Man assaulted outside of Philadelphia gay bar

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

If you want to disclose how making parking lot sales illegal is politically dangerous, then please.

I already did. The Interstate Commerce act makes it clear that as long as something crosses state lines, the Feds can intervene. However, the Supreme Court has generally taken a dim view of the Feds getting involved in private sales of legal property within state lines...which is exactly what we're talking about here. Remember, guns are not only legal, but their ownership is currently protected by the Constitution itself. It's right up there with Freedom of Speech on our values list. And given that 5 of the Supreme Court justices are currently considered to be right-wing when it comes to gun regulation, this might not be the best time to pass a law that the NRA can aim a constitutional case at. People are already freaking out about what might happen in the New York case. Regulating private sales would almost certainly offer a much bigger target, depending on what exactly that regulation looked like.

Oh I've never heard it brought up that guns are protected by the constitution. Just kidding it's typically the first thing brought up. I'm not sure how technically executive or congressional legislation can be passed for businesses but not individuals due to constitutional provisions. I mean not to bolster my own perceived understanding of it, it just doesn't seem like a piece of legislation that couldn't be expanded upon. And Obama's legislation indeed might have been temporal considering the SCOTUS, but yeah the intricate workings of the constitution is where we're at I guess.

[Yukaphile]

"The right to bear arms" has clearly been bastardized from the original intent - which was similar to the states' rights to maintain something like the National Guard. A former Justice once quoted something to that effect. Of course, given the Justices we have on the court now, you'd never get a good ruling in favor of gun control in this day and age.

[CmdrKing]

It's used by a lot of biphobic gay men who want to pretend LGBT stands for Lesbian Gay Bacon Tomato.

Shoot, I forgot that was a thing. Can't remember the last time casual biphobia (as opposed to bi erasure) was something I had to wade through. Apologies.

But yeah it's moreso a shorthand for a mostly-cishet audience, figured that'd be more recognizable than the long form. For the record I was going for "white gays with normative gender expression and a lack of overt signifiers (pins, flags, etc etc)". There's a... waaaaay longer conversation behind that about how the larger LGBTQ rights movement hypefocused on marriage and how that normalization process it fostered threw people under the bus but er that's probably too tangential.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

"The right to bear arms" has clearly been bastardized from the original intent - which was similar to the states' rights to maintain something like the National Guard. A former Justice once quoted something to that effect. Of course, given the Justices we have on the court now, you'd never get a good ruling in favor of gun control in this day and age.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

It's used by a lot of biphobic gay men who want to pretend LGBT stands for Lesbian Gay Bacon Tomato.

Shoot, I forgot that was a thing. Can't remember the last time casual biphobia (as opposed to bi erasure) was something I had to wade through. Apologies.

But yeah it's moreso a shorthand for a mostly-cishet audience, figured that'd be more recognizable than the long form. For the record I was going for "white gays with normative gender expression and a lack of overt signifiers (pins, flags, etc etc)". There's a... waaaaay longer conversation behind that about how the larger LGBTQ rights movement hypefocused on marriage and how that normalization process it fostered threw people under the bus but er that's probably too tangential.

Thank you. Apology accepted.

[Admiral X]

"The right to bear arms" has clearly been bastardized from the original intent - which was similar to the states' rights to maintain something like the National Guard.

No it's not and I will never understand this argument, especially considering I doubt you or anyone else making this argument has ever had any similar issues with any of the other amendments, especially any of the others that use the term "The People." If you really have trouble with it, all you have to do is look up literally anything else the Founding Fathers wrote during or after the same time frame and they make it explicitly clear that this is meant to be an individual right. I highly doubt you'd argue the First, Third, Fourth, or Fifth Amendments were meant to be group rights. The National Guard is not a militia. A Militia is simply a group of citizens who have banded together to fight a common cause. Ideally, you'd want to get together and do some training, establish a chain of command and all that, so if the shit hits the fan, all you have to do is meet up somewhere and go. Militias generally did not provide arms, which is why the individual right to keep and bear arms was necessary for the security of the free state, which is the term they used to illustrate that they recognized the new government they formed might turn tyrannical and the people would have to fight yet another revolution. That still stands today.

A former Justice once quoted something to that effect.

And they were dead wrong.

Of course, given the Justices we have on the court now, you'd never get a good ruling in favor of gun control in this day and age.

Tard_-_Good.jpg (42.14 KiB) Viewed 300 times

[Admiral X]

It's used by a lot of biphobic gay men who want to pretend LGBT stands for Lesbian Gay Bacon Tomato.

In my experience it seems to stem from a rather patronizing attitude that you're really just gay but in denial or don't realize it yet. Never understood this attitude, especially since one would think that since they themselves have gotten much the same attitude from the religious right toward homosexuality and would thus not to the same to others.

[Yukaphile]

The original language of the Second Amendment was the militias had the right to organize at a minute's notice - hence, minutemen. But times have changed since then. If the Founding Fathers knew the kind of weapons we'd have today, they'd make the law more detailed and precise. My problem is the Second Amendment hasn't kept up with the times like the other amendments, yet it's treated as dogma by gun-lovers. And that the NRA is led not by gun owners, but gun makers. Yeah, you can sure trust them to be impartial, eh? The second we let 20 dead schoolkids become an acceptable price to preserve "a well-regulated militia" when the National Guard fills that role just fine, the NRA became a domestic terrorism organization.

[Admiral X]

The First Amendment is not restricted to the technology and attitudes of the 18th Century and neither is the Second. If anything the Founding Fathers would probably be appalled by the disparity between what the active military has available to it and what civilians have available to them. Actually they'd probably be pretty appalled by how big and threatening the standing military has gotten since a lot of them weren't even comfortable with having a standing military to begin with.

Oh, and your continued hatred of the NRA is somewhat amusing given that they've actually lost quite a bit of support given their tendency to compromise on "common sense gun-control" issues before. Like during Reagan's time even.

[Yukaphile]

The NRA of Reagan's time is not the NRA of today. Even Reagan talked about how a citizen has no right to wander the street armed. Nowadays, it's becoming a real concern. My Libertarian friend thinks a group of people should have an unfettered right and ability to access a hospital or school with their machine guns strapped to their bodies in full view. No idea if he thinks ammo should be included among them, but that's a frightening thought. When I brought up that in a hospital, which is a center for healing and not beating of ass, that it might send fragile people into convulsions or heart attacks, he just sneered at me that, "No one's that sensitive." You hold to the same view?