Chomsky on guns

he's so far off reservation that he's refuting the last sentence with the next.

Actually, it does. The Second Amendment gives it to the people, you mendacious Jew. There is an absolute phrase in it that works adverbially.

Oh, no big deal.
Oh, no big deal.
Fucking kike deserves a bullet.

I was just shitting on Chomsky in another thread, go back to catalog, what do I find.

Stoner fags and trippers have been pushing his shit since the early 90s with Bill Hicks and Tool.

wut
So what does it do then?

I don't see anything that says 'no guns'

The fuck is this faggot even talking about

Yes, thank you for pulling the clause up. In modern punctuation it would look like:
Subject: the right of the people
Verb: shall not be infringed
Adverb: A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State
A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State
=
Because A well-regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State,

He talks about obscure and useless bullshit all the time. Hipsters love obscure and useless bullshit. But on a serious note, his entire methodology throughout his career has been "I'm right about x, which proves that socialism is the best''. Not even joking.

...

the jews are too skilled at legalistic jargon

The Hyperborean man needs to go back to direct elections and tribunals as exemplified by the Viking "Thyng"

as long as we have written laws, the jews will continue running circles around us, as they don't like it when we try to get ahead

Noam Chomsky is controlled opposition. This is a long video, but given how much commies love this rat, it is worth absorbing the information to throw back in their faces.

corbettreport.com/meet-noam-chomsky-academic-gatekeeper-video/

youtube.com/watch?v=EEDf7OkRCxk

Welp, I bought one of his books once. Guess I'll be burning that. I remember some of the things he wrote in it being horseshit, but this seals it. He sure as shit ain't no real anarchist. He just wants people like himself and others who think like him to be the rulers. People like him know better than you. Either that or he's just total disinformation shill.

Except taken literally it means exactly fucking that.

That would explain it.
The 2nd amendment is so painfully obvious in interpretation that only a linguist intellectual could pussyfoot around it to try and create a new meaning.

Chomsky suffers from what I like to call Marx syndrome. He he very knowledgeable about history and why problems occurred, but his solutions are all shit.

Shall not be infringed.

Taken literally, it does. Eat shit, hebe.

They weren't talking about hirsute fucking mammals.

What's the problem, your fucking slides didn't take effect? Try harder moshe.

The 2nd Amendment is not what "permits" Americans to have guns. It is rather a sufficiently popular attitude of "come take 'em, then".

basically he's implying things are different now and he padded it with bullshit.

If people don't sage this shitty thread with a simple fact check and tell this subhuman kike to fuck off, you deserve all the shitpost and shilling in the world.

You can do this, too. They define well regulated militia for you.

>>>/israel/

Chomsky is a CIA asset. There is not opposition but controlled opposition.

America is controlled by the cult of intelligence and they fund and control their own opposition. Zuckenburg too is an actor. Many of the people you see on TV are part of the cult and just slaves. Many of the politicians are just actors. The celebrities are fake, created by the owners of the media to distract you from the real powers.

Do NLP analysis on Chomskies linguistics essays and you will find that they were not written by him.

...

2nd amendment to the US constitution is one of the greatest pieces of legislature ever made. The main reason I shitpost about Americans is because I'm butthurt that the leaders of my country never came up with anything like that.

he's not dumb, he's controlled opposition

this is the guy who wrote the manual on understanding state propaganda, and within the last decade he's become a very humourously thin shell of a pro-gov shill

he's old, he doesn't care, he's a tool and probably always has been

we should take note that it's obvious now he's probably been in touch with an ABC click the entire time, and how strongly he set himself up as a safe anti-gov/anti-USA intellectual

How can he call himself a socialist if he doesn't support the demonopolization of violence?

the answer is that he's a filthy hook-nosed, yellow-teethed crooked kike bastard.

Can you not read OP's last line? Or the subject line?
OP's quoting the subhuman kike, not promoting him.

It's still a shit thread though.

Hey goys, what part of "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is so hard for you to understand?

Everyone knows goyim aren't people

Actually, that's not what the second amendment means. Remember, the Consitution was written by a bunch of rebels who had just finished overthrowing their previous government. A better translation for it would be "In order to have a free society, the government's military cannot have a monopoly on the use of force, so the rights of the people to purchase weapons may not be infringed."

...

But I agree with him, as recent history has shown, The Second Ammendment is unclear and poorly redacted by modern standards.

This is America we're talking about, the people need specific instructions and cautions written on the back of shampoo bottels and heat warnings in pizza boxes.

AIN'T NOBODY DONE TOLD ME YA COULDN'T DRANK THE SHAINPOO!

Corporations' can't attack you or infringe your rights. Government can

If you don't like a corporation don't buy from it. If you don't like your government you have one vote in a country of millions
.
Corporations sell you products. Government forces you to buy them

This is all that needs to be said and there is no recovery

Pretty much. Nobody really gave a shit about Chomsky until the Manufacturing Consent documentary, before then he was just another leftist academic worshipping a bunch of bloodthirsty sociopaths. Afterwards he was a academic superstar.

SHOOT THE KIKE

SHOOT THE KIKE

Gun banners will find any excuse to ban guns regardless of what the Constitution says.

Shoot all commies on sight.

People being retarded doesn't mean the amendment is unclear, it means the populace is retarded.

Bought a new gun this weekend.

Suck it.

Jesus Christ, what kind of mental gymnastics does that require?

Exactly, because there will always be a standing army, the populace has a right to arm itself against it.

This reasoning was expanded upon further in the federalist papers.

Chomsky is really, really good on one or two things, and then mostly shit beyond that.

1. Listing all of the numerous crimes of the United States. That is excellent and worth knowing, particularly as most people don't know how deep they go, but if you only learn this in a vacuum, without understanding other power dynamics in the world, you become like most leftists and think that the United States is a unique evil in world history. The United States is guilty of enormous crimes, but they have to be placed in the context of what is going on in the rest of the world. This was especially true during the Cold War.

2. Listing the crimes of Israel. This is maybe even more insidious, as Chomsky does a great job of listing all of the crimes of Israel and correctly labeling it as a terror state, but then he goes and makes Israel simply a client state of the United States, with Israel simply following American policy, and the Israel lobby as mostly powerless compared to other interests defining American foreign policy. Norman Finkelstein is also guilty of downplaying the Israel lobby, but to a much lesser degree, and Finkelstein is frankly a much more engaging historian who gives a deeper understanding of these issues.

Jeffrey Blankfort does a great job of discussing Chomsky's dishonesty on Israel.

ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/pg-blankfort.html

I'm embedding a short video with Blankfort, but here is a much longer one:

youtube.com/watch?v=A-fz_8a0ohE

????

????

????

How ignorant do you have to be to take this guy seriously?

Great post.

The argument that leftists try to make is that militia means something like the National Guard, so the 2nd amendment can be read as arguing that the military has to right to own guns ha ha or conversely that militias in the sense of any type of private groupings of men are obsolete, hence there is no need for them, and the need for protection of private firearms is also obsolete.

Another big leftist argument is that guns back then were muskets, and that wouldn't have applied to modern semi-automatic weapons. Never mind that the disparity in weapons between those held by the government and private citizens has skyrocketed.

Steven Crowder is a cuckservative, but he has some excellent videos debunking gun control arguments. Here is one of them.

How can a man with a reputation as a linguistic supergenius make such illogical statements? Perhaps his alleged eidetic memory stunts his critical thinking ability.

my cat does too, but he got to keep his claws

cat-1
chomsky-0

Why is it good to list the crimes of the United States?

It's not done for honesty, it's done to make everyone more marxist.

You're assuming the public has any real alternatives. You are wrong.

That's a long argument, though. Here's a shorter one that demonstrates the same point:
If you were right, how long do you think it would really take for the corporate sector to remove those alternatives if people started holding them accountable? It wouldn't take long at all.

A rational analysis of our society invariably leads to the conclusion that businesses are less accountable to the masses than government and neither is anywhere near as accountable as they should be.

No, you moron, I was just translating their intent into modern English, instead of 250-year-old English.

...

The only markets without alternatives are the markets where government is protecting a monopoly through force of law.

...

You have no understanding what the US constitution mean then.

A "militia" consists of all able bodied men willing to fight who are private citizens. For a militia to work, these men must bring their own guns. If they are going to be in a military conflict, they need to have military style guns at all times.

The national guard is not the militia. Don't even try to use this as a fall argument. It is an extension of the US army.

Have I made this clear? This has nothing

Are you fucking kidding me? "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."

Is fucking says THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The sentence before that is talking about militia as in a fucking group of armed citizens, not a standing army. I'm so fucking sick of the goddamn jewish parasites in my country trying to twist the words of our constitution to further their own agenda.

The second amendment essentially is saying "having an armed populace is important against tyrannical government, so the people have the right to have and use firearms and that won't be reduced or altered in any way."

But no, we get faggots that say "oh it's pretty clear the 2nd amendment doesn't allow people to have guns." Doesn't allow? Fucking HOW? It explictly states that. What the fuck does he think it says, that only an army should have weapons? Who controls the army, the government? You think the founding fathers wanted the government to have all the fucking lethal force? That's sure how this country got started, isn't it, just the colonial rebels fighting off the king's men with sporks.

I'm so triggered right now.

Chomsky's psyop function is as a debate ceiling using the following logic

The furthest possible permissible criticism of anything the actual power holders do (or is "theorized" they do) is whatever Chomsky articulates.

Well, the dumb part is that Chomsky has nothing to offer but weak criticism. He is dumb. Eventually, he gets exposed for hypocrisy more and more and gets replaced by another.

He started making real money off his speeches after 9/11, invested it all into military bonds, and subsidized oil companies, created a trust for his family… made a few mills… perfect timing for ppl to start losing interest in him now.

And with the internet, it'll be hard for him to reinvent himself. His students will still admire him, his peers will look down upon that. You have to realize, eventually, regular people and socialists are going to have to pitch into the thought that leftist belief is a little fucking retarded. Kinda like how Hollywood does not like Bernie, and prefer Trump right now.

All of his work has been criticized by linguists that hold PHDs, historians, economists, and political philosophers. Colleges rarely cite him other than his speeches on American foreign policy. He's not putting real value into any economy so eventually people will get sick of babysitting him.

Because that is reality. And the government of the United States is not us.

If we really care about crimes and reality, we would spend all days listing crimes of every regimes in the world, Nazi Germany included.

But no, that's not for reality, or reality check, it's to propaganda to convince people to not trust their government and trust whoever speaks those propaganda instead.

Reality comes from people who search for the truth themselves, not sponfeed the truth by a certain someone.

His whole point with "taken literally" is that it talks about the limbs of ursinoid animals. He is talking about an extreme literal interpretation of each word, rather than turning bear arms into the phrase "bear arms".

The word "bear" has multiple definitions. The word "arms" has multiple definitions. To say that simply because some words have multiple definitions means the text is open to interpretation depending on the mood of the times is nonsense.

Okay, FBI/neocon/whatever you are.

Luckily, we still have free speech of a sort in the United States, so Holla Forums will continue to do exactly what you say we should not be doing.

Holla Forums will continue to repeat nazi propaganda
while badmouthing everyone else who fought against the nazis.

It's how free speech is used here.

Noam Chomksy net worth - $5 million

richestcelebrities.org/richest-authors/noam-chomsky-net-worth/

When he was worth $2 million over a decade ago, he created a trust to protect his assets.

hoover.org/research/noam-chomsky-closet-capitalist

SOURCE? Not that it doesn't sound like typical Chomskyism but I'd like to have the reference. Was it in a book?

Chomsky also said that before the Federal Reserve can be abolished we first need to abolish Capitalism. This guy is a joke.

So you're a hypocrite. Noted.

Btw, you don't speak for all of Holla Forums.

Noam Chomsky gets paid $20,000-$30,000 per speech.

allamericanspeakers.com/celebritytalentbios/Noam-Chomsky

Eventually you submit, or the Americans kill you

How am I a hypocrite?

Stopped reading there.

He's done outstanding work/study in language related problems. The bad thing is, as with many of these figure heads, that they misuse their positions to project power regarding political oppinion. Even in some MIT videos you see a professor throw in political slander against the "bad" republicans(which suck anyways). These rats can't just hold still without having spewed their worthless banter. They are bullies.

...

since when is a participle the same thing as a predicate. whoever created that macro is either a complete fucking retard, or a master troll.

A linguist that doesn't understand "shall not be infringed."

Wow.

Good post.

Chomsky just needs to be used the same way he uses his naive dick riders. He's a nice figurehead to throw around among ignoramuses who see no wrong in intelligence agencies, Israel, and nefarious financial groups. If you manage to reel in a few listeners, then go deeper and link the juggernauts of redpilling.

Chomsky is terrified of gun owning white people who distrust the government.

And he fails to even recognize those gun owning, government hating white folks also despise those transnational corporations jsut as much.

And this guy teaches at MIT, for shame.

Why would a government need to write a law to allow itself to be armed?

That is the fault of law not maintaining standards of definition, not the fault of the writers of the amendment. Our law has become horribly Judaized so the definitions and obvious meanings of clauses shift around like a rootless kike merchant moving around Europe.

America was the bad guy in the cold war, though.

no source
no quotes
sage

Chodesky is like all other retarded kikes

The only reason Americans are allowed free speech anyway is because Americans are already the best of goyim. Every thought in an American's head originated in Jewish media, so free speech is not harmful to them.

ok

The really funny part is if you really analyze what he espouses as "mutualist worker parties" or "libertarian socialism" what he's actually describing as the best system is national socialism. He's like alex jones, says some true stuff to get people to follow him but then leads them down a dead end path to waste their time.

His second amendment argument is disgusting though in light of the things he espouses, fairness is not possible without an armed populace willing to stand up for itself.

I stopped reading there, commie.

OP can you tell us where you got that quote? I'm going to use it next time I run into a Chomsky fanboy

And an anarchist.The man has lost his marbles.

Jew = Communist
It doesn't matter what they say, they're all Communists.

I feel like civilians should have guns so it's not only the government that has them. The French Revolution would not have been able to happen if they weren't a worthy contender against the armies of the time. Absolute power corrupts.

This is also the exact same purpose Alex Jones serves. He's a Designated Far Out Radical, so anything he dismisses or says is 'too crazy' automatically cannot be true, because holy cow, even the crazy guy thinks it's crazy!

If you want to learn the truth in the most straightforward and empirical way possible, using raw logic and nothing else, then you can do so by following these three easy steps.

Hey presto, there you go. By finding the empty spaces in the things they talk about, you can get 80% of the way towards something resembling the actual truth with no other work required.

So let's put it to the test. We've heard that the western world is controlled and manipulated by secret cabals of Nazis, Communists, Fascists, Satanists, Mole People, corporations, lobbyists, evil white people, the patriarchy, and other sundry things.

Who is the one group who is never accused of controlling and manipulating the western world from the shadows?

(((You already know, don't you?)))

Before the internet, his moderately anti-war stance made him seem like a radical anti-establishmentarian.

it looks like this is the source:

spunk.org/texts/writers/chomsky/sp001178.txt

Chomsky on Gun Control. From "Secrets, Lies and Democracy" - Noam Chomsky Interviewed by David Barsamian. Published by SIdonian Press, Tucson AZ, 1994.

the full quote is even worse:

Gun control

Q: Advocates of free access to arms cite the Second Amendment. Do you believe that it permits unrestricted, uncontrolled possession of guns?

A: It's pretty clear that, taken literally, the Second Amendment doesn't permit people to have guns. But laws are never taken literally, including amendments to the Constitution or constitutional rights. Laws permit what the tenor of the times interprets them as permitting.

But underlying the controversy over guns are some serious questions. There's a feeling in the country that people are under attack. I think they're misidentifying the source of the attack, but they do feel under attack.

The government is the only power structure that's even partially accountable to the population, so naturally the business sectors want to make that the enemy – not the corporate system, which is totally unaccountable. After decades of intensive business propaganda, people feel that the government is some kind of enemy and that they have to defend themselves from it.

It's not that that doesn't have its justifications. The government is authoritarian and commonly hostile to much of the population. But it's partially influenceable – and potentially very influenceable – by the general population.

Many people who advocate keeping guns have fear of the government in the back of their minds. But that's a crazy response to a real problem.

Do the media foster the feeling people have that they're under attack?

At the deepest level, the media contribute to the sense that the government is the enemy, and they suppress the sources of real power in the society, which lie in the totalitarian institutions – the corporations, now international in scale – that control the economy and much of our social life. In fact, the corporations set the conditions within which the government operates, and control it to a large extent.

The picture presented in the media is constant, day after day. People simply have no awareness of the system of power under which they're suffering. As a result – as intended – they turn their attention against the government.

People have all kinds of motivations for opposing gun control, but there's definitely a sector of the population that considers itself threatened by big forces, ranging from the Federal Reserve to the Council on Foreign Relations to big government to who knows what, and they're calling for guns to protect themselves.

Radio listener: On the issue of gun control, I believe that the US is becoming much more like a Third World country, and nothing is necessarily going to put a stop to it. I look around and see a lot of Third World countries where, if the citizens had weapons, they wouldn't have the government they've got. So I think that maybe people are being a little shortsighted in arguing for gun control and at the same time realizing that the government they've got is not exactly a benign one.

Your point illustrates exactly what I think is a major fallacy. The government is far from benign – that's true. On the other hand, it's at least partially accountable, and it can become as benign as we make it.

What's not benign (what's extremely harmful, in fact) is something you didn't mention – business power, which is highly concentrated and, by now, largely transnational. Business power is very far from benign and it's completely unaccountable. It's a totalitarian system that has an enormous effect on our lives. It's also the main reason why the government isn't benign.

As for guns being the way to respond to this, that's outlandish. First of all, this is not a weak Third World country. If people have pistols, the government has tanks. If people get tanks, the government has atomic weapons. There's no way to deal with these issues by violent force, even if you think that that's morally legitimate.

Guns in the hands of American citizens are not going to make the country more benign. They're going to make it more brutal, ruthless and destructive. So while one can recognize the motivation that lies behind some of the opposition to gun control, I think it's sadly misguided.

Nein.

Explain this?

Even Orwell with his left leanings understood the need for the guns to defend against a totalitarian government.
Only idiot leftists would miss the point of their own anarchic causes.

That's a sword. Looks like he was a weeb.

Nice D&C, Chiam. +1 sheckle has been added to your account

Also, Orwell didn't just lean left, he was an honest to God Communist who fought Franco. He loved Communism, but he hated Stalinism. So of course he loved the proletariat having guns for revolution at a moment's notice. It's just that his revolutionary goals differed from Holla Forums's.

...

That's not even a valid fucking argument, it only works if you're retarded.

>the right of the people to keep and bear arms
>keep and bear arms

I guess this was completely obvious though, just wanted to point out how having an and right infront of a noun is beyond dumb

huh?
lel
Taken literally, banning any form of weapon is unconstitutional.

Reminder, even some cops encourage people to get guns.

Reminder, law-abiding citizens are nut volatile gun nuts.

Reminder, the gubmint won't protect you.

Does this sound familiar?

a pothead kike that support giving you other peoples money.

btw, you won't get any money, him and his friends will keep it all

Pick one.

You can't even pretend to be an anarchist if you're against people owning guns.

this is quite a meme

...

Ehh, maybe in the Korean peninsula. Otherwise, no.
South Korea really did used to be worst Korea, decades ago.

Even fucking Marx himself said how important it was for the proletarian to be armed.

Left anarchists aren't exactly the smartest people, and its not helped by the fact that their ideology isn't exactly based on solid foundations like the right anarchist ideologies are.

This

this so-called grand intellectual is such a retard

Have the Chomsky fanboys tried to defend this? This has to be the worse 'intellectual' argument against guns I've read in a while.

I'm not even an anarchist and I can't stand that phony anarchist.

someone here should email him and ask him if its possible unfuck that nonesense paragraph

people werent illiterate morons 250 years ago

If he doesnt think "right to bear arms" means having a gun, what does he think it means? The right to form militias? because personally I would rather it mean the latter

On the contrary, taken literally, the Constitution and 2nd Amendment do not allow the Federal Government to "have guns"

You are the Jew.

I just sent him an email to see if he can further elaborate about this quote, I'll post the reply I get if he answers my email

Don't hold your breath on an actual response to a question that challenges him, user.

As an MIT professor, he isn't one to explain his reasonings.

dude weed lmao
u
d
e

w
e
e
d

l
m
a
o

Shit like this is why academia is a joke today. Degrees aren't worth toilet paper now, and they're devalued even more with Affirmative Action handing them out to Pajeets and Sheboons just for showing up and handing in the test.

Right anarchists don't have solid foundations either.

"We want to live in a world with no gangs!"

"Great, so what happens when the first biker gang forms and starts extracting protection money from people?"

"We'll group up and stop them!"

"So you'll form a gang to stop a gang?"

"Yeah, but it's okay because ours will only be temporary."

"Okay, so what happens when it happens again?"

"We'll form up again and do the same thing!"

"And you'll just keep doing this every time it happens, right?"

"Yeah!"

"And eventually you'll start preparing ahead of time for it. Maybe sharing resources or living closer together to make it easier, so fewer people end up dead each time."

"Well, maybe, yeah."

Anarchism will literally result in a recreation of Feudalism within a few years, if that. Anarchists don't suffer from precisely the same delusions that Lolbergs do, but they do live in the same zip code.

The only virtue that can be said for right wing anarchists is that they are less retarded than left wing ones, who are anarcho-pacifists. They are to gun ownership what right anarchs are to gangs.

The gang is inevitable. It will always happen. You can't stop it. Odds are, you will likely become it. The original form of human organization was Anarchism, and in zero instances did it stay that way.

There is a reason for this.

How can people honestly have an issue understanding the 2nd amendment?

Tbh I think the Brady Bill and Full Automatic Machine Gun Ban need to be overturned since it's obviously infringing on the rights of gun owners.

ronald reagan pos
btw he didn't even get shot
it was media hoax

You used to be able to order submachine guns by mail order catalog and have them delivered to your house. Kids would bring their hunting rifles to school, and teachers would teach them how to clean them, fire them, and safely store them and use them so no one gets hurt.

When kids brought guns to school to learn about them and everyone could easily acquire even military-grade hardware if they wanted to, gun-related crimes were almost nonexistent and there were no school shootings.

Terrorism, by definition, is war waged in such a way as to circumvent the ability of the military or law enforcement to stop it. It is war brought directly to the front door of the populace of the other side. Therefore, the only thing that can truly counter terrorism effectively is an armed and arms-trained populace. Period. You want to stop terrorists, you repeal all the weapon bans and restrictions, abolish the gun free zones and safe spaces, and have mandatory firearms training for everyone who buys a gun. Make it so that there is no place in America where you cannot own whatever weapon you please, and that there is no place you can go where you are not legally allowed to carry.

That's it. Terrorists defeated. The Jihad can fuck up modern day society, but it can do nothing against the America of Yesteryear, where twelve year old boys and fifteen year old girls have rifles and know how to use them, and every household on average had at least two and a half guns in it, and every third man on the street had a revolver in his pocket and knew how to defend himself and others with it.

We have to go back. And we can do it, if we frame it as the only way to actually defeat Terrorism and Terrorists.

This is the sad, unavoidable truth. I agree with anarchists on an idealistic level. All government is, at its deepest core, violence used as coercion against individuals. All government action, escalated to its final level, results in either capitulation or the sanctioned killing of an individual who steps outside the rules of the group. This is unjust.

But we live in the real world, and it is unavoidable. Humans form groups, and groups making decisions is the embryonic form of any government.

Bump, because this clown is worshipped as some kind of old wise philosopher in some circles.

I always hated doing diagrams in English class, because it seemed so pointless and that surely I would never need this in real life.

It was a good thing to have learned after all. It's taken 20 years after my graduation to finally understand the value.

I know you'll never see this Mrs. Petty, I don't even know if you're still alive, but you were right.

Goddammit, you were right.

I didn't find videos on Youtube of Chomsky bashing guns and the Second Amendment.

He's going to give a speech on May 12

boston.eventful.com/events/distinguished-peacebuilders-series-noam-chomsk-/E0-001-092004820-4

Someone from Boston or Massachussets should go to the event and at the Q&A session quote his own words and then ask him if he really thinks that the Second Amendment taken literally doesn't permit people to have guns.

He's right. It allows them to have any implement of war, including heavy artillery and warships, as those were privately owned in America when the document was written.

trying bringing it up to your coworkers. I cant tell you how many of my work friends respond to the bengazi question with the media fed line of "who cares?"

Freedom is dead because no one gives a fuck about being free. the only change your ever gonna see in this country is after a nuclear holocaust. until then, strap in because your gonna get fucked hard for believing in a democratic republic.

Little bump.

Taken literally, the 2nd doesn't allow any government restrictions to gun ownership. Fuck, leftists go on and on about how smart this kike is, he doesn't even have basic reading comprehension skills.

a little bump

It is funny because Chomsky is a linguist and was the guy that developed those branching language diagrams in the first place.

May 12 is Thursday

May 12 is Thursday, in two days.

...

protects my right to own weapons of the times to defend myself from, or to over-throw my government.

Correct. Natural law (ie, our Creators) grant us our rights. Hence they are inalienable. The Bill of Rights isn't a list of rights, it's a short enumeration of protections on our inalienable rights.

You faggots are easy to destroy. If this is what Communism has done to our classrooms you fucks will be the first generation in the history of the US to get ZERO representation in the government because your generation will never come to power.

Choamsky is what one could describe as LUMPENINTELLIGENTSIA. An intellectual with nothing to say. Literally, just take any issue. Imagine the intermediate position, Choamsky will take it. He is a shill. He also should be gassed for being a fucking kike.

It's tonight …but it's sold out

Thursday 7:00 PM - 9:00 PM
FIRST CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH
11 Garden Street
Cambridge, Massachusetts

How the fuck did this thread survive?

I was hoping someone would go to the May 12 speech and ask him an embarassing question about his interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

This guy gives me the hope I too could be a "philosopher" and make lots of money

Theres a shit storm a brewing ITT

But you'd have to be a politically correct 'progressive'.

We can certainly agree that Chomsky can never own a gun.

Delightfully Talmudic.

The world is upside down.

Yeah, he lost me at "Taken literally, the second amendment doesn't permit people to have guns"
I mean, language, motherfucker.

He's not wrong, because by "population" he means his tribe. You are nothing more than cattle, you're not a member of the "population."

Well put. He is *extremely* smart, has written great work on some of the bigger problems society faces. His problem is he thinks gay little rallies solve everything.

Anyway the guy is a linguist. I'm sure what he is saying is that "arms" does not necissarily mean guns. He is being a liberal faggot here, but the guy isn't a retard.

Of course he's not a retard he's deceptive. Like when he said We we can't abolish the Federal Reserve… we have to abolish capitalism first!. He's an ideologue, he's not a thinker.

I'm pretty sure it does. It also states why it's needed, but that doesn't change the fact that it's there.

But it's a lot more influenceable by those corporations however. Ergo you can't really depend entirely on it to protect you from them, either.

Well, like Soros, he's not going to be around much longer.

It's just the insulation. He lives in a nice neighborhood and spent most of his adult wife working in a very white institution. He never had to suffer forced integration, or be the subject of a malicious government program.

He's actually one of those self righteous secular Jews who's against an Isreali state and speaks harshly about their politics.

Doesn't mean he doesn't instinctively do the same thing most intellectual Jews do to undermine gentile institutions. But he doesn't actually think like an ethnocentrism and actively hate the goyim.

He's half right in that it doesn't permit people to have guns, it affirms their natural right to have guns.

For Jews:

Gas > Guns

Chomsky is a seriously angry man, but manages to contain it. People ask him too many general questions expecting some kind of enlightened response to everything.

He falls down on many issues because he's a total leftist cuck, and that creates disharmony with his other more reasoned perspectives. But ultimately, he's a fucking cuck. You can see it in his eyes, the rage of cognitive dissonance.

Genetic clock studies support Out of Africa.

There's a better way of refuting this "everyone's the same" narrative, and I'm researching it. But the genetic drift evidence supports their talking point.

The real cognitive dissonance of the second amendment is that we were meant to be armed as part of a well-regulated militia: meaning the people were supposed to be a trained defense force. We weren't supposed to have a professional standing army.

The constitution makes an explicit provision for a national navy. But not land forces. We're all supposed to have a weapon in the house and be ready to use it for national defense.

Who cares. mDNA studies disprove OoA, and prove that there are at minimum 4 distinct human races.

No it doesn't.

Indoctrinated people like having their indoctrination reinforced by someone they think is smarter than them.

this is now the camwhore board

Well, yeah, but there's also the fact that "well-regulated" used to mean "well-stocked."

Further, you don't even have to officially be part of a real militia. The law includes you in the unorganized militia of the United States, provided you're above 17 and below 45.

law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

...