They try to have it both ways, they say that the phrase “well regulated” should be interpreted using a 1700s interpretation, so they say that “well regulated” actually doesn’t refer to regulations, it refers to the militia being “in good working order”. Nevermind that if your “militia” is shooting up schools, it’s probably not “in good working order”.

Then, they want the term “arms” to be interpreted using a modern interpretation, and they want the term “arms” to apply to weapons that can be used to kill or maim entire crowds of people, instead of the single-shot in-accurate muskets that were available at the time.

I, like most Americans, support gun rights with sensible regulations such as background checks and training requirements. It’s also clear to me that this sentence written in the 1700s (the 2a) is being used as a thought-terminating cliche where they think they can just shout “2nd amendment” as if that’s a mic drop and just walk away instead of actually justifying their viewpoint. It doesn’t even come close to covering the complex modern realities.

If these 2nd amendment absolutists really want to take their inconsistent interpretation to it’s logical conclusion, they’re saying that Elon Musk should be able to build ICBMs tipped with nuclear warheads and the government can’t infringe on that right.

Clearly he has the means to do so, and if the 2nd amendment means what they say it means then the constitution protects his right to do so.

Sharing publicly available information is a GDPR violation? Wouldn’t that be on the person who originally made the info public.

The trick is to stop putting plastic on cardboard. I get plenty of packages that have some kind of papery tape on them instead.

In other words… recruiting from MAGA?

That’s a good way to start my work day then because I’m constantly moving from one fire to another.

I get why you shouldn’t use it before bed but why not after waking up? If it keeps you awake shouldn’t it help you wake up?

Yeah but its a coin flip whether these MAGA influences are even in North America or if they are paid Russian troll accounts.

The idea of rules to war might seems strange but I think the idea is that there IS such a thing as a legitimate military objective. For example if the boat IS a legitimate military threat to your nation, you’ve neutralized that threat by sinking the boat.

“Exterminate people you don’t like” is NOT a legitimate military objective, so the second strike is NOT legitimate as the legitimate military objective has already been achieved.

But yes, I think many would agree that the initial strikes were ALSO illegal, it’s just that the administration is hiding behind a declaration that these boats are a legitimate military threat so they create a grey area where they are unlikely to ever be held accountable.

The second strike is blatantly illegal and there’s really no sane defense for that, by defending the second strike they’re essentially admitting to being psychopaths who aren’t behaving like legitimate military leadership.

It’s crazy how many examples there are too, and they aren’t conspiracy theories, just naked corruption. If you bring this up to a MAGA cultist, they say things like “But Biden was the most corrupt president in history”, and then they can’t provide a single coherent example. Sad.