To impeach, or not to impeach

[Classic-Xer]

(11-25-2019, 03:17 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I hope we can take ALL your semi-auto guns away, or at least keep you guys from buying any more, and that we can take your tax money and in the name of socialism give it all to black people, and to the brown people crowding across the border. Future Democrats, you know! But we won't be satisfied until we take ALL your precious guns away, you know!    You'll just have to figure out better ways to express your manhood. I assure you, there are lot of better ways. Lots of better ways to stay safe too. What will it take till you learn, and to care about something else?

Yep. They're the future Democrats or at least that's how most white liberals seem to view them and seem to be hoping for these days. Whatever, you can keep all of them and support raising your own taxes to support them all with too. Dude, we could basically bury the liberals with poor foreigners who are legal to be here. I wouldn't be messing around with liberals. I'd be teaching the liberals a thing or two about American ingenuity and the school of hard knocks. I'd turn that smug pretty boy governor of yours who thinks he's something special into blithering wimp who knows he f-d up and bit off more than he can chew, I don't care if that arrogant prick ends up being hacked apart by angry brown people armed with machetes or if more blue citizens are found robbed with their throats slit by unknowns that the liberals seem to place more value on these days.

[Classic-Xer]

(11-26-2019, 11:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: You and your conservative buddies keep requiring us liberals to legally treat a corporation as a person with personal rights. A corporation is made up of humans who have rights. But those rights belong to them individually. A corporation is not a person and should not have rights conferred upon individuals. A corporation has a charter which requires certain things, and is registered with a state which requires certain things.

If we have a national guard, then that national guard is empowered to protect the nation. It needs no assistance from citizens, and citizens do not need to possess weapons that are made for armies. If you want to help protect the nation with arms, join the National Guard if you can. All semi-automatic weapons should not be allowed in the hands of citizens. This does not violate the constitution, which does not prohibit laws against particular kinds of military weapons being owned and used by civilians. If you want to assemble a militia for your civil war, you red folks would be well-advised to form your own state with its own rules. Otherwise you are sure to lose, and will probably lose anyway as your predecessors did 160 years ago.

Wow, I think of the civil war as being 100 years ago. It is now 160 years ago. Time flies when you're not having fun.

I dunno, would you mind if the FBI or any other agency had the freedom to seize your business at anytime for any reason without establishing just cause and obtaining legal permission? I'm sure the business itself wouldn't mind or be upset but would you? Now, I can't speak for your business but my business wouldn't be better off without me in the picture. I'd assume that your business would be better off  without you in the picture but I couldn't say it would for certain without speaking with your business. I dunno, the business may not care that you don't about it and place yourself above it in importance and so forth. I'm well aware of the formal/ legal process involved with establishing  corporations. I've yet to file one that didn't have me or the business that I own identified as the legal owner. How bout you, you claim to own one, did your business file itself and identify itself as the owner. I don't know who you're talking about but my predecessors won or tied every American war they participated in dating back to the Revolutionary War. Hint, we don't have to break away and form a state like the liberals do. Dude, all that we have to do is keep what we already have firmly established as nation and be willing to support those who currently living in liberal states who want their independence and prefer to remain American.

[pbrower2a]

(11-27-2019, 02:43 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-26-2019, 11:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: You and your conservative buddies keep requiring us liberals to legally treat a corporation as a person with personal rights. A corporation is made up of humans who have rights. But those rights belong to them individually. A corporation is not a person and should not have rights conferred upon individuals. A corporation has a charter which requires certain things, and is registered with a state which requires certain things.

If we have a national guard, then that national guard is empowered to protect the nation. It needs no assistance from citizens, and citizens do not need to possess weapons that are made for armies. If you want to help protect the nation with arms, join the National Guard if you can. All semi-automatic weapons should not be allowed in the hands of citizens. This does not violate the constitution, which does not prohibit laws against particular kinds of military weapons being owned and used by civilians. If you want to assemble a militia for your civil war, you red folks would be well-advised to form your own state with its own rules. Otherwise you are sure to lose, and will probably lose anyway as your predecessors did 160 years ago.

Wow, I think of the civil war as being 100 years ago. It is now 160 years ago. Time flies when you're not having fun.

I dunno, would you mind if the FBI or any other agency had the freedom to seize your business at anytime for any reason without establishing  just cause and obtaining legal permission? I'm sure the business itself wouldn't mind or be upset but would you? Now, I can't speak for your business but my business wouldn't be better off without me in the picture. I'd assume  that your business would be better off  without you in the picture but I couldn't say it would for certain without speaking with your business. I dunno, the business may not care that you don't about it and place yourself above it in importance and so forth. I'm well aware of the formal/ legal process involved with establishing  corporations. I've yet to file one that didn't have me or the business that I own identified as the legal owner. How bout you, you claim to own one, did your business file itself and identify itself as the owner. I don't know who you're talking about but my predecessors won or tied  every American war they participated in dating back to the Revolutionary War. Hint, we don't have to break away and form a state like the liberals do. Dude, all that we have to do is keep what we already have firmly  established as nation and be willing to support those who currently living in liberal states who want their independence and prefer to remain American.

Governments can padlock nuisance businesses whose operations are themselves illicit, as with those involved with illegal gambling or prostitution, or the manufacture or sale of illegal drugs -- or for that matter, non-payment of taxes. But such requires due process of the law.

Government seizing businesses for no other purpose other than to own and operate them for profit as capitalists did? That is confiscation, and the essence of Marxist-Leninist practice that has itself been a catastrophic failure whenever tried. The Fifth Amendment has a clause precluding government seizure of property unless the government pays appropriately for such a seizure... market value, which would make a Soviet-style  economy prohibitively costly.

Don't sweat it.

[David Horn]

(11-26-2019, 10:17 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-26-2019, 03:46 PM)David Horn Wrote: We live in an ever changing world, and one where change is occurring at a faster pace than ever.  Try to align that with the judicial temperament that "originalists" claim to follow.  You can't and neither can they.  Case in point: the 2nd Amendment  was written to assure the right of ordinary citizens to keep arms in support of militias.  Never mind that we no longer have them, originalist Scalia found a tortured interpretation that manufactured an individual right without any justification.  I assume you agree with Scalia, but that ruling is almost certain to fall at some point -- soon I hope.  Another bizarre ruling is Citizens United that gave constitutional rights to corporations.  Really?  Does anyone think that corporations have speech rights other than that small coterie of RW Justices.  There are many other similar issues that Blue America has with the RW SCOTUS of today.  Give a few examples of things you see wrong in the opposite direction.

Yes. You are right again. We don't have to rely on militia's when we basically have organized State militia's that we simply refer to as our national guard these days. How are we supposed to support them/back them up or defend ourselves in times of need if we don't have access to the type of firearms that the lawless still seem to have plenty of access to for themselves these days? Why is it that the liberals spend so much time and effort trying to convince pass laws that disarm law abiding citizens instead of focusing more on disarming the lawless factions and the folks with serious mental issues these days.

You do realize that this is a non sequitur. Professional armies, even part-time professional armies, need civilians to butt out. You can't help. You have no idea how to do it. And how do you disarm all the bad people but leave all the good people fully armed? A bad person was good, right up to the time they weren't. And forget expecting "people who know them" to turn in mentally ill family and friends. They don't and they won't.

Classic-Xer Wrote:Now, the liberal who doesn't think/ know that corporations are able to think, speak, vote or do anything else that a human is capable of doing, is not considering or seriously taking into account that corporations are owned by humans, operated by humans, controlled by humans, financially backed by humans, invested in by humans and supported by humans.

Of course, those humans are insolated from personal responsivity and legal action be hiding behind the corporate shield. And also remember, the court said that money is speech. S CEO Joe decides to spend X Millions on something, and it goes bad. Well, too bad. Worse, the shareholders may be stuck with the bill.

Classic-Xer Wrote:In the stupid/ thoughtless liberal signs and liberal slogans in some customers homes. I've seen them speak to me like a human would normally speak to a human whom they know and respect without realizing that they were directly speaking with a person who represented an  American corporation. Yes. Scalia was smart/wise enough to figure out/realize the human connection with corporations and understand the direct connection between corporations and the humans who own them. For some reason, the liberals don't seem able to figure that out themselves or don't seem willing to recognize our rights to keep/protect them the same way as we would any of our property and defend them the same way we would defend any other valuable thing that we own.

Again, it's all about the money and power to use other peoples money to against their own interests.

Classic-Xer Wrote:As far as our individual right to have firearms, all you need to do is be able to read a short sentence written in plain English and be able to accept what you read as an important law of the land that has existed since the country was established. I dunno, you may be able to convince people born else where that America would be a safer place if they where to support liberal attempts to disarm us. Oh, I'm not so sure a so called living document that could be changed on a whim for whatever reason would be good long term. I mean, the freedom to remove and reinstate or add for this group and take away from that group as times change and situations change could create feelings of instability, cause social instability and result in chaos and violence.

Here, in full, is the 2nd Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." One sentence, including the justification clause at the beginning, can't be split in half to make a point.

[Classic-Xer]

(11-27-2019, 11:04 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(11-26-2019, 10:17 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-26-2019, 03:46 PM)David Horn Wrote: We live in an ever changing world, and one where change is occurring at a faster pace than ever.  Try to align that with the judicial temperament that "originalists" claim to follow.  You can't and neither can they.  Case in point: the 2nd Amendment  was written to assure the right of ordinary citizens to keep arms in support of militias.  Never mind that we no longer have them, originalist Scalia found a tortured interpretation that manufactured an individual right without any justification.  I assume you agree with Scalia, but that ruling is almost certain to fall at some point -- soon I hope.  Another bizarre ruling is Citizens United that gave constitutional rights to corporations.  Really?  Does anyone think that corporations have speech rights other than that small coterie of RW Justices.  There are many other similar issues that Blue America has with the RW SCOTUS of today.  Give a few examples of things you see wrong in the opposite direction.

Yes. You are right again. We don't have to rely on militia's when we basically have organized State militia's that we simply refer to as our national guard these days. How are we supposed to support them/back them up or defend ourselves in times of need if we don't have access to the type of firearms that the lawless still seem to have plenty of access to for themselves these days? Why is it that the liberals spend so much time and effort trying to convince pass laws that disarm law abiding citizens instead of focusing more on disarming the lawless factions and the folks with serious mental issues these days.

You do realize that this is a non sequitur.  Professional armies, even part-time professional armies, need civilians to butt out.  You can't help.  You have no idea how to do it.  And how do you disarm all the bad people but leave all the good people fully armed?  A bad person was good, right up to the time they weren't.  And forget expecting "people who know them" to turn in mentally ill family and friends.  They don't and they won't.

Classic-Xer Wrote:Now, the liberal who doesn't think/ know that corporations are able to think, speak, vote or do anything else that a human is capable of doing, is not considering or seriously taking into account that corporations are owned by humans, operated by humans, controlled by humans, financially backed by humans, invested in by humans and supported by humans.

Of course, those humans are insolated from personal responsivity and legal action be hiding behind the corporate shield.  And also remember, the court said that money is speech.  S CEO Joe decides to spend X Millions on something, and it goes bad.  Well, too bad.  Worse, the shareholders may be stuck with the bill.

Classic-Xer Wrote:In the stupid/ thoughtless liberal signs and liberal slogans in some customers homes. I've seen them speak to me like a human would normally speak to a human whom they know and respect without realizing that they were directly speaking with a person who represented an  American corporation. Yes. Scalia was smart/wise enough to figure out/realize the human connection with corporations and understand the direct connection between corporations and the humans who own them. For some reason, the liberals don't seem able to figure that out themselves or don't seem willing to recognize our rights to keep/protect them the same way as we would any of our property and defend them the same way we would defend any other valuable thing that we own.

Again, it's all about the money and power to use other peoples money to against their own interests.

Classic-Xer Wrote:As far as our individual right to have firearms, all you need to do is be able to read a short sentence written in plain English and be able to accept what you read as an important law of the land that has existed since the country was established. I dunno, you may be able to convince people born else where that America would be a safer place if they where to support liberal attempts to disarm us. Oh, I'm not so sure a so called living document that could be changed on a whim for whatever reason would be good long term. I mean, the freedom to remove and reinstate or add for this group and take away from that group as times change and situations change could create feelings of instability, cause social instability and result in chaos and violence.

Here, in full, is the 2nd Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  One sentence, including the justification clause at the beginning, can't be split in half to make a point.

Yes. You are right again. It seems to be all about empowering the liberals enough to obtain and use other peoples money against their own interests these days. Yes. We understand that and know that is what it's all about these days. Well, right now, the liberals are only able to accomplish/ do that with what's left of their Democratic supporters/people who are stuck within the area's that we identify and refer to as liberal strongholds and liberal institutions and liberal academia these days.

Now, I don't really care if you choose to remain disarmed for whatever reason or if you support those who seek to disarm the American population for whatever reason and I don't really care if you or a grand kid ends up being convicted by a liberal court of public opinion and lynched by an angry liberal mob for whatever reason either. Now, what do you think we'll be doing while stuff like that is going on within blue America? I mean, who is going to protect blue citizens, their powerless police who only have the right to stand around and observe or hide if the situation is viewed as to dangerous for them?

What part of the sentence, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon" and the context that it was written, do you not understand? Now, I don't have a college degree or a fancy title but I'm capable of reading and understanding that the American state would not exist or remain in existence without it. Well, you can say what you want to those who don't know anything better or those who can barely read or understand English or the young immigrant population you've spent the past years indoctrinating and lying to about us for years. As I've mentioned, eventually rising up and defeating those idiots isn't going to be a fun or pleasant task. How many howdy ho, can't be mean or do that around my constituency are currently learning and seeing the reason why it's becoming necessary these days.

[Classic-Xer]

(11-27-2019, 07:06 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(11-27-2019, 02:43 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-26-2019, 11:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: You and your conservative buddies keep requiring us liberals to legally treat a corporation as a person with personal rights. A corporation is made up of humans who have rights. But those rights belong to them individually. A corporation is not a person and should not have rights conferred upon individuals. A corporation has a charter which requires certain things, and is registered with a state which requires certain things.

If we have a national guard, then that national guard is empowered to protect the nation. It needs no assistance from citizens, and citizens do not need to possess weapons that are made for armies. If you want to help protect the nation with arms, join the National Guard if you can. All semi-automatic weapons should not be allowed in the hands of citizens. This does not violate the constitution, which does not prohibit laws against particular kinds of military weapons being owned and used by civilians. If you want to assemble a militia for your civil war, you red folks would be well-advised to form your own state with its own rules. Otherwise you are sure to lose, and will probably lose anyway as your predecessors did 160 years ago.

Wow, I think of the civil war as being 100 years ago. It is now 160 years ago. Time flies when you're not having fun.

I dunno, would you mind if the FBI or any other agency had the freedom to seize your business at anytime for any reason without establishing  just cause and obtaining legal permission? I'm sure the business itself wouldn't mind or be upset but would you? Now, I can't speak for your business but my business wouldn't be better off without me in the picture. I'd assume  that your business would be better off  without you in the picture but I couldn't say it would for certain without speaking with your business. I dunno, the business may not care that you don't about it and place yourself above it in importance and so forth. I'm well aware of the formal/ legal process involved with establishing  corporations. I've yet to file one that didn't have me or the business that I own identified as the legal owner. How bout you, you claim to own one, did your business file itself and identify itself as the owner. I don't know who you're talking about but my predecessors won or tied  every American war they participated in dating back to the Revolutionary War. Hint, we don't have to break away and form a state like the liberals do. Dude, all that we have to do is keep what we already have firmly  established as nation and be willing to support those who currently living in liberal states who want their independence and prefer to remain American.

Governments can padlock nuisance businesses whose operations are themselves illicit, as with those involved with illegal gambling or prostitution, or the manufacture or sale of illegal drugs -- or for that matter, non-payment of taxes. But such requires due process of the law.

Government seizing businesses for no other purpose other than to own and operate them for profit as capitalists did? That is confiscation, and the essence of Marxist-Leninist practice that has itself been a catastrophic failure whenever tried. The Fifth Amendment has a clause precluding government seizure of property unless the government pays appropriately for such a seizure... market value, which would make a Soviet-style  economy prohibitively costly.

Don't sweat it.

Yes. You are right about this as well. Communism ain't good and one should not support it or anything remotely close to it regardless of the situation that they are in personally these days. How long is going to be before we start seeing liberal schools and American schools as our primary choices? You seem pretty dumb for not being able to see that as being a very distinct possibility down the road for a smart guy. Like I've said, Americans don't care about the liberals and aren't sweating it as you say. Unfortunately, you are directly affiliated with the liberals these days. I'd suggest that you start paying closer attention to those you are politically aligned with these days as well.

[Marypoza]

(11-28-2019, 12:15 AM)taramarie Wrote: I may be wrong, but reading that second amendment of yours, it seems that it is implying that it is for the right of all people to own and use a weapon in self defence if they choose to. I believe it was created post the war for independence from the British and so it was created at a time where it was intended to give the citizens of your country the right to fight against a tyrannical federal government. It seems it was created to give individuals the right to defend themselves in case it is needed. What has changed however is how guns are made compared to a couple of hundred years ago and cautionary laws around the ownership of such guns should be taken into consideration due to said change. Feel free to correct the resident foreigner. It is just a simple observation.

-- it was written @ a time when ppl used muskets. AK47s, rocket launchers, grenades, etc.... did not yet exist. Hell the flintlock didn't even exist. The "arms" are also supposed 2 be used 2 form a "well regulated militia", & not 2 blow away schookidz, coworkers, or the wife & kidz

[Eric the Green]

(11-27-2019, 02:43 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-26-2019, 11:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: You and your conservative buddies keep requiring us liberals to legally treat a corporation as a person with personal rights. A corporation is made up of humans who have rights. But those rights belong to them individually. A corporation is not a person and should not have rights conferred upon individuals. A corporation has a charter which requires certain things, and is registered with a state which requires certain things.

If we have a national guard, then that national guard is empowered to protect the nation. It needs no assistance from citizens, and citizens do not need to possess weapons that are made for armies. If you want to help protect the nation with arms, join the National Guard if you can. All semi-automatic weapons should not be allowed in the hands of citizens. This does not violate the constitution, which does not prohibit laws against particular kinds of military weapons being owned and used by civilians. If you want to assemble a militia for your civil war, you red folks would be well-advised to form your own state with its own rules. Otherwise you are sure to lose, and will probably lose anyway as your predecessors did 160 years ago.

Wow, I think of the civil war as being 100 years ago. It is now 160 years ago. Time flies when you're not having fun.

I dunno, would you mind if the FBI or any other agency had the freedom to seize your business at anytime for any reason without establishing  just cause and obtaining legal permission? I'm sure the business itself wouldn't mind or be upset but would you? Now, I can't speak for your business but my business wouldn't be better off without me in the picture. I'd assume  that your business would be better off  without you in the picture but I couldn't say it would for certain without speaking with your business. I dunno, the business may not care that you don't about it and place yourself above it in importance and so forth. I'm well aware of the formal/ legal process involved with establishing  corporations. I've yet to file one that didn't have me or the business that I own identified as the legal owner. How bout you, you claim to own one, did your business file itself and identify itself as the owner. I don't know who you're talking about but my predecessors won or tied  every American war they participated in dating back to the Revolutionary War. Hint, we don't have to break away and form a state like the liberals do. Dude, all that we have to do is keep what we already have firmly  established as nation and be willing to support those who currently living in liberal states who want their independence and prefer to remain American.

Are you talking about a business, or a corporation? A business can be owned by a person, which you implied with your words "seize your business." Corporations are owned by stockholders, run by a Board of Directors and operated by CEOs. None of the blue candidates or movements are talking about seizing businesses or corporations. 

Which side tries to secede will depend on which side is in power when changes are enacted that the other side considers unacceptable-- and which leaves this side with no recourse but to secede. It could happen and could be carried out by either side.

Every American such as yourself and myself who have had ancestors living in the colonies and the states for many generations probably have ancestors who fought in American wars. I do. Your use of phrases such as "prefer to remain American" reveal your view that people who disagree with your views on how to run the country are not American. But blues consider such phrases and views as themselves un-American. The red state and red county people have a view of what America is that sharply differs from what blue state and blue county people hold. So we are a divided people, and just how this plays out or is resolved will be largely decided in the course of the current fourth turning. Total stagnation and stalemate is not a sustainable situation when so much is at stake. The stalemate will be broken one way or another, and starting soon.

[Eric the Green]

The second amendment was not instituted to allow citizens to take up arms against the federal government. That is treason, and that is specifically mentioned in the constitution. From what I have learned, the amendment was instituted because the nation had no army and was dependent to defend itself on a militia composed of well-trained citizens who supplied their own arms. These militias were used to put down revolutions and riots by those who considered the government oppressive, such as the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, and likely was passed so that southern slaveowners could put down a feared slave revolt.

[David Horn]

(11-28-2019, 05:25 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: The second amendment was not instituted to allow citizens to take up arms against the federal government. That is treason, and that is specifically mentioned in the constitution. From what I have learned, the amendment was instituted because the nation had no army and was dependent to defend itself on a militia composed of well-trained citizens who supplied their own arms. These militias were used to put down revolutions and riots by those who considered the government oppressive, such as the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, and likely was passed so that southern slaveowners could put down a feared slave revolt.

All correct, but the militias had a law enforcement side as well.  Remember, few police existed in any sense of the word: no sheriffs, no marshals, no constables. So the militias acted as a supplement to the meager law enforcement in place, hence the 2nd Amendment.  Because our society and institutions have changed so drastically, it makes sense to view the Constitution as a living document, but dogmatic conservatives believe the opposite and hold power for now.  So the 2nd stays in its perverted Scalia form, and so does the arcane amendment process that makes changing that nearly impossible.

[Classic-Xer]

(11-28-2019, 12:15 AM)taramarie Wrote: I may be wrong, but reading that second amendment of yours, it seems that it is implying that it is for the right of all people to own and use a weapon in self defence if they choose to. I believe it was created post the war for independence from the British and so it was created at a time where it was intended to give the citizens of your country the right to fight against a tyrannical federal government. It seems it was created to give individuals the right to defend themselves in case it is needed. What has changed however is how guns are made compared to a couple of hundred years ago and cautionary laws around the ownership of such guns should be taken into consideration due to said change. Feel free to correct the resident foreigner. It is just a simple observation.

Yes. You are correct about the Second Amendment and you are correct in your observation that firearms have significantly advanced since the time of the musket or the end of the American Civil War era. Like I said, if the liberals were able to completely focus on the real issues related to improper gun use by some of its citizens and show us that they're willing to seriously address them instead of focusing on disarming us, emptying prisons and establishing communist like governments instead we could effectively address and eliminate most of the violence associated with guns.

[Classic-Xer]

(11-28-2019, 10:25 AM)David Horn Wrote: All correct, but the militias had a law enforcement side as well.  Remember, few police existed in any sense of the word: no sheriffs, no marshals, no constables. So the militias acted as a supplement to the meager law enforcement in place, hence the 2nd Amendment.  Because our society and institutions have changed so drastically, it makes sense to view the Constitution as a living document, but dogmatic conservatives believe the opposite and hold power for now.  So the 2nd stays in its perverted Scalia form, and so does the arcane amendment process that makes changing that nearly impossible.

Yes. You are correct again. However, what you fail to take into account or realize for whatever reason, is the amount of people in charge of law enforcement is relatively meager in size when compared to the over all size of the country and the overall population of the country which is currently unknown and unable to determine at this time.

[Classic-Xer]

(11-28-2019, 05:25 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: The second amendment was not instituted to allow citizens to take up arms against the federal government. That is treason, and that is specifically mentioned in the constitution. From what I have learned, the amendment was instituted because the nation had no army and was dependent to defend itself on a militia composed of well-trained citizens who supplied their own arms. These militias were used to put down revolutions and riots by those who considered the government oppressive, such as the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, and likely was passed so that southern slaveowners could put down a feared slave revolt.

I know a commie or quasi socialist of some sort would/could view it/feel that way if they were to ever succeed with their goal of taking over or destroying the power of the American government.

[Eric the Green]

(11-28-2019, 02:39 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-28-2019, 05:25 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: The second amendment was not instituted to allow citizens to take up arms against the federal government. That is treason, and that is specifically mentioned in the constitution. From what I have learned, the amendment was instituted because the nation had no army and was dependent to defend itself on a militia composed of well-trained citizens who supplied their own arms. These militias were used to put down revolutions and riots by those who considered the government oppressive, such as the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, and likely was passed so that southern slaveowners could put down a feared slave revolt.

I know a commie or quasi socialist of some sort would/could view it/feel that way if they were to ever succeed with their goal of taking over or destroying the power of the American government.

If the quasi socialists of some sort take over the American government, as I expect them to do soon with a sizeable, legal voting majority, I expect that the right-wingers who oppose it already have enough AR-15s to stage a rebellion. But it would not succeed, and they would lose their guns then.

Our government's ruling party is not yet determined by which folks have the most guns. I expect Trump would like it that way, since he wants to take over and become dictator to make America great again. After all, he IS Mussolini.

Your previous statement that you support democracy is contrary to your statement above that your faction should be allowed to overthrow a quasi-socialist government of some sort by force of arms if it is duly elected.

[Eric the Green]

(11-28-2019, 02:13 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-28-2019, 12:15 AM)taramarie Wrote: I may be wrong, but reading that second amendment of yours, it seems that it is implying that it is for the right of all people to own and use a weapon in self defence if they choose to. I believe it was created post the war for independence from the British and so it was created at a time where it was intended to give the citizens of your country the right to fight against a tyrannical federal government. It seems it was created to give individuals the right to defend themselves in case it is needed. What has changed however is how guns are made compared to a couple of hundred years ago and cautionary laws around the ownership of such guns should be taken into consideration due to said change. Feel free to correct the resident foreigner. It is just a simple observation.

Yes. You are correct about the Second Amendment and you are correct in your observation that firearms have significantly advanced since the time of the musket or the end of the American Civil War era. Like I said, if the liberals were able to completely focus on the real issues related to improper gun use by some of its citizens and show us that they're willing to seriously address them instead of focusing on disarming us, emptying prisons and establishing communist like governments instead we could effectively address and eliminate most of the violence associated with guns.

In other words, you would support some kinds of gun control if it were passed by conservatives instead of liberals.

[Classic-Xer]

(11-28-2019, 03:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: If the quasi socialists of some sort take over the American government, as I expect them to do soon with a sizeable, legal voting majority, I expect that the right-wingers who oppose it already have enough AR-15s to stage a rebellion. But it would not succeed, and they would lose their guns then.

Our government's ruling party is not yet determined by which folks have the most guns. I expect Trump would like it that way, since he wants to take over and become dictator to make America great again. After all, he IS Mussolini.

Your previous statement that you support democracy is contrary to your statement above that your faction should be allowed to overthrow a quasi-socialist government of some sort by force of arms if it is duly elected.

Yep. We have enough AR-15's and other similar weapons, other semi automatic weapons of all kinds (pistols, rifles and shotguns), high powered rifles and ammunition that are exclusively made for killing large wild animals and so forth available to us right now to start out with and this doesn't include the amount of real weapons of war that we be removing from the bodies of blue soldiers and liberal law enforcement officials or the ones so the called traitors will decide to take with them when they decide to join us/ the American cause. Just so you know, you and every other blue fool is going to be in for one hell of a war which will be fought where you live street by street, house by house and that's if your lucky enough to live in a blue area that is viewed as needed for the support of the American war effort.

Oh, we also have enough soldiers in and out of uniform and enough police and a large enough population of American people with all kinds of knowledge and professional skills who will completely support the American war effort and an American system that's far more advanced than the primitive age old system that you seem to prefer that basically imploded before your very own eyes about thirty years ago. Unfortunately, you don't have the benefit of surprise on your side because the other half the country see's it, knows it and understands what the liberal side is still all about these days.

[Classic-Xer]

(11-28-2019, 03:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-28-2019, 02:39 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-28-2019, 05:25 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: The second amendment was not instituted to allow citizens to take up arms against the federal government. That is treason, and that is specifically mentioned in the constitution. From what I have learned, the amendment was instituted because the nation had no army and was dependent to defend itself on a militia composed of well-trained citizens who supplied their own arms. These militias were used to put down revolutions and riots by those who considered the government oppressive, such as the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, and likely was passed so that southern slaveowners could put down a feared slave revolt.

I know a commie or quasi socialist of some sort would/could view it/feel that way if they were to ever succeed with their goal of taking over or destroying the power of the American government.

If the quasi socialists of some sort take over the American government, as I expect them to do soon with a sizeable, legal voting majority, I expect that the right-wingers who oppose it already have enough AR-15s to stage a rebellion. But it would not succeed, and they would lose their guns then.

Our government's ruling party is not yet determined by which folks have the most guns. I expect Trump would like it that way, since he wants to take over and become dictator to make America great again. After all, he IS Mussolini.

Your previous statement that you support democracy is contrary to your statement above that your faction should be allowed to overthrow a quasi-socialist government of some sort by force of arms if it is duly elected.

I think we would more likely vote to divide as a country at that point. We have the right to do that too. What's the point of going to war to keep some cities and keep a bunch of people that we aren't all that interested in financially supporting and keeping at this point? Oh, you can call us sore losers, racists, fascists or whatever else as we are voting to do it and you can call us stupid, racist and whatever else as our President our troops begin to erect and secure our national borders and you can cheer as American run bulldozers are removing the portion of the American border that liberal fools like you had in place to protect you as well. As you already know, Americans don't care and Americans don't stop or get in the way it's government doing what its supposed to do that upsets liberals these day.

[David Horn]

(11-28-2019, 02:30 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-28-2019, 10:25 AM)David Horn Wrote: All correct, but the militias had a law enforcement side as well.  Remember, few police existed in any sense of the word: no sheriffs, no marshals, no constables. So the militias acted as a supplement to the meager law enforcement in place, hence the 2nd Amendment.  Because our society and institutions have changed so drastically, it makes sense to view the Constitution as a living document, but dogmatic conservatives believe the opposite and hold power for now.  So the 2nd stays in its perverted Scalia form, and so does the arcane amendment process that makes changing that nearly impossible.

Yes. You are correct again. However, what you fail to take into account or realize for whatever reason, is the amount of people in charge of law enforcement is relatively meager in size when compared to the over all size of the country and the overall population of the country which is currently unknown and unable to determine at this time.

If you only count sworn law enforcement officers, and ignore other law enforcement personnel and all of Homeland Security (not sworn officers), here's the number.  That's hardly meager.  For example, the city of New York has roughly 32,000 city cops.  How many do youthink are needed?  Violent crime is at a nearly all time low.

[David Horn]

(11-28-2019, 10:57 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-28-2019, 03:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: If the quasi socialists of some sort take over the American government, as I expect them to do soon with a sizeable, legal voting majority, I expect that the right-wingers who oppose it already have enough AR-15s to stage a rebellion. But it would not succeed, and they would lose their guns then.

Our government's ruling party is not yet determined by which folks have the most guns. I expect Trump would like it that way, since he wants to take over and become dictator to make America great again. After all, he IS Mussolini.

Your previous statement that you support democracy is contrary to your statement above that your faction should be allowed to overthrow a quasi-socialist government of some sort by force of arms if it is duly elected.

Yep. We have enough AR-15's and other similar weapons, other semi automatic weapons of all kinds (pistols, rifles and shotguns), high powered rifles and ammunition that are exclusively made for killing large wild animals and so forth available to us right now to start out with and this doesn't include the amount of real weapons of war that we be removing from the bodies of blue soldiers and liberal  law enforcement officials or the ones so the called traitors will decide to take with them when they decide to join us/ the American cause. Just so you know, you and every other blue fool is going to be in for one hell of a war which will be fought where you live street by street, house by house and that's if your lucky enough to live in a blue area that is viewed as needed for the support of the  American war effort.  

Oh, we also have enough soldiers in and out of uniform and enough police and a large enough population of American people with all kinds of knowledge and professional skills who will completely support the American war effort and an American system that's far more advanced than the primitive age old system that you seem to prefer that basically imploded before your very own eyes about thirty years ago. Unfortunately, you don't have the benefit of surprise on your side because the other half the country see's it, knows it and understands what the liberal side is still all about these days.

FYI, even writing this in jest is pretty serious,  If you're serious, it's even worse.  In the past, conservatives passed sedition laws, and what you wrote above is a textbook example of the things that would have gotten you thrown in jail.  Luckily, we don't have those laws anymore, but the thoughts are still pretty dangerous.

[pbrower2a]

(11-28-2019, 10:57 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-28-2019, 03:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: If the quasi socialists of some sort take over the American government, as I expect them to do soon with a sizeable, legal voting majority, I expect that the right-wingers who oppose it already have enough AR-15s to stage a rebellion. But it would not succeed, and they would lose their guns then.

Our government's ruling party is not yet determined by which folks have the most guns. I expect Trump would like it that way, since he wants to take over and become dictator to make America great again. After all, he IS Mussolini.

Your previous statement that you support democracy is contrary to your statement above that your faction should be allowed to overthrow a quasi-socialist government of some sort by force of arms if it is duly elected.

Yep. We have enough AR-15's and other similar weapons, other semi automatic weapons of all kinds (pistols, rifles and shotguns), high powered rifles and ammunition that are exclusively made for killing large wild animals and so forth available to us right now to start out with and this doesn't include the amount of real weapons of war that we be removing from the bodies of blue soldiers and liberal  law enforcement officials or the ones so the called traitors will decide to take with them when they decide to join us/ the American cause. Just so you know, you and every other blue fool is going to be in for one hell of a war which will be fought where you live street by street, house by house and that's if your lucky enough to live in a blue area that is viewed as needed for the support of the  American war effort.  

Oh, we also have enough soldiers in and out of uniform and enough police and a large enough population of American people with all kinds of knowledge and professional skills who will completely support the American war effort and an American system that's far more advanced than the primitive age old system that you seem to prefer that basically imploded before your very own eyes about thirty years ago. Unfortunately, you don't have the benefit of surprise on your side because the other half the country see's it, knows it and understands what the liberal side is still all about these days.

We do not have ideological tests to determine who would be a suitable soldier of police officer. Maybe we can deter extremists from even applying, and we can drum out those who get through. Police departments have internal-affairs divisions to check the police who align themselves with criminals and extremists. 

Know well: firing weapons is not a big part of their job. Training, perhaps, but it is safe to say that practically no police officer wants to blow someone away. Cops don't want to get killed themselves and leave behind a grieving widow and orphans, either.  Still, pull a gun on a cop and expect to die. Know well, also: police work is becoming a more attractive job than it used to. The pay is good, and the risk of being killed by a criminal has become much lower. Because cops have bullet-proof vests, it is the police officer who is now much more likely to survive an armed confrontation. Take note that fewer offenders are being sentenced to death for, among other reasons, that the people who might get away for a short time before being caught and convicted for capital murder, variety "murder of police officer" are being killed by cops -- or offenders know about this and are getting an even stronger deterrent to any attempt to murder a cop by firearm.

Police work is beginning to attract liberals who think that they can do more good as cops than as glorified (and under-paid) clerks in Corporate America. Note also that more cops are coming from minority communities , and as you can expect they maintain their loyalties, at least politically, to the communities whence they come. Police work is now middle-class work, and middle-class Hispanics and blacks are still rather liberal.

Because politics and conscience often go together, it is not safe to assume that the cops will largely take the side of those who want a fascistic America. The standards of rule of law, separation of powers, and checks and balances may not yet be ages-old, but they are the norm in America. Those are turning against Donald Trump, who shows despotic tendencies that we Blues are the first to find abominable. Those tendencies will either drive him out of office, make his role as President personally intolerable, gut his authority, or (least likely in view of his character) compel him to change his way as President. 

To get your way you will need a veritable civil war within both the military and within police forces, something that will not happen. I see it this way: the hearings in the House Intelligence Committee  have demonstrated that our President has no loyalty to old decencies that make democracy possible and that prevent the slide into tyranny in practice, if not ideology, to those of fascists and commies. The military, the intelligence services, the diplomatic corps and federal law enforcement have given up on this President. The center-right is turning against this President; even if it is poorly represented in Congress it is a significant enough part of the electorate that your side cannot win the House majority, and cannot hold the Presidency and the current Senate majority without it. 

We Blues prefer elections to purges, persecutions, and massacres. So does the center-right. That may now be only 5% of the population, but we Blues are more reliable allies of the center-right than are fascists. We will need their votes, and we may need to make some compromises to win them over.

You have lost that war before it had a chance to start because that war is not going to happen.