Previous Post
Next Post

TTAG Commentator Danny says “I didn’t even want to watch the video to see what went wrong. Even after the public polls were almost completely against the idea, the ‘2nd Amendment is outdated’ group won this debate. How the hell does that work?” Dunno. But I do know that our natural, civil rights are enshrined in the bill of rights. Which, thank to the Founders, isn’t easy to change. Thank God. Oh, and my Richard Luger Indianapolis debate antagonist, Juan Pacheco, doesn’t want the first five of our encounters videotaped. Huh.

Previous Post
Next Post


    • I would say that you should play entirely by his rules. You should ABSOLUTELY agree that these “debates” will not be video-taped under any circumstances, then show up with a crew using state-of-the-art video cameras using only electronic media.

    • He is obviously afraid that his argument will not stand up against a well informed and logical opponent who will make him look like a fool. My daddy used to say, “No one can make you look like a fool, they can only point out that you are.”

  1. Reflecting on the Constitution, it’s clear that the Second Amendment is as relevant as ever, but Article Two needs to be completely repealed.

    • Repealed? Perhaps revised our way would be better. But I can live with what we got currently. Nothing like conflict and a good fight to get one’s blood going, eh?

  2. As written. Perhaps the change in points was to support the modern version descibed by Eugene Volokh. It certainly could not have been due to Dershowitz’s emotionalism and shouting down antics.

    • “As written.” Agreed. I think the outcome of the debate was correct, because the way it was phrased was whether the 2nd Amendment as written had outlived its usefulness, and the “no” side (the pro-2A side) admitted to that multiple times. They admitted they would change it to something clearer that better protects the right to keep and bear arms and they admitted that militias have little-to-no use in modern times. Boom. Done. LOST the debate. Do not confuse the results of this debate with a loss for the pro-gun side or even an opinion of the people in the audience that citizens shouldn’t have a right to keep and bear arms! That was NOT what the debate was about!!! Both sides agreed on a natural human right to self defense and it seemed like most of the audience agreed with gun ownership in general. None of these things mean that the entirety of the 2nd A, as written, is relevant and meaningful today, though. The militia clause was brought up by the other side as being irrelevant, and the pro-gun side actually mostly agreed with that. They got totally sidetracked and did a GREAT job advocating for keeping and bearing arms BUT they did it to the detriment of their own side in this very narrowly structured debate. So they lost the debate. Correctly, IMHO. …and I’ll admit to having been on the debate team in high school. It isn’t about right or wrong it’s about best arguing within the exact bounds of the question/hypothesis posed. The pro-2A side got off topic too much and conceded points that were on-topic. They aren’t debaters.

    • Which is why they held it in the first place. Truly a damned-if-you-do and damned-if-you-don’t affair.

    • Having just watched the entire debate, its fair to say the those against the notion (pro 2nd Amendment) had their work cut out for them. It was a extremely liberal New York crowd that was doing the voting in this debate. Predebate voting was 64% the voting audience were for the notion, 18% against, the rest were undecided.

  3. Apparently this was in New York City. There is your answer. Most of the voters probably came in with their judgment from the beginning. Do this in Texas, and we know the votes would be different.

    Many New Yorkers from the city are used to being good little victims and big brother government will protect them. They see the NRA like a group that wants to arm criminals and murderers. No hope there.

  4. Gotta say…. when I heard him say after telling the percentages “the constitutional right to bear arms has outlived its usefulness” to a round of applause… a shiver went down my spine.

    We will not lose our rights in a fight and under an obvious boot of oppression, but to the claps and cheers of those losing their rights. New York City, a sign of things to come IF we do not remain vigilant.

    • I think the key to understanding the results is where it took place. Being in NYC we all knew against our best hopes where this would end up.

      However, since the win or loss of this debate was based on the number of opinions changed in an environment where the beginning opinions were heavily skewed, I think it is reassuring to look at the PROPORTIONAL change in opinions. A 10 point gain from 64 is a 15.6% increase, whereas a 4 point gain from 18 is a 22.2% increase.

      I think that is significant. Of those 18% initially “undecided” I think it’s fair to assume the direction they were leaning was distributed about the same as the initial opinion poll, so among the proportion changed I think we can call a win.

      FInally, let us all recognize the irony whereby the square of a number less than one (such as alan dershowitz’s intelligence) becomes smaller when it is squared.

      • Undoubtedly, the methods of this debate (polling a highly selective local audience) played a strong role in the “outcome”, however I think a greater consideration is the specific approach the teams took. The defenders of the 2nd amendment took strong and persuasive positions on gun control, self defense and the interpretation of the constitution. This is both a valuable & topical discussion to have. BUT, it was not the subject of the debate. Levinson & Dershowitz essentially “won” by arguing that the prefatory clause regarding militia power to overthrow federal tyranny is no longer practical. While that issue might be considered a technicality, it was enough to win the debate.

        I think it is unfair to label Dershowitz as lacking intelligence, he (like many in favor of gun control) clearly knows exactly how to make a persuasive and emotional argument. That being said, perhaps Kopel & Volokh were the real geniuses, taking a large scale forum essentially about intricate technicalities of constitutional verbiage and using it as platform to present a reasoned and persuasive argument against the infringement of the right of gun ownership!

  5. Reminds me of those “Open Carry ” town halls some years back in CA.No matter what was said in those meetings, open carry was going to be banned.

    You want a debate?Fly the academics to Wyoming.

  6. Better than a presidential debate.

    A presidential debate typically has zero substance and focuses on how much each candidate is sweating, or hand movements, behavior, and facial movements. After all, these are what is important, not what is spoken or debated.

  7. The debate was in New York City. How about holding a “Resolved, the Jews should be driven into the sea” debate in Tehran?

  8. These same people that think the 2nd has outlived it usefulness and want it done away with, are the very same people that marched 6 million Jews to their death.

    • As this took place in NYC, I’d wager that a significant percentage of those applauding were Jewish themselves. How’s that for irony and a complete lack of comprehension of the lessons of history?

        • They live in a bubble of cluelessness and until something really ugly shows up on their doorstep, they will always be this way.

      • Historic footnote from somewhere I can’t remember but stayed with me:

        The Jewish Police assisted the SS and Polish Police in the Warsaw Ghetto.

        This generation has truly learned NOTHING from history. Sad…

    • The four panelists are all Jewish so it’s sort of hard to argue that.

      Typically, in NYC it’s the Jews that want to disarm everyone. 65 years later, it’s sort of ironic.

  9. People don’t like losing or being shown that they’re wrong. Mr. Pacheco doesn’t want the debate videotaped, and Moms Demand a Million Actions doesn’t allow comments on their posts/videos, because it leaves the door open for those who would disprove them and possibly sway viewers away from their side. They can shout about gun accidents and kids and mass shootings all they want, but most of them know that if even one of their theories about guns was true there would really be blood running in the gutters. But there are so many millions of guns and gun owners in this nation and there is NO blood in the streets, so their ideas about the inherent evil of guns are blatantly bogus. Allowing even one dissenting comment that logically deconstructs their propagandist ‘facts’ would collapse the entire house of cards their platform is built on. In the end, their side is based upon irrational fear and dislike for something inanimate, and our side is built upon knowledge and mastery of those inanimate objects, as well as facts and statistics, not to mention a deep love not just for those objects but for what those objects afford us: safety, freedom, and a boatload of fun. They will never ‘win’ this debate because they aren’t protecting anything, merely trying to take what others have. They don’t ‘love’ civilian disarmament. We, however, have these tools that we enjoy, and a culture of safety and freedom borne from them, that we love absolutely and will go to great lengths to defend. Let them wallow in their pacifistic self-hate, we cherish our rights and our freedoms. We will win this ‘debate’ because we fight with more logic, reason AND heart. They have no heart. Literally, probably.

  10. Wow. At first I was saddened by the vote of these people. Then as I read comments, realized it was being held in NYC.
    This kinda makes me sick to my stomach. Going to swing by Bi-Mart and see if they have any .22 ammo left. That should make me feel better. ‘Cause it’s all about feelings, is it not?

  11. Alan Dershowitz: (30:00 minutes into video): …So the vast majority of countries feel and believe that you can have a right of self defense without necessarily having a fundamental right to bear arms. It seems to me that is a relevant consideration.

    How exactly do you perform “self defense” if you cannot “bear arms.” I don’t get it. So we can’t walk around publicly with guns… ok… so how exactly will we defend ourselves or others if a guy with a gun shoots people or performs a crime? His statement doesn’t even agree with itself. Sounds like 1984 doublespeak or the 2+2=5 theme:

    Alan Dershowitz: (31:40 minutes into video) Blames guns for crime… again

    • “Alan Dershowitz: (30:00 minutes into video): …So the vast majority of countries feel and believe that you can have a right of self defense without necessarily having a fundamental right to bear arms. It seems to me that is a relevant consideration.”

      So if he wants to feel safe so badly he should move to one of them.

  12. What does it mean to “win a debate”? I have a good friend who is a Calvinist minister. I am a very traditional Catholic. He debated another Catholic in a public forum once. When it was over, he had clearly “won the debate” in the eyes of both protestants and Catholics, but stated to the audience that they shouldn’t think he had refuted the position, just this guy’s particular arguments. He was honest enough to know there were better arguments. No one changed religion over it.

    I didn’t watch the debate, so no opinion who “won.” But winning a debate doesn’t mean proving your position. It only means you outargued this particular advocate.

  13. And even Russian Putin says Socialism Does not work , can not work, we did everything! You do not want to go this route. May be some Amerikans would get more education in RUSSIA!

    • I married a Russian lady (who was NEVER a communist) and brought her and her 12 year old son to America. She is my ex now, but still friends and her son, now 26, is frequently the #1 Audi salesman in America, pure capitalist. I would gladly trade any number of so-called Americans for an equal number of Russians like those two.

  14. I thought Dershowitz brought up a good point, one that probably carried the day in fact in the debate, in that all agreed that the right to self defense is fundamental and inalienable. Parsing the details of that conjecture is where the Devil lies. I believe that the right conveys any and all means and tools necessary. Them, not so much. That’s why we have to fight them wherever they are. They will do their level best to dilute the right to meaninglessness. Screw ’em.

  15. The winners of the debate have nothing to do with who has the best position, it’s who argued most effectively. They measure the winner by the percent change in support for their side, not by total support for their side. The measurement at the end is only measuring the debaters technique in abstract, not a verdict on the issue.

  16. TTAG Commentator Danny says “I didn’t even want to watch the video to see what went wrong. Even after the public polls were almost completely against the idea, the ’2nd Amendment is outdated’ group won this debate. How the hell does that work?”

    No, they didn’t. Nobody, regardless of their credentials or social standing, who argues in favor of reducing or eliminating any of our natural, civil, and Constitutionally-protected rights, wins any debate concerning those rights.


    Anyone that supports any argument for the reduction or elimination of our natural, civil, and Constitutionally-protected rights, regardless of their credentials or social standing, is just as wrong, foolhardy, and demented as the charlatans arguing for it.

    End of story.

    Those people are cut from the very same cloth as the people who drove the Native Americans onto their dying Reservations on “The Trail Of Tears”, rounded up law-abiding Japanese-American, German-American, and Italian-American citizens in World War II; shipped off Jews, Gypsies, and other so-called “invalids” to concentration camps during World War II, and were responsible for every other act of oppression and genocide.

    Armenia Christians in Turkey. Tutsis in Rwanda. African-Americans in the South. Ukrainians, Russians, and the Baltic states under Stalin. The Chinese under Mao. Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, political dissidents, and other so-called “invalids” under Hitler. Cambodians under the Khmer Rouge. Ugandans under Idi Amin. Mayan Indians in Guatemala. Tibetans under the Chinese. Pakistanis in Bangladesh under Yahya Khan. Non-Arab Sudanese in Darfur, Sudan. Whites in Zimbabwe. The Kurds in Iraq.

    ALL of these people, OVER 170 MILLION of them, were disarmed before they were killed. THIS is the legacy of gun control, whether anyone likes it or not, acknowledges it or not, or wants it to be or not. To argue otherwise is to ignore the COLD, HARD FACTS OF HISTORY. To argue otherwise is to delude oneself.

    And this is just in the 20th century.

    Gun control? Fuck that.

  17. I don’t know about anyone else here, but I watched the whole thing live. For the most part, it really was an interesting debate. I think that the resolution gave people some trouble.

    The debaters and the audience both seemed to have a hard time not pushing the debate towards gun control. I thought the moderator did a great job keeping the debate on track.

    If one objectively judged only the material of the debate, those arguing against the resolution (that the second amendment is out-dated) clearly lost. One of them admitted that he would rewrite the second amendment to update the language, basically throwing away the whole militia clause and handing the whole debate to the other team on a silver platter.

    The parts that were actually on topic mostly concerned, not the virtue of a right to keep and bear arms, but whether it should be a constitutional right.

    • I watched the whole thing too (not live) and you’re right that they had a hard time staying on topic and that, based on what was argued, the guys arguing against lost (but it wasn’t an obvious defeat). But saying that they would change the wording of the 2nd amendment doesn’t negate the proposition that the 2nd amendment has outlived its usefulness. They were saying that the 2nd amendment is still very useful, but could be clearer. And all sides agreed that self defense is a natural human right.

      I think they lost because the very last thing the audience heard was Dershowitz arguing that because the other team said they would reword the 2nd amendment meant that the 2nd amendment was anachronistic. He almost had me convinced that it was anachronistic until I thought through his argument. The wording of the 2nd amendment may be anachronistic, but the principles it protects are not (as he conceded earlier regarding self defense).

      • How is the wording anachronistic? The wording is very clear, it’s just a matter of understanding the language of the time that was used.

    • No, asserting that it could benefit from being rewritten or having the language updated does not imply that it has outlived its usefulness.

      • Admittedly, it’s been a long time since I had any involvement in any formalized debate, but you don’t win by giving ground on the resolution. If you take the negative in this debate, it seems to imply that you must defend the 2nd Amendment in its current form. That’s why I think he gave the debate away.

        Now, let me be clear, I’m only talking about judging criteria here. Personally, I thought that both members of the pro 2nd Amendment team made strong arguments for the necessity of a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

  18. Seems to me this is a microcosm of the entire gun control issue.

    The pre-debate poll, neutral and open to everyone nationwide, was massively in favor of the Second Amendment as protecting a fundamental civil right.

    The debate itself, staged in the country’s largest urban enclave before an audience that doesn’t resemble the rest of the country in any meaningful way, pitted an aggressive and eloquent anti-2A panel against defensive and flawed debaters on the pro-2A side.

    The partisan crowd confirms a win for the side they already favored, which had a more polished presentation and a built-in advantage in the way the contest was structured. That result is broadcast far and wide as if it represents a new national consensus, while the *actual* national consensus is ignored.

    And so it goes. We’re fighting an unequal battle in an arena built by our opponents for their own benefit, but we’re RIGHT, no matter what kind of “win” they manufacture for themselves.

    • Yep.

      Massive urban centers like NYC and DC unfairly dictate national policy to the rest of the nation. The will and wishes of the people outside (and in) of the cities is largely ignored – we are just “flyover country”, after all.

      We are not being represented by our government, in fact we are being actively ignored.

  19. Trust me, these types of debates are rigged.

    If you are pro-gun, and you win them, you’ll never be invited to debate the topic again.

    Very very few people in pro-gun community actually have a debating background, and they don’t understand that debates are often emotionally driven, and that connecting with the judges (in this case the audience) is what is key.

  20. “…my Richard Luger Indianapolis debate antagonist, Juan Pacheco, doesn’t want the first five of our encounters videotaped.” Then stay home and call him out on it. LOUDLY!

  21. I don’t know why the video starts of with Bob Rosencranz (perhaps to state the context of the debate), but his statement tells us everything we need to know, “Well the world was very very different when this [2nd] amendment was passed.”

    With respect to human nature and government, I will emphatically state that Mr. Rosencranz is absolutely wrong. There always have been criminals and tyrants throughout world history and their always will be … both in the public sector and in governments. Epic fail Mr. Rosencranz.

    • I didn’t take that from his introduction at all. The statement about it being a different world referred to the relevance of state militias, the lack of organized police forces, and the possibility of armed citizens resisting organized military. His assessment was spot on.

  22. Robert,

    I too watched the entire debate with a grain of salt. It was clear that the “debate” wasn’t on an even footing. The moderator allowed Douchewitz to interrupt Koppel several times. Douchewitz’s outbursts played to the emotional biases of the crowd, just like he did to the jury during the OJ trial. Clearly the mob, rrr I mean audience, voted based on their emotional favoritism to Douchewitz’s pandered frustration over failed gun control rather than Koppel’s actual scientific data. The key point that wasn’t brought up about MLK was the fact he had many guns for self defense and that the civil rights movement was a rebellion against tyranny, one where guns played an important role not in their use but in their display by African Americans in the movement.

  23. Taking place in New York where they just elected a Commie Mayor the results speak for themselves.

  24. The method for determining the “winner” seems easy to game. The winner is who gets the biggest change in percentage agreement before & after the debate. So to help out the team arguing for the motion, you could vote against the motion at the beginning, then vote in favor of it at the end.

  25. You can win with 30 points on Dancing with the Stars and still get kicked off when the PEOPLE vote,Soooo,good luck with your debate anti’s New York,Calif go no gun,no problem ,Get rid of the 2nd amendment,Good f- ing Luck .Go read the Firearms Owners Protection Act ,Article 18, chapters 926a,
    You idiots keep trying and keep getting your asses handed to you every time in Federal court,in Congress,in recalls,in every thing you to to INFRINGE on the people’s Rights.Meanwhile,gun sale are through the roof,Conceal Carry Classes are packed and The NRA,GOA,2nd amendment foundation get bigger and stronger.So like The NRA says”BRING IT ON” anti’s the War is on.
    No more talk, no more “Common Sense ” Bullcrap ,MAIG,MDA go to hell. Every chance the pro gun folks get a chance,we are going to shut you down,vote you OUT,Recall your butt.
    If you want to piss on the 2nd Amendment,we piss on you.
    Welcome to the War ,no common ground ,you want to let criminals out on the streets with 12 priors,then we’re gunning up.You think the 2nd amendment is about hunters and sportsman,keep drinking the cool aid .
    Ask the debaters what they know about firearms and the word Clueless will appear.So why should we care what these debaters and audience think,the 2nd Amendment is still the Law of The Land.Get use to it New York,Calif,New Jersey,Wash DC.Nice try!
    Keep on trying,and we will checkmate your every move!

  26. Directed to all adult age males. Exceptions: the mentally or physically impaired and conscientious objectors.

    Do you own at least one functional Fire-arm, ammunition for it — and know how to safely handle, shoot and clean it?
    If not, why not?

  27. Let’s see how these New Yorkers feel in a year or so after DeBlasio has turned NYC into the dung heap that is was prior to Giuliani’s tenure.

  28. My take on this debate was concern (among the debaters) whether individual States should determine the rights to self protective devices, rather than any overarching Federal law governing this. The pro side would be happy if States had this right, which would more accurately reflect local voting conditions. The other issue was the reference to a militia, and whether this was relevant to the right to self protection, which was granted by all present, and the slightly arcane tone of the original Amendment. The States’ own present and simpler Constitutions granting the right to armed self protection gained favor. I think the audience was slightly confused by the various points being argued, and their voting reflected the shifts in these arguments. Had the question been “Do US citizens have the right to bear arms for their own self protection?” there may have been just as much confusion and dismay. The fact is that 80% of people in urban centres never even consider weapons, and are probably afraid of them. This encourages them to attempt to disempower any others familiar with and competent in, the topic of armed self defense. If the panel had been handed loaded weapons, the pro side would have shat themselves, and probably shot each other accidentally. This falls into the category of “those who know nothing shouldn’t be allowed to make decisions”. Incompetence rules via democracy.

  29. A lot of people seem to be seeing a lot of things in this debate that simply weren’t there. This was not a policy decision, but an intellectual debate meant to spark conversations. From where I’m sitting, it was well moderated and carried out completely fairly.

    In his introduction, Robert Rosenkranz clearly defined the resolution and effectively summarized the position of both sides. I was thoroughly impressed with how the whole thing went down, except for Dershowitz. He was a tool.

    If it’s the results that have everyone upset, look no further than the audience. The outcome of the debate was based completely on a heavily biased audience. I thought that the pro 2nd Amendment side made a much better argument, but let’s be honest, I’m pretty biased myself.

    There was no chance whatsoever that those guys were going to convince me that the 2nd Amendment had outlived its usefulness. I believe in the utter necessity of the 2nd Amendment, and I have damn good reason for that belief, but I am still just as biased as that New York City audience.

    The fact is, the outcome would have been the same in D.C., San Francisco or Seattle. Now, host that same debate with those same players in Atlanta, Houston or Phoenix and that’s a different story.

  30. A couple of points:
    a) Douche-owitz is truly a vile individual. His manners are rude, his tone is condescending, his understanding of history is obtuse, and his arguments are misleading. He completely ignores the fact that a right to self defense necessitates the right to bear arms – not gun – and yes there is a difference! Should there ever be a time where man-portable shoulder-fired plasma weapons are developed, those would indeed be covered by RKBA. By continuing to use the phrase “guns”, he is intentionally skewing the scope of what the 2nd Amendment is.
    b) Douche-owitz’s partner in crime, the fellow with the lisp, makes some absurd statements. He echoes a common Progressive feeling in that “the problem with the Constitution is that it is so damn hard to change”. Ummmm…..No. The whole point of the Constitution is that it is hard to change!!!!! It’s not much of a Constitution if it just bends to the wind.
    c) Fuck New York “Liberals”. Douche-owitz and Leftist Jews like him would be the first to rat out their fellow Jews to Nazi’s. To go back to what I said in part a), Douche-owitz’s argument that the majority of minorities (there’s a paradox for you) that have been traditionally victims of genocide being not as pro-NRA as whites is completely meaningless. Not only is he trying to stir up racial animosity for his own gain, but it wouldn’t even matter even if it were true!!! If the majority of blacks weren’t as pro-free-speech as the majority of whites, that doesn’t mean free speech is not a human right!!! And the references to the KKK were quite distasteful. The KKK was opposed to gun ownership by blacks, for Christ’s sake! Yet, like the mainstream idiots, he somehow equates the KKK with the NRA and gun owners.
    d) Douche-owitz and his limp-wristed partner kept bringing up this notion that America is out of step with the majority of the rest of the world. Ummm,… yeah, America is out of step with the majority of the rest of the world. That is because the majority of the rest of world is run by totalitarian regimes, genocidal maniacs, religious zealots, psychopaths, Communist regimes and every other disgusting and dysfunctional form of government that places the elite ruling class above all individual rights.
    Does that mean we should follow their lead?? Holy fuck, what an incredulous way of thinking.
    Well, China and Zaire don’t enshrine RKBA in their Constitution – better follow their shining example!
    e) I wish there was more elaboration on the fact that tyrants, even ones armed with tanks, artillery, machine guns and aircraft, always disarm the populace prior to attempting to annihilate them. When the libtarded lady asked in her question: “What does a militia fighting against a tyrannical government look like?”,
    I would have answered that with: “Well, my sheltered and ignorant dear, what that looks like is guerilla warfare – a tactic that Marxist retards such as yourself have revered so much in the idolization of Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Iraqi insurgent, Afghani pedo-homo-Talibani, etc.
    But, I suppose it’s only admirable when low-life scumbags engage in guerilla warfare, but futile and irrational when decent Americans do it.
    f) I don’t remember what else I was going to write, since I am so disgusted by Douche-owitz and his supporters’ line of reasoning, but it is impossible to separate the motion being debated from whether the right to keep and bear arms is a natural right.
    If it is a natural right, and it most definitely is, then no, the Second Amendment has NOT outlived its usefulness.

    • You are right, Where were her kind to help the Contra FREEDOM fighters in Nicaragua…???They were all killed by the communist … that’s what happens when you have no weapons in the peoples hands … I know what I am saying and saw first hand..

  31. The panel For the motion was more general in their defense than the panel Against the motion. I believe the panel Against it focused too much on trying to justify gun rights. For that reason alone is why I think they won the debate. The panel Against even admitted they would rewrite the Second Amendment, the nail in the coffin.

    IMHO: The 2nd Amendment will have outlived its usefulness when the possibility of threat to life and liberty no longer exists. End of debate.

    • The reason the ‘For the motion’ panel won the “debate” is because the crowd was stacked with illiberal elitist statists.

      The wording of the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with its usefulness.
      Even if the language were to be outdated (and I don’t think it is), the meaning and usefulness is still there.

      The 2nd Amendment would still be every bit as useful if it were written in fucking heiroglyphics. As long as it is understood, it is useful.

      The problem is that libtards stack the game in their favor: They intentionally interpret it in the most ludicrous way possible, completely missing the meaning, and then claim it is not useful because it “means” something it never did.
      That is not the fault of the 2A, but the fault of the idiot libtards taking it to mean absurd things, including, but not limited to the following:
      -2A was meant to protect the right to revolt against British tyranny. No British tyranny anymore, hence not useful any more.
      -2A was meant to protect the right to murder and rob using a gun. That is wrong, therefore not useful anymore.
      -2A was meant to protect white slaveowners from revolt against black. Not ethical, hence not useful.
      -2A was meant to protect only arms in existence at the time, not modern “assault weapons”. Times/technology have changed, hence not applicable any more.
      -2A was meant to only apply to militias. Government abolished militias, hence not applicable any more.

      This is why one must be wary of “debating” with libtards when they set the ground rules, frame the discussion and go on the attack.
      The logical structure will be turned on its head, and no matter how rational, logical or accurate your arguments are, they will “lose” when the rules are designed with that outcome in mind.
      It’s like playing chess with a retarded pigeon. No matter how great your moves are, they will just knock the pieces over, shit all over the board, fly back to its flock and declare victory.

  32. The moderator was wrong in his declaration of the winning team !.

    64 to 74 = a change of 10/64 = 16.6%.

    18 to 22 = a change of 4/18 = 22.2%. ( THE WINNER )

Comments are closed.