Comments by "Charles Eye" (@TheCharleseye) on "Trump: Maybe '2nd Amendment People' Can Stop Hillary" video.

The second amendment to the Constitution exists to protect us from a tyrannical government. If Hillary Clinton tries to abolish the second amendment, she is taking the first major step towards that tyranny. MANY 2A supporters have said that it would be the last straw. That our right to dissolve and rebuild our government (as outlined in the Declaration of Independence) would be exercised at that point. Predicting that people would do exactly what they said they would do is not a death threat. If I said "This white guy is going to walk down the street shouting 'white power!' and nobody can do anything about it. Well, maybe the Black Panthers will do something but that will be a sad day" is that a death threat? No. It's a statement of the obvious outcome. Well, obvious to anyone who isn't trying to twist things to fit their agenda, anyway.
1
+darkenergylambda No. She said she would do everything in her power to overturn the Supreme Court's ruling - that the 2A applies to self defense. She's also said that she wants to do away with handguns and semiautomatic rifles. She's also said that she's fine with guns for hunting but nothing more. You're defending her, so why does it seem like I've seen more of her speeches? Secondly, I don't drink. Sorry. As for your sad interpretation of the second amendment, your ignorance to the types of firearms available at that time and your lack of understanding of the terms "well regulated" and "militia," I would invite you to take your history lessons from historians, not morning talk show hosts. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. But thanks for playing.
1
+DAK4Blizzard Let me see if I understand your argument. You're saying that the second amendment isn't to secure our ability to defend ourselves against tyranny.....because other Countries have strict gun laws and democracy? That doesn't make any sense. You might want to try again because your comment reads less like a coherent thought and more like you accidentally regurgitated two separate things you've read before at the same time. Maybe start with explaining your first position: If the second amendment isn't what I claim it is, then what is it? Then maybe you can move on to explaining why you think other Countries' laws have any bearing on the reason our Constitutional Rights exist.
1
+DAK4Blizzard Oh really? Please quote the part that says anything about hunting or even securing property for that matter. Last I checked there's nothing in there about either. Now, the Supreme Court has said that our Right to keep and bear arms is ALSO (meaning additionally to the original intent specified) for the sake of self defense and defense of property but even THEY have made no mention of hunting that I've ever seen. Where are you getting this ridiculous information from?
1
+DAK4Blizzard And there you have it. That would be the inherent flaw in your argument. You seem to think that your observational opinion has some bearing on the legal ramifications of our Constitution. Trust me, it doesn't. You and your opinions are in no way important to our founding documents. A couple of things for you to do some research on to help you better understand the Country you live in: A) The Constitution B) The Declaration of Independence C) The Federalist Papers These are a good place to start. And remember, your opinion is not legal doctrine. P.S. The United States is not a Democracy. It's a Constitutional Republic with some key democratic features. I understand that you don't like history but refusing to understand it for the sake of lying to yourself about the Country you live in is just sad.
1
+DAK4Blizzard SCOTUS can't repeal an amendment. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You don't know the first thing about our government, our founding documents or how the system works. I'm not going to be your history and law professor. If you have ground to stand on, do so. So far I've had nothing to defend against because you haven't said anything remotely accurate to refute my original claims. Please, either present something more substantial than "I've never seen an armed rebellion and other Countries have gun laws, so the second amendment is for hunting" or find someone else's leg to hump. I'll help you. You need to show how "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" means "Guns are for hunting and home security." I don't even need to cite the Federalist Papers to show that you're wrong. A basic grasp of the English language is really all that's needed.
1
+DAK4Blizzard You still haven't said anything that counters my claims. Why would I bother digging through anything to refute...nothing?
1
+DAK4Blizzard Win your point? You never made any points about the security of a free State. You said we don't use militias to defend the Country any more. There's a big difference between defending the Country as a whole and defending a State. Tell me, in the event of a tyrannical government taking power (and givennour two options, it's hardly far fetched), which branch(es) of the military would be designated for the government and which would be set aside to protect us from said government? Oh, that's right. There isn't a clause for that when you enlist. When you serve in the military, the President is your commander in chief. We're on the cusp of having either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton in charge of the most powerful military in the world...and you don't think we still need to be able to defend ourselves from tyranny? Ha! You're a funny one, I'll give you that.
1
+DAK4Blizzard Yes, because historically, the bigger army always wins, right? I mean, that's why we're still a British colony after all. It's also why we so easily dispatched the Vietnamese and the North Koreans in those wars, right? Wait, no. We didn't. So let's try to tidy this up because now you're just trying to spread it in every direction possible. Your claim is that the second amendment - which specifically lists militias as the primary reason for our Right to bear arms and outlines no other reason whatsoever - is not for the sake of being able to form militias. You claim that it has somehow transformed into meaning that we get to have guns for home defense and hunting and that it no longer applies to militias because you feel we don't need them any more. That's a pretty bold claim but I'll make it really easy for you. Just provide a link to the documents that changed the meaning of the second amendment to exclude militias and to include hunting (I've already seen the Heller transcripts, so I don't need you to show that they add self/home defense to the definition). It's that easy. My claim is that the second amendment applies to militias and self/home defense. I've now cited my sources, which are the second amendment itself and the SCOTUS' Heller decision. Your "every day observations" don't trump written law. So, all you need is two sources. One for the addition of hunting to, and one for the exclusion of militias from the definition of the second amendment. It's really that simple. Please don't respond without your sources. You don't actually have an argument without them. Your opinion as to whether militias are necessary is irrelevant. My opinion as to whether militias are necessary is irrelevant. We're talking about the legal definition of the second amendment to the Constitution. So, no more redirects. No more rhetoric. Just facts. PROVE that I'm wrong or walk away.
1
+DAK4Blizzard So you're saying that you can't provide any evidence to support your claim that the second amendment is NOT for the sake of militias and that it IS for hunting.....so you're going to attempt to redirect. Again. Sorry but no dice. Provide sources to back up your claims. It should be easy. Why are you dodging? Is the second amendment for hunting or not? If so, show documentation. Has the second amendment been changed to exclude militias or not? If so, show documentation. I'll be happy to pick apart the rest of your nonsense as soon as you back up the cornerstone to your entire argument. If you can't then you don't have an argument to pick apart.
1