The Constitution is Under Attack

[Ethereal]

The terrorist attack in Orlando is being used by all sorts of unsavory characters and opportunistic politicians to deprive Americans of their constitutional rights.

The main idea being kicked around right now is giving the government the power to strip Americans of their second amendment rights based on mere suspicion.

No due process, just unproven allegations made in secret by government officials.

Even Donald Trump, who claims to defend the second amendment, seems to be contemplating this non-solution.

If this disgraceful policy is allowed to go through, then kiss what's left of the rule of law in America goodbye and say hello to the newest banana republic in the western hemisphere.

[Mini Me]

You are given to hysterical theatrics!Even Rethuglicans are thinking we need to prevent automatic weopens from getting into crazies hands! Its about time!

But go ahead and start your "gun grabber" rant.

[Ethereal]

You are given to hysterical theatrics!Even Rethuglicans are thinking we need to prevent automatic weopens from getting into crazies hands! Its about time!

But go ahead and start your "gun grabber" rant.


Do you support stripping Americans of their second amendment rights based on mere suspicion or not?

Do you believe Americans have a right to due process or not?

[exotix]

I read this in Illuminati.

[MisterVeritis]

You are given to hysterical theatrics!Even Rethuglicans are thinking we need to prevent automatic weopens from getting into crazies hands! Its about time!

But go ahead and start your "gun grabber" rant.

Automatic weapons? Are you also knows as Rip VanWinkle? Automatic weapons have required special licenses for longer than I have been alive.

With all of your bold print you just might be one of the crazies.

[Ethereal]

It's pretty simple.

The second amendment enumerates a right to keep and bear arms.

The fifth amendment enumerates a right to due process of law.

And the sixth amendment enumerates a right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury, and to confront the witnesses against him (or her).

What Obama and others like him are basically saying is this: We can deprive Americans of their liberty, as guaranteed by the fifth amendment, without a speedy and public trial, juries, or confronting witnesses.

We can just determine, in secret, based on mere suspicion, that you no longer have the right to keep and bear arms.

That is beyond outlandish.

That is naked tyranny.

And if it's allowed to go through, then no American should operate under the assumption that this country is a nation governed by law.

It will be nothing more than the law of the jungle, with the government doing almost anything it wants to do, so long as they claim it's in the interest of "safety".

[Ethereal]

Innocent until proven guilty, public trials, juries, rule of law.

So old fashioned.

[The Xl]

They're coming. Hillary wants to openly ban guns.

[Ethereal]

They're coming. Hillary wants to openly ban guns.

Even Trump seems to be jumping on board: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/743078235408195584

[Ethereal]

The political class is trying to do away with the bill of rights in one fell swoop.

And millions of Americans are cheering them on...

[Ethereal]

So if the government is allowed to strip Americans of an enumerated constitutional right based on mere suspicion, what other rights will they be able to strip them of based on the same?

Maybe we should just do away with public trials and juries altogether and let politicians in Washington DC declare people guilty based on nothing more than their say-so.

We'd all be so much safer, wouldn't we?

And think of how efficient it would be.

No more messy trials with their laborious procedures.

Just swift justice doled out by noble politicians and bureaucrats.

[Ethereal]

Democrats Embrace Secretive, Flawed Terror Watchlist in Fight Against Gun Violence (https://theintercept.com/2016/06/15/democrats-embrace-secretive-flawed-terror-watchlist-in-fight-against-gun-violence/)

Democratic leaders came out in force on Wednesday in favor of a proposal to prohibit Americans who are on federal government terrorist watchlists from purchasing firearms. A group of Democratic senators waged a fillibuster on the Senate floor. And after presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump announced that he intends to meet with the powerful National Rifle Association to discuss a similar restriction, presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton welcomed him to the cause.

For Democrats, however, the move amounts to a strong endorsement of a system that civil liberties advocates have called a “Kafkaesque bureaucracy,” and which some Democrats have previously criticized for being secretive, unaccountable, and discriminatory.

Getting your name on a watchlist is much easier than getting it off. According to interagency watchlisting guidelines The Intercept published in 2013, it takes neither “concrete facts” nor “irrefutable evidence” to add someone’s name as a terror suspect. The guidelines allow the administration to name individuals as representatives of terrorist groups they have no demonstrable connection to, or to name entire “categories” of people on to the no-fly list.

There was no way for anyone to know ahead of time if they were on the no-fly list until 2014, when a federal court ruled that the government had to inform citizens when they were place on it. But the Department of Homeland Security still refuses to tell people why, or offer a form of judicial redress.

...

If this outlandish proposal becomes official, I can tell you who will suffer the most at first: Muslim-Americans.

They are the most likely to end up on these unconstitutional watch lists and to have their rights arbitrarily infringed upon as a result.

So if the day comes when Donald Trump or someone like him becomes President, and he has the power to put people on this watch-list and strip them of their rights, I don't want to hear any complaints from Democrats.

Because this was their idea.

[del]

yes, it's always the democrats

lol

[Safety]

yes, it's always the democrats

lol

Shhhhh, before the topic turns to the democratic sewers where democratic voters reside because they are slaved to the democratic plantation.

[Ethereal]

yes, it's always the democrats

lol

This was their idea.

There is no denying that.

[Ethereal]

Shhhhh, before the topic turns to the democratic sewers where democratic voters reside because they are slaved to the democratic plantation.

Glad to see the moderator taking part in the empty commentary and bad faith posting.

What an example you're setting.

Care to comment on the topic for once?

[Ethereal]

So we've got no actual responses the thread topic so far.

The government is talking about giving itself the power to strip Americans of their constitutional rights without due process of law and all some people can think to do is go after my consistency.

Even if I was the most ludicrous, inconsistent shill on the planet, it wouldn't change what the government is trying to do.

Apparently, some posters are more concerned about catching me in some kind of contradiction than they are about the deterioration of the rule of law in America.

Way to have your priorities straight.

[treedancer]

The terrorist attack in Orlando is being used by all sorts of unsavory characters and opportunistic politicians to deprive Americans of their constitutional rights.

The main idea being kicked around right now is giving the government the power to strip Americans of their second amendment rights based on mere suspicion.

No due process, just unproven allegations made in secret by government officials.

Even Donald Trump, who claims to defend the second amendment, seems to be contemplating this non-solution.

If this disgraceful policy is allowed to go through, then kiss what's left of the rule of law in America goodbye and say hello to the newest banana republic in the western hemisphere.

YEA!we all need a Sig Sauer MCX .223-caliber rifle with multiple magazines that holds 30 rounds each.Gotta go squirrel hunting doncha know.:rolleyes21:

[Ethereal]

Some posters seem to get pretty upset when I go after Democrats, especially the ones who claim they are not Democrats.

I don't go around getting mad at posters for attacking Republicans.

I partake in such attacks pretty regularly.

[Ethereal]

YEA!we all need a Sig Sauer MCX .223-caliber rifle with multiple magazines that holds 30 rounds each.Gotta go squirrel hunting doncha know.:rolleyes21:

My, what an intelligent, thoughtful response.

I am impressed.

[Cletus]

YEA!we all need a Sig Sauer MCX .223-caliber rifle with multiple magazines that holds 30 rounds each.Gotta go squirrel hunting doncha know.:rolleyes21:

I have heard they are great for knocking dancers out of trees.

[treedancer]

My, what an intelligent, thoughtful response.

I am impressed.

I,m glad you appreciated the response.A lotta thought went into that post.:thumbsup:

[Ethereal]

You are given to hysterical theatrics!Even Rethuglicans are thinking we need to prevent automatic weopens from getting into crazies hands! Its about time!

But go ahead and start your "gun grabber" rant.


So are you going to tell me if you support the bill of rights and due process of law or not?

[Ethereal]

I,m glad you appreciated the response.A lotta thought went into that post.:thumbsup:

Yes, I can tell that post strained the limits of your intellect almost beyond tolerance.

You should be proud.

[Ethereal]

yes, it's always the democrats

lol

Do you support stripping Americans of an enumerated constitutional right based on mere suspicion?

[Safety]

Glad to see the moderator taking part in the empty commentary and bad faith posting.

What an example you're setting.

Care to comment on the topic for once?

Don't like an opinion, play the mod card...yea that's the way.

[treedancer]

Yes, I can tell that post strained the limits of your intellect almost beyond tolerance.

You should be proud.

Ya that took a lot outta me...gotta rest up before me next post. Almost like I was firing support for the grunts in the 2nd_Battalion_5th_Marines again.:grin:

[treedancer]

I have heard they are great for knocking dancers out of trees.

Where'd ya hear that Bs?

[Ethereal]

Don't like an opinion, play the mod card...yea that's the way.

You contributed absolutely nothing.

Just some smarmy remark posted in bad faith.

People rightfully expect more out of a moderator.

Sorry if you cannot live up to the expectations.

[Ethereal]

Ya that took a lot outta me...gotta rest up before me next post. Almost like I was firing support for the grunts in the 2nd_Battalion_5th_Marines again.:grin:

Hey, good for you.

[Ethereal]

Feel free to comment on the actual thread topic anytime people.

[TrueBlue]

Innocent until proven guilty, public trials, juries, rule of law.

So old fashioned.
Oh so now you remember all of those things! You need to call on every right-winger and tell them to use those very things first before continuing their stupid diatribes about Hillary Clinton by saying what they have been saying about her. Innocent until proven guilty? You bet!

[Cletus]

Oh so now you remember all of those things! You need to call every right-winger and tell them to use those very things first before continuing their stupid diatribes about Hillary Clinton by saying what they have been saying about her. Innocent until proven guilty? You bet!


You have PMs you need to answer.

The Leftists on this forum will not address the issue because to do so honestly would only reveal their disdain for the Constitution. What that scumbag Obama is proposing is unconstitutional and anyone who supports it should be considered an enemy of the nation.

[Safety]

You contributed absolutely nothing.

Just some smarmy remark posted in bad faith.

People rightfully expect more out of a moderator.

Sorry if you cannot live up to the expectations.

Ad hom is a sign of not having any other argument and too weak an intellect to think of something more substantive. My name being green has nothing to do with the fact that a post outside of a notification box means I am posting as a regular member. You know this, yet you choose to go down this avenue because you are angry and upset that I don't share the same opinion that you think should be afforded to you because of your fragile ego. Need me to "thank" your post in order for you to feel better?

[TrueBlue]

Do you support stripping Americans of an enumerated constitutional right based on mere suspicion?
Do you as it concerns Hillary Clinton? Or should she be afforded her Constitutional rights as well?

[Ethereal]

Oh so now you remember all of those things! You need to call on every right-winger and tell them to use those very things first before continuing their stupid diatribes about Hillary Clinton by saying what they have been saying about her. Innocent until proven guilty? You bet!


I have never forgotten them and I never will.

And that is why I am opposed to these latest measures being proposed by politicians in Washington DC.

Stripping an American of their enumerated constitutional right based on mere suspicion is wrong and illegal and it won't stop terrorists from attacking this country.

[Cthulhu]

Do you as it concerns Hillary Clinton? Or should she be afforded her Constitutional rights as well?

She should be afforded a 4' x 4' x 4' cell. And feed liver for the rest of her days.

Sent from my evil, baby seal-clubbing cellphone.

[Ethereal]

Do you as it concerns Hillary Clinton? Or should she be afforded her Constitutional rights as well?


Of course I support her constitutional rights.

I support everyone's constitutional rights.

[Ethereal]

Ad hom is a sign of not having any other argument and too weak an intellect to think of something more substantive. My name being green has nothing to do with the fact that a post outside of a notification box means I am posting as a regular member. You know this, yet you choose to go down this avenue because you are angry and upset that I don't share the same opinion that you think should be afforded to you because of your fragile ego. Need me to "thank" your post in order for you to feel better?

What opinion was that, exactly?

[Safety]

What opinion was that, exactly?


Whichever one that caused you to lash out. Eat a snickers.

[Ethereal]

Whichever one that caused you to lash out. Eat a snickers.

And you wonder why more and more posters are calling you out for your substandard conduct.

A moderator who became a troll.

How unfortunate.

[Ethereal]

Shhhhh, before the topic turns to the democratic sewers where democratic voters reside because they are slaved to the democratic plantation.

What's the opinion being expressed here?

Sounds like smarmy innuendo more than anything.

In either case, it clearly has nothing to do with the thread topic and is intended to bait me.

Mission accomplished, Safety.

I'm on your line.

Now reel me in, if you can.

[TrueBlue]

You have PMs you need to answer.

The Leftists on this forum will not address the issue because to do so honestly would only reveal their disdain for the Constitution. What that scumbag Obama is proposing is unconstitutional and anyone who supports it should be considered an enemy of the nation.
He is doing no such thing. Your side is always walking down a narrow path with your lies and innuendo. If he stood still and did nothing in the face of all of these horrific shootings, then there's little doubt some from your side would be crying about that too and accusing him of being more than complacent. Or if you didn't, you'd be making an even broader statement that it is O.K., it is Alright for those maniacs to have guns to go and kill your fellow Americans. What's the matter with you and your ilk? If you're so Anti-American that you don't even care whether citizens of this country die at the hands of those demented devils then you should move out to a country where all would be done according to your wishes, if you could ever find such a place that is.

[Safety]

And you wonder why more and more posters are calling you out for your substandard conduct.

A moderator who became a troll.

How unfortunate.

You've been here long enough to know about playing the mod card, yet you choose to do so anyway. So stow the chatter about trolling because nobody here has to walk lock-step with what Ethereal decides is a trolling post and an opinion. You don't like that my post characterized exactly what you rant about constantly, well, I guess you can either ignore it or get over it. Life isn't fair.

[Ethereal]

He is doing no such thing. Your side is always walking down a narrow path with your lies and innuendo. If he stood still and did nothing in the face of all of these horrific shootings, then there's little doubt some from your side would be crying about that too and accusing him of being more than complacent. Or if you didn't, you'd be making an even broader statement that it is O.K., it is Alright for those maniacs to have guns to go and kill your fellow Americans. What's the matter with you and your ilk? If you're so Anti-American that you don't even care whether citizens of this country die at the hands of those demented devils then you should move out to a country where all would be done according to your wishes, if you could ever find such a place that is.


We're against these proposals because they are clear violations of the constitution.

Depriving an American of their enumerated constitutional right to keep and bear arms without due process is wrong and illegal.

[treedancer]

Feel free to comment on the actual thread topic anytime people.

What"constitutional rights"do you feel we,ll loose if we somehow morph up a common sense gun law?I,m a gun collector myself but I see no need for the high capacity clips on/in what the media refer to as "assault rifles"?IN fact, a monkey with a file could turn a semiautomatic into full auto in about a half hour.BUTT, that's not for this thread.

[AZ Jim]

Righties...."They're denying me my Constitutional rights, they want my guns, Oh Oh what shall we do?" Wringing hands....."The sky is falling!!" "Oh Mommie, help poor little me." "What will I play with without my AR-15?"

[TrueBlue]

We're against these proposals because they are clear violations of the constitution.

Depriving an American of their enumerated constitutional right to keep and bear arms without due process is wrong and illegal.
Name whom, specifically, has he denied their constitutional rights other than to say that criminals and mentally ill persons should not have the ability to purchase weapons.

[Safety]

What's the opinion being expressed here?

Sounds like smarmy innuendo more than anything.

In either case, it clearly has nothing to do with the thread topic and is intended to bait me.

Mission accomplished, Safety.

I'm on your line.

Now reel me in, if you can.

Swarmy innuendo, snark, sarcasm, bait, bad faith, opinion, and et. al, are all subjective topics that is dependent on the person receiving and giving out. If you feel a post violates your sensitivities, then report it, otherwise suck it up and move on. This life lesson is considered over, unless you want to continue it via PM. Your call.

[Ethereal]

You've been here long enough to know about playing the mod card, yet you choose to do so anyway. So stow the chatter about trolling because nobody here has to walk lock-step with what Ethereal decides is a trolling post and an opinion. You don't like that my post characterized exactly what you rant about constantly, well, I guess you can either ignore it or get over it. Life isn't fair.

Nobody forced you to become a moderator.

So if you cannot handle the added responsibility that comes with that position, then resign.

But as long as you choose to be a moderator, I will bring it up when you troll my thread and post in bad faith like you did earlier.

As for your "opinion", it had absolutely nothing to do with the thread topic and was clearly an attempt to go after me as a poster.

Well, here I am, big shot.

Why don't you stop beating around the bush and just say what you are thinking.

Because I'm having trouble ascertaining the meaning and relevance of your cryptic little remark.

[Ethereal]

What"constitutional rights"do you feel we,ll loose if we somehow morph up a common sense gun law?I,m a gun collector myself but I see no need for the high capacity clips on/in what the media refer to as "assault rifles"?IN fact, a monkey with a file could turn a semiautomatic into full auto in about a half hour.BUTT, that's not for this thread.

As I clearly stated in my opening post, the proposal being kicked around by people like Obama is to let the government strip people of their right to keep and bear arms for appearing on a so-called "terrorist watch list".

These people have not actually been convicted of any crime, nor have they had a trial.

The people who are on those watch lists are there based on nothing more than suspicion and unproven allegations.

You seem to be under the impression that this thread is about banning "high capacity clips" and "assault rifles".

It is not.

It is about stripping Americans of their second amendment rights entirely based on mere suspicion.

[AZ Jim]

As I clearly stated in my opening post, the proposal being kicked around by people like Obama is to let the government strip people of their right to keep and bear arms for appearing on a so-called "terrorist watch list".

These people have not actually been convicted of any crime, nor have they had a trial.

The people who are on those watch lists are there based on nothing more than suspicion and unproven allegations.

You seem to be under the impression that this thread is about banning "high capacity clips" and "assault rifles".

It is not.

It is about stripping Americans of their second amendment rights entirely based on mere suspicion.Will you please quit whining and crying, you're making me feel sad for you.

[Ethereal]

Righties...."They're denying me my Constitutional rights, they want my guns, Oh Oh what shall we do?" Wringing hands....."The sky is falling!!" "Oh Mommie, help poor little me." "What will I play with without my AR-15?"

The right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional right.

It appears in the second amendment.

Obama wants to take away that right from anyone who is on a government "watch list", even though they haven't received a trial.

Not only is that blatantly unconstitutional, it's just plain wrong.

[Ethereal]

Name whom, specifically, has he denied their constitutional rights other than to say that criminals and mentally ill persons should not have the ability to purchase weapons.

He wants to take away the second amendment rights of anyone who appears on the US government's so-called "terrorist watch list" even though they haven't received a trial or been convicted of a crime.

That is a clear violation of their constitutional rights.

[AZ Jim]

The right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional right.

It appears in the second amendment.

Obama wants to take away that right from anyone who is on a government "watch list", even though they haven't received a trial.

Not only is that blatantly unconstitutional, it's just plain wrong.I think it's a great idea. Calm down skippy.

[TrueBlue]

Righties...."They're denying me my Constitutional rights, they want my guns, Oh Oh what shall we do?" Wringing hands....."The sky is falling!!" "Oh Mommie, help poor little me." "What will I play with without my AR-15?"
You're so right. They are such a pathetic group aren't they! It sure appears that they just can't wait until another maniac goes to their own city and blasts them sky high or a member of their family can they? If they keep this up about protesting good legislation to help curb these type of heinous crimes it could very well happen, God forbid, but it could and then they would be back right here crying that they lost their Mother or Dad or Sister or Brother or spouse at the hands of a killer. Too bad. The time to jump on the bandwagon to do something about that is NOW.

And criminals everywhere have access to the Internet. You can bet your bottom dollar that they are reading, with great interest, what Republicans are saying about helping them keep their deadly weapons! Of course they just LOVE ♥️ Republicans who want for them to keep their Deadly Weapons to continue on the attack! What a shame! But they do ♥️ them for that, of that there can be no question!

[Ethereal]

Swarmy innuendo, snark, sarcasm, bait, bad faith, opinion, and et. al, are all subjective topics that is dependent on the person receiving and giving out. If you feel a post violates your sensitivities, then report it, otherwise suck it up and move on. This life lesson is considered over, unless you want to continue it via PM. Your call.

Yes, they are subjective.

And in my subjective opinion, your earlier comment was nothing more than smarmy innuendo that was directed at me as a poster.

Well, you got my attention.

What are you trying to say about me, exactly?

I'm a secret Republican? I only go after Democrats?

Stop trafficking in innuendo and just say what you think for once.

And, no, I'm not going to take this to PM.

You called me out in public, so I'm going to hash it out in public.

[Cletus]

He is doing no such thing.

That is exactly what he is doing. He is proposing stripping citizens of their constitutional protections without due process. That make him no different from Kim Jong-Un or any other petty little two bit dictator.


Your side is always walking down a narrow path with your lies and innuendo. If he stood still and did nothing in the face of all of these horrific shootings, then there's little doubt some from your side would be crying about that too and accusing him of being more than complacent. Or if you didn't, you'd be making an even broader statement that it is O.K., it is Alright for those maniacs to have guns to go and kill your fellow Americans. What's the matter with you and your ilk? If you're so Anti-American that you don't even care whether citizens of this country die at the hands of those demented devils then you should move out to a country where all would be done according to your wishes, if you could ever find such a place that is.


Go abuse the tPF feature in some more threads. It is the only way you can hold your own in a discussion.

[TrueBlue]

He wants to take away the second amendment rights of anyone who appears on the US government's so-called "terrorist watch list" even though they haven't received a trial or been convicted of a crime.

That is a clear violation of their constitutional rights.
And just what the hell do you think Trump is wanting to do to them? Afford Muslims their constitutional rights and give them a fair trial before closing America to them? http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/big_standart/rofl.gif

[Ethereal]

Will you please quit whining and crying, you're making me feel sad for you.

I'm just giving my opinion on Obama's unconstitutional proposals.

He wants to take away the second amendment rights of every American who appears on a government "watch list" even though they've never received a trial or been convicted of a crime.

And most of those people are Muslims.

But because you're terrified of the 0.003% that you or someone you know might be killed with a gun, you are perfectly fine with violating the rights of your fellow American.

How sad.

[TrueBlue]

That is exactly what he is doing. He is proposing stripping citizens of their constitutional protections without due process. That make him no different from Kim Jong-Un or any other petty little two bit dictator.
You forgot to add Trump.




Go abuse the tPF feature in some more threads. It is the only way you can hold your own in a discussion.
Fail. But then consider the source.

[Ethereal]

I think it's a great idea. Calm down skippy.

Of course you think it's a great idea because you hate the Bill of Rights and want to throw it in the trash.

I disagree.

[Ethereal]

You're so right. They are such a pathetic group aren't they! It sure appears that they just can't wait until another maniac goes to their own city and blasts them sky high or a member of their family can they? If they keep this up about protesting good legislation to help curb these type of heinous crimes it could very well happen, God forbid, but it could and then they would be back right here crying that they lost their Mother or Dad or Sister or Brother or spouse at the hands of a killer. Too bad. The time to jump on the bandwagon to do something about that is NOW.

And criminals everywhere have access to the Internet. You can bet your bottom dollar that they are reading, with great interest, what Republicans are saying about helping them keep their deadly weapons! Of course they just LOVE ♥️ Republicans who want for them to keep their Deadly Weapons to continue on the attack! What a shame! But they do ♥️ them for that, of that there can be no question!


I'm pathetic because I think Americans should have a trial before their rights are taken away from them?

[Ethereal]

And just what the hell do you think Trump is wanting to do to them? Afford Muslims their constitutional rights and give them a fair trial before closing America to them? http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/big_standart/rofl.gif


I don't support Trump's Presidential bid.

And I don't support his generalizations about Muslims.

I have thousands of posts on this forum defending Muslims from all sorts of attacks and slanders.

And now I've added more such posts to my record.

Only this time, I'm defending Muslims from the people who claim to be tolerant of them.

Because Muslims are the first people who will have their rights taken away from them as a result of these policies.

[Ethereal]

You forgot to add Trump.




Fail. But then consider the source.


What's Trump got to do with anything?

Are you incapable of supporting this proposal on its merits? It would appear so.

[Ethereal]

It's really simple.

Obama wants to take away a person's constitutional rights without a trial.

That is so extreme that I'm amazed he would even suggest it.

I'm even more amazed that people think it's a good idea.

[TrueBlue]

I'm pathetic because I think Americans should have a trial before their rights are taken away from them?
Everyone should have that right. But if you really want to argue that point, you need go no farther than to Trump first and give him a piece of your mind. As for President Obama, when things get so out of hand, like they are now, he has to take some action. I understand you may not like it but regardless, the people of this great country have to be protected and sometimes enacting legislation to stop these demented criminals is the only way.

[Cletus]

Unfortunately, I am not amazed. Nor am I even surprised.

The fact that I am neither is something I find troubling.

[Cletus]

Everyone should have that right. But if you really want to argue that point, you need go no farther than to Trump first and give him a piece of your mind. As for President Obama, when things get so out of hand, like they are now, he has to take some action. I understand you may not like it but regardless, the people of this great country have to be protected and sometimes enacting legislation to stop these demented criminals is the only way.


It is better to let 10,000 die than to deny one American his protection under the Constitution.

[Ethereal]

Everyone should have that right.

Yet you are supporting a proposal that would strip them of that right.


But if you really want to argue that point, you need go no farther than to Trump first and give him a piece of your mind. As for President Obama, when things get so out of hand, like they are now, he has to take some action. I understand you may not like it but regardless, the people of this great country have to be protected and sometimes enacting legislation to stop these demented criminals is the only way.


I will argue that point to anyone, Trump included.

[TrueBlue]

What's Trump got to do with anything?

Are you incapable of supporting this proposal on its merits? It would appear so.
It's because your "case" is merit-less.

And Trump is the very one who wants to eliminate people's Constitutional Rights without a fair trial and you, of course, know it. Therefore, you need to go to him first and argue why his not wanting to allow all of those groups he dislikes is wrong and his wanting to keep them out of the U.S. without proving that they are actually an enemy to this country or affording them their Constitutional rights when they're here is also wrong. His egregious style of doing things can't go over well at all in this country and that's why his poll numbers are dramatically dropping.

[Ethereal]

About 3 per 100,000 Americans will be murdered by a firearm.

That's about a 0.003% chance of dying from a firearm.

And the vast majority of the people shot and killed are gang members in the inner city (I won't point out which political party governs those cities because I don't want to upset del or Safety).

Yet some people are willing to get rid of the constitutional right to a speedy and public trial because they are so scared of a 0.003% chance of being shot.

Absolutely amazing.

[Ethereal]

It's because your "case" is merit-less.

And Trump is the very one who wants to eliminate people's Constitutional Rights without a fair trial and you, of course, know it. Therefore, you need to go to him first and argue why his not wanting to allow all of those groups he dislikes is wrong and his wanting to keep them out of the U.S. without proving that they are actually an enemy to this country or affording them their Constitutional rights when they're here is also wrong. His egregious style of doing things can't go over well at all in this country and that's why his poll numbers are dramatically dropping.


My case is that Americans should have a trial before their rights are taken away from them.

I think it has lots of merit.

Feel free to explain why I'm wrong.

[TrueBlue]

Yet you are supporting a proposal that would strip them of that right.



I will argue that point to anyone, Trump included.
Then scat! Get to it already. And don't let the door hit you where the good LORD split you!

[Ethereal]

Then scat! Get to it already. And don't let the door hit you where the good LORD split you!


That's exactly what I'm doing. Why do I think I started this thread?

Anyone who wants to take away an American's constitutional rights without a trial is a supporter of lawlessness and immorality.

[Ethereal]

Then scat!

True Blue telling me to get out of my own thread.

Meanwhile, he bans anyone who coughs out of turn in his threads.

Do you Clinton supporters have any idea how pompous and imperious your behavior is?

[Ethereal]

What"constitutional rights"do you feel we,ll loose if we somehow morph up a common sense gun law?I,m a gun collector myself but I see no need for the high capacity clips on/in what the media refer to as "assault rifles"?IN fact, a monkey with a file could turn a semiautomatic into full auto in about a half hour.BUTT, that's not for this thread.

Any other thoughts to add, Mr. Brilliant?

Do you think it's okay to take away an American's constitutional rights without a trial?

[TrueBlue]

My case is that Americans should have a trial before their rights are taken away from them.

I think it has lots of merit.

Feel free to explain why I'm wrong.
You're wrong because you, first of all, don't understand presidential powers and the authority vested in him as president to use when needed. Yet what he's proposing is to have CONGRESS write a law to protect the people from maniacal killings. Imagine that. To PROTECT Americans! And that just has to be so terrible in your book.

Secondly, because you're only blaming President Obama, a Democrat, while not coming down hard on Trump, the Republican, for espousing all that he has about driving people away from this country without ever mentioning that they have Constitutional rights and are entitled to them first. That's quite hypocritical you know.

But you are self-convinced on things so continuing to provide discourse with you on this issue would appear to be an exercise in futility. When you come back and tell me that you spoke to Trump about why he doesn't want to recognize a person's Constitutional rights first before he throws them out or forbids them to come in, we can continue this discussion. Do you think you can do that? If not, this matter is hereby closed.

[Ethereal]

You're wrong because you, first of all, don't understand presidential powers and the authority vested in him as president to use when needed. Yet what he's proposing is to have CONGRESS write a law to protect the people from maniacal killings. Imagine that. To PROTECT Americans! And that just has to be so terrible in your book.

Secondly, because you're only blaming President Obama, a Democrat, while not coming down hard on Trump, the Republican, for espousing all that he has about driving people away from this country without ever mentioning that they have Constitutional rights and are entitled to them first. That's quite hypocritical you know.

But you are self-convinced on things so continuing to provide discourse with you on this issue would appear to be an exercise in futility. When you come back and tell me that you spoke to Trump about why he doesn't want to recognize a person's Constitutional rights first before he throws them out or forbids them to come in, we can continue this discussion. Do you think you can do that? If not, this matter is hereby closed.


You actually think you have the authority to declare a matter closed in a thread that I started?

Wow.

Anyway, it doesn't matter if this proposal comes about through executive or legislative processes, it's still unlawful and immoral.

If the government wants to deprive an American of their constitutional rights, then they must give them a speedy and public trial first.

End of story.

Your attempt to distract from the issue by bringing up Donald Trump (who I do not support for President) and making pompous, ineffectual declarations simply isn't going to work.

[Ethereal]

If not, this matter is hereby closed.

:rofl:

[decedent]

I hate to break it to the less enlightened, but there are many restrictions on many types of firearms at the city, state and federal level.

The Second Amendment allows for toddlers (people) to walk around with loaded machine guns (arms). Anyone want to repeal the law that infringes on this? If so, why?

Trump has talked about repealing the 14th Amendment alot lately; Hillary hasn't. You constitutionalist frauds may want to look into that.

[Ethereal]

I hate to break it to the less enlightened, but there are many restrictions on many types of firearms at the city, state and federal level.

The Second Amendment allows for toddlers (people) to walk around with loaded machine guns (arms). Anyone want to repeal the law that infringes on this? If so, why?

It is absolutely amazing how not a single"liberal" poster has been able to address the actual thread topic of taking away an American's constitutional rights without a trial.

[Ethereal]

True Blue, is this the kind of attack on Trump's policies that you were looking for?

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/59336-Mass-Deportation-What-Would-It-Look-Like

Have I established sufficient anti-Trump credentials for you to finally address the thread topic without trying to insert Trump into every discussion?

[decedent]

It is absolutely amazing how not a single"liberal" poster has been able to address the actual thread topic of taking away an American's constitutional rights without a trial.

You'd be okay with confiscating a loaded machine gun from a toddler without a trial?

[Ethereal]

You'd be okay with confiscating a loaded machine gun from a toddler without a trial?

Whatever you do decedent, don't take an actual position or make some kind of a logical argument.

That would be the end of you.

[Ethereal]

I remember the last time decedent tried to tangle with me about Snowden.

He got savaged.

Of course, he will never admit that to himself.

But on a subconscious level he understands how badly I beat him.

That must be why he's reverting back to his old ways of peddling shoddy satire.

A poor man's Stephen Colbert.

[treedancer]

As I clearly stated in my opening post, the proposal being kicked around by people like Obama is to let the government strip people of their right to keep and bear arms for appearing on a so-called "terrorist watch list".

These people have not actually been convicted of any crime, nor have they had a trial.

The people who are on those watch lists are there based on nothing more than suspicion and unproven allegations.

You seem to be under the impression that this thread is about banning "high capacity clips" and "assault rifles".

It is not.

It is about stripping Americans of their second amendment rights entirely based on mere suspicion.


Let me get this right, you're saying that if your name, appearing on a “terrorist watch list", is somehow going to ultimately limit your "second amendment rights entirely based on suspicion? That kind of creates a conundrum doesn't it, coming on the heels of what happened when that deranged individual murdered 49 American Citizens in Orlando and he was on the watch list…three times?

What’s the republican presumptive nominee going to do to fix this conundrum he’s going to ban muslims from the United States, build a wall on our southern border.

Hillary has pushed for a ban on assault weapons, stronger background checks, and plugging loopholes.

We’ll take a look at Libertarian Presidential Nominee; former Republican NM Governor Gary Johnson take on the second amendment.

Q: Where do you stand on gun control?

Laws regarding guns are ineffective. (http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Gary_Johnson_Gun_Control.htm)

A: I'm one of those who believe the bumper sticker: If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. The first people who are going to be in line to turn in their guns are law-abiding citizens. Criminals are going to be left with guns. I believe that concealed carry is a way of reducing gun violence.

Q: Do you carry a gun?

A: I don't, and I don't own a gun, but I'd still just as soon have the concealed carry law. If the guy who is going to hold up a car knows there is the possibility of a concealed weapon, he may think twice. We don't have that law here.

Q: But the statistics show that people don't use guns to stop crime. They use them to hurt themselves or innocent people.

A: Yeah, but there is deterrence in the legality of guns. It's also part of the Constitution.

Q: The NRA disagrees with any limits. Do you?

A: I don't believe the laws regarding guns are effective. We're allowed to bear arms. It's part of a free society.

Like I said before its Conundrum time.:studying:

[Ethereal]

Let me get this right, you're saying that if your name, appearing on a “terrorist watch list", is somehow going to ultimately limit your "second amendment rights entirely based on suspicion? That kind of creates a conundrum doesn't it, coming on the heels of what happened when that deranged individual murdered 49 American Citizens in Orlando and he was on the watch list…three times?

What’s the republican presumptive nominee going to do to fix this conundrum he’s going to ban muslims from the United States, build a wall on our southern border.

Hillary has pushed for a ban on assault weapons, stronger background checks, and plugging loopholes.

We’ll take a look at Libertarian Presidential Nominee; former Republican NM Governor Gary Johnson take on the second amendment.

Q: Where do you stand on gun control?

Laws regarding guns are ineffective. (http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Gary_Johnson_Gun_Control.htm)

A: I'm one of those who believe the bumper sticker: If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. The first people who are going to be in line to turn in their guns are law-abiding citizens. Criminals are going to be left with guns. I believe that concealed carry is a way of reducing gun violence.

Q: Do you carry a gun?

A: I don't, and I don't own a gun, but I'd still just as soon have the concealed carry law. If the guy who is going to hold up a car knows there is the possibility of a concealed weapon, he may think twice. We don't have that law here.

Q: But the statistics show that people don't use guns to stop crime. They use them to hurt themselves or innocent people.

A: Yeah, but there is deterrence in the legality of guns. It's also part of the Constitution.

Q: The NRA disagrees with any limits. Do you?

A: I don't believe the laws regarding guns are effective. We're allowed to bear arms. It's part of a free society.

Like I said before its Conundrum time.:studying:

Omar Mateen was not on the watch list at the time of the purchase or the shooting, so it wouldn't have stopped him anyway.

But you still haven't answered the question, as far as I can tell.

Do you think Americans should have their constitutional rights taken away from them without a trial?

The answer doesn't require a bunch of references to Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and Gary Johnson.

It just requires a simple yes or no answer with a little elaboration.

[Ethereal]

By the way, Mr. Treedancer.

Is there some reason why you referenced my Marine Corps unit earlier?

[Peter1469]

You'd be okay with confiscating a loaded machine gun from a toddler without a trial?

Toddlers never had a right to keep and bear arms prior to, or after, the ratification of the Constitution.

We need an intelligence test to vote.

You should stick to satire.

[Private Pickle]

You've been here long enough to know about playing the mod card, yet you choose to do so anyway. So stow the chatter about trolling because nobody here has to walk lock-step with what Ethereal decides is a trolling post and an opinion. You don't like that my post characterized exactly what you rant about constantly, well, I guess you can either ignore it or get over it. Life isn't fair.

You were trolling.

[Safety]

You were trolling.

Report it.

[Private Pickle]

Report it.

Thats like calling the cops on the cops. Besides reporting doesn't do anything.

[Truth Detector]

The terrorist attack in Orlando is being used by all sorts of unsavory characters and opportunistic politicians to deprive Americans of their constitutional rights.

The main idea being kicked around right now is giving the government the power to strip Americans of their second amendment rights based on mere suspicion.

No due process, just unproven allegations made in secret by government officials.

Even Donald Trump, who claims to defend the second amendment, seems to be contemplating this non-solution.

If this disgraceful policy is allowed to go through, then kiss what's left of the rule of law in America goodbye and say hello to the newest banana republic in the western hemisphere.

Agreed; all the more reason to keep Shrillary OUT of the White House. As stupid as Trump can sound, he's far better than the alternative. Especially when the next Potus may be selecting a few Scotus. ;)

[Safety]

Thats like calling the cops on the cops. Besides reporting doesn't do anything.

Disagree. If you wish to discuss further, take it to PM.

[Truth Detector]

You are given to hysterical theatrics!Even Rethuglicans are thinking we need to prevent automatic weopens from getting into crazies hands! Its about time!

But go ahead and start your "gun grabber" rant.
[/B]

We already PREVENT citizens from obtaining automatic weapons. DERP!

Rethuglicans???? Now that's some funny rant there! :biglaugh:

[Private Pickle]

Disagree. If you wish to discuss further, take it to PM.

Obviously you disagree. It's your reputation on the line. PM? Pass. The only PMs I get and still want are the del ones calling me a pussy. Those are hilarious.

[gamewell45]

You have PMs you need to answer.

The Leftists on this forum will not address the issue because to do so honestly would only reveal their disdain for the Constitution. What that scumbag Obama is proposing is unconstitutional and anyone who supports it should be considered an enemy of the nation.

If you feel what Obama is doing violates the constitution, then take him to court; that is the mechanism we use in this country to settle disputes. Your viewpoint is flawed based on your words.

[Truth Detector]

Even Trump seems to be jumping on board: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/743078235408195584

He's meeting them about not allowing people on the terrorist watch list, not endorsing the idea. But hey, you sit on your hands and vote for Gary Johnson again.....at least it gives you that pee'd in the dark pants warm feeling. I will be voting for the TrumpTard in an effort to keep a shrill leftist liar out of the White House. :laugh:

[Truth Detector]

Trump has talked about repealing the 14th Amendment alot lately; Hillary hasn't. You constitutionalist frauds may want to look into that.

:biglaugh: What a gullible low information thing to say.

[PolWatch]

Don't respond to mod actions on the open forum. Discussion of moderation on the open forum is a violation of Rule 9. If you have a question, PM a mod

[Truth Detector]

Let me get this right, you're saying that if your name, appearing on a “terrorist watch list", is somehow going to ultimately limit your "second amendment rights entirely based on suspicion? That kind of creates a conundrum doesn't it, coming on the heels of what happened when that deranged individual murdered 49 American Citizens in Orlando and he was on the watch list…three times?

Here is the conundrum for everyone: FACT; this lunatic wasn't on the no-fly list. FACT; this lunatic had been visited twice by the FBI. FACT; this lunatic obtained his weapons LEGALLY. FACT; this lunatic was Muslim and murdered in Allah's name. FACT; all the gun laws in the universe wouldn't have stopped him. FACT; implementing the ban on buying guns for being on a subjective unconstitutional No-Fly list would not have stopped him.

So with all these FACTS; why is it the brain dead left demand we do things that would not have stopped this lunatic? Stricter laws in France did not prevent terrorists from attacking with fully automatic weapons and explosive devices. So with all these FACTS; why is it that the brain dead left demand we do things that simply do not prevent criminal behavior?

Criminals BREAK the LAW; what makes brain dead leftists think that MORE LAWS will suddenly stop CRIMINALS from BREAKING THEM?

Let's be honest here, the ultimate goal of Shrillary, the DNC, the Leftist media and the loony leftists is to BAN ALL private ownership of guns......PERIOD. Suggesting that they are not is the biggest lie since Shrillary claimed she was being shot at in Bosnia.

[Cigar]

The terrorist attack in Orlando is being used by all sorts of unsavory characters and opportunistic politicians to deprive Americans of their constitutional rights.

The main idea being kicked around right now is giving the government the power to strip Americans of their second amendment rights based on mere suspicion.

No due process, just unproven allegations made in secret by government officials.

Even Donald Trump, who claims to defend the second amendment, seems to be contemplating this non-solution.

If this disgraceful policy is allowed to go through, then kiss what's left of the rule of law in America goodbye and say hello to the newest banana republic in the western hemisphere.


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Sw5wdPMMsuI/Tff4o8RvNRI/AAAAAAAAACM/JCrH5G7yNVE/s1600/DRAMA+QUEEN.jpg

[MisterVeritis]

Even Trump seems to be jumping on board: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/743078235408195584
If Trump follows through I will withdraw my support. He will not get my vote.

[MisterVeritis]

It's because your "case" is merit-less.

And Trump is the very one who wants to eliminate people's Constitutional Rights without a fair trial and you, of course, know it. Therefore, you need to go to him first and argue why his not wanting to allow all of those groups he dislikes is wrong and his wanting to keep them out of the U.S. without proving that they are actually an enemy to this country or affording them their Constitutional rights when they're here is also wrong. His egregious style of doing things can't go over well at all in this country and that's why his poll numbers are dramatically dropping.

Are you stupidly arguing that foreigners who want to come here have a Constitutional right to do so?

[Ethereal]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Sw5wdPMMsuI/Tff4o8RvNRI/AAAAAAAAACM/JCrH5G7yNVE/s1600/DRAMA+QUEEN.jpg

Another person who supports taking away an American's constitutional rights without a trial.

[exotix]

Save yourself America ... The New American (civilian).


http://sadefensejournal.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/project2.jpg

[Ethereal]

There are two kinds of people.

The first thinks a person should receive a speedy and public trial by jury before their rights are taken away from them.

The second thinks a person should have their rights taken from them based on nothing more than unproven allegations made by government officials.

I'm proud to say I'm the first kind of person.

[Ethereal]

"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."
--Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Paine, 1789.

[Common]

You were trolling.

There is no trolling here Safety said so, its all just different of opinion, I guess until the left doesnt like the opinion

[Common]

Another person who supports taking away an American's constitutional rights without a trial.

There are some on this forum who are for anything they are told to be for. Mindless drones, that arent intelligent enough to know it hurts their families as much as anyone elses.

Everything has gotten worse under obama for AMERICANS if your not you got it made

[Chris]

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Franklin

[domer76]

My, what an intelligent, thoughtful response.

I am impressed.

(laughing) You're one of the last that should be talking about intelligent and thoughtful responses. You spout nothing but paranoia.

[Ethereal]

(laughing) You're one of the last that should be talking about intelligent and thoughtful responses. You spout nothing but paranoia.

I use you as a barometer.

If you think I'm wrong, then that must mean I'm right.

And the more strongly you feel about me being wrong, the more confident I am that I'm right.

Because as far as I can tell, you inhabit some kind of authoritarian fantasy land where the government is a god and its agents high priests.

So thanks for the encouragement, Domer.

It's nice to know I'm on the right side of history.

[treedancer]

Omar Mateen was not on the watch list at the time of the purchase or the shooting, so it wouldn't have stopped him anyway.

But you still haven't answered the question, as far as I can tell.

Do you think Americans should have their constitutional rights taken away from them without a trial?

The answer doesn't require a bunch of references to Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and Gary Johnson.

It just requires a simple yes or no answer with a little elaboration.


"Do you think Americans should have their constitutional rights taken away from them without a trial?"

NO of course not. The reason I posted the candidates that will be on the ballot running for Pres is to get your take on who you think would have the best chance of fixing your perceived problem.

[domer76]

I use you as a barometer.

If you think I'm wrong, then that must mean I'm right.

And the more strongly you feel about me being wrong, the more confident I am that I'm right.

Because as far as I can tell, you inhabit some kind of authoritarian fantasy land where the government is a god and its agents high priests.

So thanks for the encouragement, Domer.

It's nice to know I'm on the right side of history.

lol

You've been spanked so hard on the other thread, you don't even feel it on this one.

[hanger4]

lol

You've been spanked so hard on the other thread, you don't even feel it on this one.

I laughed

[Chris]

So back to topic...

The threat is very real.

Senator Declares after Orlando: "Due Process Is Killing Us" - The attack on the 2nd Amendment turns against the 5th and 14th. (https://fee.org/articles/senator-declares-after-orlando-due-process-is-killing-us/)

Video from youtube...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpJeAPLSmn8

[MisterVeritis]

So back to topic...

The threat is very real.

Senator Declares after Orlando: "Due Process Is Killing Us" - The attack on the 2nd Amendment turns against the 5th and 14th. (https://fee.org/articles/senator-declares-after-orlando-due-process-is-killing-us/)


This guy is a tyrant, plain and simple. The threat to our liberties is very clear. It resides in our federal government.

[Ethereal]

lol

You've been spanked so hard on the other thread, you don't even feel it on this one.

Haha...

Good one.

*pats Domer on the head*

[decedent]

Whatever you do decedent, don't take an actual position or make some kind of a logical argument.

That would be the end of you.

So be it. Machine guns for toddlers!

How about a compromise: toddlers only get semi-auto or selective fire rifles. Sure, this is an infringement of their constitutional rights, but at least they aren't left defenseless.

[decedent]

Toddlers never had a right to keep and bear arms prior to, or after, the ratification of the Constitution.

We need an intelligence test to vote.

You should stick to satire.

And here I thought "people" meant, well, people. This infringement can only lead to tyranny.

[Ethereal]

Machine guns for toddlers!

But what will "liberals" do once they get their machine guns?

[Mini Me]

Do you support stripping Americans of their second amendment rights based on mere suspicion or not?

Do you believe Americans have a right to due process or not?

No, of course not! I'm all for it!Civil liberties, I mean.

[Mini Me]

Automatic weapons? Are you also knows as Rip VanWinkle? Automatic weapons have required special licenses for longer than I have been alive.

With all of your bold print you just might be one of the crazies.

Nope! I sold my last gun, a .38 Police special. I'm 70 and not crazy yet!

[Ethereal]

No, of course not! I'm all for it!Civil liberties, I mean.

Then why are you mocking me?

Because the plan being proposed by Obama is to take away the second amendment rights of Americans who appear on a government watch list.

Keep in mind, none of these people have received a trial or been charged with a crime.

And the majority of them are probably Muslims.

[Mini Me]

The political class is trying to do away with the bill of rights in one fell swoop.

And millions of Americans are cheering them on...

Oh, C'mon man! Nobody has done anything yet. You are being hysterical! The Congress couldn't get any Fed gun bills passed the last time they tried to. And it wont be any different this time around, except for an assault weopens ban like we had before.

[Ethereal]

Oh, C'mon man! Nobody has done anything yet. You are being hysterical! The Congress couldn't get any Fed gun bills passed the last time they tried to. And it wont be any different this time around, except for an assault weopens ban like we had before.

You can trust the US government if you like.

But Obama said openly that he wants to take away the second amendment rights of people who appear on a government watch list even though none of those people have received a trial or been charged with a crime.

[Mini Me]

We already PREVENT citizens from obtaining automatic weapons. DERP!

Rethuglicans???? Now that's some funny rant there! :biglaugh:

The assault waepons ban ended in 1994! Duhhhh

[MisterVeritis]

Nope! I sold my last gun, a .38 Police special. I'm 70 and not crazy yet!


Maybe you should seek a second opinion. :grin:

[MisterVeritis]

The assault waepons ban ended in 1994! Duhhhh
I believe you are confused. An automatic weapon is not the same as the made up term assault weapon. The automatic weapon fires rounds continuously with a single trigger pull. The so-called assault weapon requires a trigger pull for every round that leaves the barrel.

So-called assault weapons were semi-automatic rifles that looked scary to liberals. Banning them was idiocy and, the ban had no effect on crime rates. It was like much of what the left does. It conditioned us to accept that the government could do with us at it pleased.

Automatic weapons have special licensing requirements.

[Mini Me]

But what will "liberals" do once they get their machine guns?

They will shoot the con baggers!

[Mini Me]

Then why are you mocking me?

Because the plan being proposed by Obama is to take away the second amendment rights of Americans who appear on a government watch list.

Keep in mind, none of these people have received a trial or been charged with a crime.

And the majority of them are probably Muslims.


I have always thought of you as a real smart guy. But I think you are a bit too wound up about this.

Go relax and snort some coke and drop a Lude! (jes kiddin)

I like you better when you rip Rethuglicans!

[Ethereal]

I have always thought of you as a real smart guy. But I think you are a bit too wound up about this.

Go relax and snort some coke and drop a Lude! (jes kiddin)

I like you better when you rip Rethuglicans!


You should know better than most that the crooks can be found in both parties.

And of course I'm wound up about this.

The President wants to take away people's constitutional rights without a trial.

That is disturbing.

[Mini Me]

You can trust the US government if you like.

But Obama said openly that he wants to take away the second amendment rights of people who appear on a government watch list even though none of those people have received a trial or been charged with a crime.

But being on a watch list is evidence of an untrustworthy person. And besides Muslims are suspect anyway.
It may not be fair, but I think we are trying to forstall a national emergency here! The 2hd amendment will survive this.

[Mini Me]

Maybe you should seek a second opinion. :grin:

I did. But the doctor was also crazy!

[Ethereal]

But being on a watch list is evidence of an untrustworthy person. And besides Muslims are suspect anyway.
It may not be fair, but I think we are trying to forstall a national emergency here! The 2hd amendment will survive this.

I'm sure all the antiwar protesters and civil rights activists who were on government watch lists during the sixties would disagree with you on that.

[Mini Me]

I believe you are confused. An automatic weapon is not the same as the made up term assault weapon. The automatic weapon fires rounds continuously with a single trigger pull. The so-called assault weapon requires a trigger pull for every round that leaves the barrel.

So-called assault weapons were semi-automatic rifles that looked scary to liberals. Banning them was idiocy and, the ban had no effect on crime rates. It was like much of what the left does. It conditioned us to accept that the government could do with us at it pleased.

Automatic weapons have special licensing requirements.


Well, whatever the law was, it expired.

[Ethereal]

No need for speedy and public trials and juries anymore.

Just put people on secretive government watchlists.

[Mini Me]

I'm sure all the antiwar protesters and civil rights activists who were on government watch lists during the sixties would disagree with you on that.

I hear ya Brah! I think the NSA, and DHS is a disaster for civil liberties, and the whole NDAA thing! But 60's activists weren't blowing away whole schools, or churches or nite clubs. Apples to oranges.

You know some kind of bill will be passed this time, and it will be watered down. Better a watered down bill than something really draconian, like seizing all guns!

[Mini Me]

Lets be honest here. People are really afraid of Islamic terror in the USA! We all should want a stop to the slaughter! Something needs to be done, and it will be done. Just to get folks to calm down a bit.

The system will grind out a compromise bill, that wont really stop the killing, but folks will feel better for now.
The placebo effect, so to speak.

[Chris]

Lets be honest here. People are really afraid of Islamic terror in the USA! We all should want a stop to the slaughter! Something needs to be done, and it will be done. Just to get folks to calm down a bit.

The system will grind out a compromise bill, that wont really stop the killing, but folks will feel better for now.
The placebo effect, so to speak.


But that something needs to be done bill will infringe upon our rights. And few will care because many need something to be done to feel secure.

[MMC]

Yep, the Demos are looking to curtail the 1st, 2nd, 5th, and 10th amendments.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/64973-Pro-Gun-Democratic-Senator-Forget-Due-Process-its-Killing-Us

[JDubya]

The terrorist attack in Orlando is being used by all sorts of unsavory characters and opportunistic politicians to deprive Americans of their constitutional rights.

The main idea being kicked around right now is giving the government the power to strip Americans of their second amendment rights based on mere suspicion.

No due process, just unproven allegations made in secret by government officials.

Even Donald Trump, who claims to defend the second amendment, seems to be contemplating this non-solution.

If this disgraceful policy is allowed to go through, then kiss what's left of the rule of law in America goodbye and say hello to the newest banana republic in the western hemisphere.

Real slick the way you used inflammatory rhetoric to paint people who are trying to curb the epidemic of deadly violence in this country as "unsavory characters", while implying that those who involve themselves with guns are somehow decent and forthright Americans.

Especially when in so many, if not most cases, the exact opposite is true. It's more common that the pro-gun types are the sleazy, unsavory characters.

[Chris]

Real slick the way you used inflammatory rhetoric to paint people who are trying to curb the epidemic of deadly violence in this country as "unsavory characters", while implying that those who involve themselves with guns are somehow decent and forthright Americans.

Especially when in so many, if not most cases, the exact opposite is true. It's more common that the pro-gun types are the sleazy, unsavory characters.


Well, there's truth in that characterization.

Obama has turned jihadist terror attack into personal gun war (http://nypost.com/2016/06/17/obama-has-turned-jihadist-terror-attack-into-personal-gun-war/) fits "unsavory characters and opportunistic politicians."

Gun owners, adhering to the 2nd amendment can be described as "decent and forthright Americans."



Especially when in so many, if not most cases, the exact opposite is true. It's more common that the pro-gun types are the sleazy, unsavory characters.

Oh, but you're not doing what you just criticized?

[JDubya]

Well, there's truth in that characterization.

Obama has turned jihadist terror attack into personal gun war (http://nypost.com/2016/06/17/obama-has-turned-jihadist-terror-attack-into-personal-gun-war/) fits "unsavory characters and opportunistic politicians."

The NY Post is a rag known for its hyperbole.


Gun owners, adhering to the 2nd amendment can be described as "decent and forthright Americans."

Some can, many cannot. I would say more the latter than the former.


Oh, but you're not doing what you just criticized?

Nope.

[donttread]

The terrorist attack in Orlando is being used by all sorts of unsavory characters and opportunistic politicians to deprive Americans of their constitutional rights.

The main idea being kicked around right now is giving the government the power to strip Americans of their second amendment rights based on mere suspicion.

No due process, just unproven allegations made in secret by government officials.

Even Donald Trump, who claims to defend the second amendment, seems to be contemplating this non-solution.

If this disgraceful policy is allowed to go through, then kiss what's left of the rule of law in America goodbye and say hello to the newest banana republic in the western hemisphere.

The irony is that many of the posters who believe the terrorist attack us because they hate freedom are the first to give them what they want. Surrendering our due process or privacy rights , even gun rights actually helps the terrorist achieve their objectives. ( at least the objectives many of you think they have) . This is how they win, by making us more like them

[exotix]

Well, there's truth in that characterization.

Obama has turned jihadist terror attack into personal gun war (http://nypost.com/2016/06/17/obama-has-turned-jihadist-terror-attack-into-personal-gun-war/) fits "unsavory characters and opportunistic politicians."

Gun owners, adhering to the 2nd amendment can be described as "decent and forthright Americans."


Oh, but you're not doing what you just criticized?I usually pick my nose while feeling sorry for *decent and forthright Americans* with AR-15's who are under attack by Obama.

[Cigar]

The terrorist attack in Orlando is being used by all sorts of unsavory characters and opportunistic politicians to deprive Americans of their constitutional rights.

The main idea being kicked around right now is giving the government the power to strip Americans of their second amendment rights based on mere suspicion.

No due process, just unproven allegations made in secret by government officials.

Even Donald Trump, who claims to defend the second amendment, seems to be contemplating this non-solution.

If this disgraceful policy is allowed to go through, then kiss what's left of the rule of law in America goodbye and say hello to the newest banana republic in the western hemisphere.


Good, it's Old and Outdated anyway.

[exotix]

Yep, the Demos are looking to curtail the 1st, 2nd, 5th, and 10th amendments.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/64973-Pro-Gun-Democratic-Senator-Forget-Due-Process-its-Killing-UsI think we need an amendment that protects your rights to own alligators ... that way when you get killed by an alligator it was because the alligator saw you weren't posting an *Alligator Free* Zone sign.

[Chris]

I usually pick my nose while feeling sorry for *decent and forthright Americans* with AR-15's who are under attack by Obama.

Does your nose bleed from all that picking? Metro firearms dealer says popular AR-15 spikes in sales following Orlando shooting (http://fox4kc.com/2016/06/16/metro-firearms-dealer-says-popular-ar-15-spikes-in-sales-following-orlando-shooting/).

[Chris]

I think we need an amendment that protects your rights to own alligators ... that way when you get killed by an alligator it was because the alligator saw you weren't posting an *Alligator Free* Zone sign.


Most of the mass killings by gun in the United States in recent years—Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Newtown, Charleston, San Bernardino, and now Orlando—took place in venues where local or state law prohibited carrying guns, even by those lawfully licensed to do so. The government cheerfully calls these venues "gun-free zones." They should be called killing zones....

@ In Defense of Self-Defense (http://reason.com/archives/2016/06/16/in-defense-of-self-defense)

[Green Arrow]

The constitution has been under attack almost since it was ratified. The war really started with Washington's response to Shays and the Whiskey rebellion, but the crook John Adams threw it into high gear with the Alien and Sedition Acts.

[Mac-7]

Elect hillary and the Bill of Rights is history

[exotix]

The constitution has been under attack almost since it was ratified. The war really started with Washington's response to Shays and the Whiskey rebellion, but the crook John Adams threw it into high gear with the Alien and Sedition Acts.Well sort of ... it was Jefferson in all his wisdom who said the militias (who allegedly became rebels) can keep their guns to pacify them ...

Simply for the fact that the Continental Army was completely depleted from the war and the Colonies needed the dudes ... so he concocted a bizzare logic ...

... that the founding fathers themselves could eventually become a *tyrannical govt.* (if not already tyrannical because they called for the Militias to surrender their guns ... (frightened they would overthrow the founding fathers ...)

[exotix]

Does your nose bleed from all that picking? Metro firearms dealer says popular AR-15 spikes in sales following Orlando shooting (http://fox4kc.com/2016/06/16/metro-firearms-dealer-says-popular-ar-15-spikes-in-sales-following-orlando-shooting/).I mean don't get me wrong ... very rare that a constitutional Amendment gets amended ... except for the fact that the 2nd Amendment is easily amendable ... and was designed as such ...

You see, you're not a well-regulated-militia ... that was intended so that you would not overthrow the govt ...

Why do you think Lapierre and the NRA never ever says *Well-Regulated Militia* ?

[MisterVeritis]

I usually pick my nose while feeling sorry for *decent and forthright Americans* with AR-15's who are under attack by Obama.
Another admission.

[hanger4]

I mean don't get me wrong ... very rare that a constitutional Amendment gets amended ... except for the fact that the 2nd Amendment is easily amendable ... and was designed as such ...

You see, you're not a well-regulated-militia ... that was intended so that you would not overthrow the govt ...

Why do you think Lapierre and the NRA never ever says *Well-Regulated Militia* ?

Because 'right of the people to keep and bear arms' is not dependent on 'a well regulated militia'.

[Chris]

I mean don't get me wrong ... very rare that a constitutional Amendment gets amended ... except for the fact that the 2nd Amendment is easily amendable ... and was designed as such ...

You see, you're not a well-regulated-militia ... that was intended so that you would not overthrow the govt ...

Why do you think Lapierre and the NRA never ever says *Well-Regulated Militia* ?


A well-regulated (well functioning back then) militia (against tyrannical government back then) was just one purpose for protecting the natural right to defend oneself.

[MisterVeritis]

But being on a watch list is evidence of an untrustworthy person. And besides Muslims are suspect anyway.
It may not be fair, but I think we are trying to forstall a national emergency here! The 2hd amendment will survive this.
Do you like secret government lists and secret courts? Shall we have show trials as well?

An IslamoNAZI Democrat murders. Every Democrat springs into action demanding that the rest of us should be punished. This is a steady train of abuses.

[exotix]

Because 'right of the people to keep and bear arms' is not dependent on 'a well regulated militia'.No ?

Why was the subject ... *A Well-Regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state* ?

[MisterVeritis]

I did. But the doctor was also crazy!
I think Ignore is a good option for me to use. Bye.

[MisterVeritis]

Real slick the way you used inflammatory rhetoric to paint people who are trying to curb the epidemic of deadly violence in this country as "unsavory characters", while implying that those who involve themselves with guns are somehow decent and forthright Americans.

Especially when in so many, if not most cases, the exact opposite is true. It's more common that the pro-gun types are the sleazy, unsavory characters.
We have a few kinds of violence. We have violence in cities run by Democrats. That is the worst. And secondly, we have violent terrorist acts perpetrated, primarily, by IslamoNAZIs. We do not need any more gun laws that separate citizens from their Constitutional rights. We need Democrat and Muslim control.

[Truth Detector]

so be it. Machine guns for toddlers!

How about a compromise: Toddlers only get semi-auto or selective fire rifles. Sure, this is an infringement of their constitutional rights, but at least they aren't left defenseless.

strawman alert!!!!

[Truth Detector]

And here I thought "people" meant, well, people. This infringement can only lead to tyranny.

Strawman alert!!

[Truth Detector]

Real slick the way you used inflammatory rhetoric to paint people who are trying to curb the epidemic of deadly violence in this country as "unsavory characters", while implying that those who involve themselves with guns are somehow decent and forthright Americans.

Especially when in so many, if not most cases, the exact opposite is true. It's more common that the pro-gun types are the sleazy, unsavory characters.

The solutions the leftist morons want will do NOTHING to prevent future tragedies and only usurp our liberties. DERP

[hanger4]

No ?

Why was the subject ... *A Well-Regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state* ?

Yes

Chris answered that question.

[exotix]

Yes

Chris answered that question.I was just curious if the most basic structure of the English language becomes alien-garble to you when it comes to guns.

[hanger4]

I was just curious if the most basic structure of the English language becomes alien-garble to you when it comes to guns.

"[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

Read the whole link exo.
Professor Copperud is on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.

That sounds like an expert to me.

[Chris]

I was just curious if the most basic structure of the English language becomes alien-garble to you when it comes to guns.

https://i.snag.gy/j3Mwus.jpg

[exotix]

"[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

Read the whole link exo.
Professor Copperud is on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.

That sounds like an expert to me.First, the dude died in 1991 as a RW wacko ... further, he was called-out on his interpretation of the 2nd Amendment since his freakish interpretation of it ..


http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm



"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent.

Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."

[hanger4]

First, the dude died in 1991 as a RW wacko ... further, he was called-out on his interpretation of the 2nd Amendment since his freakish interpretation of it ..


http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

What call-out exo ?? other than your delusional interpretation.

[Mac-7]

This debate is pointless.

if hillary is elected she appoints the 5th liberal judge and private gun ownership will end

[exotix]

This debate is pointless.

if hillary is elected she appoints the 5th liberal judge and private gun ownership will endThe SCOTUS will simply determine if owning an AR-15 makes you a Well-Regulated-Militia ... should be good when Tea Party lawyers try to defend that one ... especially NRA lawyers ... in defending the NRA who never ever never state *Well-Regulated-Militias*

[hanger4]

The SCOTUS will simply determine if owning an AR-15 makes you a Well-Regulated-Militia ... should be good when Tea Party lawyers try to defend that one ... especially NRA lawyers ... in defending the NRA who never ever never state *Well-Regulated-Militias*

More irrelevancy exo

[exotix]

More irrelevancy exoLook, dude, the only time we have ever seen a well-regulated-militia is at Bundy Ranch ... well, the bunker-hunkers believed they were in protecting cattle due to a criminal who never paid grazing fees even when offered to pay $1 to let it all go.

Then they executed 2 cops after the stand down and Big Founding Fathers Govt. still did nothing.

I'd say you won the 2nd Amendment debate.

[hanger4]

Look, dude, the only time we have ever seen a well-regulated-militia is at Bundy Ranch ... well, the bunker-hunkers believed they were in protecting cattle due to a criminal who never paid grazing fees even when offered to pay $1 to let it all go.

Then they executed 2 cops after the stand down and Big Founding Fathers Govt. still did nothing.

I'd say you won the 2nd Amendment debate.

Listen dude the right of the people to keep and bear arms' is not dependent on 'a well regulated militia'.

You've already been schooled on this issue exotix

[Ethereal]

The constitution has been under attack almost since it was ratified. The war really started with Washington's response to Shays and the Whiskey rebellion, but the crook John Adams threw it into high gear with the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Shay's rebellion happened before the constitution was ratified, and the whiskey rebellion (although I support it in an ethical sense) was resistance to an excise tax on whiskey, which was constitutional.

The Alien and Sedition Acts were certainly unconstitutional.

And, yes, there have been all sorts of attacks on the constitution since the early days, and this is just another example of that.

The idea that the government can strip an American of their constitutional rights without a trial is so onerous and extreme that it should disturb any true American.

[exotix]

Listen dude the right of the people to keep and bear arms' is not dependent on 'a well regulated militia'.

You've already been schooled on this issue @exotix (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=516)... oh I'm sorry, did not armed *patriots* with scoped AR-15's aimed at Big Govt. BLM agents not constitute *Well-Regulated-Militias being necessary to the security of a free state* .. followed by executing 2 cops ... not what the founding fathers had in mind when they used that specific language to draft the 2nd Amendment ?

[donttread]

I think we need an amendment that protects your rights to own alligators ... that way when you get killed by an alligator it was because the alligator saw you weren't posting an *Alligator Free* Zone sign.

Best ya got?

[exotix]

Best ya got?If you want to get a response you need to talk their language ... LOL

[Ethereal]

The second amendment appears in the Bill of RIGHTS.

Apparently, some people don't know what a "right" is?

[donttread]

... oh I'm sorry, did not armed *patriots* with scoped AR-15's aimed at Big Govt. BLM agents not constitute *Well-Regulated-Militias being necessary to the security of a free state* .. followed by executing 2 cops ... not what the founding fathers had in mind when they used that specific language to draft the 2nd Amendment ?

They said exactly what they ment, the Second Amendment does not limit gun ownership to "militia members" and it ain't about hunting and sport shooting or even self defense from a crimina.
It's about maintaining the ability to rise up against tyranny from without or WITHIN

[Ethereal]

The second amendment does not express or imply that membership in a militia, well regulated or otherwise, is a necessary precondition of exercising the enumerated right to keep and bear arms.

In fact, nowhere in the bill of rights are any preconditions placed on any of the enumerated rights contained therein.

The bill of rights is a list of restrictions on the government, not the people.

The idea that the bill of rights would somehow place preconditions on the people instead of the government is so backwards as to be laughable.

[Archer0915]

You are given to hysterical theatrics!Even Rethuglicans are thinking we need to prevent automatic weopens from getting into crazies hands! Its about time!

But go ahead and start your "gun grabber" rant.


Glad there are laws that do not allow these automatic weapons to get into the hands of crazies. AUTOMATIC! Not the same is the standard AR, you know.

[MisterVeritis]

Glad there are laws that do not allow these automatic weapons to get into the hands of crazies. AUTOMATIC! Not the same is the standard AR, you know.
He hasn't got a clue. I doubt he ever did.

[exotix]

They said exactly what they ment, the Second Amendment does not limit gun ownership to "militia members" and it ain't about hunting and sport shooting or even self defense from a crimina.
It's about maintaining the ability to rise up against tyranny from without or WITHINMakes you wonder why they aren't out there shooting muslims.

[Common Sense]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2PFY8MNVuY

I love this old guy...

[Chris]

The second amendment does not express or imply that membership in a militia, well regulated or otherwise, is a necessary precondition of exercising the enumerated right to keep and bear arms.

In fact, nowhere in the bill of rights are any preconditions placed on any of the enumerated rights contained therein.

The bill of rights is a list of restrictions on the government, not the people.

The idea that the bill of rights would somehow place preconditions on the people instead of the government is so backwards as to be laughable.



But but but it says BILL of rights so it must have been a legislative bill creating those and only those rights with those restrictions. The people with their rights didn't create the government, dammit no, the government created the people and gave them rights, restricted rights.

:rulez:

[Chris]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2PFY8MNVuY

I love this old guy...

Deliberate, aim, fire.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Well sort of ... it was Jefferson in all his wisdom who said the militias (who allegedly became rebels) can keep their guns to pacify them ...

Simply for the fact that the Continental Army was completely depleted from the war and the Colonies needed the dudes ... so he concocted a bizzare logic ...

... that the founding fathers themselves could eventually become a *tyrannical govt.* (if not already tyrannical because they called for the Militias to surrender their guns ... (frightened they would overthrow the founding fathers ...) When James Monroe was governor of Virginia in 1800 and Aaron Burr was trying to steal the Presidency from Jefferson in the electoral college, Monroe threatened to call out the Virginia militia to march on Washington. That broke the deadlock and Jefferson was allowed to become President.

[nathanbforrest45]

YEA!we all need a Sig Sauer MCX .223-caliber rifle with multiple magazines that holds 30 rounds each.Gotta go squirrel hunting doncha know.:rolleyes21:


I know you have already been told this but it never hurts to repeat it over and over and over and over. The Second Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. Nothing. Its purpose was to protect the right of the people to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. Republican, Democrat - Doesn't matter which. The world is divided into those who want to control you and those who don't. The 2nd Amendment allows us to defend ourselves against the first. Unless of course you would enjoy being a slave or serf.

[nathanbforrest45]

Ya that took a lot outta me...gotta rest up before me next post. Almost like I was firing support for the grunts in the 2nd_Battalion_5th_Marines again.:grin:


If the Marine Corp had as many members as claim to be on these boards the rest of the military would have not been necessary. Frankly boy, I think you are full of caca.

[exotix]

When James Monroe was governor of Virginia in 1800 and Aaron Burr was trying to steal the Presidency from Jefferson in the electoral college, Monroe threatened to call out the Virginia militia to march on Washington. That broke the deadlock and Jefferson was allowed to become President.

Winggunnuts can rely on this event that America was borne unto violence to make the case that they need Assault-Weapons.

[nathanbforrest45]

Do you as it concerns Hillary Clinton? Or should she be afforded her Constitutional rights as well?


Is an accusation the same as a conviction?

[The Sage of Main Street]

First, the dude died in 1991 as a RW wacko ... further, he was called-out on his interpretation of the 2nd Amendment since his freakish interpretation of it ..


http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm Why did the Framers throw in that clause about militia at all? Why wasn't "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" the whole amendment? No other amendment adds a justifying clause, such as "free discussion being necessary for determining the public will, freedom of speech shall not be abridged."

[nathanbforrest45]

You'd be okay with confiscating a loaded machine gun from a toddler without a trial?


You are in a lifeboat with four other people. There is only food for three people. What do you do? Same sort of argument.

[exotix]

Why did the Framers throw in that clause about militia at all? Why wasn't "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" the whole amendment? No other amendment adds a justifying clause, such as "free discussion being necessary for determining the public will, freedom of speech shall not be abridged."
Thats a good point ... this is why winggunnuts can argue why they are patriots and are required to tote AR-15's at all times.

The murderers, mass-murderers and terrorists however ain't need the 2nd Amendment so it doesn't apply to them.

[The Sage of Main Street]

They said exactly what they ment, the Second Amendment does not limit gun ownership to "militia members" and it ain't about hunting and sport shooting or even self defense from a crimina.
It's about maintaining the ability to rise up against tyranny from without or WITHIN Handguns would be practically useless in a revolution.

[exotix]

The second amendment appears in the Bill of RIGHTS.

Apparently, some people don't know what a "right" is?I forgot to commend you on your new avatar ... however I'm confused as to its meaning ...

Does it mean *Gays grab a gun so they can't tread on you* or *Gays don't tread on me* ?

[Cletus]

Handguns would be practically useless in a revolution.

Not true, at all.

[Chris]

I forgot to commend you on your new avatar ... however I'm confused as to its meaning ...

Does it mean *Gays grab a gun so they can't tread on you* or *Gays don't tread on me* ?

It means gay libertarian.

[JDubya]

This debate is pointless.

if hillary is elected she appoints the 5th liberal judge and private gun ownership will end

We can only hope so.

Just think if Thomas retires during her admin.

Now we're talking 6 to 3!!!!

Hell, if we're really lucky, we could even get it to 7 to 2!!!!

:biglaugh:

[The Sage of Main Street]

Winggunnuts can rely on this event that America was borne unto violence to make the case that they need Assault-Weapons. Their hired media mentors will order them to oppose gun rights if union members started to become totally armed.

[Peter1469]

This debate is pointless.

if hillary is elected she appoints the 5th liberal judge and private gun ownership will end

Untrue. Government sanctioned gun ownership will end. Americans will still own guns.

3D printers will make it even easier.

[MisterVeritis]

Handguns would be practically useless in a revolution.
Really? In previous rebellions assassinations on crowded city streets could be as simple as stepping directly in behind the victim, pressing a small caliber handgun against the base of his neck and firing a single time. The victim nearly always died.

[decedent]

strawman alert!!!!


Are you another gun grabber who is trying to deny some people a constitutional right?

Or are people not really people?

"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." -- Some guy

[Ethereal]

It means gay libertarian.

No, it just means solidarity with the LGBT community.

[Ethereal]

Their hired media mentors will order them to oppose gun rights if union members started to become totally armed.

Let unions become armed.

Get as many guns as you want.

[Cletus]

Really? In previous rebellions assassinations on crowded city streets could be as simple as stepping directly in behind the victim, pressing a small caliber handgun against the base of his neck and firing a single time. The victim nearly always died.

I have always also seen the handgun as a "gun to get a gun".

On one of my overseas assignments, we were prohibited by the host country to be armed with anything larger than a handgun off the embassy grounds. I always figured if things went south, I would use my pistol to shoot somebody with an AK. Then, I would have a pistol AND an AK. Since just about everybody except us had them, there would have been no shortage of targets.

[Chris]

No, it just means solidarity with the LGBT community.

Ah, OK.

These are gay libertarians:

https://i.snag.gy/o3v5Xp.jpg

@ http://www.outrightusa.org/wp/

[MisterVeritis]

I have always also seen the handgun as a "gun to get a gun".

On one of my overseas assignments, we were prohibited by the host country to be armed with anything larger than a handgun off the embassy grounds. I always figured if things went south, I would my pistol to shoot somebody with an AK. Then, I would have a pistol AND an AK. Since just about everybody except us had them, there would have been no shortage of targets.
A handgun is more convenient than a brick.

[Cletus]

A handgun is more convenient than a brick.

It is... but louder. :cool2:

[Green Arrow]

Shay's rebellion happened before the constitution was ratified, and the whiskey rebellion (although I support it in an ethical sense) was resistance to an excise tax on whiskey, which was constitutional.

You're right about Shays but my point was Washington's response - putting down the rebellion with military force - was unconstitutional.

Or at least, I would argue that it was.


The Alien and Sedition Acts were certainly unconstitutional.

And, yes, there have been all sorts of attacks on the constitution since the early days, and this is just another example of that.

The idea that the government can strip an American of their constitutional rights without a trial is so onerous and extreme that it should disturb any true American.

Agreed.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Handguns would be practically useless in a revolution.


Not true, at all. Pistols against rifles would be like this battle of spears against rifles:

BATTLE OF BLOOD RIVER (South Africa, 1838)

Zulu warriors: 15,000
Dutch farmers: 464

Spearchucker dead: 3,000
Rifleman dead: Zero

[Cletus]

Pistols against rifles would be like this battle of spears against rifles:

BATTLE OF BLOOD RIVER (South Africa, 1838)

Zulu warriors: 15,000
Dutch farmers: 464

Spearchucker dead: 3,000
Rifleman dead: Zero

You should leave discussions like this to those of us who understand such things. If I have a pistol, I can get a rifle. If I have a rifle, I can get more rifles to equip those without them. When I get enough rifles, I can start getting machineguns and antitank weapons. It goes on and on until I have armor, artillery and air support of my own. At some point, we make the transition from a small, loosely organized guerilla force to a structured, disciplined military force.

That is the way it works. That is the way it has always worked.

[Common Sense]

Lol...

[Cletus]

Lol...

Yeah, I am sure Washington and Mao and Giap and any of a hundred others who led ragged, ill equipped forces to victories over mighty armies would agree with you.

Your ignorance is exceeded only by your arrogance.

[Cletus]

Pistols against rifles would be like this battle of spears against rifles:

BATTLE OF BLOOD RIVER (South Africa, 1838)

Zulu warriors: 15,000
Dutch farmers: 464

Spearchucker dead: 3,000
Rifleman dead: Zero

Funny that you didn't mention Isandlwana.

Why not?

[maineman]

Yeah, I am sure Washington and Mao and Giap and any of a hundred others who led ragged, ill equipped forces to victories over mighty armies would agree with you.

Your ignorance is exceeded only by your arrogance.

listen, macho man. ANYBODY can rant and rave about how they would raise a militia in America starting with one handgun and killing rifle owners with it and on and on.... from behind a computer monitor in their mom's basement. Why don't you spare us all the testosterone fueled braggadocio and just shut your pie hole until you actually get up off your ass and SHOOT that first guy and take HIS weapon. Then... take a moment, go back to your mom's basement and tell us what you DID, not just what you WILL do. OK? You ain't no Giap, or Mao, and you CERTAINLY ain't no Washington!

:rofl:

[Cletus]

listen, macho man. ANYBODY can rant and rave about how they would raise a militia in America starting with one handgun and killing rifle owners with it and on and on.... from behind a computer monitor in their mom's basement. Why don't you spare us all the testosterone fueled braggadocio and just shut your pie hole until you actually get up off your ass and SHOOT that first guy and take HIS weapon. Then... take a moment, go back to your mom's basement and tell us what you DID, not just what you WILL do. OK? You ain't no Giap, or Mao, and you CERTAINLY ain't no Washington!

:rofl:

Ah yes, the squid speaks.

You are a funny little guy, in a rather pathetic sort of way.

[maineman]

Ah yes, the squid speaks.

You are a funny little guy, in a rather pathetic sort of way.

I'm serious... get a pistol..shoot a guy with a rifle... steal his rifle... give it to your comrade... shoot more rifle owners... get more rifles... get bazookas....
did you learn that from some video game? some comic book? what color is the sky in your world? or more on point, what color are the fluorescent lights in the drop ceiling of your mom's laundry room that you are using for your command center, Captain America?

[maineman]

and more importantly, when will you grow a set of balls - and simultaneously lobotomize yourself - so that you can actually attempt to pull that plan off?

[MisterVeritis]

Pistols against rifles would be like this battle of spears against rifles:

BATTLE OF BLOOD RIVER (South Africa, 1838)

Zulu warriors: 15,000
Dutch farmers: 464

Spearchucker dead: 3,000
Rifleman dead: Zero
I suppose if someone in a rebellion was foolish enough to fight a set-piece battle against a conventionally superior force they would lose. Why would anybody do such a stupid thing?

[donttread]

Do you support stripping Americans of their second amendment rights based on mere suspicion or not?

Do you believe Americans have a right to due process or not?


So odd that the same people who believe the extremist are targeting us because "they hate freedom" are the first to give them what they believe they want. Less freedom.
As horrible as terrorism is and it certainly is we have to keep things in perspective. The risk to any one individual in America from terrorism is extremely low. On the day of the Orlando shooting for example approximtey 1,300 Americans died from tobacco and another 100 or so or so in vehicle accidents.
Further our government's "sky is falling" public stance about islamic terrorism here is belied by their casual approach to the border and the fact that recent terrorist had already been on the FBI's radar.

[MisterVeritis]

You should leave discussions like this to those of us who understand such things. If I have a pistol, I can get a rifle. If I have a rifle, I can get more rifles to equip those without them. When I get enough rifles, I can start getting machineguns and antitank weapons. It goes on and on until I have armor, artillery and air support of my own. At some point, we make the transition from a small, loosely organized guerilla force to a structured, disciplined military force.

That is the way it works. That is the way it has always worked.
In Algeria, the rebels used knives initially. Near the end, they were assassinating high ranking individuals with RPG-7s.

[Cletus]

I'm serious... get a pistol..shoot a guy with a rifle... steal his rifle... give it to your comrade... shoot more rifle owners... get more rifles... get bazookas....
did you learn that from some video game? some comic book? what color is the sky in your world? or more on point, what color are the fluorescent lights in the drop ceiling of your mom's laundry room that you are using for your command center, Captain America?

You really should take a look at the history of guerilla movements around the world. Learn something before you start spouting off. I know... you drove a boat for the Navy. Now, you are just some old gummer taking advantage of the economic situation in Mexico to exploit the locals and make yourself feel powerful. Do you make them call you "Jefe"? Do you get a little tingle when they do that?

I know you are an ignorant, hateful little man, but you really don't have to try to prove it in every thread. Now, go back to pretending you are somebody, but do it somewhere else.

[MisterVeritis]

I'm serious... get a pistol..shoot a guy with a rifle... steal his rifle... give it to your comrade... shoot more rifle owners... get more rifles... get bazookas....
did you learn that from some video game? some comic book? what color is the sky in your world? or more on point, what color are the fluorescent lights in the drop ceiling of your mom's laundry room that you are using for your command center, Captain America?
That is the way it begins.

Some rebellions are lucky enough to begin with outside help. But most are not. One of the reasons for robberies is to raise money for arms and ammunition, in addition to communications and espionage. I regret to say that many of the books I own on this subject have become damaged in the last few years. The text has shrunk to the point where it is uncomfortable to read.

[maineman]

You really should take a look at the history of guerilla movements around the world. Learn something before you start spouting off. I know... you drove a boat for the Navy. Now, you are just some old gummer taking advantage of the economic situation in Mexico to exploit the locals and make yourself feel powerful. Do you make them call you "Jefe"? Do you get a little tingle when they do that?

I know you are an ignorant, hateful little man, but you really don't have to try to prove it in every thread. Now, go back to pretending you are somebody, but do it somewhere else.

I understand full well about guerrilla movements. I simply doubt your ability to start one. It has nothing to do with the validity of the plan.

I am exploiting no one. I pay all of my help at least quadruple the required wage rate... I am very generous to Mexican charities... And realize... I am not pretending to be anyone....whereas YOU are pretending to be some uber-patriot who has the talent and the plan and the charisma to start an armed insurrection in America. I'm sure it bruises your fragile ego to know that, all over the interwebz, people read shit like that from you and are laughing their asses off, cuz trust me, we are.

[maineman]

That is the way it begins.

Some rebellions are lucky enough to begin with outside help. But most are not. One of the reasons for robberies is to raise money for arms and ammunition, in addition to communications and espionage. I regret to say that many of the books I own on this subject have become damaged in the last few years. The text has shrunk to the point where it is uncomfortable to read.

damn! all my books have become similarly damaged!

and I know that rebellions do start that way... I just don't think that Cletus is the guy to lead one. If he were, he wouldn't be wasting his time broadcasting his intentions on an internet message board.....

from his mom's basement, especially.

[MisterVeritis]

damn! all my books have become similarly damaged!
I am converting to electronic books because they allow me to change the font size.


and I know that rebellions do start that way... I just don't think that Cletus is the guy to lead one. If he were, he wouldn't be wasting his time broadcasting his intentions on an internet message board.....

from his mom's basement, especially.
I was thinking about how the Second American Revolution might organize. Typically a very small cadre meet in secret, develop an organization in secret and begin to grow in secret. I am sure that will happen. But we have seen a new model. ISIS is using the Internet for training its "shooters" without ever engaging with them. What if this time we have several hundred small, independent organizations spread all over who use the social tools on the net to offer helpful hints on targets, with methods for engaging and destroying them?

I am giving some serious thought to rushing my current book to completion so I can write a How-to manual for revolutionaries.

[FindersKeepers]

I'm serious... get a pistol..shoot a guy with a rifle... steal his rifle... give it to your comrade... shoot more rifle owners... get more rifles... get bazookas....
did you learn that from some video game? some comic book? what color is the sky in your world? or more on point, what color are the fluorescent lights in the drop ceiling of your mom's laundry room that you are using for your command center, Captain America?



I've known Cletus for about 15 years.

You don't have a clue as to whom you're talking to. If he tells you something, you can take it to the bank.

And, what gives you the right to denigrate others? You're the ex-pastor that condemns a child for getting pregnant. Calling her the vilest names in the book.

You're just making yourself look foolish...again. Perhaps if you'd take your head out of your rear end and wipe the poo-poo from your eyes, you could see a little better.

Just an idea.

[Cletus]

I understand full well about guerrilla movements. I simply doubt your ability to start one. It has nothing to do with the validity of the plan.

Ah, so you know I am right and just decided to be an ass for the sake of being an ass.

Got it.


I am exploiting no one. I pay all of my help at least quadruple the required wage rate... I am very generous to Mexican charities...

Sure you are. :grin:


And realize... I am not pretending to be anyone....whereas YOU are pretending to be some uber-patriot who has the talent and the plan and the charisma to start an armed insurrection in America. I'm sure it bruises your fragile ego to know that, all over the interwebz, people read shit like that from you and are laughing their asses off, cuz trust me, we are.

I have never expressed any desire to start a revolution or any kind of armed insurrection. If you weren't such a punk with a compulsive need to belittle others from the safety of your internet connection, you might have realized that. This discussion is about how, not about "Let's do it".

As far as the subject itself goes, I would venture that I know far more about it than you ever will. That is probably true of most things, though, so it is no major accomplishment. I mean, really... who are you? You are nobody. You are a boring little man who feels a need to lash out at others in order to compensate for your own lack of worth. I get it. Everybody who reads your foaming at the mouth rants gets it.

You became really, really boring months ago. Now, it appears you are trying to take that to a whole new level. As I suggested earlier, you should waddle off somewhere and continue to pretend to be somebody. I am sure if you look hard enough and wave enough dinero around, you will find someone to act impressed.

[Cletus]

I've known Cletus for about 15 years.

You don't have a clue as to whom you're talking to. If he tells you something, you can take it to the bank.

And, what gives you the right to denigrate others? You're the ex-pastor that condemns a child for getting pregnant. Calling her the vilest names in the book.

You're just making yourself look foolish...again. Perhaps if you'd take your head out of your rear end and wipe the poo-poo from your eyes, you could see a little better.

Just an idea.

Maineman is one of those guys who thinks the only way to make himself look good is by trying to make others look bad. That is what happens when you have merits of your own.

He is past being able to annoy. Now, he is just boring.

[maineman]

I've known Cletus for about 15 years.

You don't have a clue as to whom you're talking to. If he tells you something, you can take it to the bank.

And, what gives you the right to denigrate others? You're the ex-pastor that condemns a child for getting pregnant. Calling her the vilest names in the book.

You're just making yourself look foolish...again. Perhaps if you'd take your head out of your rear end and wipe the poo-poo from your eyes, you could see a little better.

Just an idea.

I see a guy on a political shat site telling us how he's gonna start an insurrection by shooting one rifle owner with his pistol. Bring it on. Maybe you could join him in his band of e-warriors.

[maineman]

Maineman is one of those guys who thinks the only way to make himself look good is by trying to make others look bad. That is what happens when you have merits of your own.

He is past being able to annoy. Now, he is just boring.

I am not trying to make you look bad.... I merely point out that I don't see you being the guy to pull that off. Please put me on ignore if you so choose...

[Cletus]

I see a guy on a political shat site telling us how he's gonna start an insurrection by shooting one rifle owner with his pistol. Bring it on. Maybe you could join him in his band of e-warriors.

You see that because that is what you want to see. The fact that has no relation to reality obviously is irrelevant to you.

[Cletus]

I am not trying to make you look bad....

Good... because you are incapable of doing so.


I merely point out that I don't see you being the guy to pull that off.

That's okay. I don't see you as anyone whose opinion matters.


Please put me on ignore if you so choose...

You are not important enough to put on ignore. Besides, I get a kick out of how important and powerful you believe yourself to be... Jefe. :grin:

[maineman]

You see that because that is what you want to see. The fact that has no relation to reality obviously is irrelevant to you.

believe me.... I really don't WANT to see your macho fantasies. They don't interest me in the least.

[maineman]

Good... because you are incapable of doing so.



That's okay. I don't see you as anyone whose opinion matters.



You are not important enough to put on ignore. Besides, I get a kick out of how important and powerful you believe yourself to be... Jefe. :grin:

when have I EVER suggested I was either important OR powerful? Really.... that's just unsupportable bullshit.... and/or transference.

[Cletus]

believe me.... I really don't WANT to see your macho fantasies. They don't interest me in the least.

You probably dream about being me... Jefe.

[Cletus]

when have I EVER suggested I was either important OR powerful? Really.... that's just unsupportable bullshit.... and/or transference.

You do it all the time. You go out of your way to try to demean former enlisted members of the armed forces. You launch into profanity filled tirades any time someone disagrees with you. You try all the time to make yourself look big by making others look small.

You are just laughable.

[maineman]

You do it all the time. You go out of your way to try to demean former enlisted members of the armed forces. You launch into profanity filled tirades any time someone disagrees with you. You try all the time to make yourself look big by making others look small.

You are just laughable.

important? powerful? because I denigrate one guy who, without question, denigrated my service LONG before I ever got near his... but, of course, you wouldn't know shit about that or care about it. You've made up your mind about me and tahuyaman and what transpired between us before you were aware of it is of no consequence to you. Go fuck yourself. I have colorful language.... nothing about that is in any way attempting to make myself IMPORTANT or POWERFUL. And nothing about it is an attempt to make anyone look small. I certainly am not above trying to make someone look wrong, however... especially when I happen to believe that they are.... wrong. Like you're wrong about this important/powerful bullshit.

And the fact that someone like you is laughing at me really is of zero consequence. I wish you could understand how little I think of you in general, and of your opinion of me in specific.

[Peter1469]

That is the way it begins.

Some rebellions are lucky enough to begin with outside help. But most are not. One of the reasons for robberies is to raise money for arms and ammunition, in addition to communications and espionage. I regret to say that many of the books I own on this subject have become damaged in the last few years. The text has shrunk to the point where it is uncomfortable to read.

Just think of the possibilities as 3D printers advance. I predict revolutions across the globe.

[FindersKeepers]

I see a guy on a political shat site telling us how he's gonna start an insurrection by shooting one rifle owner with his pistol. Bring it on. Maybe you could join him in his band of e-warriors.



Except, no one said that. It's just one more of your fabrications, pastor.

[exotix]

I suppose if someone in a rebellion was foolish enough to fight a set-piece battle against a conventionally superior force they would lose. Why would anybody do such a stupid thing?Because Liberty & Freedom means repeated massacres ?

[hanger4]

Because Liberty & Freedom means repeated massacres ?

Actually exo comments mean airheadedness.

[exotix]

Actually exo comments mean airheadedness.Serious .. who said *When did Liberty & Freedom mean repeated massacres* ?

[Ransom]

Just think of the possibilities as 3D printers advance. I predict revolutions across the globe.

Nanotechnology even scarier.

[Peter1469]

Nanotechnology even scarier.

That is in its infancy. But it is coming.

Maybe the libs will drop gun control and just ban science.