Guns, FLL shooting, and Hypocrisy in the Media

grean - excellent point.
America will never be "single peopled" enough to avoid conflicts created by race, religion, or coffee choice.

The supposed liberal, free-speecher's, are becoming way more violent and threatening than the Muslim population (as a whole)... Honestly, I would worry more about walking through Portland after an election than a Mosque built next to a dynamite factory.

But - you gotta do something, and "like Trump or not", the dude is doing "something" - other than just making speeches.

YES - every time something is changed it probably means a restriction to someone... But how much of a restriction, and the result of that - you almost need to see and judge later. What's happening now is everybody is saying all the horrible things that would happen if you do this or that... grean, you say "The FFL shooting, Orlando & San Bern would not have been prevented by this travel ban..."

OK, but what if it stops the next one in Plano? or Arlington?... thing is, you won't be able to tell right away... but if a year goes by (because we're getting how many now? seems like one a week...), and there's fewer - then maybe? And if the ban did what... slowed down immigration; then what's the down side of that?

America is full of a BUNCH of people right now how HATE the President and his politics...

You know how Trump did that regulation thing, "For every new one, we have to eliminate two old bad ones"?... I wish they could do that with immigration.

(New Law)..."Look, doesn't matter who you are, where your from, what's your beliefs... you've welcome to come into America! But, for every person who come in - who yearns for this great country (and it's GREAT because it's WAY FREAKIN BETTER THAN FROM THE COUNTRIES WHERE EVERYBODY IS COMPLAINING WE"RE STOPPING IMIGRATION FROM)... "You need to search America, find two a-holes who hate it here (look for rioters) - and we kick them OUT!"

Because I do believe, that MOST people trying to get in - are trying to get into here because we're still the best freaking place on the planet - especially compared to the horrible places they are from - where there are ACTUAL problems, and you go out there and break windows as a "peaceful protestor expressing you disdain for the elected official", because they don't glorify you on the news - they hang you in the street. Originally Posted by Scribe

Scribe, I'm hurt....

You made no mention of my Nicolas Cage acting as if he were John Travolta acting like he was Nicolas Cage gif rebuttal to your assertion that I sounded like a warm fuzzy version of JT.

I digress....

Trump doing something is not necessarily good unless it is the right something that doesn't go against what America is. His actons show fear and fear only.

He intended to discriminate based on religion. What ever bull he said about being based on danger was debunked when Guliani admitted Trump wanted a legal Muslim ban.

Forget 2A.....Can we talked about 1A?


Can we talk about an American citizen who also is a reporter and happens to be hispanic being removed from a Trump press conference for asking a question that Trump didn't like and told to go back to his country? This is his country.

It seems the only thing Trump aggrees about in the Constitution is 2A. Let's through 1A out because he doesn't like the Press or Muslims. He would love to sue people or worse ,that talk poorly of gim.

4A and 14A are jokes to Trump and his supreme court nominee has a fucked up interpretation of 5A....

Scribe, I'm hurt....

You made no mention of my Nicolas Cage acting as if he were John Travolta acting like he was Nicolas Cage gif rebuttal to your assertion that I sounded like a warm fuzzy version of JT.

I digress....

Trump doing something is not necessarily good unless it is the right something that doesn't go against what America is. His actons show fear and fear only.

He intended to discriminate based on religion. What ever bull he said about being based on danger was debunked when Guliani admitted Trump wanted a legal Muslim ban.

Forget 2A.....Can we talked about 1A?


Can we talk about an American citizen who also is a reporter and happens to be hispanic being removed from a Trump press conference for asking a question that Trump didn't like and told to go back to his country? This is his country.

It seems the only thing Trump aggrees about in the Constitution is 2A. Let's through 1A out because he doesn't like the Press or Muslims. He would love to sue people or worse ,that talk poorly of gim.

4A and 14A are jokes to Trump and his supreme court nominee has a fucked up interpretation of 5A.... Originally Posted by grean

grean (first - lol, you know I like the dialog).
But to the point in red - no, I'm not certain we can talk about him. I mean, I need your perspective here...

I feel we are discussing "broad issues" (MACRO), so I'll just give you - yes, you name any MICRO issues or rule or anything - and there will be exceptions we can point out and debate one on one. And I'll even "pre-grant" that on any particular MICRO issue - you can make a case (I'll probably respect and agree with you - like the one you referenced).

So what?

Look - no matter how we feel about him, President Trump is EVERY AMERICAN'S PRESIDENT now... (Oh, I didn't elect him! I didn't vote for him! I hate that F#cker!) ... doesn't matter... if you are a US Citizen, and you are not renouncing your Citizenship - he IS your President.

So where you say - Trump doing something is not necessarily good unless it is the right something that doesn't go against what America is. - I would say we are having a MACRO discussion - and in that, he is doing exactly what America wants. (over 50%) ... unless you're trying to say if America isn't 100% in favor**, he's "not representing America"...

**...in which case I would gladly point out there has never been an American President who has represented the desires of America.

I know how vocal your side is... and yes, 20 screaming people SOUND like a lot more than a million sitting quietly, but that's an aural illusion. Don't mistake that for reality.

The Hispanic Reporter thing may or may not be a news story. My next door neighbor showed me that on her instagram last night. Probably best to wait on that one for full details to come to light.


I think a lot of Americans do want exactly what Trump is doing. I think the other half that didn't vote for him but he is like you said, their president too now, means he is far from having a mandate, though. Even it he did, just because it is what a majority of people want, doesn't mean it's right. A good leader doesn't always do what people want. He does what is best for them even if they dont agree with it. He will be remembered much better if he starts to act like a better leader instead of a 15 year old school girl throwing out insults on his Twitter account.

These are scary times, no doubt. Catering to the fears of people isn't what America is about.

Fear is what breeds the hatred that fuels these attacks.

I cant believe *sarcasm* that there wasnt a thread when obama restricted access for iraqi refugees. This shit is only an issue because a republican is in office.

I cant believe *sarcasm* that there wasnt a thread when obama restricted access for iraqi refugees. This shit is only an issue because a republican is in office. Originally Posted by mediavolume

+1

Seems this thread needs revived. Bring 2A discussion here.

2A perhaps at one point was intended to be a collective right by the states and not the individual. They could have worded it better if they wanted it to stay that way.

No. It was never intended to be a "State right'. Period. It, as all the other bill of rights, are restrictions on the Federal govt. protecting the rights of individuals.

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

No. It was never intended to be a "State right'. Period. It, as all the other bill of rights, are restrictions on the Federal govt. protecting the rights of individuals.

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788 Originally Posted by texassapper

First, I'm right there with you.

Just devil'sadvocating.

they worded it in such a manner that one could argue that restricting the Federal government doesn't restrict the individual state government. Why mention a regulated militia at all except to suggest there is some expectation of laws by states to regulate state militias.

Why not just say "The people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed" without any other clauses attached?


1A has no such clause and yet free speech is not absolute. Reasonable restrictions have been placed on speech. Inciteful language, or yelling "fire" in a theatre for example, are not protected by 1A.


How can one argue it is unreasonable to place regulations on a right that does include the word "regulated" in the very text?

Regulated did not mean the same thing at the time of the writing of the 2nd Amendment. Well regulated meant properly functioning... there are numerous primary references that prove that as well... regulated had nothing to do with regulations or law.

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

Regulated did not mean the same thing at the time of the writing of the 2nd Amendment. Well regulated meant properly functioning... there are numerous primary references that prove that as well... regulated had nothing to do with regulations or law.

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm Originally Posted by texassapper

Yes, sir.

In order for a group of abled bodied men to form a well functioning group able to defend the state, certainly some regulations or whatever one would call a regulations in that time did exist.

I'll even concede to your point in regards to the meaning of well regulated.

Could you speak to what possible reason there would be for adding a purpose as to why the federal government is forbidden to infringe on our right to bear arms?


As previously asked, why not make a single statement without clauses?" The people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed."

What is the purpose of mentioning a militia? Or even say, "In order to ensure freedom from a would be oppressive government, the people's right to arms shall not be infringed"

They added a purpose that would otherwise be unnecessary to state unless to allow for some state control over it.

Because THAT is the nature of politics... the amendments went through different versions on their way to being passed. the first version of what we know as the 2nd Amendment was quite a bit longer...

"A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

It's called a re-write...things were dropped in order to secure passage. That does not mean that the justification clause is anything other than what it is...a justification. In and of itself it doesn't specify service in the militaia, because as you can read in the initial version the militia was EVERYONE.

Because THAT is the nature of politics... the amendments went through different versions on their way to being passed. the first version of what we know as the 2nd Amendment was quite a bit longer...

"A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

It's called a re-write...things were dropped in order to secure passage. That does not mean that the justification clause is anything other than what it is...a justification. In and of itself it doesn't specify service in the militaia, because as you can read in the initial version the militia was EVERYONE. Originally Posted by texassapper

I'm not certain there was much debate over the substance of the wording as I believe everyone across the board was fearful of a standing army potential to oppress an unarmed people. AntiFederalist and Federalist did however argue over the federal government's ultimate authority over the militia and army.

AntiFederalist and Federalist did however argue over the federal government's ultimate authority over the militia and army. Originally Posted by grean

But that's not what the BoR is. It's restrictions upon the Federal govt. affirming the rights of individuals.