the i dont care about politics anymore thread

[starkind]

So recursive ya-butts

I actually use dialectics all the time and agree with hegel butt it's usesless for governance because there will always be those ppl that ya-butt indefinately

at some point u just got to draw a hard line in the sand and say 'this is what is functional'

a woman is functionally a female

end of story

--- sure there are a millinon billion ppl on this planet that will ya-butt butt when it comes to actual governance it's not an effective (another dialectical thing) it's not an effective means of governing around what a woman is or may be.

I would say that the majority here matters. And that sorry if u think u are a woman buttyabutt not then u are on ur own always have been always will be just like every other poor sod on this planet that isn't a CEO or megarich oligarch or military elite

--- my dialectic is the state won't fix any problems including gender lawl which really isn't THAT big of a deal except ppl will always be dumb about it and language is made up so best is to work hard and not rely on the state to tell u how to dress and talk and what surgeries u do -- so the ultimate dialectic would be to delete insurance entirely, especially medical insurance so u could have more monies for pp and vaginaplasties

---- again ----

it's complicated just trust me bro

me: no I won't trust u the vast number of u can't even run electrical wiring or plumbing or clean the fucking pubes out of the shower stall or go without a shower for more than 5 minutes without having a mental breakdown

i guess the truth is that the truth is not an effective means of governing idiots and also water is mostly wet unless u are a steam engineer or michellen star cheff than it's also hot steamy and ouchy and most ppl don't think about that when cooking or driving their cars around

[Reiwa]

Oh, neat. You can pick your method of execution?

e: Hey, gun right ruling by Thomas!

e2: well that was fun come back tomorrow

[robayon]

Originally Posted by Reiwa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Oh, neat. You can pick your method of execution?

e: Hey, gun right ruling by Thomas!

e2: well that was fun come back tomorrow

Hell yeah fixing the stuff that ain't broken and ignoring all the stuff that is

[Jibartik]

Originally Posted by robayon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Hell yeah fixing the stuff that ain't broken and ignoring all the stuff that is

Originally Posted by Jibartik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The establishment doesn't care unless something supports their Hegelian dialect of problem, reaction, solution will they pretend to care about the problems we face.

[Reiwa]

Originally Posted by robayon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Hell yeah fixing the stuff that ain't broken and ignoring all the stuff that is

What would u choose? The condemned wanted a firing squad instead of drugs.

[robayon]

Originally Posted by Reiwa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What would u choose? The condemned wanted a firing squad instead of drugs.

edit: drugs

[MrSparkle001]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme...ond-amendment/

You no longer need to prove proper cause to obtain a carry permit.

The New York permitting law at the crux of the dispute dates back to 1913 and requires residents seeking a license to carry a gun outside the home to demonstrate a "proper cause" to obtain one, which state courts have said is a "special need for self-protection."

Can you guess how many people qualified for this special need for self-protection?

Now I don't think this means we will soon see cities full of people carrying pistols everywhere they go but WOW.

What I instead think will happen is the opponents of the second amendment will do everything they can to pack the court so the outcomes are in their favor.

And this:

Writing in dissent for the liberal wing of the court, Justice Stephen Breyer noted the rise in gun violence in the U.S. and ubiquity of firearms, and warned that states working to pass more stringent firearms laws will be "severely" burdened by the court's decision.

"In my view, when courts interpret the Second Amendment, it is constitutionally proper, indeed often necessary, for them to consider the serious dangers and consequences of gun violence that lead states to regulate firearms," Breyer wrote. "The Second Circuit has done so and has held that New York's law does not violate the Second Amendment. I would affirm that holding."

I think is incorrect. You cannot consider the consequences when interpreting the constitution. What matters, constitutionally, is whether a law conforms to the constitution or infringe on the rights guaranteed within. That's all that matters. Does New York's law infringe on the second amendment's right to bear arms? It certainly sounds like it does. Whether or not it's wise in this age of gun violence, the second amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It's right there plain as day, right?

Yes I do think it's foolish to hold so sacred a document that was written in the age of muskets, but that's not what the Supreme Court is for. Gun opponents will need to repeal the second amendment to win this, and if that happens it means the secession of most of the south + Texas, Oklahoma etc. and the end of the United States. On the flipside, allowing people to carry guns even easier in this age of this declining country and society may lead to mass gun violence on an unprecedented scale.

Interesting times we live in. It's not just about the memes anymore.

[Gravydoo II]

Dont get shot in the face.

[Mblake1981]

Originally Posted by MrSparkle001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yes I do think it's foolish to hold so sacred a document that was written in the age of muskets, but that's not what the Supreme Court is for. Gun opponents will need to repeal the second amendment to win this, and if that happens it means the secession of most of the south + Texas, Oklahoma etc. and the end of the United States. On the flipside, allowing people to carry guns even easier in this age of this declining country and society may lead to mass gun violence on an unprecedented scale.

Interesting times we live in. It's not just about the memes anymore.

Originally Posted by Gravydoo II [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Dont get shot in the face.

A guest was chatting with me last night about this topic, she felt that allowing people to have their constitutional rights would be foolish, I explained that I thought such opinions were foolish, but then she pointed out the fact I was raised with guns and that I am not a desperate person trying to run the streets.

I couldn't help but just stare at her and said nothing in response. Those people are persecuted, and society has said its just. Blue Cities can't have their 2nd amendment rights because they are treated like children.

[Horza]

Originally Posted by Mblake1981 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

A guest was chatting with me last night about this topic, she felt that allowing people to have their constitutional rights would be foolish, I explained that I thought such opinions were foolish, but then she pointed out the fact I was raised with guns and that I am not a desperate person trying to run the streets.

I couldn't help but just stare at her and said nothing in response. Those people are persecuted, and society has said its just. Blue Cities can't have their 2nd amendment rights because they are treated like children.

SCOTUS could care less about the concept of a right to privacy, the only constitutional right they seek to expand is the Second Amendment because culture war bullshit is the only thing that plays with the paste eating retards that still vote Republican.