Tucker Gets BTFO on Second Amendment

This is what happens when Tucker brings on someone who actually knows how to debate and doesn't fall for his rhetorical traps.

youtube.com/watch?v=WW1O2uGTYyY

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=qN5L2q6hfWo
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>Red meat gives you cancer
>If we ban red meat, then everyone will stop having cancer!
No, you idiot. Cancer doesn't go away because you banned one small aspect of it.

yeah I normally like Tucker but he was quite deliberately misrepresenting this guy's position

not that I'm pro gun control but he had a reasonable point in that this is what it looks like re: using the 2nd amendment to rise up against a 'tyrannical' government... not that the US ever has had to do that unless you're going to count having to pay taxes as 'tyranny'

Yeah this one disappointed me, mainly because Tuck was trying to make a political point when the other dude seemed to merely be reflecting on the whole situation. He's right insofar as the shooting representing what the 2nd amendment stands for; politicians should be motivated to do right by their constituents because of this. The pushback is that it's up for society to maintain a calm and collected demeanor when discussing policy unless the situation genuinely necessitates hysterics. He could have turned it around and still made his point while agreeing with the guy, but instead he seemed to have made his mind up about the guests "message" and didn't want to budge, despite it being obvious he was having second thoughts.

He didn't get btfo at all, were we watching the same video?
The stupid faggot nigger's point made no sense.
It was basically "rather than blame the liberal media for upping the rhetoric against right-wingers by calling taking away healthcare terrorism, and saying DJT is literally treasonous (treason is punishable by death) lets blame the idea that tyranny is bad and ought to be punished."
It's a Jew-tier argument that amounts to blaming the idea that God exists when a mudslime shoots up a bar, rather than blaming the sandniggers Koran interpretation of what is God's will.

Tucker is a half brained star in a brainless industry. I don't like leftists, but there's no denying there're many intelligent ones. This is pretty much the only one Tucker has let on and he completely lost it going for moralist points when the guy wasn't even trying to win.

Tucker is only good for contrasting against ooga booga BLM and feminists freaks. Against anyone actually seasoned and professional, he's got nothing.

>but he had a reasonable poin
No, he did not have a reasonable point. Tucker was right on. This man was pretending that Tucker's definition of tyranny was subjective and obviously grasping for some way to put the blame for this to the right wing.

You guys are brainlets who don't understand subtlety.

The dude is actually kind of right, but the fact he's saying we should revoke guns because attacking the government is never excusable is just kike shit. The left has completely gone off the walls saying that Trump is treasonous and wants to destroy America. The left has built the rhetoric, the constitution provides the means to carry out that opposition to that rhetoric.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!

Gun grabbing cucks can go live in the European caliphate if they want to be in a gun free zone so bad. I'll even pay a tax for their flight.

No thats not an example of using the 2A for checking the gov. You don't shoot unarmed men who are not attacking you. You would use the arms to arrest them.

Attempting to assassinate people for being a member of a political party is not the same as resisting tyranny and oppression. If you hate republicans, that's fine, but at the end of the day they are just politicians and cowards. If you want to fight tyranny, you'd better be a hell of a lot more prepared than one guy with a shitty SKS shooting at politicians, because that revolution isn't going to get you very far. No, this wasn't a patriot protecting the constitution from a tyrannical government. This jackass built his whole argument on a false premise rooted in "critical theory" that because of his confidence you dumbasses believe is a logical argument simply because you don't understand it.

Intellectualism=/=Intelligence. Leftists are not as intelligent as they want you to believe.

The guy avoided taking a position, that's not being schooled in a debate. He just made an open ended statement and refused to be pinned down to a position.

>literally robbing you blind for them and their fuckbuddy rich jew overlords, just with laws instead of guns
>n-n-n-no he's not attacking us!!! violence bad!!! keep your powder dry!

>5-15 minutes between replies
>Shills expect us to believe this is organic

>he was quite deliberately misrepresenting this guy's position

The guy didn't have a position. Not one that was relevant to the conversation. He said that conservatives have said that guns are for tyranny. Tucker didn't disagree, said that it's not tyrannical. The guy says but the crazy guy can believe it's tyrannical. Yeah and he can believe he's fighting lizard people, it's not rational. He didn't defend the point that the government was tyranical, he didn't disprove the point that you need guns when the government is tyranical. Was his point that no one should stand up to actual tyranny? We'll never know because he wanted to look good instead of debate a position.

You didn't understand his argument, because he didn't claim nor suggest the man was a patriot. His point was that if you believe the 2nd amendment exists as a check against tyranny, then these are exactly the kind of actions you should expect when people feel they are being tyrannized. "But we're not in a tyranny," is a failed counterargument that supposes there is a clear definition of tyranny, when a cursory look at the Internet, including places like this, shows significant amounts of people who believe lived in a tyranny at some point in the last 15 years. America revolted against Britain because of taxes, dude, which sounds silly today. The point here is that this is just a BAD argument for the 2nd amendment in a modern, democratic society and we probably shouldn't encourage the thought that it's okay to takeover the government when you disagree with it strongly enough.

His point was that if you use this argument for the 2nd amendment, these are the exact kind of actions you should expect. Tyranny is defined as "cruel and oppressive rule". Who decides when it gets to that point? It seems like people who haven't put much thought into it think that there would be some kind of citizen tribunal with 100% consensus first to decide whether or not the government has shifted into tyranny or that there is some agreed-upon line the government has to cross.

Tucker introduced him by completely misrepresenting his position (claiming he was trying to lay blame on conservatives), and even when the man explicitly said conservatives were not to blame and that he was making a general point about the 2nd amendment, Tucker kept pressing that non-argument. Don't defend Tucker here. He was clearly outclassed by a superior debater.

Same. Saw this last night and thought well Tucker has painted himself into a corner. The guy is clearly explaining a straight forward point, Tucker just doesn't want to admit he understands and agrees with said point because it would put Tuck on the defensive.

So he was arguing against the second amendment? Why didn't he take that position then? Saying "this is what you get" isn't a position, it's an observation. Not a debate.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

-Thomas Jefferson

I am able and willing to live with this. Wanna know why? Because I live in a state where I'm allowed to use firearms to defend myself. People who don't have no right to complain. And they sure as hell have no right to usher in more government to fulfill that role either.

He isn't presenting an anti-2nd amendment argument. He was arguing that Scalise's shooter was not just a left-winger, he also held this belief, widely-held in pro-gun circles, in the 2nd amendment as a way to resist government. He is calling into question the value of that interpretation.

In this context, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to allow the people to carry out a revolution in the case of a tyrannical government that violates our natural rights.

1 lone nutjob does not a revolution make. It just doesn't. That's not what 2A proponents are talking about.

How many people need to agree before there is a justifiable attempt at a resolution?

Yeah you're making my point for me, it's not a position and therefore not a debate, he doesn't want to be pinned down to a position, he just wants to make his open ended point and not have to defend anything.

>How many people need to agree before there is a justifiable attempt at a resolution?
I mean could spend a long time and come up with some broad ideas of numbers (something in the thousands at least, probably millions, i would guess).... but the answer will definitely be more than one.

The gun owners of the united states of america could beat the standing army of the united states. It is statistically improbable that you could beat an army 100-1 even with superior equipment let alone the potential 200-1.

>it's not a position
Clearly your definition of "position" is different than mine. Tucker's position was that Scalise's shooter's actions were purely a matter of left-wing extremism and there is nothing beyond the surace. Dave Ross's position is that Scalise's shooter's actions were consistent with a "resist" interpretation of 2A, widely held in pro-gun circles, and that (implicitly) this interpretation is dangerous.

This is a great video... thanks for the post

>"resist" interpretation of 2A,
Resist what, the Constitution of the USA.

thats a pretty unamerican meme if you ask me

an absurd point, Tyranny in the context of what the founders meant was clearly a government that abolished the rule of law demarcated in the Constitution and denied people their rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. So we have a clear guideline as to when its starts to get too out of hand.

They've been pecking at the margins for 300 years, mainly through the courts. But they haven't gotten very far. The Right to keep and bear arms is far more expansive a philosophical position than just tyranny though, its also about spreading political power as far out as possible.

Even a single citizen has the power to overthrow their own local government with a shotgun, then that demonstrates the type of political power that arms represents. and that's just a small sample of its potential. The idea that the government would ever regulate your ability to protect yourself or for you to hunt or sport shoot is laughably ridiculous. The opinion on guns and arms in general is very clearly stated by the founders. It's just a weak attempt to subvert it to confuse soccer moms and libtards.

What a fucking moron.

>he enacted the way in which conservatives interpret 2A
>but I'm not blaming conservatives or 2A

Ya sure buddy.

Only reason this faggot could ever think he was rising up against tyranny, is because of all the horrendously inappropriate and seditious news coverage coming from CNN and the like about Trump being Russian Hitler.

>Tucker's position was that Scalise's shooter's actions were purely a matter of left-wing extremism and there is nothing beyond the surace. Dave Ross's position is that Scalise's shooter's actions were consistent with a "resist" interpretation of 2A

>implying the two "positions" are mutually exclusive

What's the point of the debate then? He's only making an observation. There is no solution, argument, or position. He's just saying "Well that 2nd amendment that you gun nuts love? Guess what. It says you can use arms to overthrow a tyrannical gov! The scalise shooter may have considered the repubs as tyrannical and was within his right under the 2nd amendment to shoot those politicians!" You know damn well the purpose of him making this connection was to illustrate faults within the 2nd amendment. Why didn't he just come out and say that?

>knows how to debate
if bernouts think withholding free gibs is worthy of killing people in power then how can you say they know how to debate?
you cant justify the unjustifiable

What the founders meant when they wrote 2A has little to do with how people interpret it today.

Second amendment was not about arming citizens to go against the government. It was about the relationship between state militias and the federal government during a time in which the modern military did not exist.

In fact, the constitution is quite clear that congress has the right to call upon these militas in order to suppress insurrections, which alone invalidates the idea that everyone was supposed to have a gun on hand just in case the federal government went too far. And states early on in the union were themselves banning guns.

It's not because Tucker objects to the idea that the 2nd amendment is relevant here.

I feel like the people arguing against Tucker is using the word "tyrannical" in the most jesting and non-serious way possible. Britain did a lot more than just 'tax' us heavily. They refused to hear dissidents and routinely treated then rebels as mere puppets

You yourself said the second amendment wasn't relevant. You're doing the same thing he was, you're not taking a position. Is it an argument against the second amendment or not?

Here's a real Tucker gem.

youtube.com/watch?v=qN5L2q6hfWo

Your interpretation is wrong.

Since I seem to be the only non-bot here, let me sum it up for you

>Tucker: Your comments on the justification of the Scalise shooting by Hodgkinson, being motivated by conservative interpretations, is both misleading as Hodgkinson stated his reasons and damaging as you are playing the implication game

>Um no, I am simple asking open-ended and sophistic questions like "what really is tyranny" in order to deflect and repeat my point of the Scalise shooting being rationalised via a conservative interpretation of the 2A

>Tucker: Why do you keep playing these word games? We know the reasons already and you're deflecting and trying to remove those reasons in order to save your party's own hide from the violent rhetoric coming from it

>Yeah but I'm not personally advocating for violence

>Tucker: Doesnt matter, the Left is streaming this for the world to see. See examples X and Y

Basically the guy was arguing via implication and denial

>ou know damn well the purpose of him making this connection was to illustrate faults within the 2nd amendment. Why didn't he just come out and say that?
Isn't that exactly what he did? (IT is)
Tucker is becoming the new bill o Reilly of just shouting over anyone he has on his show and misrepresenting them
Doesn't come off good or jones fat all, but then I remember he's been like this ever since working on crossword at CNN over 13 years ago

Tucker wasn't quite getting his point. Surprising. This and the female circumcision are the only times he tucked himself.

>You yourself said the second amendment wasn't relevant.
No, I didn't.

I've already explained what it was to you. It was an argument against a particular interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

Nice try commies but you don't get to define tyranny.

The guy tried to make "I don't have a point" into his point.

Even though he repeatedly implied that the shooter was motivated by a conservative interpretation of 2A.

That guy was a grade A bullshitter.

The Constitution is not a living document in the sense that it can be "interpreted" whimsically. Your ignorant point is invalidated entirely by our history and the relationship to foreign, centralized control. Nevertheless, to address your point further, the Constitution does not grant Rights. It draws a line FOR the Federal Government; it outlines what it can and cannot do. So implying we could somehow remove the 2nd Amendment and that would mean the govt could start rounding up firearms is simply untrue and naive.

So it's an argument against an argument? So basically a strawman.

The guest's argument is easily destroyed by pointing out the gunman was a leftist, and leftist ideas about the constitution are negative. Thus he is the tyrant, not those trying to preserve the protections of the constitution. If a schizophrenic decides he wants to fight the government because he thinks his rations of purple dinosaurs is too little, we cannot then suggest that he has a valid reason to take up arms. One can objectively decided who the tyrant is and who the tyrant isn't by looking at whether they want to preserve the Constitution, ore repeal it. Simple as that. He was the arm of the tyrants. The ones who want to get rid of the constitution. The ones who call it out dated. He shot someone who was more affiliated with wanting to conserve and preserve the constitution.

>The guy tried to make "I don't have a point" into his point.
Not really, but he was being intentionally unclear. He was saying that tucker is a hypocrite to disagree with him, on the assumption that tucker agrees with mainstream conservative viewpoints on the constitution.

That is not the same as blaming conservatism. It's just calling them hypocrites for not standing behind this shooters motives. It's a bit of a meme argument -- but Tucker wasn't getting it.

Tucker is the one who brought him on and misrepresented the guys point in the introduction. The original point of the debate, you could say, was to argue whether a certain interpretation of the 2nd amendment is part of the problem.

He isn't illustrating a fault in the amendment, but an interpretation of it. That is important because how we look at gun control is dependent on how we justify the 2nd amendment.

He wasn't bullshitting. Tucker was. He spent the whole 7 minutes trying to make the guy out to be someone who was just trying to blame conservatives / Republicans for the Scalise shooting which was a complete misrepresentation.

I'm a big fan of Tucker's but that was frustrating to watch.

Cucker Carlson is an idiot, all the pundits at Fox are idiots.
Literally the entire network is built around baiting loyalty from their viewers by framing themselves as the only credible news source. I wish there was another right-leaning news station alternative.

If you watch Fox, you're small brain basically.

It's not that they don't get it; this asshole is arguing that not paying for people's health insurance is the same thing as restricting their freedoms. It's not. If you tell me I can't grow a harmless plant, or have a gun, that is infringing on my freedom.

The guy was implying that the man acted on right-wing ideologies pertaining to 2A.

He was clearly trying to shift the blame to the right wing.

Actually Tucker debates very well most of the time. Most of Fox programming is like you describe, but you clearly are just a larping leftist to recognize Tucker's talents.

B-but I thought they only bring on retards.

That absolutely correct and what Tucker should have said but the person isn't even arguing that.

He was asking the question of how do you quantify tyranny? And
Is it not true that many people already believe we're living in tyranny?

This is a problem I've grappled with consistently. Ted Kaczynski started bombing people because he knew they were working to accelerate the progress of technology that ultimately would bring complete tyranny. We live in surveillance state. The future will bring complete control just through technology advances. How is this not tyranny?

>The guy was implying that the man acted on right-wing ideologies pertaining to 2A.
>He was clearly trying to shift the blame to the right wing.
No he wasn't. He was saying that the right can't knock him for fighting tyranny because the right believes the 2nd amendment is to fight tyranny.

Interesting. Maybe this concept is harder to grasp than I realized. If Tucker didn't get it, I con't blame you really. But you're wrong.

He was saying the right is being hypocritical.
>guns are to fight tyrannical government
>guy fights tyrannical government with guns
>right autistically screeches
That was his point.

It is incorrect, but it was his point. That point was not to blame the right, but to expose the hypocrisy of the right, and their flimsy understanding of the 2nd amendment.

The real problem is that there's a breakdown in political dialogue, spurred on mostly by biased news and also social media.

How the news works is obvious, but social media has led to the breakdown by allowing people to isolate themselves into little echo chambers. They don't engage with the other side, they just talk about the other side with people they agree with, and since they don't engage they do not have realistic impressions of what the other side believes or wants.

So instead of them speaking and understanding eachother, it's "These assholes are trying to destroy America", which is a conclusion that ends up bringing some to violence.

>He was saying that the right can't knock him for fighting tyranny because the right believes the 2nd amendment is to fight tyranny.
Exactly.
Meaning the shooter acted in accordance with what he believes is a right-wing interpretation of 2A.
Meaning the interviewee is implying that the man acted on right-wing ideologies pertaining to 2A.
Like I said.

Also, the right can't knock him? So any time someone from the left kills a politician he disagrees with, the right can't speak out against that?

L M A O
M
A
O

Go the fuck to bed, dumb dumb.

This isn't about removing the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment should be looked at much like the 3rd amendment, ie barely has any application today. The 2nd amendment only prevents the federal government from disarming state militias. It does not stop the federal government from disarming private citizens in general. In fact, the constitution gives the federal government broad powers with respect to preventing domestic insurrections and keeping the people safe.

I'm pro-gun control but not anti-gun. There's just no constitutional argument for the federal government not being able to restrict private gun use.

Enough to overthrow the government. If you attempt a failed revolution you deserve the consequences.

This is what the internet does.

Before the internet, you had the news, and you had the people around you. Now you can just turn on your computer and completely immerse yourself into the particular ideology of your liking without ever having to see anything from another perspective.

>can't knock him for fighting tyranny
implying he fought tyranny

holy fucking shit
right guy completely made tucker into a liberal defending radical islam

>Meaning the shooter acted in accordance with what he believes is a right-wing interpretation of 2A.
No, he acted based on what the 2nd amendment says. The right's understanding of this has nothing to do with it. He was not suggesting that since the right decided this was true of the 2nd amendment, this guy, AS A RESULT, decided to act upon it.

He was pointing out that the right, SINCE, they hold this understanding, cannot knock the shooter without being hypocrites.

You seem to be having a problem understanding the diference between
>cause and effect
and
>hypocrisy

>implying he fought tyranny
Correct, but I'm trying to make this easier to understand by explaining the guest's position in the first person.

liberal faggot argues like a woman...not surprised

if tucker had actually tried to have a real conversation he would have been able to properly shit on dave ross' solution. tucker is a trousered ape

This user answered your question earlier. Founding fathers made their thoughts om tyranny pretty clear.

People supporting Tucker here remind me how low the IQ of this board has dropped.

Are we above or below the ngro average now (85)?

>The right's understanding of this has nothing to do with it.
And yet in the very next line you write " the right, SINCE, they hold this understanding"

And in your previous post you literally said "because the right believes the 2nd amendment is to fight tyranny".

Get your ass to sleep, faggot.

Guns are important as you can form militias with them. That's what the second amendment says: freedom to form militias with guns as an absolute right.

Right, an "understanding" isn't a provocation. You follow? An understanding is representative of logical standing. Whereas if one then went against it they'd be...

a hypocrite.

Certainly doesn't help that the sitting president made comments on the campaign trail which advocated violence at times, even going so far as to suggest that "Second Amendment people" could do something if Clinton won and began appointing judges they disagreed with.

I can't recall when any other presidential candidate made a thinly veiled reference to political assassinations in the event that their opponent won.

>when americuh comes biting back on the asses of muh Sup Forums warriors.

The Thread.

Tucker got owned. and with deep and grounded arguments, who the fuck decides when its time to take up arms ?

That dude decided it was time for him, and he was wrong, don't fall in the same trap, that our own Sup Forums laid out for us.

Use your head, that man did and he won the debate.

It doesn't have to be provocation for there to be blame shifting.

person X: "I support lethal force in cases of legitimate self defense"
person Y: *gets psychotic episode and kills neighbor for trying to steal his thoughts via his blender*
person Z to person X: "you can't denounce this murder because you also believe in killing people in self defense!"

>doesn't help
Doesn't help what?

No, he asks selective questions to get selective answers. Same shit O'Reilly did. Small minds play into his hand, and usually they scope out small minds to invite.

As a republican, watching Cucker Carleson is like sucking your own cock. You learn nothing from his show.

>straight out of kekistan
i wish i could do a mass shooting of redditors

person X: "I support lethal force in cases of legitimate self defense"
person Y: *gets psychotic episode and kills neighbor for trying to steal his thoughts via his blender*
person Z to person X: "you can't denounce this murder because you also believe in killing people in self defense!"

But that's exactly what I'm saying. Person Z is telling person X they cannot denounce this murder because it would make them a hypocrite. That is entirely my point.

Holy fuck its not that difficult

The guest is a bullshit artist. He debates like Alinsky the Kike

He makes a statement. Host calls him on his statement. guest says that not what I he saying

Now the debate is about guests bullshit statement.

The guest is clearly trying to blame republicans.

Doesn't help political dialogue and injected more violence into politics. Imagine the effect it would have had on right wing voters if Clinton had made comments referencing assassinations if she lost.

If you think denouncing a non-legitimate murder is hypocritical if you believe in defending yourself with lethal force, then you are an idiot.

Which is what I figured all along.

I'm guessing you have a hard time following the program. The way you type lends me to believe you are sub 100 IQ and just upset about it.

>The guest is clearly trying to blame republicans.
No he was saying tucker had no standing to denounce the shooter based on Tucker's view of the 2nd amendment. This view did not "cause" the shooter to shoot, nor was it suggested.

>we are under racial assault

Yes we are

>we are under gender assault

Yes we are

>They are an existential threat to us

LoL fuck no, come on get real


If you don't have the brains to join AND capture a debate you don't have a reason to be political.


Just fucking boil in your rage until bullets start flying.

Until then, don't ever, ever think that picking a gun up and shooting someone is justified /pol.

Just stay low as the nigger would say.

So wait a guy shooting at some republicans is the same as a full scale revolt? Damn does that guy has some idea of scale?

Yes you'd be an idiot. I thought you were smart enough to follow our discourse here but I was mistaken. The guest was incorrect, as you suggest. I'm simply trying to get you off the strawman, and understand the argument, albeit incorrect one, the guest was making.

Eh just lefty talking points. Saying a man should defend himself is perfectly reasonable. But I've given up trying to interact with you leftists on a plane of actual discourse. Enjoy your feelings and good luck.

Great argument fuck face. Sure settled that one.

There is no strawman.

The interviewee was trying to imply right wingers have no right to denounce any political violence and murder ever, simply because they believe the people should be able to rise up against tyranny.

It's just an extremely dumb position to hold, made even dumber by the attempts to deny ever having made that point.

Christ tucker is a idiot...

You want me to resettle your opinion of Tucker Carlson? OK, perhaps you're retarded. 70s IQ?

>The interviewee was trying to imply right wingers have no right to denounce any political violence and murder ever, simply because they believe the people should be able to rise up against tyranny.
That is what I am saying. And Tucker was responding to him as if he was presenting the argument:
>This is conservatives fault

So why talk republican interpretation of tyranny and why the 2nd is used to stop tyrants?


This is a distraction. The shooter was clearly motivated by the left.

Simple ALinksy debating. Never defend always attack.

Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it