By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
DarthVolod on 17 June 2017
Edit Thread
SuaveSocialist said:
DarthVolod said:

1. Should we regulate those too?

2. Don't give them any ideas.

3. I'm not going to respond to dozens of stories of supposed corruption. 

4. Has the NRA / Republicans come out to say that this was a man rebelling against a tyranical government? 

5. That is because it is not the NRA/ Republican's idea; it predates them both. 

6. Again, the 2nd ammendment was meant to guarantee the right to bear arms, not to give a treatise on when / how a revolution should take place or be justified. 

1 If they somehow managed to compete with the efficiency, lethality and ranged effectiveness as murder hoses and rival their consumption of life---why not?

2 too late.

3 Ignore hundreds of indepently verified instances of corruption if you like.  Unfortunately, ignoring corruption doesn't make it go away. Dear Leader's regime is the gold standard for corrupfion.

4 The topic's victim is a noteworthy member of a demonstrably corrupt government--shooting him fits the long-held NRA/Republican talking point about taking arms against a corrupt government.

5 The 2nd A predates them as well, which is why I mentioned it, and I still see no formal time frame for how long it takes corruption to manifest.

6 Such a treatise would infringe on the right to bear arms.  He took arms--"necessary" for the "freedom" of the "State"--as 2nd A guarantees is his right. No other way to put it: the Second Amendment struck again.

1. ISIS has only been around since 1999, give them some more time. I'm sure they wil continue to demonstrate the effectiveness of alternatives to guns. You can't just ban everything since almost anything can be used as a weapon. 

2. lol got me there I guess.

3. Independently verified sources? I see nothing but a bunch of links to known left leaning media outlets. Show me Trump's Watergate scandal or anything even close to it. I would love to see it ... helps my grand argument like I said. Then I can have more ammunition to use when I debate against the existence of a state in general. 

4. Again, do we even know his intent? For all we know he was suicidal and figured if I go down then why not lash out while I'm at it. I think you are making an incredible leap here in arguing that this nutjob and the founders of the US are morally equivalent. 

5. Considering the time frame between the founding of the American colonies leading up to the outbreak of revolution, I think the founders would probably have said it takes more than 6 months ... especially considering that the US is not a dictatorship and the powers of the president are limited by design. 

6. Once again, context matters here. You are just assuming the motivation of the man based on nothing and pinning everything on the 2nd amendment; as though this man who not have gone on a violent rampage if only he didn't have access to a gun. What is more likely? That this guy was a nut living out of his truck that suddenly snapped after what sounds like a crappy life, or that he was a mastermind political revolutionary that was going to topple the US government by ... interrupting baseball practice?