Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 4,505
Pro guns right types seem to site the 'shall not be infringed' aspect of the 2nd amendment as if to mean anything goes it seems. Crazy world....
Today's mass shooting in the US
- Thread starter Rroff
- Start date
- Status
"You can't change the second amendment man!"
"Really? You do know what the word amendment means?"
They conveniently forget the bit that says ‘as part of a well regulated militia’
It does say that though, that is what some people believe it implies however the reference to a well regulated militia is a bit more abstract than that.
"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."
It certainly isn't forgotten about by US gun advocates, the interpretation of whether the above implies individual rights or only as part of a militia is an ongoing debate.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2008
- Posts
- 11,114
Of the American stripe? No, we don't.
Whacking edgybois over the head, attacking journalists, beating up servicemen of colour who happen to be in the vicinity of marches, orchestrating bar brawls amongst right-wingers for no reason? Yeah, they're not welcome.
The average person on the street knows when the right wing is going too far -- we jump in and stomp the neo-nazi toerag who's messing up a relaxed situation.
But when it comes to marches, presentations, and whatever they want to do, then they're protected as such. They MAY promote their ideology as they wish. Just as we can.
Antifa should be on the sidelines until there's a legitimate rise of fascist authoritarianism. There currently isn't. "Conservative" does not equal "fascist".
In their current form, they're literally fighting a losing battle. Making themselves look bad by attacking anyone who happens to wear a MAGA hat instead of being what they should be.
I dont care if they are white or black, left wing or right, gay or straight, they are murderers and of the worst sort. Just spree killers. Likely without any lunatic motive, they would have done something similar for their own deranged reasoning at some point.
Death by cop is too good for them really.
Death by cop is too good for them really.
You do yourself no favours with this sort of stuff.
The guy who shot up Hispanics with a manifesto that used a lot of Trump language is one argument.
No one has argued Trump inspired the second one, but you try and make it seem that way to attempt to demean the argument around the first incident.
No, I'm aware no one has argued Trump inspired the second one, I'm highlighting the silliness of the arguments that he inspired the first simply because he's taken a stance of being tough on immigration or has said some things that people either don't like or worse still have then taken out of context and tried to make sound even worse.
No, you were highlighting your silliness for not recognising that Trump had dehumanised immigrants to the point someone uses his language to justify his killing people.
Note, also, how the manifesto says he can't bring himself to kill fellow Americans but it doesn't stop him going out to kill Hispanic people, to argue that Trump's dehumanisation doesn't feed that view is ridiculous.
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-u...olice-officer-fires-at-dog-in-arlington-texas
Even the cops are at it
. It's crazy to me that 1, the cops will just shoot peoples pets if they even run in their direction and 2, that they don't seem to think about or even care where their bullets will end up. A cop shot a kid in the face after trying to shoot their dog a while back.
Edit: The cop shot the kids knee, not sure why I thought it was his face.
Even the cops are at it
. It's crazy to me that 1, the cops will just shoot peoples pets if they even run in their direction and 2, that they don't seem to think about or even care where their bullets will end up. A cop shot a kid in the face after trying to shoot their dog a while back.Edit: The cop shot the kids knee, not sure why I thought it was his face.
Last edited:
Thank you.
He's not "dehumanised immigrants", he's taken a tough stance on illegal immigration. that is a legitimate political position to take whether you agree with it or not.
Sure, the guy would have been completely normal if only it weren't for Trump... totally nothing to do with far right groups actually calling for a race war, whatever else he's read online and views he's formed himself.
You could make exactly the same argument about ordinary Islamic clerics and Islamist attacks, you could make the same argument about the way Trump talks about women and his sexual assault allegations and claim that someone shooting women can be blamed on Trump. In fact with the same logic you could blame a mass killing attack aimed at jews on Corbyn too.
I can't decide whether you're more stupid or abhorrent.
LOL why not just go the whole hog and call me racist because I've got a different opinion to you and haven't adopted the mindless: "but but Trump is bad you can't argue against any criticism of Trump regardless of whether the basis for it is dodgy"
Because ignoring evidence and making stupid assertions is your thing.
I'm not ignoring evidence, I'm expressing a different opinion and highlighting that plenty of the claims/evidence cited so far has been rather misrepresented and have pointed out where and why. I'm also highlighting that the argument is flawed and could just as easily be applied in other contexts that mighty be more readily obvious to the people seemingly so blinkered by this just because it involved Trump being mentioned.
All you're doing now is throwing in some ad hominem arguments... that's incredibly weak. If you dislike someone's point of view because it isn't in line with your own or you can't cope with your own views being challenged or facts being corrected then that's your own issue.
![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,860
- Location
- Auckland
I don't typically align with dowie's thoughts (and prayers) but I think he's arguing this in good faith, wesimmo. Bro fist and move on?
I really can't tell if you're being deliberately antagonistic or you really do believe that having a 'tough stance on immigration' equals calling immigrants rapists, drug dealers and 'bad hombres'. You can have a tough stance on immigration without saying such things.
- Status