• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Ongoing US GOP Debacle Thread: Seditious Republicans march toward authoritarianism

Lol

You just want the court to have the flexibility to impose your preferred policy choices under the guise of “interpretation.” I get it. I would like that too. But I believe that a predictable interpretive method is a better way to do law than just holding the constitution says what I want it to say.

This coming from someone whose understanding of 2A completely ignores a well-regulated militia.
 
Y’all, if we don’t use originalism, people will marry furniture. Or something like that.

It’s science.
 
if they don't have a right to own a gun, what are they gonna show up with to serve in the militia, a club?

the problem for the gun-o-phobes is that if you didn't have a gun, you couldn't serve in the militia

that is, private gun ownership pre-supposed serving in the militia
 
if they don't have a right to own a gun, what are they gonna show up with to serve in the militia, a club?

the problem for the gun-o-phobes is that if you didn't have a gun, you couldn't serve in the militia

that is, private gun ownership pre-supposed serving in the militia

He said “Gun-o-phobes” as if it’s unreasonable to be scared of people with guns.

So which well-regulated militia are current gun owners joining?
 
quit putting the cart before the horse, the Constitutional right to gun ownership preceded participation in a militia, and not the other way around; the Constitutional right to gun ownership was not based on participation in a militia, rather participating in a militia was based on the right to have a gun
 
You said gun ownership preceded participation in a militia, so which militias are gun owners participating in today?
 
quit putting the cart before the horse, the Constitutional right to gun ownership preceded participation in a militia, and not the other way around; the Constitutional right to gun ownership was not based on participation in a militia, rather participating in a militia was based on the right to have a gun

I mean, the constitution literally put the militia before the gun right. The right to have a gun is preceded by the need to have a militia to secure the state, and the militia was preceded by the need for regulation and oversight of the militia.
 
You said gun ownership preceded participation in a militia, so which militias are gun owners participating in today?

I’m confused if we’re going by the words or the intent.
 
Regarding gun ownership, it's almost as if the Framers, when they were writing the Constitution in the late 1780s, had no way of knowing that in the future the single-shot musket would be replaced by semiautomatic rifles that could kill dozens of people within a few minutes at most. Being rather bright fellows, I would imagine that had they known, they would certainly have done the logical, common sense thing and clarified in the Second Amendment that such weapons were to be illegal for civilian use. But since they didn't, it's left to us to interpret the Second Amendment based on the vast changes in technology and society over the last 230 years or so. Too bad we can't do that, because we still have to follow the exact wording of men who wrote a document designed for an overwhelmingly rural eighteenth-century society, and then made it exceptionally difficult to revise or change, although the nation itself keeps changing in many different ways all the time.
 
Actually they made it pretty easy to change. Future leaders made it more difficult to change by adding more states and dividing them in weird ways to the point that we went from 13 to 50. Society became more politically polarized making it difficult to meet the necessary thresholds to add amendments.
 
oh and let's add indefinite detainment:
 
Lawsuits are already being planned.

There is another Executive Order being seriously considered that will allow states to deny entry for refugees.

Is there any end to Trump and Miller bigotry?
 
DOJ condemns white nationalist content sent to immigration court employees

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has acknowledged it made a mistake by sending a link to a white nationalist blog in an email sent to immigration court employees this week.

A spokesperson for the agency's Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) said that the agency had included the link mistakenly. The link, which directed users to the website VDare, contained negative and anti-Semitic comments about sitting immigration judges.

oops?
 
Federal Agencies Have Been Sending Employees Articles From White Nationalist And Conspiracy Websites For Months

An arm of the Justice Department regularly sent summaries and links to articles from an online white nationalist publication over the last year, a BuzzFeed News investigation has found. In addition, similar newsletters sent to the Labor Department, ICE, HUD, and the Department of Homeland Security included links and content from hyperpartisan and conspiracy-oriented publishers.

While these newsletters typically shared articles from local and mainstream national news outlets — including BuzzFeed News — they also regularly delivered content from partisan publications touting anti-immigration rhetoric and conspiracy theories. Among these publications: the Western Journal, a hyperpartisan publisher whose founder once questioned if then-presidential candidate Barack Obama was Muslim, and the Epoch Times, a newspaper associated with the Chinese Falun Gong movement and whose related media properties have backed QAnon, a conspiracy theory claiming a group of high-ranking officials known as the “Deep State” is subverting President Donald Trump’s goals.
 
Back
Top