Reality vs. trump supporters

PostmodernProphet said:
lol dude.......no one is still reading this thread......even I wouldn't still be here if it weren't amusing to keep your head spinning.......
Click to expand...

:palm:
Yet your psychotic little brain keeps following and responding/commenting on my threads while claiming either this drivel or that they aren't worth the time.....so why are you here, bunky? I don't follow threads by people who I deem are not worth it...which is why I don't EVER comment on yours, much less read beyond the subject title and see who the author is.

Oh and did you not know that there is a way to check if your thread is still being read by others than yourself? Go check it.

Meanwhile, the OP still stands valid against the brain dead assaults by right wing flunkies like yourself. But keep telling yourself otherwise, as denial is your forte. Carry on.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
don't be ridiculous......I only listen to you contemptuously....
Click to expand...

Then you need to get a life, bunky. I don't waste any time or effort when you and your compadres create your GOP boot licking threads. Maybe you should see a shrink about following someone around you continuously claim is not worth the time or effort.

The OP stands valid....your denial non-withstanding. Carry on.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Then you need to get a life, bunky. I don't waste any time or effort
Click to expand...

really?....because I'm pretty sure you have responded to every single post I have made to this thread at least once......and I posted every single one of them just to make you respond to it.......that's a whole lot of your wasted time and effort given the fact I don't actually pay any attention to what you have to say.........
 
PostmodernProphet said:
really?....because I'm pretty sure you have responded to every single post I have made to this thread at least once......and I posted every single one of them just to make you respond to it.......that's a whole lot of your wasted time and effort given the fact I don't actually pay any attention to what you have to say.........
Click to expand...

Pay no attention as you go through the trouble of typing a response after response to his posts. You really have trouble with logic and thinking.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
really?....because I'm pretty sure you have responded to every single post I have made to this thread at least once......and I posted every single one of them just to make you respond to it.......that's a whole lot of your wasted time and effort given the fact I don't actually pay any attention to what you have to say.........
Click to expand...

Learn to read carefully and comprehensively, bunky. I specifically cites THREADS created, NOT the individual posts YOU put on THE THREAD I CREATED. :rolleyes: I swear I sometimes can't believe you're that dumb to think you can lie on a printed medium that can easily be checked. https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...ity-vs-trump-supporters&p=3486015#post3486015

I take you out of the IA bin every so often since you continuously post on my threads. But you have yet to evolve from the Post Modern Fool you've been all these years. So back in you go, bunky. You'll follow me around like a bitch in heat, but to no avail. Adios
 
Truth Detector said:
The only alternative facts we are getting are coming from the PHONY media and the Democratic Party of the Jackass led by the pathologically lying buffoon Adam Schiff.

Here's an inconvenient fact:

'Nobody Pushed Me.' Ukrainian President Denies Trump Pressured Him to Investigate Biden's Son
https://time.com/5686305/zelensky-ukraine-denies-trump-pressure/
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
Nordberg said:
Hows your well-trained militia meetings?
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that people have the right to have guns for private self defense even if they are not members of the militia.

That said, if you'd like to bring back the militia so people can join and get the right to keep military weapons in their homes, I'm all for that.
 
Taichiliberal said:
You and that other buffoon keep going off OP topic by regurgitating every right wing BS you can remember. "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." Well regulated militia had and have RULES.....so that means that every yahoo with a few bucks can show up with a bazooka and claim he's part of a militia.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that people have the right to keep and bear arms for private self defense even if they are not a member of a militia.

However, militiamen do have the right to have all sorts of fun weapons like machine guns and bazookas, so if you want to bring back the militia for people to join if they choose to do so, I'm all for that.


Taichiliberal said:
So that means that YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN ANY TYPE OF WEAPON YOU WANT, BUT YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO A WEAPON.
Click to expand...
That depends.

The government is only allowed to pass laws that impact a fundamental right if the laws can be justified as serving a compelling government interest.

So if the type of weapon that he wants is so benign that there is no compelling government interest in preventing him from having it, then he does in fact have the right to have that type of weapon.

On the other hand, if the type of weapon that he wants is so dangerous that the government can demonstrate a compelling interest in preventing him from having it, then the government has the authority to step in and pass laws.


Taichiliberal said:
State militia's now exist besides the National Guard....look it up.
Click to expand...
State guards aren't real militias unless they are allowed to have military weapons.


Taichiliberal said:
Ahh, but you left out state organizations of their individual militias. they would fall into your second category. A brief history/explanation:https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/State+militia
Click to expand...
Let me know when state guards start carrying military weapons.


Taichiliberal said:
Try dealing with the FACT that much of went down in the Federalist Papers didn't come down in the final draft of the Constitution in a myriad of ways.
Click to expand...
That doesn't change the fact that Alexander Hamilton's usage of the term "well regulated militia" in the Federalist Papers makes it very clear that the term means a militia that is well trained and well equipped.


Taichiliberal said:
Like it or not, individual STATES have rules and regulations as to the existence of a "militia" outside to the National Guard. Also, there were RULES regarding the "well regulated" weapons used when a militia was called into existence.
Click to expand...
The Second Amendment guarantees that militiamen can have adequate military weapons even if their rules say otherwise.


Taichiliberal said:
Like it or not, RULES & REGULATION were and are part of a militia and pivotal in the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...
I'm sure that militias if they existed today would have rules.

I don't see what the rules would have to do with the Second Amendment however, except for cases when the Second Amendment overturns those rules.


Taichiliberal said:
What is and what you want to be don't jibe in the reality of the current world of law, state and federal.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that people have the right to have guns for private self defense even if they're not members of a militia.


Taichiliberal said:
It's part of the sentence and a comprehensive part of the Amendment.
Click to expand...
The first and last half of the Second Amendment do two separate things.

The first half of the Second Amendment is a requirement that the government always have a militia.

The second half of the Second Amendment protects the preexisting right of people to keep and bear arms.


Taichiliberal said:
Like I said previously, running to the Federalist Papers does NOT justify YOUR interpretation of the FINAL law.
Click to expand...
The Federalist Papers make it clear that the term "well regulated militia" means a militia that is well trained and well equipped.


Taichiliberal said:
Trying to interpret the 2nd amendment to mean that any yahoo who can afford it can get ANY type of weapon they want, walk around with it, cross state lines with it, etc., etc. without any state or federal oversight has NOT passed the litmus test of reality and history in this country. Period.
Click to expand...
That depends on whether the government can justify a gun law as serving a compelling government interest.

If the government cannot justify a gun law as serving a compelling government interest, then that gun law is unconstitutional.

It is only the gun laws that can be justified as serving a compelling government interest that pass constitutional muster.


Taichiliberal said:
And since any law abiding citizen can choose from a plethora of revolvers, semi-autos, shotguns, hunting rifles, etc., AND form a legal militia in some states outside of the National Guard, the clap trap from the current leadership of the NRA just sounds dumb.
Click to expand...
It is reasonable for the NRA to oppose unconstitutional gun laws.


Taichiliberal said:
there are SO many reports and studies showing the effectiveness of various gun laws in various states in conjunction with federal laws,
Click to expand...
Actually statistics are pretty clear that gun availability has little impact on homicide rates.
 
Nordberg said:
Pay no attention as you go through the trouble of typing a response after response to his posts. You really have trouble with logic and thinking.
Click to expand...

This is why I call him the Post Modern Fool....I point out that I don't follow his threads because he's an right wing idiot. Yet he consistently comments on mine, and confuses my periodic responses as equal to his obsession. He just doesn't get it....especially when this system tells you when you're on IA in attempting to post a response on another's thread. I can't tell you how many pages this dunce has filled some of my threads with This message is hidden because PostmodernProphet is on your ignore list. Oh well, life goes on.
 
Anvil Kasseri said:
Keep in mind that people have the right to keep and bear arms for private self defense even if they are not a member of a militia.

However, militiamen do have the right to have all sorts of fun weapons like machine guns and bazookas, so if you want to bring back the militia for people to join if they choose to do so, I'm all for that.



That depends.

The government is only allowed to pass laws that impact a fundamental right if the laws can be justified as serving a compelling government interest.

So if the type of weapon that he wants is so benign that there is no compelling government interest in preventing him from having it, then he does in fact have the right to have that type of weapon.

On the other hand, if the type of weapon that he wants is so dangerous that the government can demonstrate a compelling interest in preventing him from having it, then the government has the authority to step in and pass laws.



State guards aren't real militias unless they are allowed to have military weapons.



Let me know when state guards start carrying military weapons.



That doesn't change the fact that Alexander Hamilton's usage of the term "well regulated militia" in the Federalist Papers makes it very clear that the term means a militia that is well trained and well equipped.



The Second Amendment guarantees that militiamen can have adequate military weapons even if their rules say otherwise.



I'm sure that militias if they existed today would have rules.

I don't see what the rules would have to do with the Second Amendment however, except for cases when the Second Amendment overturns those rules.



Keep in mind that people have the right to have guns for private self defense even if they're not members of a militia.



The first and last half of the Second Amendment do two separate things.

The first half of the Second Amendment is a requirement that the government always have a militia.

The second half of the Second Amendment protects the preexisting right of people to keep and bear arms.



The Federalist Papers make it clear that the term "well regulated militia" means a militia that is well trained and well equipped.



That depends on whether the government can justify a gun law as serving a compelling government interest.

If the government cannot justify a gun law as serving a compelling government interest, then that gun law is unconstitutional.

It is only the gun laws that can be justified as serving a compelling government interest that pass constitutional muster.



It is reasonable for the NRA to oppose unconstitutional gun laws.



Actually statistics are pretty clear that gun availability has little impact on homicide rates.
Click to expand...

1. Your first sentence is a moot point that is not in contention. As to your second sentence, please document any state militia regulations that allow militia members to have the type of weaponry your describe. If you can't, then you are wrong.

2. Wrong. The gov't can only pass laws at the behest of the people "for the general welfare". This is done through representation and majority vote. A process exists to change unjust laws as decreed by legal precedent and will of the people. This is why some yahoo can't have a .50 caliber machine gun mounted on his roof "for protection", but can have semi-auto pistols and long guns inside the house.

3. there are state militias and there is the National Guard, both clearly defined by law federal and state. "state guard" is your neologism, which is not applicable here.

4. See #3.

5. Again, what Hamilton wrote in his personal papers and what he signed off on vary. You want his papers to be directly interpreted as law, then write your congressman and senator (no sarcasm or cynicism intented).

6. Again, your personal interpretation based on the myopia of what weaponry was originally available to militias in the 1700's. As I documented and pointed out, even then you had regulations in the new states. Weaponry evolved, laws changed, but NOTHING as to what you assert. A matter of fact, a matter of history.

7. They do exists, as I've documented. That they don't fit your personal interpretation is irrelevant.

8. Again, a moot point that is NOT the focus of the discussion here.

9. Again, you keep trying to insert your personal interpretation, which requires the treating a part of a comprehensive paragraph as a non-addendum, which is absurd.

10. See #5. Your repetition won't change historical fact and the logic derived from this fact.

11. Projecting various "what if" scenarios is meaningless, as the historical legal precedents as is contradicts your wants, as I've pointed out several times now.

12. The NRA has become a shill for gun manufacturers selling their product. That the leaderships opposes it's own membership regarding extensive background checks should tell you that.

13. Only from a myopic, predisposed viewpoint. Otherwise, the following points to the contrary:

https://www.sciencealert.com/scientific-evidence-that-stricter-gun-control-works-saves-lives

https://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11120184/gun-control-study-international-evidence
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top