PoliticalAgitator @ PoliticalAgitator @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

793

Joined

2 yr. ago

You mean like Jefferson, the slave owner?

Keep working on your awkward manipulation tactics if you want but you've already shown open support for the opinions of a man who genuinely believed all the racist things you're trying to attribute to me.

Nope, but they love that line too.

Since we're ignoring morality and effectiveness in favor of semantics and self-centredness, I propose that "arms" meant literal arms, attached to your body.

After all, you can't have a well regulated militia full of double amputees.

Something the second amendment has accomplished exactly zero times.

Preventable deaths are preventable deaths and the gun laws you fawn over have caused tens of thousands.

Thomas Jefferson is directly quoted as contradicting your opinion

Oh, you mean the guy who owned over 600 slaves? What were his thoughts on who should vote and have free speech?

Well I don't think "no guns for fatties" is a good look tbh

Neither is 70% of mass shooters being legal gun owners or legal gun owners murdering their partners but hey, not hurting their feelings is important too.

mean rather than something "effective" or "useful."

So militaries having minimum health requirements is just them being big meanies?

the militia back then was mostly made up of farmers without military training

And they were almost entirely worthless until they were rounded up and given that training, which the founding fathers were absolutely aware of when the amendment was written.

Anyway, whatever definition you go with, gun owners are meeting neither.

And what better way to respond than by adopting the talking points and vocabulary of the far right?

"Liberty is when you never have to show basic tolerance towards things you haven't personally approved the existence of"

Thanks, your reply made it clear that you're a cunt and whatever motivations you had for posting this were that of a cunt.

A metric by which no other amendment is interpreted, otherwise we could insist completely dumb shit like "soldiers must remain homeless for the duration of their service".

intending "well maintained" as per historical definitions of "well regulated," though historically it was used both as that and how we'd use it today.

This is always a bizarre argument. Okay sure, it means "well maintained". Now explain how "well maintained" means "full of morbidly obese men who have zero combat training, wouldn't follow orders and can't prove they can even safely handle a gun, let alone do anything useful with it and also they might be suicidal, psychotic or eager to kill a room full of children".

No army in the world would indiscriminately accept American gun owners just for being American gun owners. Not even shitty militant groups fighting in the lowest GDP countries.

Sounds like you need to start executing politicians for the tyranny of "food safety standards" then because the only metric by which America is more "free" than comparable countries is "guns sold to idiots, extremists and domestic terrorists".

It's much easier to just argue that a "well regulated militia" means "morbidly obese with neither training nor discipline".

It's why they never have any other skills that would be useful in a war, like establishing ad hoc communication networks, piloting a drone, field medicine, even working as a team.

Their entire contribution would just be "have gun" and if their staunch opposition to wearing masks in a pandemic is anything to go by, they wouldn't even offer their country that.

Semantics are easy when you're sacrificing other people's lives.

It's bizarre you think yourself a hero as you openly advocate putting the property of abusers over the safety of those they abuse, like temporarily losing access to firearms is a bigger tragedy than being executed by a former partner.

Are we supposed to politely ignore how that makes you look? People who hit their wives also post on social media and it shouldn't come as a shock to people that they also tend see themselves the victim and right about everything.

You're a big brave boy, you can handle a few months away from your beloved guns.

Does any pro-gun argument not lean heavily on slippery slopes? Why is it only possible to oppose the law when it impacts guns but not if cops start "putting you in prison without a trial for something they just made up"

And of course, we do imprison people who are awaiting trial when it's determined the risk to public safety is too high.

Steam got to where it is by good will, good prices and good features.

Well, eventually.

When Steam was first released, the running joke was "steaming pile of shit". It was slow, unreliable and only a couple of shades of green away from the worst color in the world. People complained about the birth of "always online" games and about paying full price but not even getting a box with it.

It's not exactly unassailable now either. It's my platform of choice as a user but for indie developers, the 30% cut is brutal and last I used it, the Steamworks SDK was pretty rough. The app itself also has a lot of legacy bloat like a built in MP3 player.

It's ahead of the rest but I think "good will, good prices and good features" might be an overly romantic take on "it's where all my games already are".

As is the social media site. This is the kind of shit he bought it for and it someone made a film full of trans people saying "yep I feel much better now", there isn't a chance in hell he'd let them run these kinds of ads for it.

To turn public funds into private profits.

Having the military on side (or at least key figures of it) is absolutely critical to a dictatorship.

The pro-gun people who have promised they'd lay down their morbidly obese lives to prevent it will of course be enthusiastically cheering for the dictatorship, perhaps even firing into crowds of protesters.

The best people don't become politicians, which works out wonderfully for the assholes.