https://www.infowars.com/posts/watc...gun-grabber-david-hoggs-war-on-2nd-amendment/ It is likely that Hogg will not disarm either -- that is if disarming means forgoing armed security. He just wants the little people disarmed. One has to wonder when liberals will run this little weasel for political office.
Oh my God he's still around and remotely relevant? Your typical liberal thinks that you and me should be disarmed but they have no problem with strong men toting guns on their behalf. Most of them are too weak and squeamish and effeminate and holophobic to carry a gun their self. I bet a lot of them can swing a mean purse though!
Bbbbut I thought per people like @Turtledude, @FatBack, @An Taibhse, and @Wild Bill Kelsoe the Second Amendment doesn't protect a right to overthrow the government.....
It doesn't it predicts the right to the means to do that. And sometimes the government needs to be overthrown remember the civil Rights era. That wasn't the government protecting people's rights. That was the people rising up against the government. And forcing them to respect the rights of our black citizens. Basically the entire Constitution set up a government that is a servant and doesn't need to be overthrown because you don't overthrow your servants. Overthrowing only happens when the servants think that they're not servants anymore. Meaning you can only overthrow rulers. If we have a ruler than the Constitution has been neglected.
the second amendment guarantees people have the arms necessary to overthrow a tyrannical government if that is needed. that is different than protecting a "RIGHT" to do so. the second amendment guarantees you have a right to own weapons suitable for hunting. It does not guarantee a right to "hunt".
When the best thing that hoplophobes can dig up is another clueless girlie boy in skinny jeans, you know that they're desperate. Thanks,
I guess you didn't watch the video in the link. Hogg is debating someone who thinks gun ownership is justified by a possible need to overthrow the government.
What arms would be necessary? Anti-aircraft guns? Tanks? I doubt you could find justification in Heller for owning such weapons.
I don't think you listened to the link. Hogg is debating someone that experienced living in a country where the government killed 20 million disarmed people and she knows what that is like. So here I am going to help you out a little bit and provide a quote that may help you grasp the point. “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” ― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn , The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956
Hogg is a grifter and he prays upon emotionally weakened and intellectually deficient people who buy into his fraudulent claims. He uses the deaths of his classmates to advance his own interests. At first, he was not anti gun nor anti NRA but he realized that this position wouldn't make him the darling of the victim disarmament movement and its allies in the creeping crud of collectivist authoritarianism. thus his position changed to this (from wiki) On February 26, 2023, Hogg stated on Twitter that the individual "has no right to a gun", but rather the Second Amendment is "about a states [sic] right to have what is today the national guard. The modern interpretation of 2A is a ridiculous fraud pushed for decades by the gun lobby."[51] He also called for the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) to be repealed, and criticized the NYSRPA v. Bruen decision.[52][53] On October 29, 2023, Hogg said on X that "If you don't support banning semi automatic rifles you should leave the Democratic Party and join the Guns Over People party."[54] He's pretty much scum
As an Aussie who cannot use the self defence excuse to obtain a gun - why is a gun necessary? I understand why David Hogg would need one given the vast number of gun nuts who hate his guts but why do other random people need them?
That always makes me roll my eyes because the “Overthrow the government” crowd are coo coo for coco pops if they think that an “armed rebellion” would not end in a bloodbath with most or all of their nearest and dearest dead
Maybe because random people don't like being random victims? You're perfectly free to choose not to defend yourself with the best tool at your disposal but you're not free to try to dictate what others can choose to defend their self with.
It totally does. The quote was concerning detering police state roundups. Not overthrowing a government. The point being that governments would be less likely to round people up for gulag type camps if there was risk to the people doing the rounding up. Here is some recommended reading for you. Educate yourself. https://www.amazon.com/Death-Government-Genocide-Murder-Since/dp/1560009276
I call it the rattlesnake scenario. If I am in a large room with no weapons and also in the room is a rattlesnake I have two choices. I can leave the rattlesnake alone and suffer no harm. I can also stomp on the rattlesnake and I most likely will kill it. But it might very well bite me. That may not kill me but it will cause me grievous damage and pain. So the smart thing to do is to leave the snake alone.
LOL. LMAO even Go read the Marque and Reprisal Clause. Owning a ship of the line, with cannon, was protected at the time of the founding. See Heller where it describes that tech increases are protected by the 2a, the same way the 1a and 4a protect electronic mail etc. Cry about it.
You already can own those weapons. Here’s a tank for sale(well it was. It was sold): http://m.exarmyvehicles.com/offer/tracked-vehicles/tanks/main-battle-tank-t-72-m Anti aircraft? Here you go! http://m.exarmyvehicles.com/offer/wheeled-vehicles/other-wheeled-vehicles/anti-aircraft-gun-s-60 Want to fire them? Pay the tax man after passing a slightly tougher background check, and be prepared to spend quite a bit per round.
