Open Letter To Beto RE 2nd Amendment

[Vastator]

America is the people, not the government. The government is a public servant.

You say something like that when we both know you hate most of "The People".

Would you govern free men’s feelings as well?

I don't really give a shit. Get a better argument than "I need guns to resist government tyranny". Be the responsible gun owner you think you are and realize that your phantom fears are not a valid argument.

There is no argument. There is only my desire, and will as a free man.

At least you know the right's gun control arguments are all selfish.

Freedom is selfish. That's the point of it...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I do not support violence or overthrowing the government, but I will not sit by and become a victim of tyranny be it at the hands of the government or the thugs on the street.

Yes you will, the NG will see to it or the Army who is fighting at the command of the Potus. You'd get your butt in prison.

What in the world makes you think that National Guardsmen who took an oath to uphold the Constitution will violate their oath and the constitution to further the goals of Communist punks like Beta the Dork?

I get that you're just a Hamas fool living in squalor in Gaza, but this delusion of the American Stalinists that the army will back their overthrow on the nation is just insane.

They are part of the resistance who is more of a threat to the government while Trump is president? A trump supporter or a member of the resistance?

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Those serving in the Military do not have to follow an unlawful order. Arresting people who are exercising a Constitutional right would be unlawful. As far as the National Guard goes they would be arresting friends and family so I don't believe they are going to play ball either.
You ******* loons never hash out the consequences of you agenda.

And you'd get court marshalled. An unlawful order coming from the Potus, you have got to be kidding.

Trump is coming for you not me, because I am not a threat to his administration or the government. You leftist are.

So you admit tramp goes after opponents, we are sure of it. If you were anti something he did or said, you'd be an opponent.

It's your side that calls him a dictator worse than Hitler. You must really be ignorant or mentally challenged to want to disarm citizens when you have a fear of a leader that acts like Hitler in your sides mind.

Why he doesn't have one, he uses his mouth and the courts. Also, I'm willing to let you keep your guns and a 10 bullet magazine.

No deal. Shall not be infringed

I do not support violence or overthrowing the government, but I will not sit by and become a victim of tyranny be it at the hands of the government or the thugs on the street.

Yes you will, the NG will see to it or the Army who is fighting at the command of the Potus. You'd get your butt in prison.

Those serving in the Military do not have to follow an unlawful order. Arresting people who are exercising a Constitutional right would be unlawful. As far as the National Guard goes they would be arresting friends and family so I don't believe they are going to play ball either.
You ******* loons never hash out the consequences of you agenda.

And you'd get court marshalled. An unlawful order coming from the Potus, you have got to be kidding.

Part of the oath I took stated "Defend the Constitution". Giving an unconstitutional order such as arresting those who are exercising a right is the very definition of an unlawful order. If something like this ever comes to pass you ******* loons are going to be shocked at how many refuse to follow orders.

 

[TRFjr]

the major role of government is to pass laws and enforce those laws and all laws are is the curtailing of freedoms
so the more laws you have the more laws that are required the less and less freedoms you have

If no one ever stole would we then require laws not to steal?

do you not steal because it's against the law or because its wrong to do so?

What happens when there is a car accident, and if someone in injured?

a perfect society with just citizens they would agree who was at fault and come to an agreement
yes I know that is a fantasy because a large percentage of people arent just have no integrity and why we would never have a perfect society but it is something we should strive for and more and more government isn't the answer it takes us in the opposite direction

 

[pismoe]

"law dont prevent crime. they help limit it" - Beto

you know what else limits crime? MY GUN that protects me!

americans are gonna hold their nose and vote for trump...because the alternatives are so bad!

--------------------------------------- yeah maybe . For me i pretty much mostly agree but for me it all depends on what the TRUMP does in the coming weeks concerning GUN's . If TRUMP messes up too bad I am going after the MONEY GRUBBERS that inhabit the USA with my vote AGAINST Trump and the Money Grubbing 'republican conservatives' . Anyway , if TRUMP does ok on Guns and Ammo in the near future he has my vote eh BBro .

 

[occupied]

You say something like that when we both know you hate most of "The People".

Would you govern free men’s feelings as well?

I don't really give a shit. Get a better argument than "I need guns to resist government tyranny". Be the responsible gun owner you think you are and realize that your phantom fears are not a valid argument.

There is no argument. There is only my desire, and will as a free man.

At least you know the right's gun control arguments are all selfish.

Freedom is selfish. That's the point of it...

Freedom is also selfless, not that you would know anything about the aspect of freedom that makes free societies possible.

 

[Vastator]

Would you govern free men’s feelings as well?

I don't really give a shit. Get a better argument than "I need guns to resist government tyranny". Be the responsible gun owner you think you are and realize that your phantom fears are not a valid argument.

There is no argument. There is only my desire, and will as a free man.

At least you know the right's gun control arguments are all selfish.

Freedom is selfish. That's the point of it...

Freedom is also selfless, not that you would know anything about the aspect of freedom that makes free societies possible.

Respecting others freedoms; while being able to defend your own. That is a point of view of freedom. You ask nothing more than to have control removed from you, because you can't handle the burden.....

 

[satrebil]

Those serving in the Military do not have to follow an unlawful order. Arresting people who are exercising a Constitutional right would be unlawful. As far as the National Guard goes they would be arresting friends and family so I don't believe they are going to play ball either.
You ******* loons never hash out the consequences of you agenda.

And you'd get court marshalled. An unlawful order coming from the Potus, you have got to be kidding.

Trump is coming for you not me, because I am not a threat to his administration or the government. You leftist are.

So you admit tramp goes after opponents, we are sure of it. If you were anti something he did or said, you'd be an opponent.

It's your side that calls him a dictator worse than Hitler. You must really be ignorant or mentally challenged to want to disarm citizens when you have a fear of a leader that acts like Hitler in your sides mind.

Why he doesn't have one, he uses his mouth and the courts. Also, I'm willing to let you keep your guns and a 10 bullet magazine.

Who the **** died and made you king?

 

[satrebil]

Overreaching laws that enforce compliance at gunpoint are the initiators of said violence. Defense in response is fully justified.

No one cares about the paranoid fantasies of the gun nutters. Your perceived right to mount an armed insurrection against America is bullshit.

America is the people, not the government. The government is a public servant.

You say something like that when we both know you hate most of "The People".

Would you govern free men’s feelings as well?

I don't really give a shit. Get a better argument than "I need guns to resist government tyranny". Be the responsible gun owner you think you are and realize that your phantom fears are not a valid argument.

Tell me more about "phantom fears".

 

[2aguy]

Lifted from an email sent to me. 100% concur.


Dear Beto,

Can I call you Beto? Great.

Anyway, I wanted to take a few moments to write an open letter to you regarding some of your recent thoughts on gun control. In particular, your comments regarding mandatory buybacks.

On The View earlier this week, Meghan McCain commented that such an act would trigger violence. Her comment sparked outrage all over the internet. You, yourself, argued that McCain’s comments amounted to “It becomes self-fulfilling; you have people on TV who are almost giving you permission to be violent and saying, ‘You know this is this is going to happen.’”

Allow me to clue you in on something, Beto. There’s not a single gun owner in this country who is looking to Meghan McCain for permission to oppose the tyranny of a mandatory buyback.

McCain’s comments weren’t permission, they were a warning. It wasn’t something new, something she just pulled out of the ether in order to spark some controversy. She’s merely echoing the statements people have made for decades regarding their willingness to die for their Second Amendment rights.

By claiming its a self-fulfilling prophecy and that people like McCain are giving people permission, you’re telling on yourself. You’re telling each and every one of us that you have never bothered to listen to a damn thing any of us have said.

I didn’t even know who Meghan McCain was when I first heard someone issue the dire warning that if some form of gun confiscation were to happen, the first thing the jackboots trying to take them would get was the ammunition delivered at high velocity. The gun-rights community has warned that efforts to take away or guns would lead to civil war for years now.

You just didn’t want to listen.

We often talk about lawmakers being out of touch, and you’ve just become the poster boy for that, Beto. You are so wrapped up in your liberal bubble that you simply can’t understand that this is a thing, this is something we’ve gone on about for ages. You can’t understand it because you don’t want to understand it. In your mind, we’re all just good little drones who will do whatever Big Daddy Government wants us to do.

We’re not.

We’re the heirs of Lexington and Concord. We’re the children of Valley Forge and Bunker Hill. We’re a defiant, freedom-loving bunch that isn’t rolling over because some spoiled rich kid thinks we should.

Let me make it clear for you. If you come for our guns, we are going to fight back. We don’t look to Meghan McCain for permission to do that. She could tell us not to, and we’d still fight back.

Beto, you need to understand. You need to learn. You need to come to grasp the simple fact that we’re not like you. We don’t look at government as an unmitigated good whose lead we should always follow. We have reasons for that. It’s called the history of the 20th Century filled with countless atrocities, atrocities carried out under the umbrella of government.

Those atrocities could only be carried out because the populations were unarmed.

We’re not sheep. We will not be herded into genocide all because some well-meaning but sheltered rich boy who has never lived in a high-crime neighborhood in his life could tell us what we need and don’t need.

Meghan McCain gave no one permission for anything. Further, gun owners don’t need such a permission. Our permission was penned in 1776 and signed on July 4th.

- Tom Knighton

This is actually open ignorance of the Second Amendment; it’s as ridiculous as it is childish and false.

There is nothing in Second Amendment case law that supports the wrongheaded notion of ‘insurrectionist dogma.’

There is nothing in Second Amendment case law that authorizes a minority of citizens to ‘take up arms’ against a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the majority of the people.

The Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First.

It doesn’t take from the people their right to petition the government for a redress of grievances through either the political or judicial process.

It was not the intent of the Founding Generation to amend the Constitution with the means by which to destroy the Republic they had just created.

The Second Amendment codifies an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense – not to act in the capacity of ‘law enforcement,’ not to ‘deter crime,’ and not to ‘overthrow’ a just and proper government subjectively and incorrectly perceived to have become ‘tyrannical.’

O'Rourke’s advocacy for an AWB is naïve and unwarranted – such a ban would do nothing to stop mass shootings.

But O'Rourke’s advocacy for an AWB is not un-Constitutional, as the Supreme Court has never ruled on this type of ban – nor will it ‘infringe’ upon the right of the people to ‘fight tyranny,’ as no such right is recognized by the Second Amendment.

Yes...they have ...Heller...and then Scalia, in Friedman v Highland Park explains that the AR-15 rifle is specifically protected by the 2nd amendment....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It's the First Amendment that safeguards our rights and protected liberties, not the Second.

 

[2aguy]

It's the First Amendment that safeguards our rights and protected liberties, not the Second.

If you believe that you really are dumb. Just ask Venezuelans, Chinese, Russian people who don't have the 2nd Amendment how great their 1s Amendment Rights are....

 

[jc456]

I consider government a necessary evil the less you are required to have of it the better off you are

a perfect society would be one that no government at all is required

"the less you are required"
Who sets the standard for requirement?

society the people

it boils down to the simple truth the role of government is control and to be able to control freedoms have to be curtailed
a perfect society is one that requires no control pure unadulterated freedom

No it does not boil down to that.

it's called liberty, and it's a demand going down in Hong Kong at this time. people don't want your kind of government. Threats by government will always stir up protests like Hong Kong is having today. Just try it, go for it! what is Beto and the likes of you waiting for? afraid mthr fkers that's what, weak assholes with a need to shame and spit at society that elected them. whew that's out there now.

 

[jc456]

It's the First Amendment that safeguards our rights and protected liberties, not the Second.

It's probably the only thing Joe Walsh said correctly, the 2nd amendment protects all other amendments.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And you'd get court marshalled. An unlawful order coming from the Potus, you have got to be kidding.

Trump is coming for you not me, because I am not a threat to his administration or the government. You leftist are.

So you admit tramp goes after opponents, we are sure of it. If you were anti something he did or said, you'd be an opponent.

It's your side that calls him a dictator worse than Hitler. You must really be ignorant or mentally challenged to want to disarm citizens when you have a fear of a leader that acts like Hitler in your sides mind.

Why he doesn't have one, he uses his mouth and the courts. Also, I'm willing to let you keep your guns and a 10 bullet magazine.

Who the **** died and made you king?

Your thread premise is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong, the same is true of the email you cited.

It's nothing but subjective opinion, devoid of legal merit.

 

[satrebil]

It's the First Amendment that safeguards our rights and protected liberties, not the Second.

Wow. You are on a whole other level of stupid.

 

[satrebil]

Trump is coming for you not me, because I am not a threat to his administration or the government. You leftist are.

So you admit tramp goes after opponents, we are sure of it. If you were anti something he did or said, you'd be an opponent.

It's your side that calls him a dictator worse than Hitler. You must really be ignorant or mentally challenged to want to disarm citizens when you have a fear of a leader that acts like Hitler in your sides mind.

Why he doesn't have one, he uses his mouth and the courts. Also, I'm willing to let you keep your guns and a 10 bullet magazine.

Who the **** died and made you king?

Your thread premise is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong, the same is true of the email you cited.

It's nothing but subjective opinion, devoid of legal merit.

Uh huh.

Put your money where your mouth is, come and take the guns. I dare you.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It's the First Amendment that safeguards our rights and protected liberties, not the Second.

ok trump is sending troops after you and your resistance members. are you going to use your first amendment right to fire back at them or beg for a second amendment solution?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And you'd get court marshalled. An unlawful order coming from the Potus, you have got to be kidding.

Trump is coming for you not me, because I am not a threat to his administration or the government. You leftist are.

So you admit tramp goes after opponents, we are sure of it. If you were anti something he did or said, you'd be an opponent.

It's your side that calls him a dictator worse than Hitler. You must really be ignorant or mentally challenged to want to disarm citizens when you have a fear of a leader that acts like Hitler in your sides mind.

Why he doesn't have one, he uses his mouth and the courts. Also, I'm willing to let you keep your guns and a 10 bullet magazine.

No deal. Shall not be infringed

I do not support violence or overthrowing the government, but I will not sit by and become a victim of tyranny be it at the hands of the government or the thugs on the street.

Yes you will, the NG will see to it or the Army who is fighting at the command of the Potus. You'd get your butt in prison.

Those serving in the Military do not have to follow an unlawful order. Arresting people who are exercising a Constitutional right would be unlawful. As far as the National Guard goes they would be arresting friends and family so I don't believe they are going to play ball either.
You ******* loons never hash out the consequences of you agenda.

And you'd get court marshalled. An unlawful order coming from the Potus, you have got to be kidding.

Part of the oath I took stated "Defend the Constitution". Giving an unconstitutional order such as arresting those who are exercising a right is the very definition of an unlawful order. If something like this ever comes to pass you ******* loons are going to be shocked at how many refuse to follow orders.

What they fail to grasp is those troops as long as Trump is president will not be used against us. They will be used against the movement known as the resistance
They will be identified as domestic terrorists

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Screeds like this saying that gun control will be met with widespread violence is at odds with the concept that gun owners are responsible enough that new laws are not needed. Threats of violence wrapped in patriotic hogwash are still threats. Keep presenting the pro gun side of this argument in these terms and you will lose.

Overreaching laws that enforce compliance at gunpoint are the initiators of said violence. Defense in response is fully justified.

No one cares about the paranoid fantasies of the gun nutters. Your perceived right to mount an armed insurrection against America is bullshit.

You loons are historically retarded the whole point of the 2nd Amendment is the right to protect oneself against a tyrannical Government.