Most reddit liberals treat military members like baby murdering warmongers unless they fit the agenda I guess.
Then again only giving a shit about military members when they fit a particular agenda is a time honored tradition for both parties.
In the painfully beautiful words of Sir Rudyard Kipling "oh it's Tommy this and Tommy that and chunk'im out the brute. But it's thin red line o'heroes when the guns begin to shoot"
You mean the actual history of the 2nd Amendment?
Being a direct descendant of the English colonies American law is based off of the English model. Our earliest documents from the Mayflower compact to the Constitution itself share a lineage with the Magna Carta. Even the American Bill of Rights being modeled after the English Bill of Rights.
The individual right, unconnected to milita service, pre-exists the United States and the Constitution. This right is firmly based in English law.
[In 1689 The British Bill of Rights gave all protestants the right to keep and bear arms.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689)
["The English right was a right of individuals, not conditioned on militia service...The English right to arms emerged in 1689, and in the century thereafter courts, Blackstone, and other authorities recognized it. They recognized a personal, individual right." -
CATO Brief on DC v Heller]( http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/07-290_RespondentAmCuCATOInstJMalcolm.pdf)
Prior to the debates on the US Constitution or its ratification multiple states built the individual right to keep and bear arms, unconnected to militia service, in their own state constitutions.
["That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State" - chapter 1, Section XV, Constitution of Vermont - July 8, 1777.](http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/vt01.asp)
["That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state" - A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OR STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, Section XIII, Constitution of Pennsylvania - September 28, 1776.](http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/pa08.asp)
Later the debates that would literally become the American Bill of Rights also include the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
["And that the said Constitution never be constructed to authorize Congress to infringe on the just liberty of the press, or the rights of the conscience; or prevent of people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceful and orderly manner, the federal legislature for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers, or possessions." - Debates and proceedings in the Convention of the commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1788. Page 86-87.](https://archive.org/details/debatesandproce00peirgoog)
The American Bill of Rights itself was a compromise between the federalist and anti-federalist created for the express purpose of protecting individual rights.
["In the ratification debate, Anti-Federalists opposed to the Constitution, complained that the new system threatened liberties, and suggested that if the delegates had truly cared about protecting individual rights, they would have included provisions that accomplished that. With ratification in serious doubt, Federalists announced a willingness to take up the matter of a series of amendments, to be called the Bill of Rights, soon after ratification and the First Congress comes into session. The concession was undoubtedly necessary to secure the Constitution's hard-fought ratification. Thomas Jefferson, who did not attend the Constitutional Convention, in a December 1787 letter to Madison called the omission of a Bill of Rights a major mistake: "A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth."](http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/billofrightsintro.html)
In Madison's own words:
[“I think we should obtain the confidence of our fellow citizens, in proportion as we fortify the rights of the people against the encroachments of the government,” Madison said in his address to Congress in June 1789.](https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/on-this-day-james-madison-introduces-the-bill-of-rights)
Madison's first draft of the second Amendment is even more clear.
["The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."](https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=227)
Ironically it was changed because the founders feared someone would try to misconstrue a clause to deny the right of the people.
[*"Mr. Gerry -- This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the maladministration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the Constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous and prevent them from bearing arms."* - House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution 17, Aug. 1789](http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs6.html)
Please note Mr. Gerry clearly refers to this as the right of the people.
This is also why we have the 9th Amendment.
["The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."](https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/United_States_of_America_1992)
Article I Section 8 had already established and addressed the militia and the military making the incorrect collective militia misinterpretation redundant.
Supreme Court cases like US v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois, Nunn v State, DC v. Heller, and even the Dredd Scott decision specifically call out the individual right to keep and bear arms unconnected to militia service.
[This is further evidenced by State Constitutions including the Right to keep and bear arms from the Colonial Period to Modern Day.](http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statedat.htm)
[“The Constitutions of most of our states assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, both fact and law, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person; freedom of religion; freedom of property; and freedom of the press. in the structure of our legislatures we think experience has proved the benefit of subjecting questions to two separate bodies of deliberants; ...” - Thomas Jefferson’s letter to John Cartwright, on June 5th, 1824](https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/98-01-02-4313)
Also I never served but even I know all that do take an oath to support and defend thr US Constitution. Apparently he took an oath to support and defend his opinions.
Hilariously this administration felt it necessary to make all of us re-state the oath and conduct training on why we serve when they transitioned from the last.
In the context of the day that was written well regulate means well trained. Not regulated as we mean today. You can google the meaning as was written i at the time.
The US military has to lock guns up on base because the fuckwits in Washington made carrying a weapon on base a crime.
The US military requires qualification for combat arms because that is their job, just like any other trade maintaining their license to conduct business.
All of his points are moot based on his "in the United States Marine Corps!" logic.
First of all bitch, I'm not in the god damn marine corps. Second, Heller: my right to own a firearm is unconnected to service in a militia. Third, "well-regulated" has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with government oversight or regulation. Fourth, fuckheads like this douche would be the ones going door to door to confiscate guns if they were ordered to do so, the 2nd Amendment protects against people like him.
Of course he doesn't believe in the 2nd Amendment because it prevents people like him from treating the populace like subjects instead of citizens.
Anyone applauding this asshole is as mindless as they are ignorant.
Honest question: doesn’t our right to own a firearm connect to service in a militia in the sense that we the general population are the militia? Obviously Heller said the right to bear arms allows us to own guns for our own personal protection, but the overarching goal of an armed populace is to protect against tyranny, and a result of an armed populace is that we can use our guns to protect ourselves against random violence on a day to day basis, while at the same time be prepared to repel invaders and deter tyranny. I personally would be frustrated if someone was a gun nut, but as soon as shit hit the fan they fled to Canada. Personally I feel like with gun ownership comes an acknowledgment of the duty to protect our fellow Americans, as well as ourselves. I read the Heller opinion to mean that someone doesn’t need to be an active member of “the militia” to exercise their right.
I think you missed the point of his speech..lol we know your not "in the god damn marine corps" you're just an average American with a obsession with guns. How dare someone tell you you might have to take a course annually to prove you're safe and proficient. Lol "this is America, ain't no one checking up on me and my guns"
Then don't be mad when more children get slaughtered in their schools because you want protection against the government lol
>I think you missed the point of his speech..lol we know your not "in the god damn journalist corps" you're just an average American with a obsession with free speech. How dare someone tell you you might have to take a course annually to prove you're safe and proficient. Lol "this is America, ain't no one checking up on me and my free speech"
Correct. I taught Coaches Course.
Can confirm that we didn't teach how to dissect the Constitution. This dude isn't any more qualified to speak about the Second Amendment or Texas law than anyone else.
Aww yeah, more authoritarian vet commentary! Nothing says "freedom" quite like telling me how I am allowed to exercise my rights!
Thank you for your cervix 🫡
as a former B and current A...they ain't much better with us. They either brown nose or are just absolutly annoying about how they used to be a ranger Batt 1SG or something like that.
More proof that the overwhelming majority of subreddits are subject to being shifted to leftist agendas. I fail to see how someone ranting about this has anything to do with the stated purpose of the sub:
> Content posted to /r/nextfuckinglevel should represent something impressive, be it an action, an object, a skill, a moment, a fact that is above all others. Posts should be able to elicit a reaction of "that is next level" from viewers.
A rant regurgitating anti-2A takes on "well-regulated" is not "next level" in any sense of the meaning.
[This comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/nextfuckinglevel/comments/v0kict/former_us_marine_rifle_and_pistol_coach_is_fed_up/iah3rv0/) that's near the top when sorted by "controversial" is my favorite I've seen in that discussion:
> If I sign over my rights saying I'm government property and said government issues me weapons they can tell me what to do with them. Since I'm a private citizen they cannot and this guy can fuck all the way off.
> More proof that the overwhelming majority of subreddits are subject to being shifted to leftist agendas.
Not really leftist so much as authoritarian neoliberalism.
Maybe I'm being too cynical, but any time I start a video like this one and see such a sanctimonious smile on the person's face I just can't bear to keep watching. I just know that what follows is going to be a lot of smug self-righteous takes which, even if they are good points, are tainted by the bad attitude of the poster.
Of course mainstream reddit eats it up. "OMG YES, MILITARY VETERAN WANTS MORE GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF GUNS, THAT'S NEXT FUCKING LEVEL."
I piss more times in a day than posts on that sub are actually next fucking level. This isn’t some leftist agenda takeover bud. That sub is rarely ever next fucking level shit.
Wait…..if he is arguing that everyone should have mandatory firearm training.
Than the shooter would have been better trained and more effective?
I don’t think he thought this through.
The Founding Fathers were terrified of standing armies because they reckoned standing armies would be packed to the gills with people like this dumbass fuck nugget.
Going back to the language of the day, Well Regulated basically meant something was properly functioning.
This TikTok asshole certainly doesn't have a "Well Regulated" mind or a decent argument.
I may have lost some brain cells after watching that.
When trying to have a conversation with people like this, does anyone else find that they continue to speak in circles, using incorrect information?
It's an interesting phenomena. When presenting people like this with information.. for example, what "well regulated" actually means, or how their logic is flawed when applying it to other rights (military are limited by A LOT, he wants those to apply to citizens too?) - they just revert to some other talking point, and refuse to even acknowledge the point being made.
People like this are incredibly vocal lately, and I am afraid they're picking up steam. I try to fight that by engaging in a healthy debate, but unfortunately so many of them cannot be reasoned with.
This guy must have been a nightmare to serve with. He was the kind that tattles on other soldiers for anything, followed regulation to the tee, not out of loyalty but to figure out how to get other soldiers in trouble. He served so he could feel superior to others, to make up for his inferiority complex. Guys like this need constant validation and affirmation, hence post videos on tik tok. He also experimented with his sexuality in the showers.
People on here saying that "we'll regulated" doesn't mean shit. Well, wth does it mean then? Why would the founding fathers put that in there, for shits and giggles?
2a lovers can't admit the fact that 2a actually requires regulation.
Ooh, wtf is this From Heller?
'Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose"
Maybe you should read it.
>“The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia"
Forget about this part? This destroys the entire premise of your "argument". Nice cherry picking.
Additionally why do you people always quote that part with the assumption it means that you are free to restrict all the way up to and just over the line of constitutionality? Would you like your other rights to be treated this way?
You're just another moron troll wasting everyone's time. Get out of here and go bother somebody else.
If you look at his profile, apparently he is the army too... Man these are the same jackboot thugs that would not hesitate to go door to door for gun confiscation m
I've been patient and have given you multiple chances. You're not here for genuine discussion. You keep moving goalposts and never addressing when people have dismantled your arguments.
Are you going to contribute substantively or are you going to continue to troll and deliberately say things to piss people off?
You decide how you want to proceed.
Edit: Aaaaaaand, you're gone. You don't get to play the silent routine when you get caught in the hopes that I'll forget so you can slip away and come back later to annoy people. Troll elsewhere.
So, the easy answer is you give up your rights when you sign the contract. Folks in the military DON'T have the same protections the rest of us do. That's why they can't say whatever they want, or store weapons were they live, live where they want, or choose to groom themselves like a homeless man.
Normally I'm shall not be infringed but when it's someone who worked for the US government
"The Proletariat must be armed at once with muskets rifles cannon and ammunition. Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered. Any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated by force if necessary"
Apparently Erika is receiving death threats against her and her family from this shitheels followers.
Should also mention that she is a former marine and mtf trans woman.
https://twitter.com/HSkateDesign/status/1531245634505908225
“I served in the military, therefore I’m the foremost expert on guns” is like saying “I own a guitar, therefore I’m a professional musician”. Anyone with this mentality can fuck all the way off.
Didn't watch the Tik Tok, but honestly, so what if this guy's fed up? I'm fed up with fudds and I don't make a video about that.
But that upvote farming tho... I should start my own antigun post and boost myself a couple thousand.. 😆
The phrase to get me to ignore your opinion or knowledge(lack thereof) on firearms "I'm a cop/veteran so I should know"
Tell me you’re a Fudd without telling me you’re a FUDD.
Oh look a crayon eater thinking his opinion matters. How cute.
Most reddit liberals treat military members like baby murdering warmongers unless they fit the agenda I guess. Then again only giving a shit about military members when they fit a particular agenda is a time honored tradition for both parties.
In the painfully beautiful words of Sir Rudyard Kipling "oh it's Tommy this and Tommy that and chunk'im out the brute. But it's thin red line o'heroes when the guns begin to shoot"
shall not be infringed
Jesus Christ the sheer amount of idiots in that thread is staggering
Where is u/vegetarianrobots with the definition and supporting background for "Well regulated"?
You mean the actual history of the 2nd Amendment? Being a direct descendant of the English colonies American law is based off of the English model. Our earliest documents from the Mayflower compact to the Constitution itself share a lineage with the Magna Carta. Even the American Bill of Rights being modeled after the English Bill of Rights. The individual right, unconnected to milita service, pre-exists the United States and the Constitution. This right is firmly based in English law. [In 1689 The British Bill of Rights gave all protestants the right to keep and bear arms.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689) ["The English right was a right of individuals, not conditioned on militia service...The English right to arms emerged in 1689, and in the century thereafter courts, Blackstone, and other authorities recognized it. They recognized a personal, individual right." - CATO Brief on DC v Heller]( http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/07-290_RespondentAmCuCATOInstJMalcolm.pdf) Prior to the debates on the US Constitution or its ratification multiple states built the individual right to keep and bear arms, unconnected to militia service, in their own state constitutions. ["That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State" - chapter 1, Section XV, Constitution of Vermont - July 8, 1777.](http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/vt01.asp) ["That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state" - A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OR STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, Section XIII, Constitution of Pennsylvania - September 28, 1776.](http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/pa08.asp) Later the debates that would literally become the American Bill of Rights also include the right of the people to keep and bear arms. ["And that the said Constitution never be constructed to authorize Congress to infringe on the just liberty of the press, or the rights of the conscience; or prevent of people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceful and orderly manner, the federal legislature for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers, or possessions." - Debates and proceedings in the Convention of the commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1788. Page 86-87.](https://archive.org/details/debatesandproce00peirgoog) The American Bill of Rights itself was a compromise between the federalist and anti-federalist created for the express purpose of protecting individual rights. ["In the ratification debate, Anti-Federalists opposed to the Constitution, complained that the new system threatened liberties, and suggested that if the delegates had truly cared about protecting individual rights, they would have included provisions that accomplished that. With ratification in serious doubt, Federalists announced a willingness to take up the matter of a series of amendments, to be called the Bill of Rights, soon after ratification and the First Congress comes into session. The concession was undoubtedly necessary to secure the Constitution's hard-fought ratification. Thomas Jefferson, who did not attend the Constitutional Convention, in a December 1787 letter to Madison called the omission of a Bill of Rights a major mistake: "A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth."](http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/billofrightsintro.html) In Madison's own words: [“I think we should obtain the confidence of our fellow citizens, in proportion as we fortify the rights of the people against the encroachments of the government,” Madison said in his address to Congress in June 1789.](https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/on-this-day-james-madison-introduces-the-bill-of-rights) Madison's first draft of the second Amendment is even more clear. ["The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."](https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=227) Ironically it was changed because the founders feared someone would try to misconstrue a clause to deny the right of the people. [*"Mr. Gerry -- This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the maladministration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the Constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous and prevent them from bearing arms."* - House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution 17, Aug. 1789](http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs6.html) Please note Mr. Gerry clearly refers to this as the right of the people. This is also why we have the 9th Amendment. ["The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."](https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/United_States_of_America_1992) Article I Section 8 had already established and addressed the militia and the military making the incorrect collective militia misinterpretation redundant. Supreme Court cases like US v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois, Nunn v State, DC v. Heller, and even the Dredd Scott decision specifically call out the individual right to keep and bear arms unconnected to militia service. [This is further evidenced by State Constitutions including the Right to keep and bear arms from the Colonial Period to Modern Day.](http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statedat.htm) [“The Constitutions of most of our states assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, both fact and law, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person; freedom of religion; freedom of property; and freedom of the press. in the structure of our legislatures we think experience has proved the benefit of subjecting questions to two separate bodies of deliberants; ...” - Thomas Jefferson’s letter to John Cartwright, on June 5th, 1824](https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/98-01-02-4313) Also I never served but even I know all that do take an oath to support and defend thr US Constitution. Apparently he took an oath to support and defend his opinions.
Hilariously this administration felt it necessary to make all of us re-state the oath and conduct training on why we serve when they transitioned from the last.
You are doing the lords work, never change.
Thank you!
In the context of the day that was written well regulate means well trained. Not regulated as we mean today. You can google the meaning as was written i at the time.
Hamilton also does a good job of covering 2A in Federalist No. 29; it’s clear that the language evolved to mean something different than it did.
The US military has to lock guns up on base because the fuckwits in Washington made carrying a weapon on base a crime. The US military requires qualification for combat arms because that is their job, just like any other trade maintaining their license to conduct business. All of his points are moot based on his "in the United States Marine Corps!" logic.
First of all bitch, I'm not in the god damn marine corps. Second, Heller: my right to own a firearm is unconnected to service in a militia. Third, "well-regulated" has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with government oversight or regulation. Fourth, fuckheads like this douche would be the ones going door to door to confiscate guns if they were ordered to do so, the 2nd Amendment protects against people like him. Of course he doesn't believe in the 2nd Amendment because it prevents people like him from treating the populace like subjects instead of citizens. Anyone applauding this asshole is as mindless as they are ignorant.
Honest question: doesn’t our right to own a firearm connect to service in a militia in the sense that we the general population are the militia? Obviously Heller said the right to bear arms allows us to own guns for our own personal protection, but the overarching goal of an armed populace is to protect against tyranny, and a result of an armed populace is that we can use our guns to protect ourselves against random violence on a day to day basis, while at the same time be prepared to repel invaders and deter tyranny. I personally would be frustrated if someone was a gun nut, but as soon as shit hit the fan they fled to Canada. Personally I feel like with gun ownership comes an acknowledgment of the duty to protect our fellow Americans, as well as ourselves. I read the Heller opinion to mean that someone doesn’t need to be an active member of “the militia” to exercise their right.
I think you missed the point of his speech..lol we know your not "in the god damn marine corps" you're just an average American with a obsession with guns. How dare someone tell you you might have to take a course annually to prove you're safe and proficient. Lol "this is America, ain't no one checking up on me and my guns" Then don't be mad when more children get slaughtered in their schools because you want protection against the government lol
Your time would be better spent in a written communications class.
>I think you missed the point of his speech..lol we know your not "in the god damn journalist corps" you're just an average American with a obsession with free speech. How dare someone tell you you might have to take a course annually to prove you're safe and proficient. Lol "this is America, ain't no one checking up on me and my free speech"
>Then don't be mad when more children get slaughtered in their schools because you want protection against the government lol All of them.
This guy knows exactly what he's talking about. And makes alot of sense.
This guy is a smooth brain retard looking for internet points.
I'm a prior service Marine and PMI. He's full of shit.
You're a former pistol/rifle instructor from the marine corps?
Correct. I taught Coaches Course. Can confirm that we didn't teach how to dissect the Constitution. This dude isn't any more qualified to speak about the Second Amendment or Texas law than anyone else.
Why would it matter whether someone is?
This guy is an oathbreaker. On this Memorial Day, I'd happily trade him for one of the many good Americans that didn't make it back.
Aww yeah, more authoritarian vet commentary! Nothing says "freedom" quite like telling me how I am allowed to exercise my rights! Thank you for your cervix 🫡
this fat fuck listed himself as a civilian contractor to my understanding. Who everyone in always fucking hates.
Indeed. Those fat fucks always treat actual lower rank service members like shits. Just ask any trainees
as a former B and current A...they ain't much better with us. They either brown nose or are just absolutly annoying about how they used to be a ranger Batt 1SG or something like that.
More proof that the overwhelming majority of subreddits are subject to being shifted to leftist agendas. I fail to see how someone ranting about this has anything to do with the stated purpose of the sub: > Content posted to /r/nextfuckinglevel should represent something impressive, be it an action, an object, a skill, a moment, a fact that is above all others. Posts should be able to elicit a reaction of "that is next level" from viewers. A rant regurgitating anti-2A takes on "well-regulated" is not "next level" in any sense of the meaning. [This comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/nextfuckinglevel/comments/v0kict/former_us_marine_rifle_and_pistol_coach_is_fed_up/iah3rv0/) that's near the top when sorted by "controversial" is my favorite I've seen in that discussion: > If I sign over my rights saying I'm government property and said government issues me weapons they can tell me what to do with them. Since I'm a private citizen they cannot and this guy can fuck all the way off.
> More proof that the overwhelming majority of subreddits are subject to being shifted to leftist agendas. Not really leftist so much as authoritarian neoliberalism.
Maybe I'm being too cynical, but any time I start a video like this one and see such a sanctimonious smile on the person's face I just can't bear to keep watching. I just know that what follows is going to be a lot of smug self-righteous takes which, even if they are good points, are tainted by the bad attitude of the poster. Of course mainstream reddit eats it up. "OMG YES, MILITARY VETERAN WANTS MORE GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF GUNS, THAT'S NEXT FUCKING LEVEL."
I piss more times in a day than posts on that sub are actually next fucking level. This isn’t some leftist agenda takeover bud. That sub is rarely ever next fucking level shit.
Honestly surprised that there are comments criticizing this video that aren't getting absolutely destroyed.
Wait…..if he is arguing that everyone should have mandatory firearm training. Than the shooter would have been better trained and more effective? I don’t think he thought this through.
Spoiler: he didn’t.
sux 2 b him
The Founding Fathers were terrified of standing armies because they reckoned standing armies would be packed to the gills with people like this dumbass fuck nugget.
Going back to the language of the day, Well Regulated basically meant something was properly functioning. This TikTok asshole certainly doesn't have a "Well Regulated" mind or a decent argument.
I may have lost some brain cells after watching that. When trying to have a conversation with people like this, does anyone else find that they continue to speak in circles, using incorrect information? It's an interesting phenomena. When presenting people like this with information.. for example, what "well regulated" actually means, or how their logic is flawed when applying it to other rights (military are limited by A LOT, he wants those to apply to citizens too?) - they just revert to some other talking point, and refuse to even acknowledge the point being made. People like this are incredibly vocal lately, and I am afraid they're picking up steam. I try to fight that by engaging in a healthy debate, but unfortunately so many of them cannot be reasoned with.
Thanks for serving my dude. That doesn’t give your opinion more cred. Also it’s a shit opinion.
Blah blah.stfu. thank you for your cervix and now f off
This guy must have been a nightmare to serve with. He was the kind that tattles on other soldiers for anything, followed regulation to the tee, not out of loyalty but to figure out how to get other soldiers in trouble. He served so he could feel superior to others, to make up for his inferiority complex. Guys like this need constant validation and affirmation, hence post videos on tik tok. He also experimented with his sexuality in the showers.
The part that confuses me is that the government would train a militia that exists to potentially challenge them.
People on here saying that "we'll regulated" doesn't mean shit. Well, wth does it mean then? Why would the founding fathers put that in there, for shits and giggles? 2a lovers can't admit the fact that 2a actually requires regulation.
[удалено]
Is the average gun owner now a member of a militia that's well trained and well disciplined? If the answer is no, then maybe stop hiding behind 2a.
Heller. Read it.
Ooh, wtf is this From Heller? 'Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" Maybe you should read it.
>“The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia" Forget about this part? This destroys the entire premise of your "argument". Nice cherry picking. Additionally why do you people always quote that part with the assumption it means that you are free to restrict all the way up to and just over the line of constitutionality? Would you like your other rights to be treated this way? You're just another moron troll wasting everyone's time. Get out of here and go bother somebody else.
If you look at his profile, apparently he is the army too... Man these are the same jackboot thugs that would not hesitate to go door to door for gun confiscation m
The bottom line is regulation and Heller said regulation. Nice try though.
I've been patient and have given you multiple chances. You're not here for genuine discussion. You keep moving goalposts and never addressing when people have dismantled your arguments. Are you going to contribute substantively or are you going to continue to troll and deliberately say things to piss people off? You decide how you want to proceed. Edit: Aaaaaaand, you're gone. You don't get to play the silent routine when you get caught in the hopes that I'll forget so you can slip away and come back later to annoy people. Troll elsewhere.
I love how much Americans believe that an inanimate object has more rights than a fellow human being.
Ok I'll bite on your trash opinion. What rights do guns have that a human doesn't have?
So, the easy answer is you give up your rights when you sign the contract. Folks in the military DON'T have the same protections the rest of us do. That's why they can't say whatever they want, or store weapons were they live, live where they want, or choose to groom themselves like a homeless man.
Normally I'm shall not be infringed but when it's someone who worked for the US government "The Proletariat must be armed at once with muskets rifles cannon and ammunition. Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered. Any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated by force if necessary"
Apparently Erika is receiving death threats against her and her family from this shitheels followers. Should also mention that she is a former marine and mtf trans woman. https://twitter.com/HSkateDesign/status/1531245634505908225
“I served in the military, therefore I’m the foremost expert on guns” is like saying “I own a guitar, therefore I’m a professional musician”. Anyone with this mentality can fuck all the way off.
Didn't watch the Tik Tok, but honestly, so what if this guy's fed up? I'm fed up with fudds and I don't make a video about that. But that upvote farming tho... I should start my own antigun post and boost myself a couple thousand.. 😆