Trump...

[Der_Trihs]

@Monty

Bolding above mine.

The current leader of the Right, the president, painted himself into a corner when he decided that a murderer is an American hero. So the murderer was court-martialed and convicted because he did, in fact, murder someone. Trump pardoned the killer not for any valid reason, but because he had already touted the man as the epitome of all that America stands for. Now that Trump has done that, he’s showing what his idea of government stands for: murder.

He was also calling for his opponent to be murdered in a “Second Amendment solution” during the campaign.

The right wing are terrorists at heart.

[Annoyed]

@Der_Trihs

The Second Amendment specifically talks about an armed organized militia, not random people.

And most people *support *gun control.

Haha, yeah, you’re doing that thing I said you were going to do where you ignore history, context, etc.

Hardly surprising.

[GIGObuster]

@Annoyed

Haha, yeah, you’re doing that thing I said you were going to do where you ignore history, context, etc.

Hardly surprising.

Well, hardly surprising that Annoying man is not able to check even what he requested. Sad.

[Annoyed]

@Der_Trihs

Oh, please; the electoral system is hopelessly corrupt and designed to support the right wing. It barely matters how many people support something, the system is gerrymandered and votes are suppressed and everything possible is done to make sure the right wins. That’s the only reason the Republicans aren’t basically irrelevant in the first place, in a real democracy they’d almost never win elections.

The United States has never, ever been a true representative democracy, so you’re all red-assed about something that you’re both wrong about, and can do nothing about.

You, and the way you think, are the problem. Play by the rules, play by the system, be good leaders and you’ll win elections.

Be shit, and you lose, which is why you’ve got Trump.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Annoyed

The United States has never, ever been a true representative democracy, so you’re all red-assed about something that you’re both wrong about, and can do nothing about.

You, and the way you think, are the problem. Play by the rules, play by the system, be good leaders and you’ll win elections.

Be shit, and you lose, which is why you’ve got Trump.

You can repeat this all you like, it doesn’t make Trump supporters any less stupid or culpable.

[dasmoocher]

@Annoyed

All of the first paragraph is false, ignores historical context and intent, ignores the federalist papers, and is revisionist horseshit.

@Der_Trihs

The Second Amendment specifically talks about an armed organized militia, not random people.

One take on the Second Amendment:

How Alexander Hamilton solved America’s gun problem — 228 years ago

Regardless of your position on guns, two facts are beyond dispute: The National Rifle Association as a lobby is sufficiently powerful to stop confiscation laws dead in their tracks; and the astounding number of guns in America means even that if every gun manufacturer folded tomorrow, generations of Americans would still live in a nation awash in instruments of death, whether said death is directed at animals, intruders, or innocents.

…

The answer is right there in the the Second Amendment, unchanged since it first flowed from the quill of James Madison: “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.”

Ask yourself: For what purpose did the Framers endow militias with such a special place in the Bill of Rights?

…

The Federalist Papers assert that local militias (as opposed to a “regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country”) exist as a formidable check on federal power.

…

By definition, then, a “well-regulated militia” would no longer seem to include the National Guard, which does require formal and sustained military training by the regular Army. At any rate, in its present incarnation, the Guard — as we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan — is a “state” force in name only. In practice, it is a part-time Army Reserve: a national army that happens also to be used for natural disasters in home states.

…

So: If the whole point of the keeping and bearing of arms is to stock “well-regulated militias,” why not mandate militia membership in order to own a gun?

Before this suggestion is dismissed out of hand, I assert that the extremist so-called “militias” in Oregon, Ohio, and elsewhere — these people who live on compounds and confront federal agents — are not militiamen but rather insurrectionists. Insurrectionists should be excluded from this discussion. They surrender any claim to the designation “militia” and any place in civil society.

Proper militias would be comprised of sane men and women who own guns and wish to comply with state law. (And that is key: Militias belong entirely to the states, who regulate them accordingly.) Militias might be formed voluntarily based on like-mindedness and geography. Never forgetting their purpose — the common defense — hunters in north Louisiana, for example, might form their own militia — which in practice would exist as a kind of society or association. State regulation of militias would seek to prevent the radicalization of any such group and thus suppress insurrectionists. Likewise, state laws and local governance from within a militia might find better luck in implementing piecemeal the gun reforms that confound federal legislatures.

Recall Hamilton’s statement of fact that in order to be “well regulated,” a militia should meet once or twice a year. This is key to a militia-based reform (as opposed to an arms-based one) and could easily be accomplished. Precedent exists for large groups of people to assemble for one or two days a year to fulfill a civic obligation, and local governments are quite good at making such assemblies happen, as anyone who has ever been called to jury duty can attest.

TL;DR:

If you want to own a gun, join a militia regulated by the US state you live in that meets periodically for training and organization. It seems like a common opinion is that the Second Amendment does not give citizens the right to bear/own arms just because they want to.

[E-DUB]

@Annoyed

The United States has never, ever been a true representative democracy, so you’re all red-assed about something that you’re both wrong about, and can do nothing about.

You, and the way you think, are the problem. Play by the rules, play by the system, be good leaders and you’ll win elections.

Be shit, and you lose, which is why you’ve got Trump.

No. We have trump- because when both parties nominate unelectible candidates one of them still wins anyway.

[Annoyed]

@E-DUB

No. We have trump- because when both parties nominate unelectible candidates one of them still wins anyway.

This is also true.

[Annoyed]

@dasmoocher

One take on the Second Amendment:

How Alexander Hamilton solved America’s gun problem — 228 years ago

TL;DR:

If you want to own a gun, join a militia regulated by the US state you live in that meets periodically for training and organization. It seems like a common opinion is that the Second Amendment does not give citizens the right to bear/own arms just because they want to.

That is the most embarrassing, revisionist bullshit I’ve read in a while, and just certifies your extreme confirmation bias. It completely redefines what militia means, completely side steps the intent of the amendment, and places the power squarely in the hands of the very people the amendment was supposed to take power from.

It is not, and never has been a “common opinion” that the second is not meant to allow people to own guns “just because they want to”.

This much has been certified in the Supreme Court, and is unquestionable. The second amendment gives citizens the right to own firearms.

It has also been certified that guns that are “In common use today” are protected by the second amendment, and the auto-loading rifle is one of them, just like the musket was back then. That includes the items that make them serviceable, such as ammunition and parts.

You can take snippets from history, have a left winger write an article on how HE interprets the meaning in a way favorable to his views, and you can agree until your face falls off, but it’ll never, ever, make it true.

[Ukulele_Ike]

Annoyed is coming up on his one-hundredth post. Which one of us bakes the cake?

[Buck_Godot]

@Annoyed

The left has killed more people than the right and are continuing to do so to this very day

Cite?

Here’s mine. Wanna show me yours?

[Skypist]

Still arguing with someone who said if the choice was between a Democrat and destruction of all people, he’d vote for destruction. This is the mark of either a troll, an irrational nut case, or both. Probably both in this case. There is really no need to argue with someone about that since their position is obviously insane.

Not intended to tell anyone what to do, just pointing that out. I actually think the topic of this thread is relatively interesting, but instead all we are getting is arguments about gun laws instead of talking about whether or not trump is a social engineering genius.

I hate to post about this because it’s just further feeding the troll, the very thing I am complaining about, but oh well.

[Der_Trihs]

@Annoyed

The United States has never, ever been a true representative democracy, so you’re all red-assed about something that you’re both wrong about, and can do nothing about.

You, and the way you think, are the problem. Play by the rules, play by the system, be good leaders and you’ll win elections.

Nonsense, you win elections by being a corrupt, bigoted right winger. The only rule is that corruption and bigotry win elections, and I’m nowhere near evil enough to be a Republican.

@Skypist

Still arguing with someone who said if the choice was between a Democrat and destruction of all people, he’d vote for destruction. This is the mark of either a troll, an irrational nut case, or both.

He’s a right winger; that’s what they are all about. The Republican party is a death cult; they want to cause as much suffering and death as possible for the sheer joy of doing so.

[El_Kabong]

I wonder if the OP would now agree that maybe this thread was indeed a bit premature.

[Monty]

This isn’t exactly about Trump but it certainly is Trump-related. It’s the first fallout I’ve seen of the House of Representative finally starting to do their constitutional duty regarding the criminal in the White House. A relative has reposted an anti-Pelosi thing on Facebook:

IMPEACH

NANCY

PELOSI

1 SHARE IS 1 SIGNATURE

I think some folks are not aware of how the government works. Anyway, I check the original posts and, no surprise, it’s from someone who’s whining about Greta Thunberg, climate change science, Democrats in general, a bunch of whacked-out nut-job conspiracy theories, mostly centering on the Federal Reserve, and, of course, anti-Pelosi posts up to here. Just more proof to me that today’s Republican Party is not only not interested in science, but is actively engaged in dismissing science, logic, and, you guessed it, reality.