Quote of the Day
Be careful friends, the racist homophobes with erectile dysfunction are out in force today.
David Leavitt 🎲🎮🧙♂️🌈 🔜 #PaxEast @David_Leavitt
Posted on X, May 20, 2024
It’s not only another Markley’s Law Monday; it is another science denier (see also here)!
Leavitt started the thread with:
Ban assault rifles not books
Ban assault rifles not voting rights
Ban assault rifles not gay marriage
Ban assault rifles not abortion
Ban assault rifles not TikTok
Ban assault rifles not trans rights
Ban assault rifles not women’s rights
Ban assault rifles not the day after pill
Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.
And in yet another example of Markley’s Law he had no choice but demonstrate the best they can do in defense of their beliefs is childish insults. What else could you expect?
For the “the personal is the political” types, it is All One Thing.
Civilian disarmament is the same as gay marriage is the same as DEI is the same as Free Palestine is the same as Universal Healthcare is the same as Open Borders is the same as ACAB/Defund The Police is the same as Our Democracy is the same as Drag Queen Story Hour.
And if you don’t go hoarse with cheering about any of these, you’re Literally Shickelgruber.
I’d bet ten bucks that Mr. Leavitt doesn’t know what an assault rifle is.
Only one thing on that statist nitwit’s list does a US citizen a have Constitutionally guaranteed right to; the “assault” rifle!
If it doesn’t like that, it appears to be living in the wrong nation
Wouldn’t go that far. Freedom of the (printing) Press does imply the right to acquire the fruits of that right, the books and pamphlets thereof.
And there is a good argument to be made that the prohibition on establishing a religion would preclude government recognition of any form of marriage, as that is a religious concept, even if it is a somewhat different concept in different religions, but it would be prohibited for government to pick one version to be the ‘right’ one. To the extent that government under the US Constitution recognizes a contract of more than one person of legal majority to create a legal entity for join ownership of property and shared legal obligations and a defined process for dissolving that contract, that’s a different matter little different than forming an LLC, and anyone of legal majority would have the right to enter into such a contract of their own free will. Just don’t bother calling it “marriage” unless you’re going to clarify which set of “these two spiritually become one” rules: Buddhist? Shinto? Hindu? Catholic? Islamic? Jewish? A la cart Christian? Asatru? Third Church of Elvis Presley, Reformed? Vaguely spiritual wise-woman into crystals and auras and homeopathic remedies? Pick one; the only people with a right to say you’re not married are the people that set the rules for what marriage means, in their belief system, which you chose through presumptive due diligence.