Tulsi might FINALLY be getting it on gun rights...maybe...

[Missourian]

...and the importance of the Second Amendment. Now whether this is a true evolution of her position or a cynical "never going to be accepted by the Red State Republicans if I don't recant my former 'sensible gun control' stances"...I don't know.

I'm willing to give Tulsi the benefit of the doubt as, by my judgement, she seems to be a person of integrity (for a politician)...but time will tell.

If you are interest in the explanation of her transformation from gun controller to 2nd Amendment defender...you'll find the first 20 minutes of this video informative...

In her own words...

 

[M14 Shooter]

She talks the talk.
Will she walk the walk?

 

[rightwinger]

Tulsi is complying with the requirements to be a Fox News contributor

 

[Winston]

...and the importance of the Second Amendment. Now whether this is a true evolution of her position or a cynical "never going to be accepted by the Red State Republicans if I don't recant my former 'sensible gun control' stances"...I don't know.

I'm willing to give Tulsi the benefit of the doubt as, by my judgement, she seems to be a person of integrity (for a politician)...but time will tell.

If you are interest in the explanation of her transformation from gun controller to 2nd Amendment defender...you'll find the first 20 minutes of this video informative...

In her own words...

OMG, she is buying the purpose of the second amendment is two-fold. Personal protection and protection against a tyrannical government. Both are wrong. I mean lets quote the Constitution itself. Article III, section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Lots of things going on here. But riddle me this, if the purpose of the second amendment was to give the people the power to "levy war" against a tyrannical state, then why does the Constitution define that as treason? Would there not have been some qualifiers here, like if the state becomes too oppressive or something? I mean the whole guns are a defense against the government argument is stupid, just plain stupid, and historically totally inaccurate.

The founders busted their asses. They debated, for hours on end, in an un-airconditioned building during one of the hottest summers in a generation. The central theme to that debate, constructing a government that could be controlled WITHOUT FREAKING VIOLENCE. Separation of powers, bi-cameral legislature, life time appointments to the SCOTUS, they gave us the tools to control the government without the need for flippin "guns". And they clearly indicated, you take "guns" against the federal government, you are guilty of treason. Period. Nothing else to be said.

The real purpose of the second amendment was based on the Militia clause. A standing army is what the founders feared, much more than a tyrannical government. So, they wanted the people to be able to be called up to defend the nation, not hire a bunch of mercenaries, or professional soldiers, for the task. The entire makeup of the government is based on that premise. Defense funding can only go from year to year.

We have sure came a far cry from that time. Now, we have a professional army. There is no draft. And let's just be honest here, most you moron gun nuts would be hiding under your bed if we were being invaded. In colonial times, your gun was stored at the Armory, it wasn't under your damn bed. And for good reason, Native Americans could storm your home and take those guns. I mean for the love of God, where the hell were the British headed during the battle of Lexington and Concord. TO THE FLIPPIN ARMORY.

Look, let's get something straight here. Tulsi Gabbard is a Hindu. She doesn't believe in one God, she believes in over a thousand Gods. And this whole second amendment flip is just here sticking her finger in the wind and following the one God she believes is most important, HERSELF.

 

[Flash]

I don't trust her.

Not too long ago she was strongly supporting a ban on "assault rifles".

You can't fix stupidity like that.

 

[rightwinger]

I don't trust her.

Not too long ago she was strongly supporting a ban on "assault rifles".

You can't fix stupidity like that.

That was before the Buffalo Safeway massacre and Uvalde

Once she saw how useful Assault Rifles are at slaughtering young children and innocent shoppers, she changed her mind

 

[M14 Shooter]

The real purpose of the second amendment was based on the Militia clause. A standing army is what the founders feared, much more than a tyrannical government. So, they wanted the people to be able to be called up to defend the nation, not hire a bunch of mercenaries, or professional soldiers, for the task. The entire makeup of the government is based on that premise. Defense funding can only go from year to year.

And yet, in the previous breath, they gave Congress the power to create that standing army.

In colonial times, your gun was stored at the Armory, it wasn't under your damn bed.

In colonial times, the cannon were stored at the armory. Militiamen armed themselves.
In fact, under the current constitution, there was a series of federal law -requiring- the militiamen to do just that.

And for good reason, Native Americans could storm your home and take those guns.

A perfetly sound reason to have -several- guns at home.

I mean for the love of God, where the hell were the British headed during the battle of Lexington and Concord. TO THE FLIPPIN ARMORY.

To get the cannon.