it’s a fundamental right rooted in American history. Opponents warn that broad interpretations make it harder to prevent gun violence. So — does the Second Amendment protect personal gun ownership, or have we misunderstood it all along? You decide.

Subscribe to stay connected to our stories

Support us by becoming a member on YouTube

Or Support us on Patreon

Buy Ring of Fire merch

Find us on social media!

*This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please excuse any typos.

Let's talk guns. Hi, I'm Brenton Goodman and this is You Decide Today we'll start a multi-part episode On the Second Amendment. We'll discuss what the amendment means and how it is being used in this current political environment. The Second Amendment explains what our gun rights are. Simply, it prevents the government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. Now the full text of the Second Amendment reads as follows, 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. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Second Amendment to mean that each law abiding and reasonable person has a right to have a weapon for non-military purposes like hunting and self-defense. This is because the right of the people expressed in the amendment when used in other parts of the Constitution refers to an individual's right to do something.

For example, the Fourth Amendment guarantees the right of people not to be unreasonably searched and seized, and that is a right guaranteed to every single person. They further explain that the founders use the phrase to bear arms to mean to carry weapons for self-defense. Even if someone was not a soldier, and the references to a well-regulated military to secure free states was merely a way to say one of the reasons people should be able to have firearms is so states can create militaries, which otherwise couldn't be created if the state citizens didn't have a right to carry their own personal guns. Now, the Supreme Court explains this. Reading does not prevent Congress from creating laws to prevent unreasonable people from using guns. They say like any right, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. They point to laws that they agree are constitutional, like those that say felons or the mentally ill cannot have guns.

Those that forbid having firearms in places like schools and government buildings and laws that create background checks or waiting periods on the commercial sale of guns. Last, they say that the right to have guns is fundamental because it was specifically included in the Bill of Rights that protects other fundamental rights and because the ability to have guns is something that is deeply rooted in our traditions and our history. Now, those who disagree with the court's interpretation feel the court ignores that this amendment was created to allow states to maintain a state militia in case the federal government ever tried to wield too much power over them. Because of that history and the fact that the amendment frames the right to bear arms by first highlighting the need for a free state, the amendment should be read as only protecting the carrying of firearms For state military purposes. They point to the fact that during our founding,

The term to bear arms was known to mean serving as a soldier. They also suggest the right guaranteed to people is not like the other rights in the Constitution. For example, even if you are mentally ill or have been convicted of a felony, you have the right to assemble or not be unreasonably searched, but those same people don't have the right to own guns. They also say that the right to have guns is not fundamental because historically the right of individuals to have guns was not recognized and it was always tied into the idea that it was only important for maintaining state militias. Their concern ultimately is that by saying the Second Amendment gives rights to certain individuals to carry guns, it hurts Congress's ability to create laws to limit the use of guns in our society.