It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Tucker Carlson: Patriot Purge (Pt 1)

page: 10
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 4 2021 @ 09:22 PM
a reply to: JinMI

Apparently a straightforward statement in plain English is hard for some to understand. Even with the way I broke the statement up, nothing in the meaning changes. Seems these gun grabber types should try taking another course in reading comprehension...

posted on Nov, 4 2021 @ 09:56 PM

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Anyone who strongly disagrees with rightist thinking is therefore a leftist.

Another example of binary thinking , you've obviously never heard of Centrism.

If you were a centrist then you would moderately disagree.

originally posted by: deadlysyn
a reply to: chr0naut

Apparently you missed the SCOTUS determination that essentially says "well regulated militia" means every able bodied citizen capable of picking up and using a weapon.

How are they "capable of picking up and using a weapon" if they don't have any weapons available to pick up and use?

There's also the matter of training in how to use them. A gun is just a loud knife with a limited number of stabs if you don't know how to aim it and fire it at distant targets.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: chr0naut

If you can chop up sentences like that, why not interpret the 2nd to say "be infringed", and just ignore the rest?

No, in English and especially in law, you have to include all of the conditions in each statute and especially in each sentence. They are definitive.

Ok, learnin' time!

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.

See how the above bolded section and the 2nd amendment mirror in not only cadence, but structure! Commas are AWESOME!!

Even if it had been separated by full-stops, it is a single clause. You can't just discard bits. It is all of it, together, the same clause of the same statute.

Other amendments to the Constitution have multiple clauses. If they had wanted to talk about separate topics, they wouldn't have tied it together into the same sentence.

The SCOTUS decision divided a single sentence into a "prefatory clause" and an "operative clause"! Clearly they were NOT separate clauses, they weren't even separate sentences!

The SCOTUS ruling was clearly due to political pressure and was not unanimous.

To quote Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens: 'The Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended; that the "militia" preamble and exact phrase "to keep and bear arms" demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only'.

It's important to point out that, at the time of the drafting of the Bill of Rights, militias as they then existed, did not have central armories.

Each member owned, maintained, and kept their own gun.

So when the founders say the word "militia", are we to understand that they are imagining a version of that institution that did not exist at their time, but which they expected might exist at a future time? Or can we assume they meant the version of the institution that existed at the time of the writing?

posted on Nov, 4 2021 @ 09:58 PM

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: chr0naut

That's a nonsense argument because at no point is a restrictive condition set upon the people. The only condition set by the Second Amendment is upon the government.

That condition is very clearly stated.

The restrictive condition of the 2nd, is of 'not infringing' upon the 'right of people to own and bear arms'.

It does not put any specific onus upon the government for this in the text. That is entirely presumptive and a case may be made that it refers generally, rather than specifically to government.

For instance, someone suggesting that particular people must be disarmed, in a particular place, (lets say a private prison, for example), would be infringing upon the right to "own and bear arms" as much as the government might.

In fact, this very example that there are situations where you don't want some people to own and bear arms, like arming the insane, shows the nonsense behind that particular interpretation of the 2nd.

posted on Nov, 5 2021 @ 03:46 PM
a reply to: chr0naut

The spirit of the law vs the letter of the law. The founding fathers were very clear about having an armed populace for the specific purpose of fighting back against a tyrannical government and yet we still have "interpretations" which are BS semantics and everyone knows it. The left loves to redefine meanings of words now and invent new ones so you'll excuse me if I fart in their general direction as I'm walking past ignoring them.

posted on Nov, 5 2021 @ 03:52 PM
a reply to: gortex

This is why you and yours stayed on your little island.

Too afraid to branch out.
Just take it from the Royalty and the Media.
Keep lapping up the Propagandist sop of insipidness.

posted on Nov, 9 2021 @ 02:05 AM
Where is part 2 and 3?

posted on Nov, 10 2021 @ 11:45 AM
a reply to: gortex

So did Christ.

“...surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” - Matthew 28:20b

I took it to mean he is with them in the spirit of their peaceful protest, not an attack on the Capitol.
edit on 10-11-2021 by Freenrgy2 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 10 2021 @ 11:47 AM
a reply to: Thenail

Yes, get to the bottom of who was encouraging who. Funny how those things always get lost rather quickly.

posted on Nov, 19 2021 @ 06:17 PM
Imagine actually having any respect for Tucker Carlson.

Do you people honestly not see through his character? He sees you rednecks as revenue. Nothing more. Literally lies (e.g. wind turbines caused Texas blackout = literally and demonstrably false) and you all lap it up.

Imagine being at a point in your life where Tucker Carlson is someone you hero worship. That's what you've come to. Wow.

p.s. Trump lost. In a big way. Get over it you child.
edit on 19-11-2021 by fencesitter85 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 19 2021 @ 06:19 PM
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Trump lost mate reality won.

For the time being anyroad.

posted on Nov, 19 2021 @ 07:50 PM
a reply to: chr0naut

Of course it refers to the government. The second amendment does not exist in a legal vacuum. What a complete nonsensical argument. The Constitution itself is the foundational document of government. The Bill of Rights is a list of rights that are assumed to be pre-existing and no conditions are placed on the people only the government which is constituted as an entity to protect the rights of Americans not violate them.

edit on 11 19 2021 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 7  8  9   >>

log in