AOC and All Other Members of the "Squad" Have Been Re-Elected to Congress

[Debater Slayer]

I recall the 2nd Amendment being worded differently.

Placing amendments before human life is alarmingly similar to religiously fundamentalist logic. Outdated amendments that outlive their relevance or usefulness should be modified or removed, not preserved in life support at the expense of the lives lost as a result.

 

[Revoltingest]

Placing amendments before human life is alarmingly similar to religiously fundamentalist logic.

And ignoring why we value it, to mischievously
make it about murdering children reminds
me of histrionic creationist rationalizing.

Hey, looks like we're starting a mutual
disrespect society! Slinging such vapid
insults back & forth is the best way to
influence each other, right?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I recall the 2nd Amendment being worded differently.

I recall it being worded and intended differently. Still, I will gladly defend your right to own a Musket so long as you are same and use it sanely.

 

[Revoltingest]

I recall it being worded and intended differently. Still, I will gladly defend your right to own a Musket so long as you are same and use it sanely.

You won't even allow rifled barrels?
(Muskets are smoothbore, & were already
becoming obsolete at the time.)
If rights only apply to the tech of the day,
does the 1st Amendment not include any
electronic device....only print media?

 

[Debater Slayer]

And ignoring why we value it, to mischievously
make it about murdering children reminds
me of histrionic creationist rationalizing.

Hey, looks like we're starting a mutual
disrespect society! Slinging such vapid
insults back & forth is the best way to
influence each other, right?

What are you talking about? I'm addressing the argument that the Second Amendment should necessarily keep protecting gun ownership to the extent it currently does. Nowhere did I insult anyone, nor is that my intention.

 

[Revoltingest]

What are you talking about? I'm addressing the argument that the Second Amendment should necessarily keep protecting gun ownership to the extent it currently does. Nowhere did I insult anyone, nor is that my intention.

In my exchange with another poster, you posted....
"Placing amendments before human life is alarmingly similar to religiously fundamentalist logic."
I addressed that.
If you don't find that histrionic & hostile,
then we have very different standards.

 

[Debater Slayer]

You posted....
"Placing amendments before human life is alarmingly similar to religiously fundamentalist logic."
I addressed that.

That was a general statement, not about you specifically. It's an attitude I have seen in many discussions about gun laws, where some seem to believe the Constitution should be the be-all and end-all of gun laws even if statistics and current times may demonstrate that it needs to be modified.

 

[Revoltingest]

That was a general statement, not about you specifically. .

When you join a conversation, & quote a post,
but referencing others, tis best to make that clear.
Still...yours wasn't a useful post to any but the choir.

 

[Debater Slayer]

When you join a conversation, & quote a post,
but referencing others, tis best to make that clear.

Fair enough. Now I have clarified that, I guess.

Still...yours wasn't a useful post to any but the choir.

There's no way to be sure, but it is a point I hope more people embrace. In my opinion, constitutions should serve us, not the other way around.

 

[Revoltingest]

There's no way to be sure, but it is a point I hope more people embrace. In my opinion, constitutions should serve us, not the other way around.

I agree.
But you must recognize that there will be
disagreement about some rights we have,
where you might think it's too much....
- Free speech.
- Gun rights.

Just because we disagree about what's best,
it doesn't mean that I value the Constitution
without regard for its effects.
Cut me a little slack here, bubala.

 

[F1fan]

When government jobs aren't the "means of production",
it's not socialism. (Definitions matter here.)

That's OK because it's not as if conservatives honor definitions, nor create valid argumenst from their bogus definition.

However AOC could very well be a socialist because
of her expressed opposition to capitalism.
Alas, this is hard to discern because her statements
are so ditzy. Nonetheless, this is what she expresses,
& the voters in her district like it. Moreover she's a
rising star in the party. Not a good sign for liberty.
AOC: Capitalism is ‘not a redeemable system for us’

Did you even read this article? She is being critical of laws and a system that allows fewer people gaining mnore and more wealth and the middle class and poor fighting for table scraps. It's a David and Goliath situation where Goliath owns all the rocks, so if David wants to get one and use his sling shot It'll cost him. And guess what, he doesn't have the money, nor the credit. Too bad. Goliath wins because the system AOC is criticizing is run by Goliath. She is suggesting a syatem where there is less greed, and more out there that the Average Joe can get more fruits from their labor. It can be called Socialism if that's what some want to do, but she is describing a change in a system that is not working. Inflation is another example of it not working: corporations raining prices and making record profits, and families who were already on the financial bubble struggle to cope with the increases for products.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's OK because it's not as if conservatives honor definitions, nor create valid argumenst from their bogus definition.

It's odd that you bring up conservatives to criticize
for using a "bogus" definition when it's pretty much
the same as what I see used by liberals, & includes
public roads, public schools, police, military, etc.

Did you even read this article?

I did.

 

[LuisDantas]

Shes a dumb ditzy broad.

What else am I gonna say?

Not surprised in the least.

It's The People's Republic of New York after all. They only serve themselves.

I have no idea of what is in your head. And I don't know that I care to guess.

 

[metis]

There's no doubt in my mind that the Squad often pushes the envelope, but I do think they're overall on the right track as they reflect what many poor and indigenous feel, namely that they do not have equality under the law that's more slanted to favor the wealthy and powerful.

We see court cases whereas if one's wealthy/powerful, they're treated quite differently, such as we just saw recently whereas the judge allowed Bannon time after finding him guilty, whereas someone poor and unknown will most likely be led to jail or prison right from the courtroom.

 

[Wildswanderer]

The dubious right to slaughter children should be eradicated to whatever extent possible.

As for "Barf," have you ever considered the fact that it's your diseased politics that is making you sick?

I never saw a gun go out and slaughter children. Must be a new, robotic AI gun?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I never saw a gun go out and slaughter children. Must be a new, robotic AI gun?

That you consider this clever is both sad and predictable. I never saw a car go out and slaughter children, and yet both cars and drivers are heavily regulated for the public good.

 

[Revoltingest]

...yet both cars and drivers are heavily regulated for the public good.

You must not take the same roads I do.
Terrible drivers abound.
About 43,000 traffic deaths in 2021 in USA.
(Gun deaths aren't much more.)
We need better regulation for'm all, both gun & vehicle owners.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/17/us-traffic-deaths-hit-16-year-high-in-2021-dot-says.html

 

[Twilight Hue]

That you consider this clever is both sad and predictable. I never saw a car go out and slaughter children, and yet both cars and drivers are heavily regulated for the public good.

Cars still comes with an acceptable death count nonetheless.

What is the acceptable death count for guns to where they can become unvillified as cars are?

 

[Wildswanderer]

That you consider this clever is both sad and predictable. I never saw a car go out and slaughter children, and yet both cars and drivers are heavily regulated for the public good.

Guns are already heavily regulated, but murderers don't seem to care, whether they drive cars into people or use bombs or guns or thier hands.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Guns are already heavily regulated, but murderers don't seem to care, whether they drive cars into people or use bombs or guns or thier hands.

It does no good for a state to have strict gun control when just a half an hour away there are none. Effective gun control will have to be national.