To the untold History Channel. And it is Tom for the constitution Tuesday with Mr. Douglas v. Gibbs. How are you, sir? I am doing fantastic. Did you pass your sleep study test? Well, they were going to send me the equipment, but you knew that. Well, I literally walked in. I didn’t get any details. You. You just said that I was right. That’s all. Yeah, well, I walk in, they take me in.

They do their vitals. That they always do. I sit down. She says, so, asleep. Apnea. And I said, well, I don’t know. I’m asleep during it. Ask her. And Virginia described what she witnesses. She says, okay, it’s been ordered. You’ll be receiving it, or you’ll be receiving a call, and then you’ll be getting it, and then you’ll do the study, and then we’ll go from there. Okay, that’s just weird.

You know what? Check your volume on your sound, because I think it’s really faint on your end. I don’t sound as loud as usual. Correct. I don’t know if it’s your mic volume or not. I’ve never changed it. Okay, well, let’s take a look here. Maybe it’s just me. Yeah. Everything’s the same. Everything’s good. Okay. All right. Well, I may turn off my. Hold on. I’m going to turn my fountain off.

1 second. Of course. I really wanted to mess with you. I could be like, what do you think is going on? Exactly? Be like, it’s what a delay? Anyway, hi, everybody. We are live, and so we’re, like, talking here. Well, everybody, they’re piling in. They’re sort of like my constitution classes in person. Five minutes before my class starts in Fallbrook, two people are in the room. Five minutes after the room is full.

Like, everybody gets a memo to show up. Exactly the same thing. But anyway, so it’s good to see you. Glad you’re here. Wrap up, have a little bit more discussion about Second Amendment today in a third amendment. And I didn’t get a chance to respond to that person yet. You know this because you’re supposed to be cc’d on the email. Just because I hadn’t had the chance to sit down and do it.

The question about the California. Okay, well, why don’t we just do that, right? Instead of no time like the present. In fact, let me read it. Okay. So that everybody knows what we’re talking about. There was a question in the. Let me find it. Here’s actually a very common question. Yeah, let’s see. Well, there’s two actually, there’s two. There was that one, and then there was one about, oh, I know why it’s not finding it, because it’s in the other email address.

And yes, for those of you watching, I’m eating pistachios. Don’t worry, I’ll stop munching when it’s time for me to start talking. That’s why he calls himself the political pistachio. Yeah, pistachios to me are like jelly beans were to reaccan. They’re always present. Okay, so the question is, I just got done listening to the Constitution class from 220 24. I have a question. Article three, section one of the California constitution states that the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Wouldn’t that mean that the second amendment would apply to California? No. All right, next question. No, I’m kidding. And actually, article six of the United States Constitution says the exact same thing. US Constitution is a supreme law of the land. And that is true, but it depends also on where the authorities lie. Let me kind of help understand this. Like in football, for example, there’s a rulebook. The rulebook applies to the entire game, but there are certain rules that apply only to the quarterback.

If someone says, well, if the rulebook applies to entire game, the witness slide rule also applied to the running backs and wide receivers. No, the authority or that particular rule is designated to apply to the quarterback. Okay, so it doesn’t apply to everybody else, even though the rulebook is the rulebook of the entire game or the law of the land in that sense. Same thing here. The question is, where do the authorities lie? Yes, it says, shall not be infringed, but who is it talking to? Now, while it doesn’t say it in the amendment itself, it does tell us in the preamble to the Bill of Rights.

In the preamble to the Bill of rights, it states that the purpose of the Bill of rights is in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, specifically the federal government. Remember, the states are the parties of the contract here. They’re not worried about themselves. Also, your rights is a local issue. It’s a state issue. If there’s going to be any laws regarding rights, it has to be local.

None of the federal government’s business. And we have this misunderstanding that if it’s a right, there can be no law on it whatsoever. If it’s a right and you just do whatever you want, anytime you want. Well, no, because, number one, with freedom comes responsibility. I have a right to swing my arms I don’t have a right to swing my arms into his nose. But the federal government has no authority to make the law that I can’t punch him in the nose.

That’s up to the local authorities. Or, for example, there’s a stop sign at the end of this road at the street you live on, let’s say the federal government. Make sure that stop sign went in. No, local government took care of that because it’s a local issue. It’s not the federal government’s business. The Bill of rights and things like gun laws, same thing. The federal government was created to handle certain things, and our rights are none of its business.

So the Bill of rights is not there to protect your rights. It’s not there to guarantee your rights. It’s to tell the federal government, hands off of them. None of your business. But there has to be some laws somewhere. It’s not a free for all when it comes to our rights. We as a society give consent, consent to the governor to have certain laws in place so that we can have an orderly society.

So when everybody started crashing into each other in a particular intersection, because everybody has a right to go through that intersection, the government and the people decided, we need to put in a stop light. And we all agreed on the rules. Red means stop, green means go. Yellow means floor it unless you’re too far away. And we agree on that. It’s not federal government’s duty because it’s a local issue.

Guns are a local issue based on what the local culture is all about. This is why I don’t like this idea of the federal government, because it’s unconstitutional, saying, oh, well, everybody’s got to be 21. Well, what if in Wyoming, a kid at twelve is a part of the culture, going and buying his gun or being able to carry his gun to school? All right. Probably wouldn’t be a part of the culture in New York City, although it used to be.

By the way, did you know that long ago kids used to carry their rifles on the subway to go to school because they were part of the shooting team? Long ago. I believe that. Not anymore. Redondo beach out here in California, which is in Los Angeles county, friend of mine raised in Redondo beach, he says back in 1962, when he was a young man, and he’s got his.

22 rifle on his bike and he’s got a bunch of handlebars. He’s riding his bike, holding his rifle and his handlebars kind of at the same time, police officer comes up, pulls him over and say, where are you headed with a rifle? And he says, oh, I’m going up there with all those eucalyptus trees up there to get some target practice in. And the cop says, be careful.

Some construction in the area. Don’t shoot towards construction. Okay, thank you. And off he went. All right, so it’s a local issue, and every culture is going to be different. And so the federal government’s got no business getting involved and shall not be infringed. Means shall not be infringed. Those words mean absolutely no law whatsoever. And when it comes to federal government, they have no authority to make any law.

Why? Their job isn’t our neighborhood. Their job isn’t our community. Their job is foreign relations, disputes between states, the border, maritime law, or something like that. That’s why they were created. But the local stuff states, the states, every state is going to be different. So now, getting back to your question, so if the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, would that mean that the second amendment applies to the states? Not really.

Because when it says the constitution is the supreme law of the land, it’s not saying what it says must apply to the states. That’s not what that means. Supreme law of the land means whatever it is authorized to do is the supreme law of the land. It is authorized to make sure that the federal government makes no gun laws, but leaves the issue to the states. That’s the supreme law of the land.

Therefore, the states can make laws. Now, here in California, that’s a tough pill to swallow. Our first response is, yeah, but our state’s out of control. We got to have someone stop them. We need the Supreme Court of the federal government to tell California to stop doing that. Or as there’s a local individual running for us Senate, Denise Gary Pandal. And she’s very, very conservative, for the most part constitutional.

And then she says, well, California is out of control. We need to use the power of the federal government to get them under control. No, federal government’s job is not to police the states or to force them to fit a certain mold. Well, then, if it’s not their job, make sure the states don’t act like tyrants. Whose is it? It’s citizens. You. So if you don’t like the gun laws in your state, state is allowed to make gun laws, shall not be infringed, applies to federal government.

And I know all about the incorporation doctrine and all that, and I’m not going to get into that today unless we really have to. That’s really better. When we get to the 14th amendment when we talk about that. But then in the end, it comes down to, you have a choice, don’t you? As a member of your state, watching what’s going on in your state, and you’re supposed to be in control of your state, you’re supposed to be involved, informed, voting in people.

I know, I get it. They cheat. There’s all kinds of stuff going on, but that’s beside the point. We are supposed to be in control of our local governments. And if we lose control of our local governments, or they’re acting in a manner we don’t like, then we have a choice. Three possibilities. One, we can put up and shut up. Just put up with it. Say nothing. That’s it.

So be it. Or we can open our mouths and try to change it and be an activist. Do whatever we can to change it. We may be successful, we may not be, but at least we’re involved in the process, correct? Or three, move to a state that better accommodates your way of living. That was the whole point of the individual states being in competition with each other. That’s the whole point.

Just like a free market system. I wanted to share this because this was a good exchange. Somebody responded to the show that we did. This was on the 27th, and it was the first show that we did about the second amendment, and it was from five days ago. I’m going to go ahead and share the screen. Let’s see. It might help if I actually shared the actual screen or what I was trying to share.

Okay, so this individual says, doug, I enjoy your videos, but I have to call bs on the point you made about claiming that the state’s constitutions can somehow allow states to regulate arms contrary to the Second Amendment’s command. The second amendment was created to forbid the governments of this republic from regulating arms. Article four dictates that anything in. Excuse me, article six. Duh. Thank you. Anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

This means that any state law that contradicts the Second Amendment’s language is notwithstanding. In the binding law of that state, all things in the US constitution are binding upon the states because it is the supreme law of the land, which includes every state. I’m thinking means and territory of the union. Everything that is addressed in the US constitution is left to the general governments in charge. Arms is one of those things, and regulating them is forbidden to the discretion of the states.

See the 10th amendment. Furthermore, the general government is also forbidden from regulating arms by the express language of the second amendment. If the Fed wanted to lawfully regulate arms. The only way they can lawfully do it is to amend the constitution. As if we’d let them do so. So I just want your take on that before I go down and scroll down into the. Yeah, leave it on there so I can refer to it.

Okay, so once again, we have to look back at first of all, the purpose of the. Let me address a few things here first. Okay, so bring the screen. Well, never mind. Hang on. I can bring it back up. No, I’ve got it on my other screen. I just paused it right on the screen. So we’re good. All right, so first of all, it comes down to why was the constitution created in the first place.

See, the states were under an articles of confederation. They had all power. They dealt with every issue. They realized they needed a central government in order to operate in this world of empires and also for domestic tranquility. Shay’s rebellion is a good example as to what was going on with the lack of domestic tranquility, but at the same time, as entities who were all about being a confederation because they wanted to take care of their own business, they were not going to accept a constitution or a federal government that ruled over them.

If they didn’t leave the decisions on local issues to the states in the constitution, they would not. And they argued this, they would not ratify it. The states would not ratify it, they would have no part in it. The constitution is not a national document or a ruling document over everything, as is being suggested here, it is not binding upon the states. They would not have ratified it if it was binding on the states because their own business was their own business.

This was to create a federal government and establish the rules for its operations. Now, in article six, when it states that anything unconstitutional, laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding, and you didn’t provide the full amount, it’s only a part of it. So let’s read the full thing for context, because we have three things that are listed as being supreme law of the land. And by the way, I want to make the note that I’m not necessarily calling JCD seven out.

I’m not singling him. It’s a good comment, though. Yeah, I thought it would be good for the dialogue in the class. Well, what he laid out here is the common understanding. I agree. This is the academic view of most conservatives. Yes, agreed. Okay. Part of it is we’ve been so fed with bs that we don’t even understand. We don’t know which way is up. The original tip freaks us out.

Yeah, we don’t know which way is up or down or right or left. All right. Anyway, so article six, rather than just give that portion, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary withstanding notwithstanding, let’s give the whole clause so that we get full context here. So there are three things that are the supreme law of the land. This constitution that does not mean anything mentioned in here is automatically applies to everything that would be a national system.

It comes down to where the authorities lie. Goes back to like I was talking about on a football field, there is a particular rule for sliding for a quarterback. He slides, he’s hands off, he’s safe, can’t be hit. That does not apply to every player. So someone can’t say, well, the rules of a football field applies to everything because this is supreme law. Well, no, it applies only to the quarterback.

In that case, if you go to the preamble, the Bill of rights. Bill of Rights originally intended to apply only to the federal government because it’s the one being created and we’re worried about it messing with our rights. We’re not worried about the local governments messing with our rights because they have to have access to making laws regarding our rights, because our rights are not a free for all where we just, whatever, okay? And so localities can make their rules.

Now, if you don’t like it, you work to change. Okay, so this constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuants thereof. So laws of the United States that are made in pursuance constitution. In other words, if the federal government has the authority, if it’s listed in here, if it’s not, they can’t make the law. And if they did make the law, it’s not the supreme law of the land because it’s not made in pursuant to the Constitution.

Any gun law, since it says shall not be infringed, any gun law by the federal government is not a valid constitutional law. Therefore, a state can make laws contrary because it’s an invalid law. I’ll give you another example because see, this is where people then want to waffle. Drugs are not mentioned in the Constitution. Therefore the FDA is unconstitutional. And any laws, for example, federal laws regarding marijuana, would be unconstitutional.

Federal government has no business making laws regarding that. That’s up to each local government. Whether or not you agree or disagree is not the point. I’m getting into the legal aspect of it. Personally, I’m not a fan of the recreational use, but if there’s medical benefits, I agree with using it for the medical benefits. Oh, I’m all about the recreational use, but my personal opinion is not what is at stake here.

I only said it to let you know what my personal opinion is. But my personal opinion doesn’t matter. It all comes down to the law itself. Are drugs mentioned? The Constitution as a power of the federal government? No. Therefore, federal government has no authority whatsoever to make laws regarding that. Therefore, a state can make laws contrary to federal law regarding drugs. Why? Because those laws are not real laws.

They’re unconstitutional. So they’re not the law of the land. So states can make contrary. Okay, just like we’ve talked about libel laws too. Libel laws are. They affect speech. Yeah. And Congress shall make no law regarding speech at. Well, Doug, you think that’s getting a little too ridiculous? No. It says Congress shall make no. So. So the Constitution, supreme law of the land. Laws of the United States made pursuant to the constitution.

In other words, federal government has the authority to make those laws if they don’t have the authority. Laws, not supreme law of the land and all treaties made or what shall be made. This is once again article six, for those of you just joined us. Under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby.

Anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. So what it’s saying is, if the state is making laws contrary to those three things, constitution based on the authorities, not whether or not it’s just there. Once again, the slide rule is just there in the NFL rules. So it must apply to everybody. No, it applies only to this quarterback shall not be friends. Yeah, but in the preamble of the Bill of rights, it says that the purpose of the bill of rights was to prevent its misconstruction and abuse of its powers.

Federal government, the states have authority. Now, if the states didn’t have authority over gun rights, if it was none of their business, second appointment applies. That’s it. If they do anything, the federal government is there to police them. Then why do 49 of the states have gun right language in their state constitutions? Isn’t that repetitive? Isn’t that kind of ridiculous then? And it’s not just like a couple of them, 49 of them.

The only one that doesn’t in California, by the way. Go figure. Right? And the discussion of incorporating the Bill of Rights to the states was discussed during the convention. Did you know that even before the 14th amendment, long before that, that was a discussion in the convention. Read Madison’s notes. It’ll tell you, I don’t know which day. Off top of my head, I’d have to look it up.

And they said, no, if the Bill of Rights. I’m sorry, not bill of Rights. What was the discussion? It wasn’t incorporation of Bill of rights. It was incorporation of federal prohibitions and all sort of stuff. If the prohibitions of federal government apply to states, and then it’d be prohibited across the board. So the 10th amendment wound up out of those discussions during the convention, wound up becoming one of the bill of rights, which says, hey, if the federal government isn’t told that they can do it, and the states aren’t told they can’t, states can do it.

Incorporation, in other words, making the federal constitution a national document, where the federal government and the document rules over everything. And as you put in your discussion there. Your question or your comment? Well, I didn’t put it in there, but I’m not talking to you, I’m talking to the audience. So when I say you, I mean you out there somewhere. This idea that everything addressed in the constitution is left to the general government’s charge.

No, because everything in the Bill of Rights is none of the business. It’s not due to their charge. Shall not be infringed. Congress shall make no law. First amendment, right. Congress shall make no law. So how is it left to their charge if the words are Congress shall make no law, how is it left to their charge if it says shall not be infringed? It’s not left to their charge.

It’s not in their wheelhouse or their allowances. Right. Well, let me continue on here because there’s a little bit more here. Okay. So the war hamster jumped in and said, the second amendment was created to forbid the governments of this republic from regulating arms. And I think he’s quoting him. He says, this is where the misunderstanding comes in which governments were forbidden from making those laws. If you read the federalist and anti federalist papers, the ratifying conventions, and even James Wilson’s state house speech, it is clear that the Bill of Rights was addressed solely towards the new general government and not to the states.

The states would never have ratified anything that gave other states power over their own internal affairs. There’s a reason why 49 of 50 states have their own gun language or gun law language. It’s because of the bill of rights was not incorporated. And then he says, you asked which governments were forbidden from making those laws. All of them. Evidently, Warhammer, you neglected to take notice of article six, which dictates anything than the constitution of laws or of state.

The contrary notwithstanding. Notwithstanding is binding law. Amendment nine. Excuse me. Amendment. Yeah, amendment nine binds. Sorry, 14. Where’s my roman numerals? A little bit rusty. Amendment 14 binds every state to the dictates of the US constitution. We no longer have slavery in southern states because of the 13th amendment. If the amendments to the Constitution weren’t binding on the states, the southern states could say kiss my backside to the general government when they ratified that amendment, and then carry on with slavery a state when it joins up there for a second.

Go ahead. That’s a very general statement. We’re not saying that nothing in the Constitution doesn’t apply to states. Nothing applies to states. Article one, section ten of the original seven articles. Article one, section ten is very specific. That section applies to states, and it says so no state shall. When you get into specific language, it has to be what the language says. The Constitution was created to create the federal government.

The states created it with the Constitution, and it is very careful to indicate that’s what it’s about. But there are sections that apply directly to states, but it says so. 13th amendment says so. It applies to all the states. It applies to country in all the states. 14th Amendment, no state shall. That language is used quite a bit, but the incorporation doctrine that you’re referring to, that binds, that dictates the Constitution to all the states.

That’s not what it says. In fact, most of it is a repeat of article four, section two. But anyway, continue to read. Go ahead. A state, when it joins the union, agrees to abide by the supreme law, including its amendments. But evidently. What’s that? Go ahead, I’m just agreeing. But evidently, in modern times, these states see themselves as lawless fiefdoms bound by only their elected officials. Will. And yes, I have read the federalist, but not the Wilson letters.

But are you implying that the US constitution only applies to the ten mile squared District of Columbia? I’m sure that you’re familiar with the amendment 14, which dictates that the states are bound by the US Constitution. This fact invalidates any state law that is contrary to the dictates of the US Constitution. The 49 states you mentioned are then operating unconstitutionally by enforcing color of law. 42 US Code, section 1983 says that we can sue them for doing so.

Furthermore, 18 US code 242 allows us to bring federal felony charges against them for deprivation, I’m guessing use of rights that are secured by the US Constitution, evidently depriving us of our rights by color of law. Is something they shouldn’t be doing for the fact that it is codified in law. Then the Warhamster responds. The fact that the 20th century judges have misinterpreted the 14th amendment in no way changes the fundamental nature of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

It was a compact between states to create a central government which had very specific enumerated powers authorized to them. In other words, the states were ceding some of their own sovereign powers to this central government, but only for specific endeavors. If there were any thought that the states were ceding any more power than that, it never would have been ratified. That was the whole point of the federalist papers.

And don’t read them unless you read the antifederalist papers and ratifying conventions. Future courts will unconstitutionally change some of that meaning, but it does not change the original intent. If they want to incorporate the Bill of Rights or make any other drastic changes that cede more power to the federal government, they can go ahead and try to amend the Constitution. But the 14th amendment almost certainly did not incorporate the states or bind them to a totally new contract.

See slaughterhouse cases and Baron versus Baltimore for a second. So the slaughterhouse cases are key here, because what happened was this argument that the 14th amendment bound the states under all provisions constitution regardless of authority. In other words, that the federal supremacy is given to the federal government regardless of authority. Period. That idea was rejected by the Congress when they proposed the 14th amendment. In other words, the language didn’t mean that, and the states only ratified it, understanding that it did not give the federal government all authority over the states because it was rejected politically through the Constitution, they decided they had to do it through the courts.

That’s where the slaughterhouse cases began. This process of incorporating the bill of rights to the states through the courts and through precedent, because it wasn’t enabled by the 14th amendment. As for the slight little remark about, once again, some people, when it comes to debating or opposition, it’s an all or nothing. Well, then you’re just saying that the Constitution is playing states at all and they just do whatever they want.

That’s not what was said. The federal government has certain authorities. The states have certain authorities. Whenever there’s a dispute between the states, the federal government has the original intent to get involved with that dispute. But what we’ve done over time, thanks to opinions like yours and the incorporation doctrine and other things like that, is we have turned our federal government into a national government in which it rules over the states.

It was never intended to rule over the states. It was intended to be a government that handled the things that was needed for a union. But the state issues remained with the states. Our rights has nothing to do with the union. Therefore, the federal government has no authority over our rights. But our rights are an issue that comes up locally. Therefore, the states have the authority to make certain laws locally regarding our rights.

Right. We have to understand what it’s all about here. Federal government handles issues that are directed towards the union. And the court isn’t going to get involved unless one of the states is disputing something from another state. Well, it goes back to the original intends of commerce clause. We have the idea today that if it crosses state lines, it’s automatically a federal authority. That’s not what’s intended if it’s crossing state lines.

But there’s no dispute. Federal government’s job is to leave it alone, allow it to flow. We want commerce to flow between the states, happily. But if there’s a dispute, cross state lines. Now the federal government gets involved. Preamble right. Domestic tranquility. Someone in the chat room asked, what are the anti federalist papers? The federalist papers are 85 papers that were written by Alexander Hamilton, John J. And James Madison.

Jay and Hamilton, being New Yorkers, they were trying to convince the New York convention to ratify the constitution. However, Hamilton and Jay had a reputation for being big government guys. So they asked Madison, who was from Virginia and a limited government guy, to also write some of the papers. They figured that would give a little bit more validity to their argument. The anti federalist papers hated the writers.

Anti federalist papers. The anti federalists hated this constitution. They feared it was too big of a government, that it would expand into something that became ruling and controlling over the states and binding all the states under its dictates. Oh, how right they were. And so therefore, they wrote papers contrary to the federal paper. So in other words, they answered each federal paper. So, federalist paper number one, the answer to it is anti federalist paper number one.

Federalist paper number two. The answer to it is anti federalist paper number two. So it’s a back and forth argument. You need to read both. You need to hear both sides of the argument. You also have to go into reading the federalist papers as understanding it is not a full explanation of what the Constitution is about. It’s trying to convince New York to accept the Constitution. And Hamilton’s papers have a big government kind of idea in mind.

Madison’s are a little bit more in line with what was really truly intended. So also when you go into reading them, you’ve got to keep that in mind, too. But anyway, anti federalist papers were answers to the federalist papers, and they were written because you got to realize the federalist papers weren’t just written. They just write a bunch of papers. They were essays that were appearing in New York.

They were like op eds appearing in the newspapers. And so an op ed was written, and then an opposing op ed, the anti federalist paper would then appear, then a op ed for the Constitution would appear, and then an opposing one. That’s where those papers come from. They were essays or op eds or written, and it was a back and forth battle, and it took well over a year for Amal to be written.

It wasn’t just something that just was written. So, if that makes sense. But if you read the federal papers, you got to read the anti federalist papers, you got to read the other side of the story, and you got to read the ratifying conventions, because the debates over it were in the ratifying convention. Virginia, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania being the best ones to read. It may be New York.

Got you. Let me finish this here. You are making the argument of a nationalist and tyrannical judicial system that has turned original intent upside down. This is Brady still talking. Yes. I’m sure that you’re familiar with the amendment 14, which dictates that the states are bound by the US Constitution. It does no such thing. There’s not even a reference suggesting anything like this. And the framers of the 14th amendment would have argued vehemently against this claim.

And that is where the dialogue ends. I didn’t realize that Brady was also in on the conversation, and he argued it perfectly. I asked both of you guys to jump in there. You’re a little bit better educated on. Anyway, that’s why I. Brady, for lack of a better way of putting it, sort of like my mini me. And he really gets it. But what I love about Brady is when I explain something, he listens to it, he understands it, and then he goes.

Researches it further. That’s what I love about him. He doesn’t just take my word for it. He goes, finds out. Okay, this is what Doug was saying. Now I’ve confirmed it, but why? Let’s go deeper. So, as deep as I go, and I’m good at that, I’ve got the context. He finds more. So I really do enjoy having him on my team. And he argued that almost perfectly.

And the thing is, the argument that the gentleman or lady, the JD, whatever it was, was given this is a common argument. This is the mainstream argument. Yes. It’s the argument that the reason why I teach classes, this is the thing I’m fighting, is this attitude that we have this national government that controls everything and the constitution controls everything, and that the federal government is the enforcers of it.

Well, that was never intended. Well, Doug, the mentality that we are fighting has been pushed onto the general public for quite some time. It began with Hamilton right out the gate. Well, but yes and no. I would argue that it really began in about right around the progressive era with basically the hijacking of the collegiate professors. Well, let me say this. I think it’s sort of like a ten speed bicycle.

It began with Hamilton. It picked up speed with the next gear, with Marshall, picked up speed with the next gear with story. But then after the war between the states, it jumped about two or three gears. Okay, I’m not going to disagree with that from the mindset of the people that were in power, but what I’m talking about is how it was taught to the general public. How it was taught to the general public began in 1899 with Dewey.

Yeah, that didn’t come in until a little bit, but from the historical perspective, it really didn’t come in until the Historical Society and the American Historical Society. And a lot of that stuff was right around World War I, because that’s what altered the belief system of keeping the United States. Instead of us being isolationist, that’s what pushed us into being, planting the seeds for us to be the policeman of the world.

Right. Well, and that idea blossomed from the Fabian push in the 1890s, correct? Yes, and I will agree with that 100%. And real quick for those of you, I said Fabian pushes. What’s a Fabian? The Fabians were these socialists, a socialist movement that really began out of London, and it gained a lot of momentum there in Britain. And eventually, during the 1890s, the ideas began to spill over into the United States, and that’s what really launched the progressive era.

The progressive era. By right around 1900, both political parties were proudly progressive. Now, taft kind of bucked that a little bit with his economics. He was what we would call conservative with his economics. And then when, by the time he got to Coolidge and Harding and Coolidge, the Republican Party had pretty much abandoned the progressive ideas. And so the progressives, and at that time, now the communists, also began to focus on the democratic party.

That is not to say they completely left the GOP alone. But the GOP, for the most part, was not the focus. The focus became the Democrat party. In the beginning, both parties were targeted and both parties were falling for a lot of this stuff. Correct? And I’m just going to do this just for sake of brevity. I hate Wikipedia, especially on topics like this. But the Fabian Society is a british socialist organization whose purpose is to advance the principles of social democracy and democratic socialism via gradualist and reformist effort in democracies rather than by revolutionary overthrow.

The Fabian society was also historically related to radicalism, a left wing liberal tradition. As one of the founding organizers of the Labor Representation Committee in 1900 and as important influence upon the labor party which grew from it, the Fabian society had a powerful influence on british politics. Members of the Fabian society have included political leaders from other countries such as. I’m going to try that one, who adopted Fabian principles as part of their own political ideologies.

The Fabian society is founded the London School of Economics. That should tell you everything you need to know about the London School of Economics in 1895. Today the society functions primarily as a think take and is one of the 20 socialist societies affiliated with the labor party similar to exist in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Sicily. And really the United States wound up more or less rejecting it.

But the Democrats didn’t and that’s where the Democrats believe in this gradual through programs turn us into socialism. That’s what Fabians. Because Fabians understood when Mark said it’s going to be a big revolution like what happened Soviet Union, they realized that’s not the way to do it. It’s a gradual frog in the pot method and that’s where that comes from. And that’s really what progressivism came from, was that.

And I’ll end with this because this is important. The Fabian society was named at the suggestion of Frank Podmore in honor of the roman general Quintus Fabius Maximus Verosius, nicknamed Kuntutter, meaning delayer. His Fabian strategy sought gradual victory against the superior carthaginian army under the renowned general Hannibal through persistence, harassment and wearing the enemy down by attrition rather than pitched climactic battles. So that’s where the term Fabian socialists come from.

Anyway, average person doesn’t know this stuff. Yeah. A little extra history for you? Yeah, very good. Well, it’s untold history, so I guess that makes sense. Exactly why it’s called the untold History Channel. Now you’ve been told. Now you’ve been told. And thing is, this discussion is important because we should have placed our rights as a very important thing. They’re God given. They’re God’s gift to you. But they’re your rights now.

That doesn’t mean that government has nothing to do with them. But at the same time, government’s not supposed to dictate them. So what happens is, in a society, is your rights. First of all, you’re supposed to be responsible enough to wield them in a responsible manner. My rights stops at the edge of your rights, where government comes in. That’s the reason why it says, secure your rights. Not guarantee, not protect, but secure is when rights clash.

That’s when government needs to come and get involved. Sort of like getting back to the states. The states crossing state lines, no problem. Moment. There’s a clash. Now, government gets involved to resolve the clash. Our rights. As long as there’s no clash. Hey, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I want to pursue my happiness, so I’m going to go over here, and I’m going to try to pursue my happiness.

Hey, bake my cake the way you want. Okay, no problem. Rights are flowing just fine. Hey, bake my cake the way I want. They say, well, we don’t offer that product. We don’t want to put two men on top. Now, the rights have clashed, so either they need to be responsible with their rights. Okay, fine. I’ll search elsewhere. Because I’m in pursuit of happiness, right? Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.

Pursue it elsewhere. Or they could try to use law to demand it. But law is not supposed to get involved in that part of it. To demand. It’s just to resolve the clash. That right does not supersede that right. So therefore, no clash. Go elsewhere with yours. Continue to offer the products you offer. That’s the way it was supposed to happen. But what happened is, government has decided to rank the rights.

So your right to have your two men on top outranks their religious right. Therefore, you have to bake the cake, or else, rights don’t have ranking and they’re between us. Government’s job is just. If there’s a clash, I have a right to go through that intersection. Why have a right going to the intersection? Bam. We crashed into each other. Government gets involved, all right, who is at fault, right? That’s where government gets involved.

Otherwise, none of their business. We have this problem with placing our rights so high though, that we stop taking responsibility. Why? Because we’ve been told that the constitution guarantees our rights. The government guarantees our rights. If it’s guaranteed, why should I fight for it? It’s guaranteed. That’s the problem. We’ve decided that it’s government’s job to police our rights for us. So if a state stomps on our rights, federal court, look what they did.

And that brings me to the whole notion about the second amendment and the supreme Court and all the federal courts and stuff, telling the states what they can know. I love the fact that Benitez is saying all these good things in terms of overturning a lot of these California laws. However, as much as I love that, and you are not going to find a more staunch supporter of gun rights out there, you’re just not.

However, as much as I abhor the laws that are written by these communistic fucks, excuse my language in California, they are within their rights to do so. As much as I hate to admit that, and I always go back to the notion that if a government that is big enough to give you freedoms is also big enough to take them away, just because the federal government at this moment in time chooses to back me up, that doesn’t mean that ten years from now there’s not going to be different people in there who would not see it that way and they might overturn it.

Just like what happened with Roe v. Wade. Yeah, exactly. I’m going to take a little tangent here because I saw some of the kids chat room I’ve got to respond to. Please do redneck shark. I’ve got a 50 cow muzzle loader, black powder rifle also, and I love it. But like you, I have not shot a deer with it yet. But I tell you what, come later on this year, I think it’s going to happen.

You will certainly be in a place where you will be able to do that. Are you able to fire your weapon on your property? Yes. Nice. And not only that, but as a matter of fact, you still have to have your honey license. But you’re allowed up to two kills on your property without having to tag them. Really? Yeah. That’s enough to feed us for years. You know, how to skin them and do all that good.

When I was a kid. It’s been a while, though. I might have to get a refresher course. I was a kid, man. But when I was a kid, when I was six, it began with squirrel hunting, but I went upward from story real quick. Story. So my friend Randy goes up to my property with me. It’s just he. And we wake up more. I say, randy, you want to go shoot? And he says, oh, is there a range nearby? And I said, well, yeah, my back patio.

So we walked out there. But what I want to do once I get my tractor is I want to build a nice know, really set it up. Know, with targets and stuff. But. Right. Just. This is was. I was just scrolling through the Fabian society page on of been. This is a big deal. This is the coat of arms for the Fabian society. It is a black wolf in a white sheep’s.

Should give you that should tell you everything you need to know about the Fabian socialists. They are a wolf in sheep’s clothing, and that is their original coat of little. It’s amazing how much they tell us the truth and we sometimes don’t even see it. Correct. It was like Obama before his presidency. He told us everything he was going to do. Everything. Yeah. He was going to fundamentally change the United States.

People didn’t understand what they meant by fundamentally change. All right, before we finish the show here, I indicated at the beginning of the program that I would also get into the third amendment, and I want to do it real quick, if you don’t mind. So I think the second amendment has been fully understood. I think we spent a lot of time talking about it. But if ever there are questions or comments or, hey, you want to get into the comment section, let me know.

Both of us will respond if we can, but my schedule as such right now, I didn’t have a chance to respond. I’m so glad. Yeah, you’re good. No, it’s okay. And that was one of the reasons why I asked Brady to jump in, as he’s. He loves. Fantastic at it. He knows how to argue the points very well and better me in some cases, I think. But anyway, yeah, you know, it’s rough for a Jedi when the Padawan starts.

But anyway, yes, I’m going to keep my mouth shut. Once you were the teacher, now I am the master. But anyway. All right, so quartering. What is quartering? I’m not talking drawn a quarter where everything’s pulled out. I’m talking quartering, as in giving quarters to a troop. So, in other words, what was going on prior to the revolutionary war, and even in early on in the revolution war was if the British were there to carry out the rits of assistance was usually the case, and there was no housing for the troops.

The people would be required to open up their homes, to feed house, and so on and so forth. The troops, in other words, to give a place to stay to the enemy, to the military personnel, the enemy. And so the founding fathers, the framers of the constitution, they knew this problem firsthand. This is not something they just, hey, let’s throw this in there. This is something they had experienced so they recognize the dangers of the federal government doing such a thing.

If they’re not going to let the British, they’re not going to let the federal government. So, amendment three says, 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. If there’s a defense force, then that’s what that means. Now, has this been challenged? Is there a modern day.

Absolutely. Let me give you one. And this was. I don’t know. I think it was like, 1215 years ago. The FBI, they were staking out a particular individual in his home across the street. They requested from the homeowner across the street to use his home as their staging area or their place to conduct their stakeout. And the property owner said no. They kicked in the door, arrested him for resisting a federal order, and then used his house anyway.

He sued using the third amendment, and won. He did not give his permission. They did not have the authority to quarter for a stakeout or whatever else without his permission. The third amendment still applies. There was a little bit of a discussion about the Barrett 50 cow broke out in the chat, and I had to just tell a quick story before I jump off and go to the next show.

So this was back in, I think, 2017, maybe. I think it was 2017, maybe 2018. But whatever. The point is, I was with some friends, and we were up in Reno, outside of northern Reno. We were out shooting, and my friends had a Barrett, and I got to fire about. I think it was, like, ten rounds out of the 50 cal. Well, apparently the guys that. When they put the ammunition in there and they brought the ammunition to shoot to do it, they didn’t pay attention to the ammo.

And the rounds that I was firing up onto the hill were incendiary. Oh, no. That, and my friend looked up. I looked up at my friend, and he was looking up on the hill, and he just, like, all of a sudden, he was like, oh, shit. He grabbed the shovel, and he started running. And we went up there, and I looked up, and I saw this tiny little bit of smoke coming out of the bushes.

And so we had to run up there and put the fire out. But, yeah, that was a little bit freaky. That’s my Barrett story. All I know is I need to get some 30 carbine ammo, because I don’t have any. And I’ve got a 30 carbine lever action and. Ever seen the rifleman? Yeah, that’s what I got, man. And I want to fire that gun and do the cart, because I love that kind of stuff.

But my baby is. I have a seven millimeter magnum that is just pretty awesome. That’s probably one of my babies. That one. And then a few other things. But the thing is, when it comes down to this, and I want to wrap it up with this, someone asked me one time, lefty. Okay, I’ve heard all you guys’arguments for second amendment says so, and protective from tyranny, but there really isn’t any other reason to own a gun other than did you swamp violence, right? Well, no, actually, I enjoy it.

I like shooting. I like to go to skeet shooting. It’s a competition. I enjoy it. But in order to stay good at it, I have to fire often. That’s why I need so much ammo to stay in practice. It’s like going bowling. If you don’t bowl for a year, guess what? You’re not going to get any strikes unless you’re really lucky. It is a skill that diminishes over time.

When I was in the navy, 30 yards out, I could hit the target and sometimes even the bullseye. After years and years of not firing, I went to the range. 15 yards out, I couldn’t even hit the damn target at all. Not even the corner edge, because it’s a skill that diminishes. So you have to keep shooting. And it’s something I enjoy. I also enjoy it. Absolutely perishable, but it’s also something I enjoy.

It’s a perishable skill, and it’s definitely a perishable skill. One of the things that you can do to fight that off is to get yourself a. There’s several different systems out there. The itarget pro is one, and there’s a couple of new ones that are a little bit more pricey, but they’re really cool. And what they do is they allow you to dry fire, and you can keep your proficiency up by essentially converting your firearm into a.

Call it a video game in the house, so you can practice doing things in your home, and it keeps track of where your rounds are going and stuff like that. I’ve also had people in my life tell me, well, I disagree with hunting and all those guns and stuff. The lights go out, I’ll be the most popular guy in town. Yeah, because you ain’t eating unless it’s someone like me.

Exactly. All right, guys, well, listen, I’m going to let Doug close you out. I’ve got to get over and jump over to connect with Mike so that we can do the Tuesdays with Mike. So, Doug, I’m going to let you take it home. And let me say this, where you go. This was fun. Thank you. I really enjoyed today. This was the stuff. This was good stuff. Yeah.

Well, I figured that you would like that with the interaction. I thought that would be really good. I will let you finish it off and I will look forward to seeing everybody here in about 30 seconds. All right, thank you, sir. All right. As for me, Douglas v. Gibbs. Douglasvgibs. com United we stand, combined we kick butt. God bless America, my friends. God bless you. Thanks for spending time.

Douglasvgibs. com I’m starting a blog post, a blog a little bit more. I’m working on some videos I want to do. But if you want to help fund what I do, $9 a month, become a patron, just hit the join link up in the link bar. Also, my latest book should be showing up on Amazon any day now and in our store, hopefully on it’s a us history book, early American History, part one, the first of three.

A series of three books. A promise of truth, self evident, part one, early american history. That book should be out any day now. If you missed my last one, repeal democracy. Check it out, buy it and then we could talk about it. Democracy, see, is part of the problem. All right, thanks for spending time with us. We’ll see you next week. Appreciate you. God bless. .

See more of Untold History Channel on their Public Channel and the MPN Untold History Channel channel.