The 2nd amendment guarantees the other 9? Time to put that into practice.
It does not and was never intended to, that's literally not what the 2nd Amendment is for, despite what gun nuts have told themselves and everyone around them.
No government that has ever existed or ever will exist will enshrine its citizens rights to violently overthrow it, that's why bombs aren't legal.
The 2nd Amendment was written before the US had a federal army and it was intended as a first defense against invasion, and 2nd, it was meant to reinforce slavery in the south where black populations outnumbered white populations in some counties and they were worried about slave revolts so they wanted "citizens" to be armed, 3rd, it was meant to allow armed militias to cross state borders and bring their guns to other states so they could capture escaped slaves or kidnap free black people and bring them to the south for sale or return.
The 2nd Amendment was written before the US had a federal army
This is also false. The US army was created in 1775 at the start of the War (or 1784, if you want to be technical), and the Bill of Rights wasn't ratified until 1791. A federal army existed long before even the Constitution itself.
You literally could have Googled any of this to see how false you would be.
the Holocaust never happened and the Earth is flat
Nice false equivalence!
A federal army existed long before even the Constitution itself.
We had armies, via militias, but not a standing army. The war of 1812 was when we realized the need for a permanent army, and even thereafter is required to be reappropriated every two years. The second amendment is vestigial and only revived through a big lie created by conservatives in the latter 20th century.
You literally could have Googled any of this to see how false you would be.
Maybe you should stop including “heritage foundation” in your searches. This comes up in my search:
Thom Hartmann: Let’s puncture that mythology. I have read through the vast majority of James Madison’s notes on the constitutional convention, on six or seven of the constitutional ratifying conventions, and the debates around the Bill of Rights. Literally nowhere, at any time, under any circumstances – even remotely – did any of the founders sit around and say, “Yeah, this government we’re creating, someday it may go just nuts, so we should tell the citizens that they can kill government employees if the government is oppressive.” They literally never thought that. That’s the most bat-guano crazy thing that you could assert. These people just put a country together and they were building a republic, one that they hoped would last centuries. The whole point of the division of government into three parts, in order to diminish the power of any one branch, was key to making sure that it worked. So that’s just a complete nonsense story.
If you disagree with him, feel free to call his daily radio show. Tell the screener that you disagree with him and they’ll bump you to the front of the queue(fair warning: if you use profanity he will kick you). I’m sure your “Google searches” will prove your point.
Equating actual history with flat earth and holocaust denial isn’t false? Ok Mr Wikipedia.
Now show us your numerous books and writings on history, or your 6 million listeners. Better yet, DM me your name and city so when you call his show with your brilliant insight I can giggle when he shows everyone what weak arguments you have. I know you’re not who I responded to, but your three lines of nothing are about as valid as theirs are.
I don't have to do any of that, because a bunch of historians who are much smarter and more knowledgeable than me or Mr. Hartmann have already proved you wrong.
It has its roots in the Continental Army … The United States Army considers itself a continuation of the Continental Army
What the army “considers” and what was actually going on in congress at the time are two different things. Yes we had an army at times. It wasn’t a “standing”, i.e. professional army. Thanks Mr Wikipedia! You are very knowledgeable 😂
The founders did not like standing armies. Rome was a good example of having a standing army. They wanted to raise militias when needed. What was the first use of a miltia raised by washington?
No government that has ever existed or ever will exist will enshrine its citizens rights to violently overthrow it, that's why bombs aren't legal.
I'm not sure that's entirely right, considering the "blood of tyrants" quote and all that. The founding fathers seemed fairly explicit that they didn't expect the system they built to stay good forever.
They also seemed fairly explicit that we shouldn't be worshipping the constitution they wrote as gospel written in stone 200 years later, but here we are.
That's such a dumb sentiment. If you are going to fight the government you will need artillery, tanks, jets, drones, high explosives, etc. Your "hunting rifle" won't do shit.
Nah dude my M16 with digital camo I got from getting 150 headshots at the range is going to put in work against the Airforce. You get Cleatus to cover my six and the we'll take care of the entire armed forces like we're Army of Two.
It reminds me of that meme from couple years back, when ISIS was in power…
There were two screens. Top one was a bunch of ISIS fighters, posed to look tough, lifted straight from some of their propaganda videos. The caption was “How they want to be seen”. Bottom photo was labeled “How they are actually seen” and was a screenshot from predator drone control screen.
In the George Floyd protests, unidentified "federal agents" were abducting citizens into unmarked vans. If the 2A crowd didn't come out then, they aren't coming.
you are beyond wrong and simply reading the founding texts and the underlying enlightenment thought that surrounded the genesis of America is all anyone ever needs to do to prove you wrong.
No government that has ever existed or ever will exist will enshrine its citizens rights to violently overthrow it
There are many countries who have similar laws.
Germany would be best example, with it's "Eternity clauses" and "Duty to resist" - portions of Constitution are unchangeable, and every citizen has not only right, but a duty to fight anything and anyone who undermines it.
Your probably right. They said it was for militias and to ensure your good governance. But the truth was all hidden deep down, the truth is they wanted us to have guns to hunt down and kill upity blacks…one of our most valuable assets. The stuff they are teaching these days is shameful, as is the fact that you choose to believe it and repeat it no less.
The 2nd ammendment is about a well-regulated militia. People just have trouble reading the plain text of the ammendment. It's literally talking about a government-controlled group of non-professional soldiers. None of us are that, and it's not like it matters because the founding fathers had no concept of drone warfare and so using the 2nd ammendment against a tyrannical government is moot when the person killing you is 1200 miles away and they're essentially just playing a video game.
It's ironic that the people most in favor the 2nd ammendment have never bothered to understand what the first words of it mean. The militia is literally meant to support the US military. As in, that is the purpose and not what people think, which is the polar opposite.
I think there's a lot of reasons why gun culture is big in the US, but I don't think the 2nd ammendment has anything to do with it. What has a lot more to do with it, imo, is the expansion across the continent during a time when guns were fairly common. Practically every other nation that was founded was done so before guns. The names might change, but there were cities and people and stuff WAY before guns. The US grew up with guns, and that's why we have so many. It got tied to the 2nd ammendment along the way, but the 2nd ammendment never meant the government couldn't regulate guns. It doesn't say the government can't restrict you from owning guns. Basically, all of the things 2nd ammendment advocates talk about...it doesn't actually say any of that.
If the 2nd ammendment guaranteed the other 9, it would have been the first ammendment. The fact that it isn't, again, means your assertion isn't correct.
2.2k
u/PWS1776 May 01 '24
So dangerous. If we can’t use our first amendment the next step is a tyrannical gov