2
Jack_HinsonTN 2 points ago +3 / -1

Pillory them for 4 hours with armed guards and a sign explaining their crimes in the middle of the "refugee" camp. After 4 hours, shoot them and make it clear to all onlookers that this is what happens if you rape.

4
Jack_HinsonTN 4 points ago +4 / -0

Brought to you by Monsanto... just like they pushed glyphosate use and gave people tons of health issues including cancer.

1
Jack_HinsonTN 1 point ago +1 / -0

Probably was. I used to be a Farker, back before Drew Curtis turned it into an utter cesspool of TDS leftist circlejerking. I was one of the people who was responsible for making Quantum Apostrophe ragequit. Odd these days seeing a Fark link.

6
Jack_HinsonTN 6 points ago +6 / -0

"HI, I'm Psaki, and I'm your friend 'til the end! Hidey-ho!" Yeah, that fits a little TOO well.

9
Jack_HinsonTN 9 points ago +9 / -0

MAN THE DEPORT CANNONS! No self-promotion.

1
Jack_HinsonTN 1 point ago +1 / -0

It's funny (and quite enlightening) to read some of the discussions about standing military, who was for or against it and why. Probably my favorite arguments from the time were about tax costs to fund things like military armament. The founders were terrified of taxing people more than the minimum needed- and probably for good reason, since the revolution started over unfair taxation in the first place! They likely were concerned they'd be in serious trouble if they suggested tax hikes to pay for things left and right immediately after people were abused by the British government.

2
Jack_HinsonTN 2 points ago +2 / -0

Simply put: If your country cannot stand on its own two feet unless propped up by funding from a different country... your country simply shouldn't exist.

1
Jack_HinsonTN 1 point ago +1 / -0

The "consequences", as you call them, clarify exactly what the meaning and intent of the particular phrasing of the amendment was. Especially given that they followed immediately on the heels of ratification (barely 5 months between ratification and said "consequences"). It makes it clear that the founders saw that the Militia was a critical structure for the security of a free state, and that an unarmed Militia was a threat to that security. They thus ensured that the people would be secured the right to keep and bear arms and barred any infringement of that right, because the people ARE the Militia when needed. This is precisely why the prefatory clause is important: it provides the ironclad reason why the amendment protects the INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms. Modern so-called "scholars" frequently try to argue that it only protects the right of the active Militia members to keep and bear arms, but thanks to the immediate "consequences" as you call them in the form of the Militia Acts of 1792, we can see clearly that is not at all what the founders thought. They required every person drafted for Militia duty to arm themselves at their own expense from the very first Militia Act, thereby providing a perfect example of the reason why individuals MUST be able to keep and bear Arms. The best part about this is the proximity to the ratification of the Second Amendment. It shows immediately what the founders intended in a way that doesn't leave any room for modern "interpretation" to attempt to water down the meaning via modern "living document" interpretive bullshit.

8
Jack_HinsonTN 8 points ago +9 / -1

Historically relevant, because it shows the way the founders interpreted it less than 5 months after ratifying it. Considering that was how the damn founders themselves interpreted the second amendment in the Militia Acts of 1792, all other interpretations are effectively moot.

5
Jack_HinsonTN 5 points ago +5 / -0

...in Soviet Australia.

13
Jack_HinsonTN 13 points ago +13 / -0

Kinda misses a big part of why the prefatory clause guarantees the individual right however: Militia members are required to arm themselves at their own expense. This is borne out in every Militia Act passed, including the Militia Acts of 1792, passed mere months after the ratification of the Second Amendment. This isn't possible unless people are permitted to own arms in the first place. Since the founders saw the militias as key to the security of the Free state, they HAD to guarantee this freedom or else shoulder a massive cost to arm any Militia that were activated for duty. Taxpayers would have crucified them in 1792 if it were not for the Second Amendment. And funny story: thanks to the Dick Act (Militia Act of 1906) every able-bodied male aged 17-45 is part of the Militia.

18
Jack_HinsonTN 18 points ago +18 / -0

"We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately."

-- Benjamin Franklin

1
Jack_HinsonTN 1 point ago +1 / -0

When hunting for the Rhinoceros

Use bullets made of Platinum

For if you were to use leaden ones...

His hide would surely flatten 'em!

3
Jack_HinsonTN 3 points ago +3 / -0

Oh, the annual Hollywood circlejerk happened again? Who cares. Bunch of people getting awarded for the most gratuitous use of the word "Belgium" in a film.

1
Jack_HinsonTN 1 point ago +1 / -0

Considering where this country is headed, I am heavily invested in Metro 2033 currency.

view more: Next ›