I knew you would fail to get it.
Proof requires more than you simply claiming people don't understand history. I've shown how LibertyKid claims don't match up with history.
You have shown nothing other than your ability to incorrectly point to cause and effect and use illogical arguments. I'll let you where that hat, but it doesn't mean it looks good on you.
Illogical arguments?
You're making an illogical connection between the 2A's intent and slavers using guns to "promote tyranny" from slavers. Granted, keep in mind, that it wasn't the entire nation that kept slaves and used their guns to "Promote Tyranny. Also, keep in mind, the vast majority of the population, even before the constitution was enacted and the 2A became a right, literally every American male, and probably some females, owned firearms. Your premise supposes that guns were not a thing in the country prior to the 2A. Even if the 2A was not made a right, firearms would still be around and terribly misused in the south by the slave hoarding Democrats. There was never, not one intent to disarm, or make firearms illegal upon the founding of our country. Never. Therefore, your premise that the 2A somehow provided and enabled tyranny by slave owners is wrong and illogicalIllogical arguments?
Cause and effect is kind of important my guy. It's how we discern what works. That's what logic and reason is all about, figuring out what outcomes will result from certain actions. You argued that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to hold the government in check. Did it? Or did it promote tyranny for 150 years?
If I use a fork to eat, and that same fork is used to stab me to death, are forks abolished?If the thing you said is designed to do something in fact did the opposite isn't that kind of fucking relevant? No? That doesn't compute with your logic algorithm?
What's the illogical connection? The people who wrote and ratified the 2nd Amendment into law were the Slavers themselves and people willing to work with Slavers. The Founders were tyrants. America at its Founding was a tyrannical regime.
The nation itself through practice and law promoted and protected the legal ownership of other human beings. Of entire families. Of children. And it legalized their exploitation for profit. If you're not willing to define that as tyrannical then I'm not really sure what you would. Taxation without representation?
I don't think they just became brutes and tyrants with the signing of the declaration. Yeah, they came from a violent culture that was okay with owning people as property and having 1 v 1 shootouts on the streets as an acceptable method of conflict resolution. Does that have to be us today? Why? What's your reasoning? Tradition?
It does not. At all. Whether guns were in the country previously and what for has nothing to do with my argument over how the Founders used them. That won't change. And it has nothing at all do with my arguments against having them now.
I don't know if I'm understanding this argument you're trying to make here. Are you trying to argue that the problem with the second amendment back then wasn't that we allowed individuals to own guns but that those individuals were just trash? Because that's kind of my point. The argument that we need to arm the populace to combat tyranny supposes that we can trust the populace to combat tyranny rather than simpy promote their own ends. Why should we? The Founders didn't give this any sort of consideration because they were deplorable violent people who needed their weapons to protect their tyrannical regime as much as they needed them to protect themselves from tyranny. That's the calculation you Founders lovers are forgetting to do in your analysis. You were given a shit education and taught that slavers were the good guys so you don't even question what's wrong with arming a population outside a time of war and as a matter of course.
Ok. And? Connect that to a rational point that defends the second amendment.
Exactly. Have we solved that issue? Can we trust an armed group of randos to work in everyone else's best interest?
When forks gain the destructive capability of a semi-automatic rifle then, sure, let's have that talk.
You're premise is this:What's the illogical connection? The people who wrote and ratified the 2nd Amendment into law were the Slavers themselves and people willing to work with Slavers. The Founders were tyrants. America at its Founding was a tyrannical regime.
The nation itself through practice and law promoted and protected the legal ownership of other human beings. Of entire families. Of children. And it legalized their exploitation for profit. If you're not willing to define that as tyrannical then I'm not really sure what you would. Taxation without representation?
I don't think they just became brutes and tyrants with the signing of the declaration. Yeah, they came from a violent culture that was okay with owning people as property and having 1 v 1 shootouts on the streets as an acceptable method of conflict resolution. Does that have to be us today? Why? What's your reasoning? Tradition?
It does not. At all. Whether guns were in the country previously and what for has nothing to do with my argument over how the Founders used them. That won't change. And it has nothing at all do with my arguments against having them now.
I don't know if I'm understanding this argument you're trying to make here. Are you trying to argue that the problem with the second amendment back then wasn't that we allowed individuals to own guns but that those individuals were just trash? Because that's kind of my point. The argument that we need to arm the populace to combat tyranny supposes that we can trust the populace to combat tyranny rather than simpy promote their own ends. Why should we? The Founders didn't give this any sort of consideration because they were deplorable violent people who needed their weapons to protect their tyrannical regime as much as they needed them to protect themselves from tyranny. That's the calculation you Founders lovers are forgetting to do in your analysis. You were given a shit education and taught that slavers were the good guys so you don't even question what's wrong with arming a population outside a time of war and as a matter of course.
Ok. And? Connect that to a rational point that defends the second amendment.
Exactly. Have we solved that issue? Can we trust an armed group of randos to work in everyone else's best interest?
When forks gain the destructive capability of a semi-automatic rifle then, sure, let's have that talk.
You're forgetting my other premise. Whether we can trust an armed group of randos to use their weapons to protect others from tyranny rather than impose their own. As I said the slaver Founders were making a different calculation. They needed guns to enforce tyranny as much as protect against it. I understand why a society intent on letting white people impose tyranny on black people would be okay with those white people being armed. Why should this society arm its citizens? You say to protect against tyranny but I don't trust all my neighbors with weapons to do that. It just seems like the juice isn't worth the squeeze in this case. The deaths and levels of gun violence are a high price to pay for the possibility of maybe opposing tyranny (if the occasion ever arises) but also maybe helping it.
You are correct. There is a war. There is no genocide.
