►
From YouTube: VICII: The Second Amendment with Speaker Jared Carter
Description
From VICII:
The Right of Americans to bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Vermont. That right arose from in the historical context of 1776 when the people in the British colony of America sought their independence against one of the world's mightiest empires: England. Stretching across the world the English monarchy had expanded its grasp to form an empire “upon which the sun never set.”
The North Americans rose in rebellion and revolution to rid themselves of their colonial status to become the American Republic. That revolution was an armed struggle by Americans who bore arms in militias and as individuals against the armed forces of the English. The Right to Bear Arms has been passionately debated since the adoption of the Bill of Rights.
Now, as shootings escalate in our city and across our nation, the supporters of the Second Amendment argue passionately that the Amendment must be upheld to guarantee the right of self-defense and the right to resist the tyranny of the State. Those who seek the regulation and change of the Second Amendment equally passionately argue that gun violence is destroying our society and that gun control must take precedence over the Right to Bear Arms.
Jared Carter is an Adjunct Professor in the Cornell Law School First Amendment Clinic. He is an articles editor on the Vermont Journal of Environmental Law, he received an Equal Justice Foundation Fellowship to litigate a First Amendment challenge to U.S. Treasury Department Regulations prohibiting travel to Cuba. Jared also directed the Vermont Community Law Center and the Vermont Law School Appellate Project, litigating constitutional rights issues in state and federal court.
For more information: vicii.org
9/20/2022
https://linktr.ee/townmeetingtv
Town Meeting TV is a free speech forum and the ideas expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of the Town Meeting TV trustees and staff. If you have a different perspective to share, we invite you to join the conversation! Create your own program or cover a community meeting or event. Contact maketv@cctv.org or call 862-3966.
Thank you for tuning into Town Meeting TV! Please subscribe to our YouTube channel and visit our website for more videos and information about how we open the doors to local government using community media. www.Ch17.TV
This video belongs to http://www.cctv.org and published with permission under Creative Commons License CCTV Center for Media & Democracy Programming is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
A
C
A
C
C
So
my
thinking
is
to
sort
of
lay
out
a
lot
of
what
Sandy
talked
about
and
then
hopefully
open
it
up
for
for
conversation
and
questions,
but
we'll
try
to
answer
and
and
share
our
thoughts
and
ideas
about
so
I
do
want
to
First
and
just
acknowledge
that
Sandy
pointed
out
I'm
a
First
Amendment
person.
That's
what
I
do
that's
what
I
I
think
my
constitutional
expertise
is
in.
C
Is
first
for
a
reason,
in
my
view,
the
second
second
amendment
in
many
respects
is
equally
important
and
perhaps
equally
controversial
in
in
a
lot
of
ways.
What
I
think
is
really
important
to
do
when
you
start
talking
about
a
constitutional
right
and
what
it
means
and
how
it
should
apply.
Is
you
really.
A
C
We'll
start
there
and
then
walk
through
some
of
the
cases
and
what
they
say
and
how
that
history
that
Sandy
alluded
to
comes
in
to
that
that
conversation,
so
the
Second
Amendment
says
a
well-regulated
militia
being
necessary
to
the
security
of
a
free
state.
The
right
of
the
people
to
keep
it
bear
arms
shall
not
be
infringed
so
in
a
lot
of
ways-
and
this
will
come
back
to
the
discussion
here
in
a
few
moments
that
the
Second
Amendment
is
is
not
a
model
of
English
language.
C
Writing,
there's
a
lot
of
introjective
Clauses
and
commas,
and,
as
it
turns
out,
those
commas
had
a
huge
impact
in
many
respects
in
how
the
court
interpreted
it.
But
it's
short
and
the
first
Clause
a
well-regulated
militia
and
what
the
courts
have
said
on
that
front
is
they've.
Looked
back
at
history,
starting
with,
in
fact
before
the
Revolution,
and
said
that
really
the
foundation
of
the
the
United
States
as
the
country
is
we
we
understand
it
came
out
of
that
Revolution
and
militias
were
a
huge
part
of
that
that
process
right
there
was
not.
B
C
C
Fight
against
the
English
Empire
right,
exactly
it's
Independence,
and
so
the
the
most
I
guess
important
case
that
really
gets
at.
This
is
the
case
that
came
out
of
the
District
of
Columbia
called
dcv
Heller,
and
it
was
a
challenge
to
a
District
of
Columbia
law
that
banned
handguns
and
required
that
shotguns
and
rifles
long
long
long
guns
were
kept
under
lock
and
key
when
not
in
use
and
the
the
U.S
Supreme
Court
looked
at
that
law
and
struck
it
down
in
large
part
because
of
that
history
and
tradition.
C
C
Court
said
no
because
of
the
placement
of
the
comma
in
the
Second
Amendment
they
they
said
it
was
a
preparatory
Clause,
not
a
limiting
fact
and
ultimately
concluded
that
the
Second
Amendment
enshrined
an
individual's
right
to
possess
arms,
not
an
individual's
right
as
part
of
a
militia
to
possess
Farms,
and
they
used
what
we
refer
to
as
the
history
and
tradition
test
to
determine
what
sort
of
regulations
of
firearms
could
exist.
Because
Heller
didn't
say
you
know
you
can't
regulate
Firearms
right.
C
In
fact,
they
said
said
the
opposite:
the
it
stated
that
there's
certain
sensitive
locations
like
schools
and
hospitals
and
government
buildings
where
Firearms
can
be
regulated
and
that
reasonable
regulations
that
are
grounded
in
these
history,
this
history
and
tradition
could
also
be
grounds
for
regulating
Firearms.
So
it's
not
a
a
like
many
constitutional
rights.
It's
not
a
a
right
that
is
absolute.
There
are.
There
are
significant.
A
C
C
A
B
C
B
C
C
C
Is
yeah
yep,
yeah,
so
I
think
homicides
the
United
States.
My
statistics
aren't
going
to
be
exactly
pulling
from
memory.
Something
like
70
of
them
are,
are
firearms
I,
think
Canada
is
next
and
it's
44
New
Zealand
Australia
10
12,
so
it
is
lower
and
I.
Think
it's
I
think
it's
undeniable
that
the
the
fact
that
we
have
a
second
amendment
is
why
there
are
certain
firearms
in
the
United
States.
C
B
C
It's
based
in
that
idea
of
self-defense
exactly
the
the
the
question
that
was
left
open,
though,
and
really
haven't,
had
a
very
clear
answer
to
it.
I
think
this
is
I
would
be
surprised
not
to
see
this
come
up
in
cases
in
the
future
is
once
you
step
outside
of
the
hole.
How
much
regulation
can
happen
with
respect
to
guns,
I
think
the
Heller
case
pretty
clearly
says
you
can't
tell
people
they
can't
have
a
loaded
gun
at
their
house
or
that
they
can't
have
a
handgun
for
self-defense
in
their
house.
C
Well,
is
probably
going
to
interpret
the
Second
Amendment
wrong
to
include
that
that
right
in
public.
So
it's
an
interesting
and
it's
an
interesting
set
of
circumstances.
I
think
there's
ways
to
constitutionally
deal
with
the
Second
Amendment,
using
the
history
and
tradition
tests
that
are
more
effective
in
both
protecting
the
right
to
bear
arms,
while
also
allowing
for
reasonable
restrictions
on
arms
in
the
United
States.
C
C
A
C
A
C
Because,
when
I'm
out
hunting,
you
need
a
different
type
of
firearm
depending
on
the
species
you're
pursuing
so
I,
actually
think
and
I'd
love
for
people
to
jump
into
the
conversation.
I
actually
think
that
rather
it
makes
it
work
a
lot
better
and
actually
I
think
we
protect
the
right
more
consistently
with
how
Firearms
are
used
back
then
to
ground
it
not
in
the
right
to
self-defense
but
to
ground
it
in
the
idea
that
a
firearm
at
the
time
was
an
agricultural
of
hunting
and
certainly
protecting
your
own
home
and
I.
C
C
Be
prohibited,
so
the
defamation
is
exception,
in
other
words
to
the
First
Amendment,
so
I
think
you
could
come
up
with
a
similar
model.
For
the
second
and
say
there
are
certain
things
that
would
be
Exempted
from
protection
while
still
protecting
that
right
now,
but
but
perhaps
we
wouldn't
be
able
to
certain
Firearms
yeah
that
have
been
used
that
are
that
are
truthfully.
You
know
used
by
the
military
yeah.
D
A
C
C
D
D
B
C
C
Then
we've
got
to
be
willing
to
it's
going
to
be,
and
then
it's
an
armed
race,
it's
like
cold
war
onto
this.
In
other
words,
you
know
they
they
get
AKs.
So
now
the
cops
have
to
get.
You
know:
I
don't
rocket
launchers,
and
then
we
get
off
like
it
becomes.
It
becomes
I.
Think
ridiculous
and
I
think
you
actually
look
at
the
data
and
I
actually
have
some
good
data
on
the
Second
Amendment
in
self-defense,
and
just
let
me
run
through
these
because
I
think
I
think
there's
this
narrative,
that's
out
there.
C
That
says
we're
all
sort
of
sitting
docks
and
you
have
to
have
these.
You
know
high
capacity
High
high-powered
weapons
in
order
to
defend
ourselves.
In
fact,
in
2017
the
FBI
reported
that
there
were
only
290s
drops
of
file
for
homicides
involving
a
private
citizen
using
a
firearm.
Okay,
that
same
year
there
were
10
380
criminals
in.
C
Were
using
35
criminal
homicides
for
every
justifying
alarm
set
justify
alongside
itself
the
past
the
intended
victims
of
violent
crimes
engaged
in
self-protected
behavior
that
involved
firearms
in
1.1
of
the
tempted
and
completed
incidents
in
2014
and
60.,
intended
victims
of
property
crimes
engaged
in
self-protected
behavior.
That
involved
the
Firearms
0.3
percent
of
the
attempted
these
incidents.
So
the
point
is
there
isn't.
C
Support
an
idea
that
we
have
that
this
should
be
ground
in
self-defense.
Self-Defense
Firearms
are
very
rarely
used
in
self-defense
they're,
very
often
used
for
things
like
hunting,
protecting
your
house
as
a
tool
of
Agriculture,
which
is
what
I
think
most
people,
even
in
the
1790s
used
before
and
then
I.
Think
that
allows
us
to
still
protect
that.
D
A
D
A
A
As
a
high
school
teacher
in
Madison
Wisconsin-
and
it
was
during
the
Civil
Rights
Movement,
it
was
during
the
Vietnam
war
and
I
was
constantly
critical
of
the
government.
Yet
I
was
a
federal
performance
as
most
Democrats
are
upon
controlling
and
one
of
my
students
brought
up.
When
you
see
he
criticized
about.
He
criticized
the
government
because
it's
tyrannical
and
then
you
don't
represent.
You
don't
realize
that
people
have
the
right,
clear,
arms
against
the
states
right
and
that's
what
her
dream
is.
But
Bingo
was.
It
was
like
a
transformative
moment,
interesting.
C
That
so
the
the
New
York
Crystal
and
Rifle
Club
case
that
went
to
the
U.S
Supreme
Court.
Just
this
is
past
turn
that
was
actually
I
was
more
concerned
about
that
piece
of
it,
because
what
it
did
is
it
allowed
for
this?
You
know
New
York,
commission,
this
government
body
to
decide
who
would
get
these
permits
and
who
wouldn't,
and
they
could
certainly
do
it
in
a
discriminatory
fashion.
B
C
The
Revolution
but
I
think
the
the
difficulty
then
becomes,
and
you
know
maybe
the
answer
is
fine,
but
even
if
we
say
okay,
the
pistols
handguns
ARS
AKs,
you
know
none
of
that.
You
know
how
much
money
the
US
government
spends
on
the
military.
What
I
mean
you
see
those
f-35s
fly
right.
None
of
that
is
going
to
send
us
from.
C
D
A
A
C
A
A
B
B
A
B
A
C
A
B
C
B
D
C
I'm
saying
for
us
to
like
grapple
with
is
I
feel
like
it's
become.
It's
like
it's
a
partisan
thing
and
neither
side
can
acknowledge
any
legitimacy
in
the
other
side's
perspective
and
I.
Think
it's
it's
true
yeah,
and
so
you
and
so
as
a
result.
You
can
never
come
to
any
sort
of
resolution
around
it
right.
C
C
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
D
A
D
A
C
D
D
B
A
A
B
A
B
C
I'm
saying
is
now
the
reason
we
have
these
same
conversations.
I
think
this
is
my
over
and
over
again
and
never
seem
to
get
anywhere
is
because
everybody
sort
of
backed
into
their
own
corners
and
and
and
and
you
know,
the
left
refuses
to
acknowledge
that
there's
validity
to
have
needing
firearms
in
order
to
defend
ourselves
with
theoretical
government
and
from
and.
C
Then,
on
the
right
they
say:
well,
all
you
really
want
to
do
is
take
all
our
guns
away,
and
you
know
it's
it's
it's
it's
a
it's
a
pressure
and
I
think
neither
are
right,
but
both
back
into
those
corners
and
can
never
acknowledge
each
other
any
valid
in
each
other's
arguments.
So,
as
a
result,
we
have
these
same
conversations
of
the
society
year
after
year
and
and
nothing
nothing
changes.
B
A
B
A
All
of
them,
it's
not
just
all
governments
all
states
want
all
the
power
and
all
the
guns
and
I
want
to
ask
that
question.
Then
what
other
Constitution
well
in
the
world
allows
the
right
to
bear
arms
and
required
citizens.
That's
the
first
thing
a
police
state
does
is
to
take
away
citizens
Wisconsin
very.
A
A
C
D
A
C
C
There
was
a
an
organization,
an
African-American
organization,
I
forget
which
one,
but
it
against
the
state
of
New
York
on
the
grounds
that
this
law
could
be
applied
in
a
discriminatory
fashion,
so
that
yeah
black
people
wouldn't
be
able
to
get
guns
and
white
people
would
be
able
to
get
guns,
or
this
side
would
be
able
to
leave
guns
and
that
side
wouldn't
be
able
to
get
guns
which,
truthfully
to
me,
was
a
very
problematic
part
of
the
law.
Because,
anytime,
you
start
throwing
out
any
right
based
on
someone's
ethnicity,.
C
I
mean
well,
for
example,
if
you
know
they
base
it
on
some
sort
of
underlying
criminal
history.
You
know
the
same
way
that
you
know
people
get
pulled
over
for
the
broken
tail
light,
and
people
talk
about
driving,
while
black
right,
there's
all
sorts
of
ways
that
the
government
come
up
with
ways
to
discriminate
against
a
particular
set
of
people
if
it
wants
to,
and
so
there
are
real
concerns
about.
Would
this
be
applied?
You
truly?
C
Every
U.S
Supreme
Court
as
well.
You
know,
we
don't
know
the
court
didn't
decide
the
case,
but
I
think
we'll
slightly
see
challenges
to
similar
laws,
because
clearly,
there's
there's
an
appetite
in
certain
states
to
see
how
far
they
can
push
the
regulation
of
firearms
and
where
we're
left
is
the
primarily
the
the
case
law
that
comes
out
of
the
Heller
Decision
just
doesn't
answer
those
questions.
A
C
An
individual
right
and
it
that
long-standing
history
and
tradition
is
really
really
important
to
the
analysis
and
they
look
at
that.
History
of
of
government
oppression.
The
purity
of
of
the
Revolution,
as
well
as
the
grammatical
workings
of
the
statute
of
the
amendment
itself,
to
reach
that
conclusion
that
it
isn't.
C
To
be
part
of
militia
that
you
I,
we
have
this
as
an
individual
right
now.
That
is
very
clear
and
I.
Don't
see
that
change
it
under
this
part
or
any
future.
What
I?
What
I
think
would
be
interesting
to
see
in
the
future
is
what
do
they
do
with
the
regulation
of
guns
in
certain
sensitive
places?
What
do
they
do
with
limits
on
the
type
of
firearms?
The
type
of
magazines
fall
within
this
tradition
and
history
of
regulation
of
firearms
or
not.
C
A
C
Yeah
I
mean
I,
think
the
Court's
going
to
look
at
you
know,
and
it's
hard
to
say
exactly
because
you
know
what
you
know.
What
are
we
talking
about
a
certain
you
know
number
of
rounds.
You
know
what
what
what
what
what?
What
is
the
context
of
the
regulation?
What's
the
purpose
of
the
walk
but
I
think
what
the
court
is
going
to
do
because
of
what
excited
Heller
is
going
to
say.
C
Is
there
a
history
and
tradition
of
this
sort
of
Regulation
and
if
there's
not,
the
laws
are
going
to
stand
up
to
constitutional
muscle,
that's
sort
of
the
analysis
of
the
book,
my
critique
of
the
history
tradition
test
and
why
I
would
take
a
much
more
sort
of
objectives
or
First
Amendment
approach.
There
are
categories
of
firearms
that
are
protected
versus
the
history
and
tradition
test
is
because
it's
really
easy
to
say,
while
a
history
tradition,
chest
is
subjective.
Like
everybody
agrees,
it's
what
the
history
was
I.
B
A
C
B
C
B
C
C
C
C
C
Yes,
I
was
just
pointing
out
that,
like
the
problem
with
a
history
and
tradition
test,
which
is
like
basically,
what
the
court
has
for
deciding
whether
organizations,
okay
or
not,
is
that
you
can
sort
of
pick
and
choose
the
history
you
like,
as
opposed
to
just
reading
what
it
says
on
paper
words,
the
text
you
know
in
sort
of
and
doing
it
from
a
more
objective
standpoint.
I.
A
B
D
A
D
D
C
A
B
D
C
You're
I
think
you're
right,
like
follow
the
money
and
you'll
find
out
a
lot
of
times.
Why
there's
divisions
in
the
country
and
I
think
there's
real
real
truths
to
that?
The
other
thing
I
would
just
add,
is
you
know
the
the
polarization
of
it
might
actually
be
entirely
tribal
and
and
in
other
words,
people
I
think
my.
C
I
think
the
the
the
one
of
the
problems
with
parties
is,
they
they're
a
shortcut
and
they
allow
us
to
sort
of
other
people
say
well
you're,
not
on
my
team.
So
I've
got
to
disagree
with
you,
even
if
maybe
there's
certain
things
that
you're
saying
that
make
sense
and
that's
what
I'm
keep
going
back
to
and
maybe
you
guys
aren't
buying
it.
Maybe
are
I,
don't
know,
but
I
keep
going
back
to
this
idea
of
like
people
just
back
into
their
corners
and
don't
even
acknowledge.
C
What
there's
actually
some
sense
to
what
you're
saying
that,
like?
Maybe
there
are
two
things
on
the
street
having
those
sorts
of
conversations
and
I
think
parties
and
partisanship
make
that
worse,
because
we
just
we
do
it
as
a
shortcut
and
say
you're,
a
republican
I'm,
a
Democrat
or
I'm,
a
republican
you're,
a
Democrat.
You
must
disagree
so
you're.
A
D
C
D
D
D
A
D
A
C
A
B
A
B
A
C
A
A
A
D
A
C
Definitely
not
I
want
you
to
be
able
to
tell
me
one
of
the
problems.
Is
we
all
have
this
perspective
that,
like
we,
have
the
First,
Amendment
freedom
speech
and
we're
darn
right?
That's
why
we
can
sit
here
and
debate
this
and
the
government
can't
come
in
with
the
sun's
blazing
we're
not
allowed
to
talk
about
it
anymore,
and
that's
and
that's
that's.
C
C
D
D
A
C
A
D
A
A
C
Of
course
not
we
started
out
with
you
know
a
little
bit
on
the
Second
Amendment
and
the
law
and
the
cases
I
think
we
had
a
really
interesting
back
and
forth
conversation.
This
is
what's
terrific
about
what
Vicky
does
honestly
yeah
and
so
I'm
excited
to
have
been
able
to
be
part
of
the
first
one
I
look
forward
to
seeing
the
other
doing
more,
so
we've
got
to
be
able
to
do
this
and
afterward.
You
know
still
smiling
and
you
know
all
enjoy
each
other's
company.