1
Fallingshadow 1 point ago +1 / -0

The Constitution says that the Vice President counts the votes. It doesn't say that the Vice President lacks the power to contest the votes. If it's such a dangerous power then just have the states tell the Vice President to fuck off and the result is the same. The Vice President wouldn't be able to contest the votes without cause, nor would he be able to contest the votes forever. The fact that Pence didn't even try is a betrayal.

1
Fallingshadow 1 point ago +1 / -0

There was historical precedence for Mike Pence to overturn the election results. Contested states being overturn has decided the fate of at least two Presidents I can think of -- Jefferson and Hayes. Pence cucked out.

3
Fallingshadow 3 points ago +3 / -0

God understands how foolish humans are, and that their wisdom is but a paltry thing compared to his own wisdom. So the things that seem small or unassuming in the eyes of humanity is what God uses to confound the misguided wisdom of humanity.

2
Fallingshadow 2 points ago +2 / -0

I liked the other religious motivation poster that said, "God why do you keep putting me through these difficult battles?" and Jesus responds "Because you're my greatest warrior." Sometimes, even if the bad times don't make sense to us God is working them for something good.

25
Fallingshadow 25 points ago +25 / -0

I want law and order. I want friends and family and a patriotic community. I want the Constitution to be more than tissue paper to politicians. I want Americans to have a fair shot at succeeding in this system. Sadly, the American dream I'm talking about is either dead or dying.

2
Fallingshadow 2 points ago +2 / -0

It is bullshit. And it's going to end up costing millions of lives in the coming civil war.

4
Fallingshadow 4 points ago +4 / -0

For much is given, much is expected. We're given privileges and powers that we don't know how to use responsibly.

3
Fallingshadow 3 points ago +4 / -1

Stuff like this is why so many men are opting out of marriage. Why get married when it's such a raw deal?

1
Fallingshadow 1 point ago +1 / -0

No she fucking doesn't. If she did then she would know that we want Donald Trump and politicians who genuinely believe in his policies.

3
Fallingshadow 3 points ago +3 / -0

In a free country no one has a right to complain about how you use your guns.

2
Fallingshadow 2 points ago +2 / -0

The difference is that repeating arms DID exist in the time of the founding fathers. Stuff like the automatic air rifle and the puckle gun were already known about, so I doubt very seriously that they would be surprised that we made faster guns. The other big difference is that if you shoot some people with a gun, we don't have to change the geography of the landscape too much and it's easy to clean up after. Nuclear bombs can change the face of civilization in a flash, and is far more difficult to recover from. Weapons, even as dangerous as machine guns and cannons do not wipe out cities in an instant and can be responded to with reasonable force if a bad actor starts using them. Once someone uses a nuke, how do you respond to that in a way that doesn't cause mutually assured destruction?

16
Fallingshadow 16 points ago +18 / -2

I agree with you. I think if we're looking at it from the perspective of "what would the Founding Fathers have wanted", I'd argue that they would have never foreseen something like a nuclear bomb was possible -- and would arguably be horrified that such a thing exists. However, since the Founding Fathers were okay with citizens owning cannons I see no contradiction in the second amendment allowing citizens to own explosives.

42
Fallingshadow 42 points ago +42 / -0

At this point we need a Constitutional Convention that nullifies all gun control. We need to make the second amendment great again. I want automatic weapons, any kind of magazine or attachment I want, and access to explosives. That is what the Founding Fathers would have wanted.

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›