Trump Fires Comey

[Eric the Green]

(05-12-2017, 10:02 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(05-11-2017, 10:56 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(05-11-2017, 08:17 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: We have no provision for any revolution or military coup in the Constitution. But don't be stupid. There was Salvador Allende in Chile. Yes, Allende was a socialist -- but at some point I can imagine some general telling the President that it would be wise to vacate the Presidency.

Well, some would say we do have provisions for a revolution...  Start with the 2nd Amendment.  Actually, with the standing army needing re authorization every two years and the states having authority to appoint officers to the militia, one could say the founding fathers gave the matter significant thought.  As the militia has not been trained in a century plus, replaced by the National Guard which is legally a federal standing army, the constitutional priming for revolution is no where near what it once was.

We haven't relied upon state-based militias to a great degree since the Civil War. We have state national guards who activate largely for local emergencies (like national disasters) and are effectively reserves for the regular armed services. 

Quote:But ask a NRA flavored extreme partisan if there is a provision for revolution and they'll likely give you all the details.  They are much more aware of these things than most blue leaning folk.  Alas, many such NRA leaning people were the ones who elected Trump.

Of course the NRA is very right-wing, and it can more easily see an uprising against  a 'Commie' like Obama than against a read-blooded American like Donald Trump.

Quote:I don't find it hard to imagine a general telling Trump to step down.  I find it harder to imagine Trump listening.

In most coups it is the tanks, troop carriers, and missile-carrying trucks  arrayed against the residence of the Prime Minister or President that do the convincing. Or it is a gun pointed at the vital organs of the nominal leader (which explains King Michael of Romania abdicating).

Reputedly, Washington DC streets are unusually flimsy so that heavy military equipment can't use them. Streets of Greater Miami? Not so flimsy.

But flooded.

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-12-2017, 10:02 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: We haven't relied upon state-based militias to a great degree since the Civil War. We have state national guards who activate largely for local emergencies (like national disasters) and are effectively reserves for the regular armed services. 

The National Guard is national.  The federal government pays most of the bills, and if a national emergency arises it can assume command of any unit.  Of note, the militia can be called by the federals to suppress insurrections, enforce the law and repel invasions.  None of those three functions involve the militia leaving the United States.  The National Guard was organized by Teddy Roosevelt as standing army units so it could be taken abroad.  Note, National Guard units were taken abroad extensively to Afghanistan and Iraq under Bush 43.

Another example of the control of the Guard came during the awakening.  George Wallace called up the National Guard to prevent universities from being integrated.  Washington DC proceeded to call up the Alabama Guard to to federal control.  Legally, Washington and the executive branch have the upper hand in commanding the National Guard.  A Guard general who follows the state command authority rather than the federal once the federals have mobilized them gets court marshaled.

But if troops are rebelling against the executive branch, things like legalities have become options anyway.  It is one thing to know the law.  It  is another to imagine a president like Trump doing bad enough stuff that troops of all ranks start ignoring the law.

There are a few states with true State Guards.  These states don't take money from Washington.  The federals can't preempt their use.  Such units are very rare these days.

Now, this to me is an example of a blue partisan refusing to listen to fact.  I have posted the above many times over the years.  You seem incapable of remembering or comprehending that the National Guard is not the militia.  The militia is essentially all male citizens of military age.  There are exemptions such as post office workers and shipyard employees who the founding fathers thought should remain on the job, even in a military emergency.  However, for the most part the militia is all guys of military age.

But the blue Jim Crow interpretation of things depends on a "National Guard is the militia" meme, and many blue extreme partisans cannot let go of that meme, no matter that it is clearly and absolutely wrong under the law.

[David Horn]

(05-12-2017, 05:46 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(05-12-2017, 10:02 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: We haven't relied upon state-based militias to a great degree since the Civil War. We have state national guards who activate largely for local emergencies (like national disasters) and are effectively reserves for the regular armed services. 

The National Guard is national.  The federal government pays most of the bills, and if a national emergency arises it can assume command of any unit.  Of note, the militia can be called by the federals to suppress insurrections, enforce the law and repel invasions.  None of those three functions involve the militia leaving the United States.  The National Guard was organized by Teddy Roosevelt as standing army units so it could be taken abroad.  Note, National Guard units were taken abroad extensively to Afghanistan and Iraq under Bush 43.

Another example of the control of the Guard came during the awakening.  George Wallace called up the National Guard to prevent universities from being integrated.  Washington DC proceeded to call up the Alabama Guard to to federal control.  Legally, Washington and the executive branch have the upper hand in commanding the National Guard.  A Guard general who follows the state command authority rather than the federal once the federals have mobilized them gets court marshaled.

But if troops are rebelling against the executive branch, things like legalities have become options anyway.  It is one thing to know the law.  It  is another to imagine a president like Trump doing bad enough stuff that troops of all ranks start ignoring the law.

There are a few states with true State Guards.  These states don't take money from Washington.  The federals can't preempt their use.  Such units are very rare these days.

Now, this to me is an example of a blue partisan refusing to listen to fact.  I have posted the above many times over the years.  You seem incapable of remembering or comprehending that the National Guard is not the militia.  The militia is essentially all male citizens of military age.  There are exemptions such as post office workers and shipyard employees who the founding fathers thought should remain on the job, even in a military emergency.  However, for the most part the militia is all guys of military age.

But the blue Jim Crow interpretation of things depends on a "National Guard is the militia" meme, and many blue extreme partisans cannot let go of that meme, no matter that it is clearly and absolutely wrong under the law.

Virginia has a State Militia, and it's called such.  It is the faculty, staff and student body of Virginia Military Institute.  As one of the professors noted, they will be called to duty immediately after the "women and children".  So the militia exists but its all ceremony and no action.  There is a concept in law that when something is moot, it ceases to exist in legal terms.  I think the militia is there.  Notice how the Scalia court danced around the issue by ignoring the justifying phrase in the 2nd Amendment.  It's hard to cite the nonexistent as a justification for anything.

So the next liberal court, and there will be one at some point, will have free reign to cite the militia, declare it moot and make the 2nd moot as well.  It's just a matter of time.   It's been obvious that gun ownership and use  is more akin to the ownership and use of those other deadly machines: automobiles and trucks.  As a privilege, it will still continue without the imprimatur of constitutional status.  It will also make it possible for urban areas to put limits on gun carrying in public.

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-13-2017, 08:33 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-12-2017, 05:46 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(05-12-2017, 10:02 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: We haven't relied upon state-based militias to a great degree since the Civil War. We have state national guards who activate largely for local emergencies (like national disasters) and are effectively reserves for the regular armed services. 

The National Guard is national.  The federal government pays most of the bills, and if a national emergency arises it can assume command of any unit.  Of note, the militia can be called by the federals to suppress insurrections, enforce the law and repel invasions.  None of those three functions involve the militia leaving the United States.  The National Guard was organized by Teddy Roosevelt as standing army units so it could be taken abroad.  Note, National Guard units were taken abroad extensively to Afghanistan and Iraq under Bush 43.

Another example of the control of the Guard came during the awakening.  George Wallace called up the National Guard to prevent universities from being integrated.  Washington DC proceeded to call up the Alabama Guard to to federal control.  Legally, Washington and the executive branch have the upper hand in commanding the National Guard.  A Guard general who follows the state command authority rather than the federal once the federals have mobilized them gets court marshaled.

But if troops are rebelling against the executive branch, things like legalities have become options anyway.  It is one thing to know the law.  It  is another to imagine a president like Trump doing bad enough stuff that troops of all ranks start ignoring the law.

There are a few states with true State Guards.  These states don't take money from Washington.  The federals can't preempt their use.  Such units are very rare these days.

Now, this to me is an example of a blue partisan refusing to listen to fact.  I have posted the above many times over the years.  You seem incapable of remembering or comprehending that the National Guard is not the militia.  The militia is essentially all male citizens of military age.  There are exemptions such as post office workers and shipyard employees who the founding fathers thought should remain on the job, even in a military emergency.  However, for the most part the militia is all guys of military age.

But the blue Jim Crow interpretation of things depends on a "National Guard is the militia" meme, and many blue extreme partisans cannot let go of that meme, no matter that it is clearly and absolutely wrong under the law.

Virginia has a State Militia, and it's called such.  It is the faculty, staff and student body of Virginia Military Institute.  As one of the professors noted, they will be called to duty immediately after the "women and children".  So the militia exists but its all ceremony and no action.  There is a concept in law that when something is moot, it ceases to exist in legal terms.  I think the militia is there.  Notice how the Scalia court danced around the issue by ignoring the justifying phrase in the 2nd Amendment.  It's hard to cite the nonexistent as a justification for anything.

So the next liberal court, and there will be one at some point, will have free reign to cite the militia, declare it moot and make the 2nd moot as well.  It's just a matter of time.   It's been obvious that gun ownership and use  is more akin to the ownership and use of those other deadly machines: automobiles and trucks.  As a privilege, it will still continue without the imprimatur of constitutional status.  It will also make it possible for urban areas to put limits on gun carrying in public.

Virginia has more traditional National Guard units as well.  But in addition, they have males of military age that are not members of any 'select militias'.  In the founding father's times, a lot of people were worried about state governors becoming tyrants as well as federal presidents.  Legally, the VMI faculty, staff and student body are no more the militia than the 29th Infantry Division.  Once you join a select militia such as VMI, in a military emergency one would report under the VMI chain of command rather than the general militia chain of command.

Again, you are making the typical blue mistake of confusing organized militia units with the militia.  The militia is roughly all males of military age.  This confusion was created by the Jim Crow supreme court to disarm blacks.  You could keep blacks out of select militias, but they would still be males of military age, thus would still be members of the militia, thus would still have a right to bear arm even if that right only belonged to members of the militia.  Thus, the Jim Crow supreme court changed the meaning of 'militia' on the fly.

You are also mistaken that the Scalia court disregarded the justification phrase, focusing entirely the implementation phase.  There were references to and echoes of The Commonplace Second Amendment in the decision, one of the best known of the 'standard model' papers.  It turns out there were lots of rights with justification phrases, mostly in the state constitutions, many of which were being written about the same time as the federal.  The 2nd Amendment has been the only right interpreted where the justification phrase is read as limiting the implementation phrase.  The Jim Crow interpretation is truly unique as to how to treat justification phrases.  There are states that declare that since publishers and reporters need freedom of the press, the People shall have freedom of the Press.  Rights were thought to be granted by God.  God doesn't give rights away in narrow limited ways.  If a right is a right, everybody shares said right.  This principle can be easily found if one examines the way rights were granted at the time.

If a right only belongs to a select group, it is not a right, but a privilege.  The founding fathers had had enough of the privileged nobility.  They didn't give away privileges.  They were into equality.

You are also falling into the blue wet dream of five old men rewriting the constitution.  It was supposed to happen in early 2017, just after Hillary's inauguration.  While there has been too much legislation from the bench over the years, recent courts are respecting the original intent more.  I am dubious of the court going so much against text, precedent and scholarship as the blue wet dreams.  Such would totally discredit the court.

[Eric the Green]

If the 2nd is the only amendment with qualifications, then that would indicate that those qualifications were important. You can't claim originalism, and oppose going against text, and then refer to state constitutions of the 1780s. They aren't part of the constitution.

Originalism of the Scalia/Gorsuch type does not work. The world changes, and the constitution must be interpreted in a flexible-enough way to adapt. Guns are not the same as they were in 1787. And remember, the phrase "well-regulated" is built in to the 2nd. Whatever militia has a right to bear arms, it must be well-regulated. That means gun control, and qualifications on which guns the militia members have a right to bear.

The blue wet dream is merely to go back before the right-wing extremist appointed by the 3T charming actor and his faulty decision.

Another point to insert: it is a false myth that we have freedom of speech in this country. We don't at all.

I don't recall the Supreme Court throwing out libel and obscenity laws. The FCC still censors broadcasts. Nor directing bosses and leaders of non-profits not to fire or punish people for saying the wrong things or "airing dirty linen in public."

This is just more conversation derailment into the never-ending gun debate. The point was about a coup or revolution for or against Trump.

As I see it, if Trump violates the constitution, then to violate the constitution to overthrow him would be 2 wrongs not making a right. It depends on how far things go, though. If Trump is able to turn the country into some kind of dictatorship, then if constitutional means are not available to challenge his power, then the constitution is moot, and the people or the military will need to take up or arrange for arms sufficient to remove him. Just where that line is crossed, may be hard to define exactly.

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-15-2017, 11:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: If the 2nd is the only amendment with qualifications, then that would indicate that those qualifications were important. You can't claim originalism, and oppose going against text, and then refer to state constitutions of the 1780s. They aren't part of the constitution.

I doubt very much that the 2nd is the only amendment with qualifications.  I know it is not the only right with a justification clause.  It should be interpreted the same as every other right written with a justification clause.  The Jim Crow / blue wet dream interpretation of the 2nd is entirely inconsistent with how other rights with a justification clause are interpreted.

(05-15-2017, 11:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Originalism of the Scalia/Gorsuch type does not work. The world changes, and the constitution must be interpreted in a flexible-enough way to adapt. Guns are not the same as they were in 1787. And remember, the phrase "well-regulated" is built in to the 2nd. Whatever militia has a right to bear arms, it must be well-regulated. That means gun control, and qualifications on which guns the militia members have a right to bear.

The recent supreme court cases reestablishing an individual right is not originalism except in the sense that there has been a return to the original meaning.  There is lots of room to debate the statistics of what results from various types of gun prohibition.  There is no room to debate the meaning of the text, the intent of the authors, the precedents and scholarship.  Those advocating the blue wet dreams deliberately keep themselves ignorant of the history of gun policy.  

(05-15-2017, 11:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The blue wet dream is merely to go back before the right-wing extremist appointed by the 3T charming actor and his faulty decision.

The blue wet dream is a mistaken attempt to cling to the absolutely rotten Jim Crow efforts to deny blacks the benefits of the Bill of Rights.  It wasn't just the 2nd Amendment that was effectively neutered by the Jim Crow supreme court.  The entire Bill of Rights was effectively neutralized.  The gun policy debate is old.  It has been a persistent part of our history.  Your claim that it started recently shows a tremendous ignorance.

(05-15-2017, 11:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Another point to insert: it is a false myth that we have freedom of speech in this country. We don't at all.

Huh?  Not part of this discussion.  If you want to start on that elsewhere...  What is it you want to say that you believe you can't?

(05-15-2017, 11:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I don't recall the Supreme Court throwing out libel and obscenity laws. The FCC still censors broadcasts. Nor directing bosses and leaders of non-profits not to fire or punish people for saying the wrong things or "airing dirty linen in public."

Since the time of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, there has been a broad principle that a right does not grant one the ability to harm others.  ("Your right to wave your fist around ends where my nose begins."  "You don't have a right to cry 'fire' in a crowded theater.")  Libel and obscenity are considered to be harmful to others, thus freedom of speech does not enable them.  Shooting people also causes harm to others, and the 2nd Amendment does not enable that.  Owning and carrying a gun (keeping and bearing arms) does not harm others, thus the libel and obscenity comparison is generally not applicable.

(05-15-2017, 11:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: This is just more conversation derailment into the never-ending gun debate. The point was about a coup or revolution for or against Trump.

Correct.  There is a gun policy thread.  This exchange belongs there.  Feel free to move it and I'll follow.

(05-15-2017, 11:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: As I see it, if Trump violates the constitution, then to violate the constitution to overthrow him would be 2 wrongs not making a right. It depends on how far things go, though. If Trump is able to turn the country into some kind of dictatorship, then if constitutional means are not available to challenge his power, then the constitution is moot, and the people or the military will need to take up or arrange for arms sufficient to remove him. Just where that line is crossed, may be hard to define exactly.

Agreed in principle,  The Declaration of Independence attempts to draw the line of when it is proper to use force to dissolve old and tyrannical forms of government.  I don't think we're across that line yet, but I certainly can't guarantee that Trump can't ever or won't ever cross it.

The Founding Fathers Wrote:We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the Present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.

Feel free to keep a running list of 'Injuries and Usupations'.  Actually, some of our existing threads are pretty much doing just that.

[pbrower2a]

(05-15-2017, 11:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: If the 2nd is the only amendment with qualifications, then that would indicate that those qualifications were important. You can't claim originalism, and oppose going against text, and then refer to state constitutions of the 1780s. They aren't part of the constitution.

In practice the First Amendment has obvious qualifications in legal tradition: one cannot defend a robbery notice or a ransom note as free speech if there is a robbery or a kidnapping. We have the concept of 'fighting words' that imply the practical dangers of calling some muscular black person a word that rhymes with the name of Roy Rogers' horse. Then again, it is extremely unwise to pick fights. Even my dog knows enough to keep out of the range of a cat's  horrid fore-paws and the switchblades therein.   

Quote:Originalism of the Scalia/Gorsuch type does not work. The world changes, and the constitution must be interpreted in a flexible-enough way to adapt. Guns are not the same as they were in 1787. And remember, the phrase "well-regulated" is built in to the 2nd. Whatever militia has a right to bear arms, it must be well-regulated. That means gun control, and qualifications on which guns the militia members have a right to bear.

The blue wet dream is merely to go back before the right-wing extremist appointed by the 3T charming actor and his faulty decision.

Original intent was for flintlock muskets and rifles... and maybe crossbows.  In my ideal world you would need a hunting license to get a gun, and then only as appropriate for the hunt. If you need defense against intruders -- get 'the Other Big Cat, the one that makes a human dwelling as dangerous for an intruder as tiger turf in the Sunderbans. Messrs. R. Ottweiler and D. O. Berman will serve that purpose very well.

Quote:I don't recall the Supreme Court throwing out libel and obscenity laws. The FCC still censors broadcasts. Nor directing bosses and leaders of non-profits not to fire or punish people for saying the wrong things or "airing dirty linen in public."

Slander and libel are civil torts. Child pornography is illegal not due to indecency (the content might be legal if it involved adults)  but due to the harm to children and its alleged inspiration of perverts to imitate sexual abuse of children that they see (basically any sex with a child is abuse). Part of an assumption of employment is that one does not do things detrimental to the company, like disparaging its business model.

Quote:As I see it, if Trump violates the constitution, then to violate the constitution to overthrow him would be 2 wrongs not making a right. It depends on how far things go, though. If Trump is able to turn the country into some kind of dictatorship, then if constitutional means are not available to challenge his power, then the constitution is moot, and the people or the military will need to take up or arrange for arms sufficient to remove him. Just where that line is crossed, may be hard to define exactly.

In view of the gross breach of national security that he did, he must be impeached. To be sure, Democrats have only one thing to gain from the impeachment of Donald Trump: influence enough over the selection of the next Vice-President so that that person is not simply part of some rogue's gallery of fanatics, Trump cronies, and yes-men. What do Democrats stand to lose should they choose to let a politically-crippled Donald Trump bring down his Party? A military coup might lead to the denial of elections in 2018 and 2020 that might first mitigate the power of the Right in 2018 and allow a Democratic President in 2020.

The difference between Donald Trump and Mike Pence is that there really is Pie-in-the-Sky-When-You-Die for people who suffer adequately for the Master Class. Under an American Pinochet, there had better be Pie-in-the-Sky-When-You-Die for those who disappear into secret morgues for political offenders.

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-16-2017, 05:11 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Original intent was for flintlock muskets and rifles... and maybe crossbows.  In my ideal world you would need a hunting license to get a gun, and then only as appropriate for the hunt.

The original intent, and the wording of the text, was all sorts of arms, not just the few sorts of arms that you are fond of. You are projecting your daydreams on the Constitution rather than reading what the Constitution actually says.

Yes, you are describing your ideal world. That's harmless. I'd be much more careful about not confusing your blue daydreams with the history of the United States of America. I'd be aware that red leaning people have daydreams too, daydreams much more compatible with the laws of the land.

[David Horn]

(05-16-2017, 05:31 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(05-16-2017, 05:11 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Original intent was for flintlock muskets and rifles... and maybe crossbows.  In my ideal world you would need a hunting license to get a gun, and then only as appropriate for the hunt.

  
The original intent, and the wording of the text,  was all sorts of arms, not just the few sorts of arms that you are fond of.  You are projecting your daydreams on the Constitution rather than reading what the Constitution actually says.

Yes, you are describing your ideal world.  That's harmless.  I'd be much more careful about not confusing your blue daydreams with the history of the United States of America.  I'd be aware that red leaning people have daydreams too, daydreams much more compatible with the laws of the land.

Since you mentioned history, let's look at the state of the world when the Bill of Rights was written.  The world was still in the Agricultural Age, and the prospect of an industrial future with the advances it would create weren't even contemplated.  It's hard to argue that this amendment was intended to support technology no one could even dream about at the time.

[Eric the Green]

I'd suggest, that even repealing the Second Amendment would have no bearing on our right to bear arms in the event of an unconstitutional takeover of our government, and the peoples' right to overthrow it. That right is of course not going to exist in a constitution, but was stated in our founding document, the Declaration of Independence. If the Constitution has been in-effect abrogated by the government and its leaders, then the 2nd amendment has no bearing on our right to bear arms one way or the other, because the Constitution is moot. If those who want to have arms to defend liberty against the state, have already decided that our government is unconstitutional, they have to take responsibility for their judgement in that regard, and the consequences of opposing this government. But, at some point, I might agree with these rebels.

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-16-2017, 10:50 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-16-2017, 05:31 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(05-16-2017, 05:11 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Original intent was for flintlock muskets and rifles... and maybe crossbows.  In my ideal world you would need a hunting license to get a gun, and then only as appropriate for the hunt.

  
The original intent, and the wording of the text,  was all sorts of arms, not just the few sorts of arms that you are fond of.  You are projecting your daydreams on the Constitution rather than reading what the Constitution actually says.

Yes, you are describing your ideal world.  That's harmless.  I'd be much more careful about not confusing your blue daydreams with the history of the United States of America.  I'd be aware that red leaning people have daydreams too, daydreams much more compatible with the laws of the land.

Since you mentioned history, let's look at the state of the world when the Bill of Rights was written.  The world was still in the Agricultural Age, and the prospect of an industrial future with the advances it would create weren't even contemplated.  It's hard to argue that this amendment was intended to support technology no one could even dream about at the time.

Oh, modern firearms were still just a twinkle in the gunsmith's eyes, but they were sure enough being dreamed about.

But the other thing to remember is the political and military situation at the cusp of the Industrial Age.  Classic Agricultural Age culture forbade their lower classes the possession of arms.  This was a classic approach the ruling class consistently exercised to keep their superiority over the common folk.  Britain in its era of the longbow, and later the musket, broke with this weapons prohibition tradition.  They armed every man.  At one point not only were long bows permitted, but it was required to bring them to church for the mandatory weekly practice.  This paid off in terms of a small island being able to contest militarily with larger continental powers who kept the old Agricultural Age arms prohibitions in place.

I don't think it an accident or a coincidence that just as the common people were starting to step onto the military stage, were starting to influence winners and losers, that the notion of bills of rights and representative governments started catching on.  There were a whole bunch of people with weapons in hand.  The newer wannabe elites started saying things that they thought such people would want to hear.  I consider the breaking of the arms prohibition to be an important part of the Agricultural / Industrial cusp.

The influence of an armed populace waned among some people in some places.  The colonial and revolutionary periods were the peak of it.  Still, at the time of the writing of the Constitution, the notion of an armed free people being able to keep check on the ruling elites was a popular one...  even among some ruling elites.  The blue daydreamers just don't understand or feel the values associated with an armed populace.  The NRA Republicans sure do.  It is the values of these revolutionary times that got written into law, and the blue daydreamers just can't see it, just don't believe in it.  In parts of the country, these revolutionary values never went away.

Anyway, the notion of Trump restoring revolutionary values is an odd one.  The worse he gets, the better the blue folk are getting to understand the old values.

Make America great again?

Thomas Jefferson Wrote:The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-16-2017, 01:53 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I'd suggest, that even repealing the Second Amendment would have no bearing on our right to bear arms in the event of an unconstitutional takeover of our government, and the peoples' right to overthrow it. That right is of course not going to exist in a constitution, but was stated in our founding document, the Declaration of Independence. If the Constitution has been in-effect abrogated by the government and its leaders, then the 2nd amendment has no bearing on our right to bear arms one way or the other, because the Constitution is moot. If those who want to have arms to defend liberty against the state, have already decided that our government is unconstitutional, they have to take responsibility for their judgement in that regard, and the consequences of opposing this government. But, at some point, I might agree with these rebels.

Trump has flip flopped on a lot of his campaign promises.  Should he flip flop on the 2nd Amendment, should he start asserting the People ought to be disarmed, should he double cross the NRA, even I might visit a gun store.

Don't know that he'll be going that far.  He's really got to hang on to some sort of base.  Going all out gun prohibition would get rid of a lot of his base real quick.

Isn't it written somewhere that Revolution can be a spectator sport, an innocent way of spending time?  You can be a wannabe Thomas Paine or William Lloyd Garrison and post inflammatory stuff on the internet without joining John Brown's Harper Ferry raid or dressing up as a native and throwing tea in the harbor?  Right?  Isn't it safer to write stuff rather than to assault the White House?

I like tea.

[Galen]

(05-11-2017, 06:41 AM)Odin Wrote:

(05-10-2017, 02:17 PM)Galen Wrote: I thought you guys were upset with Comey for costing Hillary the election.  Eric the Obtuse certainly blames him for that so it seems that Trump gave you what you want.  I think Scott Adams is [url="http://blog.dilbert.com/post/160515646406/the-comey-firing]right[/url] about what is going on here.  Truth is, it really doesn't matter what Trump does you are going to angry about it.

I see you've been thoroughly programmed with right-wing talking points. You sound exactly like all the idiots calling in to the local radio news show hosted by Sen. Heitkamp's brother yesterday morning screaming "HILLARY'S EMAILS".

Here is a an article but the San Diego Union-Tribune, hardly a right wing news outlet, pointing out how many DIms wanted Comey gone.

[Ragnarök_62]

(05-16-2017, 03:26 PM)Galen Wrote:

(05-11-2017, 06:41 AM)Odin Wrote:

(05-10-2017, 02:17 PM)Galen Wrote: I thought you guys were upset with Comey for costing Hillary the election.  Eric the Obtuse certainly blames him for that so it seems that Trump gave you what you want.  I think Scott Adams is [url="http://blog.dilbert.com/post/160515646406/the-comey-firing]right[/url] about what is going on here.  Truth is, it really doesn't matter what Trump does you are going to angry about it.

I see you've been thoroughly programmed with right-wing talking points. You sound exactly like all the idiots calling in to the local radio news show hosted by Sen. Heitkamp's brother yesterday morning screaming "HILLARY'S EMAILS".

Here is a an article but the San Diego Union-Tribune, hardly a right wing news outlet, pointing out how many DIms wanted Comey gone.

Yeah,  you know, I wish $hillery would just crawl into the nearest hole and die.   She's such a C*. I want her gone. Odin, why can't you get into your head that she cheated in the primaries?  Fuck her.

[pbrower2a]

(05-16-2017, 03:26 PM)Galen Wrote:

(05-11-2017, 06:41 AM)Odin Wrote:

(05-10-2017, 02:17 PM)Galen Wrote: I thought you guys were upset with Comey for costing Hillary the election.  Eric the Obtuse certainly blames him for that so it seems that Trump gave you what you want.  I think Scott Adams is [url="http://blog.dilbert.com/post/160515646406/the-comey-firing]right[/url] about what is going on here.  Truth is, it really doesn't matter what Trump does you are going to angry about it.

I see you've been thoroughly programmed with right-wing talking points. You sound exactly like all the idiots calling in to the local radio news show hosted by Sen. Heitkamp's brother yesterday morning screaming "HILLARY'S EMAILS".

Here is a an article but the San Diego Union-Tribune, hardly a right wing news outlet, pointing out how many DIms wanted Comey gone.

Like him or not, we liberal Democrats have little tolerance for obstruction of justice.

[Galen]

(05-16-2017, 08:55 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(05-16-2017, 03:26 PM)Galen Wrote:

(05-11-2017, 06:41 AM)Odin Wrote:

(05-10-2017, 02:17 PM)Galen Wrote: I thought you guys were upset with Comey for costing Hillary the election.  Eric the Obtuse certainly blames him for that so it seems that Trump gave you what you want.  I think Scott Adams is [url="http://blog.dilbert.com/post/160515646406/the-comey-firing]right[/url] about what is going on here.  Truth is, it really doesn't matter what Trump does you are going to angry about it.

I see you've been thoroughly programmed with right-wing talking points. You sound exactly like all the idiots calling in to the local radio news show hosted by Sen. Heitkamp's brother yesterday morning screaming "HILLARY'S EMAILS".

Here is a an article but the San Diego Union-Tribune, hardly a right wing news outlet, pointing out how many DIms wanted Comey gone.

Like him or not, we liberal Democrats have little tolerance for obstruction of justice.

Unless it is to protect someone you like, such as the Clintons.  There is that little matter of the Clinton Foundation taking millions from countries such as Saudi Arabia that have a dubious human rights record and were trying to buy influence.  It seems rather coincidental that donation dried up after Hillary lost the election.

[pbrower2a]

(05-17-2017, 02:56 AM)Galen Wrote:

(05-16-2017, 08:55 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(05-16-2017, 03:26 PM)Galen Wrote:

(05-11-2017, 06:41 AM)Odin Wrote:

(05-10-2017, 02:17 PM)Galen Wrote: I thought you guys were upset with Comey for costing Hillary the election.  Eric the Obtuse certainly blames him for that so it seems that Trump gave you what you want.  I think Scott Adams is [url="http://blog.dilbert.com/post/160515646406/the-comey-firing]right[/url] about what is going on here.  Truth is, it really doesn't matter what Trump does you are going to angry about it.

I see you've been thoroughly programmed with right-wing talking points. You sound exactly like all the idiots calling in to the local radio news show hosted by Sen. Heitkamp's brother yesterday morning screaming "HILLARY'S EMAILS".

Here is a an article but the San Diego Union-Tribune, hardly a right wing news outlet, pointing out how many DIms wanted Comey gone.

Like him or not, we liberal Democrats have little tolerance for obstruction of justice.

Unless it is to protect someone you like, such as the Clintons.  There is that little matter of the Clinton Foundation taking millions from countries such as Saudi Arabia that have a dubious human rights record and were trying to buy influence.  It seems rather coincidental that donation dried up after Hillary lost the election.

Yes -- it is far cheaper to show a receipt from a Trump hotel for lodging, food, and entertainment to get attention from you-know-what Administration. In fact it might be wise to stay at a Trump hotel and collect receipts before getting an interview for a job as a letter carrier, at least as I sense the wind blowing.

[David Horn]

(05-16-2017, 11:41 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(05-16-2017, 10:50 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-16-2017, 05:31 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(05-16-2017, 05:11 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Original intent was for flintlock muskets and rifles... and maybe crossbows.  In my ideal world you would need a hunting license to get a gun, and then only as appropriate for the hunt.

  
The original intent, and the wording of the text,  was all sorts of arms, not just the few sorts of arms that you are fond of.  You are projecting your daydreams on the Constitution rather than reading what the Constitution actually says.

Yes, you are describing your ideal world.  That's harmless.  I'd be much more careful about not confusing your blue daydreams with the history of the United States of America.  I'd be aware that red leaning people have daydreams too, daydreams much more compatible with the laws of the land.

Since you mentioned history, let's look at the state of the world when the Bill of Rights was written.  The world was still in the Agricultural Age, and the prospect of an industrial future with the advances it would create weren't even contemplated.  It's hard to argue that this amendment was intended to support technology no one could even dream about at the time.

By the late 1700s concepts such as self contained rounds, repeating / semiautomatic operation, etc, existed but were at that point unproven and not practical to implement due to the limitations of parts / dimensional controls / manufacturing processes. But it didn't take long after that - a mere 60 years.

... which makes my point.  Why would anyone existing in an era that had run for the entire breadth of known history assume that this would miraculously change in the immediate future ... or ever?

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-17-2017, 02:35 PM)David Horn Wrote: ... which makes my point.  Why would anyone existing in an era that had run for the entire breadth of known history assume that this would miraculously change in the immediate future ... or ever?

There is some validity to this. Science Fiction writers have claimed that they 'invented' the future at roughly this time, writing stories about new technologies utterly changing the world. Prior to that, it is alleged that no one noticed progress. Now would last forever.

With 20 20 hindsight, how could they not notice the world was changing? The steam engine, printing press, gunpowder and Enlightenment values had all taken hold to great effect. Fully rigged ships had made the world a much smaller place. How could they not see the future roaring down at them like an onrushing freight train, even if there weren't yet any freight trains?

Arguably, the right to bear arms was a recognition of a changing future. They had entered an age where an armed populace could have a profound beneficial effect on politics, on enforcing Enlightenment values. The right to bear arms was touted at the time as the primary right, the one that enabled all the others, with considerable truth. This was a definite change from the Agricultural Age norms, when the elite military and land owning classes forbade weapons to the common man.

But there is truth to what you say. It is not easy to anticipate inventions or the effects of them on a culture. The founding fathers acted on what they saw in the English Civil War and American Revolution, their immediate past. They did not clearly see the future. Certain principles had been noted and declared holy. Other things were not anticipated. Given democracy, common men with arms did not remain the primary force for cultural change. Democracy was an experiment. They did not foresee how well it would work.

Regardless, what we've got is a Constitution written in the aftermath of the English Civil War and American Revolution. The wisdom of that era, however incomplete, is what got carved in stone.

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-17-2017, 03:49 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Back on topic ...

Well folks, I think we have our Crisis now.

Special Prosecutor here we come.

Trump likely won't worry.  How could they find a special prosecutor who is as magnificent, handsome, powerful and charming as Trump himself? And if they do find some fool, he can always be fired. Nixon set that precedent clearly enough.