4 Comments

1. For those who don’t care to view the video:

   Someone typed a partial transcript —

   Beto responded to a question by Evan MacDonald with, “One of the best arguments I’ve heard for the second amendment is that the second amendment is intended to ensure that the American public if they need to, can provide a check on a Tyrannical government”

   THEN stated, “we can’t arm ourselves efficiently enough to fight against a Tyrannical Government and we are going to need more than an AR-15.”

   He then concluded with, “If it is a right to be able to rise up or stand up against your government, I don’t accept that, that’s not my reading of the constitution.”

   First of all, what do you mean the best argument? That’s not the best argument, it’s THE argument.

   It’s literally what the second amendment says. A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. It’s literally part of the constitution.

   As a matter of fact, it’s one of the only amendments that actually tells you why it exists and yet this sophomoric human being is acting like the bill of rights was a suggestion at Golden Corral Buffett.

   Secondly, Using your example of the Trail of Tears, guess who had the guns in that situation? The government.

   The same government, that to the Native Americans, was being tyrannical.

   Robert, you’re literally making the case for why we need these guns and why the native Americans needed those guns, but you’re too stupid to realize that you’re using a story about tyranny to defend your plan to take the guns away.

   Robert, you know who else thought the ruling government of the time was too powerful to be beaten by a bunch of regular citizens? The British.

   Who do you think the US military is comprised of, cyborgs?

   Most of the people yelling come and take it are veterans. You really think the military is just going to go along with this tyranny?

   Not to mention two morons with handguns shut down the city of Boston where the people there barely have guns, and you think you’re going to take on middle America where they have more guns than food?

   Making the argument we can’t arm ourselves efficiently enough to fight against a Tyrannical Government and we are going to need more than an AR-15 is by far the most dangerous evil argument in response to the second amendment anyone can make. Any politician making this argument is the human representation for why the second amendment exists in the first place.

   Imagine telling a woman who wants a gun to protect herself from being raped, “buying a gun is pointless because men are bigger and stronger and will just take away the gun and rape you anyway. So, you should just comply and hope he doesn’t kill you after he rapes you.”

   That’s literally what Beto is saying with this argument. You can’t beat the tyrannical government so just lay down and take it.

   We don’t just lay down for tyranny because the odds are against us.

   So there you have it folks, a man running to be the most powerful position on the planet does not believe that YOU HAVE A RIGHT to rise up against a tyrannical government in a country where in the first paragraph of their declaration for independence wrote this.

   “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

   Reply to this comment

2. Making the argument we can’t arm ourselves efficiently enough to fight against a Tyrannical Government and we are going to need more than an AR-15 is by far the most dangerous evil argument in response to the second amendment anyone can make.

   Actually this is the BEST argument for repealing all prohibitions on types of guns that can be owned by free citizens. I think it also argue for the creation of a thriving used Tank market, but that may just be me.

   “If it is a right to be able to rise up or stand up against your government, I don’t accept that, that’s not my reading of the constitution.”

   Considering most Liberals don’t give a fig about what the Constitution says if it gets in the way of their desires I do not find this statement either surprising or false. It often shocks me if they can even read the words after they used it to wipe their sorry a**es with it.

   Reply to this comment

3. Unfortunately O’Rourke isn’t the only Democrat running for president who feels this way about private ownership of guns and our second amendment rights. In fact….the majority of them agree with him.

   Reply to this comment

   • Majority? Hell I’ll give you dollars to donuts if you can name 10 Democrats in the public eye right now that support the second amendment fully not just rhetorically.

     Reply to this comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.