Comments by "snuffeldjuret" (@snuffeldjuret) on "Kim Iversen: SCOTUS Could Overturn Roe V Wade And Expand Gun Rights In CULTURE WAR Session" video.

@theaviationist.5719 are you satisfied as long as people don't get that?
1
@theaviationist.5719 not sure why you write "It's all to do with chest pumping from the likes of you.." when you know that you will instantly lose any respect I have for you. You do know that, right? Why? Because you are no longer addressing what I say, you are addressing who you (wrongly) think I am. Ironic that you highlight your own stupidity with that reply rather than someone else's ;). "Then how are you going to be able to take on mighty US military ..." Do I really need to remind you of Afghanistan? You are a fool if you think it is easy to control a populus armed with assault rifles, just because they don't have nukes. I mean, I know you are a fool, the question is how big of a fool you are. Oh btw, I'm not American, I'm Swedish.
1
@charlieestrada8829 I'd say a fair interpretation is what the people need to be able to fend off a tyrannical government. You don't need nukes for that, just look at the Talibans.
1
@charlieestrada8829 "how can people lean SO heavily into the "its in the constitution so I'm allowed to do it" argument, when the constitution requires a subjective interpretation to even come to a conclusion?" You know the concepts of "the spirit of the law" and "the letter of the law"? The spirit of the law exist for a reason, one being that it is really difficult (I should say impossible) to write a comprehensive law that is all the time easily interpreted, and being so for hundreds and hundreds of years. This is the reality we have to live with, and I accept that.
1
@charlieestrada8829 "... you believe the spirit of the second amendment was to carry arms to prevent overthrow of a tyrannical government, yes?" Allow, but yes, that is how I understand the intent behind it. "... so why then are people allowed to use guns against, for instance, trespassers on their private property?" That is a separate thing though, that is just about how much and with what force you are allowed to defend yourself with. There are laws regarding what kind of self defense is allowed in other countries. "You say that nukes shouldn't be included as arms people may bear, because ..." I think that is a fair interpretation. It makes perfect sense that the people should be able to overthrow a tyrannical government, but one person, or a small group of, shouldn't be able to overthrow a non-tyrannical one. Power to the people, not the rich guy with the nukes :P. Sure, they could take him out, but why actively create the thing you want to avoid? "With that said, lets go to the other end of that spectrum.. how do you feel about hand guns? a standard 6-shot revolver would be pretty useless in overthrowing a government, wouldn't you agree? so should those be banned?" That is an interesting question. While I believe that rifles are needed to have a fighting chance, I wouldn't go as far as saying that handguns are useless given that (and the reasons thereof) US military branches still utilize handguns as sidearms. Now if you ask me for my personal opinion, if I could wave a magic wand and make every single handgun disappear, I would.
1
@charlieestrada8829 tbh, I haven't gotten the sense that you disagree with any of my opinions. Would you not remove all handguns if you could? :P Do you think people should be able to own nukes? :P
1
@charlieestrada8829 it is hardly obvious that there are some things we disagree on if you don't express any opinion :). Personally, I refrain from having opinions about things I don't know very well, so it is not that easy to find things to disagree with me on :).
1