Did The Tuck get Cucked here?

[Greoric]

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.

So here his larger intent sets the Rubicon? I can square that, I suppose.

 

[Philo-Publius]

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.

I think they are "dancing' around the Health Care bill not because they are tyrannical, but because they are part of different factions that can't come to a consensus. Are you arguing that their inability to agree on the terms of the Health Care bill is an example of their "tyranny?"

 

[waiguoren]

I thought the guest argued well. The Tuck got cucked!

 

[Rex Kwon Do]

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 remember when this guy was on I was thinking to myself, "Well there goes Tucker either not getting it or pretending not to get it again."

His guest definitely came out of that debate looking better than Cucker.

 

[Helden]

Tucker got absolutely destroyed.... he had no answer, just repeating "So, you have a Bernie supporter, and you are blaming the right??" over and over and over again.. despite being told numerous times that is not what the guest is trying to say. There aren't many conservatives that could engage in an intelligent debate.. ben shapiro.. thats about it

 

[weed]

Dave Ross admitted that he didn't use proper language in his piece. The guy is just a liberal know it all from PNW.

nah, not at all. he said he didn't use the proper language because Tucker wouldn't accept any of his answers, which is why Tucker kept trying to bait him over & over again by making baseless accusations, ignoring all of Ross' straight forward answers.

you can see it from the first accusation onward - Ross is pretty clear & concise, always answering by saying "no..". Tucker's frustration throughout is as clear as day because everything he throws never lands.

see below, Rex covered it up pretty nicely.

I remember when this guy was on I was thinking to myself, "Well there goes Tucker either not getting it or pretending not to get it again."

His guest definitely came out of that debate looking better than Cucker.

 

[Rod1]

Tucker got destroyed in that argument.

 

[xcvbn]

Dave Ross makes a great point here. He's not being partisan, yet Carlson will only make an accusation on those grounds.

"What do you think [the 2nd amendment] looks like?"
Perfect response because at face value taking up arms against tyranny means normal citizens kill government employees- whether justified or not. Cuck just didn't appreciate being put into a corner and refused to swallow his pride- he clearly knew the guy was right.

 

[freakyfarley]

No, I'm asking who determines it when it's actually legal and necessary to resist the government?

Fema camps

 

[Jack V Savage]

Tucker got absolutely destroyed.... he had no answer, just repeating "So, you have a Bernie supporter, and you are blaming the right??" over and over and over again.. despite being told numerous times that is not what the guest is trying to say. There aren't many conservatives that could engage in an intelligent debate.. ben shapiro.. thats about it

Shapiro is not good either. But Tyler Cowen, Ross Douthat, Pierre Manent, Michael B. Dougherty, David Frum, Eric Falkenstein, and many others are capable of intelligent debate/discussion. You don't see them linked here because the WR doesn't seem to attract intelligent right-wingers (and note that I named some people with high-profile gigs--NYT, Bloomberg, NR, the Atlantic).

 

[ReAnimator Reagan]

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?

It is for the PEOPLE------not a single person but the people....a well formed militia-----to fight a tyrannical government. We do not have a TG. If you think so, I suggest you live in any other country in the world first.

The 2a is not to assassinate people and never was. Take a fucking basic constitution class.

 

[HereticBD]

If his guest had an ounce of intelligence, probably.

Tucker only looks good, when he argues with the craziest of the crazies.

 

[cincymma79]

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?

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

 

[Edgar Allan Hoe]

Tuck got the shit cucked out of him.The second amendment is there to protect against a tyrannical government, but you are only allowed to use it for larping.

So by that logic, all assassinations and assassination attempts of US Presidents are purely justified under the 2nd amendment. Yea, that makes sense.

 

[Rod1]

It is for the PEOPLE------not a single person but the people....a well formed militia-----to fight a tyrannical government. We do not have a TG. If you think so, I suggest you live in any other country in the world first.

The 2a is not to assassinate people and never was. Take a fucking basic constitution class.

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?

 

[Rod1]

So by that logic, all assassinations and assassination attempts of US Presidents are purely justified under the 2nd amendment. Yea, that makes sense.

No, it just how it would look like.

Whether it was justified or not usually depends on whether a revolt is succesful or not.

If the South had won their independence they would be their own country with their own constitution and celebrate their own independence day.

 

[Edgar Allan Hoe]

No, it just how it would look like.

Whether it was justified or not usually depends on whether a revolt is succesful or not.

If the South had won their independence they would be their own country with their own constitution and celebrate their own independence day.

If they won. However, the South was much more than a well regulated militia, they formed an official army. I don't think the 2nd amendment protects armies.

And after all of the ratifications made over the years, I imagine it really only stands for the individual righnt for a citizen to own firearms. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[WiolentOne]

On the flipside Tucker would have lost his job if he didn't disagree. However, instead of turning into a partisan cuck he could have asked Ross to provide specific examples of how Scalise infringed upon the shooter's freedoms. That would have been interesting. Then cuck could have countered Ross by asking if that warranted the shooters actions based on how Ross interprets the 2nd Amendment.

Just for the record, and since im on dubbs, i need to clarify that I do not in any way condone political violence of this kind.

 

[ReAnimator Reagan]

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?

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.

 

[ReAnimator Reagan]

If his guest had an ounce of intelligence, probably.

Tucker only looks good, when he argues with the craziest of the crazies.

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.