Jesus... the 2nd Amendment again?

It's as if these people don't realize there are other things that matter or that we've already heard ALL of their stupid arguments a million times already.

The 2nd Amendment is an ambiguous rule... "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"... So, does a rule that says I can't possess an AK-47 infringe on my right to bear arms if I am still allowed to keep my Mossberg 12-gauge and my Colt .44? That is the ambiguity of the 2nd Amendment and and it's condemning the American people to an endless debate.

The rule itself hinges on a premise that doesn't even exist anymore, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state". The only reason why a well regulated militia was necessary to the security of a free state is because the U.S. didn't have (or want) a standing army. American republicanism (at the time) preferred to rely on militia.

That started to change a year after the Bill of Rights was ratified with a regiment established on the western frontier to deal with Indians and today we have the most expensive standing army in the world. This invalidates the premise and leaves the rule itself in a questionable state.

I have always been a defender of the 2nd Amendment but I'm changing my mind on this one. I would still like to see our right to bear arms protected, but we need an updated rule for that. One that makes sense in the 21st century because as it stands right now, the 2nd Amendment is just plain stupid.

Perhaps you are forgetting what those points are...

Linda made the point about needing "to simply enforce the laws already in place and that "changing the constitution isn’t going to change enforcement..."

You added that "We must also follow the moral guidance given by our creator"

So, my response WAS on point and I can elaborate if I want to, shiny-city boy.

Huh... that's sounds like a great plot for a Manga novel. LOL

I agree with linda that it's important to enforce the laws on the books but I don't think that's a reason to limit our ability as a nation to change our laws. After all, you can't always expect the enforcement of speeding laws to fix the problem of driving drunk. (just to provide an analogy)

I think it's short-sighted and somewhat insulting to the American people to say we are a nation of laws and we should just follow them like herded sheep. One of the great things about America is the fact that WE...Not God, Not the Founders but WE the PEOPLE have the right to change our laws through a well-designed democratic process. That's the only thing that makes us a self-determining people.

But then again, I really don't subscribe to that "shiny city" crap either... or that America is mankind's last hope. I've lived too many years abroad not to see that as anything other than prideful chauvinism and what does God have to say about that? Eh?

Trust me, if you moved to Europe now, you wouldn't suffer any loss of freedom.

Yup.


Any particular reason?


I've also surfed in Mexico, Costa Rica, Australia and South Africa. Had a great time in all those places. I'm not sure how you measure "greatness" zill - there's probably a million different ways to measure the greatness of a country but when people make that claim that their country is simply the greatest in the world, I pretty much take that as an emotional thing more than a factual thing.

As for me, I think there are some great things about America, but I wouldn't call it the greatest nation the world has ever seen. Honestly, I wouldn't give that title to ANY nation. It just seems pointless.

Interesting... I recognize some aspects of this analysis from what I've been told by two of my friends but they had a difficult time articulating it.

It's a lot to digest in one sitting so, I'll refrain from commenting for now, but I intend to do a little research to help me understand the picture better.

Getting back to my post - I wasn't drawing on anything so elaborate. It's really just run-of-the-mill civics, but the idea that private citizens aren't bridled to the Constitution seems to be reflected in your page.

In any case, hats off to getting all that information on one page!

The founders designed the Constitution to be amended by later generations because unlike a lot of people today, they understood the dynamic nature of history. They knew times would change and they wanted their basic principals to be adaptable to the times, hence the idea of amending... a process of adding new rules to override the old rules without actually removing them.

The idea that anyone should be strictly guided by the elaborations of a long gone era is foolish. The basic principles are simple enough... Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Some legal references call that the "spirit of the letter" while the rules are efforts to secure those principles. But the challenges to securing these basic principals today have almost nothing in common with the challenges to securing them in the 18th century.

The founders predicted this - which is more obvious than genius but that's WHY the Constitution is amendable. Jefferson even went so far as to say, every generation should have a new constitution. I'm inclined to agree as long as the basic principles are preserved.

I suspect the basic impasse is that demographics have changed to where democracy is becoming a threat to those who are losing majority status and often times, it's the antiquated laws that provide them with protection from the interests of the growing majority.

I also think people overestimate the Constitution as the ultimate law of the land. It's not. Private citizens, alien residents and private sector businesses have ZERO obligation to the Constitution which is a small volume of laws that only applies to the government, mostly for the purpose of establishing government protocol but also to keep the republic from becoming a tyranny.

The impeachment trial is proving the Constitution to be less-than-effective in this regard. So as far as I am concerned, any suggestion to change or replace the rules of the Constitution in order to restore its original purpose is very much order.

Looking at current events, it appears the U.S.Constitution is a far bigger problem for the right.


Nah, that's OK... Sometimes the better things in life are worth waiting for, such changes to the Constitution. Beside's if we're in Canada how are we going to fight for those changes? How are we going to save America from people like you?

Yeah, thanks for the suggestion but we're fine right here.

LOL

Yeah, for a constituency that puts so much emphasis on national security, it's weird to to see them all defending Trump's lavish serving of security clearance to his family members, none of which could clear the legal channels.

I swear, this is the most absurd presidency ever and it's really testing the American people. I just wish the results were better. I have to keep reminding myself that Trump apologists are just a very loud and obnoxious minority who got lucky one year.

Still comparing apples and oranges.

19,573,444,713,936.70 (2016)
20,244,900,016,053.50 (2017)
671,455,302,116.80 (difference)
0.034304401 (difference as a percentage)
3% (rounded)

20,244,900,016,053.50 (2017)
21,516,058,183,180.20 (2018)
1,271,158,167,126.70 (difference)
0.05907951 (difference as a percentage)
6% (rounded)

My math appears to be correct - feel free to point out the error if you think I'm missing something.

Because a) the Senate says they are not convinced and b) there is still more evidence to consider.

We know that reason "a" won't change, which leaves the dispute on the table and as long as that is the case, ALL the evidence should be weighed, after which if the Senators are still not convinced (or still not willing to yield) then they can vote according to whatever motivates them.

I think the case is actually stupid-simple. Trump was caught trying to bribe Zellensky. That's the foul right there. At first the Republicans were denying it, but the evidence was too obvious, so Trump's lawyers have gone through this parade of excuses and qualifications...

For instance - "Trump released the funds without getting what he asked Zellensky for, so is it bribery if the quid was released before getting the quo?" The key is that the funds were only released AFTER the whistle was blown and the answer is yes. How else do you think all those sting operations work? They catch the criminal in the attempt, not after they pull it off.

Next, the Republicans posed this question... "Is bribery a crime?" Well... The Constitution says...

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”.

So does it matter if bribery is a crime when the Constitution actually lists "bribery" as a reason for impeachment?

THEN the lawyers tried to suggest that bribery is actually standard procedure. Of course they were comparing well-defined protocols and open summits with covert back-channels and side-wink gestures, but let's just go with the stretch - to even make that suggestion is to say that everything the government does is impeachable. Ridiculous but that was their argument.

NEXT the lawyers tried to excuse the bribery by saying it was in the best interest of the nation. But that doesn't change the fact that bribery is STILL a violation of the Constitution. If people don't think standard protocol is enough and they want bribery to be part of their "national defense", they need to amend the Constitution first to change that rule.

Besides, Trump had every opportunity to request an investigation through standard channels and he didn't. He had two previous years where he could have made that request... Not a peep. All of a sudden on the eve of the 2020 election, when it became clear Biden would be running against him Trump took an interest in Biden's connections in the Ukraine. Did he go through the appropriate channels? No. Why? Well, to do that you need enough evidence to suggest probable cause. Does Trump have that? No... if he did it would have come up in the proceedings by now. So that's why he went the back-channel route... and what about Zellensky? Does Ukrainian law give him the authority to start an investigation without any evidence? Well, then how about just an announcement?

Just an announcement? Yes, that's all the evidence has revealed... a request for an announcement, which is all that is needed to sabotage Biden's campaign.

So, NOW the lawyers are trying to argue that even sabotaging an opponents campaign is valid if Trump thinks winning the election is in the best interest of the nation.

The absurdity is endless.

So, does Schiff have a rock solid case against Trump? Of course he does. Anyone with a high-school education who isn't obsessed with partisan politics can see that just by looking at the available evidence.

Do we still need more evidence? Not really. There's already enough to convict Trump. But the senators won't for political reasons. So at this point, the request to consider ALL the evidence is more about fulfilling the legal obligations of the Senate than anything else, even if it's a formality. Even so, there is a slight chance the evidence could be so compelling that some senators might break rank and I'm sure that's why McConnell is so afraid of it.

No, people are thinking... They just aren't supporting Trump. But I do think a lot of people wind up just parroting the media and among them are ALL the Trump supporters, none of which want to believe their opponents are any different.

To be fair, most people have a lot on their plates and don't have the time is takes to "think" their way to sound conclusions and one reason why it takes so long is because the politicians spend so much time obscuring important factors that don't serve their objectives.

Post-Fox media doesn't help because companies are finding better profits in telling people what they want to hear not what they need to hear. (When I say Post-Fox, I am referring to the infamous case Fox News brought to court that resulted in a ruling that still stands today... that news doesn't have to be true.)

So there are parrots on all sides... There are also thinkers on all sides (of the ideological cube) But it gets harder with each blunder Trump makes to suspect there are ANY Trump supporters among the thinkers. I don't think it's a lack of intelligence, I think it's an emotional overdrive that takes over, which is why it's so important for Trump to keep the accusations flying and the emotions boiling.

That's an erroneous assumption. Sasputz007 caught some of the error but he's still off...
I'll explain...

The figure listed under Trump is taken from 2019 which is only the second year affected by his budget proposals (the first year under a president is ALWAYS affected by the last budget of the previous president), so you're right in saying "so far" but none of the other figures you are comparing that with are "so far" figures... they are all full-term figures, some of them spanning eight years.

The other thing to keep in mind is that the Treasury still hasn't assessed the 2019 revenue yet because taxes for 2019 aren't due until April of this year. A better comparison would be the last year affected by Obama's budget and the first year affected by Trump's budget... apples and apples.

According to the tables from which Saspatz007 and you are drawing conclusions...

2016 (for reference) = 19,573,444,713,936.79
2017 (last year affected by Obama's budget) = 20,244,900,016,053.51 = 3% increase
2018 (first year affected by Trump's budget) = 22,719,401,753,433.78 = 6% increase

This is why education matters in political debates and why Trump's popularity is so dependent on blocking it out.

It's a shame when friends part way over politics and I'm seeing this happen a lot these days. I play in a band that four years ago was surrounded by a rather large group of friends who always came to watch us play at the pubs. I moved out of state for a few years, then came back and found a lot of them were gone, including our drummer, our lead singer and most of the "fans". 'Turns out it was politics and the people that left were all anti-Trump.

I still play with the remaining members and sometimes I feel like I should write a book about how to stay friends with Trump-supporters because it's not always easy. As far as they are concerned Trump is a hero and liberals are all haters. I would try to reason with their arguments but that translated in their minds to "Trump-hate", I tried inventive analogies to try and get them to see beyond the box but that translated in their minds to leftist "parroting". After a while I found four things in particular help...

1. seeking common ground.
2. being able to laugh at your own side.
3. brushing off the rants.
4. having a song to play.

When you said your "dem friends" were doctors and teachers, it struck me as being significant because I happen to be the only college-educated professional left in the band. Of the two that left, one is a retired hospital administrator and the other is a scientist at Bell Labs, the remaining musicians are hospital orderlies and a telemarketer. It was a similar divide among the fans... most of the education left with the liberals. Maybe they got tired of their analysis being cast by half-drunk truck drivers as "left-wing garbage". Maybe they got tired of their concern for the future of their children being mindlessly categorized as "Trump-hate".

I'm sorry for what happened with you and your friends bro... but I can't help but wonder what that looked like to the doctors and teachers in your group. I mean... you actually told these professionals to be happy for their prosperity while implying Trump deserves the credit for it?