Tucker Gets BTFO on Second Amendment

>Red meat gives you cancer
>If we ban red meat, then everyone will stop having cancer!
No, you idiot. Cancer doesn't go away because you banned one small aspect of it.

>>131595132
yeah I normally like Tucker but he was quite deliberately misrepresenting this guy's position

not that I'm pro gun control but he had a reasonable point in that this is what it looks like re: using the 2nd amendment to rise up against a 'tyrannical' government... not that the US ever has had to do that unless you're going to count having to pay taxes as 'tyranny'

Yeah this one disappointed me, mainly because Tuck was trying to make a political point when the other dude seemed to merely be reflecting on the whole situation. He's right insofar as the shooting representing what the 2nd amendment stands for; politicians should be motivated to do right by their constituents because of this. The pushback is that it's up for society to maintain a calm and collected demeanor when discussing policy unless the situation genuinely necessitates hysterics. He could have turned it around and still made his point while agreeing with the guy, but instead he seemed to have made his mind up about the guests "message" and didn't want to budge, despite it being obvious he was having second thoughts.

>>131595132
He didn't get btfo at all, were we watching the same video?
The stupid faggot nigger's point made no sense.
It was basically "rather than blame the liberal media for upping the rhetoric against right-wingers by calling taking away healthcare terrorism, and saying DJT is literally treasonous (treason is punishable by death) lets blame the idea that tyranny is bad and ought to be punished."
It's a Jew-tier argument that amounts to blaming the idea that God exists when a mudslime shoots up a bar, rather than blaming the sandniggers Koran interpretation of what is God's will.

>>131595132

Tucker is a half brained star in a brainless industry. I don't like leftists, but there's no denying there're many intelligent ones. This is pretty much the only one Tucker has let on and he completely lost it going for moralist points when the guy wasn't even trying to win.

Tucker is only good for contrasting against ooga booga BLM and feminists freaks. Against anyone actually seasoned and professional, he's got nothing.

>>131596583
>but he had a reasonable poin
No, he did not have a reasonable point. Tucker was right on. This man was pretending that Tucker's definition of tyranny was subjective and obviously grasping for some way to put the blame for this to the right wing.

You guys are brainlets who don't understand subtlety.

>>131595132
The dude is actually kind of right, but the fact he's saying we should revoke guns because attacking the government is never excusable is just kike shit. The left has completely gone off the walls saying that Trump is treasonous and wants to destroy America. The left has built the rhetoric, the constitution provides the means to carry out that opposition to that rhetoric.

>>131595132
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!

Gun grabbing cucks can go live in the European caliphate if they want to be in a gun free zone so bad. I'll even pay a tax for their flight.

>>131596583
No thats not an example of using the 2A for checking the gov. You don't shoot unarmed men who are not attacking you. You would use the arms to arrest them.

>>131595132
Attempting to assassinate people for being a member of a political party is not the same as resisting tyranny and oppression. If you hate republicans, that's fine, but at the end of the day they are just politicians and cowards. If you want to fight tyranny, you'd better be a hell of a lot more prepared than one guy with a shitty SKS shooting at politicians, because that revolution isn't going to get you very far. No, this wasn't a patriot protecting the constitution from a tyrannical government. This jackass built his whole argument on a false premise rooted in "critical theory" that because of his confidence you dumbasses believe is a logical argument simply because you don't understand it.

>>131598679
Intellectualism=/=Intelligence. Leftists are not as intelligent as they want you to believe.

>>131595132
The guy avoided taking a position, that's not being schooled in a debate. He just made an open ended statement and refused to be pinned down to a position.

>>131600153
>literally robbing you blind for them and their fuckbuddy rich jew overlords, just with laws instead of guns
>n-n-n-no he's not attacking us!!! violence bad!!! keep your powder dry!

File: 1498473618775.png (141KB, 332x340px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 332x340px

>5-15 minutes between replies
>Shills expect us to believe this is organic

>>131596583
>he was quite deliberately misrepresenting this guy's position

The guy didn't have a position. Not one that was relevant to the conversation. He said that conservatives have said that guns are for tyranny. Tucker didn't disagree, said that it's not tyrannical. The guy says but the crazy guy can believe it's tyrannical. Yeah and he can believe he's fighting lizard people, it's not rational. He didn't defend the point that the government was tyranical, he didn't disprove the point that you need guns when the government is tyranical. Was his point that no one should stand up to actual tyranny? We'll never know because he wanted to look good instead of debate a position.

>>131601125
You didn't understand his argument, because he didn't claim nor suggest the man was a patriot. His point was that if you believe the 2nd amendment exists as a check against tyranny, then these are exactly the kind of actions you should expect when people feel they are being tyrannized. "But we're not in a tyranny," is a failed counterargument that supposes there is a clear definition of tyranny, when a cursory look at the Internet, including places like this, shows significant amounts of people who believe lived in a tyranny at some point in the last 15 years. America revolted against Britain because of taxes, dude, which sounds silly today. The point here is that this is just a BAD argument for the 2nd amendment in a modern, democratic society and we probably shouldn't encourage the thought that it's okay to takeover the government when you disagree with it strongly enough.

>>131602955
His point was that if you use this argument for the 2nd amendment, these are the exact kind of actions you should expect. Tyranny is defined as "cruel and oppressive rule". Who decides when it gets to that point? It seems like people who haven't put much thought into it think that there would be some kind of citizen tribunal with 100% consensus first to decide whether or not the government has shifted into tyranny or that there is some agreed-upon line the government has to cross.

Tucker introduced him by completely misrepresenting his position (claiming he was trying to lay blame on conservatives), and even when the man explicitly said conservatives were not to blame and that he was making a general point about the 2nd amendment, Tucker kept pressing that non-argument. Don't defend Tucker here. He was clearly outclassed by a superior debater.

>>131595132
>>131596583

Same. Saw this last night and thought well Tucker has painted himself into a corner. The guy is clearly explaining a straight forward point, Tucker just doesn't want to admit he understands and agrees with said point because it would put Tuck on the defensive.

>>131605217
So he was arguing against the second amendment? Why didn't he take that position then? Saying "this is what you get" isn't a position, it's an observation. Not a debate.

>>131605217
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

-Thomas Jefferson

I am able and willing to live with this. Wanna know why? Because I live in a state where I'm allowed to use firearms to defend myself. People who don't have no right to complain. And they sure as hell have no right to usher in more government to fulfill that role either.

>>131605595
He isn't presenting an anti-2nd amendment argument. He was arguing that Scalise's shooter was not just a left-winger, he also held this belief, widely-held in pro-gun circles, in the 2nd amendment as a way to resist government. He is calling into question the value of that interpretation.

>>131603646
In this context, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to allow the people to carry out a revolution in the case of a tyrannical government that violates our natural rights.

1 lone nutjob does not a revolution make. It just doesn't. That's not what 2A proponents are talking about.

>>131606829
How many people need to agree before there is a justifiable attempt at a resolution?

>>131606786
Yeah you're making my point for me, it's not a position and therefore not a debate, he doesn't want to be pinned down to a position, he just wants to make his open ended point and not have to defend anything.

>>131606974
>How many people need to agree before there is a justifiable attempt at a resolution?
I mean could spend a long time and come up with some broad ideas of numbers (something in the thousands at least, probably millions, i would guess).... but the answer will definitely be more than one.

File: C4v09TzWcAYs1Yz.jpg large.jpg (206KB, 1500x1633px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 1500x1633px

The gun owners of the united states of america could beat the standing army of the united states. It is statistically improbable that you could beat an army 100-1 even with superior equipment let alone the potential 200-1.

>>131607056
>it's not a position
Clearly your definition of "position" is different than mine. Tucker's position was that Scalise's shooter's actions were purely a matter of left-wing extremism and there is nothing beyond the surace. Dave Ross's position is that Scalise's shooter's actions were consistent with a "resist" interpretation of 2A, widely held in pro-gun circles, and that (implicitly) this interpretation is dangerous.

File: waco.jpg (189KB, 1030x630px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 1030x630px

>>131595132

This is a great video... thanks for the post

>>131607706
>"resist" interpretation of 2A,
Resist what, the Constitution of the USA.

File: 1498596986330.jpg (161KB, 500x628px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 500x628px

>>131607842
thats a pretty unamerican meme if you ask me

File: 1462257714270.gif (380KB, 1500x2700px) Image search: [Google]

380KB, 1500x2700px

>>131605217

an absurd point, Tyranny in the context of what the founders meant was clearly a government that abolished the rule of law demarcated in the Constitution and denied people their rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. So we have a clear guideline as to when its starts to get too out of hand.

They've been pecking at the margins for 300 years, mainly through the courts. But they haven't gotten very far. The Right to keep and bear arms is far more expansive a philosophical position than just tyranny though, its also about spreading political power as far out as possible.

Even a single citizen has the power to overthrow their own local government with a shotgun, then that demonstrates the type of political power that arms represents. and that's just a small sample of its potential. The idea that the government would ever regulate your ability to protect yourself or for you to hunt or sport shoot is laughably ridiculous. The opinion on guns and arms in general is very clearly stated by the founders. It's just a weak attempt to subvert it to confuse soccer moms and libtards.

>>131595132
What a fucking moron.

>he enacted the way in which conservatives interpret 2A
>but I'm not blaming conservatives or 2A

Ya sure buddy.

>>131596583
Only reason this faggot could ever think he was rising up against tyranny, is because of all the horrendously inappropriate and seditious news coverage coming from CNN and the like about Trump being Russian Hitler.

>>131607706
>Tucker's position was that Scalise's shooter's actions were purely a matter of left-wing extremism and there is nothing beyond the surace. Dave Ross's position is that Scalise's shooter's actions were consistent with a "resist" interpretation of 2A

>implying the two "positions" are mutually exclusive

>>131607706
What's the point of the debate then? He's only making an observation. There is no solution, argument, or position. He's just saying "Well that 2nd amendment that you gun nuts love? Guess what. It says you can use arms to overthrow a tyrannical gov! The scalise shooter may have considered the repubs as tyrannical and was within his right under the 2nd amendment to shoot those politicians!" You know damn well the purpose of him making this connection was to illustrate faults within the 2nd amendment. Why didn't he just come out and say that?

>>131595132
>knows how to debate
if bernouts think withholding free gibs is worthy of killing people in power then how can you say they know how to debate?
you cant justify the unjustifiable

>>131608547
What the founders meant when they wrote 2A has little to do with how people interpret it today.

Second amendment was not about arming citizens to go against the government. It was about the relationship between state militias and the federal government during a time in which the modern military did not exist.

In fact, the constitution is quite clear that congress has the right to call upon these militas in order to suppress insurrections, which alone invalidates the idea that everyone was supposed to have a gun on hand just in case the federal government went too far. And states early on in the union were themselves banning guns.

>>131608741
It's not because Tucker objects to the idea that the 2nd amendment is relevant here.

I feel like the people arguing against Tucker is using the word "tyrannical" in the most jesting and non-serious way possible. Britain did a lot more than just 'tax' us heavily. They refused to hear dissidents and routinely treated then rebels as mere puppets

>>131609546
You yourself said the second amendment wasn't relevant. You're doing the same thing he was, you're not taking a position. Is it an argument against the second amendment or not?

Here's a real Tucker gem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qN5L2q6hfWo

>>131609461
Your interpretation is wrong.

Since I seem to be the only non-bot here, let me sum it up for you

>Tucker: Your comments on the justification of the Scalise shooting by Hodgkinson, being motivated by conservative interpretations, is both misleading as Hodgkinson stated his reasons and damaging as you are playing the implication game

>Um no, I am simple asking open-ended and sophistic questions like "what really is tyranny" in order to deflect and repeat my point of the Scalise shooting being rationalised via a conservative interpretation of the 2A

>Tucker: Why do you keep playing these word games? We know the reasons already and you're deflecting and trying to remove those reasons in order to save your party's own hide from the violent rhetoric coming from it

>Yeah but I'm not personally advocating for violence

>Tucker: Doesnt matter, the Left is streaming this for the world to see. See examples X and Y

Basically the guy was arguing via implication and denial

>>131608881
>ou know damn well the purpose of him making this connection was to illustrate faults within the 2nd amendment. Why didn't he just come out and say that?
Isn't that exactly what he did? (IT is)
Tucker is becoming the new bill o Reilly of just shouting over anyone he has on his show and misrepresenting them
Doesn't come off good or jones fat all, but then I remember he's been like this ever since working on crossword at CNN over 13 years ago

>>131595132
Tucker wasn't quite getting his point. Surprising. This and the female circumcision are the only times he tucked himself.

>>131609853
>You yourself said the second amendment wasn't relevant.
No, I didn't.

I've already explained what it was to you. It was an argument against a particular interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

File: 1498012799059.png (372KB, 393x829px) Image search: [Google]

372KB, 393x829px

Nice try commies but you don't get to define tyranny.

>>131610119
The guy tried to make "I don't have a point" into his point.

Even though he repeatedly implied that the shooter was motivated by a conservative interpretation of 2A.

That guy was a grade A bullshitter.

>>131609461

The Constitution is not a living document in the sense that it can be "interpreted" whimsically. Your ignorant point is invalidated entirely by our history and the relationship to foreign, centralized control. Nevertheless, to address your point further, the Constitution does not grant Rights. It draws a line FOR the Federal Government; it outlines what it can and cannot do. So implying we could somehow remove the 2nd Amendment and that would mean the govt could start rounding up firearms is simply untrue and naive.

>>131610126
So it's an argument against an argument? So basically a strawman.

>>131595132
The guest's argument is easily destroyed by pointing out the gunman was a leftist, and leftist ideas about the constitution are negative. Thus he is the tyrant, not those trying to preserve the protections of the constitution. If a schizophrenic decides he wants to fight the government because he thinks his rations of purple dinosaurs is too little, we cannot then suggest that he has a valid reason to take up arms. One can objectively decided who the tyrant is and who the tyrant isn't by looking at whether they want to preserve the Constitution, ore repeal it. Simple as that. He was the arm of the tyrants. The ones who want to get rid of the constitution. The ones who call it out dated. He shot someone who was more affiliated with wanting to conserve and preserve the constitution.

>>131610311
>The guy tried to make "I don't have a point" into his point.
Not really, but he was being intentionally unclear. He was saying that tucker is a hypocrite to disagree with him, on the assumption that tucker agrees with mainstream conservative viewpoints on the constitution.

That is not the same as blaming conservatism. It's just calling them hypocrites for not standing behind this shooters motives. It's a bit of a meme argument -- but Tucker wasn't getting it.

>>131608881
Tucker is the one who brought him on and misrepresented the guys point in the introduction. The original point of the debate, you could say, was to argue whether a certain interpretation of the 2nd amendment is part of the problem.

He isn't illustrating a fault in the amendment, but an interpretation of it. That is important because how we look at gun control is dependent on how we justify the 2nd amendment.

>>131610311
He wasn't bullshitting. Tucker was. He spent the whole 7 minutes trying to make the guy out to be someone who was just trying to blame conservatives / Republicans for the Scalise shooting which was a complete misrepresentation.

>>131610842
I'm a big fan of Tucker's but that was frustrating to watch.

Cucker Carlson is an idiot, all the pundits at Fox are idiots.
Literally the entire network is built around baiting loyalty from their viewers by framing themselves as the only credible news source. I wish there was another right-leaning news station alternative.

If you watch Fox, you're small brain basically.

>>131610732
It's not that they don't get it; this asshole is arguing that not paying for people's health insurance is the same thing as restricting their freedoms. It's not. If you tell me I can't grow a harmless plant, or have a gun, that is infringing on my freedom.

>>131610732
>>131610842
The guy was implying that the man acted on right-wing ideologies pertaining to 2A.

He was clearly trying to shift the blame to the right wing.

>>131611146
Actually Tucker debates very well most of the time. Most of Fox programming is like you describe, but you clearly are just a larping leftist to recognize Tucker's talents.

>>131595132
B-but I thought they only bring on retards.

>>131610530
That absolutely correct and what Tucker should have said but the person isn't even arguing that.

He was asking the question of how do you quantify tyranny? And
Is it not true that many people already believe we're living in tyranny?

This is a problem I've grappled with consistently. Ted Kaczynski started bombing people because he knew they were working to accelerate the progress of technology that ultimately would bring complete tyranny. We live in surveillance state. The future will bring complete control just through technology advances. How is this not tyranny?

>>131611160
>The guy was implying that the man acted on right-wing ideologies pertaining to 2A.
>He was clearly trying to shift the blame to the right wing.
No he wasn't. He was saying that the right can't knock him for fighting tyranny because the right believes the 2nd amendment is to fight tyranny.

Interesting. Maybe this concept is harder to grasp than I realized. If Tucker didn't get it, I con't blame you really. But you're wrong.

He was saying the right is being hypocritical.
>guns are to fight tyrannical government
>guy fights tyrannical government with guns
>right autistically screeches
That was his point.

It is incorrect, but it was his point. That point was not to blame the right, but to expose the hypocrisy of the right, and their flimsy understanding of the 2nd amendment.

>>131611160

The real problem is that there's a breakdown in political dialogue, spurred on mostly by biased news and also social media.

How the news works is obvious, but social media has led to the breakdown by allowing people to isolate themselves into little echo chambers. They don't engage with the other side, they just talk about the other side with people they agree with, and since they don't engage they do not have realistic impressions of what the other side believes or wants.

So instead of them speaking and understanding eachother, it's "These assholes are trying to destroy America", which is a conclusion that ends up bringing some to violence.

>>131611437
>He was saying that the right can't knock him for fighting tyranny because the right believes the 2nd amendment is to fight tyranny.
Exactly.
Meaning the shooter acted in accordance with what he believes is a right-wing interpretation of 2A.
Meaning the interviewee is implying that the man acted on right-wing ideologies pertaining to 2A.
Like I said.

Also, the right can't knock him? So any time someone from the left kills a politician he disagrees with, the right can't speak out against that?

L M A O
M
A
O

Go the fuck to bed, dumb dumb.

>>131610314
This isn't about removing the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment should be looked at much like the 3rd amendment, ie barely has any application today. The 2nd amendment only prevents the federal government from disarming state militias. It does not stop the federal government from disarming private citizens in general. In fact, the constitution gives the federal government broad powers with respect to preventing domestic insurrections and keeping the people safe.

I'm pro-gun control but not anti-gun. There's just no constitutional argument for the federal government not being able to restrict private gun use.

>>131606974
Enough to overthrow the government. If you attempt a failed revolution you deserve the consequences.

>>131611660
This is what the internet does.

Before the internet, you had the news, and you had the people around you. Now you can just turn on your computer and completely immerse yourself into the particular ideology of your liking without ever having to see anything from another perspective.

>>131611437
>can't knock him for fighting tyranny
implying he fought tyranny

>>131595132
holy fucking shit
right guy completely made tucker into a liberal defending radical islam

>>131611678
>Meaning the shooter acted in accordance with what he believes is a right-wing interpretation of 2A.
No, he acted based on what the 2nd amendment says. The right's understanding of this has nothing to do with it. He was not suggesting that since the right decided this was true of the 2nd amendment, this guy, AS A RESULT, decided to act upon it.

He was pointing out that the right, SINCE, they hold this understanding, cannot knock the shooter without being hypocrites.

You seem to be having a problem understanding the diference between
>cause and effect
and
>hypocrisy

>>131611788
>implying he fought tyranny
Correct, but I'm trying to make this easier to understand by explaining the guest's position in the first person.

>>131595132
liberal faggot argues like a woman...not surprised

>>131595132
if tucker had actually tried to have a real conversation he would have been able to properly shit on dave ross' solution. tucker is a trousered ape

>>131611396
>>131608547
This anon answered your question earlier. Founding fathers made their thoughts om tyranny pretty clear.

File: brainlessissyretard.webm (646KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

646KB, 1280x720px

>>131595132
People supporting Tucker here remind me how low the IQ of this board has dropped.

Are we above or below the ngro average now (85)?

>>131611857
>The right's understanding of this has nothing to do with it.
And yet in the very next line you write " the right, SINCE, they hold this understanding"

And in your previous post you literally said "because the right believes the 2nd amendment is to fight tyranny".

Get your ass to sleep, faggot.

>>131609461
Guns are important as you can form militias with them. That's what the second amendment says: freedom to form militias with guns as an absolute right.

>>131612135
Right, an "understanding" isn't a provocation. You follow? An understanding is representative of logical standing. Whereas if one then went against it they'd be...

a hypocrite.

>>131611857

Certainly doesn't help that the sitting president made comments on the campaign trail which advocated violence at times, even going so far as to suggest that "Second Amendment people" could do something if Clinton won and began appointing judges they disagreed with.

I can't recall when any other presidential candidate made a thinly veiled reference to political assassinations in the event that their opponent won.

>when americuh comes biting back on the asses of muh 4chan warriors.

The Thread.

Tucker got owned. and with deep and grounded arguments, who the fuck decides when its time to take up arms ?

That dude decided it was time for him, and he was wrong, don't fall in the same trap, that our own 4chan laid out for us.

Use your head, that man did and he won the debate.

>>131612242
It doesn't have to be provocation for there to be blame shifting.

person X: "I support lethal force in cases of legitimate self defense"
person Y: *gets psychotic episode and kills neighbor for trying to steal his thoughts via his blender*
person Z to person X: "you can't denounce this murder because you also believe in killing people in self defense!"

>>131612347
>doesn't help
Doesn't help what?

>>131611246
No, he asks selective questions to get selective answers. Same shit O'Reilly did. Small minds play into his hand, and usually they scope out small minds to invite.

As a republican, watching Cucker Carleson is like sucking your own cock. You learn nothing from his show.

>straight out of kekistan
i wish i could do a mass shooting of redditors

>>131612404
person X: "I support lethal force in cases of legitimate self defense"
person Y: *gets psychotic episode and kills neighbor for trying to steal his thoughts via his blender*
person Z to person X: "you can't denounce this murder because you also believe in killing people in self defense!"

But that's exactly what I'm saying. Person Z is telling person X they cannot denounce this murder because it would make them a hypocrite. That is entirely my point.

>>131595132
Holy fuck its not that difficult

The guest is a bullshit artist. He debates like Alinsky the Kike

He makes a statement. Host calls him on his statement. guest says that not what I he saying

Now the debate is about guests bullshit statement.

The guest is clearly trying to blame republicans.

>>131612409

Doesn't help political dialogue and injected more violence into politics. Imagine the effect it would have had on right wing voters if Clinton had made comments referencing assassinations if she lost.

>>131612580
If you think denouncing a non-legitimate murder is hypocritical if you believe in defending yourself with lethal force, then you are an idiot.

Which is what I figured all along.

>>131612429
I'm guessing you have a hard time following the program. The way you type lends me to believe you are sub 100 IQ and just upset about it.

>>131612610
>The guest is clearly trying to blame republicans.
No he was saying tucker had no standing to denounce the shooter based on Tucker's view of the 2nd amendment. This view did not "cause" the shooter to shoot, nor was it suggested.

File: 1055005929.jpg (64KB, 658x1000px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 658x1000px

>we are under racial assault

Yes we are

>we are under gender assault

Yes we are

>They are an existential threat to us

LoL fuck no, come on get real


If you don't have the brains to join AND capture a debate you don't have a reason to be political.


Just fucking boil in your rage until bullets start flying.

Until then, don't ever, ever think that picking a gun up and shooting someone is justified /pol.

Just stay low as the nigger would say.

>>131606786
So wait a guy shooting at some republicans is the same as a full scale revolt? Damn does that guy has some idea of scale?

>>131612659
Yes you'd be an idiot. I thought you were smart enough to follow our discourse here but I was mistaken. The guest was incorrect, as you suggest. I'm simply trying to get you off the strawman, and understand the argument, albeit incorrect one, the guest was making.

>>131612625
Eh just lefty talking points. Saying a man should defend himself is perfectly reasonable. But I've given up trying to interact with you leftists on a plane of actual discourse. Enjoy your feelings and good luck.

>>131612677
Great argument fuck face. Sure settled that one.

>>131612835
There is no strawman.

The interviewee was trying to imply right wingers have no right to denounce any political violence and murder ever, simply because they believe the people should be able to rise up against tyranny.

It's just an extremely dumb position to hold, made even dumber by the attempts to deny ever having made that point.

>>131595132
Christ tucker is a idiot...

>>131612981
You want me to resettle your opinion of Tucker Carlson? OK, perhaps you're retarded. 70s IQ?

>>131613033
>The interviewee was trying to imply right wingers have no right to denounce any political violence and murder ever, simply because they believe the people should be able to rise up against tyranny.
That is what I am saying. And Tucker was responding to him as if he was presenting the argument:
>This is conservatives fault

>>131612765
So why talk republican interpretation of tyranny and why the 2nd is used to stop tyrants?


This is a distraction. The shooter was clearly motivated by the left.

Simple ALinksy debating. Never defend always attack.

Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it

>>131595132
the point of the second amendment is defense, not offense. if the gov is rolling tanks down the street and pulling people out of their homes on mass guns let you do something about it.

Tucker just failed to debate the argument properly and lost. he should have won but he failed.

Why is Tucker trying to misrepresent Ross's view, he clearly stated the blame isn't on anyones side

this dude was trying to deflect the left's culpability for the actions of a nut.

It's real simple. if you think it's time, grab your rifle, and take to the streets, but look around. if you're the only one out there, go back inside. it's not time.

>>131613129
That implication absolutely shifts blame to right wingers.

The mere mention of "right wingers proclaim this belief" implies that the shooter was somehow influenced by the right wingers proclaiming this belief, and that the shooter would not have committed the act if he had instead been influenced by left-wing anti-gun beliefs.

>>131613149
>So why talk republican interpretation of tyranny and why the 2nd is used to stop tyrants?
Because he wanted to trap tucker into having to explain from the position of cognitive dissonance.

You're not wrong on any of your points here. I'm simply stating that Tucker was strawmanning the guy probably because he didn't understand the argument he was making. ALBEIT a weak incorrect argument. Tucker could have destroyed him if he understood what the faggot was saying.

File: IMG_2642.jpg (72KB, 530x484px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 530x484px

>>131595132
Tucker is great unless the topic is about guns, abortion, or religious icons in public spaces. I'm pretty sure those are just taboo subjects for Fox execs, just like how anything pro Trump is taboo on every other network.

>>131613212
Ross did shift blame to right wingers.

>>131613129
>This is conservatives fault
>right wingers have no right to denounce

You are suggesting these two statements are equal

>>131595132
SEE now the debate is not about the shooter.

SIMPLE JEWS DEBATE STYLE

LETS GET BACK ON TRACK:
The shooter was a leftist faggot. He was motivated by the media. Thats the truth.

>>131613033

No autist, he was denouncing the argument that the second amendment is a bulwark against government tyranny.

>>131613280
>This is conservatives fault
>right wingers have no right to denounce

You are suggesting these two statements are equal

>>131613344
Not having any right to denounce implies you share part of the blame.

That's the whole point of the phrase "you're one to talk".

>>131613280
>The mere mention of "right wingers proclaim this belief" implies that the shooter was somehow influenced
No that suggests right wingers can't denounce it, thus "look silly". That was the guest's aim.

>>131613297
The guest wasnt making an argument. He was diverting.

He did NOT want to have an honest debate.

>>131613067
Look, I made the assertion that Tucker just asks selective questions to get selective answers. That's his entire show and the only way he can debate.

When you responded, you just said that I must have a sub 100 IQ (???).

Are you denying what I said is true, that Tucker just asks selective questions to get selective answers? Or do you have another point to make?

>>131613388
And what does that have to do with this left-wing shooter's actions?

>>131613435
The phrase "you're one to talk" imparts blame.

>>131613407
>Not having any right to denounce implies you share part of the blame.
Qualify that.

If I believe in gravity, do I share the blame if someone jumps off a building?

>>131613454

Then what was the point of him being on there? To make Tucker looks "confuse"?

>>131613363
You make me worry for my country.. God speed america. May these people die by trump death squad along the liberals or see the light somehow that the right is pure cancer.

>>131613503
>The phrase "you're one to talk" imparts blame.
I'll rewatch. Maybe I missed that.

>>131595132

>democracy
>democracy
>democracy

The USA is a republic

>>131613490
Yes I'm just fucking with you because you offer nothing of substance to discuss. Stop being so mad.

>>131595132
Wtf, I hate Tucker Carlson and the 2nd amendment now!

>>131613555
>Qualify that.
Not having any right to denounce = the pot calling the kettle black.

The implication is that the pot cannot call the kettle black, because the pot is himself black. Meaning both the pot and kettle are "guilty" of being black.

>>131613616
Right.
Because "you have no right to denounce" isn't the same as saying "you're one to talk", riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight?

>>131613672
>Because "you have no right to denounce" isn't the same as saying "you're one to talk", riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight?
Well it would require context. If one is being hypocritical, a correct reaction to that would be "you're one to talk". It more or less supports my point.

>>131613672
>Not having any right to denounce = the pot calling the kettle black.
>The implication is that the pot cannot call the kettle black, because the pot is himself black. Meaning both the pot and kettle are "guilty" of being black.
You keep explaining what hypocrisy is, not blame sharing.

>>131613649

a kind of democracy

>>131613557
The asshole probably thought he was making a good point....
so if the asshole used his car instead of a gun?

What I find scary is he believes govt is infallible. He believe there can be a true "democracy" WOW, he is scary stupid.

>>131613580
move to canada, faggot.

>>131613659
So you were only pretending to be stupid. Nice.

>>131613193
>the point of the second amendment is defense, not offense. if the gov is rolling tanks down the street and pulling people out of their homes on mass guns let you do something about it.

American's revolted against Britain because of taxes.

>>131613885
>So you were only pretending to be stupid. Nice.
That's correct. How's your night going?

>>131613746
>Well it would require context.
Not really.
The two phrases are interchangeable.

"you have no right to denounce because you also X" = "you're one to talk".

>>131613823
Well that's exactly what "hypocrisy" means; to claim to be above someone or something while being guilty of the same transgression.

File: 1895332-t6.jpg (109KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1280x720px

man you burgers are fucked so bad.

The last civil war they fought with guns and canons and shit, now the lines are so blurred you can't even make out if your right or wrong ?

Who was right and who war wrong in that US Civil War, you only have to read a bit to learn the lines were somewhat blurred that time too!.

I mean holy fuck im literally living the start of the Second American Civil War, im stoked, stoked beyond belief and excited.

>>131611742
>I'm pro-gun control but not anti-gun
they're the same thing you fucking dirty kike

also you clearly don't understand the meaning of the word militia

He was justifying a terrorist attack on people playing baseball.

>>131595132
nah. "liberal talk show host" is a fag. his whole argument rests upon how one "defines tyranny".

that's just more sjw bullshit, where they fuck around with definitions, words, and language in order to twist them to suit their own agenda.

tucker was right. there was no tyranny affecting the shooter here. he was just stoked up by violent rhetoric and anger, to the point where he thought it would be a good idea to shoot politicians.

you faggot microdicks who think tucker got BTFO need to get your heads on straight. the ones you supposedly think with, that is.

>>131613908
Much better now, knowing that someone with 27 posts in this thread in defense of Cucker Carleson actually concedes that his entire show is Cucker inviting smaller minds onto his show, so he can ask selective questions for selective answers so he can tell his own narrative.

>>131595132
Jesus Christ

This was hard to watch, but educational.

>>131614129
All questions are "selective" you dumbass.

>>131595132
muslim radical uses a car and runs over non-muslims because he views them as being tyrants.......................so lets have a debate about crusades and why Christians are evil


I HATE LIBERALS. I.FUCKING.HATE.THEM

>>131613924
>"you have no right to denounce because you also X" = "you're one to talk".
You keep stating my point as if it's yours. I'm the one saying the guest was attacking Tucker for hypocrisy, not blaming his ideology for the attack.

You then say "yes there was shared blame; that's what the guest was suggesting" and support this by only explaining what hypocrisy is.

>Well that's exactly what "hypocrisy" means; to claim to be above someone or something while being guilty of the same transgression.
No it means claiming a principle and then pretending it away for convenience. It's intellectual dishonesty. How about we call it that. Might be easier.

Saying someone is being intellectually dishonest is not the same as saying you "caused" a person to act a certain way.

>>131599095
Gun: better to have them and not need them, than to need them and not have them.
Just by having then is enough deterrent for the government to not fuck around to the extreme. Like as if we ever use our military for total war. It's just to bully people in negotiations, usually without firing a shot.

>>131614208
Do they teach the concept of "open ended questions" in Belgium, or just how to make waffles?

>>131612625

Talking points? It doesn't make sense to you that a presidential candidate advocating for violence might actually contribute to some on either side?

>>131614305

was supposed to be in response to >>131612971

>>131614208
I'm going to take your advice and go to sleep, Belgium. Thanks for the discussion.

File: jews....jews never change.jpg (130KB, 600x438px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 600x438px

>lefty-pol brings this out only at night when they have a chance.


This faggot radio host tried to blame the shooters motives on the Rights interpretation of protection from a tyrranical government.

>acted in offense, not DEFENSE
>watched leftwing propoganda
>supported FAR LEFT SOCIALIST bunny sandus.

He had a convincing argument for those in his echo chamber, but Tucker tucked him in tightly between the sheets of republicanism, and the bed of truth.

File: 1489525069300.jpg (59KB, 680x535px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 680x535px

>Those scrolling ads in the video advertising le ebic kek clothing
And pol complains about news article advertisements

File: Subverted.jpg (58KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 480x360px

>>131596583
> what is martial law
This is fucking stupid and they're both being faggets here. Tucker is unnecessarily antagonizing this bore to hype the interview, and the other guy is a sloth jew. The left here in the USA feel as though they're under some sort of imaginary oppression through no fault of their own (it's their own fault, the individual is always directly responsible for their situation aside from acts of God), and on top of that they're dumb enough to utilize this mindset and exercise their 2A right. So stupid seeing as how that group of people are usually the main proponents of gun control. These are the same people that pushed lgbtqpkys issues into the mainstream even though they're a nonessential portion of this country's population. These are the same people that protest and support blm even though blacks make up less than 20% of America. There is no logic to these people, every step from here on out will be hypocritical and I will enjoy the journey

>>131613924
Dont have an aneurysm, Belgiumbro, I understand your point. These kids are just trying to play the "implication is not a statement" game like the host was, knowing their positions are morally dangerous and bankrupt

>>131614259
>I'm the one saying the guest was attacking Tucker for hypocrisy, not blaming his ideology for the attack.
And I'm the one saying that the claim of hypocrisy shifts blame.

>No
Yes.

And it's not just the mere assertion of hypocrisy, but this Ross guy also implied that the distribution of the conservative view of 2A influenced the shooter.

>>131614279
Explain.

>>131614364
>tfw you realize that 20% of this thread is someone with homo-love for Cucker Carleson trying and failing to defend a fucking awful program for small-brains until he has no more arguments to make

Damn I wish I came to /pol/ more often. Great place!

>>131614268

Preach brother, as long as you Ameriburgers have guns, you have nothing to fear, from the SJW faggots, from the feminism faggots, from the BLM faggots.

The moment you lost your rights to firearms.....well you end up like EUROPA.

And i weep everyday for the sorry state this part of the world has become, and i want nothing more than the RIGHT to a firearm to defend my 2 children.

Yet my gov won't give me that. THAT is tyrannical.

Peace, stay strong, you guys always made the rest of the world strong , no matter what Germany says.

>>131614259
So if tucker saw a guy who shot the Democrats for supporting gay marriage, he would support him? That's the definition of hypocrisy and clearly doesn't apply in this situation, retard

>>131614279
Derailment happens in two cases

>Answer a question with another quetion
See: "But what is tyranny?"
>Create relativism
See: The guest's whole spiel

>>131596583
Fuck off idiot you can only fight force with force. So when a real tyrannical gov dors come abiut you wont be able to do shit

>>131595132

Murderer was a bleeding heart liberal. The guys point that "militias use the 2A as a mean to defend oneself against the gov" is what made this guy go shoot someone is fucking stupid.

Why would a liberal agree with "right wing" rhetoric?

>>131614441
>Explain.
I'm going to skip the bullshit and go on.

So, you're making the assertion that Tucker asks selective questions because all questions are selective. Correct?

Not entirely true. What tucker does is what is known as a "leading question." They are questions asked to get a desired answer. This is used in interrogation, for example.

Tucker's entire show is him inviting on stupid guests, asking leading questions so he can get the answers he wants, and uses those answers to tell his own story.
This is straight out of the Bill O'Reilly playbook.

Only small-brains would watch a show like this. Rachel Maddow and Anderson Cooper are basically the same shit. Why would I watch pretend interviews?

>>131613649

> t. idiot who doesn't understand political terms

>>131611437
idiot, you don't get to define tyranny to be whatever you dislike. that's like antifa calling any and everything they disagree with facsist. it's not hypocritical to want to defend yourself from tyranny and still not get shot by retards who think trump is a nazi dictator. you're splitting hairs here like a typical intellectual brainlet trying to sound smart. he didn't have a point, and that was his whole point.
>the right agrees with this because they obviously agree with the left's definition of tyranny
fucking moronic logic right there. he was absolutely trying to blame conservatives for the kind of shit liberals create with their spastic rhetoric and tucker cut through the shit and called him out on it. that's what i saw.

>>131614963
I've seen quite a few of his shows, and he doesn't ask leading questions; he just asks people to explain the ridiculous shit they said that got them invited in the first place.

It just seems like he's being somehow leading because the viewpoints of these people are so deranged.

>Tucker's entire show is him inviting on stupid guests
Very much so.

But keep in mind that the stupid viewpoints of his stupid guests are very much in line with some generally held stupid beliefs, like BLM, Marxism, rabid feminism, ...

Staple topics of argumentation on /pol/.

>>131614963
And he often does invite smart people who simply claim stupid shit, like the Ross guy in OP.

Claiming it's hypocritical for conservatives to denounce political violence is extremely idiotic. Some of the modern world's most far-reaching revolutions have been far left-wing, like in Russia and China.

>>131615189
>he doesn't ask leading questions
Yes he does. In this interview and most others he asks most nothing but leading questions. Read up on debate theory, then watch a show of his, and you'll see what I mean.

>he just asks people to explain the ridiculous shit they said that got them invited in the first place
He doesn't ask people to explain what they said, but rather he asks people to explain his interpretation, usually in the form of a leading question. He doesn't just bring on someone who says "all white people are racist" and then say "well why did you say that?" Tucker first states his interpretation, and then ends the statement with a leading question. So if Tucker were to invite someone who said "all white people are racist," Tucker would ask "So if all white people are racist, does this mean that I'm racist?" Because he knows that most likely, the answer will be "No" so then he can tell his own narrative.
Do you understand?

>>131615396
I'm not at all disagreeing with specifics of that interview clip, I'm just saying Tucker's show is for small-brain people. Same with similar format shows like Rachael Maddow and Anderson Cooper.
These kinds of shows only exist to reaffirm your own beliefs. It is like sucking your own cock.

>>131615928
>So if Tucker were to invite someone who said "all white people are racist," Tucker would ask "So if all white people are racist, does this mean that I'm racist?"

How is this not a completely 100% fair question?

>>131613503

>And what does that have to do with this left-wing shooter's actions?

Because it's the real life conclusion oof someone feeling oppressed by a tyrannical government and abusing his second amendment right. This is how the argument that gun owners have an expectation to forcefully resist perceived oppression by government plays out.

>>131615928
>Tucker would ask "So if all white people are racist, does this mean that I'm racist?" Because he knows that most likely, the answer will be "No"
and then the argument is dead and tucker wins? i don't get your point here. this isn't "debate theory," which sounds like something for people who's ideology doesn't line up with reality, it's just logic. are you suggesting people who watch tucker have small brains because they think logically? isn't every question a "leading question?" how do you ask a question without leading somebody to giving an answer? do you see now how this concept of your's is kind of silly?

>>131616165
Out of all countries that have seen governments violently overthrown all throughout history, guess how many had the second amendment?

0%

To try to link this leftist shooter's actions to a right-wing interpretation of 2A is idiotic to an insane degree.

>>131613891

Nah - that was one of their lesser grievances, though it did become a rallying cry. The Brits were confiscating firearms and forcing people to house and feed the British military (who would do whatever else they pleased for the most part). That took people over the edge.

>>131616453
the british had also paid indians to raid, murder, and rape the colonies whenever they resisted any of the king's retarded mandates. i feel bad for what's happening in britain these days with the immigrants, but then i remember how they used savages against america and feel like it's just karma catching up to them.

>>131616165
then why did he attack 2nd amendment proponents?

>>131616314
>>131616128
Maybe I shouldn't have used an example because you are both getting hung up on the example, lmao.

My point is, Tucker asks questions to get specific answers so he can tell his own story. By asking leading questions, Tucker is not trying to figure out anything new, but instead get an expected response. Why does he do this? Because proving yourself right on a specific point feels good, and learning new things and thinking from different perspectives is hard. It's what viewers have come to expect.

Why would you watch this kind of shit, other than to watch someone just reaffirm your beliefs?

>>131616314
also
>isn't every question a "leading question?"
That's probably one of the dumber things I've seen posted. Would it hurt you to just google what a leading question is?

>>131616834
>Maybe I shouldn't have used an example because you are both getting hung up on the example, lmao.
It illustrates perfectly what's going on though.

These people get invited on the show because they said something extremely stupid. And when Tucker simply confronts them with their stupidity, it seems so deranged that you want to think Tucker is pulling some kind of trick.

But there is no trick, just utter stupidity. And all Tucker has to do is wind them up and watch them squirm.

>>131616933
You're derailing the conversation.

Why would you watch shit like this? All he does is tell you what you want to hear. Isn't that boring?

>>131617010
>You're derailing the conversation.
You're attaching a birdhouse to a bartender.

>>131616834
>Why would you watch this kind of shit, other than to watch someone just reaffirm your beliefs?
whoa there, that's a
>leading question.
why are you trying to
>get an expected response
instead of
>learning new things and thinking from different perspectives
?

>>131616709

Yeah, George III was a piece of work alright. But, the Brits who did all that are long dead, as is their Empire. Nobody really deserves what they're going through. Except maybe the Turks.

>>131617048
In this case, yes. Do you see my point?

Why watch bullshit like this? It's small-brain.

>>131616914
read the questions in tucker's voice i guess. i was going to attach a pic of him but it's late and i got lazy. i get what you're saying, and i'm saying you're doing the same thing. we all do it, it's called having a different point of view.

>>131602832
Its the same faggot resetting his phones wifi and posting (1)s.
Probably the guy who made the youtube video.

>>131617209
The fact that we all do it is why politics sucks. Nobody learns shit. We all just suck our own dicks. Shows like this are basically everything wrong with politics.

>>131617104
dodging karma is the forte of western civilization, and i suspect the brits are better at it than most. the turks are literal roaches, they should have just left those armenians alone and they might not be so disgustingly hairy today.

>>131596583
>unless you're going to count having to pay taxes as 'tyranny'

It is tyranny. Taxes are literal state sanctioned THEFT.

>>131617126
You're not very smart, are you?

>>131616339

>Out of all countries that have seen governments violently overthrown all throughout history, guess how many had the second amendment?

What are you trying to even say? Im not implying that civilians with govt. authorized weapons could even hope of overthrowing the government, Im saying that this is real life practical application of the right-wing argument that encourages this mentality, that private ownership of guns are a bulwark to government tyranny. No one who isnt completely retarded actually believes that.

>To try to link this leftist shooter's actions to a right-wing interpretation of 2A is idiotic to an insane degree.

The right wing interpretation of 2A is idiotic to an insane degree. Gun ownership has a place in society, hunting, sportsmanship, personal defense, defense of private property. But encouraging people to resist a free and democratic government with guns is retarded and guaranteed to get you killed.

>>131617661
Someone is very mad that I called their favorite show a show for dumb people.

>>131616766

because he believed they were tyrants and felt oppressed, duh

>>131617792
You're failing to grasp what's going on, and then you call the show stupid. Doesn't reflect well on you.

>>131597197
My thoughts pretty exactly, you must be a smart feller

>>131618011
I guess you can't change all people's minds? Oh well.
I hope you at least realize that all shows like these--Rachel Maddow, Anderson Cooper, Tucker Carlson, Bill O'Rielly and on-- really do nothing but reaffirm your own beliefs. I hope you can realize that and become fueled by curiosity in the future.

>>131617688
>What are you trying to even say?
That US conservatives do not have the monopoly on political violence. Political violence is of all ages and all creeds, so singling out 2A supporters is idiotic.

>The right wing interpretation of 2A is idiotic to an insane degree.
Blame the people who wrote the constitution.
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

inb4 belgium tries to get in the last word on every argument until the thread dies

>>131618212
>really do nothing but reaffirm your own beliefs
By giving the opposite beliefs a platform?

Rabid left wingers who watch Tucker have their own beliefs reaffirmed all the same. Tucker simply allows them to elaborate on their viewpoints.

lmao gottem

>>131618476
>If you don't give me the last word, you lose

Go to bed nigger. It's 11 am where I live and I have all day at my computer.

I hate it when people do this. There's such a big disconnect between what he's saying and what he actually means, which is why Tucker looks like such a retard here. This guy lead Tucker into a trap by baiting Tucker into calling him out on the implications in what he was saying then turning around and saying that he was just making an observation and that's totally not what he was saying at all. Sure the dude didn't say that people on the right or the SA were to blame for this, but he makes a very clear comparison to people on the right calling for violence against the government when it is tyrannical. Tucker was right to call him out on this, but he needed to do it in a way that doesn't give the dude plausible deniability.

I guess that's why this thread was made though. The other dude is obviously familiar with a debate setting and knows a few tricks himself. He obviously knows what he's doing well enough to bait Tucker into looking stupid in front of people that like to consider themselves to be reasonable.

>>131606829
You accept that it would fall under the idea of resisting tyranny though from a warped perspective? Tyranny is somewhat subjective, as most concepts are, so a lone gunman attacking politicians would work in this sense.

Just because it isn't a successful revolt doesn't mean 2A wouldn't cover it theoretically.

>>131596583
>Paying taxes
You mean paying ransom?

>>131618974
Tucker has all the leverage in this situation, he regularly cuts the guest off before he can explain himself, he decides when the conversation finishes and he gets to decide what the text underneath (which did not actually reflect the guest's opinion) says.

AND YET, somehow Tucker was roped into the guest's trap? Give me a break.

The guy's argument was simple as all hell:
"This shooting is an example of 2A in action."

>>131619058
>Just because it isn't a successful revolt doesn't mean 2A wouldn't cover it theoretically.

A one man assassination attempt is not a revolt.
The man had no plan to overthrow the US. He was just a butthurt faggot on a shooting spree.
Nobody in their right mind would ever consider what this guy did as "an attempted overthrow of the tyrannical US government". It's nonsense. Even the most lax and loose meaning of the concept will not lend itself to this usage.

>>131619243
It was simple, yet potato faced Tucker had the one gear in his brain get clogged and he spilled his spaghetti all over the floor.

>>131619504
Couldn't his plan just be "kill these republicans and the fire will rise!". Clearly the man was revolting against what he perceived.

>>131619243
He fell into the trap of giving the guy enough plausibility to deny the very clear implications that can be drawn from his statement. This gives people the ammunition they need to say that Tucker is being unreasonable here and misrepresenting his guests, which is not entirely true.

An example of an implication that can be drawn from such a statement, that he clearly intended to be made, is that ring wingers who believe the purpose of the second amendment is to allow citizenry to be armed so that they can fight a tyrannical government are violent radicalists who are essentially getting their comeuppance for being in support of such a radical idea. What this guy doesn't understand however, is that political violence can be very nuanced. Sometimes it is indeed necessary, even against a democratic government which is oppressing its people. That's why we have the second amendment.

Now Tucker is wrong in that he likes to forget that there aren't people on the right who essentially do the same thing as the Scalise shooter, which is what makes him seem unreasonable here. However, he is not unreasonable in addressing the issue that this guy is clearly saying the 2nd amendment and some right winger's interpretation are at odds with their reaction to the scandal. This guy is basically a retard, but he's a retard that knows enough about debating to not get pinned down on that. He intended for there to be enough plausible deniability in what he said so that he can just say "it's an observation lmao"

That's where Tucker got trapped, that's the biggest mistake he made.

>>131619849
>Couldn't his plan just be "kill these republicans and the fire will rise!".
Speculating about future possible revolts is not itself a revolt.

>>131619849
>Clearly the man was revolting against what he perceived.
Whatever the fuck that means.

>>131619925
>Sometimes it is indeed necessary, even against a democratic government which is oppressing its people. That's why we have the second amendment.

And this is what "deemed necessary" political violence could look like.

>>131619939
A fire just needs a spark. Look up any words on google if you are confused sweetie.

>>131620461
>A fire just needs a spark.

So what? My dick just needs a blowjob. It doesn't mean this guy was participating in a revolution.

How can a man be so cucked he is comfortable with others being armed but not himself?

just lol

>>131620461
No, it's not. If you want an example of what deemed necessary political violence looks like I can give you a real example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

>>131620662
>>131620461
It's also worth pointing out that a real justified use of citizenry acting violently against the government has basically nothing in common with what we've seen with the Scalise shooter, which just adds on to the guest's stupidity. Is he supposed to be a professor? I hope he's not a history professor.

>>131620662
Cool, I didn't know this happened.
>>131620539
Just because you do not think he was doesn't mean he did not think he was.

Point is crazy gonna craze.

>>131595132
Yeah this guy is great. Tuck is trying to mess with a reasonable person. Too confrontational.
It is also "Left Vs Right" tribalism and which of those is to blame not about the constitution.

>>131619925
His underlying argument was that the "resistance" interpretation of 2A is untenable, not that conservatives who believe it are all radicals. He wasn't saying they were getting their "comeuppance" as much he is exposing the flaw in this line of thinking via the Socratic method.

>>131621851
No, he alluded to right wing radicals in the video. You may not like it, but the guy does not think kindly of people who believe that the purpose of the second amendment is to resist the government. I'd also like to point out that now you are misrepresenting me, because nowhere in my post did I say he believed that all conservatives who believe in it are radicals, just the portion that strongly advocate that one of its purposes is to be used against a tyrannical government. He wasn't SAYING they were getting their comeuppance either, but the implication is there. This is what they get for believing in such a violent and barbaric idea. They deserve this because it's what they have been in support of all along. What he doesn't know is that he is wrong, retarded, and completely naive about violence in general.

>>131607336
You don't actually believe that if the US Army would fight every US citizen with a firearm they would lose, right?

So the shooter thought he fought tyranny? The left is to blame for his ideology because all democrats purports this message that they do everything they can, and it's always the right opposing them at every turn, no culpability on their parties side. The 2a is a blessing, once it's gone it will never return

>>131596583
>not that the US ever has had to do that unless you're going to count having to pay taxes as 'tyranny'

Try blatant vote tampering

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

>>131621346
People kill other people for millions of reasons, including political ones.
Trying to blame conservative 2nd amendment supporters is just demented.

>>131622306
You're finding implications that aren't there. You're doing exactly what Tucker is doing that lost him the debate. This wasn't an attack on gun-toting conservatives, despite the fact that it could have been, since conservatives actually argue and support this argument this in the mainstream. He was making a general point about people who believe this way.

Again, he thinks they are wrong, but his point isn't that they are violent radicals. His point is that this is the logical conclusion of interpreting 2A in this way. He is coming from the perspective that most people who subscribe to that view haven't thought it through, not that they are genuinely waiting to subvert the government. I know what he's doing because I argue the exact same way on /pol/ all the time and people get butthurt and misinterpret my posts all the time when I do

>nowhere in my post did I say he believed that all conservatives who believe in it are radicals
I am specifically talking about conservatives who believe in the "resist" interpretation. We are speaking about the same group of people.

>What he doesn't know is that he is wrong, retarded, and completely naive about violence in general.
Not an argument.

>>131611437
But you really dont know his motivation for using guns to carry out his plan, maybe they were just simple to use and available, maybe if the guy had access to explosives he would have used that. What if he used a truck would we be argueing about the 2nd amendment. And yes that is what that interpretation of the 2nd amendment would look like but you have to ask yourself if what the USA has is tyranny and the answer is no so that act of violence can not be justified.

>>131624786
Never said it was an attack on gun-toting conservatives, only that it's clear what this guy thinks about people who think that the purpose of the second amendment is to fight a tyrannical government. Also, he specifically refers to extreme right wingers who call for violence against a tyrannical government. I think he even cites some of the idiots from the obama era calling for action then.

Also, this is not the logical conclusion of interpreting the 2A in that specific way. It's the logical conclusion of political polarization and an extremist who didn't like a guy in political power. That's it. This shit has happened all the time everywhere for as long as humanity has existed. It's not the product of the 2A, though that specific interpretation of the 2A could potentially lead to actions that invole violence, granted. The difference though, is that political assassinations are very rarely justified. The more likely case of a justified use of force against the government is an armed revolt against very clear tyranny and oppression, as was the case with the Battle of Athens, to name an example. The nuance is of course lost on people who don't care and whose only interest lies in arguing about dumb shit they don't understand or care to understand.

Also, I knew who you are referring to, I was trying to tell you that that's who I was referring to as well. You either misunderstood me or misrepresented me in your earlier post. And that last bit wasn't intended to be an argument, just stating an observation :^)

>>131599095
>The left has completely gone off the walls saying that Trump is treasonous and wants to destroy America

You mean the same rhetoric that we've been hearing from neocons during the Obama years?

>>131595391
Dumb comparison.

>>131629442
Except now you getting it from your local news anchor m8

>>131629953
Fox news was doing the same thing

>>131595132
>In a democracy, where there's free and fair voting, there's no excuse to shoot the government.

what he should have said: Yes I agree, and the purpose of the second amendment is to protect against the situation when the democracy corrupts itself and denies these things. In that case, armed oppositon is a "last stand" against government becoming tyranical.

I for one support ramping up the violence between the left and the right and when it does examples like this can be used as justification.

Its like you cucks forgot millions of us dream of a normalizing killing leftist.


but I will interject its no doubt reaching for that leftist jew to make this comparison as its like saying for America to believe war is a solution to confrontation makes nigger gang violence a logical result.

>>131630005
show me.

show me that quote

File: 1496810131689.jpg (301KB, 1638x1080px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 1638x1080px

>>131598679
>Spitting on the few conservative voices in msm
>Happily defending libshits


Kys spastic

>>131612106
what the fuck is that video... looks fake almost. Maybe I just dont want to believe.

>>131595132
Actually, that was his best performance that I've seen. The other guy had no argument at all.

>>131595132
>ads for straight outta kekistan t-shirts in the video
Why did you make me give them views?

No, the guy has a politicized view of "tyranny."

Tyranny is what the IRS did to conservatives under Obama. Tyranny is Obama saying he'll violate separation of powers because "WE HAVE TO GOVERN D:"

Also, those representatives represent people, so it was a call to action against Americans.

>>131629442
Yes he probably means that.
But the shoe is on the other foot now so it makes sense

>>131597197
These people are not constituents, he was literally a retired sad old man who was scared of losing his benefits.

>>131598679
>I don't like leftists, but there's no denying there're many intelligent ones
You're confusing intelligence with education.

>>131602552
Sounds like a Jew to me

>>131622641
280 million people vs less than 1.1 million because military defectors, you do the math.

File: Screenshot_2017-06-28-08-29-05.png (322KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

322KB, 1440x2560px

>>131630261
It was on Fox every night basically. It's still on a ton of articles on their website. Here's one example.

>>131603646
Why do we have to believe this? The founders told us so.

>>131630735
These people who are hating on tucker and agreeing with the leftist seem to forget this 66 year old man that your saying is technically "rising up against tyranny" considers losing benefits tyranny. He was probably anti gun too.

>>131630849
Don't diminish the 2a remember this guy was upset he might lose benefits

>>131595132
OP is correct

File: 1498524555448.png (152KB, 300x319px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 300x319px

>>131595132
>4chan
>tucker hate thread
>not shareblue

>>131631047
Losing benefits is tyranny? Steve Scalise was one of the most libertarian politicians ever elected to office.

>>131630800
so even fox news called the allegation shocking?

nice narrative you got there haha

>>131595132
>Tucker Carlson can't win a debate on his own fucking show.
What a fucking clown, he didn't even understand the point the guest was making and just tried to play it off as a liberal blame game. What a moron. It's fucking sad you "people" look up to mental midgets like him.

>>131631635
The shooter was still wrong, losing benefits which was not just unsustainable but unconstitutionally put in place during wartime basically to pay off returning soldiers is not tyranny.

Ppl defending tucker and notnseeing what really happened here are part of the problems with societym. Too many ppl on both side close their eyes and plug theur ears when the otjer side speaksm and then interprets in their own way.

>>131631946
so is gang violence a natural result of a government that supports open warfare?