For the Second Amendment absolutists

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Is OP really suggesting that this is the 1st time a terrorist ever claimed their illegal violence was to fight government tyranny?

No.  Are you denying that many people argue in favor of the Second Amendment because gun ownership will stop government tyranny?

No. I just dont understand the argument that a random person abusing a right somehow renders the broad principle behind that right moot for everyone else.

Do you believe that one of the purposes of the Second Amendment is to prevent a tyrannical government? And, if so, how could that process play out any differently than what happened yesterday?

The power to overthrow the government rests with "The People". Lone wolf lefty is no more "The People" than lone wolf righty mcveigh was. You want me to email you an old paper i wrote on when i think the constitution might permit violence against the state? Its a bit dense but if you actually care about learning what the argument is rather than trying to play gotcha politics with a tragedy, ill email it to you when i get home from work. Just PM me your email if you want it.

I'm not trying to do anything.  The problem with the nonsensical argument is that 'the people' would have an incredibly difficult time trying to coordinate any such full scale revolt against the government. For one thing, as we saw with this incident, 'the people' can't agree on when a government is behaving tyrannically. 

The argument put forward by Rand Paul et al, is an abstract argument that has no basis in reality.  As such, it is nonsense and we now have a concrete example that shows that it is nonsense.  As such, proponents of the Second Amendment should stop using this argument in favor of the Second Amendment.

I am neither playing gotcha nor playing politics with a tragedy. Spare me your sanctimony.

Now you're strawmanning. Can you find me a quote from rand paul saying the right to resist government tyranny under the 2nd amendment means any person can violently resist any law they individually think is tyrannical at any time? No one mainstream says that assassins are always justified. Guaranteeing each state a Republican form of government is an abstract argument as well, but we dont say that the clause is somehow invalid.

That's why I asked you how the process of using guns to stop a tyrannical government could play out in any other way than what happened yesterday.  You didn't answer.

The logical fallacy, strawman or otherwise, is that there is some fantastic process where millions of people will rise up as one all in agreement to overthrow the government with their guns.

I mean, i did offer to email you  +30 page analysis if you want my full opinion.

Fine, I'm interested.  You can't write up a brief summary though?

lol it's just 30 pages.

[vanguard96]

It was pretty obvious that in this case in Alexandria, the left will blame lax gun laws since they cannot fall back on the white supremacist, Trump fan logic. And the right blame the rhetoric of hate for the GOP and normalized violence that the left is encouraging (Kathy Griffin, Trump getting killed in Central Park Julius Caesar nightly, punch a Nazi/fascist/racist normalization for the progressives)

The situation now is a reverse of what happened with the Giffords shooting when Sanders asked McCain to do more. Now Sanders is right to say it was the perpetrators' own responsibility and Gingrich is saying the left is encouraging violence.

However, I am sure if it was a Trump fan shooting Democrats you would have seen massive grandstanding from the usual culprits like Franken, Waters, Pelosi, Kaine (since he's from VA), Hillary, Everytown Bloomberg, Brady Bill folks, that Mass AG who decided to ban semi-auto rifles, Michael Moore, Rachel Maddow, and all the people who say we should follow Mexico's gun grabbing policies or that it is squarely on Trump's shoulders and that the 2A should be thrown away.

Liberals usually only focus on the high profile shootings - like Newtown, Orlando, and so forth. I don't see a lot about the regular deaths in Chicago or DC - except for a sheer statistical reporting fact but not with connection to gun laws. How am I supposed to support someone who does not split out suicides from gun murders when they quote stats - and these people like Warren or Obama or Clinton will be the very same people touting $15 min wage or the gender wage gap (77%) in bullet point appeals to emotion to 'do something'
 
Then someone will say the typical argument that guns would be no good against drones and a modern army. Of course if that was the case would the modern army - many of them pro-gun support droning Americans en masse? Also they have had a bad track record in the Middle East the last 16 years with people with small arms.

Or the idea that the 2A was not based on semi-automatic arms. Muskets and old slow single shot rifles were the norm. Of course show me where the constitution or bill of rights mentions muskets. Or how the internet is mentioned for free speech.

At the end of the day I would rather have the right and not need them vs need them and not have the right. The right to bear arms is not solely for hunting or even self defense. It is still for this purpose - and to connect the shooter to this purpose is a fallacious argument.

[136or142]

It was pretty obvious that in this case in Alexandria, the left will blame lax gun laws since they cannot fall back on the white supremacist, Trump fan logic. And the right blame the rhetoric of hate for the GOP and normalized violence that the left is encouraging (Kathy Griffin, Trump getting killed in Central Park Julius Caesar nightly, punch a Nazi/fascist/racist normalization for the progressives)

The situation now is a reverse of what happened with the Giffords shooting when Sanders asked McCain to do more. Now Sanders is right to say it was the perpetrators' own responsibility and Gingrich is saying the left is encouraging violence.

However, I am sure if it was a Trump fan shooting Democrats you would have seen massive grandstanding from the usual culprits like Franken, Waters, Pelosi, Kaine (since he's from VA), Hillary, Everytown Bloomberg, Brady Bill folks, that Mass AG who decided to ban semi-auto rifles, Michael Moore, Rachel Maddow, and all the people who say we should follow Mexico's gun grabbing policies or that it is squarely on Trump's shoulders and that the 2A should be thrown away.

Liberals usually only focus on the high profile shootings - like Newtown, Orlando, and so forth. I don't see a lot about the regular deaths in Chicago or DC - except for a sheer statistical reporting fact but not with connection to gun laws. How am I supposed to support someone who does not split out suicides from gun murders when they quote stats - and these people like Warren or Obama or Clinton will be the very same people touting $15 min wage or the gender wage gap (77%) in bullet point appeals to emotion to 'do something'
 
Then someone will say the typical argument that guns would be no good against drones and a modern army. Of course if that was the case would the modern army - many of them pro-gun support droning Americans en masse? Also they have had a bad track record in the Middle East the last 16 years with people with small arms.

Or the idea that the 2A was not based on semi-automatic arms. Muskets and old slow single shot rifles were the norm. Of course show me where the constitution or bill of rights mentions muskets. Or how the internet is mentioned for free speech.

At the end of the day I would rather have the right and not need them vs need them and not have the right. The right to bear arms is not solely for hunting or even self defense. It is still for this purpose - and to connect the shooter to this purpose is a fallacious argument.

Bulls-. The shooter himself essentially gave that as his argument for the shooting.

In the Middle East, you had, most of the time, a small number of U.S soldiers, what the armies in those nations could do is of no bearing to what the U.S military could do.  Also, the gorilla fighters there were never a serious threat to overthrowing their governments, they could just destabilize them.

Your point is where all this leads, for a revolution to succeed, it needs the military to be onside.  If the military is onside, they don't need yahoo Second Amendment types to help them out, if the military is not onside, the yahoos are no threat to them.  If the military stays neutral (for a time), we get to my second point: the public is extremely divided on what a 'tyrannical government' is, and we'd almost certainly have a civil war until the military stepped in and restored order (and the government would stay in power.)

The argument of people needing guns to prevent a tyrannical government is completely nonsensical, and when that argument is rejected once and for all, the courts, the government and the people can turn to interpreting the Second Amendment under the sound argument of people having a basic right to own firearms for their own personal safety. 

[136or142]

Is OP really suggesting that this is the 1st time a terrorist ever claimed their illegal violence was to fight government tyranny?

No.  Are you denying that many people argue in favor of the Second Amendment because gun ownership will stop government tyranny?

No. I just dont understand the argument that a random person abusing a right somehow renders the broad principle behind that right moot for everyone else.

Do you believe that one of the purposes of the Second Amendment is to prevent a tyrannical government? And, if so, how could that process play out any differently than what happened yesterday?

The power to overthrow the government rests with "The People". Lone wolf lefty is no more "The People" than lone wolf righty mcveigh was. You want me to email you an old paper i wrote on when i think the constitution might permit violence against the state? Its a bit dense but if you actually care about learning what the argument is rather than trying to play gotcha politics with a tragedy, ill email it to you when i get home from work. Just PM me your email if you want it.

I'm not trying to do anything.  The problem with the nonsensical argument is that 'the people' would have an incredibly difficult time trying to coordinate any such full scale revolt against the government. For one thing, as we saw with this incident, 'the people' can't agree on when a government is behaving tyrannically. 

The argument put forward by Rand Paul et al, is an abstract argument that has no basis in reality.  As such, it is nonsense and we now have a concrete example that shows that it is nonsense.  As such, proponents of the Second Amendment should stop using this argument in favor of the Second Amendment.

I am neither playing gotcha nor playing politics with a tragedy. Spare me your sanctimony.

Now you're strawmanning. Can you find me a quote from rand paul saying the right to resist government tyranny under the 2nd amendment means any person can violently resist any law they individually think is tyrannical at any time? No one mainstream says that assassins are always justified. Guaranteeing each state a Republican form of government is an abstract argument as well, but we dont say that the clause is somehow invalid.

That's why I asked you how the process of using guns to stop a tyrannical government could play out in any other way than what happened yesterday.  You didn't answer.

The logical fallacy, strawman or otherwise, is that there is some fantastic process where millions of people will rise up as one all in agreement to overthrow the government with their guns.

I mean, i did offer to email you  +30 page analysis if you want my full opinion.

Fine, I'm interested.  You can't write up a brief summary though?

lol it's just 30 pages.

I have no problem reading it.  It would be useful to have a summary of it here for discussion purposes, rather than the poster saying 'your argument is wrong, but it's too long for me to post it here to explain why.'

I can't imagine the argument can't be summarized and can only be explained in 30 pages.

[MarkD]

I'm with you an this, Adam.
I remember a few years ago I saw a video on Facebook that was obviously taken some time in the 1990s; a woman testifying before the House Judiciary Committee (I recognized Rep. Shumer and Rep. Sensenbrenner). The video lasted about 6 minutes or so. The woman gave very cogent and persuasive arguments about the idea that people need to have the right to own a gun in order to ensure their own safety from nutjobs and/or criminals. I had no disagreement with the first 5.5 minutes or so of the video. But at the very end, she ruined her presentation because she said that people need to be able to protect themselves from "you" -- pointing at the members of the committee!
I posted a comment below the video that I was in agreement with what she was saying until her very last remark. So people need to own a gun so that they can protect themselves from legislators who are legislating?!? One guy congratulated me for that comment, but another guy ended up debating with me for about an entire day, until we both realized that we were getting nowhere and we weren't going to change each other's minds. That second guy tried and tried to defend the theory that we need guns to protect ourselves from government tyranny -- including the phenomenon of standing armies -- but he never made a good argument for that perspective.

[Kingpoleon]

So because a right was misused, the purpose behind that right must not exist. Brilliant logic.

Much in the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments claim to be for the purpose of protecting the innocent who have been wrongfully accused. Guess next time someone guilty gets off on a technicality that means due process is all a lie. Derp derp derp.

There is nothing in the 4th, 5th or 6th amendment that would allow someone nutty to simply walk into a public place and massacre 100 innocent people.

Rights are inherently potentially dangerous. "As government/authority expands, liberties/rights contract." The problem with authoritarianism is obvious - lack of rights. The problem with anarchism is similarly obvious - lack of government/authority.

The real question here is if the danger of the right to bear weapons outweighs that right.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Historically, the 2nd Amendment exists because of the deep distrust of standing armies in the early republic, yet something was needed to defend the country and the frontier. The militia system was intend to remove the need for a standing army. So if we really want to return to our Constitutional roots, we need to get rid of the U.S. Army, or at least reduce it down to a single brigade.

[Kingpoleon]

Historically, the 2nd Amendment exists because of the deep distrust of standing armies in the early republic, yet something was needed to defend the country and the frontier. The militia system was intend to remove the need for a standing army. So if we really want to return to our Constitutional roots, we need to get rid of the U.S. Army, or at least reduce it down to a single brigade.

Sure, in theory. But I can almost guarantee you that if Madison were alive today, and had adapted to the modern world, he would not support repealing the Second Amendment.

[Badger]

Historically, the 2nd Amendment exists because of the deep distrust of standing armies in the early republic, yet something was needed to defend the country and the frontier. The militia system was intend to remove the need for a standing army. So if we really want to return to our Constitutional roots, we need to get rid of the U.S. Army, or at least reduce it down to a single brigade.

Sure, in theory. But I can almost guarantee you that if Madison were alive today, and had adapted to the modern world, he would not support repealing the Second Amendment.

Funny fact. At the time of the Second Amendment's ratification many local governments had laws requiring registration of firearms. Said laws weren't dispensed with upon the 2nd's passage either.

Mr. Duck-hunting "originalist" Scalia seemed to forget--or conveniently ignore--that fact throughout his seating.

[Kingpoleon]

Historically, the 2nd Amendment exists because of the deep distrust of standing armies in the early republic, yet something was needed to defend the country and the frontier. The militia system was intend to remove the need for a standing army. So if we really want to return to our Constitutional roots, we need to get rid of the U.S. Army, or at least reduce it down to a single brigade.

Sure, in theory. But I can almost guarantee you that if Madison were alive today, and had adapted to the modern world, he would not support repealing the Second Amendment.

Funny fact. At the time of the Second Amendment's ratification many local governments had laws requiring registration of firearms. Said laws weren't dispensed with upon the 2nd's passage either.

Mr. Duck-hunting "originalist" Scalia seemed to forget--or conveniently ignore--that fact throughout his seating.

I find the idea of a "Second Amendment absolutist" rather exclusionary. Please don't misrepresent my views; it's just that when people attack the Second Amendment, I tend to defend it.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Pretty sure that the uprising envisioned against a tyrannical government isn't just one crazy dude. Indeed, if a political interest could not gather a much larger force to fight this tyranny then that would be considered overwhelming evidence that its grievances were not valid.

[krazen1211]

What that means in practice is literally what happened yesterday.  The crazed shooter even essentially gave that as his reasoning.

You can't even argue that the need to keep guns is to prevent the government from becoming tyrannical in the first place, because should a government start behaving tyrannically (as this gunman believed Trump and the Republicans had started behaving) you'd need to show to the government that you are serious about preventing it by actually doing what this person did.

Tyranny might be doing things like declaring the Senate out of session in order to put up flagrantly illegal recess appointments to the NLRB.

That was then, of course.

Nowadays, these leftwing shooters are defining tyranny downward to mean:  'My political party lost an election! Tyranny!'

[136or142]

     Pretty sure that the uprising envisioned against a tyrannical government isn't just one crazy dude. Indeed, if a political interest could not gather a much larger force to fight this tyranny then that would be considered overwhelming evidence that its grievances were not valid.

Right, so what constitutes a justifiable uprising?  Ten people?  One thousand people? 

[Kingpoleon]

    Pretty sure that the uprising envisioned against a tyrannical government isn't just one crazy dude. Indeed, if a political interest could not gather a much larger force to fight this tyranny then that would be considered overwhelming evidence that its grievances were not valid.

Right, so what constitutes a justifiable uprising?  Ten people?  One thousand people?  

There will never be an uprising of a thousand people. An uprising will only occur if it is certain of widespread support.

[Associate Justice PiT]

    Pretty sure that the uprising envisioned against a tyrannical government isn't just one crazy dude. Indeed, if a political interest could not gather a much larger force to fight this tyranny then that would be considered overwhelming evidence that its grievances were not valid.

Right, so what constitutes a justifiable uprising?  Ten people?  One thousand people?  

There will never be an uprising of a thousand people. An uprising will only occur if it is certain of widespread support.

     And that is the point. If you have real grievances that can only be addressed by the violent overthrow of the government, you should be able to assure a broad base of support. A revolt on the order of a thousand people or less would likely constitute either a gross overreaction to a lesser problem or the ravings of a small fringe element.

[Person Man]

    Pretty sure that the uprising envisioned against a tyrannical government isn't just one crazy dude. Indeed, if a political interest could not gather a much larger force to fight this tyranny then that would be considered overwhelming evidence that its grievances were not valid.

Right, so what constitutes a justifiable uprising?  Ten people?  One thousand people?  

There will never be an uprising of a thousand people. An uprising will only occur if it is certain of widespread support.

     And that is the point. If you have real grievances that can only be addressed by the violent overthrow of the government, you should be able to assure a broad base of support. A revolt on the order of a thousand people or less would likely constitute either a gross overreaction to a lesser problem or the ravings of a small fringe element.

So something big enougg to be responded to with a nuclear detererrent?

[Santander]

Protests should always be put down with maximum force.

[dead0man]

     Pretty sure that the uprising envisioned against a tyrannical government isn't just one crazy dude. Indeed, if a political interest could not gather a much larger force to fight this tyranny then that would be considered overwhelming evidence that its grievances were not valid.

Right, so what constitutes a justifiable uprising?  Ten people?  One thousand people? 

There will never be an uprising of a thousand people. An uprising will only occur if it is certain of widespread support.

     And that is the point. If you have real grievances that can only be addressed by the violent overthrow of the government, you should be able to assure a broad base of support. A revolt on the order of a thousand people or less would likely constitute either a gross overreaction to a lesser problem or the ravings of a small fringe element.

So something big enougg to be responded to with a nuclear detererrent?

wait...what?  Are you seriously suggesting if a thousand dudes in Idaho take over Boise, we should nuke it?  I hope you're not suggesting that....but, I have no idea what other angle you could be taking here.

[dead0man]

Protests should always be put down with maximum force.

wait, what?  No.  Everybody has the right to protest peacefully.  If it's not peaceful, sure, knock 'em down, put 'em in the back of the paddy wagon, book 'em to the full extent.  But regular jackasses holding signs mostly saying "hooray" for their side?  nah, let 'em protest.

[Green Line]

Protests should always be put down with maximum force.

wait, what?  No.  Everybody has the right to protest peacefully.  If it's not peaceful, sure, knock 'em down, put 'em in the back of the paddy wagon, book 'em to the full extent.  But regular jackasses holding signs mostly saying "hooray" for their side?  nah, let 'em protest.

We either have a country, or we don't.  This is a countey built on laws.

[Santander]

Protests should always be put down with maximum force.

wait, what?  No.  Everybody has the right to protest peacefully.  If it's not peaceful, sure, knock 'em down, put 'em in the back of the paddy wagon, book 'em to the full extent.  But regular jackasses holding signs mostly saying "hooray" for their side?  nah, let 'em protest.

We either have a country, or we don't.  This is a countey built on laws.

[dead0man]

yeah, and one of the most important of those laws says people can freaking protest you jackasses.  Ya know, the bit with the free to assemble, free to associate and free to speak parts?

[Santander]

yeah, and one of the most important of those laws says people can freaking protest you jackasses.  Ya know, the bit with the free to assemble, free to associate and free to speak parts?

That's unfortunate. Hopefully Trump repeals that.

[dead0man]

ahhhh, I see.  You're not serious.  And if you are, then you're insane and not worth discussing things with.  Either way....


Good day sir.....I SAID GOOD DAY!

[136or142]

    Pretty sure that the uprising envisioned against a tyrannical government isn't just one crazy dude. Indeed, if a political interest could not gather a much larger force to fight this tyranny then that would be considered overwhelming evidence that its grievances were not valid.

Right, so what constitutes a justifiable uprising?  Ten people?  One thousand people?  

There will never be an uprising of a thousand people. An uprising will only occur if it is certain of widespread support.

     And that is the point. If you have real grievances that can only be addressed by the violent overthrow of the government, you should be able to assure a broad base of support. A revolt on the order of a thousand people or less would likely constitute either a gross overreaction to a lesser problem or the ravings of a small fringe element.

That's my point though.  How could this be assured? How would this start?  I've asked several times 'what is the process for this?" and nobody has responded to me on this board  (I was sent the paper, haven't read it yet.)

This is the sort of thing that isn't coordinated before it starts.  Had the crazed gunman sparked a revolt, he would have been the beginning of the revolt that those who take this nonsensical Second Amendment argument seriously call for.  The problem is, there is no way to determine beforehand if 'the people' will rise up.  So, in practice, since this is a situation of 'imperfect information' all a person that wants to start a violent revolt can do is begin it and see if it leads anywhere.  

The only reason you can say that that this event didn't fit this nonsensical Second Amendment argument is because it didn't lead anywhere, but that is a post hoc argument.