Carlos Maza is a terrorist. He want people to feel threatened by physical violence so he can get his political outcome

that subname has to be ironic they are rabid in there

"Let us know when the right stops calling Democrats communists. The Democrats aren't even left wing."

and retarded it seems

https://summit.news/2019/06/26/election-meddling-reddit-quarantines-the-donald-forum-on-first-night-of-presidential-debates/

“The Democrats aren’t even left wing”
If you believe this then there can be no productive conversation. We live in two different worlds and disagree on reality

Such is the case with a lot of political debates, it seems

it gets interesting trying to square that circle, does he mean they are right wing?
I wonder what kind of definition of left and right he's even using
is it just the old thing of all bad things are right wing

I'd ask him but being such a moderate policitcal discussion subreddit, they've blocked further comments...

@amlam do you know which of Matt's videos that is? I've been trying to solidify my thought process on where the line is on the 2nd amendment. I knew it would be somewhere south of nukes but was trying to figure out how far

@Draco552big tanks and icbms Watching over my house 😎😎

Unfortunately no I don’t remember which one it is. But this is an idea that has been thought of before by philosophers so I’m sure there’s stuff out there

Stick a nuclear submarine in my pond. Hope no one tries sneaking up on my house

you sir have insulted my honour I challenge you to nukes at 10 paces

I'll take a dive through Matt's older videos someday soon and see if I can't find it

I don't understand how collateral would be a principled line. Is the thought process that no home defense could happen in a scenario other than both parties being in the home? Or that defense of the nation isn't an inherent aspect of 2A?

If you can’t deploy your means of self-defense without necessarily endangering the lives of innocents then it can’t be considered self defense

Necessary endangerment is contextual

You have to judge a means abstractly though rather than some specific case

There’s no way in which to detonate a nuclear device and only endanger the person who is attacking you

Well for starters, I was thinking hand grenades and rocket launchers, but beyond that the defensive capability of nukes lies in the ownership, not usage

You can construct a case in which innocents may be harmed by a gun but at the end of the day you can direct its range in a much more narrow way than an explosive of any kind

The reality of trying to produce mcnukes is that the production process is highly dangerous when done improperly, and so it is in the best interest of larger society to end it forcibly if you start

Even still, the scale of a nuclear device makes it irrelevant to personal protection of yourself, family, or property. The scale of defense of a nuclear weapon is National

If we're going off of a constitutional basis, national defense is within the purview of the citizenry is it not?

@amlam#1561 I have to disagree. 2A explicitly justifies the right to keep and bear arms through the necessity of a well-regulated militia to maintain the security of a free state. That strongly implies that keeping weapons of war is the right *of the people.* Whether that rightfully includes nukes or not, well, I'm certainly open to debate; but as for the more conventional heavy weapons like explosives and antimateriel guns, as far as I am concerned those are the right of the Militia and the people who comprise it.

Nukes are expensive anyway so there's a huge barrier to entry, whereas you can get an old T-54 for like $30k

My main point being that 2A is not only about personal defense but is clearly concerned with the *collective* defense and that changes the equation completely.

Yeah that’s a good argument that I’ve heard before

I suppose my statement is more appropriate to the principles of self defense, not the legal entity of the second amendment

Well, the two are the same

Well the second amendment extends beyond personal self defense into national self defense

If you’re going to extend self defense beyond personal, then the person is no longer the thing owning the means for protection but rather the nation

And that’s what the military is

I'm not sure how you're splitting those exactly, it's really just scale

And no, 2A is explicitly about the citizenry, not the government

You can’t scale up one without the other. If you scale up the thing you’re defending then the thing owning the means of defense must also be scaled

I’m not speaking to the second amendment anymore

Not really

That's what the militia is for

It's not like the military is comprised of mercenaries or something, it's comprised of citizens