"Militia" in 2nd Amendment: Why? Colonial + Early Republic Gun Laws with Dr. Joyce Malcolm

Video Transcript

Welcome to Truly Right View
Let The Truth Be Told!

Are you ready to hear the real truth unfiltered by bias media or government intervention?
Subscribe to the Truly Right View Channel

[Music] it is my tremendous privilege to be sitting down once again with Dr Joyce Malcolm it would be difficult to overstate her importance to the Second Amendment as I’ve talked about with her in other videos before her work is routinely seted not only by courts across the country at both the state and federal level but also by the United States Supreme Court when it comes to exploring the history and the Legacy that the colonists and the founding fathers generation left about why they did what they did what was their idea about the right for individuals to keep and bear arms and that’s what we get into in this conversation in our first two conversations we discussed the evolution of the English right to keep and bear arms really going back to the 16th and 17th centuries through the British Civil War in the 1640s and on through the British Bill of Rights in the 1680s in this conversation we get into where did this start and where did it go as far as as the United States went or of course then the colonies going back to the 17th and 18th century what was the common sentiment and understanding of the Second Amendment where did it come from why do we have it where did this militia Clause come from was it an individual right or was it a community right we get into all of that to unpack and explore the history and what people thought about it don’t forget to hit that like button if you’ve not already done so it tells Professor Malcolm as well as myself and of course the algorith that yes this is good other people should see it don’t forget to drop both of us a note in the discussion section that’s the comment field below and without further Ado let’s welcome Professor Joyce Malcolm back to the [Music] channel Dr Joyce Malcolm welcome back to the program well thank you very much for having me for this additional addition of it I just like to say if we’re talking about U the right to be armed in colonial America that it really starts with the fact that all of the colonial Charters included from the king the right that all of those settlers coming to the New World this violent new world and their children would have all the same rights as the natural subjects as if born and abiding in England so they had that Assurance at the very beginning and I I think it took that Assurance be because this was a pretty uh desolate place for them to come um there were people living here who were not going to welcome them they had the whole land had to be um completely settled and uh so it was very difficult and and to entice them giving them the same rights and privileges was important and it was something by the way that the French settlers and the Spanish settlers did not have and the right to be armed was fitted perfectly with the things that they needed to do so the traditional rights of Englishmen as far as having a duty to be armed to protect themselves and the settlement and each other um and to serve in a militia um fitted with what really needed to happen in these new settlements um and in fact there were several States or colonies I should say that actually had laws requiring people to be armed and not only to be armed but to carry their weapons if they went outside of the settlement so if you were going to the fields you had to have your weapons with you you went to church um and in Massachusetts and Virginia and Connecticut they had laws like that so it wasn’t just an option this was what they but the law required and what their safety required and even a century later Connecticut required that all the citizens every householder C capable of being armed had to have in Readiness a firearm or sword or some other weapon and ammunition to fire it um just in case of of any problem so all those duties uh from Britain um England I should uh were reinstated here in America and with fewer restrictions so there weren’t restrictions on hunting and then and in fact I think in Pennsylvania’s first Bill of Rights they gave people the right to hunt so this this was um really important um and I should also say that they were aware when the English Bill Rights was passed that in 1689 that there was now this right for Protestants to be armed have arms for their defense suitable to their condition and as Allowed by law and there were really no restrictions in the colonies about religion in fact so many denters of different faes came here it would have been kind of silly to do that it would have you know gone against the idea of having to be right keep people safe um one of the U members of the English Board of Trade and talking about the rights of these settlers would have wrote let an Englishman they were all Englishman let an Englishman go where he will he carries as much of Law and Liberty with him as the nature of things will be and I think the thing that made that maybe it didn’t bear was some of the complexity of the land law in England and things like that but the basic rights that people had um were uh went with them and they the uh settlers also followed all the debates in England there were a lot of debates in the 18th century about and and earlier about the wisdom of having a standing army the danger and Army might make to people’s freedom in Europe at that time in the 16th 17th century armies were basically the tool of the crown and they when they weren’t busy at with war they were busy repressing the people and one of the rights in the in the English Bill of Rights was that there shall be no standing army in time of peace without the consent of parliament so the legislature has to approve an army and that showed how really um desperately worried about an army they were that and an army could take away their rights if it would just became the governor the government’s Army um and that was one of the reasons they preferred a citizen militia and I should say also about the militia that um it was your neighbors um all men between the ages originally of 16 and 60 which is a huge crowd more serious purposes it was a a narrower group but what they did not want was what they called a select militi a militia that might be chosen for political reasons or skewed along some other line they the militia was supposed to be from the body of the people so it was everybody who could bear an AR Firearms had this duty to be a part of the militia and again like in England it was a defensive you know to protect the Community against Rebellion uh or Invasion um rather than being like a professional Army that was on foot all the time so the whole I guess 16th 17th century 18th century 18th century in the colonies people had their arms they used them they weren’t worried about them there were a few laws that restricted them people uh weren’t allowed to actually go ahead and brandish guns and fire in all directions in the middle of the town and there’s some people who are against the idea that there was a right to be armed by citing these laws but these were sort of practical safety concerns and not something that was to take away um people’s rights and we’re seeing that of course emerge across courts today which is I think the reason why you’re alluding to that right now is the fact that we’re seeing anti-gun lawyers and representing the government whether at local state or the federal level using some of those obscure laws that dealt with 1836 don’t discharge a firearm on the streets of Brooklyn right uh things like that as well there was obviously gun control uh people people didn’t really have a right to to own or possess Firearms individually we’re seeing this twist occur yeah and every right has some example of controls along the edges of it you know I mean you’re not supposed to shout fire in a crowd of the theater so does that mean there’s no right you know to freedom of speech all of them do and the idea that somehow that negates the entire right is is bizarre um but what you also raised and and I think it’s important and we tend to forget it is the dangers of standing armies as far as as the colonists were concerned and the early Americans and the British and in England they had taken all of these precautions against having a professional army they had something called the um Mutiny Act and then the Mutiny Act um which came shortly after the English Bill of Rights in the Mutiny Act in order for the Army to be able to have a regulation against Mutiny and desertion they had to come back to Parliament every year to get that reconfirmed and get their budget every single year year after year after year the British army that was all over the globe had to come back to par and that law stayed in effect that rule until after World War I so that was the sort of deep seated feeling that there must be something in control of the military and that attitude toward armies passed into the whole American psyche so that even um during the American Revolution there were worries about Washington’s Army the Continental Army After the Revolution they did not want to give officers a pension because that would make a special class of members of the army so um there’s there’s this feeling that you in order to preserve Liberty you have to can make sure that you only have an army when you absolutely need it during wartime or on the frontier and at other times you rely upon the citizen militia and of course that’s um in our constitution at any rate all of that that anti-army sentiment uh was as as Bernard Balin said devoured by the the colonists they got all of the the the pamphlets and the debates and everything like that um so they were very very suspicious of of U those same attitudes you know and worries um and then in um in 1757 it was and Beyond there were a series of militia acts that pertained to America and which allowed the people who were in charge of the militia and in in Britain the militia was under what these Nobles called the Lords lieutenants and here they were sometimes larger groups under some very important individuals and um and the government could put in the Royal government people that it favored and they gave them the right to disarm the militia should they feel that that was necessary so there was all of this suspicion about the militia possibly being disarmed and people uh being helpless so that was how things stood really after the what we call the French and Indian War for the first time the British had brought an army to America to help us out against the French and this was great you know that we needed that they all of these soldiers over it was very expensive the Americans including George Washington worked alongside the British army um but after the war they didn’t take the Army back we thought that you know they’re there that was nice they were helpful they left them there and then they did not put them at the frontier where there seemed you know to be some reason to have an army they left them in the in the cities uh and on the East Coast um and where they could be to enforce the new acts that were coming these new tax taxes that Americans were having to um pay and there was also something called the Quebec Act which I will just put in detail but I had actually not read it until fairly recently quec act after we had defeated the British the we and the British had defeated the the French and Canada the Canadians um would have given to Canada all of the what we now have the Midwest your state of Wisconsin would have been part of Canada five states would have been part of Canada if that stood and the colonists had thought that after they the French were gone and were no longer going to be a problem they would be able to settle all of that now it turned out it was all going to be part of Canada so there were lots of things to Grumble about and um and the Army being uh in these cities ended up with a lot of tensions you had the so-called Boston Massacre where I have to admit thugs at the Boston Harbor were pelting a lone sentry with icy ball snowballs and other things and he called for help and in the midst of all of this uh the soldiers fired and several people were killed and injured and there was a a big trial about it um and again it seemed to just justify the idea that you can’t rely on or have a safe country and Liberty if you’re going to have soldiers in the middle of a a um a settlement civilians and then things got quiet until you got the the Tea Party and um in 1773 and partly I should say and I know this isn’t just add this the tea party was basically uh the the British government had actually wanted to do something good for the um the East India Company which was having financial troubles so they gave them a monopoly on tea and um the colonists would be paying less for the the East India Company te than they were paying for the smuggle key and so there there were activists who did not want that te to land and they couldn’t persuade the governor Massachusetts to stop it and so they dressed up as red Indians and um and dumped three shiploads of tea in the harbor that tea was worth about 1.7 million in today’s money and there was a great call in Parliament and Elsewhere for the people of of the Boston legislature to pay that back which they refused to do and so there were all of these efforts to um punish Boston and shut down the harbor and put in a military governor and others things and that led directly to um our Revolutionary War it was really the the kind of key to the disgust that Parliament had Americans were unwilling to pay a lot of the taxes that the British been I wouldn’t say happily unhappily but that paying for years and paying for their own defense and all the rest of it and um and the their new King George of 3 couldn’t understand why we were so ungrateful um and insisted on forcing it um and then in a sense in I bring out in my book on the um times of triman souls the it’s as if the radicals on each side people most stall were got in charge so in the colonies you got you know people like Sam Adams who was delighted that there might be a revolution and um and georgean thei in Parliament who felt that the counties need to be taught the lesson and uh actually having right to be armed was really important um and exercised um and people were already armed so it was it made it very much harder for the government to keep control I really hope that you’re enjoying listening to this conversation as much as I enjoyed having the conversation and I can assure you that Professor Malcolm is a pleasure to chat to whether or not the camera’s rolling or if it’s not we get into all sorts of different topics if you want to see her come back don’t forget to hit that like button and of course if you just caught us browsing through we do all sorts of different topics related to Second Amendment and Beyond hit that subscribe button to make sure you don’t miss any future content and drop both myself and Professor Malcolm and note down in the comment field below now back to the program once the war started um the Continental Congress had been meeting um they sent George Washington Up To Boston where there was this Helter Skelter group of men who after the Battle of Lexington and conquered when the British soldiers had retreated back to Boston um were afraid the British were going to come out again and so this large army of men and boys um congregated along the the uh Massachusetts sure Boston then was like almost like a little it’s not an island but almost Island there was just a little Causeway linking it to the mainland so it could easily be kind of closed off and so that the um British soldiers and um Gage the um in Boston um were kind of almost besieged and they got new reinforcements came in from by sea and dozens of British warships came to the Massachusetts Harbor um and uh there was a a battle when they um when the British decided to U go across that island that Waterway U to Bunker Hill and lost um it was amazing the the Americans had built what they called a redout in the night you know on the edge of the Hill that they could hide behind and the British thought that the American militia really would just run and so they just assaulted straight up and they lost half of the soldiers who participated there was more than a thousand men and something like 80% of the officers Americans had the audacity to pick out the officers that they were on Horseback and they were easily spotted and it wouldn’t it might have been dishonorable but that was what what was done at any rate after that it’s amazing that there was even an effort to have reconciliation um as the um during the War uh which can went on from there um the there was no proper Constitution there was a the Articles of Confederation as they were called that by which these separate colonies they were almost like sovereign states uh were going to operate and if you read the Articles of Confederation it almost like a an international treaty um some Powers were given to this central government they would all work together through committees um it had very little power the central government to enforce um taxes or the the um amount of soldiers that any one colony was required to contribute to this Armed Force so they had a lot of a difficulty working together but um but because of the warlike situation they were kind of forced to and the odd thing about the articles is that to make any serious Amendment all of the colonies had to agree it had to be unanimous well it took almost to the end of the war 1781 until the Articles were actually ratified but they were they operated throughout the war because they simply needed to to operate that way um but after the war was over and the uh peace treaty had been agreed to um they didn’t work too well they were very weak um states were not fulfilling their requirements there was you know there was less and less I guess felt need for them but on the other hand there were all these fears that foreign nations would take advantage of their disunion and there would be tariffs in Virginia would have tariffs against goods from some other state and uh so there became to more and more sense that they needed to have a constitution um and after several attempts they actually sat down in Philadelphia in 1787 and drafted a constitution um it took a lot it bar nearly split apart at at many uh points um some of the things that people are now arguing about you know the um um all of the the ways that we elect a president how long the turns should be um it’s it it’s interesting to read John ma uh James Madison’s discussions of the debates in the Constitution because there were so many things that were a real issue and are still you know there’s a lot of people that don’t agree with what the final agreements were there was the whole issue of slavery which was terrible issue and and it was being drafted at the same time that the northern states were abolishing slavery so it was it was a difficult um compromise but what didn’t happen during that articles of confeder uh excuse me during the Constitutional meetings and agreement was that there was no Bill of Rights and there was a feeling and this was a British inheritance too that if you get if you make a list of your rights um you’ll forget something important so you don’t want to make a list you just just want to have laws and the protection of the common law um and so there were some states like starting with Massachusetts that did not want to ratify until there was a Bill of Rights and different states then began to send in all kinds of advice about different articles that would um be amendments to this Constitution and Promises were made by the Federalists who had the upper hand that if you just pass this there will be a rights and uh it got ratified although really near the end there was still the states of New York and Virginia that had not yet ratified the Constitution and it took um a lot of effort on the part of some of the the greatest of the founders to persuade Matt uh New York in particular to go ahead and ratify in fact uh they only did narrowly approve the Constitution um and little Rhode Island which was obviously not going to be in as good a position as it was under the Articles where that had to be unanimous um little Rhode Island did not ratify the Constitution until it was threatened with being treated as a foreign nation and um and North Carolina did not ratify it until a Bill of Rights was adopted so there were these holdouts that were quite interesting uh but uh after the As the First con uh Congress was meeting James Madison brought up this issue about how we promised there should be a Bill of Rights and it was thas Jefferson said that that was what every country every people was entitled to against every government on Earth and he pushed Madison to keep pushing it there were many members of Congress that said we don’t there’s so many other things we need to do we can’t start doing this now let’s wait you know but he kept bringing it up and uh and let a small committee to to draft a um a Bill of Rights a lot of the Amendments the states had put forth would have changed some of the structure of the government but Madison was convinced that the only thing that they should do in the Bill of Rights was have rights that there was no objection to that everybody could agree to and so he drew up this list of Rights um that included the right of the people to be armed Madison would have put these rights within the body of Constitution and uh but in the on the little committee he was on there was a man named Roger Sherman and he felt they should be at the end and he prevailed if Madison had gotten his way the Second Amendment would not have been in the article that had anything to do with the militia that would have been put in the previous article that had to do with um you know some of the other rights that were actually embedded in the Constitution so it would have been a lot clearer and there would have been a lot less or one assumes there would have been a lot less argument about that it meant about whether or not whether or not the second amendment is uh not an individual right but rather whether or not it has a strict connection to militia service just so so that I’m emphatically clear what you’re saying is that under James Madison’s version the part of the Constitution that dealt with the militias that’s not where the Second Amendment would have lived it would have lived entirely outside of that part and in in a different part that dealt with individual rights is that fair to say that’s exactly right help about myself and and the viewers is what you’re making a controversial claim when you say that or is this well-documented black and white nope that’s where that would have been but for Roger Sherman’s uh major contribution to constitutional history of getting everything split and added at the end it’s not controversial it’s known there was actually Sherman’s um contribution um was on a document that was not discovered for many years 1987 if I’m not mistaken so when you think about that that’s a long time for something that have been tucked away but uh and and there would made some sense to put the Amendments at the end because otherwise every time you had an amendment you had to kind of redo the whole document but from the point of view of the way that they wrote the second amendment that would have put the kabash really to the idea that somehow this was all meant to just be something to do with making sure that the militia was armed I mean if the militia wasn’t armed it would have been a pretty useless institution but you know to clarify that it was an individual right and and Madison said that what he was doing was making listing guards for in personal rights and one of the um things that makes it a little trickier to follow the drafting is that um that the Senate got these rights and changed the language of some of them and it put together a whole lot of things in the First Amendment first amendment is really pretty cramped with important rights um in the Second Amendment we know that one of the Senators had made uh the suggestion that there be added to the right of the people um to be armed the phrase for the common defense and that was rejected so as far as I can see the idea that somehow it was just a communal right and not an individual right was squarely rejected by the Senators when they passed it one other thing and I I guess we should I I assume that most of your viewers and listeners know by heart the Second Amendment um but the Second Amendment starts by saying a well-regulated militia being the necessary security of a free state the right of the people to keep and be arm should not being and the issue there why is that there was a debate about what to do about the Army and there were some people that felt that they wanted to say something against the use of an army and there were even several suggestions including one from Madison that the Army be set at a certain number um but the the feeling was that that would add a kind of unfair dishonorable attitude toward the army so what the Second Amendment says is that it’s the militia that’s the necessary security of a fre has nothing to we don’t mention the army Army is dealt with elsewhere the Army had to come back to the Congress every two years to get its budget was under civilian control the Second Amendment says it’s the militia and and in the debates and in the states and talking about their militia they always said that the militia was the whole body of the people it wasn’t a select militia it was everybody all those people capable of being armed uh were um to be in a part of the militia so I think that the language of it um makes it clear that it’s an individual right quite apart from going back you know and looking at all of the debates if you just look at the actual text of of it um and their feelings about an army I mean a lot of the as I’ve written you know a lot of these understandings have faded over the years and people don’t necessarily understand um there was a um one of the newspaper articles that came out after they released the text of these amendments uh was the Philadelphia Evening Post and I’d like to read what it said about the meaning of the Second Amendment it said as civil rulers not having their duty to the people duly before them they attempt to tyrannize and as the milit Ary forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens the people are confirmed in their right to keep and bear their private arms so this was a newspaper in Philadelphia where they were doing this drafting took a look at what they had done and that article went out and was carried by a lot of other newspapers uh throughout the colies and just just to add to that because I I as I recall that article was also republished in New York and Boston and elsewhere but there was a period between when the okay so we had the second amendment that was in this Committee of three among them Roger Sherman then it was adopted by uh this larger committee that was drafting everything and then it went out to the states for ratification and correct me if I’m wrong but my understanding of the context of this newspaper article and it got picked up all over the place was to try to educate the public about okay everyone this is what is being proposed this is what is being talked about is that fair to say yes that was the understanding that they had um there was no better position to be in than in Philadelphia among the people who were actually drawing it up this was the newspaper efforts it explained all the different um amendments that were uh being proposed actually there were two that failed M um so this wouldn’t initially have been the the second it would have been maybe the fourth but but um but I think it’s important to to see how they s and they sought as the right of the people to keep and bear their private so there was no issue about whether they were in a militia or it was some communal right for some other thing they would it was you know squarely on that topic there uh I if I may I uh I happen to have this handy book that I’m very fond of to keep in be arms you may have heard of it uh at some point or another well being the author uh and on that page 164 I think the author makes a terrific Point going on to the next paragraph and if I may just read a snippet here assuming I’m not stealing your wind the protection that it meaning the Second Amendment granted was a blank it one William raw George Washington’s candidate for the nation’s first attorney general described the scope of the second amendment’s guarantee the prohibition he wrote is General no clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give Congress a power to disarm the people such a felicious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature but if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power either should attempt it this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both keep in mind of course this was before the 14th Amendment so everything we’re discussing here in this discussion of course only acts as a check on federal power because of course the founders had no real concerns that their government down the street was going to take away their powers they were worried about the government now in DC then in Philadelphia little did they know that they should be worried about both but of course the 14th Amendment would be coming around in 1868 later yes this is sort of a any idea of disarming the people and and it’s sort of sad to think that you know they said that and and it’s important that it it was clear but there’s still all of these attempts in the name of Public Safety or something else um there’s one other thing I’d like to just read and this is John Marshall’s idea of how you TR understand the language of the Constitution the the originalists originalist okay John Marshall that you know our first really great U chief justice he says the to say that the intention of the instrument must Prevail that’s the Constitution that is intention must be collected from its words that its words are to be understood in that sense in which they are generally used by those For Whom the instrument was intended people that as Provisions are neither to be restricted into insignificance nor extended to objects not comprehended in them or contemplated by its framers is all that can be necessary so the language is the language of the people understand that’s how you have to translate it that’s how you want to understood understand it and that you’re not to um to take away the meaning of it Provisions are neither to be restricted into insignificance and that is what almost happened to the Second Amendment before The Supreme Court made it clear and hel that it was an individual right it’s a lot easier to mistranslate something than it is to amend the Constitution and that was clearly what was happening there thank goodness that it didn’t well and and for your research as well obviously in as far as in a very real sense pioneering and making this information accessible to a very wide audience in no small part to include the US Supreme Court and it’s the many other courts across the United States I if I may be so P I just want to try to see if I can encapsulate a lot of what we just talked about here people need to understand if they’re going to understand the second amendment that there was very important and sharp debate about how to protect the people how to protect the state how to protect the country and the founders and that generation and the generations that preceded them and followed them were extraordinarily skeptical of the institution of a standing army of a military and I believe what you’re stating here and what your research has shown is that the phrase concerning the militia clause in the Second Amendment is an expression of preference by the framers by the founders and that generation that they strongly prefer the militia to a standing military and that this is where that inclusion of the term the militia comes from not as a limiting force or is a directive Force to say that arms are only to be put in commission of militia and of course a militia I should add that is ruled by both the state and federal governments and of course we are also left with the absurdity of that translation in so far as yes the framers decided to put a a right in there the only right that’s not limited to the individual citizens to the individual people consisting the people but they must have inserted for this alternative interpretation to be true that they inserted an amendment to protect the right of the federal and state governments to maintain a portion of the military which if you get into the history of it is the antithesis really of what they are trying to say yeah it’s the very opposite the whole idea of the of the Second Amendment is to protect all your other rights if the government is going to be abusive now if you give the government the Monopoly on weapons then you don’t have any way of protecting yourself or retrieving your other rights I mean it was Blackstone William Blackstone the English jurist uh who said that that people were to keep an uh have arms uh for self-preservation and defense and he was the most cited English author by the founders he wrote shortly before the American Revolution that’s how they saw it that this was for self preservation and defense and your most basic right was your right to self-defense and so that and the fear that an army would take away your way of Defending yourself uh your ability to defend yourself was really abhorent in England today self-defense is really imperal they feel that if you defend yourself it’s vigilantism that you’re taking the Law into your own hands and that’s so awful the idea that you know you have to be a victim of of of somebody otherwise you know you’ll be arrested for harming them if they attack you now there you have just this god-given not government giving god-given right to protect yourself and your family and the Second Amendment really preserves that and and has the second uh aim of of making sure that that your other rights can be protected by you as well by you and your fellow citizens what would you say to anybody out there who has any doubts remaining about whether or not the second amendment is an individual versus Community right or whether or not the second amendment is strictly about preserving the government’s ability to raise militia and armies any message to those folks well there are three Supreme Court decisions now that counter that idea I mean the Supreme Court was very clear in heler and McDonald and now on bruan and this is an individual right of people to keep and bear those arms in common use for self-defense and other lawful purposes and I think the American people have always believed that always believed that despite all of the efforts to convince them otherwise um the people that want to erase it um don’t seem willing to accept anything from the Supreme Court um if I could just read you something from Lawrence tribe on that issue Lawrence tribe was the S of the great um professor of criminal law had a a major textbook on criminal law and I think first issue of it every 10 years he wrote an additional one the first one actually had the second am as a footnote I don’t know if you’ve ever seen that but is it isn’t even in the text it is a footnote because his view was that it was just a right for states to be able to have a militia and by the way none of the Amendments that the states sent in ever asked for that not one they never asked that they have any more power over the militia and then by the Third Edition he admitted that when there was all this scholarship that it was an individual right and of course a lot of his his liberal supporters were Furious that he went over to the dark side but I give him credit for admitting that that maybe he was wrong but this is what he says about why it’s such a poignant issue he writes this in his in his third volume he says it’s the the two poignancy of the topic of gun control and the inescapable tension for many people on both sides of the policy between the reading of the second amendment that it would B the policies they favor and the reading of the Second Amendment to which intellectual honesty and their own theories of constitutional interpretation would drive them if they could bring themselves to set their policy convictions aside I think they can’t set the policy convictions aside and so they can be TR to find some ways of discrediting the true meaning of the Second Amendment but I I thought it was interesting that he talked about it as the true poignancy that they these great Scholars know that there’s an individual right but they have these policy opinions that you know that won’t allow the intellectual honesty of admitting that Joyce really appreciate you coming in here today how can people learn more about you and some of your fantastic works that you have contributed to not only the academic Community but all of us oh thank thank you so much um well I actually have apart from the uh book to keep in their arms I wrote one about uh British uh because they were always supposed to have the gold standard on gun control so it’s called guns and violence the English experience and it is readable it is it goes into the history of how in fact as guns came in there weren’t severe restrictions on firearms in England until very late on uh until after World War I and then it talks about some of the changes that they made the kind of things some of the people in this country would like to see registration which allowed them to then take away the guns because they knew where they all were um people being dependent on the government to protect them and they’re out in the street or being attacked otherwise it you know they basically are going to have to be victims they’re not allowed to carry any item that they can use for off to protect themselves it will be called an offensive weapon I mean it’s full of what an American would find really shocking but that’s what’s happening and that’s what happened there and how guns got eased away from them um and and they be to treat America as a sort of cowboy country I think it that they might find that interesting so that’s called guns and violence the English experience do you see the same Playbook being run in America over the last several decades that happened in England about a hundred years ago from the gun controllers yeah I I think the whole a lot of people insist well why don’t we register guns that makes a lot of sense you know and it shows the English experience shows so clearly why that’s a bad idea they had a a massacre of children uh in in Scotland um by a crazy guy right and after that there was a movement to ban all handguns from civilian control and the parents of these victims went out and you know with pushing Parliament to ban all of the handguns that were out there um there were two amendments that that Parliament tried to insert and went down in defeat one was to allow handicap Shooters to have firearms and you know I mean it was one of the few Sports they could compete equally in the other was to allow the British Olympic Shooting team to be able to have their guns to practice in Britain the Olympic Shooting team has to practice on the continent it can’t practice so those two very sensible amendments went down the tubes and they went out across the country and all of those registered handguns in private hands including Antiques and you know collector’s items were confiscated and within 10 years the handgun crime had doubled so that registration left all of those law fiding citizens you know targets for the government when they wanted to just pick up all the handguns out there seemed like a good idea and it really did not help at all in the in the public safety so I think those seeing examples like that really explain why people who believe strongly in the right to be armed feel that some of these ideas are really bad and will you know be counterproductive government policy being counterproductive well hopefully no one is driving their car operating heavy machinery when they heard that so um and of course we will be putting links for anybody who’s interested down the description box below so you can check out all of Dr Malcolm’s great works I highly urge you to do so I have reread a few of her books multiple times in fact I have multiple copies so I was showing her before I went live I actually have multiple copies of uh her Flagship book because I have one at home and I keep one at the office for reference that’s how uh that’s not how only useful uh but how accessible it is as well that um an armchair historian like myself can easily navigate it so Dr Malcolm we really appreciate you coming in thank you very much thank you so much for inviting me it’s been a pleasure well and there you have it another conversation in the books again I hope that you enjoyed this don’t forget to hit that like button I look forward to joining you in the comment field below but not before of course we close with our ever popular quote of the day this one perhaps fittingly comes from American John Adams and he says always stand on principle even if you stand alone I can assure you that you do not stand alone in the Second Amendment because at a minimum I stand there with you I look forward to joining you all in the next episode thanks and take care thanks for sticking around to the end of the video If you enjoyed this one please feel free to check out some of our other great content and we’ll see you in the next [Music] one

Truly Right View: Advocating for Free Speech in the Age of Political Censorship

Introduction: What is Free Speech Today?

In a world where political discourse is dominated by big tech, cable news, and social media influencers, free speech is constantly under threat. From censorship of conservative viewpoints to the silencing of dissent on controversial issues, we are witnessing an alarming trend of restrictions on the most fundamental rights of any citizen in our Constitutional Republic: the right to speak freely.

But what does free speech truly mean in today’s context? Are we protecting it, or are we allowing authoritarian ideologies like socialism, communism, fascism, and dictatorships to erode it?

The Constitutional Perspective: Why Free Speech is Non-Negotiable

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution is crystal clear: “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” The Founding Fathers understood the importance of free speech in preserving a free society. Without it, the ability to challenge government, expose corruption, and advocate for truth would be crushed.

Yet today, under the guise of protecting people from “misinformation” and “hate speech,” powerful institutions are curbing our ability to express ideas that do not conform to their narratives.

Do we not see this as a slippery slope toward authoritarianism?

Shouldn’t we, as citizens, be the ones who decide what we can or cannot hear, not a centralized body or corporation?

Social Media and Cable News: Platforms or Gatekeepers?

Social media was once hailed as the bastion of free speech. It allowed ordinary individuals to share their thoughts, advocate for causes, and hold the powerful accountable. However, over the years, major platforms like Twitter (now X), Facebook, and YouTube have become gatekeepers rather than facilitators of free expression.

Algorithms favor certain ideologies, while alternative viewpoints—especially those with a more conservative or constitutional slant—are shadow-banned, demonetized, or outright censored.

Does this not resemble the tactics of monarchies, communistic or fascist regimes that control what their citizens can see and hear?

Shouldn’t a true democracy allow the free flow of ideas, even if those ideas challenge the status quo?

Social Media Influencers: Fighters for Freedom or Puppets of Censorship?

Many social media influencers, especially those aligned with constitutional values, have become modern-day warriors for free speech. Yet, they face intense backlash, censorship, and de-platforming for voicing opinions that challenge globalist or left-leaning narratives.

How many times have we seen influential voices banned simply for questioning government policies, election results, or health mandates?

Isn’t it concerning that only a select group of elites can decide what is “acceptable” discourse?

While some influencers fall in line with these restrictive policies, others have emerged as champions for free speech, using their platforms to resist censorship and uphold constitutional rights. The question is: Will we support these voices, or will we allow them to be drowned out by corporate and governmental censorship?

The Dangers of Socialism, Communism, and Fascism: A Threat to Free Speech

At the heart of socialism, communism, and fascism lies a common tactic—control over speech. These ideologies have historically sought to suppress dissent, limit expression, and create a monolithic narrative that favors those in power.

Look no further than authoritarian regimes past and present, where dissenters are imprisoned, media is state-controlled, and free speech is criminalized. Can we really ignore the striking similarities between these oppressive ideologies and the current state of political discourse in America?

Is the suppression of speech today not a precursor to more draconian measures tomorrow?

Should we not fight to preserve the right to freely express political, social, and economic ideas?

The Truly Right View: Defending Freedom in the Digital Age

At Truly Right View, we believe in the unwavering defense of free speech as enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. We reject the encroaching influences of socialism, communism, fascism, and any form of dictatorship that seeks to undermine this fundamental right.

Our platform is dedicated to bringing you uncensored news, analysis, and commentary from a truly constitutional perspective. We provide a space where voices that have been silenced or marginalized can be heard, and where you—the citizen—can engage in the free exchange of ideas.

Join the Fight: Sign Up for Our Channel and Newsletter

Do you value free speech?

Do you believe that the right to express your thoughts, opinions, and beliefs should never be compromised, no matter how controversial they may be?

If so, we invite you to join the fight for free speech by subscribing to the Truly Right View channel and newsletter. Stay informed on the latest developments in free speech advocacy, political commentary, and constitutional rights. Together, we can stand against the creeping influence of censorship and authoritarianism.

Why wait for others to defend your rights?

Become part of a movement that fights for the truly free society envisioned by our Founding Fathers.

Will You Speak Up or Stay Silent?

In the end, the future of free speech rests in our hands. We can either stand idly by as it is eroded by corporate and governmental overreach, or we can take action to protect and preserve it.

Will you speak up for your rights, or will you allow them to be taken away piece by piece?

The choice is yours.

Subscribe to the channel for Truly Right View today, and support our patriots shop together, let’s ensure that free speech remains the bedrock of our Constitutional Republic.

Trending Tags

Trending Tags

Trending Tags

Trending Tags

Trending Tags

“Militia” in 2nd Amendment: Why? Colonial + Early Republic Gun Laws with Dr. Joyce Malcolm

Truly Right View: Advocating for Free Speech in the Age of Political Censorship

Introduction: What is Free Speech Today?

The Constitutional Perspective: Why Free Speech is Non-Negotiable

Social Media and Cable News: Platforms or Gatekeepers?

Social Media Influencers: Fighters for Freedom or Puppets of Censorship?

The Dangers of Socialism, Communism, and Fascism: A Threat to Free Speech

The Truly Right View: Defending Freedom in the Digital Age

Join the Fight: Sign Up for Our Channel and Newsletter

Will You Speak Up or Stay Silent?

Investigation: Open-Border Policies Fueling Sex-trafficking Surge

How Local and State Governments Can Defeat the Deep State – Liberty Sentinel

Navigate Site

Follow Us

Welcome Back!

Create New Account!

Retrieve your password