"other side"

both sides, then?

Got it.

"Some say that's prefatory, but I say it's mandatory"
--Kid Rock, probably

Damn.

What's really on your mind, Snoofy?

"it has nothing to do with the physical weapons."

What you can't say is what 'well regulated militia' actually mean. Or maybe you can! But even if you could, the Courts have decided it doesn't matter what well-regulated militia means.

I've never heard anyone even attempt to address the core concept of the prefatory clause"

"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state."

Anyone want to tell me what that means in today's English? Does the "free state" here mean the Untied States of America, one of the Colonies, all of the above, or something else entirely?

As a practical matter, Costa Rica doesn't even have an army. They seem significantly more secure than any other Central American state, all of which have armies. Maybe an army and a well regulated mlitia are two completely different things. I bet it meant somethign a lot like an army, though, at a time when we did not have the de facto standing army that we have today, and clearly were never meant to have in the Founder's vision of our Republic.

So, that's another reason it's a myth: Nobody can actually tell you what that means.

And that should be a problem, but it isn't. Because belief in guns isn't question. It's a dogma for the believers. The karma, what happened to Charlie Kirk, most of them take Charlie Kirk's words to mean it's okay if the Democrat Plantation gangs kill each other, as long as it doesn't spill over into civilized society, where the biggest problem you have is when the pilot is black.

Guns is pretty much a proxy measure for racism these days. As in, the hardest supporters of more guns everywhere are also racist white nationalists. Which is buttressed by the valid and valuable American history lesson, which is that you can get rid of your problems by ethnically cleansing them.

We carved the faces of our Top Four Ethnic Cleansers into the side of their sacred mountain, then again what isn't sacred to those peace pipe smoking hippies, left behind a huge pile of rubble, and made it a National Park.

The huge pile of rubble still being there after all these years, like the rug burn scars a middle age woman bears today when Trump held her down as a child is the *chefs kiss* of the genocide. It makes its own Holocaust Museum.

"it has nothing to do with the physical weapons."

What you can't say is what 'well regulated militia' actually mean. Or maybe you can! But even if you could, the Courts have decided it doesn't matter what well-regulated militia means.

I've never heard anyone even attempt to address the core concept of the prefatory clause"

"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state."

Anyone want to tell me what that means in today's English? Does the "free state" here mean the Untied States of America, one of the Colonies, all of the above, or something else entirely?

As a practical matter, Costa Rica doesn't even have an army. They seem significantly more secure than any other Central American state, all of which have armies. Maybe an army and a well regulated mlitia are two completely different things. I bet it meant somethign a lot like an army, though, at a time when we did not have the de facto standing army that we have today, and clearly were never meant to have in the Founder's vision of our Republic.

So, that's another reason it's a myth: Nobody can actually tell you what that means.

And that should be a problem, but it isn't. Because belief in guns isn't question. It's a dogma for the believers. The karma, what happened to Charlie Kirk, most of them take Charlie Kirk's words to mean it's okay if the Democrat Plantation gangs kill each other, as long as it doesn't spill over into civilized society, where the biggest problem you have is when the pilot is black.

Guns is pretty much a proxy measure for racism these days. As in, the hardest supporters of more guns everywhere are also racist white nationalists. Which is buttressed by the valid and valuable American history lesson, which is that you can get rid of your problems by ethnically cleansing them.

We carved the faces of our Top Four Ethnic Cleansers into the side of their sacred mountain, then again what isn't sacred to those peace pipe smoking hippies, left behind a huge pile of rubble, and made it a National Park.

The huge pile of rubble still being there after all these years, like the rug burn scars a middle age woman bears today when Trump held her down as a child is the *chefs kiss* of the genocide. It makes its own Holocaust Museum.

Great discussion, KWRX25.

This is an ignorant question, but what kind of standing does the Federal Government need to provide when suing a State?

Has the Federal Government suffered an injury at the hands of Denver?

You think the pedo would've been more inclined to open his eyes with kids in the vicinity
#12 | Posted by hamburglar

I know!

Fact is, the sexual assault allegations against Trump stopped, once he could no longer maintain an --------. Sometime back in the aughts.

"Twenty-five percent of the Democratic Party believes that political violence is appropriate"

Look, Ma!
It's the poll numbers Emperor Hirohito used to decide we wouldn't fight back after he bombed Pearl Harbor!

79 to 91% are against political violence.
#71 | Posted by jpw

No they aren't.
Not really.
Ask those same people if they supported World War Two or the American Revolution.
Ask them if they Support The Troops and Thank Them For Their Service.
Ask them if the military is an institution of political violence
Ask them if the police is an institution of political violence.

Reality: Murder Rates Decreasing to Record Low Numbers

Trumpers: It's time to start cleaning up New York

"You forced us into this position."

^
This is what men who hit their wives say to their wives when they hit them.
It's no wonder Trumpers look at this and see a Strong Man who Forcefully Embodies their Values.

Why do they want to be out of Canada?
Who's driving this movement?
What will it mean?
#10 | Posted by Effeteposer

Same people who brought you Brexit.
What it means is a step further towards parting out the West for scrap.

Times are too tough to be out there murderin'.

The 2nd was written because governments tend to become overbearing at times.
#5 | Posted by lfthndthrds

For example, an overbearing Government with a majority Congress of of Northern Abolitionists could ban firearms, making it easier for Slaves to escape, threatening our Southern Way of Life.

Not that you'd ever agree with that. Even though it tracks perfectly with what you just said.

Meanwhile, do you have links to increased leftist violence?
#67 | Posted by Danforth

Best he can do is leftists reacting to right-wingers getting murdered.
It should go without saying: None of the murders were done by leftists.

There's certainly been a few instances of what's portrayed as "leftist" violence targeting ICE and DHS. An easily understandable reaction to the state-sponsored right-wing violence that's defined Trump's domestic legacy.

The violence will be more bipartisan when the energy and food shortages really kick in.

"The thread is directly related to polls of both parties being asked if they approve of violence for political means"

So why do you think right-wingers are so tolerant of all the political violence Rpubilcans are doing right now, even as they say to the pollsters they don't approve of political violence.

Are they lying?
Do they not understand it's political violence when their side does it?

You're a right winger. What's your answer? Why are you so tolerant of all this violence, why do you not see the kiliings of Goode and especially Pretti as creeping fascism? Or maybe it's because you do approve of political violence. You do approve of what the UnitedHealth CEO does to maximize profits, right?

"The thread is directly related to polls of both parties being asked if they approve of violence for political means."

Are you capable of entertaining the concept of fighting fire with fire, that the numbers on the left are a reflection of and a reaction to all the political violence Republicans have unleashed in Trump's second term?

Maybe discuss the topic a little bit. Is that in your wheelhouse?

Two examples, the reactions to the killing of Charlie Kirk, and the CEO of United Health.
Not the actions, the celebrations.
#57 | Posted by kwrx25

You seem to want to judge the reactions, without ever mentioning the actors being reacted to.
Without contextualizing the reactions in the milieu of the life's work of a CEO who let people die for profit. A hate preacher who said gun murders are a fair price to pay for living in America.

Charlie Kirk preached political violence.
Being happy he's dead isn't preaching political violence.
It's being happy a preacher of political violence is dead.
That's pretty much the opposite of endorsing political violence.

I'm not aware of anyone on the Left who said Charlie Kirk needs to be murdered. It was Nick Fuentes who said that. And that's what Trump says about his political opponents too. Charlie Kirk was a a political opponent of Trump on both the Epstein Files and the Gaza Ethnic Cleansing.
What we on the left said, and still say, is that by Charlie Kirk's beliefs, Charlie Kirk believes Charlie Kirk's murder was justified.
If you can't understand that, you're unfathomably stupid and I'll just stop wasting my time on you. Deal?

From The River To The Sea.
Palestine Will Be Ethnically Cleansed.

"Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, who operated as state atheists, killed from roughly 60 million to over 100 million people."

Christians fought on Stalin's side, against Hitler
Christians fought on Hitler's side, against Stalin.

What an absurd thing.

The Washington Post keeps dutifully referring to it as a "shooting."

It's not really a shooting if the alleged assailant did not fire any shots.

Party of Small Government doing authoritarian things. What a surprise.

Meanwhile, the right is blowing up Planned Parenthood, shooting up schools, threatening school teachers, murdering politicians, and acting like none of that matters.
#45 | Posted by ClownShack

Republicans here including Eberly can't understand that Trump's War with Iran is Politically Motivated Violence.

That idea has never occurred to them.

Neutrality went out the window
#93 | Posted by kwrx25

Go back several decades and give us some examples of when we had neutrality.

Are you saying the coverage of Watergate or Iran Contra was "neutral?"

Are you saying Walter Cronkite was "Neutral" in his coverage of the Vietnam War?

I don't think neutrality went out the window.

I think fake "both sides" pseudo neutrality replaced honrst men like Walter Cronkite. Men who knew, and told the audience, the difference between Right and Wrong.

That's what got replaced with "lets hear from both sides of the moon landing debate, the global warming debate, the flat earth debate."

Fake-ass "debate" replaced objective analysis of facts.

You shouldn't be left alone with children.
#86 | Posted by ClownShack

His own children agree with that assessment.