It is absolutely ridiculous that the Secret Service and tax payer dollars provides security for Ex-Presidents.

@GlitterEater How so? The Second Amendment has nothing to do with the Secret Service. There's no reason why someone with Secret Service protection can't carry their own gun.

@LeopoldBloom The Second Amendment exists so you can kill tools of the state. The Secret Service exists to protect the life of tools of the state

@GlitterEater That's not correct. Federalist #29 describes the militia, which is part of the 2nd amendment. There is nothing in the Constitution allowing violent revolution. The original intent of the 2nd amendment was to allow people to own guns as members of a well-regulated militia, which was supposed to take the place of a standing federal army.

I'm a gun owner, but if someone's reason for owning guns is to overthrow the government, I have no problem with their guns being taken from them by force.

@LeopoldBloom And what does the militia do with the weapons to protect themselves from the state?

@GlitterEater It's not to protect themselves from the state, it's to support the state. According to Hamilton, they were to be under federal control and called up to repel invaders or quell domestic disturbances.

If you think the 2nd amendment allows people to own weapons to fight the government, are you in favor of criminal gangs shooting up police stations?

@LeopoldBloom
1. I was making a descriptive statement, not a prescriptive one. Just because something is some way doesn't mean I would have to favor the consequences of it.
2. Yes, I am in favor of that.

@LeopoldBloom The State is the main and most powerful mechanism of tyranny. So there is clear conflict here.

@LeopoldBloom She's being hyperbolic to insinuate Trump is a tyrant

@Reason10 The Secret Service protect tyranny. The Second Amendment is for fighting tyranny.

Ever wonder why people think right wingers are tyrannical authoritarians?