Trump called birthright citizenship "ridiculous" and said that "it has to end."

[Moshe]

On ‎11‎/‎23‎/‎2018 at 5:07 PM, fortyofforty said:

They can be interpreted by the Executive, and ruled on by the courts.  That's how our system has worked for hundreds of years, whether you like it or not.  If Trump has legal scholars who argue in court, then we'll see what happens.  Do you believe you have the right to keep and bear antitank rockets and antiaircraft missiles, or do you think the Second Amendment has some limitations, despite the clear language?  The issue is whether someone who willingly and consciously breaks the law to enter this country is truly placing themselves as being subject to its jurisdiction will be for the courts to decide, not you or me.

You just said you accept the erosion of freedom.  That is what gave us the Patriot Act.  That is what killed the 4th Amendment,

[Jammersix]

On 11/23/2018 at 3:07 PM, fortyofforty said:

They can be interpreted by the Executive, and ruled on by the courts.

"When disputes arise, it comes time for people, and most importantly judges of the Judicial Branch, to interpret the Constitution."

https://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_intr.html

It is the job of the judiciary to interpret the constitution, not the executive branch.

Carry on.

[fortyofforty]

10 hours ago, Moshe said:

You just said you accept the erosion of freedom.  That is what gave us the Patriot Act.  That is what killed the 4th Amendment,

And you won't answer my question.  Do you believe you have the right to keep and bear antitank rockets and antiaircraft missiles?

[fortyofforty]

9 hours ago, Jammersix said:

"When disputes arise, it comes time for people, and most importantly judges of the Judicial Branch, to interpret the Constitution."

https://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_intr.html

It is the job of the judiciary to interpret the constitution, not the executive branch.

Carry on.

How does the Executive know what the "final word" on the interpretation of the Constitution is if legal scholars disagree?

Carry on.

[Moshe]

2 hours ago, fortyofforty said:

And you won't answer my question.  Do you believe you have the right to keep and bear antitank rockets and antiaircraft missiles?

By the way the Second Amendment is written, we should.  But, like all things, if you use them irresponsibly it is on you.  The founding fathers wanted the people to be as well armed as a government, a bit like Switzerland.   The United States did not have a standing army until war of 1812 when we fought the British once again.

[fortyofforty]

6 hours ago, Moshe said:

By the way the Second Amendment is written, we should.  But, like all things, if you use them irresponsibly it is on you.  The founding fathers wanted the people to be as well armed as a government, a bit like Switzerland.   The United States did not have a standing army until war of 1812 when we fought the British once again.

Do you believe it?

[Jammersix]

10 hours ago, fortyofforty said:

How does the Executive know what the "final word" on the interpretation of the Constitution is if legal scholars disagree?

Carry on.

They don't. That was my point. Claiming that the executive interprets the constitution was your claim.

Neither congress nor the executive interpret the law or the constitution. They have an agenda, and they try **** to further that agenda. Maybe that agenda is legal, maybe it's constitutional, maybe it's not. Then the judiciary either allows it or slaps their peckers down. The judiciary does that by interpreting the constitution or the law.

Carry on.

Edited November 25, 2018 by Jammersix

[Jammersix]

1 hour ago, fortyofforty said:

Do you believe it?

I do. Don't you?

[fortyofforty]

1 hour ago, Jammersix said:

They don't. That was my point. Claiming that the executive interprets the constitution was your claim.

Neither congress nor the executive interpret the law or the constitution. They have an agenda, and they try **** to further that agenda. Maybe that agenda is legal, maybe it's constitutional, maybe it's not. Then the judiciary either allows it or slaps their peckers down. The judiciary does that by interpreting the constitution or the law.

Carry on.

They must at least act upon a belief as to the Constitutionality of their actions.  That is part of the Oath of Office, in case you didn't know.  That requires a legitimate belief, possibly upheld or overturned by a court.  That is what is happening here.

Carry on.

[fortyofforty]

1 hour ago, Jammersix said:

I do. Don't you?

Would you allow your family to fly if antiaircraft missiles were widely held across the country?

[Jammersix]

Straw man. It sounds to me like you don't believe that the final argument against tyranny is our weapons.

So.

Turn about is fair play.

Do you believe that the final defense against tyranny is our weapons? Do you believe it is those weapons that are protected by the 2nd?

[Jammersix]

13 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

They must at least act upon a belief as to the Constitutionality of their actions.  That is part of the Oath of Office, in case you didn't know.

Yeah. The current "president" took that same oath, then he said he could overturn citizenship with an executive order.

[Moshe]

9 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

Would you allow your family to fly if antiaircraft missiles were widely held across the country?

 

9 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

Would you allow your family to fly if antiaircraft missiles were widely held across the country?

So, no plans of flying?  News flash:  The U.S. Government put stinger missiles in the hands of people who hate us.  Have fun flying.  In addition drones and lasers have been used to distract pilots purposefully.  But, if you truly believe in your tag line there is not issue with anti-aircraft missiles in the hands of U.S. Citizens.  The end result of me flashing a green laser in the eyes of pilots or flying an explosive on a drone next to a plane would have similar results.  Then I would have to face the consequences.  Just like all weapons owners.  If you slaughter a household of people, you face the same consequences of mass murder.  Life is always about choices.  When you limit freedoms because you don't like them, you have already failed.  You are essentially attaching the Kavenaugh Clause, considered guilty until proven innocent.

[Dric902]

When you limit your own rights because of the fear of what another might do with those same rights, the problem isn’t with the other person.

I am responsible for what I do with my rights. 

That’s freedom, and freedom has consequenses and risks assumed by all willing to live under it

 

.

[fortyofforty]

On 11/25/2018 at 8:07 PM, Jammersix said:

Straw man. It sounds to me like you don't believe that the final argument against tyranny is our weapons.

So.

Turn about is fair play.

Do you believe that the final defense against tyranny is our weapons? Do you believe it is those weapons that are protected by the 2nd?

I do agree but I do not have to agree that nuclear weapons in the hands of Google executives is a good idea.  There are limits to all rights such as not being allowed to shout fire in a crowded movie theater.  Do you agree with that sort of limit?

[fortyofforty]

23 hours ago, Moshe said:

 

So, no plans of flying?  News flash:  The U.S. Government put stinger missiles in the hands of people who hate us.  Have fun flying.  In addition drones and lasers have been used to distract pilots purposefully.  But, if you truly believe in your tag line there is not issue with anti-aircraft missiles in the hands of U.S. Citizens.  The end result of me flashing a green laser in the eyes of pilots or flying an explosive on a drone next to a plane would have similar results.  Then I would have to face the consequences.  Just like all weapons owners.  If you slaughter a household of people, you face the same consequences of mass murder.  Life is always about choices.  When you limit freedoms because you don't like them, you have already failed.  You are essentially attaching the Kavenaugh Clause, considered guilty until proven innocent.

Newsflash.  Not one American aircraft has been shot down with one of those Stinger missiles (unless you can cite some contrary evidence).  Have fun flying.  I do.  I do not think having a few million Russian antiaircraft missiles spread throughout the country is a good idea, since a couple of dozen used improperly would shut down the economy in about ten minutes.  Choices.  The only place you find idiotic extremists espousing unrealistic viewpoints on every issue is the internet.  Congratulations for entering that category.

[fortyofforty]

On 11/25/2018 at 8:09 PM, Jammersix said:

Yeah. The current "president" took that same oath, then he said he could overturn citizenship with an executive order.

Whose citizenship did the "president" threaten to take away?  Would they be banished to Antarctica?

[Jammersix]

8 hours ago, fortyofforty said:

There are limits to all rights such as not being allowed to shout fire in a crowded movie theater.  Do you agree with that sort of limit?

There are not limits on all rights. There is one right that is absolute, without limits.

Fire in a crowded theatre is the classic example used to teach freshman about the balance between freedom for individuals and public safety. There is one time when yelling fire in a crowded theatre is exactly the right thing to do, and would be perfectly legal: when there is a fire in a crowded theatre, and no one is aware of it. In that case, yell fire, pull the fire alarms, then get out of the building.

Likewise, there is one time when Google executives with nuclear weapons is just fine, that is when it's time for armed rebellion against the government-- that final defense against tyranny.

Now.

What are the limits on rights and the prohibition against yelling fire protecting? Public safety. The limits and where they are set are always involved in a constant struggle to balance the rights of individuals with public safety. And during an armed rebellion against the government there is no public safety.

Therefore, there is no balance to be struck until the rebellion ends. You can stick with your AR if you want to, but I'll take a 203, and we're going to need Javelins and M4s.

This is why the first assault must be on an armory, and the rebellion can stand or fall right there. Because Americans have accepted sufficient limits on weapon rights that there is no chance of securing sufficient weapons and appropriate ammunition outside the government's supply chain. Trying to fight Abrams tanks and Apache helicoptors with ARs (or the lightest armored vehicle in the inventory) will mean life in prison for treason. When you accept those limits, you accept that you simply can't fight the government with your weapons. The two concepts are mutually exclusive. If you believe these limits are necessary, you don't truly believe that these weapons are the final argument against tyranny unless you're a blithering idiot. It's one or the other. But I digress.

And finally, read this stuff and understand it, study it, then bring your analysis here for discussion. Give us the benefit of what you think based on an understanding of the principles under discussion.

Don't parrot freshman textbooks or the bold text off a Google search. It makes me want to wait until you graduate to continue the discussion.

Edited November 27, 2018 by Jammersix

[Jammersix]

10 minutes ago, Jammersix said:

There are not limits on all rights. There is one right that is absolute, without limits.

Fire in a crowded theatre is the classic example used to teach freshman about the balance between freedom for individuals and public safety. There is one time when yelling fire in a crowded theatre is exactly the right thing to do, and would be perfectly legal: when there is a fire in a crowded theatre, and no one is aware of it. In that case, yell fire, pull the fire alarms, then get out of the building.

Likewise, there is one time when Google executives with nuclear weapons is just fine, that is when it's time for armed rebellion against the government-- that final defense against tyranny.

Now.

What are the limits on rights and the prohibition against yelling fire protecting? Public safety. The limits and where they are set are always involved in a constant struggle to balance the rights of individuals with public safety. And during an armed rebellion against the government there is no public safety.

Therefore, there is no balance to be struck until the rebellion ends. You can stick with your AR if you want to, but I'll take a 203, and we're going to need Javelins and M4s.

This is why the first assault must be on an armory, and the rebellion can stand or fall right there. Because Americans have accepted sufficient limits on weapon rights that there is no chance of securing sufficient weapons and appropriate ammunition outside the government's supply chain. Trying to fight Abrams tanks and Apache helicoptors with ARs (or the lightest armored vehicle in the inventory) will mean life in prison for treason. When you accept those limits, you accept that you simply can't fight the government with your weapons. The two concepts are mutually exclusive. If you believe these limits are necessary, you don't truly believe that these weapons are the final argument against tyranny unless you're a blithering idiot. It's one or the other. But I digress.

And finally, read this stuff and understand it, study it, then bring your analysis here for discussion. Give us the benefit of what you think based on an understanding of the principles under discussion.

Don't parrot freshman textbooks or the bold text off a Google search. It makes me want to wait until you graduate to continue the discussion.

 

Edited November 27, 2018 by Jammersix

[fortyofforty]

5 hours ago, Jammersix said:

There are not limits on all rights. There is one right that is absolute, without limits.

Fire in a crowded theatre is the classic example used to teach freshman about the balance between freedom for individuals and public safety. There is one time when yelling fire in a crowded theatre is exactly the right thing to do, and would be perfectly legal: when there is a fire in a crowded theatre, and no one is aware of it. In that case, yell fire, pull the fire alarms, then get out of the building.

Likewise, there is one time when Google executives with nuclear weapons is just fine, that is when it's time for armed rebellion against the government-- that final defense against tyranny.

Now.

What are the limits on rights and the prohibition against yelling fire protecting? Public safety. The limits and where they are set are always involved in a constant struggle to balance the rights of individuals with public safety. And during an armed rebellion against the government there is no public safety.

Therefore, there is no balance to be struck until the rebellion ends. You can stick with your AR if you want to, but I'll take a 203, and we're going to need Javelins and M4s.

This is why the first assault must be on an armory, and the rebellion can stand or fall right there. Because Americans have accepted sufficient limits on weapon rights that there is no chance of securing sufficient weapons and appropriate ammunition outside the government's supply chain. Trying to fight Abrams tanks and Apache helicoptors with ARs (or the lightest armored vehicle in the inventory) will mean life in prison for treason. When you accept those limits, you accept that you simply can't fight the government with your weapons. The two concepts are mutually exclusive. If you believe these limits are necessary, you don't truly believe that these weapons are the final argument against tyranny unless you're a blithering idiot. It's one or the other. But I digress.

And finally, read this stuff and understand it, study it, then bring your analysis here for discussion. Give us the benefit of what you think based on an understanding of the principles under discussion.

Don't parrot freshman textbooks or the bold text off a Google search. It makes me want to wait until you graduate to continue the discussion.

Not parroting anything.  I am using concrete examples of what could and probably would happen if all weapons are allowed.  If you aren't intelligent enough to comprehend the arguments or insightful enough to counter them, that is your own problem.  Study the issue until you understand it fully, then come back.

[fortyofforty]

14 hours ago, fortyofforty said:

Whose citizenship did the "president" threaten to take away?  Would they be banished to Antarctica?

Still not able to answer this one, are you?

[Moshe]

1 hour ago, fortyofforty said:

Still not able to answer this one, are you?

When that is eliminated anyone the Government wants to.  It makes it rather easy for either side to get rid of politically motivated people they don't like.  They could do exactly what Castro did the Cubans he didn't want around.  Dump them.  Your thinking is short term, not long term.

Edited November 27, 2018 by Moshe
cleaning up grammar

[fortyofforty]

1 hour ago, Moshe said:

When that is eliminated anyone the Government wants to.  It makes it rather easy for either side to get rid of politically motivated people they don't like.  They could do exactly what Castro did the Cubans he didn't want around.  Dump them.  Your thinking is short term, not long term.

And your thinking is unrealistic and short-sighted.

[Moshe]

17 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

And your thinking is unrealistic and short-sighted.

You need to get rid of the tagline, because even you don't believe it.

[fortyofforty]

5 hours ago, Moshe said:

You need to get rid of the tagline, because even you don't believe it.

You might want to learn to read first.