What is it with the lefty trend to just repeat stuff like that? What purpose does it serve?
What is it with the lefty trend to just repeat stuff like that? What purpose does it serve?
Wat.
XXVIII AMENDMENT
SECTION 1.
The inalienable right of a free people to be kept safe from gun violence and the fear thereof must not be infringed and shall be protected by the Congress and the States. This Amendment thus repeals and replaces the Second Amendment.
SECTION 2.
Congress shall create a mandatory system of firearm registration and licensing for the following limited purposes: (a) licensed hunters of game; (b) licensed ranges for the sport of target shooting; and (c) for the few who can demonstrate a special need for personal protection.
All who seek a firearm will undergo a strict vetting process with a thorough background check, including the written and confidential approval of family members, spouses and ex-spouses and/or partners and ex-partners, co-workers and neighbors. A mental health check will also be required. There will be a waiting period of one month to complete the full background check.
SECTION 3.
Those who meet all the requirements for the restricted gun owners groups and successfully pass the background check must take a firearms safety class and pass a written test on an annual basis.
SECTION 4.
The minimum age for the restricted groups who can own a firearm is 25 years old. Renewal and review of the firearms license will occur on an annual basis.
SECTION 5.
Congress will stipulate and continually update the limited list of approved firearms for civilian use, including weapons in the future that are not yet invented. The following firearms are heretofore banned:
• All automatic and semi-automatic weapons and all devices which can enable a single-shot gun to fire automatically or semi-automatically;
• Any weapon that can hold more than six bullets or rounds at a time or any magazine that holds more than six bullets;
• All guns made of plastic or any homemade equipment and machinery or a 3D printer that can make a gun or weapon that can take a human life.
SECTION 6.
Congress shall regulate all ammunition, capacity of ammunition, the storage of guns, gun locks, gun sights, body armor and the sale and distribution of such items. No weapons of any kind whose sole intention is the premeditated elimination of human life are considered legal. Congress may create future restrictions as this amendment specifically does not grant any American the “right” to own any weapon.
SECTION 7.
Police who are trained and vetted to use firearms shall be subject to comprehensive and continuous monitoring and shall be dismissed if found to exhibit any racist or violent behavior.
SECTION 8.
Persons already owning any of the above banned firearms, and who do not fall into the legal groups of restricted firearms owners, will have one month from the ratification of this Amendment to turn in their firearms for destruction by local law enforcement. These local authorities may organize a gun buy-back program to assist in this effort.
THE 28th AMENDMENT
I'm pretty sure this counts. Also, Michael Moore is still around, apparently.
"A right to be free of the fear of X". Safetyism in it's purest form.
Let's just have a random, never ending list of random people weigh in on if they think you should have a gun. That will surely never be used by the authorities to fish around for someone who says "no" so they can deny your application.
Also, we'll still have a waiting period despite all this other vetting that should ensure you're totally safe to give a gun, because we can't possibly just run all these tests and then just give you the gun when it's done, no. We must enshrine every single bit of leftist dogma into the law, no matter how little sense it makes.
Annual testing, for what? You've already had every single person you've ever spoken to approve of you having a gun, gotten a psychic evaluation, a criminal background check, etc. What purpose does this serve?
You already said the license has to be renewed annually. Why are you repeating it?
Also, if you can get a gun, it's going to be some 19th century design, because ever after the most intense background check ever, you still can't be trusted with the awesome power of a 1911. This notably still applies even if you proved you genuinely have a need for self defense, you still can't get a gun that's actually good for that.
And worse, any machine or printer that can make a "gun or weapon" is illegal now. Which is basically every single one of them, and even if interpreted to mean just "guns" this basically bans the vast majority of modern machine tool. Lathes, presses, mills, all gone.
So even if you are allowed to own a weapon for self defense, it can't be one that's designed to kill people, somehow. You can't even use this as a framework for what you'd like gun laws to look like, because Moore has ruined it by crowbaring in every single bit of gun grabber rethoric he can, at the direct expense of the document itself.
How would this even work, does Moore think that there's really all that much difference between a bolt action hunting rifle and a bolt action military rifle of the same era?
Also let's bring police regulation into this, for some reason. And demand they be fired if they're "racist", which we won't bother to define. Because really, who needs sweeping federal mandates to be clear about what they demand?
Molon Labe, fatty.
The comments are, somehow, even more concave brained than this (I guess they'd have to be, since they're only open to playing subs and you have e to be really dumb to give Michael Moore any money). Some highlights:
1. We don't need hunters, we should be past the age where we go out and kill animals.
1a. Ok, so maybe we do need to control wild animals populations. We should just use wolves, because letting loads and loads of carnivorous animals run wild literally everywhere won't backfire.
2. This can't be the 28th Amendment, because the ERA actually was ratified, and no I don't care that the deadline to rarity expired decades ago.
3. We should also ban the NRA, because why get rid of just one Amendment when you can get rid of two?
4. We should also make gun manufacturers liable for damages, like we do with cars and other dangerous products (we in fact do not do this), and even though in this case the liable agent is the state, since they explicitly said this person was deemed safe and allowed to use a gun.
5. We should send the guns to Ukraine instead if destroying them, because this will totally pass in time for that conflict to still be relevant.
My issue isn't looking at the edge cases (IMO, that's important). My issue is them ignoring the consequences of where those edge cases lead, and that frequently they don't see that there are other solutions to the edge cases they propose.I've noticed a lot of this sort of "thinking" in the dumber (and disturbingly, more viral) arguments leftists make. "Let's contort existing facts until we end up with logic that addresses this one narrow case and pronounce it solved, and then never consider what else is justified using that sane logic".
For example, if declaring non-citizens on American soil to be invading soldiers that must be removed by force is supposedly a valid solution to abortion, it's certainly far more applicable to, say, illegal immigration. And since in this scenario is using "non-citizen = soldier", then this invasion is an act of war, which means the military can be used to remove them and we have an open ended excuse to meddle in South American affairs since by this logic, they declared war on us.
Also, if you can get a gun, it's going to be some 19th century design, because ever after the most intense background check ever, you still can't be trusted with the awesome power of a 1911. This notably still applies even if you proved you genuinely have a need for self defense, you still can't get a gun that's actually good for that.
And worse, any machine or printer that can make a "gun or weapon" is illegal now. Which is basically every single one of them, and even if interpreted to mean just "guns" this basically bans the vast majority of modern machine tool. Lathes, presses, mills, all gone.
Abe Lincoln has Schrodinger's political party. He's either just another racist Republican, or a saint who has nothing to do with the Modern Republican party (which is true regardless, but contradictory with the other narrative).
However based on Obama being in that picture the person who made it is really far left.
Kind of a disaster on the domestic front but he was actually pretty decent when it came to running a global war on terror. Man loved his drones and while there was plenty of collateral damage his efforts helped to put an end to some serious awful people.
Obama is directly responsible for the rise of ISIS, and the failure to crush them. Notice how it was just a matter of months after Trump took office that ISIS was effectively crushed.
Further, Obama's insane appeasement and paying off of Iran caused a region-wide surge in terrorism, as well as enabling the progression of their nuclear program.
El Presidente from Tropico is better than Biden. It is not that high a hurdle to clear.Obama fucked up a lot of stuff, and yes he wasn't as good as trump, but he was better then biden.....
Sorry thats all I got.
My issue isn't looking at the edge cases (IMO, that's important). My issue is them ignoring the consequences of where those edge cases lead, and that frequently they don't see that there are other solutions to the edge cases they propose.
especially when a good player is controlling el presidenteEl Presidente from Tropico is better than Biden. It is not that high a hurdle to clear.
They're probably trying to get out of the miserably hot Texas summer weather more than anything else.