BaldProphet @ BaldProphet @kbin.social

2 Kings 2:23-24: A story about what happens when you make fun of bald dudes

---

Read more

Posts

0

Comments

413

Joined

2 yr. ago

The irony of left-wing bigotry never fails to astound me.

Interestingly enough, most gun control laws disproportionately disarm people who aren't in the demographics you listed. In fact, historically, gun control has usually been used to disarm minorities so they can more easily be intimidated, harassed, and murdered. Which side of history are you on? The side that empowers minorities, or the side that disarms them and prevents them from choosing any path other than victimization?

Ever hear of cognitive dissonance?

Ever hear of judicial review? Illegal laws are passed all the time and later struck down by courts--just like this one will be.

Weapons taxes have always been illegal, due to their infringing nature. Where do we draw the line on the taxation of protected rights, though? Regardless of the blatantly illegal nature of the particular tax in question, it is a slippery slope that we would be wise to reverse course on before it's too late.

This is the way.

HP is still the worst, though.

Fees are different than taxes. The reason for the fees (background checks, etc) are illegal per the 2nd Amendment, but they aren't the same.

A weapon tax is the same as a poll tax, or imagine if you had to pay a tax to exercise your 4th or 5th amendment rights.

None of this is acceptable.

It's unreasonable because you're talking about taxing an enumerated right. Should we add a tax on social media users to cover the costs of misinformation? What about religious observance, should churchgoers pay sales tax on their tithes for the privilege of worshipping?

Weapon ownership is a right, not a privilege. The government cannot tax a right.

Part of the militia is the National Guard. The rest is us able-bodied males aged 17-45.

More wasted taxpayer money as courts strike down this obviously unconstitutional law. As a Californian, I'm sick and tired of my taxes being frittered away in the defense of indefensible laws.

You can't tax an enumerated right. How can this possibly be anything other than an illegal infringement?

Yeah, I was shocked, but not surprised by the 1/6 insurrection. It was obvious that Trump was riling up his extremist base for that sort of thing.

I was surprised that it was allowed to go on for as long as it did. It seems to me that an insurrection that wants to break into the Capitol building should be met with the severest of force before it even gets to the top of the steps.

That's not really relevant. The United States Constitution is a separate document.

National defense is a red herring. The enumerated right is that of the people to keep and bear arms. One need not be doing so for the purpose of national defense in order to exercise this right.

We'll see. I've got a degree of my own, so that won't be much of a pwn though.

Wrong. American and from the south, no less. 0 points for you ad hominem attack.

Had me fooled.

It was widely understood to be a collective right to provide for the national defense.

"the people" refers to an individual right everywhere else it is mentioned in the Bill of Rights. And regardless, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" doesn't mention national defense.

Just because you say something is illegal doesn’t make it so.

It's not illegal because I say it is, it's illegal because it infringes upon an enumerated right that the Bill of Rights explicitly states may not be infringed upon. This is pretty basic English comprehension.

You need to read more.

Hehe, nice try. Educate yourself and then try again with more compelling arguments.

This is what I thought of when I saw oneko.

Perhaps you’re not an American? Perhaps you don’t know the history of your own country?

Ok, we have now established that I am debating with someone from a different country. You obviously care way too much about the freedoms enjoyed by Americans, considering that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to or affect you at all.

From Jefferson and Madison banning guns on campus to gun control being commonplace in the old west to the 1934 NFA that outlawed sawed off shotguns to the 1986 NFA that banned full-autos, it has never been unlimited.

1. That ban is illegal per the Second Amendment. It doesn't matter what Jefferson and Madison intended, because the text of the amendment, a legal document, prohibits the government from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Period. You can't change your mind without amending the document, just like you can't arbitrarily go and change a contract agreement after you've signed it.
2. Same thing. Just because it happened doesn't mean it was legal. Source: 2nd Amendment, U.S. Constitution
3. The NFA is so illegal. The ATF needs to be abolished and the NFA should be overturned or repealed. There is no way to reconcile the NFA with the 2nd Amendment.

Man, I hate it when Europeans chime in about the Second Amendment. You really have no idea what you're talking about.

As long as the government has them, I need them. Disarm the government and I'll be marginally more open to compromise.

The Second Amendment is a legal document. The only legal way to change it's meaning (that the right of the people to keep arms shall not be infringed) is to amend it to limit the definition of "arms". As written, the Second Amendment covers all weapons, and at the time of its ratification that included modern naval warships and artillery pieces.

I mean... perhaps you aren't a native English speaker? The text of the law is literally unlimited. Any weapon restriction is an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.

The National Guard is a component of the United States Army. A militia is a civilian force and would never be deployed to fight in other countries outside of wartime.