Gun ownership itself is a slight mental illness

Sounds like he suffered from crippling hallucinations.

 

Neon

But how do they define a tyrannical government I mean when would they decide it was ok to kill police officers?

 

We can amend the constitution and repeal the Second Amendment.

 

Sure but who gets to decide if the government is tyrannical or not.
The current administration is the closest the US has ever came to fascism but most right wingers who support lax gun laws would disagree with me there.
And the fact that they've been unable to explain what a violent overthrow of the government would look like in practical terms is telling. They like the 2nd amendment as a means to overthrow the government as a romantic ideal, not as a practical solution

 

I think he want white gun owners to decide.

 

Hate to break it to you, but that's a bogus quotation. Jefferson never said that. It comes from Cesare Beccaria's Essay on Crimes and Punishments, which does appear in Italian in Jefferson's collection of notes called Legal Commonplace Book. The passage was intended to illustrate false ideas of utility, and Jefferson's only comment was to write a notation false idee di utilità--not necessarily an endorsement, and certainly not the same as saying it originally. Bit of a stretch to attribute the quotation to Jefferson, wouldn't you say? As you say "To misinterpret direct quotes and laws where the founding fathers articulated their intentions for the right to bear arms screams that you have some other twisted agenda". Since you're the one doing it, what's yours?

Sounds like a tortured argument from a gun lobby brief. The language of the Amendment is admittedly confusing, but the framers had no problem starting off with the words: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..."What part of that language would lead you to conclude that the right was "firstly has always meant your individual right"? The word "individual" doesn't appear at all. "The whole people' in your George Mason quote doesn't sound like an individual to me. Until the Heller decision in 1875, the U.S. Supreme court consistently linked the right to militia service. The Court held in United States v. Cruikshank (1875), its first stab at figuring out what the Amendment meant, that the individual had no inherent Second Amendment rights. For more than a hundred years, this interpretation of the Second Amendment went largely unchallenged. When the gun lobbyists convinced a narrow majority to change its mind in D.C. v. Heller, ultra conservative Justice Scalia, who wrote the opinion, made clear that "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner and for whatever purpose."

So when I said "There was never a time when gun ownership was regarded as a purely individual right free of public militia duty or reasonable restrictions", that's what I meant, and I was right. Bogus quotations and shrill gun lobby rhetoric won't change those facts.

 

Ar15s & ak47s

 

[

So are you endorsing this foul-mouthed YouTube rant? Does the ranter seem to you to be the sort of person whose judgment we can trust as being well-informed and thoughtful? Who is he, BTW? What are his credentials? Was he paid? If so, by whom? What about his presentation did you find appealing enough to share with us?

 

I guess the point is that the government could become openly tyrannical to the point where everyone would know it. With the ever increasing militarization of the police, who knows what good being armed would do.

 

It's called anarchy and license and your version of it is reckless and dangerous. Our country was founded by a revolution, not a coup d'etat by a bunch of hotheads. A revolution is a collective action having it's own inherent checks and balances by people who think it through--not something rational people rush blindly into. If it were done today, it would require the co-operation of at least some of the military, with support from a large part of the American population. A very clear and present danger is that if you're hero is not elected in 2020 a bunch of armed hotheads will take to the streets and shoot things up.

 

I liked Beto's gungho powerhouse approach to gun control. That was refreshing. He was in the zone last night; right attitude and everything.

 

Great Britain was commenting on whether or not the Second Amendment included an unlimited individual right to own assault rifles? Funny, I guess they left that out of my history books. I thought the issue with the British was taxation without representation.

 

Yeah I dont really care for him but I do like him a lot more now that I see he isnt afraid to take a stand on this issue

 

Just hear him out. You don't have to watch his facial expressions to follow his logic, you can do other things while listening to what he has to say. Like make coffee, clean up, etc.

Oh, *I* have my own version now? Do tell...

It was, and so was Fidel's Cuba. Viva la revolución!

That's an interesting interpretation of what I said.

 

I've only heard him in the zone once, and that was when he was practicing his mediocre drum skills.
Nothing I heard last night seemed viable, especially that stuff. Wasn't he called out by another candidate that forcing "buy backs" (using our own tax money to partially compensate us for the confiscation) was unconstitutional? Pretty sure I remember someone blurting that out.

 

In logic class they teach the "appeal to authority" method of distraction, when someone can't win an argument with good sense. In this case I think there is an appeal to authority and the authority is Blackness. Just b'cause the fellow is Black, it does not logically follow that Trudger is correct. We need to pass some serious laws on guns in 12 months from now. We need to make sure white nationalists cannot own or possess guns. When they say they will use them against America, then it logically follows they have renounced their citizenship and no longer worthy of gun ownership. I say we round them up and put them in Fort Huachuca to roast under the hot sun.

 

Sounds racist to me.

 

If they are willing to use their guns on fellow Americans, we can say they have renounced their citizenship and are no longer eligible to keep and bear arms. It really quiet simple. Time to round up the white nationalists and put them in concentration camps.

 

There is a country down under that suffered a horrendous gun massacre at Port Arthur a number of years ago. Unhindered by the insane gun lobby, the Aussies put this idea and a lot of other ideas protecting the many from the insanity of the few. Want to check to rate gun deaths down under compared to the US.