• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ed Jesus Guns Babies

bruto said:
Now, for a limited time, the makers of the junior assault rifle bring you the PRINCE OF PEACEMAKER® in senior and junior sizes.

No more mister nice guy. He's coming back, and this time he's packing!
Click to expand...

Jesus II: The Second Coming

The Gospel says "he whole lives by the sword dies by the sword" but it doesn't say anything about an AR-15.
 
Stacyhs said:
You limited it to foreign 'tyrants" like George III and Charles III and asked "what was it intended to do?" I expanded it to include internal rebellions and other internal threats.
Click to expand...
Granted.

This leaves open the question of whether non-foreign tyranny should be on the list of internal threats or not.
 
d4m10n said:
Granted.

This leaves open the question of whether non-foreign tyranny should be on the list of internal threats or not.
Click to expand...

Of course it does. When, and if, tyranny actually occurs. Screaming that being told to wear a mask during a killer pandemic does not. Nor does saying large companies' employees must get vaccinated or show proof of a medical reason not to during a pandemic that has killed almost 1 MILLION Americans. Nor was Obama resorting to XO's when the GOP controlled Congress obstructed everything he tried to do. Nor was an amnesty plan for Dreamers. All of which Republicans put forth as examples 'tyranny'.
 
d4m10n said:
Granted.

This leaves open the question of whether non-foreign tyranny should be on the list of internal threats or not.
Click to expand...

But it is only to protect the state from tyranny. Not the individual from tyranny by the state. Which I think is the question you are trying to get to. But I hesitate to put words in your mouth.
 
Dr. Keith said:
But it is only to protect the state from tyranny. Not the individual from tyranny by the state. Which I think is the question you are trying to get to.
Click to expand...
The question I'm trying to get to at the moment is whether "The concept of resistance to tyranny has always been part of the 2A landscape," as Warp12 said at #12.

newyorkguy said:
Guns because we have the right to protect ourselves from tyranny.[/I] It's no longer about protecting ourselves from criminals, it's about protecting ourselves from...tyranny? Seriously?
Click to expand...
At least one legal scholar has seriously argued that it was originally about collective protection against tyranny rather than individual protection against criminals.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
The question I'm trying to get to at the moment is whether "The concept of resistance to tyranny has always been part of the 2A landscape," as Warp12 said at #12.
Click to expand...

I think that's true. But what the 2A really related to was having a 'well-organized militia' to deal with that. I think it does not mean that every Tom, Dick, and Harriet has the right to own assault style weapons. But I'm not going to get into that argument.
 
If we could resurrect the Founders, one must wonder: What would they make of today's gun-strokers shrieking about the 2A, the proliferation of guns, the 30,000+ deaths by gunfire annually (a million in a generation), and the phenomenon of mass shootings. I imagine they would recoil at the insanity.

I posit that the American mind has been rendered mad through a convenient misinterpretation of one poorly worded sentence.
 
Lurch said:
If we could resurrect the Founders, one must wonder: What would they make of today's gun-strokers shrieking about the 2A, the proliferation of guns, the 30,000+ deaths by gunfire annually (a million in a generation), and the phenomenon of mass shootings. I imagine they would recoil at the insanity.

I posit that the American mind has been rendered mad through a convenient misinterpretation of one poorly worded sentence.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup::thumbsup:
 
Lurch said:
If we could resurrect the Founders, one must wonder: What would they make of today's gun-strokers shrieking about the 2A, the proliferation of guns, the 30,000+ deaths by gunfire annually (a million in a generation), and the phenomenon of mass shootings. I imagine they would recoil at the insanity.

I posit that the American mind has been rendered mad through a convenient misinterpretation of one poorly worded sentence.
Click to expand...

This site really needs a like or rep system.
 
d4m10n said:
The question I'm trying to get to at the moment is whether "The concept of resistance to tyranny has always been part of the 2A landscape," as Warp12 said at #12.

At least one legal scholar has seriously argued that it was originally about collective protection against tyranny rather than individual protection against criminals.
Click to expand...

I would seriously question the scholarship of anyone who says it is about personal safety or personal protection from criminals. There is no historical basis for that view. It is entirely modern.

If you read the text without an nra propaganda it is talking about the people having a responsibility to maintain the security of the state. Once we decided to have a standing army we really should have dropped this, too.
 
Last edited:
Dr. Keith said:
I would seriously question the scholarship of anyone who says it is about personal safety or personal protection from criminals. There is no historical basis for that view. It is entirely modern.

If you read the text without an nra propaganda it is talking about the people having a responsibility to maintain the security of the state. Once we decided to have a standing army we really should have dropped this, too.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup::thumbsup:
 
Comedian Blaire Erksine parodies Kandiss Taylor's campaign ad. Taylor is so stupid she thought Erskine was a real supporter and included Erskine's parody in her media campaign. FF to 2:55 for the parody.

 
Dr. Keith said:
I would seriously question the scholarship of anyone who says it is about personal safety or personal protection from criminals. There is no historical basis for that view. It is entirely modern.

If you read the text without an nra propaganda it is talking about the people having a responsibility to maintain the security of the state. Once we decided to have a standing army we really should have dropped this, too.
Click to expand...

Succinct and accurate. Well done.
 
Dr. Keith said:
I would seriously question the scholarship of anyone who says it is about personal safety or personal protection from criminals. There is no historical basis for that view. It is entirely modern.
Click to expand...
That's basically what the article I linked says, among other things.

Dr. Keith said:
If you read the text without an nra propaganda it is talking about the people having a responsibility to maintain the security of the state.
Click to expand...
How is this different from Ms. Taylor's interpretation?

https://twitter.com/KandissTaylor/status/1494862597258199041
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
That's basically what the article I linked says, among other things.

How is this different from Ms. Taylor's interpretation?

https://twitter.com/KandissTaylor/status/1494862597258199041
Click to expand...

We have a standing army. Something the founders never imagined. The army makes the militia of the 2A redundant. Unnecessary. Frivolous.

I’m assuming she disagrees, which is why you edited my post.

Eta: she talks about protecting “ourselves” while the 2A talks about protecting “the State”. You do see the difference, right?
 
Last edited:
It's gotten to the point where a lot of these right-wingers think anything they disagree with is "tyranny"...especially if it comes from the left.
 
I think some people have no better understanding than to think of it as a game. They think calling something by the right term automatically qualifies it for universal opposition. They think it's the label, not the tyranny itself, that makes a tyrant hated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom