Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory

(08-18-2020, 06:56 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-18-2020, 05:08 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]The wording of the Second states the right shall not be infringed.  This forbids regulation.  Any attempt to infringe the Second would bounce out of any textual court that pays attention to what is written...

As recently as the court under Chief Justice Burger, the willful blindness to the explanatory clause about well regulated militias, stood as the defining element of the 2nd. At some point, that will be addressed again, or the 2nd will become toast by some other means. As currently defined, it's the enabling element in the Constitutional suicide pact several Justices (Brandies and Jackson to name two) have noted in the past ... the one that's not acceptable under any circumstances.

One common label is the justification phrase and the implementation phase.  For example in some state constitutions they wrote that as legislators have to have free speech, all shall have free speech.  Rights are granted by God.  They apply to everybody, not just government employees.  The interpreting you are suggesting would take away free speech from the people.

The Founding Fathers had an opinion and wrote it down both in the Constitution and elsewhere.  If the courts honor the text or the intent of the authors, they come to one conclusion.  The alternative is that the Constitution is only a suggestion and that the justices are supposed to legislate from the bench.

Now I tend to agree that the Second is obsolete.  A reasonable compromise would be to allow weapons sufficient for target shooting, hunting and self defense, but to allow state regulation of military weapons.  Assault rifles just didn't exist in the Founding Father's time.

But such a compromise was unthinkable a short time ago.  For years the Jim Crow interpretation that made the entire Bill of Rights go away was applied to the Second.  The Democrats got used to it, and thought the Jim Crow court's interpretation was correct.  Meanwhile, the conservatives were correct.  Both sides clung to their positions with a ferocity that made compromise impossible.

Not sure this will hold true in a 4T.  The Democrats could very well take the congress and White House, but Trump has still appointed a lot of young judges who honor strict construction and intent of the authors.  The amendment process still counts on winning states, which gives an unreasonable advantage to the more rural population.  You will have to wait on the progressives appointing judges willing to legislate from the bench.  That would lead to prying weapons from cold dead fingers.

But a real compromise will have to wait on the election.  That is not apt to be the first thing Biden will want to work on first assuming a win.  Save the hard stuff which might trigger a revival of conservative feeling slide for a while.  You don't want to invite the next replacement for Trump.  You want to give the more reasonable conservatives a chance to consolidate their influence.

We have never had a president try to tamper with the postal service in an effort to tamper with the election. We have never had a President tamper with an election in any way.

...It will be a good idea to rewrite the Second Amendment. If it gives the right to bear arms it uses language very different from other Amendments that authorize certain rights. I interpret the Second Amendment largely to give the States the right to keep militias responsible to elected State governments intact as an alternative to a large standing army, militias regulated by State legislatures . To be sure we no longer rely upon state armies as the basis of a national army as in the American Civil War (when we had such units as the "Third Michigan Cavalry" or "25th Pennsylvania Infantry"), but the Second Amendment certainly established State's rights to determine who could own a firearm and what sorts of firearms one could own. Typically then military weapons had civilian uses  as in defending against dangerous creatures and in hunting food. Machine guns, mines, flamethrowers, grenades, cannons, and Katusha rockets are unsuited to personal defense. Warships were obviously not such weapons, and tanks and military aircraft that did not exist in the time of the Founding Fathers.

I would include in any replacement amendment language reminiscent of the Twenty-first Amendment:

Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors firearms and military weapons, in violation of the laws thereof and not in accordance with the activities of the Armed Services, is hereby prohibited.

...Does this sound reasonable? States have the right to rigid gun control, which implies that someone prohibited from purchasing a firearm in his own state not have the right to travel to another state with more permissive laws on the sale of firearms. So if one lives in New York one should not be able to purchase a firearm in Virginia and bring it to New York State contrary to New York state laws that disqualify one from owning a firearm in New York State. 

So what should not be grounds for denying someone a firearm?

We have non-discrimination clauses on several Amendments on the right to vote. 

No person of majority age shall be denied the right to keep and bear arms due to race, religion, national origin, gender, or sexual orientation. I have removed "previous condition of servitude" only because it is no longer relevant.

(08-18-2020, 09:01 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]...It will be a good idea to rewrite the Second Amendment.

Agreed.  It just won't be easy.  Pretend for a moment you need Classic's vote.  The slavery compromises making it very hard to change the constitution are a formidable barrier.

(08-18-2020, 09:01 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]I interpret the Second Amendment largely to give the States the right to keep militias responsible to elected State governments intact as an alternative to a large standing army, militias regulated by State legislatures.

I agree that the militias can and should be well regulated.  There should be rules for how actively called up militiamen can store weapons, maneuver effectively, report to their commanders, report for training, etc...  They may just not prevent the members of the militia or anyone else from owning and carrying a weapon.  The state legislatures may not write a law which violates a right of United States citizens.

(Exceptions can and should be made for felons, the insane, etc...  Even then some sort of due process is required.  You cannot remove a basic right on a whim.  Some nameless bureaucrat putting a name on some no fly list will not do it.)

The constitution does not give the states powers.  States are sovereign.  But the states cannot violate the rights of United States citizens, and the Bill of Rights enumerates a lot of them.  As soon as a sufficient number of states ratified the Second Amendment they were eliminating their own power to regulate the ownership and carrying of weapons.  Ratifying other amendments killed their powers to censor speech, establish a state religion, evade due process, etc...

(08-18-2020, 06:47 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-18-2020, 02:39 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]But the neighborhood vigilantes which Classic claims membership with and the rural militias are not yet engaged.  Plan quietly, sure.  Let rumors spread might be less wise.  They might actually do as suggested.

Some of the idiots at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville conceive of themselves as members of citizen militias.  Some are local to me. In fact, entire groups of them showed up in our state capital to defend the statues on Monument Row, looking a lot like small arms infantry.  Don't discount these guys as Cosplay (some are, but only some).  When they show up, they are armed, locked and only need to chamber a round to start the festivities.

It only takes one idiot to start things.

I wonder who the idiot was that fired the shot that triggered the American Revolutionary War or the idiot/idiots was or were who fired the cannon that triggered the Civil American War.

(08-18-2020, 06:45 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-18-2020, 01:03 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]I have to say, I have been watching the Democrats mainly talking to heir own supporters this evening.

I am inclined to think that most regular posters at this site have already covered the same ground as the DNC, and has already committed to how they are going to vote.  Most are deeply partisan.  The loosers at both at this site and the conventions will have some big time readjusting to do.

I disagree that the Democrats are presenting only one perspective.  They are hitting Trump from all sorts of angles, but as you tune that out you don't notice it.  It almost makes one wonder if you are watching at all.  Your ideological filter sort of tunes out everything that doesn't match your worldview and values.  That doesn't leave much getting through.

I watched and listened to them. I noticed that they were hitting Trump from every angle that they could from their Liberal prospective's. Personally speaking, I see a political party that knows its on the verge of collapsing and knows that Trumps represents a large segment of American society who won't save them this time around and opt to cut its losses and move forward with the rest of the country without them.

(08-18-2020, 09:01 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]We have never had a president try to tamper with the postal service in an effort to tamper with the election. We have never had a President tamper with an election in any way.

...It will be a good idea to rewrite the Second Amendment. If it gives the right to bear arms it uses language very different from other Amendments that authorize certain rights. I interpret the Second Amendment largely to give the States the right to keep militias responsible to elected State governments intact as an alternative to a large standing army, militias regulated by State legislatures . To be sure we no longer rely upon state armies as the basis of a national army as in the American Civil War (when we had such units as the "Third Michigan Cavalry" or "25th Pennsylvania Infantry"), but the Second Amendment certainly established State's rights to determine who could own a firearm and what sorts of firearms one could own. Typically then military weapons had civilian uses  as in defending against dangerous creatures and in hunting food. Machine guns, mines, flamethrowers, grenades, cannons, and Katusha rockets are unsuited to personal defense. Warships were obviously not such weapons, and tanks and military aircraft that did not exist in the time of the Founding Fathers.

I would include in any replacement amendment language reminiscent of the Twenty-first Amendment:

Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors firearms and military weapons, in violation of the laws thereof and not in accordance with the activities of the Armed Services, is hereby prohibited.

...Does this sound reasonable? States have the right to rigid gun control, which implies that someone prohibited from purchasing a firearm in his own state not have the right to travel to another state with more permissive laws on the sale of firearms. So if one lives in New York one should not be able to purchase a firearm in Virginia and bring it to New York State contrary to New York state laws that disqualify one from owning a firearm in New York State. 

So what should not be grounds for denying someone a firearm?

We have non-discrimination clauses on several Amendments on the right to vote. 

No person of majority age shall be denied the right to keep and bear arms due to race, religion, national origin, gender, or sexual orientation. I have removed "previous condition of servitude" only because it is no longer relevant.

Dude, the only place you'll find a post office box in the metropolitan area is at the local post offices these days. I plan to vote like usual on election day this year.

(08-18-2020, 02:43 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]It seems to me that you value cop oppression of unarmed black people than you do our right to walk down the street without getting killed for being "suspicious," according to how you come down on what you are upset about, and your support for a fake president who wants to take away our right to vote. It seems to me you value guns as the most basic right, and perhaps the only one, because you don't trust anyone but yourself to defend yourself, or because you plan to take part in a militia that, perhaps provoked by something, will want to impose a cult leader on us as dictator for life. 

Dude, the second amendment was outdated practically from the time it was put on paper. It remains only because it appeals to macho symbolism and because of the power of the rural and southern states in our constitution. I don't care about gun rights. But those who believe in them should be willing to accept regulations on their use and possession, or would you have there be no regulations on driving either? And no libel laws? Or perhaps you want "freedom" for a religion whose leaders molest children? I know your side wants "freedom" for religions to discriminate against gays.

If Trump wins, it will indeed be a time to consider jumping off some bridges, or at least burn a few bridges behind us and revolt in some way. That's how serious it is that folks like yourself have been swept up in this cult and can't see the threat that Crump poses to our republic and all of our lives.

And is there nothing sacred? Trump wants to put himself up on Mt. Rushmore too!

Yep. If Trump wins, the Liberal members/followers could decide the world's ending and commit mass suicide, revolt or read the writing on the wall and get out of Dodge or do all of them at the same time.  It wouldn't surprise me. I've always viewed the Liberal fringe of the Democratic party as a cult (an indoctrinated group that has more or less been whipped into shape so to speak).

(08-19-2020, 01:38 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-18-2020, 06:45 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-18-2020, 01:03 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]I have to say, I have been watching the Democrats mainly talking to heir own supporters this evening.

I am inclined to think that most regular posters at this site have already covered the same ground as the DNC, and has already committed to how they are going to vote.  Most are deeply partisan.  The loosers at both at this site and the conventions will have some big time readjusting to do.

I disagree that the Democrats are presenting only one perspective.  They are hitting Trump from all sorts of angles, but as you tune that out you don't notice it.  It almost makes one wonder if you are watching at all.  Your ideological filter sort of tunes out everything that doesn't match your worldview and values.  That doesn't leave much getting through.

I watched and  listened to them. I noticed that they were hitting Trump from every angle that they could from their Liberal  prospective's. Personally speaking, I see a political party that knows its on the verge of collapsing and knows that Trumps represents a large segment of American society who won't save them this time around and opt to cut its losses and move forward with the rest of the country without them.

And I see a political party that knows it is collapsing, and a president that doesn't care about the Republicans but only for himself.  For a last gasp chance of saving himself he is willing to throw away the Republicans.  Right now the electoral switch looks only good for one election, but historically in a 4T it is profound and permanent.  Trump seems to be inadvertently trying hard for the traditional profound and permanent collapse of the old values.

We'll see who is right and who is ideologically blind in November.  It is traditional, though, that the ideologues see victory on this site for their own perspective.  Shouldn't really expect different.

(08-19-2020, 07:06 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-19-2020, 01:38 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-18-2020, 06:45 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-18-2020, 01:03 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]I have to say, I have been watching the Democrats mainly talking to heir own supporters this evening.

I am inclined to think that most regular posters at this site have already covered the same ground as the DNC, and has already committed to how they are going to vote.  Most are deeply partisan.  The loosers at both at this site and the conventions will have some big time readjusting to do.

I disagree that the Democrats are presenting only one perspective.  They are hitting Trump from all sorts of angles, but as you tune that out you don't notice it.  It almost makes one wonder if you are watching at all.  Your ideological filter sort of tunes out everything that doesn't match your worldview and values.  That doesn't leave much getting through.

I watched and  listened to them. I noticed that they were hitting Trump from every angle that they could from their Liberal  prospective's. Personally speaking, I see a political party that knows its on the verge of collapsing and knows that Trumps represents a large segment of American society who won't save them this time around and opt to cut its losses and move forward with the rest of the country without them.

And I see a political party that knows it is collapsing, and a president that doesn't care about the Republicans but only for himself.  For a last gasp chance of saving himself he is willing to throw away the Republicans.  Right now the electoral switch looks only good for one election, but historically in a 4T it is profound and permanent.  Trump seems to be inadvertently trying hard for the traditional profound and permanent collapse of the old values.

We'll see who is right and who is ideologically blind in November.  It is traditional, though, the the ideologues see victory on this site for their own perspective.  Shouldn't really expect different.

From my perspective, it is amazing to me that Classic can characterize his segment as moving forward.

(08-18-2020, 05:08 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-18-2020, 02:43 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Dude, the second amendment was outdated practically from the time it was put on paper. It remains only because it appeals to macho symbolism and because of the power of the rural and southern states in our constitution. I don't care about gun rights. But those who believe in them should be willing to accept regulations on their use and possession, or would you have there be no regulations on driving either? And no libel laws? Or perhaps you want "freedom" for a religion whose leaders molest children? I know your side wants "freedom" for religions to discriminate against gays.

If Trump wins, it will indeed be a time to consider jumping off some bridges, or at least burn a few bridges behind us and revolt in some way. That's how serious it is that folks like yourself have been swept up in this cult and can't see the threat that Crump poses to our republic and all of our lives.

And is there nothing sacred? Trump wants to put himself up on Mt. Rushmore too!

Several points.

The wording of the Second states the right shall not be infringed.  This forbids regulation.  Any attempt to infringe the Second would bounce out of any textual court that pays attention to what is written.

Driving is not a protected Constitutional right.  There is nothing in the constitution which limits the sovereign states from regulating driving.  Yes, the US is based on a bunch of sovereign states which cede specific powers to a federal government which is not sovereign. Thus, you commonly see state police policing federal interstates.

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr put in a place a doctrine that a right does not grant the ability to harm another or infringe on another’s rights.  This principle is applied to having both free speech and libel laws.  You are granted a right to speak freely, but to be responsible while doing so not to harm others.  The ability to own or carry a weapon has been ruled by the courts to not infringe on another’s rights.  Actually using the weapon to commit crimes like theft, assault or murder would harm others.

This also applies to a freedom of religion to harm children.  A right does not grant an ability to harm or restrict the rights of another.  Thus, you do not have a right to harm children.  

Somehow, you do have a limited right to discriminate against gays.  If you are running a church or a private club, granting membership according to a sexual or racial prejudice is allowed.  One recent example was the country club that hosts The Masters golf tournament.  It is legal to ban female members, as they did for a long time.  If the people and the PGA make enough noise, it may not be prudent, but it is legal.  Solution?  Invite a woman who lives far away and doesn’t play golf to become a member.

If you are providing goods or services to the public, though, you are not acting as a church or private club.  Then you can get into trouble for discrimination.

And as Mt. Rushmore is a federal monument, Trump might be able to issue orders to modify it.  Then again, it costs money which the congress would have to approve.  I’m not worried about it.  Nothing is apt to get done now before the election and there are other things more important to worry about.

This post is an example of how blue people try to void the law in argument without knowing the law.  They make arguments which are frankly silly once you dig into things some.  Generally, you don’t force me again and again to say what the law actually is.  Still, occasionally you insist on repeating your badly flawed arguments.

I am not worried about Mt. Rushmore. But I am worried about Americans who might elect a guy with such a fantasy.

Driving is actually a good example, regardless of what the constitution happens to say; along with my other examples which you echoed my sentiments on. There are limits to any freedom. And Scalia ruled that the 2nd permits regulation. That should be sufficient. Your gun rights are not infringed if they are kept within prescribed limits. Just like any freedom, it carries responsibility.

But then, no need to argue, because I admit, I make these arguments from the perspective of someone who doesn't give a tinker's damn about gun rights. So, color me blue. Green, actually, of course

I'm Green and I'm proud! 

The gun issue remains a key element in the partisan divide on issues.

And Green means I also don't value hunting as a sport. One of my facebook friends just pointed out that a man can shoot an animal and put it up on his wall on a trophy. But a man cannot make an animal. I value life over sport.

My grandfather from Kansas and Oklahoma was of a different mind than I about such things. My Dad from Indiana, on the other hand, had a sticker on his car for handgun control. Times change; people and families evolve.

(08-19-2020, 07:44 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Driving is actually a good example, regardless of what the constitution happens to say; along with my other examples which you echoed my sentiments on. There are limits to any freedom. And Scalia ruled that the 2nd permits regulation. That should be sufficient. Your gun rights are not infringed if they are kept within prescribed limits. Just like any freedom, it carries responsibility.

Agreed state militias should be well regulated, but you cannot currently ban ownership or carrying.  There are limits to every right, but they normally involve doing harm.  Removing a right of someone who is doing no harm is a big no no.

(08-19-2020, 07:44 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]But then, no need to argue, because I admit, I make these arguments from the perspective of someone who doesn't give a tinker's damn about gun rights. So, color me blue. Green, actually, of course

Well, you should care about the constitution and rule of law.  The recent Trump crisis came about because people who do not care about the constitution and rule of law got into power.  One should not encourage them.

Actually, I don't own a gun either.  I have no personal axe to grind.  However I do care a good deal about the rest of the human rights.  I do not want the government to have a path open to take them away.  The arrow of progress I often talk about is towards democracy, equality, and human rights.  Generally the blue support these.  In this case they have gone astray.

(08-19-2020, 03:31 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-18-2020, 02:43 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]It seems to me that you value cop oppression of unarmed black people than you do our right to walk down the street without getting killed for being "suspicious," according to how you come down on what you are upset about, and your support for a fake president who wants to take away our right to vote. It seems to me you value guns as the most basic right, and perhaps the only one, because you don't trust anyone but yourself to defend yourself, or because you plan to take part in a militia that, perhaps provoked by something, will want to impose a cult leader on us as dictator for life. 

Dude, the second amendment was outdated practically from the time it was put on paper. It remains only because it appeals to macho symbolism and because of the power of the rural and southern states in our constitution. I don't care about gun rights. But those who believe in them should be willing to accept regulations on their use and possession, or would you have there be no regulations on driving either? And no libel laws? Or perhaps you want "freedom" for a religion whose leaders molest children? I know your side wants "freedom" for religions to discriminate against gays.

If Trump wins, it will indeed be a time to consider jumping off some bridges, or at least burn a few bridges behind us and revolt in some way. That's how serious it is that folks like yourself have been swept up in this cult and can't see the threat that Crump poses to our republic and all of our lives.

And is there nothing sacred? Trump wants to put himself up on Mt. Rushmore too!

Yep. If Trump wins, the Liberal members/followers could decide the world's ending and commit mass suicide, revolt or read the writing on the wall and get out of Dodge or do all of them at the same time.  It wouldn't surprise me. I've always viewed the Liberal fringe of the Democratic party as a cult (an indoctrinated group that has more or less been whipped into shape so to speak).

There are some on the Left who seem a bit crazy these days. It would not surprise you to know that I don't consider myself a crazy leftist, although every questionnaire I take certainly puts me far on the Left, relatively speaking. Some of my fellow Bernie bros, for example, cannot get it out of their heads that the DNC cheats now in every election. Some of them tend to want to bolt from their fellow progressives if their candidate takes one moderate position. Fanaticism appears in every group you can name, most likely. 

Myself, I consider myself a fiscal moderate at times, because I tend to think the USA should pay its bills, and that taxes should be progressive, but not extreme, and that spending should be prudent. I am not against making money. I myself am given at times to be considered cheap. So I know the value of a dollar, so to speak. It's just that there are values that transcend what is really just a means to other ends.

(08-19-2020, 07:58 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-19-2020, 07:44 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Driving is actually a good example, regardless of what the constitution happens to say; along with my other examples which you echoed my sentiments on. There are limits to any freedom. And Scalia ruled that the 2nd permits regulation. That should be sufficient. Your gun rights are not infringed if they are kept within prescribed limits. Just like any freedom, it carries responsibility.

Agreed state militias should be well regulated, but you cannot currently ban ownership or carrying.  There are limits to every right, but they normally involve doing harm.  Removing a right of someone who is doing no harm is a big no no.

(08-19-2020, 07:44 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]But then, no need to argue, because I admit, I make these arguments from the perspective of someone who doesn't give a tinker's damn about gun rights. So, color me blue. Green, actually, of course

Well, you should care about the constitution and rule of law.  The recent Trump crisis came about because people who do not care about the constitution and rule of law got into power.  One should not encourage them.

Actually, I don't own a gun either.  I have no personal axe to grind.  However I do care a good deal about the rest of the human rights.  I do not want the government to have a path open to take them away.  The arrow of progress I often talk about is towards democracy, equality, and human rights.  Generally the blue support these.  In this case they have gone astray.

We disagree about that. This does not mean I don't care about the constitution and the rule of law. I do. I care also about the source of that law, which is ethics and values. You know about those too. For me, unregulated firearms infringe on the value of life. That's pretty clear to me. You "should" care about that value, and I think you do, just as I care about the law. We need to agree to disagree on the gun issue.

Notice that, being Green, I consider the arrow of progress (or the moral arc of the universe) to include the rights of Nature too.

I go farther and consider that arms of any kind infringe on the value of life, and should be abolished. That is a higher goal, like world peace. It may happen, someday. There's been progress toward it. But meanwhile, within that higher goal, there's room for compromise on my side, though the USA gun rights advocates are not willing to compromise, and furthermore are corrupt, as the state of New York now rightly contends.

Banning assault weapons and large magazines, and removing gun rights from people judged to be dangerous to themselves and others, have been legal steps in recent years and I certainly support them. Arms enable bad behavior, possibly at any time, and carrying them enables bad behavior grossly, in my opinion. It is also threatening to others, which harms others. This also means that the police feel threatened by the vast presence of guns, which contributes greatly to their misconduct-- resulting in more needless deaths of innocent people, especially to non-whites, which is now very much in the news. What we can do under the law about this fact may be restricted now, in the gun-obsessed USA at least, but someday it may not be. The USA has gone very far astray with its gun obsession, resulting in gross violence, such as wanton murder of children. The 2nd unfortunately has enabled this obsession. The USA is less free because of it, not more free. My prediction has come true already, for many years now, that until effective gun control is the law in the USA, massacres will continue and get worse. So it goes. Again, my firm opinion, very unlikely to change; but others may differ and that's their right.

I am not encouraging people to break the law. I am in favor of stricter gun laws. So, if they become law, I am not encouraging not caring about the rule of law.

Properly repealing the 2nd amendment is as harmonious with respect for the constitution and the law as repealing the 18th. I am not expecting this to happen soon. But, you never know in a 4T.

(08-19-2020, 08:10 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]But meanwhile, within that higher goal, there's room for compromise on my side, though the gun rights advocates are not willing to compromise, and furthermore are corrupt, as the state of New York now rightly contends.

I would contend that the leadership of the NRA is not representative of the NRA. The rank and file do have a role to play in advocating for the original meaning of the Constitution. Still, I agree with the DA of New York. The corruption of the leadership has become too habitual. The rank and file best reconstitute themselves as having nothing to do with the current leadership.

(08-19-2020, 08:22 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-19-2020, 08:10 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]But meanwhile, within that higher goal, there's room for compromise on my side, though the gun rights advocates are not willing to compromise, and furthermore are corrupt, as the state of New York now rightly contends.

I would contend that the leadership of the NRA is not representative of the NRA.  The rank and file do have a role to play in advocating for the original meaning of the Constitution.  Still, I agree with the DA of New York.  The corruption of the leadership has become too habitual.  The rank and file best reconstitute themselves as having nothing to do with the current leadership.

The NRA is headquartered in Virginia, and the now Blue Virginia government is next up to bat.

(08-18-2020, 07:38 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]One common label is the justification phrase and the implementation phase.  For example in some state constitutions they wrote that as legislators have to have free speech, all shall have free speech.  Rights are granted by God.  They apply to everybody, not just government employees.  The interpreting you are suggesting would take away free speech from the people.

The Founding Fathers had an opinion and wrote it down both in the Constitution and elsewhere.  If the courts honor the text or the intent of the authors, they come to one conclusion.  The alternative is that the Constitution is only a suggestion and that the justices are supposed to legislate from the bench.

Now I tend to agree that the Second is obsolete.  A reasonable compromise would be to allow weapons sufficient for target shooting, hunting and self defense, but to allow state regulation of military weapons.  Assault rifles just didn't exist in the Founding Father's time.

But such a compromise was unthinkable a short time ago.  For years the Jim Crow interpretation that made the entire Bill of Rights go away was applied to the Second.  The Democrats got used to it, and thought the Jim Crow court's interpretation was correct.  Meanwhile, the conservatives were correct.  Both sides clung to their positions with a ferocity that made compromise impossible.

Not sure this will hold true in a 4T.  The Democrats could very well take the congress and White House, but Trump has still appointed a lot of young judges who honor strict construction and intent of the authors.  The amendment process still counts on winning states, which gives an unreasonable advantage to the more rural population.  You will have to wait on the progressives appointing judges willing to legislate from the bench.  That would lead to prying weapons from cold dead fingers.

But a real compromise will have to wait on the election.  That is not apt to be the first thing Biden will want to work on first assuming a win.  Save the hard stuff which might trigger a revival of conservative feeling slide for a while.  You don't want to invite the next replacement for Trump.  You want to give the more reasonable conservatives a chance to consolidate their influence.

Unlike the 1st Amendment (and others), the 2nd is unique in having a justification for the right it espouses.  It's not unreasonable to assume that the right is intended to be limited to certain activities, or why is only that one purpose a justification?  And let's also be honest.  No right is absolute, including the biggies in the 1st.

(08-19-2020, 12:30 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-18-2020, 06:47 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-18-2020, 02:39 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]But the neighborhood vigilantes which Classic claims membership with and the rural militias are not yet engaged.  Plan quietly, sure.  Let rumors spread might be less wise.  They might actually do as suggested.

Some of the idiots at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville conceive of themselves as members of citizen militias.  Some are local to me. In fact, entire groups of them showed up in our state capital to defend the statues on Monument Row, looking a lot like small arms infantry.  Don't discount these guys as Cosplay (some are, but only some).  When they show up, they are armed, locked and only need to chamber a round to start the festivities.

It only takes one idiot to start things.

I wonder who the idiot was that fired the shot that triggered the American Revolutionary War or the idiot/idiots was or were who fired the cannon that triggered the Civil American War.

In the first case, it was a Brit who killed Crispus Attucks, the runaway slave who died at Bunker Hill, or Christopher Seider, an 11 year old boy who died there as well. I can't identify the idiot who fired first and triggered the ACW, though the real culprit was a politician, not a militiaman. In today's world, it could be anyone from any where and with any reason, no matter how bizarre.

( I had to make a duplicate account because I'm currently locked out of my old one, password credential request access is currently not working for some reason)

I think there is a strong misconception of who currently constitutes the liberal and conservative sides today. This misconception appears to more entrenched on the liberal side judging from what the posters here are saying. Regarding the 2020 election, barring making some super unforeseen or unlikely royal screwups or screwups between now and November, Trump is pretty much certain to be reelected and by a fairly wide margin by the way. The Just completed primary pissed A LOT of us off who are traditionally on the fence or lean democrat. Establishment democrats don't really have even the Bernie Supporters anymore; they participated in the convention purely as a last ditch effort to attempt to broker it.

Kamala supporters are clearly unhinged and insane, as viewed by the rest of the American electorate (regardless of party). Non-kamala supporters view you guys as complete lunatics at this point. Pro-Bernie sources are even calling that convention closing segment correctly in my opinion, "The moment president Trump won reelection". Personally I can have heated but friendly political arguments with Trump Supporters and still be friends (I am a Gabbard supporter), in my experience that is impossible with Kamala supporters; if you state any disagreement with their "Goddess", or point out her atrocious record, they immediately disconnect with you or block you. They are the Fanatical Cultists they smeared the Bernie/Tulsi/Yang coalition with, when Kamala supporters are the actual cultists. While Core Xers like Classic-Xer have always been GOP leaning especially since at least the late 1990s; On election day the way things are going, his and their votes will be Joined and augmented by a coalition of Unexpected Allies to their side. These being Under 50 Late wave Xers/Millennials/Gen-Z/homelanders and Younger blacks (especially Black men)/hispanics. Legions of Young people head to the polls and will be casting their votes for Trump; while some may due so with a heavy heart (due to traditionally being democratic voters), they will still cast that vote for Trump without hesitation to defeat the insane Kamala cult. Congratulations Boomer Liberals due to your egotism as displayed in the past 20 months of primaries you destroyed any possibility of election 2020 being a referendum of Donald Trump's Presidency. Instead the election will Turn and be decided on the issue of Freaks vs Non-Freaks.

(08-19-2020, 10:37 AM)CH86 Wrote: [ -> ]( I had to make a duplicate account because I'm currently locked out of my old one, password credential request access is currently not working for some reason)

I think there is a strong misconception of who currently constitutes the liberal and conservative sides today. This misconception appears to more entrenched on the liberal side judging from what the posters here are saying. Regarding the 2020 election, barring making some super unforeseen or unlikely royal screwups or screwups between now and November, Trump is pretty much certain to be reelected and by a fairly wide margin by the way. The Just completed primary pissed A LOT of us off who are traditionally on the fence or lean democrat. Establishment democrats don't really have even the Bernie Supporters anymore; they participated in the convention purely as a last ditch effort to attempt to broker it.

...and what does Trump have that he can offer Bernie supporters? There are extremists on the Left who prefer that things get so bad that people will acquiesce in the most extreme efforts to overthrow the Old Order and institute revolution. Bolsheviks were prime examples. 

If you assume that Trump will get re-elected then you either 

(1) see an indelible pattern in which Presidents once elected get re-elected
(2) have neglected the news since early 2017
(3) fail to look at the approval and disapproval ratings, or
(4) assume that Trump can win with his old tricks of 2016.

Yes, Bill Clinton, Dubya, and Obama got re-elected, winning with maps similar to those of their initial elections.  (So, really, did Reagan in 1984). But Presidential failures can result in one-tern Presidencies. (I explain the elder Bush as he was practically an extension of the politically-successful Reagan Presidency). Carter did not fully solve stagflation and had a messy situation in Iran. 

Many things are wrong for Trump. COVID-19 has been killing like a bungled war. Trump's foreign policy makes that of Obama look conservative. Trump aligns himself with vile dictators. People associated with Trump have been convicted of crimes. Many more traditional conservatives are aghast at Trump's attempts to rule like a despot. This shows in people identifying as Republicans endorsing Biden. 

Quote:Kamala supporters are clearly unhinged and insane, as viewed by the rest of the American electorate (regardless of party). Non-kamala supporters view you guys as complete lunatics at this point. Pro-Bernie sources are even calling that convention closing segment correctly in my opinion, "The moment president Trump won reelection". Personally I can have heated but friendly political arguments with Trump Supporters and still be friends (I am a Gabbard supporter), in my experience that is impossible with Kamala supporters; if you state any disagreement with their "Goddess", or point out her atrocious record, they immediately disconnect with you or block you. They are the Fanatical Cultists they smeared the Bernie/Tulsi/Yang coalition with, when Kamala supporters are the actual cultists. While Core Xers like Classic-Xer have always been GOP leaning especially since at least the late 1990s; On election day the way things are going, his and their votes will be Joined and augmented by a coalition of Unexpected Allies to their side. These being Under 50 Late wave Xers/Millennials/Gen-Z/homelanders and Younger blacks (especially Black men)/hispanics. Legions of Young people head to the polls and will be casting their votes for Trump; while some may due so with a heavy heart (due to traditionally being democratic voters), they will still cast that vote for Trump without hesitation to defeat the insane Kamala cult. Congratulations Boomer Liberals due to your egotism as displayed in the past 20 months of primaries you destroyed any possibility of election 2020 being a referendum of Donald Trump's Presidency. Instead the election will Turn and be decided on the issue of Freaks vs Non-Freaks.

Trump-like word salad. 

As someone with a handicap, I am offended when Trump mocks the handicapped. The only handicapped people who cannot be fully incorporated into the mainstream are the mentally-retarded, as they need comfort and protection that most handicapped people do not need, and the incurably insane.

(08-19-2020, 09:38 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-19-2020, 12:30 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-18-2020, 06:47 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-18-2020, 02:39 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]But the neighborhood vigilantes which Classic claims membership with and the rural militias are not yet engaged.  Plan quietly, sure.  Let rumors spread might be less wise.  They might actually do as suggested.

Some of the idiots at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville conceive of themselves as members of citizen militias.  Some are local to me. In fact, entire groups of them showed up in our state capital to defend the statues on Monument Row, looking a lot like small arms infantry.  Don't discount these guys as Cosplay (some are, but only some).  When they show up, they are armed, locked and only need to chamber a round to start the festivities.

It only takes one idiot to start things.

I wonder who the idiot was that fired the shot that triggered the American Revolutionary War or the idiot/idiots was or were who fired the cannon that triggered the Civil American War.

In the first case, it was a Brit who killed Crispus Attucks, the runaway slave who died at Bunker Hill, or Christopher Seider, an 11 year old boy who died there as well.  I can't identify the idiot who fired first and triggered the ACW, though the real culprit was a politician, not a militiaman.  In today's world, it could be anyone from any where and with any reason, no matter how bizarre.

I don't know.  In many ways it is not the guy who fired the first shot who is the culprit.  The spiral of violence that leads the bulk of both sides to believe that compromise is impossible, there is no other way, that violence is the only way for the new values to triumph or the old to survive.  Why was it important that the Americans in Concord had a few cannon?  Why did the fort that had been there for quite a while take on significance?  The spirals were already on the brink.

Right now the Boogaloo Bois and the police are going at it, but people care much more about COVID and Black Lives Matter.  I do not see the fights in the cities as accelerating.  I see a whole bunch of people waiting on the election in November, counting on protest, non violence and legislation to solve the pertinent problems.

If Trump were to win the election or gather enough troops to pretend to stay in power, we would have to look at how Biden will respond.  If Trump manages to cast doubt on the election, he throws it to the new congress to select electors.  At worst they would invalidate the election, thereby enabling Pelosi as president, who would likely appoint Biden Vice President then resign.  

I see it more likely that the election will be more decisive, and Trump will turn to blackmail.  Either you let him keep some shadow of his elite status or he will use his lame duck period to quite overtly ruin the country and it's standing in the world.  This would possibly result in the Republican senators renouncing him and the world's fastest impeachment.  You can't stand with someone obviously hurting the country and hope to survive.  There is a question whether Pence will promise to be a good boy or whether he gets hit too.

We'll see what happens.  While the posters on this site really get into the conflict, a lot of people don't.  They don't start thinking seriously about the issue until after the conventions climax and September rolls around.  We'll see how much of the Republican base clings to Trump.  He is visibly showing opposition to American values that will likely turn more and more people off.  The more time goes by, the more desperate he gets, the more repulsive his actions and words become, the less support he gets.  It looks to me to be heading one way, but I may be tainted with the common 4T fanatic trait, to see triumph inevitably going to my own world view, to see what has happened in prior 4Ts repeat, the old values to totally collapse.