26 shot in 32 seconds: New details, videos released in Dayton mass shooting

No, actually The People decided to not let the powerful take the guns, we already had them.

Ask London.

1 Like

No…

Where you born with a computer, a pen or a printing press?

1 Like

No because A, they didn’t avail themselves of that right, B, they were a very small fraction of the citizenry. Had the government tried to intern say all Christians or all white people, things would no doubt have gone differently.

So arguments that the 2nd protects against govt tyranny are hogwash.

No, it was never imagined a relative handful of people could stop the government being oppressive. Only when the people rise up and resist in large number is that possible. That number is much smaller if they are armed as opposed to unarmed however.

Say…maybe if the people formed something like, I don’t know…a civilian military style group, to defend against such tyranny. I can’t think of what they might be called. Is that mentioned anywhere in the 2nd?

Yeah it was mentioned, at a time when everyone who could vote was considered part of the militia. I can vote, ergo.

When does your militia drill?

Here’s the actual truth. The United States Military would put down a civilian uprising in a matter of hours. It’s the most powerful military in the history of the known universe.

Guys with automatic weapons and pickup trucks would be slaughtered.

The argument that we’re defending ourselves against the government is comical. It would take the entire military turning against itself for anything to happen. Not the guns of the people from suburbia.

What the guns really do is allow people to shoot whomever they want whenever they want many times without the victim even knowing they were shot in the back.

So there you have it.

3 Likes

We could do a thread like liberal triggered word of the day

1 Like

I think that just as long as there are plenty of thoughts and prayers to go around, and we can have a few people brag after every shooting that they could have shot faster, we should be just find going forward.

I believe that would be a military junta.

Or shoot at backpacks to see if they can penetrate them.

Limited-ban folks just handwave that explanation and say “It’s weak.”

Pointing it out is (even once, never mind repeatedly) is just talking to trees.

2 Likes

It is pretty amazing that any dude or dudette can’t get on the Internet and say whatever they want. Or even on talk radio.

We’re all so victimized.

Do I need any of those things to communicate?

Also don’t lose sight of where my point began. It started with a silly comparison by sneaky. I’m arguing that there is no comparison.

The 2A is dependent on weapons manufacturers, in the private industry, to keep producing them. If they stopped, that right becomes close to meaningless.

A manufacturer cannot stop speech by simple not producing it. I can still talk to my kids.

So any comparison between the 1A and 2A that says “then I can take away your words” is a stupid ass argument.

1 Like

No it doesn’t. Second Amendment stands even if another gun is never manufactured.

So … no.

Samm already explained why it’s a matter of principles and rights, not manufacturing. And then lamented that it gets old repeatedly explaining it to trees.

You’ve posted this several times as if it’s somehow meaningful. Keep posting it, but it will still be wrong.

1 Like