• jaemo@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Hey, Tampon? Tim?

    Yeah, to me it reads like wee Kyle was just being polite and offering Tim Walz some of it’s spare feminine hygiene products.

    • sushibowl@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      It’s really sad to me that one of the most powerful tools in the republican campaign’s arsenal is juvenile nicknames for their opponents. An actual Trump campaigning innovation: Lying Ted, crooked Hillary, sleepy Joe, etc. And it works. Like really, really well.

      Turns out many voters are swayed by elementary school level debate tactics.

      • Agrivar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        That makes sense though, given how many voters have an elementary school level maturity and education.

        • jaemo@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          Any voter that stupid is no longer a voter, they are a drone. There’s no choice in the vote, they are reacting to basic stimulus, like a pillbug avoiding light.

          It seems like only one party wants and creates drones.

      • RedditWanderer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        It’s not sad. It’s by design.

        Same thing as “orange man bad”. It takes away critical thinking and simplifies the issue for their little brain.

  • Broken_Monitor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Walz’s stance isn’t even that restrictive. He’s signed bills for better background checks, which is pretty reasonable. We have background checks for all kinds of other dangerous situations, its not a new concept or a difficult thing to pass. He’s signed a bill to remove guns from those who pose a danger to themselves or others. Is Rittenhouse implying here that he poses a danger to himself or the general public? If Walz’s policies should take the guns away from Rittenhouse then that’s what I get out of this. Kyle is acknowledging, even advertising, that he is a continued danger to those around him.

    • Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Most things requiring background checks weren’t guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, so it’s not quite comparable.

      • Zagorath@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        The Bill of Rights literally says “well-regulated”.

        The current laws are a violation of the constitution because they are clearly not well-regulated by any reasonable definition.

        • Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          In context of the time period it merely meant that the militia, which was every able bodied man in the country, should be well supplied in arms and ammunition. Not that the government should “regulate” the militia like a military.

          • piccolo@ani.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            Ok fine. Lets go with that. I expect now that every man to be given an M15, a pack of HE grenades, atleast 2 Abrams tanks, and an A10 warthog.

            • Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              You do realize that there were private warships, correct? You act like these things were never allowed. They were allowed for those who could afford them. If you can afford a tank or a warthog go right ahead. Also maybe do a little research. There is no M15.

                • Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  And they helped us win conflicts. Private warships. Privateers. Cannons, and bombs, and gatling guns in private hands with no issue until people like Reagan got afraid of the blacks and started cracking down on inner cities.

          • Rhaedas@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            In context of the time period

            The real source of the problem. If we had done regular updating of the Constitution like some of the Founders wanted we wouldn’t still be arguing over if 18th century phrasing still applies.

            • Shiggles@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              Honestly at this point, if somebody’s best criticism is something is “unconstitutional”, it’s tough to not question why their best defense is a 250 year old piece of paper that was never meant to be dogmatic.

              • rc__buggy@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                Oh come on. Everyone gets a vote now. If you suppress someone’s vote, it’s unconstitutional.

                14th, 1868

                edit: or shit: 26th, 1971

                • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  14th, 1868

                  14th what?

                  Oh, you mean the 14th Amendment, as in the document can be updated and changed.

            • Zagorath@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              The real problem is enshrining so many explicit rights in the constitution to begin with. The American constitutional framers couldn’t have known better because they were so early to do it they didn’t really have a model to follow, but I think history has shown that it was an error.

              When Australia came to framing its constitution over the last decade of the 19th century, they had the benefit of looking at all the countries that came before, and considered putting a bill of rights into the Australian constitution and made a deliberate decision not to. It’s better for the legislature to decide what’s right for the current conditions than to be stuck with trying to interpret some text from a century ago in a completely different context. We have the benefit of a much, much less politicised judiciary as a result.

            • Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              You act like human nature has changed. Crimes still occur and the right and ability to defend yourself and your property is still very much relevant. What is your opinion of the police? Do you trust them to come and protect you if someone breaks into your house, or do you expect them to come and shoot you?

              • Rhaedas@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                6 months ago

                I seem to read this as you thinking I’m not in favor of gun ownership, just because I suggest clarifying the main rule that gives that right that we still argue about its meaning today. If it was clearer, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.

                • Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  I did think that since it’s a standard basis for arguing against the 2nd. The only issue with the language is people ignoring the separation between the justification of the right and the right itself. It doesn’t matter what they said the right was for, whether it be for self defense or a militia for defense of the nation. The right stands on its own as the right to keep and bear arms.

                  It’s a deliberate misinterpretation.

          • curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            In the context of the time period, it was a replacement for a standing army.

            As we have one, then obviously that amendment no longer has any meaning then? So we should just remove it. Cool.

  • Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    No it is not a threat. To tell somebody that you’re willing to defend yourself and your rights with violence is only a threat to those who will take them. It’s a secondary reaction not a primary action.

    • JokeDeity@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      I promise it would be a threat in your eyes if it were someone you liked. You troglodytes are the biggest hypocrites on earth.

    • Mr_Blott@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Can’t be a threat when you own a handgun. Only absolute fucking cowardly pussies own handguns, so they’re no threat

      Simple logic

    • Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      No one came to take anything away from him. The only rights infringed are the people whose live he ended prematurely. Stop your bullshit.

          • Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            Would you think the same if it was a comment about taking women’s conception rights/bodily autonomy? The whole “handmaid’s tale” thing is exactly this. Everything is the handmaid’s tale when it comes to women’s rights, but these rights are just problematic. I want women to have rights, and Americans to have gun rights. Rights for everyone, tyranny for no one.

              • Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                6 months ago

                Ironically it’s probably because of all the unwanted children due to legal or cultural prohibitions on abortion that cause the misery needed to lead to school shootings. Aside from that, people sucking does not mean I lose my rights. Tell the media to stop reporting gang shootings near schools as school shootings and drive-bys as mass shootings. Tell the media to stop publicizing the shooters and making them “interesting” to the public. Lots of that shit is copycats.

                • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  You don’t have the right to make a nuclear bomb in your backyard, either.

                  When they passed laws against drinking and driving, people complained that the government was taking away their rights. Same with requiring you to wear a seatbelt.

            • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              Would you think the same if it was a comment about taking women’s conception rights/bodily autonomy?

              No, because Women’s right are good. Taking away some of them is bad. The point your missing is I don’t want you to have guns. Any argument you make about “taking away some rights is a step towards taking away more rights” is going to be met with me saying “Good.”

              None of this is an argument that it is good for you to have guns. I find it interesting that the comic equates guns to cake, something that is a luxury that serves no purpose other than the users enjoyment. If someone takes away all your cake your not suddenly living in some hellscape, you’re just not as happy as you would be with cake. If you own guns just because it makes you happy, you are exactly the type of person who should not be allowed to own guns.

              • Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                6 months ago

                That’s what we call mask off. If the gun grabbers wouldn’t be so sneaky and two-faced we’d have a real outcome based on what the public wants, not “won’t someone PLEASE think of the children” emotional arguments hiding the real goal.

  • danc4498@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Maybe the emoji he chose was a water gun, but the app he uses shows a real gun. 🔫

    Still should come in for some questioning.

  • vulgarcynic@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    He looks like such a soft, little cupcake. Why do all these new Republicans look like they’re wearing guyliner?

    Nothing wrong with that BTW, just noticing a trend. Are they not getting enough sunlight in the closet?

  • FancyLad @lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Weird thing to say to a retired command sergeant major. I bet he didn’t even intentionally cross state lines to murder someone either.

    • buttfarts@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      We are witnessing an idiot’s grift. There is no other place in the world for a Rittenhouse other than prison.

    • Delphia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      I’m Australian so being an english speaker on the internet I have an opinion on American politics because no matter how hard I try to escape it I cant. So if I have to hear about it incessantly Im going to keep throwing my half informed opinion in.

      But FUCK ME is the Harris/Walz ticket well thought out. You have a sitting Dem VP who is female and a POC with a history of being “tough on crime” and a male white late middle aged former high ranking NCO veteran with a history of some super liberal policies in his midwestern home state…

    • JokeDeity@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      I mean, absolutely fuck Rittenhouse to death, but isn’t it pretty likely that a retired sergeant major DID in fact cross state lines to murder?

  • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Reminds me of Ted Cruz:

    [Harris’] record is extraordinarily radical. Let me say at the outset, Kamala can’t have my guns, she can’t have my gasoline engine, and she sure as hell can’t have my steaks and cheeseburgers.

    • buttfarts@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      He’s so transparently pandering.

      Ted Cruz is smarter than all of this which is why I hate him more than MTG. She’s sad as shit because this is real to her. Ted is just a spineless grovelling coward with a shame kink who wants desperately to be powerful.