- This topic has 33 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 3 months ago by
Anonymous.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 10, 2016 at 10:27 AM #22080August 10, 2016 at 10:37 AM #800476
spdrun
ParticipantRead a site like Free Republic. Sadly similar nonsense is said all the time — FBI/SS involvement would likely require a direct threat. Problem is that some unhinged person might actually listen to Trump, vs most posters on certain sites are shouting to an empty room.
August 10, 2016 at 12:10 PM #800477Anonymous
GuestThere’s a silver lining: Trump has stooped so low that it is forcing many Republicans to reject the party candidate and take a stand on principles.
Trump should drop out of the race. And he probably would if he could. However at this point the Republicans would not be able to replace him with any consensus. (I’ve also seen that in many states it is already too late for a new party candidate to be registered.)
Nothing will influence the outcome at this point short of an enormous gaffe or scandal in the Clinton campaign. Neither is likely since Hillary is a seasoned politician. She can play it safe in the debates and there’s no more dirt left as the Republicans have been trying to smear her for nearly three decades.
Trump’s only real chance is that something happens to Clinton. At this point I wouldn’t be surprised if that were his game plan.
August 10, 2016 at 12:23 PM #800478scaredyclassic
Participantinteresting…there may be no legal or historical basis at all to argue the 2nd am. was intended to help the People overthrow tyrannical govt.
August 10, 2016 at 12:25 PM #800479Participant[quote=harvey]There’s a silver lining: Trump has stooped so low that it is forcing many Republicans to reject the party candidate and take a stand on principles.
Trump should drop out of the race. And he probably would if he could. However at this point the Republicans would not be able to replace him with any consensus. (I’ve also seen that in many states it is already too late for a new party candidate to be registered.)
Nothing will influence the outcome at this point short of an enormous gaffe or scandal in the Clinton campaign. Neither is likely since Hillary is a seasoned politician. She can play it safe in the debates and there’s no more dirt left as the Republicans have been trying to smear her for nearly three decades.
Trump’s only real chance is that something happens to Clinton. At this point I wouldn’t be surprised if that were his game plan.[/quote]
this statement actually alarmed me. i guess it gets to why i hate guns. a chunk of the popu k ation feels they get to shoot people if things arent going their way
August 10, 2016 at 1:43 PM #800480outtamojo
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic][quote=harvey]There’s a silver lining: Trump has stooped so low that it is forcing many Republicans to reject the party candidate and take a stand on principles.
Trump should drop out of the race. And he probably would if he could. However at this point the Republicans would not be able to replace him with any consensus. (I’ve also seen that in many states it is already too late for a new party candidate to be registered.)
Nothing will influence the outcome at this point short of an enormous gaffe or scandal in the Clinton campaign. Neither is likely since Hillary is a seasoned politician. She can play it safe in the debates and there’s no more dirt left as the Republicans have been trying to smear her for nearly three decades.
Trump’s only real chance is that something happens to Clinton. At this point I wouldn’t be surprised if that were his game plan.[/quote]
this statement actually alarmed me. i guess it gets to why i hate guns. a chunk of the popu k ation feels they get to shoot people if things arent going their way[/quote]
you mean like these people http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-irresponsible-speech-20160809-snap-story.html
August 10, 2016 at 2:53 PM #800481La Jolla Renter
Participanthey… maybe we should all fear them both. (sarcasm)
August 10, 2016 at 7:25 PM #800482Participant[quote=La Jolla Renter]hey… maybe we should all fear them both. (sarcasm)
http://nypost.com/2008/05/24/hills-assassin-talk-a-shocker/%5B/quote%5D
both bad. trumps quite a bit worse. sounds more like hes inciting his base to get their guns and kill. some federal officials
August 10, 2016 at 7:37 PM #800484FlyerInHi
Guest[quote=La Jolla Renter]hey… maybe we should all fear them both. (sarcasm)
http://nypost.com/2008/05/24/hills-assassin-talk-a-shocker/%5B/quote%5D
What is it about certain people looking for moral equivalence to bad behavior?
That’s what the Russians, Chinese, and autocrats do all the time. We would never accept that argument.It’s kinda childish too. My parent never allowed me to say “he did that too.” Their response was “we are judging you now.”
August 10, 2016 at 10:33 PM #800487ucodegen
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/08/trump_s_assassination_joke_is_the_logical_endpoint_for_the_gop.html
interesting…there may be no legal or historical basis at all to argue the 2nd am. was intended to help the People overthrow tyrannical govt.[/quote]
You might need to rethink. The Supreme Court determined that the second amendment is an individual right. I think the article referenced is extremely slanted and poorly researched. Look back at history and Federalist Papers. The founders of this nation were very aware that the only reason why the proto-United States was able to break from England was because firearms were allowed to the ‘commoners’ (to get food and protect from ‘marauding savages’). NOTE: The Magna Carta ensured rights to Barons and other royalty when dealing with the English Monarchy, however it didn’t give rights to the commoners. The Magna Carta exists because Barons etc were allowed to have weapons while commoners weren’t. The king had the right to ‘draw’ upon the baron’s “army” in defense of England.From this and other examples, the Founders of the United States realized that to ensure the freedom of its citizens, the citizens must be able to arm themselves if needed. Power draws people to it that want to use the power and authority for their own profit and personal reasons, at a detriment to the public. Not everyone seeking power is altruistic, in fact – most aren’t. NOTE: Many claim that individuals with rifles don’t stand a chance against heavier armor – but that is not what Afghanistan has demonstrated, and not what I have found in my line of work (Defense Contractor). An army of 100,000 does not stand much of a chance when among a group 300 million armed citizens. That said, I have personally found that the US military is much less disposed to violate our constitutional rights than the police. (to those who like to take quotes out of context, remember that I have said that there are many very good police whose work is tainted the the actions of a few bad apples and the desire of administration to cover it all over).
This all does not preclude the right for someone to have a ‘handgun’ as a home self defense weapon – (see other notes in quoted referenced link). There is a distinction between handgun and a ‘long rifle’.
Additionally, in the quoted article, the structure in the sentence:
He also compared the militias of early America to a form of taxation, saying that citizens had what Jefferson referred to as a “right and duty” to be armed. That is, they were required to buy weapons in addition to being allowed to possess them. Militia membership was often compulsory, Cornell said.
Is poorly structured because the first sentence includes a 3 word quote from a larger sentence of Jefferson’s used to implicitly support what is Saul Cornell’s actual position. It is a misleading transition. Jefferson did not imply or necessarily support the statements and a more complete quote is really justified. You could almost say that it was a snippet of a quote from Jefferson taken out of context (to be generous). Militias were not compulsory – though there was social pressure to join in some cases. There was also a worry that militias might coordinate and become a cartel operating against the citizens (rule by militia despot). Many try to twist the meaning of regulate to mean ‘outfit’, ‘prepared’. The are not the same. Regulate has always been to control – as Rules and Regulations, Voltage and Current Regulators, Pool Regulations.. etc.
The quote following the one above:
He questions whether the Founding Fathers would have welcomed the idea of people taking up arms against their newly hatched constitutional government instead of using governmental procedure to settle differences, which sometimes is referred to as the “ballots vs. bullets” debate.
is also very misleading – and implying that the Founding Fathers may not have had the consent of the citizens of the nation in formation. This is incorrect. The form that the nation was taking was debated and hashed out over time. They also realized that if the nation was not the form that most of its citizens wished – they did have the right to force change. The was to be ‘of and for the people’.
The Constitution has always been about balance of power, of putting one authority against another, to make it difficult for one group to have complete autonomy in power. As evidence, I present the Three Houses of the United States Government; Executive, Legislative, Judicial – each set against the other (Executive – executes the written laws, Legislative – writes the laws, Judicial – weighs and evaluates the laws (against and using)). I also present the way Senators are elected, their terms and the number per state when compared to the House of Representatives. I also present the existence of the House of Representatives AND Senate – when it would seem that only one would be needed.
The final part of the balance was:
1) Freedom of the press – so that we may know what the government is doing in our name.
2) Right to bear arms – to ensure that our vote is counted and our collective wishes are obeyed.I hope it never comes that we need to exercise #2 in the fullest, because it would be a very sad day indeed.
NOTE: on the referenced link, I also noticed in the last 3 to 4 paragraphs, the author walked a bit back from their earlier statements. I also would not state extremist views advocating violence only form from the right. By the nature of being extreme – they are on both sides of the middle. Note the valid quote of Jefferson “a little rebellion now and then is a good thing” – to which I want to add that “a little rebellion now and then prevents a large and bloody rebellion later”.
August 10, 2016 at 10:49 PM #800488Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]
this statement actually alarmed me. i guess it gets to why i hate guns. a chunk of the popu k ation feels they get to shoot people if things arent going their way[/quote]This supposed quote of Trump saying that the second amendment people would take (kill) Hillary is a gross twist done by innuendo. The reality of the whole thing is that the ‘Second Amendment’ people, who are not necessarily all Republican – might vote solely on the risk to the Second Amendment and cause Hillary to loose the race. Remember context boys and girls. We are talking about an election and wedge issues that politicians etc like to throw about. Its all about votes.NOTE: I don’t know yet if Trump actually said it was a ‘Joke’, if so – he shouldn’t have. He should have turned to the questioner and asked in his “You’re Fired” voice and say ‘and do you regularly take quotes out of context and then twist the meaning?’ – He definitely needs to learn to handle people misquoting in a more ‘creative’ manner.
Quote in question:
“Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment,” Trump said of his presidential rival. “By the way, and if she gets to pick,” he continued, “if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know.”
August 10, 2016 at 11:02 PM #800489Participant[quote=ucodegen][quote=scaredyclassic]http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/08/trump_s_assassination_joke_is_the_logical_endpoint_for_the_gop.html
interesting…there may be no legal or historical basis at all to argue the 2nd am. was intended to help the People overthrow tyrannical govt.[/quote]
You might need to rethink. The Supreme Court determined that the second amendment is an individual right. I think the article referenced is extremely slanted and poorly researched. Look back at history and Federalist Papers. The founders of this nation were very aware that the only reason why the proto-United States was able to break from England was because firearms were allowed to the ‘commoners’ (to get food and protect from ‘marauding savages’). NOTE: The Magna Carta ensured rights to Barons and other royalty when dealing with the English Monarchy, however it didn’t give rights to the commoners. The Magna Carta exists because Barons etc were allowed to have weapons while commoners weren’t. The king had the right to ‘draw’ upon the baron’s “army” in defense of England.From this and other examples, the Founders of the United States realized that to ensure the freedom of its citizens, the citizens must be able to arm themselves if needed. Power draws people to it that want to use the power and authority for their own profit and personal reasons, at a detriment to the public. Not everyone seeking power is altruistic, in fact – most aren’t. NOTE: Many claim that individuals with rifles don’t stand a chance against heavier armor – but that is not what Afghanistan has demonstrated, and not what I have found in my line of work (Defense Contractor). An army of 100,000 does not stand much of a chance when among a group 300 million armed citizens. That said, I have personally found that the US military is much less disposed to violate our constitutional rights than the police. (to those who like to take quotes out of context, remember that I have said that there are many very good police whose work is tainted the the actions of a few bad apples and the desire of administration to cover it all over).
This all does not preclude the right for someone to have a ‘handgun’ as a home self defense weapon – (see other notes in quoted referenced link). There is a distinction between handgun and a ‘long rifle’.
Additionally, in the quoted article, the structure in the sentence:
He also compared the militias of early America to a form of taxation, saying that citizens had what Jefferson referred to as a “right and duty” to be armed. That is, they were required to buy weapons in addition to being allowed to possess them. Militia membership was often compulsory, Cornell said.
Is poorly structured because the first sentence includes a 3 word quote from a larger sentence of Jefferson’s used to implicitly support what is Saul Cornell’s actual position. It is a misleading transition. Jefferson did not imply or necessarily support the statements and a more complete quote is really justified. You could almost say that it was a snippet of a quote from Jefferson taken out of context (to be generous). Militias were not compulsory – though there was social pressure to join in some cases. There was also a worry that militias might coordinate and become a cartel operating against the citizens (rule by militia despot). Many try to twist the meaning of regulate to mean ‘outfit’, ‘prepared’. The are not the same. Regulate has always been to control – as Rules and Regulations, Voltage and Current Regulators, Pool Regulations.. etc.
The quote following the one above:
He questions whether the Founding Fathers would have welcomed the idea of people taking up arms against their newly hatched constitutional government instead of using governmental procedure to settle differences, which sometimes is referred to as the “ballots vs. bullets” debate.
is also very misleading – and implying that the Founding Fathers may not have had the consent of the citizens of the nation in formation. This is incorrect. The form that the nation was taking was debated and hashed out over time. They also realized that if the nation was not the form that most of its citizens wished – they did have the right to force change. The was to be ‘of and for the people’.
The Constitution has always been about balance of power, of putting one authority against another, to make it difficult for one group to have complete autonomy in power. As evidence, I present the Three Houses of the United States Government; Executive, Legislative, Judicial – each set against the other (Executive – executes the written laws, Legislative – writes the laws, Judicial – weighs and evaluates the laws (against and using)). I also present the way Senators are elected, their terms and the number per state when compared to the House of Representatives. I also present the existence of the House of Representatives AND Senate – when it would seem that only one would be needed.
The final part of the balance was:
1) Freedom of the press – so that we may know what the government is doing in our name.
2) Right to bear arms – to ensure that our vote is counted and our collective wishes are obeyed.I hope it never comes that we need to exercise #2 in the fullest, because it would be a very sad day indeed.
NOTE: on the referenced link, I also noticed in the last 3 to 4 paragraphs, the author walked a bit back from their earlier statements. I also would not state extremist views advocating violence only form from the right. By the nature of being extreme – they are on both sides of the middle. Note the valid quote of Jefferson “a little rebellion now and then is a good thing” – to which I want to add that “a little rebellion now and then prevents a large and bloody rebellion later”.[/quote]
well ok. i dont know the area. the federalist papers arent law. the supreme court never discusses the right to bear arms in terms of killing local tyrants, i dont think….but if thats what the constitution really really means, then i guess thats what it means. it doesnt feel like the political process should work like that, but maybe it should. “should i lose, the vote is rigged, and your vote is not counted …avenge my loss. kill the tyrants. kill them all. blast them with muskets and blunderbusses!! cut off their heads with farm tools!!!”.
that just doesnt feel right to me…but maybe i dont really understand the 2nd am. i guess what your saying it means, historically, is that a presidential candidate (or really, any leader of the People, at least those people who are Oppressed)) is merely following the spirit of the constitution if he tells his followers to kill the other side upon losing because theyre tyrannical? is that really what you mean?
August 10, 2016 at 11:22 PM #800491GuestScaredy, I really love reading your posts.
Humm… kill the tyrants. I was talking to my brother about this. He loves his guns and wants to protect them. I told him that since be owns guns already, he should support strict gun control because that would make his collection more valuable. It’s like owning a house in a great neighborhood and forbidding any new construction.He admits that “standing up to the tyrants” is just a stupid but effective vote getting argument especially when the NRA also supports stronger police and military. The military outguns any citizen and can easily take away the guns if necessary.
If anyone should have taken up arms, the slaves, during the civil war, should have revolted and taken over while the men were away, like the peasants revolted in Russia or China and killed all the aristocrats who oppressed them
August 11, 2016 at 12:02 AM #800492Participantit is a federal crime to thteaten a candidate for certain offices. of course the statute could be unconstitutional if the 2nd am. protects such threats. if actual violence is implicitly sanctioned under oppressive circumstances under the 2nd am , then certainly mere words would be protected too.
but…
i doubt any federal j. would find that “dont threaten the president”statute unconstitutional on its face because some lawyer says the constitution trumps the federal statute.
i dont think the courts would find that the 2nd ams’. purpose is to allow for killing tyrants, federalist papers notwithstanding.
of course, the 2nd am. dudes response to that judicial ruling might be that those are tyrannical judges who cannot understand the plain meaning of the constitution and need killin’. cause theyre part of an oppressive tyrranical regime
which also really doesnt sit right with me.
im pretty sure the way we understand the purpose of the 2nd am. now, legally, is that it is not for the purpose of over throwing disliked politicians or govt. employees, collectively or individually.
risky business.
losers r traitors.
August 11, 2016 at 12:02 AM #800493Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]
well ok. i dont know the area. the federalist papers arent law. the supreme court never discusses the right to bear arms in terms of killing local tyrants, i dont think….but if thats what the constitution really really means, then i guess thats what it means. it doesnt feel like the political process should work like that, but maybe it should. “should i lose, the vote is rigged, and your vote is not counted …avenge my loss. kill the tyrants. kill them all. blast them with muskets and blunderbusses!! cut off their heads with farm tools!!!”.
[/quote]Taking a quote out of context might work with Trump, but not me. I never said that an individual or small group should take action. The weapons are there should the citizens as a majority need to take collective action.To think about:
What if the vote is rigged but law enforcement decides to do nothing? – Remember that the Executive branch controls law enforcement.What is our vote worth? Is it ok for the vote to be rigged so long as it goes in the direction a particular person wants?
At what price does integrity sell for?
What insures that our vote does get counted?
[quote=scaredyclassic]
that just doesnt feel right to me…but maybe i dont really understand the 2nd am. i guess what your saying it means, historically, is that a presidential candidate (or really, any leader of the People, at least those people who are Oppressed)) is merely following the spirit of the constitution if he tells his followers to kill the other side upon losing because theyre tyrannical? is that really what you mean?[/quote]No, you don’t get it. The Federalists Papers, while not law, go to intent and why certain parts are written the way they are.
The “picking up of arms” is not to be taken lightly, and should ONLY be considered on last resort.
The intent is to prevent Oppression. How do you defend life when the government decides to operate outside of the constitutional and legal processes? To take when it feels like – giving any reason it feels like? To potentially kill or imprison citizens at will?
To make it simple:
Scenario 1:
A picnic table with $10,000 on it – no body around. What do you do? What happens.
- Some people will look around to see if anybody is looking and then take the money and run.
- Some people will look around to see if anybody is there and if nobody, take it to the police/lost and found.
- Some people (very few) will just walk on by.
Scenario 2:
A picnic table with $10,000 on it – a really scrawny person is near it – may be guarding it. There is nobody else around.
- Some people if armed or larger than the scrawny person may just walk up and take it – particularly when there is nobody around that could assist the scrawny person.
- Some people would go up and ask about it and offer to help watch it or help take it to the police.
- Some people (more than a few now) will just walk on by.
Scenario 3:
A picnic table with $10,000 on it – a some really scrawny people are near it – may be guarding it. There is nobody else around.
- A few people, particularly if armed, will go and take it by force.
- Some people will go up and ask what is going on, maybe offer to help.
- Some people (more than a few now) will just walk on by.
Scenario 4:
A picnic table with $10,000 on it – a really scrawny person is near it – may be guarding it. The scrawny person is obviously armed.
- Very few people would try to take the money, and probably only if they were armed too.
- Some people will ask what’s up and potentially ask if help is needed.
- Some people will be scared off just because the scrawny person has a firearm.
Scenario 5:
A picnic table with $10,000 on it – a really scrawny person is near it – may be guarding it. The scrawny person is obviously armed.
- Hardly anyone would consider trying to take the money, even if armed and stronger. Too many scrawny people with firearms.
- Some people will ask what’s up and potentially ask if help is needed.
- Some people will be scared off just because of a lot of scrawny people with firearms.
The money represents our collective rights. The right to walk down the street safely, the right to our freedoms.. the good old life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. The scrawny person is us. The people possibly taking the money are those who want to profit from our loss of rights. I use money in the analogy above because the concept of rights are intangibles but the consequences of the loss of those rights are not intangible. Many people just punt on the idea of defending something intangible, but react when it is something tangible. Money is a lot easier for some people to relate to in terms of identifying human behavior.
Your comments kind of remind me of an argument of sorts that I had a long time ago. The person who I was arguing with was arguing against actions to defend our rights. His attitude was that ‘someone else will take care of that’. He was quite stubborn in his position. I tried everything to explain it. Then I thought of something. The person was quite proud of their faux cowboy hat (not even proper size and composition). I threatened to take that hat, at which the person threatened to beat me up. Kind of funny considering that at the time I weighed in at 190lbs, 6’2″ was known to practice martial arts and he was 140lbs soaking wet and about 5’6″. I asked him if it wasn’t a little stupid to get all worked up and risk getting the crap beat out for a stupid hat, yet not investing anything in defending basic human rights and expecting everyone else to take the sacrifice to defend them.
I don’t feel the comments that you made are serious, and may be reverting to a troll styled reply.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.