Comments by "Incurable Romantic" (@incurableromantic4006) on "Texas governor seeks to pardon man convicted of killing BLM protester" video.

@sethphillips6810 "Owning weapons or cars isn’t the problem if you are responsible" Ah - so the problem is the individual, not the weapon then? "Militia’s back then functioned as the arm" No that's completely wrong. There were regular armies in existence in the 18th century, including the one who the 13 colonists had just defeated to gain their independence. The founders were extremely distrustful of them precisely because they were tools of state power. Hence the 3rd amendment restriction on quartering. "“shall not be infringed” as if this is the only sentence of the entire amendment" It is. There is only one full stop in the 2nd amendment. The one at the end. It's not written in code - it's very simple language. "Republicans would tell you the only three sentences in the whole constitution are freedom of speech, right to bear arms shall not be infringed, and states rights while they ignore the rest." Perhaps if liberals were not so determined to destroy all three of those rights - it would not be necessary to keep repeating them. Most liberals think the constitution contains protection for abortion and gay marriage - proving they have never even read it.
3
@sethphillips6810 To start with - learn to use paragraphs. "It’s the unregulated access to weapons" Clearly you have never purchased a firearm if you believe that. But at least you've dropped that very silly car analogy you were trying to push. "I never said anything about there not being standing armies in the 18th century". You stated that "militias back then functioned as the army" - thereby proving you didn't know what either of those words meant. You also clearly don't know that the American revolutionaries created a regular army to supplement the militia system. So those who wrote the constitution absolutely knew there was a difference even if you don't. I'm British and yet know both your history and your constitution better than you do. You even thought the second amendment had multiple sentences, which strongly suggests you've never read the constitution. The rest of your post degenerated into a long stream of woke clichés that are just as wrong as your comment on the revolutionary war. But I'll just tell you of the existence of the 10th amendment which states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people Therefore liberals forcing gay "marriage" onto states that didn't want it - was a violation of the constitution. but restoring authority over abortion to the states: was constitutionally correct So your home-work is to go read the constitution before you tell me anything more about a document that I've read and you haven't.
3
Then the mob would have dragged him out and beaten and or killed him. A worse outcome than one of the aggressors getting shot.
2
@sethphillips6810 Actually your vehicle license is to drive on a public road - not to own a car. So the equivalent might be a concealed carry permit. "you don’t NEED a gun to function in the modern world" Self defence is a human right. Driving is not.
2
@sethphillips6810 "okay and your point ?" The point is pretty obvious - your analogy that "you need a licence for a car so you should need one for a gun" - is a false one. You don't need a license to own a car, even though the US constitution has no clause protecting car ownership as it has protecting firearms ownership. "Owning a weapon is not a human right" Yes it is. As the constitution recognises. Without access to a weapon you cannot defend yourself effectively - and exist at the whim of those who are armed.
2
@sethphillips6810 "can you legally operate a car without fulfilling these requirements?" Yes you can drive a vehicle on private land or on private roads without a license. Just as you can own a firearm in your own home without having a concealed carry permit. Maybe you should just accept you made a poor analogy, and stop trying to defend it. "You have a human right to self defense, and a constitutional right to own a firearm" Thank you. That was all you needed to concede. "the original amendment talks about it being for the purpose of operating a well regulated militia" Preamble is not pre-condition, and a militia means a body not controlled by the government. Otherwise it's an "army", not a militia. I find this frustratingly common with anti-gun people. They just repeat the same lines they've heard other people say without ever analysing them.
2
@sethphillips6810 I'm glad you've figured out how to use paragraphs - we're making progress. - If you wish to know something about gun laws: the ATF website is probably a good place to start, as would any good firearms channel on Youtube. Both will quickly dispel your naïve assertion that there are no laws regarding firearms ownership. This was a mistake many Democrats made during the 2020 riots when they went to their local gun-store and requested "one of those assault rifles that you don't need a background check for" - and were shocked when they were told the media had in fact lied to them. What made it especially delicious was that many of them then failed the very background checks that they themselves had bewailed the supposed lack of. - Your continued claim that the army and militia "mean the same thing", strongly suggests your knowledge of the era remains close to zero. You didn't even know there was a regular army in the revolutionary period until I told you. "The same hill segregationist and confederates used to support leaving the Union and keeping segregation?" Err - no. They asserted the right of voluntary association to justify leaving the union in 1860. Hence why at the time the country was referred to as "these United States" rather than "THE United States". As to the other claim: 1. Who uses a law has no bearing on it being the law or not. 2. The 10th was also used by free (Republican) states to resists demands to return escaped slaves to slave (Democrat) states. Both of which you really ought to know if you have the qualifications you claim. A claim I find doubtful given the countless elementary facts I have had to educate you about. "Gay marriage is protected by the 14th amendments “equal protection clause” as per our Supreme Court. " As I explained to you - the 10th amendment refers all matters not specifically to the federal government to the states. Since there is no such referral of marriage to the federal government - the "homosexual marriage" ruling is, and remains fundamentally unconstitutional. As was Roe V Wade prior to it being rightly struck down. Your ignorance of your own county's history and laws is shocking. Or at least - it would be it were not so typical for members of your movement.
2
@xvi1128 There's literally video of him doing it.
2
@syyner1748 Why should the burden of responsibility be on law abiding people to avoid contact with criminals?
2
There's video of the Antifa guy pointing the rifle at Perry - so all the witnesses who claim that never happened, just perjured themselves.
1
@sethphillips6810 "I did not state that there were not gun laws" What you said was: "Texas gun laws which are SLIM TO NO REGULATION surrounding purchasing a firearm" I've noticed this several times with you - every time I demonstrate a claim you made is false: you then try to claim you never said it. "I think you are referring to the Post revolutionary period. Not revolutionary" (SIGH) No kid. The continental army was formed in 1775. The war ended in 1783. This is the problem - you don't know even the most, elementary, grade-school level facts about the period: but demand to be considered an authority. None of this is hard to look up - you just don't care enough to bother. Can you give me any reason why I should bother wading through the rest of that incredibly long-winded post when in the first two paragraphs, you've both lied about your own claim, and shown me you don't know even the very basic time line of the events you're describing? Does it get better after the first two? I doubt it somehow.
1
"if a governor doesn’t like a judicial verdict, he/she just override it" That's literally why the concept of pardons exists moron.
1
@xvi1128 Yes. Youtube won't allow links but it takes 30 seconds of googling to find the still of the aggressor pointing the rifle at his head.
1
@syyner1748 We can't be certain since there are no records of jury deliberations - but lies, intimidation, concealing of evidence, and ideological bias are all good candidates. It's how they got Dereck Chauvin convicted for Floyd taking an overdose after all.
1