Rest in peace Mr. Moore.
deleted by creator
Like totally, insanely illegal.
Weird that I’ve seen this twice in the last 48 hours. Wonder what could be happening in the world for this to be relevant? /s
Sig Semper Tyranus. Came here to post this. And to spread the conspiracy of his death as he would want. He may have truely fallen trying to climb down his 3rd floor balcony but I’m not going to buy that until I see the video that supposedly exists
It is not illegal in the slightest as we are protected by the first amendment
“Let’s overthrow the government”
I’m not going to jail over some random remarks
Them amendments are so well protected too. Didnt the government gun down a nurse for excercising their right to bear arms freedom of assembly?
The government has executed scores of people for exercising their right to bare arms.
Turns out you only have the rights the police are willing to respect. Which means you don’t actually have any.
Now now, if you are in the protected minority of red hats all the rights absolutely apply to you. Along with some bonus rights that aren’t even in the constitution. Funny how that works.
You put it in quotes. Like a big ole scaredycat
Let’s overthrow the government, hang all the billionaires from highway overpasses, and set anyone who resists us on fire.
…
In… In Minecraft
Let’s overthrow the government
But imminent incitement to violence will get you got
Well some historians say the 2nd amendment isn’t about guns, which everyone already had back then, but says states should have their own military.
“Bear arms” means militarization. Not owning a gun. But using a gun.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment
It actually was the nra lobbying that changed public and legal interpretation.
Owning a gun does little against tyranny.
But a state militia does.
That’s what it actually meant.
The Second Amendment consists of just one sentence: “A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
If not for that comma this would be a lot easier to understand.
That comma is a point of much debate.
Doesn’t seems like it say “firearm” as well, so right to bear arm could just mean having a bear as a friend.
Or just his arms, but bears ain’t got no arms therefore you get no rights.
Owning and carrying guns is not for overthrowing the government. That’s absurd. It is however very profitable to convince people that’s the case if you happen to be selling guns.
Owning and carrying guns is not for overthrowing the government. That’s absurd.
Ain’t that what the 2A is for?
That’s not what theyre for. Thats the thing we tell strangers. The guns are for shooting slaves.
In the 21st century, we’re all slaves.
Liberal equality!
Slavery never ended. The country merely transformed into one giant open-air slave plantation. One whose walls are not stone or iron, but raw distance and culture itself.
Specifically cause Patrick Henry was scared of what he knew deep down he deserved.
Just to bring everyone up to speed, the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is that the whole spiel about a militia is basically irrelevant. Source: Supreme Court decision in DC v. Heller (2008).
Love it or hate it, them’s the facts. That said, plenty of other decisions have been overturned at a later date. Like the one that made black people less than equal to whites in Dredd Scott v. Sanford or the endorsement of segregation in Plessy v. Ferguson. So things might change at some point.
Could you just please get on and do it. Get rid of that orange twat.
Sorry, I don’t wanna get accused of being a “CCP Spy trying to sabotage destabalize America” and then DHS will declare my family as foreign terrorists, then have ICE raid my house and deport my dad, a non-citizen.
Cuz in this country, whenever a non-white person does something, everyone who looks like that is getting targeted in hate crimes…
Then the entire Chinese diaspora community would be like: “Why did this loser have to stir the pot and ruin it for the rest of us?”
This problem on the white dudes who voted him in.
They’re going to accuse you of that anyway so might as well take a few with ya on the way out. If we can all set a minimum of 3:1 them/us before we’re ghosted, we might be able to clear the field a bit and give our grandchildren a chance at building something better. 10:1 you get a plaque, 50:1 a statue, 100+:1 and they’ll mention you in text books.
Why not just go straight for the filthy rich?
Hasn’t war taught muricans anything? They all act like zombies or… drones or something…Our problems of a wealthy minority and a bigoted majority are intertwined. Wealth provides access to power, media/narrative control, and legal shielding. Some of the wealthy might actually be bigots themselves, others might personally not give a fuck but if that’s the ticket to power, they’ll punch it. Eliminating them is a part of the solution, but it’s not a “cut the head off the snake” solution. Americans with only two dimes to rub together would give them to the dirty rich demagogue who tries to fill the void you made eliminating the filthy ones, so long as the candidate promised more of the same hate. And all the while, that hater is spreading their bile in the communities actual people live in. How many of our mass shooters, vehicular crowd killers, and murderous cops were filthy rich? Both are a threat, but eliminating one does not doom the other.
I have to watch it every time.
Advocating is not illegal; inciting is.
Unless you’re an oligarch of course. Then you can J6, Doge, destroy half the Whitehouse, etc.
when its justified and right, and its only illegal because the govt deemed it illegal.
Its illegal in the USA to advocate for the violent overthrow of the government,
if you fail, it is.
Weapons don’t know and don’t care what you do with them. A trigger pull while hunting is no different from the same trigger pull during a revolution. A strike of a knife while cutting cabbage is the same as a strike while chopping up your local equivalent of a secret policeman.
One could argue a hammer is meant to facilitate acts of rebellion but in reality it doesn’t know jack shit what it’s meant for, it’s just happy to be there.
Also it’s legal to own weapons/illegal to advocate for violent overthrow in many, many countries. It’s the intentions that matter.
I think what OP is referring to is that many supporters of “gun rights” like to use the argument that the second amendment is key to the freedom of America because an armed populace cannot be controlled by an authoritarian government. I don’t particularly care for that argument, but if you run with it, it would make sense that the right of the populace to organize armed rebellion is just as important as their right to own and carry weapons.
I wonder what would happen if the second amendment was about proper organization of that “militia” instead. It’s often the deciding factor between success and failure when it comes to rebellion, even when you’re outgunned.
If I kick a man to near death do I get charged with assault with deadly weapon for wearing shoes?
Shoes and hammers/knives/other heavy blunt (or not) objects are kinda different, also I don’t know your local laws, so maybe you will?
Difference is most countries are aimed at self-defence… as in against home invaders and such…
The US 2nd amendment seems to be intended for “protection against a tyrannical government”…
Since they (founding fathers) just protected against a tyrannical government, I’m pretty sure they wanted firearms to be fully legal to own in the future to be able to “easily” do the same thing they just did. I just don’t think they realized how good the tyranny would get at propaganda and misdirection! They knew and had seen this before, they understood the reason behind it. A well regulated militia- at least to me- meant the organization of people to take a stand against the government (bc at the time there were no military branches). Therefore if the corrupted politicians of the time tried to arrest or stop from being overthrown, the people’s militia could work to replace the gov with new individuals!
I honestly think, looking back, the formation of the military (or at least 1 reason) was to protect the gov from its people, but the excuse that it’s for foreign threats was used. Outside of a few smaller attacks and WWs, nobody has really “attacked” America in nearly 250 years. Everything else has been self initiated or inflicted; and, personally, I sort of feel the gov keeps all those willing to “fight” tied up in the military, keeping busy fighting other wars so there really is no chance of a domestic uprise… Obviously all speculation and just presumptions based on actions… I’m no expert!
Edit: at least the last part feels that way. Things are getting really bad at home, so what do we do? Start the first draft in roughly 50 years! Again, not an expert…
I can’t speak for every country but that’s not the case here. As long as you aren’t breaking laws nobody cares if it’s meant for defending against home invaders or collecting dust in a collector’s storage.
It really depends.
Merely saying that the administration needs to be guillotined isn’t illegal because its protected by the Constitution’s First Amendment.
However, such rhetoric loses such protection when it starts to manifest a particularity. So, saying “Guillotine Republicans because they fucking deserve it” is protected. Statements like “Guillotine Republican X at his address Y at Z p.m.” are not.
Jan6 be there, will be wild
Citizens united made it probable that foreign governments would act through intermediaries to pay for US policy against the American peoples interests
Here’s a neat and totally unrelated random website I found!
Here’s a mad nerd sniping problem:
Imagine we took the 2nd Amendment completely literally. It is now unconstitutional to prohibit the ownership of any weapon, no matter the scale. Owning even thermonuclear weaponry is legal.
There hasn’t exactly been a lot of free market innovation in the field of nuclear weapons design. There hasn’t been a whole lot of competition in the field. And the government is optimizing for security, safety, and effectiveness, but not cost. But imagine if we did make it legal for private citizens to own nukes. Just how cheaply could they be made, if we applied the normal principals of mass production to them? Would they always be the playthings of the ultra wealthy, or could some Henry Ford of hydrogen bombs put a nuke in every garage?
Lmao if everyone had a nuke, me and my older brother would’ve nuked each other the moment we landed in JFK and got our green cards…
The right one! Think about the powerfist punches he could throw with the weight of that neck behind him! Also looks more human.
