Did The Tuck get Cucked here?

[Greoric]

2A in practice would be what happened in the battle of Athens. Not some crazy piece of shit who's still sore that Trump won, therefore he wanted to take out as many GOP members he didn't agree with. I would put it more in the mass shooting category, rather than someone trying to take down an oppressive government.

I would put Timothy McVeigh's actions as something that is trying to take down an oppressive government.

The only distinction I'm gathering is that you just agree more with the GOP members that were shot, right? I mean this guy's actions are exactly how an armed resistance would be conducted... targeting political leadership.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Because government is taking up arms first....

But isn't your whole shtick that the government always "has a gun to everybody's head"??

 

[WorldofWarcraft]

The only distinction I'm gathering is that you just agree more with the GOP members that were shot, right? I mean this guy's actions are exactly how an armed resistance would be conducted... targeting political leadership.

If the guy thought that if he had attacked the GOP members and people would band together to try overthrow the administration, then yes, he was acting out the 2nd amendment. But I doubt that. He wanted to kill them because he hated them. He was pissed his candidate didn't win the presidency.

 

[RockstarChris]

is that Gollum?

 

[Greoric]

But isn't your whole shtick that the government always "has a gun to everybody's head"??

Precisely my point my man.

 

[second sight]

if you think for a second, the founding fathers drafted the second amendment so lunatics could go open season on politicians that have no relation to them representation wise, you're an idiot

 

[ultramanhyata]

Precisely my point my man.

So you think Hodgkinson's attempted assassination of various GOP congressmen was constitutionally and/or morally justifiable?

 

[Greoric]

So you think Hodgkinson's attempted assassination of various GOP congressmen was constitutionally and/or morally justifiable?

If I'm going to be consistent, I'm leaning that way. Just because they weren't the ones pointing guns themselves doesn't mean they weren't complicit in the coercion they order the enforcement arm to carry out..... the pen and the sword as it were.

@WorldofWarcraft

Frankly, I think the framers would have kicked it off far before we arrived at this point.

 

[ultramanhyata]

If I'm going to be consistent, I'm leaning that way. Just because they weren't the ones pointing guns themselves doesn't mean they weren't complicit in the coercion they order the enforcement arm to carry out..... the pen and the sword as it were.

@WorldofWarcraft

Frankly, I think the framers would have kicked it off far before we arrived at this point.

I appreciate your honesty. Though for entirely different reasons I, too, see an avenue for the moral justification of this act.

 

[Greoric]

I appreciate your honesty. Though for entirely different reasons I, too, see an avenue for the moral justification of this act.

You think the GOP are the only politicians using coercion, or...?

 

[Deleted member 196663]

His guest has the perfect point... the Scalise shooting is precisely what the practice of the 2A looks like.

What does the rest of the WR think?

Interesting argument. Yeah, I think he stumped him if you only interpret the 2nd Ammendment as protection from Government.

Personally I think the right of independent self-defense should warrant gun ownership.

 

[Greoric]

Interesting argument. Yeah, I think he stumped him if you only interpret the 2nd Ammendment as protection from Government.

Personally I think the right of independent self-defense should warrant gun ownership.

Where I depart from the guest is when he says, "You're allowed to hate the government if you want to, but you're not allowed to use violence against it." The initiation of violence is at the center of everything the government does though....

 

[ultramanhyata]

You think the GOP are the only politicians using coercion, or...?

As I offered in another thread, I think an internally consistent argument can be made (not saying I am making it) that justifies violent acts against lawmakers who support a) abortion rights or who oppose b) universal health care.

Very simply, if Jack deems the outworking of a law (or lack of law) to be literally taking human lives, it may be within Jack's rights to defend those lives by killing those representatives responsible for supporting or not supporting those laws.

The problem I see is that now we are forced to confront another question... Why couldn't the responsibility we are placing on the lawmakers be extended to the voters themselves?

So that road seems to lead to civil war...

 

[Greoric]

As I offered in another thread, I think an internally consistent argument can be made (not saying I am making it) that justifies violent acts against lawmakers who support a) abortion rights or who oppose b) universal health care.

Very simply, if Jack deems the outworking of a law (or lack of law) to be literally taking human lives, it may be within Jack's rights to defend those lives by killing those representatives responsible for supporting or not supporting those laws.

The problem I see is that now we are forced to confront another question... Why couldn't the responsibility we are placing on the lawmakers be extended to the voters themselves?

So that road seems to lead to civil war...

Maybe, and let's hope not. An amicable divorce seems much better.

 

[ultramanhyata]

if you think for a second, the founding fathers drafted the second amendment so lunatics could go open season on politicians that have no relation to them representation wise, you're an idiot

Tyranny is in the eye of the beholder. That's what the rabid NRA dogs don't seem to get.

 

[uncommon]

His guest has the perfect point... the Scalise shooting is precisely what the practice of the 2A looks like.

What does the rest of the WR think?

While the scalise situation might fit the definition of 2a objectively, i would say it doesnt fit the subjective philosophy of virtue.

2a ensures the door of virtue stays open against a cruel/tyrannical government.

and if the shooter told us that he was a hero had he lived, i think he would know he was telling a lie.

because he was probably looking for someone to blame for having nothing to lose.

a hero doesnt lose their job drown their sorrows at the bar get fat and blame a politician who has slim to none on the outcome of their life.

 

[Philo-Publius]

His guest has the perfect point... the Scalise shooting is precisely what the practice of the 2A looks like.

What does the rest of the WR think?

I asked this question to someone a few weeks ago who was arguing the second amendment was to guard against a tyrannical government. Who decides when the government is at that point?

Tuck pretty much cucked himself arguing as a partisan. The guest does make the perfect point. Its the first thing that came to mind when the news broke.

I disagree with the guest's suggestion that the assailant had any grounds for interpreting anything Scalise (or anyone else he shot at) did constituted tyranny. Tyranny would be when politicians operate outside of their constitutional rights to eliminate the constitutional rights of others. It's liberals that are pissing on the constitution right now, now conservatives. Tucker was right even if he didn't get the point across as well as he could have.

 

[Greoric]

I disagree with the guest's suggestion that the assailant had any grounds for interpreting anything Scalise (or anyone else he shot at) did constituted tyranny. Tyranny would be when politicians operate outside of their constitutional rights. It's liberals that are pissing on the constitution right now, now conservatives. Tucker was right even if he didn't get the point across as well as he could have.

Conservatives have every branch of gov't on lock.... but what are they doing?

 

[Philo-Publius]

Conservatives have every branch of gov't on lock.... but what are they doing?

What does "on lock" mean? There are plenty of Obama era hold-overs operating within our intelligence community. I would argue that Republican power in the government is far from a "lock." And it's certainly not "tyranny"...

 

[Greoric]

What does "on lock" mean? There are plenty of Obama era hold-overs operating within our intelligence community. I would argue that Republican power in the government is far from a "lock." And it's certainly not "tyranny"...

My man, pull your head out. If you're a liberty minded person.... these guys are NOT on your side. Look no further than the dancing around they're doing with HC bill, writing ACA part deux.