Comments by "nexus1g" (@nexus1g) on "Thom Takes Down Deplorable Gun Nut" video.

  1. "You will not find a single reference anywhere in the founding documents of this country to the Second Amendment being there to fight a tyrannical government." You don't need to dig deep to disprove this claim. And don't think it was missed on me that you caught yourself, adding a very specific "founding documents" requirement so that you may no doubt later apply a no true Scotsman fallacy. I personally consider the Federalist Papers to be part of our founding documents. They are instrumental and specifically compiled by the Framers for the purpose of understanding the intentions of the Constitution. You'll find Madison reference this issue in Federalist 46: "Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it." In Federalist 84, Hamilton explains that the federal government is one of positive powers: "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights." This is instrumental to this issue because he's claiming that items that appear in the Bill of Rights, the federal government already doesn't have power over it. We can examine the Constitution and see the federal government is not given power over who can own what -- guns and otherwise. The Italian resistance was armed, and was a thorn in Mussolini's side for Italy's entire life as part of the Axis. It's arguable that a nation like Italy having to divide its resources to a war front front much less generously because of that home resistance had at least some positive impact in the war for the Allies. The essence of the cautionary tale against Nazis and guns does exist in actual history, with the actual history being, I think, a much better cautionary tale (just not as pithy as “Nazis confiscated guns.”). The actual tale begins at the end of World War I, when German leaders signed the Treaty of Versailles. As part of that treaty, the nation of Germany was limited on the number of arms it could have within its borders. Concerned of reprise, the German government (at this time called the Weimar Republic) wanted to concentrate arms into its military so it would be prepared to defend the country—you know, for the greater good. They did this under a stiff penalty of 10 years in prison and a 100,000 Mark fine. Regardless, there was a lot of nonconformity and push-back from the German people, including arguing how could they be capable of rebelling if need be. Very little arms were actually turned in. The Weimar Republic over the course of their tenure passed two other, stricter gun control laws and stepped up enforcement a great deal. So by the time the Nazis were coming to power, the hard work had already been done for them as part of some nebulous concept of what the leadership of the Weimar Republic viewed as “the greater good.” The Nazi party didn’t have to go out and confiscate weapons; they just had to loosen the laws to allow NSDAP party members have guns, refusing Jews the ability to have or trade in weapons, etc. Why should we ever pave the way for such egregious evil?
    1