We're going into the 36th hour of "Turbo Reeee" in the wake of Roe being returned to the states, as well as the 60th hour following the ruling in the NYSRPA vs. New York's "may issue a permit if you make a big enough contribution" case. I don't think I've seen one original thought expressed anywhere in any of the comments - comments that are coming at us as thick as Everglades mosquitoes.
On second thought, I've seen an original thought over at John Wilder's place in his piece, "Over 50 Thoughts About The Supreme Court’s Second Amendment Decision." It's John's thought, though, not the self-anointed experts he gathered.
The post by "Tad Ghostal" isn't in the least bit original, although it may
well be the only proper response to the poster in the picture. The same
basic template has been done with "guns have more rights than women" and a
couple of similar tropes. The original part is John's line at the
bottom. As I told him over on his blog, I think when I was around 20 I
might have paid to see an assault uterus.
Maybe I'm getting too jaded, but I've just seen these same, illogical, emotions-over-facts arguments too many times. Every Single Time a state had voted to go shall issue, or open carry, or constitutional carry, someone drags out the "blood in the streets" argument. Ten minutes with a search engine would show that it hasn't happened once.
Governor Shit-For-Brains in New York even
brought up the stupid, "the second amendment only applies to muskets"
argument! How many times do people have to show examples of guns that weren't muskets and were around when the 2A was written before it sinks in? Naturally, I don't
expect governor SFB to know about puckle guns or other early rapid firing,
self-reloading guns that the founders would have known about (and maybe even
used), but I do expect governor SFB to hire people who will look at her
prepared talks and tell her when she's being an idiot. Maybe someone who
would tell her that the ruling specifically said that the amendment applies to
weapons that weren't known at the time.
As bad as that is, and I'm boring myself writing it, it pales next to the insanity over Roe. We'll be issuing "Handmaid's Tale" outfits to all women who are capable of breeding. Report next week. That sort of argument. Oh, it's not human until we decide it is. Until then, it's a Buick. Or a cucumber. A tumor. Anything other than a person.
Nope. Too much crap. The only sane thing to do is ignore it if you can and ridicule it no matter what else.
Yeah, private ownership and manufacture of alcohol, tobacco, firearms AND explosives. All legal, all moral at the time of the ratification of the Constitution. Suck it, beyotches.
ReplyDeleteAs to "The Handmaiden's Tale," what, precisely, do you think would happen if a virus or other something left only 5% of childbirth age women are fertile? Can you say birth-slavery anyone? Anyone? At least the good leaders of Goliad ratified a system for handling the only fertile women left in order to ensure that the human race won't disappear.
I've used this very argument when arguing with people who think THT is all right-wing evil stuff. And some of them have actually listened and acknowledged that there's some validity there.
And, historically, birth-slavery was practiced all throughout history. Meh.
You've got to admit, this is some pretty awesome Turbo Reeee.
ReplyDelete