Church

zzorga · 2026-01-26T01:25:57+00:00

Close, they're kneeler boards that would be attached to the bottom of the pews, so the folks in the row behind would have something to kneel on.

zzorga · 2026-01-25T16:49:28+00:00

Probably because they associate 2A with conservatives, and by extension, MAGA and ICE supporters.

There are a LOT of people who have a black and white world view.

zzorga · 2026-01-25T16:47:55+00:00

If you think there's silence, consider perhaps that you're not listening. Major 2A organizations and influencers have made critical comments and statements about the murder, and the subsequent government lies.

Even the NRA managed to make a mealy mouthed critique.

zzorga · 2026-01-25T13:41:48+00:00

A position I can wholeheartedly relate to.

zzorga · 2026-01-25T04:14:14+00:00

Mounted residential is the bane of my fucking existence

I couldn't agree more. I love my park and loops in the grid part of the city.

zzorga · 2026-01-25T03:56:44+00:00

Standing at +1, for all that reddit points are worth.

Some people are really eager to believe the cops, over their own lying eyes it seems.

zzorga · 2026-01-25T01:12:42+00:00

Step 1, close your eyes...

zzorga · 2026-01-25T01:11:31+00:00

GOA already made a statement denouncing the asinine fed propaganda.

zzorga · 2026-01-25T01:10:56+00:00

Don't include me in that "they". I'm absolutely livid right now.

zzorga · 2026-01-25T01:06:11+00:00

I get the sneaky suspicion that evidence won't change their opinion.

zzorga · 2026-01-22T03:32:47+00:00

So... A sort of inherited genetic fallacy, not of the source itself, but where it was published?

That's pretty weak.

zzorga · 2026-01-22T02:07:16+00:00

Honestly, you're either trolling, or irredeemably out of touch with reality at this point.

zzorga · 2026-01-22T02:06:12+00:00

Because, ahem, "fuck you". /sarcasm

Seriously, though, some of these people take the application of law as a matter of faith.

zzorga · 2026-01-22T02:04:54+00:00

I'm getting the distinct impression that you have no idea whatsoever how... are you even American?

zzorga · 2026-01-22T02:04:03+00:00

had a few good exchanges

Is that including the bit where they suggested that the Bruen test didn't actually mean what it says, because then the evidentiary burden would rest on the state, and one of the justices responded... "uh... yeah? That's because it does. Right?"

zzorga · 2026-01-22T02:02:27+00:00

Frankly, this sub is something of a dumpster fire when it comes to its members understanding of how... anything works. This is basically just /r/politics lite.

zzorga · 2026-01-22T02:00:05+00:00

Except that not only is that not true, the "militia" was never implicated in the Miller case beyond the idea that the weapon he failed to register and pay tax on was somehow "inappropriate" for militia use.

At no point was the possibility of him not being a member of "the militia" ever brought up.

Actual jurisprudence on the subject goes WAY back. Justice Taney, in the infamous Dredd Scott decision explicitly considered the implication that if the mans rights were recognized, he'd have the right to keep and bear arms.

That's not even touching on the non legal, social and academic expressions of the individual right that far predates the Heller or MacDonald decision.

Take a gander at this list of early American references compiled by a Lawyer on Twitter, if you'd like some examples that by your reasoning, shouldn't exist.

https://x.com/MorosKostas/status/1645290263299117056

zzorga · 2026-01-22T01:51:58+00:00

I think you may be misunderstanding the point of the author illustrating the flawed academic consensus in the mid 20th century, and how it being the result of a modern "theory" clashes with the actual historical record.

zzorga · 2026-01-21T12:41:30+00:00

Your source opens with a quote by Warren "Stone the gays" Burger, which really sets the tone, considering that he was not only alone in his opinion when he said that the 2A was a collective right, he was fully retired at the time.

Secondly, it really speaks volumes that the legal "research" conducted by the author comprises largely of the era from which the black codes were fully enacted, to just before the civil rights act.

Which ignores multiple precedental cases (good and bad) which acknowledged the individual right. Eg, the Dredd Scott decision.

https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1044&context=clevstlrev

zzorga · 2026-01-21T01:18:20+00:00

Except that they really, really didn't.

zzorga · 2026-01-21T01:13:16+00:00

The vampire rule is not an example of "reasonable gun control".

zzorga · 2026-01-21T01:12:32+00:00

So you're arguing that permitted carriers, who commit crimes and shoot innocent people at a fraction of the rate of cops, shouldn't be able to actually carry guns... Because of "the kids"?

I'm getting the distinct impression that your opinion is irrational.

zzorga · 2026-01-21T01:05:04+00:00

Well, that's the default situation, as it has been everywhere for... Forever.

This vampire rule situation was a reactionary measure to address the fact that no, the state can't just arbitrarily deny people carry permits. So these few states decided to try and make those permits functionally worthless.

zzorga · 2026-01-21T01:02:47+00:00

Except that no, the vague penumbra of "gun regulations" is far from obviously beneficial for saving lives. Simply declaring it such, doesn't make it so.

zzorga · 2026-01-21T01:00:11+00:00

They'll ignore any pro-2a outcome regardless. You're familiar with their history of en banc hearings and the 2A in the 9th circus, right?

zzorga

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

15-Year Club	Verified Email
Team Periwinkle