›

Elon ******* Musk

Stercus TauriStercus Tauri Shipmate
in Hell
... has declared that his transgender daughter is dead. She isn't.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/07/26/musk-transgender-vivian-grimes/

And why, for heaven's sake, did the Washington Post place the article in the business section?

I have no words for this. Does anyone else?
«13

Comments

  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    He's a genuinely appalling person and Vivian Wilson replied to him on Threads rejecting his fabrications. She also did an interview with NBC

    https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/elon-musk-transgender-daughter-vivian-wilson-interview-rcna163665

    It's horrifying to think Musk has so much power and influence
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Stercus Tauri wrote: »
    ... has declared that his transgender daughter is dead. She isn't.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/07/26/musk-transgender-vivian-grimes/

    And why, for heaven's sake, did the Washington Post place the article in the business section?

    I have no words for this. Does anyone else?

    Not repeatable ones, no.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Not buying a Tesla here.
  • ChastMastrChastMastr Shipmate
    God have mercy on him. This also came out shortly after the news came out that in Trump’s nephew’s book, Trump suggested to his nephew that he let his disabled son die and move to Florida. One would hope that at least for family, there’d be a drop of human decency in these people, but apparently not. No wonder Musk and Trump like each other.
  • DafydDafyd Hell Host
    edited July 28
    I have to say I didn't think Musk could make my opinion of him worse.

    Spoiler for the film Glass Onion.
    There's a character in Glass Onion who is a satire on Musk. The detective doesn't initially suspect him of the murder, because he would have to be an idiot to commit murder when he was the obvious suspect and had no alibi; and everyone knows the character is a genius. Then the detective realises that in fact the character really just is an idiot.
  • Alan Cresswell Alan Cresswell Admin, 8th Day Host
    It's enough to make the author of stories about wizards to appear to be relatively friendly.
  • ChastMastrChastMastr Shipmate
    Suddenly, Judge Dredd appears!

    (Just for the Musk mockery of it all…)

    https://bleedingcool.com/comics/elon-musk-said-judge-dredd-would-drive-a-cybertruck-comic-folks-react/
  • EirenistEirenist Shipmate
    I suspect everyone is relatively friendly, on their own terms.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    What a time the poor girl must have had. No wonder she wants her father to be as dead to her, as she is apparently dead to him.

    🙏 that she can move on, and live the life she wants to live...
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Hey, in addition to being a shitty parent, apparently Musk is now dabbling in election tampering of borderline (at best) legality.
    The website [ for Musk's super PAC ] says it will help the viewer register to vote. But once a user clicks “Register to Vote,” the experience he or she will have can be very different, depending on where they live.

    If a user lives in a state that is not considered competitive in the presidential election, like California or Wyoming for example, they’ll be prompted to enter their email addresses and ZIP code and then directed quickly to a voter registration page for their state, or back to the original sign-up section.

    But for users who enter a ZIP code that indicates they live in a battleground state, like Pennsylvania or Georgia, the process is very different.

    Rather than be directed to their state’s voter registration page, they instead are directed to a highly detailed personal information form, prompted to enter their address, cellphone number and age.

    If they agree to submit all that, the system still does not steer them to a voter registration page. Instead, it shows them a “thank you” page.

    So that person who wanted help registering to vote? In the end, they got no help at all registering. But they did hand over priceless personal data to a political operation.

    Specifically, a political action committee created by Tesla

    CEO Elon Musk, one aimed at giving the Republican presidential nominee Trump an advantage in his campaign against Vice President Kamala Harris, the de facto Democratic nominee.

    “I have created a PAC, or a super PAC ... the America PAC,” Musk said in a recent interview.

    Some other thoughts on the matter.
    "How is this legal!?" Veni Kunche of Diversify Tech asked on X in response to the reporting. "America PAC is misleading voters."

    Georgetown University professor Don Moynihan also raised legal concerns, saying, "Getting people's personal information on the promise of helping them to register to vote, and then not helping them to register to vote definitely seems like election fraud."

    Retired journalist Mary Beth Schneider said: "Scamming people into thinking they registered to vote? This should be illegal."

    Jodi Jacobson, founder and executive director of Healthcare Across Borders, called for a federal investigation.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    Musk and his works are best avoided, if at all possible.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    His libertarianism is propagating racist violence now in the UK.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    Twitter has not changed for the better since it became X, it seems.
  • ChastMastrChastMastr Shipmate
    Bishops Finger wrote: »
    Twitter has not changed for the better since it became X, it seems.

    That's an understatement, sadly.
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Hey, in addition to being a shitty parent, apparently Musk is now dabbling in election tampering of borderline (at best) legality.
    The website [ for Musk's super PAC ] says it will help the viewer register to vote. But once a user clicks “Register to Vote,” the experience he or she will have can be very different, depending on where they live.

    If a user lives in a state that is not considered competitive in the presidential election, like California or Wyoming for example, they’ll be prompted to enter their email addresses and ZIP code and then directed quickly to a voter registration page for their state, or back to the original sign-up section.

    But for users who enter a ZIP code that indicates they live in a battleground state, like Pennsylvania or Georgia, the process is very different.

    Rather than be directed to their state’s voter registration page, they instead are directed to a highly detailed personal information form, prompted to enter their address, cellphone number and age.

    If they agree to submit all that, the system still does not steer them to a voter registration page. Instead, it shows them a “thank you” page.

    So that person who wanted help registering to vote? In the end, they got no help at all registering. But they did hand over priceless personal data to a political operation.

    Specifically, a political action committee created by Tesla

    CEO Elon Musk, one aimed at giving the Republican presidential nominee Trump an advantage in his campaign against Vice President Kamala Harris, the de facto Democratic nominee.

    “I have created a PAC, or a super PAC ... the America PAC,” Musk said in a recent interview.

    Some other thoughts on the matter.
    "How is this legal!?" Veni Kunche of Diversify Tech asked on X in response to the reporting. "America PAC is misleading voters."

    Georgetown University professor Don Moynihan also raised legal concerns, saying, "Getting people's personal information on the promise of helping them to register to vote, and then not helping them to register to vote definitely seems like election fraud."

    Retired journalist Mary Beth Schneider said: "Scamming people into thinking they registered to vote? This should be illegal."

    Jodi Jacobson, founder and executive director of Healthcare Across Borders, called for a federal investigation.

    Fingers crossed for that federal investigation. That's got to be illegal, surely?
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    I like the way Xitter sounds at first take. Rather than a lovely city in Devon blitzed in the Baedeker Raids.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    As many of you may know, a big contributor to Xitter's financial woes has been the flight of advertisers, most of whom don't want ads for their products/services appearing next to some Xit-poster's anti-semitic thread about how (((international bankers))) faked the Holocaust and engineered COVID to not affect Jews. Musk initially responded to this by telling his advertisers to "go fuck themselves". For some reason that didn't convince them to come back, so now he's moved on to his next big idea: suing them. That's right, Mr. Free Speech Absolutist is suing his former advertisers because he apparently thinks it's totally legit to use the government to force someone to buy ads on your Xitty social network.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    What will drive this Fascist scumbag's share prices permanently down? Who advertizes on Xitter? Now Unilever, Mars, Disney don't?
  • ChastMastrChastMastr Shipmate
    The MyPillow guy?
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate
    ChastMastr wrote: »
    The MyPillow guy?

    I don't think Xitter allows them to target Vance specifically.
  • alienfromzogalienfromzog Shipmate
    Arethosemyfeet wrote: »
    ChastMastr wrote: »
    The MyPillow guy?

    I don't think Xitter allows them to target Vance specifically.

    I see what you did there!
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    edited August 8
    alienfromzog wrote: »
    Arethosemyfeet wrote: »
    ChastMastr wrote: »
    The MyPillow guy?

    I don't think Xitter allows them to target Vance specifically.

    I see what you did there!

    This.A link to a site presumably doing live coverage of the Republican National Convention last month.I have no idea as to how reliable the site is as a news source, or whether it's relevant to the thread. Dafyd Hell Host

    ssOhhhh. Er, who's 'them', @Arethosemyfeet? Om bein' thick here.

    And I was thinking that Musk was one step away from being a Bond villain, but he's actually one step beyond. He's enabling The BBC at least. Dafyd Hell Host Russia to attack Britain.

    And he cannot be stopped can he. Unless there's a NATO reaction.
  • DafydDafyd Hell Host
    As a general courtesy to other posters and the hosts, please could people not include links to other websites without saying where the link goes to and indicating why you think it's relevant.

    Dafyd Hell Host
  • ChastMastrChastMastr Shipmate
    Ah, the link to the RNC update is about Mike Lindell, the MyPillow guy, thinking Vance is a great choice. I hadn’t actually thought about the terrible jokes that could be made about Vance and “MyPillow.”

    Lindell made a product called “MyPillow,” which is, well, a pillow. Then he just sort of jumped into the Trump pit and has become more well known for that. So much weird, toxic political stuff, conspiracy theories, etc., it’s kind of extra bizarre that it involves a guy who was mainly known for a pillow company.

    Wikipedia:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Lindell
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    Dafyd wrote: »
    As a general courtesy to other posters and the hosts, please could people not include links to other websites without saying where the link goes to and indicating why you think it's relevant.

    Dafyd Hell Host

    My apologies @Dafyd.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    ChastMastr wrote: »
    Ah, the link to the RNC update is about Mike Lindell, the MyPillow guy, thinking Vance is a great choice. I hadn’t actually thought about the terrible jokes that could be made about Vance and “MyPillow.”

    Lindell made a product called “MyPillow,” which is, well, a pillow. Then he just sort of jumped into the Trump pit and has become more well known for that. So much weird, toxic political stuff, conspiracy theories, etc., it’s kind of extra bizarre that it involves a guy who was mainly known for a pillow company.

    Wikipedia:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Lindell

    Er, I dread to ask, but what terrible jokes?
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    ChastMastr wrote: »
    Ah, the link to the RNC update is about Mike Lindell, the MyPillow guy, thinking Vance is a great choice. I hadn’t actually thought about the terrible jokes that could be made about Vance and “MyPillow.”

    Lindell made a product called “MyPillow,” which is, well, a pillow. Then he just sort of jumped into the Trump pit and has become more well known for that. So much weird, toxic political stuff, conspiracy theories, etc., it’s kind of extra bizarre that it involves a guy who was mainly known for a pillow company.

    Wikipedia:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Lindell

    Er, I dread to ask, but what terrible jokes?

    Relating, one presumes, to the GOP VP candidate's alleged *ahem* predilection for soft furnishings.
  • alienfromzogalienfromzog Shipmate
    ChastMastr wrote: »
    Ah, the link to the RNC update is about Mike Lindell, the MyPillow guy, thinking Vance is a great choice. I hadn’t actually thought about the terrible jokes that could be made about Vance and “MyPillow.”

    Lindell made a product called “MyPillow,” which is, well, a pillow. Then he just sort of jumped into the Trump pit and has become more well known for that. So much weird, toxic political stuff, conspiracy theories, etc., it’s kind of extra bizarre that it involves a guy who was mainly known for a pillow company.

    Wikipedia:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Lindell

    Thank you for helping out. There was a little bit of in-jokes going on there and I was very guilty.

    There is a mythical story about Mr Vance having a particular liking for furniture. Clearly this is somewhat ridiculous and a joke but Mr Walz made a nice joke about it the other night. Mike Lidell's fortune was built on the back of this particular product "My Pillow" so somewhat silly mirth will inevitable follow.

    This is a good summary of how Mr Walz alluded to it: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/tim-walz-vp-jd-vance-couch-rally-b2592322.html

    I thus couldn't resist my one line rejoinder.

    However there is an important point here. Trump/Vance are extremely toxic. Trump especially makes serious debate very challenging because of how he floods the conversation with an unending stream of bullshit. Fighting back with mockery is one part of the armory of those who oppose them.

    This is an example of Right Wingers whining about it on Twitter: https://x.com/weisselbergers/status/1821325428226658555?t=_fOcRy9CRZmmBPqVRTIaOg&s=19

    This: https://x.com/WendyReedTweet/status/1821410597000634842?t=dNgAQ-FP74RS9NjFJOdfNw&s=19
    and this: https://x.com/CadetBoneySpurs/status/1821405385074610392?t=rB3InsXGXiDnsTkaVRo8qA&s=19
    are perfect, apt responses.

    AFZ
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    Elon has recounted trips to a wilderness school ("veldskool") that he described as a "paramilitary Lord of the Flies" where "bullying was a virtue" and children were encouraged to fight over rations.
    wiki

    Hmmmm. Formative it looks like. And not in a good way.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    Yes. The old chestnut repeats itself - is he how he is because of Nature, or Nurture?
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    Bishops Finger wrote: »
    Yes. The old chestnut repeats itself - is he how he is because of Nature, or Nurture?

    All is nature. Nurture is nature. We're pre-wired for experience. So, he, like us, is fecklessly innocent. How do we bring him down? It is our nature to slay monsters among us.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    Not sure I entirely agree with you, as I wouldn't call him innocent.

    He knows full well what he's doing, though no-one seems to know quite what his game plan (if he has one) actually is.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    I agree he knows full well what he's doing, but he can't help it. He's accountable to no one but shareholders. He's obviously fine with what he's doing, like Trump and Putin. Nothing can impugn these men. He's too big=rich to be brought down. We have created monsters we cannot slay.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited August 8
    Martin54 wrote: »
    I agree he knows full well what he's doing, but he can't help it. He's accountable to no one but shareholders. He's obviously fine with what he's doing, like Trump and Putin. Nothing can impugn these men. He's too big=rich to be brought down. We have created monsters we cannot slay.

    Indeed we have.

    All these people seem to be riding on the backs of tigers, and are unable to get off without being torn to shreds and devoured...
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    Stalin comes to mind. All we have to do is wait a decade or four... Worse case with Trump is 4 years anyway. Unless...
  • ChastMastrChastMastr Shipmate
    Bishops Finger wrote: »
    Yes. The old chestnut repeats itself - is he how he is because of Nature, or Nurture?

    Or misuse of Free Will?
  • SpikeSpike Ecclesiantics & MW Host, Admin Emeritus
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Stalin comes to mind. All we have to do is wait a decade or four... Worse case with Trump is 4 years anyway. Unless...
    That “unless” is what scares me. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if he removes the amendment in the constitution that only allows presidents to serve a maximum of two terms. I wouldn’t even put it past him to try and abolish elections altogether.
  • RockyRogerRockyRoger Shipmate
    ChastMastr wrote: »
    Bishops Finger wrote: »
    Yes. The old chestnut repeats itself - is he how he is because of Nature, or Nurture?

    Or misuse of Free Will?

    Spot on, bruv. CS Lewis is good on this topic.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    Spike wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Stalin comes to mind. All we have to do is wait a decade or four... Worse case with Trump is 4 years anyway. Unless...
    That “unless” is what scares me. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if he removes the amendment in the constitution that only allows presidents to serve a maximum of two terms. I wouldn’t even put it past him to try and abolish elections altogether.

    It's implicit in his speeches isn't it?
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate
    Spike wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Stalin comes to mind. All we have to do is wait a decade or four... Worse case with Trump is 4 years anyway. Unless...
    That “unless” is what scares me. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if he removes the amendment in the constitution that only allows presidents to serve a maximum of two terms. I wouldn’t even put it past him to try and abolish elections altogether.

    He could only do either of those things by suspending the constitution. Either change would require constitutional amendments via the correct process (congress plus 3/4 of states if memory serves) and that is just not going to happen.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    Arethosemyfeet wrote: »
    Spike wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Stalin comes to mind. All we have to do is wait a decade or four... Worse case with Trump is 4 years anyway. Unless...
    That “unless” is what scares me. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if he removes the amendment in the constitution that only allows presidents to serve a maximum of two terms. I wouldn’t even put it past him to try and abolish elections altogether.

    He could only do either of those things by suspending the constitution. Either change would require constitutional amendments via the correct process (congress plus 3/4 of states if memory serves) and that is just not going to happen.

    Isn't there a gap between the 1st & 2nd sentences? What stops him from suspending the constitution?
  • DafydDafyd Hell Host
    The current preferred methods of autocrats leave the elections in place and make sure, through a mixture of police harassment of opponents and election rigging, that the elections give the right answer. Trump's advisors are surely capable of that.

    I wouldn't put it past the current US Supreme Court to rule whatever Amendment limits Presidents to two terms unconstitutional or improperly implemented if they thought it was in their political interests.
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Arethosemyfeet wrote: »
    Spike wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Stalin comes to mind. All we have to do is wait a decade or four... Worse case with Trump is 4 years anyway. Unless...
    That “unless” is what scares me. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if he removes the amendment in the constitution that only allows presidents to serve a maximum of two terms. I wouldn’t even put it past him to try and abolish elections altogether.

    He could only do either of those things by suspending the constitution. Either change would require constitutional amendments via the correct process (congress plus 3/4 of states if memory serves) and that is just not going to happen.

    Isn't there a gap between the 1st & 2nd sentences? What stops him from suspending the constitution?

    There is no formal mechanism, as I understand it, for suspending the constitution so if he seeks to disapply it then there's no longer anything saying he's president and it would be an open question whether anyone, from the Joint Chiefs on down, was required to listen to a thing he said. The second sentence was explaining why suspending the constitution would be necessary to either repeal term limits or cancel elections.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    ChastMastr wrote: »
    Bishops Finger wrote: »
    Yes. The old chestnut repeats itself - is he how he is because of Nature, or Nurture?

    Or misuse of Free Will?

    Yes, perhaps. He could choose to stop his spreading of misinformation...
  • Marvin the MartianMarvin the Martian Shipmate
    Dafyd wrote: »
    I wouldn't put it past the current US Supreme Court to rule whatever Amendment limits Presidents to two terms unconstitutional or improperly implemented if they thought it was in their political interests.

    I'm not sure even this Supreme Court could rule something unconstitutional when it's actually in the constitution.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Marvin the Martian wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    I wouldn't put it past the current US Supreme Court to rule whatever Amendment limits Presidents to two terms unconstitutional or improperly implemented if they thought it was in their political interests.

    I'm not sure even this Supreme Court could rule something unconstitutional when it's actually in the constitution.
    Indeed, the Constitution by definition cannot be unconstitutional. And there is nothing in the Constitution that allows a president to “suspend” it.

  • DoublethinkDoublethink Admin, 8th Day Host
    So by what legal mechanism is the "well-regulated militia" bit routinely ignored ?
  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    Spike wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Stalin comes to mind. All we have to do is wait a decade or four... Worse case with Trump is 4 years anyway. Unless...
    That “unless” is what scares me. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if he removes the amendment in the constitution that only allows presidents to serve a maximum of two terms. I wouldn’t even put it past him to try and abolish elections altogether.
    Dafyd wrote: »
    The current preferred methods of autocrats leave the elections in place and make sure, through a mixture of police harassment of opponents and election rigging, that the elections give the right answer. Trump's advisors are surely capable of that.

    I wouldn't put it past the current US Supreme Court to rule whatever Amendment limits Presidents to two terms unconstitutional or improperly implemented if they thought it was in their political interests.

    I’m not saying he wouldn’t want to, or try to. But it can’t be done by Fiat or by the Supreme Court. The usual method, i understand, it’s to get the military on your side and then make a naked power grab. I’m fairly sure the U.S. military forces are actively putting in place safeguards against this very thing as we speak, given that he made the attempt to co-opt them during his first term.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    Arethosemyfeet wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Arethosemyfeet wrote: »
    Spike wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Stalin comes to mind. All we have to do is wait a decade or four... Worse case with Trump is 4 years anyway. Unless...
    That “unless” is what scares me. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if he removes the amendment in the constitution that only allows presidents to serve a maximum of two terms. I wouldn’t even put it past him to try and abolish elections altogether.

    He could only do either of those things by suspending the constitution. Either change would require constitutional amendments via the correct process (congress plus 3/4 of states if memory serves) and that is just not going to happen.

    Isn't there a gap between the 1st & 2nd sentences? What stops him from suspending the constitution?

    There is no formal mechanism, as I understand it, for suspending the constitution so if he seeks to disapply it then there's no longer anything saying he's president and it would be an open question whether anyone, from the Joint Chiefs on down, was required to listen to a thing he said. The second sentence was explaining why suspending the constitution would be necessary to either repeal term limits or cancel elections.

    Excellent on the 1st sentence. The 2nd on the 2nd I got 1st time : )
    Bishops Finger wrote: »
    ChastMastr wrote: »
    Bishops Finger wrote: »
    Yes. The old chestnut repeats itself - is he how he is because of Nature, or Nurture?

    Or misuse of Free Will?

    Yes, perhaps. He could choose to stop his spreading of misinformation...

    What's free will again?
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Marvin the Martian wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    I wouldn't put it past the current US Supreme Court to rule whatever Amendment limits Presidents to two terms unconstitutional or improperly implemented if they thought it was in their political interests.

    I'm not sure even this Supreme Court could rule something unconstitutional when it's actually in the constitution.
    Indeed, the Constitution by definition cannot be unconstitutional. And there is nothing in the Constitution that allows a president to “suspend” it.

    Or disallows?
    Lamb Chopped wrote: »
    Spike wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Stalin comes to mind. All we have to do is wait a decade or four... Worse case with Trump is 4 years anyway. Unless...
    That “unless” is what scares me. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if he removes the amendment in the constitution that only allows presidents to serve a maximum of two terms. I wouldn’t even put it past him to try and abolish elections altogether.
    Dafyd wrote: »
    The current preferred methods of autocrats leave the elections in place and make sure, through a mixture of police harassment of opponents and election rigging, that the elections give the right answer. Trump's advisors are surely capable of that.

    I wouldn't put it past the current US Supreme Court to rule whatever Amendment limits Presidents to two terms unconstitutional or improperly implemented if they thought it was in their political interests.

    I’m not saying he wouldn’t want to, or try to. But it can’t be done by Fiat or by the Supreme Court. The usual method, i understand, it’s to get the military on your side and then make a naked power grab. I’m fairly sure the U.S. military forces are actively putting in place safeguards against this very thing as we speak, given that he made the attempt to co-opt them during his first term.

    The superb Seven Days in May comes to mind.
  • HarryCHHarryCH Shipmate
    As I understand it, the reference to the well-regulated militia derives from the desire of states in which slavery was legal to have the power to use militias to hunt down and kill runaway or rebellious slaves. There were enough such states to require this phrase in the Second Amendment. It is ignored as irrelevant.

    Some of us flaming liberals would, of course, like to see an amendment to weaken the Second Amendment substantially.
  • Leorning CnihtLeorning Cniht Shipmate
    Doublethink wrote: »
    So by what legal mechanism is the "well-regulated militia" bit routinely ignored ?

    It's not ignored. The text of the second amendment reads "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    One way of parsing that sentence is that it tells you that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed, and the reason for this is that a well-regulated Militia is necessary. So the Militia is a reason, but not a constraint on the right enumerated.
Sign In or Register to comment.