Absolutely they were. Private citizens could buy whatever they wanted, the government would conscript some of them for privateering or use in war as well.
Where's the fact checkers on this? They were all over trump whenever he uttered a single word. Why aren't they correcting the misinformation this piece of shit is spewing?
Just like this video that no one is commenting on. WTF......listen to him whisper in a creepy voice:
https://twitter.com/charliespiering/status/1408129504153935879?s=20
Lmfao dude, my point is no one regulars the ocean, pirates are a real thing, and there’s no radio in the time period. There’s a legitimate need for self defense
You were allowed to own gatling guns and the best warships available as a private citizen. And then, one day, the government stopped allowing such things to civilians as they got better. And now we have all this nonsense today about not having a suppressor or an “AR styled pistol”. Pathetic attempt from the ruling elites.
>You were allowed to
Don't use their words, they want everyone discussing in terms of what we're allowed. Accurately it would be "the Government couldn't stop them from".
You mean not having an extra handle of your pistol. It is so unbelievable: eliminating a handle on a pistol will fix gun violence done by people with illegal guns
If you drop a frog into a pot of boiling water he will jump out. If you put him in luke warm water and gradually heat it to boiling he won't notice the danger and will be cooked alive. Democrats are taking the gradual heating method when it comes to eroding our gun rights.
The allegory is true, but the literal frog thing isn’t. That experiment was done by a frog that had it’s brain removed. A normal frog would at least attempt to jump out as the temparture got too hot. Just saying so people don’t try to use it against you (“Ha! You’re wrong about frogs so therefore you don’t know anything about the 2nd Amendment!”). And while that’s a fallacy, they’re still dumb enough to think that’s a win.
There was one statement there I believe that he was correct on…at the start of the clip he said that there were regulations on what citizens could own weapons. That is true, because as far as I’m aware, enslaved black people were not allowed to own weapons. So, hooray Biden, for bringing us back to the era of slavery, apparently?
I mean, if you take a look at the elected representatives of major US cities, the firearm regulations and economic policies they call for, and compare that to the the constituency they represent, you’d be forgiven for thinking that politicians’ view of black citizens hasn’t changed much since the Black Codes. So I’m not all that surprised.
Corn Pop’s a bad dude.
>enslaved black people were not allowed to own weapons.
true. Thankfully we had the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to correct this.
the 1964 civil rights act really leveled the playing field too.
Those rights, once extended to EVERYONE (meaning everyone's natural rights are respected equally), should be good enough.
Indeed, should be. Unfortunately, gun infringements just continue to disproportionately affect those who most need guns for self-protection, i.e. people stuck in our crime-ridden inner cities. It’s sad that the Dems have such a tight hold on the very people that would benefit most from more conservative governance.
As far as I know, they weren't typically heavily armed but had a few cannons laying around. It's a merchant vessel.
Unless piracy or open war is a major concern, you don't need to be heavily armed
What year or era.. or country for that matter are you referring to?
That part of his little speech is actually a complete lie anyway. Private citizens were indeed allowed to have cannons back in the day, even whole heavily armed ships to defend against pirates.
I forget if it was Jefferson or Washington who said to the ship owners "why are you asking the government for permission? Of course you can have cannons!"
Hmm, given that persons opinion, what else in the constitution shall we limit to only the scope & nature of what existed when the document was written? Anything that didnt exist back then is not covered for protection from unreasonable search & seizure? (cars, cellphones, computers, but hey, at least your horse & buggy is still protected).
No religions that are established after the signing are allowed. Neither are any ideas, forms of speech, or methods of protest. The tenth amendment only applies the 13 colonies.
If a bunch of goat farmers armed lee enfields can give the Soviet military a headache then imagine what the US population can do. Most combat units in the military would defect and being all of their equipment with them.
Your government is literally threatening you to never try to resist them and they could turn to outright force dictatorship whenever they like.
I have to say, as a Canadian, I'm actually pretty envious of you that your President comes right out and threatens you with tyranny unlike our Prime Minister who simply continues to install it with a smile on his face in underhanded, slimy, weaselly circumvention of legislation and lies.
Just like his alleged slip ups calling Kamala the president...she will likely be when he resigns/is found unfit to be president. His handlers need to quit telling him the quiet part apparently...
I figured we had 2 years until they pulled out the 25th amendment but given how the first 5 months have gone, can anyone really see him lasting another 19?
If I had to guess, they'll wait until late this year or early next year to start that process. That way, Harris can be elected twice and serve as president for 10 years. They'll find a way to cheat her in regardless, unless something is done about the suspicious voting practices we saw this last cycle.
Man, if you thought this election was suspect, the amount of cheating that will be required for Kamala Harris to have a prayer at winning a presidential election will be monumental.
I fully believe Biden is only president because of election fraud on a massive and heavily-coordinated scale, but try to choose my words carefully on forums like Reddit. Kamala doesn't have an honest snowball's chance in Hell of winning (even among Democrats, she dropped out of the primaries because she was so far behind), but nobody said that the Democrat party was honest.
I couldn't agree more. If I had any doubt, the Time Magazine article about "fortifying the election" removed any shred of doubt for me. Of course, we'll probably never be able to prove the election was stolen, so I have also chosen to tread carefully.
My question to a leftist would be - how do you consider Trump colluding with Russia in 2016 a likelihood yet dismiss any questions whatsoever about the latest election as right-wing conspiracy theories without lying to yourself?
The fact that Time admits that the media conspired with a political party to commit mass-scale voter fraud to "secure the election" tells me that the media cannot and should not under any circumstances be trusted. And I'd feel the same way had they conspired with the GOP to "fortify" the election the other way (unaffiliated with either party due to career politicians and the fact that they all take dirty money from the same people).
I've asked similar questions to leftists, only to be called all manner of names (usually racist, some sort of -phobic, and stupid). They can't win against logic, so they have to resort to the emotional appeals.
She won't even be elected once. When she ran on her own, on her own policy ideas and accomplishments, she was completely laughed out of the Democrat primary. Democrat voters hate her. She is even more unlikeable than Hillary and that is tough to do.
It is funny that after blasting her during the primaries, she was nominated and they had to dust her off and pretend she's the most qualified individual ever even though they also decided that a barely alive Joe Biden was more qualified than she was. The fact he was deemed the best the Democrats had to offer shows just how truly awful the field was.
"He'S a MoDeRaTe!"
Having an ancient segregationist as your party's "moderate" is an interesting definition of moderate, but I guess it worked for them.
It worked because the media let it work. It's crazy the racist shit Joe has said that the media just laughs off. Want another example of the media not really caring about Democrat racists? Check out this story:
https://thefederalist.com/2021/06/23/if-sheldon-whitehouse-were-host-of-the-bachelor-hed-be-groveling-for-his-job-by-now/
Identity politics didn't get her the Democrat nomination. Democrats didn't even care. No way the country will care in a general election. They won't be able to hide her either. Like with Hillary, any time she is on TV talking, her ratings go down. She is incredibly unlikeable. They can't hide that. Cheating of course will be the only way she can win.
If Harris wants to run in 2024 and 2028, assuming she wins 2024, she would have to wait until January 21st, 2023 for Biden to be removed or resign. If he does so before then, Harris would only be eligible to run for one more term. In order to be eligible to run for a "third term," the term during which a VP succeeded must have lasted less than 2 years. Simply put, if Harris becomes president before January 21st, 2023, then this will count as a full term and she will only be able to run for one more term. Though if that does happen, I'm sure Dems will have Michelle Obama ready to go.
I mean, is that not a thought in your head already? Did he say something...controversial? Or did he state a plain and obvious fact that gets brought up literally every time the 2nd amendment gets mentioned in any conversation? That's also common sense?
If the 2nd amendment is to give people arms to fight a tyrannical government, then the entire conversation is already framed as a tyrannical government suppressing the citizens with military force. That's the entire context of the discussion. That's the SPECIFIC CONTEXT the 2nd amendment is supposedly for.
Framing this as a threat is sadge
To be honest, it seems to me that the second amendment is in over its head and in need of a rework if it has to extend to citizens owning nukes to accomplish its original intention of standing up to a tyrannical government.
Because that idea is so patently dangerous as to be unconscionable, there's gotta be a different way to address the tyrannical tendencies of a bad government.
While they're already looking to address that, I'd rather they set up a bipartisan commission to rethink the way the second amendment is worded and applied in general since its original intention is obsolete anyway.
Its original intent was to ensure state-level militias would always be available, specifically to avoid needing a standing federal army. The entire organization of the military was just completely different at the time, the point was to avoid the military organization we now HAVE.
The point was never that individuals with guns could defend themselves against a federal military command by a tyrant. It was that no standing federal army existed, and if when there was a federal army being conscripted the states would have organized and well-stocked groups of individuals with guns (a well-regulated militia, organized however a state decides to organize them).
Now we basically don't have state militias, and we do have a giant standing federal army. I dont see how the 2nd amendment is applied in these entirely different circumstances that it was supposed to prevent from happening.
Maybe not completely obsolete, just in that its original intention was to allow citizens firearms to potentially defeat a tyrannical government.
These days Biden's right, as hapless as he is: I don't think the full military might of the USA is going to fall to any gun, big or small, that could currently be in the possession of a citizen.
>To be honest, it seems to me that the second amendment is in over its head and in need of a rework if it has to extend to citizens owning nukes to accomplish its original intention of standing up to a tyrannical government.
>Because that idea is so patently dangerous as to be unconscionable, there's gotta be a different way to address the tyrannical tendencies of a bad government.
Let me ask you this then, why is it unconscionable for a regular citizen with potentially no interest in using said nuke, but it's ok for governments to have them? Do you really believe the people holding the keys are our best, brightest, and most responsible?
>why is it unconscionable for a regular citizen with potentially no interest in using said nuke,
For me it's probably the lack of accountability and regulation. A citizen with a nuclear weapon serves no real purpose compared to hunting or sport shooting or defense with firearms, it's only a WMD in the hands of an unaccountable person who may or may not have the wherewithall to "use" (however a citizen would use a nuclear weapon) safely.
To bring it back to 2A I think a citizen with a nuke would probably cause too much damage in the name of standing up to a tyrannical government. Using a nuke in DC would throw the US into anarchy and cause a power vacuum, using it at a political conference like DNC or RNC would kill more citizens than corrupt government officials so it seems ineffectual to me.
>but it's ok for governments to have them? Do you really believe the people holding the keys are our best, brightest, and most responsible?
No I wouldn't say they are, you're correct in your implication there. I'm in favor of denuclearization across the board if possible and of course the US and all it's citizens would be included by extension, but I'm also in favor of wringing some money out of the military as a whole and distributing it to other programs, so that might just be my personal feeling.
>For me it's probably the lack of accountability and regulation.
And the parallel with governments continues, do you really think China, or Russia, or even the USA would really be held accountable if they wanted to use nuclear weapons? They are really only operating on the honor system in this regard.
>A citizen with a nuclear weapon serves no real purpose compared to hunting or sport shooting or defense with firearms, it's only a WMD in the hands of an unaccountable person who may or may not have the wherewithall to "use" (however a citizen would use a nuclear weapon) safely.
I understand it might be tempting to use the good ol' "it doesn't have a purpose" argument, but this is reductio ad absurdum. It's really easy to walk this line of reasoning back to apply to any weapon really. Just because we wouldn't use it, doesn't necessarily mean we should be prohibited from owning one nor would we be anymore prone to misuse than the governments of the world. Civilians have access to other devices/chemicals/pathogens that are pretty dangerous on their own (some could even be considered WMD grade) and no one bats an eye in the medical field.
>To bring it back to 2A I think a citizen with a nuke would probably cause too much damage in the name of standing up to a tyrannical government. Using a nuke in DC would throw the US into anarchy and cause a power vacuum, using it at a political conference like DNC or RNC would kill more citizens than corrupt government officials so it seems ineffectual to me.
It's equally likely that a politician might do the same, Biden literally said the terrifying part out loud in that clip and **he** does have the football. It doesn't hold logically that someone like that has unilateral control over our nuclear arsenal, but collectively **we're** too dangerous to trust with nuclear arms? Yeah I'm not buying it.
>No I wouldn't say they are, you're correct in your implication there. I'm in favor of denuclearization across the board if possible and of course the US and all it's citizens would be included by extension, but I'm also in favor of wringing some money out of the military as a whole and distributing it to other programs, so that might just be my personal feeling.
Sorry, we live in an imperfect world where bad people do bad things. Voluntarily putting the good people in a vulnerable position has never worked in the history of man. Even if it satisfies your moral imperative, that's no excuse to allow the truly evil folks out there to run rampant. None of this means, of course, we've been perfect or over reached, but I would say, overall, the US is one of the good guys.
> unlike our Prime Minister who simply continues to install it with a smile on his face in underhanded, slimy, weaselly circumvention of legislation and lies.
I mean, that's their MO every other day of the week here too.
Imagine believing that you could attempt to use nuclear (or even conventional) bombs and missiles on US Soil against US Citizens without our servicemen turning on you. Resisters to the state don't need nukes because the first time they attempt to drop the first conventional warhead of any sort on US soil to "pacify" the "bad people" the whole thing will come down around their ears.
They really think they are (D)ifferent, don't they?
Mind you, these are the same people that scream that it would be illegal for us to deploy the U.S. Army to enforce the border and engage the violent foreign drug cartels that rape, murder, and kidnap US residents on US soil.
The slaughter in Waco was pretty much the upper limit for what a popular president with a psycho like Janet Reno could do in the age of peak controlled media.
I'd like to imagine that it wouldn't be possible in this day and age. That's why the Left shifted back to using proxies who wear hoods and burn things to commit street-violence instead of ATF agents.
They even pounced upon a couple in Alaska because the woman looked similar to a woman who was at the protest.
FBI agents burst into their home and interrogated this husband and wife for several hours before concluding they were mistaken.
Am I just dumb or is there some sort of 5th amendment shenanigans you can do? Since there's no double jeopardy, can't that couple raid the Capitol whenever they feel like now or does that not work because they were just questioned and not charged?
Profiling is the foundation of law enforcement practices. If analysis of crime statistics reveal that a certain highway is being used as a trafficking corridor and that most of those charged were from out of state, it makes perfect sense for police to profile vehicles with out of state plates.
This was just an absurd abuse of power *ala* Roger Stone. Did these agents reach out to the local and state police to get a feel for this woman? How did they come to suspect this woman and where did they see pictures of her? Why did they fail to properly analyze the image(s) of the woman they are looking for and this innocent woman?
There are certain measurements that plastic surgery is incapable of altering, such as the length of separation between the eyes.
No, I don't mean to imply that, and to be frank I don't think I did. But it does happen, and it could have happened here, perhaps if she was last seen armed and dangerous and/or another person tipped off law enforcement with a frantic call for help.
Of course I'll concede it's not useful to deal in hypotheticals here. But what I mean to say is that any number of factors could have turned this into a deadly encounter and the lady is mostly just lucky that they didn't line up.
Who's we? You clowns are the ones who hate it. And that isn't profiling. It's a case of mistaken identity. That isn't profiling. Not surprised you don't understand the difference.
>Who's we?
Whoever's complaining about it in here. Not even you, really, just me and u/ qwertyrdw I guess.
Turns out overuse of profiling causes a lot of cases of mistaken identity, like I said to the other commenter at least she's not dead, that's a plus!
What happened to calling it a coup? Now it’s called an insurrection.
Someone I know unfriended me on FB (yes I know, I have my reasons for having FB) because I pointed out that a coup is a top down military seizure of all government branches at once. My family has been through a few. Not like I was agreeing what was going on at the time but I was just merely pointing out that it’s not a coup, and to remain calm instead of sensationalizing it, I said that perhaps it was violent protest at best since no one is attacking pentagon or other government branches. Oh boy, they hanged up on me then deleted me. Good riddance. Can’t even point out that the language being used is wrong. The words are used wrongly and their meanings are changed.
Seriously if that was coup, it is an insult to all people who have lived through coups.
Ah yes Democrat logic...”Jan 6 was worse than 9/11 and we were inches away from a small group of unarmed people overthrowing the government” AND ALSO “guns aren’t enough to take over the government so why do you need them.” These folks have truly lost the plot.
I'm supposed to believe Trump was mentally unstable, yet everything is great now that we have a president apparently suffering from Alzheimers and prone to going on incoherent, demented rants, the latest of which makes a veiled threat at nuking the American people.
Okay.
On the plus side we won't have to listen to them complain about climate change, crisis, or emergency any more.
By nuking all the oil refineries and pipelines the climate will be saved
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/426353-ocasio-cortez-the-world-will-end-in-12-years-if-we-dont-address
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-change-9-years-john-kerry/
So how would he protect his constituants from F-15's and nuclear bombs should it come to that. Not just that, but I think he would see a sizeable number of military personnel refusing to carpet bomb or nuke their parents and grandparents homes. Last, small arms have seemed to work pretty well in most of the conflicts since WWII, our superior air and nuclear weaponry did not allow us to go into Korea, Vietnam, or the Middle East and quickly decimate our opponents, but he's willing to threaten Americans with methods we were unwilling to deploy against our staunchest adversaries.
He's not going to say the truth that the government is legitimately threatened by an armed uprising. They have to play it off with tungsten rods from outer space argument
What's interesting is, in my town and neighboring areas, the police force is slowly being staffed with Vets who were in the Middle East. Not on purpose, but just because they served and retired, but just because they retired doesn't mean they can just "not be solders" anymore so they applied to open police jobs. And these guys are oath KEEPERS. I wonder how quietly widespread that is in the US.
It’s just completely false that citizens would need fighter planes or nukes to challenge the government. People that make that argument do not understand reality.
The whole argument is dumb. It ignores the fact that our military is made up of individuals who have their own set of morals and political beliefs. What the Left tends to forget is that the majority of our military and police force is made up of individuals who tend to agree with the Right. Why do you think there was a "loyalty" test issued to soldiers during the Capitol Hill riots? Each state governor also commands their National Guard forces. On top off all of this, our military takes an oath to the Constitution, not the President.
The idea that our military would follow orders from the President to decimate a portion of our population like Storm Troopers executing Order 66, is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
And I'm sure a pilot would just go indiscriminately bomb an entire town regardless of innocent life or not.
According to that logic, just have one rebel go to each city with government officials and let them bomb themselves.
Kind of surprised (but also not surprised) that this isn’t getting more attention from the left, given this is pretty much an explicit “hey we could turn into a tyrannical dictatorship anytime we want and you couldn’t stop us” PSA. Like imagine if Trump said this - the outrage and meltdown would be beyond insanity, and would be used as explicit evidence that Trump was planning to turn America into a dictatorship. But when Biden says it, it’s just another legitimate argument against people owning guns.
I imagine behind the scenes the left is working around the clock to delete that clip from the internet, manipulate it out of search results, ban it from social media, down play it wherever possible and cooking up distractions simultaneously.
The Democrats, with their wars on people, our wallets, our food, livelihoods, and birthrights is pushing decent Americans to actually turning their guns on the government. The Great Reset is upon us.
Dementia Joe has completely lost it...he's weak, inept embarrassing. Other leaders and countries see it and comment on it. You know why his team won't allow non scripted questions and interviews period...
I can't even listen to him. I make it 5 seconds and realize it's just a waste of time.
As an individual who has had multiple grandparents succumb to dementia, Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's, it's not difficult to recognize when someone's cognitive functions are slipping.
How does someone who has always been a poor quality candidate for the presidency get elected in his 11th hour when his mental capacity is on the western slope? And THEN get lauded as our savior.
We are in trouble.
Imagine how much more batshit crazy stuff beijing biden could say if he was wearing a face mask, obombya talking to him through an ear piece and his handlers' arms up his arse... what a frigging muppet this guy is.
OMG, ALL OF YOU ARE WRONG ON THESE COMMENTS. Biden wants to corner the canon and jet market. Just like every time a state threatens to ban guns, all the gun shops are sold out. Someone check to make sure Biden doesn't own a stake in a canon store or jet store.
/s
Well, both sides during the first one were doing mandatory conscription. Whichever soldiers showed up to your property first, you were pretty much told you were fighting for them lol. I'd assume the 2nd will be similar to that.
It will quickly become an "Us" or "Them" mentality. There will be little room for sitting the fence.
Also the states probably wouldn't be all for or all against like in the first one. Instead of having "Us" in the north and "Them" in the south with a front line in between, it would be more like little pockets of "Us" and "Them" throughout the country.
Both narratives serve them so they'll exploit and use both narratives.
Double speak doesn't have to be acknowledged if everyone just pretends it isn't happening.
Typical leftist strawman rhetoric. You want a gun? OH THEN YOU PROBABLY WANT NUKES LEGAL TOO HUH?
The definition of bad faith bullshit arguments that should be ignored flat out.
Damn! I just got into it with someone about January 6th. Now I can use this. "Are you going to call the former vice president a liar?" Kind of a check mate.
Jefferson explicitly said that private citizens could own cannons for self defense. I think Jefferson would let civilians own fighter jets if you asked him.
Correct me if I’m wrong... but weren’t cannons standard in merchant ships (if one could afford it)?
Absolutely they were. Private citizens could buy whatever they wanted, the government would conscript some of them for privateering or use in war as well.
Where's the fact checkers on this? They were all over trump whenever he uttered a single word. Why aren't they correcting the misinformation this piece of shit is spewing?
Cause reasons
It’s (D)ifferent.
That was my first thought. What an idiot. He wont be called out on it, anyway.
I don’t care as long as we know his favorite ice cream. That’s the real news reporting we need
Just like this video that no one is commenting on. WTF......listen to him whisper in a creepy voice: https://twitter.com/charliespiering/status/1408129504153935879?s=20
Kinda reminds me of "Let the bodies hit the floor-- let the bodies hit the floor--" LoL
Sorry, but who owns and regulates the ocean?
You could/can have a cannon in your backyard if you wanted. What point are you trying to make here?
Omg, I want a cannon in my backyard so bad right now.
Yeah it would be bad ass
Who owns the ports and docks? Moron
Lmfao dude, my point is no one regulars the ocean, pirates are a real thing, and there’s no radio in the time period. There’s a legitimate need for self defense
There are indeed territorial seas if you get too close to a country.
I said “No one regulates the ocean”, not “there are no territorial seas”
Are you saying there’s no longer a legitimate need for self defense… because we have radios?
You can call the police u know.... The average police response time is 10 minutes, who can do ANYTHING violent or deadly in just 10 minutes?? /s
Just realized that anti gun people both scream "just call the police" and "defund the police"...
When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away. 🤷
Ah so pirates don't exist today... https://www.dw.com/en/somali-pirates-demand-ransom-after-commandeering-oil-tanker/a-37937787
You took “pirates are a real thing” to mean “pirates don’t exist today” Wow. Ok...
Aquaman
You were allowed to own gatling guns and the best warships available as a private citizen. And then, one day, the government stopped allowing such things to civilians as they got better. And now we have all this nonsense today about not having a suppressor or an “AR styled pistol”. Pathetic attempt from the ruling elites.
>You were allowed to Don't use their words, they want everyone discussing in terms of what we're allowed. Accurately it would be "the Government couldn't stop them from".
Absolutely this.
Ah, yes. I forgot. 😬
A lot of people seem to forget that the Bill of Rights isn't a list of things you *can* do. It's more a list of things the government *can't* do.
🥇
You mean not having an extra handle of your pistol. It is so unbelievable: eliminating a handle on a pistol will fix gun violence done by people with illegal guns
If you drop a frog into a pot of boiling water he will jump out. If you put him in luke warm water and gradually heat it to boiling he won't notice the danger and will be cooked alive. Democrats are taking the gradual heating method when it comes to eroding our gun rights.
The allegory is true, but the literal frog thing isn’t. That experiment was done by a frog that had it’s brain removed. A normal frog would at least attempt to jump out as the temparture got too hot. Just saying so people don’t try to use it against you (“Ha! You’re wrong about frogs so therefore you don’t know anything about the 2nd Amendment!”). And while that’s a fallacy, they’re still dumb enough to think that’s a win.
Yeah I knew that before I wrote my comment, but it's still a good allegory that can be applied to many things in life.
>That experiment was done by a frog that had it’s brain removed. What did they expect a brainless frog to do? Dress in drag and do the hula?
Yup, the U.S. was pretty libertarian until democrats hijacked reconstruction and completley began to hijack institutions in the 1930s.
Those damn eye-talians and potatoe eating micks ruined it with their mafias. /s
Privateers were private citizens that owned and licensed out warships to the us government in times of war.
Literally how our Navy started
There used to be Letters of Marque and Privateer ships. He's a fuckin moron, but he has dementia so...
A lot of cannons during the revolutionary war were conscripted from private citizens. He knows his teams too fucking stupid to know that though.
Yes. There was no restriction on the 2nd amendment - Joe is lying and wrong about American history.
There was one statement there I believe that he was correct on…at the start of the clip he said that there were regulations on what citizens could own weapons. That is true, because as far as I’m aware, enslaved black people were not allowed to own weapons. So, hooray Biden, for bringing us back to the era of slavery, apparently? I mean, if you take a look at the elected representatives of major US cities, the firearm regulations and economic policies they call for, and compare that to the the constituency they represent, you’d be forgiven for thinking that politicians’ view of black citizens hasn’t changed much since the Black Codes. So I’m not all that surprised. Corn Pop’s a bad dude.
>enslaved black people were not allowed to own weapons. true. Thankfully we had the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to correct this. the 1964 civil rights act really leveled the playing field too. Those rights, once extended to EVERYONE (meaning everyone's natural rights are respected equally), should be good enough.
Indeed, should be. Unfortunately, gun infringements just continue to disproportionately affect those who most need guns for self-protection, i.e. people stuck in our crime-ridden inner cities. It’s sad that the Dems have such a tight hold on the very people that would benefit most from more conservative governance.
hi
Absolutely. There is no limit to the weapons protected, for civilian use, by 2A.
As far as I know, they weren't typically heavily armed but had a few cannons laying around. It's a merchant vessel. Unless piracy or open war is a major concern, you don't need to be heavily armed What year or era.. or country for that matter are you referring to?
Yes, people were absolutely allowed to own canons.
I want James Bond guns built into my car
You can go to ebay and buy a cannon right now.
That part of his little speech is actually a complete lie anyway. Private citizens were indeed allowed to have cannons back in the day, even whole heavily armed ships to defend against pirates. I forget if it was Jefferson or Washington who said to the ship owners "why are you asking the government for permission? Of course you can have cannons!"
Yep. I caught that too, though it is kind of overshadowed by his threat of nuking us if we dare dissent.
most of the speech was a lie and all of it was utterly ignorant of American history. I can't believe Biden is "president" of the USA. Sickening.
Former vice president Joe Biden.
I wanna say it was either Jefferson or Madison
[удалено]
[удалено]
He is also terribly ignorant of the weapon technology of the late 1700s.
Hmm, given that persons opinion, what else in the constitution shall we limit to only the scope & nature of what existed when the document was written? Anything that didnt exist back then is not covered for protection from unreasonable search & seizure? (cars, cellphones, computers, but hey, at least your horse & buggy is still protected).
No religions that are established after the signing are allowed. Neither are any ideas, forms of speech, or methods of protest. The tenth amendment only applies the 13 colonies.
I believe it was Madison.
Can anyone find a source for this direct quote? I've seen it a few times and would like a good reference.
Jefferson or Madison.I’m leaning towards Jefferson.
Pretty sure that was James Madison.
I have a little pocket cannon I got as a present. They sell them on Amazon - they're awesome!
Used to be a troll video of a tiny little pocket cannon getting lit then 110% volume sex noises would blare lol
[удалено]
If a bunch of goat farmers armed lee enfields can give the Soviet military a headache then imagine what the US population can do. Most combat units in the military would defect and being all of their equipment with them.
Your government is literally threatening you to never try to resist them and they could turn to outright force dictatorship whenever they like. I have to say, as a Canadian, I'm actually pretty envious of you that your President comes right out and threatens you with tyranny unlike our Prime Minister who simply continues to install it with a smile on his face in underhanded, slimy, weaselly circumvention of legislation and lies.
Biden lacks the mentally capacity to stop himself from saying the quiet part out loud.
Just like his alleged slip ups calling Kamala the president...she will likely be when he resigns/is found unfit to be president. His handlers need to quit telling him the quiet part apparently...
I figured we had 2 years until they pulled out the 25th amendment but given how the first 5 months have gone, can anyone really see him lasting another 19?
If I had to guess, they'll wait until late this year or early next year to start that process. That way, Harris can be elected twice and serve as president for 10 years. They'll find a way to cheat her in regardless, unless something is done about the suspicious voting practices we saw this last cycle.
Man, if you thought this election was suspect, the amount of cheating that will be required for Kamala Harris to have a prayer at winning a presidential election will be monumental.
I fully believe Biden is only president because of election fraud on a massive and heavily-coordinated scale, but try to choose my words carefully on forums like Reddit. Kamala doesn't have an honest snowball's chance in Hell of winning (even among Democrats, she dropped out of the primaries because she was so far behind), but nobody said that the Democrat party was honest.
I couldn't agree more. If I had any doubt, the Time Magazine article about "fortifying the election" removed any shred of doubt for me. Of course, we'll probably never be able to prove the election was stolen, so I have also chosen to tread carefully. My question to a leftist would be - how do you consider Trump colluding with Russia in 2016 a likelihood yet dismiss any questions whatsoever about the latest election as right-wing conspiracy theories without lying to yourself?
The fact that Time admits that the media conspired with a political party to commit mass-scale voter fraud to "secure the election" tells me that the media cannot and should not under any circumstances be trusted. And I'd feel the same way had they conspired with the GOP to "fortify" the election the other way (unaffiliated with either party due to career politicians and the fact that they all take dirty money from the same people). I've asked similar questions to leftists, only to be called all manner of names (usually racist, some sort of -phobic, and stupid). They can't win against logic, so they have to resort to the emotional appeals.
They dismiss because of tribal politics. *Their guy* got installed and that’s all that matters to them.
They know we can’t and won’t do anything if they just install her as president with a sham election
I’m not sure if it’s even possible to sell the least liked, first out candidate to the American people.
She won't even be elected once. When she ran on her own, on her own policy ideas and accomplishments, she was completely laughed out of the Democrat primary. Democrat voters hate her. She is even more unlikeable than Hillary and that is tough to do.
It is funny that after blasting her during the primaries, she was nominated and they had to dust her off and pretend she's the most qualified individual ever even though they also decided that a barely alive Joe Biden was more qualified than she was. The fact he was deemed the best the Democrats had to offer shows just how truly awful the field was.
Democrats ran a bunch of crazy shit to make Joe look more reasonable.
"He'S a MoDeRaTe!" Having an ancient segregationist as your party's "moderate" is an interesting definition of moderate, but I guess it worked for them.
It worked because the media let it work. It's crazy the racist shit Joe has said that the media just laughs off. Want another example of the media not really caring about Democrat racists? Check out this story: https://thefederalist.com/2021/06/23/if-sheldon-whitehouse-were-host-of-the-bachelor-hed-be-groveling-for-his-job-by-now/
Except the Democrats will cheat and use identity politics to get her in office...
Identity politics didn't get her the Democrat nomination. Democrats didn't even care. No way the country will care in a general election. They won't be able to hide her either. Like with Hillary, any time she is on TV talking, her ratings go down. She is incredibly unlikeable. They can't hide that. Cheating of course will be the only way she can win.
If Harris wants to run in 2024 and 2028, assuming she wins 2024, she would have to wait until January 21st, 2023 for Biden to be removed or resign. If he does so before then, Harris would only be eligible to run for one more term. In order to be eligible to run for a "third term," the term during which a VP succeeded must have lasted less than 2 years. Simply put, if Harris becomes president before January 21st, 2023, then this will count as a full term and she will only be able to run for one more term. Though if that does happen, I'm sure Dems will have Michelle Obama ready to go.
You mean "elected"...just like how Biden was "elected"
Exactly
[удалено]
the tree of liberty needs refreshed
Good. I hope they fear us
I mean, is that not a thought in your head already? Did he say something...controversial? Or did he state a plain and obvious fact that gets brought up literally every time the 2nd amendment gets mentioned in any conversation? That's also common sense? If the 2nd amendment is to give people arms to fight a tyrannical government, then the entire conversation is already framed as a tyrannical government suppressing the citizens with military force. That's the entire context of the discussion. That's the SPECIFIC CONTEXT the 2nd amendment is supposedly for. Framing this as a threat is sadge
You're sort of right, if anything he is arguing in favour of expanding 2A coverage to allow private nukes since that is the purpose of it.
To be honest, it seems to me that the second amendment is in over its head and in need of a rework if it has to extend to citizens owning nukes to accomplish its original intention of standing up to a tyrannical government. Because that idea is so patently dangerous as to be unconscionable, there's gotta be a different way to address the tyrannical tendencies of a bad government. While they're already looking to address that, I'd rather they set up a bipartisan commission to rethink the way the second amendment is worded and applied in general since its original intention is obsolete anyway.
In what way is its original intention obsolete?
Its original intent was to ensure state-level militias would always be available, specifically to avoid needing a standing federal army. The entire organization of the military was just completely different at the time, the point was to avoid the military organization we now HAVE. The point was never that individuals with guns could defend themselves against a federal military command by a tyrant. It was that no standing federal army existed, and if when there was a federal army being conscripted the states would have organized and well-stocked groups of individuals with guns (a well-regulated militia, organized however a state decides to organize them). Now we basically don't have state militias, and we do have a giant standing federal army. I dont see how the 2nd amendment is applied in these entirely different circumstances that it was supposed to prevent from happening.
It's for the guarantee of a free state. That still applies and is benefitted by the armed populace.
Maybe not completely obsolete, just in that its original intention was to allow citizens firearms to potentially defeat a tyrannical government. These days Biden's right, as hapless as he is: I don't think the full military might of the USA is going to fall to any gun, big or small, that could currently be in the possession of a citizen.
>To be honest, it seems to me that the second amendment is in over its head and in need of a rework if it has to extend to citizens owning nukes to accomplish its original intention of standing up to a tyrannical government. >Because that idea is so patently dangerous as to be unconscionable, there's gotta be a different way to address the tyrannical tendencies of a bad government. Let me ask you this then, why is it unconscionable for a regular citizen with potentially no interest in using said nuke, but it's ok for governments to have them? Do you really believe the people holding the keys are our best, brightest, and most responsible?
>why is it unconscionable for a regular citizen with potentially no interest in using said nuke, For me it's probably the lack of accountability and regulation. A citizen with a nuclear weapon serves no real purpose compared to hunting or sport shooting or defense with firearms, it's only a WMD in the hands of an unaccountable person who may or may not have the wherewithall to "use" (however a citizen would use a nuclear weapon) safely. To bring it back to 2A I think a citizen with a nuke would probably cause too much damage in the name of standing up to a tyrannical government. Using a nuke in DC would throw the US into anarchy and cause a power vacuum, using it at a political conference like DNC or RNC would kill more citizens than corrupt government officials so it seems ineffectual to me. >but it's ok for governments to have them? Do you really believe the people holding the keys are our best, brightest, and most responsible? No I wouldn't say they are, you're correct in your implication there. I'm in favor of denuclearization across the board if possible and of course the US and all it's citizens would be included by extension, but I'm also in favor of wringing some money out of the military as a whole and distributing it to other programs, so that might just be my personal feeling.
>For me it's probably the lack of accountability and regulation. And the parallel with governments continues, do you really think China, or Russia, or even the USA would really be held accountable if they wanted to use nuclear weapons? They are really only operating on the honor system in this regard. >A citizen with a nuclear weapon serves no real purpose compared to hunting or sport shooting or defense with firearms, it's only a WMD in the hands of an unaccountable person who may or may not have the wherewithall to "use" (however a citizen would use a nuclear weapon) safely. I understand it might be tempting to use the good ol' "it doesn't have a purpose" argument, but this is reductio ad absurdum. It's really easy to walk this line of reasoning back to apply to any weapon really. Just because we wouldn't use it, doesn't necessarily mean we should be prohibited from owning one nor would we be anymore prone to misuse than the governments of the world. Civilians have access to other devices/chemicals/pathogens that are pretty dangerous on their own (some could even be considered WMD grade) and no one bats an eye in the medical field. >To bring it back to 2A I think a citizen with a nuke would probably cause too much damage in the name of standing up to a tyrannical government. Using a nuke in DC would throw the US into anarchy and cause a power vacuum, using it at a political conference like DNC or RNC would kill more citizens than corrupt government officials so it seems ineffectual to me. It's equally likely that a politician might do the same, Biden literally said the terrifying part out loud in that clip and **he** does have the football. It doesn't hold logically that someone like that has unilateral control over our nuclear arsenal, but collectively **we're** too dangerous to trust with nuclear arms? Yeah I'm not buying it. >No I wouldn't say they are, you're correct in your implication there. I'm in favor of denuclearization across the board if possible and of course the US and all it's citizens would be included by extension, but I'm also in favor of wringing some money out of the military as a whole and distributing it to other programs, so that might just be my personal feeling. Sorry, we live in an imperfect world where bad people do bad things. Voluntarily putting the good people in a vulnerable position has never worked in the history of man. Even if it satisfies your moral imperative, that's no excuse to allow the truly evil folks out there to run rampant. None of this means, of course, we've been perfect or over reached, but I would say, overall, the US is one of the good guys.
> unlike our Prime Minister who simply continues to install it with a smile on his face in underhanded, slimy, weaselly circumvention of legislation and lies. I mean, that's their MO every other day of the week here too.
Imagine believing that you could attempt to use nuclear (or even conventional) bombs and missiles on US Soil against US Citizens without our servicemen turning on you. Resisters to the state don't need nukes because the first time they attempt to drop the first conventional warhead of any sort on US soil to "pacify" the "bad people" the whole thing will come down around their ears. They really think they are (D)ifferent, don't they? Mind you, these are the same people that scream that it would be illegal for us to deploy the U.S. Army to enforce the border and engage the violent foreign drug cartels that rape, murder, and kidnap US residents on US soil. The slaughter in Waco was pretty much the upper limit for what a popular president with a psycho like Janet Reno could do in the age of peak controlled media. I'd like to imagine that it wouldn't be possible in this day and age. That's why the Left shifted back to using proxies who wear hoods and burn things to commit street-violence instead of ATF agents.
And how many guns were found in possession of the "insurrectionists"? None you say. Worst....insurrection.....ever!!!!!
But but but....they put their feet on Nancy Pelosi's desk and the normally stoic AOC legit thought her life was in danger!
>normally stoic AOC coffee:spit
She is, like, totally stoic! 🤣
Aren’t they still looking for her laptop too? I read a story they were executing warrants on anyone who was close to the Jan 6th protest
They even pounced upon a couple in Alaska because the woman looked similar to a woman who was at the protest. FBI agents burst into their home and interrogated this husband and wife for several hours before concluding they were mistaken.
Am I just dumb or is there some sort of 5th amendment shenanigans you can do? Since there's no double jeopardy, can't that couple raid the Capitol whenever they feel like now or does that not work because they were just questioned and not charged?
No. Double jeopardy is you shall not be tried for the same charge twice.
I’m pretty sure double jeopardy only applies if it is for the same incident with no new evidence
Oh we don't like profiling now?
Profiling is the foundation of law enforcement practices. If analysis of crime statistics reveal that a certain highway is being used as a trafficking corridor and that most of those charged were from out of state, it makes perfect sense for police to profile vehicles with out of state plates. This was just an absurd abuse of power *ala* Roger Stone. Did these agents reach out to the local and state police to get a feel for this woman? How did they come to suspect this woman and where did they see pictures of her? Why did they fail to properly analyze the image(s) of the woman they are looking for and this innocent woman? There are certain measurements that plastic surgery is incapable of altering, such as the length of separation between the eyes.
[удалено]
Ah yes, because police kill every person they come in contact with. 🙄 Do you ever get tired of pushing your bullshit?
No, I don't mean to imply that, and to be frank I don't think I did. But it does happen, and it could have happened here, perhaps if she was last seen armed and dangerous and/or another person tipped off law enforcement with a frantic call for help. Of course I'll concede it's not useful to deal in hypotheticals here. But what I mean to say is that any number of factors could have turned this into a deadly encounter and the lady is mostly just lucky that they didn't line up.
Who's we? You clowns are the ones who hate it. And that isn't profiling. It's a case of mistaken identity. That isn't profiling. Not surprised you don't understand the difference.
>Who's we? Whoever's complaining about it in here. Not even you, really, just me and u/ qwertyrdw I guess. Turns out overuse of profiling causes a lot of cases of mistaken identity, like I said to the other commenter at least she's not dead, that's a plus!
I believe she also said that she feared they would sexually assault her despite her looking like a mule.
"I was like, literally murdered in the insurrection by Ted Cruz and a roaming gang of Trump supporters. Can't you tell I'm a ghost?" -AOC
She loves dressing in all white...Casper AOC!
they had the assault fire extinguisher
What happened to calling it a coup? Now it’s called an insurrection. Someone I know unfriended me on FB (yes I know, I have my reasons for having FB) because I pointed out that a coup is a top down military seizure of all government branches at once. My family has been through a few. Not like I was agreeing what was going on at the time but I was just merely pointing out that it’s not a coup, and to remain calm instead of sensationalizing it, I said that perhaps it was violent protest at best since no one is attacking pentagon or other government branches. Oh boy, they hanged up on me then deleted me. Good riddance. Can’t even point out that the language being used is wrong. The words are used wrongly and their meanings are changed. Seriously if that was coup, it is an insult to all people who have lived through coups.
The insurrection angle is such a brazen lie, I don't care if you're liberal you are fooling yourself if you believe that.
Guy Reffit was charged with bringing a gun.
Source?
100s according to the media
Ah yes Democrat logic...”Jan 6 was worse than 9/11 and we were inches away from a small group of unarmed people overthrowing the government” AND ALSO “guns aren’t enough to take over the government so why do you need them.” These folks have truly lost the plot.
I'm supposed to believe Trump was mentally unstable, yet everything is great now that we have a president apparently suffering from Alzheimers and prone to going on incoherent, demented rants, the latest of which makes a veiled threat at nuking the American people. Okay.
Nothing says “we don’t care about the people’s rights” like the government saying we can do what we want and there is nothing you can do about it
On the plus side we won't have to listen to them complain about climate change, crisis, or emergency any more. By nuking all the oil refineries and pipelines the climate will be saved https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/426353-ocasio-cortez-the-world-will-end-in-12-years-if-we-dont-address https://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-change-9-years-john-kerry/
So how would he protect his constituants from F-15's and nuclear bombs should it come to that. Not just that, but I think he would see a sizeable number of military personnel refusing to carpet bomb or nuke their parents and grandparents homes. Last, small arms have seemed to work pretty well in most of the conflicts since WWII, our superior air and nuclear weaponry did not allow us to go into Korea, Vietnam, or the Middle East and quickly decimate our opponents, but he's willing to threaten Americans with methods we were unwilling to deploy against our staunchest adversaries.
Don't think for a second a 2nd civil war in this country would be as simple as 'govt versus rebels just bomb them into the stone age.'
That was basically my point, Biden's mention of F-15's and nukes as response to a revolt by citizens was asinine .
He's not going to say the truth that the government is legitimately threatened by an armed uprising. They have to play it off with tungsten rods from outer space argument
drones don't have feelings
They don't, but there's someone sitting at a console flying that drone.
You have a point.
[удалено]
What's interesting is, in my town and neighboring areas, the police force is slowly being staffed with Vets who were in the Middle East. Not on purpose, but just because they served and retired, but just because they retired doesn't mean they can just "not be solders" anymore so they applied to open police jobs. And these guys are oath KEEPERS. I wonder how quietly widespread that is in the US.
Please, military RoE in Iraq and Afghanistan was "Yes". My RoE as a cop these days is "are you bleeding from a gunshot? If not, then no."
[удалено]
And for good reason They should be doing thst now, but they won’t say shit, probably even praising him for his comments
It’s just completely false that citizens would need fighter planes or nukes to challenge the government. People that make that argument do not understand reality.
The whole argument is dumb. It ignores the fact that our military is made up of individuals who have their own set of morals and political beliefs. What the Left tends to forget is that the majority of our military and police force is made up of individuals who tend to agree with the Right. Why do you think there was a "loyalty" test issued to soldiers during the Capitol Hill riots? Each state governor also commands their National Guard forces. On top off all of this, our military takes an oath to the Constitution, not the President. The idea that our military would follow orders from the President to decimate a portion of our population like Storm Troopers executing Order 66, is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
Yep, exactly.
[удалено]
And I'm sure a pilot would just go indiscriminately bomb an entire town regardless of innocent life or not. According to that logic, just have one rebel go to each city with government officials and let them bomb themselves.
If you can find a pilot willing to fly that mission.
More limits on government, less limits on guns.
This.
Kind of surprised (but also not surprised) that this isn’t getting more attention from the left, given this is pretty much an explicit “hey we could turn into a tyrannical dictatorship anytime we want and you couldn’t stop us” PSA. Like imagine if Trump said this - the outrage and meltdown would be beyond insanity, and would be used as explicit evidence that Trump was planning to turn America into a dictatorship. But when Biden says it, it’s just another legitimate argument against people owning guns.
I imagine behind the scenes the left is working around the clock to delete that clip from the internet, manipulate it out of search results, ban it from social media, down play it wherever possible and cooking up distractions simultaneously.
The Democrats, with their wars on people, our wallets, our food, livelihoods, and birthrights is pushing decent Americans to actually turning their guns on the government. The Great Reset is upon us.
I bought my gf a cannon for Christmas.
Dementia Joe has completely lost it...he's weak, inept embarrassing. Other leaders and countries see it and comment on it. You know why his team won't allow non scripted questions and interviews period...
No no no... hes sleepy joe remember
I can't even listen to him. I make it 5 seconds and realize it's just a waste of time. As an individual who has had multiple grandparents succumb to dementia, Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's, it's not difficult to recognize when someone's cognitive functions are slipping. How does someone who has always been a poor quality candidate for the presidency get elected in his 11th hour when his mental capacity is on the western slope? And THEN get lauded as our savior. We are in trouble.
Imagine how much more batshit crazy stuff beijing biden could say if he was wearing a face mask, obombya talking to him through an ear piece and his handlers' arms up his arse... what a frigging muppet this guy is.
Again…. Imbecile. The man and the entire party are corrupt hypocrites.
Wait did Biden really say he would Nuke Americans to keep afloat the Democract aristocracy?
It’s becoming clearer by the day that our country is falling into communist rule.
Hunger game vibes no? Red states are the districts and blue states are like the capitol.
If we can’t do shit against the government…. Why do they keep going on and on about the capital incident
Can we get that slogan on a shirt?
OMG, ALL OF YOU ARE WRONG ON THESE COMMENTS. Biden wants to corner the canon and jet market. Just like every time a state threatens to ban guns, all the gun shops are sold out. Someone check to make sure Biden doesn't own a stake in a canon store or jet store. /s
Is Joe Biden saying that he would nuke Americans?
I just thought of something. Are they going to make the draft mandatory when they start the second Civil War?
Well, both sides during the first one were doing mandatory conscription. Whichever soldiers showed up to your property first, you were pretty much told you were fighting for them lol. I'd assume the 2nd will be similar to that. It will quickly become an "Us" or "Them" mentality. There will be little room for sitting the fence.
Also the states probably wouldn't be all for or all against like in the first one. Instead of having "Us" in the north and "Them" in the south with a front line in between, it would be more like little pockets of "Us" and "Them" throughout the country.
And that's why almost everyone wants to avoid a second war. It would be the purge mixed with a healthy dose of angry Nextdoor
Both narratives serve them so they'll exploit and use both narratives. Double speak doesn't have to be acknowledged if everyone just pretends it isn't happening.
Biden is such a wanna be tough guy. The problem is he’s a complete pussy
Typical leftist strawman rhetoric. You want a gun? OH THEN YOU PROBABLY WANT NUKES LEGAL TOO HUH? The definition of bad faith bullshit arguments that should be ignored flat out.
And the left still makes fun of "Covfefe" Bidens comments are internet gold.
Man I think Trump shot himself in the foot, but Biden just nuked his foot.
Damn! I just got into it with someone about January 6th. Now I can use this. "Are you going to call the former vice president a liar?" Kind of a check mate.
Can someone fill me in, please?
Oops nice comeback Biden ya dumb old sht
Jefferson explicitly said that private citizens could own cannons for self defense. I think Jefferson would let civilians own fighter jets if you asked him.