Conversation

Notices

1. Matt Haughey 🦣 (mathowie@xoxo.zone)'s status on Friday, 27-Oct-2023 05:05:53 JST Matt Haughey 🦣

   the obvious answer is unfettered access to weapons capable of mass murder for any american because of a bad faith reading of a 250yo law about muskets from a new country without a standing army

   • Moon (moon@shitposter.club)'s status on Friday, 27-Oct-2023 05:05:48 JST Moon

     in reply to

     • Charles ✡️ H
     @celesteh @mathowie I think we should go back to no standing army and the federal government has to beg merchants to lend their private warships to engage in conflicts. That would have saved possibly tens of millions of lives over the past fifty years or so.
     LS likes this.
   • Charles ✡️ H (celesteh@babka.social)'s status on Friday, 27-Oct-2023 05:05:52 JST Charles ✡️ H

     in reply to

     @mathowie

     Its worse. The second amendment was legalising conscripted patrols on which white men of ever social class in southern states were made to go out in armed groups looking for escaped enslaved people to capture. (Source: https://www.npr.org/2021/06/02/1002107670/historian-uncovers-the-racist-roots-of-the-2nd-amendment )

     Poor white men were forced into the standing army necessary to maintain a violent system of chattel slavery. Right wing people in the 70s liked the look of this amendment and breathed new life into it through a judicial fraud of falsified history.

     Or at least, that's how former SCOTUS chief justice Warren Burger described it (source: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/justice-burger-2nd-amendment-meme/ )

   • mia (mia@freespeechextremist.com)'s status on Saturday, 28-Oct-2023 02:47:14 JST mia

     in reply to

     • Moon
     • Charles ✡️ H
     @Moon @celesteh @mathowie
     
     > beg merchants to lend their private warships to engage in conflicts
     
     Oh, but they still have to beg merchants. :dementia:
     Machismo likes this.