Did The Tuck get Cucked here?

[HereticBD]

Well, the left is now the crazy of crazies so it is good enough. If democrats were not so far left now he would have a harder time....but he would also have less to argue about. It is easy to argue against every white person being racist---but the mainstream dems push this.

Yeah, above all else, the left should be mortified that their insanity gave Tucker Carlson's career a second wind.

 

[ReAnimator Reagan]

Yeah, above all else, the left should be mortified that their insanity gave Tucker Carlson's career a second wind.

Well, people who live in the most privileged society every (the USA) are trying to fuck it up by implementing Marxism which has been a failed system of government, market, and morality that has led to about 100 million death along with the regular rationing and starvation and suffering and the unimportance of the individual

So, Tuckers isn't so bad

 

[Rod1]

Any type of fighting a tyrannical government will include a group of people which will form as needed. Individuals make up a group. If individuals cannot buy guns before they have to form a group to fight the tyrannical government, then how will they be able to buy guns then????

The 2nd amendment is protection against a tyrannical group. Now, that is not the only REASON for gun ownership.

You are conflating two different things and your argument is kinda childish.

So if the government manages to suppress the formation of resistance groups then the individual has no right to defend itself against tyranny?

 

[Greoric]

Haven't watched yet but no this would not be the purpose of the second amendment. Hat would be if they came after you not passed a bill you don't like

What happens if you don't follow the "bill"?

 

[Greoric]

So, if its for a militia and the PEOPLE, does that means that the right to bear arms is not an individual one?

Does that means you support that guns not be sold to individuals but well formed groups?

The milita is the people..... its the irregular militia, as opposed to the regular militia a la "a well regulated [trained] militia being necessary to the security of a free state...."

 

[Islam Imamate]

Care to elaborate? Where was his guest wrong?

@Cint can't elaborate, he's only capable of posting memes and mentioning unrelated points. He's not very bright.

 

[cincymma79]

What happens if you don't follow the "bill"?

When they come to get you you can go full Rambo.

 

[Greoric]

When they come to get you you can go full Rambo.

Then actionable and credible imminent threats aren't worthy of self defense? You have to wait until someone throws or you get hit with a round to start fighting back?

 

[Rod1]

The milita is the people..... its the irregular militia, as opposed to the regular militia a la "a well regulated [trained] militia being necessary to the security of a free state...."

So you disagree with the notion that there is a minimum level of organization necesary to exercise said right?

 

[Greoric]

So you disagree with the notion that there is a minimum level of organization necesary to exercise said right?

Yes. An ethical standard exists beyond whether any number of people agree to it. Only shallow thinkers believe a majority confers any kind of moral authority on its own.

 

[Sir Galahad]

@Cint can't elaborate, he's only capable of posting memes and mentioning unrelated points. He's not very bright.

I explained why go back and look.

 

[lecter]

Well, that wasn't his guests point though, right? He was just fleshing out that this was what the 2A in practice looks like... It's just that the people who side more with the establishment right didn't like that it was their guys that were getting targeted. They're still presiding over a government that's overtly stepped on every individual right listed in the BoR, and overstepped every enumerated power in Article one.

It's just that it's fun to accuse those, who constantly lecture everybody about how speech is divisive and leads to violence, of radicalizing their people until they run amok for once.
I think the irony simply was that a Bernie fan who posted typical Bernie phrases shot Republicans, while we hear about divisive speech by Republicans 99% of the time.
There wasn't a lot of 'deep' reflection on his actions, apart from some leftists saying it was justified because they took away that healthcare and voted against gun laws.
Which is probably the dumbest argument in favor of the Bernie Bot.

 

[Greoric]

It's just that it's fun to accuse those, who constantly lecture everybody about how speech is divisive and leads to violence, of radicalizing their people until they run amok for once.
I think the irony simply was that a Bernie fan who posted typical Bernie phrases shot Republicans, while we hear about divisive speech by Republicans 99% of the time.
There wasn't a lot of 'deep' reflection on his actions, apart from some leftists saying it was justified because they took away that healthcare and voted against gun laws.
Which is probably the dumbest argument in favor of the Bernie Bot.

Yeah the intent on his part is a major barrier to clearing him ethically (even while his actions were in line with what the 2A implicates). Instead of targeting political leadership on behalf of eliminating or reducing the coercive nature of government his intent seemed to be more of the opposite.

As @uncommon pointed out.

 

[cincymma79]

Then actionable and credible imminent threats aren't worthy of self defense? You have to wait until someone throws or a you get hit with a round to start fighting back?

What bill was threatening his life or anything? Nuremberg laws? Yeah you can resist those

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yes. An ethical standard exists beyond whether any number of people agree to it. Only shallow thinkers believe a majority confers any kind of moral authority on its own.

It's even shallower to think that everyone individually has a right to dictate policy or to think that it is possible to have no rule-making process. Our system is based on a belief in reason and that legitimate authority comes from the consent of the governed. As long as we have a free press, we're all allowed to speak the truth to the best of our abilities, we're allowed to organize, and we get a say in the process, we agree to abide by the result. Does require people to show some basic decency and some a level of civilized behavior to work.

 

[Greoric]

What bill was threatening his life or anything? Nuremberg laws? Yeah you can resist those

Take your pick. CAF laws, drug laws, etc....

 

[Greoric]

It's even shallower to think that everyone individually has a right to dictate policy or to think that it is possible to have no rule-making process....

An even shallower thinker still uses a...

 

[lecter]

Yeah the intent on his part is a major barrier to clearing him ethically (even while his actions were in line with what the 2A implicates). Instead of targeting political leadership on behalf of eliminating or reducing the coercive nature of government his intent seemed to be more of the opposite.

Exactly. The argument is typically a 'tyrannical' or authoritarian government, not one you don't like.
Apart from personal political beliefs, there is some objectivity to that.
Somebody can be for universal healthcare all he wants but to claim that a government is tyrannical because they 'take away' ( = won't pay for with money taken away from others) HC is just objectively BS. The guy basically was somebody who acted as a mercenary for another government/part of the government if you want, and it's certainly not less authoritarian.

I agree that violence against authorities can be justified, "even" in the USA in 2017. It's pretty hard to argue against a guy who defends himself and his property if they send a SWAT team to his house because he's growing cannabis on his own private property. Or if somebody plans an assassination after something like the NSA scandal and argues with that. Or if Trump introduced stop-and-frisk. etc et pp

 

[Greoric]

Exactly. The argument is typically a 'tyrannical' or authoritarian government, not one you don't like.
Apart from personal political beliefs, there is some objectivity to that.
Somebody can be for universal healthcare all he wants but to claim that a government is tyrannical because they 'take away' ( = won't pay for with money taken away from others) HC is just objectively BS. The guy basically was somebody who acted as a mercenary for another government/part of the government if you want, and it's certainly not less authoritarian.

I agree that violence against authorities can be justified, "even" in the USA in 2017. It's pretty hard to argue against a guy who defends himself and his property if they send a SWAT team to his house because he's growing cannabis on his own private property. Or if somebody plans an assassination after something like the NSA scandal and argues with that. Or if Trump introduced stop-and-frisk. etc et pp

Couldn't agree more.... especially with this part.

 

[Jack V Savage]

An even shallower thinker still uses a...

Right, that's one of your standard plays when you know you're in over your head. Refuse to explain your position and accuse anyone making a good-faith effort to understand it of attacking a strawman.