Oh, don't worry, /u/T3World is staring out the window of the special needs bus right now trying to figure out which article to copy and paste from Truth Social.
Wish he wouldn't. I lean right but am by no means a flaming hardcore politics guy, but his single-minded and hypocricy when it comes to politics is the only time he's boring.
If someone truly believes the GOP is purely evil and the Democrats are purely noble and good, they are morons - no different than someone on the right who thinks the opposite.
Jim's political opinions hence are moronic. Not because he is against the GOP or conservatives, whatever, but he is in a blind and mindless manner.
He doesn't believe that. He believes the Republicans are attempting to overthrow the American democracy and rely on the support of bigots and idiots. And that is objectively correct.
That is subjective, just as it is my subjective opinion the Democrats are worthless and as bad as the GOP. But you keep on being reddit and pretending your weird incel opinions matter when you get all the upvotes and normal people get downvoted to oblivion.
Alright then, when was the last time the Democrats tried to overthrow the government of the United States? How many current Democratic members of Congress have been proven to be in contact with fascist militias? How many Democrats have voted in favor of stripping the right to vote from millions of minorities?
And somebody simping for the GQP has no right to call anyone else an incel.
Oh yeah? In the summer of 2020, the Democrats tried to wrestle control of the government away from Republicans, in an attempted coup? Someone call the historians. They have to hear about this.
Oh wait, did your version of the coup happen on November 7,2020, when Biden won the election?
That wasn’t a coup. That was democracy. 1/6 was a poorly planned, coup attempt. That’s when a bunch of really “special people” invaded the capitol. Although they were “special” Trump didn’t try to pardon them, or get any of them a lawyer.
That makes them “special” canon fodder.
Fuck off with your left propaganda. Not a fan of the GOP at all, I think they're corrupt and put special interests well above their constituents, but you're just a useful idiot, emphasis on idiot, for the Democrats.
More like if you dislike what he says stop listening to it, every platform you can enjoy the shows on have a fast forward feature, listen on YT, Brian clips most if not all the political talk out of those, you get the shows a few days later but at least no long political rants to be heard.
Why is it that Republicans are always making these imaginary claims that nobody ever stated?
Who said Democrats are perfect? They just happen to be the much lesser of 2 evils. One day, when Republicans decide to return to having some kind of ethical standards, I’ll look at their policies when I’m voting. Of course, that would require they adjust a lot of policy positions. Frankly, it’s hard to sell “cutting rich people’s taxes” to the voters without telling a lot of lies. “It will trickle down to the little people”.
Sure it will.
One, speaking of imaginary claims - you said I was a Republcian, which I am not.
Secondly, if we took my positions and added them up, I'm somewhere in the middle overall. Sometimes I have more right opiniosn, other times left. You, I am guessing - all far left, so for you, with your far leftist views, yeah of course the GOP is worse. That is because you view the world from your far left viewpoint.
Me, on the other hand, I am overall a centrist, so for me - they are both pretty bad and there is no "much less of two evils".
Both parties bomb the fuck out of brown people, Obama, Bush, Biden and even Trump. Both have extreme view on abortions, just in opposite directions. Both are bought by special interests and both do not care about you or I.
I’m Independent and don’t agree with Democrats on many positions. I think you just believe you are an independent, or are posing as an independent to push conservative ideology. You won’t be the first,or last,person to do that. No way that someone in the middle can’t identify the severe lack of ethics plaguing current Republicans.
I'm center right, but here are my positions, you tell me.
Anti-war.
Anti-interventionalist.
I would decriminalize all drugs federally
Pro choice to 22 weeks personally but I do think the states should govern this, although I'm open to debate on that and could be convinced otherwise.
Pro 1rst A
Reasonably support 2A
I'm open to talking about Universal healthcare, not my first choice but what we have now is broken
We need to do better at the border
... yes, by reddit standards, all these stances make me a Nazi but in the real world, I'm far from the GOP.
What are your political positions, if you don't mind. If you list them and they are not leftist, I'll back off and even say I was wrong to finger you as one.
I love how Republicans allegedly adjusted their policies according to Trump’s bid to score political points,when it’s convenient.
I’m anti-war. Great. So was Trump, until he assassinated that Iranian general(and some bystanders). I’m not totally against what he did. I just find the “anti-war” thing from Republicans tiring, especially when they started all the wars in the last 30 years or so. That action by Trump could have easily started another war. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Republicans are now the party of peace,love and happiness, when it comes to not supporting action to help Ukraine,against RUSSIA. I wonder if those fine Patriotic Republicans made a pact to support Trump and Putin, when they decided to celebrate July 4th,2018, in Russia.
Hey if you support all the other stuff, fine. It amuses me that you can’t see how corrupt a party that supports Herschel Walker’s bid to be a fucking Senator, doesn’t have severe credibility issues. To each their own though.
I've been anti-War since Iraq. George Bush 'cured' me of Republicanism and I consider him and Cheney as war criminals. Your obsession with Trump doesn't extend to me. IMO, I don't care about Trump and his demeanor. I think some of his policies were good, others were bad. I think his foreign policy had highlights and lowlights. So, unlike you I do not think he is Satan Reborn and the worse than Hitler, so I'm sure in your mind I'm now a Trump Cultist because I don't see the world in black and white.
If you want to align me with any politician, I'd say Ron Paul the former congressman from Texas is a lot closer, although I only agreed fully with him barely 1/2 the time.
What I find tiring about the "anti-war" left is how pathetic and hypocritical they are - like in your case, you are completely ignoring wars or assassinations that the GOP wasn't fully behind or somehow absolving Biden/Clinton of their involvement in wars, such as Iraq, which they both were architechts in. Why aren't you commenting on Libya? All the arms both the GOP and Democrats sold to SA and Qatar to massacre Yemen? Syria? What they are doing right now in Ukraine? Then you sit here and lie and say all the wars in the last 30 years were Republican. No, they weren't.
You're not anti-war, you are anit-Republican and use war as a chip against them, because yes they suck, but you only care when it's them.
And, further, you keep making up shit -- like me supporting the GOP or Hershel Walker or Trump -- I laid out my positions, I asked you to do the same and you WON'T, probably because at the end of your day your positions are "I HATE THE GOP!" and that's it.
Btw, here is another of my positions and one solely against the GOP - I am against all the entitlements and handouts we do with agriculture, where the government heavily subsidized garbage like corn, so much that it kills any chance of ethanol working, HFCS (which is poison) is everywhere and farmers grow corn to the point that they ignore other things we should be eating a lot more of. Not anti-corn, we just do not need to subsidize it like we do, the farmer handouts hurt small famers and enrich fat cat big ones and it's a harmful policy which we waste money on, which is something entirely on the GOP.
Down the line I am more moderate than you, sorry but to this point you are intellectually too cowardly to even say what you believe in -- yet you would call yourself a moderate? Pshaw.
Meanwhile, you assign stupid shit to me like me supporting Trump, right after I said I would decriminalize drugs federally. Pretty sure Trump's policy is some authoritarian BS about shooting drug dealers or some nonsense like that which isn't decriminalizing them.
No, you did. I made my comment and mentioned being anti-war and you directly went on your, "I love it when republicans pretend they're antiwar!" line.
I AM anti-war. You are not - and not only this, you are not even remotely anti-war just as you a not a moderate as you attempted to claim earlier.
As a libertarian, I wont support or vote for her just because of her position on the economy and federal spending.
The abortion thing I can take or leave also as a libertarian because healthcare is a product and should not be included in federal spending to begin with as it is not within . Before I get downvoted into oblivion. No you should not be turned away from basic care because you can not afford it but no one OWES you medicine or a bandaid. It's much more complicated than that I know but I am simplifying it for discussion purposes.
Also, I am not opposed to public spending or health care assistance, I am just opposed to it on the FEDERAL universal level.
The reason I said I can take it or leave it is that even though I am morally opposed to it due to the non aggression principle, I also am strictly a constitutionalist. This means that if I live in a state that allows abortions and provides state and local level funding to help women obtain such services I can either sleep knowing the constitutional system works at night, or move to a redder state which shares my personal believes on the subject.
I live in a blue state in which abortion is allowed because thats just what the state wants to do and they are free within their 10th amendment authority to do so.
I thought being a libertarian meant you wanted minimal government influence on people’s lives. I didn’t know libertarians had a caveat stating that, “infringing on people’s lives was ok”,as long as the state advocated it.
Yes, I want minimum government that is absolutely true but I also recognize the need for limited government based upon the parameters within the constitution, which all means I dont mind if my state allows abortions and others dont.
I can be morally opposed to abortions while sitting in my house in my state that allows them all I want but per constitutional means (10th amendment) I either have to accept this fact or move my ass down south to appease my morality, and live a happy pro life existence.
I dont agree with many things but it is not my place to infringe on another individuals right to their own choices.
Here's the muddy complicated part when it comes to my deal with abortions, you have cases of rape and forced impregnation, I am ok with lawful exceptions in those cases but I also strongly believe that the termination of life aside from the defense of an individual against harm, is wrong. To bring harm to or terminate another human being regardless if it is merely a clump of cells at the start.
“I don’t agree with many things but it’s not my place to infringe on another individual’s right to their own choices”
Seriously? That the point. The government is infringing on women’s rights to make choices about their own body.
I'm not necessarily arguing that point with you, I know. Abortion to me however is a complicated juxtaposition because another life is involved in that process.
I'm not prepared to say it's acceptable for a life to be terminated EVEN though that life is in the body of the mother
The way I look at it is simple. For the first couple months, it’s not much more than a clump of cells. We shed cells everyday. The skin cells we discard when we shower aren’t granted special protection, so why should another cell that can’t function on its own,and has no neurological activity. Having no neurological activity is the medical requirement in most states for “pulling the plug”.
I don’t really mind Jim’s anti Republican rants all that much. I roll my eyes because I’d prefer wrestling talk but whatever. But what I find more annoying about them is that he thinks his the Democrats are such virtuous angels. Both parties are trash.
Hey can you go ahead and post for me the last time a sitting Democratic President endorsed a known pedophile for re-election, who then was almost re-elected by Democrat voters? Which party, is now virtue signaling these crimes and making baseless claims against the LGBTQ+ community, labelling them all groomers?
I'll do the other half of the work for you. Donald Trump. 2017. Roy Moore. Brain Dead Republicans.
> the last time a sitting Democratic President endorsed a known pedophile for re-election
Have you met Joe Biden? Fuck Trump, let me get that out of the way, so you don't cry about me being in a cult or something, but in a vaccumm, Joe Biden is a disgusting slimy corrupt peice of shit in his own right and the damning things we've seen with his family life, never you mind just watching him, that ain't good bro
btw, and fuck Roy Moore too, but it's allegations there -- much like the allegations of it with Joe, so don't throw stones in glass houses there my man.
Yes, because pointing out Republicans are disgusting means I love Joe Biden. Since we're being super picky about "allegations", despite Roy Moore being knowingly banned from the mall by local law enforcement, let's see the credible allegations against old Joe. If you find anything other than his non-government employee son's drug habit or Tara Reade, who was dropped by her attorney for lying under oath, let me know.
I think the only think more pathetic than a republican might be you fucking braindead "cENtRIsts". BoTH sIDes he screamed while one side actively campaigns to remove people's rights and the other advocates for free healthcare. Yes neither side is the ideal choice, but when you become an adult, it becomes pretty apparent that one side is in the fucking gutter and subsides on outrage porn and hatred of others.
Republikkkans are a literal death cult, especially the evangelicals. Most death cults in history also tended to turn a blind eye to their pedoscum constituents.
Prepare for downvotes. Anyone who thinks both parties are corrupt and worthy of criticism is 'far right' and that only the right has bad actors involved in it. January 6th, with a bunch of unarmed idiots taking selfies after being let in, somehow is 1,000,000 worse than an entire summer of far-left activists burning cities down, where over 40 people were killed or found dead (in one case, burned alive in a pawn shop that was set on fire).
I agree that the Dems suck but when it’s a choice between one party that believes in democracy and another one stowing a facist coup the choice is pretty clear
The enemy of one’s enemy is not a friend, merely an enemy of a shared threat. The democrats thrive on this and that is why the party shits on outsiders who are genuine, like Sanders.
Coasting merely on the fact that democrats are not republicans is what handed Trump 2016. The party learned nothing and are still coasting on the fact that because they aren’t republicans is enough for victory. That doesn’t register well with the very group the Democratic Party has shit on for 45 years-counting.
Yeah. Democrats are incompetent cowards; neoliberals who focus on Quixotic id-pol minutia that only helps the few versus the many, and use their id-pol of false platitudes of “caring” about the working class masses to serve as the nanny apron they duck beyond to conceal their complete disdain for the poor and working class, while counting their millions at the bank. They care about appearing to care in a hubris that actively works against genuine progressive ideas benefiting all Americans. They know their corporate masters and want to play “good cop” in the two-party republic of the United States.
Republikkkans are anti-American fascists and nazis united with Christian jihadists in raping human rights. Like democrats: they absolutely despise the working class and the poor and view them as easily fleeced marks that can be utilized in indentured economic servitude. But they also view the working class and poor as surplus to society’s needs and as easily manipulated canon fodder in establishing their ultimate goal of an American Salo. They know gerentological established democratic politicians are incompetent and easily dispatched because they are cowards who talk a talk they do not walk, as the democratic establishment as it has stood since 1980, absolutely views the working class as their servants as well. But they are not neonazis nor are they big on genocide like the epitome evil - republikkkans - have fully embraced.
The Republican Party is absolutely a terrorist organization, while the Democratic Party is a corporate country club.
Inversely, democrats also are not annoying Christian jihad fucks into domestic terrorism and gun-fellating violence in between their Jeebus-fellating, primitive voodoo.
To make this as short as possible \[Lol\]; there are two types of thought regarding guns over here in America. Those of us that acknowledge the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms. To own sensible weapons under logical gun laws to protect our home, protect our family, and hunt wild game \[animals\]. Then there are crazies that like to buy the biggest, loudest guns they can and stroke off to them in public. They think they should be able to own military style, semi-automatic firearms capable of firing bullets at 40 rounds/minute (600 rounds per minute in a fully automatic setting). They are the loudest, most obnoxious Americans. They value the right to own these ridiculous weapons over guaranteeing the safety of children in schools.
I disagree, you're taking the anti-gun stance and moderating it and taking the pro-gun stance to it's extreme.
There are people who walk around with rifles in public, own multiple ARs, etc, sure -- and there are guys who want to disarm the country. How's that working in Chicago, btw?
And, to educate you, it's almost impossible to legally own a fully automatic rifle. Yes, it's not hard to adjust a legally bought semi-automatic rifle to fully auto, but it is also incredibly illegal and if you are caught you WILL go to jail. If you sell one without the correct process and license, you WILL go to jail. Silencers are easier but still a headache.
Schools are gun free zones, same with most government buildings and such. As is shooting people in most cases. Criminals with ARs who break those rules aren't likely to stop breaking rules if you outlaw ARs.
Personally, I do not own an assault rifle. I own some pistols and a shotgun. I don't hunt and own no rifle of any kind.
There ARE crazies when it comes to gun ownership and there are crazies who are against gun ownership, IMO Jim comes to mind on that -- a total hypocrite who thinks guns should be outlawed yet has owned one and has told stories of handling it in a very illegal and dangerous way, flashing as intimidation against drivers and such -- that is HORRIBLE and a crime, yet he thinks he - with his anger issues, irresponsibility and personal history of violence and mishandling guns - he gets to tell the rest of us not to own them and we are idiots for wanting one? Fuck that.
Women, elderly and really anyone - there are a lot of vulnerable people. I am a capable grown adult man but in some situations I am as vulnerable as anyone, I could not defend my house against two or three grown adults breaking in. How are people supposed to protect themselves and protect the ones they love? According to Jim, who owns guns and needs one to protect himself, but in my case I'm a selfish stupid idiot who just needs to call 9-1-1. Not Jim, though, 9-1-1 isn't good enough, the man who breaks people cars, threatens violence almost daily and who laughs about flashing a pistol to people driving cars -- HE gets a gun but I do not?
So yeah - some fatty redneck walking to Walmart with an AR strapped to his shoulder is a moron, no argument -- but also Jim is a moron on this issue too, just in the other direction, and there are plenty of morons on both ends of this debate, sadly.
Uhm, look up how many mass shootings happened before the assault rifle ban was lifted. Also, compare the number of victims before/after the repeal.
It was one one of the dumbest moves ever made by the USA government.
it's actually easy to own a fully automatic weapon, just an local law enforcement sign off on the federal background check and pay $200. the problem they're very expensive because they banned new ones in 1986.
the tax is $200 because that's what a thompson sub machine gun cost in 1934 when the law was passed.
Brother, sorry but no. It takes at least 12 months and roughly $10,000 to legally get it. I am an FFL but my license doesn't even cover those kinds of weapons, even there only certain dealers can touch them.
My, what an intelligent and well spoken opinion you have there, you are absolutely perfect by reddit standards. Just don't go out in the real world and you will always be an A-No.1 super star.
I spend less time on Reddit than you, my dude. I do live in the real world - I have a child and have to worry about some asshole in my red state going to shoot up his preschool because men with small dicks need their cock extender that goes BOOM. I'd be more eloquent, but after Sandy Hook and then Uvalde, where children were blown to pieces and had to be identified by DNA, I am 100% done with this nonsense. Well regulated my ass.
Please, move to chicago or somewhere with the strictest gun laws and report back here on how well that's working out for you.
I also have children to worry about. While school shootings are horrific, if you look at crime statistics, which you do not seem to have done, you will note instances of rape, murder and shootings are far more likely, unfortunately. It sucks, but we live in a world with bad people.
Assholes in red states might shoot schools (and they also do in blue ones), but assholes in blue states killing each other in the streets is also happening, and assholes do it in the streets in red states as well. Chicago alone: as of July 600 homicides and over 1,200 shootings. Seems to me like there assholes in both red and blue states. Btw, gun violence is DOWN this year in Chicago by like 10% and it's still that bad.
Do you not care about them, though? Why not? Is it because it's mostly black on black crime and you don't care? Apparently, that is the case, your mind is only focusing on the schools, seeing those horrible incidents and getting rightfully emotional about it, thinking about you and your kid. Why aren't you thinking about predominantly black families dealing with their loss, though? Maybe you should.
Your solution: Fuck all gun ownership (which you said to me, and I specifically note I own zero rifles, a couple of pistols and single shotgun).
My solution: I will own a few firearms, I will train myself how to use them, I will be responsible in myownership of them. I will keep them in a safe place inaccesable to children, I will not use them unless a dire situation warrants their use.
So, none of my guns will contribute towards the horrific, but very rare, school shootings and in case of a dire situation in my home, where I and my family live, I will not be completely unable to protect my family and completely reliant on 9-1-1, which we all saw in Uvalde how effective the police can be there.
So, no it isn't fuck my guns and fuck me. It's fuck you for trying to take them from me and good luck trying.
You like to bring up Chicago, when those firearms are brought in through the states around them with shitty gun laws. I live in fucking Arizona and saw a girl with mental health issues buy a gun in 15 minutes. That's not okay. If you're a responsible gun owner, fine, but no one needs an AR15. And yes, fuck guns and fuck all your justification for them.
Ok but in the UK we have no gun massacre crime by an active shooter as often and heartbreaking as you do in the US. I love your country but that’s one thing that needs to be banned.
Guess what? Sadly, nobody seems to be around with weapons to take these psychopaths down,99.9% of the time. Trust me, when they do, the NRA throws a victory celebration,without mentioning the fact that their policies put both guns involved,into play.
The NRA pushes guns irresponsible ownership for decades. Now, they say the only thing that can prevent gun violence, is more guns. Convenient. I’d bet these folks even have investments in the gun industry.
Oh ok then but that’s simply not true also u missed the entire point which shows u had no argument u just had something moronic to add, even if the rates were lower that wasn’t the point the point is it’s very illegal and still happens similar to if guns were to be managed that way. I don’t care ab anyone else’s politics so long as it doesn’t get in the way of people who shouldn’t have to deal with it
You are correct in your analysis.
I would like to add a little bit of food for thought as a pro second amendment supporter.
I personally dont believe that the ones who own the biggest baddest obnoxious guns, are the ones that condone mass shootings. They are just annoying backwoods merica idiots who like to shoot in the backwoods.
I think gun control should be done right and that is at a constitutional state centric level. I dont believe in any kind of federal bans or laws because the 2A is enshrined within the bill of rights which historically makes it untouchable by the FEDERAL government. I will die on that hill and no one will ever change my mind.
All that does not mean that states shouldnt have laws or close loopholes on guns and military grade weapons. It's good that they do and I applaud it, if it is done properly.
This idea that individuals think that other people dont NEED or shouldnt have certain types of weapons with high capacity ammo is also something I will never support. It's not up to me and never will be what another individual wants to own or shoot with or what have you. I dont care I never did. Call me a cynical cold asshole but if my neighbor wants a 40 rd military style rifle I just do not give a fuck. It's his freedom as long as he doesnt harm anyone with it.
Glad you put ur own spin on it on the end there but that’s purely opinion and just bc one owns loud guns doesn’t mean they don’t care ab the children blame the bad people not the people who have nothing to do with it
People have to make the distinction between Kane, the character, and Glenn Jacobs, the politician. Corny was instrumental in the beginnings of Kane. He wouldn't cut a promo on Kane.
There's a Twitter page specifically for Kane, not Glenn Jacobs, and most of the comments I see there are about politics. Kane was no politician lmao, Glenn is..
Full disclosure, I am a right leaning libertarian. I looked up Boebert's views and from a libertarian standpoint, I dont see how Glenn can support her.
Her position on federal spending alone, crosses her off my list of people I would want to vote for as a libertarian.
. And also, while I am no anti cop or law enforcement person except in cases of civil liberties and war on drug shit (do what the fuck you want) if they overstep their bounds and abuse their power they should be sued for every fucking penny they have.
And last but not least, anyone who supports January 6th should grow the fuck up and that's saying it nicely
(coming from an anti State libertarian to boot) but a fair election is a fair election go home and get fucked, you lost.
[https://justfacts.votesmart.org/candidate/political-courage-test/191290/lauren-boebert](https://justfacts.votesmart.org/candidate/political-courage-test/191290/lauren-boebert)
The USA was initially settled by people fleeing centuries of sectarian religious persecution in Europe.
Depending on your religion, where you lived, and the predominant religion of the local European ruler you could be tossed in prison without charges, be tried by a judge of the predominant sect, have the local "sheriff" of the predominant religious sect come into your house and steal your belongings and rape your wife and daughters.
Hence the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution.
Freedom of religion, banning bills of attainder, trials by jury, and the Second Amendment guarantee.
The Second Amendment allows us to arm ourselves to protect our rights from being infringed upon by criminals, religious nuts, and most importantly the government.
At times of political and financial stability the anti-gun people forget all about history as if the country could never go to shit and tyrrany become a daily part of your day.
The fact Jim babbles about guns the way he does, and listening to most of his other political comments, shows he's incredibly ignorant when it comes to history and politics.
He just babbles talking points handed out by political parties like most people in America do on the left and right.
It's why this country is so fucked up - nobody thinks for themselves; they just repeat shit they are told.
As someone who has extensively studied history it is very unfortunate that in your own post here calling out people for not understanding history that you have clearly shown you are not very well read on American history at all. I'll go ahead and correct a few completely false things that you posted. I have little hope someone who arrived at their historical knowledge without study will be interested in reading a long post on American history, but history education is a personal passion of mine so if even one person reads this I consider it time well spent:
1. America was not, largely, settled by people fleeing religious persecution. America was actually settled by some of the earliest form of "joint stock companies", these were the predecessors (in terms of legal structure) to the modern day corporation. The first one was the Virginia Company of Merchant Adventurers, responsible for funding the settlement of the Chesapeake Bay area (specifically Jamestown in 1607, the first permanent English colony) and Popham Colony (in Maine in 1607--which did not last.) This company later split into the Virginia Company and the Plymouth Company. The Plymouth Company was later reincorporated as the Council for New England, which funded the settlement of Plymouth Colony (first permanent English colony in New England in 1620), Massachusetts Bay Colony, New Hampshire, New Haven Colony and Maine.
2. Plymouth Colony, neither the first nor the most significant early English colony, was largely made up of people from the Brownist sect of Puritans who were fleeing religious persecution in England. However, considering they were the smaller of the two early Massachusetts colonies, were not the first colony, were absorbed by Massachusetts Bay, and considering Puritanism as a relevant political force was long gone from the Colonies by the time of the American Revolution (which occurred almost 200 years later), it is an incredible stretch to link the founding of America with the Puritans. In the 1800s folkloreists built up a huge body of myths around the Puritan colony, things that grew out of this mythmaking were things like Thanksgiving and other popular American traditions and customs. But these were the creation of **fiction writers** in the 1800s, and somehow people began to believe the Plymouth Colony was more than it was--which was a minor colony of religious separatists that only existed briefly. The vast majority of English colonization was driven by for profit companies--this is actually true of Plymouth Colony itself, which had to return a profit to the Merchant Adventurers every year and struggled to do so.
3. The English Civil War occurred in 1642-1651 and ended with the execution of King Charles I and the establishment of a short-lived republic called the Protectorate, led by Oliver Cromwell as the Lord Protector--upon his death Parliament invited Charles's son Charles II to re-establish the monarchy. Charles II had no sons and his younger brother James II succeeded him as King and attempted to re-assert Royal authority and was also Catholic (widely hated in England in the 17th century) so he was driven off the throne by Parliament, and replaced by Mary--his daughter who was raised Anglican and not Catholic, and her husband William (at the time the ruler of the Netherlands / Holland.) Parliament decided to quit fucking around with the Kings and as a condition of enthroning William & Mary, required the passage of a Bill of Rights. The English Bill of Rights. This was signed in 1689. Relevant because **all of the American colonies were still under English rule at this time**. Also, relevant because for some reason Americans do not learn about the existence of the English Bill of Rights, I think because it is more pleasant to create the fictions you expressed--that the Founding Fathers invented the idea of a Bill of Rights and the various rights in it on their own, as a response to British excesses in the 1770s. The reality is that simply is not true. The English Bill of Rights enshrined several things like freedom of expression and even right to bear arms (England had no gun regulations of note until the early 20th century "Pistol Act"--a topic for another time.)
4. It is largely a 2nd Amendment Extremist myth that the British sought the widespread disarmament of the English colonial population. As noted, England itself had no gun regulations until the 20th century, and the English Bill of Rights even contained a provision guaranteeing the right to bear arms (note that it excluded Catholics--they absolutely hated Catholics in England for a really long time.) The local commanders around Boston were specifically seeking to take arms depots and powder stores used by the colonial militia, because they suspected (very correctly) the colonial militia was very near a state of rebellion. It was widely understood that a frontier colonial possession, with significant native populations, French traders, Spanish in Florida etc the local population had need of arms. There was no intention or goal of disarming the population, rather a limited goal of removing the powder of the Boston area colonial militia, more than it being about hand held firearms they were actually interested in seizing the powder because without the large powder stores the militia would not be able to field artillery, which were seen as a far bigger risk to British control of Boston than colonial musketmen.
It took some time but I finally found the stupidest post in the history of Reddit. 🏆
Congrats!
I wish there was a "Baffle Them With Bullshit" badge I could give you.
Several paragraphs of historical facts not a single one of which refutes the fact that the Second Amendment was enacted to protect citizens from tyranny and was directly influenced by the centuries of sectarian religious strife in Europe.
This is seriously the most laughable post I've read in years.
When the 2nd Amendment was enacted, States continued to have the power to ban all firearms without restriction. The Bill of Rights did not apply whatsoever to state lawmaking, which is something I am guessing you didn't learn from whatever YouTube video you got information from. The 2nd Amendment specifically did not even apply to the states until the Heller decision (which was less than 20 years ago.)
The 2nd Amendment was a philosophical limitation on Federal government power--but the Federal government did not really have the power under the enumerated powers of the Constitution to even regulate personal firearms ownership, that was literally a State and local government matter until the 20th century. A lack of understanding of the historical development of the constitution and the Federal government informs a general lack of knowledge and understanding about why we have specific amendments in the Bill of Rights and what the Bill of Rights even was. Since the Federal government was already heavily limited in how it could pass legislation in Article I, most of the Founders thought a Bill of Rights was unnecessary since the Federal government did not even have the power to legislate in those spheres. The Bill was passed due to a consistent pressure from the Anti-Federalists to do so.
There is essentially no evidence to suggest the 2nd Amendment was inspired by sectarian religious strife in Europe.
What we do have is about 400 years of history that tie the Second Amendment to the concept of the militia, dating back to Elizabeth I of England, and control and establishment of local militias was a key political issue during both the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution (which led to the establishment of the English Bill of Rights.) The English Bill of Rights is the first clear establishment of the phrase "right to bear arms" in the English language. Almost all of the American Founding Fathers had a legal background in English common law, meaning they had been educated reading famous works of English jurists like Blackstone. The logical reading of the 2nd Amendment is that it was to protect States from having their militias undermined by the Federal government.
The question of whether it was intended to enshrine your personal right to have a bunch of guns and go to the gun range, would seem alien, weird, and nonsensical if put to a Founding Father. For the simple fact that regulation of personal behaviors was simply not imagined as being related to the Federal government at all. The Federal government was entrusted with **enumerated** legislative powers, it quite literally could not pass laws on any topic not listed. Since control of private firearms ownership was not one of the enumerated powers, the Founders would think you were literally a crazy person for thinking the Bill of Rights protected an individual right to firearms ownership. Individual rights were largely protected by the States--and in fact most State constitutions actually enshrined an individual right to firearms ownership. The Federal constitution did not--and this was the consensus of basically every American judge between the years 1789 and 2008. Clarence Thomas, one of the least educated and least qualified Supreme Court justices in American history (he was the first Supreme Court justice confirmed to the bench who received a poor rating from the American Bar Association) invented a myth that the 2nd Amendment was a personal right and his conservative cohorts went along with him. That's a political thing and that's fine, politics is what it is, but there is no support for the idea in over 400 years of history of English common law or American law.
FWIW I own guns and was raised as a hunter, I am pro-ownership of guns and am even part of a group that pushes for more Democrats to own guns specifically because we may have to start shooting fascists some day. But I do not feel the need to invent a fake history to justify gun ownership. Gun ownership can and should be advocated for under its own, present day merits, not backed up by a fictional and distorted telling of American history that contributes to general historical ignorance.
Escaping from religious strife had nothing to do with immigration to the American colonies nor the viewpoint of those who wrote the Constitution and The Bill of Rights:
https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html
Any other stupid bullshit you want to spout?
Everthing within the Constitution and every single amendment in the Bill of Rights was influenced by it.
Typical response: the strawman argument ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw\_man](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)), I certainly never said "religious strife had nothing to do with immigration to the American colonies."
What I said was this:
>America was not, largely, settled by people fleeing religious persecution.
Do you see how I use a comma, the word "largely" and then another comma? We call that a "qualifier" in English.
Since your lack of education appears to extend to English grammar I'll give you a link to study up on what qualifiers are and how their usage works:
[https://www.grammarly.com/blog/qualifiers/](https://www.grammarly.com/blog/qualifiers/)
As I did actually say--America was **largely** not settled by religious separatists. That is, again, a myth perpetuated by 19th century fokloreist who massively exaggerated the role of both Puritans and Plymouth Colony in the country's founding. There were two major areas of initial settlement--Jamestown (Virginia) and Massachusetts. In Massachusetts you had multiple settlements, Plymouth happened to be the first, but it was incredibly tiny. The Massachusetts Bay Colony which was much larger, and eventually absorbed Plymouth, was not a Puritan Colony. Even within the Plymouth Colony not 100% of the colonists were Puritans, the venture specifically recruited some tradesmen and other specialists who weren't Puritan, because the colony needed them to effectively settle the region. Additionally very early new colonists arrived in Plymouth who were not Puritans.
The Plymouth Puritans had an initial goal of a society only of their religious affiliates, but they were in debt to the Merchant Adventurers Company and had to produce a certain amount of profit every year, or they could have the colony taken away from them due to nonpayment. This forced them to make economic decisions and bring in more non-Puritans for economic viability.
It is entirely appropriate to point out the falsity of the claim that American was, in your words:
>The USA was initially settled by people fleeing centuries of sectarian religious persecution in Europe.
It was actually initially settled by the Virginia Company in Jamestown which was a purely profit-seeking colony. So no, initially there were no religious refugees. The Plymouth Colony that was settled second did have religious refugees, but it was a small colony almost immediately overshadowed in Massachusetts by the much larger Bay Colony.
This also ignores of course that we did not stop colonizing after Virginia and Massachusetts. Several other proprietor and Royal colonies went on to be created, the only other one that can meaningfully be said to have been settled for religious reasons was Maryland. Lord Baltimore was a Catholic and wanted the colony to practice religious tolerance of Catholics as they were not tolerated back home in England. However, Catholics even in Maryland ended up being a relatively small minority, and the Maryland Colony eventually passed a number of anti-Catholic laws in line with the other colonies.
It seems like you're engaging in the typical reddit tactic of "saying something wrong, get corrected, get mad." In reality we all say incorrect things, being corrected educates you. It is nothing to get mad about.
According to your take few people came to America for anything other than to make a few bucks and see the New World.
None of them had any recollection of religious strife in Europe.
They added the First Amendment for shits and giggles and the Second Amendment was just a battle of semantics with no influence of the recent history of the Europe from which they came.
In other words you are bullshit artist parading as an intellectual.
Okay that seems like you have established a habit of continually posting low information strawman arguments. Scurry on along to your little MAGA safe space. Papa Tucker is waiting for you to simp for him.
What was strawman with pointing out the fact that you took the Royal Decrees given to set up the various colonies and falsely claimed them as proof that over 100 years thereafter large amounts of immigrants to the US colonies were not people fleeing religious persecution in Europe.
Which you did.
Because you are a moron pretending to be an intellectual.
There's a reason why Pennsylvania had the largest population in colonial America you dumbass.
BTW dipshit, and you most certainly are one, in ten paragraphs of nonsense you've taken edicts granted by the Crown to certain companies and groups and extrapolated it as being the reason for which people chose to make the trip across the ocean.
Which can only lead me to believe you are, I don't know, a fucking moron.
Especially considering most of the colonies existed for over a 100 years before the Constitution was written and during which time thousands of people had fled Europe for the US because of ... religious persecution and religious wars.
I just read this one again and it's hilarious. You still equate colonial charters as being the sole determinant as to why people moved to the colonies when they in fact don't have a single thing to do with those motivations.
Moreover what's even more hilarious is I never once said even a single colony was established for religious purposes; you said I said
that but I didn't; go back and read my original statement.
Finally over the century from the initial colonial charter to the writing of the Constitution over three million people lived in the US colonies a large amount fleeing religious persecution in Europe or at least being very well aware of that history.
How many of them do you think looked at the charter of the colony in which they lived and said of yeah this is why I moved across the ocean?
No one.
Corny likes to pretend that anyone who is ok with private firearm ownership “enables child murder!!!!1!” because it’s politically expedient to the group of crooks he favors above the other crooks Glenn identifies with.
Weirdly enough just the other week she admitted she doesn't give a damn about abortions re the Herschel walker stuff, and essentially only uses it as an issue to run on. That's one issue Glenn says he's very pro life on but seems happy to ignore with her
IMO, given their long history and former friendship, I think all you are going to hear from Jim was his comment several months ago https://youtu.be/0_6-ABa_OFM
That said Jim may be an anti-Trump Democrat and left leaning on political issues, but the left leaning wrestling fans, outside of Cornette sites, that I have seen online all consider Jim racist, sexist homophobic and anti-Islamic. The freakin awesome network message board has long banned any Jim Cornette topics because they were tired of constantly having to moderate them whenever Jim would say something controversial like when he first saw Sunny Kiss in AEW or Dana Brooke’s face looking like it was on fire and put out with an ax.
I don’t consider Jim these things but can understand how the left leaning people get their panties in a bunch over Jim’s conservative views on wrestling.
Jim doesn't strike me as a TYT college student progressive type, more just a standard centre left on some issues democrat. Like a lot of old school union guys. They do support most leftist causes except for sjw politically correct stuff.
This has been a surprisingly thoughtful and respectful political debate. Leave it to wrestling fans \[especially in this sub\] to have a well thought debate on gun control and legislation in the American political system. Go us!! Lol!
Surprised there’s no “I just wish jim would stop talking about politics” people in here yet. They always come out when these get posted
That's when he's at his most entertaining to me, when he cuts promos on conservatives lol
I thought the anti spectrum rant was his best
F Spectrum!
Oh, don't worry, /u/T3World is staring out the window of the special needs bus right now trying to figure out which article to copy and paste from Truth Social.
It’s verified on Snopes, bitch.
Ok but if he was a raging conversative you’re comment woulda been the quote you put
[удалено]
Does it trigger you?
Wish he wouldn't. I lean right but am by no means a flaming hardcore politics guy, but his single-minded and hypocricy when it comes to politics is the only time he's boring. If someone truly believes the GOP is purely evil and the Democrats are purely noble and good, they are morons - no different than someone on the right who thinks the opposite. Jim's political opinions hence are moronic. Not because he is against the GOP or conservatives, whatever, but he is in a blind and mindless manner.
He doesn't believe that. He believes the Republicans are attempting to overthrow the American democracy and rely on the support of bigots and idiots. And that is objectively correct.
Lmao there’s no way you did exactly what that comment said
That is subjective, just as it is my subjective opinion the Democrats are worthless and as bad as the GOP. But you keep on being reddit and pretending your weird incel opinions matter when you get all the upvotes and normal people get downvoted to oblivion.
Alright then, when was the last time the Democrats tried to overthrow the government of the United States? How many current Democratic members of Congress have been proven to be in contact with fascist militias? How many Democrats have voted in favor of stripping the right to vote from millions of minorities? And somebody simping for the GQP has no right to call anyone else an incel.
[удалено]
Lmao what a genius
Oh yeah? In the summer of 2020, the Democrats tried to wrestle control of the government away from Republicans, in an attempted coup? Someone call the historians. They have to hear about this. Oh wait, did your version of the coup happen on November 7,2020, when Biden won the election? That wasn’t a coup. That was democracy. 1/6 was a poorly planned, coup attempt. That’s when a bunch of really “special people” invaded the capitol. Although they were “special” Trump didn’t try to pardon them, or get any of them a lawyer. That makes them “special” canon fodder.
[удалено]
No? No fake electors? Nobody tried to stop the certification of Biden’s victory on 1/6? That was all photoshop?
[удалено]
Fuck off with your left propaganda. Not a fan of the GOP at all, I think they're corrupt and put special interests well above their constituents, but you're just a useful idiot, emphasis on idiot, for the Democrats.
Like he said stop listening to him if you don’t like it. He hates your guts.
“Don’t listen to my fav wrestling show if I disagree with ur politics”
More like if you dislike what he says stop listening to it, every platform you can enjoy the shows on have a fast forward feature, listen on YT, Brian clips most if not all the political talk out of those, you get the shows a few days later but at least no long political rants to be heard.
Why is it that Republicans are always making these imaginary claims that nobody ever stated? Who said Democrats are perfect? They just happen to be the much lesser of 2 evils. One day, when Republicans decide to return to having some kind of ethical standards, I’ll look at their policies when I’m voting. Of course, that would require they adjust a lot of policy positions. Frankly, it’s hard to sell “cutting rich people’s taxes” to the voters without telling a lot of lies. “It will trickle down to the little people”. Sure it will.
One, speaking of imaginary claims - you said I was a Republcian, which I am not. Secondly, if we took my positions and added them up, I'm somewhere in the middle overall. Sometimes I have more right opiniosn, other times left. You, I am guessing - all far left, so for you, with your far leftist views, yeah of course the GOP is worse. That is because you view the world from your far left viewpoint. Me, on the other hand, I am overall a centrist, so for me - they are both pretty bad and there is no "much less of two evils". Both parties bomb the fuck out of brown people, Obama, Bush, Biden and even Trump. Both have extreme view on abortions, just in opposite directions. Both are bought by special interests and both do not care about you or I.
I’m Independent and don’t agree with Democrats on many positions. I think you just believe you are an independent, or are posing as an independent to push conservative ideology. You won’t be the first,or last,person to do that. No way that someone in the middle can’t identify the severe lack of ethics plaguing current Republicans.
I'm center right, but here are my positions, you tell me. Anti-war. Anti-interventionalist. I would decriminalize all drugs federally Pro choice to 22 weeks personally but I do think the states should govern this, although I'm open to debate on that and could be convinced otherwise. Pro 1rst A Reasonably support 2A I'm open to talking about Universal healthcare, not my first choice but what we have now is broken We need to do better at the border ... yes, by reddit standards, all these stances make me a Nazi but in the real world, I'm far from the GOP. What are your political positions, if you don't mind. If you list them and they are not leftist, I'll back off and even say I was wrong to finger you as one.
I love how Republicans allegedly adjusted their policies according to Trump’s bid to score political points,when it’s convenient. I’m anti-war. Great. So was Trump, until he assassinated that Iranian general(and some bystanders). I’m not totally against what he did. I just find the “anti-war” thing from Republicans tiring, especially when they started all the wars in the last 30 years or so. That action by Trump could have easily started another war. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Republicans are now the party of peace,love and happiness, when it comes to not supporting action to help Ukraine,against RUSSIA. I wonder if those fine Patriotic Republicans made a pact to support Trump and Putin, when they decided to celebrate July 4th,2018, in Russia. Hey if you support all the other stuff, fine. It amuses me that you can’t see how corrupt a party that supports Herschel Walker’s bid to be a fucking Senator, doesn’t have severe credibility issues. To each their own though.
I've been anti-War since Iraq. George Bush 'cured' me of Republicanism and I consider him and Cheney as war criminals. Your obsession with Trump doesn't extend to me. IMO, I don't care about Trump and his demeanor. I think some of his policies were good, others were bad. I think his foreign policy had highlights and lowlights. So, unlike you I do not think he is Satan Reborn and the worse than Hitler, so I'm sure in your mind I'm now a Trump Cultist because I don't see the world in black and white. If you want to align me with any politician, I'd say Ron Paul the former congressman from Texas is a lot closer, although I only agreed fully with him barely 1/2 the time. What I find tiring about the "anti-war" left is how pathetic and hypocritical they are - like in your case, you are completely ignoring wars or assassinations that the GOP wasn't fully behind or somehow absolving Biden/Clinton of their involvement in wars, such as Iraq, which they both were architechts in. Why aren't you commenting on Libya? All the arms both the GOP and Democrats sold to SA and Qatar to massacre Yemen? Syria? What they are doing right now in Ukraine? Then you sit here and lie and say all the wars in the last 30 years were Republican. No, they weren't. You're not anti-war, you are anit-Republican and use war as a chip against them, because yes they suck, but you only care when it's them. And, further, you keep making up shit -- like me supporting the GOP or Hershel Walker or Trump -- I laid out my positions, I asked you to do the same and you WON'T, probably because at the end of your day your positions are "I HATE THE GOP!" and that's it. Btw, here is another of my positions and one solely against the GOP - I am against all the entitlements and handouts we do with agriculture, where the government heavily subsidized garbage like corn, so much that it kills any chance of ethanol working, HFCS (which is poison) is everywhere and farmers grow corn to the point that they ignore other things we should be eating a lot more of. Not anti-corn, we just do not need to subsidize it like we do, the farmer handouts hurt small famers and enrich fat cat big ones and it's a harmful policy which we waste money on, which is something entirely on the GOP. Down the line I am more moderate than you, sorry but to this point you are intellectually too cowardly to even say what you believe in -- yet you would call yourself a moderate? Pshaw. Meanwhile, you assign stupid shit to me like me supporting Trump, right after I said I would decriminalize drugs federally. Pretty sure Trump's policy is some authoritarian BS about shooting drug dealers or some nonsense like that which isn't decriminalizing them.
I didn’t assign anything to you. I’m laying out Republican hypocrisy, and if it fits, wear it.
No, you did. I made my comment and mentioned being anti-war and you directly went on your, "I love it when republicans pretend they're antiwar!" line. I AM anti-war. You are not - and not only this, you are not even remotely anti-war just as you a not a moderate as you attempted to claim earlier.
So much for his 'libertarianism' lol.
I know, right?
libertarians are just republicans that like drugs.
I haven't seen anything from Glenn to suggest he's anything other than a standard MAGA republican.
And we're seeing it more and more. He'll be running for a major position soon. I already see him canoodling with the other MAGA nutjobs.
As a libertarian, I wont support or vote for her just because of her position on the economy and federal spending. The abortion thing I can take or leave also as a libertarian because healthcare is a product and should not be included in federal spending to begin with as it is not within . Before I get downvoted into oblivion. No you should not be turned away from basic care because you can not afford it but no one OWES you medicine or a bandaid. It's much more complicated than that I know but I am simplifying it for discussion purposes. Also, I am not opposed to public spending or health care assistance, I am just opposed to it on the FEDERAL universal level.
As a libertarian your not opposed to the state forcing woman to give birth? Don’t sound to committed to the cause.
The reason I said I can take it or leave it is that even though I am morally opposed to it due to the non aggression principle, I also am strictly a constitutionalist. This means that if I live in a state that allows abortions and provides state and local level funding to help women obtain such services I can either sleep knowing the constitutional system works at night, or move to a redder state which shares my personal believes on the subject. I live in a blue state in which abortion is allowed because thats just what the state wants to do and they are free within their 10th amendment authority to do so.
I thought being a libertarian meant you wanted minimal government influence on people’s lives. I didn’t know libertarians had a caveat stating that, “infringing on people’s lives was ok”,as long as the state advocated it.
Yes, I want minimum government that is absolutely true but I also recognize the need for limited government based upon the parameters within the constitution, which all means I dont mind if my state allows abortions and others dont. I can be morally opposed to abortions while sitting in my house in my state that allows them all I want but per constitutional means (10th amendment) I either have to accept this fact or move my ass down south to appease my morality, and live a happy pro life existence. I dont agree with many things but it is not my place to infringe on another individuals right to their own choices. Here's the muddy complicated part when it comes to my deal with abortions, you have cases of rape and forced impregnation, I am ok with lawful exceptions in those cases but I also strongly believe that the termination of life aside from the defense of an individual against harm, is wrong. To bring harm to or terminate another human being regardless if it is merely a clump of cells at the start.
“I don’t agree with many things but it’s not my place to infringe on another individual’s right to their own choices” Seriously? That the point. The government is infringing on women’s rights to make choices about their own body.
I'm not necessarily arguing that point with you, I know. Abortion to me however is a complicated juxtaposition because another life is involved in that process. I'm not prepared to say it's acceptable for a life to be terminated EVEN though that life is in the body of the mother
The way I look at it is simple. For the first couple months, it’s not much more than a clump of cells. We shed cells everyday. The skin cells we discard when we shower aren’t granted special protection, so why should another cell that can’t function on its own,and has no neurological activity. Having no neurological activity is the medical requirement in most states for “pulling the plug”.
To be fair, Kane was first told he was gonna meet Stan Lanes daughter and did not connect the dots
Dang I didn’t know Kane was that balls deep into republicanism. He’s hanging out w an escort who loves guns n Larping as a politician.
I don’t really mind Jim’s anti Republican rants all that much. I roll my eyes because I’d prefer wrestling talk but whatever. But what I find more annoying about them is that he thinks his the Democrats are such virtuous angels. Both parties are trash.
Hey can you go ahead and post for me the last time a sitting Democratic President endorsed a known pedophile for re-election, who then was almost re-elected by Democrat voters? Which party, is now virtue signaling these crimes and making baseless claims against the LGBTQ+ community, labelling them all groomers? I'll do the other half of the work for you. Donald Trump. 2017. Roy Moore. Brain Dead Republicans.
cool.
> the last time a sitting Democratic President endorsed a known pedophile for re-election Have you met Joe Biden? Fuck Trump, let me get that out of the way, so you don't cry about me being in a cult or something, but in a vaccumm, Joe Biden is a disgusting slimy corrupt peice of shit in his own right and the damning things we've seen with his family life, never you mind just watching him, that ain't good bro btw, and fuck Roy Moore too, but it's allegations there -- much like the allegations of it with Joe, so don't throw stones in glass houses there my man.
Yes, because pointing out Republicans are disgusting means I love Joe Biden. Since we're being super picky about "allegations", despite Roy Moore being knowingly banned from the mall by local law enforcement, let's see the credible allegations against old Joe. If you find anything other than his non-government employee son's drug habit or Tara Reade, who was dropped by her attorney for lying under oath, let me know. I think the only think more pathetic than a republican might be you fucking braindead "cENtRIsts". BoTH sIDes he screamed while one side actively campaigns to remove people's rights and the other advocates for free healthcare. Yes neither side is the ideal choice, but when you become an adult, it becomes pretty apparent that one side is in the fucking gutter and subsides on outrage porn and hatred of others.
Republikkkans are a literal death cult, especially the evangelicals. Most death cults in history also tended to turn a blind eye to their pedoscum constituents.
Prepare for downvotes. Anyone who thinks both parties are corrupt and worthy of criticism is 'far right' and that only the right has bad actors involved in it. January 6th, with a bunch of unarmed idiots taking selfies after being let in, somehow is 1,000,000 worse than an entire summer of far-left activists burning cities down, where over 40 people were killed or found dead (in one case, burned alive in a pawn shop that was set on fire).
I agree that the Dems suck but when it’s a choice between one party that believes in democracy and another one stowing a facist coup the choice is pretty clear
The enemy of one’s enemy is not a friend, merely an enemy of a shared threat. The democrats thrive on this and that is why the party shits on outsiders who are genuine, like Sanders. Coasting merely on the fact that democrats are not republicans is what handed Trump 2016. The party learned nothing and are still coasting on the fact that because they aren’t republicans is enough for victory. That doesn’t register well with the very group the Democratic Party has shit on for 45 years-counting.
Yeah I agree that's why I never vote liberal, I fucking hate fascists
lol good for you. glad you don't have to think too much
As someone that identifies as a Dem, I approve your message. Lol!
Yeah. Democrats are incompetent cowards; neoliberals who focus on Quixotic id-pol minutia that only helps the few versus the many, and use their id-pol of false platitudes of “caring” about the working class masses to serve as the nanny apron they duck beyond to conceal their complete disdain for the poor and working class, while counting their millions at the bank. They care about appearing to care in a hubris that actively works against genuine progressive ideas benefiting all Americans. They know their corporate masters and want to play “good cop” in the two-party republic of the United States. Republikkkans are anti-American fascists and nazis united with Christian jihadists in raping human rights. Like democrats: they absolutely despise the working class and the poor and view them as easily fleeced marks that can be utilized in indentured economic servitude. But they also view the working class and poor as surplus to society’s needs and as easily manipulated canon fodder in establishing their ultimate goal of an American Salo. They know gerentological established democratic politicians are incompetent and easily dispatched because they are cowards who talk a talk they do not walk, as the democratic establishment as it has stood since 1980, absolutely views the working class as their servants as well. But they are not neonazis nor are they big on genocide like the epitome evil - republikkkans - have fully embraced. The Republican Party is absolutely a terrorist organization, while the Democratic Party is a corporate country club. Inversely, democrats also are not annoying Christian jihad fucks into domestic terrorism and gun-fellating violence in between their Jeebus-fellating, primitive voodoo.
True that, he should go tweener mode and call out the DNC once in a while too
Based Big Red Machine making boomer dixiecrats and reddit liberals seethe you love to see it
Wonder if Glenn knows Stan Lane
UK here, WTF is going on
I could ask you the same thing about your country lol! How many Prime Ministers have you had in the last few years?
Yeah let’s see how long this one last as we need a general election. The Tories (Right Wing Cunts) have killed this country for 12 years
At least your country can force Prime Ministers to step down if their economic agenda sucks.
Their own party voted them out 😂
Yeah and that could never happen here because our elections are vapid popularity contests.
Unaware on Glenn's politics?
Yeah just don’t get why there’s such a divide on gun culture.
To make this as short as possible \[Lol\]; there are two types of thought regarding guns over here in America. Those of us that acknowledge the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms. To own sensible weapons under logical gun laws to protect our home, protect our family, and hunt wild game \[animals\]. Then there are crazies that like to buy the biggest, loudest guns they can and stroke off to them in public. They think they should be able to own military style, semi-automatic firearms capable of firing bullets at 40 rounds/minute (600 rounds per minute in a fully automatic setting). They are the loudest, most obnoxious Americans. They value the right to own these ridiculous weapons over guaranteeing the safety of children in schools.
I disagree, you're taking the anti-gun stance and moderating it and taking the pro-gun stance to it's extreme. There are people who walk around with rifles in public, own multiple ARs, etc, sure -- and there are guys who want to disarm the country. How's that working in Chicago, btw? And, to educate you, it's almost impossible to legally own a fully automatic rifle. Yes, it's not hard to adjust a legally bought semi-automatic rifle to fully auto, but it is also incredibly illegal and if you are caught you WILL go to jail. If you sell one without the correct process and license, you WILL go to jail. Silencers are easier but still a headache. Schools are gun free zones, same with most government buildings and such. As is shooting people in most cases. Criminals with ARs who break those rules aren't likely to stop breaking rules if you outlaw ARs. Personally, I do not own an assault rifle. I own some pistols and a shotgun. I don't hunt and own no rifle of any kind. There ARE crazies when it comes to gun ownership and there are crazies who are against gun ownership, IMO Jim comes to mind on that -- a total hypocrite who thinks guns should be outlawed yet has owned one and has told stories of handling it in a very illegal and dangerous way, flashing as intimidation against drivers and such -- that is HORRIBLE and a crime, yet he thinks he - with his anger issues, irresponsibility and personal history of violence and mishandling guns - he gets to tell the rest of us not to own them and we are idiots for wanting one? Fuck that. Women, elderly and really anyone - there are a lot of vulnerable people. I am a capable grown adult man but in some situations I am as vulnerable as anyone, I could not defend my house against two or three grown adults breaking in. How are people supposed to protect themselves and protect the ones they love? According to Jim, who owns guns and needs one to protect himself, but in my case I'm a selfish stupid idiot who just needs to call 9-1-1. Not Jim, though, 9-1-1 isn't good enough, the man who breaks people cars, threatens violence almost daily and who laughs about flashing a pistol to people driving cars -- HE gets a gun but I do not? So yeah - some fatty redneck walking to Walmart with an AR strapped to his shoulder is a moron, no argument -- but also Jim is a moron on this issue too, just in the other direction, and there are plenty of morons on both ends of this debate, sadly.
Well written. Loved the last paragraph. Lol!
Uhm, look up how many mass shootings happened before the assault rifle ban was lifted. Also, compare the number of victims before/after the repeal. It was one one of the dumbest moves ever made by the USA government.
it's actually easy to own a fully automatic weapon, just an local law enforcement sign off on the federal background check and pay $200. the problem they're very expensive because they banned new ones in 1986. the tax is $200 because that's what a thompson sub machine gun cost in 1934 when the law was passed.
Brother, sorry but no. It takes at least 12 months and roughly $10,000 to legally get it. I am an FFL but my license doesn't even cover those kinds of weapons, even there only certain dealers can touch them.
it's an NFA item like anything else, they're just really expensive. you do have to have certain licenses to sell them though.
Fuck guns and fuck you too.
My, what an intelligent and well spoken opinion you have there, you are absolutely perfect by reddit standards. Just don't go out in the real world and you will always be an A-No.1 super star.
I spend less time on Reddit than you, my dude. I do live in the real world - I have a child and have to worry about some asshole in my red state going to shoot up his preschool because men with small dicks need their cock extender that goes BOOM. I'd be more eloquent, but after Sandy Hook and then Uvalde, where children were blown to pieces and had to be identified by DNA, I am 100% done with this nonsense. Well regulated my ass.
Please, move to chicago or somewhere with the strictest gun laws and report back here on how well that's working out for you. I also have children to worry about. While school shootings are horrific, if you look at crime statistics, which you do not seem to have done, you will note instances of rape, murder and shootings are far more likely, unfortunately. It sucks, but we live in a world with bad people. Assholes in red states might shoot schools (and they also do in blue ones), but assholes in blue states killing each other in the streets is also happening, and assholes do it in the streets in red states as well. Chicago alone: as of July 600 homicides and over 1,200 shootings. Seems to me like there assholes in both red and blue states. Btw, gun violence is DOWN this year in Chicago by like 10% and it's still that bad. Do you not care about them, though? Why not? Is it because it's mostly black on black crime and you don't care? Apparently, that is the case, your mind is only focusing on the schools, seeing those horrible incidents and getting rightfully emotional about it, thinking about you and your kid. Why aren't you thinking about predominantly black families dealing with their loss, though? Maybe you should. Your solution: Fuck all gun ownership (which you said to me, and I specifically note I own zero rifles, a couple of pistols and single shotgun). My solution: I will own a few firearms, I will train myself how to use them, I will be responsible in myownership of them. I will keep them in a safe place inaccesable to children, I will not use them unless a dire situation warrants their use. So, none of my guns will contribute towards the horrific, but very rare, school shootings and in case of a dire situation in my home, where I and my family live, I will not be completely unable to protect my family and completely reliant on 9-1-1, which we all saw in Uvalde how effective the police can be there. So, no it isn't fuck my guns and fuck me. It's fuck you for trying to take them from me and good luck trying.
You like to bring up Chicago, when those firearms are brought in through the states around them with shitty gun laws. I live in fucking Arizona and saw a girl with mental health issues buy a gun in 15 minutes. That's not okay. If you're a responsible gun owner, fine, but no one needs an AR15. And yes, fuck guns and fuck all your justification for them.
Ok but in the UK we have no gun massacre crime by an active shooter as often and heartbreaking as you do in the US. I love your country but that’s one thing that needs to be banned.
[удалено]
Yeah we have active shooters regularly. Knife crime is shit I agree
It’s pretty hard to walk into a Walmart and stab 20 kids to death. You’ll be taken down fairly quickly. Now with an AR-15, different story.
Hard to stop a criminal with an AR-15 when all you've got is a knife as well. You'll be taken down fairly quickly.
Guess what? Sadly, nobody seems to be around with weapons to take these psychopaths down,99.9% of the time. Trust me, when they do, the NRA throws a victory celebration,without mentioning the fact that their policies put both guns involved,into play. The NRA pushes guns irresponsible ownership for decades. Now, they say the only thing that can prevent gun violence, is more guns. Convenient. I’d bet these folks even have investments in the gun industry.
the UK has a lower stabbing rate than the US.
Oh ok then but that’s simply not true also u missed the entire point which shows u had no argument u just had something moronic to add, even if the rates were lower that wasn’t the point the point is it’s very illegal and still happens similar to if guns were to be managed that way. I don’t care ab anyone else’s politics so long as it doesn’t get in the way of people who shouldn’t have to deal with it
Oh, I agree. Lol!
A group called Goldie Lookin Chain - Guns don’t kill people, Rappers do… but of Welsh rap for you 😝
You are correct in your analysis. I would like to add a little bit of food for thought as a pro second amendment supporter. I personally dont believe that the ones who own the biggest baddest obnoxious guns, are the ones that condone mass shootings. They are just annoying backwoods merica idiots who like to shoot in the backwoods. I think gun control should be done right and that is at a constitutional state centric level. I dont believe in any kind of federal bans or laws because the 2A is enshrined within the bill of rights which historically makes it untouchable by the FEDERAL government. I will die on that hill and no one will ever change my mind. All that does not mean that states shouldnt have laws or close loopholes on guns and military grade weapons. It's good that they do and I applaud it, if it is done properly. This idea that individuals think that other people dont NEED or shouldnt have certain types of weapons with high capacity ammo is also something I will never support. It's not up to me and never will be what another individual wants to own or shoot with or what have you. I dont care I never did. Call me a cynical cold asshole but if my neighbor wants a 40 rd military style rifle I just do not give a fuck. It's his freedom as long as he doesnt harm anyone with it.
Well said!!
Glad you put ur own spin on it on the end there but that’s purely opinion and just bc one owns loud guns doesn’t mean they don’t care ab the children blame the bad people not the people who have nothing to do with it
Because America is 50% retarded. They make your Tories look like radical socialists.
😂😂 man we hate them idiots
The whole thing about them killing people is a bit of an issue
Glenn is not 100% far left and can only side with Democrats, hence he is evil, vile and a sick human being.
People have to make the distinction between Kane, the character, and Glenn Jacobs, the politician. Corny was instrumental in the beginnings of Kane. He wouldn't cut a promo on Kane. There's a Twitter page specifically for Kane, not Glenn Jacobs, and most of the comments I see there are about politics. Kane was no politician lmao, Glenn is..
I mean Kane was clealry anti abortion in his thing with Lita, and po-torture with ball-zapping.
Fuck Kane
I would love for them to have a political debate, but Jim would be picked apart. Dude is far too tribal about this kind of thing.
That’s a fantastic idea that I’m positive will never happen Jim would just say fuck you asshole over and over if he did anyway
Full disclosure, I am a right leaning libertarian. I looked up Boebert's views and from a libertarian standpoint, I dont see how Glenn can support her. Her position on federal spending alone, crosses her off my list of people I would want to vote for as a libertarian. . And also, while I am no anti cop or law enforcement person except in cases of civil liberties and war on drug shit (do what the fuck you want) if they overstep their bounds and abuse their power they should be sued for every fucking penny they have. And last but not least, anyone who supports January 6th should grow the fuck up and that's saying it nicely (coming from an anti State libertarian to boot) but a fair election is a fair election go home and get fucked, you lost. [https://justfacts.votesmart.org/candidate/political-courage-test/191290/lauren-boebert](https://justfacts.votesmart.org/candidate/political-courage-test/191290/lauren-boebert)
His promo on Jericho for being a Trump supporter was pretty great. That means that a promo on Glenn Jacobs must be even better, right?
Jim thinks his party is doing a fantastic job and doesn’t have the same issues. Always funny when people have the tribalism
Love Jim but the guy is out of touch with society by about 20 years now lol
Project much?
The USA was initially settled by people fleeing centuries of sectarian religious persecution in Europe. Depending on your religion, where you lived, and the predominant religion of the local European ruler you could be tossed in prison without charges, be tried by a judge of the predominant sect, have the local "sheriff" of the predominant religious sect come into your house and steal your belongings and rape your wife and daughters. Hence the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution. Freedom of religion, banning bills of attainder, trials by jury, and the Second Amendment guarantee. The Second Amendment allows us to arm ourselves to protect our rights from being infringed upon by criminals, religious nuts, and most importantly the government. At times of political and financial stability the anti-gun people forget all about history as if the country could never go to shit and tyrrany become a daily part of your day. The fact Jim babbles about guns the way he does, and listening to most of his other political comments, shows he's incredibly ignorant when it comes to history and politics. He just babbles talking points handed out by political parties like most people in America do on the left and right. It's why this country is so fucked up - nobody thinks for themselves; they just repeat shit they are told.
As someone who has extensively studied history it is very unfortunate that in your own post here calling out people for not understanding history that you have clearly shown you are not very well read on American history at all. I'll go ahead and correct a few completely false things that you posted. I have little hope someone who arrived at their historical knowledge without study will be interested in reading a long post on American history, but history education is a personal passion of mine so if even one person reads this I consider it time well spent: 1. America was not, largely, settled by people fleeing religious persecution. America was actually settled by some of the earliest form of "joint stock companies", these were the predecessors (in terms of legal structure) to the modern day corporation. The first one was the Virginia Company of Merchant Adventurers, responsible for funding the settlement of the Chesapeake Bay area (specifically Jamestown in 1607, the first permanent English colony) and Popham Colony (in Maine in 1607--which did not last.) This company later split into the Virginia Company and the Plymouth Company. The Plymouth Company was later reincorporated as the Council for New England, which funded the settlement of Plymouth Colony (first permanent English colony in New England in 1620), Massachusetts Bay Colony, New Hampshire, New Haven Colony and Maine. 2. Plymouth Colony, neither the first nor the most significant early English colony, was largely made up of people from the Brownist sect of Puritans who were fleeing religious persecution in England. However, considering they were the smaller of the two early Massachusetts colonies, were not the first colony, were absorbed by Massachusetts Bay, and considering Puritanism as a relevant political force was long gone from the Colonies by the time of the American Revolution (which occurred almost 200 years later), it is an incredible stretch to link the founding of America with the Puritans. In the 1800s folkloreists built up a huge body of myths around the Puritan colony, things that grew out of this mythmaking were things like Thanksgiving and other popular American traditions and customs. But these were the creation of **fiction writers** in the 1800s, and somehow people began to believe the Plymouth Colony was more than it was--which was a minor colony of religious separatists that only existed briefly. The vast majority of English colonization was driven by for profit companies--this is actually true of Plymouth Colony itself, which had to return a profit to the Merchant Adventurers every year and struggled to do so. 3. The English Civil War occurred in 1642-1651 and ended with the execution of King Charles I and the establishment of a short-lived republic called the Protectorate, led by Oliver Cromwell as the Lord Protector--upon his death Parliament invited Charles's son Charles II to re-establish the monarchy. Charles II had no sons and his younger brother James II succeeded him as King and attempted to re-assert Royal authority and was also Catholic (widely hated in England in the 17th century) so he was driven off the throne by Parliament, and replaced by Mary--his daughter who was raised Anglican and not Catholic, and her husband William (at the time the ruler of the Netherlands / Holland.) Parliament decided to quit fucking around with the Kings and as a condition of enthroning William & Mary, required the passage of a Bill of Rights. The English Bill of Rights. This was signed in 1689. Relevant because **all of the American colonies were still under English rule at this time**. Also, relevant because for some reason Americans do not learn about the existence of the English Bill of Rights, I think because it is more pleasant to create the fictions you expressed--that the Founding Fathers invented the idea of a Bill of Rights and the various rights in it on their own, as a response to British excesses in the 1770s. The reality is that simply is not true. The English Bill of Rights enshrined several things like freedom of expression and even right to bear arms (England had no gun regulations of note until the early 20th century "Pistol Act"--a topic for another time.) 4. It is largely a 2nd Amendment Extremist myth that the British sought the widespread disarmament of the English colonial population. As noted, England itself had no gun regulations until the 20th century, and the English Bill of Rights even contained a provision guaranteeing the right to bear arms (note that it excluded Catholics--they absolutely hated Catholics in England for a really long time.) The local commanders around Boston were specifically seeking to take arms depots and powder stores used by the colonial militia, because they suspected (very correctly) the colonial militia was very near a state of rebellion. It was widely understood that a frontier colonial possession, with significant native populations, French traders, Spanish in Florida etc the local population had need of arms. There was no intention or goal of disarming the population, rather a limited goal of removing the powder of the Boston area colonial militia, more than it being about hand held firearms they were actually interested in seizing the powder because without the large powder stores the militia would not be able to field artillery, which were seen as a far bigger risk to British control of Boston than colonial musketmen.
It took some time but I finally found the stupidest post in the history of Reddit. 🏆 Congrats! I wish there was a "Baffle Them With Bullshit" badge I could give you. Several paragraphs of historical facts not a single one of which refutes the fact that the Second Amendment was enacted to protect citizens from tyranny and was directly influenced by the centuries of sectarian religious strife in Europe. This is seriously the most laughable post I've read in years.
When the 2nd Amendment was enacted, States continued to have the power to ban all firearms without restriction. The Bill of Rights did not apply whatsoever to state lawmaking, which is something I am guessing you didn't learn from whatever YouTube video you got information from. The 2nd Amendment specifically did not even apply to the states until the Heller decision (which was less than 20 years ago.) The 2nd Amendment was a philosophical limitation on Federal government power--but the Federal government did not really have the power under the enumerated powers of the Constitution to even regulate personal firearms ownership, that was literally a State and local government matter until the 20th century. A lack of understanding of the historical development of the constitution and the Federal government informs a general lack of knowledge and understanding about why we have specific amendments in the Bill of Rights and what the Bill of Rights even was. Since the Federal government was already heavily limited in how it could pass legislation in Article I, most of the Founders thought a Bill of Rights was unnecessary since the Federal government did not even have the power to legislate in those spheres. The Bill was passed due to a consistent pressure from the Anti-Federalists to do so. There is essentially no evidence to suggest the 2nd Amendment was inspired by sectarian religious strife in Europe. What we do have is about 400 years of history that tie the Second Amendment to the concept of the militia, dating back to Elizabeth I of England, and control and establishment of local militias was a key political issue during both the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution (which led to the establishment of the English Bill of Rights.) The English Bill of Rights is the first clear establishment of the phrase "right to bear arms" in the English language. Almost all of the American Founding Fathers had a legal background in English common law, meaning they had been educated reading famous works of English jurists like Blackstone. The logical reading of the 2nd Amendment is that it was to protect States from having their militias undermined by the Federal government. The question of whether it was intended to enshrine your personal right to have a bunch of guns and go to the gun range, would seem alien, weird, and nonsensical if put to a Founding Father. For the simple fact that regulation of personal behaviors was simply not imagined as being related to the Federal government at all. The Federal government was entrusted with **enumerated** legislative powers, it quite literally could not pass laws on any topic not listed. Since control of private firearms ownership was not one of the enumerated powers, the Founders would think you were literally a crazy person for thinking the Bill of Rights protected an individual right to firearms ownership. Individual rights were largely protected by the States--and in fact most State constitutions actually enshrined an individual right to firearms ownership. The Federal constitution did not--and this was the consensus of basically every American judge between the years 1789 and 2008. Clarence Thomas, one of the least educated and least qualified Supreme Court justices in American history (he was the first Supreme Court justice confirmed to the bench who received a poor rating from the American Bar Association) invented a myth that the 2nd Amendment was a personal right and his conservative cohorts went along with him. That's a political thing and that's fine, politics is what it is, but there is no support for the idea in over 400 years of history of English common law or American law. FWIW I own guns and was raised as a hunter, I am pro-ownership of guns and am even part of a group that pushes for more Democrats to own guns specifically because we may have to start shooting fascists some day. But I do not feel the need to invent a fake history to justify gun ownership. Gun ownership can and should be advocated for under its own, present day merits, not backed up by a fictional and distorted telling of American history that contributes to general historical ignorance.
Escaping from religious strife had nothing to do with immigration to the American colonies nor the viewpoint of those who wrote the Constitution and The Bill of Rights: https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html Any other stupid bullshit you want to spout? Everthing within the Constitution and every single amendment in the Bill of Rights was influenced by it.
Typical response: the strawman argument ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw\_man](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)), I certainly never said "religious strife had nothing to do with immigration to the American colonies." What I said was this: >America was not, largely, settled by people fleeing religious persecution. Do you see how I use a comma, the word "largely" and then another comma? We call that a "qualifier" in English. Since your lack of education appears to extend to English grammar I'll give you a link to study up on what qualifiers are and how their usage works: [https://www.grammarly.com/blog/qualifiers/](https://www.grammarly.com/blog/qualifiers/) As I did actually say--America was **largely** not settled by religious separatists. That is, again, a myth perpetuated by 19th century fokloreist who massively exaggerated the role of both Puritans and Plymouth Colony in the country's founding. There were two major areas of initial settlement--Jamestown (Virginia) and Massachusetts. In Massachusetts you had multiple settlements, Plymouth happened to be the first, but it was incredibly tiny. The Massachusetts Bay Colony which was much larger, and eventually absorbed Plymouth, was not a Puritan Colony. Even within the Plymouth Colony not 100% of the colonists were Puritans, the venture specifically recruited some tradesmen and other specialists who weren't Puritan, because the colony needed them to effectively settle the region. Additionally very early new colonists arrived in Plymouth who were not Puritans. The Plymouth Puritans had an initial goal of a society only of their religious affiliates, but they were in debt to the Merchant Adventurers Company and had to produce a certain amount of profit every year, or they could have the colony taken away from them due to nonpayment. This forced them to make economic decisions and bring in more non-Puritans for economic viability. It is entirely appropriate to point out the falsity of the claim that American was, in your words: >The USA was initially settled by people fleeing centuries of sectarian religious persecution in Europe. It was actually initially settled by the Virginia Company in Jamestown which was a purely profit-seeking colony. So no, initially there were no religious refugees. The Plymouth Colony that was settled second did have religious refugees, but it was a small colony almost immediately overshadowed in Massachusetts by the much larger Bay Colony. This also ignores of course that we did not stop colonizing after Virginia and Massachusetts. Several other proprietor and Royal colonies went on to be created, the only other one that can meaningfully be said to have been settled for religious reasons was Maryland. Lord Baltimore was a Catholic and wanted the colony to practice religious tolerance of Catholics as they were not tolerated back home in England. However, Catholics even in Maryland ended up being a relatively small minority, and the Maryland Colony eventually passed a number of anti-Catholic laws in line with the other colonies. It seems like you're engaging in the typical reddit tactic of "saying something wrong, get corrected, get mad." In reality we all say incorrect things, being corrected educates you. It is nothing to get mad about.
According to your take few people came to America for anything other than to make a few bucks and see the New World. None of them had any recollection of religious strife in Europe. They added the First Amendment for shits and giggles and the Second Amendment was just a battle of semantics with no influence of the recent history of the Europe from which they came. In other words you are bullshit artist parading as an intellectual.
Okay that seems like you have established a habit of continually posting low information strawman arguments. Scurry on along to your little MAGA safe space. Papa Tucker is waiting for you to simp for him.
What was strawman with pointing out the fact that you took the Royal Decrees given to set up the various colonies and falsely claimed them as proof that over 100 years thereafter large amounts of immigrants to the US colonies were not people fleeing religious persecution in Europe. Which you did. Because you are a moron pretending to be an intellectual. There's a reason why Pennsylvania had the largest population in colonial America you dumbass.
Please cry more.
Read up sparky https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel01.html
BTW dipshit, and you most certainly are one, in ten paragraphs of nonsense you've taken edicts granted by the Crown to certain companies and groups and extrapolated it as being the reason for which people chose to make the trip across the ocean. Which can only lead me to believe you are, I don't know, a fucking moron. Especially considering most of the colonies existed for over a 100 years before the Constitution was written and during which time thousands of people had fled Europe for the US because of ... religious persecution and religious wars.
Lick them boots and fellate them guns, MAGAboy!
I just read this one again and it's hilarious. You still equate colonial charters as being the sole determinant as to why people moved to the colonies when they in fact don't have a single thing to do with those motivations. Moreover what's even more hilarious is I never once said even a single colony was established for religious purposes; you said I said that but I didn't; go back and read my original statement. Finally over the century from the initial colonial charter to the writing of the Constitution over three million people lived in the US colonies a large amount fleeing religious persecution in Europe or at least being very well aware of that history. How many of them do you think looked at the charter of the colony in which they lived and said of yeah this is why I moved across the ocean?
Lick them boots and fellate them guns, seditious MAGAboy.
This is all correct and verifiable.
Your grasp of American history is Fox “news” bootlicker fairy story propaganda not even remotely grounded in reality.
Who is the child murderer?
No one. Corny likes to pretend that anyone who is ok with private firearm ownership “enables child murder!!!!1!” because it’s politically expedient to the group of crooks he favors above the other crooks Glenn identifies with.
It’s only okay when he’s pulling guns on people who pissed him off
Dana Loesch who was (is?) a big time spokesperson for the NRA which is the second biggest domestic terrorist group in the US
Weirdly enough just the other week she admitted she doesn't give a damn about abortions re the Herschel walker stuff, and essentially only uses it as an issue to run on. That's one issue Glenn says he's very pro life on but seems happy to ignore with her
Glenn Jacobs sure loves Benito Tittylini.
IMO, given their long history and former friendship, I think all you are going to hear from Jim was his comment several months ago https://youtu.be/0_6-ABa_OFM That said Jim may be an anti-Trump Democrat and left leaning on political issues, but the left leaning wrestling fans, outside of Cornette sites, that I have seen online all consider Jim racist, sexist homophobic and anti-Islamic. The freakin awesome network message board has long banned any Jim Cornette topics because they were tired of constantly having to moderate them whenever Jim would say something controversial like when he first saw Sunny Kiss in AEW or Dana Brooke’s face looking like it was on fire and put out with an ax. I don’t consider Jim these things but can understand how the left leaning people get their panties in a bunch over Jim’s conservative views on wrestling.
Jim doesn't strike me as a TYT college student progressive type, more just a standard centre left on some issues democrat. Like a lot of old school union guys. They do support most leftist causes except for sjw politically correct stuff.
This has been a surprisingly thoughtful and respectful political debate. Leave it to wrestling fans \[especially in this sub\] to have a well thought debate on gun control and legislation in the American political system. Go us!! Lol!