Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
scaredyclassic
Participantxxx
Participantif he wins we are going to be way more entertained.
Participantif he wins we are going to be way more entertained.
Participant[quote=ucodegen][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.”
[/quote]
the “context” is that Trumps people have been predicting violence and a bloodbath should trump lose.
ugh. i cant believe we are parsing language of a presidential candidate to see whether there are other reasonable interpretations other thsn that he is advocating violent govt overthrow.
to me, i dont see it. maybe i have bad reading comp. at least we dont have to struggle with who was the Founding Father of ISIS. its obama! ez. obama founded isis. in context anyone whacked out enough to claim that could easily urge second am. people (as opposed to what, normal people? 5th am. people?) to do their 2nd am. thing and open a can of 2nd am. whoop ass on traitors and such
Participantif the purpose of the 2nd am. really is to prep for revolution wgen necessaey, it makes no sense to limit the type of atms obtainable. grenades, tanks…those would be more useful in keeping the Gov. in line.
Participantso say 51 percent, a majority of americans vote trump, but he loses due to electoral college fluke,
and they feel subjectively they are currently truly seriously oppressed and they feel their rights are really trampled on, for various reasons…but all very sincerely.
the 2nd am., as illuminated by the federalist papers, was intended to ensure that majorities are always armed and ready when they feel oppressed to revolt and the 2nd,am. says to you that they are justified to take their guns and start shooting politicians when they believe sincerely they are being oppressed?
its difficult to really see that in the text without guidance of the federalist papers:
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.
they certainly couldve thrown in a word like revolt or dethrone or something into such a convoluted sentence if theyd really really intended majorities to kill when they believe themselves oppressed.
a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, and to overthrow such State when it becomef Intolerably Oppreffive, the right of the people individually and collectively, to keep and bear Arms, but not all arms, obviously, like crazy big arms, shall not be infringed, reasonable restrictions may apply, see state and federal authorities for details.
Participantpicnic table with 10k in fed. reserve notes on it. a scrawny dude is trying to protect it with a gun.
the govt. kills him and gives the cash to afghani warlords..
real patriots use trucks with fertilizer bombs i guess.
Participantit 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.
Participant[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 10:58 PM in reply to: Trump businesses – Would you support his businesses? #800490Participantshort Trump, if possible
Participant[quote=harvey]Now the’re even killing the “pretend bad guys”:
Will there be criminal charges filed?
Of course not. Paid leave, reinstatement, full pension.
What does the blue uniform and badge represent in America?
Zero accountability.[/quote]
this abstractly is pretty hilarious. obviously its sad, but jeez its got a fictional feel.
gun safety…man…
Participant[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
Participant[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
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.
-
AuthorPosts
