Roosevelt university general counsel Videos

• 1. Silicon Flatirons - Radio Spectrum, Panel 3
• 2. World Intellectual Property Org. Conference Panel 7
• 3. John Q. Barrett (2001) on Robert H. Jackson Prosecuting Andrew W. Mellon
• 4. Jeh Johnson | Full Address | Oxford Union
• 5. Does the 2nd Amendment Ensure an Individual's Right to Bear Arms?
• 6. St. Kitts Government Lead Counsel Accused PAM of Stalling the Elections
• 7. Suresh Srivastava Message on World Health Day 2013
• 8. NATO Secretary General Visits Afghanistan
• 9. Remembering Betty Dorris 1950-2013

Silicon Flatirons - Radio Spectrum, Panel 3

World Intellectual Property Org. Conference Panel 7

John Q. Barrett (2001) on Robert H. Jackson Prosecuting Andrew W. Mellon

Jeh Johnson | Full Address | Oxford Union

User Comments

WIZ HOTEP commented on 17 Mar 2014

JOHNSON SUPPORTS KILLING OF AMERICANS & THE DRONES,PLUS UNCONSTITUTIONAL SURVEILANCE ON AMERICANS. "BELLIGERENTS WHO ALSO HAPPEN TO BE US CITIZENS DO NOT ENJOY IMMUNITY WHERE NON-CITIZEN BELLIGERENTS ARE VALID MILITARY OBJECTIVES",HE SAID IN A SPEECH AT YALE. AT THE 2013 ASPEN SECURITY FORUM,JOHNSON SAID THAT WHEN AMERICANS MAKE A PHONE CALL, THEY HAVE "NO LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY".

Ayn Graaf commented on 10 May 2015

Thanks for the post. This guy is an administrative powerhouse, but his speech delivery is a bit lackluster--poor audience (7:26). Nonetheless, his words carry much weight. I'm curious to see what shape U.S. law enforcement and the domestic, criminal legal system takes as the prominence of "lone wolf" terrorism becomes more popular and crosses international boundaries (12:03 ).

chris frag commented on 05 Aug 2013

I did some work at this guys house when he lived in Montclair NJ..typical black guy with a chip on his shoulder.To say he had a sense of entitlement,who putting it nicely.Had his nice white wife,white neighborhood...but boy!...didn't want associate with anyone who was white.

Abby Sexton commented on 18 Oct 2013

You're an ignorant moron pat mcgroin

Does the 2nd Amendment Ensure an Individual's Right to Bear Arms?

User Comments

W9ILL commented on 17 Nov 2011

Gun control is bull shit. It dosent make the streets safer, in fact shortly before the gun control act passed, people who had no guns or only one suddenly turned into gun nuts and when and stock piled thousands of guns. It dosent prevent crime, if somebody wants to kill you they will get the job done with or withount a gun. The Firearm control act is a butchery of the second amendment witch was added to the constitution to give the people a means to defend themselves from an opressive government

TheAlexagius commented on 08 Sep 2011

@stedav wow an idiot who odesn't understand why gun cfrima happens the usa has a higher population and a higher population density a greater higher crime producing less educated underclass and a thriving drug try and FYI the murder rates in the usa are in the places with the MOST gun control not the least the UK has ALWAYS had low gun related murders even when machine guns were readily availible, try robbing a home in texas you = dead, in the uk you go to jail after your kid are mudered and your

DrZoid99 commented on 21 Jan 2009

My relative and dad are in law enforcement. they would be so happy when gun control would come back. A personal example: My family has been stationed in Israel for a few years and I myself as being an Israeli citizen too am serving in the IDF for the past year and half. I Israel has the same gun laws as the us and the same crime rates (proportionally of course) and is in much more danger of terrorist attacks and existence then the US. Yes they don't have "patriot acts" and stuff like that and

helltrackrider commented on 13 Sep 2010

@dortmundpls The illegality was further solidified via the 13th Amendment as well... Lincoln, Wilson and FDR all instituted the draft without the authority - all should have been impeached for this measure alone..unfortunately, our Congress held the same mindset..and felt that they had the authority to transfer military powers to the President, which they do not..see todays "Wars" - none are declared, this means the President has NO control over the military..but yet, he acts lawlessly.

whoo689 commented on 19 Nov 2008

No one argues that we don't have a right to buy and sell and apply for a job and such just because the Constitution doesn't explicitly mention it, nor does the Constitution mention 100s of rights we know we already have. It's only those rights where there is ambiguity that the Founders gave us the Bill of Rights. They said that all other constitutional duties and rights belong to the states and the people. We technically have an infinite number of rights as long as we don't hurt anyone.

stevemcgee99 commented on 19 Nov 2008

A lying bastard! "That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." Virgina Declaration of Rights, 1776. There are MANY references to protecting liberty from big government while drafting the constitution.

Watcher3223 commented on 21 Jan 2009

And, if an idiot was crazy enough to "have a surge of power and go nuts," others around him, if they're armed, may stop him. That's what was meant when Robert Heinlein said "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Besides, you can't punish people (which is what a ban would do basically) for crimes they may or may not commit. Administer punishment against the responsible party when a crime has actually been committed.

TJ Barranger commented on 23 Jan 2013

But nowhere does the 2nd imply that militia service is the only scenario where arms ownership should be permitted. In fact, it stands to reason that the more regularly people carry and use their arms for defense, hunting, etc., the more prepared they will be to use them prudently/effectively in the event of a crisis. That's why the wording specifically states this right of the people "shall not be infringed." Limiting/restricting ownership and carry is infringement, plain and simple.

whoo689 commented on 19 Nov 2008

I'm pro-guns for self-defense and all that, but I'm no gun nut, and I think it's just foolhardy to hide behind the 2nd Amendment as a reason to keep the right to self-defense with a gun. We can just as effectively argue for it without saying "2nd amendment"! Plus, invoking the 2nd Amendment just to argue simple buying and possession, not even to fire it but just to keep guns, makes you sound like a pretentious jackass. Then again, this could make it easier for someone to ban guns.

benwoo commented on 19 Jan 2013

the 2nd amendment does not empower the Militia, it empowers the people, A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. You cant get any more clear than that. The people ( you, me, everybody) are empowered to defend themselves from tyranny of the government. It has nothing to do with hunting and sport and everything about the right for a violent overthrow of the government if needed.

TJ Barranger commented on 23 Jan 2013

This guy misses the point big time. A militia was the principal reason for the 2nd, but wasn't intended to be a limiting factor. Well regulated means familiar/disciplined. In order to ensure peace & security, the country needs a body public that is well-versed in the use of firearms, with ready access to the same; meaning individuals who own firearms, who know how to use them, and who can -- should the need arise -- form a militia to use their arms against a tyrannical government.

Michael Nickolaus commented on 05 Jun 2010

what does it matter what early drafts stated. The FINAL draft is constitutional, the section referring to a militia is a SUBORDINATE clause. A free state needs a militia (or an army) for its security, but the founding fathers were well versed in the hazards that could result if that militia came under the control of a tyrant; King George and his redcoats being a ready example at the time. The 2nd amendment was drafted to ensure a person's ability to protect himself from the STATE!

Watcher3223 commented on 08 May 2009

So, the government has the right to guns and not the People? Then what, pray tell, is supposed to stop a government from becoming corrupt and taking the rights away from the people? Your rights to free speech, to a fair and speedy trail, to worship freely, to assemble peaceably, and so on mean NOTHING without the ability to defend your rights from a powerful force (government) that can grow and gain the ability to take them away from you for its own sake and at your expense.

St. Kitts Government Lead Counsel Accused PAM of Stalling the Elections

Suresh Srivastava Message on World Health Day 2013

NATO Secretary General Visits Afghanistan

Remembering Betty Dorris 1950-2013