At a Capitol Hill press conference on Wednesday, Nadler gathered with other House Democrats to push for stricter gun control in the wake of last week’s massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., which left 26 dead, including 20 children.
The lawmaker told CNSNews.com that he not only supports prohibiting the future sale of 10-round gun magazines, but he would like to confiscate high-capacity clips already legally possessed by American citizens.
Define that for me representative. What is "legitimate violence?" War? Dispensing with the difficulties of arguing for our little adventures around the world for a moment and casting war in a pure white light of the John Wayne character where only the bad guys get hurt and "our side" is completely righteous, would you say that war is an act of self defense by a nation state? If so then you would characterize self defense as legitimate violence?“But let me say, yes,” Nadler added. “One of the definitions of a nation state is that the state has a monopoly on legitimate violence. And the state ought to have a monopoly on legitimate violence.”
If those guns of supposed self defense are then turned upon the people that they are supposed to defend then do they not then become the tools of evil, the mechanism whereby a tyrannical government brings the people to heel? Would not then, any guns aimed back be in self defense and thus "legitimate" by what I assume your implied definition to be?“If the premise of your question is that people are going to resist a tyrannical government by shooting machine guns at American troops, that’s insane,” he said.
Otherwise, your definition of "legitimate violence" hinges only on use by governments regardless of its victims which sounds awfully tyrannical.
ty·ran·ni·cal
/təˈranikəl/
Adjective
1. Exercising power in a cruel or arbitrary way.
2. Characteristic of tyranny; oppressive and controlling.
We don't have machine guns, sir, you took those away in 1934. Now you seek to take their neutered progeny, "assault weapons." Next will probably be handguns since the whole hunting angle seems to be your bait and switch talking point even though the 2nd amendment mentions nothing about a "right to hunt." You see, punk, history shows how this goes down. Take the Philippines under Marcos.
http://progun.ph/content/martial-law-co ... remembered
People would say "this is not the Philippines, Mad, and my goodness you are stunningly attractive!"
Yes, I am ruggedly handsome in a sort or Leatherface way, and yes, America is not the Philippines. America fought for its freedom from a tyrannical government. Its leaders, fresh from the fight and the lessons learned crafted a document, a Constitution, and in that wise parchment they emblazoned a bill of rights. Recognizing that venison is a lean healthy meat they included the right to keep and bear arms.... Wait, that's wrong, oh yeah. Recognizing that governments have the capability to become tyrannical and that a citizenry needs a fighting chance to throw such oppressors off, they included the right to keep and bear arms. You know, on the wall....
No, not really, I's just being humorous. No, they meant GUNS! Not some guns. Not certain guns. Not whatever guns elite politicians and money men were comfortable with, guns, "arms." Oh, they meant muskets? Really? Where is that exactly? The precedent of the musket is fine, I'll let you have that one, because guess what? At the time the document was written "arms" meant this.
While quaint to us in modern time, at that time it was the cutting edge of military technology. The document would understandably know of and thus endorse such things. Today we have this.
That you don't like that is quite irrelevant. You are supposed to serve the people, not dictate to them. "Why do people need that?" because if the reason for the 2nd amendment becomes necessary to prosecute citizenry will be staring down the likes of this stuff.
They will need all the help they can get. Will the first drone strike on American soil be "legitimate violence?" How about the first American citizen shot by an American soldier?
I would call you misguided Mr. Nadler, but that would suggest you have no direction. I think you know exactly what you want and are proceeding with great enthusiasm towards that goal. That goal is textbook tyranny and that is why if you succeed in the first quote, you will experience the second which, coincidentally, is the 2ND!
Oh look, he's hunting with it. Awkward.
