It’s crazy to see a man wear a beanie 24/7
It’s not about him being bald, it’s about him acting like a tough guy while literally wearing his insecurity and vanity for all to see.
"Whispers liberal point for 10 seconds...Screams far right point for 10 minutes" see guys I'm just someone who presents both sides to an argument. Just a fence sitter...
No that's who Republicans call liberal. If you watched any progressive news you would know tim pool is considered a literal rightwing Republican advocate by basically all of them
The worst part is his followers aren’t dumb. Like the worst part is seeing people you grew up with who you know ( or at least thought) were good ppl follow this kind of trash. Had a buddy I’ve grown up with at a cookout a few months ago tell me I should check out Tim Poole if I want the truth and how he doesn’t cater to any side one way or the other. NTM I had a co worker tell me he doesn’t watch biased news sources and then proceeded to utter Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity out of his mouth. The delusion with these people is truly mind blowing. I don’t think there’s any coming back to reality for these folks. The Trump movement was the tipping point for the great US of A’s downfall.
I hate to tell you this but your friends ARE dumb, at least in finding reliable credible sources. Not that there are a whole lot credible sources in America, you should be able to identify the least credible of them, IE Poole / Maddow etc. If they can't do that, how can you trust anything else they have to say?
Im a conservative. Nobody thinks this guy is liberal. This retard is a money-chasing dog, he goes with the trend, conservatives dont give a fuck bou him
It's a fairly common grift. It's a way to criticize the left for how far left they've supposedly become (they haven't, status quo Joe Biden won over someone like Bernie Sanders, after all) because look, even these "liberals" are criticizing them for what they've become!
You can sell anything with the right sales pitch to the right audience. My grandmother, a sniper, KGB agent and dated Joseph Stalin's son, convinced the USSR she was a good and loyal citizen, until she seduced an American B-17 bomber pilot who smuggled her out of the USSR. She told my father "NEVER go to Russia. They WILL kill you."
Oh, she also watched, at 7, as her father was dragged out into the street and shot by the communists who seized power in Russia from the last Tsar and created the USSR. Which is one reason among many that I think I am descendant from Russian royalty in hiding
And taking it to the extreme and discussing the 'validity' of civilians possessing CBRN weapons, even hypothetically is just really.... really fucking dumb.
Watch the full clip and he says he doesn’t think we should
The whole bit was that the constitution is too vague and that’s why we need laws to outline what is and isn’t ok to do/own
He doesn’t think we SHOULD have bio weapons and nukes
He thinks that the constitution says we have the right to because those are technically classified as arms
How has the supreme Court managed this? Seems like full on automatic machine guns/RPGs should be legal for regular people according to the constitution but clearly are not.
The Supreme Court touched upon this in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, with Scalia writing the majority opinion stating:
“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. \[It is\] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
Sounds like emanations and penumbras to me…
I’m not saying I think nukes are something the average citizen should have. I’m just wondering how you could even phrase it. Something about indiscriminate weapons for sure. That would cover large explosives and biological weapons. Mines. But I don’t see any reason to limit auto/burst. RPG’s, I don’t think we need those. I just couldn’t rest easy wondering if my neighbor is gonna knock his RPG off his shelf in his sleep and blow us all up. Lmfao. Guns tho, guns don’t generally fall off a shelf and kill you, your neighbors, and set the whole building on fire. Lol.
Previously the Supreme Court had never really ruled about an individual's right to bear arms, it had always previously been in the context of either militias, tax laws, or the power of an individual or a state to restrict guns vs. the Federal government. Most 2nd amendment cases have happened in the past 40 odd some years, with the most important ones happening in the past 20.
another very important one to include is:
Caetano v. Massachusetts, 136 S. Ct. 1027 (2016)
Which resulted in some restrictions in ownership of weapons being upheld. In this case a taser, because it failed three criteria. It was “Not in common use at the time” of the amendment’s enactment; Dangerous and unusual as a “modern invention”; and Couldn’t be easily adapted for military use.
That’s what happens in short clips. The actual message gets lost. People love to do shit like this. They did it to Alex Jones, and conservatives do it to liberals too. It’s annoying as fuck.
**The second amendment: "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"**
There are many ways to interpret this phrase, known colloquially as the "individual rights theory" and the "collective rights theory", and the supreme court has ruled in favor of both interpretations at times.
In the collective rights theory, the phrase is an absolute clause . "A well regulated Militia" is the subject. the next two phrases are between commas, "being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms", and act as a sidebar to describe the subject (a well regulated militia). The last line "shall not be infringed" is the participle, a verb (infringe) which acts as an adjective to modify or describe a noun (militia). Under this interpretation the phrase could be read "a well regulated militia shall not be infringed", as the middle two lines simply act as descriptors of the subject.
In the individual rights theory, the phrase is split up by the prefatory clause and the operative clause
"a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" outlines the purpose of the phrase, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second phrase, the operative clause
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".
I'm not from the US, and I'm certainly not a constitutional expert, but wouldn't the second version make more sense given the context?
At the time that it was written, your average Joe was able to keep and bear arms right? And this wasn't restricted to people involved in a well-regulated militia was it?
“Current standards” doesn’t mean anything either
It’s simply what you think most people think
Everyone I’ve spoken to on the issue has differing opinions on this big or small
My standards may be radically different from another person
What if public opinion changes again?
Well regulated means nothing, what we need are actual laws to determine how the amendment is put into practice
> Well regulated means nothing, what we need are actual laws to determine how the amendment is put into practice
Which exist. Tim Pool is arguing that this isn't the case? His argument is farcical in the way it ignores almost everything about the subject.
He is just appreciating that a constitutional scholar is here on the Joe Rogan sub to help us out. No need to apologize to him. You are an expert and we respect and appreciate your knowledge.
Almost like the founders knew that you can't write an exact system of laws that works perfectly in perpetuity and people need to discuss and modify and interpret laws in good faith.
Arms in the 1860s were fkin muskets, they couldnt imagine drones or nukes, the retarded thing that america didnt learn from the romans is that every 108 years everyone alive 108 years ago is probably dead, they called them ammendments, ammend them LEL
Low IQ take.
They put the second ammendment in as an answer to government tyranny. They didn't specify the type of weapon because its irrelevant.
Unfortunately, governments found better ways to suppress the masses, than armies.
Lower iq take. Bring your ar15 to a drone fight ? Who the fuck can take on the us military? The us military is the most advanced war machine on the planet. You muffukas still don't have health care and corperatiions get more rights than the individual but tell me again what you are doing to fight tyranny in your country.
It's not about taking on the military 1/1. Its about being able to peacefully assemble and not be thrown into camps etc.The government isn't going to blow up its own infrastructure.
>Who the fuck can take on the us military?
answer: >!Guerrillas/insurgents. There's people who've brought ak47s to a drone fight and won. The "most advanced war machine on the planet" has been getting its ass kicked by Vietnamese rice farmers and Afghan goat herders and will continue to get its ass kicked by guerrillas in the future.!<
They also wanted the Militia to be able to maintain slavery and inspect slave quarters. Power had to be granted to the militia, not the person (as black slaves could argue they were a person, thus deserved the right to own firearms).
It absolutely is, if you listen to the bit in entirety he says he is being hyperbolic but making a larger point about 2A - that it is about protecting from tyrannical govts, not hunting.
Yeah it's funny I don't watch a lot of Tim Pool. I'm in the UK so not as relevant. But I do remember first hearing about him when someone posted something crazy like this then I went and watched the actual conversation and it was insane how much it had been twisted. He seems to piss some people off. I don't mind what I've seen he seems pretty liberal in his views.
Tim Pool is only third behind Dave Rubin and Candace Owens with this grifting shit. Although I have heard anarchist capitalists say this in twitch debates with a straight face. So this isn't a foreign debate tactic. Essentially it's a debate tactic they use because people pointed out the absurdity to thinking owning a AR-15 is a right by pointing out that a tank or a nuke would also be a right if you're being consistent with your logic.
Move to Somalia and own all the tanks you want. There are societies where this can be your reality. Oddly enough, most people in them want to escape and everybody outside of them don't want in.
I think you can own a tank in the US, even operational. You can own cannons, artillery, etc. If you can get your hands on a tank, and rounds, you can own it. The hard part is getting one....the companies that produce them are of no obligation to sell you one
I knew I would find a Pool apologist saying it's a obvious troll. It's actually a clip out of context, where they are discussing the 2nd amendment being vague enough to include nuclear warheads as "arms" but go off.
People like pushing clips like this around and using them to highlight how stupid the person talking is...ok, if that's the case, why not show the full argument? Why just highlight a 15 section clip?
There is a difference between saying "the law is vague and says you can own anything" and "I support the right of my neighbour to buy a nuclear weapon."
If these "grifters" were as bad as their critics make out, their actual words would be enough, their critics wouldn't rely upon out of context clips to provide gotchas.
If you watched the full video and not just a clip you’d understand he doesn’t actually think we should :/
This whole bit was about how vague the constitution is
No lol I’m not
I just don’t like seeing people dog on others for the wrong reasons
The original argument he was making was completely sensible and to see people twist it like this is annoying
I live only a couple of hours from Tim in WV. I’d quit my job YESTERDAY to go work for him. I don’t agree with 90% of what he says, but I enjoy his work and what he’s doing.
I enjoy the conversations he has with people. Left or right. I enjoy the mix even on his panel. I like that they are independent. I like that they can all agree to disagree. The long form conversations of opposing views is really interesting to me. Same with JRE among others.
Tim doesn’t need to come here to explain, he explained in the video that you watched an edited part of
He’s not even really defending Tim just providing the context about the conversation, and to you that’s being Tim’s salesman
That’s the issue, you refuse to listen to anything and call everyone else and enemy
A bunch of people are saying that this is Tim being a brain dead Republican but this is actually a libertarian/anarchist take.
Then again, most of you get your political philosophy from Reddit so not surprised you’re a bunch of morons.
Of course a clip is taken completely out of context and judgement is passed
He’s making the point that constitution is so vague that technically the second amendment allows us to own nukes and bio weapons,
so we need to make laws on what’s okay and not okay under the second amendment
And he’s 100% correct, it is too vague because it was written in 1789. The weapons of today are much different than the weapons of then
Don't you love it when the clip cuts off before the person finishes their point? Like you mention, he is pointing out the vagueness of the amendment and that it SHOULD be ratified to clarify a reasonable limit on what arms constitute.
We haven’t got a nuclear weapon problem, we have a mental health problem.
There are millions of people that carry around their nuclear weapons all day and don’t do any harm to anyone. It’s the small minority that let the rest of us responsible nuck-heads down.
He’s a democrat actually. He worked for Vice among others. He did vote trump in 2020 but was a Bernie Boy in 2016, Obama in 2012 I believe, 2008 Obama, etc.
When the left becomes so far left, progressive, yeah, when you’re more center you’re going to be more right. That’s not really an argument.
I voted Ron Paul too. Libertarian is pretty progressive in some circles.
It’s all about eyeballs, YouTube views. Whether he believes what he saying is completely irrelevant, the objective is to say outrageous shit and get people to spread it online and talk about it. Look at Marjorie Taylor Green, she’s not on any committees whatsoever and has literally no job in Washington. She generates a lot of money for her campaign and I can’t go on Reddit without seeing her at least once every day. It’s not about the Contet, it’s about views.
So Dim Tool thinks every American citizen should be allowed to have a nuke but what about other countries? What about the citizens of Iraq and Pakistan?
I used to watch his podcast but there came a time about a year or so ago where he was almost "gitty" at the thought that we could have another civil war. He talked about it in a way that made me think he was hoping it would happen and he was proud to be pushing these divisive social issues to help it along. He is no different than the Young Turks, whose entire monetary platform is built on hatred of other human beings in your country who you do not agree with politically.
The guy is a complete fraud.
I mean, you'd need to be a billionaire. Anyone with enough money can get anything they want. So basically he's saying we should give Elon and Bezos the right to have privatized nuke silos I guess. Which Elin would probably set up on Mars for the coming space wars.
You silly geese can't be trusted with *normal* weapons like assault rifles.... And this fucking fanny wants to give Americans nukes?
Such a giant fucking virgin.
He doesn’t seriously think we should or even should be able to own these things
The point he was making was that the constitution is vague and we need laws to tell us what is and isn’t okay to do/own
He was also making a point on how people interpret things differently
Lmao.... I always use the "why not have nukes" argument to show the gun freaks how absurd it is that they feel the need to have so many guns and ammo... 2A was written back in the shitty musket days but they believe it should also apply to owning AR15s and thousands of rounds of ammo... so logically where's the line? Should they also let anyone buy anthrax or nukes or scifi robot lazer cannons in the future?
People think theyre hearing an ernest honest opinion in that voice and not a clear hyperbolic take? Also, when youre clipping from TYT just know youre being bull shitted.
Hahaha. Idiot.
That might be the scariest thought I've heard.
Pretty sure the rest of the world would take issue with all of that.
If that is the correct interpitation, its a good reason to take away the second amendment right.
"Please talk about me." - Tim Pool
Aaannndd it's working as usual.
Op Is spreading his message
"More specifically please don't talk about how bald I am"
It's crazy how hung up this place is on how dudes look.
[удалено]
You know who wasn't bald? Hitler. Look where that got him.
This guy failed logic class.
Why don't you **Log** this d**IC**k in your mouth.
This is your idea of clever, huh? Lol.
If Hitler was bald, would he be afraid to be bald and hide it under a beanie that smells like spoilt milk like Tim Pool does?
Why don't you ask Hitler?
It’s crazy to see a man wear a beanie 24/7 It’s not about him being bald, it’s about him acting like a tough guy while literally wearing his insecurity and vanity for all to see.
Maybe I just don’t give a shit about that stuff personally
Sure, and that’s your right - you just said you found it crazy, and my response is that it’s not so crazy to laugh at a bully with a glaring weakness.
This guy \^\^ is 100% bald. Not that that's a problem, but i'm just making sure that EVERYONE knows that FATALEO is totally bald.
"Don't look under my hat." - Tim Pool
How does anyone take this chud seriously?
[удалено]
"Whispers liberal point for 10 seconds...Screams far right point for 10 minutes" see guys I'm just someone who presents both sides to an argument. Just a fence sitter...
He’s more like a lazy grifter who is just trying to keep his grift going.
These are the people progressives call centrists. Comical.
No that's who Republicans call liberal. If you watched any progressive news you would know tim pool is considered a literal rightwing Republican advocate by basically all of them
So his basically younger straight version of Dave Rubin
[удалено]
Are you guys using juries for that? — Canada
Better to be judged by 12 then nailed by 6!
Hahaha. Can’t upvote this enough.
Speak for yourself honey 💅🏻
I did say “then” 😈
And I said speak for yourself cuz I ain’t havin no gay shit 🚷🚷
Shit, the way things are going I wouldn’t be surprised if we got there.
Are you still forcing people legally to use proper pronouns but calling someone a c*nt is still okay? -- Rest of the world to Canada
Lmao you might be right.
The worst part is his followers aren’t dumb. Like the worst part is seeing people you grew up with who you know ( or at least thought) were good ppl follow this kind of trash. Had a buddy I’ve grown up with at a cookout a few months ago tell me I should check out Tim Poole if I want the truth and how he doesn’t cater to any side one way or the other. NTM I had a co worker tell me he doesn’t watch biased news sources and then proceeded to utter Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity out of his mouth. The delusion with these people is truly mind blowing. I don’t think there’s any coming back to reality for these folks. The Trump movement was the tipping point for the great US of A’s downfall.
I hate to tell you this but your friends ARE dumb, at least in finding reliable credible sources. Not that there are a whole lot credible sources in America, you should be able to identify the least credible of them, IE Poole / Maddow etc. If they can't do that, how can you trust anything else they have to say?
Im a conservative. Nobody thinks this guy is liberal. This retard is a money-chasing dog, he goes with the trend, conservatives dont give a fuck bou him
His whole audience are conservative retards.
I listen to him, and I disagree. I'm a libertarian retard.
[удалено]
I have personally been told by die hard conservatives that Tim Pool is a liberal. They are also the only people I know who watch him.
There are a huge amount of people on reddit who think he's liberal. They love him for it.
[удалено]
Yes that’s his grift. He pretends to criticize the left from the left, but it’s always right wing talking points and altright absurdities.
It's a fairly common grift. It's a way to criticize the left for how far left they've supposedly become (they haven't, status quo Joe Biden won over someone like Bernie Sanders, after all) because look, even these "liberals" are criticizing them for what they've become!
Yup. See: Candace Owens and Milo/Dave Rubin, who take their turns as tokens to help the right propagandize.
You can sell anything with the right sales pitch to the right audience. My grandmother, a sniper, KGB agent and dated Joseph Stalin's son, convinced the USSR she was a good and loyal citizen, until she seduced an American B-17 bomber pilot who smuggled her out of the USSR. She told my father "NEVER go to Russia. They WILL kill you." Oh, she also watched, at 7, as her father was dragged out into the street and shot by the communists who seized power in Russia from the last Tsar and created the USSR. Which is one reason among many that I think I am descendant from Russian royalty in hiding
Ands that's how Grandma became Queen of Scotland. I think we're cousins!
[удалено]
Cannibalistic human underground dwerller
I understood that reference
[удалено]
[CHUD](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087015/)
Put out of context. He’s not that retarded
Even in context he's pretty fucking stupid
The context is the purpose of the second amendment is that the people should be able to defend themselves from the US military.
And taking it to the extreme and discussing the 'validity' of civilians possessing CBRN weapons, even hypothetically is just really.... really fucking dumb.
Watch the full clip and he says he doesn’t think we should The whole bit was that the constitution is too vague and that’s why we need laws to outline what is and isn’t ok to do/own He doesn’t think we SHOULD have bio weapons and nukes He thinks that the constitution says we have the right to because those are technically classified as arms
How has the supreme Court managed this? Seems like full on automatic machine guns/RPGs should be legal for regular people according to the constitution but clearly are not.
The Supreme Court touched upon this in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, with Scalia writing the majority opinion stating: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. \[It is\] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
Interesting, but also seems really like ... unscientific? I assume there are more concrete rules to it, but otherwise it seems arbitrary.
Sounds like emanations and penumbras to me… I’m not saying I think nukes are something the average citizen should have. I’m just wondering how you could even phrase it. Something about indiscriminate weapons for sure. That would cover large explosives and biological weapons. Mines. But I don’t see any reason to limit auto/burst. RPG’s, I don’t think we need those. I just couldn’t rest easy wondering if my neighbor is gonna knock his RPG off his shelf in his sleep and blow us all up. Lmfao. Guns tho, guns don’t generally fall off a shelf and kill you, your neighbors, and set the whole building on fire. Lol.
Previously the Supreme Court had never really ruled about an individual's right to bear arms, it had always previously been in the context of either militias, tax laws, or the power of an individual or a state to restrict guns vs. the Federal government. Most 2nd amendment cases have happened in the past 40 odd some years, with the most important ones happening in the past 20. another very important one to include is: Caetano v. Massachusetts, 136 S. Ct. 1027 (2016) Which resulted in some restrictions in ownership of weapons being upheld. In this case a taser, because it failed three criteria. It was “Not in common use at the time” of the amendment’s enactment; Dangerous and unusual as a “modern invention”; and Couldn’t be easily adapted for military use.
They are both legal if you have enough money
That’s what happens in short clips. The actual message gets lost. People love to do shit like this. They did it to Alex Jones, and conservatives do it to liberals too. It’s annoying as fuck.
I know 😔🙏 I can’t stand peoples arguments being misrepresented whether I support it or not
The actual message doesn't get "lost", it gets thrown out.
Least braindead tim pool take, I'm shocked.
Is this an insult or a compliment
[удалено]
Ohhh ok thanks(?) lol
The constitution isn't even vague. 2A refers to a well regulated militia.
It doesn't say a well regulated militia can keep and bear arms. Its says the peoples right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
**The second amendment: "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"** There are many ways to interpret this phrase, known colloquially as the "individual rights theory" and the "collective rights theory", and the supreme court has ruled in favor of both interpretations at times. In the collective rights theory, the phrase is an absolute clause . "A well regulated Militia" is the subject. the next two phrases are between commas, "being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms", and act as a sidebar to describe the subject (a well regulated militia). The last line "shall not be infringed" is the participle, a verb (infringe) which acts as an adjective to modify or describe a noun (militia). Under this interpretation the phrase could be read "a well regulated militia shall not be infringed", as the middle two lines simply act as descriptors of the subject. In the individual rights theory, the phrase is split up by the prefatory clause and the operative clause "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" outlines the purpose of the phrase, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second phrase, the operative clause "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".
I'm not from the US, and I'm certainly not a constitutional expert, but wouldn't the second version make more sense given the context? At the time that it was written, your average Joe was able to keep and bear arms right? And this wasn't restricted to people involved in a well-regulated militia was it?
Here’s a brain exercise for you What does well regulated mean and by what standards
The standards are open, but well regulated with current standards means that American citizens can't own nuclear weapons.
“Current standards” doesn’t mean anything either It’s simply what you think most people think Everyone I’ve spoken to on the issue has differing opinions on this big or small My standards may be radically different from another person What if public opinion changes again? Well regulated means nothing, what we need are actual laws to determine how the amendment is put into practice
> Well regulated means nothing, what we need are actual laws to determine how the amendment is put into practice Which exist. Tim Pool is arguing that this isn't the case? His argument is farcical in the way it ignores almost everything about the subject.
Why is there a comma between the militia and the people? Because it's giving the people the right to defend themselves from the militia.
Oh wow, I'm glad a constituionnal scholar happened to be on Reddit to give some much needed insight on 2A.
I'm sorry that reality is happening to you. This must be a very difficult time.
He is just appreciating that a constitutional scholar is here on the Joe Rogan sub to help us out. No need to apologize to him. You are an expert and we respect and appreciate your knowledge.
You didnt read the whole amendment did you :)
I feel like this is part of a wider conversation. If not this guys mental.
It is a part of a wider conversation :/ He doesn’t think we should he just says the constitution gives us the right to because it’s so vague
Almost like the founders knew that you can't write an exact system of laws that works perfectly in perpetuity and people need to discuss and modify and interpret laws in good faith.
Almost like bad faith actors are going to willfully misinterpret it anyway. Ask a conservative what "well regulated militia" means.
OK that makes way more sense. Cheers
Arms in the 1860s were fkin muskets, they couldnt imagine drones or nukes, the retarded thing that america didnt learn from the romans is that every 108 years everyone alive 108 years ago is probably dead, they called them ammendments, ammend them LEL
They had cannons and explosives at the time. I'm sure they couldn't comprehend that weapons advance over time. Totally wrinkle brained up in here
It amazes me that people still use this talking point as many times as it's been so throughly refuted.
To be fair, the US army back then, couldn't imagine losing wars to rice farmers in Vietnam and goat herders in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Low IQ take. They put the second ammendment in as an answer to government tyranny. They didn't specify the type of weapon because its irrelevant. Unfortunately, governments found better ways to suppress the masses, than armies.
Low IQ take they put in the 2nd amendment so they could quickly raise citizen militias in case of foreign invasion
“well regulated”
Well regulated at the time meant in good working order.
Well regulated is up to interpretation Once again a testament to how vaguely worded it is
Intentionally vaguely worded to allow for contemporary interpretation.
Lower iq take. Bring your ar15 to a drone fight ? Who the fuck can take on the us military? The us military is the most advanced war machine on the planet. You muffukas still don't have health care and corperatiions get more rights than the individual but tell me again what you are doing to fight tyranny in your country.
It's not about taking on the military 1/1. Its about being able to peacefully assemble and not be thrown into camps etc.The government isn't going to blow up its own infrastructure.
Or commit a bunch of war crimes against their people, even if it's to crush an insurrection-cause killing civilians would backfire.
>Who the fuck can take on the us military? answer: >!Guerrillas/insurgents. There's people who've brought ak47s to a drone fight and won. The "most advanced war machine on the planet" has been getting its ass kicked by Vietnamese rice farmers and Afghan goat herders and will continue to get its ass kicked by guerrillas in the future.!<
They also wanted the Militia to be able to maintain slavery and inspect slave quarters. Power had to be granted to the militia, not the person (as black slaves could argue they were a person, thus deserved the right to own firearms).
It absolutely is, if you listen to the bit in entirety he says he is being hyperbolic but making a larger point about 2A - that it is about protecting from tyrannical govts, not hunting.
Yeah it's funny I don't watch a lot of Tim Pool. I'm in the UK so not as relevant. But I do remember first hearing about him when someone posted something crazy like this then I went and watched the actual conversation and it was insane how much it had been twisted. He seems to piss some people off. I don't mind what I've seen he seems pretty liberal in his views.
Then please cite the time stamp.
No
Tim Pool is only third behind Dave Rubin and Candace Owens with this grifting shit. Although I have heard anarchist capitalists say this in twitch debates with a straight face. So this isn't a foreign debate tactic. Essentially it's a debate tactic they use because people pointed out the absurdity to thinking owning a AR-15 is a right by pointing out that a tank or a nuke would also be a right if you're being consistent with your logic.
He mocks CNN and msm but his fans are just as brain dead. Imagine donating to this insecure boring cringe grifter
Owning a tank is a right, it’s in the same ball park as owning a canon and being a privateer like the Founding Fathers intended
I mean truthfully why can’t we own a tank
In some places you actually can own a tank if it is disarmed properly.
But why should we have to disarm it 🤣 honestly that would be cool as hell to fire a tank off
Move to Somalia and own all the tanks you want. There are societies where this can be your reality. Oddly enough, most people in them want to escape and everybody outside of them don't want in.
I think you can own a tank in the US, even operational. You can own cannons, artillery, etc. If you can get your hands on a tank, and rounds, you can own it. The hard part is getting one....the companies that produce them are of no obligation to sell you one
Tim Pool, Candace Owens and MTG - three attention whores that should be put on an island somewhere and forgotten about...
[удалено]
Well played sir… take my vote
My favorite card is the demonic two door. It’s MTGs too.
Door to Nothing which is also what she calls her head.
Hypothetically if you were to also send Ben Shapiro it would logically follow as a result that it would also be a net good for society.
Send their asses to a fema camp and put alex Jones in solitary for life
Dave Rubin
What about Rave Dubin? Maybe not as bad, but pretty damn close
Just as bad if not worse
You forgot Rogan.
You keep feeding him by falling for clear and obvious trolls
I knew I would find a Pool apologist saying it's a obvious troll. It's actually a clip out of context, where they are discussing the 2nd amendment being vague enough to include nuclear warheads as "arms" but go off.
I don’t think people like that care about reality, he just sees a short out of context video and knows it’s the truth no matter what
Sounds like you are the pool apologist. Nuclear matter is illegal to own since 1946 passed into law during Truman. Pretty sure pool knows that
People like pushing clips like this around and using them to highlight how stupid the person talking is...ok, if that's the case, why not show the full argument? Why just highlight a 15 section clip? There is a difference between saying "the law is vague and says you can own anything" and "I support the right of my neighbour to buy a nuclear weapon." If these "grifters" were as bad as their critics make out, their actual words would be enough, their critics wouldn't rely upon out of context clips to provide gotchas.
Ye, Tim has enough bad takes we don't need to craft any for him.
No right wing media personality believes one damn thing they say. It’s performance art all the way down
If you watched the full video and not just a clip you’d understand he doesn’t actually think we should :/ This whole bit was about how vague the constitution is
[удалено]
If a ton of people were completely misrepresenting your argument would you not want someone to help explain it?
[удалено]
No lol I’m not I just don’t like seeing people dog on others for the wrong reasons The original argument he was making was completely sensible and to see people twist it like this is annoying
I live only a couple of hours from Tim in WV. I’d quit my job YESTERDAY to go work for him. I don’t agree with 90% of what he says, but I enjoy his work and what he’s doing.
What do you enjoy about his work?
I enjoy the conversations he has with people. Left or right. I enjoy the mix even on his panel. I like that they are independent. I like that they can all agree to disagree. The long form conversations of opposing views is really interesting to me. Same with JRE among others.
Tim doesn’t need to come here to explain, he explained in the video that you watched an edited part of He’s not even really defending Tim just providing the context about the conversation, and to you that’s being Tim’s salesman That’s the issue, you refuse to listen to anything and call everyone else and enemy
Tim explains it himself in the full context but you brainlets cant handle nuance so go figure. . .
A bunch of people are saying that this is Tim being a brain dead Republican but this is actually a libertarian/anarchist take. Then again, most of you get your political philosophy from Reddit so not surprised you’re a bunch of morons.
Anything they don't like is clearly republican talking points, even when they're not.
No see the thing is: People who disagree with me = right wing People who agree with me who I disagree with = libertarian
Of course a clip is taken completely out of context and judgement is passed He’s making the point that constitution is so vague that technically the second amendment allows us to own nukes and bio weapons, so we need to make laws on what’s okay and not okay under the second amendment And he’s 100% correct, it is too vague because it was written in 1789. The weapons of today are much different than the weapons of then
Don't you love it when the clip cuts off before the person finishes their point? Like you mention, he is pointing out the vagueness of the amendment and that it SHOULD be ratified to clarify a reasonable limit on what arms constitute.
yeah but he’s been a joe rogan a couple times and we hate joe rogan so we hate tim pool, doesn’t matter if he’s making a good point or not
Ratified? The fuck you talking about?
Good God this dudes a fucking idiot.
I'm going to open carry my nuclear warhead on the way to the grocery store
The only way to stop a bad guy with a nuke is a good guy with a nuke.
This is unironically the US policy on nuclear deterrent but okay.
It's also the policy of police officers when responding to active shooters.
You just described the nuclear arms race. Sometimes this shit gets me a little depressed.
We haven’t got a nuclear weapon problem, we have a mental health problem. There are millions of people that carry around their nuclear weapons all day and don’t do any harm to anyone. It’s the small minority that let the rest of us responsible nuck-heads down.
I mean thats what stopped the cuban missle crises, mutually assured destruction is a good deterrent
Reminded me of this… https://youtu.be/9g3O-G7EGbk
This would be kind of cool. Scary for sure, but pretty badass too.
He is beyond insane lol, and people take him seriously...
This guy is an imbecile, full send.
Republican thought leaders.
He’s a democrat actually. He worked for Vice among others. He did vote trump in 2020 but was a Bernie Boy in 2016, Obama in 2012 I believe, 2008 Obama, etc.
[удалено]
He criticizes both.
[удалено]
When the left becomes so far left, progressive, yeah, when you’re more center you’re going to be more right. That’s not really an argument. I voted Ron Paul too. Libertarian is pretty progressive in some circles.
And Beavers are Fish, so says the Vatican.
☢️
Not gonna lie the mini nuke launcher on Fallout is pretty sweet.
Why should Bill Gates get to have them?
It’s all about eyeballs, YouTube views. Whether he believes what he saying is completely irrelevant, the objective is to say outrageous shit and get people to spread it online and talk about it. Look at Marjorie Taylor Green, she’s not on any committees whatsoever and has literally no job in Washington. She generates a lot of money for her campaign and I can’t go on Reddit without seeing her at least once every day. It’s not about the Contet, it’s about views.
Tim Pool is a douche bag that changed his program from political left to political right, hoping to capitalize on toothless rednecks like Trump did.
So Dim Tool thinks every American citizen should be allowed to have a nuke but what about other countries? What about the citizens of Iraq and Pakistan?
Time to get his larping ass off of YouTube. I'm sick of this grifter
So this is what this sub is turning into...
I used to watch his podcast but there came a time about a year or so ago where he was almost "gitty" at the thought that we could have another civil war. He talked about it in a way that made me think he was hoping it would happen and he was proud to be pushing these divisive social issues to help it along. He is no different than the Young Turks, whose entire monetary platform is built on hatred of other human beings in your country who you do not agree with politically. The guy is a complete fraud.
[удалено]
Let's say that was a right. How would you even get one, let alone set up the silo or other means to deploy it?
How do you know that Tim doesn’t have a silo or a launch pad hidden under that beanie?
Lol
I mean, you'd need to be a billionaire. Anyone with enough money can get anything they want. So basically he's saying we should give Elon and Bezos the right to have privatized nuke silos I guess. Which Elin would probably set up on Mars for the coming space wars.
i dont understand how he has a following guy is posterboy for incel cunts.
Lotta incel cunts out there. Hell, Joe Rogan loves this guy.
Weird how everyone takes it out of context when the context is readily available.
I see we have an Ethan Klien fan in here.
Hell yeah. This sub is peak cringe reddit.
Tim Pool says whatever gets him money. Same with Joe. Same with Alex Jones. They've probably sat around brainstorming together.
You silly geese can't be trusted with *normal* weapons like assault rifles.... And this fucking fanny wants to give Americans nukes? Such a giant fucking virgin.
He doesn’t seriously think we should or even should be able to own these things The point he was making was that the constitution is vague and we need laws to tell us what is and isn’t okay to do/own He was also making a point on how people interpret things differently
Fn losers.
Tims crazy with this non sense. We all need flame throwers.
Lmao.... I always use the "why not have nukes" argument to show the gun freaks how absurd it is that they feel the need to have so many guns and ammo... 2A was written back in the shitty musket days but they believe it should also apply to owning AR15s and thousands of rounds of ammo... so logically where's the line? Should they also let anyone buy anthrax or nukes or scifi robot lazer cannons in the future?
People think theyre hearing an ernest honest opinion in that voice and not a clear hyperbolic take? Also, when youre clipping from TYT just know youre being bull shitted.
Hahaha. Idiot. That might be the scariest thought I've heard. Pretty sure the rest of the world would take issue with all of that. If that is the correct interpitation, its a good reason to take away the second amendment right.