Rachel Maddow on Consistent Second Amendment Laws

[baldguy]

Run time: 15:01 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llt0307Wbwg   Posted on YouTube: January 14, 2011 By YouTube Member: BBQasaurus Views on YouTube: 16   Posted on DU: January 14, 2011 By DU Member: baldguy Views on DU: 1076

 
I know the delicate flowers from the gungeon hothouse won't like suffering under the bright sun of truth or being buffeted by the hard winds of the facts, but here they are.

Right now it is essentially illegal for civilians to own machine guns, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, mortars, cannons, explosive time bombs, anti-tank guns, Molotov cocktails. I shouldn't say it's illegal - technically they're not actually outright banned, but we do restrict access to these things so greatly that these things do not circulate among American citizens broadly. But if you are with Alex Joneses, and Ron Pauls, and Paul Brouns - if you are with the radicals on gun policy then all of the laws that prohibit us from having these things need to change. In fact all of the laws that prohibit us from having access to anything you can imagine in terms of weaponry need to change because, in their view to do right by the U. S. Constitution you and I need to defeat the U. S. military in battle. We need to be able to overthrow the U. S. government. So we need not only anti-tank guns, and rocket-propelled grenade launchers, and bombs, if the United States military is armed with depleted uranium munitions, if they're armed with nuclear weapons, in order to be able compete with that, in order for you & me to go up against the tyrannical Commander-In-Chief of the U. S. military, and defeat him in battle, you & I should quite literally be able to obtain private nuclear weapons. This is not hyperbole. If you believe the gun radicals philosophy about guns: that gun rights are to protect our ability to overthrow the government, then we need to be able to destroy the U. S. military so we can overthrow that government. (He's) the Commander-In-Chief of the U. S. military. We need to be able to defeat him in battle. Is that what gun rights are for?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

1. I hate to burst your hard-winds-of-facts bubble...

But this is her setting up her own strawmen/assumptions up and knocking them down. I've NEVER seen any politician or even the NRA advocate anything like owning mortars, RPGs, Bombs, nuclear weapons, depleted uranium weapons... anything like that. To be honest, I've never seen the NRA even touch things like expanding access to mere machine guns and silencers.

There might be a few ranting lunatics behind keyboards or something... but I've never heard this rhetoric from 99% of gun owners, the NRA, or politicians. The only place I hear this kind of thing is from anti-gun crowd speculation. Can Rachel even show us some evidence of these claims/endorsements that people should have nukes & RPGs & uranium bullets and shit like that? Can You? (I'd actually like an answer to this.)

[spooked911]

3. Did you WATCH the segment?

The idea is that the 2nd amendment freaks want to violently overthrow the government! So the question is-- why shouldn't they have access to the same weapons as the military?

Why don't you answer that question, ok?

[dbmk]

4. They not only want to

Isn't their argument that it is what the amendment is specifically for? Should the need arise.

[bossy22]

5. thats not what the supreme court said

the amendments meaning is more understood with the defense of self

[dbmk]

7. Self meaning USA?

Or self meaning personal self?
Because given the existence of the word "militia" in there, I would need some explanation on how to arrive at the second one.

But that was also somewhat beside my point. That a lot of the arguments used around the 2nd amendment is that the people should be equipped to overthrow the goverment, should they find it necessary?

Regardless of the SCs definition of its scope.

[bossy22]

8. both actually

but modern society has sort-of mooted the first (the USA). The existence of the world militia is in the preamble- the amendment isnt read as "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", its read as "the right of the PEOPLE" which is arguibly used to mean the individual (if we go by the interpretations of other amendments with that starting phrase). There are arguments for and against the preamble constraining the meaning of the operating clause- both have merits because both have been ruled on throughout the history of this country. IMO the amendment's meaning (as an individual right) is more because of public opinion than strong legal background. The evidence for the collective meaning and the individual meaning is both so extensive that in my mind its almost equal meaning that the court needed to fall back on something to be the tie breaker- thats where public opinion came in (there is an actual legal word for this which i dont recall at the moment)- the public overwhelmingly believes the amendment to be individual in nature.

to put out there- im not a fan of the insurrectionist doctrine (the belief that the 2A is for overthrowing the government). I look at the amendment as protecting my right to have small arms to protect myself from those who would do me harm- mostly home invaders and other criminals.

plus the truth is, we are equipped to "overthrow the government". Hey, look was a bunch of people in afganistan and iraq managed to do with home-made explosives and rusting soviet era guns.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

6. a) SCOTUS, in the two recent 2A cases, has dictated that the 2A is geared toward self defense

b) Civilians don't need things like nukes & RPGs & bio weapons to defeat a tyrannical government. With enough small arms, there are simply too many people for government to defeat. Unless you suggest that the government would be bombing and nuking it's OWN land... large weaponry becomes a moot point. Just think about it, there really is no way to beat massive amounts of people when you are outnumbered 22:1 without WMDs - and WMDs aren't really an option to use on your own turf.

Yes, I watched it. And, given that her premises are correct, it's a brilliant piece of journalism. But her premise is not well founded. Rachel's assumption that people need WMDs and HE arsenals is incorrect. Any analysis of asymmetric warfare will yield this conclusion.

[spooked911]

9. OK, thanks-- I see your point

Though, if it got to that point, I could see the US bombing its own land and citizens. More that than an infantry unit taking on a militia armed with handguns and rifles.

But I see your point.

[appal_jack]

10. k&r so that this good reply gets read by more people n/t

[spooked911]

2. What a great segment!

Thanks for posting!!!