|
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 |
On June 23 2022 12:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2022 11:57 StasisField wrote: In January 6 committee news, the committee will have a hearing tomorrow and are delaying all subsequent hearings until July, due to new evidence surfacing, including documentary video footage of Trump and his inner circle before and after the january 6th insurrection. 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.
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
At least we can be sure that this time, the bad people are finally for real going to be brought to justice, bigly. No more rounds of InvestiGate after this, we’re finally at the ending after this quick summer break.
|
On June 23 2022 12:27 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2022 12:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2022 11:57 StasisField wrote: In January 6 committee news, the committee will have a hearing tomorrow and are delaying all subsequent hearings until July, due to new evidence surfacing, including documentary video footage of Trump and his inner circle before and after the january 6th insurrection. 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. 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.
|
Small government rhetoric was all talk and always was all talk. The only thing republicans have done in power is to explicitly make the government worse and give more and more money to the rich over the rest of the country. They've wanted to take away rights and restrict how people live their lives.
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.
|
I can't think of anything more emblematic of Republican philosophy than the whole Desantis/Disney thing. Disney took an extremely mild stance against homophobia, and to own both Disney and The Libs for having the wrong opinion he had the whole state take on Disney's tax burden for them.
He's really showing them.
|
Fun times in America today the ability to conceal and carry is now legal in all 50 states with no real restrictions. Thanks Supreme Court for making me less safe.
|
Right after a huge wave of school shootings and White Supremacist rampages. At least their stance on those killings is crystal clear.
|
Is it wrong because it is not morally proper to let everyone own guns for 'self defense', or is it wrong because the legal argument by the Supreme Court is wrong?
|
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.
|
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.
|
It's wrong because they've been watching the same string of killings that the rest of the world has been seeing, and when given the option to put a thumb on the scale and do something, they choose to facilitate would-be killers even more. They refused to read a room wherein school children and Black Americans are being killed because someone thought it would make for a fun afternoon, and there isn't shit that the law can or will do about it.
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.
|
On June 24 2022 00:54 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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.
|
On June 24 2022 00:54 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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.
A well regulated militia.
|
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.
|
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 the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, or whether the right to bear arms shall not be infringed in the case of a well regulated militia. It is actually pretty clear when you see hoe those who wrote the constitution used it, to surpress revolutions with their militia. It was not about over throwing a corrupt government, good guys taking down terrorists die hard style, making weak scared peoplr feel manly. It was about having a ready force to stop imvaision or inserection.
Sorry you have been tricked by those who want to sell you guns. Do not belive me, look at the stance on 3d printed guns. If they remotely believed what they were spouting 3d guns would be the best way for everyone to get guns, but since it is terrible for guns sales the NRA, republicans and so on oppose.
It takes like 5 mins of critical thinking to wade through the BS but it also makes pwning libs harder so almost no Republicans are willing.
Ignoring facts, reality and logic are the new(maybe not so new) corner stones of the platform.
Edit: to your edit, you are again wrong. A well regulated militia is not the military. The military is the military. Also, take some time to actually read how it was used by those who created it and why they would want it. Shockingly it was not for citizens to feel tough.
|
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.
|
On June 24 2022 02:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +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). 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.
|
United States40774 Posts
On June 24 2022 02:44 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2022 02:35 GreenHorizons wrote: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). 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.
|
On June 24 2022 02:46 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2022 02:44 JimmiC wrote:On June 24 2022 02:35 GreenHorizons wrote: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). 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. Militias were used to put down Rebellion, I'm sure had the British or whoever came they would have been for that 2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion#:~:text=On August 4, 1794, Justice,out to suppress the rebellion.
edit: when you are forming a new government/country over a massive amount land it makes total sense to have people trained with the arms of the time ready to defend it. It does not make sense to have a bunch of holligans with guns who can start their own armies and try to make their own countries or take over yours. Hence having only the people in the "well regulated ones" with guns. I was about maintaining "security and power. Everything else is fantasy/marketing.
|
Think the statue of Lady Justice needs to be updated. Replace the sword, scales and blindfold with a gun, bible and maga hat.
|
|
|
|