394
More Americans approve of Walz as VP pick compared to Vance: POLL
(abcnews.go.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2024
394 points (98.5% liked)
politics
18821 readers
4657 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
But they can’t flip that narrative, it’s anathema to them. Between the “silent majority” bullshit and their fake idealized past (women and minorities knew their place, queer folks would get the queer beaten out of them) they cling to the idea that their view is correct and how things should be.
Don't forget guns. These people went so full moron, that they straight up forgot that the original gun laws in the Americas was purpossive open carry only, no habitual open carry. If you weren't a banker, a cattleman, a sheriff, or the like, or if nobody had threatened your life, and your jacket blew open in the breeze and allowed the public to see that you were carrying a gun, you would have been arrested for breach of peace. Because it's fucking weird to show up at the bar or at a grocery store or whatever with a gun for no reason.
There are dozens of early legal cases in this country that prove these facts, and you can also reference the constitutions of the original colonies, none of which enshrined a individual right to carry firearms. You can also reference the Philadelphia constitutional convention where a version of the second Amendment containing an Express individual right was unanimously rejected by the delegates in favor of our current version.
The second amendment itself even tells you right in the sentence what its purpose is, and It's "the security of the state," not the individual. An individual right to bear arms does not redeem a state security interest, a ready militia does, though. that's my Ted talk.