Clinging to Guns and Religion

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by nailer

Since he doesn't appear to know, I'll tell you again. Self defense and being able to fight a tyrant who is taking over our nation, which Trump clearly isn't. These two rights remain until the Supremes sing otherwise.

Scalia iirc said, the 2nd permits home defense with a handgun. Nothing else, afaik.

The tyranny bit is a false assumption, absent from the Second in word and intent. Armed insurrection against Federal authority is not a Constitunally granted protected right.

Trump is at least a would be tyrant as POTUS by demeanor.
His removal would be arguably justifiable by any rational judgement of ethical behavior.

[nailer]

The tyranny bit isn't a false assumption and having the means at hand to fight a tyrant who has usurped Federal authority is why it's part of the second.

Would be doesn't matter, but is does. If we are ever in actual danger of being under a tyrant's boot, firearms would be an excellent tool in defending our homes. Pretty sure Scalia would concur.

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by nailer

The tyranny bit isn't a false assumption and having the means at hand to fight a tyrant who has usurped Federal authority is why it's part of the second.

Would be doesn't matter, but is does. If we are ever in actual danger of being under a tyrant's boot, firearms would be an excellent tool in defending our homes. Pretty sure Scalia would concur.

If that was the intent, it would have been part of the wording. It's just not there.

[JJIII]

Originally Posted by nailer

Since he doesn't appear to know, I'll tell you again. Self defense and being able to fight a tyrant who is taking over our nation, which Trump clearly isn't. These two rights remain until the Supremes sing otherwise.

Wrong.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by JJIII

Wrong.

Pray tell us then. Or are you saying you actually don't know as oppossed to appearing not to?

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Obama caught a ration of shit for criticizing the type of rednecks who cling to their guns or religion. It seems he was right on the mark.

NEWFOUNDLAND, Pa. — Crown-wearing worshippers clutching AR-15 rifles drank holy wine and exchanged or renewed wedding vows in a commitment ceremony at a Pennsylvania church on Wednesday, prompting a nearby school to cancel classes.

With state police and a smattering of protesters standing watch outside the church, brides clad in white and grooms in dark suits brought dozens of unloaded AR-15s into World Peace and Unification Sanctuary for a religious event that doubled as an advertisement for the Second Amendment.

The church, which has a worldwide following, believes the AR-15 symbolizes the “rod of iron” in the book of Revelation, and encouraged couples to bring the weapons.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...uns/383815002/

Just saw this thread. Don't go to church much, do ya? If you did you'd know that many a call from many a pulpit, including last Sunday in my church, called for action on restriction of guns.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by whell

Just saw this thread. Don't go to church much, do ya? If you did you'd know that many a call from many a pulpit, including last Sunday in my church, called for action on restriction of guns.

Interesting, until now I didn't perceive you as a gun worshipping redneck. But since you just implied being one who am I to argue.

[whell]

Originally Posted by nailer

Interesting, until now I didn't perceive you as a gun worshipping redneck. But since you just implied being one who am I to argue.

Interesting. Until now I didn't know you clung to absurd stereotypes.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by whell

Interesting. Until now I didn't know you clung to absurd stereotypes.

To which stereotype am I clinging? Before answering you might reread the excerpt finnbow quoted in the OP which is the basis of my riff on your reply to his post.

[Pio1980]

Depends on the church, quite a few wanted a venal self-identified unapologetic pussygrabbing profligate liar in the Oval.