United States Corrupt Twattery

Scouse

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,688
Wij said:
'Insurrection is a vital part of the Constitution' is one heck of a legal take:


View: https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1398058997312278528
Click to expand...

Not really. I've been saying exactly this for years, so I don't see why you're surprised.

The last line of defence against governmental tyranny is the meaningful ability of the population to overthrow the government.

It's clearly why the constitution is written why it is.
 
Wij

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,404
Scouse said:
Not really. I've been saying exactly this for years, so I don't see why you're surprised.

The last line of defence against governmental tyranny is the meaningful ability of the population to overthrow the government.

It's clearly why the constitution is written why it is.
Click to expand...
Narrator: "Scouse was not a constitutional lawyer"
 
Gwadien

Gwadien

Uneducated Northern Cretin
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
19,914
Scouse said:
Not really. I've been saying exactly this for years, so I don't see why you're surprised.

The last line of defence against governmental tyranny is the meaningful ability of the population to overthrow the government.

It's clearly why the constitution is written why it is.
Click to expand...

The last time the people that bleat on about the 2nd amendment did something it was to try to storm the Capitol because they saw that as unconstitutional.

As I've said before, the idea that a couple of million AR-15s can defeat the US army is laughable.

It's utter bollocks, do you really think GOP politicians want the public to hold guns for the purposes of fighting against the government? Yeah nah.
 
Scouse

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,688
I don't give a fuck whether anyone thinks it's achieveable - or whether the government wants them to be able to overthrow them (think about that for a second ffs - of course they wouldn't - that's kind of the point of the law).

But it's utterly uncontroversial to say that's the actual point of the amendment. Because the founding fathers knew that the biggest danger to any population is their own government.
 
Gwadien

Gwadien

Uneducated Northern Cretin
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
19,914
Scouse said:
I don't give a fuck whether anyone thinks it's achieveable - or whether the government wants them to be able to overthrow them (think about that for a second ffs - of course they wouldn't - that's kind of the point of the law).

But it's utterly uncontroversial to say that's the actual point of the amendment. Because the founding fathers knew that the biggest danger to any population is their own government.
Click to expand...

I'm saying that your argument holds no value in the 21st century, and it's not even the real argument the people who are up in arms (lol) are making.

I'm also pretty sure that the founding fathers did it more about if the British came back, rather than their own power.
 
Scouse

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,688
Gwadien said:
I'm saying that your argument holds no value in the 21st century,
Click to expand...
Governments aren't the primary danger to their own people in the 21st century?

Did the nature of rulers change so much that nobody noticed? Do you even remember Trump and how fast things were going down an authoritarian route?

You've got so much faith in government I think you're blind to the risks they pose.
 
Wij

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,404
The second amendment does not grant anyone the right to overthrow the government:

E.g:

Ironically, Abraham Lincoln spoke of the right of revolution in his first inaugural address. He acknowledged the right but did not rely on the Second Amendment or any other provision of the Constitution. In Lincoln's view, the prerogative exists only in an extraconstitutional sense. He explained that whenever the people "shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutionalright of amending it, or their revolutionaryright to dismember, or overthrow it."71
Lincoln further maintained that "t is safe to assert that no government proper, ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination."72 In Dennis v. United States,73 the Supreme Court expressed a similar view:
Whatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a "right" to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where
the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change. We reject any principle of governmental helplessness in the faceof preparation for revolution, which principle, carried to its logical conclusion, must lead to anarchy.74
Click to expand...


Specifically, any 'right' that individuals may have to overthrow the government is OUTSIDE of the constitution. Necessarily so. Therefore the 2nd amendment CANNOT be granting that right.

:p
 
Gwadien

Gwadien

Uneducated Northern Cretin
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
19,914
Scouse said:
Governments aren't the primary danger to their own people in the 21st century?

Did the nature of rulers change so much that nobody noticed? Do you even remember Trump and how fast things were going down an authoritarian route?

You've got so much faith in government I think you're blind to the risks they pose.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that I have faith in the governments.

I am saying that using it as a defence for pretty daft gun laws is silly because what's the point having something in the Constitution that ultimately can't be followed through in reality? Sure, in the 18th century they could, but again I don't think the founding fathers actually see it that way, more of an excuse to have a militia in a 'free' country.

Funnily enough, I don't support banning rifles outright anyway, it'd cause lots of problems in the short term in regards to the amount of guns that still will be out there, and after a few gun vs no gun robberies etc Donald Trump 2.0 would easily be voted in.
 
Wij

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,404
It is difficult, nonetheless, to find support in the Constitution for the notion that the Second Amendment is a license for the people to resist and triumph over government at any level by means of force and violence. 9 To the contrary, the Constitution is replete with provisions intended to quell uprisings. For example, Congress is empowered to call out the militia-the very force envisioned to resist usurpations of power-to suppress insurrec- tions and rebellions.6" Significantly, treason is the only crime the Framers believed important enough for the Constitution to condemn explicitly.61 In defining the crime, for example, the Constitution expressly lists "levying war" against the United States as a manifestation of the offense.62 Thus, the theory that the Second Amendment contemplates armed confrontations against the government is seriously undermined.
Congress has likewise enacted a series of laws, the majority of which have withstood constitutional attack, that criminalize conduct aimed at fostering violent opposition to government authority.63 Though First Amendment considerations limit the power to restrict speech only to that speech which is intended to present an imminent threat of the overthrow of government,64 little doubt exists that the state may, consonant with the Constitution, take reasonable measures to protect itself from such an overthrow.
Click to expand...
 
Scouse

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,688
The notion of a "right" in terms of overthrowing a government isn't something that would ever realistically be given. It must, by definition, be taken.

The second amendment is designed to realistically secure the possibility of that eventuality - because like Lincoln said - you're never going to put a legal clause in for the destruction of a government. What would be the point? If you're getting to the point that you need to overthrow the government, you're also overthrowing the system of laws that the government enacted.
 
Wij

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,404
Scouse said:
The notion of a "right" in terms of overthrowing a government isn't something that would ever realistically be given. It must, by definition, be taken.

The second amendment is designed to realistically secure the possibility of that eventuality - because like Lincoln said - you're never going to put a legal clause in for the destruction of a government. What would be the point? If you're getting to the point that you need to overthrow the government, you're also overthrowing the system of laws that the government enacted.
Click to expand...
So it is unconstitutional and therefore the 2A CANNOT give that right.

This is simple stuff.

The insurrectionist argument is something that the NRA has been pushing for years because no one needs an assault rifle to kill a burglar but gun manufacturers still want to sell them. It's bollocks. Always was but the rednecks love it.
 
Wij

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,404
Also the 2A is about state-militias. States. But that doesn't matter.
 
Scouse

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,688
Wij said:
So it is unconstitutional and therefore the 2A CANNOT give that right
Click to expand...
No - it gives the right to bear arms.

Without that right, the unconstitutional aim of overthrowing the government can never be realistically achieved.


The rest of it? Frankly, we've done this to death here, it's been done to death constantly in the states for fucking ages. Especially when the Dems come round. I don't really give a fuck - there are far more pressing concerns. Gun control isn't going to save us from the environmental disaster we're perpetuating.
 
Jupitus

Jupitus

Old and short, no wonder I'm grumpy!
Staff member
Moderator
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 14, 2003
Messages
3,362
You're making my head hurt :(
 
Wij

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,404
Scouse said:
No - it gives the right to bear arms.

Without that right, the unconstitutional aim of overthrowing the government can never be realistically achieved.


The rest of it? Frankly, we've done this to death here, it's been done to death constantly in the states for fucking ages. Especially when the Dems come round. I don't really give a fuck - there are far more pressing concerns. Gun control isn't going to save us from the environmental disaster we're perpetuating.
Click to expand...
TLDR:

"You are right Wij as always. Also you have the biggest cock and all the girls fancy you."
 
Gwadien

Gwadien

Uneducated Northern Cretin
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
19,914
Scouse said:
No - it gives the right to bear arms.

Without that right, the unconstitutional aim of overthrowing the government can never be realistically achieved.


The rest of it? Frankly, we've done this to death here, it's been done to death constantly in the states for fucking ages. Especially when the Dems come round. I don't really give a fuck - there are far more pressing concerns. Gun control isn't going to save us from the environmental disaster we're perpetuating.
Click to expand...

Especially when the Dems come around? So are you now suggesting the Dems only want to get rid of guns because they want to stop any opposition? (Question, before you suggest I'm reading it wrong or putting words in your mouth.)

Disregarding all politics bar environmental is a bit weird.
 
Scouse

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,688
Gwadien said:
Especially when the Dems come around? So are you now suggesting the Dems only want to get rid of guns because they want to stop any opposition? (Question, before you suggest I'm reading it wrong or putting words in your mouth.)
Click to expand...
Nah - just because they're the only ones who'll enact the laws. They're coming from a good place, of course. But I feel they're like you in their views and underestimate their own propensity for tyranny.

Gwadien said:
Disregarding all politics bar environmental is a bit weird.
Click to expand...
The single most important question facing the human race at the moment is environmental. It's the thing that people seem to be least concerned about - emotive over.

Guns and child death gets everyones hearts racing. The most important thing that doesn't. - that's weird. (Well not weird, more desparately unfortunate).

We lockdown for covid. Why did we bother if we're not going to treat the bigger immediate problem with even more urgency?
 
Gwadien

Gwadien

Uneducated Northern Cretin
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
19,914
Scouse said:
I know, right? But:



Compulsory. Hand in hand. As they always are for social control.
Click to expand...

I think comparing our treatment by our governments and the treatment of native populations in and beyond our Empire is a bit insensitive tbh.
 
Scouse

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,688
Gwadien said:
I think comparing our treatment by our governments and the treatment of native populations in and beyond our Empire is a bit insensitive tbh.
Click to expand...
Explain your cognitive dissonance.

As far as I'm aware - mass graves populated by innocents are mass graves, no?
 
Scouse

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,688
Addition: Especially when we're talking about: A) recent history B) indigenous populations C) Faux-European Governments and D) recent history.

I'd love to see how I'm being insensitive vs you being uncaring, because it doesn't fit your worldview.
 
Embattle

Embattle

FH is my second home
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
13,485
Someone make Scouse another tin foil hat, he appears to of eaten the first one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top Bottom