Tag: freedom

Why You Are Wrong About The 2nd Amendment

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

As someone who is British and doesn’t live in America, you may wonder why I even care about the 2nd amendment. Well, I am so sick and tired of people attacking it and trying to change it after something like a mass shooting, ignoring any other problem or issue. Here is some of the most common arguments against the 2nd amendment and why they are dead wrong.

“The 2nd amendment was for things like single shot muskets, not assault rifles.”

Wrong. To even accept this argument, you’d have to think that the founding fathers were idiots, never thinking that weapons could become more advanced. Weapons have advanced since the dawn of mankind. So they knew weapons have gotten more advanced and knew that they would continue to do so in the future, but they wrote the amendment anyway because they wanted America to have access to those weapons and protection against anyone who would stop them from doing so. Also, people forget that there was a lot more than just single shot muskets back then. They had Belton Flintlocks, which could fire 20+ rounds with the pull of 1 trigger in roughly 5 seconds. The Girandoni air rifle, which 22 rounds could be fired in 30 seconds. The Puckle gun, an early machine gun that held 6 to 11 shots and pepperbox revolvers which held anything from 5 to 20 shots. And the founding fathers knew these gun existed as they had used them in the Revolutionary War, don’t forget that the founding fathers debated the Constitution endlessly, if they wanted to exclude these guns, they could have but didn’t. Also, the 2nd amendment didn’t just apply to guns, but full on artillery, President James Madison allowed a private ship owner to own cannons in case of piracy, and the founding fathers agreed with it.

“You only hear ‘the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ Why do you always forget the part about the militia?”

I doubt they forget as the people who will mostly likely have read the 2nd amendment a lot are gun owners who are required to learn about their 2nd amendment rights if they want to be licenced and they are even given pocket Constitutions on concealed carry and firearms courses . Wouldn’t it stand to reason that they do know the whole amendment and in fact, the entire Constitution then you do? Stop talking to these like they’re idiots because it just makes you look like the dumb one.

“The founding fathers meant to give the right to own guns to the militias, not the people.”

The founding fathers debated this amendment to no end and they carefully put in both clauses, one for the militia and one for the people. If they didn’t want the people to own guns, why did they leave that in? Also, who was the militia in that time? The people. They had just fought a tyrannical government for the past two years and to ensure that there was no more tyranny, they gave the people the right to bare arms to they could protect themselves. Sometimes, those militias rebelled against the government and George Washington had to fight them, what would have been an easy way to stop this from happening? Ban guns. But, Washington knew that this was needed to stop any kind of tyrannical government in the future. Also, some may argue that the militia is now the police, who are armed. Firstly, they did have police back then, not like today but they did have people who would punish you if you broke the law. Second, I think its funny when people say the police should be armed as they are the militia but then say they should be unarmed after a protest by BLM.

“The government was actually giving itself the right to own guns with the 2nd amendment.”

…What? Why would a government need to give itself the right to own anything in a founding document? Wouldn’t this mean that the government also gave itself the right to free speech, not the people?

“Screw the 2nd amendment, that was written in the 18th century, we need new laws.”

So you only wanna get rid of parts of this 18th founding document that you don’t like? Also, because of the way it’s worded, the people given the right to bare arms as part of a well regulated state militia and nothing else, if this was scrapped, it would mean a complete ban on guns. Not a blanket gun ban or banning assault weapons, a complete ban on all weaponry. This would be wildly unpopular and this might be interpreted as government tyranny by the people and many people would defend their guns with their life, possibly leading to an overthrow of that government. People could say that the government could give people the right to own guns to some but the actual right itself would be non-existent. Liberals don’t want people to know this as it would totally destroy their gun-control argument and they’d lose too much support for it to continue.

Please, for the love of god, stop trying to mis-inform America, you filthy hippies.


Social Justice Is Secretly Winning

As we all know, Social Justice or SJW’s, are a disease plaguing our society and culture, infecting and manipulating it into their own twisted ‘dream world’ where everyone is equal, except “the oppressive white cis male scum” who will become the oppressed while somehow still being the oppressors. Now, it’s easy to look at Social Justice and say that it’s pathetic and transparent and is losing this so called Culture War, looking at their stupidity on their social media pages and their ability to be easy destroyed in any debate as they believe their feelings matter more than facts. On YouTube, there is channels hosted by SJW’s who always get a massive amount of dislikes compared to likes and their comments are full of people debunking every argument they say, which some results in the channel disabling comments and likes. Also on YouTube, there is compilations of SJW’s/feminists/BLM supporters getting “Rekt” as their points and arguments that they assumed were watertight as they’ve never had anyone challenge them, are easily picked apart and they are left in a silent ‘triggered’ mode. So, I forgive you for thinking they are a losing group that no one cares about.

However, the truth is that they are actually winning. Behind the stupidity and triggered, Social Justice is becoming popular in schools/colleges/universities, government and both public and private institutions. Most colleges and universities are catering to these triggered students who have been fed bias garbage by their feminist teachers in gender studies class, shaming both students and professors who don’t fit their agenda. And increasing pressure from these idiots on companies are forcing them to comply with their cult of diversity. I have experienced this first hand, getting punched several times by a group of protesters after I said “Intelligence is more important than diversity.”
And the thing that’s concerning is, no one is challenging it on this level. It’s one thing to call out these SJW YouTubers for the lies and misinformation, but we do that while it takes over our education and employment. Even certain governments like Canada are signing in new laws that forbid you from doing things like criticise Islam or not calling someone by some made up pronoun they found on Tumblr. Our society is slowly what George Orwell wrote about in his book 1984.

The thing that makes me the most angry is that these SJW’s have convinced people who decide who gets into university or people who give you careers and jobs, that they have a unconscious bias towards straight white men and must overcome that bias by hiring more women, gays/lesbians, trans, black and asians etc. Now, on paper this sounds good, just one thing, White people are usually that vast majority in these countries like the UK, USA, Canada and Australia so naturally, the people who are more qualified are statistically gonna be white people since they are 70-80% of the population. This means universities, companies and corporations are taking people who aren’t the best for the job because they want a more diverse group. An example of this was the student who got into university by writing “#BLM” one hundred times on his reference letter, they didn’t care about his grades or education, just that he would fit in with their agenda.

This is spreading throughout the public service and industries. A study has shown that one third or 33% of people being employed are not the best suited for the job. Now, these companies have combated this by saying that the more qualified white males only have “perceived merit” and they are not actually better for the job because that’s how you overcome your bias. This does not just make me mad, it’s very dangerous. Will they be hiring police officers, paramedics and pilots who aren’t fully qualified but their skin is black or they have a vagina so that automatically makes them the best pick? Would you trust a doctor who was hired just because he was black? This is outrageous and dangerous and people need to speak up against this and stop focusing on diversity and hire the people who are the best for the job, no matter what their skin or gender is.

Freedom To Hate Is Freedom Of Speech And Must Be Protected

Someone said that they believed in freedom of speech but believed that there must be a limit on what you can say. I said that what he just asked for is not freedom of speech, its controlling speech. No one should have the right to say what speech is right and wrong to say, that’s called censorship and again, goes against the entire idea of freedom of speech, also who has the right to do that? Who would you put in charge of my speech?

Anyone who wants to say anything abusive about or to me is quite free to do so and welcome in fact. I don’t need protection from hurtful words because I believe everyone has a right to say their opinion on me, no matter what it is. Now, I know people disagree with me on that because, daily, I see people protest certain people from public talks and seen people try and get anyone who disagrees with them suspended from the internet. That deeply offends me and shame on you if you ever want that because if they have a right to express their hate for certain views, someone should have a right to have them. I, personally, have a hatred of religion, I believe it rewards faith and devotion over reason and intelligence and I believe Islam is the most dangerous right now, but would I punish and silence people from believing in that? Never.

Past supporters of freedom of speech like Thomas Paine and John Stuart Mill have said that it’s not just the right of the person who speaks to be heard, it is the right of everyone in the audience to listen and to hear. And every time you silence somebody, you make yourself a prisoner of your own action, because you deny yourself the right to hear something.
In other words, your own right to hear and be exposed is as much involved in all these cases as is the right of the other to voice his or her view. Indeed as John Stuart Mill said, if all in society were agreed on the truth and beauty and value of one proposition, all except one person, it would be most important — in fact, it would become even more important — that that one heretic be heard, because we would still benefit from his perhaps outrageous or appalling view. Rosa Luxemburg said that the freedom of speech is meaningless unless it means the freedom of the person who thinks differently. These are words that I think most of the people my age have ignored as they try and have only their view be the one that is heard.

For example, if you are in a History class and learning about the Holocaust and someone said “You know what, this Holocaust, I’m not sure it even happened. In fact, I’m pretty certain it didn’t. Indeed, I begin to wonder if the only thing is that the Jews brought a little bit of violence on themselves.” Not only would that person have a right to speak but I would listen to every word they would say, regardless of my view on it and how much I disagree with it because what they say must have taken them some effort to come up with, might contain a grain of historical truth, might in any case make people think about why do they know what they already think they know. How do I know that I know this, except that I’ve always been taught this and never heard anything else? It’s always worth saying things like, how can I prove the earth is round? Am I sure about the theory of evolution? I know it’s supposed to be true but here’s someone who says there’s no such thing, it’s all intelligent design. How sure am I of my own views? Don’t take refuge in the false security of consensus, and the feeling that whatever you think you’re bound to be okay because you’re in the safely moral majority. Some people will always disagree with your stance on anything and everything.

When I see people demonize certain speech, saying that if they allow that kinda talk, they may as well live under fascist tyranny, I laugh because banning certain words is like living under fascist tyranny. You are the ones who wanna silence people from saying words that offend you but somehow, you have the nerve to say that you support freedom of speech and freedom of expression when in reality, you only support it if it complies with your views and opinions. It’s scandalous that you wanna ban certain words, I have opinions that many don’t agree with but I don’t care, they are mine to have as are yours and if you don’t like that, you can fuck off.