One direction the spin will take…
Attachments
-
38.4 KB Views: 8
OK. Ban them. Oh, and while at it, can you clone me a unicorn? Always wanted to have one.JC hear me well. I do not give a fucking fuck whatever the gender, sexual orientation, colour or any other kinks school shooter was.
All i care is the US has 1000% more mass shooting then any developed countries.
Just ban the gun for fuck sake. I don't give a fuck about annoying ass hole Shapiro. Kids are dying because of the stupidity of grown men.
The lawmakers and the NRA need to be held accountable. They make people believe the police are unable to keep civility so citizens need to arm themselves and buy guns and ammo as easy as a pack of Marlboros. How they can interpret laws from the 1700s to be relevant to today's technology is beyond comprehension. I'm not entirely sure why rocket launchers hand grenades and anti aircraft guns are not permitted for sale given their interpretation of the 2nd ammendment. The problem is most states have so many stolen guns the legal gun owners think they need 40 or 50 guns each just to even the playing field. A mass shooting every day does not faze the American public who act like they still live in thw wild west, so I have given up hope that the gun problem will ever get anything but much worse. You need training and to pass a test to drive a fucking car for fuck sakes what is so blasphemous about having more responsible gun owners?JC hear me well. I do not give a fucking fuck whatever the gender, sexual orientation, colour or any other kinks school shooter was.
All i care is the US has 1000% more mass shooting then any developed countries.
Just ban the gun for fuck sake. I don't give a fuck about annoying ass hole Shapiro. Kids are dying because of the stupidity of grown men.
Don't pretend to be stupider than you are.I'm going to type this slowly. As long as the words "shall not be infringed" are not repealed, NOTHING, NO LAW WILL EVER CHANGE ANYTHING because it will always be unconstitutional. Amendments are difficult, but they're possible.
I'm not even going to address this gibberish.Don't pretend to be stupider than you are.
You know it wasn't viewed as unconstitutional until recently and you know that that is a tendentious reading of the amendment.
Should the amendment be repealed? Or at least the rhetoric of repeal resurfaced?
Sure.
I agree.
People hate guns enough now that it is worth saying you want to write a new amendment from scratch.
But the real issue is the Supreme Court.
No law will stand because the court will make up a reason it doesn't want the law to stand.
We saw that last year when Thomas wrote his bullshit opinion that said "it has to be based in history but not if you actually cite historical precedent to do something I don't want done".
So yes, laws is how this will be fought practically.
I do agree that pushing for a new amendment about gun control is a tactic that should be embraced going forward.
They should ban ammunition instead. The 2nd amendment doesn't cover ammunition right?Don't pretend to be stupider than you are.
You know it wasn't viewed as unconstitutional until recently and you know that that is a tendentious reading of the amendment.
Should the amendment be repealed? Or at least the rhetoric of repeal resurfaced?
Sure.
I agree.
People hate guns enough now that it is worth saying you want to write a new amendment from scratch.
But the real issue is the Supreme Court.
No law will stand because the court will make up a reason it doesn't want the law to stand.
We saw that last year when Thomas wrote his bullshit opinion that said "it has to be based in history but not if you actually cite historical precedent to do something I don't want done".
So yes, laws is how this will be fought practically.
I do agree that pushing for a new amendment about gun control is a tactic that should be embraced going forward.
Oy, vey.They should ban ammunition instead. The 2nd amendment doesn't cover ammunition right?
So they should just ban AR-15, AK-47 and any other rifle caliber bullets in the open market. They should make it so people can buy it only at gun ranges.
They should also ban all sales of loose gun powder, primers, shells etc or at the very least raise taxes on them significantly, so it becomes prohibitively expensive to prevent people self reloading at home.
They should also institute laws on how many rounds of ammunition of what caliber people can buy in the open market. So you cannot buy 1000 rounds in one go.
And they should institute laws that require a person to submit proof of gun use and safety training, write a written test, practical test (just like a driving test), and a psychological evaluation before they are given a license. I mean we do something like that for driving tests anyway.
I dont think any of these will go against the 2nd amendment.
Of course it is. You cannot pass almost any of it without running into the 2nd amendment. And even if, the Supreme Court flips to minority originalist, and it may one day, it will flip right back, eventually, and the game will just continue. On the other hand, once the 2nd is repealed, overturning the repeal is as difficult as the repeal itself, if not harder. You should look around America, these days. The laws on conceal and open carry are actually becoming more and more common.What? Its not against the 2nd amendment. I hope.
Always interesting that even in a case like this where he can probably back it up, Shapiro defaults to dishonesty and doesn't even mention time stamps.
We knew that was coming.One direction the spin will take…
Yawn. He's hardly alone noticing it. Twitter is buzzing all over about the misgendering.Always interesting that even in a case like this where he can probably back it up, Shapiro defaults to dishonesty and doesn't even mention time stamps.
I know he knows his audience doesn't care about how dishonest he is, but you would think in a situation where he has a narrative he can lean into, he wouldn't fall back on these habits.
Fox changed their font on this story to red after it discovered the shooter was trans. Tucker and company are jumping for joy. If the shoe was on the other foot I'm sure fox would be claiming this was a false fag operationWe knew that was coming.
Like I said, this is going to be used as an attack on trans folk to "protect the good innocent Christians" for years, maybe decades.
California passed gun control laws once Black Panthers started arming themselves, so I'm sure some people who didn't realize how radical the current court majority is (remember, back in the 60s when California did that, the Supreme Court was on the record that the 2nd amendment didn't protect individual gun owner rights) have been thinking that trans people carrying would get some gun control laws passed.
Why is it an attack on the 2nd amendment? It does not infringe on a persons right to keep and bear arms.Of course it is. You cannot pass almost any of it without running into the 2nd amendment. And even if, the Supreme Court flips to minority originalist, and it may one day, it will flip right back, eventually, and the game will just continue. On the other hand, once the 2nd is repealed, overturning the repeal is as difficult as the repeal itself, if not harder. You should look around America, these days. The laws on conceal and open carry are actually becoming more and more common.
You can't play word games like that.They should ban ammunition instead. The 2nd amendment doesn't cover ammunition right?
They are if you pass them.So they should just ban AR-15, AK-47 and any other rifle caliber bullets in the open market. They should make it so people can buy it only at gun ranges.
They should also ban all sales of loose gun powder, primers, shells etc or at the very least raise taxes on them significantly, so it becomes prohibitively expensive to prevent people self reloading at home.
They should also institute laws on how many rounds of ammunition of what caliber people can buy in the open market. So you cannot buy 1000 rounds in one go.
And they should institute laws that require a person to submit proof of gun use and safety training, write a written test, practical test (just like a driving test), and a psychological evaluation before they are given a license. I mean we do something like that for driving tests anyway.
I dont think any of these will go against the 2nd amendment.
It's not hopeless. It needs a bipartisan support. But, Republicans need gun owners as much as the Democrats to get elected. And that's a fact.Why is it an attack on the 2nd amendment? It does not infringe on a persons right to keep and bear arms.
But regardless your position is that it is hopeless and nothing will change. Thats not very helpful.
Then they are not doing what they are supposed to do, they are just partisans who are using their position to push for a partisan position in the highest court of the country. That is very dangerous.You can't play word games like that.
The Supreme Court will simply rule that doesn't count.
You have to remember how they work -- decide the outcome you want, then make up a legal analysis to justify it.
You can't look at the text of the law or the amendment or their own rulings or decisions and say "based on this, my argument traps them in logic".
"We have five votes, fuck you, that's why." is the only principle they have for these kinds of issues.
They are if you pass them.
Why?
"We have five votes, fuck you, that's why."