Mueller Report Brings Into Focus Trump's Attempts to Interfere in the Special Counsel Investigation

1 hour ago, Okie said:

I don't know what you mean by "arm every department."  (The U.S. government has a lot of departments.  It does not sound like you mean all of them.)  Or "Gestapo like forces."  Could you explain the reference?

Here’s a little clarification for ya.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2014/04/united-states-swat-john-fund/

 

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

After reading that National Review article, there seems to be some agreement on the left and right regarding the militarization of the police.  Of course, if there were not so many guns in the hands of private citizens (and non-citizens), maybe there would not be such a need to militarize the police and other agencies.  This did not happen in a vacuum; and those of you on the right won't question your belief in the sanctity of the second amendment.

Edited by Okie
Spelling
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

3 hours ago, Okie said:

I don't know what you mean by "arm every department."  (The U.S. government has a lot of departments.  It does not sound like you mean all of them.)  Or "Gestapo like forces."  Could you explain the reference?

I jumped the gun and didn't read the foregoing attachment.  So I am off subject.  You can see what's on my mind below when I hear  "weaponizing".  I will have to be more careful and stay on subject.  My apology.

Start watching Fox News.  There is real news all day, and they report both sides of issues (Democrats and Republicans are interviewed), unlike the biased main stream media.  That media seems to spew hate and slander.  You don't have to watch Hannity, Tucker, or Laura.  They offer opinion concerning news of the day.  Democrats hate them, but I find they usually correct and base their opinions on facts from real investigative reporters and government officials.

Short answer is some in the FBI have already been fired and others are under investigation as the Democrats weaponized the FBI, CIA, and IRS to go after their political opponents.  That shuts down free speech.  The IG (Inspector General) looked into this independently.  Mainstream media does not cover bad news for Democrats, so hard working folk who don't have time for news are kept in the dark.  So many others in government were involved because they expected lucrative positions in "The Swamp" of DC after their government service.  These folks thought Hillary Clinton would win so committed acts to help her and hurt Trump.  Investigations and charges are forthcoming.

Joseph Goebbels was Hitler's propaganda minister.   Propaganda is now spread by the biased mainstream media, since they don't report real facts.  They spew the days talking points coordinated by a puppet master (as evidence they use the same buzzwords each day).  Nazi's used their "brownshirts" to violently attack political opponents and Jews.  That equates to paid ANTIFA masked thugs.

I am a retired engineer.  I wish we didn't have political parties.  Government should just identify problems for the country and debate solutions that are affordable.  But that is a dream world and in reality corruption exists.

Edited by WayneMechEng
I sure missed the subject. Didn't read the article.
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Okie said:

After reading that National Review article, there seems to be some agreement on the left and right regarding the militarization of the police.  Of course, if there were not so many guns in the hands of private citizens (and non-citizens), maybe there would not be such a need to militarize the police and other agencies.  This did not happen in a vacuum; and those of you on the right won't question your belief in the sanctity of the second amendment.

It’s not just militarized “police” it’s enforcement arms of historically administrative regulatory agencies.  It’s ridiculous.

The Founders did not enumerate the 2nd amendment for fear of or as a check on their overzealous neighbors power.  No, quite the opposite.   It was written because they and their neighbors feared government and wanted the ability to put an overzealous government in check.  See Venezuela.

Our police are well armed and trained to eliminate true threats. The vast majority of them believe every law abiding citizen should own as many weapons as they so desire.  

Its where criminals have weapons and good people don’t that problems arise.

“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” Robert A. Heinlein
 

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, TXPower said:

The Founders did not enumerate the 2nd amendment for fear of or as a check on their overzealous neighbors power.  No, quite the opposite.   It was written because they and their neighbors feared government and wanted the ability to put an overzealous government in check.

Everything in the Constitution has to be read through the prism of slavery.  The southern representatives were afraid of a slave rebellion and wanted to right to put it down (they were all white slave-owning landowners). 

These articles have a pretty good history of the issue:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/opinion/second-amendment-slavery-james-madison.html

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/the-origins-of-public-carry-jurisprudence-in-the-slave-south/407809/

https://medium.com/the-new-leader/debunking-the-mythic-origin-of-the-second-amendment-bfe06dc06946

However, properly read, the Second Amendment is one sentence, not two (although it is treated as two separate sentences by conservatives).  This matters. 

"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."

Notice that all of the clauses are separated by commas.  No periods.  No semicolons.  Language grammar matters.  If you were to properly read the text, as written, you would have to acknowledge that the first clause "A well-regulated Militia" controls the sentence.  There is no separate, independent right to own a weapon, at least not according to the text of the Second Amendment.  I know that is not what you guys on here who are "conservative" want to hear, but that would be the correct way to read it. (The Medium article linked above actually goes through the different variations of the law that were proposed, and which were different than the one that actually passed.)

Recent court decisions (particularly D.C. v. Heller), radically changed the history precedent of gun rights.  Prior to this case, there was a long line of cases that allowed gun control.

The need to have slave patrols, in theory, are no longer needed.  But whites in the United States seem to keep wanting to go back to those "good old days."  You cannot have it back.  We must move forward and create a new, just society with true equality.  No more Jim Crow laws, either.

As for your “An armed society is a polite society...."  Well, obviously not, based on the news that is reported constantly on every medium.  The last thing we need is more guns.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

This was a big story a few years ago. I do not have access to all the information right now. Each department of the federal government now has a fairly large armed force. Millions of rounds of ammo and military grade weaponry. In addition, many local police forces are working too closely with the federal government due to large grants that, in effect,  buy their allegiance.

 

http://www.brainyquote.com/

quotes/quotes/b/barackobam409184.html

 

We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.

Barack Obama

https://www.mintpressnews.com/department-homeland-security-become-americas-standing-army/192576/

Edited by ronwagn
added reference

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

2 hours ago, Okie said:

Everything in the Constitution has to be read through the prism of slavery.  The southern representatives were afraid of a slave rebellion and wanted to right to put it down (they were all white slave-owning landowners). 

These articles have a pretty good history of the issue:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/opinion/second-amendment-slavery-james-madison.html

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/the-origins-of-public-carry-jurisprudence-in-the-slave-south/407809/

https://medium.com/the-new-leader/debunking-the-mythic-origin-of-the-second-amendment-bfe06dc06946

However, properly read, the Second Amendment is one sentence, not two (although it is treated as two separate sentences by conservatives).  This matters. 

"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."

Notice that all of the clauses are separated by commas.  No periods.  No semicolons.  Language grammar matters.  If you were to properly read the text, as written, you would have to acknowledge that the first clause "A well-regulated Militia" controls the sentence.  There is no separate, independent right to own a weapon, at least not according to the text of the Second Amendment.  I know that is not what you guys on here who are "conservative" want to hear, but that would be the correct way to read it. (The Medium article linked above actually goes through the different variations of the law that were proposed, and which were different than the one that actually passed.)

Recent court decisions (particularly D.C. v. Heller), radically changed the history precedent of gun rights.  Prior to this case, there was a long line of cases that allowed gun control.

The need to have slave patrols, in theory, are no longer needed.  But whites in the United States seem to keep wanting to go back to those "good old days."  You cannot have it back.  We must move forward and create a new, just society with true equality.  No more Jim Crow laws, either.

As for your “An armed society is a polite society...."  Well, obviously not, based on the news that is reported constantly on every medium.  The last thing we need is more guns.

Okie, you are, fortunately, not a Supreme Court Justice. I think you should wait and see what their future rulings are regarding the Second Amendment, and what state rulings are in the meantime. We know that liberals would like to ignore the Second Amendment and come up with all kinds of reasons why they should. 

The news is full of stories about powerful corporations doing everything they can to ignore the Bill of RIghts. Especially the First and Second Amendments. If they are allowed to continue with government support, we will be on the verge of a civil war. Americans will not allow it's government to ignore the Constitution. It is plainly written despite people who try to contort it in every conceivable way. 

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. - Thomas Jefferson

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. Thomas Jefferson
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/thomas_jefferson_
136362

Edited by ronwagn
added reference

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All you need to do is look at the swat teams that arrested President Trump's associates during the Mueller investigation to see police action in the extreme. Then you have the mysterious CNN presence at one of the arrests. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Okie said:

Everything in the Constitution has to be read through the prism of slavery.  The southern representatives were afraid of a slave rebellion and wanted to right to put it down (they were all white slave-owning landowners). 

These articles have a pretty good history of the issue:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/opinion/second-amendment-slavery-james-madison.html

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/the-origins-of-public-carry-jurisprudence-in-the-slave-south/407809/

https://medium.com/the-new-leader/debunking-the-mythic-origin-of-the-second-amendment-bfe06dc06946

However, properly read, the Second Amendment is one sentence, not two (although it is treated as two separate sentences by conservatives).  This matters. 

"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."

Notice that all of the clauses are separated by commas.  No periods.  No semicolons.  Language grammar matters.  If you were to properly read the text, as written, you would have to acknowledge that the first clause "A well-regulated Militia" controls the sentence.  There is no separate, independent right to own a weapon, at least not according to the text of the Second Amendment.  I know that is not what you guys on here who are "conservative" want to hear, but that would be the correct way to read it. (The Medium article linked above actually goes through the different variations of the law that were proposed, and which were different than the one that actually passed.)

Recent court decisions (particularly D.C. v. Heller), radically changed the history precedent of gun rights.  Prior to this case, there was a long line of cases that allowed gun control.

The need to have slave patrols, in theory, are no longer needed.  But whites in the United States seem to keep wanting to go back to those "good old days."  You cannot have it back.  We must move forward and create a new, just society with true equality.  No more Jim Crow laws, either.

As for your “An armed society is a polite society...."  Well, obviously not, based on the news that is reported constantly on every medium.  The last thing we need is more guns.

No sir, our Constitution is not best viewed through the prism of slavery.  That is, unless, you are talking about the fact that many of the principle architects were slave holders who actually recognized the practice as an affront to morality.  They wanted to kill slavery.  Much like it had been in Europe.  According to Constitutional Professor Paul Moreno, “As Frederick Douglas came to recognize, the founders wrote the Constitution as a document defining and protecting the liberty of all men, by which they hoped to provide for the eventual eradication of slavery by constitutional means, rather than by revolutionary means.   The Declaration and Constitution do not even mention the institution of slavery because it was not written with slaves in mind.  An instructive read here: https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/commentary/what-the-constitution-really-says-about-race-and-slavery

The Constitution is correctly viewed through the prism of the well educated students of world history, their well instructed understanding of the proclivities of men in general and the king specifically as it relates to power, corruption and mob rule.  Were it not so, they would not have so carefully crafted a representative republic that separated powers as a means of blocking usurpation by any one man or one branch while simultaneously providing for an electoral college to rebuff the fickle public throng (mob rule). The correct prism to view the Constitution was the founders desire that our fledgling Republic never again be under the yolk of a king nor controlled by popularity.  Very prescient if you ask me given the current context of the MSM and their vilification of some candidates and the veneration of others.  Like, say, Trump vs. Hillary and Obozo.  To steer it back to where we started, all of this of course included the 2nd amendment being written into our founding documents to thwart overzealous government, not with an eye on preservation of slavery.  I do, however, concede that slavery took center stage almost one hundred years later leading up to The War Between the States.

You point to the Heller decision as a radical departure from previous court precedent.  Actually, Heller is more of a corrective re-alignment between law and the first principles expressed by our Founders in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, specifically concerning second amendment issues.  The first principles of the Founders held that an armed populace, referred to as a well regulated militia was the whole of the good people of the country.  That means every good man.  The militia in that time, and still today when viewed in the context of keeping overzealous government in check, was understood to be the sovereign and armed free people.  Assertions concerning commas and such in the proper reading of the language of the second amendment just holds no water from an original intent and historical context.  They meant that armed citizens had a god-given right to have arms with which to resist, nay overthrow, an overzealous government.  I know that is not what you guys on here that are “leftist” want to hear but it is the historically correct view of the second amendment.  A little light reading for you: https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-second-amendment-as-an-expression-of-first-principles/

I’m not sure where you live in our great nation but your insinuation that whites in America want to go back to, “The good o’l days” while at the same time you craftily referenced Jim Crow is ridiculous and offensive.  Black Americans are overwhelmingly victimized by Black Americans that’s the evidence and truth as you referred, “Being reported constantly on every medium”.  See Chicago.  Jim Crow has nothing to do with that.  Guns in the right hands is what we need.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites