r_wraith

True, but also maybe they remember the Black September?

So they are really arguing that the 14th Amendment only applies to the people participating in an insurrection and that the instigator of an insurrection is protected by the 1st amendment? That one will be interesting, becuse as far as I understand it, US legal tradition also holds that the instigator of a crime is as guilty as the perpetrator. The one who orders a murder is as guilty of murder as the one committing it. Or am I wrong?
Also, did they just admit that January 6th was an insurrection attempt and not a peaceful tourist viait?

You can behead the king or members of an aristocracy who's source of wealth and power are stiuated in one coutry, but how do you want to manage that with a billionaire whose wealth is spread all over the world? He will just move to a friendlier country.

1. Not my government (Not from the US).
2. If you want to see what the reaction to an armed insurection would be, I reccomend the American Civil War. Or do you really think that today's "tyranical government" is that much more restrained than Lincoln's government was?

As far as I see it, @BaroqueInMind was trying to make two points:

1. "The real reason for the 2nd is to legit kill tyrants"
2. "(Without guns) you are a toothless bitch you cant fight back without certain and pointless death."

So his points are that the 2A guarantee his right to assassinate the President, if he decides that he is a tyrant and for armed resistance againt an executive force of the government.

I argued that fighting the US government's forces with handguns and winning is a testosterone fantasy.

So where exactly is my Straw Man?

The 2A may have been meant to protect a "free state" but in today's reality, it fails to achieve this goal. On the other hand, the laws arguing from it, have lead to the greatest number of civilian gun deaths outside an active war zone.

Targeting legal gun owners won’t stop criminals from carrying firearms.

Please compare the percentage of crimes commited with a firearm versus all crimes commited for the US and countries that have functioning laws limiting private gun ownership. In Germany (population about 80.000.000) in 2022 there were about 200,000 "crimes against personal freedoms" (this number is probably too low because I only added the numbers for the two main types of these crimes). In about 4500 cases (of all crimes) a gun was used to threaten somebody and in about 4000 cases (of all crimes) a shot was fired. So in the overwhelming majority of violent crimes (about 96%) no guns were used.

Why do you think there are laws prohibiting the possession of certain items or substances at all? I mean, why should a law abiding citizen owning a bomb, a sample of smallpox virus or a few pounds of heroin be a problem? Crimnals will get them anyhow and if they use them, it`s already illegal. Why is driving while intoxicated illegal? Wouldn't it be sufficient if only causing an accident while drunk driving would be illegal? That would certainly be way easier and cheaper to police. Why do we have building codes? Unless the house collapses or blows up, nothing bad has happemed yet.

Constant praise by sycophants and people wanting to believe in a better future at the hand of high tech billionaires also does the trick. It works like a pump for inflatable egos.

Luckily, article 5, paragraph 3 has two senteces: " The arts, sciences, research and education are free. The freedom of education does not release from the loyalty to the constitution"