Devil's Advocate

Let me play Devil's Advocate here for a moment /pol.
Consider our Founding Fathers. They found just cause to come together and defy their monarchy creating a new country of states. They then drafted a Constitution which included the power and tools to give it's citizens the same choice, to rise up and destroy tyranny, in the form of the second Amendment.
Today a certified BernieBro manlet used his constitutional right to force change on a system he thought was tyrannical. Very many citizens of our nation feel the same way and he did but haven't got the guts to act out.
Are they right or are they just misinformed? Have the current administration pulled the wool over our eyes? Is revolution around the corner and we should help push it further? Is this seeming revolution beneficial to the American system?
If it does begin, and they are wrong, how do we win?
>5' 6" gun"man"

Bump for real political discussion

He took the brown acid at Woodstock. Faggot Boomer retard. His g-g-g-generation can't die fast enough

I will not disagree with the fact that the boomers are fucked up beyond belief. They were led to believe that a upward trajectory of happiness was not only possible but inevitable.

did he get a vote? did everyone have a chance to win?

are there Trump brown shirt mobs roaming the streets killing the gays and Muslims?

you are just butthurt that of the two shootings today one was stopped with no fatalities by a good guy with a gun.

The 2A was made to fight against a tyrannical government.

It was not meant to fight against a government you don't agree with or like.

>a system he thought was tyrannical
It objectively was not tyrannical, period.

There is absolutely no justification for what he did and traitors deserve the rope

Trump was gonna take his gibs! Boomers don't play that shit.

He was freaked because they "changed the world, man" but now the world is re-asserting it's rightful order. Simple as that.

I am not arguing for what this faggot did today, I'm glad he was stopped. What you might want to re-read is whether or not the left is correct in the assumption that our current government is indeed tyrannical. They're being told day in and day out that Trump is evil and Russia is objectively our real president. While that is demonstrably false it has caught traction and may continue.

>Bonus points, how many kills would a right-wing vs democrat baseball team shooter have racked up?

Berniebros aren't fighting for liberty. They are fighting for a population to be coerced into behaving the exact way they want. They do not have a liberty-mindset, even the few legitimately tyrannical things on the list of things they wish to tear down are to be replaced with things equally tyrannical.
If you want a real liberty revolution, and I think we need one, you're more likely to find them among Ron Paul supporters.

Right, but they legitimately believe they are doing the right thing. so, how do we win?

Thinking you won and losing is still losing.

The left is losing user. Today was another giant L for them.

>manlet
Why am I not surprised?

>used his constitutional right to force change on a system he thought was tyrannical

no he didnt, he just doesnt like democracy

That doesn't solve the problem. They won't see it that way, this won't solve itself. How can we impress upon them the reality of the world?

Beat them with sticks.

A heroin addict legit believes that heroin is good. Does that make it something that has to be respected?

I was literally just saying this same thing at the bar with some other dudes. Although his political compass is not on par with mine, he definitely used the 2nd Amendment the way it was meant to be used (in his eyes I suppose).

Soldiers fight other soldiers. What this guy did was cowardly and radical. Soldiers don't go around killing innocents. Only terrorists do that. Plain and simple.

uh

no

he thinks bernie should have won
bernie did not win

this means he doesnt like democracy

Owning a weapon to fight tyranny was his right. Today was his attempt to fix a "corrupt" system

Again, I'm playing devil's advocate. We need to understand the viewpoint of the lunatic left to truly defeat it

In his mind they were not innocent.
>evil repubs that want to give the rich tax breaks

Fighting tyranny by shooting innocent bystanders?

>inb4 "senators are satan!~!!!!"

If you think he was in the right by shooting a senator, you're a moron.

Your reading comprehension of the OP is subpar at best.

Regardless of his political affiliation - you need to completely ignore this for a second to respond properly - he did EXACTLY what the LARPing tea partiers have been saying for years.

I don't agree with the guy, but the original question that was posted was in relation to his use of the 2nd amendment to oppose what he believed to be "tyranny by the government."

To argue any other point is to argue for the objectivity of morality and is a losing battle for either side of the argument.

If he really wanted a revolution, he would've done it like any other historical leader. He would've created a legitimate opposition, announced it, and squared up a real fight. He wouldn't have just walked up to some senators throwing the ball around and shot them. That is no different than ISIS blowing bystanders up on the streets.

I mean, he definitely used the shit out of that right today lol.

>If he really wanted a revolution, he would've done it like any other historical leader. He would've created a legitimate opposition, announced it, and squared up a real fight. He wouldn't have just walked up to some senators throwing the ball around and shot them. That is no different than ISIS blowing bystanders up on the streets.

What are the minutemen

user, I do not agree with the man for what he did. That should be quite obvious from what I've posted. I am not your enemy, I want you do defeat the flawed "logic" of the left which has caused this

>being this retarded

you think shooting a senator playing baseball is revolting? What did that accomplish? The country now thinks the guy is an autistic loon, and his agenda went nowhere.

no you fucking idiot

he was never attacked
his rights were never infringed

he was just pissed his guy didnt win

thats not tryannical, thats called being a pyshco

This was a man who grew up on Ozzie and Harriet, Gunsmoke, Dobie Gillis. He grew up with real Civics, real Boy Scouts and real World War fucking heros.

He knew what the fuck was based and what was bullshit and he threw all that out the window because he was butthurt and his life was irrelevant. He couldn't man up for shit.

Dumbass.

youre trying too hard to troll
i mean at least try to be less conspicuous

I'm just saying that what he did was not "exercising his 2nd amendment right" to resist government tyranny because he wasn't resisting any tyranny by shooting that guy. It wasn't an act of defiance or any sort of meaningful disobedience. It was just some guy who cracked.

Some things have to be forced, I suppose.

I think some better questions to ask, who we're this guys handlers. Research the days and months following up to this. But a discussion into the climate of why are things so heated to the point they're really only comes to a head where we discover; we're more divided in this country since when Lincoln was elected president.

How do we get back into some sort of cohesion.

The answer is we don't. War between the states/ideologies is almost inevitible. If you haven't noticed we've been importing illegal immigrants and encouraging breeding programs for untold millions of minorities. Subsidizing their procreation and housing/etc... Not to mention the bipartisan support of taking in all these 'refugee children' (military aged middle eastern males)

Its obvious the groundwork for war between races, creeds, religions, and ideologies is be laid out in front of us.


The smarter man will attempt to increase the amount of reaction time he has before this trains grinds to a screeching halt derailing into a whirling maelstrom of chaos unleashed on Earth realized.

his actions had nothing to do with defending himself

No I don't - I never wrote that nor implied it. Again, your reading comprehension is very poor.

One more time for the slower user's - the question posed was in relation to the use of the 2nd amendment in its actuality.

Did this guy utilize it in the way that the founders intended? Did he not? Why? Don't throw around moral objectivity as if it somehow gives your point any legitimacy. Take your feelings out of the equation and think rationally.

that gunman who tried to kill all those republicans on that baseball field must have been a terrible shot. how the fuck do you fire off shots first and not kill anyone?

>constitutional right
Constitutional right is a mandate of the masses based on our constitution. Basically, if he would have brought help, he may have done much better. In the meantime, people who want chaos and free gibs should be running for office. They need to tell the world how they will help by being an elected civil servant. Otherwise, they can blow it out their ass.

I may not agree with which politicians he is shooting but I will defend his right to shoot them

imagine if he pulled it off and massacred all those republicans. the guy would be a legend

Maybe he believed otherwise. You are not thinking objectively and you cannot rationalize what one person deems to be "moral" or not. I can tell you this with absolute certainty as I have been places in the world where what that populace thinks is just fine and moral to do would get you executed here in the states.

Like the OP said - playing devils advocate.

test

They were about being able to defend oneself from attack, or collectively being able to resist tyranny after first logically coming to the conclusion that there was tyranny (which I think could be argued to apply to current federal government)

They didn't create the second amendment so that psychos could assassinate officials on a whim because they disagreed politically with them. There's a big difference between armed resistance and murder. Anyone who equates the two is immature or hasn't thought about it very hard.

he was a loser baby boomer who failed at life. He was angry at the world. Thought the world owed him something and got a few dollars of lead

I can't wait to see trumpfky make an ass out of himself

Interesting point - can you expand?

He doesn't have the right to shoot anyone who is not putting their life/liberties in danger.
If you're going to make the case that the senator was somehow infringing on his life/liberty, how was he? What case was the lunatic making when he shot him? What was his cause? Did he even have a cause? Did he write somewhere that he was doing this because the government (Republicans in particular) were doing X thing that infringed on X right?

Nah, he didn't. He was just pissed his candidate didn't win. He had no right to do what he did.

he hated republicans for like 20 years
thats all. it was a revenge attack

If that man were alive to give a 20/20 interview in 2 years, you know he'd disagree. He called the republicans "the taliban", saw a healthcare system being dismantled and taxes on the rich being rolled back.
I'm only looking for ideas to fight this insanity with easily digested red pills to bring the country back together

>They were about being able to defend oneself from attack, or collectively being able to resist tyranny after first logically coming to the conclusion that there was tyranny

This is assumption and nowhere written in the constitution in this manner. Defend your position

I hole-hardedly agree, but allow me to play doubles advocate here for a moment and put this in lame mans terms for you right off the back. For all intensive purposes I think you are wrong. In an age where false morals are a diamond dozen, true virtues are a blessing in the skies. We often put our false morality on a petal stool like a bunch of pre-Madonnas, but you all seem to be taking something very valuable for granite. So I ask of you to mustard up all the strength you can because it is a doggy dog world out there. Although there is some merit to what you are saying it seems like you have a huge ship on your shoulder. In your argument you seem to throw everything in but the kids Nsync, and even though you are having a feel day with this I am here to bring you back into reality. I have a sick sense when it comes to these types of things. It is almost spooky, because I cannot turn a blonde eye to these glaring flaws in your rhetoric. I have zero taller ants when it comes to people spouting out hate in the name of moral righteousness. You just need to remember what comes around is all around, and when supply and command fails you will be the first to go. Make my words, when you get down to brass stacks it doesn't take rocket appliances to get two birds stoned at once. It's clear who makes the pants in this relationship, and sometimes you just have to swallow your prize and accept the facts. You might have to come to this conclusion through denial and error but I swear on my mother's mating name that when you put the petal to the medal you will pass with flying carpets like it’s a peach of cake.

>Today a certified BernieBro manlet used his constitutional right to force change on a system he thought was tyrannical. Very many citizens of our nation feel the same way
Irrelevant. It's not tyrannical. Very many citizens have been lied to by the opposition media, and very many citizens are suffering from a delusion, unable to see reality clearly. No one should have to change their behavior, suffer, or die because of someone else's delusion. This is why trannies should have no power too.

If someone tries to kill you, you kill them with your gun which you have because the 2nd Amendment gives you a right to it.
At all points short of someone committing violence in your neighborhood, against your family, against you, etc. you fight back with the truth, ideas, words, and debates.

Both would be zero. One side can't shoot for shit, the other side wouldn't have anyone playing baseball to shoot in the first place.

I fully agree. But is our inevitable war the only/best solution for lasting change?

>give me free shit or I'll kill you
or in general :
>if I disagree with you politically, I throw out democracy and kill you

whos the tyrant exactly?

The brits would kill and subjugate people. It's not the same.

You lack the ability to think objectively and without emotion. Are you a woman?

Al you have done is harp on about "he cant!" or "hes a lunatic its wrong!!1!"

From a traditional Christian American moral standpoint - I agree with you wholeheartedly however; this was not the question the OP posed.

If you think the government is tyrannical, you need to be able to make a case for it, an argument for it. Then you need to spread this argument around and debate it, to make sure you're not just a crazy lunatic and that you're actually right in your analysis. You especially need to debate with people who completely disagree with you. Only if the government is infringing upon your rights will you have cause to believe it's tyrannical.

Perhaps not individuals but isn't the whole system just a sum of it's parts?

the Second Amendment is meant so that people can kill politicians

Personally, I'm a lover not a fighter so I won't kill anyone but that is his right and I won't infringe on him

This post right here

You're a fucking terrorist wannabe.

Political violence must not be tolerated.

>You lack the ability to think objectively and without emotion.
So did the shooter, since he merely "felt" and "believed" the government was tyrannical, but was not able to provide evidence for this objectively.

10/10

Fuck off with this trash. The left are the open, obvious enemies of America. They have already worked for decades to subvert American culture and influence American opinion and public perception through propaganda and Marxist social control tactics, and now they've crossed over into physical violence against those that speak out against their lies.

Their day is coming. Their shield of the media-academia complex and their sword of censorship and false moral superiority will soon be smashed, and the real America will return. The nation and the world will never forget these sick and vile mockeries of what a Liberal used to stand for, and they will go down in the history books as the radical leftist insurgents that tried to destroy the United States.

Here are some questions?

What is tyranny?

Must one wait until the system becomes
certifiably "Tyrannical" before fighting back?

If you looked at the climate of the last few years and foresaw a long line of elections and policies and corruption that you felt would ultimately lead to tyranny, wouldn't it be smart to get a head start on the battle?

You do not have a right to assassinate politicians.

That's far too simple for what occurred. If that were true he would have gone to the DNC and had a similar rampage

Did you even read anything I just wrote? I just argued your point from a completely objective standpoint and gave you simple variables to put together in order to decide if what he did was "resisting government tyranny". It seems that the only way you know how to debate is to say "Can you even debate, bro?" I'm not Christian, and you are completely missing the point of everything anyone here writes.

also, sick reddit spacing. go back

>you get to shoot politicians whenever your feefees get hyped up by MSM propaganda

begone nigger

It's not written in the Constitution, but it's literally what they did. They formed a congress and after much debate decided to end their relationship with the crown, after which they only started shooting back after being instigated.

Hell, the fathers frowned upon tarring and feathering. I think we can safely conclude that they would have prosecuted any colonist that straight up murdered British officials. They understood the difference between resistance (or defense of their rights) and murder.

They would have identified more with the Branch Davidians, or the Bundy family, than with this lunatic.

Yes we do, its in the Bill of Rights

Does someone have to actually try to kill you in order to kill them in self defense? Or can they just disagree with you and you can kill them before they think of doing it?

No, it would be stupid, because you're in Minority Report territory, justifying imprisonment and execution for pre-crimes that haven't been committed yet.

Yes, you must wait until it becomes tyrannical to actually fight back.

We know what tyranny is because we know what tyrannical governments look like from history. It's real fuckin' easy.

I was waiting for this
You're a hero, user

Assuming he was smart enough to figure that out.

Where's the tyranny?

>can you kill someone who got behind the wheel of their car after having too much to drink

Fair enough. but like said:

When does the system become tyrannical?

Would he have carried out the attack if Clinton had won? The congressmen he attacked would still be there if she had won.

not all revolutions are the same. The Founding Fathers were rebelling against a system that didn't even allow for the possibility of their representation or voice being heard. The revolution was successful, and the Fathers put in a place a system that allowed for the CHANCE for everyone's voices to be heard, even if not necessarily followed.

The Founding Fathers were not assassins. Though rebellions are not exactly "legal", the Founding Fathers went about starting the revolution in a very legalistic manner, a lawyers' revolution. The gun man simply didn't like the outcome of the FAIR and LEGAL elections and now Democrats are scrambling to find any lame excuse to justify his actions for fear of being outed as the terrorists they have become.

How do we speed up this process?

>how do we win?
shoot back.

this berniebro is doing everything right

the legit targets are congressmen, bankers, multinati ceos, etc. they are conspiring to destroy america, guilty of sedition, crimes against humanity

actually nuremberg makes it illegal NOT to go after them. you dont have to shoot them, but if you are not actively fighting them in some way you are a war criminal.

berniebro is /ourguy/

Like I said in the post you didn't read, , a government has gone tyrannical when it abuses its power to infringe upon your life or liberties. In order to actually resist government tyranny in a way that is somewhat legitimate, you have to 1. identify how the government is infringing upon your rights and 2. act in a way that restores your rights to freedom and life.

In this scenario, the shooter didn't have a cause other than supporting Bernie, and shooting this senator didn't accomplish anything other than satisfying his need to kill a politician.

Preach user!

Very good point, user.

One Revolutionary is a criminal

hang together or hang separately, he chose to hang separately.

When will they learn?

I'm planning on moving to Colombia to escape the coming civil war.

It's assumed at this point.
My point is that whether or not the assumption is correct, fighting it a right given to us.
We need to squash this before it becomes worse

Well said

no.

If he was truly wanted to fight a tyrannical government he'd be shooting the ones who rigged the primaries. You know an actual act of tyranny.

If someone is infringing on your rights to life, liberty, or property, that would be considered tyranny. It's silly to apply the word to an individual, you'd just call them a criminal, but when the state does that it's tyrannical.

You have a right to defend yourself from tyranny, to prevent with force if necessary anyone, state included, from infringing on those rights, but you don't have the right to kill someone because you disagree with them.

If Scalise was leading troops to take Hodgkinson's house or land or something, you could probably make a decent 2A justification. Shooting the guy while he's practicing baseball because he has an (R) after his name is not enough.

All revolutionaries are criminals you fucking twat

They are correct, but they would have been correct had they made the same assertion last year.

Trump hasn't really done anything significant yet and isn't particularly radical. That's what's so disturbing about The Resistance -- they're willing to kill over a split hair's worth of difference.

unless they win

Pic most definitely related

Were the (R)'s not the troops? Majority of every branch of government?

Its not, the idea is finding one before that happens. I personally do not want war, but I will defend everything I own with my life.