America - The Official Thread

[Danoff]

Well, at this point I'd argue it's more of just a theory than a conspiracy theory because we aren't even close to understanding the full picture. Hopefully the FBI is interested in finding out.

That's my hope as well. I guess my expectation is that as more information comes out, we'll see more and more implication at the whitehouse.

 

[UKMikey]

Maybe they should take the hint and walk away?

 

[Keef]

I'm starting to think that the riot is going to erode the 2nd amendment, even more than school shootings (etc.) already have. The gun-nut group has a lot of overlap with the stopthesteal group. The pro-trump folks might waive their flags proudly and speak of freedom and america, but at this point they represent authoritarian dictatorial control - which makes them less sympathetic when it comes to their rights to arms (at least in the general public eye). Insurrectionists who demand a dictator overthrow democracy claim a right to amass firearms? And it's so that they can resist their government you say? Uh.... that resistance is taking shape in the form of plotting to kidnap and assassinate government officials that resist their dictator. Not good.

I'm a gun owner myself, and I fully support the 2nd amendment, but it's plain to me that the right-wing argument that preventing oppression from government is important just got a major setback.

As a person who had the free choice to pursue my certifications but was expected to achieve high levels of training in order to exercise them, I’m left wondering if I can truly support the second amendment as it’s written. I believe everybody should be offered the opportunity to own guns for sport and defense, but I also believe they should have to display competence, rationality, skill, discipline, and respect for the responsibility.

The 2nd doesn’t have enough words. Perhaps it should be amended. Cost aside, if flying an airplane (pursuit of happiness/freedom to travel etc) is seen as too complex or dangerous to be guaranteed to all people, then gun usage certainly doesn’t pass muster.

Edit: To be clear the comparison here would be a private pilot to a private gun owner, neither of whom are using their tools or skills for compensation. Virtually anybody in America can own a gun! Virtually anybody in America can own an airplane, and in fact there are fewer restrictions - criminal offense or carry permit restrictions are non-existent and if the airplane could fit in your pocket you could take it to Walmart and show everybody your trinket. But beyond certain parameters, nobody can operate that airplane unless they're certified due to the immense responsibility. Perhaps beyond certain parameters, nobody should operate guns unless they're certified due to the immense responsibility. In this vein, I'm not sure the 2nd Amendment as written can be justified.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

So I'm just spitaballing here... but... lemme see if I can get this straight:

- Trump incites the mob to head to congress
- Members of the mob include people who intend to kidnap and execute the people they find at the capitol
- Officials at the capitol allow the mob to pass into the building unimpeded
- The event being interrupted is the final blow in ending Trump's term
- McConnell and Pence are furious with Trump in the aftermath

So if I just add these together I get... hang on a sec...

That Trump wanted his mob to attack congress so that he could do away with a branch of government before they ended his reign - so that he could seize control of the government - as he has been trying through various means all year.

Once you really see it, it's fairly difficult to unsee. I know it's a conspiracy theory, I'll need more evidence before I consider it true. At the moment it's a theory that appears to fit the facts.

That could be the first part if the rumors of him planning to leave the country come inauguration time are true. Then he decides what to do afterwards depending on how things work out. Very scary considering those posts on parle*.

 

[Biggles]

The 2nd doesn’t have enough words.

Bingo!

The 2nd Amendment, as written, is extremely unclear. That's a problem, just as having a constitution that was written more than 200 years ago is a problem. The amending formula is problem. The EC is a problem ... in fact, there are a lot of problems with the Constitution.

Having said that, it feels like the mass shooter thing has receded somewhat in the last two or three years (although still plenty of random gun violence), eclipsed by the never-ending political theatre.

 

[McLaren]

That Trump wanted his mob to attack congress so that he could do away with a branch of government before they ended his reign - so that he could seize control of the government - as he has been trying through various means all year.

Damn, I can't find it anymore. But, there was an article with a source claiming Trump wasn't exactly appalled with seeing his supporters storm the Capitol.

Maybe they should take the hint and walk away?

I saw them whining about this on r/conservative in a thread about r/donaldtrump being banned. They were conveniently (imo) leaving out if there was a reason Facebook banned them other than simply "just existing".

 

[Joey D]

in fact, there are a lot of problems with the Constitution.

The biggest issue with the Constitution is that politicians don't follow it and things are so stacked that the methods to deal with politicians not following it can't be enacted. Also, the average citizen doesn't understand it either, partially because our schools can't teach it worth a damn.

The 2nd Amendment is fine, people have the right to bear arms and the government can't infringe on your rights to own them. What it doesn't say is that you have the right to bear arms where ever you want and it's likely that even in the late 1700's the framers of the Constitution understood this. They just didn't want the government to suddenly tell people that they couldn't own a gun anymore, but even they likely saw that you shouldn't be carrying your musket to church on Sunday.

No one should read more into the US Constitution than what is written. When people do, it becomes a problem and most of the time ends up violating the 10th Amendment which says anything not laid out in the Constitution is up for the states to figure out. If we got back to that, things would be much better.

 

[Biggles]

The biggest issue with the Constitution is that politicians don't follow it and things are so stacked that the methods to deal with politicians not following it can't be enacted. Also, the average citizen doesn't understand it either, partially because our schools can't teach it worth a damn.

The 2nd Amendment is fine, people have the right to bear arms and the government can't infringe on your rights to own them. What it doesn't say is that you have the right to bear arms where ever you want and it's likely that even in the late 1700's the framers of the Constitution understood this. They just didn't want the government to suddenly tell people that they couldn't own a gun anymore, but even they likely saw that you shouldn't be carrying your musket to church on Sunday.

No one should read more into the US Constitution than what is written. When people do, it becomes a problem and most of the time ends up violating the 10th Amendment which says anything not laid out in the Constitution is up for the states to figure out. If we got back to that, things would be much better.

I disagree. A document written at a time when slavery was standard practice & women had virtually no human rights. You'd have to have drunk too much of the kool aid to think the 2nd amendment is clearly written.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Damn, I can't find it anymore. But, there was an article with a source claiming Trump wasn't exactly appalled with seeing his supporters storm the Capitol.

That doesn't really need any support to be believable. It's probably a wet dream for him.

 

[Joey D]

I disagree. A document written at a time when slavery was standard practice & women had virtually no human rights. You'd have to have drunk too much of the kool aid to think the 2nd amendment is clearly written.

The 2nd Amendment says you have the right to bear arms and it can't be infringed. That's pretty clear and it only becomes unclear if you try reading into it, which you shouldn't. Anything past the right to owning a firearm should be left up for the states to decide.

 

[Scaff]

The 2nd Amendment says you have the right to bear arms and it can't be infringed. That's pretty clear and it only becomes unclear if you try reading into it, which you shouldn't. Anything past the right to owning a firearm should be left up for the states to decide.

The issue here, is that’s an extract from it, not a stand alone statement.

The complete wording....

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


...is up for debate, as it’s arguably a carry on from the first section regarding a well regulated Militia.

Which is why it has, and continues to be debated. Are they two separate statements or is the right to bear arms tied to being part of a well regulated militia.

From an English language point of view the use of a comma can make them related, however the English language is a tricky little bugger in that regard. However the use of commas in the full sentence shows an intent to link in regard to militia and security and arms and right, as such to ignore the comma linking arms and militia would go against the trend set by the other two.

As such, and without extracting only part of the whole sentence, it’s not actually that clear at all.

 

[Joey D]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

All a militia means is a citizen's army and that it's required for a free state, per the framers of the Constitution. So people are legally able to own firearms due to being citiznes being able to form into a regulated militia.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't say that you're allowed to carry a firearm where ever you choose or even spell out what kind of firearm you're allowed to own. This is why it should be left up to states. If California wants to ban everything except a hunting rifle, it can do so as long as it doesn't outright ban firearm period.

The 2nd Amendment also doesn't say that there can't be licensing required for firearms either, which means it's up to the states.

The reason we get bogged down with the Consitution is that people try to read too much into it. If it's not spelled out, then it goes to the states to figure out and each of those states will have its own Constitution to spell out their processes. Unfortunately, lobbyist groups pump so much money in the government we get rulings that are likely not Constitutional and we move further and further away from the Constitution.

A good example of this is just how many people are monumentally stupid when it comes to the 1st Amendment. You see it all over right now with people bitching about Twitter banning Trump. All the 1st Amendment does is protect citizens from being censored by the government. It says nothing about the citizens silencing the government.

 

[Scaff]

All a militia means is a citizen's army and that it's required for a free state, per the framers of the Constitution. So people are legally able to own firearms due to being citiznes being able to form into a regulated militia.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't say that you're allowed to carry a firearm where ever you choose or even spell out what kind of firearm you're allowed to own. This is why it should be left up to states. If California wants to ban everything except a hunting rifle, it can do so as long as it doesn't outright ban firearm period.

The 2nd Amendment also doesn't say that there can't be licensing required for firearms either, which means it's up to the states.

The reason we get bogged down with the Consitution is that people try to read too much into it. If it's not spelled out, then it goes to the states to figure out and each of those states will have its own Constitution to spell out their processes. Unfortunately, lobbyist groups pump so much money in the government we get rulings that are likely not Constitutional and we move further and further away from the Constitution.

A good example of this is just how many people are monumentally stupid when it comes to the 1st Amendment. You see it all over right now with people bitching about Twitter banning Trump. All the 1st Amendment does is protect citizens from being censored by the government. It says nothing about the citizens silencing the government.

It doesn't however define exactly what a Militia is, or what would make it "well regulated" (rather than just 'regulated')?

It's also possible to make the claim that (as some do), licencing, limitations on the type of weapon, etc are all infringements.

As such I would say that the 2nd is anything but clear.

 

[Joey D]

It doesn't however define exactly what a Militia is, or what would make it "well regulated" (rather than just 'regulated')?

It's also possible to make the claim that (as some do), licencing, limitations on the type of weapon, etc are all infringements.

As such I would say that the 2nd is anything but clear.

The Constitution does spell out what a militia is though in Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 & 16. Essentially it says Congress has the power to raise it and the States need to appoint officers and layout training.

It's why anything past the actual owning of a firearm should be left up to the states to decide since it's not spelled out in the Constitution. The framers put the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights for situations like this.

It's why I believe the federal government should be so limited and the state's governments be so open. The feds can only do things outlined by the founding document and everything else should be handled by the states. Would it cause issues within certain states? Absolutely, but states would figure out that their laws would attract a certain type of person and that type of person may or may not be good for the population.

 

[Liquid]

Thinking ahead, and this is a genuine query I've had on my mind for quite a whole, when Donald Trump dies, what sort of eulogy do you think he'll get? As a former US President, he'll get a full state funeral and the sitting President at least, amongst others, will have to give a speech.

Just got me wondering if they'll pretend to be nice because it's a very public scene or they'll not give a toss once he's dead and actually say that he leaves a lasting legacy of infamy and corruption. And if they do have to pretend to be nice, what can they say?

 

[Keef]

Anything past the right to owning a firearm should be left up for the states to decide.

In this case I'd wish that my state would legislate that as an uncertified pilot cannot fly their airplane beyond their own property and airspace, an uncertified driver cannot drive their car beyond their own property, then an uncertified gun owner cannot carry their gun beyond their own property. Anybody who wants to fly can get certified, anybody who wants to drive can get certified, and anybody who wants to carry or shoot a gun can get certified.

 

[Dennisch]

Just got me wondering if they'll pretend to be nice because it's a very public scene or they'll not give a toss once he's dead and actually say that he leaves a lasting legacy of infamy and corruption. And if they do have to pretend to be nice, what can they say?

They should honour him by not showing up.

 

[UKMikey]

Thinking ahead, and this is a genuine query I've had on my mind for quite a whole, when Donald Trump dies, what sort of eulogy do you think he'll get? As a former US President, he'll get a full state funeral and the sitting President at least, amongst others, will have to give a speech.

Just got me wondering if they'll pretend to be nice because it's a very public scene or they'll not give a toss once he's dead and actually say that he leaves a lasting legacy of infamy and corruption. And if they do have to pretend to be nice, what can they say?

Slick Willie gave Tricky Dick a glowing tribute. Perhaps because they'd both faced impeachment.

https://www.funeralwise.com/celebration-of-life/ceremony/eulogy/nixon/

 

[Liquid]

Slick Willie gave Tricky Dick a glowing tribute.

Nixon had 20 years post-Presidency to rehabilitate himself. Plus he wasn't a delusional, narcissistic egomaniac and his counsel was openly sought by the Presidents who followed him. Trump... uh... probably won't be doing that...

And, I will go out on a limb and say that Richard Nixon doesn't come within an arse's roar of being as much of a crook as Donald Trump.

 

[PeterJB]

Unless he gets impeached, removed from office and stripped of all the presidential privileges, then he'll probably be given the same kind of funeral as all other Presidents.

 

[Crash]

the sitting President at least, amongst others, will have to give a speech.

That's a courtesy, not a requirement.

 

[Keef]

"One more turd in the punch bowl"

Pompeo lifts "self-imposed restrictions" on U.S.-Taiwan relationship

It's pretty obvious that this will rile tensions between the US and China, and then when Biden engages diplomatically with China, Republicans will accuse him of being soft or being compromised. This move just overcomplicates things at an already very complicated time and is a clear effort to burn everything down on the way out. Absolutely despicable people.

 

[UKMikey]

Nixon had 20 years post-Presidency to rehabilitate himself. Plus he wasn't a delusional, narcissistic egomaniac and his counsel was openly sought by the Presidents who followed him. Trump... uh... probably won't be doing that...

And, I will go out on a limb and say that Richard Nixon doesn't come within an arse's roar of being as much of a crook as Donald Trump.

I think everyone realises this, but it's the closest we're likely to get so far to an example of a disgraced president being eulogised after his death.

 

[PocketZeven]

I haven’t been here, since my country went in lockdown back in March 2020. And a LOT has happened since then. Looking forward to the transfer of power in the US, but I conclude to the pro-Trumpers... I told you so! He is a narcissist and immensely unfit for office and I hope that like COVID his presidency and the virus will be a distant memory for all ASAP!

 

[Imari]

Thinking ahead, and this is a genuine query I've had on my mind for quite a whole, when Donald Trump dies, what sort of eulogy do you think he'll get? As a former US President, he'll get a full state funeral and the sitting President at least, amongst others, will have to give a speech.

Just got me wondering if they'll pretend to be nice because it's a very public scene or they'll not give a toss once he's dead and actually say that he leaves a lasting legacy of infamy and corruption. And if they do have to pretend to be nice, what can they say?

I mean, at this point he's the worst US President of all time, right? Like he was pretty widely considered to be near the bottom before, but surely inciting the overthrow of the government puts him right at the bottom.

One assumes that if he's actually impeached and convicted he'll get nothing at all.

 

[Blitz24]

I mean, at this point he's the worst US President of all time, right? Like he was pretty widely considered to be near the bottom before, but surely inciting the overthrow of the government puts him right at the bottom.

One assumes that if he's actually impeached and convicted he'll get nothing at all.

In the only poll that he wasn't ranked last, he was STILL outranked by WH Harrison....

 

[Liquid]

In the only poll that he wasn't ranked last, he was STILL outranked by WH Harrison....

Whose 30 days in office before dying makes him statistically insignificant so... Trump "wins" that poll too. Bigly!

 

[UKMikey]

I mean, at this point he's the worst US President of all time, right? Like he was pretty widely considered to be near the bottom before, but surely inciting the overthrow of the government puts him right at the bottom.

One assumes that if he's actually impeached and convicted he'll get nothing at all.

From what I've read Buchanan started the Civil War and after everyone blamed him he went to his grave blaming abolitionists.

 

[ryzno]

I haven’t been here, since my country went in lockdown back in March 2020. And a LOT has happened since then. Looking forward to the transfer of power in the US, but I conclude to the pro-Trumpers... I told you so! He is a narcissist and immensely unfit for office and I hope that like COVID his presidency and the virus will be a distant memory for all ASAP!

Good to see you back man. We were actually asking about you not too long ago.

 

[CodeRedR51]

I haven’t been here, since my country went in lockdown back in March 2020.

Man if I was forced to stay home that whole time I would probably spend way too much time here.