There is no question about Rep Raskin’s qualification to speak on this topic as a well recognised constitutional scholar. Under the link and YouTube above is a quick reference to the points covered He lays out the interpretation of the constitution backing each point with historical references and facts. It is interesting and informative even to someone not from the USA to listen an expert lay out the outline of a debate
He's a complete scumbag and is exactly the type of turd that the founders were thinking of when they wrote the second amendment. He's a gun banning power hungry POS
The government answers to we the people and serves at our pleasure. Should the government become tyrannical it is the duty of the people to flush that toilet and start over. This country exists only because of insurrection and rebellion.
You're going to have to elaborate more and maybe use more word because I'm not sure what you're asking? Anyone that wants free Americans disarmed is not worth listening to. That is a traitor to the very founding Spirit of our nation
I was talking of the number of years he has taught this subject and the respect he commands on the subject
None of that really matters. I don't respect anyone who thinks the govt should have a monopoly on the use of lethal force. That's just straight up elitism. Nothing about elitism is respectable.
Then tell him to get rid of his guns and to make sure that no one with guns is protecting his sorry hide. Until he's willing to do that he's nothing but a hypocrite of the worst sorts and merits only scorn and disdain
27:30- he refers to the USSC decision that the 2A confers an individual right to bear arms as 'radical', suggesting that he disagrees with that decision (lest he considers himself a 'radical') and thinks the 2A ONLY applies to the collective defense, not the individual defense, despite the decision to the contrary. What could 'collective' mean in a democracy, other than the govt? Some other issues: 41:23- he claims that voters oppose gun control to protect gun manufacturer profits. Which is ridiculous, given how well guns sell. Guns sell because people want them, not because people are trying to protect gun manufacturer profits. This assertion alone makes this guy a moron (or he thinks you're a moron...). But I'd suggest everyone start at 0:43, where he declares the fallacy this video is intended to debunk is the notion that the 2A protects the right to overthrow the govt. Thats the dumbest ****ing thing any gunbanner has ever said (tho to be fair they do say it a lot...). No Govt ever would protect the citizens 'right' to overthrow the govt (well, it would if I was in charge, but thats why I'm NOT in charge). I don't have strong enough words to describe how asinine this assertion is. The 2A protects our ABILITY to potentially overthrow the govt. Not a 'right' to do it. Violent revolution would OF COURSE (and rightfully so) be a crime unless and until it actually succeeded (and I guess I should spell out again that ability =/= guarantee of success). This goes back again to the monopoly on the use of force. If the govt has it, revolution is not possible ...and tyranny is inevitable. If the people have a realistic means (not 'right') to resist and revolt, the govt is far more prone to seek alternate means of governing (alternate to forceful and lethal tyranny, that is), because it doesn't want to back its citizens into a corner where they might consider victory as a criminal as a likely enough possibility to risk resistance/revolution. Either this guy is a moron or his target audience are morons ...or both. This is just all the lamest strawman anti-gun arguments strung together in a more modern 'podcast-like' setting to try and appeal to more modern media consumers who won't watch CNN or MSNBC anymore. And in that context, it is extra cringe.
So the guy starts off with a fallacy about a fallacy ( does anyone know the word or phrase for that one? ) and then moves right along to a politically broad brushed straw man that I have heard no one but him claim. Does anyone here care to quote even a single right-wing politician or noteworthy person who claims that the second amendment gives anyone the right to overthrow the government?
why do you labor under the delusion that I don't know what sort of bullshit a scumbag like rank Raskin is going to spew?
politicians should be limited to protection from the firearms or arms they are willing to let their masters own
pepper spray and whistles is what Graven Nuisance would get. Senile Joe's men could use double barrel shotguns but they can only shoot them in the air in the case of a threat
The Declaration of Independence was intended as a justification for a violent rebellion. In contrast, the Second Amendment (like the rest of the Bill of Rights) was intended as a justification for more federal power. It was a way to let critics know that the US Constitution was not a formula for tyranny and that the federal government was holding itself to certain standards. Thus, the structural changes which the anti-Federalists wanted were unnecessary: power would not have to be ceded back to the states.
This has to be one of the most obviously wrong comments about the constitution that I have ever seen.
So has Jamie raskin given up his guns yet or directed the people who protect him with guns to not protect him with guns? Until he does that I don't give a damn what the hypocrite has to say. Nothing discredits your message and makes people not give a damn quite like blatant hypocrisy
He managed to get that completely backwards and upside down. The Constitution is a list of limitations placed on the government. I don't know how in the hell he managed to turn that up on its head like that. I can only surmise authoritarian indoctrination.
Too funny; great visuals. polatician should have to be subject to the laws they enact; no special privilege to be excluded. a bit off topic but how do politicians amas wealth fare in excess of their beginning office net wealth and in excess of the cumulative net their salaries while in office?
