Trump on Trial!

Mick Doobie said:
Sort of unrelated side issue, which should go unstated, completely logical and sound reasoning.

If Trump is elected it's going to be the end of our precious democracy. He will singlehandedly do it by authoritarianism, a dictator.

Now, Biden, yeah he might be a little diminished by age. Well, let's just say a lot, old and senile. Not to worry, there are checks and balances in place, and just because a candidate is elected into office it doesn't mean he/she can do whatever they wish. It should as well be mentioned, just because someone is elected into office that doesn't mean they will be making all the decisions, we are in a sense electing an administration. What I'm trying to say, don't worry about it.

Trump, he is a danger to democracy, obviously we must do whatever necessary to keep him from getting elected. By any means necessary.
Click to expand...
Ha! Too late. Pretty sure that is going to be a sealed fate...
 
Mick Doobie said:
That has already been addressed.

Driving a motor vehicle on a public highway is a privilege. With that privilege comes conditions, obligations. Firearm ownership, bearing arms is a constitutionally protected right. Apples and oranges. If you are going to justify abridging the right to firearm ownership you have to go apples to apples , pick another right, such as felons can't vote. Even at that, abridging that right requires an extraordinary circumstance. Barring an extraordinary circumstance as it pertains to gun ownership, we're back to abridging a constitutionally protected right.

Also, the background check has verbage/questions, punishable by law if a false answer is given. Do you plan to sell the firearm, are you purchasing the firearm for resale or the transfer of ownership.

I'm not necessarily a hardliner. However, I am uncomfortable with the notion of getting something passed, make it palatable so at least something gets passed. At least that would be progress. Progress suggests and is indicative of movement towards a destination, a goal. Incremental steps, each step used to justify the next. Precedent. To what end? We've seen it, "The Founders did not envision extending the right of gun ownership to weapons of war, such as a cannon", which is false. No, the government taketh as the government can taketh, incrementally if necessary, by design. Call it progress or sort of shady dishonesty towards an intent, an ultimate goal of abridging a constitutionally protected right.
Click to expand...
Maybe. There could be wiggle room based on the “well regulated” interpretation.
 
leddy said:
“Hindering” is a very subjective term. We hinder law abiding citizens every day at the DMV. Why should something critical to normal life, like transportation, be subject to more hindering than something that is not critical to normal life, and is in fact designed to take life away? A society is a shared thing, and we all accept a little give and take, except 2A folks won’t give an inch on guns. If a lawmaker proposed a national registry, it would be opposed even if no other restrictions on any weapon were in place. Can’t buy a car without registration.
Click to expand...
Because operating a motor vehicle is a privilege and the right to bear arms is a constitution right.

Licensing gun owners would be the same as requiring a person to be licensed to have free speech.... taking it from the god-given right level down to a mere privilege.

Just imagine if our government, for some crazy reason, started to hinder free speech.
What if they started demonizing people who didn't conform to their world view. What if, for instance, people started speaking out in support of a populist candidate that threatens the status quo, and were identified, earmarked, monitored and demonized as "the greatest threat to democracy we face in america"
What if the fbi started scouring social media looking for postings that contained "red flag" words.
What if they intimidated social media platforms and came up with a term like...I dunno...."dis-information"..to silence people
What if they......

Well, all that could never happen here but you get the idea.
 
Last edited:
I read somewhere this morning and haven’t followed up yet claiming Michelle Obama could beat Trump in the polls.

Also, there is a Biden interview that airs with George Stphanopoulus (sp?) tonight at 9. It is not live but labeled as ‘unedited’. 🧐 Nonetheless, I plan to watch and I’m sure it went well else they wouldn’t be airing it. Joe is on damage control even though he has quelled some of the fair weather Democrat Govs that jumped ship immediately after last week.

….guess I could’ve put this in political news of the day thread but they’re all kind of interrelated.

More OT for this thread is there is new consideration of the hush money trial due to evidence given and whether some of the testimony violated recent SC ruling so the judge delayed sentencing until September to review whether all of the testimony was legal.
 
jimistone said:
Licensing gun owners would be the same as requiring a person to be licensed to have free speech.... taking it from the god-given right level down to a mere privilege.
Click to expand...
This is a good point. I’m inclined to say the constitution also mentions “well-regulated”, but I can’t say you’re wrong
 
Further thoughts-

Voting is not spelled out in the constitution, but has been deemed constitutionally protected by the scotus. It is argued whether it should require ID (I side with repubs on this one and believe it should require ID).

If you leave the US, you are required to prove your citizenship upon return with a passport. Your being here is a constitutional right and yet requires documentation / regulation.
 
jimistone said:
Licensing gun owners would be the same as requiring a person to be licensed to have free speech....
Click to expand...
Going to add one more - the first amendment protects your right to assemble, but that usually requires a permit to do so. Granted those are local requirements depending on where you are as far as I know.

I’m going to say being a constitutionally protected right doesn’t mean it can’t require documentation. That’s not an infringement any more than checking your passport to enter the country.
 
leddy said:
This is a good point. I’m inclined to say the constitution also mentions “well-regulated”, but I can’t say you’re wrong
Click to expand...
Agreed it is a good point. Yay jimi! However... I tend to agree with leddy on some documentation or restriction placed on those rights that are enshrined in that crusty old parchment.

I am looking at this primarily as a pre-emptive, self-induced bit of regulation that would accomplish several things that arguably are more important than the actual minor restriction:

It would show that righties do acknowledge there is an issue and actually give a shit and are willing to work toward a solution.

It would put a damper on lefty pressure to enact more draconian regulation whether on firearms themselves, registration thereof, outright bans &etc...

It might actually garner enough support from righties that the lefties would have to go along and Look Ma - nobody is happy. But that means it might work.


Remember as well that my proposal would be less burdensome in many ways than what we have now. It would also only apply to new purchases. If the fundy-militia types are happy with their current arsenals they can stay off the list and keep doing what they do. They could also go out and get more stuff before the legislation went into force - there is always a run on guns and ammo when the regs are gonna change. There may very well also be folks that get licensed but do not buy a firearm. I acquired a concealed carry permit many years ago. I did not have a handgun nor did I go buy one. I was establishing my constitutional right and said so on the application. (I let it expire when they were no longer required in NH still before I ever purchased a firearm.) I would encourage all people to obtain the license. They could use it as Voter ID!
 
leddy said:
Going to add one more - the first amendment protects your right to assemble, but that usually requires a permit to do so. Granted those are local requirements depending on where you are as far as I know.

I’m going to say being a constitutionally protected right doesn’t mean it can’t require documentation. That’s not an infringement any more than checking your passport to enter the country.
Click to expand...
Good point.
Although the permit is about where you can exercise your right to assemble, not IF you have the right to assemble. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is a right of all Americans.
If you don't like what I'm doing, you have the constitutional right to assemble and speak out about it publically (unless your speaking out about your beefs with the us govt on social media...then youre the greatest threat tondemocracy on the planet and must be silenced)
But, you're stepping on my rights if you assemble in front of the front door of my business and block access of my customer's entry.
Your constitutional rights can't stomp on my constitutional rights can they?
Thus, the need for a permit on WHERE you can exercise your right to assemble and freely speak about what's bugging you.
 
Last edited:
"Gun control" is an interesting debate.

Ultimately, proponents are going to need to persuade voters to amend the constitution, because there is no way to square "possessing a firearm is an inalienable right" with "you need the government's permission to possess a firearm."

I'm serious about the constitutional amendment route. That is the proper role for legislators to play here. "Consent of the governed" and all that.
 
leddy said:
Going to add one more - the first amendment protects your right to assemble, but that usually requires a permit to do so. Granted those are local requirements depending on where you are as far as I know.

I’m going to say being a constitutionally protected right doesn’t mean it can’t require documentation. That’s not an infringement any more than checking your passport to enter the country.
Click to expand...
I disagree with the last part.
 
Supercreep said:
"Gun control" is an interesting debate.

Ultimately, proponents are going to need to persuade voters to amend the constitution, because there is no way to square "possessing a firearm is an inalienable right" with "you need the government's permission to possess a firearm."

I'm serious about the constitutional amendment route. That is the proper role for legislators to play here. "Consent of the governed" and all that.
Click to expand...
It is already unlawful for a felon to possess a firearm so there is already regulation to the 2nd amendment.

To keep with the intent, how is someone going to possess a firearm if they cannot prove that they are not a felon? IMO what is the harm if they are asked to register it to their person? But then we get into money and agencies that want to construe that as a charge and service that regulate it like every other thing that is mired in regulation so therein lies the challenge
 
This may be in a ‘News of the Forum’ but involves guns…apparently some gun-toting teens did a drive-by in Philly last night. Only casualty confirmed was a 14 yo male but several others took non -life threatening hits. And all in their teens.

City of Brotherly Love 😞
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top