SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Fine print: The following are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Journal by The Mighty Buzzard
Tens of thousands of armed citizens came to protest in VA, said what they had to say, and harmed nobody at all. Then they left. But not before cleaning up after themselves. Talk about pissing the ones trying to sell the progtard narrative off. I did laugh.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Operator, please trace this call and tell me where I am.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday January 22 2020, @11:00PM (16 children)
Your lack of education is showing. That is not what "well regulated" meant in the late 1700s. The "regulated" bit had nothing whatsoever to do with government regulation; not in any way. I'd say take a history class but you will not find this information in higher educational institutions anymore; it's deliberately swept under the rug in favor of pushing a narrative the exact opposite of what the founders intended.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 22 2020, @11:14PM (4 children)
Ooph, now you're just derailing into crazy town. MUH GUHNZ!
I like how you sweep away not only the possibility of sourcing your claim but also take a swipe at academics. Probably cause your sources are gonna be one of those conspiratard sites easily debunked by actual academic sources.
At least your brain is getting some good cardio!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday January 22 2020, @11:32PM (3 children)
You really suck that bad at google-fu? Okay, here you go [constitution.org]. But, I mean, shit... Do even a tiny bit of reading on the writings and statements of the founders and you'll see them saying in no uncertain terms that it most certainly did not mean the government got to control gun ownership or possession. Hell, Sam Adams made it crystal clear that he was proposing it so "the Constitution shall never be construed…to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 23 2020, @03:52AM (2 children)
Nah that site popped up first, but I discard any source that tries to authoritatively decide such issues without detailed analyses. We have a supreme court for a reason and the wording of the 2nd has been contentious since it was created. Morons like you only listen to what you want to hear, everything else you discard out of hand. I actually read the whe wikipedia page on the 2nd which detailed a ton of the historic decisions on the topic and I stand by my opinion that individuals should own guns, but we need to have proper licensing, background checks, training requirements, and strict regulation of military grade hardware. Of course I'm also of the opinion that barriers to entry should cost citizens nothing, so training would be a public service and licenses only costing money for your 3rd+ weapons.
But hey, keep being a spastic moron who thinks he knows better than the actual founders of the US and every legal expert that has weighed in on the matter. Totally within your expertise ayyyuuupp /s
PS: the intent of the 2nd was originally for state level protection against invaders, and militias were groups that actually practiced military tactics. Thankfully the supreme court has upheld the interpretation that anyone can own a weapon
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday January 23 2020, @02:43PM (1 child)
Then try CNN's analysis. It was one or two results down and said the same thing, even though CNN desperately wants the truth to be otherwise.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 24 2020, @06:02PM
By the transitive law I declare myself correct. You say CNN is lying fake news, therefore ipso facto you lose! GG EZ
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday January 22 2020, @11:59PM (5 children)
Correct, it referred to the military. Y'know, an organization with a lot of rules. Rules that control who has access to what weaponry. And, rules that you can be shot for not following.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday January 23 2020, @12:19AM (4 children)
No, oh monkey of much ignorance, it meant smartly turned out. Presentable. Efficient. And if you know even a tiny bit of your nation's history, you are arguing in bad faith right from the start.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Thursday January 23 2020, @12:29AM
well regulated = well provisioned
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday January 23 2020, @12:52AM (1 child)
Presentable, eh? So they had to follow some kind of dress code? Smartly turned out, like carrying the right weapons?
The Supreme Court agrees with me. The standing decision that protects an individual right to lawfully bear arms specifically states that rules controlling who gets what weapons are legit because they're analogous to a militia.
DC vs. Heller [documentcloud.org]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday January 23 2020, @02:45PM
You reckon after the fact court decisions change what the founders flat out said they meant? Interesting.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 23 2020, @01:34AM
Ah how your brain betrays you. Even going with your own definition it becomes clear that the mentally ill and violent would be a hindrance to such efficient operations of a militia.
You wackos keep denying the ability for government to regulate firearms but never in US history has that been true. Even the original debates during the ratification included discussions of state regulation. Let us take it to some more extremes, see if your brains have a break point where logic kicks back in. Should individuals have mines? Grenades? RPGs? AA missiles? Nukes?
The supreme court already affirmed that individuals are guaranteed the right to own weapons for self-defense in their home. That doesn't mean you get to have a true machine gun, or hand grenades. Or ignore regulations like safe storage and licensing to make sure some dumbass doesn't take a gun home and do some target practice at the wall.
Your rabid "muh guns" stance has been slapped down repeatedly, and regulations preventing violent criminals and the mentally ill from owning weapons upheld. You simply let your paranoia run wild, and truly you harm your own cause with such stubborn ignorance.
(Score: 1) by RandomFactor on Thursday January 23 2020, @01:22AM (4 children)
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 23 2020, @02:07AM (3 children)
And let's just pause to reflect on how well our society is functioning today because of the many guns in circulation.</sarcasm>
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday January 23 2020, @02:48PM (2 children)
We have always had shitloads of guns in circulation. And we have less of a problem with them now than we ever have in our history. There is simply a deliberate scare campaign going on because a disarmed populace can do nothing about anything else you want to do to them.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 23 2020, @06:11PM (1 child)
Yeah!!! Pay no attention to what your lying eyes are telling you! It messes with the Buzztards carefully-crafted narrative!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday January 26 2020, @05:05PM
It's not your eyes, it's the media and politicians. They make out like bandits by making you afraid. The numbers do not lie though and the numbers say that we are getting safer not less safe.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.