| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Introvert
United States4862 Posts
On June 23 2022 12:07 GreenHorizons wrote: That's some great spin for taking a 3-day weekend before a 2 week vacation and then going back to work There are a bunch of supreme court decisions that will take all the attention for the next two weeks. They don't want their little show to be overshadowed. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On June 23 2022 12:27 Introvert wrote: There are a bunch of supreme court decisions that will take all the attention for the next two weeks. They don't want their little show to be overshadowed. I can think of no better show than going over slow-motion tapes of the biggest clown in America trying to set fire to our democracy. The fact that they're taking a break that coincides with yet more of your guys' tomfuckery isn't a bad thing. Smart of them. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14047 Posts
Look at desantis and how much government he's trying to shove into the market. His faith in his ideals are so fragile that he will force his state to pick up an insane debt and raise property taxes by a huge jump because a private corporate entity disagreed with him in public. He explicitly canceled a deal with a sports team because their social media liked a post he considers wrong think. At some point introvert you need to stop and smell the fascism. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
He's really showing them. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14047 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
| ||
|
gobbledydook
Australia2605 Posts
| ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4733 Posts
| ||
|
gobbledydook
Australia2605 Posts
On June 24 2022 00:53 Silvanel wrote: It's wrong because letting everyone carry a gun is not making people safer, but the opposite. Gun is an offensive weapon. It's not a fucking energy shield from Dune. Well, unfortunately the only recourse is to change the Constitution then. Americans should be able to recognize that the Second Amendment is not suited for today, whereas it may have been suitable for the 1800s. If they cannot agree on this, then there is no prospect for progress. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
They had a choice between either upholding an extremely minor restriction on gun ownership, or blowing the whole thing wide open nationwide and abolishing any carrying restrictions. It shouldn't have been a hard decision. Take the trash out or go nuclear. They chose nuclear. Again. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18838 Posts
On June 24 2022 00:54 gobbledydook wrote: Well, unfortunately the only recourse is to change the Constitution then. Americans should be able to recognize that the Second Amendment is not suited for today, whereas it may have been suitable for the 1800s. If they cannot agree on this, then there is no prospect for progress. There's nothing inherently wrong with the 2nd Amendment, the issue is primarily one arising from judges doing bad historian impressions as cover for their ideological rulings. That said, changing or removing the 2nd amendment would certainly fix that problem. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21952 Posts
On June 24 2022 00:54 gobbledydook wrote: The second amendment would be a lot more reasonable if people actually thought about the first half of the sentence more then the second half.Well, unfortunately the only recourse is to change the Constitution then. Americans should be able to recognize that the Second Amendment is not suited for today, whereas it may have been suitable for the 1800s. If they cannot agree on this, then there is no prospect for progress. A well regulated militia. | ||
|
gobbledydook
Australia2605 Posts
If the first reading is correct, then the important part is that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, and the first part of the sentence is just background information. If the second reading is correct then the important part is the first, and joining a militia would be a prerequisite for the right to bear arms. That said, I would suppose the first reading makes more sense, because if it is required to be in the military to bear arms, then that was the case everywhere in the world and would not have had to be specifically put into the constitution. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23464 Posts
On June 24 2022 01:54 gobbledydook wrote: The Second Amendment was grammatically incorrect anyway. It is unclear whether the well regulated militia is the reason why the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, or whether the right to bear arms shall not be infringed applies in the case of a well regulated militia. If the first reading is correct, then the important part is that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, and the first part of the sentence is just background information. If the second reading is correct then the important part is the first, and joining a militia would be a prerequisite for the right to bear arms. That said, I would suppose the first reading makes more sense, because if it is required to be in the military to bear arms, then that was the case everywhere in the world and would not have had to be specifically put into the constitution. A well regulated militia and the military were distinct organizations (with overlapping interests). The militias existed to put down slave resistances, slaughter Indigenous peoples, protect property, and as a proto-national guard (people that could be called up for war). Basically the 2nd amendment was to protect state's genocide squads from being disarmed/disintegrated by the federal government (in deference to a federalized version, the US government was already set on a policy of genocide). EDIT: For all intents and purposes the compromise was to turn the genocide squads into state and local police departments (which came in earnest almost 100 years after the amendment) and create the National Guard to appease the feds. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States43219 Posts
On June 24 2022 02:44 JimmiC wrote: Stop insurrections, and invasions, which were a real concern from any number of empires. Might as well be complete instead of just the parts that fit your narrative. That wouldn’t be a state concern, it’d be a Federal one. The militias were a state organization. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Starlightsun
United States1405 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
The PondCast
RSL Revival
Solar vs Zoun
MaxPax vs Bunny
Kung Fu Cup
ByuN vs ShoWTimE
Classic vs Cure
Reynor vs TBD
WardiTV Korean Royale
PiGosaur Monday
RSL Revival
Classic vs Creator
Cure vs TriGGeR
Kung Fu Cup
herO vs TBD
CranKy Ducklings
RSL Revival
herO vs Gerald
ByuN vs SHIN
Kung Fu Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
