• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Operation Lone Star v2

I saw this headline once:

S. FLORIDA ILLEGAL ALIENS CUT IN HALF BY NEW LAW

It was in a humor book of accidental meanings. It's not quite as funny as it used to be. 🙁
 
Wait, sir! The radar, sir! It appears to be... jammed!

Jammed.. There's only one man... ...who would dare give me the raspberry! Lone Star!
 
As long as we restrict firearm possession to "regulated" militias, everything will be just fine, I'm sure.
 
I would guess that a well regulated militia is one the purpose of which is to defend a society against the external threat of oppression. But whatever it is it is dependent for its formation not on arms supplied by the potential source of abuse, the government itself, but on weapons privately owned. So no mater how you define a well regulated militia, it can't happen without the right of the people to bear arms. It does not mean you have to be a member of any such militia to have gun ownership rights because those are the guns that a militia would require in my opinion.
 
Moonbeam said:
I would guess that a well regulated militia is one the purpose of which is to defend a society against the external threat of oppression. But whatever it is it is dependent for its formation not on arms supplied by the potential source of abuse, the government itself, but on weapons privately owned. So no mater how you define a well regulated militia, it can't happen without the right of the people to bear arms. It does not mean you have to be a member of any such militia to have gun ownership rights because those are the guns that a militia would require in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Not really applicable to the OP, as this is the government sponsoring another "militia" with the intent to operate outside of federal laws and enjoy immunity as well. It's a recipe for human rights violations, bad behavior, rape and murder. But as long as it's inflicted on the "right" groups, conservatives won't only NOT care....they'll celebrate it.

It does not mean you have to be a member of any such militia to have gun ownership rights because those are the guns that a militia would require in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Hot take, considering the 2A doesn't say that.
 
nickqt said:
So local police, city police, and the US military are prohibited from carrying firearms?
Click to expand...
Not prohibited, but nothing in the US Constitution guarantees them the individual right to carry firearms (as actually written, and as interpreted for the first 200 years of the country's existence, until the NRA and "Conservative" justices re-wrote it)
 
shortylickens said:
Im one of those guys who think we should make America better and then disarm the cops.
Click to expand...
Disarming everyday Americans is never going to happen, never mind disarming local/city/state police.

I'm one of those guys who wants non-fascists to start arming themselves because I think it's a bad idea to only allow fascists and fascist-adjacent people to be armed. The entire point of this thread and my comment here and elsewhere are about that. Texas might have a "regulated militia" that actually has the intent of murdering undesirables - or as they will put it, to defend themselves from illegal immigrants and Trans people. That is where a "strict" reading of the 2A won't do what you hope it will do. In fact, most genocides occur under color of law.
Dave_5k said:
Not prohibited, but nothing in the US Constitution guarantees them the individual right to carry firearms (as actually written, and as interpreted for the first 200 years of the country's existence, until the NRA and "Conservative" justices re-wrote it)
Click to expand...
For the first 150 years of the Constitution, there were almost zero federal laws regarding gun control. Certain localities might have had laws prohibiting individuals from carrying inside certain jurisdictions, or prohibiting non-whites from owning guns, but like above, that's how fascists get you. Not by individually carrying an AR-15 into COSTCO. It's by limiting the rights of minority groups from defending themselves, and then when the time is right, murdering those people under color of law.

hal2kilo said:
Well, in the military, if you aren't on watch, the guns are locked in a small arms safe. They've got sense.
Click to expand...
Sure. And a responsible gun owner isn't walking around with an AR-15 when they go to COSTCO. Just owning a firearm doesn't make you a right-wing authoritarian. In fact, if you go far enough left, you get your guns back.

If someone had some magical way to go back 200 years, uninvent the modern firearm, and then fast-forward to today and make modern firearms illegal, you might win me over. But here in objective, observable reality, there are hundreds of millions of firearms in this country and no, they are never going to be rounded up and turned into ploughshares. MAD isn't just for nuclear weapons anymore, and hoping that limiting firearms to only fascists and their military wing is an ongoing own-goal I believe "liberals" need to stop trying to score.

Or, as other people have said tongue-in-cheek, arm enough minorities and maybe you'll see Republicans actually advocating for some kind of gun control laws.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top