Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
What the second amendment should be (the structure that makes the sentence grammatical) is:
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
Which should make it reasonably easy to interpret what the founders meant by it (“a standing army is tyrannical, so we need to be able to make our army out of regular people in the event of war; as a result, regular people need to be allowed to have weapons”). Given that the US has had a standing army for over a century, it’s no longer relevant.
Reading it as “zero gun control ever” is a ideological reading by the Supreme Court to achieve a right-wing goal.
For context, I personally favor gun control. I will grudgingly admit that there are legitimate use cases for a private citizen owning a firearm, but I think the harm they do is more than enough to outweigh those.
That said, I can see the logic behind treating the first part of the sentence (even ignoring the one grammatically incomprehensible comma) as not having any real legal weight. The clause, "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State," reads as an explanation of the reason that the second part ("the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.") exists. (Personally, I don't necessarily think it's a good reason, but that's not really important to this point.)
With that said, though, I disagree with the assertion that any sort of gun control necessarily infringes on that right. Trying to legislate that nobody gets to have any sort of weapons would infringe, but objectively defined limits (such as age minimums, behavior-based disqualifications, "you can only own X number of weapons" or "you cannot own weapons with these specific characteristics") don't necessarily infringe. The way I see it, it's similar to how even though the First Amendment provides protections for free speech, there still can be (and are) laws/regulations against (for example) false advertising.
Edited by djkates on Jun 10th 2023 at 9:55:24 AM
There are plenty of regulations regarding plenty of rights that shouldn't be infringed on such as speech, voting, and whatever we allow under the ninth amendment. So basic regulations and control doesn't feel like an infringement on me.
On top of slander and libel, fighting words, or likely to cause damage (the pre-eminent falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater), there are also permits, location restrictions, obscenities (of the sexual nature), time restrictions, and noise restrictions and how they often mix. We can march down only specific public roads for our public protest, at specific times, that we require a permit for, that can't be too loud during sleep hours, etc. Can't do a march down the interstate highways, for instance.
Or with voting, you have to register, show identification of some sort, with the most lax just being things like a pay stub and recent mail or utility bills, and only vote in permitted ways during permitted times.
So since regulations are not an infringement on our speech and voting rights, I don't see them as an infringement on our right to bears arms as long as they're reasonable and equitable.
![]()
"Half this entire amendment is irrelevant and it's just guns for guns' sake" is kind of the problem with the right-wing interpretation of it. It makes it the single most stupid, backwards 'right' possible if it's completely decoupled from any sort of rationale or motivation.
Not that the rationale helps any. "I have a right to be able to kill someone in seconds with no effort because someone 200 years ago thought professional armies were a bad idea and completely misjudged how things were going to develop" is a line of thought that shows no respect for anybody else's existence in the first place.
Edited by RainehDaze on Jun 10th 2023 at 4:17:59 PM
Republicans don't expect an end to the House stalemate this coming week.
Basically the MAGA caucus is still pissed off at McCarthy and want to keep punishing him. Technically they have demands to end the blockade but they're not exactly clear on what they are.
...
"I don't even know what the logjam's about,"Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas.) said. "Just a bunch of crybabies."
Article V specifies that a state ratifies proposed amendments through either their existing state legislatures or an entirely separate state ratifying convention whose sole purpose is to vote yes or no on it. The latter method has only ever been used for the 21st Amendment (the one that ended Prohibition).
The damned queen and the relentless knight.Desantis Anti-Union Laws resulted in over 5,000 teachers joining unions.
Edited by OmegaRadiance on Jun 10th 2023 at 12:23:36 PM
Every accusation by the GOP is ALWAYS a confession.Trump's indictments has been unsealed.
The document is quite a doozy. Biggest takeaway is that they have the smoking gun. Several of them.
Also, the maximum penalty for it all is like 500 years and $9.5 billion.
#IceBearForPresident@Kaiseror I mean, he has been arrested and sued recently, so he's not completely untouchable legally.
Leviticus 19:34I don't think Jack Smith had concrete evidence he did show anything to anybody. The transcript of the audio leak certainly sounds like Trump was showing people classified military documents, but I guess they wanted something more concrete.
My God, imagine how many Russian, or Chinese, or Saudi officials/spies probably waltzed through Mar-a-Lago and saw those boxes.
“trump could have detonated a warhead in a major city and he still somehow would avoid getting arrested.“
I guess committing suicide is a way to avoid being arrested. Otherwise, I’m not seeing a logical basis for this and I gotta agree with Raineh, it crosses the line from reasonable skepticism into pessimism.
What fruitpork said was acceptable. The above statement isn’t.
Edited by fredhot16 on Jun 10th 2023 at 5:25:26 AM
Trans rights are human rights. TV Tropes is not a place for bigotry, cruelty, or dickishness, no matter who or their position.![]()
![]()
I mean.
There was the Mueller Investigation. Basically the same thing. Mueller outlined like 11 instances of clear and cited obstruction of justice, and the Dems were saying back to back that Trump is a criminal and should be prosecuted.
And right after saying that those same Dems just sort of stood there staring awkwardly. Not moving, not blinking, and certainly not prosecuting.
So yeah, I'll belive the Mueller Investigation 2.0: Jack Smith Edition will put him behind bars when it actually puts him behind bars.
After 6+ years of hearing "THIS! will be what finally ends Trump" and reading up on like 60+ years of habitual criminality from him going unpunished, being skeptical is not so much pessimism as it is pattern recognition.
Edited by Spirit on Jun 10th 2023 at 8:30:39 AM
#IceBearForPresidentproblem is a lot of those pattern recognition also seen to be "trump should be kick right into jail, if isnt then he is invisible" which is jumping into another chain of logic that often give him a sort of invencibility even bigger than trumper claim he have
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"He's been arrested and charged, and separate to that successfully sued in court. There are so many unambiguous smoking guns, the DOJ has the perfect ammo to get rid of Cannon if she winds up on the case, all of the people who were in charge of things back then who could stop or stall this are all replaced. This doomsaying bullshit has to stop. Donald Trump isn't some fucking supervillain whose 100 steps ahead and can't be stopped, he's just a stupid man who has spent the last few decades burning through every defense and strategy he has and now can't pay his lawyers, can't retain his lawyers, and has handed the Justice Department their case giftwrapped for them.
I will say don't count chickens before they hatch, having said that I will bet 100$ something will come of this that is pretty bad for Trump.
Leviticus 19:34Hoping this is the moment his Karma Houdini Warranty kicks in.
"In a move surprising absolutely no one"

How do states ratify? Through their congresses or through a vote? Gun control is fairly popular even among Republicans and NRA members.
Yes and no, things like background checks and the like? Those are popular.
Bans on concealed cary and various weapon types are not.
You would have to trim it down to get it past any where with a republician majority, not add even more to the sugested.