Trump will be president
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-10-2016, 02:55 PM
RE: Trump will be president
(26-10-2016 02:39 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(26-10-2016 01:45 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  In the eyes of republicans, democrats are traitors. Sanctuary cities, gun bans, using constitutional amendments to justify things like abortion and gay marriage. The founders would not approve. A new constitutional amendment is one thing, but using an existing amendment for things it was never intended for is wrong.
Hey LDH

I'm not an American so I am not at all "angry" at you or your position.

You're post above was about your perception of "most" republicans, I want to understand a bit more about you though. Can you please answer the following (if you want to)

1. Do YOU think it is important to preserve the ideals and positions of the founders?
2. Do YOU consider that the governance over America now ought to be updated for the ideals, wants and needs of the current set of Americans?
3. Are YOU worried about a change in American culture?
4. Do YOU see immigration as a threat to the current American culture?
5. Are YOU for or against women choosing to have abortions?
6. Are YOU for or against government recognising same gender marriages?
7. Is YOUR freedom, regarding gun ownership a top priority for you? Perhaps more so than taxes, healthcare, budget deficits etc
8. Do YOU think any more restrictions on gun ownership/possession is a slippery slope towards taking away your guns (for the purpose of personal protection)?

If you are perceiving that your answers will further fuel a flame here, I'd be happy for you to PM me the answers (if you want to). I'm just interested to understand better, I presume your answers are probably not too different to others around you but are probably "repulsive" to many people on this forum. It seems you are more aligned with Christian Americans (from the American South).

1. Yes
2. Yes, but through constitutional change, not judicial interpretation
3. Yes
4. Yes, especially the threat of terrorism
5. For, but only during first trimester
6. For. But I think it should have been done through constitutional amendment not judicial interpretation of an amendment meant to protect freed slaves
7. Yes
8. Yes

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Lord Dark Helmet's post
26-10-2016, 02:56 PM
RE: Trump will be president
(26-10-2016 02:02 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(26-10-2016 01:51 PM)adey67 Wrote:  What's the problem with gay marriage so long as no one is forcing you to marry a bloke ? What gives you the right to organise someone else's sex life ? Bet you cant answer that one can you bitch ? Lol

Absolutely nothing. My brother in law is gay and he's one of my best friends.

My point was, things like bearing arms, free speech, freedom of religion etc are actually in the constitution. You won't find the words abortion or gay marriage. Using an existing amendment to justify those things with the supreme court "interpretation" is the incorrect method.

You see, we didn't pussy out when it came to slavery or womens voting. Slavery was wrong. Women not getting to vote was wrong. So they did it the right way. Amendment. They could have simply used the supreme court to say "slavery is wrong because all men are free based on amendment xyz." No, they fixed it the right way. They'll do the same with guns. Instead of mustering the required votes to change the 2nd amendment, or remove it, they'll use activist judges to interpret it their way. Slowly chip away at it.

Are you really suggesting that every time the federal government wants to make a law, they have to add a constitutional amendment? Do you really want a constitution with thousands of amendments? Somehow I don't think that's what the founders had in mind. I think they meant for the constitution to be used as a guide in making laws, which is exactly how we use it. It was never intended to be the entirety of the law all by itself.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
26-10-2016, 02:56 PM
RE: Trump will be president
(26-10-2016 02:52 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(26-10-2016 02:35 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  But we have the right to own firearms to defend against tyranny. If our government fails to follow the constitution, or begins to interpret it incorrectly to implement their agenda, we have the right to kick their ass.

And you're the idiot who will decide that they're failing to follow the constitution? Rolleyes

Laughat

He's gonna end up next to Ammon and Ryan and Cliven.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
26-10-2016, 02:56 PM
RE: Trump will be president
(26-10-2016 02:35 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  Americans are the militia. We do not have to be organized. Or have a monthly meeting.

But we have the right to own firearms to defend against tyranny. If our government fails to follow the constitution, or begins to interpret it incorrectly to implement their agenda, we have the right to kick their ass.

In 2016, guns are not what "defends against tyranny".
Too bad gramps, the world has moved on, and left you in the past and in the dust.
In 2016, VOTES, communication and organization defends against tyranny.

It's not up to YOU (alone), or your opinions, uneducated as they are, to interpret the constitution, and/or take action on the basis of your opinions. That's called mental illness. That 's anarchy. You know how far you would get with that ?
As far as a prison cell. That's how far.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
26-10-2016, 02:57 PM
RE: Trump will be president
(26-10-2016 02:50 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(26-10-2016 02:26 PM)SYZ Wrote:  "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed."

It's been a while since I've read the Constitution, but I'm pretty sure the bolded words are not in there -- you are putting them there. People have been arguing about the interpretation of this amendment from the beginning, but I don't think it's as cut and dried as you are painting it. The consensus seems to be that you are allowed to own a gun without being part of any organized militia. Back then, much of the population subsisted by hunting or had farms in areas where there were still dangerous predators. Everybody had guns, and there's no way they would have limited it to "militia only".

Disclaimer: I don't own a gun and have no desire to. But I don't want to ban them either. People who do want to ban them would have to repeal or change the second amendment. Good luck with that.

I think the point was a prior supreme court justice recommended that the 2nd amendment be rewritten that way.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
26-10-2016, 03:01 PM
RE: Trump will be president
(26-10-2016 02:57 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(26-10-2016 02:50 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  It's been a while since I've read the Constitution, but I'm pretty sure the bolded words are not in there -- you are putting them there. People have been arguing about the interpretation of this amendment from the beginning, but I don't think it's as cut and dried as you are painting it. The consensus seems to be that you are allowed to own a gun without being part of any organized militia. Back then, much of the population subsisted by hunting or had farms in areas where there were still dangerous predators. Everybody had guns, and there's no way they would have limited it to "militia only".

Disclaimer: I don't own a gun and have no desire to. But I don't want to ban them either. People who do want to ban them would have to repeal or change the second amendment. Good luck with that.

I think the point was a prior supreme court justice recommended that the 2nd amendment be rewritten that way.

Perhaps, but like I said, good luck with that. The Supreme Court can't just re-write an amendment. It takes all the states to do that.

Also, I think they absolutely should "interpret" the constitution and its amendments. That's what the Supreme Court does, and what it has always done. We really don't want to be adding 500 amendments every year, even if that were possible.
Find all posts by this user
26-10-2016, 03:15 PM
RE: Trump will be president
(26-10-2016 02:55 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(26-10-2016 02:39 PM)Stevil Wrote:  1. Do YOU think it is important to preserve the ideals and positions of the founders?
2. Do YOU consider that the governance over America now ought to be updated for the ideals, wants and needs of the current set of Americans?
3. Are YOU worried about a change in American culture?
4. Do YOU see immigration as a threat to the current American culture?
5. Are YOU for or against women choosing to have abortions?
6. Are YOU for or against government recognising same gender marriages?
7. Is YOUR freedom, regarding gun ownership a top priority for you? Perhaps more so than taxes, healthcare, budget deficits etc
8. Do YOU think any more restrictions on gun ownership/possession is a slippery slope towards taking away your guns (for the purpose of personal protection)?

1. Yes
2. Yes, but through constitutional change, not judicial interpretation
3. Yes
4. Yes, especially the threat of terrorism
5. For, but only during first trimester
6. For. But I think it should have been done through constitutional amendment not judicial interpretation of an amendment meant to protect freed slaves
7. Yes
8. Yes
Thanks for your answers, I think that gives me a clear picture.
Items 1 and 2 confict and so some balance between them is required. Maybe Republicans are more traditionalist and more on sanctity of original intent, maybe democrates are less traditional? But it seems both sides want some sort of balance on these two items.

For 3, I think change is always inevitable, I can only imagine how happy the American Indians were once their own ways of life were over-ridden by the British colonials and their descendants. For the Maori, the Aborigines and others that once ruled the roost in a land and then lost that rule and saw significant change in culture. I also think may non "western" civilisations see much threat to their own culture when they see young ones mimicking American practices that they see on popular TV shows and movies.

4, I think there is this perception with many people, that Muslims are evil, that Islam incites violence and atrocities. I think the fact is that the vast amount of Muslims are peaceful. Do you close your borders to Muslim ideals knowing that there are a few extremists?

6, OK, you see it a significant enough as to require a callout in the constitution, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of sexual orientation, freedom of family, etc

7,8 Where I come from gun issues are a very low priority, we are used to the idea of not having guns for self protection and there is little call for it, we also don't perceive the potential need to uprise against a rouge government. But I understand that this is a major topic for you.
Find all posts by this user
26-10-2016, 03:36 PM (This post was last modified: 26-10-2016 03:40 PM by Lord Dark Helmet.)
RE: Trump will be president
(26-10-2016 03:15 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(26-10-2016 02:55 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  1. Yes
2. Yes, but through constitutional change, not judicial interpretation
3. Yes
4. Yes, especially the threat of terrorism
5. For, but only during first trimester
6. For. But I think it should have been done through constitutional amendment not judicial interpretation of an amendment meant to protect freed slaves
7. Yes
8. Yes
Thanks for your answers, I think that gives me a clear picture.
Items 1 and 2 confict and so some balance between them is required. Maybe Republicans are more traditionalist and more on sanctity of original intent, maybe democrates are less traditional? But it seems both sides want some sort of balance on these two items.

For 3, I think change is always inevitable, I can only imagine how happy the American Indians were once their own ways of life were over-ridden by the British colonials and their descendants. For the Maori, the Aborigines and others that once ruled the roost in a land and then lost that rule and saw significant change in culture. I also think may non "western" civilisations see much threat to their own culture when they see young ones mimicking American practices that they see on popular TV shows and movies.

4, I think there is this perception with many people, that Muslims are evil, that Islam incites violence and atrocities. I think the fact is that the vast amount of Muslims are peaceful. Do you close your borders to Muslim ideals knowing that there are a few extremists?

6, OK, you see it a significant enough as to require a callout in the constitution, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of sexual orientation, freedom of family, etc

7,8 Where I come from gun issues are a very low priority, we are used to the idea of not having guns for self protection and there is little call for it, we also don't perceive the potential need to uprise against a rouge government. But I understand that this is a major topic for you.

#1 and #2 are linked. They don't really conflict. You see, the way it works is to change the constitution you need a huge majority of the population to make a change. That's how a republic works. You need 2/3 of the congress or 2/3 of the state legislatures. 66%. Thats a super majority. But the way we've been doing things lately is imposing the will of a small majority to make major change. Using laws, propostions and executive orders requires a 51/49 majority. The founders didn't want a small majority to rule over the minority especially on major issues. For example, lets say 51% of americans want to ban guns completely. We can't just have a vote. We would need 66% of elected legislatures to enact the change. Super majority. But democrats would love to enact a ban that way.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
26-10-2016, 03:50 PM
RE: Trump will be president
(26-10-2016 01:45 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(26-10-2016 01:39 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Something real like a small group who wishes to overthrow democracy because they didn't get their way? You are not a Patriot you are a spoiled brat and a would be traitor to everything this country has ever stood for.

In the eyes of republicans, democrats are traitors. Sanctuary cities, gun bans, using constitutional amendments to justify things like abortion and gay marriage. The founders would not approve. A new constitutional amendment is one thing, but using an existing amendment for things it was never intended for is wrong.

Who the fuck reveres the founders or their opinions?

Don't let those gnomes and their illusions get you down. They're just gnomes and illusions.

--Jake the Dog, Adventure Time

Alouette, je te plumerai.
Find all posts by this user
26-10-2016, 04:15 PM
RE: Trump will be president
(26-10-2016 03:36 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  #1 and #2 are linked. They don't really conflict. You see, the way it works is to change the constitution you need a huge majority of the population to make a change. That's how a republic works. You need 2/3 of the congress or 2/3 of the state legislatures. 66%. Thats a super majority. But the way we've been doing things lately is imposing the will of a small majority to make major change. Using laws, propostions and executive orders requires a 51/49 majority. The founders didn't want a small majority to rule over the minority especially on major issues.
Yeah, I don't like a system where the majority rules of the minorities.
Which is why I am not all for voting for laws. I think there needs to be some underlying principles or constitution which can moderate or restrict the power law makers have.

That does push the issue up the stack one level though, because we still have the task of setting those principles or constitution, but also allowing that to be changed as society changes.

If you have a principle regarding protection of people's lives then you may get some people then classifying an unborn as not being a "person". But at least, a constitution looks to put some constraints onto government and majority opinion.


(26-10-2016 03:36 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  For example, lets say 51% of americans want to ban guns completely. We can't just have a vote. We would need 66% of elected legislatures to enact the change. Super majority. But democrats would love to enact a ban that way.
I don't think many people want a complete ban on guns. Especially in USA, I think the gun debates come down to concerns regarding rapid fire, high capacity magazines. Perhaps those guns that might be useful in an uprising against the government and the army. Not because they are worried you might try to take down the government, but because people are sensitive to mass shootings.

Regarding handguns in US, it seems that there are so many about that it is too much of an ask to hope to reduce the availability of those in a meaningful way.

In NZ, for example, we cannot walk around with loaded handguns. BUT, I doubt the US will go this way, you guys see guns as personal protection against would be muggers and rapists. I doubt that a restriction on large magazines, or guns capable of using large magazines would result on a banning of all handguns. But, who knows?
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: