test777777
Sergeant
Posts: 322 
Likes: 79
Console: Xbox 360/One & PS4
Preferred server: West
Is R35T a Skreb?: No
Date registered: Dec 7, 2018 9:38:56 GMT
|
Post by test777777 on May 21, 2019 4:35:23 GMT
The 10 amendments to the bill of rights as far as I am aware are supposed to guarantee certain freedoms which can't be taken away at the congressional level. They can be further amended I think but very difficult to do. The president certainly can't on his own. The freedoms expressed in the first amendment and congresses ability to alter is fantastic in principle but A citizen's right to speak or act freely in practice is limited by the social consequence of doing so or their ability to enforce their right. I don't truly understand the laws but Missouri executive order 44 wasn't really legal yet that hardly mattered in that instance. The 2nd Amendment allows the citizens to bare arms but doesn't do much to protect anyone in my opinion. With the 2nd Ammendment specifically it's very open to interpretation and while I'm not sure what precedents have been set in regard to it but each state probably interprets the law differently and there's various restrictions imposed at the state level I would expect. There's likely regulation with what arms are allowed, how they are allowed to be carried, where citizens can go while armed as well. Then there is the right to discharge a loaded weapon and where that can be done and under what circumstance. There's also the possible risk involved with having a registered firearm stolen and used and lots of requirements in relation to storage of and usage of firearms and ammunition I would expect too. This is purely speculative. I would not think a US citizen would have the right to walk into their local watering hole in the USA with a couple of loaded 6 shooter irons on his hips and a 30/30 lever action strapped to his back? Apart from the mockery of looking like he's stepped off the set of a wild west film set, my gut says his 2nd amendment right to do so might be infringed upon by more local laws. I suppose it depends on where he or she might live. I don't lawfully own a weapon in Australia and don't know the extent of the laws in the USA so - I don't know. but the 2nd Amendment won't protect the citizens from a militant government. Test...I see Australia just had a not insignificant election result.
I sincerely applaud your effort to look into our current politics.
I'll just note a couple observations, and I'm sure Cat will chime in as well.
1) The "Bill of Rights" 10 amendments you speak of are actually the first "Ten Amendments" to our Constitution. The First Ten Amendments are part of a total of 33 Amendments that have been added since 1789 and they were added very soon after the Constitution was adopted that year. They are specific guarantees of personal freedoms and rights, clear limitations on the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and explicit declarations that all powers not specifically granted to the U.S. Congress by the Constitution are reserved for the states or the people.
2) 2nd Amendment- The Supreme Court has been very consistent with this just like the other 9 Bill of Rights. In our system, states have the right to pass their local laws and many have tried to place severe restrictions on the 2nd Amendment. thankfully, the Supreme Court declared our Second Amendment rights to be “fundamental” to liberty and therefore binding on the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, which bars any state from denying liberty to any person without due process of law.
3) Once again, states have the right to pass local laws and many have passed laws requiring citizens to pass a course in order to carry their weapon in public. There are currently 24 states that allow a citizen to carry a weapon in plain view in public, and 11 of those don't require any license at all...so in fact...yes you can walk into a "local watering hole" with two six shooters strapped to your hip if you so choose...and of course order a Coca-Cola because alcohol and firearms don't mix. You can even "strap" an AR-15 to your back in many states and walk into a bank to do business if you so choose.
That said many states have laws/statutes that prevent the carrying of weapons in certain areas, primarily schools, Libraries, movie theatres, sporting events, etc. Carrying a weapon on school grounds in my state is a serious offense, but in the case of places of business that post "no guns allowed" they can only ask you to leave if they discover you are carrying a weapon. As long as you leave when they ask there are no issues. I carry concealed so it's never an issue.
Of course you can't carry a weapon into Federal offices such as a Post Office. Hope this clarifies a few things.
Thank you for the education regarding the Bill of Rights. Australia doesn't have a bill of rights and yep we've just re-elected the prime minister. It is required by law that all Citizens vote but democracy is a strange concept when millions of people don't support whoever wins. I'm glad there was no change of govt. - Change is expensive. Specifically regarding the 2nd Amendment. With 11 states not requiring a gun carrier to hold a license, to me implies that the constitution permits 41 states to put conditions on the 2nd ammendment by imposing a license requirement. I'm not a lawyer but that sound like an infringement of the right to bare arms afforded to all citizens. I wasn't aware that some states allowed open carrying of firearms. I would imagine it would make the constabulary rather nervous but it is what it is and I suppose it's worked without local law and order falling apart historically. Liquor and Firearms shouldn't mix which is something we agree on but there's no doubt plenty of irresponsible gun owners and drivers who don't care. On that subject, Overfinch, took a Range Rover and teamed up with Holland and Holland to produce a rather strange concept vehicle which involved all 3 things - booze, guns and driving. Aimed at classic gentry/high society no doubt. I'm not sure if you saw it or not or like Holland and Holland guns but they are phenomenally expensive and exquisitely beautiful things. A pair of 20 Bores featured in the pictures probably cost as much as a range rover. For pics www.autoblog.com/photos/holland-and-holland-range-rover-by-overfinch/ Anyway getting way off topic. There needs to be no corrupt law enforcement officers or anyone else in the legal process for the law to work. In relation to the folk at the top of the food chain, I don't think we will ever know the truth and I don't think anyone will be prosecuted to the extent of the law. Doing so would set a dangerous precedent for those in office. Bill Clinton wasn't found guilty of Perjury or Obstructing Justice back when he was impeached. The intelligence relating to Weapons of Mass Distruction in Iraq? Was there ever intelligence of that nature? Was anyone deliberately mislead? We don't know. This situation seems a bit different in that there appears to be a lot unrelated people who seem to be attempting to unseat the president through unlawful means and that's very interesting. I think the question of Why is quite important. I'd like to know where the motivation to do so comes from. |
|
test777777
Sergeant
Posts: 322
Likes: 79
Console: Xbox 360/One & PS4
Preferred server: West
Is R35T a Skreb?: No
Date registered: Dec 7, 2018 9:38:56 GMT
|
Post by test777777 on May 21, 2019 5:43:41 GMT
The 10 amendments to the bill of rights as far as I am aware are supposed to guarantee certain freedoms which can't be taken away at the congressional level. They can be further amended I think but very difficult to do. The president certainly can't on his own. The freedoms expressed in the first amendment and congresses ability to alter is fantastic in principle but A citizen's right to speak or act freely in practice is limited by the social consequence of doing so or their ability to enforce their right. I don't truly understand the laws but Missouri executive order 44 wasn't really legal yet that hardly mattered in that instance. The 2nd Amendment allows the citizens to bare arms but doesn't do much to protect anyone in my opinion. With the 2nd Ammendment specifically it's very open to interpretation and while I'm not sure what precedents have been set in regard to it but each state probably interprets the law differently and there's various restrictions imposed at the state level I would expect. There's likely regulation with what arms are allowed, how they are allowed to be carried, where citizens can go while armed as well. Then there is the right to discharge a loaded weapon and where that can be done and under what circumstance. There's also the possible risk involved with having a registered firearm stolen and used and lots of requirements in relation to storage of and usage of firearms and ammunition I would expect too. This is purely speculative. I would not think a US citizen would have the right to walk into their local watering hole in the USA with a couple of loaded 6 shooter irons on his hips and a 30/30 lever action strapped to his back? Apart from the mockery of looking like he's stepped off the set of a wild west film set, my gut says his 2nd amendment right to do so might be infringed upon by more local laws. I suppose it depends on where he or she might live. I don't lawfully own a weapon in Australia and don't know the extent of the laws in the USA so - I don't know. but the 2nd Amendment won't protect the citizens from a militant government. "Doesn't do much to protect anyone..." - Explain further, please? "With the 2nd Ammendment specifically it's very open to interpretation and while I'm not sure what precedents have been set in regard to it but each state probably interprets the law differently and there's various restrictions imposed at the state level I would expect.
There's likely regulation with what arms are allowed, how they are allowed to be carried, where citizens can go while armed as well. Then there is the right to discharge a loaded weapon and where that can be done and under what circumstance. There's also the possible risk involved with having a registered firearm stolen and used and lots of requirements in relation to storage of and usage of firearms and ammunition I would expect too. This is purely speculative."Unfortunately some people can't understand the '...shall not be infringed.' part of the 2nd. They then point out 'But it says the militia can bear arms!' Let's just forget that 'right of the people' part of the 2nd.... Tell me, why does the militia need to have a codified rule telling them that they can bear arms, in a document that outlines freedoms for all citizens? If the citizens are defined as the militia, then why are they not allowed to use the same small arms as the regular army? That's the definition of 'well regulated' in context of that time - in proper working order. Can't have a properly working militia if the people can't use the same arms as the military. Yes, machineguns are included in that list. If it can be carried by a single infantryman, it should be allowed for civilian possession. There has already been legal precedent in the Supreme Court that states that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, unconnected to service in the militia. (DC v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)). Not to mention numerous other legal decisions outlining people's right to carry, which are typically ignored by the larger Liberal cities/states. Also see: McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) / Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016)
It's funny that the 2nd seems to be the only right that is so heavily regulated, in current terms and not back then, when it comes to exercising that right. You don't have to pay $200 if you want to preach on a sidewalk; You don't have to carry your permit excusing you from housing soldiers without your consent; You don't need to have a background check prior to a search of your belongings; You don't need to pass a test to keep your right to due process for a year, etc. etc. I believe that Constitutional carry is how the 2nd was intended, that citizens have the absolute right to carry what they feel best protects their families lives, as well as their own. If a person is considered too dangerous to have a firearm, why are they walking free in the first place? "but the 2nd Amendment won't protect the citizens from a militant government."Pure unadulterated horseshit. The 2nd is the roadblock against that type of government even being established. A government that knows it's people are armed, far in excess of the government's own military, will not attempt to control the populace by force. There will be millions killed if that's attempted here, and I'm willing to bet there are far more patriots in the military and civilian populace than those that would be against them. "bUt MuH dRoNeS!" - When you kill the drone operator and his family, do you think the other drone pilots would be willing to continue to fly missions against the citizens? If it got to the point where government bombs were dropping on families in that type of war, do you think women and children would be off limits? That is what our country would face if a tyrannical government attempted to pull that kind of shit. I think we agree in relation to the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. I see militia as the free people and the infringements being imposed on the 2nd amendment in the way of licensing and such is debatably legal, since the 2nd amendment suggests the right should not be infringed upon. I suppose, the size of ones armory is intrinsically tied to a person's bank balance. Free people have the right but only if they can afford it. Sounds a bit like health care and other liberties except arguably good legal council. Regarding the right to a weapon not protecting anyone. Guns are designed to kill. I see things differently when we are talking Apex Predators in the wild but for day to day living. The threat imposed by being shot at can create apprehension and give a human threat pause to consider the course of action but if someone wants to harm you with their firearm and knows how to use it effectively, owning a gun will do nothing to protect you or your family because they will shoot first. Further police seem to be more likely to shoot first, ask questions later when all suspects are considered armed and therefore dangerous. Regarding your objection to my view of the scenario of a hostile takeover by a militant government. I don't agree. I don't believe there is enough conviction in the civilian population and it's certainly far from organised. Pockets of resistance would just be overwhelmed by superior forces and the majority of civilian population wouldn't resist at all preferring to roll over when the guns, tanks, weaponised UAVs and dead bodies came out. The 2nd amendment wouldn't prevent that scenario in the modern age of mechanised and technological warfare. I do think though, the USA has built enough precautions in to it's systems to make it near impossible for an internal military takeover. |
|
test777777
Sergeant
Posts: 322
Likes: 79
Console: Xbox 360/One & PS4
Preferred server: West
Is R35T a Skreb?: No
Date registered: Dec 7, 2018 9:38:56 GMT
|
Post by test777777 on May 21, 2019 6:44:35 GMT
You are correct in relation to the two examples. It wasn't my intention to suggest an equivalency with the examples. Trumps campaign promises to be fair, in my honest opinion weren't lies and were made with the best of intention but unrealistic in my opinion. Nevertheless, if it was a lie, I do think there is moral equivalency. A lie is a lie whether there's collusion involved or whether it's said under oath or not from a moral standpoint in my opinion. Lawfully they are different things. I have absolutely no faith in the integrity of the system itself when it comes to truth. We will never know all of the truths and I also believe that even if we did, knowing it wouldn't serve our interests any better than not knowing it. Is Trump or his subordinates guilty of subverting the course of justice or even of perjury prior or during his time in office? Probably in my opinion. That opinion though, I hold for essentially all in office. What will come out of this one? Who knows? I don't believe the whole Truth will be known nor Justice will be done. It will be expensive mind you. Let’s look at each statement. You say that if Trump’s statement about the wall was a lie then there is equivalency between that and the attempted coup? I’m sorry, I can’t go along with that in any way, shape or form. Assuming that it was a lie, he didn’t use the powers of the federal government to advance that lie, which was the case in the Mueller hoax. The wall, mostly, remains unbuilt. It may in fact get paid for in the form of a level playing field with Mexico in the form of increased revenues that result from a more equitable deal, tariff wise The integrity of the system is affirmed when the constitution is enforced by those entrusted to do so. That integrity is earned and so far, I haven’t seen any abuses of power by the Trump administration. An example of what the mainstream media in this country calls obstruction, Trump wanting to fire Mueller, is not obstruction. If there was a crime committed, the evidence and facts are there regardless of who investigates. Therefore the president is well within his powers as assigned to the Executive branch. Obstruction takes place when the evidence is withheld, tampered with or destroyed. Firing the person running that show does not indicate obstruction. Trump or his subordinates subverting Justice or even committing perjury? If that would have happened, it would have been all over the media, complete with examples. There is a legal trick used by many prosecutors and jurisdictions in this country. It is called a Perjury Trap. It’s where you get interrogated one day with a set of questions and then are brought back in at a later time and interrogated again, except the questions are often asked in a different way. If any answer is different, even as simple as times given about events, it is considered Perjury. That is why so many in the mainstream media here wanted the president to sit down and give sworn testimony. Just a single different answer would give them the Perjury crime that they so desperately seek. Again, the truth is out there. It will eventually come out. A lie is a lie whether legal or not - both are morally on equal footing in my book. Campaign promises which aren't met do not break the law as far as I know but in my opinion, most campaigners don't seek to mislead so it's technically not really a lie - they just get a tad overzealous when making promises which they fully intend to deliver on but don't come to fruition when reality kicks in. Now assuming it was a lie, he used campaign funds and his position as a candidate to promote and spread it which promoted his position of presidency. Trump has certainly not been impeached while others who have been involved with illegally undermining his presidency may well be. He has not been found guilty of doing things illegally as the president but in my opinion he's guilty of "bringing the office of the presidency into ill repute" and being a corporate bully during his presidency. |
|
Atom Priest
Captain
Posts: 1,183
Likes: 389
Is R35T a Skreb?: No
Date registered: Feb 14, 2016 0:04:53 GMT
|
Post by Atom Priest on May 21, 2019 8:57:45 GMT
I wish we had a 2A in this country. How can self defense not be a right? WTF.
|
|
CatSnipah
Lieutenant
Catnip Commander
Posts: 532
Likes: 314
Console: Xbox one
Preferred server: East
Clan tag: [BNKR]
Is R35T a Skreb?: Yes
Mini-Profile Name Color: 096ab1
Mini-Profile Text Color: 096ab1
Date registered: Feb 23, 2016 13:13:03 GMT
|
Post by CatSnipah on May 21, 2019 12:46:49 GMT
"Doesn't do much to protect anyone..." - Explain further, please? "With the 2nd Ammendment specifically it's very open to interpretation and while I'm not sure what precedents have been set in regard to it but each state probably interprets the law differently and there's various restrictions imposed at the state level I would expect.
There's likely regulation with what arms are allowed, how they are allowed to be carried, where citizens can go while armed as well. Then there is the right to discharge a loaded weapon and where that can be done and under what circumstance. There's also the possible risk involved with having a registered firearm stolen and used and lots of requirements in relation to storage of and usage of firearms and ammunition I would expect too. This is purely speculative."Unfortunately some people can't understand the '...shall not be infringed.' part of the 2nd. They then point out 'But it says the militia can bear arms!' Let's just forget that 'right of the people' part of the 2nd.... Tell me, why does the militia need to have a codified rule telling them that they can bear arms, in a document that outlines freedoms for all citizens? If the citizens are defined as the militia, then why are they not allowed to use the same small arms as the regular army? That's the definition of 'well regulated' in context of that time - in proper working order. Can't have a properly working militia if the people can't use the same arms as the military. Yes, machineguns are included in that list. If it can be carried by a single infantryman, it should be allowed for civilian possession. There has already been legal precedent in the Supreme Court that states that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, unconnected to service in the militia. (DC v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)). Not to mention numerous other legal decisions outlining people's right to carry, which are typically ignored by the larger Liberal cities/states. Also see: McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) / Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016)
It's funny that the 2nd seems to be the only right that is so heavily regulated, in current terms and not back then, when it comes to exercising that right. You don't have to pay $200 if you want to preach on a sidewalk; You don't have to carry your permit excusing you from housing soldiers without your consent; You don't need to have a background check prior to a search of your belongings; You don't need to pass a test to keep your right to due process for a year, etc. etc. I believe that Constitutional carry is how the 2nd was intended, that citizens have the absolute right to carry what they feel best protects their families lives, as well as their own. If a person is considered too dangerous to have a firearm, why are they walking free in the first place? "but the 2nd Amendment won't protect the citizens from a militant government."Pure unadulterated horseshit. The 2nd is the roadblock against that type of government even being established. A government that knows it's people are armed, far in excess of the government's own military, will not attempt to control the populace by force. There will be millions killed if that's attempted here, and I'm willing to bet there are far more patriots in the military and civilian populace than those that would be against them. "bUt MuH dRoNeS!" - When you kill the drone operator and his family, do you think the other drone pilots would be willing to continue to fly missions against the citizens? If it got to the point where government bombs were dropping on families in that type of war, do you think women and children would be off limits? That is what our country would face if a tyrannical government attempted to pull that kind of shit. I think we agree in relation to the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. I see militia as the free people and the infringements being imposed on the 2nd amendment in the way of licensing and such is debatably legal, since the 2nd amendment suggests the right should not be infringed upon. I suppose, the size of ones armory is intrinsically tied to a person's bank balance. Free people have the right but only if they can afford it. Sounds a bit like health care and other liberties except arguably good legal council. Regarding the right to a weapon not protecting anyone. Guns are designed to kill. I see things differently when we are talking Apex Predators in the wild but for day to day living. The threat imposed by being shot at can create apprehension and give a human threat pause to consider the course of action but if someone wants to harm you with their firearm and knows how to use it effectively, owning a gun will do nothing to protect you or your family because they will shoot first. Further police seem to be more likely to shoot first, ask questions later when all suspects are considered armed and therefore dangerous. Regarding your objection to my view of the scenario of a hostile takeover by a militant government. I don't agree. I don't believe there is enough conviction in the civilian population and it's certainly far from organised. Pockets of resistance would just be overwhelmed by superior forces and the majority of civilian population wouldn't resist at all preferring to roll over when the guns, tanks, weaponised UAVs and dead bodies came out. The 2nd amendment wouldn't prevent that scenario in the modern age of mechanised and technological warfare. I do think though, the USA has built enough precautions in to it's systems to make it near impossible for an internal military takeover. You grossly underestimate the American psyche. But as I stated earlier, that fact doesn't surprise me, as you have no true basis for what it really means to be a true American. I'd rather die than live under an oppressive government. There are many who feel that way. What news you get abroad hides these things because it doesn't fit the globalist liberal agenda. |
|
Snorelacks
Captain
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 1,255
Console: Xbox one
Clan tag: [BNKR]
Is R35T a Skreb?: No
Date registered: Feb 14, 2016 15:32:33 GMT
|
Post by Snorelacks on May 21, 2019 13:35:02 GMT
Test...I see Australia just had a not insignificant election result.
I sincerely applaud your effort to look into our current politics.
I'll just note a couple observations, and I'm sure Cat will chime in as well.
1) The "Bill of Rights" 10 amendments you speak of are actually the first "Ten Amendments" to our Constitution. The First Ten Amendments are part of a total of 33 Amendments that have been added since 1789 and they were added very soon after the Constitution was adopted that year. They are specific guarantees of personal freedoms and rights, clear limitations on the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and explicit declarations that all powers not specifically granted to the U.S. Congress by the Constitution are reserved for the states or the people.
2) 2nd Amendment- The Supreme Court has been very consistent with this just like the other 9 Bill of Rights. In our system, states have the right to pass their local laws and many have tried to place severe restrictions on the 2nd Amendment. thankfully, the Supreme Court declared our Second Amendment rights to be “fundamental” to liberty and therefore binding on the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, which bars any state from denying liberty to any person without due process of law.
3) Once again, states have the right to pass local laws and many have passed laws requiring citizens to pass a course in order to carry their weapon in public. There are currently 24 states that allow a citizen to carry a weapon in plain view in public, and 11 of those don't require any license at all...so in fact...yes you can walk into a "local watering hole" with two six shooters strapped to your hip if you so choose...and of course order a Coca-Cola because alcohol and firearms don't mix. You can even "strap" an AR-15 to your back in many states and walk into a bank to do business if you so choose.
That said many states have laws/statutes that prevent the carrying of weapons in certain areas, primarily schools, Libraries, movie theatres, sporting events, etc. Carrying a weapon on school grounds in my state is a serious offense, but in the case of places of business that post "no guns allowed" they can only ask you to leave if they discover you are carrying a weapon. As long as you leave when they ask there are no issues. I carry concealed so it's never an issue.
Of course you can't carry a weapon into Federal offices such as a Post Office. Hope this clarifies a few things.
Thank you for the education regarding the Bill of Rights. Australia doesn't have a bill of rights and yep we've just re-elected the prime minister. It is required by law that all Citizens vote but democracy is a strange concept when millions of people don't support whoever wins. I'm glad there was no change of govt. - Change is expensive. Specifically regarding the 2nd Amendment. With 11 states not requiring a gun carrier to hold a license, to me implies that the constitution permits 41 states to put conditions on the 2nd ammendment by imposing a license requirement. I'm not a lawyer but that sound like an infringement of the right to bare arms afforded to all citizens. I wasn't aware that some states allowed open carrying of firearms. I would imagine it would make the constabulary rather nervous but it is what it is and I suppose it's worked without local law and order falling apart historically. Liquor and Firearms shouldn't mix which is something we agree on but there's no doubt plenty of irresponsible gun owners and drivers who don't care. On that subject, Overfinch, took a Range Rover and teamed up with Holland and Holland to produce a rather strange concept vehicle which involved all 3 things - booze, guns and driving. Aimed at classic gentry/high society no doubt. I'm not sure if you saw it or not or like Holland and Holland guns but they are phenomenally expensive and exquisitely beautiful things. A pair of 20 Bores featured in the pictures probably cost as much as a range rover. For pics www.autoblog.com/photos/holland-and-holland-range-rover-by-overfinch/ Anyway getting way off topic. There needs to be no corrupt law enforcement officers or anyone else in the legal process for the law to work. In relation to the folk at the top of the food chain, I don't think we will ever know the truth and I don't think anyone will be prosecuted to the extent of the law. Doing so would set a dangerous precedent for those in office. Bill Clinton wasn't found guilty of Perjury or Obstructing Justice back when he was impeached. The intelligence relating to Weapons of Mass Distruction in Iraq? Was there ever intelligence of that nature? Was anyone deliberately mislead? We don't know. This situation seems a bit different in that there appears to be a lot unrelated people who seem to be attempting to unseat the president through unlawful means and that's very interesting. I think the question of Why is quite important. I'd like to know where the motivation to do so comes from. Test....A citizen can own as many firearms as he or she choses to do in all 50 states for the purpose of protection, or quite simply because he/she just wants to own them. There is no restriction whatsoever on the "Right" to own a firearm. None of the 50 states can prohibit you from carrying a firearm in public; however, they can require you to pass a reasonable proficiency test and go through a background check. For the record, I believe in Constitutional Carry as Jester has pointed out in his previous post. |
|
|
Post by JesterUSMC on May 21, 2019 13:54:29 GMT
Forget the fact that there are, conservatively, 400,000,000+ firearms in the hands of the public in the US (Which happens to be nearly half of the total number of private firearms owned in the entire world) - freebeacon.com/culture/report-nearly-400-million-civilian-owned-guns-america/ . Again, even if 10% of the US population stood up to the military (Which, just for shits and giggles we'll PRETEND that 100% of the military was against the civilian population) The numbers are NOT on the military's side. Total Active duty members of the military are around 1,400,000. Reserve numbers are around 800,000. Total out to about 2,200,000. That's 2.2 million members of the military for all job descriptions, cooks, maintenance, infantry, pilots, etc. Now, even if only 10% of the gun owners in the US rise up against the full might of the US military; Keep in mind that this is absolutely impossible for 100% of the military to go against the civilian population - Where do you think the families of those in the military live? Hint - It's not on base for the most part. There would be a bloodbath of Biblical proportions on both sides. Military, 'insurgents' and non-combatants. The military would have to go scorched Earth to even stand a chance, and it would have to be overwhelming and precise. Do you think the non-combatant side of the equation would not mind if their families and homes were destroyed for simply being near 'insurgent' activity? Just look at Afghanistan and see how that turned out for the US. Remember, the ENTIRE population of Afghanistan is only 36,000,000 - A fraction of a % of that number was hostile towards our military and yet, after about 18 years, we are still fighting over there. Our superior technology hasn't been able to wipe out low-IQ religious fanatics with rusty AK-47's and RPGs and virtually no armored vehicles. You honestly believe that the US population wouldn't stand a chance against the same military with multiple times the number of fighters and even more times the number of weapons and ammo on their side? Where are the US military's weapons, ammo, tanks, fuel, and planes made? By whom? Where would the 'insurgency' target to end that flow of supplies? Who would the 'insurgency' target to demoralize the military? In an all-out war like I've explained, no one is off limits and millions will die on both sides. Luckily, this is just fiction, as the military is made up of volunteers that would never turn on the civilian population - Their friends, families, neighbors - And would wipe out any part of the military that attempted to do so. The fact that over 400,000,000 firearms are in circulation in the US is enough of a deterrent on it's own to stop anyone from trying that. |
|
|
Post by JesterUSMC on May 21, 2019 13:56:29 GMT
|
|
DerailedWingnut
Lieutenant
Dirty Chinese Cartoons Loving Fuck
Journalists are the lowest form of a human.
Posts: 965
Likes: 1,151
Console: Xbox One
Is R35T a Skreb?: No
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"https://i.imgur.com/7bzSEZE.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 5cc824
Mini-Profile Text Color: fcf81a
Date registered: Oct 5, 2017 4:57:30 GMT
|
Post by DerailedWingnut on May 21, 2019 14:09:12 GMT
I wish we had a 2A in this country. How can self defense not be a right? WTF. I've always thought that it was weird that there was stories from the UK of people defending their home from invaders and being arrested for it. Not that that kind of stuff can't happen here too, hell people sue when they get hurt WHILE breaking into peoples homes. See: www.protectamerica.com/home-security-blog/spotlight/5-cases-where-the-burglar-sued-homeowner_14222 However it seems to be the default result for the situation in the UK. |
|
|
Post by JesterUSMC on May 21, 2019 14:20:05 GMT
So, any bets on what the upcoming reveal will be about the FISA documents?
Was George Papadopoulos spied on, like AG Barr claimed?
|
|
El Materdor43
Lieutenant
Perpetual Potato
Posts: 552
Likes: 425
Console: Xbox One
Preferred server: East
Is R35T a Skreb?: No
Date registered: Feb 13, 2016 17:12:47 GMT
|
Post by El Materdor43 on May 21, 2019 17:24:24 GMT
Let’s look at each statement. You say that if Trump’s statement about the wall was a lie then there is equivalency between that and the attempted coup? I’m sorry, I can’t go along with that in any way, shape or form. Assuming that it was a lie, he didn’t use the powers of the federal government to advance that lie, which was the case in the Mueller hoax. The wall, mostly, remains unbuilt. It may in fact get paid for in the form of a level playing field with Mexico in the form of increased revenues that result from a more equitable deal, tariff wise The integrity of the system is affirmed when the constitution is enforced by those entrusted to do so. That integrity is earned and so far, I haven’t seen any abuses of power by the Trump administration. An example of what the mainstream media in this country calls obstruction, Trump wanting to fire Mueller, is not obstruction. If there was a crime committed, the evidence and facts are there regardless of who investigates. Therefore the president is well within his powers as assigned to the Executive branch. Obstruction takes place when the evidence is withheld, tampered with or destroyed. Firing the person running that show does not indicate obstruction. Trump or his subordinates subverting Justice or even committing perjury? If that would have happened, it would have been all over the media, complete with examples. There is a legal trick used by many prosecutors and jurisdictions in this country. It is called a Perjury Trap. It’s where you get interrogated one day with a set of questions and then are brought back in at a later time and interrogated again, except the questions are often asked in a different way. If any answer is different, even as simple as times given about events, it is considered Perjury. That is why so many in the mainstream media here wanted the president to sit down and give sworn testimony. Just a single different answer would give them the Perjury crime that they so desperately seek. Again, the truth is out there. It will eventually come out. A lie is a lie whether legal or not - both are morally on equal footing in my book. Campaign promises which aren't met do not break the law as far as I know but in my opinion, most campaigners don't seek to mislead so it's technically not really a lie - they just get a tad overzealous when making promises which they fully intend to deliver on but don't come to fruition when reality kicks in. Now assuming it was a lie, he used campaign funds and his position as a candidate to promote and spread it which promoted his position of presidency. Trump has certainly not been impeached while others who have been involved with illegally undermining his presidency may well be. He has not been found guilty of doing things illegally as the president but in my opinion he's guilty of "bringing the office of the presidency into ill repute" and being a corporate bully during his presidency. While the Russia hoax is a lie, it’s different with respect to how and the extent it was carried out. The Obama DOJ absolutely abused their powers, using the FISA court, which is a counter intelligence instrument, to gather information for the express purpose of harming Trump politically. I will restate the Wall assertion. It may very well get paid for the way I laid out. Again, let’s assume for the sake of argument that Trump knowingly lied about it. He did not abuse any powers in implementing the lie. He did not plant spies in Mexico for the purpose of intelligence gathering. He did not destroy the reputations of anyone, unlike the DOJ when they SWAT style invaded the home of Paul Manafort, slandered Gen. Michael Flynn via Perjury Trap and George Papadopolous. If you wish to say the the lie is unethical, I can entertain that but to equate a lie with an abuse of intelligence gathering powers, I can’t go there. The two are entirely different Lets look at another example from his predecessor. Health care Obama routinely told people that if they liked their doctor, they could keep them He also told folks they would save $2500 per month, on which I think he probably misspoke He also told folks that they would retain their insurance plans if they liked them. All of those assertions were lies but he didn’t abuse the intelligence gathering machine to affect those lies Again, a lie is not good but it is different from abusing governmental powers |
|
test777777
Sergeant
Posts: 322
Likes: 79
Console: Xbox 360/One & PS4
Preferred server: West
Is R35T a Skreb?: No
Date registered: Dec 7, 2018 9:38:56 GMT
|
Post by test777777 on May 22, 2019 8:00:09 GMT
You grossly underestimate the American psyche. But as I stated earlier, that fact doesn't surprise me, as you have no true basis for what it really means to be a true American. I'd rather die than live under an oppressive government. There are many who feel that way. What news you get abroad hides these things because it doesn't fit the globalist liberal agenda. Fair call, I'm not American and while the country that I live in is highly influenced by Americanism and see aspects of it, I'm not born nor bred in the USA so have not had US cultural values shoved down my throat and reinforced on a day to day basis. There are a lot of different characters and personalities and beliefs in relation to what a True American is no doubt and an ideal USA probably looks different to different Americans. The scenario was completely hypothetical I just don't see guns saving too many lives in the US civilian population today. When you refer to news abroad, I have access to similar sources as you. I have often thought of Australian Culture being very similar to US culture only a decade or so behind. I grew up on Sesame Street and comic books where twinkies and baseball cards were being advertised for as long as I can remember, From comic books to Disney, watching Westerns, John Wayne, Lee Marvin, Clint Eastwood and classics like Shane. I loved Disney's Davey Crockett and old Yella as a kid. I still listen to Marty Robbins's music. His western Ballads remind me of my childhood heroes. More recently I got teary watching Hacksaw Ridge and choked up when Clinton's administration in 1997 recognised African American heroes of WW2 by awarding the Medal of Honour. I respect liberty and true justice and love it when honesty and doing the tough and hard yards bears fruit and hate seeing cheats and liars profit while the battlers struggle. I have very little time for political correctness or current pop cultural values and minimal respect for most things bureaucratic and feel that many of the freedoms I once enjoyed have been eroded by over regulation because overwhelmingly, people can't regulate themselves. I do enjoy the amount of choice and lifestyle I am able to afford and absolutely despise the political pandering that costs so much money. I'm not an American, let alone a True American but I'm a little old school which gets me into trouble regularly and value wise probably made of similar stuff to whatever a True American is. When it comes to US politics, there is a Global impact which is relevant to me. I'd very much like truth and justice to be outcomes in this ongoing saga and the government left to be able to govern but I fear that our political systems are killing the true American/true Australian inside. Core values will be compromised and beliefs will be re-shaped. Justice will not be served. It's probably the closest we can get to encouraging the integrity of people in power but I don't see much changing. Sorry if I've derailed this thread, i'm not trying to do that. I wouldn't say I'm pro Trump but it's more the way he presides rather than what he supposedly stands for or how effective in Making America Great again he is being. I don't know if the USA is better as a result of his influence or not. Bringing it back around on topic. edition.cnn.com/2019/05/22/politics/donald-trump-nancy-pelosi-impeachment-infrastructure/index.htmlSo Pelosi's reporting that Trump has refused Subpoenas which is obstruction of Justice but is reluctant to commence Impeachment? Either he did or he didn't. She's on record as saying he did. If he didn't then is that not slander? If he did, is it a presidential privilege to do so under certain conditions/circumstances? Why delay it if there's a case? Doesn't she have a mandate to commence or am I missing something? |
|
test777777
Sergeant
Posts: 322
Likes: 79
Console: Xbox 360/One & PS4
Preferred server: West
Is R35T a Skreb?: No
Date registered: Dec 7, 2018 9:38:56 GMT
|
Post by test777777 on May 22, 2019 9:26:28 GMT
A lie is a lie whether legal or not - both are morally on equal footing in my book. Campaign promises which aren't met do not break the law as far as I know but in my opinion, most campaigners don't seek to mislead so it's technically not really a lie - they just get a tad overzealous when making promises which they fully intend to deliver on but don't come to fruition when reality kicks in. Now assuming it was a lie, he used campaign funds and his position as a candidate to promote and spread it which promoted his position of presidency. Trump has certainly not been impeached while others who have been involved with illegally undermining his presidency may well be. He has not been found guilty of doing things illegally as the president but in my opinion he's guilty of "bringing the office of the presidency into ill repute" and being a corporate bully during his presidency. While the Russia hoax is a lie, it’s different with respect to how and the extent it was carried out. All of those assertions were lies but he didn’t abuse the intelligence gathering machine to affect those lies Again, a lie is not good but it is different from abusing governmental powers It can be, it probably depends on the knock on, impact and damage. I, inadvertantly clipped your Obama Examples of lieing. If we're talking the requirements to get the preferred outcomes. There is no doubt in my mind, behind closed doors and on the international level, there's illegal collusion and/or telling untruths going on. Countries are just massive Corporations and what world leaders say have massive influence on economies. Discovering it and proving it on the other hand. Some are better than others at that. I'll also go as far as to say, sometimes the system doesn't work to get a preferred and timely outcome and sometimes the Truth can be devastating to Bobby and Barbie Citizen who are better off believing they don't ever benefit from lies made by congressmen/women. But who decides whether it's OK or if it's ever OK. Officially it's never OK. Operating outside of the law is never OK. Unofficially - it's results that count, not necessarily how one gets them. I think the truth can have severe consequences sometimes. Why do I hear Jack Nicholson's voice and the words of "you can't handle the Truth" ? Of the top of my head here's some examples relating to US Presidency where lies and or collusion have been involved - I'm not sure how much Justice or benefit is involved with any of it but this comes back to my belief that it's almost expected behaviour of those who are in office by their peers to skirt the boundaries of legality to make stuff happen. I think to the American People - The office of the President is sacred. There's no doubt in my mind that Trump is Guilty of stuff and I question his brand of politics but he's holding his own and then some. Adding to that, I think the push to out him has been too desperate, reckless and stupid and there will be fallout and consequence. To those examples. George W Bush and WMD to justify invasion of Iraq, possible collusion with Tony Blair? and possibly lied to international Public to encourage a Coalition of the Willing. JFK Assasination - Lee Harvey Oswald or something else? Johnston and the Gulf of Tonkin who fired first BS Blatant lies, and likely influenced the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution being made legal. Was it Johnston who ordered carpet bombing of Cambodia? Another Vietnam war thing? Nixon/Johnston/FBI/South Vietnam president phone taps late 1960s and Vietnam War era got away with that but then Nixon's Watergate scandal, difficult to dodge that one- he resigned. 70s? Did the Government prosecute? nope, Ford let him off. citing something about it being too costly to prosecute. Bill Clinton - Impeached and found not guilty yet lied on oath and deliberately attempted to alter the course of Justice. Barrack Obama - Various lies relating to Obama Care. I don't know the ins and outs of these despite believing Obama to be a great example of leadership with his above the table conduct. I don't know if Obama has lied on Oath in relation to the Trump/Russia thing but I think he was found to be untruthful during his presidency about some things. I do hope it's dealt with soon and some positives come out of it. |
|
CatSnipah
Lieutenant
Catnip Commander
Posts: 532
Likes: 314
Console: Xbox one
Preferred server: East
Clan tag: [BNKR]
Is R35T a Skreb?: Yes
Mini-Profile Name Color: 096ab1
Mini-Profile Text Color: 096ab1
Date registered: Feb 23, 2016 13:13:03 GMT
|
Post by CatSnipah on May 22, 2019 10:28:56 GMT
A lie is a lie whether legal or not - both are morally on equal footing in my book. Campaign promises which aren't met do not break the law as far as I know but in my opinion, most campaigners don't seek to mislead so it's technically not really a lie - they just get a tad overzealous when making promises which they fully intend to deliver on but don't come to fruition when reality kicks in. Now assuming it was a lie, he used campaign funds and his position as a candidate to promote and spread it which promoted his position of presidency. Trump has certainly not been impeached while others who have been involved with illegally undermining his presidency may well be. He has not been found guilty of doing things illegally as the president but in my opinion he's guilty of "bringing the office of the presidency into ill repute" and being a corporate bully during his presidency. While the Russia hoax is a lie, it’s different with respect to how and the extent it was carried out. The Obama DOJ absolutely abused their powers, using the FISA court, which is a counter intelligence instrument, to gather information for the express purpose of harming Trump politically. I will restate the Wall assertion. It may very well get paid for the way I laid out. Again, let’s assume for the sake of argument that Trump knowingly lied about it. He did not abuse any powers in implementing the lie. He did not plant spies in Mexico for the purpose of intelligence gathering. He did not destroy the reputations of anyone, unlike the DOJ when they SWAT style invaded the home of Paul Manafort, slandered Gen. Michael Flynn via Perjury Trap and George Papadopolous. If you wish to say the the lie is unethical, I can entertain that but to equate a lie with an abuse of intelligence gathering powers, I can’t go there. The two are entirely different Lets look at another example from his predecessor. Health care Obama routinely told people that if they liked their doctor, they could keep them He also told folks they would save $2500 per month, on which I think he probably misspoke He also told folks that they would retain their insurance plans if they liked them. All of those assertions were lies but he didn’t abuse the intelligence gathering machine to affect those lies Again, a lie is not good but it is different from abusing governmental powers And as we know, Obama did both. Lie AND abuse his powers. He wasn’t the first president to do so. Just the first to claim he’d have a 100% transparent administration going in, then claim he was scandal-free on his way out. More lies, of course. |
|
El Materdor43
Lieutenant
Perpetual Potato
Posts: 552
Likes: 425
Console: Xbox One
Preferred server: East
Is R35T a Skreb?: No
Date registered: Feb 13, 2016 17:12:47 GMT
|
Post by El Materdor43 on May 22, 2019 14:32:42 GMT
Test
Im not going to quote the entirety of what you posted but when you say Obama was above board, I choked on my drink. I’m working at the moment. Please give me time to get a post ready to destroy this myth. Obama began his political career in the living room of a known domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers. He was the leader of the Weather Underground. That is only the beginning.
|
|
El Materdor43
Lieutenant
Perpetual Potato
Posts: 552
Likes: 425
Console: Xbox One
Preferred server: East
Is R35T a Skreb?: No
Date registered: Feb 13, 2016 17:12:47 GMT
|
Post by El Materdor43 on May 22, 2019 16:09:45 GMT
So, any bets on what the upcoming reveal will be about the FISA documents? Was George Papadopoulos spied on, like AG Barr claimed? I think what will be revealed is that George Pop was set up and I think we will see that the FISA warrant was issued due to the counter intel machine knowingly lying/misleading the court. I’m interested to see if it’s going to be Comey, Clapper, Brennan, McCabe or perhaps even Loretta Lynch who affirmed the accuracy of the Steele propaganda. I don’t think it’s going to show a direct link to Obama but I would wager all the money I could beg, borrow and steal that he was in the loop and kept apprised of the operation |
|
|
Post by JesterUSMC on May 22, 2019 17:10:15 GMT
I doubt anyone will care because ORANGE MAN TAXES.
|
|
CatSnipah
Lieutenant
Catnip Commander
Posts: 532
Likes: 314
Console: Xbox one
Preferred server: East
Clan tag: [BNKR]
Is R35T a Skreb?: Yes
Mini-Profile Name Color: 096ab1
Mini-Profile Text Color: 096ab1
Date registered: Feb 23, 2016 13:13:03 GMT
|
Post by CatSnipah on May 22, 2019 17:17:40 GMT
I doubt anyone will care because ORANGE MAN TAXES. ORANGE MAN RAYCISSSS |
|
Atom Priest
Captain
Posts: 1,183
Likes: 389
Is R35T a Skreb?: No
Date registered: Feb 14, 2016 0:04:53 GMT
|
Post by Atom Priest on May 22, 2019 18:27:03 GMT
|
|
test777777
Sergeant
Posts: 322
Likes: 79
Console: Xbox 360/One & PS4
Preferred server: West
Is R35T a Skreb?: No
Date registered: Dec 7, 2018 9:38:56 GMT
|
Post by test777777 on May 23, 2019 5:27:36 GMT
Test Im not going to quote the entirety of what you posted but when you say Obama was above board, I choked on my drink. I’m working at the moment. Please give me time to get a post ready to destroy this myth. Obama began his political career in the living room of a known domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers. He was the leader of the Weather Underground. That is only the beginning. Sorry, poor use of language on my part. I meant his(Obama) outward appearance not so much his internal governance. Obama seemed to want to engage the American and international peoples, to get to know them to understand them and empathise with them and to work with them for the greater good. Politically, he may well have been too liberal and too willing to compromise but he seemed to want to have time to listen to people and engage with them without the mantle of President getting in the way. He seemed to seek mediation and compromise and a willingness to respect and understand foreign cultural practice. He was and is a very good Orator which no doubt helped. From my side of the world, under Obama, US's social license and trust on the international stage benefited. He seemed to encourage inclusiveness and free trade. Of course that outward appearance is purely in the eye of the beholder and who knows whether that had a flow on affect or whether the people of the USA benefited. What I do know is that internationally, at least in Australia, despite Donald Trump saying very nice things about Australia and Australians and the US/Australia relationship and being relatively(compared to other nations) hospitable when it comes to free trade and ANZUS. He doesn't embody a sense of sincerity and comes across as being arrogant, ignorant and a clueless bully who doesn't represent our US friends well and as a person, could do with a serious lesson of humility and respect. When it comes to Australian core values, we despise elitism, narcissistic and self righteous arrogance yet Trump seems to love throwing it in the worlds face. Further, when he throws threats around, it is unsettling for Australia. The reality is it doesn't matter what the hell we think of him, politically our core values are closer to the US peoples and politically, economically and for security reasons, from our end we need to be aligned. Put up or shut up as they say. Politically, Australia needs to remain friendly with the US but also needs to disassociate ourself with Trumps isolationistic and threatening approach. The bigger issue as I see it is the benefit of the processes of taking any of trying to uncover these illegal things that go on. My stance is that everyone is guilty of under the table methodology at that level whether found guilty or not. The outcomes, motivations and benefits might be different but the line is still crossed. Whatever comes out of these investigations it will establish a precedent which may or may not be in favour of the people of the USA. |
|
