#repeal the 2nd amendment!

[ablogofcourage]

[ernestbruce]

the GOP killed Tara Barnett

Republicans kill innocent mothers at work

FUCK REPUBLICANS

they arm crazed criminals or sell guns in stupid states (states run by Trump cult members) who them travel to states that value human life more than guns to illegally sell those fucking guns to criminals who shoot innocent people

yes, FUUUUUUUUCK ALL REPUBLICANS, fucking lemmings, oppressors, groomers and child rapists (Robert Morris, Matt Gaetz), liars, idiots, amd crooks (Trump)

[sjbattleangel]

Aways has been.

[the-99-percenters]

US gun death rate hits 30-year high with female fatalities rising faster than men’s

[siryouarebeingmocked]

childish insults

entirely emotional argument

supports gun control

claims to be reasonable

Drink a molecule.

People kept pointing out how hard it would be to abolish the 2nd Amendment, and she just kept smugging “well, y’all overturned Roe Vs Wade!”

Except that was just SCOTUS, deciding that it was unconstitutional, and therefore none of SCOTUS’ business. Repealing an Amendment is a lot harder, by design.

She also repeatedly bought up completely unsourced stats about how many people support specific gun control. As if that translates directly to repealing an Amendment entirely.

She also said the cops/Feds would somehow know about the exact location every single gun in the country. Even though they can’t find all the illegal gun owners now. 

She didn’t know how it could be pulled off, but she was very certain it was possible.

And yes, she pulled out the “muh drone strikes” argument. You know, those weapons that are infamous for collateral damage.

Also, another idiot implied that “high-magazine weapons” should be banned. Especially if they weren’t around when the 2A was written. Someone bought up the Puckle Gun. He immediately tried moving goalposts to “ Would you say the puckle gun was developed for war?”

And when people said “yes”, he immediately went to “but people shouldn’t have nukes and predator drones!”

I don’t think the goalposts are even on the field anymore. They’re in the stadium parking lot.

[frithwontdie]

Black Immigrant-Stock Commissar/Judge Abena Darkeh Declares 2nd Amendment Repealed

[scottguy]

It's the guns. Guns are too easy to get and it's now popular culture to take out male frustration by shooting innocent people.

Yet Republicans contine to promote and condone violence and violent rhetoric.

It never ends. Another mass shooting courtesy of the NRA and their Republican puppets.

[dhaaruni]

It's like, my radical atheist parents are so fundamentally opposed to spanking that the one time my mom lost her temper and slapped me, I instinctively hit her back. That said, it's true: liberal values, or at least the delivery of said values, can be off-putting since no one likes scolds.

It's just funny that people claim I'm a social conservative like I'm a pro-abortion atheist who wants to repeal the 2nd amendment, and thinks spanking is child abuse. I just hate public whining that things are unfair, which is unfortunately synonymous with contemporary liberalism.

[theconstitutionisgayculture]

Love this blog and thank you for your services, my dude. I spent like 20 minutes trying to interact with politics on this website and it was so tedious that I had to turn off my phone for a couple hours to feel alive again.

Honestly the worst part is just getting the same debunked talking points 50 times from different people, all acting like they're the first people to ever say "if black people owned guns Republicans would repeal the 2nd Amendment overnight!" or "hate speech isn't protected by the 1st Amendment!" or "the parties switched in the 60s!" It's so boring, dude.

[cleric-of-jank]

Parliamentary Procedure Proposal: The Stalk-call

(name sucks, someone think of a better one pls)

So there's plenty of things about actually existing democracies, be they presidential or parliamentary, that irk me, but two in particular I don't see a lot of people commenting about.

If the mechanisms of democracy are captured in such a way to make getting a genuinely possible government impossible, what is the electorate supposed to do? Constitutional safeguards around free speech and the ballot seem pretty underpowered - you can't really have courts that aren't just bureaucrats exerting their own wills, meaning there's always a risk someone will decide "free speech" obviously must exclude blasphemy or "human rights" mandates a 100% wealth tax even if only 5% of the electorate want one. So the fallback is some kind of revolt against the government. The drafters of the US constitution proposed the 2nd Amendment, but that obviously has all kinds of pitfalls and isn't guaranteed to work. "General strikes" also seem pretty susceptible to being divided and crushed, even if their organizers can overcome coordination problems. So what can there be instead?

Motte-and-bailey issues. Republicans are convinced every Democrat is Ta-Nehesi Coates in disguise, salivating at the thought of implementing racial quotas for every single job in the country and taxing every last cent of disposable income and then some to pay for an exorbiant reparations scheme that will never actually end. Similarly, Democrats are convinced Republicans are all Steve Sailer clones who want to repeal the Civil Rights Act and the 13th and 19th amendments. This is how they motivate their bases - no matter how odious voters think their own side's platform is, they see no reason to believe their opponents aren't even worse, so polarization ratchets up and candidate quality plummets down. But how can parties really convince voters that they're not actually like that? If you say "no, don't worry, we think that guy sucks too", that statement definitely isn't going to reach any opposing voters due to how the media landscape works, but it might reach some of your own voters who might become demobilized by you not being radical enough. All downside, and no upside.

I was thinking about that first issue one day when I thought of what I think is a pretty common response to this issue - some sort of "kick the bastards out" referendum, that would ban all incumbents from seeking re-election. There's a pretty big catch to this, though. It means the electorate is going to be asking a question structurally imbalanced in favor of the opposition - since they don't really have to come up with a platform, they can bring segments of voters that would otherwise be impossible to coax onto one ticket. This is sort of how the Brexit vote went down - if Leave had to decide on whether Brexit meant the UK would become Singapore, Rhodesia, or the USSR before the vote, it probably would have gone differently. Maybe a structural bias against some factions isn't that bad...but loose "anti-establishment" folks are typically lacking government expertise, so you probably would rather not. Moreover, even for normal elections, it becomes a lot easier for outsiders to run on the ~mystery~ ticket and then leap in once they've won rather than subject themselves to accountability. None of the Above probably would have beaten Hilary even more than Trump was if it and not Trump was on the ballot, even though Trump would have still been the most likely to carry the vote afterwards.

So, what can be done to fix that issue...what if the regime had some way to force the opposition to consolidate in some way if it seemed too squishy to pin down? How could that be done in an elegant way? Oh, I've thought of something! Oh, and hey, issue 2! I think it solves that too!

What if parties in the parliament were able to just appoint new parliament members directly and force their opponents to publicly declare their positions on the new members, as long as they pre-committed to not rely on their support in any votes?

This helps solve issue 1. If you're concerned that it's impossible to campaign against "Brexit", you can instead nominate Dominic Cummings to the House of Commons, and force votes on whether Dominic's controversial takes on how the UK should move would in fact be good ideas. Tories would be forced to either vote yes (allowing you to campaign on associating them with daftness from Dominic Cummings which they couldn't really deny) or no (showing voters who would support "Brexit" that they don't really have allies amongst those in power, demotivating them from using the "Brexit" vote as a way to force the issue. Sometimes it's even better - maybe the Kick the Bastards Out measure was all just a stalking horse for some rich person's campaign in the first place, and skipping the charade and directly appointing them means they can no longer use vagueness as a shield, meaning they never try to waste the electorate's time with the measure at all.

But this also helps solve issue 2! Forcing parties to make public statements that they think [radical who's ostensibly in the same direction] is good or bad means we can dispense with all of this hogwash around whether the guy you're afraid of is irrelevant or influential - if they're so irrelevant, why is "their party" so afraid to condemn them? Or maybe they do condemn them after all, and you become able to trust the other party enough to consider swinging your vote - that's good for you!

Obviously there'd need to be more intricacies to it than I'm mentioning here - the new guys you appoint to parliament couldn't have exactly the same rights and responsibilities as the elected cast, as there are plenty of hated backbenchers today that oppositions can't really capitalize off of. You'd need some grander way to make them more significant, but you would also need to do that in such a way it doesn't break normal government functions. You also need some way to scale this so actually relevant parties can use it and the Randoms Who Aren't Actually Shooting For Power can't abuse it, and to prevent stratagems like conservatives appointing a green who will vote with them on shooting down nuclear power plants because you accidentally didn't class mutual "no" votes as the same thing as mutual "yes" votes.

Of course, this isn't ever going to happen but when has that ever stopped it being fun to think of advances in political technology?

(in case you're wondering the name comes from "stalking horse" and "callout". obviously that in particular doesn't work)

[so-much-for-subtlety]

Impossible to know, but I often wonder what the founding fathers (FFs) would think about America today.

I think that The Constitution is a pretty amazing framework and has great ideas (the separation of powers thru the 3 branches) but it's not like the FFs thought that it was perfect: Thomas Jefferson and John Adams often referenced it as a bold experiment in self governance (which is where we get the popular idea of "the great American experiment").

The Constitution was drafted over just 4 months, and the FFs obviously knew it wasn't perfect because they built in the ability to make amendments.

Don't forget that the original constitution had some ideas that would seem pretty wacky today. Before the 12th amendment the VP was the runner up in the presidential election, so in 2016 we would have had a Trump/Clinton administration.

And the amendments themselves are not always great. Like the 18th amendment that prohibited the manufacturing or sale of alcohol which was repealed just 14 years later with the 21st amendment.

When the 2nd amendment was ratified in 1791, the types of weapons available were single-shot guns like muskets and pistols that would take a good 30 seconds to reload.

I suspect that the FFs were here today they would think we are all bananas for sticking to a 200+ year old text.

I think there should be a 28th amendment that codifies that on a regular basis (maybe every 100 years?) that a new constitutional convention is held and a new constitution is created, probably with some constraints (like that any new constitution must allow for amendments, and that new constitution has a lifespan of 100 years).

At the very least the language can be updated to be easily understandable by contemporary readers, and amendments can be rolled up into the constitution itself.

Obviously there's a lot of details there around who authors the constitution, and how it's ratified by the people, but I seriously think we need this. Do we seriously think that we'll still be referencing this text in another 100 years?

[madeofvoid]

Prefacing this by saying I'm not an antisemite, I'm just a troll.

If anti-zionism is (BY THE RECENT HOUSE RULING) antisemitism, and antisemitism is the "crime" being "punished" so to speak. The operative term here becomes "semite." Which refers to any people who speak a semitic language-- i.e. Jews and Arabs¹

This isn't the first time the federal government has used vague language as a catch all, or that presumably specific terms have been made vague. The 2nd amendment famously allows the public (a "well regulated" militia) to keep and bear arms as necessary to the security of the free state². Which, by common conception, implies the right to use the same weaponry as the military. Or at least the same weaponry as the military at the time of writing. (hence the numerous greentexts about deffending one's home with smoothbore pistols and cannons loaded with grapeshot, "As the founding fathers intended.")

This is, while played for comedy and usually unserious, an example of malicious compliance. Doing something that is technically within the rules that, by all means, defeats the purpose of having them and/or breaks the system that upholds them. It's a valid form of protest for the most part. Famously, the sit-ins of the civil rights era were used as a form of non-violent protest against racial segregation and the Jim Crow laws that allowed it. The sit-ins were the very definition of malicious compliance, and it worked.

Of course, those who make the rules are then forced to pick one of two options that end the same way. Governing bodies can very easily tighten the rules to prevent malicious compliance, thus starting down a slippery slope of freedom restrictions until the rule breaks the system or the system breaks the rule. The other option is to repeal the rule to preserve the system. This is the best way to prevent the sort of Buggs Bunny escalation that Americans are known for.

As a survivor of the new-millennium interwebs, I pass a warning to ye young'uns, troublemakers, and governing bodies alike: A Troll's favorite food is vague language.

If you've read this far and followed along, I thank you kindly. Chances are some of you have already connected the dots, and I thank those of you who have once more. You are shining examples of reading comprehension of which the internet is always in short supply.

For the sake of those doomscrolling at 3am or perhaps those that lack the required history to understand the implications, do not fret, here's my point:

In the opening of this post, I speculated that antisemitism is the operative term of the House's recently infamous provision. They can't outlaw anti-zionism outright, it adds clarity to a situation that the powers that be wish to keep muddy. I also defined antisemitism. At its core, its a bias against people and groups thereof who speak semitic languages. In short, Jews and Arabs.

By definition, antisemitism is bias against those who speak/write arabic! Can you guess who does a whole lot of both? That's right! Palestinians! Can you guess what vague language acts as the lynchpin for the new provision, and as such has become more potent? That's right! Antisemitism!

Therefore by the powers that be, the same rules that prevent anti-zionist rhetoric also prevent anti-hamas and anti-gazan rhetoric. Because it's all antisemitic

That means that sure, while you can't protest against zionism without being prosecuted, you also can't be prosecuted for protesting for palestine.

For the trolls, this little loophole can be stretched to the moon and back again if you'd like. Name an arabic-speaking figure, group, organization, or country. I'm not saying you should, but you can, you know. Just a little trolling.

References:

1) Oxford Language.

2) 2nd Amendment, The United States Constitution.

[beardedmrbean]

(Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday passed up a chance to consider overruling its own precedent allowing protective "bubble" zones around abortion clinic patients, turning away a challenge by a Catholic woman in New York to a now-repealed county law passed after the justices overturned abortion rights nationally in 2022.

The justices declined to hear abortion opponent Debra Vitagliano's appeal of a lower court's decision to throw out her lawsuit that had claimed the Westchester County measure that had limited protests or "sidewalk counseling" near abortion clinics violated the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment right to free speech. The county is located north of New York City.

The law was adopted by the county just three days after the Supreme Court in June 2022 overturned the landmark 1973 ruling Roe v. Wade that had recognized a woman's constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy and legalized abortion nationwide. The measure was intended as a public safety measure and to protect access to reproductive healthcare centers.

The county repealed the "bubble zone" part of the law in August, saying it proved unnecessary and difficult to enforce. The county, as a result, told the justices that the case was moot.

Westchester's law created a floating 8-foot (2.4 meter) "bubble zone" around people within 100-feet of an abortion clinic, barring anyone from "knowingly" approaching the person in order to protest, display a sign, counsel, educate or pass information to them, without their consent.

The law was modeled after a near-identical 8-foot (2.4 meters) bubble zone law from Colorado that the Supreme Court upheld in 2000. Vitagliano asked the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, to overrule that precedent, called Hill v. Colorado.

Demonstrations occur at many abortion clinics around the United States and some protesters try to approach women entering to seek to counsel them against terminating a pregnancy.

Beth Sousa, a senior policy advisor at Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said clinic violence has increased since the 2022 Supreme Court decision and that the zones help protect against violence, harassment and threats, while balancing free speech rights. "These zones can be used to protect the rights of patients and health care providers and staff, while still allowing protesters to convey their messages," Sousa said.

The justices in 2014 struck down as overly broad a Massachusetts law that prohibited standing within 35 feet (10.7 meters) of an abortion clinic's entrance or driveway.

Vitagliano, 65, said in court papers that she believes abortion is the "deliberate taking of innocent human life," and sought to perform sidewalk counseling at a Planned Parenthood clinic, an abortion provider in White Plains, a small city north of New York City.

Vitagliano said she saw such activity as a "final attempt to encourage pregnant women's hearts away from abortion and to save innocent unborn lives."

Vitagliano challenged the law in federal court but earlier this year both a trial judge and the Manhattan-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that, under Hill v. Colorado, Westchester's law complies with the First Amendment.

[penguinlover27]

One bad decision, one moment of anger has now destroyed two lives and now this man will spend what is left of his life in prison.

For what? For a simple argument or disagreement? For that, lethal force was needed?

Once again, we are reminded of how dire the need is for effective gun reform. What business did this man have with a gun, let alone being armed at the time of this sad event?

The NRA lobby and the assorted gun-nuts and ammosexuals who support an absolutist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment are going to have to give some ground, or else there is a real chance in the future that the 2nd Amendment will be repealed altogether.

What other choice will be left? If we cannot put reasonable restrictions and regulations on the possession and use of firearms, then that is where we are headed.

Many will argue that this man had every right to own and carry that gun, but in retrospect I am sure he wishes he had not picked it up and took it with him that day.

I hope that he does receive a life sentence for this. Had he stopped and thought for one more second about what he was about to do, perhaps he would have made a different choice. But, he didn't and now he has to pay the price.

[bethanythebogwitch]

I think one thing we could do to help in this country is to stop treating the founding fathers like infallible gods and admit that some things they set up were bad ideas or have not aged well. Fixing those mistakes isn't some kind of blasphemy, it's just improving on what they set up. America's democracy was one of the first of its kind so its not surprising that mistakes were made. In fact, some of those mistakes have been fixed, slavery and women's suffrage being the two most prominent examples. Some more that need fixing:

The 2nd amendment either needs to be repealed and replaced or a new amendment needs to be made clarifying limitations. It was specifically made to ensure a militia could be formed in a time before we had a standing army. Now that we have an army, it is unnecessary. It is currently being used as a right to murder. We cannot allow just any civilian to gain a weapon of war the FFs could not have foreseen with absolute impunity.

The electoral college needs to be removed and a direct vote needs to be implemented. In a time when it was very unlikely that a majority of people in the country could get to a polling place, it may have been a bit more sensible. Now, all it does is ensure that (for example) if you are a democrat in Texas, republican in California, or 3rd party supporter anywhere, your vote is meaningless. It also ensures permanent minority rule by hinging the election on a few swing states. Any system that allows the loser of the popular vote to win needs to be replaced. Ideally, we would switch to a national ranked-choice voting system instead of a first-past-the-post system so the president would be someone over half of the country would actually prefer to see as president.

Term limits on everything. Every-fucking-thing. The lack of term limits on elected positions is bad enough but on unelected positions like the supreme court it is inexcusable. It effectively gives us monarchs, something the founders explicitly wanted to avoid. It also ensures that laws will drag behind what the majority want because old people always end up keeping positions when they are out of touch with what people want.

The senate either should not exist or should have much more limits on power. Having a senate where every state gets 2 and a house where members are based on state population was a compromise between small states (favored the senate) and big ones (favored the house). Because the senate gets 2 people per state regardless of population it effectively gives permanent minority rule. A voter in a very populous state like California effectively matters less than one in a less populous state like Wisconsin. In a functioning democracy, all voters have equal say.

Ethics requirements. I get that at the time they couldn't predict a lot of the ethics problems that happen today, but they could have at least put something in. Something like "a supreme court justice, representative/senator who accepts gifts from somebody and fails to recuse themself from a case/law/whatever involving that person will be immediately fired" would have solved a lot of problems.

I won't blame them for not banning corporations from participating in democracy because I don't think they could have reasonably foreseen that, but that, along with lobbying, is a major problem we need to fix.

We as a country need to get over this view of the infallible founding fathers and fix their oversights, mistakes, or outdated ideas. I won't say this would solve all our problems, but it would be an incredible start.