Actually very funny, and point more then well taken, but the utter unwillingness/inability of people seeking gun control to engage a technical subject at an informed, technical level to produce something that would actually function as real legislation is pretty facepalm-inducing.
RIP, Roe vs. Wade.
- Thread starter rideit
- Start date
And the fact that Americans have the right to vote certainly doesn't imply a federal interest in guarding the efficacy of that right.
I mean, if *they* vote to expropriate *your* right to vote, that's democracy, amirite?!
clip
the problem is that many 2a'ers are more interested in arguing semantics than they are at making an honest effort at trying to figure out how to stop children from getting murdered. and instead of making attempts to educate others, they just cackle hurr durr and go right back to their gun-penis circle jerk.
No argument about disingenuousness, but...semantics do become pretty essential when you're, you know, making laws. At some early point the technical engagement becomes critical.
there's plenty that could be done (eg some of the stuff in the recently passed legislation) that doesn't require that.
Irrelevant, as the amendment plainly ascribes the right to the people themselves. The preamble is explanatory.
Heller is correct on this, period. It causes heartburn, but that's the fact.
If it said "Libraries, being essential to the well-being of the state, the right of the people to keep and bear books shall not be infringed" not one person would ascribe the right to own books only to public libraries. It clearly indicates we can all own books as constituents of The People, just clarifying one single reason why in the introductory clause.
^the relative differences between books and guns are also irrelevant; the example is given to show the underlying structure with something non-controversial. I'm not equating them.
Still ambiguous considering that when first written, "people" only referred to the minority of the population and required further amendments to correct.
And now people includes corporations.
LOL
MikeD becomes an originalist™ while completely ignoring the iterations madison went through before the final version, while also acting like the preceding clause was added just for fun.
Also a fact: the constitution at this point is an irrelevant ancient scroll that impedes the development of a civilized society. It's a point of departure for justifying living the in the stone ages, just like the bible.
The whole document is predicated on and by the people. You're right, that definition has required expansion, but no one would then turn around and say The People now only consists of white men. (Well, except Clarence Thomas, maybe?)
And that only they should be armed.
My personal 2nd Amendment beef is that when it was ratified, there was no concept of incorporating the Constitution's protections unto the states. Without the 14th Amendment...as the Founders originally intended...it was only the Federal gov't who was limited in regulating guns.
(That said many state constitutions echo the thought).
Also, we have freedom of speech and we acknowledge it's not unlimited, so there's room for regulation within the context and wording of the 2nd as well.
And that only they should be armed.
My personal 2nd Amendment beef is that when it was ratified, there was no concept of incorporating the Constitution's protections unto the states. Without the 14th Amendment...as the Founders originally intended...it was only the Federal gov't who was limited in regulating guns.
(That said many state constitutions echo the thought).
Also, we have freedom of speech and we acknowledge it's not unlimited, so there's room for regulation within the context and wording of the 2nd as well.
I'm not arguing what I want, just what it says. Originalism is a fiction, but you also just can't make the words whatever you want through judicial review.
It wasn't added for fun. It was added to explain WHY (among other reasons) the people's right is being protected. But it's not functional and does not limit the right.
The founders sure thought we'd be more amenable to updating it, I'd think.
'arms' isn't even defined, and they very much are infringed
the 2nd amendment is short-sighted stupidity and spending this many decades running around in circles about it just shows how utterly flawed it is. It's a blanket thrown over the face of reality.
Last edited:
This. Your constitution is absolutely holding America back. Y’all should push for constitutional reform.
how can we even be sure the founding fathers meant firearms and not armaments like canons and explosives?
'arms' isn't even defined, and they very much are infringed
the 2nd amendment is short-sighted stupidity and spending this many decades running around in circles about it just shows how utterly flawed it is
Pretty sure they meant upper torso appendages
Many of the anti-control advocates say this with an emphatic smile, noting that lots of cannons were privately owned and unregulated.
Well they must be right. I mean you've laid out the academic argument pretty clearly.
Oh well! ICBMs for everyone! Says so on the
The fact that the right to own heavy artillery and some of the most destructive armaments IS infringed, shows that even as plainly as the 2ndA states that arms shall not be infringed, what 'arms' were at the time very much guides what civilians can legally purchase. And even that's not absolute (IE fully auto firing).
So to me, arguing for the legitimacy of the heller ruling is talking out of both sides of your mouth. Intent matters, you can have small personal arms because that's what is interpreted as arms at the time, not long range missiles. But taken extremely literally, which heller does, there very much is a case for owning those current iterations of canons. It's fucking stupid. Either you recognize context and intent, or you don't. They're both being done selectively.
Have you got any non-nutbars on offer?
You have internet access?
I posted that to illustrate the danger inherent in opening up certain cans of wormage in the US these days.
Obviously we need either constitutional reform or to just shit can the concept. But it's going to get way worse here before it starts getting better. "just push for constitutional reform" ain't gonna do it.
Last edited:
Yeah, I agree. It’s extremely frustrating that the disfunction is so egregious that it’s having direct impacts on the rest of the planet’s quality of life, and even moreso for those of us in the anglosphere. Like I said, fucking pitchfork time. Biden is fucking useless. You no longer even have the right to a fair trial so you might as well go down swinging.
And in the liberal utopia of california we'd rather just dox a bunch of battered wives trying to protect themselves from abusive spouses. Better gun control would be great but this shit is nuts.
Attorney General Bonta Releases New Firearms Data to Increase Transparency and Information Sharing
Releases 2022 Firearms Dashboard Portal through DOJ’s OpenJustice Platform SACRAMENTO — California Attorney General today announced new and updated firearms data available through the California Department of Justice (DOJ)’s 2022 Firearms Dashboard Portal. The dashboard is accessible though...
Which I'm pointing out because while US gun culture and the obsession with abortion are absolutely moronic, even when well-intentioned, typically isolated rich people try to do something about it, they royally fuck it up. Kinda like the US constitution written by the same crowd. America doesn't know how to listen to the right people. So windows everywhere are unsafe.
Clarence Thomas cites claim that Covid vaccines are ‘developed using cell lines derived from aborted children’
Cells derived from elective abortions have been used in vaccine research for decades, including for Covid-19 vaccines.
www.politico.com
The senate being 50/50 and the Dems "having" Manchin and Sinema who both block pretty much everything stops a lot being achieved. Fuck both of them. Hope Machin dies from black lung.
The United States was developed by genocide.
Clarence Thomas cites claim that Covid vaccines are ‘developed using cell lines derived from aborted children’
Cells derived from elective abortions have been used in vaccine research for decades, including for Covid-19 vaccines.
If the DNC put some muscle behind going after them both in the primary, that would a be a solution. Of course they never will so there ya go.
Instead they're putting money behind the most extreme right wing candidates they can find, in the belief that those candidates will be easier to beat in a general election. Because they are fucking morons who still haven't learned not to play with fire.
Democrats are bankrolling ads promoting fringe Republican candidates. Here's why
As the midterm primary season rolls along, voters may have noticed a strange phenomenon of political advertising: Democrats paying for ads supporting Republican candidates.
www.npr.org
You ever been to West Virginia? No way in hell a more progressive Democrat would win a general election. He has to be a DINO if he wants a job. Trump took every single district an won by over 30 points. That is one state that doesn't even have to try gerrymand anymore.If the DNC put some muscle behind going after them both in the primary, that would a be a solution. Of course they never will so there ya go.
Instead they're putting money behind the most extreme right wing candidates they can find, in the belief that those candidates will be easier to beat in a general election. Because they are fucking morons who still haven't learned not to play with fire.
Democrats are bankrolling ads promoting fringe Republican candidates. Here's why
As the midterm primary season rolls along, voters may have noticed a strange phenomenon of political advertising: Democrats paying for ads supporting Republican candidates.
Last edited:
at least he's not obviously inbred
Failed badly this week in CO I think...
not convinced
manymanymany times
I used to live in maryland and georgia with a sister that lived in charleston. Plus snowshoe.
I don't care about WV. Losing manchin would result in.....what different exactly? My point is they're not focusing on improvement, only not losing, completely deaf to the fact that a genuinely good progressive candidate will get votes. Bernie sandering other candidates has not resulted in anything remotely close to a stated goal of democrats. They're not only useless, they're destructive.
So anyway.....what I was saying about the constitution......
that they said^^^
"the senate is affirmative action for rural whites"
Melissa Murray getting cited in this is fucking taunting. These people are bro bullies.
Hey @Changleen @6thElement @DaveW : 37:00
Last edited:
This is really good. The criticism of the left that they (we) don’t have a ‘single unifing goal’ is true, because the left tries to deal with real life which is genuinely ‘complicated’. I think the left/progressives need a ‘view of the future’ that can contain all these nuances. The right has a simple set of ‘whales’ and stays on point to destroy these. Of course it’s easier to destroy.
