spaceghoti @ spaceghoti @lemmy.one

Posts

651

Comments

783

Joined

2 yr. ago

Moderating

---

Funny you should say that. FTA:

Earlier this year, several Republican lawmakers were seen sporting a new accessory: lapel pins shaped like an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle.

Andrew Clyde, a Republican congressman from Georgia who also owns a gun store, later said he had handed out the pins to his congressional colleagues “to remind people of the second amendment of the constitution and how important it is in preserving our liberties”.

I don't have the words to describe how much that hurts my feelings.

Here's why I don't give a rat's ass about your analysis. The Second Amendment has been interpreted to hold gun ownership as sacrosanct, and it's bullshit. It doesn't say that. Here's what it does say:

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.

Interpreted one way, the way we currently interpret it, there's no way to infringe on the right to own guns. Interpreted another way, the right is to participate in a militia and thus to own and maintain guns for the purposes of national defense. Somehow, all the 2A freaks seem to skip over the first part.

I'm concerned about how guns are being used to create and escalate violence across the nation in numbers we've never seen before. We're the only first world nation in the world that can't seem to figure out the simple and obvious solution that guns don't make us safer. It doesn't save lives. The proliferation of guns among the civilian population has only increased violence, and I really don't give a shit about any other argument.

Until the gun worshipers stop getting in the way of any kind of commonsense reform, up to and including a new Amendment to clarify or repeal the Second Amendment, I will continue to advocate for the banning of all guns. Because I consider human lives far more important than someone's fetish.

And that's all I have to say to all of you.

Clearly, the freedom to own and shoot a gun overrides the freedom to live and breathe. And that's before we start tracking all the gun-related injuries that don't end in death.

Sure, but the rifle in question is not, and has never been a military weapon. The premise is that this is a “weapon of war”, as the redcoats like to describe it.

Yes, thank you for this demonstration of pedantism.

They are also free to actually state facts and share sources.

I'm glad you asked!

This question is based on a false premise. Neither the Colt AR-15, nor the ArmaLite AR-15 have ever been used “on battlefields”.

Gun bans aren’t going to make anyone, except for police and criminals, safer.

Funny how the rest of the First World disagrees, and somehow they have far, far fewer mass shootings. But why allow facts get in the way of a cherished rhetoric?

Yes, but that only matters when they can pin it on Democrats.

He's never been willing to work for the American people. Only the elite who can pay for his services.

This is apparently from the admins, so that the site doesn't get DCMA takedowns that they can't afford to fight.

Hopefully your comment isn't taken down. I lost three posts because I posted short excerpts summarizing the post, and because they were removed I couldn't go back to edit them to fix them. So now I don't try to offer any tldr's any longer.

The Senate is also proposing spending bills. It is up to the House to ratify it, but that doesn't mean the Senate can't make their own contributions. Schumer has announced that the Senate will vote on some budget bills today, and McConnell is indicating his support depends on their willingness to further engorge the deficit so his wealthy patrons can benefit.

Yes, but Moscow Mitch serves the richest elite who have rewarded him handsomely over his career. So he can't allow them to be audited or taxed if he can help it.

No, that's what Barton wants people to believe. But when you read what the Founders had to say about church and state, they made it pretty clear they wanted to keep religion out of the state as well.

“The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

John Adams

The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. ... But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding....

Thomas Jefferson

meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammeden, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

Thomas Jefferson again

If they are good workmen, they may be from Asia, Africa or Europe; they may be Mahometans, Jews, Christians of any sect, or they may be Atheists...

George Washington, to Tench Tilghman, March 24, 1784, when asked what type of workman to get for Mount Vernon, from The Washington papers, edited by Saul Padover

...I beg you be persuaded that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.

George Washington, to United Baptists Churches of Virginia, May, 1789 from The Washington papers, edited by Saul Padover]

For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

George Washington to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island | Wednesday, August 18, 1790

While we are contending for our own liberty, we should be very cautious not to violate the rights of conscience in others, ever considering that God alone is the judge of the hearts of men, and to him only in this case they are answerable.

George Washington letter to Benedict Arnold | Thursday, September 14, 1775

More on what the Founders thought.

When you start talking like Mike Johnson about how people need to follow his religion and how our government needs to enforce his religious values, you're to religious to be allowed in government.

When preaching from the pulpit, people assume the authority of their god. He's not suggesting, he's telling them how they have to behave in order to be good Christians.

Don't make excuses for villains like this.

I'm pretty sure that was the point of the original comment.

This is precisely what Johnson is advocating. If you're not a Christian, if you're not his kind of Christian, he thinks you shouldn't be eligible for office. He's explicitly telling people not to vote for people who don't share their religious identity.

That's a religious test.

What do you think the Constitution means when it says "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Ah, yes. The Moony Times. I suppose it was just a matter of time before someone linked to that troll site.