Originally posted by SquallX
So does this mean anything not written down in Newspaper segments are not real news right?After all, one can argue the Founding Father’s weren’t smart enough to believe we would ever achieve the abilities of computers and televisions.
That’s pretty simple right?
Excellent point 👆
This commercial covers that point about what was known then compared to what our world is now:
Originally posted by SquallX
So does this mean anything not written down in Newspaper segments are not real news right?After all, one can argue the Founding Father’s weren’t smart enough to believe we would ever achieve the abilities of computers and televisions.
That’s pretty simple right?
Excellent point 👆
This commercial covers that point about what was known then when the Constitution was written compared to what our world is now:
Originally posted by Silent Master
Rob will believe anything the TV tells him.
Commercials=good
Youtubers=bad
That's Rob's logic here. Even though we've had school shootings with handguns with a body count double that of Parkland. Even though the latest one in Colorado featured two legally purchased handguns that did the killings.
What laws do they want to change, I wonder?
Originally posted by Robtard
Excellent point 👆This commercial covers that point about what was known then compared to what our world is now:
And this video covers this exact argument and destroys it utterly with facts:
You should feel ashamed for posting one of those most untrue and manipulative anti-gun arguments.
Originally posted by Surtur
Commercials=goodYoutubers=bad
That's Rob's logic here. Even though we've had school shootings with handguns with a body count double that of Parkland. Even though the latest one in Colorado featured two legally purchased handguns that did the killings.
What laws do they want to change, I wonder?
^ strawmanning it up as usual
Multiple tantrums by being shut down with facts. Oh my!
TIL: Robtard thinks nobody knew about technology, guns, and science back in the late 1700s, he thinks that people back then were super stupid, he thinks that those people made laws that would only apply in extremely specific technology-bereft scenarios, and he thinks that - because of all the previous things he thinks- gun laws don't make sense in our contemporary landscape.
Yeah, makes sense if you line up a bunch of falsehoods to come up with a conclusion like that. I understand where you're coming from, Robtard. 🙂
But, don't worry, I've got you set straight with actual facts!
You're welcome.
Originally posted by Putinbot1
brilliant!
Their meltdowns and strawmanning aside, this a a solid example of why we can't have a sensible gun debate, the commercial simply posed a question, 'shouldn't we reevaluate our laws?', maybe we do and the conclusion is "no changes needed. they're fine as they are.". They take it as "DEY WANT TO TAKE ALL ERR GUNZ!".
Originally posted by Robtard
Their meltdowns and strawmanning aside, this a a solid example of why we can't have a sensible gun debate, the commercial simply posed a question, 'shouldn't we reevaluate our laws?', maybe we do and the conclusion is "no changes needed. they're fine as they are.". They take it as "DEY WANT TO TAKE ALL ERR GUNZ!".
Talk about strawman arguments. I didn't strawman your points. lol
I also didn't say "they want to take all" or even "some of our guns."
I represented your points quite well. It just sucks when your points are explored for the factually incorrect points they are because it makes your arguments look as terrible as they really are.
Originally posted by Silent Master
The commercial lied about history. can't have a sensible debate if one side lies.
This is correct.
"They only thought about muskets when they wrote the second amendment, therefore, we should rethink the second amendment entirely."
That's a terrible and factually incorrect argument.
If you want a sensible gun debate, it always results in the pro-gun people stating that they are okay with sensible gun-control laws such as background checks and licensing requirements (for conceal carry) and anti-gun people just having emotional breakdowns.
There's really no gun debate to be had.
Regardless of constitutionality, my personal opinion is that the idea of a militia existing to challenge a tyrannical government is full of shit. Maybe back in the 1700's it could have been a fair fight with simple weaponry, but anyone with two brain-cells to rub together should be able to see that the armed forces of the government possesses weaponry that far out-classes anything a private party can get. Easiest example would be the AR-15 which is a semi-auto, inferior derivative, of the M16.
People are talking about the second amendment militias as a barrier to the feds infringing on state-sovereignty as if the national guard stands any sort of chance against the vastly superior weaponry possessed our government. We are in a period where victories are not determined by the amount of men or valor but by the click of a computer mouse.
State forces are a joke. The 2nd 'mendment is obsolete from a militia to protect state sovereignty POV.
(also as I've said in the past a bunch of pot-bellied middle-aged men aren't going to do jack)
My personal opinion (being a fan of military rule/martial law) is that only those who undergo training in the armed forces should be allowed to bear arms. More now than ever; today's civilians lack self-discipline and the common sense to responsibly stow and wield a gun. Countless times I see on the news children getting access to firearms as a result of idiotic owners. It's sad that the responsible owners must bear the price, but I'm sure they'd be able to past the rigors of military training (your average soyboy/incel can't--so cut down on mass shootings?).
Tl;dr:
2nd amendment militia as a force to challenge a tyrannical federal government is impractical in the 21st century (not so much in the 18th) as technological advances have already given the feds "the victory" so to speak. My personal opinion is that only those who undergo military training have access to guns.