Do you have to get permission from the government to exercise free speech outside your home? Can you be denied your right to remain silent based on what state you live in? What other right can simply be denied to adults?
Treating the 2nd Amendment like a first-class right is hardly ‘expanding’ it.
Is part of an overturned court case. And even before it was overturned, the limit wasn’t that you couldn’t yell ‘fire’, the limit was you couldn’t create harm via your actions. (Ex, if there was a fire, you did nothing illegal by saving others).
To circle this back to the 2nd Amendment. One can own and carry a gun, one can even save others with their firearm, one cannot murder people.
And numerous forms of protest too. Anything that gains traction is then declared a “riot” or “illegal assembly” and dealt with harshly.
None of these 2A supporters seem to care that you need a permit to protest or register to vote, but ask for people to get even the most basic of training before purchasing an object specifically designed to kill people and suddenly its “but muh rights!”
Hate speech is legal and incitement to violence has to be imminently dangerous. AFAIK all limitations of speech have to do with immediate public safety
it’s okay to sell murder weapons to people who are obviously going to commit murder
Planning to murder someone is not only illegal but also a felony, which bars gun ownership. If we have evidence someone is going to commit murder, arrest, charge, and convict them.
Should we allow overweight, insecure men with a long history of red flags to buy hand grenades, land mines and machine guns?
Some people with NRA induced brain damage will of course say yes but the reality is that we’ve already decided that there are weapon that are too dangerous to indiscriminately hand out.
And what do you know? We’re able to keep them out of the hands of domestic terrorists just fine.
Ethically? If they haven’t be convicted in a court of law, yes, we should. Otherwise you’re denying them due process. Also, red flag laws make getting help effectively illegal.
You're in for a rude awakening if you believe that only GOP and Nazis own guns. There's a reason Reddit has a liberal gun owners sub. Lefties just tend to be less vocal about it.
You can still see consequences from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Let's not pretend that there can be no reasonable constraints on these things.
With respect to yelling “fire” - you’re not charged with the speech, you’re charged with inciting the ensuing panic.
With respect to the militia - the words “the people” are used in several places in close proximity to the usage in the Second Amendment. The meaning of “the people” in the Second Amendment can’t be construed to mean “the militia” without some serious mental gymnastics.
Thats how I interpret it it too, If they only wanted just the militias to be armed they would have said the right of the militias to keep and bear arms, but they said the right of the people. This is and was intended to be the most prestigious legal document in their proto-country. I have to assume they used the language they did on purpose.
Except that every able bodied man was assumed to be a member of the militia. This is because the idiots who wrote the 2nd amendment didn't want a standing army.
Then the war of 1812 happened and everyone was like "oh shit, maybe there was a reason why standing armies exist" and then the 2nd amendment was forgotten for a century. A bad idea that didn't work out.
It's kind of like the 3rd amendment. Important at the time, but actually meaningless in practice.
You say it was forgotten for a century as if people stopped buying guns for 100 years because there was a standing army. If the government wanted to get rid of it in favor of a standing army they would have done that, or at least tried. There’s no indication it’s a failed amendment because the US needed an army too. And in fact if it was a failed amendment, where was the uproar at the time? I don’t really recall any historical fight against that amendment.
It was forgotten. Just like the 3rd amendment was.
People kept buying guns, but everyone sort of assumed (and rightly so) that the government could ban guns.
Hell, the shoot out at the O.K. Corral was over gun control, and the Cowboys gang was clearly in the wrong, and all of them were wanted criminals before the shootout.
But more to the point, the gun ban for Tombstone, Arizona was completely legal.
All of that is while militias still technically existed. After 1903, militias did not. Which is why the National Firearms Act of 1934 was ruled fully constitutional.
And that was the final word on the 2nd amendment until a convicted murderer in partnership with gun manufacturers decided that guns for everyone should be the goal of the NRA.
The NFA was to curtail gang violence when organized crime was near its peak, not to mention the prohibited items on it are still prohibited today. You still need tax stamps for silencers, automatic weapons, short barrel rifles, and anything else the government decided to classify there. I don’t know what you think changed legally since then.
A good friend of mines wife had to carry a fetus with un-treatable Gastroschisis to term (AKA died withing seconds of birth) because of these pro life shitstains.
Was it really fake though? I mean, the President of the United States himself advocated for using bleach (“disinfectant”), surely that means it was a legitimate cure, right?
“And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning, because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that, so that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me. So, we’ll see, but the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute. That’s pretty powerful.”
The article doesn’t live up to the headline. Yes, they’ve become hotbeds for anger and chaos, but how? What’s getting these people so riled up about these perceived issues that they’re disrupting school board meetings and attacking board members and other parents?
Political Action Groups hire people as agents through churches. Then those agents cause trouble. Moms for Liberty is a great example.
Sign up for a shitty Florida church then attend their sermons online. You’ll hear some symbolic bs or code they use to get people to unwittingly join them. Maybe you will even get lucky and hear the church chant out a reportable crime.
Online propaganda. In one of the world news communities yesterday, there was a post about the UK forcing teachers to disclose to parents if their child mentions anything about gender identity in schools. Several users went off on rants about how schools indoctrinate children and blah blah blah and this is the same garbage mindset that they bring to their local school board meetings. We’ve got too many dumb people with strong opinions roaming around now.
Yeah, it’s hot as fuck out here. But as a southern Arizona native, this heat wave doesn’t seem too much worse than most summers in recent memory. I’m curious if this is more a result of increased homelessness (and declining resources to support them) rather than drastically raised temperatures.
His claim is insane and insanely racist but there should by a conversation on how COVID negatively effected oppressed minorities and how in general their health service is so horrendous.
What he said sounds bad, especially when we just read the headlines and think we know the context, but he’s just saying the virus doesn’t affect every ethnicity the same.
We know that. It’s fact. You agree with it. So why is the claim insane?
There is a difference in saying that there is a disparity in health outcomes due to racism and saying there is a Jewish-chinese conspiracy to destroy the white race. They are actually nothing alike.
He implied the virus was bio engineered and Ashkenazi and Han were made immune are you being deliberately dense. Here is his quote
“COVID-19. There is an argument that it is ethnically targeted. COVID-19 attacks certain races disproportionately,”
He also said
“COVID-19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and Black people. The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese,” he continued, adding, “We don’t know whether it was deliberately targeted or not but there are papers out there that show the racial or ethnic differential and impact.”
“COVID-19. There is an argument that it is ethnically targeted. COVID-19 attacks certain races disproportionately,”
Are you claiming that there are no differences between ethnicities and the harshness of covid?
COVID-19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and Black people. The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese,” he continued, adding, “We don’t know whether it was deliberately targeted or not but there are papers out there that show the racial or ethnic differential and impact.”
What’s wrong with that? He said we don’t know the origins. That’s fact. He said we do know they affect different ethnicities differently, that’s fact.
You’re trying to push a narrative against him for that.
We don’t know the exact origins but we should assume given the likelihood it is and the lack of evidence otherwise that’s its perfectly natural to do otherwise is crazy. He is obviously throwing racist dog whistles that you are refusing to see that shows you are a racist and I really see no point talking to you.
And many big organizations say there’s a reasonable chance that it was lab altered.
we should assume given the likelihood it is and the lack of evidence otherwise that’s its perfectly natural
We don’t know the origins, as you said before, but we should assume it was natural? I don’t assume either way, but it seems weird you claimed both these things.
He is obviously throwing racist dog whistles
No, he’s not. He said that we don’t know if it was created/altered by humans or not.
But we do know it affects different ethnicities differently, which is, once again, objectively right.
refusing to see that shows you are a racist
Refusing to think like you makes me a racist? I think we have different definitions of racist.
The vast majority of diseases are natural so assuming its engineered without hard evidence is silly. What big organizations not tainted by racism or a conservative political agenda say believe the insane lab leak theory or worse deliberate infections. He implied heavily that the virus was made by a jewish chinese alliance to hurt americans that’s a racist talking point that you think its not and you are getting upvoted and me down voted makes me rethink using this website. How does it affect different “races” differently races don’t exist biologically so any effect would have to do with culturally health support and other factors. Saying covid was a deliberate jewish conspiracy is racist yes do you not think saying that is?
The vast majority of diseases are natural so assuming its engineered without hard evidence is silly
The scientific community has been vocal that it’s reasonably likely it was altered in the coronavirus lab. You being anti-science is your problem, not RFK’s.
Except you are wrong they don’t believe that . The lab leak theory is total bunk. The natural zoonosis theory is the prevailing and evidence based opinion.
There’s enough consensus from the scientific community to say we don’t know, especially with the understanding that china is not transparent with the world.
So, once again
RFK said 2 facts. That’s it. Find some real dirt on him if you want to trash him.
Okay I’m done with this your racist peddling of an insane conspiracy theory is tiresome. You linked to what was a propaganda write up by conservative racist republicans with an agenda not the overwhelming consensus of scientists and experts.
Neither of the Science papers provide the smoking gun — that is, an animal infected with the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus at a market.
Republicans are lying g to you for pitiful points. Sorry.
Ahhhh yes, the government house oversight committee is just republicans. Read the sources, read the facts, listen to the organizations and scientists and they say it’s reasonably likely it was a lab leak of some sorts. Is it more likely that it was natural? Yes. But does that mean it 100% was and we shouldn’t question it, no. Absolutely not. You’re an idiot if you think it’s beyond question, and anti-science if you think it’s beyond question.
Yeah, this is very disingenuous. That was the single concession in an article full of proof that that meet market played an important role in spreading the virus, and that it is probable that is where transmission occurred. Short of detecting and recording the original infection, which is very unlikely to have happened due to the nature of the virus.
And yes, the house oversight committee is controlled by Republicans, because they make committee appointments after they gained control of the house of representatives in the 2022 midterms, and this was a political priority for them. If you read their release, it is clear that the questions were lead by Republicans.
Now we cannot be 100% sure what the origins are, so we can make a conspiracy theory that that chain engineered the virus and planted it, severly infecting their own population, in order to unleash a worldwide pandemic because… reasons…
Or we can acknowledge that a scenario that was pretty widely anticipated occurred, and it became a political priority for the Republicans to deny after trump started to, which they then pursued with their new policial power in the house. But a politician would never lie to you right?
"The Biden administration formally halted the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s access to US funding, citing unanswered safety and security questions for the facility at the center of the Covid lab leak theory. "
Oh wait, biden is probably just a right win lunatic, huh?
That lab has been very notorious for withholding data on the origins of the virus, and deserves sanctions. Doesn’t mean that Jews engineered it in collaboration with the Chinese government.
Actually that’s incorrect. There’s no consensus with multiple agencies coming to different conclusions ranging from maybe it was to we have no idea.
No one has found any smoking gun. But what is more telling is the conspiratards that dog pile on this topic as if the question of its origin somehow validates all their stupid bullshit over the past 3 years. It doesn’t, and all the anti mask anti vaccine idiots have blood on their hands that people like me will never, ever let them forget.
So until we find actual proof, this remains soundly in the category of unknowns.
"The Biden administration formally halted the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s access to US funding, citing unanswered safety and security questions for the facility at the center of the Covid lab leak theory. "
Oh wait, biden is probably just a right win lunatic “conspiratard”, huh?
Ah, trouble with reading comprehension I see. Don’t worry you’ll get there.
As I stated, there’s no consensus and no smoking gun, this also doesn’t cite the Biden administration claiming they caused the leak just that there are security concerns.
So this still proves nothing definitively, but it sure seems like you need it to prove something, which is the bigger issue in my mind. If you need it to be a lab leak to ‘show you were right all along’ you probably are generally incorrect about things and at worst are peddling racist conspiracy theories with no foundation other than that you want it to be true.
Covid showed just how shallow and stupid so many people are. We really got to see some of you guys show your true colors. Just know that there will always be people like me who will never let you forget what you did during that time.
Come on man, I didn’t say anything concrete, or say anythings proven. You just dismiss it because it’s not proven. There’s a middle ground, like ya know, percentages.
You have 1 percent, 2 percent, 10 percent, and so on and so forth. So there’s a scale rather than a binary “not proven, can’t exist”
There’s two equally compelling sources of the virus. The wet market located in wuhan which easily could have been a source. Or the lab where they were studying coronaviruses and also easily could have been a source.
It’s important to remember the reason the coronavirus lab was located in wuhan was specifically because there was a place locally where it could be easily obtained.
What’s the truth in that. How do you point to the exact source without making assumptions, and at that point you’re just filling in the blanks for whatever you want to believe or what supports your worldview .
You can point to lots of things that china fucked up about the pandemic, but as we have seen, even with advanced warning the US completely failed to prepare or appropriately handle the pandemic.
There’s a lot of people that need to be held accountable for their bullshit during that time. It’s better than grasping at xenophobic speculation.
The wet market located in wuhan which easily could have been a source. Or the lab where they were studying coronaviruses and also easily could have been a source.
Sweet. You finally agree with me of what the scientific communities consensus has been since they stopped censorship of the theory - there’s a reasonable likeliness it was a lab leak.
Again, I never said it wasn’t possible, just that there’s no proof that’s what it was. It’s pure speculation. And speculation to me is worth Fucking nothing, merely the folly of people with too much time on their hands .
You argued against me saying it was reasonably likely, and just said it was for “conspiratards.” I think that’s a core difference between us, I don’t compare people to retards simply because we have disagreements.
It’s okay to be wrong, move on bud, and try to be a bit nicer to people that have different opinions than you. It’s okay to disagree and be civil.
I’d have to be wrong first, and that’s not apparent here unfortunately. But I appreciate your willingness to jump into whatever speculative claim supports your skewed worldview.
Select? Attention? Hmm. That sounds like it has agency. But then a disease can’t have agency, so it must be someone with agency using the disease. Almost as if it’s a bioweapon.
Nope. Kennedy was when he mentioned COVID “targeting” certain ethnic groups in virtually the same breath as discussing bioweapons targeting certain ethnic groups. One thing directly related to the other. He didn’t have to draw a map.
COVID “targeting” certain ethnic groups in virtually the same breath as discussing bioweapons targeting certain ethnic groups. One thing directly related to the other.
He said 2 things:
viruses can be changed by humans
viruses can affect different minorities differently
In the article it even says "Kennedy later posted a video statement on Sunday, saying in part: “Nobody has suggested that these were deliberately engineered changes and I certainly don’t believe that they were deliberately engineered,” but calling it “kind of a proof of concept that you can develop bioweapons that will attack certain ethnicities.”
is it a bad sound bite? Yeah, should he be more careful, yeah. But no, he didn’t imply that it was a bioweapon created to target everyone but jews and chinese. He clarified after that he ‘certainly’ doesn’t believe they were engineered.
People just want to latch on to bad sound bites bc his parties mad he’s getting some traction against a senile 82 YO man.
It wasn’t a soundbite, it was a full video. I watched it. He was talking about the Chinese creating ethnic bioweapons and then pivoted to COVID not “targeting” Chinese people. It was not a change of subject, just a pivot. The obvious implication was that COVID was engineered. Why does he have to literally come out and say that explicitly? Does everything have to be literally spelled out to you?
I’m starting to think you didn’t watch the video and are trying to tell me what I saw and heard with my own eyes and ears was not what I saw and heard.
He was talking about covid in the context of engineered bioweapons. That the virus has been more severe with people of color can, and has been explained by racial inequity and access to care.
“The overrepresentation of African Americans among confirmed COVID-19 cases and number of deaths underscores the fact that the coronavirus pandemic, far from being an equalizer, is amplifying or even worsening existing social inequalities tied to race, class, and access to the health care system.” www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7762908/#:~:….
What makes you think he was talking about covid in the context of engineered bioweapons?
He said “there are papers out there that show the racial or ethnic differential and impact.”
You provided one such paper that shows that there are differences in how covid impacted different communities. Whether that’s due to obesity rates, socioeconomic status or healthcare access.
"Kennedy later posted a video statement on Sunday, saying in part: “Nobody has suggested that these were deliberately engineered changes and I certainly don’t believe that they were deliberately engineered,”
This is long overdue and should be implemented nationwide. Bails are nothing but a class discrimination tool designed to hurt poor people. Glad to see more and more states/cities moving towards discontinuing the horrible practice. That being said, I do agree that keeping it in place for much more serious crimes is probably wise.
I don’t see a reason to keep it in place even for serious crimes. If a crime is serious enough to warrant pre-trial detention, then that person should be held regardless of their ability to pay bail.
Yep, people here in England and Wales (Scotland has a similar system too AFAIK) are remanded in custody if they constitute a flight risk or a danger to the public at large. There are no bonds.
The trooper-medics contacted their superiors while on duty and again in writing, calling for changes to the latest Operation Lone Star policies brought in by Abbott.
“I believe we have stepped over a line into the in humane [sic]. We need to operate it correctly in the eyes of God,” the trooper said. “We need to operate it correctly in the eyes of God. We need to recognize that these are people who are made in the image of God and need to be treated as such.”
There’s an episode of Behind the Bastards called “How the Rich Ate Christianity” about how certain people essentially constructed the religious right. In the early 20th century, the majority of pastors were socialists.
Socialism is a direct consequence of Christianity. It’s the ultimate material incarnation of it.
Because of Christianity, we had the Renaissance, because of the Renaissance, we had capitalism. Because of capitalism we have socialism.
And many religions are extremely progressive and egalitarian. Many Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, Jewish and even Muslim sects are. Not to mention Sikhs and Jains etc.
The issue is mostly the hierarchical, patriarchal and authoritarian sects won out and dominated the rest, extinguishing most that were real threats to their domination.
In my mind, this is all religion by the way. Buddhism or capitalism. Trans-humanism or nihilism. It’s all religion. We just have a very limited and antagonistic view of religions nowadays.
To the Classical Greeks “religion” was just trying to understand the world and how to live in it for example. That’s how most of us saw religion for a long time. Until the Catholic Church basically.
Now the Catholic Church is evil as fuck… mostly. As an institution.
Religions have always been about trying to understand the world and how we should act in it as human beings. Those are the only and main things that connect all different “religions” in time and space.
Ok, so in trying to understand the world, there are really two options. Things you have proven (science), and things you believe without having proven. I’d argue that this second one is mythology.
Science is not about proving things at all… it’s about provings things WRONG, and approximating truth through that. Key word being approximating.
Mythology is the collection of stories and sayings from a religion we no longer really “respect” anymore. Like Ancient Greek or Egyptian Religions. While no one says the burning bush or Allah in the cave are myths.
Still, there is a very fine line between philosophy and religion/mythology. Specially if you understand the basic concept of metaphors and symbology, when trying to read ancient and religious texts.
Just a final note, materialist reductionism is a dead-end. Many scientists already noticed this…
Lolwut? ALL religions are highly conservative and oppressive, that’s the point of their existence. There would be no need for renaissance if there was no religion.
How are all religions conservative and oppressive? How is that the point of their existence?
Like have you ever read anything about early Christianity compared to how things were around it at the time? What about Mandeism? What about the early Hindu schools like Advaita Vedanta and Vaisheshika? What about Sikhism, which is explicitly egalitarian and humanist?
The Renaissance was just a stage of development of Christian values. Like Capitalism after it (which was an evolution of Protestant values) and socialism.
Arguably modern science was born in the Catholic Church.
Why do people speak so confidently about things they know so little about?
Religion is always socially conservative. Fiscal conservatism doesn’t tend to jive with the teachings of most religions.
The fact that they tend to vote conservative anyway may show where their priorities lie, but I wasn’t lying when I said that most pastors were socialists in the early 20th century - it should be a natural consequence of believing in the teachings of Jesus.
Joe Arpaio needs to have war crime charges brought against him. For once this isn’t exaggeration in the slightest: If this were Nazi Germany the man would likely hold high position. His crimes are literally up there with the masterminds of the holocaust. The only difference is scale and target.
The attorneys for the state asking, “Did anyone from the state tell you you can’t get an abortion” are full of shit. We don’t consult the AG or the police on every move. We generally are aware of the law and the consequences of breaking it and make a decision. We don’t seek input on everything. That’s what laws do. To argue that it’s the doctor’s fault for delaying care, and not the law, flies in the face of how law works in the USA.
So many other tragic and stupid quotes in the article, but I’ll stop there for now.
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.