• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

History 101: Why the 2nd Amendment?

Bullseye said:
What about those that follow your this little blurb - sound pretty damn cultish to me; all the classic anti-Trumpisms;

Who decides it is "vital"? The researcher looking to support a family, the politician who hopes the finding support so issue he backs, etc.?
Click to expand...
What’s cultish about not wanting to see due process go away?
Or not have military personnel’s be stationed in cities that are politically opposed to the president?
Or not have masked, unmarked police abduct people off the streets?
If it’s the cult of being a patriot and loving the freedom of this country.. sign me up.

You know, it was patriotic to not think of your president as if he is a king and can do know wrong.
You might want to think about that the next time you see others defending trumps behavior that would have caused them to go ballistic if Biden or Obama or any democrat had done it.

Who decides what’s vital?

Before DOGE s idiocy it was scientists who evaluated the scientific merits of a scientific grant proposal.

Now it’s morons who have reduced the scientific advantage we had over all other countries based on their political bias and ignorance.
 
jaeger19 said:
What’s cultish about not wanting to see due process go away?
Or not have military personnel’s be stationed in cities that are politically opposed to the president?
Or not have masked, unmarked police abduct people off the streets?
If it’s the cult of being a patriot and loving the freedom of this country.. sign me up.

You know, it was patriotic to not think of your president as if he is a king and can do know wrong.
You might want to think about that the next time you see others defending trumps behavior that would have caused them to go ballistic if Biden or Obama or any democrat had done it.

Who decides what’s vital?

Before DOGE s idiocy it was scientists who evaluated the scientific merits of a scientific grant proposal.

Now it’s morons who have reduced the scientific advantage we had over all other countries based on their political bias and ignorance.
Click to expand...
great word salad; Tossed in all slogans, lies and non sequiturs.
 
Nickyjo said:
Again, crime was down, the local and state authorities didn’t request assistance,
Click to expand...
Crime was down from what only four times the next highest state instead of five times the next highest state
Nickyjo said:
and dispatching troops likely violates the law per today’s court decision. Why did he do it?
Click to expand...
To make our Capital less of a disgrace.

Reduced crime significantly and it worked.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Crime was down from what only four times the next highest state instead of five times the next highest state

To make our Capital less of a disgrace.

Reduced crime significantly and it worked.
Click to expand...

It didn’t work.
 
jaeger19 said:
I think it’s more that no matter how much trump lies to you. How much trump violated the constitition . That no matter how much he abuses presidential power . How often he sucks up to the United States enemies and pisses off our allies.
No matter how much he tanks the economy.
You will support him.
That’s a cult.
Click to expand...
Believing he did all of these things and that other people are just blind to it that's a cult too.
jaeger19 said:
Shall we talk anout the removal of funding for vital research?
Click to expand...
Sure let's talk about it where is the constitutional provision that says the government must fund whatever you consider vital research?
 
CLAX1911 said:
Believing he did all of these things and that other people are just blind to it that's a cult too.

Sure let's talk about it where is the constitutional provision that says the government must fund whatever you consider vital research?
Click to expand...

The constitution does give the power of funding to Congress, not the president.
 
jaeger19 said:
Hmm.
1. Doing away with due process. Meaning all he has to do is say “ you don’t belong here” and off you go to a foreign prison.
2. Normalize building concentration camps outside judicial oversight.
3. Normalize the use of the military to occupy cities and areas that are politically opposed to him.
4. Normalize a secret police force in masks and unmarked vehicles that literally abduct people from the streets.
5. The erosion of congressional and judicial oversight as a check on presidential power.

Trump derangement syndrome is watching MAGA folks like you cheer the collapse of us freedom.
Click to expand...
1 he didn't. It's always been the case that if you don't belong here you get deported if a foreign Nation wants to put you in prison sucks to suck.
2. Judicial oversight doesn't play a role in deporting illegal aliens. There is no adjudication necessary.
3. Only when they are being seditious and placing illegal aliens above citizens that's a purpose of the government.
4. There's no secret police force they're not running around abducting people quit with the theatrics I'm not falling for that TDS trash.
5. When it comes to strictly executive branch operations which judicial and congressional oversight never existed for

No it's you freaking out about business as usual being the fall of democracy or Doomsday or whatever crazy people come up with.

Do yourself a favor and quit watching televised news every single one of them is a liar.
 
bomberfox said:
Yeah Scalia and the NRA just want us to forget the prefatory clause.
Click to expand...
And the problem they'll have arguing that, when we have a non-activist Supreme Court like this one, is that references about the militia are EVERYWHERE: in other parts of the Constitution, in the transcripts of discussions that led to the approval of the 2nd A ,in letters and articles by the founders.... But there is not a SINGLE reference to "owning guns for private use" being part of the debates.

A non-activist Supreme Court will see that and immediately REJECT Scalia's legislation.
 
Feynman Lives! said:
And the problem they'll have arguing that, when we have a non-activist Supreme Court like this one, is that references about the militia are EVERYWHERE: in other parts of the Constitution, in the transcripts of discussions that led to the approval of the 2nd A ,in letters and articles by the founders.... But there is not a SINGLE reference to "owning guns for private use" being part of the debates.
Click to expand...
I don't think there's any amendments about using anything ever for private use.
Feynman Lives! said:
A non-activist Supreme Court will see that and immediately REJECT Scalia's legislation.
Click to expand...
Do you mean an activist supreme Court uncontrol activists are activists.

Wanting to change the Constitution and say that private use was never listed for anything ever in the Constitution so therefore we can ban everything in the start of release date that's activism.
 
devildavid said:
The constitution does give the power of funding to Congress, not the president.
Click to expand...
Right so if the president needs funding he has to go to the Congress. If he wants to eliminated department that has nothing to do at all with the Congress or the judiciary he can't.

The Congress can stupidly allocate funds to fund an organization that doesn't exist anymore but why would they do that?
 
CLAX1911 said:
Right so if the president needs funding he has to go to the Congress. If he wants to eliminated department that has nothing to do at all with the Congress or the judiciary he can't.

The Congress can stupidly allocate funds to fund an organization that doesn't exist anymore but why would they do that?
Click to expand...

He also can’t by decree withhold funding that Congress has approved. No matter what the funding was appropriated for. That is up entirely to Congress to take care of.
 
Feynman Lives! said:
BINGO!!!

But there is at least ONE about using firearms for MILITARY use: the 2nd A.
Click to expand...
No there's not the second amendment never once mentions any military.

It specifically mentions the right of the people not the sultan of Brunei not your imaginary military not the militia but the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

So tell me how the people doesn't mean individuals.
 
devildavid said:
He also can’t by decree withhold funding that Congress has approved.
Click to expand...
K. They can just throw money in a pile and say it's for some department that doesn't exist anymore. But they cannot say that these departments must exist especially if they're under this executive branch.
devildavid said:
No matter what the funding was appropriated for. That is up entirely to Congress to take care of.
Click to expand...
Sure they can just pile up money and say that it's for some department that doesn't exist.

They can't force it to exist because they're not the executive.

You remember when you people were losing your shit over the secret documents thing and you didn't understand that it was an executive power to declassify anything anywhere any way you wish because it is with the executive authority that something's classified.
 
CLAX1911 said:
No there's not the second amendment never once mentions any military.

It specifically mentions the right of the people not the sultan of Brunei not your imaginary military not the militia but the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

So tell me how the people doesn't mean individuals.
Click to expand...

The militia is mentioned in the 2nd Amendment and it is not the equivalent of individual people. The militia doesn’t mean the people, it means a group of people. One person is not a militia.
 
CLAX1911 said:
K. They can just throw money in a pile and say it's for some department that doesn't exist anymore. But they cannot say that these departments must exist especially if they're under this executive branch.

Sure they can just pile up money and say that it's for some department that doesn't exist.

They can't force it to exist because they're not the executive.

You remember when you people were losing your shit over the secret documents thing and you didn't understand that it was an executive power to declassify anything anywhere any way you wish because it is with the executive authority that something's classified.
Click to expand...

Congress also creates departments, not the president. It is up to them to end them. Until they do, they will be funded.
 
CLAX1911 said:
No there's not the second amendment never once mentions any military.
Click to expand...
Huh? Oh God!

Ever seen the word "militia"?

Ok.... Why do I waste my time with a poster in THIS, the lowest level of ignorance!
 
devildavid said:
The militia is mentioned in the 2nd Amendment and it is not the equivalent of individual people. The militia doesn’t mean the people, it means a group of people. One person is not a militia.
Click to expand...
I tried to tell them that lol..
 
Feynman Lives! said:
And they are succeeding. At least with the less intellectually discerning amongst us.

Look what THIS guy says.
Click to expand...
Insult me because you didn't know the difference between military and militia or that I called out your pathetic attempt at dishonesty?

I consider that a compliment. If I'm making you angry I'm doing something right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom