OldmanRob
Member
That was the best worded example but feel free to disgree. When your being run by Muslims you will wish you had second ammendment.
I did vote for Trump, he was better than that lying whore Killary
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Trump Timeline ... Trumpocalypse
- Thread starter CdnGuy
- Start date
I did vote for Trump, he was better than that lying whore Killary
OldmanRob
Member
Maybe you have bought in to what the left wants you to believe. It is possible.
Any ways, my earlier reply was most likely offensive. I should have worded it better.
We've been taught the first ammendment was to prevent a the government from oppressing it's people in school as far back as I can remember. It's actuly the left and anti gun people that have ever seen it as they do.
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is about as straight forward as it gets.
Please tell me what the phrase "shall not be infringed" means.
It does not mean we can have guns if we hunt. That is not NRA hype, it was written before the NRA existed.
Some people don't like guns, I get that but their dislike for guns does not change the meaning of words.
My apologies for being offensive earlier
Senorman
Member
You are correct, that was the originl intent of the 2nd amendment. However, no amount of assault rifles are going to protect you from our ‘tyrannical government.’ Those days are long gone. Good luck with your AR when the feds come in with drones, helicopters, etc. to hunt your ass down. (FYI, I have many guns and am an avid big game hunter.)
Special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe is indicting a lot of people at a fast pace, implicating several aides on President Trump’s 2016 campaign. And some legal scholars argue that the president has impeded the investigation into allegations of collusion between the campaign and Russian officials in a way that reaches the threshold of obstructing justice. Still, at the moment, the impeachment of Trump seems far-fetched. For one, Mueller hasn’t accused Trump of anything. Secondly, Republicans control Congress, which has the formal power to impeach and remove a president. And Trump’s party has largely dismissed any suggestion that the president has done something wrong, either during the campaign or since he took office.
But here’s the thing: The conditions are developing for the U.S. House to be considering Trump’s impeachment less than a year from now, even as Democratic Party leaders are actively trying to downplay this possibility. There are four things that clearly would have to happen for the groundwork for Trump’s impeachment to be set. All four are plausible, but none is guaranteed. And two will largely be determined by this fall’s elections.
Keep in mind that we are talking about impeachment, not Trump’s removal from office. Impeachment, which is the equivalent of being indicted, requires a simple majority vote in the House; for a president to be removed from office, two-thirds of the Senate has to vote to do so after holding a trial. That high Senate threshold makes Trump’s ouster much less likely than his impeachment.
Here are the four steps that would put Trump on the path to impeachment:
OldmanRob
Member
You may be correct but at least you understand what the 2nd ammendment was for.
I hope it never comes to actually needing them. We would most likely be fucked.
Remember though, if it were to happen how were our odds against the British during the revolution. The human spirit is not easy to break.
If we had a revolution everyone would lose but I'm willing to lose before giving up my rights as a free man
Senorman
Member
Umm...it is illegal for private citizens to own tanks, surface to air mussels,nukes, submarines, and many other ‘arms’ that would be the only effect tool to fight the government. Our right to bear arms are very much infringed now days.
Senorman
Member
I understand where you are coming from and it’s a nice idea. However, It’s a complete fantasy to think any of us would stand a chance against the feds in a standoff. Remember ruby ridge, Waco? Times are different. When the 2nd amendment was drafted, the average citizen had the same access to the most advanced firearms as the Feds. Not even close now.
Mister Sandman
New Member
None taken
But in all fairness you are still taking sentences out of context and intended for a particular historical moment
In the words “right to bear arms” in this day and age, the best weapon you have is the Vote
Use it wisely. You’ll do much more harm than your AR-15 would against a Bearcat with 1/2 steel plates ...
Oh, and by the way, I served 12 months in the military in my country.
Probably more than many of you out there... [emoji6]
OldmanRob
Member
Yes, they are infringed. That does not mean we cave in and give them all away.
OldmanRob
Member
I left the navy as a 1st class, 5 deployments, 4 navy achievement awards and 6 letters of commendation, 4 from flag officers but yes, your year in the service is more than many.
The constitution was written the way it was and meant to never be taken away.
It is not for interpretation. You just don't agree with it. Remember why and who they were fighting and then you may understand why the wished to prevent a repeat in the future.
Mister Sandman
New Member
The amendment is not up for interpretation , it’s the historical context that is.
There is no way that the founding fathers could have foreseen just how things would have changed . None of the framers or adopters of the Second Amendment thought that they were giving constitutional security to an individual's personal right to be armed.
The debate of the late 1780s was always about the status of the militia, not personal rights of self-defense.
Don’t forget that regulations under the Second Amendment did exist. At one time, laws existed that prohibited the sale of guns to Native Americans, restricted the storage of loaded firearms, and even banned gun ownership by citizens believed too dangerous to own guns.
What happening now is that gun politics are outpacing the Second Amendment. The courts have never said these things are required by the Second Amendment. They’re required by the NRA, and by the politics, and by the political coalition that supports strong gun rights in America
OldmanRob
Member
I still think it means what I think it does.
We are not going to change each other's minds. We are both stuck on our view.
I completely respect what your daying, I just don't agree so I am not going to drag this out.
It has been a pleasure and I am sure we will converse again. I'm off to work, have a safe happy day.
OldmanRob
Member
I still think it means what I think it does.
We are not going to change each other's minds. We are both stuck on our view.
I completely respect what your daying, I just don't agree so I am not going to drag this out.
It has been a pleasure and I am sure we will converse again. I'm off to work, have a safe happy day.
Edit: I agree with gun politics outpacing the second ammendment. I don't like it but you may be correct on that
The only important question about Trump is ‘Had enough yet?’
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rtant-question-about-trump-is-had-enough-yet/
The picture continues to sharpen in its resolution. Donald J. Trump, a man transcendently unfit for the presidency, prowls the White House corridors between television binges, furious and vengeful. His similarly unfit staffers continue to quit or get fired from the impossible job of working for an impossible man. The White House dynamics are self-preservation contending with self-deception contending with self-dealing.
It’s more like self-destruction, as we hit bottom in another week of floundering as Hope literally leaves the premises. And the only thing we can be sure of is that there will be more bottom. The rocky start of the administration has just been rocks and more rocks. The one “achievement” of this nonstop freak show has been to empty the treasury to give more money to the rich and dig a deficit that will be paid for by you, one way or another. Other than that one big “win,” chaos.
Every bottom with this crew is, of course, followed by a brief bounce, as Trump’s inexhaustible lack of self-awareness is matched by the media’s inexhaustible capacity to forget or be distracted. Are Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner at least still super-cool? No? Next week maybe? The craving for the alternate storyline of Trump comebacks and regaining of footing has been the background music to our continuing spiral down to ever-new depths of abnormality. Each new level normalizes the one above, as we can now barely remember that the word “virtue” could possibly have a functional meaning.
We are in the process of the abnormalization of the American democracy down to the level of depraved expectations. Nobody expects Trump to be anything other than duplicitous and self-serving, and these slowly become our expectations for everything. The only question remaining is whether that is happening slowly enough that we can right ourselves. We have learned that our blessed institutions are about as durable as cardboard stage sets, as the people we counted on to stand in Trump’s path turned out to be happy to step aside or even trek it with him.
November cannot possibly come soon enough.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rtant-question-about-trump-is-had-enough-yet/
The picture continues to sharpen in its resolution. Donald J. Trump, a man transcendently unfit for the presidency, prowls the White House corridors between television binges, furious and vengeful. His similarly unfit staffers continue to quit or get fired from the impossible job of working for an impossible man. The White House dynamics are self-preservation contending with self-deception contending with self-dealing.
It’s more like self-destruction, as we hit bottom in another week of floundering as Hope literally leaves the premises. And the only thing we can be sure of is that there will be more bottom. The rocky start of the administration has just been rocks and more rocks. The one “achievement” of this nonstop freak show has been to empty the treasury to give more money to the rich and dig a deficit that will be paid for by you, one way or another. Other than that one big “win,” chaos.
Every bottom with this crew is, of course, followed by a brief bounce, as Trump’s inexhaustible lack of self-awareness is matched by the media’s inexhaustible capacity to forget or be distracted. Are Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner at least still super-cool? No? Next week maybe? The craving for the alternate storyline of Trump comebacks and regaining of footing has been the background music to our continuing spiral down to ever-new depths of abnormality. Each new level normalizes the one above, as we can now barely remember that the word “virtue” could possibly have a functional meaning.
We are in the process of the abnormalization of the American democracy down to the level of depraved expectations. Nobody expects Trump to be anything other than duplicitous and self-serving, and these slowly become our expectations for everything. The only question remaining is whether that is happening slowly enough that we can right ourselves. We have learned that our blessed institutions are about as durable as cardboard stage sets, as the people we counted on to stand in Trump’s path turned out to be happy to step aside or even trek it with him.
November cannot possibly come soon enough.
We often treat President Trump’s demands for loyalty from law enforcement, and his open chafing at institutional constraints on his power, as the temperamental explosions of an out-of-control madman and would-be tyrant — of a Mad King. But what if they are driven by calculations that are deliberately designed to achieve a concrete end that he perceives to be the best of a range of possible outcomes for him?
In the case of Trump’s efforts to hamstring the Russia probe, this is becoming increasingly clear. At the same time, those obstruction efforts are failing to bring him closer to his own apparent goals, and may arguably be putting him in greater danger. One might refer to this paradox as Trump’s “irrational instrumentalism.”
The Post has a blockbuster report that tells us that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III is scrutinizing Trump’s efforts to push out Attorney General Jeff Sessions over the summer, to determine “whether those efforts were part of a months-long pattern of attempted obstruction of justice.” ...
As has been widely noted, Trump’s assaults on Sessions, and his calls for prosecution of political opponents, reveal that he views law enforcement as little more than an instrument at his political service. Trump has raged at Sessions for failing to protect him from an investigation that began when he was a candidate, and was taken over by Mueller precisely because of Trump’s own conduct in firing former FBI director James B. Comey. Trump and his allies have gone to extraordinary lengths to pervert and weaponize the congressional oversight process to portray that investigation as illegitimate, but independent reportingand efforts by Democrats to smuggle out basic facts in the face of that massive disinformation campaign have laid waste to those efforts.
...
Again and again, Trump has tried to act toward the obvious concrete end of hamstringing or constraining the probe. Again and again, his efforts have been foiled, and he has recoiled from taking the most drastic steps. This pattern of behavior has not moved him any closer to his own evident goal. Yet the pattern of behavior itself could either prove incriminating or could expose him to substantially worse political peril. Yep: What we’re seeing here is irrational instrumentalism.
Similar threads
