team politics talking points.

[scott2000]

Kristi Noems response is not video trickery...nor is the Republican governor candidate for Illinois stating the same thing

For sure.... The 10yo story makes the timing of the questioning relating to this most relevant. Probably why the theories started..

Edit: please cite source, I'm not finding it

Source of what? People posting comments about their theories and stuff? I wouldn't know where to come across it again. Maybe some YT comments or comment sections under articles...
Most likely fact checking sites will catch on and debunk the stuff anyway.
The Indiana Dr. being an activist? Never looked. Probably could search the name and then do a search for things or articles written.....Maybe even search by dates not within the last sensational week that way it'll filter out the 100s of things filled in the engines so far. I've found that limiting searches to a window of time is much more useful sometimes than just searching.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

There are many rights which have been adjudicated to fall under the various facets of the 9th, 13th, and 14th amendments, which are never mentioned specifically by name in the Constitution (marriage, medication, telecommunications privacy, e-commerce across state lines). I mean, James Madison never saw a telegraph, right?

I mean, the words "assault rifle", "AR15", and "semi-automatic handgun" don't appear in the Constitution either, yes?

The second amendement uses the most general term possible, "arms," because the founders were not idiots. They didn't say "hunting accoutrements" or anything like that because they specifically wanted to protect the private ownership of weapons of war, a.k.a. "arms" in defense of liberty. Hate it all you want, but there it is.

In 1791, the framers of the Second Amendment couldn't have even conceived of anything other than a smoothbore flint and steel musket or a powder/ball single fire pistol, so therefore we must utilize the understanding of what constitutes an "arm" within this originalist context, right?

Incorrect. Part of the reason several pivotal battles of the Revolution were won by the Patriots was because rather than massed, inaccurate, smoothbore volley fire at close range (30-50yds) followed by a bayonet charge, most militiamen used their private long rifles (yes, rifles) which were accurate out to 250 yds or more in skilled hands. Read up on Morgan's Rifles. Learn about the actions at Lexington and Concord. Understand how Daniel Morgan was able to masterfully employ local rifle armed militia to defeat the British at Cowpens, SC which led directly to Cornwallis' defeat at Yorktown. Your ignorance is deep.

We can simply rewrite the Second Amendment to read:

It is correct the way it is written.

So of course that is what the SC decided in the recent New York gun case, right? Of course not! I guess the meaning of "arm" changes over time to denote any technological feature than someone could use to protect themselves, even though it could not have been foreseen when the Constitution was written. It's almost like the word "arm" changes over time based on modern standards. How odd!

Arms is a general term. It was used intentionally. So was "shall not be infringed."

It's also illuminating that Alito and Thomas opined about how abortion had no basis in the tradition and history of the United States, and cited 12th and 15th century English common law and Saxony statutes as proof, then in the very next gun opinion Thomas disregards a long historical tradition of gun regulations in England and in the new colonies in the 17th century, and writes:

We defeated the British with guns to win our freedom. The right is enumerated in the Constitution. No such right to abortion exists in the Constitution hence the digging into common law and earlier sources. You aren't winning any points with this garbage logic.

Except an originalist needn't bother with legal conventions that have changed over time, because originalism.

Arms. General term. 4th amendment lists right to privacy in their "persons, houses, papers, and effects" where "effects" is the general term intended to be a catch-all. Get it? They were thinking when they wrote these things. You are not as smart as Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Jay, etc.

 

[Matador]

Your ignorance is deep....
You are not as smart as Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Jay, etc....
You aren't winning any points with this garbage logic....
Provide references to back your ridiculous claim....
The rest of your statement is worthless...
So keep projecting your ridiculous fantasy...
Maybe check some statistics before you run your mouth....
Your arrogance seems to have no bound....
What a garbage argument....
But keep hiding from reality in your basement...

I'll just note it's nice to see the "Rule #4" warnings being applied so evenly here in the Brewery.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

I'll just note it's nice to see the "Rule #4" warnings being applied so evenly here in the Brewery.

Not a personal attack. A simple personal judgement backed by facts. You clearly thought rifling post-dated the Constitution. You apparently can't fathom why the term "arms" was used. Do you believe yourself more intelligent than the men I listed? Be honest. Your logic was poor. I chose the useful term "garbage" to describe it. Would you prefer weak instead?

 

[living sounds]

I've been watching the process since the 80s, bud. I remember Robert Bjork. I remember what they tried to do to Clarence Thomas. I don't recall even the very leftmost nominees being treated anything like this by Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Certainly nothing like what the Democrats did to Kavanaugh. You seem to be seeing a limited set of information through a distorted lens.

Who's "bud"? And I remember you wrote here that you only fairly recently did switch your affiliation to Republican, but now you remember ancient history from their perspective...

Is this your twisted view on the 2000 election case? Florida's election officials' incompetence led us to that moment. It was unfortunate that it happened, but sometimes shit happens. And Gore conceded.

More like a naked power grab by conservatives happened. Yes, by the conservative SC judges, but who was governor in charge of overseeing that "incompetent" State's called Florida's election? Well, it was the later president's and then candiate's brother, Jeb Bush.

Republicans have proved time and time again that they can do the textbook evil machivalellian gaslighting power grabbing shenanigans and well deserve their "evil" reputation.

But I am trying to teach this to Trump apologists...

Again with the baseless presumption of guilt. Originalism supports the Constitution which limits government authority and power in favor of individual rights. You don't understand any of this.

Mods? Since when are baseless personal attacks OK here?

And you really need to stop the misguided appeals to written law. I am pointing out political subtexts and realities, I am not making legal arguments. So your statement was, again beside the point.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Who's "bud"? And I remember you wrote here that you only fairly recently did switch your affiliation to Republican, but now you remember ancient history from their perspective...

"Bud" as in "buddy" or "hey, buddy."

Yes, I remember these events even though my perspective at the time was different. Reflecting back as a grown man with several decades of additional information produces a different perspective. Do you have a problem with people maturing as they gain more life experience? Have you never questioned any of your own beliefs based on new knowledge or insight? I find it strange that you cannot understand how this is possible.

More like a naked power grab by conservatives happened.

More unsupported assertions.

Mods? Since when are baseless personal attacks OK here?

Where?

And you really need to stop the misguided appeals to written law. I am pointing out political subtexts and realities, I am not making legal arguments. So your statement was, again beside the point.

Written law is important, else why write it down? There's nothing misguided about referring to the highest law of the land as it is written. You are chasing ghosts and phantom enemies. It isn't productive nor is it logical.

 

[living sounds]

"Bud" as in "buddy" or "hey, buddy."

Yes, I remember these events even though my perspective at the time was different. Reflecting back as a grown man with several decades of additional information produces a different perspective. Do you have a problem with people maturing as they gain more life experience? Have you never questioned any of your own beliefs based on new knowledge or insight? I find it strange that you cannot understand how this is possible.


More unsupported assertions.


Where?


Written law is important, else why write it down? There's nothing misguided about referring to the highest law of the land as it is written. You are chasing ghosts and phantom enemies. It isn't productive nor is it logical.

Look, I really have better things to do. I won't change your opinion. But please don't put words in my mouth or presume what I know or do not know. And don't overestimate what you know or presume to know. There's a much wider world out there than US rightwing talk radio or TV and the spin they put on things. Goodbye.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

And I've stated before that I'm no Bush supporter. Yes, Jeb was incompetent. Happy? I voted third party in 2000, so maybe both parties should have chosen better candidates than they did. You may recall that both sides also tried to blame people like me for screwing up the election by voting for neither major party.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Look, I really have better things to do. I won't change your opinion. But please don't put words in my mouth or presume what I know or do not know. And don't overestimate what you know or presume to know. There's a much wider world out there than US rightwing talk radio or TV and the spin they put on things. Goodbye.

I don't consume talk radio of any kind. I've changed and grown as I've gained experience in life. I'm well aware of my limitations. But I also have knowledge. And when that hard-earned knowledge is challenged by nothing but empty assertions you can expect me to respond.

You're talking about the country where I live. The place my ancestors struggled to build since their arrival from Europe in the pre-Revolutionary era. My family has a strong interest in history and I've spent much time studying it. Maybe you could accept that your own understanding of my country is limited.

 

[living sounds]

I don't consume talk radio of any kind. I've changed and grown as I've gained experience in life. I'm well aware of my limitations. But I also have knowledge. And when that hard-earned knowledge is challenged by nothing but empty assertions you can expect me to respond.

You're talking about the country where I live. The place my ancestors struggled to build since their arrival from Europe in the pre-Revolutionary era. My family has a strong interest in history and I've spent much time studying it. Maybe you could accept that your own understanding of my country is limited.

Well, what isn't limited in real life? But have not even trying to refute my arguments on the merits, instead you rely on mantras about the Constitution and how I cannot understand the beauty of the political system etc. Maybe because that would mean defending the indefensible?

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Well, what isn't limited in real life? But have not even trying to refute my arguments on the merits, instead you rely on mantras about the Constitution and how I cannot understand the beauty of the political system etc. Maybe because that would mean defending the indefensible?

In my opinion few of your arguments have factual merit. I do not see the US Constitution as indefensible in the least. One wonders why someone thousands of miles away in a different country is so obsessed with attacking some perceived defects in another country. What leaders and/or sources have set you on this quest in the first place?

 

[living sounds]

In my opinion few of your arguments have factual merit. I do not see the US Constitution as indefensible in the least. One wonders why someone thousands of miles away in a different country is so obsessed with attacking some perceived defects in another country. What leaders and/or sources have set you on this quest in the first place?

Yea, I am not talking about the Constitution. How many times do I have to write it?

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Yea, I am not talking about the Constitution. How many times do I have to write it?

Just evil Republicans and conservatives who are twisting the clearly written words in long-standing American law to some fascist authoritarian end. You make no sense. Where did you get these ideas? I really am curious.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I'll just note it's nice to see the "Rule #4" warnings being applied so evenly here in the Brewery.

4. You will find that the members of this community are courteous and respectful of each other, so please reciprocate those gestures. Leave the flame-war mentality at another forum. Personal attacks and generally hateful comments (regarding race, religion, gender, sex, etc...) will not be tolerated.

====

It appears there is not much respect or courteousness coming from either side. I have not seen any hateful comments regarding race, religion, gender, sex.

I also see a lot of talking past each other, while indeed this is not a court of law... let's at least try to listen to each other

Just evil Republicans and conservatives who are twisting the clearly written words in long-standing American law to some fascist authoritarian end. You make no sense. Where did you get these ideas? I really am curious.

you forgot the emoticon to signal that you are being sarcastic....

Lets all chill...

 

[boji]

Fighting "Truth Decay"
https://fivebooks.com/best-books/language-and-post-truth-nick-enfield/

 

[living sounds]

Just evil Republicans and conservatives who are twisting the clearly written words in long-standing American law to some fascist authoritarian end. You make no sense. Where did you get these ideas? I really am curious.

It only appears all right to you because of the bubble.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...rt-poses-a-real-threat-to-americans-democracy

 

[AnalogPackrat]

It only appears all right to you because of the bubble.

I exitted the bubble over a decade ago. You cannot accept that, nor do you seem capable of questioning the orthodoxy of "your tribe."

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...rt-poses-a-real-threat-to-americans-democracy

I've read perhaps a hundred similarly weak, emotional screeds from left-nut outlets like this over the years There's nothing new or accurate here. And as for bubbles and bias...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Wolffe

 

[living sounds]

I exitted the bubble over a decade ago. You cannot accept that, nor do you seem capable of questioning the orthodoxy of "your tribe."

You probably truly believe you exited the bubble.

 

[rob_gould]

The second amendement uses the most general term possible, "arms," because the founders were not idiots. They didn't say "hunting accoutrements" or anything like that because they specifically wanted to protect the private ownership of weapons of war, a.k.a. "arms" in defense of liberty. Hate it all you want, but there it is.


Incorrect. Part of the reason several pivotal battles of the Revolution were won by the Patriots was because rather than massed, inaccurate, smoothbore volley fire at close range (30-50yds) followed by a bayonet charge, most militiamen used their private long rifles (yes, rifles) which were accurate out to 250 yds or more in skilled hands. Read up on Morgan's Rifles. Learn about the actions at Lexington and Concord. Understand how Daniel Morgan was able to masterfully employ local rifle armed militia to defeat the British at Cowpens, SC which led directly to Cornwallis' defeat at Yorktown. Your ignorance is deep.


It is correct the way it is written.


Arms is a general term. It was used intentionally. So was "shall not be infringed."


We defeated the British with guns to win our freedom. The right is enumerated in the Constitution. No such right to abortion exists in the Constitution hence the digging into common law and earlier sources. You aren't winning any points with this garbage logic.




Arms. General term. 4th amendment lists right to privacy in their "persons, houses, papers, and effects" where "effects" is the general term intended to be a catch-all. Get it? They were thinking when they wrote these things. You are not as smart as Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Jay, etc.

Just as a thought experiment, what in your opinion would the founding fathers have decided about school shootings? How would they have reconciled the right to bear arms with a huge (relative to every other country in the world) number of innocent children being killed at school by gunmen, and all US school children doing active shooter drills etc? Do you think they would accept school shootings as an unpleasant consequence of the necessary right to bear arms in the USA in 2022?

I read the argument a lot that they were clever enough to take into account future developments in weaponry etc and were intentionally broad with how they wrote these constitutional points. It's a good justification to keep things the way they are.

But there's not much discussion (that I've seen) about what the founding fathers would have thought about the specifics of daily life for Americans in the USA today.

 

[scott2000]

But there's not much discussion (that I've seen) about what the founding fathers would have thought about the specifics of daily life for Americans in the USA today.

Can only imagine...
Maybe it would be like calling in The Wolf from Pulp Fiction to come in and share his thoughts..