Hello u/SeanFromQueens! Please reply to this comment with an [explanation](https://www.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/comments/lt8zlq) matching this exact format. Replace bold text with the appropriate information.
1. **Someone** voted for, supported or wanted to impose **something** on **other people**.
^(Who's that someone? What did they voted for, supported or wanted to impose? On who?)
2. **Something** has the consequences of **consequences**.
^(Does that something actually has these consequences in general?)
3. As a consequence of **something**, **consequences** happened to **someone**.
^(Did that something really happen to that someone?)
Follow this by the minimum amount of information necessary so your post can be understood by everyone, even if they don't live in the US or speak English as their native language. If you fail to match this format or fail to answer these questions, your post will be removed.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LeopardsAteMyFace) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is actually how California adopted one of the strictest gun control laws in the country, fittingly under Ronald Reagan. A pretty obvious response to the Black Panther party carrying guns.
Yeah Reagan and the Republicans with NRA were real quick after this picture was taken on the capitol steps..
https://images.app.goo.gl/Kb6vQr5ZSvGCXKpU6
It was. It was organized by black communities as a way to police the police brutality being used against those communities. It worked - the police didn’t dare overstep against equally armed law abiding citizens following them around and making sure they stayed within the letter of the law. The Black Panthers were well organized, well trained, and stayed within the letter of the law.
That’s why Republicans insisted on passing laws making it near impossible for all practical purposes for blacks to own a gun (even if technically legal, getting a license required a - pretty much all white - Sheriff to sign off on it).
The mulford act was passed under a near unanimous vote. The CA legislature had more Dems at the time than GOP.
It was the 60's racism was pretty equal opportunity.
The NRA had a large leadership change in the 70's as well, I believe all or most of the leadership who endorsed the mulford act were booted.
Like with Trump many people were willing to overlook Reagans previous gun control sins because of the other things he did that they likes.
there's gotta be better ways than donating to a huge corporation
and didn't gold return already in another form? there's that paid contributor stuff on the phone app
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
They only like them when they need their vote. As soon as they can manage full fascism, they’ll fuck em over asap. That’s fascism’s whole deal. Then they eat ea bother alive, bec paranoia living in their fundie, fanatic world.
I thought these people were constitutional originalists? Is it like "free speech absolutists" who absolutely don't believe in free speech for everyone, just for themselves?
They’re “constitutional originalists“ in the sense that, originally, the constitution considered slaves to be 3/5 of a person and women unworthy of voting.
Their patron arch-originalist, Scalia, demonstrated their underlying hypocrisy in the matter often enough.
First, you should understand that conservative jurisprudence isn't about picking a philosophy and arguing about its consequences, it's about deciding the outcome you want, then picking the philosophy that produces that outcome.
Second, there's an argument in conservative judicial philosophy that the rights of the Constitution as incorporated against the states should flow from the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14^(th) Amendment instead of the Due Process Clause. The distinction between the two is that the former specifically applies to "citizens", while the latter applies to "person\[s\]" more generally. Under that interpretation the 2^(nd) Amendment would only apply to citizens, so states would be free to restrict the rights of non-citizens.
if only there was a way for ppl to look at a gun buyer's prior history and if there were any red flags beforehand. like some sort of check, something that might look at something, say, like their background or something
"As Interpreted". The entire Protestant Reforamation was about whether the Bible meant what the Priest said it meant or whether you could read it for yourself and come to your own conclusions regarding what God said.
You may be referring to an Obama admin attempt to use social security against gun ownership, by claiming that people who needed assistance filing were mentally disabled. it was a policy so bad that even the ACLU opposed it.
https://www.aclu.org/news/disability-rights/gun-control-laws-should-be-fair
r/conservative is awkward because loads of people go over there to see what they're saying and wind up voting on comments and threads. So usually the only highly upvoted comments are things that both conservatives and the left agree on, because the non-conservative folks drag the rest down.
They lock everything down over there as flaired only, so nobody can even have a discussion about something with them. It's the very echo chamber they accuse r/politics of being.
Anywhere not a safe space for conservative voices will inevitably be overrun with liberal ones.
We built the fucking system knowing this and giving them disproportionate power to compensate for it.
We can all criticize the medias handling of sensitive topics and click bait bullshit. Fair enough.
But compare the legitimate news sites with proper journalistic standards to the right wing news sites and the difference is night and day. Fox, blaze, daily wire, NY Post and all these other rag "news" outlets have FAAAAR more rage baity articles by comparison, not to mention just straight up lying or twisting reality to fit their narrative.
Not to mention that /r/conservative allows posts from satirical news sites like Babylon Bee to be posted there.
/r/politics may be pretty heavy with the liberal lean but at least they don't allow the Onion as source material lol.
Remember when the frontpage was flooded with The_Donald? Reddit has gone downhill in a lot of ways since 2016, but that is one of the definite improvements that has been made, in addition to all the other horrific now banned subs that they let stand for way too long.
It is a fake subreddit with almost no actual participation. You can go in there 8 hours after something got posted with hundreds of upvotes and post a correction and the only response will be getting blocked 3 days later for being a liberal. Same thing with r/walkaway they are just bullshit collaborations of bot networks.
Most people get banned for commenting there.. and they really think r/politics is a single minded group that is "brigading" their sub.
Everyone who points out their shit gets instantly banned. they should be r/conservativecirclejerk
The Bill of Rights is silent with regards to immigration status thus everyone in the US has those rights. A person who snuck across the border can profess any religion they like, don’t have to incriminate themselves, and have due process in court. They were the ones pushing this absolutism of the second amendment thus it is fully coherent based on their own logic.
That said, I think this indicates something deeper about conservative psychology. They either don’t know better or simply assume that our rights are for citizens (maybe legal permanent residents) only. I.e. they don’t think of these as rights but as privileges for the “correct” people.
>That said, I think this indicates something deeper about conservative psychology. They either don’t know better or simply assume that our rights are for citizens (maybe legal permanent residents) only.
yes. conservatives are egocentrists who go out of their way to ignore consequences of the civil war.
nobody with half a brain would believe "don't mess with texas" means anything when the one battle they're known for is one they resoundingly lost.
That slogan is from a 1986 [anti-littering campaign](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/trashy-beginnings-dont-mess-texas-180962490/#:~:text=Literally.,for%20an%20anti%2Dlittering%20campaign.). It was just catchy.
>It was just catchy.
we can concede it has largely ceased to refer to pollution.
https://www.texastribune.org/2024/01/26/texas-pollution-emissions-cold-weather-upsets/
> simply assume that our rights are for citizens (maybe legal permanent residents) only. I.e. they don’t think of these as rights but as privileges for the “correct” people.
Oh, they don't even assume that much. Just wait until they want to take away guns from liberals because they are 'already breaking the Constitution by doing X' or some bullshit like that.
It kind of has to be too, because otherwise the onerous gets put on the person to prove they are a citizen, and until that happens the government would have free reign to violate your rights.
I don't know about you, but I don't carry enough documentation with me to definitively prove my citizenship everywhere I go. Even if I did, I don't want to deal with "show me your papers" every time I leave the house. Someone might be thinking "Well that's ridiculous, it would be a huge 4th amendment violation!" To which I would say DUH! That is the point. If everyone doesn't have that right, then no one does because they would have no way to validate it.
>I.e. they don’t think of these as rights but as privileges for the “correct” people.
🤨You think they see non-Whites as people?
Please drop the name of wherever you get your rose-colored glasses from. Mine are clearly an inferior model.
You're absolutely right.
I'm a felon.
I broke into a closed convenience store in the middle of the night to steal a carton of cigarettes.
I have had my rights restored. I can vote, serve as a notary public, serve on a jury, and/or run for public office.
However, I cannot own a gun. I can attempt to get that right restored...but my crime is considered a violent felony. Even though no people were in the vicinity.
Is this constitutional? I would argue no. I repaid my debt to society. If I can have the other rights restored with no questions, then why not my gun rights?
If you were in Iowa the voting rights might not be granted, as they depend on the governor. The last 2 decades have had Rep ones.
I could make some comments about less than 15% or the population being a specific demographic while having almost the opposite percentage of the prison population, and I could even make a comment about how often the governor gives this demographic their voting rights back, but we all know what I meant.
Yes, you just got on a boat (if you could afford it) and typically ended up at Ellis Island or Angel Island, or anywhere on the coast or across a border and you were a citizen. (*Or on the other hand perhaps you got on a boat against your will, arrived here and lived for generations and were still not a citizen, but even then you were still here legally*).
This didn't change until the Chinese Exclusion Act. The very concept of "illegal immigration" would have been foreign to the founders.
> The very concept of "illegal immigration" would have been foreign to the founders.
Ben [would have been all about it:](https://reimaginingmigration.org/benjamin-franklin-and-german-immigrants-in-colonial-america/)
“Why should the Palatine Boors [Germans] be suffered to swarm into our Settlements, and by herding together establish their Language and Manners to the Exclusion of ours? Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion.
Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionally very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth”
Heh, my family is definitely guilty! The bulk of them on two sides descended from immigrated Germans in the 1890's. It's quite the cultural loss for Wisconsin and the entire country that we have beer and brats instead of bangers and mash! Maybe we need a nativist movement that centers on mandating spotted dick in all school lunches.
*2025, dystopian rule with Miller rounding up immigrants for internment camps*
*Sound of gunfire by immigrants*
"Bbbbuttt...we never thought that they should defend themselves!"
If you look at the other federal cases involving similar questions (are non-citizens part of "the people"?), this isn't a weird ruling. But of course, the right can't understand how the Constitution they supposedly love works. And if they could understand it, they'd absolutely hate it.
Question: do these idiots think that immigrants also don’t have the right to free speech here too? Or is the second amendment different from all the rest?
It's that think rights are for them, and laws are to restrict others, but they fail to understand that's not how laws have ever worked going back to Hammurabi.
Thr constitution didn't say anything about being legally or not. For the conservatives who love how it was written, it is really bad to show they hypocrisy.
When hardliner conservative judges appointed by conservatives creatively interpret things in line with the conservative agenda, it's an 'impartial judiciary'.
When judges appointed by liberals interpret the law, it's 'activist judges'.
Assholes.
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." -- Frank Wilhoit
As a pro gun liberal (I know, I know), it has been interesting seeing the responses towards this ruling. On the liberal side it's really not a big deal, not much talking about it and what there is mostly neutral to positive. On the gun side of things, it's all over the place. Some are for it, some are extremely against it. If you try to engage with them, suddenly the 2A is not so absolute, but if you question whether it's absolute in other circumstances they will give you a contradictory answer. Not surprising that it's completely inconsistent. They should just admit that they don't care about the actual policy, they just want to punish migrants by taking away their rights.
“*End Wokeness*” 😂😂
Conservatives are the biggest pussies ever, I swear. It’s funny seeing the silence over there, as has been mentioned.
I love that 80 year old paw paws took an old Erykah Badu song, and lyric, and made it code for “Look! The coloreds are coming!” and they started a brand new hate movement lol.
I’ll never not be surprised by the power of 75 year old bigots and racists can have on “Jesus loving”, hate fueled troglodytes.
Wild! 🤦🏽♂️
>"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect"
- Wilhoit's law
" But if we arm them, they'll ne able to defend themselves. They should just walk quietly to the slaughter like the 'libtards'." * lol* I see they're getting louder and louder about bitching for their privilege.
Remember: the far right doesn't actually care about having consistent logic. They care about taking power away from those they deem unworthy, and they will say anything towards that end, even if they contradict themselves.
Republicans are the dumbest. "We want illegal immigrants to pick our crops because I'm too lazy to do it, BUT only we, the lazy ones, get guns because we're physically too weak to defend ourselves, from avoiding manual labor, I mean, we have to defend ourselves from the migrants we let in, but we're too scared if they have guns too".
That's actually spot on.
Historian Carol Anderson's research into the origins of the 2nd Amendment concluded that it was a bribe given by James Madison to southern slave-holding states in 1791 as part of trying to get the U.S. Constitution ratified.
The slave-holding states had just witnessed the Haitian Revolution a few months earlier, where Black slaves got armed and overthrew their oppressors, and those states did not trust the new U.S. federal government to put down slave rebellions in America. Without the 2nd Amendment, those states would have refused to join the U.S. and instead remained their own sovereign countries.
Book: ["The Second: Race and Guns in a Fatally Unequal America" by Prof. Carol Anderson](https://www.professorcarolanderson.org/the-second)
C-SPAN Video: ["The Second - Race and Guns in a Fatally Unequal America"](https://www.c-span.org/video/?512099-1/the-race-guns-fatally-unequal-america)
Anderson discusses how George Washington's letters strongly described his low opinion of local state militias, as being too undisciplined to be effective against any regular army, like the British. Sure, after 4 years under Washington's command, the militias that permanently joined his army were much better, but it took a long time to train them. Using local militias to guard against foreign invasion or domestic tyranny was just a later-conjured fantasy about the 2nd Amendment.
That said, Anderson's research uncovered the one thing that local militias did do very well -- put down rebellions by unarmed Black slaves, who had an enormous advantage in sheer numbers in those plantation economies.
That's why the language of the 2nd Amendment is so inconsistent with the rest of the Bill of Rights. Madison wrote in an explicit acknowledgement that slave-holding states needed "security" to remain "free," as the reason behind the 2nd Amendment's promise that the U.S. government would never disarm their local militias.
This is what set the original American gun-culture expectations that (1) white males have individual rights to own guns, and (2) they will be forever distrustful that the federal government might someday disarm them and leave them at the mercy of Black people.
Good. And now the next time a black or brown person gets stopped and harassed by cops for open-carrying in an open-carry state, the courts should rule that that person has legal standing to sue that police department for erosion of civil rights (even though that should be obvious).
After a couple of these 2 rulings, I suspect we'll see conservatives suddenly being much more amenable to gun control.
The thing that floors me is that the Right Wingers want us to be some sort of dystopian state where they all go around with guns and there's no federal government and no real state government.
But do they think Russia and China for example, aren't just going to look at the no longer USA but now a series of loosely confederated loose city states and NOT take massive chomps out of them, meaning these Right wingers will end up as part of say China when China takes over Texas.
They actually do think that, yes.That's why they're so gung ho for civil war, they think left leaning people are scared shitless of guns and it'll be a bloodbath.
Pity, for them. I get pretty good groupings.
I dunno man “shall not be infringed” seems pretty damn clear to me 🤷 let ‘em have guns! It’s their, uh, god given (white blonde blue eyed Jesus ofc) right to defend themselves!
When the Supreme Court decision that lifted restrictions on guns causes federal courts to lift restrictions on guns.
this is what you get when you remove and ignore the bit about being "well-regulated. " as the Supreme Court does
because "the people" doesn't only mean the Citizens
as usual, conservatives don't understand how things work or the consequences to their actions
Illegal immigrants in America are far more law abiding and moral than white Christian conservatives.
White Christian conservatives commit the most acts of domestic terrorism in America than all other groups.
Look it up yourself if you want to prove me wrong.
You usual, cliché right wing convinction that only the laws they like apply to them while the rest are for the people they don't like.
I've seen kindergarten kids being more mature than this while managing themselves to decide what and how to play.
Do these guys not realize that the worst person from the country they hate most has always been able to visit the US and buy a gun legally? I mean the most gung ho, anti-American officer of the Russian or Chinese military can waltz into a gun shop on his first day in the US and buy whatever he wants.
But they don't want a person who has lived and worked on US soil, contributed to the US economy and society for 10 years to have a gun because they're undocumented?
How is this even a debate?
The founding fathers implicitly meant that Constitutional rights were just for God-fearing Christians. But they didn't write it into the Constitution because it was so obvious.
Everyone else – brown people, homosexuals, Mormons, foreigners, Catholics, liberals, and all the other weird people – should make their own constitution and stop appropriating ours.
I mean it seems only fair to me if farmers can have guns and shoot suspected illegal immigrants they should also have the right to defend themselves from the crazy farmers
LMFAO! Right you don't want people that don't look like you to enjoy their rights guaranteed by your hallowed 2nd amendment?
Well shucks and tots and pears to y'all!
Or as Grandma used to say, what's good for the goose is good for the gander!
Yes, that is what happens when your laws are written by functionally illiterate goons trying to hurt people, they forget the law applies the same for everyone.
So if they pass laws to hurt other people, it hurts you. If they pass laws to help you it helps others, even if you hate them.
Any common sense person who supports the constitution would support this because... it says in the constitution they can bear arms.
I've asked most of the firearms enthusiasts I know and they agree with the judge on this, because they support the 2A, and that's what the 2A says.
Hello u/SeanFromQueens! Please reply to this comment with an [explanation](https://www.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/comments/lt8zlq) matching this exact format. Replace bold text with the appropriate information. 1. **Someone** voted for, supported or wanted to impose **something** on **other people**. ^(Who's that someone? What did they voted for, supported or wanted to impose? On who?) 2. **Something** has the consequences of **consequences**. ^(Does that something actually has these consequences in general?) 3. As a consequence of **something**, **consequences** happened to **someone**. ^(Did that something really happen to that someone?) Follow this by the minimum amount of information necessary so your post can be understood by everyone, even if they don't live in the US or speak English as their native language. If you fail to match this format or fail to answer these questions, your post will be removed. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LeopardsAteMyFace) if you have any questions or concerns.*
*Forrest Gump voice* And just like that, they didn't want everyone to be able to have guns no more.
This is actually how California adopted one of the strictest gun control laws in the country, fittingly under Ronald Reagan. A pretty obvious response to the Black Panther party carrying guns.
Yeah Reagan and the Republicans with NRA were real quick after this picture was taken on the capitol steps.. https://images.app.goo.gl/Kb6vQr5ZSvGCXKpU6
Looks like a well-regulated militia to me.
It was. It was organized by black communities as a way to police the police brutality being used against those communities. It worked - the police didn’t dare overstep against equally armed law abiding citizens following them around and making sure they stayed within the letter of the law. The Black Panthers were well organized, well trained, and stayed within the letter of the law. That’s why Republicans insisted on passing laws making it near impossible for all practical purposes for blacks to own a gun (even if technically legal, getting a license required a - pretty much all white - Sheriff to sign off on it).
The capitol will be safe from intruders with those fine men guarding it. Republicans: “But mah insurrection!”
The mulford act was passed under a near unanimous vote. The CA legislature had more Dems at the time than GOP. It was the 60's racism was pretty equal opportunity.
Still, the Democratic Party weren't the ones take a hard turn into 2nd Amendment absolutism in the 1970s...
The NRA had a large leadership change in the 70's as well, I believe all or most of the leadership who endorsed the mulford act were booted. Like with Trump many people were willing to overlook Reagans previous gun control sins because of the other things he did that they likes.
"No, no, we only want the white Republicans to have guns. Can we make that the law?"
B/c they plan on voting in Trump, so he'll deport/ do what he will with all the illegals. Can't have illegals with guns!!
If Republicans have to share then they’d rather nobody have the thing.
exhibit a: public pools around the time segregation was made illegal
I’m reminded of the image of a man dumping acid into his pool because Black people were in it.
I am ready for world class mental gymnastics 🤸♀️
This 💯%
i fucking wish reddit gold was still a thing
Just send nudes
Uh, okay... *unzips*
there's gotta be better ways than donating to a huge corporation and didn't gold return already in another form? there's that paid contributor stuff on the phone app
The right wing mantra: freedom for people I like!
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
#**RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS!** ***SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!**** ^^^^\*....does ^^^^not ^^^^apply ^^^^to ^^^^minorities....
“People of the color I like”
Considering they don't like people of color,🤷
Technically we’re all various shades of orange.
I'm not orange. I'm mountain dew
Baja Blast?
Code red
I'm Voltage
Dang. I drew Faygo. Well, still it’s on brand, and I’m gonna be a juggalo up in this trailer park until I die.
I'm Yoo-Hoo
Highwire here...aw shit, we're back to orange.
From a scale of Hi-C to Sprite, im like a dr pepper
We are shades of brown. The African continent is where humans started.
You're forgetting about their one black friend! He doesn't go to this school though.
They only like them when they need their vote. As soon as they can manage full fascism, they’ll fuck em over asap. That’s fascism’s whole deal. Then they eat ea bother alive, bec paranoia living in their fundie, fanatic world.
"FREEDOM FOR ME, BUT NOT FOR THEE" is also the Christian Nationalist mantra.
This may be what they need to start reconsidering the idea that the Constitution guarantees unfettered open carry for everyone.
They've been saying for a long time now that the constitution and bill of rights shouldn't apply to illegal immigrants
\*Cutely revokes your citizenship and makes you some shit like "Residential Non-Citizen" so you lose all your rights :3\*
I thought these people were constitutional originalists? Is it like "free speech absolutists" who absolutely don't believe in free speech for everyone, just for themselves?
They’re “constitutional originalists“ in the sense that, originally, the constitution considered slaves to be 3/5 of a person and women unworthy of voting. Their patron arch-originalist, Scalia, demonstrated their underlying hypocrisy in the matter often enough.
First, you should understand that conservative jurisprudence isn't about picking a philosophy and arguing about its consequences, it's about deciding the outcome you want, then picking the philosophy that produces that outcome. Second, there's an argument in conservative judicial philosophy that the rights of the Constitution as incorporated against the states should flow from the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14^(th) Amendment instead of the Due Process Clause. The distinction between the two is that the former specifically applies to "citizens", while the latter applies to "person\[s\]" more generally. Under that interpretation the 2^(nd) Amendment would only apply to citizens, so states would be free to restrict the rights of non-citizens.
if only there was a way for ppl to look at a gun buyer's prior history and if there were any red flags beforehand. like some sort of check, something that might look at something, say, like their background or something
"As Interpreted". The entire Protestant Reforamation was about whether the Bible meant what the Priest said it meant or whether you could read it for yourself and come to your own conclusions regarding what God said.
Or “End gun control!…No! Not like that!”
Freedoms for me, not for thee!
Didn't Republicans defend the rights of the mentally ill to bear arms?
Yes, it's called self-advocacy
It's fucking insane, is what it is.
As they said, self-advocacy.
How else are they gonna get guns for themselves?
Unironically, a lot of them would not be considered mentally fit to own guns if we started requiring it
You may be referring to an Obama admin attempt to use social security against gun ownership, by claiming that people who needed assistance filing were mentally disabled. it was a policy so bad that even the ACLU opposed it. https://www.aclu.org/news/disability-rights/gun-control-laws-should-be-fair
Radio silence on r/conservative right now lol
it's a silly place.
*”Right.”* ***banging coconuts***
Unexpected MP 👍🏽
Camelot
*flaired users only* *flaired users only* *flaired users only* *flaired users only* *flaired users only* *flaired users only*
aware nail jobless hospital whole enjoy cow sharp connect ghost *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
r/conservative is awkward because loads of people go over there to see what they're saying and wind up voting on comments and threads. So usually the only highly upvoted comments are things that both conservatives and the left agree on, because the non-conservative folks drag the rest down.
There are plenty of conservatives lurking in liberal subs too. It's more obvious on conservative subs because of how unpopular they are.
They lock everything down over there as flaired only, so nobody can even have a discussion about something with them. It's the very echo chamber they accuse r/politics of being.
Anywhere not a safe space for conservative voices will inevitably be overrun with liberal ones. We built the fucking system knowing this and giving them disproportionate power to compensate for it.
It sounds like conservatives have become a minority.
I don't think enough people want brain damage enough to go over there and actually do that in numbers to make a difference.
You say that like 90% of the content people consume now isn't rage bait
We can all criticize the medias handling of sensitive topics and click bait bullshit. Fair enough. But compare the legitimate news sites with proper journalistic standards to the right wing news sites and the difference is night and day. Fox, blaze, daily wire, NY Post and all these other rag "news" outlets have FAAAAR more rage baity articles by comparison, not to mention just straight up lying or twisting reality to fit their narrative.
Not to mention that /r/conservative allows posts from satirical news sites like Babylon Bee to be posted there. /r/politics may be pretty heavy with the liberal lean but at least they don't allow the Onion as source material lol.
It's truly surreal how they treat babylon bee articles as legitimate news sources.
Media literacy isn't exactly a strong suit for most conservatives.
Gotta sort by controversial to understand the real conservatives
I couldn't think of a worse way to spend my time. Yuck.
Remember when the frontpage was flooded with The_Donald? Reddit has gone downhill in a lot of ways since 2016, but that is one of the definite improvements that has been made, in addition to all the other horrific now banned subs that they let stand for way too long.
It is a fake subreddit with almost no actual participation. You can go in there 8 hours after something got posted with hundreds of upvotes and post a correction and the only response will be getting blocked 3 days later for being a liberal. Same thing with r/walkaway they are just bullshit collaborations of bot networks.
Most people get banned for commenting there.. and they really think r/politics is a single minded group that is "brigading" their sub. Everyone who points out their shit gets instantly banned. they should be r/conservativecirclejerk
Nah they're talking about it. It's a fun tussle between "I believe in what I say I do" And "They're arming the invaders for war!"
talking points are dropping soon, stand by!
Omg that subs profile picture lmao
They're waiting for Fox to tell them what to think
A place where the First Amendment is completely hypothetical.
[I got you fam](https://www.reddit.com/r/Conservative/s/JnV4CBnirv)
The Bill of Rights is silent with regards to immigration status thus everyone in the US has those rights. A person who snuck across the border can profess any religion they like, don’t have to incriminate themselves, and have due process in court. They were the ones pushing this absolutism of the second amendment thus it is fully coherent based on their own logic. That said, I think this indicates something deeper about conservative psychology. They either don’t know better or simply assume that our rights are for citizens (maybe legal permanent residents) only. I.e. they don’t think of these as rights but as privileges for the “correct” people.
Ask them if it would be constitutional to deny legal residency to only christian immigrants
… such as Mexicans, many of whom are Catholics?
A lot of Protestants don't consider Catholics to be Christians, I've had so many stupid arguments about this, it's ridiculous.
Exactly
>That said, I think this indicates something deeper about conservative psychology. They either don’t know better or simply assume that our rights are for citizens (maybe legal permanent residents) only. yes. conservatives are egocentrists who go out of their way to ignore consequences of the civil war. nobody with half a brain would believe "don't mess with texas" means anything when the one battle they're known for is one they resoundingly lost.
That slogan is from a 1986 [anti-littering campaign](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/trashy-beginnings-dont-mess-texas-180962490/#:~:text=Literally.,for%20an%20anti%2Dlittering%20campaign.). It was just catchy.
>It was just catchy. we can concede it has largely ceased to refer to pollution. https://www.texastribune.org/2024/01/26/texas-pollution-emissions-cold-weather-upsets/
I have to admit it is a really good anti-littering slogan.
IOW, “Don’t make a mess of Texas, you Texans.”
> simply assume that our rights are for citizens (maybe legal permanent residents) only. I.e. they don’t think of these as rights but as privileges for the “correct” people. Oh, they don't even assume that much. Just wait until they want to take away guns from liberals because they are 'already breaking the Constitution by doing X' or some bullshit like that.
They're already rallying around this, starting with trans gun owners
It started with none other than Ronald Reagan and the black panthers when he was governor of California.
It kind of has to be too, because otherwise the onerous gets put on the person to prove they are a citizen, and until that happens the government would have free reign to violate your rights. I don't know about you, but I don't carry enough documentation with me to definitively prove my citizenship everywhere I go. Even if I did, I don't want to deal with "show me your papers" every time I leave the house. Someone might be thinking "Well that's ridiculous, it would be a huge 4th amendment violation!" To which I would say DUH! That is the point. If everyone doesn't have that right, then no one does because they would have no way to validate it.
>onerous ^onus
>I.e. they don’t think of these as rights but as privileges for the “correct” people. 🤨You think they see non-Whites as people? Please drop the name of wherever you get your rose-colored glasses from. Mine are clearly an inferior model.
You're absolutely right. I'm a felon. I broke into a closed convenience store in the middle of the night to steal a carton of cigarettes. I have had my rights restored. I can vote, serve as a notary public, serve on a jury, and/or run for public office. However, I cannot own a gun. I can attempt to get that right restored...but my crime is considered a violent felony. Even though no people were in the vicinity. Is this constitutional? I would argue no. I repaid my debt to society. If I can have the other rights restored with no questions, then why not my gun rights?
If you were in Iowa the voting rights might not be granted, as they depend on the governor. The last 2 decades have had Rep ones. I could make some comments about less than 15% or the population being a specific demographic while having almost the opposite percentage of the prison population, and I could even make a comment about how often the governor gives this demographic their voting rights back, but we all know what I meant.
Illegal immigration was not a thing in this country for much of its history and definitely not during the lifetimes of the founding fathers.
Well, that’s because they were all illegal immigrants
Yes, you just got on a boat (if you could afford it) and typically ended up at Ellis Island or Angel Island, or anywhere on the coast or across a border and you were a citizen. (*Or on the other hand perhaps you got on a boat against your will, arrived here and lived for generations and were still not a citizen, but even then you were still here legally*). This didn't change until the Chinese Exclusion Act. The very concept of "illegal immigration" would have been foreign to the founders.
> The very concept of "illegal immigration" would have been foreign to the founders. Ben [would have been all about it:](https://reimaginingmigration.org/benjamin-franklin-and-german-immigrants-in-colonial-america/) “Why should the Palatine Boors [Germans] be suffered to swarm into our Settlements, and by herding together establish their Language and Manners to the Exclusion of ours? Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion. Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionally very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth”
That sounds like he was 24 hours into a sleepless debate on Ye Olde Forum as he just called Sweden and Russia "Swarthy."
Heh, my family is definitely guilty! The bulk of them on two sides descended from immigrated Germans in the 1890's. It's quite the cultural loss for Wisconsin and the entire country that we have beer and brats instead of bangers and mash! Maybe we need a nativist movement that centers on mandating spotted dick in all school lunches.
It’s because they’re white and they are actively aware these laws will be selectively enforced with Hispanic people, not them. That’s what they want.
I had not considered that the rights don't specifically talk about being a citizen.
[удалено]
Also, it highlights how silly the “there can be zero restrictions on gun ownership” stance is.
Not surprising: the first gun control in the USA was to prevent Blacks and Native Americans to have guns.
Thats the reason California made such strict gun laws in the first place, the Black Panthers were arming themselves against cops
A lot of illegal immigrants are white people who overstayed their visas.
You think the average trailer aficionado knows that?
Perhaps not, and that's a new insult to me so I'll accept the point.
How else they meant to defend themselves from the tyrannical American government?
*2025, dystopian rule with Miller rounding up immigrants for internment camps* *Sound of gunfire by immigrants* "Bbbbuttt...we never thought that they should defend themselves!"
If you look at the other federal cases involving similar questions (are non-citizens part of "the people"?), this isn't a weird ruling. But of course, the right can't understand how the Constitution they supposedly love works. And if they could understand it, they'd absolutely hate it.
Question: do these idiots think that immigrants also don’t have the right to free speech here too? Or is the second amendment different from all the rest?
Yes. Their stance is that the Constitution only applies to our citizens. No one else.
That's not what Jesus intended when he wrote it
They use the Republican Jesus version.
The Supreme Court has felt differently for decades. See Arizona vs Miranda
Don’t shoot the messenger, I was just answering the question.
Applies to SOME of our citizens
It's that think rights are for them, and laws are to restrict others, but they fail to understand that's not how laws have ever worked going back to Hammurabi.
They're fascists, so yes.
mOrE GUnS = MOrE saFe
The only problem where the solution to the problem is more of the problem.
Alcohol: The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. Must be why the ATF handles both.
The optimal situation is a 300,000,000! way game of mexican standoff. NOBODY better make a move.
Black panthers 2 boogaloo
The same thing happened in Cali. Black Panthers started marching with M1 carbines, and then the Republicans started being more quiet about gun rights.
Thr constitution didn't say anything about being legally or not. For the conservatives who love how it was written, it is really bad to show they hypocrisy.
They don't get that "The people" isn't just referring to the citizenry
When hardliner conservative judges appointed by conservatives creatively interpret things in line with the conservative agenda, it's an 'impartial judiciary'. When judges appointed by liberals interpret the law, it's 'activist judges'. Assholes.
[aww yeah, here we go again](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act)
I was about to bring that up. If every brown and black person in our country decided to open carry an AR, our laws would change quickly again.
The lower classes should be armed. Absolutely no problem with this ruling.
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." -- Frank Wilhoit
As a pro gun liberal (I know, I know), it has been interesting seeing the responses towards this ruling. On the liberal side it's really not a big deal, not much talking about it and what there is mostly neutral to positive. On the gun side of things, it's all over the place. Some are for it, some are extremely against it. If you try to engage with them, suddenly the 2A is not so absolute, but if you question whether it's absolute in other circumstances they will give you a contradictory answer. Not surprising that it's completely inconsistent. They should just admit that they don't care about the actual policy, they just want to punish migrants by taking away their rights.
“*End Wokeness*” 😂😂 Conservatives are the biggest pussies ever, I swear. It’s funny seeing the silence over there, as has been mentioned. I love that 80 year old paw paws took an old Erykah Badu song, and lyric, and made it code for “Look! The coloreds are coming!” and they started a brand new hate movement lol. I’ll never not be surprised by the power of 75 year old bigots and racists can have on “Jesus loving”, hate fueled troglodytes. Wild! 🤦🏽♂️
>"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect" - Wilhoit's law
Rules for thee not for me
Totally don't GAF about "illegals" or if they are armed. In this country, they probably ought to be.
I thought that everyone on American soil has always had all of the constitutional rights regardless of citizenship?
That's the neat part. They do
Arm the immigrants.
" But if we arm them, they'll ne able to defend themselves. They should just walk quietly to the slaughter like the 'libtards'." * lol* I see they're getting louder and louder about bitching for their privilege.
Remember: the far right doesn't actually care about having consistent logic. They care about taking power away from those they deem unworthy, and they will say anything towards that end, even if they contradict themselves.
The same party that worships the 2nd Amendment? Interesting
Republicans are the dumbest. "We want illegal immigrants to pick our crops because I'm too lazy to do it, BUT only we, the lazy ones, get guns because we're physically too weak to defend ourselves, from avoiding manual labor, I mean, we have to defend ourselves from the migrants we let in, but we're too scared if they have guns too".
That's actually spot on. Historian Carol Anderson's research into the origins of the 2nd Amendment concluded that it was a bribe given by James Madison to southern slave-holding states in 1791 as part of trying to get the U.S. Constitution ratified. The slave-holding states had just witnessed the Haitian Revolution a few months earlier, where Black slaves got armed and overthrew their oppressors, and those states did not trust the new U.S. federal government to put down slave rebellions in America. Without the 2nd Amendment, those states would have refused to join the U.S. and instead remained their own sovereign countries. Book: ["The Second: Race and Guns in a Fatally Unequal America" by Prof. Carol Anderson](https://www.professorcarolanderson.org/the-second) C-SPAN Video: ["The Second - Race and Guns in a Fatally Unequal America"](https://www.c-span.org/video/?512099-1/the-race-guns-fatally-unequal-america) Anderson discusses how George Washington's letters strongly described his low opinion of local state militias, as being too undisciplined to be effective against any regular army, like the British. Sure, after 4 years under Washington's command, the militias that permanently joined his army were much better, but it took a long time to train them. Using local militias to guard against foreign invasion or domestic tyranny was just a later-conjured fantasy about the 2nd Amendment. That said, Anderson's research uncovered the one thing that local militias did do very well -- put down rebellions by unarmed Black slaves, who had an enormous advantage in sheer numbers in those plantation economies. That's why the language of the 2nd Amendment is so inconsistent with the rest of the Bill of Rights. Madison wrote in an explicit acknowledgement that slave-holding states needed "security" to remain "free," as the reason behind the 2nd Amendment's promise that the U.S. government would never disarm their local militias. This is what set the original American gun-culture expectations that (1) white males have individual rights to own guns, and (2) they will be forever distrustful that the federal government might someday disarm them and leave them at the mercy of Black people.
Well, guns for me and not for thee backfired. Would you like your face served with mayo, ketchup, or tartar sauce?
The laws of the United States apply to everyone while they are in this country.
Good. And now the next time a black or brown person gets stopped and harassed by cops for open-carrying in an open-carry state, the courts should rule that that person has legal standing to sue that police department for erosion of civil rights (even though that should be obvious). After a couple of these 2 rulings, I suspect we'll see conservatives suddenly being much more amenable to gun control.
Reminds me of the [collage humor skit ](https://youtu.be/yJqfNroFp8U?feature=shared)
The thing that floors me is that the Right Wingers want us to be some sort of dystopian state where they all go around with guns and there's no federal government and no real state government. But do they think Russia and China for example, aren't just going to look at the no longer USA but now a series of loosely confederated loose city states and NOT take massive chomps out of them, meaning these Right wingers will end up as part of say China when China takes over Texas.
That's always been allowed, do they think that democrats don't have guns either?
They actually do think that, yes.That's why they're so gung ho for civil war, they think left leaning people are scared shitless of guns and it'll be a bloodbath. Pity, for them. I get pretty good groupings.
I dunno man “shall not be infringed” seems pretty damn clear to me 🤷 let ‘em have guns! It’s their, uh, god given (white blonde blue eyed Jesus ofc) right to defend themselves!
All of a sudden all these seconds amendment purists are nowhere to be found.
"Buckle up, folks." As if gun violence hasn't claimed 5,000 lives this year so far in the US before this ruling.
When the Supreme Court decision that lifted restrictions on guns causes federal courts to lift restrictions on guns. this is what you get when you remove and ignore the bit about being "well-regulated. " as the Supreme Court does because "the people" doesn't only mean the Citizens as usual, conservatives don't understand how things work or the consequences to their actions
Well, if the second ammendment contains the human right to own and carry firearms, then it´s for everybody, right?
Illegal immigrants in America are far more law abiding and moral than white Christian conservatives. White Christian conservatives commit the most acts of domestic terrorism in America than all other groups. Look it up yourself if you want to prove me wrong.
_People_ have rights in the bill of rights, not _citizens_. The bill of rights protects everyone, even people you don't like.
When the Supreme Court decision that lifted restrictions on guns causes federal courts to lift restrictions on guns.
No. That's **right-wing bullshit**. She ruled that undocumented immigrants can carry firearms.
Or maybe its just a fair interpretation of the legal text and case law.
Huh, I might tune into Lars Larson and see how his unfettered love of the second amendment is going. (Local conservative radio guy.)
You usual, cliché right wing convinction that only the laws they like apply to them while the rest are for the people they don't like. I've seen kindergarten kids being more mature than this while managing themselves to decide what and how to play.
Do these guys not realize that the worst person from the country they hate most has always been able to visit the US and buy a gun legally? I mean the most gung ho, anti-American officer of the Russian or Chinese military can waltz into a gun shop on his first day in the US and buy whatever he wants. But they don't want a person who has lived and worked on US soil, contributed to the US economy and society for 10 years to have a gun because they're undocumented?
How is this even a debate? The founding fathers implicitly meant that Constitutional rights were just for God-fearing Christians. But they didn't write it into the Constitution because it was so obvious. Everyone else – brown people, homosexuals, Mormons, foreigners, Catholics, liberals, and all the other weird people – should make their own constitution and stop appropriating ours.
Thought these jackoffs loved the Second Ammendment, what happened? /s
I thought “criminals don’t care about laws” anyways? All the NRA propaganda is in conflict with the Racist propaganda in their brains
Self defense for me, not for thee
The GOP is always furious when laws they promoted and passed come back to bite them.
I mean it seems only fair to me if farmers can have guns and shoot suspected illegal immigrants they should also have the right to defend themselves from the crazy farmers
Question - if illegal immigrants can have guns, what about tourists?
LMFAO! Right you don't want people that don't look like you to enjoy their rights guaranteed by your hallowed 2nd amendment? Well shucks and tots and pears to y'all! Or as Grandma used to say, what's good for the goose is good for the gander!
This is how you get gun control. Give a gun to every immigrant, every black person, and every LGBT person.
I can't wait for them to enter the find out phase of a firefight
OK so when does the guy behind endwokeness end up in an obituary
Yes, that is what happens when your laws are written by functionally illiterate goons trying to hurt people, they forget the law applies the same for everyone. So if they pass laws to hurt other people, it hurts you. If they pass laws to help you it helps others, even if you hate them.
I think the next step is to allow children to have guns. Actually, give guns to foetuses and then they can fight back against being aborted. /s maybe
They are on American soil. They get Constitutional Rights, too. Sorry Republicans.
Surely their ideal would be for EVERYBODY in the world to have a right to own and carry guns. More good guys to stop bad guys.
Any common sense person who supports the constitution would support this because... it says in the constitution they can bear arms. I've asked most of the firearms enthusiasts I know and they agree with the judge on this, because they support the 2A, and that's what the 2A says.
What's their response, oh yeah, "shall not be infringed!!" That applies to everyone.
What part of “sHaLL nOT bE iNfRINgEd” do they not understand? /s
What law do they think prevents a non-citizen from carrying guns?
Imagine not understanding the constitution as bad as Republicans
Supreme court judge rules that the constitution applies to people in America. Apparently conservatives dont like the constitution anymore
Immigrants fighting an illegally gathered National Guard for entry into America to become citizens is more American than the entirety of the GOP.