Remember that compound in Texas? Waco?”
Yes I do, there have been plenty of armed uprisings in US history. I never heard anyone say that is their right. Interesting .
Possibly I have the wrong ”compound ”
I just remember there was an armed standoff between a group in a compound, heavily armed, and the government. I believe one of their claims was this.
But it’s irrelevant. Even if nobody claimed it, my contention is either correct or incorrect by the facts. It’s irrelevant to the veracity of it, whether someone tried to use that claim.
Though, to clarify, although I would lose it doesn’t make me wrong (obviously).
And not just Waco, I suppose all the violent BLM protesters are right too,
No. They were trashing private citizens property. I’m not aware of any right to destroy someone else private property.
You can rise against the government.
they elive (rightly or wrongly) that the Govt is tyrannical (in their treatment on blacks) as such they have a RIGHT to rise up in armed , violent rebellion, even killing cops if necessary. Is this correct?
I don’t know. Maybe yes maybe no. I pointed out that this is the way at least some constitutional scholars understand the intent of the second amendment .
I personally think that makes sense. So I choose to accept their understanding.
The fact that off the cuff I can’t give you clear guidelines to a specific scenario, doesn’t change anything.
Do you agree that that is the intent of the second amendment?
If yes, so you give the parameters.
If no, argue that point, that what I said is factually incorrect and there is no such right.
But throwing in a specific instance and me not knowing the answer doesn’t do anything.
(to clarify, had I made up that statement about the right to oppose the government, you can throw situations at me and if I can’t clarify, you can then rejoinder, so how can you possibly try to create such an ambiguous law, and perhaps you can even say, hey buddy according to your law, the following would be OK, you OK with that? And perhaps that would be enough to convince me to rescind it. But here, the law is on the books since this countries inception. I’m claiming it applies to situation a (capital riot) your rejoinder of ”so would you say it also applies to b (blm) ” is completely irrelevant)