Reply With Quote
It hinges on the claim that, if the intended purpose has become a futile endeavor then the narrative here is that it's obsolete.
nah, the original intent of the 2A also included self defense. that certainly isn't obsolete.
how would you support a claim that 1A is obsolete?
It hinges on the claim that, if the intended purpose has become a futile endeavor then the narrative here is that it's obsolete.
It was never my case. That's why it's your straw man.
I will say giving the children rocks is better than giving them guns. That's why I asked you if you preferred to give the kids guns.
The freedom to dissent without legal repercussions is not futile. It's something that happens every day.
The freedom to keep and bear arms without legal repercussions is not futile. It's something that happens every day.
It's the effect that matters. Is this freedom to dissent keeping this nation from moving towards tyranny?
Philo, do you understand the concept of "hinges on"?
I happen to think no amendment is obsolete. If someone here wishes to infer that the 2nd is obsolete due to the "militia" term being used, or because simple arms are not sufficient to suppress military firepower, then you'd have to consider the 1st Amendment in the same light, that simple words are not enough to suppress tyranny.
i have already stated outright that i dont find 2A outdated. i find the attempted rationale of needing guns to ward off a tyrannical federal government to be a very outdated concept, and thus, incredibly weak justification
I agree. I'm not the one who believes the outcome of 1A or 2A rights is what matters. You do, hence....
No, it's not the effect that matters. The First Amendment protects speech. That speech can be anti-government, it can be offensive, it can be outright lies. Thousands of people, including our current POTUS, claimed that Barack Obama was born outside of the United States. It had no effect, yet they were not prosecuted from such speech (or, in Trump's case, prevented from becoming the next President) because we have the First Amendment.It's the effect that matters. Is this freedom to dissent keeping this nation from moving towards tyranny?
The 2A allows a bunch of bozos who think they can save America from tyranny (or protect themselves from taxation, or use public lands, or whatever) to stock up on guns for some imaginary battle against the United States government. That may be a re ed fantasy, but they have the right to entertain it.
These are two contradictory statements. Which one of these do you actually believe? Or are you just being argumentative out of boredom?
Needing freedom of speech to ward off a tyrannical government is an outdated concept.
I like how you used your lawyer skills to use "outdated" instead of "obsolete".
How are they contradictory?
Does the 1st Amendment suppress tyranny?
If the government wanted to come kick your door in, could you talk them out of it?
Could you 2nd amendment them to keep them out?
You be the first one through the door, we'll both find out at the same time.
The point, cuck, is that once someone decides they want to come kick your door in, you've lost the battle. The point of both amendments is to avoid getting to that point.
DMC reminding everyone he will kill you.
Nothing you've written supports this claim. You've basically admitted to being a little got and casting aspersions.
Nothing I've written disproves something I never said?
I know you want to talk around it; your talk did not condemn the stupidity of the rocks solution; rather it aided it. Your actions speak for themselves.Nothing I've written disproves something I never said?
"Rather aided it"
I asked you if you wanted the kids to have guns instead.
You still haven't answered.
Post 1: You don't believe either amendment is obsolete on the basis that their effectiveness matters.
Post 2: It's the effect that matters.
Strawman. I've already said the 1st Amendment isn't about effectiveness, and that would include suppressing tyranny.Does the 1st Amendment suppress tyranny?
If the government wanted to come kick your door in, could you talk them out of it?
i'm using them interchangeably.
i dont think anybody here has tried to argue that we need the 1st amendment to ward off a tyrannical government. but there are people with fantasies of taking up arms against the US military, and actually use that to argue they need the 2A. i think self defense is a more than adequate explanation without pretending to be the next paul revere
Your actions speak for themselves. Put forth a plan that is better than rocks if you're for the guns instead."Rather aided it"
I asked you if you wanted the kids to have guns instead.
You still haven't answered.
I have a clue you are pulling % 's out of your ass.
Yep.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
