Thread 515798491

No offense to the dead, I just want to play devils advocate here. Isn't the whole point of the 2nd amendment political violence? The shooter felt as if he was attacking an appendage of a tyrannical government, which might seem absurd, but something like that is always subjective. Even before the revolutionary war there were those who thought it was crazy to take up arms against the british government. So if you are a 2nd amendment advocate, how can you condemn what he did if its in line with why we have it in the first place?

Uhhh no you misunderstand the second amendment doesn't actually refer to using [tool used exclusively for violence] for violence

>>515798491 (OP)
>the shooter felt

>>515798491 (OP)
The purpose of the Second Amendment is twofold:
1. The original 13 Colonies refused to ratify the Constitution unless they were allowed to bear arms that could be used if a tyrant came to control the US. It was a community level defense against an actual tyrant, not "well someone I don't like said things I don't like, better go shoot them". And because the US citizenry is armed, the government has to watch its step or face armed rebellion. Take away the guns, the government no longer has any incentive to be democratic. See the UK, where the government doesn't give a shit about its disarmed populace's opinions.
2. The Second Amendment also exists to support the government in the face of invasion. If the Soviets or China ever tried to invade the US, they'd face guerilla warfare unlike anything unleashed upon this earth.

Ultimately the Second Amendment is a proadaptive law. Every possible "gun crime" is already illegal and not a valid exercise of the Second Amendment.

>*someone says some words*
>ARRRGGGHHH I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE! I'M GOING TO [redacted] THIS PERSON!1!

>>515798893
Yeah I mean don't get me wrong, its fucked what happened to Charlie, but at what point does one have the right to decide when political violence is okay or not? Its kind of silly when you think about it. If we're being totally honest with ourselves blame for these recent political shootings can be traced directly to the intended purpose of the 2nd amendment, but no one seems to acknowledge this.

>>515798491 (OP)
>Isn't the whole point of the 2nd amendment political violence?
No. The second amendment is to protect against tyrannical use of force.
>...appendage of a tyrannical government,,,
In this case, delusional appearances do not matter, and the subject was a citizen and not a part of the government. Charlie was unarmed and willing to speak. Charlie was not in anyway using force. The subject could not in any conceivable way have a reasonable fear of physical harm.

>>515799354
>It was a community level defense against an actual tyrant, not "well someone I don't like said things I don't like, better go shoot them".
Nope, now you're being a faggot. At the end of the day its always subjective. Some people would argue that the founding fathers would have long deemed the current state of America to be tyrannical. The popped heads over tea taxes.

>>515799537
>No. The second amendment is to protect against tyrannical use of force.
Lets roll with this line of thinking then. Would the protestors on jan.6 been justified to use deadly force once Ahslii Babbit was shot?

>>515799918
Disenfranchisement by the political establishment may not have justifiable enough for violence. Babbitt attempted to cross a barrier, after the DC barriers were removed and the protestors let in. It was a trap set.
Either way, political maneuvering gave the appearance of a fair vote. The Dems changed rules in districts they controlled with the very intention of making an unfair vote. Under these terms, they used the system to create the unfair vote, but did not manufacture the votes as accused.
It's quite bit stickier because of the set up to make it look like an attempted coup.

>>515799612
No, you are being a faggot. As the founding father said, liberal rights never meant to apply to nonWhites, the 2nd amendment is used to defend against tyranny, and that includes leftists who advocate for the murder of White men.

No, the 2nd amendment doesn't advocate for leftists to murder White men.

>>515798491 (OP)
>>515799612
>>515799918
In fact, this entire post is so fucking jewish that its astounding. There is no way you can call murdering a White civilian for having the wrong opinion as fighting against the government. You're not gonna be taking any gun rights, in fact, the 2nd amendment keeps getting stronger because you leftoid prove its necessity.

>>515801204
>Either way, political maneuvering gave the appearance of a fair vote
So basically you're saying they did just enough to give off the appearance of fairness while being corrupt as shit. Fair point. I'm just trying to figure out at what point would people say its justified to exercise the 2nd amendment for its intended purpose. Cause fighting tyranny is always held up as the supreme reason for having it, but I've never seen a serious discussion about where that line is.

>>515798491 (OP)
/pol/ really is comprised entirely of honorless spiritual niggers at this point huh

>>515801643
>you leftoid prove its necessity.
pfft I'm not a leftie nor am I justifying what he did. I'm saying that based on the intended purpose of the 2nd amendment I can see how people could think they are right in using gun violence against what they believe to be a tyrannical government. Now most of us here agree that we are not at that point, but then what does that point even look like? And even then its subjective because a large portion of the population will no doubt disagree and just see it as yet more senseless political violence.

>>515799612
The government is tyrannical! Quick, somebody kill the debate club captain

>>515798491 (OP)
The way I see it, the 2nd Amendment is more cultural than anything else. Unlike the rest of the British colonies, we shot at the British (with the help of the French) to get our independence. So we naturally have allowed the citizens to have guns since its basically how the country was founded. I'm sure the founding fathers gave enough excuses for armed citizenry (tree of liberty or some shit) but the real reason is cultural.

>>515798491 (OP)
>Isn't the whole point of the 2nd amendment political violence?
Only against tyrants and invaders

>>515799354
What this guy said

>>515801961
The pain of inaction has to be worse than the pain of action.
People during the time in that photo had a lot to lose and just had to deal with World War 2

>>515799612
kys child idiot nigger. yellow dicklet.

>>515802822
Kirk was basically an arm of the Republicans. He got to meet Trump and other Republican senators. He even did the stupid wall thing. He wasn't a "debate club captain" (I mean, he really was too much of a midwit to debate but thats aside the point).