For the Second Amendment absolutists

[136or142]

Can we finally drop the nonsense that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to prevent a tyrannical government?

What that means in practice is literally what happened yesterday.  The crazed shooter even essentially gave that as his reasoning.

You can't even argue that the need to keep guns is to prevent the government from becoming tyrannical in the first place, because should a government start behaving tyrannically (as this gunman believed Trump and the Republicans had started behaving) you'd need to show to the government that you are serious about preventing it by actually doing what this person did.

[Santander]

The purpose of the Bill of Rights as a whole is to guarantee individual liberty and to limit the power of the federal government, which means that, yes, the purpose of the Second Amendment is to counter tyranny.

[Cashew]

It's amazing how so many belive that the 2nd amendment was included in the bill of rights because the founders belived it to be so important a right. Anybody who seriously studies that period will quickly come to realize that it was in fact the duck hunting lobby that managed to sneak it in along with the 9 amendments.

[Mr. Reactionary]

So because a right was misused, the purpose behind that right must not exist. Brilliant logic.

Much in the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments claim to be for the purpose of protecting the innocent who have been wrongfully accused. Guess next time someone guilty gets off on a technicality that means due process is all a lie. Derp derp derp.

[ProudModerate2]

So because a right was misused, the purpose behind that right must not exist. Brilliant logic.

Much in the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments claim to be for the purpose of protecting the innocent who have been wrongfully accused. Guess next time someone guilty gets off on a technicality that means due process is all a lie. Derp derp derp.

There is nothing in the 4th, 5th or 6th amendment that would allow someone nutty to simply walk into a public place and massacre 100 innocent people.

[Mr. Reactionary]

So because a right was misused, the purpose behind that right must not exist. Brilliant logic.

Much in the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments claim to be for the purpose of protecting the innocent who have been wrongfully accused. Guess next time someone guilty gets off on a technicality that means due process is all a lie. Derp derp derp.

There is nothing in the 4th, 5th or 6th amendment that would allow someone nutty to simply walk into a public place and massacre 100 innocent people.

I dont see anything in the 2nd amendment permitting that either.

[Santander]

So because a right was misused, the purpose behind that right must not exist. Brilliant logic.

Much in the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments claim to be for the purpose of protecting the innocent who have been wrongfully accused. Guess next time someone guilty gets off on a technicality that means due process is all a lie. Derp derp derp.

There is nothing in the 4th, 5th or 6th amendment that would allow someone nutty to simply walk into a public place and massacre 100 innocent people.

The Second Amendment does not allow that either.

Often, the most important rights to protect are the ones that are the most susceptible to abuse.

[136or142]

So because a right was misused, the purpose behind that right must not exist. Brilliant logic.

Much in the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments claim to be for the purpose of protecting the innocent who have been wrongfully accused. Guess next time someone guilty gets off on a technicality that means due process is all a lie. Derp derp derp.

That's not my point.  This is the sort of thing I'm referring to:

“Why do we have a Second Amendment? It’s not to shoot deer. It’s to shoot at the government when it becomes tyrannical!”

— Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), on Twitter, June 23, 2016.

This is also the sort of thing that is written all the time on partisan Republican message boards.

Except,  now this isn't some abstract argument, but here we have a real concrete example of what Rand Paul (and many other Second Amendment types) argue why gun ownership is an essential and absolute right.

If you agree this is a valid argument, then, you inherently agree with what this shooter did.

If you want to argue that ownership of a gun is a basic right for self defense, I think that's a reasonable argument.  My point is that the argument put forward by the Rand Paul Second Amendment absolutists types was and is absolute nonsense.  And this shooting and the public reaction to it provide concrete evidence of why it is nonsense.

[ProudModerate2]

So because a right was misused, the purpose behind that right must not exist. Brilliant logic.

Much in the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments claim to be for the purpose of protecting the innocent who have been wrongfully accused. Guess next time someone guilty gets off on a technicality that means due process is all a lie. Derp derp derp.

There is nothing in the 4th, 5th or 6th amendment that would allow someone nutty to simply walk into a public place and massacre 100 innocent people.

I dont see anything in the 2nd amendment permitting that either.

Where do you see me use the word "permit" (permitting) anywhere in my response ?

[Santander]

Newt Gingrich explains the Second Amendment's historical context

[Wells]

So because a right was misused, the purpose behind that right must not exist. Brilliant logic.

Much in the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments claim to be for the purpose of protecting the innocent who have been wrongfully accused. Guess next time someone guilty gets off on a technicality that means due process is all a lie. Derp derp derp.

There is nothing in the 4th, 5th or 6th amendment that would allow someone nutty to simply walk into a public place and massacre 100 innocent people.

I dont see anything in the 2nd amendment permitting that either.

Where do you see me use the word "permit" (permitting) anywhere in my response ?

Synonyms exist? What is the difference between "permit" and "allow" as used in your two posts?

[136or142]

Newt Gingrich explains the Second Amendment's historical context

A person learns more by banging their head against a wall than by listening to Newt Gingrich.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Is OP really suggesting that this is the 1st time a terrorist ever claimed their illegal violence was to fight government tyranny?

[136or142]

Is OP really suggesting that this is the 1st time a terrorist ever claimed their illegal violence was to fight government tyranny?

No.  Are you denying that many people argue in favor of the Second Amendment because gun ownership will stop government tyranny?

[Mr. Reactionary]

Is OP really suggesting that this is the 1st time a terrorist ever claimed their illegal violence was to fight government tyranny?

No.  Are you denying that many people argue in favor of the Second Amendment because gun ownership will stop government tyranny?

No. I just dont understand the argument that a random person abusing a right somehow renders the broad principle behind that right moot for everyone else.

[136or142]

Is OP really suggesting that this is the 1st time a terrorist ever claimed their illegal violence was to fight government tyranny?

No.  Are you denying that many people argue in favor of the Second Amendment because gun ownership will stop government tyranny?

No. I just dont understand the argument that a random person abusing a right somehow renders the broad principle behind that right moot for everyone else.

Do you believe that one of the purposes of the Second Amendment is to prevent a tyrannical government? And, if so, how could that process play out any differently than what happened yesterday?

[ProudModerate2]

So because a right was misused, the purpose behind that right must not exist. Brilliant logic.

Much in the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments claim to be for the purpose of protecting the innocent who have been wrongfully accused. Guess next time someone guilty gets off on a technicality that means due process is all a lie. Derp derp derp.

There is nothing in the 4th, 5th or 6th amendment that would allow someone nutty to simply walk into a public place and massacre 100 innocent people.

I dont see anything in the 2nd amendment permitting that either.

Where do you see me use the word "permit" (permitting) anywhere in my response ?

Synonyms exist? What is the difference between "permit" and "allow" as used in your two posts?

permit = to consent to expressly or formally
allow = to fail to restrain or prevent

So "permit," IMO, is more of a formal "OK-ing" by some type of governmental ordinance, law or amendment.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Is OP really suggesting that this is the 1st time a terrorist ever claimed their illegal violence was to fight government tyranny?

No.  Are you denying that many people argue in favor of the Second Amendment because gun ownership will stop government tyranny?

No. I just dont understand the argument that a random person abusing a right somehow renders the broad principle behind that right moot for everyone else.

Do you believe that one of the purposes of the Second Amendment is to prevent a tyrannical government? And, if so, how could that process play out any differently than what happened yesterday?

The power to overthrow the government rests with "The People". Lone wolf lefty is no more "The People" than lone wolf righty mcveigh was. You want me to email you an old paper i wrote on when i think the constitution might permit violence against the state? Its a bit dense but if you actually care about learning what the argument is rather than trying to play gotcha politics with a tragedy, ill email it to you when i get home from work. Just PM me your email if you want it.

[ProudModerate2]

Is OP really suggesting that this is the 1st time a terrorist ever claimed their illegal violence was to fight government tyranny?

No.  Are you denying that many people argue in favor of the Second Amendment because gun ownership will stop government tyranny?

No. I just dont understand the argument that a random person abusing a right somehow renders the broad principle behind that right moot for everyone else.

The Constitution is seen as a living thing and something the founders knew can and would need "adjustments" as time and technologies changed the way we live (in the US and on our planet).

The original Constitution allowed for slavery and even allowed slaves to partially count for census purposes. We eventually abolished all aspects of slavery from any and all laws, federal and state.
But yet many southerners just couldn't understand why the "broad principle behind their right" (as you say) to own slaves was being challenged, because some strange northerners were claiming it was wrong and creating harms to society (and to the slaves !).

They really, Really, REALLY believed that there was nothing wrong with what they were doing. They simply weren't "trolling" northerners to get a big kick out of seeing them upset about it.
Now how stupid do they (the policy back then) look now ?
Really dumb, right ? "How on Earth can someone defend the act of slavery?" ... we ask today.

100 years from now, there will be significant gun law changes in our nation. I foresee it.
And people in the future will say, "what the hell were you guys thinking back then ?" "Why did you allow for so many innocent people to die, time after time after time ? Day after day, month after month, year after year ..... just endless and constant inexcusable death ?"
Our future generations will think we (in our present time) are just nuts.

[136or142]

Is OP really suggesting that this is the 1st time a terrorist ever claimed their illegal violence was to fight government tyranny?

No.  Are you denying that many people argue in favor of the Second Amendment because gun ownership will stop government tyranny?

No. I just dont understand the argument that a random person abusing a right somehow renders the broad principle behind that right moot for everyone else.

Do you believe that one of the purposes of the Second Amendment is to prevent a tyrannical government? And, if so, how could that process play out any differently than what happened yesterday?

The power to overthrow the government rests with "The People". Lone wolf lefty is no more "The People" than lone wolf righty mcveigh was. You want me to email you an old paper i wrote on when i think the constitution might permit violence against the state? Its a bit dense but if you actually care about learning what the argument is rather than trying to play gotcha politics with a tragedy, ill email it to you when i get home from work. Just PM me your email if you want it.

I'm not trying to do anything.  The problem with the nonsensical argument is that 'the people' would have an incredibly difficult time trying to coordinate any such full scale revolt against the government. For one thing, as we saw with this incident, 'the people' can't agree on when a government is behaving tyrannically.  

The argument put forward by Rand Paul et al, is an abstract argument that has no basis in reality.  As such, it is nonsense and we now have a concrete example that shows that it is nonsense.  As such, proponents of the Second Amendment should stop using this argument in favor of the Second Amendment.

I am neither playing gotcha nor playing politics with a tragedy. Spare me your sanctimony.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Is OP really suggesting that this is the 1st time a terrorist ever claimed their illegal violence was to fight government tyranny?

No.  Are you denying that many people argue in favor of the Second Amendment because gun ownership will stop government tyranny?

No. I just dont understand the argument that a random person abusing a right somehow renders the broad principle behind that right moot for everyone else.

Do you believe that one of the purposes of the Second Amendment is to prevent a tyrannical government? And, if so, how could that process play out any differently than what happened yesterday?

The power to overthrow the government rests with "The People". Lone wolf lefty is no more "The People" than lone wolf righty mcveigh was. You want me to email you an old paper i wrote on when i think the constitution might permit violence against the state? Its a bit dense but if you actually care about learning what the argument is rather than trying to play gotcha politics with a tragedy, ill email it to you when i get home from work. Just PM me your email if you want it.

I'm not trying to do anything.  The problem with the nonsensical argument is that 'the people' would have an incredibly difficult time trying to coordinate any such full scale revolt against the government. For one thing, as we saw with this incident, 'the people' can't agree on when a government is behaving tyrannically.  

The argument put forward by Rand Paul et al, is an abstract argument that has no basis in reality.  As such, it is nonsense and we now have a concrete example that shows that it is nonsense.  As such, proponents of the Second Amendment should stop using this argument in favor of the Second Amendment.

I am neither playing gotcha nor playing politics with a tragedy. Spare me your sanctimony.

Now you're strawmanning. Can you find me a quote from rand paul saying the right to resist government tyranny under the 2nd amendment means any person can violently resist any law they individually think is tyrannical at any time? No one mainstream says that assassins are always justified. Guaranteeing each state a tepublican form of government is an abstract argument as well, but we dont say that the clause is somehow invalid.

[136or142]

Is OP really suggesting that this is the 1st time a terrorist ever claimed their illegal violence was to fight government tyranny?

No.  Are you denying that many people argue in favor of the Second Amendment because gun ownership will stop government tyranny?

No. I just dont understand the argument that a random person abusing a right somehow renders the broad principle behind that right moot for everyone else.

Do you believe that one of the purposes of the Second Amendment is to prevent a tyrannical government? And, if so, how could that process play out any differently than what happened yesterday?

The power to overthrow the government rests with "The People". Lone wolf lefty is no more "The People" than lone wolf righty mcveigh was. You want me to email you an old paper i wrote on when i think the constitution might permit violence against the state? Its a bit dense but if you actually care about learning what the argument is rather than trying to play gotcha politics with a tragedy, ill email it to you when i get home from work. Just PM me your email if you want it.

I'm not trying to do anything.  The problem with the nonsensical argument is that 'the people' would have an incredibly difficult time trying to coordinate any such full scale revolt against the government. For one thing, as we saw with this incident, 'the people' can't agree on when a government is behaving tyrannically.  

The argument put forward by Rand Paul et al, is an abstract argument that has no basis in reality.  As such, it is nonsense and we now have a concrete example that shows that it is nonsense.  As such, proponents of the Second Amendment should stop using this argument in favor of the Second Amendment.

I am neither playing gotcha nor playing politics with a tragedy. Spare me your sanctimony.

Now you're strawmanning. Can you find me a quote from rand paul saying the right to resist government tyranny under the 2nd amendment means any person can violently resist any law they individually think is tyrannical at any time? No one mainstream says that assassins are always justified. Guaranteeing each state a Republican form of government is an abstract argument as well, but we dont say that the clause is somehow invalid.

That's why I asked you how the process of using guns to stop a tyrannical government could play out in any other way than what happened yesterday.  You didn't answer.

The logical fallacy, strawman or otherwise, is that there is some fantastic process where millions of people will rise up as one all in agreement to overthrow the government with their guns.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Is OP really suggesting that this is the 1st time a terrorist ever claimed their illegal violence was to fight government tyranny?

No.  Are you denying that many people argue in favor of the Second Amendment because gun ownership will stop government tyranny?

No. I just dont understand the argument that a random person abusing a right somehow renders the broad principle behind that right moot for everyone else.

Do you believe that one of the purposes of the Second Amendment is to prevent a tyrannical government? And, if so, how could that process play out any differently than what happened yesterday?

The power to overthrow the government rests with "The People". Lone wolf lefty is no more "The People" than lone wolf righty mcveigh was. You want me to email you an old paper i wrote on when i think the constitution might permit violence against the state? Its a bit dense but if you actually care about learning what the argument is rather than trying to play gotcha politics with a tragedy, ill email it to you when i get home from work. Just PM me your email if you want it.

I'm not trying to do anything.  The problem with the nonsensical argument is that 'the people' would have an incredibly difficult time trying to coordinate any such full scale revolt against the government. For one thing, as we saw with this incident, 'the people' can't agree on when a government is behaving tyrannically.  

The argument put forward by Rand Paul et al, is an abstract argument that has no basis in reality.  As such, it is nonsense and we now have a concrete example that shows that it is nonsense.  As such, proponents of the Second Amendment should stop using this argument in favor of the Second Amendment.

I am neither playing gotcha nor playing politics with a tragedy. Spare me your sanctimony.

Now you're strawmanning. Can you find me a quote from rand paul saying the right to resist government tyranny under the 2nd amendment means any person can violently resist any law they individually think is tyrannical at any time? No one mainstream says that assassins are always justified. Guaranteeing each state a Republican form of government is an abstract argument as well, but we dont say that the clause is somehow invalid.

That's why I asked you how the process of using guns to stop a tyrannical government could play out in any other way than what happened yesterday.  You didn't answer.

The logical fallacy, strawman or otherwise, is that there is some fantastic process where millions of people will rise up as one all in agreement to overthrow the government with their guns.

I mean, i did offer to email you  +30 page analysis if you want my full opinion.

[Person Man]

What happens if you do a 2nd Amendment uprising of hundreds of thousands or millions and well...it doesn't go so well?

[136or142]

Is OP really suggesting that this is the 1st time a terrorist ever claimed their illegal violence was to fight government tyranny?

No.  Are you denying that many people argue in favor of the Second Amendment because gun ownership will stop government tyranny?

No. I just dont understand the argument that a random person abusing a right somehow renders the broad principle behind that right moot for everyone else.

Do you believe that one of the purposes of the Second Amendment is to prevent a tyrannical government? And, if so, how could that process play out any differently than what happened yesterday?

The power to overthrow the government rests with "The People". Lone wolf lefty is no more "The People" than lone wolf righty mcveigh was. You want me to email you an old paper i wrote on when i think the constitution might permit violence against the state? Its a bit dense but if you actually care about learning what the argument is rather than trying to play gotcha politics with a tragedy, ill email it to you when i get home from work. Just PM me your email if you want it.

I'm not trying to do anything.  The problem with the nonsensical argument is that 'the people' would have an incredibly difficult time trying to coordinate any such full scale revolt against the government. For one thing, as we saw with this incident, 'the people' can't agree on when a government is behaving tyrannically.  

The argument put forward by Rand Paul et al, is an abstract argument that has no basis in reality.  As such, it is nonsense and we now have a concrete example that shows that it is nonsense.  As such, proponents of the Second Amendment should stop using this argument in favor of the Second Amendment.

I am neither playing gotcha nor playing politics with a tragedy. Spare me your sanctimony.

Now you're strawmanning. Can you find me a quote from rand paul saying the right to resist government tyranny under the 2nd amendment means any person can violently resist any law they individually think is tyrannical at any time? No one mainstream says that assassins are always justified. Guaranteeing each state a Republican form of government is an abstract argument as well, but we dont say that the clause is somehow invalid.

That's why I asked you how the process of using guns to stop a tyrannical government could play out in any other way than what happened yesterday.  You didn't answer.

The logical fallacy, strawman or otherwise, is that there is some fantastic process where millions of people will rise up as one all in agreement to overthrow the government with their guns.

I mean, i did offer to email you  +30 page analysis if you want my full opinion.

Fine, I'm interested.  You can't write up a brief summary though?