A Baltimore Intersection to Avoid

Noted without further comment:

assholes

This entry was posted in Conservatives, Fucking Morons. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to A Baltimore Intersection to Avoid

  1. Brett Bellmore says:

    I’m kind of missing the reasoning here. If I believe in the 2nd amendment as a last ditch solution to tyranny, I can’t complain about arson, or innocent store owners being robbed? How’s that work?

    Could you fill in the details a bit?

  2. anthrosciguy says:

    Sha

    What do you think you’re going to do with a “second amendment so!ution”? Not hurt someone or something?

    • Brett Bellmore says:

      Well, I’d hope it would be a *guilty* someone or something. Not just whoever was convenient, and had portable merchandise to walk off with.

      Was that sporting goods store owner being a tyrant, expecting people to pay for their Nikes?

      Seriously, you do get the whole “targeting the guilty” vs “targeting the innocent” distinction, right? Guns, riots, they’re both means. One hopes they’ll be put to just ends, but I don’t see the justice in that riot. Too many of the victims were innocent.

  3. delagar says:

    You seem pretty obtuse there, Brett. The reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment is that we are allowed to use violence against our government when our government is behaving unjustly towards us, its citizens. AND YET, when the government of Baltimore (and elsewhere in these United States) acts unjustly towards its citizens, and these citizens protest (some of them with violence), Conservatives cry out against them.

    Because apparently only SOME KINDS of citizens have the right to defend themselves against governmental injustice?

    Is this what you would argue?

    • Bayesian Bouffant, FCD says:

      The reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment is that we are allowed to use violence against our government when our government is behaving unjustly towards us, its citizens.

      Is it? I must be pretty dense, because I always thought it said,

      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.

      I must not be reading between the lines properly.

      • Brett Bellmore says:

        You do have to read between the lines, or read other writings of the founding fathers, to understand it. Why a militia, rather than a standing army? Why the security of a free state, rather than just any old state?

        You’ve got to put it into context to understand it. The context being what the people who wrote it thought they were doing.

        • dr2chase says:

          Which was to enable state militias to exist so that they could quell slave rebellions — that was at least on the list, if not the entire list.

          • Brett Bellmore says:

            Yeah, that’s the ugly excuse enemies of this civil liberty use to attack it, as though the right to keep and bear arms wasn’t treasured in states where there was no such prospect.

Comments are closed.