War Room Lounge v6

[Cubo de Sangre]

Emphasis on "could". I agree it's tough.

The only thing the right has to offer me politically is defending the 2nd. When it comes to criminalizing semi-auto rifles (what's really being pushed for), will he honor the precedent of not being able to outlaw a commonly held class of firearms? Will he rule against big brother listening in on all our shit? Will he dick-tuck to "safety", or whatever else you wanna term the "common sense" infringements upon the individual?

 

[waiguoren]

The only thing the right has to offer me politically is defending the 2nd. When it comes to criminalizing semi-auto rifles (what's really being pushed for), will he honor the precedent of not being able to outlaw a commonly held class of firearms? Will he rule against big brother listening in on all our shit? Will he dick-tuck to "safety", or whatever else you wanna term the "common sense" infringements upon the individual?

Funny. That's probably one of the few areas where I disagree with Thomas/Gorsuch. I don't even think the 2nd Amendment protects the right to own a Glock. In 1791 the state-of-the-art was flintlock technology. The Colt Revolver hadn't even been invented yet. The 2nd Amendment protects your right to own a blunderbuss or a Sharpe pistol, but definitely not an AR-15.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Funny. That's probably one of the few areas where I disagree with Thomas/Gorsuch. I don't even think the 2nd Amendment protects the right to own a Glock. In 1791 the state-of-the-art was flintlock technology. The Colt Revolver hadn't even been invented yet. The 2nd Amendment protects your right to own a blunderbuss or a Sharpe pistol, but definitely not an AR-15.

Shame on your for posting this retardation on a technological platform that's far more unforeseen than the modest gains in firearms capability, yet protected by the same same "archaic" standard. Out goes Scientology. Out goes the right to use any words not in the prevailing dictionary of the time. For the love of God bro, stick to math.

 

[waiguoren]

Shame on your for posting this retardation on a technological platform that's far more unforeseen than the modest gains in firearms capability, yet protected by the same same "archaic" standard. Out goes Scientology. Out goes the right to use any words not in the prevailing dictionary of the time. For the love of God bro, stick to math.

I fear you do not understand my position.

The 2nd Amendment does not directly protect the right of Americans to hold the weapons I mentioned.

At the same time, the federal government has no authority to deprive Americans of those firearms unless the specific case relates to interstate commerce.

Further, the federal government has no authority to purchase, produce or stockpile missiles, tanks, drones, or planes.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I fear you do not understand my position.

The 2nd Amendment does not directly protect the right of Americans to hold the weapons I mentioned.

At the same time, the federal government has no authority to deprive Americans of those firearms unless the specific case relates to interstate commerce.

Further, the federal government has no authority to purchase, produce or stockpile missiles, tanks, drones, or planes.

You're correct on making that distinction. I presumed incorporation due to that being the context of reality. That said, do we have a bet an disagreement?

By the way, the 2nd trumps interstate commerce, not the other way around.

 

[waiguoren]

I presumed incorporation due to that being the context of reality.

I think the 2nd Amendment is automatically incorporated due to the wording. There is no mention of "Congress", for example.

That said, do we have a bet an disagreement?

I think we definitely do have a disagreement. I'm saying states can forbid you from owning post-1791 firearm technology because the "arms" referred to in the 2nd Amendment referred only to the arms the authors knew about. I think that's a much more reasonable line to draw than arbitrarily cutting us off before machine guns or guided missiles. However, the federal government has no such authority without a constitutional amendment.

By the way, the 2nd trumps interstate commerce, not the other way around.

Sure, if you're talking about muskets. Not for Kalashnikovs.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I think the 2nd Amendment is automatically incorporated due to the wording. There is no mention of "Congress", for example.


I think we definitely do have a disagreement. I'm saying states can forbid you from owning post-1791 firearm technology because the "arms" referred to in the 2nd Amendment referred only to the arms the authors knew about. I think that's a much more reasonable line to draw than arbitrarily cutting us off before machine guns or guided missiles. However, the federal government has no such authority without a constitutional amendment.



Sure, if you're talking about muskets. Not for Kalashnikovs.

No such thing as automatic incorporation. Powers were granted and reserved. It's crystal clear that the federal government was not to infringe upon the thing of the people. And powers not granted the feds were reserved to the states.

Based on the bullshit (my opinion) interpretation of the 14th, you're wrong. No different than states can outlaw communication on devices or in languages not previously known. Do you even consistency, bro? Or do you just hate rights?

Then I guess you'd contend the feds have no jurisdiction over internet commerce since it's an entire age past what the Constitution referred to. Going through satellites is circumventing legal borders and airspace. Nothing is crossed. It just winds up elsewhere.

 

[JonesBones]

No such thing as automatic incorporation. Powers were granted and reserved. It's crystal clear that the federal government was not to infringe upon the thing of the people. And powers not granted the feds were reserved to the states.

Based on the bullshit (my opinion) interpretation of the 14th, you're wrong. No different than states can outlaw communication on devices or in languages not previously known. Do you even consistency, bro? Or do you just hate rights?

Then I guess you'd contend the feds have no jurisdiction over internet commerce since it's an entire age past what the Constitution referred to. Going through satellites is circumventing legal borders and airspace. Nothing is crossed. It just winds up elsewhere.

Interesting point. One of the major things about Sputnik was it basically could be in american airspace now. This was before satellites obviously. We had to try to use U2s that flew very very high and the Soviets still shot them down. You can't shoot down Sputnik. Sputnik or something like it could spy on America with impunity.

 

[JonesBones]

Rarely post stuff I see on Facebook but I like this one and never heard it before.

 

[FacePunch]

Donald Trump appointed Judge Neil Gorsuch---a jurist of high intellect and integrity---to the Supreme Court. As a young and healthy Justice, Gorsuch will continue to fight revisionism and extra-constitutionalism long into the future. Gorsuch and other Trump judicial appointments could very well be our saviors from the accelerating descent into anarchy initiated by the so-called "living constitutionalist" judges.

Funny. That's probably one of the few areas where I disagree with Thomas/Gorsuch. I don't even think the 2nd Amendment protects the right to own a Glock. In 1791 the state-of-the-art was flintlock technology. The Colt Revolver hadn't even been invented yet. The 2nd Amendment protects your right to own a blunderbuss or a Sharpe pistol, but definitely not an AR-15.

So, you mean like the part where Trump wants to circumvent Due Process in order to violate the 2nd Amendment? That kind of "extra-constitutionalism"?

 

[Final Rehab]

Yukon GoldButterHeavy whipping cream (not a whole ton)SaltPepperHomemde garlic pYou're welcome

Yeah that looks OK but you'll understand how I am not inclined to take culinary tips from an Asian who can't cook a decent bowl of rice.

https://www.google.com/search?sourc...b..0.11.963...46j0i131k1j0i46k1.0.oS7_rk7w1Aw

There ya go.

 

[waiguoren]

So, you mean like the part where Trump wants to circumvent Due Process in order to violate the 2nd Amendment? That kind of "extra-constitutionalism"?

Could you please explain what you're referring to?

 

[Gregolian]

Yeah that looks OK but you'll understand how I am not inclined to take culinary tips from an Asian who can't cook a decent bowl of rice.

https://www.google.com/search?sourc...b..0.11.963...46j0i131k1j0i46k1.0.oS7_rk7w1Aw

There ya go.

What kind of heathen uses a goddamn pot to cook rice when there's things called RICE COOKERS available.

 

[FacePunch]

Could you please explain what you're referring to?

 

[Trotsky]

Funny. That's probably one of the few areas where I disagree with Thomas/Gorsuch. I don't even think the 2nd Amendment protects the right to own a Glock. In 1791 the state-of-the-art was flintlock technology. The Colt Revolver hadn't even been invented yet. The 2nd Amendment protects your right to own a blunderbuss or a Sharpe pistol, but definitely not an AR-15.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

The sample size on Gorsuch is small (albeit still very shitty), but the verdict on Thomas is undeniable: he is the worst American jurist since at least the 1930s.

 

[waiguoren]

You should be ashamed of yourself.

The sample size on Gorsuch is small (albeit still very shitty), but the verdict on Thomas is undeniable: he is the worst American jurist since at least the 1930s.

Thomas is the greatest Supreme Court Justice of the past century.

 

[Trotsky]

I've actually had the pleasure of briefly meeting Clarence Thomas. Despite his appearing to be somewhat stupid through his opinions, in person he's actually very stupid.

 

[waiguoren]

So, you mean like the part where Trump wants to circumvent Due Process in order to violate the 2nd Amendment? That kind of "extra-constitutionalism"?

I don't believe Cruz had a 2nd Amendment right to own an AR-15. Cruz did have a 2nd Amendment right to own a flintlock musket.

I also didn't hear Trump propose that the federal government confiscate the weapons. I think Trump was referring to actions at the state level. I think that's fine.

 

[waiguoren]

I've actually had the pleasure of briefly meeting Clarence Thomas. Despite his appearing as to be somewhat stupid through his opinions, in person he's actually very stupid.

I think I would cry tears of joy if I could ever meet him, and I mean that literally. I also have considered making a t-shirt with his face on it. However, that would be too geeky. Also, he might have mistreated women in the 80s, and I don't want people to think I'm condoning that kind of behavior.

 

[Trotsky]

I think I would cry tears of joy if I could ever meet him, and I mean that literally. I also have considered making a t-shirt with his face on it. However, that would be too geeky. Also, he might have mistreated women in the 80s, and I don't want people to think I'm condoning that kind of behavior.

There are semi-capable and semi-intelligent conservative jurists you could look up to. Saying you look up to a guy who is universally panned as being incompetent and doltish and regarded as the most unethical jurist of his generation is just embarrassing.