|
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 September 13 2025 04:25 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2025 04:16 LightSpectra wrote:On September 13 2025 04:09 oBlade wrote:
The world is not a computer program you vote for. Humans have agency. If someone deliberately ran over your family with a truck, to murder them specifically, you didn't ask for it by being against banning cars. You should have understood from the bridge analogy already. The policy view of how we organize our society does not give any single person any carte blanche to do something evil that we also already decided is illegal and punishable by death in some cases. As a corollary it's not that person's fault and they didn't deserve it, the family didn't ask to get run over by being on the sidewalk. Great analogy, because (non-rightwing) legislators, car designers, traffic engineers, etc. have put in a lot of work and research into making cars and streets less dangerous and more regulated so there's less needless deaths. Meanwhile, right-wing legislators proudly wear rifle pins after school shootings to show their solidarity with the shooters. I don't think I've seen a policy "proposal" from a Democrat in the last 10 years after any school shooting that would have even stopped the immediately preceding tragedy. They simply have no conception of reality for some reason. Take the CK case, the guy was an adult over the age of majority, and over the first age of fake majority for drinking (21), although not over the second age of fake majority for renting cars (25), had all the background in guns, and used basically the most ubiquitous and unbannable kind of weapon that isn't a musket: a bolt-action rifle. Any "gun control" proposal there is immediately met with: can't vacuum 500 million guns that are at least as advanced as a bolt-action rifle if you wanted. Try people control. Show nested quote +On September 13 2025 04:16 LightSpectra wrote:
Love how much your tone has changed since yesterday btw. From "the deranged left" to "humans have agency" I would never imply that derangement absolves one of responsibility.Show nested quote +On September 13 2025 04:16 LightSpectra wrote:
since discovering the shooter was a Trump donor. Source buddy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack
One could argue that Americans love to empower dangerous derangement.
Maybe the shooter will be pardoned and become governor.
|
Please delete if it's not okay to post conjecture as such. But we have a tweet from a journalist stating that the killer was far-right:
https://x.com/DavidShuster/status/1966576856515203480
It will be very interesting to see how this develops (assuming this journalist isn't full of it, but judging by their Wikipedia page they are respected)
|
On September 13 2025 04:09 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2025 04:02 LightSpectra wrote:On September 13 2025 04:01 BlackJack wrote:On September 13 2025 03:57 LightSpectra wrote:On September 13 2025 03:50 BlackJack wrote:On September 12 2025 21:34 Uldridge wrote:On September 12 2025 21:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 12 2025 21:12 Razyda wrote:On September 12 2025 19:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I recently heard the following take on Charlie Kirk's assassination: "I don't support what happened to Charlie, but Charlie would have supported what happened to Charlie". I think that's a fair point. I think thats blatantly dishonest take. Supporting 2nd amendment doesnt mean you supporting shooting people. Kirk said that annual gun deaths are worth the cost to keep the 2nd amendment: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/charlie-kirk-gun-deaths-quote/ And that's certainly a view that Kirk was allowed to have, but then his death - just like the other gun deaths that happen this year - are simply part of the price that Kirk found acceptable to pay, to ensure the 2nd amendment. That's completely disingenuous. He's probably not talking about cold blooded assassinations, but talking about accidents and self defense and these kinds of things instead. Stoking the flames is the best idea. We need to find a loophole to simmer down the right wing rhetoric, not stoke the flames with them. Yes and no. He is actually talking about ALL gun related deaths. It's also the same mental calculus that every country that allows its citizens to have guns has concluded. It would be pretty idiotic to conclude that you're okay with people having guns but not if people will be killed by guns because you can't have one without the other. It's the same mental calculus we do for everything. Medications we develop will have side effects that kill some people. Tall bridges we build will inevitably have some bridge jumpers that kill themselves. Junk food we allow companies to sell will lead to obesity and diabetes and death. Everything has risk and with large enough numbers, many deaths. I don't particularly agree with pro-2A gun nuts mental calculus that the cost in human lives is worth it so mentally unstable people can have weapons of war, but it's obviously disingenuous to say they "support" gun suicide/homicide any more than I "support" bridge jumpers killing themselves because I want to cross the bay by car. But I'm also well beyond expecting people to critically think about the shit they copy/paste off bluesky or reddit so there's that. "Some people dying is OK if the alternative is no gun rights" is not an unreasonable view. The unreasonable view is "Republicans can't be the 'some people dying,' we meant YOUR kids dying is acceptable". "YOUR kids" Again, try to apply 5 seconds of critical thinking. Roughly half the kids that attend public schools have Republican parents. Do you think mass shooters know which kids to avoid shooting? Sure, but why flip a raging shit when someone shoots at Charlie Kirk or Donald Trump or some other far-right figures then? You voted for a world with unrestricted gun rights and random deaths, don't pop a pudding because you got it. I think the people filled with rage here are the ones that were happy when Kirk got shot.@Gorsameth, I already said in my post I don't agree with the gun nut mental calculus. Not really interested in a gun control debate that we're probably on the same side on.
Can you elaborate on this? Why are happy people the ones who are truly filled with rage? Wouldn't they be pretty low on the anger scale, especially compared to all the people who were immediately screaming for violent retaliation (against the wrong group, apparently... it seems as if the main suspect doesn't have a specific party affiliation - although I'm sure we'll learn more about him in the coming days - so getting even with Democrats by pushing the idea of killing them back doesn't really make much sense)?
|
United States43255 Posts
On September 13 2025 04:53 GoShox wrote:Please delete if it's not okay to post conjecture as such. But we have a tweet from a journalist stating that the killer was far-right: https://x.com/DavidShuster/status/1966576856515203480It will be very interesting to see how this develops (assuming this journalist isn't full of it, but judging by their Wikipedia page they are respected)
Spreading speculation without evidence in an attempt to direct blame at the other side is honestly the best way to honour Kirk's life and legacy.
|
Cox: ‘Social media is a cancer on our society right now’
Utah Gov. Spencer Cox (R) on Friday urged people to turn away from social media, calling it a “cancer on our society” after announcing that the suspected gunman in the killing of Charlie Kirk is in custody.
At the end of his press conference announcing 22-year-old Tyler Robinson as the suspected gunman in the shooting at Utah Valley University, Cox urged people to log off of social media, citing the violent imagery that proliferates through the medium.
“We are not wired as human beings — biologically, historically — we have not evolved in a way that we are capable of processing those types of violent imagery. And by the way, we’ve seen another one with a gruesome stabbing very recently that went viral. This is not good for us. It is not good to consume,” said Cox, referring to the fatal stabbing of Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska in North Carolina earlier this month.
“Social media is a cancer on our society right now,” he added. “I would encourage people to log off, turn off, touch grass, hug a family member, go out and do good in your community.”
During the conference, Cox referenced similar remarks about social media that Kirk had made on the platform X in June.
“When things are moving very fast and people are losing their minds, it’s important to stay grounded. Turn off your phone, read scripture, spend time with friends, and remember internet fury is not real life. It’s going to be ok,” Kirk wrote.
The governor said society has a chance to decide where it will go in this moment, to either “escalate” or “find an off-ramp.”
maybe not all is lost for some Republicans and the pain of this tragedy gives them a bit of clarity. if that were to become the default position across the board... that would be great.
as Trump and company worked really hard to get platforms to kill fact checkers and have the tech bros bend over backwards to kill any moderation to let "freedom reign" to be as idiotic, racist and hateful as humanly possible, it's not very likely.
|
On September 13 2025 05:56 Doublemint wrote:Cox: ‘Social media is a cancer on our society right now’Show nested quote +Utah Gov. Spencer Cox (R) on Friday urged people to turn away from social media, calling it a “cancer on our society” after announcing that the suspected gunman in the killing of Charlie Kirk is in custody.
At the end of his press conference announcing 22-year-old Tyler Robinson as the suspected gunman in the shooting at Utah Valley University, Cox urged people to log off of social media, citing the violent imagery that proliferates through the medium.
“We are not wired as human beings — biologically, historically — we have not evolved in a way that we are capable of processing those types of violent imagery. And by the way, we’ve seen another one with a gruesome stabbing very recently that went viral. This is not good for us. It is not good to consume,” said Cox, referring to the fatal stabbing of Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska in North Carolina earlier this month.
“Social media is a cancer on our society right now,” he added. “I would encourage people to log off, turn off, touch grass, hug a family member, go out and do good in your community.”
During the conference, Cox referenced similar remarks about social media that Kirk had made on the platform X in June.
“When things are moving very fast and people are losing their minds, it’s important to stay grounded. Turn off your phone, read scripture, spend time with friends, and remember internet fury is not real life. It’s going to be ok,” Kirk wrote.
The governor said society has a chance to decide where it will go in this moment, to either “escalate” or “find an off-ramp.” maybe not all is lost for some Republicans and the pain of this tragedy gives them a bit of clarity. if that were to become the default position across the board... that would be great. as Trump and company worked really hard to get platforms to kill fact checkers and have the tech bros bend over backwards to kill any moderation to let "freedom reign" to be as idiotic, racist and hateful as humanly possible, it's not very likely.
There will be no reflection or clarity. Itll be forgotten by the end of next week since it was likely an alt right white guy who shot him.
Theres no reflection with the ghouls running the show
|
United States43255 Posts
The suggestion that people stop reading news, stop worrying on outraging things their government does, disconnect from anything outside their immediate offline sphere, and give the government a free hand, would be a lot better if the government wasn’t putting people in camps.
|
On September 13 2025 05:56 Doublemint wrote:Cox: ‘Social media is a cancer on our society right now’Show nested quote +Utah Gov. Spencer Cox (R) on Friday urged people to turn away from social media, calling it a “cancer on our society” after announcing that the suspected gunman in the killing of Charlie Kirk is in custody.
At the end of his press conference announcing 22-year-old Tyler Robinson as the suspected gunman in the shooting at Utah Valley University, Cox urged people to log off of social media, citing the violent imagery that proliferates through the medium.
“We are not wired as human beings — biologically, historically — we have not evolved in a way that we are capable of processing those types of violent imagery. And by the way, we’ve seen another one with a gruesome stabbing very recently that went viral. This is not good for us. It is not good to consume,” said Cox, referring to the fatal stabbing of Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska in North Carolina earlier this month.
“Social media is a cancer on our society right now,” he added. “I would encourage people to log off, turn off, touch grass, hug a family member, go out and do good in your community.”
During the conference, Cox referenced similar remarks about social media that Kirk had made on the platform X in June.
“When things are moving very fast and people are losing their minds, it’s important to stay grounded. Turn off your phone, read scripture, spend time with friends, and remember internet fury is not real life. It’s going to be ok,” Kirk wrote.
The governor said society has a chance to decide where it will go in this moment, to either “escalate” or “find an off-ramp.” maybe not all is lost for some Republicans and the pain of this tragedy gives them a bit of clarity. if that were to become the default position across the board... that would be great. as Trump and company worked really hard to get platforms to kill fact checkers and have the tech bros bend over backwards to kill any moderation to let "freedom reign" to be as idiotic, racist and hateful as humanly possible, it's not very likely.
The Governor's comments would almost be inspiring if you forgot that all the owners of major social media (Meta, YouTube, Twitter, TikTok) that crafted algorithms to increase rage and tension are Trump megadonors that got front row seats his second inauguration. The call is coming from inside the house, Governor!
|
On September 13 2025 06:13 KwarK wrote:
The suggestion that people stop reading news, stop worrying on outraging things their government does, disconnect from anything outside their immediate offline sphere, and give the government a free hand, would be a lot better if the government wasn’t putting people in camps.
I think we should distinguish between social media and news. They are very much not the same.
I think a non-neglectable part of why we have this insanity is social media. And i think less social media is very likely to make the world better. Social media is indeed a cancer that devours society.
|
On September 13 2025 06:33 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2025 06:13 KwarK wrote:
The suggestion that people stop reading news, stop worrying on outraging things their government does, disconnect from anything outside their immediate offline sphere, and give the government a free hand, would be a lot better if the government wasn’t putting people in camps. I think we should distinguish between social media and news. They are very much not the same. I think a non-neglectable part of why we have this insanity is social media. And i think less social media is very likely to make the world better. Social media is indeed a cancer that devours society.
Depends on the media but it can be like that.
I pick carefully which one I choose to engage with and how.
I also don‘t monitor all of them knowing that it‘s a game to pull you in.
Sometimes run by genuinely evil people too…
Who employ mercs.
|
United States43255 Posts
On September 13 2025 06:33 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2025 06:13 KwarK wrote:
The suggestion that people stop reading news, stop worrying on outraging things their government does, disconnect from anything outside their immediate offline sphere, and give the government a free hand, would be a lot better if the government wasn’t putting people in camps. I think we should distinguish between social media and news. They are very much not the same. I think a non-neglectable part of why we have this insanity is social media. And i think less social media is very likely to make the world better. Social media is indeed a cancer that devours society.
Fair.
|
On September 13 2025 04:55 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2025 04:53 GoShox wrote:Please delete if it's not okay to post conjecture as such. But we have a tweet from a journalist stating that the killer was far-right: https://x.com/DavidShuster/status/1966576856515203480It will be very interesting to see how this develops (assuming this journalist isn't full of it, but judging by their Wikipedia page they are respected) Spreading speculation without evidence in an attempt to direct blame at the other side is honestly the best way to honour Kirk's life and legacy.
Given his hatred of black people and women, I'm sure he'd be relieved to learn that his killer was likely a qualified white man and not a DEI hire.
|
On September 12 2025 21:52 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 15:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 12 2025 07:58 KwarK wrote:On September 12 2025 07:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 12 2025 05:11 G5 wrote:On September 12 2025 00:32 ThunderJunk wrote:
Honestly... I don't feel even a little sad about Kirk's murder.
He was a morally grandstanding rage baiter who accrued a net worth of 12 million dollars by "DESTROYING" dumb college kids publicly. He was also intellectually dishonest. His entire life's thesis supposedly revolved around his faith in scripture and the basic protestant brand of Christianity, but when confronted with the simple reality that, in fact, the King James bible is necessarily a linguistically ambiguous translation through the British lens of the original language the bible was written in - which would by his own definition be the most technically holy type of scripture, and therefore not as a reliable source of what is right and good as he maintained.. he just ignored the point, pressed forward with his views, and never took that fundamental problem with his conceptual framework seriously - nor would he ever.
I have a problem with people who claim to be fighters for truth who refuse to look at their own beliefs critically when confronted with evidence contrary to what makes them rich and powerful. That, to my mind, is fundamentally evil.
Also... And this is more of a petty point - but still completely fair: He was a staunch advocate from the right to bear arms. So, this way of getting killed was pretty poetically satisfying.
If freedom of speech is truly at issue here - I'll maintain the right to express that I think whoever killed Charlie did humanity a big favor. This type of thinking is so dumb. To think murdering someone for voicing his opinions is doing humanity a favor is so backwards, I don't know where to even start. You have lost the entire point of what humanity is. If this guy was truly a threat to you and your ideology so much, you should take a hard look as to why he was connecting with so many people and question your own ideology. Taking an intellectual debate to the level of violence is an intellectually cowardly way of debating and everyone loses in that scenario. You can have your opinions but imo you are despicable for having those beliefs. You've let group think and tribalism ruin a beautiful part of your humanity and I hope you get it back some day. Charlie Kirk was a partisan political commentator, political fund raiser, and political influencer. He was a family man and most people described him as a very nice guy. He had strong opinions and even though I'm on the complete opposite side of him, I respected his courage to put himself and his beliefs out there. No person deserves to be killed for speech. No one. Say what you want about his beliefs and opinions but if you're cheering this murder, you're a disgusting human being who completely misses the point of humanity. Would you say the same thing about Alex Jones? And if not what’s the difference? To be clear, i am not a partisan of assassinations, ever. Just, that guy was an absolute and utter piece of shit, and while i think the escalation in political violence upsets there benefits of not having him absolutely poison people’s minds, I’m really not going to shed a tear for him. What is it that he said, that “it was worth it for people to die so that we could have the second amendment”? As Mark Twain once said, “I have never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure”. For some reason people excuse pushing for institutional violence against political opponents as not political violence. If you shoot one man then you're a terrorist but if you encourage the national guard to forcibly disperse a crowd of leaderless pacifist students milling around at Kent State then you're doing your job. Once you clothe it in uniform then it becomes fine. The idea that everything other than pulling the trigger is just words is baffling. Zambrah used the classic example of Hitler who, as far as I know, never killed anyone. And the people who did the killing generally argued that it was all legal under German law at the time. On a playground words are just words. Someone can call you names and you shouldn't beat the shit out of them. The world outside the playground isn't so simple and G5's "it's just words" absolutism is inapplicable to the complexity of the real political environment. A populist demanding that we clean up the streets and clear the homeless camps is speech. The police showing up with dogs and forcing the homeless into a group at gunpoint while the sanitation department throws everything they own into bin lorries is violence. Especially when they’re subsequently locked up for not being able to produce documents that were forcibly taken from them by the state. Criminalizing the existence of out groups is violence. I agree on a moral basis Kwark, but we live in constitutional republics where we have all agreed on some rules in order for things not to be resolved by repainting the walls with each others brains. I think some of those rules, especially in the US need urgently to be revised. I think that free speech is a horrible idea and that, for the reasons you gave, one shouldn’t be allowed to say certain things. That’s how it is in France, and I think it’s perfectly reasonable. Once society has lawfully deemed that Kirk has the right to say the horrible things he was saying, then he should have been protected from physical violence. The problem is solved by addressing whay is allowed, not by exploding the face of the guy who does horrible things when that frame is inadequate. Or we can make a point that we don’t believe that the law can provide an adequate frame and that we have to shoot each other, and we have entered speaking of a civil war. And all of that being said, good riddance. While i don’t approve the murder, fuck that guy. I dunno. I think an argument could be made that the founding fathers had some idea of pistols at dawn in their mind when the first amendment was "you can say whatever you want", and the second amendment was "but everyone is allowed to carry guns around just in case!" 
Can people stop spreading this gun lobbiest nonsense. This is the actual 2nd amendment:
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".
Notice how it starts with WELL REGULATED militia, and it was initially used to quell uprising.
It is so frustrating how many people believe the lobbiest version. The founding fathers did not want every idiot to have a gun, they were not morons.
|
United States43255 Posts
Whether or not the armed people were intended to be used as a pool of trained bodies available to fill out a militia in times of emergency is somewhat beside the point. The text clearly states that they want the public to have guns. The people will keep and bear arms. They imagine that’ll be helpful because if you need to put together a militia overnight without any real prep then the people you’re pulling into a militia can bring their own guns and already know how to use them.
Regulated in this context means properly working. Operating in a regular way, like a watch that keeps time. Regular means routine, not regulations.
|
On September 13 2025 11:38 KwarK wrote:
Whether or not the armed people were intended to be used as a pool of trained bodies available to fill out a militia in times of emergency is somewhat beside the point. The text clearly states that they want the public to have guns. The people will keep and bear arms. They imagine that’ll be helpful because if you need to put together a militia overnight without any real prep then the people you’re pulling into a militia can bring their own guns and already know how to use them.
Regulated in this context means properly working. Operating in a regular way, like a watch that keeps time. Regular means routine, not regulations.
Clearly they didn't because not everyone was allowed to have guns. They wanted an organized, trained group of people to deal with external and internal threats to their government and way of life, it was a tool of control. There is a reason that there was laws and practices that explicitly limited gun ownership. They basically wanted the national guard. I mean they also wanted to be able to contact people when needed for these things.
There is also very good reason why the people pushing guns never state the full amendment. It is actually pretty crazy how Americans are shocked when they hear it.
|
On September 13 2025 12:19 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2025 11:38 KwarK wrote:
Whether or not the armed people were intended to be used as a pool of trained bodies available to fill out a militia in times of emergency is somewhat beside the point. The text clearly states that they want the public to have guns. The people will keep and bear arms. They imagine that’ll be helpful because if you need to put together a militia overnight without any real prep then the people you’re pulling into a militia can bring their own guns and already know how to use them.
Regulated in this context means properly working. Operating in a regular way, like a watch that keeps time. Regular means routine, not regulations. Clearly they didn't because not everyone was allowed to have guns. They wanted an organized, trained group of people to deal with external and internal threats to their government and way of life, it was a tool of control. There is a reason that there was laws and practices that explicitly limited gun ownership. They basically wanted the national guard. I mean they also wanted to be able to contact people when needed for these things. There is also very good reason why the people pushing guns never state the full amendment. It is actually pretty crazy how Americans are shocked when they hear it.
Given how the Supreme Court also consistently over past 50+ years has ruled that any regulations that restrict the ownership of guns is unconstitutional, I am more inclined to go with the interpretation that there's supposed to be guns for everybody who wants them. The second amendment in full is a single line of text. I don't think anyone is shocked by it. They might be shocked at how people might explain it as emphasizing the militias bit, but the supreme court has pretty consistently interpreted that bit as a mere justification for why everyone should be allowed to have semi-automatic rifles with bumpstocks, which they carry into shops and schools.
|
United States43255 Posts
“The right of the people” is about as clear as it gets. If you don’t like it then amend it, but the text isn’t ambiguous. The fluff surrounding it about why they wanted it doesn’t matter much unless you’re making a case for a constitutional amendment to remedy an obsolete section. It wouldn’t make a bit of difference even if it said “Specifically and exclusively to deal with the threat of plains buffalo the people need to be armed. For that reason alone the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
You can use the fluff to make a case for why it should be changed but you can’t use the fluff to change what right is specifically granted or to who. The right specifically granted is to keep and bear arms. It is granted to the people.
It’s why they established a process for constitutional amendments. You don’t have to read it creatively like it’s early Greek translations of scriptures and you’re not sure what is allegory. If you don’t like the words and what they say then change the words. The founders expected people to update the bits that got out of date as they ceased to be useful. If you resurrected one and challenged them on their shortsightedness for writing an amendment that was subsequently abused to facilitate all these school shootings then they’d just turn it around on you and ask why you kept it.
|
|
|
On September 13 2025 04:53 GoShox wrote:Please delete if it's not okay to post conjecture as such. But we have a tweet from a journalist stating that the killer was far-right: https://x.com/DavidShuster/status/1966576856515203480It will be very interesting to see how this develops (assuming this journalist isn't full of it, but judging by their Wikipedia page they are respected)
What's happening here is something like the journalistic version of a lottery ticket, he's broadcasting some lottery numbers publicly with the idea if he's right he looks like a genius later who had an inside scoop early. It's good to be on the eye out for information that would come out slower in an obvious channel if it were inconvenient, but be leaked faster elsewhere. But that's a broadcast guy, not an investigative guy and there's no reason for him to have any ins with "Utah officials" or leaked knowledge of "police interviews with his family" that may not have happened by the time he posted that, and he otherwise doesn't have the clout and it doesn't match with press conference info of him thinking CK was spreading hate.
On September 13 2025 12:53 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2025 12:19 Billyboy wrote:On September 13 2025 11:38 KwarK wrote:
Whether or not the armed people were intended to be used as a pool of trained bodies available to fill out a militia in times of emergency is somewhat beside the point. The text clearly states that they want the public to have guns. The people will keep and bear arms. They imagine that’ll be helpful because if you need to put together a militia overnight without any real prep then the people you’re pulling into a militia can bring their own guns and already know how to use them.
Regulated in this context means properly working. Operating in a regular way, like a watch that keeps time. Regular means routine, not regulations. Clearly they didn't because not everyone was allowed to have guns. They wanted an organized, trained group of people to deal with external and internal threats to their government and way of life, it was a tool of control. There is a reason that there was laws and practices that explicitly limited gun ownership. They basically wanted the national guard. I mean they also wanted to be able to contact people when needed for these things. There is also very good reason why the people pushing guns never state the full amendment. It is actually pretty crazy how Americans are shocked when they hear it. Given how the Supreme Court also consistently over past 50+ years has ruled that any regulations that restrict the ownership of guns is unconstitutional, I am more inclined to go with the interpretation that there's supposed to be guns for everybody who wants them. The second amendment in full is a single line of text. I don't think anyone is shocked by it. They might be shocked at how people might explain it as emphasizing the militias bit, but the supreme court has pretty consistently interpreted that bit as a mere justification for why everyone should be allowed to have semi-automatic rifles with bumpstocks, which they carry into shops and schools.
You need to differentiate a "regulation" and a "law." SCOTUS saying ATF can't classify "bump stocks" as machine guns by themselves, is different than saying Congress can't pass a law banning bump stocks (or rather, a law classifying bump stocks as machine guns). It just means the ATF is not allowed to legislate. Why do people use bump stocks? Because Title II machine guns are rare, expensive, and difficult to get. Why are Title II machine guns rare, expensive, and difficult to get to begin with? Either because the National Firearms Act is unconstitutional, or because the 2nd amendment isn't absolute and the country has legislated that about machine guns in a law that has stood for almost a century.
|
Seems weird that the 2nd Amendment would suddenly be about actual forms of well-regulated militia when it has not been about that for decades. If the amendment is about the militia, would not each state have specific laws about running such armed groups? Would the National Guard, State defence forces, or some other organisation be this militia currently? Considering the idea that they would defend against a tyrannical government, the federal government should not be able to take them under its control. The amendment talks about a free State after all. This seems pretty important in the current situation, where the federal government likes to send soldiers to fight crime in cities. Maybe states like California should look at that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://lore.capital/f/img/lue/wgEb6wmrj9RYJJqhOhbzGrMzby-HIL69xWSkQg.png)
