This is a very powerful fact-grounded advertisement put out by the National Rifle Association, of which I am a life member. It shows Biden lying once again and becoming belligerent to a union worker that asked him a fair question about Biden's wanting to confiscate AR-15's and such. Biden, of course, denied it despite there being video evidence to the contrary, including him telling Beto O'Rourke (the failed Texas presidential candidate that wanted to confiscate many of America's guns) that Biden was going to put him in charge of doing so if he wins the presidency. The "mentally cognizant" Biden takes issue with the gentleman whom asked the question and tells him he has never said such things and that he is "full of sh*t". He then asks him if he wants to step outside. Is this the man that the leftists/Democrats think is best suited as their presidential candidate? Sadly, he may very well be the best they have to offer.
I think we should simply build a mock-up of the oval office in some memory-care nursing home, put Joe Biden in it, and tell him he won. Everybody wins that way.
30 comments:
Biden is a lifelong liar. The one of how he met his wife is a good example. I wonder if he's pathological and doesn't know but those who vote for him will have no idea what they'll get. Call Trump whatever you want, he did what he said he'd do-- part of why the left hates him so much.
Rain, you are absolutely correct. I personally don't care for a lot of President Trump's tweets, rhetoric, and over-the-top comments. All of that said, he has been the most effective president in getting things done that he said he would do in generations. And you are also right. That is part of why the left hate him so much. I look past the rhetoric and pay attention to the fruits produced. On that level, Trump is largely a very good president. Biden is a corrupt, lying, plagiarizing, crooked politician with 47 years at the public trough and nothing of substance to show for it for the American people.
An investigation by Senate Republicans into corruption allegations against Biden and his son found no evidence of improper influence or wrongdoing in Ukraine.
Better ignore that, and regurgitate pillars of honesty like Hannity, Giuliani and Trump.
This is you. I dare you to disagree with my statement.
Or show me that special moral cowardice of the Right and delete this comment.
I bet you do.
I have to finally admit it. Conservatives are obviously brighter than me. They know it’s safe to go to large gatherings and Trump rallies without wearing masks. Herman Cain and this guy agree.
Them dumb Libs sure are the stupid ones, amirite?
A TRUMP-supporting politician who said coronavirus was a "socialist" hoax has been killed by the disease.
https://www.the-sun.com/news/1524290/conspiracy-theorist-trump-supporter-dismissed-coronavirus-socialist-hoax-killed/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebarweb
Got to love that epic music in that video.
Unfortunately, I didn't see how the video demonstrated that Joe Biden was going to "strip Americans of their rights".
It's interesting, though, the NRA conveniently forgets to talk about the only candidate for President who literally said, and I'm paraphrasing, to take the guns first, and deal with due process later.
Also, what's also incredibly funny to me? The first 2/3 of the video is spent belittling politicians who seek gun control solutions and mocking their misnaming guns or misremembering terminology... then at the end. We shouldn't belittle people, but educate! Such an absurd turn that video took.
But, like I said, as always: Top notch epic music. NRA's usually good about the rocking, emotion pumping music.
First Dave, where did you get your news on Hunter Biden? The Atlantic, NPR, MSNBC?
Looks like there is a lot of smoking coming from that fire, sir.
https://www.theblaze.com/news/senate-report-hunter-biden-corruption
https://www.theblaze.com/glenn-radio/hunter-biden-received-35-million-wire-transfer?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1
I already know your response, if one is given. You will attack the source.
Next, Covid is real. Precautions should be followed. That said, it has also been dramatically hyped to shut things down for political purposes by the Left. Even the polls wouldn't be close for Biden if the economy was still as strong as it was pre-Covid. In that regard, further destroying America and the livelihood and lives of many Americans is a good political strategy for the militant left. Sadly that includes most of the Democrat leadership. But then they are more interested in holding onto power than actually helping the nation.
TB3, look at Beto's rhetoric and then Biden's promise to put him in charge of taking care of the gun problem. That is definitely an infringement on 2nd amendment rights, my friend. BTW, the music was indeed epic. :)
Where is the infringement? Guy thinks people shouldn't have a particular type of weapon. Wants to hire another guy with similar views. Simply thinking that people shouldn't have them is now an infringement? Step back and just think about that line of reason.
The Democrats are taking your guns meme is tired, old, and untrue. Every election is the same song and dance. And invariably the democrats in office somehow fail to follow through. Its not cause of NRA efforts. Its cause its a false narrative to scare gun enthusiasts into being single issue voters.
"I already know your response, if one is given. You will attack the source."
Also... if you know the person you are arguing with will take immediate issue with your source, why aren't you finding this same issue from from a separate source that the person you are arguing with won't dismiss? Cnn? Msnbc? BBC? Npr? Pbs? Ap? I mean it would strengthen your argument immensely.
Still no crime cited.
Yes, "potential conflicts of interest" and "awkward" instances were noted. Sounds like every day in the Trump Cartel and their crony capitalism and sweetheart deals for donors. How about we investigate them? Barr said he will not allow it and shut them down.
For the zilionth time...
What was the crime committed by Hunter Biden?
And while you're at it, what was the crime committed by Hillary?
I have submitted the list of crimes committed by Trump. Mueller named 10 cases of attempted obstruction of justice and his investigation.
Is paying off porn stars for their silence legal yet? Why haven't we seen Trump's tax returns as promised?
“Covid is real. Precautions should be followed.” Quite sensible, unlike Trump supporters at rallies.
“That said, it has also been dramatically hyped to shut things down for political purposes by the Left.”
Yes, I suppose in contrast with Trump’s downplaying a deadly virus, “dramatically hyped” would be the way the Right would frame it
No examples given, of course.
Here is the reality: Democratic (And Republican) governors were only following the guidelines from Trump’s CDC and Dr. Fauci. Or are Trump’s CDC and Fauci the ones guilty of “dramatically hyped” response? Can’t have it both ways. Well, I should say only cons are allowed to have it both ways.
“In that regard, further destroying America and the livelihood and lives of many Americans is a good political strategy for the militant left. Sadly that includes most of the Democrat leadership.”
No supporting facts or evidence cited. Meanwhile over 200,000 American lives were destroyed under Trump. Projection required again.
This is exactly how fascists demonize opposition. This is the authoritarian nature of the American Right.
”Even the polls wouldn't be close for Biden if the economy was still as strong as it was pre-Covid.”
And if it was as strong as it was when Obama left office?
”But then they are more interested in holding onto power than actually helping the nation.”
I would argue this is true of most politicians in both major parties. However only one party leader downplayed a deadly virus. Not exactly “helping the nation” at all.
TB3, I don't have a problem with someone elected to the presidency that enforces the federal laws and the constitution. Deciding which guns that the government deems us peons... errr... citizens to be allowed to have seems to strike at the very heart of the second amendment. And before others go off half cocked (see that gun reference there!) that doesn't mean that by that standard the people should also be allowed to own aircraft carriers and nuclear weapons. AR15's are no more deadly than thousands of other rifles on the market. The difference is that you can have a wooden stock long rifle with a magazine that is more accurate and deadly at a distance, but it doesn't look militaristic and "scary" so the ignorant politicians and the leftist mommies they scare don't know.
As for using a left-wing source for my argument, I would gladly do so if they ever reported anymore on anything that was even remotely harmful to their political agenda. I'll give you a huge example. Donald Trump has ushered in a historic peace deal between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, the likes of what has not been seen in decades. And this happened, despite many previous administrations failing. Trump should win the Nobel Peace Prize for this; however, there is very scant reporting on this in the media. Obama got a Nobel prize because he was elected and did nothing else to warrant it. The media went gaga over it.
Dave, aside from Hunter Biden's illegal foray with drugs and trying to get out of paying child support, I think there is a hell of a lot of smoke being produced by that underlying fire. Multi-million dollar deals from China for undisclosed reasons to him, hanging out with sex traffickers and such? The comparably benign act of being unqualified to sit on the board of a highly corrupt Ukrainian gas company in order to provide access to the U.S. Vice President and our government may seem small in comparison. The conflict of interest is unquestionable, but I understand that if it weren't for double standards, leftists wouldn't have any at all.
And I have provided you huge lists of Hillary's crimes in the past that you conveniently seem to forget about. Should we start with her having a personal server in her home to conduct state department business which was not even remotely secure? How about here destroying it and bleach-bitting it after deleting some 20K "personal" emails when her correspondence was subpoenaed? If that were Trump, that would be just grounds for impeachment right there, instead of a made up Russia hoax investigation founded on a falsified dossier that Hillary paid for.
Oh, and for the record, Trump did provide his relevant tax returns. The left is mad because he has gone back for decades with his returns. They want another fishing expedition.
Look, Trump is an ass in many ways. That said, he has achieved some incredible results that presidents of both parties never could have done. The alternative is to vote for someone that is even more corrupt, incompetent, and not mentally fit for the job. It is definitely a choice between two evils. Trump is the lesser of those evils by several orders of magnitude.
Oh, one last thing, AGAIN, I do NOT support Stone or anyone else if they are racists or support the Proud Boys etc.
Qanon is a mystery to me. Yes there is a deep state network that actively works to undermine Trump. I give you Comey, Strzok, and Paige as examples. That said, some of their conspiracy theories are a bit out there for me and beyond reasonable belief. Is that not comparable to BLM being for "anti-racism" but actually being for the ushering in of communist governance?
Still waiting for proof of news media declaring “rioters are peaceful”. This is patently false. Not acknowledging the truth, and having no evidence to support your lie, reflects ingrained dishonesty and outright hate for journalism.
I agree Obama’s Peace Prize was more for image than substance. Credit is due for the establishment of diplomatic relations and embassies between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. They were not engaged in warfare, so “peace deal” might apply more accurately between Israel and Palestinians. I also am grateful Trump didn’t start any new wars. I don’t think unilaterally withdrawing from a multi-national nuclear agreement with Iran was in the interests of peace, nor was his assassination of the Iranian general that took us to the brink of war and resulted in dozens of American casualties.
Now some facts.
Hillary violated agency polices, not the law. This is why you can’t cite her crime. And since when do Republicans respect subpoenas? “Double standards” is clearly more projection.
Although no crimes were found, I don’t like all the crony capitalism and nepotism shown by Biden or Trump. We don’t have to look far to find corruption in both parties. You may not be able to admit this. How about we investigate Ivana and Jared’s profiteering by their relationship with the president? Bet you don’t like that idea. Double standards again?
What on Earth are “relevant tax returns”? Does that make everything else magically irrelevant? Seems like a dodge on a broken promise to me.
Trump is more than an ass. He is a criminal. It’s interesting how you ignore his obstructions of legal and justified investigation, and his illegal paying off a porn star.
A few laws we know Trump broke:
Campaign finance law
V. OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS (18 U.S.C. §§ 1505, 1512)
U.S. Code § 1512.Tampering with a witness(b)Whoever knowingly uses intimidation...
52 U.S. Code § 30121.
It shall be unlawful— to solicit- from a foreign national--money or other thing of value-- in connection with a Federal election.
Further investigations will likely reveal insurance and banking fraud.
What happened to “law and order”, or doesn’t that apply to Republicans? That’s another double standard. “Law for thee, not for me”.
”a made up Russia hoax investigation founded on a falsified dossier that Hillary paid for”
Actually, no. It is not a hoax that Trump’s son and campaign met with Russian agents. It’s not a hoax that Trump was negotiating Trump Tower Moscow while running for president. It’s not a hoax that Trump had deals with Russian banks. It’s not a hoax that Russia interfered in the election and favored Trump. It’s not a hoax that the Trump campaign welcomed help from Russia. (Trump openly admitted he’d accept foreign help in an election, and then proceeded to solicit that help from Ukraine.) These are facts independent of the Steele Dossier, which was never presented as fact, but as reports from Russians. The materiel was given to the FBI as required by law.
The fact is Comey helped Trump win by improperly disclosing the Weiner laptop investigation, and possible information connected to Hillary. None was found, but the effect on the election was real.
Trump demanded personal loyalty from Comey, over his oath to the Constitution. Resulting investigations were proper and legal.
Strzok, and Paige were lovers, not members of a diabolical “deep state”, whatever that is. There were many federal officials opposed to Obama. Not a peep about a “deep state” then. More double standards.
Mueller removed Strzok from the Russia investigation when Mueller became aware of criticisms of Trump contained in personal text messages exchanged between Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page. A December 2019, a report by the Justice Department inspector general found that Strzok was not motivated by bias in his work on the FBI investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 elections.
I’m happy you finally admitted Trump’s close associates are racists and conspiracy nuts. Isn’t that a red flag? You’re fond of guilt by association. Why not this time? Double standards again?
"Deciding which guns that the government deems us peons... errr... citizens to be allowed to have seems to strike at the very heart of the second amendment. And before others go off half cocked (see that gun reference there!) that doesn't mean that by that standard the people should also be allowed to own aircraft carriers and nuclear weapons."
First, the Government is of the people, by the people. It boggles the mind how my conservative friends will simultaneously talk about how we need to follow and adhere to the constitution and then talk about our constitutionally mandated and defined government as something extraconstitutional.
Second, How does it strike against the heart of the second amendment? The Amendment is a single sentence with two of the first three words being 'well regulated'. If putting limits on what firearms a citizen has access to sounds like regulation. Just because you disagree with the limits doesn't mean it's an attack on the 2nd or Joe's coming for your guns. No matter how much fear mongering the NRA offers folks biased toward gun ownership, it doesn't make it true.
Furthermore, you can't simply dismiss the strongest argument by dismissing the usual aircraft carrier and nuclear weapon counter-argument. Because we're talking about limits. We are limited to not having access to nuclear weapons. It's a valid counter-argument. If you concede that it's reasonable that you shouldn't have access to an M1 Abrams, than why can't we discuss limits on things like AR-15s? It's no big deal that you can't go out and buy nuclear, then why is it suddenly a massive Democratic conspiracy when discussions on limits or restrictions AR-15-esque weapons come up? With scary language and epic, anxious rock and roll riffs in the background?
"The difference is that you can have a wooden stock long rifle with a magazine that is more accurate and deadly at a distance, but it doesn't look militaristic and "scary" so the ignorant politicians and the leftist mommies they scare don't know. "
The difference is that some very high profile shootings where children have been injured and killed en masse. And rather than discuss reasonable ways of dealing with the use of such weapons, all discussion and talk devolves into 'THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE YOUR GUNS, YOUR LIBERTIES ARE AT RISK' when there's no demonstrable proof of such. You believe the rhetoric because, for some reason, you want to believe it. I want to believe my fellow citizens can be adults and, at least, have a conversation without having to resort to THE SKY IS FALLING scare tactics to get the 'peons' as you put it angry and upset.
"As for using a left-wing source for my argument, I would gladly do so if they ever reported anymore on anything that was even remotely harmful to their political agenda"
1) I didn't suggest using a left-wing source. I suggested using a source the person you are arguing with wouldn't outright dismiss. I didn't suggest going to the Young Turks or anything.
2) Report anything that was remotely harmful to their political agenda? You cites the freaking Blaze, Darrell. That's not exactly fair and balanced reporting, they're barely news. Just because the National Inquirer gets it right once in a while doesn't mean I'm going to cite them in political discourse. I'm going to be dismissed out of hand because they aren't credible. If you don't want to strengthen your argument and actually appear to be having a discussion in good faith, than, sure. Throw Weaselzippers and The Blaze and The Daily Caller at Dave. Just don't expect much more than intransigence.
3) If you can't find it outside of your bubble, maybe ask yourself why? And avoid the conspiratorial "Liberal Media". It takes too much coordination to ever believe in a massive, coordinated effort on all media platforms to perpetrate what the "conservative" bubble insists is happening.
"I'll give you a huge example..."
And this is where you allow your ignorance to shine. The peace agreement was all over the news. I watched segments on CNN on MSNBC all of the broadcast nightly news after the agreement. Hell, Darrell, I watched the freaking announcement and big to do in front of the White House on CNN live. It was all over the damn place. No one is taking this achievement away from the President, but the victim mentality you're showing here and the ignorance in your made up reality about the reporting is ridiculous. And Nobel Peace Prize? Sure, Darrell. From the same guy who dropped the Mother of All Bombs and assassinated an Iranian General during peacetime (I'm not arguing the merit, just pointing out it's note very peaceful).
Come one. "Scant Reporting". It's only scant when you're in your bubble of "conservative" media complaining about the "Liberal" media that you can't be bothered to consume.
So my long-time conservative friend Darrell (a very good friend, actually) continues to conflate the taking away of our assault rifles with taking all our guns. It's a tired old NRA trick. He shows Joe Biden insisting he's not out to take our guns, and then shows Joe saying he's against assault rifles. Boy, what a liar!
Look, I really like Darrell. So I won't insult his intelligence by suggesting he believes what he wrote.
Okay, okay. So I stole that line from another conservative, where I also left a comment.
TB3, I appreciate your thoughtful dialogue. First, I understand the government is a necessary evil. The founders were fearful of establishing a powerful federal government in our nascent nation and came up with the Articles of Confederation. The problem was that the articles were so weak as to be ungovernable for our country. The Constitution was then written and adopted as a means of prescribing the exact duties of our federal government and keeping them under rein from wandering outside those boundaries. As Obama put it, the constitution was a list of "negative liberties". We need the federal government. Without it we would have anarchy, but we need it to do ONLY what it is authorized to do and nothing more.
That said, the founders had such a distrust of a strong federal government ruling over us that they included the Bill of Rights to the Constitution in order to protect America's citizens. All of this, I am sure you already know.
The point is that yes there have been evil or sick, or evil and sick people that have used firearms for evil and unlawful purposes. And sometimes those people have used scary and inaccurately described assault weapons in their carnage. Here is the problem: if we outlaw the AK-47's, AR-15's and military-looking weapons because of their appearance in order to make some people feel better, what then happens when some evil bastard uses a wooden-stock more powerful hunting rifle to slaughter innocent people? Do we then return to the idea that we simply cannot be trusted with guns and therefore have to take those hunting rifles away too?
With the riots occurring throughout many of our major cities, with promises by some of the peaceful protesters of bringing them to the suburbs, I sure would like to have my NATURAL and CONSTITUTIONAL right to have a firearm to defend myself and my family. Further, assuming Biden's gun czar Beto hasn't mandated that we disarm like every true fascist regime has historically done, I'd like to have something a little more appropriate when a crowd armed with molotov cocktails and other weapons of mayhem comes to my town. I'd rather my only option of defense not be a two-shot Derringer because that was the only firearm that was deemed appropriate while still "fulfilling" the letter of the law of the second amendment.
If the proprietors of all of the black-owned businesses in Minneapolis were to have grouped together in front of their stores with AR-15's, it is likely that they would still have stores to open the following morning after the arsonist rioters marched through.
Hopefully you get my point, my friend.
Silly me. I thought the founders wanted a federal government powerful enough to defeat the power of the British Empire. They wanted a government capable of providing for the common defense, as well as the general welfare of the people.
They wanted a representative republic where all men are created equal, that served by consent of the governed. That experiment has failed, and continues to fail, in so many ways. Progress has been slow. We still need a "more perfect union".
I own firearms. I grew up in a hunting and fishing culture. I don't live in fear of government agents bashing in my door to confiscate them.
That's not going to happen.
The fear is far more real than the possibility. In fact it is more likely to happen in a drug raid with an incorrect address on the warrant. God help you if you defend your home against a late night drug raid gone wrong, as in the death of Breonna Taylor.
No doubt Darrell would assume I want those cops hung in the town square, but I don't. They returned fire. The blame is with the leadership that sent them on the fatally flawed mission, and the senseless and cruel war on drugs in general.
While I totally support firearms for self-defense, I don't live in fear of rioters throwing Molotov cocktails at my house.
Do the gun nuts feel they are still unsafe in their homes with magazines holding only ten rounds? That's some real paranoia.
I get it. Shooting is fun. Modern weapons of war FEEL like power, safety and FREEDOM.
Well I was free before AR-15's were commercially available. So were you. I'm still just as free without an AR-15. You would be just as free as well.
Nobody wants these weapons banned or restricted because of their appearance. It is their lethality, and the body count, terror, and suffering left in their wake. It's really a pro-life position to keep those weapons out of the hands of unstable people.
Saturation through mass marketing along with weak or no background checks assures these weapons will fall into hands of disturbed and angry people. It assures more death.
Militia nuts, Proud Boys, 3%'ers etc. are brandishing these weapons for a reason. They are angry. They are so filled with fear and loathing they welcome, and even seek, opportunities to shoot Americans they fear and hate. Many on the Right are cheering the Kenosha killer.
Those who need to brandish a weapon of war to protest, or make a political point, are displaying a moral and intellectual weakness in defense of their cause. It is a reliance on intimidation and bullying. It indicates the authoritarian overactive response of their amygdala.
"Fight or flight". Take a stand and take my gun from cold dead hands.
A combination of anger, fear, hate with deadly weapons never makes a good foundation for a civilized society.
The government is necessary, I think. It's not necessarily evil. Such moral intent is a construct of the people who create the government or to the people that argue against policy. And I think that's the problem right there. A well regulated militia has been ignored in favor of 'right to bear arms', as if the right to bear arms is absolute, unambiguous, and something that shouldn't be questioned because it's in the Bill of Rights. The problem is that, I argue, that by ignoring the 'regulated' part of the amendment and not fighting against the limits of alllllll the other rights we've already instituted, we're not discussing this in good faith. The moment we've accepted laws that limit what we can say or where we can say them, we open up the possibility of other limits. There's nothing special or different about the 2nd that keeps it from the same treatment as all the others.
"That said, the founders had such a distrust of a strong federal government ruling over us that they included the Bill of Rights to the Constitution in order to protect America's citizens."
This isn't exactly an accurate statement. The Bill of Rights, like much of our government and laws were the result of a compromise between disperate groups of people looking to create a better Union. Actually, the genesis of the Bill of Rights is incredibly interesting and I whole heartedly recommend reading more into it. The Bill of Rights wasn't exactly lauded by the Conservatives of that era. Not trying to make this a Cons vs Libs argument, more just pointing out that it wasn't a blanket 'everyone wanted to protect the peoples' rights' thing.
"if we outlaw the AK-47's, AR-15's and military-looking weapons because of their appearance..."
You see this line of reasoning falls apart the moment you concede that there are reasonable limits. You don't need nukes and tanks to go hunting. So we can have this discussion about limits AR-15, AK-47s, etc... especially when we already have similar tools to perform the tasks we typically use guns for. I don't know what it is about the look of the guns that you are bringing up, I certainly don't recall after various school shootings people talking about the appearance of the weapon that slaughtered kids. However, your argument boils down to 'There are other guns that people can perform mass killings with, so people want to go after the scary looking ones'. Look 'Do we return to the idea that we simply cannot be trusted...' is no argument anyone is making except the fictional ones certain fans of gun ownership throw out as strawpeople.
"With the riots occurring throughout many of our major cities"
You should really stop conflating the prote sts with the riots. Furthermore, protests are already occuring in suburbs and I'm not really sure what the delineation and separation the "right" is making between the two is supposed to accomplish. I hesitate to call it a racist dog whistle, but it's difficult to think of it as anything else when we're referring the the suburbs as some "other" place that protests can be brought to. And your NATURAL and CONSTITUTIONAL right to have a firearm would not be infringed with the limits to AR-15s and AK-47s. Also, "Gun Czar Beto" couldn't legally mandate such a ban, so I don't think you have anything to worry about. At least Joe Biden hasn't been on camera talking about taking guns and dealing with due process after the fact, right?
"I'd rather my only option of defense not be a two-shot Derringer..."
Again, no one is suggesting this. You're engaging in a slippery slope that doesn't exist and is only peddled by people with a vested interest in keeping you afraid.
"If the proprietors of all of the black-owned businesses in Minneapolis were to have grouped together in front of their stores with AR-15's, it is likely that they would still have stores to open the following morning after the arsonist rioters marched through."
That's possible. What's also possible is that if the violence against Black and Brown People and the Police Brutality that they demonstrate against was actually addressed rather than dismissed or ignored, than perhaps there wouldn't have been protests and riots when police brutality and violence against Black and Brown people brought us (society) back up to a boiling point.
Dave, respectfully, you are wrong. Our founders specifically and explicitly were very fearful of establishing a strong federal government. They did not want to replace the tyrant of King George with a new tyranny they had established in a strong federal government on our own continent. It was because of these reasons that the Articles of Confederation were so weak, even to the point of impotence. The articles had no power to levy taxes, no means of enforcement for decisions, and indeed it took a unanimous decision among the thirteen states to reach a decision. George Washington routinely had to beg for money that the federal government could not levy from the states in order to fund the war and pay his troops. It was because of those weaknesses that the Constitution was later adopted. That said, there were still founders that were fearful of placing such power in a federal government, hence the reason to codify specific rights in the Bill of Rights for the people.
All of the ten rights in the Bill of Rights are individual rights. None of them are rights or duties of the government in its administration. This includes the 2nd amendment. The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. That said, regulation to help ensure that felons and the mentally unstable do not legally acquire arms so as to pose a threat to others is reasonable and prudent.
Next, the reason this experiment in government by the people is troubled is that too many of the people we have elected are corrupt. This is regardless of parties. Trying to game elections through mail-in ballots without safety checks only encourages ballot harvesting and illegal manipulation of the outcome. You mock this, but there are constantly articles about this abuse lately. The dead vote, because ballots are sent to their homes and returned by unscrupulous people. Check out the thoroughly corrupt Omar and the ballot harvesting of old folks homes going on in her district. Yeah, this disenfranchises or dilutes legitimate voters and does weaken our national experiment in liberty.
Continuing, the old and inaccurately named “assault weapons” bill that expired years ago forbid having any number of rifles based on their appearance, from collapsible stocks to the size of the magazine. I agree with you, Dave, that it is a pro-life position to ensure that the felonious and unstable do not legally acquire ANY weapon. That said, the determined criminal element will always be able to get a gun through illegal means, by definition. Banning guns, or even classes of guns, does not make us safer. It simply disarms law-abiding citizens.
“Those who need to brandish a weapon of war to protest, or make a political point, are displaying a moral and intellectual weakness in defense of their cause. It is a reliance on intimidation and bullying. It indicates the authoritarian overactive response of their amygdala. "Fight or flight".” ~ Dubya
Indeed? Would you include those peaceful antifa protesters that are brandishing bats, bricks, industrial fireworks, lasers, and Molotov cocktails in that statement? That seems more apt and accurate to me. I personally don’t see a need to brandish a firearm or any weapon in a peaceful protest. Indeed I never saw such things in Reverend King's marches.
As for your pejorative “Kenosha killer”, I think that is grossly unfair. The kid was dumb to take it upon himself to go there armed to protect private property. He was asking for trouble by doing so. That said, those men chased and shot at him. Does he not have the right to defend himself? From what I have read and seen, this was stupidity on his behalf, but his shooting of those people was done in self defense.
TB3, first, see my previous response to Dave about the 2nd amendment being an individual right, just like the other nine in the Bill of Rights. The left sees “well regulated militia” in the amendment and it assumes it is a government obligation. If that were so, it would be in the body of the constitution and not in the Bill of Rights for the people.
Further, your statement about tanks and nuclear weapons being unnecessary for hunting misses the very point of the 2nd amendment. It was not to allow firearms so Americans can hunt. It was to ensure that the American people would not become slaves to a despotic or tyrannical government. Without arms, there would be no way to enforce this. Indeed it was said that the government should be fearful of the people and not the people afraid of the government. That should still be the way it is, but it is not.
The Declaration of Independence even states that we have a right to abolish a federal government that is destructive to our liberties.
“That, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”
Next, I am not conflating protests with riots. I understand that there are still honest peaceful protests that do occur. (I give you Franklin Graham’s prayer march on the mall this last weekend that was completely peaceful and ignored by the Democrat-media complex.) The problem is that almost invariably those peaceful protests that are occurring in our cities and towns are hijacked by those that wish to create mayhem and violence. Sadly, some of the BLM leadership has been involved in that violence, while Antifa is routinely involved. I don’t know about you, but if some other group of miscreants routinely hijacked my peaceful protests and turned it into a violent or destructive affair, I would find a different way to register my displeasure, since my message is being completely lost due to these thugs’ activity. Would you do the same?
I agree that police brutality should have been and still needs to be addressed immediately and decisively when it occurs. Defunding the police and destroying towns is obviously not the right answer in solving this problem. It simply provided a reason for people with a political agenda to push forward for their radical changes.
Thank you for some reasonable discussion.
There’s nothing unfair about calling someone who killed people in Kenosha the “Kenosha killer”. Those who sympathize with the Kenosha killer tend to frame his behavior as self defense. “Self defense” takes on an absurd new meaning these days. If Trayvon’s killer Zimmerman didn’t provoke a confrontation he wouldn’t have needed “self defense”. If the Kenosha killer wasn’t breaking the law by being armed, he wouldn’t have needed “self defense”.
See the problem here? Dangerous idiots with guns.
You are right. He was stupid. But he was more than stupid. He was a criminal before he shot anyone. He broke the law being underage to carry the rifle. After his first victim was shot, whether self defense or not, he became an active shooter. His next victims were attempting to subdue an active shooter. And yes, they were stupid too.
“Law and order for thee, not for me”.
As you say, “It was because of those weaknesses that the Constitution was later adopted”. I know you like to tell me “what the founders wanted”, even though they often disagreed and compromised.
They actually wanted a government that was strong enough to build a navy and to hold more power than the commercial interests it was to regulate. That didn’t last, did it? I share your concern for corruption. The richest Americans essentially own the Republican Party and half the Democrats. Corporate lawyers write the laws that benefit their interests. I think it’s safe to say this is NOT what the founders wanted.
”...The very point of the 2nd amendment. It was not to allow firearms so Americans can hunt. It was to ensure that the American people would not become slaves to a despotic or tyrannical government.
That is not how it was proposed. I would really appreciate you showing me the founder who said, “We need militias to wage war on the federal government”.
It was due to the fact many founders preferred militias over a standing army.
The Proposed Amendment at the Virginia Ratifying Convention of 1788:
“That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”
The fact is, militias were used more for hunting and suppressing slaves, and killing Native Americans, than resisting tyranny. In this regard the Second Amendment ironically provided the means for genocide as well as the tyranny of slavery. After the Revolution militias had nothing to do with freedom and defense from tyranny. Southern militias did wage war on the Federal government, but in defense of slavery, not freedom.
This rather deflates the nobility and purity of the Second Amendment.
Some historical context:
...Slaveholding regions had institutionalized police-patrol systems specifically to “regulate” enslaved persons more than 100 years before American independence.
In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, the colonial government passed laws in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their white male employees to be members of the Georgia militia and those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state. The law defined which counties had which armed militias and even required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who might be planning uprisings.
As Carl T. Bogus wrote for the University of California Davis Law Review in 1998, “The Georgia statutes required patrols, under the direction of commissioned militia officers, to examine every plantation each month and authorized them to search ‘all Negro Houses for offensive Weapons and Ammunition’ and to apprehend and give twenty lashes to any slave found outside plantation grounds.”
James Madison even rewrote the Second Amendment into its current form during the 1788 Virginia Ratifying Convention in response to that state’s largest slaveholder, Patrick Henry, demanding that Virginia’s slave patrols be explicitly protected.
I’m glad you said this:
”I personally don’t see a need to brandish a firearm or any weapon in a peaceful protest.”
So at some level, this makes sense to you. “Those who need to brandish a weapon of war to protest, or make a political point, are displaying a moral and intellectual weakness in defense of their cause. It is a reliance on intimidation and bullying.”
Your fellow conservatives who mobbed the Michigan capitol building preferred intimidation and bullying.
We agree that there are reasonable measures regulating firearm possession. The Kenosha killer violated such a reasonable measure.
”Banning guns, or even classes of guns, does not make us safer.”
This statement is unsupported by facts and evidence. Australians would disagree.
If by “safer” you mean fewer people killed, then you are incorrect.
Mass-shooting related homicides in the United States were reduced during the years of the federal assault weapons ban of 1994 to 2004.M
https://journals.lww.com/jtrauma/Abstract/2019/01000/Changes_in_US_mass_shooting_deaths_associated_with.2.aspx
“...The body count from gun massacres was visibly restrained during the Assault Weapons Ban and rose sharply after 2004 when President Bush reneged on his campaign promise to renew it.”
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2020/08/26/wisconsin-open-carry-law-kyle-rittenhouse-legally-have-gun-kenosha-protest-shooting-17-year-old/3444231001/
This is what gets me. Vandalism by Antifa rioters is criminal, but not deadly. The far Right feel entitled to kill people committing property crimes. They are not even defending their own property. They seek the opportunity for confrontation. If they didn’t want to kill anyone they’d stay home like decent people. They are looking for trouble, looking to kill, period. It is what vigilantes and terrorists do.
This suggests conservatism values property and wealth over human life. That indicates a lot of hate.
The constitutional convention was called without a legal quorum in emergency session, in response to Shays Rebellion, and specifically to create a federal government that was strong enough to ensure no gun-toting band of hillbillies could overthrow it. It was not out fear of the New King George. It was to protect him. The NRA view, created in arrears, long after the Second Amendment, that the Second Amendment was created to undo the defense against the hillbillies is absurd.
The founders did not have a sudden change of heart. After the Second Amendment was passed, military weapons in homes were illegal in most towns, and no one considered this to be a Constitutional violation, because the NRA understanding of the Second Amendment had not yet been invented.
For the Textualists among you, your machine guns are not referenced in the text.
For the originalists among you, the founders never intended for individuals to have to have nuclear arms, for example. There is no evidence that they would have supported that. Once we all concede that weapons restrictions are constitutional, then the only question that remains is which ones do we restrict?
UnTrump, thank you for your comment.
I find your characterization of farmers that fought in the American Revolution and whom were often paid with IOU's as "hillbillies" to be somewhat pejorative in nature.
"It was not out fear of the New King George. It was to protect him."
If, by the "New King George" you are referring to the federal government and George Washington, I find that to be an interesting interpretation.
The constitution was drafted in order to provide a stronger federal government that could actually help govern the confederation of disparate state governments. The previous articles of confederation were too weak and had no mechanism for collection of revenue or enforcing any decisions made my the federal government.
Because the Constitution enumerated specific powers and duties to the federal government, many of our founders insisted on a bill of rights to ensure that We The People would not have such individual rights usurped. The second amendment is very much one of those individual rights that SCOTUS has affirmed as such.
"The founders did not have a sudden change of heart. After the Second Amendment was passed, military weapons in homes were illegal in most towns, and no one considered this to be a Constitutional violation, because the NRA understanding of the Second Amendment had not yet been invented."
Ummm... military weapons of the day were muzzle loading rifles. They were the same ones used for hunting and defense, particularly in frontier areas. It was not like they had 30 round magazines for the muzzle loaders back then.
Many of our founders specifically were against the idea of disarming the populace, and thus drafting the second amendment.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785 "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
"Once we all concede that weapons restrictions are constitutional, then the only question that remains is which ones do we restrict?"
Indeed, and that is where the devil in the details comes into play. There are many folks on the left that think all arms should be restricted unless one is part of the military. Others think that perhaps only revolution-era muzzle loaders should be allowed. No reasonable person is advocating for private citizens to have nuclear weapons or tomahawk missiles. An AR-15 is hardly such a weapon of mass destruction though, and yet to some, it too should be banned.
Praefatio:
“I find your characterization of farmers that fought in the American Revolution and whom were often paid with IOU's as "hillbillies" to be somewhat pejorative in nature.”
I believe I characterized militias with intent to leave their farms overthrow the central government as hillbillies, which is this case just happened to be Revolution vets, now farming. I mean no disrespect to revolutionary farmers at large. I only mean disrespect to those that attempt to overflow a government (a second time. Let’s not forget the Revolution itself. Man, these guys are just incorrigible).
“If, by the "New King George" you are referring to the federal government and George Washington, I find that to be an interesting interpretation.”
I did not mean to imply that the Washington Presidency represented anything other than democracy. I only meant to challenge the idea that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to make sure the “people” would be powerful enough to get a band of farmers together and overthrow the government. The Second Amendment was created precisely to prevent this, at least, if the Founders words are to be believed, and I think that is the at the heart of our disagreement. I will concede that there may have been some founders with different intentions, intentions that failed to make it to the Second Amendment. However, it is clear that many of them, whom I will quote in just a bit, intended exactly what the Second Amendment says. Surely in the current reign of Originalism and Textualism, this matters, right?
“The constitution was drafted in order to provide a stronger federal government that could actually help govern the confederation of disparate state governments. The previous articles of confederation were too weak and had no mechanism for collection of revenue or enforcing any decisions made my the federal government.”
Agreed that these were included. I love when philosophical adversaries arrive at the same solution. However, there is a prerequisite understanding that is critical to understanding the Second Amendment: The Constitutional Convention was called in response to Shays Rebellion, and the like, or in response to locals taking up arms in order to overflow the government. Again, understanding this is crucial to understanding the Second Amendment. I am not just mentioning random trivia.
“Because the Constitution enumerated specific powers and duties to the federal government, many of our founders insisted on a bill of rights to ensure that We The People would not have such individual rights usurped. The second amendment is very much one of those individual rights that SCOTUS has affirmed as such.”
The constitution does not stutter. It clearly states the reason for the Second Amendment “right,” and not as individual one. It says it needs a well-trained militia and it says this is the reason the Second Amendment exists. Are you calling the Constitution a liar?! Infidel! It is in order to have means of preventing another Shays Rebellion and at the same time avoid the dangers of a standing army. The right mentioned is the right of a state to have a well-trained militia. The method used to achieve that goal is not to infringe on someone’s “right” to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment does not say you have to allow whatever arm a fellow wants to be born wherever he pleases. It says you must allow him to have and use arms. This fact is obvious by the fact that arms control was rampant at the time of the Second Amendment and no one thought to challenge it. It was only seriously challenged in the modern conservative era, where the Second Amendment was reinvented to mean something other than what the text says, all in the name of Originalism.
Oops, out of space ...
Ummm... military weapons of the day were muzzle loading rifles. They were the same ones used for hunting and defense, particularly in frontier areas. It was not like they had 30 round magazines for the muzzle loaders back then.
“So then we agree that they were referring to the right to keep and bear “muzzle loading rifles.” Wonderful. I like it when disparate philosophies coalesce.
“Many of our founders specifically were against the idea of disarming the populace, and thus drafting the second amendment.”
I wish someone had told these guys that:
“For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security.” -- Thomas Jefferson, Eighth State of the Union Address, 1808
“Always remember that an armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics – that without standing armies their liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe.” -- James Madison, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1809
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.” -- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787
“None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army.” -- Thomas Jefferson February 25, 1803
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson 5 June 1824
“Indeed, and that is where the devil in the details comes into play. There are many folks on the left that think all arms should be restricted unless one is part of the military.”
Thank God, Obama does not think this. Biden does not think this, and I do not think this. I don’t know what the NRA told you, but that is not a part of the democratic platform. I have seen republicans who believe condoms should be outlawed, but never did I attribute outlawing condemns as a GOP platform position. I think our time would be better spent trying to solve real problems rather than railing on ones that don’t exist. You want to stop the democratic party from doing something that the democratic party does not want to do. You know Thomas Jefferson and James Madison would think this absurdly entertaining, don’t you?
“Others think that perhaps only revolution-era muzzle loaders should be allowed.” – I thought we agreed to this earlier. Let’s no reopen that can of worms.
“No reasonable person is advocating for private citizens to have nuclear weapons or tomahawk missiles. An AR-15 is hardly such a weapon of mass destruction though, and yet to some, it too should be banned.”
Again, if we already know that weapons restriction is constitutional, which have said, then disallowing an AR-15 does not infringe upon anyone’s Second Amendment rights. In fact, no gun control does. It is now a mere philosophical question, not a legal one. In my view, your final paragraph completely undoes the position that democrats are attacking the Second Amendment.
Oops again. Out of space again.
And finally, just for completion:
1. Shays Rebellion (and others) happened and almost allowed a band of banjo-playing, square dancing, edentates to overflow the “government.”
2. The Constitutional Convention was called to have a clandestine emergency session to stop bandits from arming themselves against those soon to become the founders.
3. After much debate, the federal government was established, without a bill of rights, as rights are assumed.
4. The Bill or Righters won the debate, and some rights were enumerated.
5. The second amendment was added in order to ensure a well-trained militia that could handle rebellions, without having a standing army. They added the first part, the well-trained militia part, to the document, lest there be any confusion about it.
6. You got confused about it.
Respectfully.
Post a Comment